Ministers: Legal Costs

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of taxpayer-funded legal costs incurred by Government Ministers, following the recent libel settlement funded by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, in line with established practice under multiple Administrations of all political colours, Ministers are provided with legal support and representation where matters relate to their conduct and responsibilities as a Minister. As set out in Chapter 6 of the Cabinet Manual, Ministers are

“indemnified by the Crown for any actions taken against them for things done or decisions made in the course of their ministerial duties. The indemnity will cover the cost of defending the proceedings, as well as any costs or damages awarded against the minister”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The Prime Minister put it rather differently. He said

“it is a long-standing convention stretching back many years … that the government will fund those legal disputes when it relates to government ministers doing their work”.

How can making party-political libel posts on X on Friday at midnight constitute “Ministers doing their work”? Why should this settlement come out of the public purse? Is this not a breach of the Ministerial Code, after all?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As I said, it is long-standing practice. Indeed, the Secretary of State concerned made a statement this morning at the Lords Science and Technology Committee and explained the circumstances in full, including how she was engaged in official work and got support from officials on the disputed letter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do not see it that way. The Secretary of State gave evidence this morning to the Lords Science and Technology Committee. There was a brief discussion of this matter. They then moved on to discuss important points about science, which she and this Government are extremely supportive of and have done so much to make sure that the UK is one of the leaders in the world in science and technology matters.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, is this not another case of the Government marking their own homework? What is the Government’s ethics adviser saying about this? Have the Government taken a proper view from the ethics adviser?

Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) (Identity Verification Services) Regulations 2023

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 20th November 2023 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and others, and I echo what he said about our constructive discussions in 2014-16. I am also pleased to see my noble friend Lord Camrose championing intellectual property, as we try to do, and to see him accompanied by my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow in his new position as Cabinet Office Whip.

The Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) (Identity Verification Services) Regulations 2023 are an important part of this Government’s commitment to strengthen the use of data and information across the public sector. We are bringing these forward so we can deliver better and more joined-up services and, in turn, improve outcomes for our citizens.

The regulations aim to allow information sharing between named bodies for the specific purpose of supporting cross-government identity checking when it is needed. Verifying a user’s identity—ensuring that a person is who they say they are—is a key part of delivering many government services. The draft regulations enable this by establishing a new data-sharing objective under Section 35 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 and by setting out which public bodies may use the new objective. This will create a legislative gateway, enabling us to use existing data sets, which public bodies already hold, to help as many people as possible to access the government services that they need online. It is therefore central to the development of more inclusive and accessible systems.

Specifically, the proposed objective would unlock the full benefits of the new cross-government digital system known as GOV.UK One Login. This is now live; users are able to set up an account, log in and prove their identity in order to access an initial set of 24 government services, with more being added all the time. However, at the moment, users must have photographic documentation, such as a passport or driving licence. This will change following the introduction of the new objective, as it will unlock new ways for people without photo ID to prove who they are, opening up the system to more users.

The delivery of One Login is a step change in simple joined-up access to government services online. This, in turn, delivers substantial cost and time savings for the Government and users by reducing duplication and providing enhanced capability to identify and stop fraudsters. In summary, the proposed objective will, first, enable checks against existing government-held information, such as PAYE and benefits data, to build confidence in the user’s identity, which will be particularly key where service users do not have a passport or driving licence. Secondly, it will provide a specific legal framework for checks against documents currently used in identity verification, such as driving licences. Thirdly, it will enable the sharing of the results of identity checks performed by one named body with another, so that users need to prove their identity only once.

The draft regulations set out which of the bodies already listed in Schedule 4 to the Digital Economy Act can use the new identity-verification data-sharing power, such as HM Revenue & Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions. They also add four new public bodies to the schedule that will be able to use the power: the Cabinet Office, the Department for Transport, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Disclosure and Barring Service.

The public bodies listed in the regulations are either bodies that hold information that could be used in support of proving that someone is whom they say they are or those that own and manage services that people need to access, which they therefore need to receive the results of identity checks. Of course, some public bodies do both.

The territorial extent of the draft regulations is England, Wales and Scotland. The Information Commissioner’s Office and the devolved Administrations support the draft regulations, and indeed the Scottish and Welsh Administrations have requested that certain Scottish and Welsh bodies be included in the draft regulations to enable them to use the new data-sharing power—so it is devolved friendly.

I am sure noble Lords will be pleased to know that these draft regulations have been subject to the standard rigorous processes of internal and external review. In the first instance, the objective has been subject to scrutiny by the Public Service Delivery Review Board, as set out in the underpinning code of practice on public service delivery, debt and fraud of the Digital Economy Act 2017. The board recommended that Ministers take forward these draft regulations since they meet the required criteria of supporting the improvement, or targeting, of public services to individuals in order to enhance their well-being.

Furthermore, the objective has been subject to a public consultation, which received more than 66,000 responses. Some respondents recognised the benefits to individuals of improved and more inclusive services. Some mistakenly expressed concern that this was a back-door route to identity cards. Therefore, in response to the consultation, the Government confirmed that they have no plans to introduce mandatory digital ID or identity cards. We also published additional information on how GOV.UK One Login will operate within these regulations and within the overall data protection framework. We extended the time between the regulations being approved and coming into force, and we amended some of the wording to reflect that of the Act. Of course, the Government understand that people want to protect their personal information and this is central to our approach. The draft regulations relate to using data only for the purpose of identity verification.

Part 5 of the 2017 Act gives the Government powers to share personal information across organisational boundaries to improve public services. It lays down what data can be shared and for which purposes. Data sharing must also have regard to the accompanying statutory code of practice on public service delivery, debt and fraud, which sets out how the power must be operated, including how any data shared must be processed lawfully, securely and proportionately in compliance with data protection legislation and UK GDPR.

The Digital Economy Act statutory code of practice on public service delivery, debt and fraud also requires information-sharing agreements to be listed on a public register of information-sharing activity under the powers. The framework for data sharing under the DEA provides a supportive background to help organisations to share data in ways that benefit the public, as confirmed by the Information Commissioner’s Office in its recent review. It includes robust safeguards that ensure that organisations share data responsibly and in alignment with data protection principles, while also safeguarding people’s rights.

I think these regulations are relatively straightforward and important, and I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting them.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is good to see the Minister move seamlessly from intellectual property to digital and data, but both can sometimes create their own questions. Since this is the first time we have debated One Login in the Lords, I hope that the Minister will not mind if she gets a large number of questions about the scheme. As I understand it, the goal of the One Login programme is to create a log-in database owned by the Government and containing the verified names, addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers and email addresses of everyone who uses—eventually—all Government-owned digital services, which is likely to be everyone in the country.

Perhaps unfairly, I have always thought of One Login with some scepticism, as the son or daughter of Verify, and not in a good way. The cost of the failed Verify scheme was over £200 million. It would be very useful as part of this debate to hear the cost of OneLogin so far and how much more is budgeted to be spent on its rollout. It does seem strange that the Government are having another crack at a single verification system, given the many other trustworthy existing systems that could be adopted.

First, I think it worth mentioning what the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said in its 55th report in October. I think it was rather baffled and scathing at the same time:

“This is a classic example of an Explanatory Memorandum … with too narrow a focus”.


I think it felt it was being bounced to some extent, without the context in which One Login was going to be designed to work. It said:

“We therefore request that the Cabinet Office revises its”


Explanatory Memorandum

“to include sufficient background information to enable any reader to understand the legislation’s practical effects”.

I suppose I am lucky in that I followed the gory progress of Verify through to One Login and the current date. I have some idea of the purpose behind One Login. As I understand it, the principal effect of these regulations is to allow the Government to share data for the purposes of identification. The SI does not restrict those flows of data; data can flow into the Cabinet Office as envisaged but identity data can also flow from the Cabinet Office to any other listed department. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that.

Will the Government allow population databases to be copied, whether openly or not? The revised Explanatory Memorandum is silent on this, and it is unclear if this assurance from the Government’s consultation response will be delivered. The response said:

“In particular, information will set out which departmental services are using identity verification services to support delivery and which will provide data to help departments establish who a person is”.


Will that actually happen? Will there be that level of transparency? There are apparently no safeguards on sharing bulk data if the Government want to share for this purpose across government. What transparency will there be if and when this takes place?

There is then the question of for whose benefit One Login really is. Is this a “better login to government” project, which many people might applaud, or is it a “one identity to government” project? The answer at the moment appears to be the latter. I say this because medConfidential, which I thank for its briefing, reports that a

“meeting held during the consultation was told that the Government’s intent is to actively prevent individuals from having multiple login accounts. A person may be able to have multiple email addresses— indeed, they may already do—but Government would attach them to a single ‘identity’. This regulation allows that database to be shared in bulk”.

Not to put too fine a point on it, that turns One Login into a tool of a centralising state—with implications for the privacy of the citizen—which the Government have previously assured us many times they were not building. I would therefore be extremely grateful if the Minister described the reality of One Login, as well as its purpose and operation.

At a roundtable on the consultation, the Government Digital Service apparently said that the regulation’s “first use is One Login”, which suggests there will be a second use. It is unclear to us to what extent the DWP will embrace One Login for government, for universal credit, for HMRC’s services, or indeed for the MoJ’s digital courts. What commitment from government departments and agencies is there? I can see that they are all listed, but Verify fell down precisely because of the lack of commitment from many government departments. What about the identities, too, of public servants? Will they be able to have multiple identities as both citizen and employee? What is the reality of that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

It is data sharing for the purposes of digital identity. Ultimately, by April 2025, we hope to have approximately 145 central government services that can be accessed via One Login. It is a mistake to think that this is somehow going to be used in the bulk way that the noble Lord describes. It is about identity checking, not collecting huge amounts of data for use in a Big Brother sort of way; the noble Lord may have misunderstood this. Users can delete their account at any time. I think that the noble Lord’s concern is perhaps misplaced.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

That is exactly the assurance that I am seeking.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

While I am on the subject of benefits to the individual, there is an example that I would like to share with the committee; it reflects a question that I asked. Sometimes, married women have two different names. I am in that lucky, or unfortunate, position. We understand that some users will need or want to use multiple accounts, so users can already set up multiple accounts on One Login using different email addresses that can relate to different names. From next year, we plan to allow users to link accounts under the same verified identity. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, asked us to look through the eyes of the individual. This is one of the things we have been trying to do in this programme, learning from the past.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The difference is that, at the moment, you tend to have to provide a passport. It is difficult to log in to some of these services without a passport or a driving licence. In future, as I made clear in my introductory remarks, it will be possible to use different sorts of identity data and to have a system within government that allows us to do that. That will have the effect of making it easier for more people who are finding establishing their identity difficult without encouraging a lot of identity fraud, which is obviously another concern that one has to take account of in putting these systems together.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I entirely appreciate the Minister taking the trouble to talk us through this. The question is: for whose benefit is this? Is this so that government departments can identify somebody right across the board, so that you can have only one identity in government and so that the Home Office will share data with universal credit and every other department that interfaces with an individual? Is that the idea of this One Login? Or is it possible to have more than one digital identity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

One obvious benefit is that more and more government departments are using digital. The technology is transforming our lives, after all. Once you have this single digital identity, you will then be able to use it to access services and opportunities from other government departments as well. That is the point: the digital identity will be used across the board. That is helpful to individuals. I should add that a document is published on GOV.UK outlining what data is being used by One Login. I think it is worth noble Lords looking at that.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, rightly asked a question about cost—something we always used to ask about in our previous debates. The One Login programme’s total budget for 2022-23 to 2024-25 is £305.4 million. Of this, the programme forecasts expenditure of £132.7 million on the development and rollout of the system by the end of the current financial year.

The noble Lord mentioned the Explanatory Memorandum. We did indeed make some changes, as he acknowledged, to the Explanatory Memorandum, which was made available to the SLSC, to provide a clearer explanation of which part of the law the instrument is changing and why. He mentioned that the revised Explanatory Memorandum was laid on 2 November, and provided more contextual information. In particular, it explained that the SI provides the statutory basis for specified public bodies to share data in order to verify an individual’s identity in a safe and secure way so that they can access public services online, and that duplicative systems are being replaced with a single account. This is an obvious benefit.

The SI will also enable the GOV.UK One Login to draw on a broader range of government-held data sources when users need to verify their identity. That is an important point, because it is difficult for people who do not have a passport or a driving licence under the current system.

We are committed to being open and transparent by making information about data shared under the Digital Economy Act easily available for all to find and understand in the public register of data-sharing agreements. That was one of the safeguards laid down in that Act, so we have obviously taken that on board. That is an important point of transparency.

This is also underpinned by a robust code of practice—I have read it—which was created by Section 43 of the DEA. That sets out how the power must be operated, and includes setting out how any data shared under this power must be processed lawfully, securely and proportionately, in line with data protection legislation. We therefore have the DEA and data protection legislation coming together to allow us to implement this, hopefully life-changing, bit of technology in a way that protects the citizen. Obviously, the Cabinet Office is responsible for maintaining that register, and the Public Service Delivery Review Board is overseeing strategic consistency.

We have not seen that many regulations made under this Act—I think there was one on social care before—but we can see the value of the Act and the safeguards that Parliament added to it coming through.

On voter registration, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, raised a very good point, to my mind. I will have to follow up in writing. Fundamentally, as she said, these regulations will enhance the user experience. Despite many improvements over the last few years, today’s experience of interacting with government is too fragmented. We have multiple logins, and we are repeatedly asked the same information, which sometimes one has recorded on the phone—and sometimes recorded wrongly, as I know from my own experience. This is the same for everyone trying to access government. One Login will replace this with one system; we are used to this on our phones and so on, and there is a lot to be said for this new arrangement. We will have better data sharing to help those people without traditional forms of ID to access the services online that they need.

I hope noble Lords, having heard the benefits of the regulation—

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister as she comes to the final furlong, but the question of oversight raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and by me, and the standards that will apply to this system, are extremely important.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Given the time, I will take that away, along with the voting point, if I may. I drew attention to the code of practice and the parent Act; we have every intention of following the principles, but the point about review and oversight is well made by the noble Lord, as always. I will come back to him on that point.

I am sorry that I have not been able to answer every question on the login area. I can introduce noble Lords to my honourable friend in the other place, Alex Burghart, who has spent a great deal of time developing these regulations. The point is that these narrow regulations before us today are a necessary enabler for this major change for the citizen. I hope that noble Lords, having heard the benefits, will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee.

Emergency Alert System: Fujitsu

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 19th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My noble friend and I agree that the impact of the Horizon scandal on postmasters and their families is utterly horrendous; we used to work together on this when I was on the Back Benches. That is why the Government have set up an inquiry, much encouraged by my noble friend, to get to the bottom of what went wrong and ensure that it can never happen again, as well as providing compensation for those affected.

All government contracts are awarded in line with procurement regulations and transparency guidelines, and that goes for the contract on the alerts. As noble Lords would expect, robust security measures are in place as part of the procurement process.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, for his relentless campaigning over a period of 13 years. Otherwise, the sub-postmasters would not have received any form of justice. Fujitsu’s track record is quite appalling; the noble Lord mentioned that it has never apologised. It was described as giving unsatisfactory and inaccurate evidence in the case brought by the sub-postmasters. The NHS terminated two contracts with it back in 2008-09, then Fujitsu sued the NHS for £700 million and did not settle for 10 years. On exactly what basis do the Government judge Fujitsu to be fit and proper to hold this contract?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I will make one preliminary point: Fujitsu has been fully co-operating with the postmasters inquiry. I also emphasise that there is no link between the small amount of work that Fujitsu has done for DCMS and the Cabinet Office and the work done for the Post Office.

Security of Government Devices

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, as a long-standing deputy chair of the all-party China group, I welcomed the proportionate approach taken in the Government’s statements in the integrated review refresh about relations with China. In the face of the current human rights position in Xinjiang and the situation in Hong Kong, however, this should not change any time soon.

On these Benches, we are in strong agreement with those who consider that the Government could and should have been a great deal more strategic about relationships with sensitive Chinese suppliers—whether internet or data based, hardware or software related—in the run-up to this Statement. This is a one-off Statement about TikTok, a social media company. It would be good to see the assessment and the evidence of potential cybersecurity issues which the Government have not yet—as far as I know—produced.

However, when it comes to makers of surveillance cameras, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, the Government appear far more reluctant to act. The Surveillance Camera Commissioner, Professor Fraser Sampson, has been very clear in his warnings, in particular about Hikvision and Dahua cameras, which, as far as we know, are used extensively in Xinjiang for surveillance purposes and pose security risks here, even when live facial recognition is not enabled.

Just last week, we saw Tesco lead the way in the private sector and order the removal of these cameras from its stores. The Government have simply ceased to install them. Why are they not directing their removal, particularly in police forces? Have they mapped exactly where on the government estate and in other spaces these cameras remain?

Regarding TikTok, why act so late when the EU and US, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned, acted earlier? Presumably they have the same security information. When did the evidence emerge that has led to this ban? Will the Government publish the review by cybersecurity experts which assesses the risks posed by these third-party apps on government devices?

As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, also mentioned, why are private devices used by government Ministers not covered? I note that Oliver Dowden repeated that position last week. After all, we know there has been extensive use of private devices by Ministers, particularly —dare I say—among former Health Ministers. What assessment of this aspect has been made? Which government departments and public bodies are actually covered? What is the process for drawing up the promised approved list of apps? What criteria will be used?

As many said in the Commons, this looks like whack-a-mole; the Statement is no substitute for a coherent cross-government strategy. Why do the Government not now move, for instance, to include the capture of biometric data in the definition of “critical national infrastructure”? Questions have been raised recently about Chinese cellular internet of things modules—CIMs—which are imbedded in many devices. What is the Government’s approach to this? Are they even aware of what CIMs are?

Finally, if the Government are concerned about information being harvested by social media and other apps, why is the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, now before the Commons, widening the circumstances in which research data can be used for commercial purposes? Is this not a typical example of this Government’s incoherence and lack of co-ordination on issues such as this?

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the welcome for the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster last week. By way of background, I should explain that the Government commissioned a review by our cybersecurity experts of the risks posed by third-party applications, including TikTok. As a result, the review concluded that we needed further security measures to protect the data.

There is obviously a limit to what I can say due to the sensitive nature of the Government’s work, but we are taking what we believe is proportionate, considered action to strengthen the security of government devices, and we are doing that in two ways. First, as is already the case in many departments—and that includes my own, the Cabinet Office—all government departments will now move to a system where only the third-party mobile apps available on their devices are those which have been pre-approved for inclusion on a departmental “allow list”.

Secondly, as a precautionary measure, all government departments are now required to take action to prohibit TikTok on their devices with immediate effect. It is a prudent, proportionate step, and more broadly, we are absolutely committed to bolstering national security, of which this is an example. As I explained to the House about 10 days ago, new guidance on the use of non-corporate communications will be issued very shortly and will bear on some of the questions that have been raised.

I was asked about TikTok on Ministers’ personal devices. The Secretary for State for Energy Security and Net Zero, who has been quoted, supports our policy and has been very clear that he has never used TikTok on his government devices. On personal devices, it is more of a personal choice. As I have explained before, all Ministers are carefully trained in security when they are appointed, and they have a briefing from time to time to keep that up to date.

To answer the question about exemptions, the business justification for having TikTok on government phones is to my mind very limited, but there are a small number of cases where it is necessary. Examples would include security and law enforcement. I know that some of my colleagues who are involved in security may need to use TikTok to make observations. Marketing would be another area—I think that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Grant Shapps, comes into that category. We need to have common sense and proportionality. Departments will be able to make exemptions on a case-by-case basis through a departmental approval process, but with ministerial clearance as appropriate and risk mitigation in place.

Regarding Chinese security cameras, we have acted— we have discussed this in this House many times. We are also strengthening the powers in our Procurement Bill, and suppliers will be considered for addition to the debarment list on the basis of a rigorous and fair policy. This policy is under development, so it is too early to say, but regarding the action we have taken, we are now working with departments to make sure that Hikvision cameras are phased out.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talked on a more strategic level about China, about which we need to be sober and realistic. Obviously, we do not dispute the importance of China, but it has become more authoritarian at home and more assertive overseas, which is of concern to the UK—our policies need to reflect that. In the integrated review refresh, which was published last week and is well worth a read—the noble Lord referenced it—the Prime Minister set out clearly the overall direction across government for a consistent, coherent and robust approach to China, rooted in the UK’s national interest and aligned with our allies. A proper, and properly resourced, approach to security is an important part of that.

I repeat that the Prime Minister set up a new department, and the Budget included a substantial pledge—£3.5 billion by 2030—to support the Government’s ambitions to make the UK a scientific and technology superpower. This is one of the Prime Minister’s five priorities. So we should take the steps we need to take for security, but we also need to be careful to encourage the positives of new technology, whether that is AI, quantum technologies or engineering biology. We seek an important balance here.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Monday 6th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a good debate, probing our powers to revoke or replace, which are important cross-cutting enablers of the REUL reform in the Bill. They will allow the Government to overhaul retained EU laws in secondary legislation across many sectors of the economy, as we have heard, and replace them with domestic laws that are tailored to and beneficial for the UK.

It would make sense to begin with the debate on the clause stand part notice, which was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and explain why we believe that Clause 15 must stand part of the Bill. Retained EU law no longer aligns with EU law, nor does it keep pace with the evolving needs of the UK’s citizens or businesses. That is why reform is needed. Although the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that delegated powers are appropriately limited and have the necessary safeguards in place, we judge the powers under Clause 15 to be necessary in order to deliver this reform. I am afraid we do not agree with the DPRRC recommendation to remove Clause 15 from the Bill.

At present, the problem is that there is a distinct lack of subordinate legislation-making powers to remove retained EU law from the statute book. This is an oddity. It results from our EU membership and it is appropriate to take a power which covers the gap. Removing Clause 15 would significantly damage the UK’s legislative dynamism and potentially hinder the UK’s ability to regulate adequately. There must be scope for reform over the next two to three years if we are to deliver post-Brexit benefits.

I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, raised concerns in particular around Clause 15(3). We recognise that the power under Clause 15(3) is a broad one, but we want to ensure that departments have the necessary tools to create a regulatory environment which is the right fit for the UK. In addition, Clause 15(3) may still provide only “alternative provision” to the retained EU law or assimilated law being replaced. Any replacement legislation must therefore cover similar ground to the retained EU law or the assimilated law it replaces. Therefore, the power cannot be used to create new regulations in wholly unrelated policy areas, for example. Moreover, I add that nothing in this legislation prevents the Government introducing sector-specific primary legislation where that is considered necessary and appropriate for that subject area, as exemplified by the Procurement Bill, the Agriculture Bill and the Environment Bill in recent times.

I turn to Amendment 112, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Mcintosh of Pickering. Although the latter has gone home, I listened to this with care. The amendment would hinder the removal of regulations that have been identified as outdated and unsuitable for UK citizens and businesses, which we do not think would be efficient lawmaking. As I touched on before, we do not consider adding to the Bill a requirement to consult to be appropriate or necessary. Equally, I understand the concerns that have been raised.

I turn to Amendment 113, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. Honourable Members—sorry, noble Lords: exempting regulations and judgments on customer protections, which range from aviation to pensions and, indeed, to toy safety, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke to, from this power would obviously reduce the scope for reform that the Bill sets out to deliver in an orderly manner. There is simply no need for any carve-outs for individual departments or specific policy areas or sectors. Doing that would prevent the UK Government carrying out the necessary work to overhaul secondary retained EU law, which sits across so many different sectors of the economy.

I think my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy talked about tides and how EU law had become entrenched in UK law. Where protections are necessary, these will be kept, but there is an opportunity to improve and in some places simplify laws passed over many years in Brussels.

Turning to Amendment 114, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, Clause 15(2) has already been restricted such that any replacement legislation must be appropriate and must

“achieve the same or similar objectives”

as the legislation it is replacing. This amendment seeks to further restrict that subsection. The use of the word “effects” instead of “objectives” would further restrict the functionality of this limb of the power and prevent departments undertaking reforms that would adjust the existing policy to better fit the UK context. It is important that we ensure departments are able to amend their legislation to better fit that UK context, so this is an important clause.

Amendments 120 and 121, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lindsay, both seek to amend the limitation on Clause 15 that states that the replacement legislation must not add to the overall regulatory burden—so allowing extra burdens. In seeking to remove Clause 15(5) and (6), both amendments would increase the scope of the powers and enable them to be used to introduce additional regulation. Consequently, they would create a wider power than the Government have proposed or intended. As such, these subsections are a necessary check on our powers. Comments have been made that Clause 15(5) and (6) mean that regulation made under these powers could be challenged by the courts. That is of course correct, and like any delegated legislation, an entirely appropriate check.

We recognise that it will not always be a scientific test precisely to establish what the value of regulatory burdens are, or to balance one burden against another. That is why we have sought to ensure an appropriate level of discretion for Ministers in the interpretation of Clause 15(5) and (6). When doing so, the Minister is required to act reasonably and to take into account relevant factors. This strikes the right balance between limiting the scope of the powers and providing Ministers with a pragmatic degree of discretion in deciding whether the regulatory burden test has been met. The restriction to the powers to revoke or replace set out in Clause 15(5) and (6) will help the UK to establish a more UK-specific regulatory approach in order to go further and seize the opportunities of Brexit.

We have sought to ensure that the powers to revoke or replace cannot be used to add to the overall regulatory burden for a particular subject area. However, it will be for the relevant authority to decide. I thought I would share with noble Lords a hypothetical example from my own experience. There may be instances where there are multiple reporting requirements for businesses across a number of regulations in a similar area. Through consolidating these reporting requirements in a single regulation—aligning dates, for example—it can be administratively easier for businesses to comply with the regulations, and it may be possible thus to lower the regulatory burden while maintaining exactly the same standards and, indeed, possibly providing better enforcement. I hope that example reassures my noble friend Lord Lindsay, who I know does so much to try to tackle overburdensome regulation.

In responding to the interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord, Hacking, about the ability of the powers under Clause 15 to create a criminal offence and provide for monetary penalties, I hope I can be reassuring. Any offences or penalties must correspond to, or be similar to, those which the revoked provisions provided. In that sense, the power does not provide licence to create wholly new offences or penalties, but rather allows like-for-like replacements for what already exists: for example, similar conditions for the commission of an offence and similar penalties. Furthermore, any instruments made under Clause 15(3) will be subject to the affirmative procedure, as well as any instruments made under Clause 15(2) which recreate a delegated power or create a criminal offence present in retained EU law.

To conclude, it is right—

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I wanted to interrupt the Minister before she got much further because I was much struck by her phrase “damaging legislative dynamism”. What would be more dynamic than changing retained EU law in product safety so that it covered online marketplaces? If that is legislative dynamism—very desirable legislative dynamism—what would prevent it? Well, Clause 15(5) would prevent it. How could it be possibly balanced against any other form of deregulation, however much discretion the Minister had? That would be around the edges. Can the Minister answer the hypothetical that I put in my speech?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

There is a balance here. What we have got are powers that allow us to make changes, such as the example that I gave, which will improve the state of regulation. There may be a bit of an extra burden at the margins, but if you are bringing regulation into a new area, which I think is what we are talking about, in my opinion—and I am not an expert in this particular area—that might be a case for primary legislation. Of course, we are about to have further primary legislation in the digital area in the coming months.

Civil Service: Digital Skills

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 20th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take in response to the Global Government Forum report UK civil service digital skills, published on 29 November 2022.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are already taking action to build digital skills at scale and have a clear road map, set out in the Transforming for a Digital Future strategy, which we published in June 2022. The road map has set a target to upskill at least 90% of senior civil servants in digital and data by 2025 and to strengthen the attraction and retention of digital talent by bolstering the Government’s recruitment brand and pay offer for specialist skills.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the Government claim that their 2022-25 digital and data road map will usher in a

“new era of digital transformation”

for public service improvement, yet Civil Service skills are clearly inadequate to deliver it. As the NAO has pointed out, there has been

“a consistent pattern of underperformance”

in public services for many years. What will be different this time? Is not the road map another example of this Government’s wishful thinking?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

It is important to have an ambition and a road map if you are going to move things forward. We have a Prime Minister who regards the digital and data area as very important. We have set out our digital future strategy, which includes, on the point that the noble Lord is concerned about, that 90% of senior civil servants will be upskilled in digital and data through that programme. Digital professionals will also have top-up training every year. We are moving to recruit a lot more civil servants in the digital and data area; we have 4,000 vacancies, which is too many, but we are doing everything that we can to attract more people. This includes a capability-based pay scheme and much more focus on the regions, where we believe that we can get more digital talent out of the universities, often working away from London in centres such as Cardiff and Darlington.

Preparing for Extreme Risks (RARPC Report)

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 12th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I always like to be the bearer of good news from the Dispatch Box.

We are going to be updating the risk register, as everybody has talked about. I cannot give an exact date, but I can say that we are working on these issues with energy. I am delighted to be working now in this area, and obviously very keen to make progress. I do not think that I can say anything today about the very important issue of powers, because I was on the Back Benches during all the Covid measures, so I very much understand the points that have been made. We have got a Covid inquiry that is taking place, and there has to be some sort of interaction between the Covid inquiry and what we do for the future.

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot for his positive comments on the resilience framework. I am pleased that he recognises elements of his committee’s recommendations within it—in fact, nearly all the recommendations were accepted in whole or in part. My noble friend rightly raised transparency and challenge. We set our commitment to both in the framework and are already working to embed the principles across my departments, and across others. As an example, the national risk register, when it is published in the coming months, will include more detailed risk information and guidance than previous iterations, and it follows the new classified version of the national security risk assessment.

Noble Lords will be pleased to know that the development of the latter involved a great deal of external challenge this time, and the NSRA is more robust as a result. My colleague the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be chairing the next UK resilience forum in February—just one way in which we are incorporating more independent challenge and expertise from outside government. I hope that further work on resilience this year will demonstrate more progress, and we will update Parliament through our inaugural annual statement on resilience.

The noble Lord also raised the committee’s recommendation, as others did, for an office for preparedness and resilience, and the accountability issue was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, who sadly had to slip away. It is a key factor of the framework and, while have not chosen to establish a new body, we are taking steps to address the spirit of the committee’s recommendations. We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on the need for culture change—a point that she rightly often makes—and that is already happening.

The strength and function at the centre of government build on the approach that we have got under way on things like procurement and infrastructure, and I am sure that it will lead to much better coherence and accountability in the resilience system. We are also strengthening the lead government department model of risk ownership and are establishing a sub-committee of the National Security Council to enable Ministers to focus on national resilience, because ministerial involvement is important in getting things effectively progressed. I need hardly say that the Government also agree with the report’s emphasis on training, conducting exercises and performing dummy runs as a fundamental part of our collective resilience.

We are not just going to carry on as before, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, rather mischievously said, and I look forward to giving evidence to his Built Environment Committee on infrastructure next week and to discussing the improved way we now monitor the progress of hundreds of infrastructure projects.

I am sorry that it has been over a year since the committee’s report was published, but the Government, as I have already outlined, have taken a number of steps to address the points that were raised. It is worth reiterating three key themes. On finalising a new classified national security risk assessment, the changes were informed by recommendations from the committee, but also by an external review from the Royal Academy of Engineering in September 2021. The intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mair, showed the importance of bringing in the engineers.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister but one of the key points is about the methodology adopted for the NSRA, and one of the key issues that appears to be emerging is that the Government do not seem to be committing to go beyond a five-year horizon. What assurance can the Minister give about the methodology that is going to be used, and whether we are going to be looking further into the future?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think the noble Lord is right that the main focus is on the next five years, but I will perhaps come back to him to discuss that point further. It is clear from what I have been saying that we are looking at extreme risks, and they are not necessarily going to arrive tomorrow, so I understand and sympathise with the point he has made.

The second step is strengthening the crisis and resilience structures in the Cabinet Office with the creation, as I have said, of the resilience directorate and the COBRA unit. We are responsible for resilience planning and national crisis response, working closely with departments which have sectoral responsibilities. This includes identifying, planning and preparing for risks, and building capacity to respond effectively. The changes to how it is organised will help to ensure that the Government have the capacity and capability to respond to emergencies, which is obviously particularly important in the wake of Covid-19.

Thirdly, we are working to improve our resilience to chronic risks and vulnerabilities, such as climate change—which was emphasised by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso—and artificial intelligence. We have recognised that this type of risk poses continuous challenges over time to communities, the economy and security, and requires a different type of response to more acute risks, such as flooding or terrorism.

The scale of the risks we face has required a new strategic approach to resilience. That is why we published the UK Government Resilience Framework in December, which previously had the working title of “national resilience strategy”, to respond to a point made by several noble Lords. It is a new strategy which is already being implemented across government. It reflects our ongoing commitment to resilience which we made in last year’s integrated review, and the new strategic approach will be reflected in further publications this year, with the refreshed national risk register, the updated biological security strategy, and the update to the integrated review itself, which has also been promised.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Report stage
Wednesday 30th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, forgive me; I thought I could move this amendment formally too. I try to find a sensible and reliable pathway through, as your Lordships know. I look forward to debating this group, which discusses the single digital platform and transparency.

Transparency has been central to the development of this Bill, and it should be noted that there is a significant extension to transparency under the regime. The publication of documents and notices that follow the award stage will allow interested parties to see how contracts are being implemented. While we have stated publicly that it was always the Government’s intention to create a central digital platform to host this data, we acknowledge the concerns raised by noble Lords during Committee around the importance of the online platform. Amendment 129 therefore creates a new duty requiring a Minister of the Crown to provide an online system for the purpose of publishing notices, documents and other information under this Act.

In addition, the duty requires that the platform has to be accessible to people with disabilities—a point we were debating on Monday—and provide access to procurement information that is published under the Act, free of charge. This means everyone will have access to public procurement data and can track contracts as they progress through the commercial lifecycle from tender to award and delivery. Citizens will be able to scrutinise contracting authority decisions; suppliers will be able to identify new opportunities to bid and collaborate; and buyers will be able to analyse the market and benchmark their performance against others, for example on their spend with SMEs.

In addition to the principal amendment, Amendment 132 is a technical amendment which removes an existing statutory power as this platform is expected to be delivered through common law powers. Since becoming the Minister responsible for this Bill, I have been keen to ensure that it strikes the right balance between transparency and not imposing undue burdens on contracting authorities. Contracting authorities will continue to be bound by the obligation to publish opportunities for all advertised procurements that are above a threshold of £12,000 for central government authorities or £30,000 for others. This will ensure that there is a high degree of transparency for SMEs, so that they can bid.

However, at the other end of the commercial process, the Bill introduces additional transparency requirements after the award of the contract. I have reflected on these, and Amendments 78, 80 and 104 all seek to raise the original threshold for the publication of contract key performance indicators, public contracts and modifications to a public contract from £2 million to £5 million. This will reduce the administrative requirements for contracting authorities while ensuring transparency of the public sector’s larger contracts. I am pleased to say that these amendments have been welcomed by the Local Government Association in the briefing note it published on 25 November.

I will turn to the other amendments tabled in this group in closing, having heard the points raised by noble Lords. Meanwhile, I beg to move Amendment 78.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 130 to government Amendment 129. Many of us will be pleased that the Minister has decided to put the new online system for procurement information on the face of the Bill. At the same time, however, we need some assurance that it will be fit for purpose and achieve the objectives set for it, otherwise the Government seem to have carte blanche to construct whatever system they see fit to inflict on the vendor community, without any required standards or reporting duty. Let us face it: even the modest database under the Subsidy Control Act is subject to a form of reporting duty, and this system will be of far greater significance.

The amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fox is designed to provide assurance but in very simple terms. There would be the requirement for a report, first, on the performance standards expected and, secondly, on the standards achieved in the relevant period, including metrics on satisfaction and the accessibility experience of stakeholders. This is a modest proposal; how can the Minister possibly argue against it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 79, 81 and 105 have been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to amend to £3 million the financial threshold above which contracting authorities would be required to publish contracts and contract modifications, and set and publish KPIs. The government amendments raise these thresholds to £5 million. The intention of this is to reduce the administrative burden on contracting authorities, while still providing increased transparency on larger contracts. Redacting contracts for publication where they contain commercially sensitive information is particularly burdensome for smaller contracting authorities, requiring detailed and costly checking by legal teams that they may not have or expensive legal advisers.

Where does the figure come from? I do not know exactly; that is the honest answer. I was offered options of £50 million, £10 million and £5 million. I chose £5 million because that is quoted in the Sourcing Playbook, which seemed a reasonable point. I believe that a threshold of £5 million balances the benefits of transparency with the costs and burdens of implementation.

The higher threshold in the government amendment has been welcomed by the Local Government Association. We want the arrangements to work, so we will monitor them carefully. We have powers to change the thresholds if we need to do so—for example, to bring in extra contracts as the system grows and matures—and if analysis of the new data gathered allows us to better understand how to ensure that the obligations are effective and proportionate; or, to go the other way, if we end up with a lot of difficulties. It seems a reasonable approach.

Amendment 130 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Clement Jones and Lord Fox, seeks to require the Minister of the Crown to report annually on performance standards and feedback on the online system, including stakeholder satisfaction and accessibility. The data on the platform will be available in real time, and interested parties—of which there will be many—will be able to access information by using the tools available on the platform and by downloading the data for external analysis, such as statistics on the publication of notices and the progress of contracts. The platform will be accessible, as I have said, and will comply with the relevant legislation, including the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018, on which I am not, I fear, an expert. The Government are continuously monitoring the existing online platform that supports noticing under the current regulations and will continue to do so under the new regime and make changes as they are needed, so we are not inclined, on this occasion, to write in a review clause.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

What mechanism will there be for feedback from vendors and so on?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

We have talked several times about the PRU and the role it will have in looking systematically at things. It seems to me that one of the main sources of information for it will be this online system. It has the merit of largely being an all-singing and all-dancing system. I will come on to my noble friend Lady Noakes’s amendment in a minute. I think, therefore, that this is going to work well, but if the noble Lord discovers in the fullness of time that it is not doing so, I am sure he will come back and ask the Cabinet Office what it is up to.

Amendments 166 and 168 in the names of my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Moylan have been tabled to remove provisions in two pieces of transport legislation, both relating to contracts for subsidised public passenger transport services. The first repeals two subsections from Section 89 of the Transport Act 1985—that is a long time ago—dealing with the obligation to invite tenders for such contracts. This change would remove the requirement to issue invitations to tender individually to anyone who has given a written notice requesting this. The second amendment revokes two regulations from the Service Subsidy Agreements (Tendering) (England) Regulations 2002, dealing with information to be published regarding accepted tenders and where no tenders are accepted. These amendments were raised in Committee and, while both rightly seek to reduce the burden on contracting authorities, there are further considerations for the Department for Transport.

Not all transport is covered by the Bill, and we have carved out certain public passenger transport services under Schedule 2. The Department for Transport is reviewing procurements that fall under this separate regime as part of its review of retained EU law and its legislation more widely. It is important that what we do in our schedules does not impinge on that review. We are therefore unable to accept my noble friend Lady Noakes’s repeals today, but I have asked my officials to work with the Department for Transport to see whether it is possible to sort this out and bring forward a government amendment in the Commons to address her concerns. In the light of those various assurances, I respectfully request that noble Lords do not press their amendments.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Monday 24th October 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it falls to me as the mover of the lead amendment to respond to the Minister. Clearly, there was quite a lot in what she said and we will need to brood over Hansard when the time comes because there are a large number of issues here. I recognise the Minister’s track record on SMEs but I am somewhat amazed that the Government have been commended on bringing greater clarity, as she put it, because our intention was to provide much greater clarity—and, indeed, equity—in all of this for SMEs. In terms of the addition of more time, burden and so on, I believe the Minister would normally think that we should go the extra mile for SMEs in these circumstances.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Certainly. We have discussed SMEs before; we have gone away to have a look at that issue. I recently held a round table with SMEs. Basically, they were positive about the Bill. Clearly, we have to see through and teach them about the new proposals. The basic point is that there are fewer different ways forward. I was quite surprised that that was the case but clearly there is complexity, and we have got to make sure that the Bill is in the right form.

Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Report stage
Tuesday 14th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great delight to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, who brings his business acumen and passion for both innovation and climate change to the feast. We have discussed these together often in Peers for the Planet.

We have the climate change Acts, and a huge amount of attention is paid to climate change in every part of government life and in their multi-billion-pound R&D budget. ARIA is a small, independent body and should be left to decide what is most important to our future and to the inventive opportunities that it is set up to create. That might include climate change, health, poverty or the quality of life. Technology, for example, improves our lives, but it also brings risks. ARIA should be left to decide what is most important. It should be able to think completely outside the box and make its own choices, and not be bound by precedent. I am afraid that I am therefore sceptical about these amendments.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and my noble friend have made a compelling case for supporting this amendment, based on the climate and ecological emergency that we face. Tackling those challenges will require massive innovation and ingenuity and the development of practical applications from that. If ARIA has the bold, independent, innovative culture that the Minister emphasised throughout Committee, then it must be the ideal vehicle for this research, and we should spell it out. We should make ARIA an essential component of the net-zero strategy.

National Security and Investment Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Report stage
Thursday 15th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the Government’s amendment and to Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, but, as regards Amendment 2, the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, are valid and it is rather inexplicable that that subsection of Clause 8 is not included in Clause 6.

When we debated the thresholds for the trigger for mandatory notification, the noble Lord, Lord Leigh—I am sure he will get many tributes today for having pushed the envelope and succeeded in having the Government agree with him—raised issues about 15% versus 25%. The principal arguments were that keeping it at 15% would result in a huge number of notifications, the vast majority of which would not give rise to national security concerns, which would place a significant administrative burden on the new investment screening unit, and that that the current filing threshold of 15%, as set out in the Bill, is significantly below the threshold used in a number of other major foreign direct investment regimes such as France, which requires 25%, Australia which requires 20% and Canada which requires 33.3%. I am delighted that the mandatory notification threshold has been increased to 25%, which was the threshold set out originally in the White Paper. I think the Government’s reversion to their original intent is very much to be welcomed.

As regards Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, not having practised company law for many years now, I can only admire his forensic ability in setting out exactly why we need greater clarity under that provision. He has illustrated that the current language does not provide that level of clarity. In his words, it does not dispel uncertainty, but the language in his Amendment 8 certainly would. I believe it is only in the Government’s and the ISU’s interest to acknowledge that, and I very much hope the Government will accede to his request to provide clarity, either by accepting his amendment or by giving assurance that they will look at it further and take that forward at Third Reading.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak for the first time on this Bill. I declare my interests in the register as a director and former director of a number of companies, although none is obviously affected. I have not spoken until today because I support this Bill, and it has been making good progress without any help from me and with the forensic assistance of my noble friends Lord Lansley, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Lady Noakes, Lord Leigh and others right across the House.

There has been a succession of regrettable takeovers of UK jewels in recent years without proper scrutiny by the authorities. The SoftBank raid was the most egregious, yet it was welcomed by the then Chancellor. ARM—my favourite firm when I was Intellectual Property Minister, if I may now say so—was the world’s leading chip maker, headquartered relatively modestly in Cambridge and run by the talented Warren East, who must look back with pleasure to that time. Allowing its subsequent takeover was a serious mistake for UK interests.

This Bill is concerned primarily with security, so I suspect it would not have caught another controversial deal, that of Kraft/Cadbury, though it would have been useful had that too been caught. That example highlighted the fact that it is not only jobs but both R&D spend and cultural support that tend to go with the head office of a company or group.

Decades of such highly leveraged deals have contributed to damage in this respect. Think of aerospace pioneer Cobham and satellite service provider Inmarsat. As an aside, how lucky those of us who have benefited from its vaccine are that AstraZeneca held out against Pfizer a few years ago. We ought to have powers to prevent such a proposal if it arose again and was not in the UK interest. The powers in this overdue Bill should, among other things, slow the sale to overseas interests of companies engaged in tech and biotech, as well as emerging forms of AI and intellectual property.

My concern today is not with the Bill but with government Amendment 3 and its associated provisions, which, as we have heard, raise the threshold, from 15% to 25%, at which investors are required to notify the Government of their deals. I know this is done for apparently good reasons, summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—notably to avoid needless blockages and queues of deals awaiting approval in the new unit at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my old department—but I believe it is the wrong call. No doubt the ARM deal would have been caught by the new rules anyway, but less radical deals might not. I believe that it would be better to invest more in administration at the business department, to keep the threshold as it is and to improve the incentives to discipline and speed in processing of applications.

This is such an important matter for our future that we should not skimp on the new unit, which should be staffed by top people with the ability to work at speed. My noble friend Lady Noakes and others have rightly expressed concerns on this score, which I will support later. It would be a tragedy if this new Act were undermined by administrative inadequacy.

If we are to flourish in this more competitive and dangerous world, we need to prevent British science, technology and intellectual property leaving these shores without anyone noticing or reviewing it. We need thorough scrutiny of the deals identified in this Bill, so, for me, Amendment 3 goes too far and I would find it difficult to support the Government if the House chose to divide.

Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 1st October 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, in the digital era in particular, intellectual property is the lifeblood of our creative and tech industries. As the Alliance for Intellectual Property points out, the UK’s IP framework has a number of features that protect UK consumers and reward UK creators and inventors. It is quite possible that our trading partners may wish to reduce or water down these protections. To ensure that the UK’s IP framework will continue to deliver significant economic benefits, it is paramount that the UK does not concede or dilute its current IP standards as part of trade negotiations; indeed, they should be enhanced.

Ensuring that we will retain or enhance these core protections involves asking ourselves the following questions for each trade agreement. For instance, on international treaties generally, will the UK encourage all our trade partners to promote both the ratification of, and adherence to, terms of international treaties for the recognition and enforcement of copyright, trademark design and other intellectual property rights? With regard to trademarks, will we resist the introduction of proof of use?

With regard to maintaining the UK’s injunctive relief powers, in the UK rights holders can apply to the civil courts for no-fault injunctive relief. Will the UK Government ensure the preservation of their no-fault injunctive relief regime? With regard to design rights, will our negotiators ensure that the current level of protection is not weakened and that such protection is available to all UK designers, particularly regarding unregistered designs? With regard to copyright, will we make sure that the copyright term of 70 years after death is preserved? New Zealand, by contrast, has only a 50-year term.

With regard to copyright exceptions, will future free trade agreements negotiated by the UK include balanced copyright exceptions and limitations, and uphold standards such as the Berne three-step test? Will we resist any adoption of US-style fair use?

With regard to the liability of online platforms, will the UK oppose any obligations under any trade agreement, particularly with the US, that would broaden liability shields for online intermediaries or digital platforms? Will the UK ensure that its negotiators work together with the US to simplify the DMCA notice and takedown provisions and embrace a sharing of best practice within the US and UK systems? The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which I strongly support, would give this wider and greater force regarding children.

With regard to site blocking, will the Government make sure that our site-blocking provisions for pirate sites are protected and included in free trade agreements? It seems they have not been in the Japan free trade agreement. With regard to sovereignty over exhaustion rights, will we ensure that exhaustion continues to be a sovereign issue for the UK, that it is not prescribed in any trade agreement and that there is no shift to an international exhaustion regime?

With regard to the artist resale right, the ARR ensures that UK visual artists receive a modest royalty when their work is resold on the secondary art market. Will we be maintaining the ARR and pressing for it to be included in all future trade agreements? With regard to reciprocal public performance rights, will the Government press the countries that we are negotiating with to provide for full payment for all music rights holders from the use of their works or from recordings, public performance and broadcast?

With regard to source codes, will we be preventing the mandatory transfer of source codes, algorithms or encryption keys as a condition of market access? With regard to data, will we be supporting the development of AI through aligning open government data and text and data mining rules with our own? Lastly, with regard to robust enforcement measures, the effective enforcement of intellectual property rights and infringement is crucial for ensuring the integrity of future trade agreements. Will we be ensuring that effective mechanisms for enforcement are in place so that rights holders have the ability to enforce IP laws within these jurisdictions?

These are all significant aspects of IP rights that have hitherto been relied on by our exporters and service providers. The Minister assured me at Second Reading:

“As he will know, our intellectual property regime is consistently rated as one of the best in the world. One of our priorities will be to ensure that future trade agreements do not negatively impact on standards in this area and that our regime will promote trade in intellectual property.”—[Official Report, 8/9/20; col. 747-78.]


But how will we know for sure in advance? Here is a classic example. The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys points out that in the UK’s negotiating objectives under “Intellectual property” on page 11, the Government commit to:

“Secure patents, trademarks, and designs provisions that: are consistent with the UK’s existing international obligations, including the European Patent Convention (EPC), to which the UK is party”.


In the corresponding US negotiating objectives, the US Government state that they will seek provisions governing intellectual property rights

“that reflect a standard of protection similar to that found in US law.”

As CIPA says:

“These UK and US objectives are not fully aligned, and a similar non-alignment may well arise in negotiations with other countries. This carries the serious risk of creating damaging uncertainty about the UK’s continuing membership of the EPC”.


Let us take two more examples. The July letter of the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, about the New Zealand negotiations on intellectual property gave very little away. In his slightly fuller letter on the Japan agreement in September, he said:

“New protections for UK creative industries—British businesses can now be confident that their brands and innovations will be protected. We have gone beyond the EU on provisions that tackle online infringement of IP rights, such as film and music piracy.”


That is all well and good, but it is precious little information on such an important subject. We should know in advance through a specific report what the IP situation on each trade agreement will be so that we can be assured that the relevant protection and provisions are in place. That is what this amendment does.

I turn briefly to Amendment 16 on data flows to which the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, will be speaking and which I have signed. However, I do not want to steal any of her thunder. It is sufficient to say that this was not dealt with by the Minister at Second Reading. It supports the free flow of data and regulated access to data sets; ensuring that data can flow across borders is essential for digital trade, in particular for e-commerce consumption and supply chains and the use of data collection and data analytics through the cloud and otherwise.

In his September letter on the Japan agreement, the Minister said that cutting-edge digital and data provisions had been agreed. Again, how are we to judge? How are we to judge, too, the impact of any safe harbour or privacy shield provisions on our wider digital economy, especially in the light of Schrems II? Already, the Government’s consultation on a national data strategy with its promise to remove legal barriers to data use are problematic. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, that the Government Digital Service is carrying out a risk assessment. What impact will that have on our trade agreement negotiations?

All of this argues for a specific impact report prior to a trade agreement being signed in respect of data flows. I shall leave the Minister to the mercies of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 16 in my name, which requests a similar report on data. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for their support. I in turn support Amendment 15 in their names on intellectual property. This is an issue on which we have worked together over many years, and of course the Minister, my noble friend Lord Younger, is something of an expert on IP, so I am hopeful of making progress and look forward to his response.

Our amendment on data is possibly even more important than that on IP, if that is possible. Data is like the electricity on which it depends: it allows everything to work and permits communication and analysis across the world. Data flow now underlies almost every aspect of our lives from financial services to the food supply chain, from defence to the music industry. The cloud is everywhere; it has made some people very rich, and has radically changed the market valuations of the world’s companies—here I refer to my own registered interests.

However, unlike IP where there are well-established international frameworks and bodies, in data there is inadequate international alignment of standards, and that has led to disputes between the EU and the US, as I know only too well as a former Minister with responsibility for data. The combination of the GDPR and the European Court ruling on Schrems caused huge problems that we solved with the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework. Led by my right honourable friend Matt Hancock and my noble friend Lord Ashton of Hyde, who is now of course our esteemed Chief Whip, we put the GDPR and associated changes on to the UK statute book so that the UK would be declared equivalent to the EU and data could continue to flow after EU exit. We still await clarity on that equivalence decision, which is important to many sectors and is a matter of much concern to the EU Scrutiny Committee on which I have the pleasure of sitting.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 52 on digital ID and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, as well as my noble friends Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom—who was squeezed out by the limit of four proposers. I also thank the British Retail Consortium for its advice. The members are old friends because for many years during my Tesco days, I was the consortium’s deputy chair. It turns out that digital ID is a subject that garners great interest right across the House and indeed, despite her rather discouraging comments in Committee, I discover that it is also of considerable interest to my noble friend the Minister, and her response today will be critical.

There are two key issues. The first is the urgent need for digital ID to complement the system of physical ID on which we currently rely for sales of alcohol, whether in shops or in pubs. This, as the Minister explained in Committee, is because there is no industry standard for digital ID. Ironically, the work on developing it has been delayed by the pandemic until next year, as we heard from the Minister. That seems to be very slow given the security technology that exists and our proficiency in such matters here in the UK.

The situation with alcohol contrasts with that on verifying sales of knives—which is surely more dangerous—tobacco, lottery tickets and fireworks. Digital ID is in regular use in all these areas, despite the lack of this standard. Operators are ready and willing to use this for alcohol too, and it would bring benefits through productivity, fraud control and—this is the second key issue for today—infection control under coronavirus. Its use would remove the need for customers or staff to wash hands or resanitise. There would be no requirement to show paper ID or carry a passport, as some youngsters do when they go out, sometimes leading to loss in my experience. That is a serious matter, given current Passport Office delays. It is especially helpful at automatic check-outs and could speed up queues at pubs and elsewhere.

Our Amendment 52 permits the use of digital verification, provided the licence or certificate holder reasonably believes, with all reasonable precautions and due diligence, that the individual purchasing alcohol is under 18 years old. The amendment is drafted, in effect, to allow the Government a trial for digital ID. It would end after six months, in January, and could be extended once only, by which time we expect the industry standard to be in operation and Covid to be behind us.

We need both a firm commitment from the Government to make this standard happen in the first half of next year and a temporary arrangement to permit the use of digital ID during Covid. For some other requirements, for example at the CMA and ICO, regulators are operating an easement programme during Covid. Another approach that occurs to me is for the Government to give guidance to trading standards that the requirement for paper checks for age ID for alcohol will not be enforced, where there is a reliable digital verification method in operation, until the new standard is adopted. We all want proper enforcement. We must make progress on this, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says before pressing my amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, Amendment 52, which I have signed and strongly support, is similar but different, in a crucial respect, to the one which the noble Baroness and I tabled in Committee. I am delighted that we are joined by even heavier artillery on Report. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said:

“At present it is not possible to use a digital ID as proof of age for the purchase of alcohol in the UK because there is no industry standard for digital ID… Until such a standard is agreed, the current restrictions should be upheld. I hope that my noble friend will not press her amendment. I shall finish there.”—[Official Report, 13/7/20, col. 1435.]


I am not going to repeat what I said in Committee—for which I am sure the Minister is grateful—but I know she is always open to sound argument. I want to show why her brief in Committee was not entirely accurate.

It is rather misleading to say baldly that there is no industry standard for digital ID. Back in 2016, the age verification group of the Digital Policy Alliance—which has some distinguished and knowledgeable present and former parliamentarians among its members—sponsored a publicly available specification, PAS, code of practice standard number 1296 on online age checking. This was adopted by the British Standards Institution and the independent regulator, the Age Check Certification Scheme. It is now PAS 1296:2018.

A publicly available specification is a voluntary standard intended to assist providers of age-restricted products and services online with a means to adopt and demonstrate best practice and compliance. There are easily available audit processes and services to check conformity with the PAS, involving policy, quality and technical evaluation, and an enormous number of reputable companies provide age-verification services through digital ID systems. As the noble Baroness said, in many ways the UK is leading the way in digital ID. It is active across the range of age-restricted products and services, such as DVDs, gambling, lottery tickets and scratchcards, knives, air weapons, fireworks, petrol, solvents and cigarettes, but not—perversely and uniquely—alcohol.

This is the digital ID marketplace that the Government said they wanted to build, in their call for evidence last year. Most of these companies are UK-based and many are global. Nearly all work to the standard set by PAS 1296:2018. Many of them have other forms of certification and security standards in place, such as ISO 27001. There is an active trade body, the Age Verification Providers Association, whose members—as the Minister probably knows—have just had good news from the High Court in an important judicial review case involving non-implementation of the age-verification provisions of the Digital Economy Act.

Another government department, BEIS, through its Office for Product Safety and Standards, together with the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, provides training that

“will enable participants to confidently apply the PAS 1296:2018”.

Not only is there a form of auditable standard in place, but reputable training in compliance with PAS 1296.

As we pointed out in Committee, this is a strongly deregulatory measure. Retailers have noted that almost 24% of supermarket baskets contain an age-restricted item. As a result of current rules, many customers are waiting longer than necessary. This would ease any congestion, mitigate the risks of queuing, reduce the need for continual sanitisation by staff—as the noble Baroness said—and be for the benefit of all in infection control. Rather than being the last ship in the convoy, can the Home Office not steam ahead on this? The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, explained that it is essentially a pilot period only. I urge the Government to accept our amendment.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]]

My Lords, I rise to express my doubts about this amendment, because the Bill contains temporary measures. We should put liberalisation to the fore, as argued by my noble friend Lady Noakes on an earlier amendment, and should not be using this Bill to make major policy changes.

My grandmother was a smoker and died of lung cancer shortly before I was born—a great sadness, as she was a founder of the CPRE and a great cook. However, this has made me very aware of the right way to encourage the reduction in smoking. I do not believe in total bans, which drive smoking underground. The truth is that smokers are still able to smoke in the open outside some pubs and bars, so they come, sit outside well away from others and support the hospitality sector—as I saw on Saturday outside the coffee shops in Salisbury marketplace. A proper study and assessment of what this measure would mean cannot be done for a temporary Bill. It would certainly affect pubs and other outlets, but we do not know what the possible impact would be, given that we are talking about people gathering together in the open air.

More generally, I feel that noble Lords have not grasped the gravity and immediacy of the economic disaster enveloping this country as a result of Covid. The various measures and amendments before us could make things worse—for example, by hitting pub numbers and, indeed, driving smokers away from the open air that is better for their health. I believe that this should be a matter for local authorities and that we should not be embarking on a major change in this temporary Bill.

[Lord Clement-Jones [V]]

My Lords, I am speaking very strongly in favour of Amendment 18, so cogently introduced by my noble friend Lady Northover. This debate takes me back almost 20 years to the passage of my Private Member’s Bill, which became the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. It had cross-party support and the very effective backing of Action on Smoking and Health, as does today’s amendment.

My noble friend Lady Northover was extremely helpful then, as were the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and the late Lord Peston, who we all remember so fondly. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, was a lot less constructive. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was on patrol. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, kicked the tyres on the Bill very hard but was persuaded of its merits—as I hope he and his ministerial colleagues will be by this amendment today.

Our culture and, in particular, the balance between smokers and non-smokers, has changed dramatically since those days. I remember visiting Ireland with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, shortly after the passage of the Bill. The scales fell from our eyes about the possibility of smoke-free pubs and restaurants—and now, as a result, our health benefits hugely.

Clause 5 already sets out that conditions can be put on pavement licences by local authorities or the Secretary of State. As the LGA says, this amendment

“sets a level playing field for hospitality venues across the country”.

It wants national action. This is crucial, as my noble friend Lady Northover explained, to ensure consistency and clarity of regulation across the country for the hospitality trade. It also has the public health benefit of protecting people from unwanted second-hand smoke.

As ASH says, Covid-19 has changed the context completely. Access to indoor smoke-free areas in hospitality venues is limited and riskier as a result. Prohibition of smoking in enclosed areas has displaced it outdoors, particularly to areas around the entrances and exits to public buildings. If smoking is not prohibited, pavement areas will not be family-friendly spaces. They will exclude non-smokers from enjoying the benefit of eating and drinking outside. Neighbouring premises, particularly in cramped, inner city areas, will also be exposed to second-hand smoke.

This is a chance to ensure that the health gains of the 2002 Act and the Health Act 2006—which has had great public support, as my noble friend said, with smoking declining significantly among young people in particular—are not squandered and that the Government can realise their stated ambition for England to be smoke-free by 2030.