National Security and Investment Bill

Debate between Lord Fox and Lord Grantchester

Report stage
Thursday 15th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, we have had a short and interesting debate. Speaking to Amendment 2, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has as ever uncovered an incongruity in the way the Bill is drafted. I suggest the Government are wise to listen to his advice. Similarly with Amendment 8, there is a need for clarity for people. Where do they stand on this issue? That is all people deserve when trying to manage their affairs.

We then come to the extraordinary intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. It is a shame that she was not around to give a Second Reading speech, which perhaps might have guided us through some of our decision-making, and arrived only at this late hour to offer her help. I suspect that, had she involved herself a little earlier, she might have been less concerned with the issues than she is now. For fear of doing the Minister’s work for him, I ask him to confirm that the regime retains the right to call in deals that are less than 25% at any time. The notion that there are deals that the regime may not see is one of the points inferred by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.

This is the point: the unit has to be sufficiently resourced and efficient in its work to be able to pick these issues up. We shall talk later about where it gets its information and how the security guidance is fed in, because that comes under another group of amendments. However, with all the issues coming through, the point is how well the regime is actually operated; the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has mentioned this on many occasions. That will be the rub, in terms of how business will be affected by the Bill. The more the Minister can reassure us that the resources will be there to deliver this, the happier most of us will be.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, we remain committed to the principles of the Bill, and join others in thanking the Minister and his team for the way they have conducted discussions with us to resolve any issues on the Bill. One of the issues that remains involves the extensive adventure of the unit into the business environment. In Committee, my colleague and noble friend Lady Hayter introduced an amendment to delete Clause 6(2)(b), and asked why the Government wished to make subject to mandatory notification all acquisitions that resulted in only a minimum 15% stake in an entity. We consider that disproportionate. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, also spoke passionately on the point, as did several other noble Lords. My noble friend apologises because, understandably, she cannot take part in these proceedings today.

However, it is to be welcomed that the Government have heeded the concerns about the unnecessary impact on businesses and the largely intrusive workload for the new ISU section in the department. Government Amendment 3, together with the consequential amendments in this group, would remove the 15% threshold for notifiable acquisitions from the regime. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill, we have been concerned about the impact on businesses, especially in the SME sector, and the huge workload that the Bill would create. That government concession goes a long way towards meeting those concerns.

The Government will still be able proactively to call in transactions involving acquisitions under the 25% threshold of shares or votes if such an acquisition could be deemed to result in “material influence”. However, the ISU would be notified only of transactions most likely to raise national security risks in the most sensitive sectors of the economy. This is plainly sensible. The removal of the 15% threshold will also remove unnecessary impediments to investments in smaller start-ups and enterprises, which might have concerns about hitting the 15% threshold.

Initially the Government reckoned that the new screening regime would result in about 1,800 notifications per year. We expressed scepticism at that estimate, as did several others, including the CBI. Whatever would have been the result, have the Government now recalculated how many notifications the department is likely to receive, having deleted the 15% threshold? I would be grateful if the Minister could give the House the new figure, with any further explanations as to its determination. It would be useful to reflect on it, in the light of the experiences of the unit that are to come.

I am grateful, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for his Amendment 8, which redrafts Clause 8(6). I understand very well the point he is making, and I await the Minister’s reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, set out his view of a balance, and I will set out another dichotomy—between thoroughness and timeliness. I do not think any of us in the Chamber are asking for this process to be less thorough. I think we are all saying we want a thorough process. But that thoroughness cannot be at the expense of timeliness, which is what these amendments are seeking to establish.

I do not think it is the Government’s intention to sow the market with uncertainty; I am absolutely sure that is not the intention of the Bill or this element of it. However, we all know that once things get written into law, they move into a departmental process and there is a unit dealing with this, unless there are specific guidelines on achieving timeliness, things will drag and take time. Departmental clocks can run at a different speed to business clocks. We should be clear that that will cost jobs and opportunities, because the longer a transaction takes, the longer it is in play, the fewer opportunities those companies have and the more threat there is for them. This is particularly clear in sales out of distress and in businesses that are already in play. Once they are in play, they become victims of exploitation, and the longer this department maintains a business in play through this process, the more danger those businesses are in.

The Government’s “intent” has come up many times in speeches, and that is an important element here. The way this Bill is currently drafted does not reveal an intent for rapid resolution. It does not reveal an understanding of the importance of timeliness, and that is what these amendments seek to establish.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Clement-Jones, for returning to the issue of the impact of this legislation on businesses and the uncertainty it would create within a business environment as businesses must interface with its bureaucracy. It has been interesting to hear the reflections from debates in Committee.

In Committee, we were sympathetic to Amendment 11 and others in the group as we have also pushed the Government to ensure greater clarity and transparency regarding how long businesses and organisations will have to wait for answers from the Government concerning notifications. It is important not only that statutory time limits are laid down to each stage of assessment but that the overall accumulated length of time of the whole process is defined. We remain supportive of the intentions behind the amendments in this group, and I am grateful to the many business interests that have expressed concerns to us. I merely ask again: what does “reasonably practicable” mean as a length of time?

In Committee, the Minister did not address whether and to what extent five working days could become practicable. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked many pertinent questions concerning the operation of the unit and its systems in addressing the tasks it will have to be administrating. Could the Minister provide more clarity? Can he give assurances today that officials in the department will engage effectively with business and provide updates and explanations regarding issues under consideration to businesses, should an answer not be forthcoming within the defined five-day limit proposed in this amendment, rather than expect businesses to delay and wait for an unspecified length of time to be proved practicable? Communication of the position would prove extremely reassuring to businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is arriving back in his place, as I am not intending to speak for very long, so he had better get there swiftly.

This seems to be the other half of the amendments that went with the previous debate, and the group, with the exception of the noble Lord, is mutually exclusive, but it is still around subsidy payment money and what it is. The central question about Clause 30 is: what was in the Government’s mind when it was drafted? What is it for? The longer the Minister refuses to be specific in answering that question, the more I am drawn to the supposition that the Government do not know what it is for and that it has been put there as an insurance measure, just in case. Frankly, that is typical of the way this Bill has been written. It has been written as widely as possible to give the department as much leeway as possible in the event of stuff happening, stuff which is as yet undefined or is perhaps undefinable. That is not a good example of what Governments should be bringing to your Lordships’ House for approval.

The questions that have been asked very clearly by the previous speakers are important. If the Minister wants to prove that there is some guiding force behind Clause 30, and not just “We’ll put it in just in case we need it”, which is what it looks like to me, I look forward to hearing his comments.

In speaking to the previous group, the Minister implied that the fact that the Treasury would have a hand on the tiller should give us comfort. If the only comfort we have is that the Treasury will be looking over your shoulder, it does not sound very comfortable. The department should know what this money is for, why it is there and what it is going to be used for. We should not have to rely on the good offices of Her Majesty’s Treasury.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for looking after my welfare.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Fox, for pressing further through this group on the scope of Clause 30 concerning financial assistance, how far and in what circumstances financial assistance will be provided to businesses resultant on government decisions, and what the Government have in mind when under Clause 30(2)

“any other kind of financial assistance (actual or contingent)”

could be helpfully provided.

Amendment 18 is important in raising the issue of compensation, which I am sure the Government will continue to resist. Greater clarity will be always be helpful. Does the Minister envisage assistance being given beyond a certain figure? The sum of £100 million is specifically mentioned in the Bill. It seems to us, however, that the scope of the provision in Clause 30 is adequately drawn up.

National Security and Investment Bill

Debate between Lord Fox and Lord Grantchester

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I feel justifiably aggrieved to have been admonished by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for not being passionate or plentiful enough. Telling people off who are here because there are not enough of us is perhaps a little unfair. Perhaps she could reserve her fire for colleagues who have decided not to be here. There is also a certain symmetry here. During our debate on the first amendment I had the pleasure of speaking on I was roundly admonished by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for using it as a chance to repeat my Second Reading speech—which of course I denied.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has a point. There is a very important element of security around the climate emergency and she is right to highlight that we need to factor in how climate, environment and ecological damage will affect the future security of this country. When we debated Clause 6 much earlier in this process, we looked at the 17 technologies that had been identified by the department as technologies of concern. That is an area where I think some input on this level could be made, and I would be happy to work with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, going forward to look at that list and make some suggestions on whether there are missing technologies related to environmental and ecological damage issues that should be factored in.

I do not like to be self-referential—but I will be anyway. During the Budget debate I made it very clear that one of the things missing from the Budget was a strategy to get to the 2050 net-zero target. It was completely absent. There is no strategy to get there. I would advise that that is where we should focus our energy. The Government, the Opposition and everyone in Parliament should be delivering an integrated strategy to get to what in this case is our public policy for 2050. I know that different parties have different targets, but that process would tease out the technologies, the businesses and the areas of activity that we need to make sure we retain access to in order to move forward and deliver on the strategy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is right to bring this issue up, but I am not sure that adding a clause to this Bill is the right route. As I say, however, I would be happy to work with her on the list of technologies, and indeed I am happy to work with everyone to try to deliver the route map to get to net zero.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I am not unduly fearful of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I have always thought that being Green does not allow for having a whip. However, I thank the noble Baroness for proposing this new clause to the Bill. I am certainly clear that the climate emergency must hang as a backcloth to every action that we undertake.

The aim of Amendment 93 is completely understood and appreciated. It seeks a Ministerial Statement on how the provisions set out in this Bill will be exercised in relation to the national security impacts caused by climate, environmental or ecological damage. The climate crisis is not only a threat to our way of life in the long term but a threat to national security in the short to medium term. Only last week, Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO Secretary-General, said that

“climate change makes the world more unsafe, so NATO needs to step up and play a bigger role in combating it.”

A few weeks ago, even the Prime Minister made a comment that climate change is a threat to our society. How will the new regime take account of this and reflect on his comments?

The Committee has already questions about the list of sectors affected, especially the energy sector, as well as about protecting green infrastructure. I have raised with the Minister the EV infrastructure, solar and wind industries and how their growth should be protected. It is certainly important that we hear more from him on the issue and what the difficulties would be in undertaking to produce the kind of statement being proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. If the Government are resistant to producing such a statement, could the issue be included as an integral part of the annual report?

National Security and Investment Bill

Debate between Lord Fox and Lord Grantchester

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th March 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, is correct to say that the Bill is far more important than the outside world seems to realise. When I have been speaking externally, I have been trying to remind people of the Bill’s existence and the need for them to read it. Perhaps we should adopt the policy of the Ancient Mariner and stop in one in three in the street and tell them about it because it does not seem that the message is getting through. Perhaps we will just have to work on their behalf.

A strong case has been made by the proponents of Amendments 20 and 24. When the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, speaks on a number of different issues, he often talks about flexibility and keeping options open. This seems another example of where the Government are seeking to keep their options open and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, set out, there might or might not be good reason for that. When I sat on your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee, it held an inquiry into the challenge of scale-up and the need for patient capital and for money to come in. It is very clear that the United Kingdom has a way to travel in getting the sort of funding that we are talking about for these scale-up situations. I am interested to hear from the Minister what sensitivity studies have been done on this. How much work has been done in talking to the investment and venture capital community about how it views it? Perhaps the Minister could write to us with the evidence has been received about its reception and the Government’s impression of it. I am persuaded that there is an issue. The question is how big an issue it is, given that we have a suboptimal venture capital regime in this country for this sort of scale-up. How badly and to what extent would damage be wrought?

I read Amendment 25 differently from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I read the words “examples include” to mean that that is not exclusive and I think the noble Lord has what he wants without having to put the words in. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that.

I find myself in complete agreement with Amendments 52A, 55A, 64A and 67A. If these transactions are not supposed to be impacted by this, let us get them out of the system as quickly as possible. The doctrine expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about the workability of the regime, the amount of friction it introduces and our responsibility to remove that friction wherever possible is completely correct, so those four amendments deserve noble Lords’ complete support.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Bilimoria, for the opening amendments in this group, which give rise to various considerations. We recognise the caveat in Amendments 20 and 24 to mitigate the impact of hostile actors going to complex lengths to hide their interests in a qualifying asset or entity. It is also understandable to set de minimis thresholds. Having the powers in the definition still requires a thought process to initiate using them. There have been several instances in which hostile actors have behaved entirely transparently that have not been identified and prevented. Indeed, mitigating actions may have been rejected even by the Government.

One needs only to recall the debate over the growing dependency of many nations on China and the resultant rejection of identifying potential harm that could result. It could be raised here regarding dependency on research skills and partnerships in the technology fields, with security implications. Indeed, the Government’s assessment of risk can be mysterious. In relation to the Bill, perhaps what we need to see are the ways in which the Government will actively identify evolving and growing risks, whether or not they hide behind complex organisations or a complex process of additionality. Has the Minister considered this and when a risk may change its colours?

To the proponents of the £10 million threshold in the amendments, is there some logic or any evidence that this is indeed the correct level, other than that other jurisdictions may have chosen it? The valuation of some of these types of asset is hard to quantify and the value of a database code or algorithm will be considered much greater once in the hands of a hostile intent. The intention not to overburden SMEs with the bureaucracy of this regime is worthy and commendable, but may not be easily carried out. How many SMEs would be excluded as a consequence and would it also benefit the department not to have to devote resources to excessive screenings of transactions?

Amendments 52A, 55A, 64A and 67A, also thoughtfully proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Clement-Jones, are for the fast-track procedure for notifications. Has such a procedure been considered by the Government? It has yet to be identified how the regime proposed by the Bill will deal with so-called everyday transactions in the business community and the amount of resources that will need to be committed to so-called evidently non-controversial activity. Would this allow the possibility of experience gained through the Bill to mature into a more workable format?

In the drafting of the procedure, care would need to be taken regarding the person being given the ability to give the relevant notice. In one interpretation it could be the company initiating such a request, not only the person acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. That would result in everyone requesting a fast-track procedure. The Minister’s remarks will be interesting in this respect. Overall, it would be perhaps best to ensure that the regime is set up in the first instance in the Bill to be properly resourced and to have properly identified targets for all its notifications.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

This follows on quite well. Throughout this debate and lots of debates about Bills, we hear your Lordships use the phrase “unintended consequences”. Actually, giving the department credit, I assume that this is an intended rather than an unintended consequence, so I would like the Minister to explain exactly what it is seeking to achieve or prevent happening. What past examples would have been arrested, had this law been available then? Being a practical person, that would help me and others to understand what the Government are getting at.

This clearly does not have extraterritorial reach, as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones said. It seeks to deal with all activities when it might be better to separate and segment them. I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes; it would help us if we understood what the Government are getting at with this wording.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for his three amendments in this group and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for adding his name to the first, Amendment 21. He has an alternative to Amendment 27, Amendment 26, which was in the previous group, but both amend activities in general, so that they are more specifically attached to the person controlling those activities. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has recognised his amendment as “rogue”.

The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, queries the extension of Clause 7(3)(b) to suppliers of

“goods or services to persons in the United Kingdom”,

and asks for an explanation. Have there been previous incidents and what specific goods or services were involved, with what implications?

Clause 7(6) specifies land as well as “moveable property” and, in relation to Amendment 27 of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, gives rise to my reflections on the question of land and its use. While clearly an asset, the distinction is not made between the Bill’s application to ownership of land, in the sense of control, and any lease of its use, whereby a person other than the owner could be said to be in control. The Bill merely has the words “used in connection” to activities. Is this distinction relevant and what proof would be needed to clarify which person is in control of land?

One of the key sentences in the Government’s Statement of Policy Intent is in the section on acquirers:

“Clearly, national security risks are most likely to arise when acquirers are hostile to the UK’s national security, or when they owe allegiance to hostile states or organisations.”


Land, and the use of it in such a context, is made relevant as a qualifying asset. Yes, an operation needs to operate somewhere and will require land. Does this require any further reflection with regard to the workings of the regime? Can land in a particular country be considered a particular threat?

Amendment 32, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, to Clause 9, regarding control of assets, returns us to Clause 7(6). The Minister may wish merely to identify the strategic risk attaching to land in particular locations only.

National Security and Investment Bill

Debate between Lord Fox and Lord Grantchester

Committee stage & Lords Hansard
Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am second to no one in my admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, but I am quite glad that we have the other Minister in the hot seat for this one, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone. I suspect that in his previous lives he has seen more of the rough and tumble than possibly the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and the rest of us put together, so will appreciate the nature of the debate introduced by the noble Lord.

For my part, I have usually been on the home team, the one paying advisers such as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, huge sums of money to do deals or sell businesses. He hinted at the mischief that could be made around this, and I am sure that the Minister will understand the nature of that mischief: it is pretty ruthless and pretty hard. This gives another tool to those who would wish to cause that mischief, and it is not in the interests of the Government or the wheels of commerce for that mischief to occur.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made a really important point. It is also in the interests of the Government to sift what comes across the Government’s desk; it does not behove the department to have tens of thousands of deals flowing across its desk. The Bill is designed to pick out the big problems and issues; it is not designed to deal with sacks of chaff that will come over as well as the wheat. It is important that the objectives of these amendments are taken on board by the Government. I am sure that there are many ways of doing that, and we look forward to the Minister contemplating how “contemplation” will be defined. What is the threshold? Is it the one suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Bilimoria—is it publishing? And even then, is it in the sense that the takeover panel would require a board to respond, or is it responding to a rumour? Then we are back into mischief territory again. Some sense of that, and of how the CMA has been able to negotiate this, would be helpful.

My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, in his amendment with the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, is right that we need some sense of guidance and help as to how this is going to work. I go back to the point that I made at the beginning. How will this thing operate? How will the unit work? The nature of some sort of pre-emptive process seems to take on board more than a unit could normally handle. The advice that the Government have been given by your Lordships is good advice, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister responding to this group to his second Bill, this one under the auspices of the business department. I am sure that he will find it an enjoyable experience. In addition to Amendment 9 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey and Lord Clement-Jones, I propose probing Amendment 10 to Clause 3(3), on further considerations. Amendment 9 seeks to ensure that the Government provide guidance to minimise the potential volume of voluntary notifications and any chilling effect that the Bill may have on legitimate business activity. Businesses need to be clear when transactions require notification and when it is not needed. There may soon be a time when the department could find this very useful as well.

In assessing the potential to generate unnecessary notifications, the CBI has estimated that the Government could receive up to 10,000 notifications a year. Does the Minister recognise this amount as an outcome? How have the Government calculated possible outcomes in relation to the numbers that have arisen in other countries’ experience in similar regime circumstances? I would go along with the precautionary interpretation by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. This will have resonance with later amendments probing the resourcing of the new investment security unit and turnaround timings for notifications.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I want to pick up where the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, finished: it seems almost punitively value-destroying to have a mandatory process. There will clearly be times when voiding will be the inevitable consequence, but there are others when a retrospective approval would be best for the country, the value, the shareholders, the employees and all the other third parties connected to that business. To lock the Government into auto-voiding seems unnecessary. It may be designed to put people off from not reporting in future but, by their nature, those who do not report probably are not aware of these sanctions, so it is unlikely to have that deterrent effect.

On Amendments 41 and 44, the “Waste Land” amendments, certainty comes up again, as predicted. All they do is ask for a clear signal rather than something simply not happening being the signal. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, raised external messaging, but such clarity would also help build a body of case law which would help future practitioners understand what they should and should not do. Having that case law and those examples clearly delineated by a full stop rather than the whimper that is currently enshrined in law would be a much better way of exposing such cases for the textbook.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, for these probing amendments relating to the penalty of deeming mergers and acquisitions void in the event of proper notifications and subsequent assessments by the Secretary of State not having taken place. The Minister will need to explain how this will work. Most of the amendments in this group focus on Clause 13, “Approval of notifiable acquisition”, in Chapter 3. Subsection (3) states that:

“A notifiable acquisition, in relation to which a final order has been made, that is completed otherwise than in accordance with the final order, is void.”


I appreciate the view of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, that there could be alternative outcomes to certain elements or aspects of any deal. Has the Minister considered whether the Secretary of State could publish guidance on how the mechanisms of deeming non-compliant transactions void would work in practice? Clarity for SMEs would be most helpful.

The ability for transactions to be deemed void where they have not been approved by the Secretary of State, have not been notified or are non-compliant with any final order could have large repercussions. Clause 15, “Requirement to consider retrospective validation without application”, and Clause 16, “Application for retrospective validation of notifiable acquisition”, raise the issue of retrospection in relation to the legally void provision. Could transactions that took place in the past, even up to five years previously, be immediately deemed void? If the first transaction in a chain were deemed void, that would leave the legal rights and entitlements of all subsequent transactions’ parties in total confusion. There could be conditions in a transaction that came to fruition or were exercisable over a length of time, with these events deemed the trigger events rather than the merger itself. Those elements would have had impact at the inception of any M&A activity. An impossible series of rights, entitlements and developments would have to be unwound, which would cause great legal uncertainty.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, also raised the issue of other jurisdictions or cross-jurisdictions. Have these circumstances, among the many others, been considered in the provision of this power? What are the legal implications for the process where the possible imposition of a transaction to be void is under consideration? Have the Government made plans to publish guidance in this area, even though they may consider that circumstantial evidence may make such guidance highly speculative? Many speakers have found the provision impractical and unworkable.

Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Fox and Lord Grantchester

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox]

As I was saying, I romped through some questions around private finance providers and details of registration control and the management of that process. I welcome the removal of the “no cost to landlords” clause and the insertion of the £3,500 cap, but there are some issues with that. I note that VAT is included within it, and so obviously it is 20% less than you think. It includes also any other funding that the landlord is able to pull in, including local authority or Green Deal funding. Already, it starts to look like less, as it will not always be the landlord putting the £3,500 in.

I would not call them loopholes, but we then have some other ways for the landlord to invest less. One is the recognition of previous investment, which clearly is often possible. How do the Government expect to avoid that in many cases? The second point I have concerns about is the high-cost exemption. It is not hard to get estimates for jobs. Frankly, if you ask a builder to give you high estimates for jobs, they are usually better at that than they are at low estimates. I suggest that that is a gaping loophole for unscrupulous landlords, sadly many of whom operate in this sector. I would welcome the Minister’s view on that.

Another potential issue was brought up in the debate of 2016 to which I referred earlier. The Secretary of State, Andrea Leadsom, said that,

“landlords will be required to install only measures that cost the same as or less than their expected energy savings over a seven-year period, and they will be eligible for an exemption if the improvements do not meet that payback test”.—[Official Report, Commons, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 8/6/16; col. 4.]

There is no mention of that payback test in the accompanying material to this SI. Could the Minister please explain that status?

My final point is this. The Minister mentioned that those obtaining an exemption will be put on a register. Will he undertake that this will be a public register so that those landlords would be fully knowable to the wider community? I await the answers to those questions.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister once again for his exemplary introduction to the regulations before the Committee today. I note that, at last, we have come out of the jurisdiction of no-deal outcomes to look at matters of great importance that are, nevertheless, outwith our previous debates on the tranches of SIs that deal with a no-deal scenario.

We come now to the important aspect of energy efficiency, a necessary and effective part of our infrastructure improvement to reduce and remove carbon emissions in the longer term. I always thought that it was a very key part of the Green Deal, introduced— I hasten to advise the noble Lord, Lord Fox—during the coalition years under a Liberal Democrat Minister of State in DECC, and it was to his great regret that it eventually collapsed, as we showed at the time, through very great difficulties in its construction.

Electricity and Gas etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Fox and Lord Grantchester

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I think we are down to the hard core now.

If I were a member of the EU 27 and I were sitting over there listening to this, I would detect a pulling up of the drawbridge, because that is what it feels like. Of course we are doing no such thing, because for UK consumers to continue to have the electricity and gas they need, they will rely very much on the interconnector and on gas pipelines, and on the island of Ireland there is an integrated supply. So it is with great regret that we are having this debate.

Even though we are debating what would happen in the event of a crash-out, for us to participate in the single European energy market seems very unlikely, no matter what deal Mrs May and others manage to hatch. This points the way not just to the future of this country’s energy market in the event of a crash-out but to what sort of market we will have and how we intend to regulate it even in the event of a deal. Again, that is regrettable.

Even if we are not within the energy market, our electricity system will remain contiguous with that on the continent of Europe thanks to interconnection, and our gas system will remain plugged into European gas networks. It seems to me that completely absenting ourselves from balancing and suchlike is not where we want to be—although I understand that that is what we would do in the wake of an emergency. I would like some assurance from the Minister that this is not where we want to be in the event of a negotiated exit or no-deal exit.

We are placing consumers at some risk, not least around the point of no longer participating in balancing. If there are outages or if supplies go down in one place, we have been able to use the European energy market to fill in and take more power quickly through interconnection. On security of supply for British consumers, we will be absenting ourselves from having that option. In the event of a crash-out or of not having made an appropriate deal to remain part of the energy market, consumers will be at more risk of blackouts and interruption of supply. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on that point.

Ofgem clearly has an important role, and I have the same questions that I have asked Ministers lots of times. Does Ofgem have the capacity and capability to do that? If not, is it likely to have it at the end of next month, or when will it have? What extra requirement is needed for Ofgem?

I note that we have in the SI a requirement to commence registration four weeks after exit day. It is not clear to me what happens in the four weeks between exit day and the registration of suppliers. Where are they legally? Are they in limbo? I await the Minister’s answers.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his full and thorough explanation of the regulations before the Committee. Once again, I note that this instrument is brought forward under a no-deal scenario, such that it merely transposes existing regulations into UK jurisdiction with no appreciable policy differences. I am therefore happy to approve the instrument: it does exactly what it says on the tin.

However, I would add that, as they would normally be negative instruments, I am grateful to your Lordships’ Secondary Legislative Scrutiny Committee for recommending that they be upgraded to the affirmative procedure. I agree that they are important for the internal energy market and, more importantly, for the all-Ireland energy market.

We are nevertheless concerned that, in future scenarios, interconnectors will become a key feature in the supply of electricity to the UK and to the EU. How it will operate effectively into the future is a matter of anxiety.

At present, it is an integrated seamless supply, and the single energy market should be able to operate unimpeded in any situation after withdrawal. Last week, Munir Hassan, head of clean energy at CMS, told Utility Week that even in the event of no deal the internal energy market “just has to continue”. In view of this, and of the fact that the internal energy market is seamless, will it be a bit less easy to understand the nature of the electricity market should frictions be put in place with changes between the all-Ireland energy market and the UK, and across the interconnectors into the EU? Is the Minister confident that these regulations and others will enable all that to happen with seamless continuity?

As a result of these regulations, powers will be transferred to UK organisations such as the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, represented by Ofgem. I Fourth Delegated Legislation

Committee ask again: what organisational and budgetary support will be offered to these groups by the Government to allow them to cope with every necessary increase in workload?

There is also concern over how the all-Ireland energy market will operate in relation to the EU internal market through southern Ireland and into the internal energy market of the UK. I agree that the regulations are largely technical in nature but they assume agreement. We can agree to a grid agreement update, but this nevertheless brings philosophical anxiety.

Lastly, there is concern that the Explanatory Memorandum has not been amended in relation to the upgrade to an affirmative instrument. Under a negative instrument, there are often sections dealing with compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights, but that has not been included. These points may not be strictly material to the upgrade, but nevertheless it would be informative to understand from the Minister why there has not been a redrafting in relation to the affirmative procedure.

Carriage of Dangerous Goods (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Fox and Lord Grantchester

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox]

There is another point to consider. Essential to this is the definition of an emergency worker. Is it someone who is predetermined as an emergency worker? We have heard of the heroic efforts of ordinary engineers and ordinary people during the massive meltdown of the Japanese reactor, and we know that in Chernobyl heroic individuals took it upon themselves to be part of an emergency exercise. Although there is a definition of emergency workers in the SI, it is clear that, if there is an emergency—let us hope it never comes to pass—individuals will become de facto emergency workers by their proximity to what is happening. They perhaps are not covered by these regulations. In any case, how do you limit these people to 500 millisieverts when they are in the middle of an emergency? They do not necessarily have monitoring equipment to hand; they are dealing with an emergency. While this is a useful limit, no emergency is planned, so unless these people are already wearing the necessary monitoring equipment, they will not be monitoring the dose; and if they are accidental emergency workers—if you follow my drift—they will not have that monitoring equipment either. I would welcome the Minister’s response to those three points.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the order before the Committee today, and for providing us with updated information on its passage in the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, said that it is not entirely to do with a no-deal scenario; hence I am a little perplexed as to how this order is split—if that is the right word—into parts that will be nullified and those that will not at the relevant outcome.

I also reiterate that we found it unfortunate that Euratom was swept up into the withdrawal letter, and hence into the withdrawal agreement, and that we need to leave Euratom at the same time as we leave the EU. That is deeply regretted, but I am grateful to the Minister for his updating remarks on the order in the Commons regarding the Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Regulations 2008.

We see no issue with the order in general; however, I have noted the circumstances on which the Minister reported, and which have been taken up in other contributions around the Committee, around radioactive emergencies, notably in relation to exposure to risks for emergency workers. I welcome the consultation and the Government’s response: this does indeed strengthen the UK’s emergencies preparedness and aligns with IAEA best practice and the highest safety standards. I also welcome the fact that under the regulations the ONR has a duty to provide information to the public about the nature and effect of a potential radioactive emergency and that they introduce a national reference level below which exposure must be kept.

I put on record that it is of great benefit that there is now a duty to have a handover report to a recovery phase in any emergency and that training will be provided to give clarity to workers, including those that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about, who might suddenly come within the bracket of the emergency regulations, though they may not necessarily have been designated as emergency workers.

The Minister paid regard to the setting of the definitive reference level that was part of the debate in the other place. Emergency workers will be exposed to levels potentially above the general level of 100 millisieverts, to a higher level of 500 millisieverts: this is well above the level that workers were exposed to at the Chernobyl disaster, which reached 350 millisieverts. I recognise that this level is in compliance with the EU directive, but will the Minister say whether it is future policy to look at this more closely and perhaps see what can be done to reduce this in order to be less above the level that would pertain in an ordinary situation? I know that an emergency could entail a wide divergence to very high levels; nevertheless, if he can say something about that, it would be helpful.

I also notice that the ONR will publish guidance. Will that have a statutory reference in relation to health and safety at work? Will it include action to be taken should there be a series of spikes that could cumulatively expose a worker to a level well above that which is generally provided for? Is there any responsibility to an emergency worker should he be put into such a position? With those questions, I am happy to pass the order today.

Honda in Swindon

Debate between Lord Fox and Lord Grantchester

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating in your Lordships’ House the Statement concerning Honda. It is a serious situation and I am deeply sorry for the loss of jobs this will bring to the economy, industry and people in and around Swindon.

The Statement talks about individual company circumstances, the industry’s business cycle and technological change. In the Government’s myopia over the EU and Brexit, interpretations of its relative effect in this case will once again be played out across the analysis. But the Government cannot keep finding and hiding behind individual business circumstances to deflect their accountability. After all, there now appears mounting evidence. Today, Honda in Swindon. Yesterday, Nissan in Sunderland. The day before, Hitachi in Anglesey. The day before that, Toshiba in Cumbria.

This is against the backcloth of continuing fallout on the high street, with December’s Christmas trading the worst in a decade. Twenty-three thousand shops have closed, losing 175,000 jobs, with HMV, House of Fraser and Poundworld recent casualties. Even in the Government’s own public services around the country, the Carillion and east-coast rail franchises have also fallen apart.

This portrays more than individual misfortunes. The Government are responsible for setting the right economic environment—a conducive economic climate for business risk-takers to thrive in. The Government’s false hopes in creating industrial sector deals do not appear to have deep foundations. Many appear to fall over as soon as they are initiated. We are seeing empty shops, empty industrial sites and empty promises.

Brexit and its effects cannot be disentangled as the Government seek to agree new international trade deals as the litmus test of Britain’s new status. In contrast, the EU has just concluded a wide continental trade deal with Japan after seven years of negotiation. It will not have escaped the House’s notice that the four names already mentioned as examples of company withdrawals from all around the country, from the north and north-west to the south-east, are all Japanese companies with long-term investments and horizons.

The long-term commitment given by a previous Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, to the people of Japan that the UK would be a borderless conduit into the European market will be understood to have been broken. Just when delicacy was required, the Japanese felt insulted by the approach of the Secretary of State for International Trade, with accusations of foot-dragging. As evidenced by the Trade Bill currently passing through your Lordships’ House, trading partners do not simply accept a cut-and-paste transfer of the terms of EU agreements. As 29 March draws ever nearer, the certainty of failure is increasing. Business is raising its voice in dismay. Last week, Airbus spoke out on the catastrophe that a no-deal outcome would pose for it, even as the collapse of Flybmi was being felt in regional economies.

Returning to the Statement and the threat to mass-market car manufacturing in the UK, where 200,000 jobs are at risk, there does not appear to have been any close dialogue between the Government and Honda concerning plans and how any necessary change could be facilitated. The Statement says very little. Indeed, there appear to be lots of dots in the text. When will the Government join up the dots, change their policy direction and take no deal off the table? Was it wise for the Government to withdraw grants to support the purchase of electric cars? Will the Government undertake a thorough impact assessment of the effects of cutbacks in the automotive sector in the West Midlands, Sunderland and Swindon on their local economies? Will the Government act on that report with supporting measures? Today’s news is devastating for the people of Swindon, who found out about the situation only through social media. Unfortunately, the Government are today failing their citizens.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, last time it was Nissan, this time it is Honda. I wonder how many more such cases we will have to discuss before much longer. The Minister gave a spirited rendition of her department’s attempts to whistle in the dark. This is a blow. Before I go on, I refer your Lordships to my interests in the register.

It is clear that Honda’s Swindon plant has had challenging economics for some years. Last year’s output of 160,000 vehicles was sub-scale, yet Honda avoided closure and kept Swindon open—so why close it now? I am afraid that I do not believe in coincidences. It is no good the Minister saying that the company ruled out Brexit as a cause. Brexit promises to raise costs for parts and reduce access to the EU, which is fatal for an already marginal plant. Honda knows what it is doing, but it is a polite Japanese company that likes to keep out of politics. It also hates to close factories and sack people. The current chaos in this country gave it licence to act.

Beyond the absolute disaster this poses to Honda workers, and many more in the supply chain, this brings into question the Government’s industrial strategy. As Ian Howells, senior vice-president for Honda in Europe, said:

“We have to move very swiftly to electrification of our vehicles”.


Mr Howells also said that the company had to “look very closely” at where to put its investment. He explained that it has to be in a marketplace of the size that Honda requires to make the investment worth while; he emphasised scale. The conclusion that comes out of today’s announcement is that this does not include the United Kingdom.

That throws up at least three questions. First, given Mr Howells’ assessment that the UK market is sub-scale, how does Brexit create a more attractive market for investors? Making the addressable market smaller does not make good sense for future inward investment. Secondly, Dyson is going to Singapore, Nissan is stepping back and now there is this news from Honda. Where does this leave the industrial strategy? The Minister is right to emphasise the very fast pace of technological change, so where does this leave the electrification strategy in particular? Unless what the Government are attempting to do has volume car makers located in this country to deliver future vehicles, it will all come to naught, but volume car makers are departing this country. Clearly, Honda does not buy the Government’s plans, so what does the Minister know that makes her think that she knows better than Honda? Thirdly, Ford has warned the Government, and JLR clearly has issues. To date, Toyota is silent about Burnaston, but that plant is eerily similar to the Honda situation. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what conversations are going on with Toyota.

These are multidimensional problems and I concede that our Minister is not in control of all of the issues out there, but the Government can do some things right now to calm industry nerves. In the Statement the Government have said that they will do whatever it takes. Well, they could rule out a no-deal exit now and they could look again at remaining inside the customs union and the single market because that is what the car industry wants to hear. Today’s announcement is devastating for Swindon, but how many more advanced manufacturing businesses will have to close their doors before the Government finally get this message?

Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Fox and Lord Grantchester

Monday 21st January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with much of what has been said in the debate and your Lordships will be pleased to know that I will not repeat the arguments. I shall also try not to be one of the dreamers referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. In speaking to Amendment 10, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, talked about services and I agree with much of what she said. She stressed the need to ensure that the Government retain the right to decide where services are delivered from. Unfortunately it turned into a double-edged sword when she then conflated that with the removal of much of the substance of the amendments proposed by my noble friend. Having heard the debate, I hope she feels that perhaps it would be as well to leave it in.

The Prime Minister has today singled out two elements of what we find in the general thrust of the amendments before us. She has said,

“we will embed the strongest possible protections on workers’ rights and the environment”.

That concedes a weakness in that area where there was a perception that the Government were perhaps seeking to water down those standards and presumably that is what the Prime Minister is seeking to avoid. But only those two areas have been chosen although there are many other important elements which have been considered in this debate. That puts the areas which are not on the Prime Minister’s list at a disadvantage. That is why it is important to ignore the advice of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and seek to put the elements set out in these amendments into the Bill. They would add food quality, animal health, hygiene and welfare, ethical standards and so on.

The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Hooper, were quite right to point out that our food is sold on the back of our high-quality agriculture. It is special, but you cannot be special if you are producing food to a lower standard. I think that we should be a little worried and suspicious if these standards are not included in the Bill.

We have heard some warm words from Defra which have been quoted by other noble Lords, but we have also heard some disquieting words coming from other departments, particularly that of the Minister herself, the Department for International Trade. However, I exonerate her from being one of the people saying these things.

When it comes to negotiating other standards— I know we are on a continuity kick here—what we say on continuity counts for what comes later. That is absolutely central and is why this debate has been really important. There have been noises off around deals with the United States and other things, and standards will be a key part of that negotiation. Unless we draw firm lines here in this Bill and beyond, those standards will be in play. I do not think we want them to be in play.

Finally, I come back to Amendments 8 and 53 in the name of my noble friend Lord Purvis. Proposed paragraph (c) of Amendment 53 states that,

“the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament an assessment of the potential economic, social, human rights and environmental impacts of the international trade agreement on the contracting parties”.

This, and nothing else, is the single most important part of this debate. We need to ensure that the DIT has the competence and people who can do that work, and we need to support these amendments.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the standards in regulations in rolling over EU trade deals and future trade policies and agreements. As has been said, especially by my noble friend Lady Young, rolling over trade deals needs the agreement of counterparties—this is inherent in procuring a government trade deal. This is not guaranteed in a no-deal scenario. As the UK leaves the European Union, we must ensure that the UK seeks to maintain the highest standards and to comply with international aims and agreements. I declare my interest as a farmer in receipt of EU funds.

I will refer first to Amendments 8 and 53 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. He has spoken on the very pertinent conditions the UK should seek to emulate. I am pleased that the Committee has the opportunity to debate the necessity for the UK trade policy to comply with international law, obligations and shared aims—all part of a modern trade deal.

Later in our proceedings in Committee, my noble friend and colleague Lord Stevenson will seek in amendments to enshrine the Government’s international responsibilities on trade. Amendments 8 and 53 will ensure that trade agreements are consistent with international norms. I am pleased in particular by the inclusion of the provisions of the United Nations sustainable development goals. It is paramount that the UK’s trade endeavours seek to do more than merely advance our own self-interest, as so eloquently argued by my noble friend Lord Judd. This includes the abolition of poverty, the eradication of diseases and efforts to rid the world of the harshest of inequalities. Each of these aims, as part of the UN’s SDGs, requires a cross-departmental approach from the UK, and that includes the Department for International Trade. As we look further down these amendments, we also see that aside from the UN SDGs, such agreements must comply with other such norms as those tackling discrimination, climate change and the erosion of human rights, as well as other issues that we will discuss—all righteous efforts that the Department for International Trade would do well to encompass into future agreements.

As debated earlier, this legislation, in seeking to roll over existing trade agreements previously in the competence of the EU, must also include opportunities for the Government to set out their future policies and demonstrate the parameters within which their future policy will be guided—indeed, what future trade policy should achieve. These amendments would ensure that the future trade policy achieves the advancement more than just of the UK but of the wider world.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Debate between Lord Fox and Lord Grantchester

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 20th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox]

Following my noble friend Lord Teverson’s excellent explanation for the reason for this amendment, on the long-named programmes and systems in proposed new subsection (2), can the Minister tell the House whether these are built on existing systems that are being adapted or will they be built from scratch? The Minister may have to write to me in answer. Also, on the nature of the IT companies delivering these, is there competition in delivering systems such as this or is this a very specialist area with a small pool to fish from and not much choice, which of course leads to price escalation?

[Lord Grantchester]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for raising the important issue of the information technology systems necessary for nuclear safeguards. I also saw the written Q&A from the noble Lord and I thank the Minister for replying so swiftly. In Committee, the importance of understanding the full inventory costs in IT management systems was debated. The Government clarified that the full implications of the mechanisms that the ONR will need to set up are matters that could be included in each report that the Government will undertake. It can only build confidence that Parliament will be reassured through any audit process that the UK’s regime will be costed, reported and certified to be robust.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Debate between Lord Fox and Lord Grantchester

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 1st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I do not wish to put a dampener on proceedings, as the word “transition” seems to have lifted your Lordships a little, but does the Minister agree that for there to be a transition there needs to be agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union on the terms of leaving the European Union and that, in the event of there being no agreement, we go into a period where there is no transition? If that is true, I refer your Lordships to that little lecture I gave on risk on the previous day in Committee: there remains a finite risk that we need a safeguarding regime in March 2019. This provision does not take the pressure off us to get this sorted out and to have a process that delivers the safeguarding regime we need, whether or not the prospect of transition is increased.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I want to speak to Amendment 18, which is in our name, but also to respond to Amendment 7, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, on the Liberal Democrat Benches. Amendment 7 would specify in new Section 76A(9) further consultees the Secretary of State must consult before making any regulations and add the requirement to lay before Parliament a Written Statement on the resourcing and preparedness of the ONR. In conjunction with the other amendments taken last week on Euratom and the UK’s levels of standards, we agree that this would be most useful. However, it may not go far enough, in that it would be the Secretary of State doing the interpretation of any evidence received and judging its sufficiency. Notwithstanding the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, these matters were debated last week and it would be the Government making the declaration. The Committee was not inclined to take at face value many of the Government’s assurances last week. Unfortunately, I have not seen the recent letter to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, nor the letter from the noble Baroness to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I request that in future the whole Committee be copied in to the letters, so that we can keep abreast. Many thanks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grantchester]

I shall also speak to Amendment 13 in this group. At Second Reading we on these Benches drew attention to the powers that the Government wish to confer on themselves through the Bill. At that time we signalled that we would take into consideration the views of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the Bill. The committee has now reported its findings in its 13th report of this Session, drawing attention to three areas of concern. My noble friend Lord Hunt highlighted the first in an amendment last week, that “civil activities” should be defined under new Section 76A(5) in Clause 1(2) of the Bill.

Amendments 8 and 13 draw attention to the other issues drawn attention to in the report. Amendment 8 concerns the definition of “relevant international agreement” in the power conferred on the Secretary of State under new Section 76A(1)(b) to give effect to any future relevant international agreement. When this happens, the functions of the ONR are extended to include taking the necessary steps to ensure compliance with that agreement. In the present situation where the Government are in negotiation with the IAEA and several key partners, the report does not find it unreasonable that the Government extend their powers in this way. However, the committee is correct when it states that this should not result in the Government having an enduring power into the future, long after the UK has withdrawn from the Euratom treaty.

Amendment 8 would set a sunset provision so that in new Section 112(1B) in the Energy Act 2013 these powers may not be exercised after a period of two years from withdrawal from Euratom. This two-year period would reflect Clause 8(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, where powers to amend legislation to prevent breaches of international obligations arising from the EU withdrawal will cease two years after exit day. This comfortably sits alongside any transition period that the Government are set to announce, maybe as early as tomorrow, in response to the announcement yesterday by the EU Commission.

Amendment 13 concerned the powers being conferred on Ministers under Clause 2 of the Bill to amend the legislation listed under Clause 2(1) relating to nuclear safeguards. The memorandum prepared by the department for the Delegated Powers Committee explains the provisions and agreements between the UK, the IAEA and Euratom. At Second Reading it was acknowledged that these tripartite agreements would need to be replaced. Necessarily, the voluntary offer agreement, the VOA, and additional protocol, AP, will become ineffective on the UK’s withdrawal from the Euratom treaty.

As in Amendment 8, the committee agreed that the Government may take the powers to amend both primary and secondary legislation to ensure compliance with the UK’s international obligations after withdrawal. However, once again, there is no justification in the memorandum for these powers to continue indefinitely. We agree, and therefore Amendment 13 similarly sets a sunset provision to Clause 2: that the powers to be conferred cease after two years and may not be exercised following the end of that period.

At Second Reading, the Minister replied that he would look carefully at any recommendations forthcoming from your Lordships’ Delegated Powers Committee, and I would appreciate hearing from his noble friend that they will bring forward government amendments on Report to give effect to these recommendations. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox]

I support Amendments 8 and 13 and do not intend to speak at length. When the Minister was responding to Amendment 6 in the Committee’s previous sitting, he expressed a high degree of approval of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and I trust that that continues through these amendments. The case has been set out by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the DPRRC, and I hope that on these two amendments the noble Baroness can give us similar encouragement to that given by the Minister on Amendment 6. We on these Benches support the restricted use of these measures to give the Government the flexibility that they need. This is a good compromise between untrammelled power and the power they need for the flexibility to ensure the necessary regime.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Debate between Lord Fox and Lord Grantchester

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Thursday 22nd February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I want briefly to speak in support of Amendment 14, which bears my name. While avoiding repeating what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has said, I want to pick out subsection (2)(c) of the proposed new clause, which refers to, “relevant research projects”. The noble Lord, Lord Broers, spoke eloquently in a previous debate about the importance of research in this area. As your Lordships and, I am sure, the Minister know, the UK benefits enormously from the long-term research funding and its membership of the Fusion for Energy programme, which flow through the Euratom relationship. I think the supply chain has been awarded some £0.5 billion to date and expects more, and the UK Atomic Energy Authority receives significant sums—around £50 million. On a broader level, as a leading participant in Euratom and the research element of it, the United Kingdom has been able authoritatively to drive research priorities. What does the Minister envisage our authority being following this process? Will it have risen or sunk as a result of our ability to drive and influence research in the nuclear field?

My noble friend Lord Teverson illustrated how hard and tough the Table Office has been on the wording of the amendments. In many cases—certainly, in other conversations—the Minister has ruled out of order a lot of what we have talked about. However, on Amendment 14, which covers some of these areas, the Table Office has been clear that this is in spec with the Bill and our debate today.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, we have added our names to Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. It is Labour policy to remain a member of Euratom or to continue equivalent arrangements with it. The Conservative Government have been reckless to reject immediately the UK’s membership of Euratom. Your Lordships’ discussion in Committee last night on the withdrawal Bill highlighted how the Euratom treaty is distinct from the EU treaty. The Government state that, because there is an overlap of membership, with the same nation states as are in the EU, it is part of the same organisation. However, the two treaties are legally distinct, which has not been contradicted by the Government.

The Minister said this morning that both organisations are uniquely and legally joined. He needs to explain how they are so legally. It is reckless to make the theoretical and technical oversight of the European Court of Justice a defining reason, when the UK is far from ready to undertake its own safeguards regimes to the standard maintained by Euratom. The ECJ has never been called on to make a ruling.

Furthermore, the Government have committed to continue as far as possible through negotiations to be in close association with Euratom. They must be exhaustive in their endeavours and report back to Parliament on the outcome. If it is no longer possible to establish an association, they must say so, with reasons.

Amendment 9, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, map out further agreements to be pursued before withdrawal. It requires the Secretary of State to request “a transition period” so that the UK,

“can continue to benefit from existing nuclear safeguard agreements”,

with the approval of the IAEA, that the ONR is the approved UK safeguarding authority. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath has spoken to Amendment 12 on the transitional period. It must be recognised that approvals of nuclear co-operation agreements are sequential to the recognition by the IAEA that the UK safeguarding standards are sufficient. Although these NCAs may be progressing, their ratification will necessarily take some time and may spill over into any transition period. We endorse the sentiments behind Amendment 9 as crucial to maintaining the UK as a credible internationally recognised nuclear state operating to international standards.

Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, would insert a new clause stating that before leaving Euratom the Government must publish a report detailing agreements reached with Euratom to ensure compliance with international non-proliferation agreements and lay appropriate regulations to give effect to their implementation. We understand and are in unison with the importance noble Lords on all Benches place on the highest standards, the nearest equivalence, the closest association, with any necessary transition period, to replicate the regime currently operated under Euratom. We support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that says the Government must keep Parliament informed regarding the ongoing UK status with Euratom. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has also said that it is far from clear where we will be in March 2019, when timing is such a critical issue.

Scotland Act 2016 (Onshore Petroleum) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2017

Debate between Lord Fox and Lord Grantchester

Thursday 30th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I broadly welcome the devolutionary nature of this instrument. I think that my noble friend beside me would not forgive me if I did not say that we prefer an expansion of renewable energies rather than hydrocarbons, whether in Scotland or in the rest of the United Kingdom, and that should be put on record.

I am slightly confused and I may have misheard, so perhaps the Minister can guide me. I thought that the Minister said that consultations in drawing up these regulations had gone ahead with the Scottish Government, but the briefing says that there was no consultation. I would hope that these measures have been brought forth with the full understanding and consultation of the Scottish Government and I expect that they have. In that measure, I have nothing else to add.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for introducing this measure to your Lordships’ House. As she explained, it is consequential to the Scotland Act 2016, commencing further devolution to Scotland once we undertake a similar instrument extending such powers to Wales under the Wales Act 2017. These provisions are included in the Energy Act 2016. The regulations devolve licensing power for petroleum exploration and development to Scotland. It is noted that this includes fracking.

The regulations provide for the position both before and after the commencement of the Wales Act 2017, which makes the equivalent provision for devolution of onshore oil and gas licensing to Wales. There is no material change to taxation legislation and no direct cost to business from these regulations.

These Benches entirely support and agree with the regulations. My only question arises from the lack of a commencement date. Does the Minister have any prospective date in mind that the Scottish Parliament can look forward to?