Electronic Media: False Information

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we have engagement with the large platforms at every level, including of course on the aspects of business and trade to which they contribute. I reassure my noble friend that, however big those companies are, they must comply with UK laws. We will ensure, throughout the rollout of the Online Safety Act, that everybody, however big and rich the individual, must comply with the Act.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, is not the reality that there has been a huge shift of global power in favour of the giant electronic platforms? I see that, for instance, the French have gone so far as to arrest the chairman of one of the biggest platforms in the world. Is that the kind of remedy that we will consider here?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I reiterate to the noble Lord that we have very high expectations of companies that have access to the British economy and society. If they do not adhere to the law or act in any way that contributes positively to our society, we will be increasingly assertive in our response, including by making full use of the powers brought in by the Online Safety Act. They are not above the law, and we will monitor their activities carefully.

Lithium-ion Battery Safety Bill [HL]

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 6th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Redesdale (LD)]

My Lords, House of Lords Private Members’ Bills are rarely successful in reaching the statute book. I should know—I have introduced quite a few over the years. Their purpose is often to raise the issues in the Bill and encourage the Government to bring forward their own legislation. In that regard, the lithium-ion safety Bill has been incredibly successful: we have only got to Second Reading and already the Government have responded by publishing the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill.

Of course, as the Minister will say, that Bill will cover many of the areas in my Private Member’s Bill. In the light of that, I will therefore look to amend the Bill in Committee. However, while going through the clauses, there are a number of areas where I would like to question the Minister concerning the scope of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. I start by welcoming the Minister to her new role and thanking her for arranging a briefing from the Bill team, which was incredibly helpful and constructive.

The basis of this Bill is about protecting the public. Lithium-ion batteries are a vital part of the UK’s transition to a greener, lower-carbon future. Indeed, the acceptance of these batteries as an integral part of our lives ranges from laptops through to the electric bike I have parked outside the building today; it is, of course, an issue that we are not allowed to bring electric bikes into the building because of the potential fire risk.

The way we treat lithium-ion batteries shows how safe people feel about them. Although the vast majority of batteries are safe, there are two areas that need to be focused on: the fires that can be caused by poor-quality batteries and chargers; and the problems associated with disposal. Electrical Safety First, a prime mover in drafting this Bill, has calculated that, on average, an e-bike fire or e-scooter fire occurs once every two days in London—a worrying trend that is happening across the country. Since 2020, lithium-ion battery fires linked to the charging of e-bikes and e-scooters have been linked to 13 deaths in the UK, with many other people seriously injured or hospitalised—including, of course, members of the fire service—and significant damage caused to property.

Lithium-ion battery fires are caused by thermal runaway. The reaction in the cells of the lithium-ion battery produces an exothermic reaction that cascades through all the cells of the battery; this causes a prolonged release of energy and results in fires with temperatures exceeding 600 degrees Celsius. The batteries release toxic gases such as hydrofluoric acid, which corrodes the lungs. Once they have started, lithium-ion battery fires are almost impossible to extinguish with traditional firefighting methods as the battery creates its own oxygen.

Although the risk of fire is low, the ways in which people charge their e-bikes and e-scooters mean that these fires can be particularly dangerous. Many devices are charged in halls or stairwells—and often overnight, which is one of the reasons for the number of deaths associated with fires at home.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

Forgive me for interrupting the noble Lord’s extremely interesting and important speech so early. Can I just ask at the outset whether this legislation proposal addresses the future? We know that a great tide of new technologies is going to replace lithium-ion. I have a list in front of me now: sodium-based batteries, graphene batteries and manganese oxide batteries. Most of them are being pushed by the Chinese. Does the noble Lord’s legislation look forward to this new scene and in any way address the obvious problems that are going to come with this new generation of different technologies for batteries?

[Lord Redesdale (LD)]

The simple answer is no, I am afraid. Obviously, there will be a new generation of sodium batteries with their own problems, but they will, I hope, be extremely safe when brought to market.

There is a growing awareness of the fire risk from faulty batteries or defective chargers. However, less well known is the area of disposal. Many batteries end up in the waste stream without being segregated. Batteries are presenting acute challenges for operators in the metal recycling industry. The British Metals Recycling Association has estimated that each year more than 200 fires at metal recycling plants are caused by lithium-ion batteries, with damaging environmental impacts including harmful emissions being released into the atmosphere and contamination of firefighting waters. The insurance company Zurich has seen claims for lithium-ion fires increase significantly over the past few years, and research from Recycle Your Electricals shows that battery fires in bin lorries and at waste sites in the UK have reached an all-time high of more than 1,200 in 2024—an increase of 71% from 700 in 2022.

A consultation by the Government on battery disposal is planned. That is timely, but we should recognise that the rate of recycling is low; I suggest that the figures on recycling mask that because fewer batteries are actually recycled than are reflected in the figures. When I met it, the British and Irish Portable Battery Association set out some of the problems associated with recycling. One area worth considering is working on solutions to regulations to allow batteries to be collected, perhaps by delivery companies or supermarket delivery drivers. This could be a safe way of recycling the millions of used batteries that are in people’s drawers around the country without people dumping them in the rubbish; I suggest that many noble Lords have a whole box full of unrecycled batteries that they leave in places and always forget to take to the recycling centre.

I was going to give a long speech about disposable vapes, another real issue here. However, due to time, I will leave my noble friend Lord Foster to deal with that and instead move on to the clauses in the Bill. Clause 1 details the purposes of the Bill, including

“to better protect … householders, and … communities from the dangers of lithium-ion batteries”

and

“to increase public confidence in, and acceptance of, Battery Energy Storage Systems”.

Clause 2 would require the fire service, the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive to be statutory consultees on planning for new stand-alone battery energy storage systems. This would allow for a greater understanding of the risk profile and necessary planning to allow any future incidents to be responded to by the relevant services. This clause may be addressed by Defra and the EA in the consultation they are taking forward and the work they are undertaking, but making sure that the fire and emergency services can access these batteries in the unlikely event of a fire is really important—especially if the batteries do not need planning permission because they are retrofitted into sites close to residential areas.

Clause 3 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the operator of online marketplaces to take reasonable steps to ensure that the products sold on their platforms conform to the relevant safety standards. Currently, substandard and dangerous products relating to and including high-risk lithium-ion batteries, such as universal chargers or ill-made conversion kits, are continually bought and sold across a plethora of online marketplaces, presenting risks to those purchasing and using such products. The health briefing from the Bill team indicates that this clause will be covered in the new Bill coming forward. However, I hope that the Minister can ensure that there is a focus on conversion and charging kits because this is where most of the fires occur.

Clause 4 would introduce third-party certification of all e-bike and e-scooter batteries before they can be placed on the UK market. This is a similar requirement to that for other high-risk products such as heavy machinery and fireworks. Having a dedicated safety standard to monitor and enforce compliance would also aid trading standards and the Office for Product Safety and Standards in their duties. This morning when I took my bike out, I read the back of the charger. It does have a CE mark, which gave me confidence—until I talked to members of the industry, who said, “That might not give you all the confidence that you really need”. I am fortunate that I charge my bike in a bike shed outside, on that basis.

Clause 5 would introduce safety standards for ancillary products associated with these devices, such as a standard for conversion kits and chargers. This would reduce the risk of improper battery systems powering converted e-bikes and the risk of overcharging the battery, which can lead to thermal runaway.

Clause 6 would introduce regulations for the disposal and safety information supplied with the battery, giving clear information on the disposal requirements and the cell chemistry in the battery. This clause would help to reduce the number of fires at waste disposal sites and in bin lorries and provide information about the chemicals that people may have been exposed to, helping healthcare professionals to administer appropriate treatment.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. In light of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, I have feeling that this Bill might not sail through the House and on to the Commons. However, I will be looking to perhaps move forward to Committee, where I would address any concerns, especially those raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. If the Minister can give me assurances at a later stage, I may even withdraw the Bill.

Much of the meat of the new metrology Bill—I keep thinking of it as “meteorology”—will come in secondary legislation. I hope that the Minister will hold consultations with all parties going forward, especially on this issue. To help me decide whether to withdraw the Bill, I hope I can have a meeting with some of her officials and the relevant parties before the next stage.

I thank all noble Lords who are taking part in this debate. I beg to move.

Online Safety Legislation: Abuse on Social Media

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we will hear from the Lib Dem Benches and then from the Conservative Benches.

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [HL]

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, this is a very important Bill and I have supported it strongly. But before we finally complete Third Reading, I point out again to this House, as I did in Committee, that two clauses do not apply to part of the United Kingdom: Northern Ireland. We have been left under the European Union rules and will not be able to take advantage of these provisions.

Some new terminology was brought in, but although the provisions covered Northern Ireland, they would not apply to Northern Ireland. In terms of equal citizenship —because of what we did in leaving the European Union while leaving Northern Ireland out of that—Northern Ireland has once again been left out. That is a very sad reflection of the Conservative Government’s aim and promise that they believed in a United Kingdom and in the union.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the enthusiastic verve with which he has handled the whole of this legislation. We in the International Agreements Committee have been examining the detail of membership at considerable length for some time. Long before that, and long before Brexit many years ago, we were working to see our greater involvement in this pivot to south-east Asia and Latin America.

As the Minister said, this is a historic moment: we are entering now, with new opportunities, the fastest-growing markets of the next 30 years. Beyond that lie even bigger investment opportunities and markets which will ensure that we can maintain our own living standards in this country. This is a great move in the right direction, which will, if we work at it, bring enormous benefits.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on securing the safe passage of the Bill. He is aware of the concern of farmers across North Yorkshire and the rest of the country about the Bill’s impact. I look forward to the increasing consumption of cheese, chocolate and whisky produced in all four parts of this country in all the countries that are party to the CPTPP—the whole thing; tout.

Can I raise two issues with my noble friend? Will he work very closely with Defra on the labelling of provisions when we eventually import products that may not meet the same standards of animal welfare and environmental protection that our farmers have to meet? Can I press him on his last comment on seeking the legislative consent of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish? It is complex. Does he have a date—now that the Bill will pass to the other place—when that legislative consent will be granted?

Northern Ireland Investment Summit

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I completely agree with the noble Baroness on the need to come to a conclusion over forming a stable political environment for businesses to invest in Northern Ireland. I reassure her that the United States is not the only market that invests heavily in Northern Ireland. Across the world, particularly in Asian countries such as Japan, there is enormous interest in taking advantage of the skills in Northern Ireland. It is not simply the opportunities presented by the Windsor Framework; it is the opportunities presented by the people of Northern Ireland and their brains and brilliance.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, there is time for both noble Lords to come in, so we will hear from my noble friend first.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

I declare my interest as a former Minister of Commerce in Northern Ireland. Having travelled around the world raising interest in investment in Northern Ireland, I confirm what my noble friend has just said. There was immense attention to the sheer quality of the training and skills in Northern Ireland, particularly then in the aeronautical sector, in Harland & Wolff, and in a number of other high-tech electronic industries—Japan was especially interested. This was some decades ago, but now that we have a renewed and strong interest in links of every kind with Japan, is that aspect to be emphasised in Northern Ireland?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that point and I agree with him. We have a renewed staff level in Belfast to encourage this type of investment, and I hope that they will continue their excellent work.

Industrial Strategy

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Tuesday 20th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I think noble Lords will agree that this is a time for specialisation rather than a single, overarching, broad strategy. By targeting specifics, such as the five key growth sectors, we can be more effective and, in this age, more agile to respond to change.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a key component of a successful industrial strategy and growth is massive investment, both from foreign sources, on the scale we used to attract and are not attracting now, and of course from pension funds, which are managing trillions and are ready to invest? Does he agree that in the energy sector the attraction is going to be more to quick-build small modular reactors than to any large, rather out-of-date, massive giants which take years to build and are full of risks? Will he advise his friends, as a priority, to put all their efforts behind developing small nuclear reactors as part of our sensible energy strategy and our move to a decarbonised electric sector?

Scottish Government: Expenditure

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Tuesday 6th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his tenacity on this subject, because I have now been in post for 18 months and this is the sixth Question I have answered for the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on pretty much the same theme. It is a good theme: what do the UK Government do when they believe that the Scottish Government stray from devolved into reserved matters? We made some progress the last time we spoke in this Chamber; the previous Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, confirmed that he had taken away the £20 million that was going to be spent on the referendum on independence. But then, last week, we had the new head of the Scottish Civil Service, JP Marks, defending the appointment of the Minister for Independence, so we have sort of gone up a ladder and down a snake.

The issue here is that devolution, as devised by the noble Lord’s party, was conceived to be a construct in which the UK and Scottish Governments would work together in unity. It was not envisaged that we would have a situation in which the Scottish Government would seek every opportunity to find division and diversion away from Westminster, and therefore there are no practical levers or mechanics built into the devolution architecture for the UK Government to directly intervene in devolved matters, except through the courts. We already had the ruling in the Supreme Court. The UK Government’s position is to continue to ask the Scottish Government to focus on the real priorities of the people of Scotland and stop this obsession with independence.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I acknowledge the death of Lord Morris KG, who was a remarkable Member of this House. Could it be that we are getting to the time when there is a need to revisit the demarcations as laid down in the devolution legislation? There seem to be constant disputes going on, particularly in the area of trade treaties, as well as foreign policy generally and memoranda of understanding, as to what is and is not reserved in rapidly changing industrial and economic circumstances. Can my noble friend consider that?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. In the Scotland Act, the devolution settlement is actually very simple. You can put it on one piece of A4; on the left you have devolved matters, and on the right reserved matters. The issue here is that since we have come out of the EU, in effect we have had to create a single market for the UK. The SNP loves the EU; it wants to be in a single market with 27 or 28 states, and agrees that there should be no divergence within that system. Post devolution, we now have a scenario in which we have four assemblies making laws in the UK but we want to keep the UK together. So now they are promoting a whole series of legislative moves that create divergence, which the people of Scotland do not want, especially in trade, not least as 60% of Scotland’s trade is with the rest of the United Kingdom and does not recognise borders.

Automotive Manufacturing Sector: Support

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Monday 15th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I have tried to cover the key areas where we are investing significantly alongside industry to build our EV industry. We have several important pools of capital. I have not mentioned UKEF, which has through various loan schemes also supported our existing and future manufacturers. On top of that, through the Faraday challenge we are investing very heavily in R&D, because innovation will drive the technological change that will give us these opportunities in the future.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

Has my noble friend noticed that Honda, which has given up manufacturing in this country, now proposes to import a low-cost EV made in China? Many are forecasting a tidal wave of lower-cost EVs from China as its industry expands at an amazing rate. Is our strategy robust enough to take account of that and of the devastating effect of the Inflation Reduction Act in America, which is sucking a lot of investment in automotive components and manufacture away from this country? Are we ready for these two blows?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

We clearly import cars and run a global economy. I would like to raise to the House the importance of our trade deals. They will allow us, through the new rules of origin opportunities under CPTPP and so on, to make more cars with mixed-use components. I congratulate our Secretary of State, who is in Switzerland today to further this post-Brexit vision of Britain.

Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I offer my congratulations to the Minister for skilfully conducting the debates on this important Bill, which I think will lead to much greater things in our future. I want to put before him three issues, almost housekeeping issues, that have arisen during the handling of the legislation, one of which has just been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich.

I declare an interest as a member of the International Agreements Committee, where the issue of trade policy and how specific or general it should be has been a matter of lively discussion. That is of course relevant to everything that we have been talking about.

I ask the Minister to keep the three points that I want to comment on in mind when we enter into future discussions on these sorts of areas in FTAs, of which there are going to be plenty more. First, the CRaG system—the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—has come under a bit of strain, and the question has arisen as to whether, when the other place resolves that something should not be ratified, the 21 days that then follow are enough to get the appropriate debates organised, or whether in fact the Government are not obliged to have a debate and maybe it does not fit into parliamentary time and the net effect can be that there is no debate at all. Perhaps that is an area that needs looking at again.

Secondly, the whole of the CRaG system depends on the assiduity, energy and powers of the committees. The resources on the clerical and research side of many committees, including all the ones that I have served on for 30 years, have been second to none, and have been particularly superb here in the House of Lords itself—but are they enough, given the size and number of the treaties that are coming through? We are not even talking about the EU treaties that are handled by the International Trade Committee; we are talking about thousands and thousands of treaties and agreements, let alone instruments, pouring through day by day. Today’s giant Executive generates a continuous flow, a cascade, of these things. Do the committees have the resources and underpinning that committees in similar parliamentary systems to ours, here in Europe and elsewhere, seem to have? Should there have been harder thinking about whether, in a modern society with a modern Parliament trying to hold the Executive to account, the resources of committees are the key—the physical resources, clerical resources, research resources and back-up, and the power to summon and so on. These are all matters of lively discussion that have arisen in this area.

My third point is a bit of a puzzle, but we are going to hear a lot more about it: the question of consent from the devolved Administrations. I need to have one thing clarified for me. I thought foreign policy was a reserved matter under the devolution legislation that we passed through both Houses. When the Holyrood Parliament refuses consent, I want to know under what powers it is doing that. As the Minister has indicated, that does not actually stop a Bill proceeding and being enacted, but it is a rather curious situation when, if the devolved Administrations have views on this, they can just sit there and not provide consent. Is it because they think Scotland should have some separate relationship with Australia and New Zealand—I cannot believe that is the case—or is it simply some inner procedural matter where they do not feel there has been adequate consultation? Either way, it is a very uncomfortable situation to encounter. My noble friend has handled it excellently, but these things sit there and require some hard thought if future Bills of this kind, of which there will be many, can be conducted in a reasonable way where Parliament feels that it really is getting a grip on what is happening.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I greatly appreciate noble Lords’ comments. I think I was so keen to get this Bill through that I slightly jumped the gun. I apologise to those noble Lords who were waiting to speak. I greatly appreciate the personal comments towards my own enthusiasm. I have hugely enjoyed the process of working with so many noble Lords in the first of what I hope will be a series of very exciting, exhilarating and profitable trade deals for the whole of the UK.

I have always been very specific, as have the Government, that this is a journey. We are very keen to hear how we can engage better. It is absolutely in the interests of the Government and these trade deals that there is a broad consensus around their power and effect to elevate our economy to new heights; otherwise, we will not be able to broadcast the ramifications and specifics of the trade deals to the country and people will not take advantage of them. Personally, I am continuing to engage at all possible points.

I am delighted to answer a few of the questions. In terms of the committee resourcing, I will certainly take that away. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for raising that. The IAC under the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has done a very good job. A number of noble Lords have spoken to that today and during the debate. It is certainly worth making sure we have the resources in this House to ensure we are scrutinising according to the appropriate CRaG process.

The noble Lord touched on the consent issues. They have clearly been an important feature of the debates around these trade deals. It does not necessarily look like we have resolved them for future trade deals. However, as the noble Lord rightly said, these are reserved powers. If you consult your Walter Bagehot, as I did over the weekend, he makes it very clear and is absolutely right that the Executive should be making treaties and be given the freedom of rein to implement them across the entire United Kingdom.

Having said that, we have made huge efforts to consult and engage with the devolved nations. I personally made extra efforts, which I would not describe as effort at all but part of a necessary process of good governance and communication, to ensure that devolved nations felt that they had a way in to this process. It is absolutely confirmed that our negotiators spend a great deal of time with officials from all parts of the United Kingdom to make sure that their views are fed in. This reflects on the sort of trade we are trying to do in terms of the specific industries of these nations. We are one United Kingdom, and our power in negotiating global trade deals comes from that fact. It would be a great mistake to try to abrogate that for any reason. Having said that, consultation and communication are paramount to us, and I personally commit to them.

UK Car Production Since 2016

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I sincerely thank the noble Lord for raising this point. It is important that we have a strong car industry in this country, and there are some legitimate reasons why the industry is transitioning. As many noble Lords who have been involved in this industry will know, we are moving from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles, which means some lines end and it takes time to start new lines. I am also very aware of the rules of origin issue, and I sincerely hope that our new relationship with Europe will allow us to have a more constructive conversation around that. It is in no one’s interest to have a trade war on cars.

I will finish by saying that there have been some great announcements over the last few years, and the Government have been extremely influential and relevant in supporting companies such as Nissan and Envision, with investment in the Vauxhall plant at Ellesmere Port and support for Pensana’s factory near Hull. Ford has committed just under £0.25 billion of investment in Halewood, and in 2022, Bentley announced a £2.5 billion investment to produce its first battery electrical vehicles by 2026, which will secure 4,000 jobs at its Crewe plant. There is certainly more that we can do, but we are acting, and we are trying to transition our car industry into one that is sustainable for the future.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, with growing Chinese competition in car manufacturing—in fact, China is dominating the EV market altogether—there are obviously even worse challenges to come. But would my noble friend like to say what he thinks about the EU proposal, announced yesterday, to go for what it calls a Net-Zero Industry Act to compete with the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States, because it is very nervous that Volkswagen and other European manufacturers are all about to move from France and Germany to the United States? How are we going to work it out in this situation? It seems rather dangerous.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his comments. There has been a large amount of debate around the value of the Inflation Reduction Act, which I believe is the greatest oxymoronic legislative title in history, frankly, as I cannot believe that it will reduce inflation. Some of its measures are also relatively protectionist. The Government are investing heavily, not just in car manufacturing but in the research and development around it. For example, the Faraday Challenge amounts to £500 million, the Automotive Transformation Fund is hundreds of millions of pounds and the Advanced Propulsion Centre is providing huge amounts of much-needed money for new car production facilities and the inventiveness around that. It is not good enough just to try to find a bigger bazooka; we must ensure we focus on regulation and proper support for R&D, because our brains are our best defence.