Public Procurement (International Trade Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, although, unlike his interesting and wide-ranging remarks, I am afraid that that I am going to be very specific and quite pedantic. This is not in any particular spirit of criticism of these regulations; in introducing them, my noble friend was clear about their purposes. They are indeed entirely noncontroversial and, to a large extent, much anticipated and much welcomed to implement the continuity agreement so far as government procurement and access to public procurement in the United Kingdom is concerned.

I want to make two points. The first is for those who are often prone to saying that it is our Government’s intention to expose the National Health Service to competition pressures. Whether or not they think that is detrimental, I will not argue; the point is that, here, as in other public procurement measures, the Government have taken the opportunity to make specific exemptions for clinical healthcare services, which indeed they did in the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. So those who talk about the exposure of the NHS to competition should look at that and recognise that the Government have, if anything, moved in the opposite direction.

The pedantic point I want to make is that, in introducing the instrument, my noble friend reflected what is said at paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which may have been the intention when it was written:

“This instrument will only affect trade agreements that have already been scrutinised via the procedure set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act”—


that is, CRaG. This is almost entirely true, but it is not true in relation to the agreement with Serbia. The Serbia agreement was signed on 16 April using powers under Section 2 of the Trade Act, which was given Royal Assent on 29 April. This statutory instrument was created and laid on 13 May. The Serbia agreement was laid under CRaG on 11 May and, I understand, was provisionally applied on 20 May; the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments looked at it on 25 and 26 May. It might have been anticipated that the CRaG scrutiny period would have ended by now but it has not because the Whit Recess intervened and the CRaG scrutiny period expires on 23 June. The International Agreements Committee, of which I am a member, will examine the UK agreement with Serbia tomorrow. So there is an exception to this point.

Does it matter? I think the short answer is that it does not. The provisional application is in place, as one would expect in order to minimise any discontinuity in our trading relationship with Serbia because we have been operating on quasi-WTO rules since the turn of the year and the provisional application was quite right. So it does not matter but there is a point here: if instruments are laid with Explanatory Notes, the timing and sequencing need to be very clear. In this case there is, I think, no controversy, but if there were controversy, and if we were in a position where the House was being asked to put in place implementing legislation in circumstances where the CRaG scrutiny had not concluded, that would be regrettable. I just want to note this because we are all finding our way with all these processes but I hope that care will be taken to understand the sequencing for future occasions.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, we have long had a paid-advocacy rule in your Lordships’ House, and it is a good rule.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend will recall that I took charge in the Commons of the passage of the transparency of lobbying et cetera Act. In my view it was wrong then and is wrong now to include in-house lobbyists, because many thousands of people working in companies will have to register simply to speak on behalf of their own company.

My noble friends Lord Grade and Lord Norton of Louth have it right. There has never been a sufficient level of openness about who Ministers receive lobbying from, or indeed receive any communication from. That should be published. It was not sufficient then and it is not sufficient now.

[Lord True (Con)]

My noble friend puts his finger on a key issue that I alluded to in my reply to the noble Baroness opposite, in terms of the scale of the undertaking that would be required. I agree—government publishes data on meetings between Ministers, Permanent Secretaries and external interests. Regulation must balance the need for transparency on third-party lobbyists while not preventing engagement by the voluntary and private sector. These issues require and will receive very careful consideration. I can assure all noble Lords that the matter of integrity in public life is something that this Government take profoundly seriously.

Budget Statement

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Friday 12th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to welcome my noble friend to this House and to congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. It was brief, but it had a moment of humour in it. I think many of us know that my noble friend comes from what we can call a parliamentary heritage. I do not mean the 32 years that he spent in the other place, distinguished as that was, but that over 200 years ago his ancestor was responsible for the only assassination of a Prime Minister, Spencer Perceval, just beyond the Bar of the House. Happily, my noble friend is now putting a positive parliamentary legacy in place to offset the Bellingham legacy from many years past. As it happens, it is clear that Prime Ministers did not hold that against my noble friend since he was advanced to ministerial office. Among the many subjects that he will bring to this House, on which we look forward to hearing from him, his ministerial experience will be very valuable, not least in relation to trade and Africa. We look forward to hearing from my noble friend and from all those who have made their maiden speeches in this debate.

I want to make just one point. My noble friend Lord Gadhia said that crises come in pairs. Looking at the Chancellor’s Budget, I think he has addressed with many well-judged measures the pandemic crisis that we face. But, actually, we face two crises because we are also facing a climate crisis. I do not think that this Budget addresses the climate crisis in the way that we need to. Every fiscal event must now be directed towards achieving our climate objectives. In that context, I want to focus on one thing. In two months, we will introduce the UK emissions trading scheme. One month ago to the day, the Government increased the auction reserve price from £15 to £22, but nothing else was done in the Budget. We need to know how we are going to use emissions trading—and, more importantly in my view, carbon pricing—to deliver on our decarbonisation objectives. Industry needs those strategies to be set out.

EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Friday 8th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and his focus on science as vital to our future is commendable. I am also pleased to welcome my noble friend Lord Wharton of Yarm. We look forward to his contributions, not least in promoting the interests of the north of England. I draw attention to my interests as recorded in the register.

In opening, the Minister said that the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 enabled the provisional application of the deal. The agreement was signed on 30 December, it is implemented in our domestic legislation, and has been provisionally applied by both parties. But it has not yet been ratified. The European Union has allowed two months for the European Parliament to debate the agreement prior to ratification. This Parliament could have completed CRaG scrutiny in that time as well. But Section 36 of the future relationship Act disapplied CRaG parliamentary scrutiny of these agreements. This was not necessary and is highly regrettable. Listening to this debate has shown that there are many issues relating to implementation and unfinished business arising from these agreements. It tells me that our European affairs committee should none the less proceed with detailed scrutiny of the TCA and I call on the Government to co-operate fully in that, and to facilitate debate on such a report in parallel with the European Parliament.

I add one question of my own. Talking about integrated supply chains, the food and drink sector says that where EU-finished goods are brought to GB hubs and then re-exported to the EU, the rules of origin mean they are subject to the EU’s common external tariff. This is potentially very destructive and damaging to integrated supply chains. The sector thinks it was not intended on either side. Can the Minister say that it can be resolved?

UK-EU Future Relationship Negotiations and Transition Period

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

As the noble Lord says, our outstanding academic sector and the adequacy of data are of course extraordinarily important. As he knows, negotiations are continuing, and we must await the outcome.

[Lord Lansley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the majority of people have not entered into negotiations with the objective of reducing our standards—on the environment, on labour rights or in other areas? That should be of some assurance to our European colleagues. Will he also confirm that, as an independent country, we cannot agree to take rules from the EU in future? We should negotiate our standards and they should accept that.

[Lord True (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend’s final remarks. The UK’s reputation for quality, safety and performance is what drives the demand for UK goods. The Government have no intention of harming this reputation.

Civil Society and the Democratic Process

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I know he has taken a particular interest in this and served on the Select Committee that produced the report Stronger Charities for a Stronger Society. One of its conclusions was that although charities are quite properly regulated in their campaigning activities, particularly at election times, any new regulation or guidance should clearly recognise that advocacy is an important and legitimate part of their role, to be set out in clear and unambiguous language. We need to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the rights of civil society to campaign in the way the noble Lord has just mentioned, and on the other, maintaining the integrity of the electoral process by having transparency on expenditure.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is no legal bar to an organisation campaigning at a general or other election as long as, if it is a charity, it is consistent with its charitable objectives? However, it is right that it should be transparent about that by registering to do so with the Electoral Commission.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to my noble friend, who piloted the relevant legislation through the other place. During those debates he made the point that the boundary between what you could and could not do has not changed. What we did was insist on transparency and accountability. Therefore, if charities or civil society organisations want to engage in certain activities during a campaign, they have to register and declare their expenditure.

Health and Social Care

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and I pay tribute to him for his commitment over many years to patient and public involvement in health and care. The House is grateful to him for once more bringing these issues forward so that we can debate them, and I am glad to contribute. I join with him, as I know all noble Lords will, in sending our condolences to my noble friend Lord Prior of Brampton, whose father was a most-esteemed Member of both this House and another place and will be much missed.

The noble Lord is quite right about visiting hospitals. As it happens, I think that I visited the great majority of hospitals in this country in the course of being shadow Secretary of State and Secretary of State, but I was admitted to hospitals only when I was the shadow Secretary of State. If the noble Lord thinks that being the director of the Association of Community Health Councils sends a junior doctor into a flap, he should see what happens when the shadow Secretary of State arrives.

I am in completely the same place as the noble Lord on what is at the heart of patient involvement in healthcare. It is the principle of shared decision-making: “No decision about me without me”, as I enunciated it. That was not my original phrase but I adopted it. That should be a driving sentiment and form a cultural shift in how healthcare is delivered in this country. It is often still honoured in the breach rather than the reality but there are mechanisms to make it happen. They are not really structural; they are fundamentally clinical and cultural, and provide for shared decision-making not just in clinical guidance.

I remember, not so long ago, a very promising programme for preparing shared decision-making. The first that I saw was about prostate cancer; those who are familiar with what prostate cancer is, and what it means, will understand that the decisions made about treatment are very personal and important. They are not derived simply from what your clinician tells you should happen but are very much about one’s personal view. We have seen in quite recent scientific evidence that the clinical direction might often take people in a way which they would find less than immediately helpful, from a personal point of view.

Patients having the opportunity to exercise the choices that emerge from shared decision-making—clinical choices and choices on treatment and service provision—is at the heart of it. However, the debate about Healthwatch is not about shared decision-making for patients, and we should not confuse the two. There is nothing in the role of Healthwatch which should take away, or in any way substitute for, the central responsibility of any healthcare or care service provider to involve the public in scrutiny and engagement when designing their own activity. There is nothing which should stop them from ensuring that individual patients and care users are involved in their own care and the decisions relating to it.

In my view, Healthwatch is not about that. It may well look at whether people are doing that and comment upon it, but the responsibility lies with the providers of services, not with some external and independent regulatory function. The noble Lord said that it is a deliberately flawed system. I do not agree that it is flawed nor, certainly, that it is in any sense deliberate. The essence of the system is that there are providers of services, those who commission those services and those who regulate them. As we have seen in many other areas of public life, particularly where the Government are involved, it is in the regulatory function that we are looking for independence and scrutiny and, among the regulatory functions, one that is about being the champion for the consumer, the service user. That is what Healthwatch is about: providing within the independent process of regulation a voice that is dedicated to the consumer. It is not without precedent in other areas. For example, Postwatch, which I am sure many noble Lords will remember, was part of the Postcomm regulator but was also an independent consumer champion on behalf of users of postal services. In a sense, that was exactly the model that was to be used and that the Health and Social Care Act implemented for Healthwatch.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, rather swiftly glossed over the fact that community health councils were abolished under the last Labour Government. He recited it as if one was followed by another which was followed by another, so there were patient and public involvement forums, then there were LINks and then there was Healthwatch. Let me make it to clear to him—I know he would, in truth, acknowledge this—that my experience of community health councils in my constituency was positive. Many of us were aghast in the early part of the Labour Government at their plan to abolish them. We knew perfectly well why they did it: it was because they said things that were inconvenient and unhelpful. Patient and public involvement forums then led to a significant deterioration in the voluntary effort. They virtually saw the paid staff giving executive support to community health councils abolished and the impact lessened. Under LINks, the impact lessened still more and even more of the immensely valuable volunteer effort that went into PPI was lost as a consequence.

Frankly, we did not create Healthwatch on the basis that we were simply rebadging something that had come before. We were setting out to recreate the independence and impact that we had seen in the best community health councils in the past, and I think that is the measure by which we should judge it. Last year’s King’s Fund report indicated that many in local Healthwatch think that they have made progress. I think Anna Bradley was an excellent chair and that she would probably say that within the structure she was working in, she made progress, but there is still a long way to go. With Imelda Redmond, the new chief executive and new chair in due course, we need Healthwatch England to assert itself much more. My view is very straightforward: it is independent. It is erroneous to suppose that Healthwatch England’s position as part of the Care Quality Commission is not independent. The Care Quality Commission is independent of the commissioners and providers of services, and it is the job of CQC and Healthwatch England to be external, independent, rigorous scrutineers of the performance, and sometimes the design, of the services that are provided to users. Within that, Healthwatch England should use its place within CQC to leverage the power of CQC, which is undeniably great inside the system, to be active on behalf of consumers—patients and care users—in giving them access to the services they want and, especially, to the kind of shared decision-making which is at the heart of this debate.

In my view, it is evident that at the moment the CQC does not see Healthwatch England as giving it that sense of what consumers want for priority-setting and helping to determine CQC’s activity and priorities. Equally, CQC should not be seen, to the extent perhaps that it sometimes is, as trying to put Healthwatch England into any kind of box and saying, “Your job is PPI, and you should not be impacting on what our priority decisions are in relation to scrutinising the service and reporting on it”. That is where it should be, as part of the CQC’s role is about bringing to bear the powers of the overall organisation. But remember that local Healthwatch organisations and Healthwatch England have their own powers, including powers of entry and scrutiny which were not available to their predecessor organisations and not there before. They should use them, although they are not a substitute for the overview and scrutiny of local authorities or for the democratic accountability of those authorities.

The solution reached in 2012 was won in a coalition Government, where the involvement of local government was very much at the heart of the Liberal Democrat participation in decision-making on that Bill. That is why local Healthwatch organisations are, in part, where they are in relation to local government. But we need now to recognise that as you progress inevitably sometimes people lose sight of the powers they have got, the potential they have and the structure that is available. It is not a flawed structure; it is viable structure, but it depends on those who participate in it using their powers to the full and, in particular and most significantly, on local authorities and the CQC recognising that they must use, amplify and assist the voice for the patient and the care user represented by Healthwatch nationally and locally, and not marginalise it.

Health: Parity of Esteem

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, on securing this short debate and on the way he introduced it. He set a very helpful frame for it. It is fundamentally not just about funding and structures, but about culture and attitudes. That is what we are aiming for, although I confess that, not for the first time, I will need to talk about funding and structures as well. Perhaps they are entirely complementary.

The noble Lord was kind enough to refer to back to 2011 and the inclusion in the Health and Social Care Act of language intended to demonstrate the commitment to providing health care services to tackle both physical and mental illness. Of course, it was not the first time that public policy had set that objective. It was simply intended to reinforce the February 2011 strategy document, No Health Without Mental Health, published by myself and Paul Burstow, who, as the noble Lord Alderdice, has just said, has been his colleague and was mine at the time. I pay tribute to his work on the document and indeed on the Care Act 2014 which was passed subsequently.

The point about No Health Without Mental Health is precisely the point made by the noble Lord in his introduction to this debate: we completely mislead ourselves if we see physical health and mental health as occupying in any sense different places for us as individuals and us as a society. We cannot have one without the other. In truth, I suspect that if we want to make the greatest possible progress in improving the health of the nation overall, it is in improving mental health that we can secure the best potential return. For young people suffering from serious mental health problems, the impact on their lifetime health and life chances is dramatic. The premature mortality of those with severe mental illnesses is clear, and this is probably the group in society on whom we could make the greatest impact if we could reach out and treat them successfully at an earlier stage. People are not dying because of their mental illnesses; they are dying because of the range of physical illnesses and lack of physical health which are the concomitants of their severe mental illness.

That is why No Health Without Mental Health was the title chosen for the document. Because of that thought, the strategy set itself the objective of trying, as we put it, to “mainstream” mental health into the NHS. It is a fact of NHS life since its establishment in the 1940s that mental health has always been regarded as something separate and different, but frankly it is not. It is a single part of the picture of how we deliver NHS services. Our objective, as part of the structural process, was to try to engineer mental health services into the mainstream provision of NHS services. However, we are still a long way from that. Mental health is not treated in the same way as other services. But we put that into public policy in February 2011, when we said:

“We are clear that we expect parity of esteem between mental and physical health services”.

It was a cross-cutting strategy that was intended to deliver that parity.

As the noble Lord pointed out, why do I and all other former Secretaries of State going back 20 years feel a sense of distress and sometimes despair about our ability to produce precisely that result? I think the answer is that the structures, funding and culture have not yet accepted that mental services should be brought into the mainstream, with all the benefits that that would bring. In my experience as a Secretary of State, mental health trusts were often extremely well run organisations, even by comparison with other community healthcare services. That is why I was so disappointed that the Uniting Care Partnership contract for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, which faced severe problems from the outset and then collapsed, did not bring acute community and mental health services into one organisation, which would have been really useful.

We all support and want integration of services, but it is not happening in many places, and even where people put the services under a single umbrella, they often do not achieve integration of the professions. Least of all do they provide the integration that should be at the heart of the patient experience, so that people feel that health services are being provided by an organisation that works around them, not to its own structures and definitions. We have a long way to go to make that happen. Another real concern is that we have failed to achieve integration, notwithstanding successive requirements in recent years from government and NHS England for commissioners to increase funding for mental health services at least as fast as for the service overall.

I have to say that, although there were some announcements in September by NHS England and NHS Improvement, the structure of funding to the National Health Service from commissioners plays a part. Most of the time, most of the NHS is funded on the basis of tariff. To that extent, in so far as somebody receives a service from a provider, the provider has recourse—sometimes not enough, they think—to the commissioners to provide for that activity. Mental health trusts are pretty much still all under block contracts. As I said, an effort has been made since September to extend tariffs into mental health services. It should be done on the basis not of episodes of care, but of bundled care and care pathways. When that happens, it will enable mental health trusts to escape from this situation: because commissioners know they have to pay for the tariffs, such trusts are often provided with the residual sum, which means they do not get the funding they could for the activity they undertake.

My colleagues and I could see some of the problems: the number of suicides among young men aged under 45; people having to travel great distances to access care; and rising levels of mental health problems among young women. These and other issues are presenting us with problems. We know we can change the culture. Time to Change, for example, was a very successful programme that continues to be extremely useful, and we now have access standards for mental health services. However, I ask the Minister to take back these questions. How much progress has been made so far in 2016-17 in securing those access standards? How much further do we have to travel? When will we be told what the objectives will be in 2017-18 and 2018-19 for measuring progress towards the 2020 objectives in the mandate for securing access to mental health services?

There is more we can do. We can extend the access standards. We need more quality standards applicable to mental health—the forward programme has only one, although the number published by NICE is valuable. It feels to me and my colleagues that we have much further to go and we need to inject a sense of urgency. That is why I welcome the debate.

Lobbying (Transparency) Bill [HL]

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 18th November 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the amendments that I have tabled. They appear forbidding in number, but I encourage noble Lords to recognise that a large number of them are intended to put back into the legislation, were the Bill to be passed, the structures, duties and powers of the registrar in order to make the job of the registrar effective. I am not intending today to revisit the argument about the scope of the definition of what should be the subject of the register for lobbying, nor about who the lobbyists in question have to contact in order to be within the scope of the registrar.

I do not agree with the Bill—I make that perfectly clear—but the purpose of our Committee stage should at least be that, were the Bill to make further progress, it should be in a form capable of being enacted. I hope that noble Lords will understand the motivation behind most of my amendments. Some are trying to circumscribe it a little and ameliorate some of its rather expansive terminology, but most are in order to make it effective, if it could be so.

I should draw attention to my register of interests. I do not actually undertake any consultant lobbying but I suspect that what I do would be captured under the proposed register. I think that that is probably true for most Members of this House, frankly. It may not be—we need not argue about that—but it is probably best that we all make a declaration in any case that we might find ourselves in such a position.

I can be very clear about the first amendment. It is simply to make it so that the Minister in question can be a Minister from the Cabinet Office. As your Lordships will recall, I was a Minister in the Cabinet Office and I was the Cabinet Minister responsible for the Bill; I was the Lord Privy Seal. But actually the Minister in question who will be making appointments and undertaking other duties in relation to this Bill is very likely to be a Minister in the Cabinet Office and not a Secretary of State. It would therefore be more effective for the description to be that of a Minister. I beg to move.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by declaring no interest—although if this was carried some years ago I would have been caught by it. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord. As he is aware, we are very short on time today and I intend to be as speedy as possible in addressing what he has put before us. I also intend to be as co-operative and helpful as I can be, and I even hope to persuade him not just to move amendments to make the Bill better, as he sees it, but possibly to see some merit in giving it further support. I invite him to think about that. I accept the amendment.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

My Lords, as has been noted, this amendment would reflect the normal practice that Ministers rather than Secretaries of State are referred to in legislation. While this change might be welcome for the sake of consistency, it does not change our overall position. We believe that the existing legislation as it stands is effective and we do not think that it needs to be supplemented.

[Lord Lansley]

I am grateful for those responses.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out paragraph (b)

[Lord Lansley]

My Lords, the purpose of the second group of amendments is to remove from the Bill the intention that the Secretary of State should prepare and issue a code of conduct. Clause 1(3)(b) states that the Secretary of State should,

“prepare and issue a code of conduct”.

That is the subject of Amendment 2, and of course Clause 7 follows that in determining all the circumstances relating to a code of conduct. I will not go on at length. I think I was very clear at Second Reading that in my view there is a structure of voluntary codes that are more flexible, able to operate qualitatively and are therefore more appropriate to the task. This would be an unacceptable and unwise substitution of an inflexible and potentially much more limited statutory code for what in practice are developing as flexible voluntary codes. I beg to move.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, as the noble Lord described, a variety of codes are on offer at present from different organisations. It seems to us that this causes confusion and leads to a lack of clarity, so there is a strong case for the type of standard code that operates in other places. But in the light of the issues that we have on timetabling and to move the business forward, we have reflected seriously on this and have looked at the group of amendments closely. On balance, we have decided to make a major concession and agree that a code of practice should not be included in the Bill this time round. I am therefore prepared to accept the amendment.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

My Lords, the Government believe that the self-regulatory codes administered by the lobbying industry work well, and the 2014 Act on transparency of lobbying aims to complement rather than replace the existing non-statutory codes. It is not necessary to regulate through a statutory code of conduct as the existing systems are working well. In that regard, the amendments in this group that remove the requirement for a statutory code of conduct would be welcome. However, they do not change our overall position: we cannot support the Bill as we believe that existing legislation achieves what it set out to do and that further regulation is not necessary.

[Lord Lansley]

I am grateful to the noble Lord sponsoring the Bill for what he described as a “concession”. From my point of view it is a very welcome one. There are a number of codes. People may argue about their relative effectiveness. I know from observing the behaviour of some of the organisations—for example, the APPC—that the members on that register take this very seriously. They see it as their role to enforce it, to make judgments and to improve the code as they go along. It is demonstrating itself to be flexible. There are good instances of self-regulatory activity in this country and wherever we can support self-regulatory action we should.

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I take it that he is accepting Amendment 2 and that Clause 7 should not stand part of the Bill—as well as Amendment 14, which follows from that. I would be very grateful if the House would agree the amendment.

Amendment 2 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) Schedule (The Registrar of Lobbyists) makes further provision about the Registrar.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley]

My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 3 is to introduce a schedule that sets out the provisions of the establishment of the registrar, which directly parallel what is in the existing legislation, for which I was previously responsible. The schedule establishes the registrar as a corporation sole, and enables the registrar to sue, be sued and enter into contracts. It means that the registrar is not exposed as an individual but has a corporate entity. That can therefore create continuity. It enables the accounts and money to be provided by the Government by way of loans or grants, and it makes the accounts and activities of the registrar subject to examination by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and, if necessary, by the ombudsman.

I hope your Lordships agree that, if the Bill is enacted, this will enable a smooth transposition from the existing registrar structure to the registrar’s new responsibilities. I beg to move.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. Again, they are acceptable. I will also move Amendment 31 in this group, which makes a minor amendment to take into account that this would extend the scope from the present arrangements to cover in-house lobbyists too, if it becomes law. It is an appropriate technical amendment to make.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

My Lords, the amendment would reproduce wording that is identical to Schedule 1 of the Transparency of Lobbying Act 2014. The schedule sets out the role and functions of the registrar. We believe that the 2014 Act effectively fulfils the purpose for which it was passed and that it does not need to be changed or amended.

[Lord Lansley]

My noble friend will not be surprised that I agree with her, but since the Bill would repeal that schedule to the present Act, it is necessary, were the Bill to make progress, for the schedule to be reinserted. I am very grateful for the support on that issue. I beg to move.

Amendment 3 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

4: Clause 2, page 2, line 4, after “or” insert “controlling”

[Lord Lansley]

My Lords, in this group we are not in the territory of simply trying to put in place the necessary structures, powers and duties of the registrar, but are concerned with the definition of lobbying and who lobbyists are. I feel it is too wide-ranging. I do not want to have a debate at this stage on narrowing it right down, but there are some egregious examples, which are reflected in the amendment. So in Amendment 4 it should not apply to all shareholders but only to those who have a controlling interest. In Amendment 5, lobbying has to relate to government policy, statements and decisions: for it to include everything that relates to every government position seems excessive.

Amendment 6 would put us back in the position we are currently in and make the situation clearer, avoiding the worrying risk that we would have to decide when Members, particularly of this House, are acting in an official capacity. Is that everything that they do, on every subject, for every potential organisation which might ask us for our interventions or support? No—I think it is better to be very clear that payment, for this purpose, does not include payments to MPs and Peers. That is how it is reflected in the current legislation.

Amendment 7 reflects the current legislation and excludes statutory communications; so one cannot be required to register by virtue of the fact that one undertakes communications which one is required to do by law. Regarding Amendment 8, I was not happy that the exemption was well enough drawn to make it clear that the communications in question must be directed at public officials. If they are not directed at public officials they should not, therefore, be captured in the scope of the register.

Regarding Amendment 9, I could not understand why trade unions engaging in negotiations should be left out. When transparency is being pursued, why should it not apply to trade unions in the same way as anyone else? I was rather aghast at the presumption that media workers should be excluded from the transparency requirements altogether. The point is that when anybody is engaging in communication via the public media, that should be exempt, but media workers should not be exempt by definition, otherwise there is a risk that simply by virtue of the fact that one is employed by a media organisation, one would regard oneself as outwith the scope of the register. That should not be the case because one could, none the less, in practice be engaged in lobbying.

I realise that there are intrinsic merits in some of the amendments in this group, and people will argue about others. I hope your Lordships will find favour with one or two, particularly Amendments 6 and 7, on payments to MPs and Peers and the exclusion of statutory communications. I beg to move.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, again I express my gratitude for the explanations the noble Lord has given for these amendments. I hope he will not be surprised to hear that I am going to accept most of them. In Amendment 4, “controlling” is perfectly acceptable. I shall leave Amendment 5 to one side for a moment. Amendment 6 is, I believe, from and identical to the previous legislation, which is already in force, and I am happy to accept it. I am prepared to accept Amendment 7. The wording of Amendment 8 is better than the original, so that is accepted too. The noble Lord might not be surprised, given my background, that the bit about trade unions appears in there. I do not have quite the same close links with the media, but I do my best there, where I can, and we are prepared to accept the amendment.

The one area I am not happy about is Amendment 5, which would delete “or position”. Again, I go back to my past experience. I was in the trade union movement for most of my life but also spent some time in business —I swapped sides, almost, so to speak. I was involved with people who were coming up with ideas about how they could make public service operations more effective. They would devise ideas and I would be part of that. We put the ideas in a bag and went to, for example, Australia and sought to persuade the Government that they could do a particular piece of public policy work better if only they would adopt what we had in mind. The Australian Government had no policy on that issue but we were able to persuade them that they should do it that way. Of course, we then bid for the business. We then took our portmanteau and went to Hong Kong and all round the world, persuading different Governments, in the UK as well. Often the Government were not running public services as efficiently as they could have been, and we came along with ideas on how they might change things.

However, such activities should be in the open. The public should be aware that efforts are being made to change not just the policy but the Government’s mind. We have a good example of that at the moment with Brexit. Technically, we have no real policy on Brexit, so far as I can understand—or that we have been able to elicit from the Government—but we know that positions have been reached and that people are lobbying. Technically, if you believe in transparency, that should be in the public domain. This is what the amendment would remove and it would limit the area in which it would take place. I hope I might persuade him that he should withdraw the amendment and reflect on it.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

My Lords, in some cases, such as Amendment 5, what is proposed seems to be a logical amendment to the original Bill. However, in others, such as Amendments 6 and 7, the wording is identical to that used in the 2014 Act. As those proposals already exist in statute, they would unnecessarily duplicate existing legislation. Overall, the Government believe that the definitions in existing legislation are effective and fulfil the regulatory aims the Government believe are necessary. As such, the definitions of “lobbying” and “lobbyists” do not need to be changed, as proposed in the original Bill or this group of amendments.

[Lord Lansley]

I am grateful for those responses. As my noble friend on the Front Bench will understand, my purpose here is to try to see how these elements of the existing legislation should be incorporated into a Bill that would otherwise repeal the whole Part 1 of the original Act. They would be lost and I think they would need to be reincorporated before the Bill could properly make progress.

I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on Amendment 4. On Amendment 5, I do not necessarily agree with the points he made but I do not think we should detain the Committee now. We can come back to it if we have the opportunity on Report. I am certainly willing to reconsider. For the moment, I do not plan to move Amendment 5.

I am grateful for what I think was the noble Lord’s acceptance of the other amendments, with the exception of Amendment 9, on the trade unions. I am not sure whether he was willing to let go—

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

Yes.

[Lord Lansley]

Very good. On that basis, I will not move Amendment 5 but will move the other amendments in due course.

Amendment 4 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

6: Clause 2, page 3, line 6, at end insert—
“( ) For the purposes of subsection (8), payment does not include any sums payable to a member of either House of Parliament—(a) under section 4 (determination of MPs’ salaries) or 5 (MPs' allowances scheme) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009,(b) pursuant to a resolution of the House of Lords, or(c) otherwise out of money provided by Parliament or out of the Consolidated Fund.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

7: Clause 3, page 3, line 24, at end insert—
“( ) any communication which is required to be made by, or under, any statutory provision or other rule of law;”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

14: Clause 8, page 5, line 44, leave out paragraph (b)

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

15: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to monitor
The Registrar must monitor compliance with the obligations imposed by or under sections (Notice to supply information), (Limitations on duty to supply information and use of information supplied) and (Right to appeal against information notice).”

[Lord Lansley]

We have happily arrived at the point where we would be by virtue of this group, which appears forbidding in its extent but is actually very straightforward. These amendments give the registrar the duties and powers that she has currently. They cover a range of things, including the issuing of information notices and the duty to monitor compliance with the register. The ability to issue information notices is in Amendment 16. Giving safeguards to those people to whom notices are issued is in Amendment 17 and a right of appeal for those people is in Amendment 18. The power to issue guidance on compliance with the register is in Amendment 27 and the ability to charge is covered by Amendment 28. A regulation-making power for the Minister in relation to the powers in the Bill is in Amendment 29. In so far as these amendments are re-incorporating powers that the registrar would need, I hope that they will find support from your Lordships.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

I will be moving Amendment 16A as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley]

Perhaps I may defend my noble friend on the Front Bench in this respect. She was aware that I was going through the Bill with the benefit of having been responsible for the original legislation. I think she did not feel that the work was not being done—it was just not being done by the Government, which would give the misleading impression that the Government were seeking to make this legislation in a form that they felt was worthy of enactment. It is okay for me to do that from the Back Benches, but I do not think it is quite the same thing for the Government to try to do it—so I do see a difference.

On this group, I am very grateful for the support for a number of the amendments. On Amendment 28, relating to charging, I am going to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, by persisting—but I shall say two things that might comfort him. First, the structure of the amendment, which obviously reflects what is in the current Act, enables the registrar to impose charges but does not require them to impose charges in any particular form. The form in which those charges are to be imposed would be the subject of regulations under the Act, which would have to come here and be approved by this House. It is perfectly open to the Minister, in making those regulations, to clarify where there may be exemptions. It would not require everybody to pay the same charges for the same register entry or for the same service, so there may be the ability to modulate the charging. If the Government were considering regulations, they could look at this and at whether it would be appropriate to modulate charges for the organisations that would otherwise find there was some chilling effect resulting from that.

So I will persist with this, and I hope the noble Lord might let us reflect the fact that it is necessary for regulators—in this case the registrar—to meet the cost of their activity through charging. On this group, I will move Amendment 15, and I hope to persist with the others, while accepting Amendment 16A, which is a helpful addition.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, as your Lordships probably recognise, I am in a little difficulty here, particularly with my noble friend, with whom I have worked very closely on this. I hear the explanation which has been given and see a chink of light on the degree of elbow room which already exists. I am particularly anxious that we try to proceed with the Bill and hope that the Minister may be persuaded that there are elements in here which the Government should be concerned about. I am particularly pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has, I think, accepted an extension of the requirement to register and to open it to in-house lobbyists as well as the professional lobbyists.

I am keen that the Bill moves forward. I can understand the Minister’s difficulty, but she could redeem herself if she could see a way to arrange a meeting with the responsible Minister for us to talk about the fundamentals in the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, might wish to join that meeting, along with at least two noble Lords who I know are very keen indeed to see this Bill, which is well supported across the House, move forward. If the Minister is not giving much today, perhaps she might be willing to try to facilitate that for us in the future. On that basis, I am prepared to accept the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

16: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
“Notice to supply information
(1) In connection with the duty under section (Duty to monitor), the Registrar may serve a notice (an “information notice”) on a person mentioned in subsection (2) requiring the person to supply information specified in the notice.(2) The persons are—(a) any registered person;(b) any person who is not entered in the register but whom the Registrar has reasonable grounds for believing to be a consultant lobbyist.(3) Regulations may specify descriptions of information which the Registrar may not require a person to supply under this section.(4) An information notice must—(a) specify the form in which the information must be supplied,(b) specify the date by which the information must be supplied, and(c) contain particulars of the right to appeal under section (Right to appeal against information notice).(5) The date specified under subsection (4)(b) must not be before the end of the period within which an appeal under section (Right to appeal against information notice) can be brought.(6) Section (Limitations on duty to supply information and use of information supplied) sets out limitations on—(a) what information is required to be supplied under a notice, and(b) how information which is supplied may be used.(7) Where an information notice has been served on a person, the Registrar may cancel it by serving written notice to that effect on the person.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

17: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
“Limitations on duty to supply information and use of information supplied
(1) An information notice does not require a person to supply information if—(a) doing so would disclose evidence of the commission of an offence, other than an offence excluded by subsection (2), and(b) the disclosure would expose the person to proceedings for that offence.(2) The following offences are excluded from subsection (1)—(a) an offence under section 9 of this Act;(b) an offence under section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 (false statements made otherwise than on oath);(c) an offence under section 44 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (false statements made otherwise than on oath);(d) an offence under Article 10 of the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (SI 1979/1714 (NI 19)) (false statutory declarations etc).(3) Any relevant statement made by a person (“P”) in response to a requirement in an information notice may not be used in evidence against P on a prosecution for an offence under section 9 unless the conditions in subsection (4) are met.(4) The conditions are that in the proceedings—(a) in giving evidence P provides information inconsistent with the relevant statement, and(b) evidence relating to the statement is adduced, or a question relating to it is asked, by P or on P's behalf.(5) In subsection (3) “relevant statement”, in relation to a requirement in an information notice, means—(a) an oral statement, or(b) a written statement made for the purposes of the requirement.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

19: Clause 9, page 6, line 19, at end insert—
“(2A) It is a defence for a person charged under this section to show that the person exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence.”

[Lord Lansley]

Your Lordships will be pleased to know we have arrived at the final group, in which the amendments all relate to the question of offences. The structure of the Bill as it stands is such that if there was a breach of the requirements of the register, the registrar would be able to proceed only by way of seeking to impose a criminal penalty in respect of the breach, whereas the current legislation enables the registrar to act in other—and in my view more proportionate—ways by seeking a civil penalty.

The purpose of most of these amendments is therefore to introduce the option of a civil penalty and the various requirements that go with that: a civil penalty regime in Amendment 20; a requirement to notify someone who is believed to be in breach and the civil penalty that would be imposed under Amendment 21; the character of the notice under Amendment 22; the right of appeal against that under Amendment 23; the relationship of the civil penalty to any criminal offence so as not to create double jeopardy under Amendment 24; the enforcement if a civil penalty is imposed as a civil debt under Amendment 25; and further details relating to the civil penalty under Amendment 26.

Amendment 19, the lead amendment that I am moving now, is about due diligence. It illustrates the difference between a criminal offence and the civil penalty since, if someone was guilty of an administrative oversight in relation to the requirement to register, essentially the registrar observing this breach would be inclined to go down the route of a civil penalty if it was sufficiently serious. One would be very unlikely to want to create a criminal offence for those kinds of administrative oversights. If someone has failed to comply with the register but has applied due diligence, it is important that they have a defence of due diligence against a criminal offence; however, where a civil penalty is concerned with something like an administrative oversight, there should not really be that kind of defence. So this replicates the existing structure of penalties, I think it is more proportionate and I hope it will commend itself to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

I am happy to accept.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

20: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Civil penalties
(1) The Registrar may impose a civil penalty on a person (in accordance with sections (Notice of intention to impose civil penalty), (Imposition of penalty), (Right to appeal against imposition of civil penalty) and (Civil penalties and criminal proceedings)) if the Registrar is satisfied that the person's conduct amounts to an offence under section 9.(2) For this purpose—(a) section 9(2A) is to be ignored, and(b) a person's conduct includes a failure to act.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

27: After Clause 10, insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance
(1) The Registrar may give guidance about how the Registrar proposes to exercise the functions under this Act.(2) The Registrar may do so, in particular, by publishing guidance—(a) as to the circumstances in which the Registrar would, or would not, consider that a person is carrying on the business of consultant lobbying;(b) as to the circumstances in which the Registrar would remove a person's entry from the register;(c) as to the circumstances in which the Registrar would consider it appropriate to impose a civil penalty;(d) about how the amount of a civil penalty will be determined.(3) The Registrar may publish—(a) revisions to any guidance published under this section;(b) replacement guidance.(4) Publication under this section is to be—(a) on a website, and(b) in such other form or forms as the Registrar considers appropriate.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

30: After Clause 12, insert the following new Schedule—
“SCHEDULETHE REGISTRAR OF LOBBYISTSStatus1_ The Registrar is a corporation sole.2_ The Registrar exercises the functions of that office on behalf of the Crown.Appointment3_(1) The Registrar is to be appointed by the Minister.(2) The Registrar holds office in accordance with the terms and conditions of that appointment; but this is subject to sub-paragraphs (3) to (6).(3) The term of office for which the Registrar is appointed must not be more than 4 years.(4) A person may be appointed for a second or third term; but the term for which a person is re-appointed must not be more than 3 years. (5) The Registrar may resign by giving written notice to the Minister.(6) The Minister may dismiss the Registrar if the Minister is satisfied that the Registrar is unable, unwilling or unfit to perform the functions of the office.4_(1) A person is ineligible for appointment as the Registrar if, at any time in the previous 5 years, the person—(a) was a Minister of the Crown or a permanent secretary, or(b) carried on the business of consultant lobbying or was an employee of a person who carried on that business.(2) For the purposes of this paragraph—“Minister of the Crown” means the holder of an office in the government, and includes the Treasury;“permanent secretary” means a person serving the government in—(a) the position of permanent secretary or second permanent secretary in the civil service of the State, or(b) one of the following positions—(i) Cabinet Secretary;(ii) Chief Executive of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs;(iii) Chief Medical Officer;(iv) Director of Public Prosecutions;(v) First Parliamentary Counsel;(vi) Government Chief Scientific Adviser;(vii) Head of the Civil Service;(viii) Prime Minister's Adviser for Europe and Global Issues.(3) Regulations may amend the positions in the list above by adding or removing a position.5_ A defect in the Registrar's appointment does not affect the validity of anything done by the Registrar.Remuneration and staffing6_ Service as the Registrar is not service in the civil service of the State.7_(1) The Registrar may make arrangements for sums in respect of the following to be paid to or in respect of the person holding office as the Registrar—(a) remuneration;(b) allowances;(c) pension.(2) The sums paid under sub-paragraph (1) are to be determined by the Minister.8_(1) The Registrar may make arrangements with the Minister or other persons—(a) for staff to be seconded to the Registrar;(b) for accommodation or services to be provided to the Registrar.(2) The payments that may be made under arrangements under sub-paragraph (1)(a) include payments to the staff in addition to, or instead of, payments to the person with whom the arrangements are made. Accounts9_(1) The Registrar must keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts.(2) The Registrar must prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year.(3) The Registrar must send a copy of the statement, within a period specified by the Minister, to the Comptroller and Auditor General.(4) After the Registrar has sent a copy of a statement of accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Comptroller and Auditor General must—(a) examine, certify and report on the statement, and(b) arrange for a copy of the certified statement and the report to be laid before Parliament as soon as possible.(5) In this paragraph “financial year” means—(a) the period beginning on the day on which section 1comes into force and ending on the following 31 March, and(b) each successive period of 12 months.Funding
10_(1) The Minister may make grants or loans to the Registrar.(2) The grants or loans may be subject to conditions (including conditions as to repayment with or without interest).Amendment of other enactments11_ In Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 (definition of public records) at the appropriate place in Part 2 of the Table at the end of paragraph 3 insert—“The Registrar of Lobbyists”.12_ In Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (departments and authorities subject to investigation) before the entry for the “Registrar General for England and Wales” insert—“The Registrar of Lobbyists”.13_ In Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (other public bodies and offices which are public authorities) at the appropriate place insert—“The Registrar of Lobbyists”.”

Community Pharmacy in 2016-17 and Beyond

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

The point about the pharmacy integration fund is that we want to think up more joined-up ways in which we bring everything together. That is why we very much focus on the deployment of clinical pharmacies and pharmacy services in the community and primary care settings. It will include groups of general practices, but it also includes care homes and urgent care settings, such as NHS 111.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for repeating the Statement. She has rightly highlighted that over recent years the number of community pharmacies has increased—indeed, by more than 1,000 pharmacies in the last five years. That is welcome, because it is a means by which there is a reach into the community that is unparalleled elsewhere in the health and care services. But it is about how we go about diversifying pharmacy income. For a long time, it has been clear that it should not be wholly reliant on dispensing fees and the global sum, as it has been in the past. We need additional services, enhanced and locally commissioned services, to grow. My noble friend’s Statement said exactly that, but the question is how we do it. By and large, it will not be done out of the public health budget of local authorities, although some will be. It is potentially mainly out of things such as the better care fund, enabling us not just to have pharmacies embedded in GP and other health services but using the community pharmacies’ reach in the community to deliver support to people with chronic conditions. Will my noble friend say that there will be an effort to promote this? At the moment, we have no good data from the past two years on local commissioning of those enhanced services. Can we get those data sorted out so that we can see whether pharmacies are being used as they should be and diversifying their income?

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

I agree with everything that my noble friend has said—data are extremely important. Of course, with those new reforms we will have the opportunity to make changes and be absolutely sure that the integrated services are working as we want them to work.