EU-UK SPS Agreement: Food-related Standards
Debate between Lord Markham and Baroness Hayman of Ullock(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and declare an interest as chair of a biotech company.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, as part of the SPS agreement, the EU has accepted that there will need to be a number of areas where we need to retain our own rules. The details of those are subject to negotiation, but we have been clear about the importance of being able to support the use of new and innovative technologies such as novel foods.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer, and I am very encouraged by her response, because in this area I have seen first-hand how we have used our innovation and flexibility to create inward investment and a world-leading industry. Can I take from the noble Baroness’s Answer that we are adopting a similar approach to what Switzerland did, which achieved integration while getting carve-outs in key areas—the so-called Swiss cheese approach—and we plan to do that here as well?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Of course, while the negotiations are ongoing—there are regular meetings, and it is reaching an intensive phase—I am afraid I cannot give any detail at all. However, as I said before, as a sovereign country we need to choose to align where it is in our national interest, but at the same time we need to ensure that where we have areas where we believe we need to be able to do our own thing, if you like, we are in a position to do so. But, as I say, those negotiations are still ongoing.
NHS Procurement: Palantir Contract
Debate between Lord Markham and Baroness Hayman of Ullock(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Markham (Con)
As I said in a previous Answer, we are in the process of disposing of those contracts. On many occasions, it is easy to look with hindsight. Noble Lords may remember that, at the time, there was a massive rush and countries were gazumping each other to get hold of PPE. It was very much the feeling of this House, and all the people in the UK, that we had to desperately contract suppliers to do it. Did we make mistakes? Yes. Were we right on more than 90% of occasions? Absolutely. To keep the front line going, we needed to order more than 9 billion essential items, and we did so using the very system that we are talking about here in respect of Palantir. There are circumstances—Covid is a prime example—where it is appropriate to do those sorts of direct awards. That notwithstanding, I think we all fundamentally agree that an open, transparent and competitive tendering process will always be preferable.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, the £25 million contract awarded this week is a drop in the ocean compared with the £480 million that is on its way. The scope of the federated data platform is vague, but there is no doubt that the data it stores will be both vast and sensitive, so it is vital that any procurement process is fair and transparent and enables the public to engage with it so that the system works as intended. However, 48% of adults, when asked, said that they were likely to opt out if it was introduced and run by a private company. This would have a catastrophic impact on the quality of NHS data, which is an extremely valuable resource. Do the Government recognise this as a risk? How will they ensure that we have public faith in the process?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness is correct: public confidence is vital, particularly in the case of data, where we are concerned about privacy. We are arranging a briefing of noble Lords so that everyone can have the opportunity to understand what we are talking about here, which is almost like the plumbing of the system. The NHS maintains primacy of use—it is the only organisation allowed to use it—and privacy will be maintained at all times. It is much better to think of whoever wins this contract—we do not know who they are—as just the technology provider, like Microsoft, for instance. We use private sector companies for technology all the time. The key thing is that the provider is protected. That is the NHS, and no one else can get access.