Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Naseby and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I am a non-smoker. I have never smoked. I have absolutely no intention of smoking. But I would point out to my noble friend on the Front Bench something on which I imagine he is well briefed. Local authorities already have the powers at their discretion to regulate smoking in licensed premises and on pavements outside pubs, bars and restaurants with exterior tables and seating. My noble friend who spoke earlier has been in local government, as have I. The powers are there already. In my judgment, it is for the local people to decide—not for some all-embracing Government above to dictate. There is no need for further central government legislation. The licence holder is already legally required to make sensible provision for seating where smoking is not permitted.

The noble Baroness who spoke earlier said, “Well it’s logical, if it’s banned internally then obviously you ban it externally”. May I suggest to the noble Baroness that external smoke is totally different? It dissipates far quicker outside than it does inside. Outside, it ends up becoming highly diluted and disappears into the atmosphere very quickly. Having said that, it is right that licence holders should remember to ask people to behave properly in the interests of those seating nearby, particularly children.

Frankly, this Bill should not be used as a back-door route to try to ban smoking in public places. We would be threatening pubs and cafés that, if they did not ban smoking outside their premises, they would be refused a licence. That would be thoroughly disproportionate.

As far as I know, my Government have no plan to ban outdoor smoking. It has rejected similar amendments in the past. Excessive regulation could even lead to some pub closures and job losses. This would be to no one’s benefit. Again, as a non-smoker, I find encouragement that the figures for people who smoke seem to go down every year. We should think back to what it was like in the 1970s. Would we have thought that the policies we have implemented would have achieved the current rate? Last year, 13.3% of the population were smoking; on the latest figures, this is down to 12.7%. So the reduction is there—it is happening—and certainly, to use this particular Bill to interfere with what local authorities want to do in their own area is, in my view, totally wrong.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I too support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. I am now caring for my mother and am a grandfather to very young grandchildren, so I have renewed my acquaintance with the problem, as he said, of seeking to go from A to B when there are so many obstacles in the way. His amendments go to the heart of the problem by recognising that pavements are for people to walk on.

I am also delighted to support the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and other noble Lords in their amendment. I disagree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. First, I do think that the health gain from this measure would be considerable. We are behind the curve in reaching the smoke-free target. Secondly, I disagree with him about the dissipation of smoke. Anyone who has had to walk past pubs where people are smoking outside would say it does not dissipate quickly enough. Thirdly, I do not think it would harm the pub trade; I think it would enhance it because, frankly, going through a fog to get into a pub is not very attractive at all.

On a more general point, the noble Lord, Lord Young, made it clear that he saw this as a popular public measure. I totally agree. I was a member of the Cabinet committee which basically tore up our 2005 manifesto because it was not strong enough. The result of that very rare rebellion by a Cabinet committee led to the ban on smoking in public places. And it was proved right—it was very popular and very effective.

I also recall moving the amendment on banning smoking in cars where children are present. That was overwhelmingly popular. When it went back to the Commons, the Government agreed. So many of their own Back-Benchers supported it because they had had such a lot of strong messages.

I have no doubt whatever that this will be a very positive and popular measure. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to say something positive about it.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Debate between Lord Naseby and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st March 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 160, the principal amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, to show that there is support for him all round the Committee and to show the Government, too, that at some point the House of Lords is going to make its views known when it comes to voting on the Bill. It would be good to see the Government acknowledge that they are going to have to do something to strengthen the accountability of these arrangements.

My principal concern is about the integrity of Parliament and the more general issue of the accountability of so many of the regulators, public bodies and quangos that we have established, because I see them as an extension of the Executive, in many ways. They do functions which traditionally the Executive may themselves have done. We are talking about financial markets but a recent example of extraordinary behaviour is that of the Arts Council, in its perverse decision to try to destroy opera in this country by the abolition of English National Opera and the withdrawal of a huge grant from Welsh National Opera for touring, when the Arts Council’s mission is ostensibly that it is supposed to be encouraging the touring of such companies.

The Arts Council apparently did that because the then Culture Secretary, Nadine Dorries, said that she wanted more money to go out into the regions for levelling up. That was translated into the destruction of a centre of excellence which had been very committed to inclusivity. At that point, she denied that she had ever wanted ENO to do that, but the Arts Council remains unaccountable to Parliament for that action and Ministers say, “It is nothing to do with us”. We are left in a quagmire as to how to know, in the end, who was accountable for what seems, on the face of it, a crass decision.

My main experience is not in financial services but in the health service, which is awash with regulators, public bodies and quangos. I will name just three: NICE, NHS England and the Care Quality Commission. They have huge influence and power over the affairs of the National Health Service but it is very difficult to say that they are accountable to Parliament at all. If we seek to ask questions about their performance in questions or debates, or meetings with Ministers, we will be told, “That’s nothing to do with Ministers”.

When it comes to financial services, I am therefore at one with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. It is surely in the interests of the United Kingdom, in any case, that our regulatory arrangements be seen to be of the first order. I agree with him when he talked about the balance. We want the regulators to be seen to be independent, and robustly so, because that adds to their credibility. We clearly want to avoid politicisation, because that would undermine the esteem in which they would be held nationally and internationally. However, we want them to be subject to not just proper scrutiny but accountability. So far, we have heard nothing from the Government to suggest that they understand that, or why the current arrangements will not be sufficient.

As the noble Lord said, this proposal will not duplicate the Treasury Select Committee. His point about the OBR was important, because the OBR has fulfilled an important function, but I do not think anyone has suggested that it has undermined the working of Parliament or any of its Select Committees; indeed, it has enhanced what they can do. I think he was making that point when he said that his amendments will not undermine the regulators’ independence. In many ways, I think they would enhance them. This is not going to cost much money compared to the benefit it would bring and, as he also said, it will not duplicate the work of the FCA and PRA.

There is an overwhelming case for supporting this measure, alongside the previous debate about the need for a much strengthened Select Committee to carry out work inside Parliament, as the noble Lord suggested. I very much hope that the Government will listen to what he has said.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, which in my judgment is absolutely vital. On 8 February, I listened to the chairman of the City of London Corporation’s policy and resources committee; I will quote a couple of points that he made on that evening. He said:

“Faced with increasing global competition”


the UK needs

“a long-term sense of direction, a programme for government, regulators, and industry to act and sustain our global powerhouse status. As a country we need a renewed focus, to adjust our compass, to be the destination that incentivises investment, thrives with talent, and commands the competition. And we need ambition and focus to achieve these goals.”

He finished by saying that we need “the courage to change” in three areas. I will quote two, which are relevant to this amendment:

“Firstly, we need to reduce frictions. That means strengthening UK policy and regulation with an effective and coherent sustainable finance framework. Secondly, we need to nurture innovation. More creativity in the market will inspire better products, which will help attract capital, firms, and customers.”


The City wants confidence in scrutiny and the supervision of the regulator. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take note of the feelings of the City. I am sure that it would be more than happy to communicate directly with my noble friend and put some flesh on the summary that I have given.

Coronavirus Act 2020

Debate between Lord Naseby and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction to the debate and the statutory instrument. Of course, Covid has brought unequalled challenge to us—a challenge that we have not seen for decades. It has disrupted our lives and many people have died as a result. Of course, the powers that the Government have taken to themselves have been quite exceptional. I do not agree with everything that Big Brother Watch says, but I think it is right to point to the draconian nature of some of those powers. I was very glad the Minister said what he said in relation to Schedules 21 and 22. My understanding is that every single charge made under those schedules was found to be unlawful. As he read out the powers, I shall not repeat them—but they are draconian. They may have been justified, but they were misused. The Minister said that they will be withdrawn. Can he clarify whether they will be withdrawn through a statutory instrument?

The second area I wanted to raise is parliamentary scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, raised during the Urgent Question repeat in the Chamber the point that the Government now seem to announce everything in the media before coming to Parliament. The way in which Parliament has been dealt with over Covid has been very unsatisfactory. We have had more than 500 pieces of secondary legislation; most were rushed out and considered by Parliament retrospectively. The Justice Select Committee reported on this and stated:

“Parliament plays an important role in making sure that the law and any new criminal offences are so far as is possible intelligible, clear and predictable. It is not satisfactory … that Parliament was not … able to fulfil its function when Members were required to consider statutory instruments already superseded”—


this has happened on a number of occasions.

Although it falls to the Commons to vote on the renewal of powers, while we have simply a Take Note approach, the powers are substantial and I must say that I do not think that they should be debated in Grand Committee; they are important enough to be debated in the Chamber and I find it very disappointing that we are here, having to do it in this way.

It is notable that, since we came back in September, there have been hardly any debates on Covid. Again, I find this very worrying, and I would like the Minister to tell me why there have been no Statements. I think the Statement last week was the first one we have had on Covid since we came back. This really is not satisfactory and hardly counts as parliamentary scrutiny.

I also ask the Minister what has happened to SAGE. There has apparently been a downscaling of SAGE’s role. It seems that it now meets only once a month. Can the Minister confirm that and tell me why it is? A government source has been quoted as saying that there is now a lessened demand for scientific advice. Well, I do question whether that is accurate. We are still in a difficult situation: Covid infections are rising and there is a real risk that the booster jab and school vaccinations are behind where they ought to be—hence the Minister’s comments at the end of his introductory speech. My concern is that the Government’s mistakes and, frankly, dubious exceptionalism at the beginning of Covid look like being repeated time and again.

There was another very good joint Select Committee report, from the Health and Social Care and Science and Technology Committees, which was published on 12 October and looked at what has happened over the past 18 months. The report pointed out that the UK was not alone in having suffered badly because of Covid, but we did significantly worse in terms of deaths than many countries, particularly when compared to those in east Asia, even though they were much closer geographically to where the virus first appeared. The report said the UK’s pandemic planning was too narrow and effectively based on a flu model, which failed to learn the lessons from SARS, MERS and Ebola.

Particularly telling was the report’s comment that the Government’s desire to avoid a lockdown because of the harm to the economy that it would entail had a big impact. In the absence of other strategies such as rigorous case isolation, a meaningful test and trace operation and robust border controls, a full lockdown was inevitable and should have come sooner. We saw history repeat itself last autumn, when the Government’s decision not to have a circuit breaker did not follow the scientific advice and Ministers were clearly optimistic in their assumption that the worst was behind us during those summer months.

The question before us today is whether history is repeating itself. We know that our weekly death rate stands at three times the level of other major European nations. We know hospitalisations are rising, and they are certainly at a higher level than in many countries on the continent. The decision to end compulsory mask wearing and to pause plans for vaccine passports in England has made the Government an outlier in their management of the pandemic. By contrast, western European countries such as France, Italy, and in particular Spain, have brought down infection rates to their lowest level since the summer of 2020.

The Government have not been short of advice. When the latest October minutes from SAGE came out, they pointed to current population behaviours being estimated as being closer to pre-pandemic norms than at any point since March 2020—which I think means that people are not wearing masks very much and are not distancing themselves socially. SAGE pointed to early interventions that may reduce the need for more stringent, disruptive and longer-lasting measures to avoid an unacceptable level of hospitalisations.

We have also heard the NHS Confederation calling for not just plan B to be implemented but plan B-plus: calling on the public to mobilise around the NHS and do whatever they can to support front-line services this winter. On the other hand, it has been reported that modelling by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine has suggested that cases will peak soon and fall away steeply in the winter months. So I ask the Minister to set out current ministerial thinking. I see the temptation to wait and see, in the light of the London School’s modelling. On the other hand, every time the Government have waited and seen, they have turned out to be wrong, so I think at the very least we ought to know today the hard thinking behind the Government’s position in relation to plan B.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am married to a doctor, a former GP who ran a big practice in Biggleswade.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Debate between Lord Naseby and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 14th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this is an interesting debate and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Thornton. We know that there is a problem with vaccine uptake, which is linked to anti-vaccine sentiment—though not necessarily always.

Looking back over the past few months, I note that there was in November a survey by Savanta ComRes on behalf of ITV News that found that almost 70% of people in the UK would like to receive a vaccination. More recently, in December, the Royal Society for Public Health published a poll showing that 76% of people would take the vaccine but, significantly, that only 57% of people from BAME backgrounds would do so. There was also a lower response among lower-income groups.

No doubt the Minister will give us figures, but my understanding is that the initial results on vaccine uptake are encouraging. However, we cannot be complacent in the face of the pernicious anti-vaccine sentiment around. Even before the pandemic, vaccine hesitancy was described by the WHO as one of the top 10 threats to global health.

We are interested in what the Government are doing. Last month, we debated this issue and the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, the Leader of the House, referred to the work of a central government unit on it. I should like to hear from the Minister about what is happening. We clearly need strong pro-vaccination campaigns, and the majority of people who may be described as vaccine hesitant are not necessarily anti-vaccine. Most people who are hesitant can be persuaded by good public health messages.

However, as my noble friend and other noble Lords have said, there has been a huge amount of misinformation across social media in the past few months. This is obviously cited by survey respondents as an area of concern when it comes to levels of trust in those delivering public health messages. As Scientists for Labour pointed out, since the recovery from the false findings around the MMR vaccine and autism from Mr Andrew Wakefield, the UK overall now ought to be in a good place when it comes to routine vaccine uptake. For example, the HPV vaccine has a consistent uptake of between 80% and 85%, which is an excellent return for a vaccine that is not part of early childhood schedules.

We do not have too much in the way of well-organised anti-vaccine groups, unlike the USA or, indeed, even the Republic of Ireland, so the likelihood is that the UK population will show less hesitancy about recently introduced vaccines compared with other countries. But the level of misinformation out there is high and we have to learn lessons from other recent vaccine scares. Clearly the Government have a huge challenge in making sure that the uptake of the vaccine is as high as possible—which is why I welcome this debate and the amendment, and very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am married to a retired general practitioner.

I congratulate the noble Baroness on her proposed new clause. Whether the detail is correct is another matter, but the principle that she is promoting is absolutely right. I make my observations as someone who, before he came into politics, was a senior director in the fifth-largest advertising agency in the world. I was actually handling the UK Government’s COI account—that is, the general one for specific purposes.

I have four observations. First, all misinformation must be refuted immediately, wherever it occurs—whether it is in the main media or other media. That is not just social media; it includes radio, TV, print, posters, et cetera. Secondly, every medical professional body must make it unequivocally clear that disinformation must be refuted. Thirdly, I suggest that all medical outlets should provide a clear statement, in poster format, for hospitals, surgeries, clinics and pharmacies. Fourthly, consideration should be given to how best to communicate with schools, universities and colleges.

In conclusion, we must all remember the terrible harm that was done to the MMR—measles, mumps and rubella—programme, largely by one pioneering rogue doctor. Against that background, I plead with the Minister to ensure that we have a robust new clause and a plan, worked on now so that it can be communicated instantly, if possible.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Debate between Lord Naseby and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Tuesday 12th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I see this as a group of amendments in two parts. The argument for consolidated legislation from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, was very ably supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and I very much support it. For those working in the health service or in industry, trying to wrestle with all the elements of legislation that cover health is very difficult indeed, and the case for consolidating legislation every so often is a very powerful one. I very much hope that the Government will take note of this, bearing in mind of course that there have been strong arguments from NHS England for a further NHS reorganisation Bill, which might be coming within a short space of time. On that issue in particular, the reorganisation of the NHS, the need to consolidate legislation following such a Bill becomes very persuasive indeed.

Where I do not really agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is on his remarks on Amendment 2 and his suggestion of a sunset clause. He argued that the problem with that is that you shut down the powers and therefore the Government need to produce another Bill, because we obviously need a regulatory regime. Sticking to the three years in my noble friend’s amendment would mean that work would have to start within 18 months. That does not argue against the principle of a sunset clause, although there can be debate about the length of time in which the new Bill needs to be enacted.

The fact is that this Bill conveys a huge number of delegated powers to Ministers. In a pungent analysis, the University of Birmingham points out that, while delegated powers may be needed to ensure responsiveness to the EU transition period and to meet the challenges of technology change, they should not be used indefinitely or relied on to implement matters of policy. This is the problem. If we take this Bill and we do not have some changes in the future, Ministers ever after will be able to ram changes to medicines and medical devices regulation through the House, and the amount of scrutiny in relation to secondary legislation is limited.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was very clear in criticising Ministers for failing to provide a sufficient justification for parts of the Bill adopting a skeletal approach. The recent report from the House of Lords Constitution Committee also said that it recognises

“that the existing powers to amend these complex regulatory regimes will cease to have effect on 31 December 2020 and that alternative arrangements are required. If the Government is unable to specify the principles according to which it intends to amend and supplement the existing law, the delegated powers in the Bill should be subject to sunset clauses.”

That surely must be right.

At Second Reading the Minister suggested that sunset clauses would emasculate the Bill, and in Committee he said that a sunset clause

“will not change the very good reasons why delegated powers are necessary.”—[Official Report, 19/10/12; col. GC 327.]

I think we come then to the fundamental argument: that many noble Lords disagree with the extent of delegation that is going to be given to Ministers for all time. The only proper defence against that is to agree to the kind of amendment my noble friend has proposed in relation to a sunset clause. For that reason, I very strongly support her.

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, in the past I have had the privilege of working with two pharmaceutical companies, a US pharmaceutical company Upjohn and Reckitt pharmaceuticals. I think that as a country we face a unique opportunity at this point caused by Brexit and a situation where we have a major industry which has all the potential to be a world leader. But this point in time is going to go away unless we act. This is a watershed Bill. It creates an opportunity to enhance the role of the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The industry and all of us should want the UK to be an attractive market for investment in medicines, medical devices and therapies for all our UK patients. It creates an opportunity to make significant improvements in UK clinical research environments and, very importantly, it increases the commercial trial activity to make the UK the number one destination for life sciences supporting UK public health.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I disagree with this amendment. I had the privilege of being the Chairman of Ways and Means and Senior Deputy Speaker in the other House from 1992 to 1997—possibly, legislatively, one of the most challenging periods. I certainly found that MPs were highly creative in their interpretation of the rules of debate and in holding the Government to account.

Noble Lords have only to read Erskine May to see that we have two procedures for SIs that are normal and have been with us for decades: the negative procedure, where no amendments can be taken in your Lordships’ House; and the affirmative resolution. The affirmative resolution is not just a weak tool that puts us on the side; it is a very powerful tool if used properly by Members of Parliament and those of your Lordships’ House who take an interest in these matters. They can ensure that the Government of the day have to listen.

Frankly, I find that the super-affirmative procedure does no more, really, than involve an additional stage of scrutiny where Parliament has considered a proposal for a statutory instrument before the statutory instrument is formally presented. Today this procedure is used for statutory instruments that are considered to need a particularly high level of scrutiny. Quite frankly, we have Select Committees, in the other House in particular, dedicated to particular departments, and there is a very active Select Committee on health matters.

In addition, yes, there are some specialised categories of statutory instruments that are used for those particular purposes, and they can be considered under the super-affirmative procedure. But these statutory instruments usually amend or repeal Acts of Parliament. Examples would include legislative reform orders, localism orders, public bodies orders, regulatory reform orders and remedial orders. It is not usual to have them as part of the primary legislative process.

It is time that we as politicians understood that this country will be successful only if we get on and understand the needs of British industry. It has to have some certainty that things are going to proceed at pace, not be delayed even further because some noble Lords feel that they want to have another bite of the cherry. We already had quite enough bites, in my judgment, on this Bill as we worked through it, and it is being done very thoroughly. It has been done in Committee and is being done on Report. But we have to understand that this all adds to delay and, even worse, possible confusion in the commercial world.

I think adequate procedures are already available. All this does is stretch the thing out for very little marginal benefit. I personally will vote against this proposal with enthusiasm.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I must say that I very much disagree with the noble Lord’s remarks. If we want certainty, we need legislation that is well grounded and which has had thorough scrutiny in Parliament. The problem with this Bill is that it essentially gives a blank cheque to Ministers to change the regulatory regime for medicines and medical devices. If this was just to deal with the aftermath of Brexit, that, of course, would be understandable. But it was made clear in Committee and at Second Reading that the Government are wedded to this way of doing legislation. As the Minister said in Committee,

“this is a modern and fast-changing industry … we may still need to preserve our ability to amend and update regulations.”—[Official Report, 19/10/20; col. GC 328.]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referred to two of our most distinguished Select Committees. We need to return to what our Constitution Committee said:

“This is a skeleton bill containing extensive delegated powers, covering a range of significant policy matters, with few constraints on the extent of the regulatory changes that could be made … The Government has not provided the exceptional justification required for this skeleton approach.”


As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has said, the Government have form. We are increasingly seeing the use of skeleton Bills and Henry VIII clauses. We really must come to a point where we say to the Government that we will not put up with this any longer.

I listened to the Minister in the last debate: what did he offer the House in respect of further scrutiny? It seemed to me he offered a debate or two, and that was it. The Government do not have an answer; they are refusing to budge on a principle which I believe is fundamentally wrong.

The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, talked with joy about the effectiveness of affirmative statutory instruments. This is nonsense. I think eight SIs have been defeated in your Lordships’ House in history; the last one led the Government to threaten to abolish the House of Lords. Unfortunately, the affirmative procedure is hardly any better than the negative procedure, and they do not allow this House to really exert any change on the orders going through.

We have to stand up on this matter. It is much more important and much wider than the issue of medicines regulation. I very much support the amendment moved so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey.