Hydrogen Economy

Lord Patel Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My noble friend is right to highlight that we have a number of world-leading UK companies in this field. I can tell her that the DfT is working with Innovate UK to invest up to £20 million in feasibility work for possible future hydrogen fuel cell truck demonstration as part of the zero-emission road freight trials. This will support UK industry to design and develop trials of cost-effective, zero-emission heavy goods vehicles, including hydrogen fuel technology.

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood, regarding more research and innovation related to hydrogen and fuel cells. Does the Minister agree that for the UK to be competitive globally in the hydrogen economy, the challenges that need to be addressed are: regulatory uncertainty, including public safety; lack of coherent common technical standards; a skills gap in the workforce; and a lack of developed supply chains? How and when do the Government intend to address those issues?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord is quite right: it will be a considerable challenge. Meeting our 2030 ambition for 5 gigawatts of low-carbon hydrogen production will indeed require rapid and significant ramp-up. The forthcoming hydrogen strategy will ensure that the necessary regulation, policies and incentive mechanisms are put in place across the 2020s to lay the foundation for the economy that he highlights.

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Lord Patel Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 45 and 46, but I support all of the amendments in this group. Before I do so, I thank the Minister for the correspondence that I received like everyone else—I made a lot of fuss about it in the previous Committee meeting, and I am grateful now that I am receiving this correspondence.

I shall speak mainly about the medical profession, because I know that best. Although the regulator, which is the General Medical Council, is responsible for all areas of training and certification, the GMC delegates quite a lot of its responsibilities to other bodies. Therefore, information about the different aspects and different levels of training is available from the bodies that deliver the education and training. For instance, it is mostly the universities that deliver undergraduate training. They all follow a core curriculum set by the General Medical Council, but in addition most universities also provide some medical training that will be different from other universities. For instance, my university, the University of Dundee, puts more emphasis on primary care, as well as meeting all the requirements of the core training set by the General Medical Council. The regulator has the information about core training and also publishes information on the universities, but it is the individual universities that will have the information about their particular training in medicine.

For specialist training, again the regulator is the General Medical Council, but all specialist training is delivered by colleges and faculties—I declare an interest as a fellow of several colleges. It is the colleges that write the curriculum and the training, which is approved by the General Medical Council, and they make sure that the training is conducted according to the agreement. At the completion of specialist training, which may take several years, it is the General Medical Council that issues a certificate of completion of training and puts the doctor on the specialist register.

Some doctors may take higher degrees, such as a doctorate in medicine or a PhD; these are totally controlled by the universities that issue those degrees. The regulator has no role there, although in 99% of cases the degrees will relate to some aspect of medicine, whether that be research or clinical science. Following the completion of all this training, it is the regulator, the GMC, that is responsible for the revalidation that every doctor has to undergo every five years. That, too, is delivered and checked by professional bodies such as the colleges, but it is the regulator, the GMC, that is responsible for making sure that it approves the revalidation certificate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, in introducing this debate, I would like to apologise to my noble friend. I do not think that I was a member of the Better Regulation Task Force. I was the deregulation Minister in the Department of Health for a glorious period of four years, during which time we got rid of a few regulations—but I put through four major Bills to make up for that. Having done that, I was promoted, and I became a Better Regulation Minister in the DWP, the MoJ, Defra and finally DECC, where we were regularly hauled across to Downing Street to be given an absolute bollocking by the Prime Minister for why we were not doing enough to deregulate. Of course, for the other three months, we were called across and asked why we were not doing more to legislate to deal with a specific concern of Downing Street. Life does not change much. This Government talk a lot about deregulation but, my goodness me, they do not half like regulations when it comes to giving Ministers powers. That is really what I would like to explore in this stand part debate.

Clearly, we have had a very illuminating debate this afternoon. Despite the best intentions of the Minister, there is a sense of unease about the Bill, its rationale, the professions to be covered and its drafting. I say to the Minister that I would particularly note the comments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, when he talked about the unsatisfactory nature of the Bill. Coming from him, those were very telling comments indeed.

My own concern, as I have said, is about the extensive powers being given to Ministers throughout this Bill, and Clause 13 is an example. Clause 13(1)(a), taken together with the definition of legislation in Clause 16(1), means that the powers to which the Delegated Powers Committee has drawn the attention of the House in its report are Henry VIII powers. The powers conferred by Clause 5(2), Clause 6(1) and Clause 10(4) are also Henry VIII powers.

This is just one example of the increasing trend for Ministers to take powers unto themselves without adequate justification or explanation. I know that the Minister has sent a supplementary memorandum to the Delegated Powers Committee, and that we have had amendments to Clause 1, which have been very welcome. But it is noticeable that the Delegated Powers Committee, having considered that, says in its follow-up report that it none the less wishes to continue

“to press the Minister to provide … a much fuller explanation about the provision that could be made in regulations under clause 1; and”—

here it seems to me is the nub—

“full justification for all such provision—including that which amends primary legislation—being made by statutory instrument instead of by primary legislation with its attendant scrutiny.”

I do not want to repeat what I said at Second Reading or in our earlier debates, but the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee must be seen in parallel with the reports of the Delegated Powers Committee. It complains about the number of pieces of legislation that have been introduced, partly in response to the pandemic but partly because of our withdrawal from the EU, which are extraordinary in the powers they give to Ministers. In this Bill so far, the Minister has very courteously defended the use of these Henry VIII powers on what I would call technocratic grounds—in other words, “We need the powers because they are demand-led, and demand will change over time.”

As we have heard today, it is not possible at this moment for the Government to state explicitly where these powers will be used or what organisations or qualifications they will apply to. The Minister has explained the process he is still going through, but you could make the same arguments for any piece of legislation. The question I put to him is this: are we not seeing a general trend towards continuously bringing skeletal Bills in which extensive powers are given to Ministers and of which Parliament has very little opportunity to really go into the details?

The Minister has relied on the need for this Bill in relation to the specific needs of the different regulators, but he has not responded to the constitutional issues raised by it. I have instituted this debate to allow him to do so.

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

My Lords, to add to what my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has said, I will concentrate mainly on Henry VIII powers, which apply to other clauses in the Bill, not just Clause 13.

Henry VIII clauses allow Ministers to amend or repeal provisions in an Act of Parliament using secondary legislation. I tried to look up what the laws might say about Henry VIII powers being adopted. For those not familiar with them, Halsbury’s Laws of England provides the following description:

“As a general rule, primary legislation amends other primary legislation but leaves subordinate legislation to amend itself; subordinate legislation frequently amends other subordinate legislation, but mostly does not amend primary legislation.


Powers conferred by statute cannot be assigned without statutory authority, and whether they can be delegated depends on the construction of the statute. It will be assumed by the courts that Parliament does not delegate legislative or other power unless it does so by express provision or unavoidable implication; and provisions conferring power will be construed strictly against the person on whom the power is conferred.


An Act of Parliament may contain a power to make subordinate legislation which in turn can amend the enabling Act or another piece of primary legislation. The clause of the Bill containing such a provision allowing primary legislation to be amended by secondary legislation is commonly termed a ‘Henry VIII clause’ and the power itself is likewise called a ‘Henry VIII power’”—


terms familiar to us all. It goes on:

“The normal principles of statutory construction apply to Henry VIII powers but the courts will apply a restrictive interpretation if there is any doubt as to the scope of the power.”


The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, who is speaking on this group, may wish to comment on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I will carry on with the theme of the previous debate, which was very interesting in relation to statutory instruments and how far they afford us an opportunity to scrutinise provisions in the Bill.

I believe one solution to the challenges facing the Bill is to sunset the whole Bill. I am putting this forward as a proposition for discussion now between Committee and Report. It is not the only solution. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, also had an interesting amendment earlier which seeks to deal with the issue in a slightly different way, but nonetheless is worthy of consideration.

The Government’s defence, if you like, of parliamentary scrutiny is that the orders that come as a result of the use of the Act, when enacted, will come before Parliament in the form of statutory instruments, and most of them will be affirmative. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked what that means in practice. Since the Second World War, five statutory instruments have been defeated in your Lordships’ House. We also had the debate on tax credits in 2015 where we agreed two amendments to the Motion to approve the tax credit regulations. They sought essentially to delay consideration of the regulations until certain conditions were met. The Government were very cross about that, but the fact is that they decided not to proceed and one can say that the Lords defeated that statutory instrument, so six since the Second World War.

The Minister says, “Ah, but Parliament can debate them and scrutinise them in relation to an affirmative instrument”, and I accept that most will be affirmative, it means nothing. All we get is an hour’s debate, at most. We can put a regret Motion down, but what does that mean? Ministers take no account of regret Motions. It makes us feel better because we have a vote and defeat the Government, but it is meaningless.

This is the whole problem with the parliamentary appraisal of secondary legislation. It was not really considered when the Parliament Act was first introduced. We have an absolute veto, but because it is an absolute veto we feel very reluctant to use it. In effect we have no leverage whatsoever. As the noble Baroness said, apart from the imaginative use of the 2015 regulations, we cannot amend statutory instruments either. My suggestion is that the only way to deal with this, if the whole of the Bill needs to go forward, is a sunset clause.

Sunset clauses, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, reminded us on the second day in Committee, are not unknown to the Minister, who has just taken through the Trade Act, which has sunset provisions. The power there, I gather, is for five years, with an option for another five years through regulation. It simply ensures that if changes are made in that period, Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise them again through debating further primary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked for some form of comparable treatment in this Bill, and the Minister said that there is a difference, in that the trade agreements in the Trade Act are rollover agreements, many of which will be replaced in due course by other agreements. He argued that what we are talking about in this Bill are mutual recognition agreements rather than rollover agreements, and that there is a distinct difference. Up to a point, Minister, up to a point. It strikes me that there are some parallels. We currently have a status quo in relation to the existing regulation of professional qualifications. In time, we can expect more mutual recognition agreements to come forward and, as with the Trade Act, surely it is not unreasonable for Parliament to be able to scrutinise them properly and in primary legislation after a period of years.

Sunset clauses provide an expiry date for legislation and are used in circumstances where it is felt that Parliament should be given time to decide on its merits —again, after a fixed period. This is certainly one avenue we need to explore if the Bill is to be taken any further. I beg to move.

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, which would insert a sunset clause into the Bill. Why do I say that? Because many of its clauses, as we have already discussed, take Henry VIII powers and the intent of those clauses is not quite clear. The sunset clause overview states that a such a clause provides an expiry date for legislation:

“Sunset clauses are included in legislation when it is felt that Parliament should have the chance to decide on its merits again after a fixed period.”


Sunset clauses let Parliament reassess the legislation at a later date, once it is clear how it has been used in practice and how suitable it is to the policy challenge at hand.

The introduction of a sunset clause is also a useful method of reaching political compromise. It is clear from our discussions that we do not quite agree with a lot of the clauses. Reaching political compromise in the case of a controversial or sensitive provision allows the Government to make the provision they need for the time being, while building in a statutory guarantee of review of and parliamentary control over the Bill. In that respect, it is also good for the Government: they get their Bill through but it includes a sunset clause to allow Parliament greater scrutiny.

I was interested to see the guidance on the use of sunset clauses. The Government published guidance, through BEIS, on the better regulation framework in March 2020. This was written for government departments and explains how the better regulation system should operate. Section 1.5 of the guidance provides the following information on the use of review and sunset clauses:

“At an early stage in policy development,


government departments

“will need to consider whether either a statutory review clause is required or a sunset clause is appropriate … Sunset clauses are not a requirement, but a tool for policy makers to use where they are deemed appropriate and impose an automatic expiry of the measure on a specified date … and ensure scrutiny of the decision on whether or not to renew the regulation.”

On that basis, a sunset clause is the ideal way to deal with this Bill and the powers it takes through its different clauses, and I therefore support it.

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Lord Patel Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 14th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Like him, I was moved to draft Amendment 56 not least by the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which at the end of its consideration of Clause 3 said that it

“represents an inappropriate delegation of power and should be removed from the Bill.”

The noble Lord was not proceeding entirely on his own initiative, and I entirely recognise where he is coming from.

I am coming from this as a Member of the International Agreements Committee. We are looking at many of the negotiations taking place between ourselves—now as an independent trading state—and other countries in creating international agreements. I do not personally see the world as divided into trade agreements and other agreements. We are increasingly entering into economic partnership agreements where, to be frank, the issue of services and the mobility of professionals should rightly play an increasing part in the economic partnerships that we forge with other countries. I want to see us enter into frameworks with other countries whereby our professionals can work there, and their professionals can work here. That will be, as trade often is, to the benefit of all parties.

On that basis, I considered whether this may be like the Trade Bill, in which we effectively gave Ministers the regulatory power to amend legislation and bring it in line with the continuity agreements we enter into. The conclusion I reached is that it is not like that; these are new agreements, not continuations of old ones. From our point of view, as a committee charged under CRaG with the scrutiny of new agreements, we are only too aware that this House has no capacity to block such a treaty, and no capacity to amend it.

Where secondary legislation is concerned, the House may have the power to stop statutory instruments, but in this territory, frankly, we would enter very difficult terrain. We would end up with our Government having signed an agreement with another country, intending to be bound by it under international law—indeed, it may have come into force—and, at that point, this House would have to consider its implementation in legislation. It seems to me, therefore, that the remedy of deleting Clause 3—and so requiring that every time Ministers want to implement an international recognition agreement in legislation, they have to do it in new primary legislation—is asking too much. As time goes on, there will clearly be framework international recognition agreements under which Ministers will regularly, or maybe frequently, need to change the secondary legislation affecting a range of professions and regulators.

My thinking was that we should—as we often do—allow Ministers the power to change the statutory instruments and secondary legislation relating to new international recognition agreements, but not the power to change primary legislation. That is why, instead of changing Clause 3 itself, Amendment 56 amends the regulation clause at the end, Clause 13, and would provide that the power in Clause 3 to implement international recognition agreements is a power to modify subordinate legislation but not primary legislation; that would be the effect of Amendment 56. Noble Lords may support the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and others in opposing Clause 3, but—if they share my belief that we will often be in this this territory, with Ministers having to change secondary legislation and much less frequently primary legislation, and that, when they do, they should secure the consent of the House, with our ability, as ever, to insert amendments, conditions and caveats, as well as sunshine clauses and so on—then they should in due course consider an amendment on the lines of Amendment 56 to strike a better balance, giving Ministers power but not a Henry VIII power.

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

My Lords, to start, I do not agree with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I clearly understand the point that he is trying to make; in fact, I have my name down with others to strike Clause 13 from the Bill, but we will come to that.

I will say in a minute why I do not agree with the noble Lord’s proposition but I do agree with that of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and, absolutely, with his argument. It was clear from the comments of the Delegated Powers Committee that it considered this clause unnecessary. I personally think this is the key clause of the whole Bill; all the other clauses revolve around it.

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Lord Patel Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 9th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak to this group of amendments. My question for the Minister is why we need these amendments. I understand that he has brought them forward in part to satisfy concerns raised by the General Medical Council and those expressed in the report of the Delegated Powers Committee. My noble friend has had an opportunity to speak to other regulators—here I declare an interest as a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates—but what he is proposing in these amendments could appear to be micromanaging criteria that would best be left to the regulators.

Concern that has been expressed by the Bar Council for England and Wales that the Government are conflating two different aspects. The first is the right of the Government or the state to set out which person should have the right to enter and remain here. The second is what I believe is the right and the duty of the regulator, which is whether an individual has the right to practise a particular profession or to establish services in this country. In seeking to amend the Bill in the way the Government are doing, we are moving away from the mutual recognition basis which has served this country so well, and I do not agree with that premise. Perhaps I may repeat that I had the opportunity to practise in Brussels on European Community law on two separate occasions, so I think that the Bill before us and the regulations to which my noble friend has referred will make it much more difficult to achieve that in the future.

I refer also to a letter from my noble friend which he sent to the Delegated Powers Committee. He talks about a “generous agreement” that was sought with the European Union on professional qualifications. He goes on to state on page 12 in the third paragraph:

“However, for other trade partners, we are more likely to consider Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) frameworks, a more common precedent in international trade agreements.”


I confess to being slightly confused, because if we are moving away from mutual recognition of qualifications with the European Union, why are we seeking to establish them in international trade agreements? I look forward to my noble friend being able to clarify those concerns.

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for these amendments, as I have spoken at length about the problems that would have been created for the General Medical Council otherwise. I am also grateful that he had extensive consultation with his officials and the General Medical Council. As he said, the General Medical Council is grateful to him for bringing forward these amendments.

Having said that, I would like the Minister to confirm on the record that any determination made by a regulator on whether a professional is able to join a register can be based on an assessment of the individual’s knowledge, skills and experience rather than solely on qualifications. Can he further confirm that the regulator would be able to make such an assessment using whichever method they found appropriate, including existing tests of competence and any other test they might develop in the future when it is found necessary?

I also support the probing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. When the General Medical Council considers qualifications and experience, it takes into account the experience that the individual may have gained in his or her own country, but it also has the power to look at the experience that the individual may have gained subsequently outside their country. The amendment sought by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seems appropriate and I would be interested in the Minister’s response, but, at this juncture, I thank him for his amendments, and I support them.

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

My Lords, I refer to my interest as a member of the GMC board for the sake of this group of amendments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Patel, I welcome the government amendments and thank the Minister for his discussions with the regulator. I listened with great interest to the comments and queries of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about the amendments. In a sense, they reflect the generic and skeletal nature of this Bill, which means that each clause has to relate to many different professions. Frankly, I think it argues for a more detailed Bill, which would meet her issues as well as mine.

The argument that the GMC and others have put is very simple. Clause 1 currently gives power to the appropriate national authority—in the case of health regulators, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care—to draft regulations to introduce a process that will require them to assess whether someone has a particular overseas qualification that is substantially the same as a UK qualification. In the case of the GMC, a person so deemed would then be eligible to practise as a doctor in the UK. That is because the GMC does not require those with UK qualifications to do anything further to demonstrate that they have the necessary knowledge and skills for registration. This could give an automatic entitlement to practise, under the current provision of Clause 1, for international medical graduates on the same basis as UK graduates. Currently, GMC has a very rigorous process for assessing whether the international medical graduate is safe and fit to practise. Without these amendments, it would be almost impossible for the GMC to manage operationally, with 10,000 international medical graduates applying for registration each year. It would be virtually impossible to assess this number of qualifications from countries as diverse as India, Pakistan, Nigeria, UAE and many others, with hundreds of different medical schools. The concern was that the Bill as drafted could force health profession regulators to accept professionals into UK practice in a way that compromised patient safety.

The Minister was sympathetic, and I am very grateful to him. However, there remains the issue of the relationship of Clause 3 to Clause 1, which we will come on to debate. In relation to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, he clearly has a point. I hope the Minister might take this away and give it further thought.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. She was right to say that we will probably need to think a little further about the subsequent scrutiny arrangements for the operation of this legislation. I fear that the amendments we have at the moment probably do not do it.

Perhaps with the exception of Amendment 54, they all suffer from the difficulty of proposing subsequent scrutiny of the impact of this legislation on issues which will themselves be impacted by a wide range of other legislation, administration and circumstances. It is difficult to isolate the impact of this legislation in particular. When we re-examine it we should, if not legislating, certainly be looking to Ministers to say that we should focus on understanding how it is working after a suitable period. One of the conventional processes would be five-year, post-legislative scrutiny. That would probably be the appropriate route down which to go.

I want to say a word about the issue of consultation, which came up under the previous group. There are a number of amendments in this group, but I am pretty sure that the proposers of Amendments 25 and 29 will recognise that they do not provide appropriate consultation opportunities. If there is a mutual recognition agreement in an international agreement with another country, it will have been subject to its own consultation arrangements. To have another consultation on the regulations to implement it would be inappropriate. It is also inappropriate and unnecessary to consult on regulations simply to get rid of the existing EU directives or retained EU legislation.

Turning to Amendments 14 and 19, in both instances there is a good case for consultation. I am not sure whether it needs to be legislated for in statute, but we too often assume that there is a public law duty to consult when there is not. It may be better to have a statutory duty to consult even if it is framed, pretty much as these provisions are, in broad and general terms, just to ensure that Ministers go through the appropriate processes at the right time. I am quite supportive of Amendments 14 and 19 for these purposes, particularly Amendment 19.

We had a previous discussion about demand. You cannot look at demand for professional services without actually asking consumers, so making sure that consumers are consulted in the process would be a good approach. I hope that Ministers will at least look at whether there is a place for a statutory duty to consult on regulations under Clause 1, and on the question of demand for professional services being met.

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak mainly to Amendment 53 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I had hoped that he would speak before me, so I could hear his views on the amendment, but I support its intent. I might have some reservations regarding whether a report should be made within 12 months or a longer period, as others have mentioned. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that it is not a question of the impact on innovations of this Bill alone, but the cumulative impact of other Bills, to which this one might add. That is the issue I wish to explore.

The United Kingdom has a big ambition to be a science superpower, as has been said many times by our Prime Minister. In fact, he is the second Prime Minister, including Harold Wilson, to have mentioned science as a driving force for the United Kingdom and the UK’s leading in science. So, we have a great ambition: we are going to invest 2.4% of GDP by 2027 and, depending on the spending settlement to be announced shortly, it looks as though there will be £22 billion for R&D leading up to 2024. A significant amount of resources is being put in. So, what drives innovation? The drivers of innovation are research infrastructure; funding; importantly, career development opportunities for early-career researchers—I emphasise early-career; and collaboration and knowledge exchange through institutions in different countries working together.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Patel.

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead. The amendment could be extended to include all professions rather than just the health profession, but I will concentrate my comments on the health profession.

I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. Currently, the General Medical Council, as the regulator of doctors, has powers to regulate the training of doctors; to regulate clinical training following a degree course at university and the foundation years; and to regulate and approve specialist training conducted by the Royal Colleges. The curriculum is provided by the Royal Colleges but the General Medical Council approves it. The council then maintains a register of generalists and of specialists. In my case, it would be the specialism of obstetrics and gynaecology; I therefore could not practise cardiac surgery unless I was trained and approved by the regulator to be put on a specialist list of cardiac surgeons. The risk about not having consultation and producing regulation is that the regulator cannot then change the rules.

Amendment 27 is more to do with international agreements. There have been occasions when hospitals overseas have tried to open a branch for provision of specialist medical services with a view to their own people—their own doctors—delivering the care, until it was pointed out that that cannot be done.

It is possible—I have done it myself—to go to the United States and practise in a given hospital with a visa that allows you to do so, without having to go through any regulatory registering process or have experience and qualification approved. What we do not have, and quite rightly so, is a similar arrangement in the United Kingdom. It would therefore be wrong for any trade agreement to allow for that provision. Having the ability to guard, through consultation, against that is extremely important. Hence, I support Amendments 15 and 27.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, whose name is next on the list, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Patel.

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I will try to be very brief; I know that the hour is getting late. I will speak only to Amendments 20 and 28, both of which were brilliantly introduced by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and Lady Noakes.

I will address what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, raised about the report of the House of Lords inquiry that I chaired on the long-term sustainability of the NHS. He is right: the key threats to this were the strategy for long-term workforce planning and social care. Neither has been addressed yet.

On Amendment 20, the regulator has no role in terms of workforce planning. As the Minister said, the Government also do not have any role in imposing any regulations on the regulator when it comes to recognising overseas qualifications. The regulator also does not have a role in terms of recruiting professionals from overseas; that is the business of the service. However, as we all agree, the regulations that the regulator makes for assessing qualifications, experience and any other measures of competence cannot be diluted.

I support Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. If the Government were to take powers in relation to any regulations through any treaty, including trade treaties, that might dilute the regulator’s role in assessing overseas qualifications, experience and tests of competence, that would be unacceptable. That is the only time that regulators will have a role, in terms of being consulted in relation to workforce shortages.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I first endorse the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, whose comments in this area are very important.

I know that it is not in order in these proceedings to intervene on other Members, but I was itching to intervene on the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, because no one in this Chamber, notwithstanding the Grimstone rule holder, understands the CRaG process more. My question, which I will leave hanging—or convert into a question to the Minister—is as follows. My reading of the Bill is that it does not necessarily mean that an international recognition agreement will be considered a treaty under CRaG. A CRaG definition of “treaty” is any international agreement between member states or an international organisation. It does not include any agreement under an existing treaty—so, if we have a treaty with a country with which a mutual recognition agreement is subsequently signed, that does not necessarily need to go through the CRaG process. The international recognition agreement under this legislation does not necessarily state that that will be the case. My question was going to be on that, but the Minister can get back to me in writing at some stage; the hour is getting late, so he does need to reply today.

This may be of significance when it comes to scrutiny. To take the example of Canada, let us say that a subsequent agreement under the aegis of the Canada agreement expanding the mutual recognition elements would not be considered under CRaG but would trigger the regulation-making power in this area, which means we would still need to consider scrutiny. That is important because, when I looked at what the international recognition agreement stipulates on the activation of these powers, Clause 3(4) refers to

“the recognition of overseas qualifications or overseas experience”,

and that is it. It does not include fitness to practise and all the other areas the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, alluded to, which are currently covered under the statutory protection for regulators to consider the fitness of someone who is applying, including their past record.

I was pleased that my noble friend Lady Randerson and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raised this, because my document of choice for the day—the Department of Health’s consultation document—is quite clear on the Government’s intention to expand the role of regulators to have wider remit in considering the setting of standards and outcomes for quality assuring education and training, both pre and post-application. Indeed, the regulators would be able to have a view not just on the qualification of an applicant but on the appropriate education and training standards that the person went through to reach that qualification. In my view, that is important for the very point the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated.

Simply recognising an overseas qualification under an international agreement is way below what our current regulators look at when they take into consideration the standards of the education that led to that qualification. We have had scandals in this country, with Oxford colleges and others, which required the Government to go beyond the previous scandals that simply accepted a qualification. Now we look at the underlying quality assurance of the courses, the programmes of training and the education and training providers. Indeed, the Government say:

“We propose that all regulators should have the power to approve, refuse, re-approve, withdraw approval, monitor and quality assure courses, programmes of training, qualifications and education and training providers. Where relevant, these powers should also apply to post-registration courses, programmes of training, qualifications and post-registration education”.


If an international agreement with a country was simply about the recognition of the qualification, that is a diminution rather than a maintenance or enhancement. I think the points have been very well made, and I hope the Minister will be able to respond.

I think that the Minister said “never”. I have been in this House for seven years, and Ministers rarely use the word “never”. In fact, they never use that word, not least because they cannot bind their successor Governments. I have found that they rarely bind their successors as Ministers—but the Minister did do that. He said that it would never impact on what Governments would tell regulators about how they handled applications; they would never change the wider duties on regulators for the decisions made in an application; and they would not impact on the powers in connection with an application. If that is the case, why are those three specific provisions in Clause 1? Subsection (5)(f) means that the powers will be about a specific person, and that a regulator would

“have regard to guidance issued from time to time by a specified person”—

as in the Minister—

“when determining an application”.

Subsection (5)(g) refers to a

“provision as to the other duties of a specified regulator in connection with an application”.

Subsection (5)(h) likewise refers to a

“provision as to the powers of a specified regulator”.

So if the Minister is right that these regulations would never be used to do it, why are they in the Bill? I think that, as we heard under the previous group of amendments, they should be taken out.

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Lord Patel Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 25th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to speak mainly about how the Bill will affect recognition of qualifications of healthcare professionals and in particular medical doctors from overseas. I am a medical professional. Previously I have been involved with assessment of overseas qualified doctors and been a member of the General Medical Council, and I was chair of a regulator responsible for assessing the qualifications and experience of specialist doctors, a role now in the remit of the General Medical Council. However, I am currently not involved in the work of any healthcare regulator.

The Bill places obligations on regulators to establish a framework for recognition of professional qualifications from around the world and to share this information with similar bodies overseas, being transparent about entry and practice of regulated professions. The General Medical Council, the regulator of doctors in the United Kingdom, already has the powers, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said, to do the majority of things that the Bill describes. It also has a long history of a well-established system of recognition of medical professionals’ qualifications and experience prior to granting entry to the register. In this context, this Bill is not only unnecessary but will lead to more confusion and unintended consequences unless amended.

Clause 1(1), granting international professions entitlement to practise based on either qualifications or experience, will undermine patient safety. Clause 1(2) runs the risk of replicating the EU directive on mutual recognition of professional qualification—the so-called MRPQ directive—the shortcomings of which were highlighted in the past as the directive related more to recognition of medical qualifications and less to competences, including language skills, a skill not applicable to some professions. I hope that the Minister can clarify, particularly in relation to medical professionals, the policy intent behind the proposals in the Bill, and give an assurance that he understands the potential issues that could affect the current and future registration process of healthcare regulators.

I acknowledge that this is framework legislation covering more than 160 professions, but, as drafted, it runs the risk of unintended consequences that would impact negatively on patient safety and on workforce shortages in medicine. The current well-established processes of recognition of qualifications are on demonstration of knowledge, skills and experience in a variety of well-tested processes, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro. They go a long way to making sure that doctors from overseas have the necessary qualifications and experience, as well as language competences, before gaining entry to the medical register. The wording referring to “overseas qualifications” and “overseas experience” in Clause 1(2) would prevent regulators using their current system of assessment, and that cannot be right. I understand that that might not be the policy intent—the Explanatory Notes imply that—but in this area the Bill needs amending.

Unusually—in fact, uniquely—in his opening remarks the Minister indicated that he recognised the unique and well-developed processes of the General Medical Council for recognising qualifications of overseas doctors and intended to amend the Bill. I welcome those remarks. I would like to think that his change of mind was because he had sight of my speech, but I doubt that; it was probably more to do with briefing to his department from the General Medical Council. I am grateful to him for indicating that the Government will amend Clause 1(2), and I look forward to that—but I am sure that if the Government do not, I and others will be keen to do so in the spirit of improving the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Trade Bill

Lord Patel Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 7th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I speak strongly in support of Amendment 11, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. The hour is late, and we spent a long time discussing the matter in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and others have dealt with the subject in detail and eloquently. Hence, I will be brief, as the last speaker before the Front-Bench speakers.

No matter what the Government say about the NHS not being on the table for any trade negotiations with the USA, it is naive to think that that will be so. Members of the US Congress and big pharma have made it clear that they expect the NHS to be part of any negotiation of a United States trade deal. In fact, the chair of the Senate finance committee—a committee that will have a final say in any trade deal that will be made—said that it is clear that all goods and services are part of the negotiation and, furthermore, that the NHS would benefit from competition from US companies. US big pharma has always complained that the UK, with its regulatory and medicines pricing regime, does not pay full price for medicines. It has even suggested that, as a result, US patients end up paying a higher price.

The US data and tech firms see an opportunity in our NHS patients’ records to develop patient management platforms and an opportunity to conduct clinical trials on cohorts of stratified patient and much more. I can quote an example: the company Palantir that has been involved in data mining and in security and intelligence. It was given a contract for the price of £1, at the beginning of the pandemic in March, to develop a platform for Covid-19 data. The contract was to be re-examined three months later. It was extended briefly and now I gather that, without any public debate, it has been granted a contract for five more years. Why would a data mining company be interested in having data related to health and health management? The answer is quite obvious: data is gold. In the absence of any government policy in relation to security and governance of health and patient data, it is an open goal for tech companies.

As I mentioned in Committee, several US firms are already involved in managing services worth billions of pounds. The prize for running services and exploiting patient and service-based data will be worth tens of billions of pounds. In market-driven self-service, the losers will be the patients and taxpayers.

Recently, it was reported that there was a meeting, organised by the Office for Life Sciences, between NHS England and big pharma and big tech with the intention to digitise and use the data of tens of millions of patients. Such an exercise would cost billions of pounds, which might be funded by the tech firms, but there was discussion about who would hold the IP. The risk we run, not only concerning data but also about how the services are managed in the NHS, is that they will be given to overseas companies, particularly American companies, that will benefit and profit from it. The NHS will be the loser, and therefore I strongly support this amendment.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this has been necessarily a short debate, but it has been an incredibly high quality debate. We have heard, from all the speakers, a high level of understanding of the issue and the dangers that Amendment 11 is seeking to address. I speak as one of those who signed Amendment 11. I support Amendment 43 and congratulate my noble friend Lady Sheehan on her eloquent presentation, but I am going to focus on Amendment 11 because it is a really important issue. We heard a lot about data from people who know a lot about data.

Sitting above this is the fact that the Government have no published cross-border data transfer policy. Without that, it seems as though each trade deal will be a series of negotiations without a framework. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones set out the benefits of having constraints and frameworks for this. It is clear from the Japan trade deal that the Government have indicated a level of flexibility around data. Once that has been delivered for one trade deal, it becomes a necessity for the next—and a bit more and a bit more. Even if that is not what will happen, I am sure the Minister understands that this fuels the fires of people’s suspicion and concern about the way in which data is being treated in this country.

From his position of great knowledge, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, set out some specific examples—not of a trade deal but of trade in this country—where data is already being parlayed. One things that has not been said is that, for patients to consent to their data being used, they have to believe that there will be a benefit. They do not want that benefit to flow across these borders through trade; they want it to accrue to the NHS. That is why Amendment 11 is important, and why I hope that it goes to a vote shortly and gets the support of Members from these Benches and beyond.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, spoke very clearly in moving this amendment. Like me, she recognises the benefits of trade, but only when health takes the central place in our trade policy. That is what Amendment 11 seeks to achieve.

Trade Bill

Lord Patel Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 1st October 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 51, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to which I have added my name. I also look forward to the comments of my friends, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Under normal Committee circumstances, we would have enjoyed debating some of these amendments.

In my view, this is the most important amendment for our highly valued NHS. Any trade deal that allows someone to own and manage or have access to any patient data, in no matter how small a way, is a threat to our NHS. The greatest perceived or real threat is from a trade deal with the USA that includes any part of the NHS. Our health service is free at the point of need; the USA healthcare system, on the other hand, is based on ability to pay. That in itself defines what the motives will be for any USA organisation wanting to get involved in any aspects of our NHS.

The Government repeatedly say that our NHS will not be on the table and that it is not for sale. What does that mean? The Government and NHS England already allow private contractors to bid for health services. Recent examples are Deloitte and Serco, for Covid-19-related services. Tennessee-based Acadia runs nearly a third of mental health beds, and the Priory Group has won many NHS contracts. Centene, a subsidiary of Centene Corporation, a tech and logistic provider, works with many GP practices. Palantir, an American data-mining company, is contracted to track, model, and analyse data from Covid-19. Optum, a subsidiary of the giant US health provider UnitedHealth, has contracts with many CCGs.

It is said that the citizens of the UK are not bothered who provides the service, as long as it is free when they need it, but they will if the taxes have to go up, services become poor and they have to pay for extras. While our health service is not perfect in every way, we get a bigger bang for our buck, despite being one of the least funded of OECD countries. Commercial companies may not wish or be allowed directly to run clinical services, but may be interested in managing the services. NHS England is moving to integrated care services, devising systems to be able to run such services. American companies such as UnitedHealth and other IPOs may well be interested in running regional services, with a contract that allows them to keep any surplus as profits. They could do that only by cutting services, particularly in secondary care.

The jewels in the crown of our NHS are information and data. A national health service that in the near future will be completely digitised is a goldmine of data, estimated to be worth well over £10 billion a year —data that is a goldmine for developing artificial intelligence, robotics and so on. No one in the world has such a database. Add to this the genomics data that UK has for both patients and population that is unique in the world makes the NHS highly attractive for developing and testing of personalised medicines. Digitised patient information is of immense value for doing clinical trials with stratified patients. There is no other country in the world that can so quickly identify patient groups required for such trials, as demonstrated recently in a clinical trial of a US-manufactured drug, conducted with speed and lower cost, mostly in the United Kingdom. It is this kind of information that makes our NHS is so valuable; any pharma, biotech, medical devices or diagnostic company would be mad not to want to get its hands on it.

The Government have said that they would welcome companies to come and help innovate. That is an invitation. The unicorn companies we wish the UK to develop will become a reality, but the UK will not be the owners. Of course, it could all be for good, except that it will be profit driven. Why is it that USA has the most expensive healthcare system in the world and delivers one of the worst outcomes in health? The big pharma companies say that we pay too little for our medicines, as already mentioned, through our regulatory system and medicines reimbursement regime. While I accept that NICE methodologies need a review, pharma would want much more than that in any UK-USA trade deal. I declare an interest here: in October 1997, I submitted a paper developed by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges to establish a national institute of clinical effectiveness, which became the NICE of today, to the then Minister of Health in the Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington. So I may have some right to comment on the methodologies of NICE.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, said, even when medicines patents run out, US pharma would seek data exclusivity to prevent cheaper drugs being produced. For all those reasons, why would any country negotiating a trade deal not wish to have any aspects of our NHS to be part of it, particularly the USA? To be able to get a share of delivery of service, manage or procure for any part of NHS is a profitable prize in itself; to be able to get hold of even a part of the health and patient data, with the possibility of owning it, is a prize measured in billions of dollars.

The only way to keep our NHS in our hands is to rule out any possibility of it being included in any trade documents maybe through mechanisms of positive listing or legislation in the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, will be committed to do this at Report. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I shall speak to Amendment 51, to which I am a signatory. Before I do that, I commend my noble friend Lady Sheehan, who spoke eloquently on her Amendment 75, one part of which was about the dangers of price gouging. She mentioned a number of different ploys, as did the noble Lord, Lord Patel. But there is another one, whereby companies gain control of the generic and the replacement for the generic, then seek to phase out the generic. That has been happening recently. Perhaps the Minister can explain how, in trading terms, we can combat that kind of behaviour.

The dangers of ISDS, which were set out by my noble friend Lady Sheehan and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, are real and present. I look forward to the Minister’s response to their speeches on that issue.

Amendment 51 is designed to protect the NHS from potential dangers. If we are setting out on the great ship of global trade, it may be a lifebelt. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is right that this Bill is the only game in town for Parliament to exert its views, and this issue is of real concern to many Members of both Houses. That is why we are right to be having this discussion today.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, was brilliant and devastating as he described the threats to our health service—threats that it is already facing. He described how we are on the brink of serious dangers, which the amendment highlights and seeks to avoid. The stakes are high, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, set out when speaking to an earlier group of amendments. The NHS is a huge potential market for any national economy with which we might wish to conclude a trade deal, not least, of course, the United States of America. However, we should acknowledge that it is also clear that the UK is in a position to continue to benefit substantially from the right relationship with international medical service and pharmaceutical companies, and we have to get that balance right between closing and opening our borders.

Science Research Funding in Universities (Science and Technology Committee Report)

Lord Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Patel]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Science and Technology Committee Science research funding in universities (4th Report, Session 2017–19, HL Paper 409).

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my associations now and in the past with academic and professional organisations, all of which are in the register of interests.

It is with great pleasure that I open this debate on science research funding in universities. I thank all noble Lords most sincerely for taking part. I am pleased to see that the desk clerk today is Donna Davidson. She was the Science and Technology Committee clerk at the time of the inquiry and a key person in writing the report. I take this opportunity to thank her for all her work during her tenure. My thanks go also to: Dr Amy Creese, our policy analyst; Cerise Burnett-Stuart, the committee assistant; and Dr Simon Cran-McGreehin, our current committee clerk, who joined us in the latter part of the inquiry. I am indebted to all the committee members, whether they are able to speak today or not, for their support.

I am pleased to see that the Minister responding to the debate is the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. To avoid him getting withdrawal symptoms, I promise that I will not finish my speech without mentioning Brexit.

My task today is to introduce the findings of our report but, as it has been a year since we published it, it may be right also to consider the effect that government policies on science funding will have on research and innovation in the United Kingdom going forward.

We launched our inquiry on science research funding in universities in May 2019. During it, the Augar review of higher education was published. UK universities are recognised internationally as the best place to conduct scientific research. Traditionally, the dual funding system for research has worked well but, over time, its flaws have begun to have a negative impact. For example, quality-related, or QR, funding has stagnated and fallen by more than 12% since 2010. This has come at the same time as a decrease in the percentage of cost recovery for research from funding councils and charities, which has added to the problem.

The committee looked at the recommendations of the Augar report in the context of research funding in universities. We were more than surprised to hear that, in making its recommendations, the review had not considered the impact they would have on universities’ ability to conduct science research—one of the key roles of universities. Furthermore, it did not think it within its remit to do so.

As the Government prepare their response to the Augar review as part of their spending review, they should be in no doubt that, if Augar recommendations are implemented, it will seriously affect the Government’s ambition to make UK a science superpower. I could not put it more strongly. Stagnation in QR funding for over a decade, a decrease in full economic costs to 70% from funders and a shortfall in support funding from government in relation to charities’ research grants leaves universities to have to cross-subsidise costs, mainly from international student fees. Added to these ongoing funding issues, there is now the significant and unknown effect of Covid-19 on university finances and research.

In 2018-19, universities reported a £4.5 billion shortfall between income and costs of research. Universities predict a reduction in the number of international students; if that happens, it will further add to financial pressures. Also predicted is a possible shortfall of approximately £790 million from other streams of income. The effect of temporary removal of controls on student numbers this year may further add to costs. Other effects of Covid-19 on UK research have included restrictions on research activities, closure of labs, et cetera, as a result of lockdown, and also reduced numbers of postgraduate students coming from overseas.

Medical charities with a shortfall in their income have cut or cancelled 18% of their research funding, amounting to hundreds of millions of pounds. The biggest threat to universities from the reduction in funding is a reduction in research talent. Early-career researchers are particularly likely to be affected. Research students’ funding is funded only to 45% of costs, resulting in a £1.5 billion deficit. Cuts to charity research funding are likely to disadvantage early-career researchers such as PhD students, postdocs and research fellows. Covid-19 clearly is going to have a significant effect, and no one knows for how long.

I turn to the government response, which in some terms is positive and is much appreciated, as far as it goes. The Government have provided short-term funding of £100 million in QR-related funding that is brought forward. A research sustainability task force engaging with the university sector to discuss science research and issues is most welcome. The £280 million sustaining university excellence fund—the so-called SURE fund—is another initiative. That is all good, but how do you plug billions of pounds-worth of shortfall? Some questions remain about the long-term level of support.

In December 2019, the Government announced their ambition to make the UK a science superpower. The recent research and development road map reaffirmed the pledge to increase R&D spending to £22 billion by 2024-25. By the way, our report identified a key issue of the large number of scientists who will be needed with this scale of increase in R&D. Estimates suggest that an increase of as much as 50% in the numbers of research scientists and technicians will be needed; in the short term, this could be met only by international mobility. The government R&D road map sets out the framework, but now it needs the Government to engage with the university sector to get the details right.

I said that I would not disappoint the Minister by not mentioning Brexit. Agreeing a sensible deal and associating UK with the Horizon Europe programme is important. It will enable the UK, a leading science research country in Europe, to continue and enhance the strong links with academia and the private sector, not only with other European counties but more globally. If the UK fails to secure association with Horizon Europe, it will be necessary to have schemes focused on international partnerships, with bottom-up, excellence-based frontier research put in place, with funding and the ability to tap into Horizon Europe on a third-country basis. Is the Minister able to comment?

Putting this all together, I have the following questions for the Minister. What steps will the Government take to improve the financial resilience of university-based research and innovation? Will this include addressing the shortfall in funder contribution to full costs and short-term and long-term adjustment to QR funding? When do the Government intend to publish the terms and conditions of the SURE fund? What involvement will the university sector have in developing the R&D road map? What involvement will the universities have in the Government’s place-based strategy for research? I look forward to the Minister’s response and very keenly look forward to listening to the speeches of other noble Lords. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

First, I thank the Minister. It is always possible to pick out negative comments in the response to the Minister at the end of a debate, but I shall try to be generous and not do so. I will concentrate on the many positive things that he said. Clearly, the message that he gives us is that the Government understand the needs of the research community and the necessary funding. I look forward to details of the road map, and I am pleased to hear what he has to say about the SURE fund and place-based research. I thank him for that.

I also thank all noble Lords who took part. There have been excellent, well thought-out speeches. I will not pick out any particular speeches—there will be no golden triangles. They have all been golden. One thing I will say is that I have never thought of the noble Lord, Lord Rees of Ludlow, as a weirdo. Someone who has spent a lifetime gazing at stars cannot be regarded as a weirdo. But I am only joking.

I thank you all most sincerely for joining this debate. We look forward to the spending review and what the Government have to say about funding research. Thank you all.

Motion agreed.

Nuclear Energy: Small Modular Reactors

Lord Patel Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

I completely agree with the noble Lord. The advantage of nuclear is that it provides baseload but if, as he says, we make further progress on storage, the variables in renewables would have the same effect. Therefore, we will continue to provide equal priority to advances in technology for storing electricity.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, in their reports on small modular nuclear reactors, both the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology and the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee made the point that the UK’s ability to deliver on the development and implementation of small modular reactors depends on our skills base. We have a significant lack of skills. What are the Government doing to develop those skills in nuclear science?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I accept the points that the noble Lord makes and refer him back to the nuclear sector deal, which is a collaboration between the Government and the industry. In that, we accepted that there was a need to develop our skills base, which we will continue to do.

Off-site Manufacture for Construction (Science and Technology Committee Report)

Lord Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Patel]

That this House takes note of the Report from the Science and Technology Committee Off-site manufacture for construction: Building for change (2nd Report, HL Paper 169).

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate on the Science and Technology Committee inquiry, Off-site Manufacture for Construction: Building for Change. I should begin with some important thank yous: to our committee clerk, Donna Davidson; to our policy analyst, Dr Daniel Rathbone; and to our committee assistant Cerise Burnett-Stuart. All of them, as always, worked hard throughout the inquiry. I should also like to thank, most sincerely, our specialist adviser, Mike Putnam. His experience and expertise were much appreciated. On behalf of the committee, I also thank Laing O’Rourke for arranging for some members of the committee to visit its facilities to view aspects of digital construction.

I thank all the committee members, not hesitatingly at all, for their diligence and support. I mention particularly the noble Lord, Lord Mair, who persuaded us to conduct this inquiry. I know he will speak at some length about several of the issues involved and on the key aspects of our inquiry, which allows me to make my contribution shorter. I will do so by summarising the key findings of the report, allowing others to speak in more detail. I thank all the noble Lords taking part in this debate today, and I am delighted to see that some non-members of the committee have put their names down to speak, including the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who has vast experience in construction in this area.

I also thank the Minister, for personally attending to give oral evidence to the committee, and the subsequent government response. It is not a frequent occurrence that the Government find inquiry reports agreeable. I am pleased that the Government agreed with much that we recommended. My colleagues and I will therefore no doubt focus in the debate on those aspects where the Government were less in agreement. I hope the Minister will find appropriate and agreeable answers today.

The findings of our inquiry are covered in six chapters. We make 10 key recommendations and reach several conclusions. I will attempt to summarise some of these. In their response, the Government recognised the construction sector’s contribution to the economy and to employment. It contributes over £138 billion of gross value to the economy and employs over 3.1 million workers. However, despite its importance, the sector fails to match the productivity improvements seen in other sectors of the economy. Labour productivity, for instance, is nearly a fifth lower in the construction industry than in other sectors. We believe that, if implemented, our inquiry findings and recommendations will go some way to improving the performance of the construction sector.

The combined effects of the problems characterising the construction sector mean that it cannot meet the needs of housing and will struggle to meet the needs of infrastructure. Off-site manufacture for construction can help it meet those needs. Off-site manufacture has several tangible benefits, including better-quality buildings, fewer labourers, increased productivity, the opportunity to create more regional jobs and better building safety, to list but a few. Those all make a compelling case for the wider use of off-site manufacture for construction.

Despite those obvious benefits, the uptake of off-site manufacture is limited, and that will need to change. For change to occur, the regulatory, financial and commercial environments that currently operate in the sector need to be addressed, and action is needed not only from the sector but from the Government. I acknowledge that the Government have made a start, particularly in their publication of the construction sector deal, and this is a very important step forward. I hope that the Minister will agree that, for it to succeed, the Government and the Construction Leadership Council will need to work together, and a key component of that should be the development of a clear forward plan, including timelines and indicators of performance management. Can the Minister say when this might happen and who will lead on it?

I very much welcome the Government’s announcement of presumption in favour of off-site manufacture and their investment in digital design for building and manufacture. We look forward to plans for its implementation. Again, perhaps the Minister can say more about when this might be implemented.

To meet the current housing shortage, the Government have set ambitious targets for housebuilding and have announced investment in the construction sector deal. Can the Minister specify what conditions they will attach to this investment to drive the use of off-site manufacture for construction? The Government have several levers they can use to optimise this. Although we recognise that they are taking some action, in Chapter 6 we outline further steps that they can take, including developing and publishing a series of key performance indicators against which the success of “presumption in favour”, which the Government have now said they will commit to, can be assessed. What plans do they have to do this?

Much of the evidence we received suggested a construction sector that is fragmented and lacking in trust. This a reflection of current business models and traditional ways of managing finance and cash flow. The Construction Leadership Council has an important role in providing resources and leadership to overcome this. We welcome the Government’s commitment to changing the public sector procurement model to procure for whole-life value rather than up-front costs. This, together with presumption in favour of off-site manufacture, is an important signal to the industry. The Science and Technology Committee will follow future developments with interest and may well revisit the situation with a follow-up inquiry to track the Government’s record in fulfilling their commitments. In the meantime, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, as I thank the noble Lords who spoke from the Front Benches opposite. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, took both sides: as a committee member and as a Front-Bench speaker. I thank all noble Lords who took part, particularly those who are not on the committee. Their expertise was obvious. Science and Technology Committee reports often end up being debated by just the committee so it is nice to see that, on this report and the report hitherto, the debate has been joined by other Members of the House.

I come to the response from the Minister. Yes, he gave us a lot of reassurances. That is good. He also indicated one or two other developments that are occurring. That is also good to know. Some of us might have felt that we were probably looking for real and tangible commitments from the Government, rather than reassurances. However, I am encouraged that the report to be published in a year’s time will address all the issues that were highlighted, and I am glad that the Minister at least felt that the debate and the report were constructive in taking forward the issues of off-site construction and the presumption in favour, which was one of our key recommendations. It is good to know that the five government departments will now have to take this forward but I hope we will hear from the Government more commitment to driving this agenda forward if that does not happen, and how that will be done. I thank the Minister, but if he could give further reassurance on a more real commitment in a letter we would welcome it. Again, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords for the debate.

Motion agreed.