European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Stephen and Lord Davies of Stamford

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 26th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stephen (LD)]

My Lords, while I strongly support all that has been said about the continuation of the EHIC scheme, I want to speak to Amendment 353 in my name and thank my noble friend Lady Jolly and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for adding their names to it.

The amendment would require the UK Government to make arrangements for an independent evaluation of the impact of the European Union withdrawal legislation and of Brexit on the health and social care sectors across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is intended to be a simple, common-sense amendment. In the Brexit debate, a lot of attention is on trade and the economy, or, today, on the customs union, but our care services and our NHS will also be affected in a major way by our withdrawal from the EU. There will be many impacts on care and support for children and young people, for people with disabilities, for people with long-term conditions and for those with additional support needs. Not all these impacts are yet known or understood. It is clear, however, that many are likely to be negative. That is certainly the risk and it is why we must be vigilant and aware.

So the purpose of the amendment is to say, “Let’s be concerned about these issues; let’s give them a higher priority than at present, and let’s monitor the situation very closely, because if we get it wrong, NHS services and the care of thousands of vulnerable people could be badly affected”. The proposal is to review such issues not more than one year after Brexit takes place to see what has happened, to understand the impact and to allow the Government, local authorities and the NHS to take appropriate action. The intention is to involve in this independent process the devolved Governments, the staff of the NHS and our care services, charities, voluntary organisations and others.

The amendment was inspired by Camphill Scotland, which has many EU staff and volunteers living and working in its outstanding care communities. Camphill also operates in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and right across the EU, and now around the globe, but its very first community was on the Camphill estate in Milltimber, near Aberdeen in Scotland.

More than 50 charitable and voluntary organisations support the amendment. These organisations do not care about the politics of Brexit; they care about the vulnerable children, disadvantaged adults, older people and those with mental health problems or long-term illnesses to whom they give support.

I believe that the amendment will be strongly welcomed also by many people in the NHS, not all of whom were entirely convinced by the message on the side of the “Boris bus” during the campaign. Staff from right across the EU work in our NHS and in our care services. More than 10% of our doctors in the UK are from EU countries and, in total, more than 60,000 staff from the EU work in our British NHS, with many thousands more in the charitable and voluntary sectors. If Brexit means that we lose only some of these people, we could still have big problems. If it becomes more difficult to recruit new staff from EU countries, this could become a major crisis for our hospitals, our care homes, our special needs schools and many other vital services.

I ask the Government and the Minister to respond positively to the amendment. It is the sort of amendment that makes sense and can so easily be agreed to, with little to lose and a great deal to gain.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 205, which has already been very ably explained by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. First, I want to say a word or two in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who made a most impressive speech. I hope that, for once, the Government will listen to her; they certainly ought to because she has a very special position of respect in the medical world. The medical profession in this country has been, at least up to now, one of the leading professions in the world, and she has a great deal of experience behind her and behind the words she set forth just now.

On that matter, as the noble Baroness said, the decision to leave the EMA was completely gratuitous. There was no reason for it at all. It was going to be perfectly possible to carry on with full membership while we left the European Union. A lot of us did not want us to leave the European Union—your Lordships know that I am among them—but there is no point in throwing away the whole loaf if you can keep even 5% of the bread. In this case, there would have been no difficulty at all in our remaining part of the EMA. The Government have given no explanation for this extraordinary move, which is a threat, a potential threat at least, to the advance of medical science and a certain threat to the position of the British pharmaceutical industry and to the willingness of companies to set up pharmaceutical operations and research and development operations in this country in the future—indeed, to the willingness of British pharmaceutical majors to remain as committed to this country as they have been up to now. It has really quite devastating industrial as well as medical effects.

The only reason we have ever heard for doing this is that we could not stay in the EMA because it involves some contact with the CJEU. That is quite extraordinary when this is a matter involving the health of the nation and involving one of the major industries in this country, of which we are all very proud. We do not have all that much in the way of successful manufacturing these days, but we undoubtedly do extraordinarily well in the pharmaceutical area, or have done up to now, and this industry is now to be handicapped for no better reason than one of theological fanaticism. It is incomprehensible to most of the world, either inside or outside this country. I hope that the Government will weigh very carefully the words of the noble Baroness and the representations that I know they have received from many branches of the medical profession and of the pharmaceutical industry, and for once just take account, soberly, carefully, thoughtfully and calmly of the values involved that are being thrown away and threatened by this extraordinary decision. I give an undertaking that I shall not gloat in any way if the Government do a U-turn on this: I shall congratulate them, sincerely and openly and I hope that they can find the moral courage to do what is right in this case.

I turn to Amendment 205, which was very ably set out by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I shall not repeat what he said, but I want to talk about one section of the population that will be particularly affected by the abolition of the health insurance card in the European Union, and that is older people. Perhaps I should declare an interest here because I am certainly an older person, but I may be lucky because I have not so far been refused health insurance by anybody or charged exorbitant sums and probably, if I did have to pay a premium on my insurance policy to travel aboard, I would be able to afford to do so. A lot of people in this country, probably the majority, would not.

We all know that healthcare costs can be enormous, particularly in areas such as North America. One American friend of mine, who can actually afford to pay, was recently given a bill for more than $35,000 after a two-day stay in the Houston Medical Center. It involved a number of diagnostic tests, admittedly, as well as the board and lodging in the centre, but it gives an impression of the kind of costs that one can incur. There are countries in the world where you can get first-class medical care much cheaper than you can in Europe, let alone America, such as India, but not many. Countries tend to have medical care which is not up to the standards of North America, Japan or the European Union, or the costs are quite exorbitant, or in many cases both. Switzerland is another example, like the United States, where it is both.

For people who are older or have some particular medical record which makes them a bad insurance risk, underwriters will want to charge a very strong premium for insuring them at all. It is already quite difficult for them to travel outside the European Union. Many of us know people, friends of ours, who for that reason will not now travel outside the European Union. They will not even go and visit their family in the United States or Canada. They hope their family will come and visit them here, of course, but they simply cannot take the risk of falling seriously ill outside the European Union.

If the Government have their way and we go down this road that they have set out for us, the effect will not be just that people cannot go outside the European Union; they will not be able to go to Calais, Amsterdam, Berlin, Dublin, Copenhagen or Stockholm. That is the most terrible restriction of the horizons of a very large number of people. People may not have much time to travel when they are younger. They have business and professional commitments and a lot of strains on their budget because they are bringing up children and so forth. A lot of people look forward to being able to travel when they have retired, and the Government are saying to them, “When we have got this Bill through, you guys will not be able to travel at all—ha ha! You will be stuck here in this country”, which of course will be wonderful because we will have had Brexit and paradise on earth will result. That is a terrible—indeed, devastating—piece of news for a very large number of deserving people in this country. Once again, I hope the Government will have second thoughts.

Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Stephen and Lord Davies of Stamford

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I regret that I was not able to follow very clearly the logic of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. He seemed at times to be saying that he was in favour of the decarbonisation target and at other moments that the target placed intolerable burdens on the economy. Of course a balance has to be struck, but he did not produce any arguments at all to suggest that, if a decision is simply postponed, we will be better able to get the balance right.

I was particularly surprised that the noble Lord said that of course it is important to give investors certainty but that that argument had been overused. However, he did not deny the validity of the argument. He then said that there was a contradiction between the need to provide investor certainty, the need to provide security of supply and the need to protect consumers’ interests. There is no contradiction at all. It is very much the opposite way around. If one reduces the uncertainty to investors, one reduces the cost of capital and one will see more investment projects approved. One will therefore have greater capacity and greater security of supply.

Equally, if we have greater capacity because there is less uncertainty and because the cost of capital is lower, we will have lower prices. Therefore, consumer interests will be better preserved. Far from there being a contradiction between these considerations, it is extremely important for consumer interests and security of supply that we provide the maximum degree of investor certainty.

Here, I am mystified by what game the Government are playing. The purpose of the Bill, as presented in public up to now, is to provide a framework for investors, and the maximum degree of investor certainty. If they want to do that—it is of course a very sensible purpose to have in mind—why did they introduce into the Bill elements of gratuitous uncertainty that are being addressed by the amendments before us? Why say in one subsection that the Secretary of State must ensure that any decarbonisation target is respected, and in the very next subsection place doubt on whether or not there even will be a decarbonisation target, saying that,

“the Secretary of State may by order”,

instead of “must”? Why are the Government resisting “must”? It is not clear to me at all.

Equally, with regard to the dates, why say that a decarbonisation target may not be set for 2030, leaving open the possibility that there would not be a decarbonisation target even as late as that? Under this Bill, a decarbonisation target cannot be set before 2030 but it does not have to be set by 2030. Again, that is a deficiency that is remedied by the amendments before us. What is the purpose of this Bill if it is not to maximise, within the range of all reasonable practicality, clarity and certainty for investors? If the Government are intending to do that, why in the name of heaven have they gratuitously introduced these elements of uncertainty? It is completely unclear to me what they are doing.

The issue of whether the decarbonisation target should be set for 2014 or 2016 is not quite so important. If that amendment is pressed, I shall probably vote for it, but there could be arguments for waiting until 2016, partly to get the benefit of the advice of the Committee on Climate Change but more especially because there may be a chance of getting EU agreement on a decarbonisation target by that point. It would not be sensible to legislate for a precise figure before we knew whether or not there was a real prospect of getting such agreement, which would be highly desirable.

However, by the same token, anything that contributes to investor certainty contributes to the achievement of those two other objectives: greater security of supply and, ultimately, lower prices for the consumer. The Government really ought to look again at these amendments and I hope that here in the Lords they will accept them.

[Lord Stephen]

My Lords, I want to follow up on some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, because I think they were important. I refer to my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests. I support the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, in his Amendments 2, 3 and 4 and will also speak to my Amendment 7. Amendment 7 explores the issue of the date and whether it should be 2014 or 2016.

First, it is very important that there is now a decarbonisation section of this Bill. Noble Lords should remember that when this draft Bill was first published, there was no decarbonisation section, so it is a very important shift. It sends out a very powerful message to the industry and those who are concerned about climate change that the United Kingdom is not only concerned about this issue but wants to be leading the argument in favour of decarbonisation and decarbonisation targets. It was a very considerable success for the new Secretary of State, Ed Davey, to have agreed the insertion of this decarbonisation section.

Coming from Scotland, I am very interested in the politics of coalition. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, referred to this earlier. I was in government for eight years in Scotland in a coalition with the Labour Party. I must say, I smiled a little when I heard criticism being made of whipped votes, and the idea that the Labour Party would ever play any of these devilish games made me reflect on some of the very tough and difficult negotiations that I was involved with in Scotland, some of them on energy matters. When we reached an agreement, it was important that we were able to deliver that vote in the Parliament. I think every politician here understands that principle, as do the Cross-Benchers.

In the United Kingdom, we are still relatively new to coalition politics and we should be open about it. We should try to explain more often and more clearly some of the negotiations and difficulties involved in reaching agreement. One way to find the areas of greatest difficulty is to look at the wording. When you see more words, or more complex wording, on a particular issue, you know that there has been tough coalition discussion—that is probably the safest way to describe it.

Here, you see the extraordinary sight of us introducing a decarbonisation section, but some of the wording is really quite complex, most clearly in Clause 1(5), where we are trying to fix a date. It states:

“The earliest year in relation to which a decarbonisation target range may be set is 2030”.

That is pretty straightforward and simple, but the next bit is not, stating that,

“the first decarbonisation order may not be made before the date on which the carbon budget for the budgetary period which includes the year 2030 is set by virtue of the duty of the Secretary of State under section 4(2)(b) of the Climate Change Act 2008”.

I am particularly curious about the words “may not be made”, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, this should be about flexibility and empowering. Why, then, are we saying that the decision “may not be made” until after 2016? Why not give flexibility to the Secretary of State? I suspect that it is because there was a difficulty in the negotiations. A lot that was achieved by Ed Davey, the Secretary of State, is in the Bill, but not everything. That is no secret; there has been quite a lot in the media about how difficult the negotiation has been. In fact, the negotiation involved delay and a lack of clarity, and some really quite central issues to do with the support to be given to the renewables sector were thrashed out between the Conservative side and Liberal Democrat side of the Government. All that pushed the Bill back and it led to criticism.

In this area, therefore, it is clear to me that some sort of compromise was pulled together. I do not say that in a derogatory way—compromise is the very essence of reaching agreement in coalition—but it left us with the possibility of delay in introducing a decarbonisation target. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, correctly pointed out that that is not the most concerning aspect, but there is also the fact that the whole of the first part of Bill, which is on decarbonisation, effectively becomes optional. That is the greatest concern that I have as a Liberal Democrat. Looking at the negotiations and wondering about how these compromises were reached, I am left hanging on to the belief that this important decarbonisation part of the Bill should not be left optional.

I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh. I would be very happy if a decarbonisation target was set in 2014, but I would not die in a ditch over it; I would be prepared to see a later date. There are good reasons, to do with the European Union and the report from the committee, why 2016 could be a reasonable date. By tabling Amendment 7, I wanted to test the view of Parliament on all this—not today obviously; today, I just want to put the argument out there. The amendment states:

“A decarbonisation order must be made by 31 December 2016”.

That does not prevent an order being made next week—it could be 2014; it could be sooner—but it gives reasonable flexibility to the Secretary of State and allows confidence to be given to the industry that we are serious about this Part 1 and about decarbonisation.

That is what industry is looking for. I was very influenced by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, at Second Reading. He was quite right in what he said about industry in the United Kingdom. I think that ScottishPower, SSE and a number of companies that are based here would be relatively relaxed about the date being fixed in 2016. However, overseas investors such as Gamesa, Siemens, Mitsubishi and Samsung which are making commitments to this country, are looking all the time at how this is playing out in the media. They are getting briefings and reports back and are looking at what the renewables sector, the Government and parliamentarians are saying. This issue now has a very high profile. I go out of my way to explain that the decarbonisation target is not some totemic issue that is absolutely central to the Energy Bill. It was bought in at the initiative of the Secretary of State to try to strengthen the Bill. It can be a very important part of the Bill but I do not think that it should be used as some sort of battering ram to undermine its foundations which relate to the contracts for difference, the balancing payments and so on. The important message that we have to get out to the industry not only in the UK but throughout the world is that we are serious about moving forward the renewables sector, we want to move to this new system as quickly as possible and that there has already been too much delay.