Action Against Houthi Maritime Attacks
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, these arrangements are still in place. My noble friend Lord Ahmad on the Front Bench here was whispering in my ear that he was speaking to the Foreign Minister of Yemen only last week, so we count this to be extremely important and ongoing.
It is vital that we continue, if we can, to get support into Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen. As noble Lords will know, the Houthis have said that UK and US staff working for the UN in Yemen should be ready to leave their controlled areas of Yemen in 30 days. Those kinds of statements, plus these unlawful attacks on the shipping that imperil the bringing in of aid by sea, suggest that the noble Lord should use considerable influence, as I know he does, to ensure that these malefactors cease making it more difficult to get humanitarian aid to their own people.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I think that Denmark and Germany have not yet supported the action and that Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are sending their ships around the whole of the continent of Africa. What are the security implications for this country? I entirely support the government action against the Houthis but notice that the Foreign Office advice is that a terrorist attack in Denmark may be likely. I presume that our alert here must be at an increased level as well.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I do not wish a comment on the postures or action taken by other friendly nations. I again remind my noble friend that there is, not just through Operation Prosperity Guardian but through the United Nations, a very strong, broad coalition of nations, which are using diplomacy and all their efforts to try to bring this situation to an end. It is true that the economic impact of attacks could be severe if there were ongoing disruption and ships continued to divert around. There would be delays and additional fuel, insurance and shipping costs. But these are commercial decisions for people making shipments as to the course that they take. Our effort is to try to make the Red Sea a safe place for them to send their ships and the brave merchant seamen who trek the waters of the world every day.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering ExcerptsWednesday 25th October 2023
(6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 177-I Marshalled list for Consideration of a Commons Reason and Amendment - (25 Oct 2023)
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Motion A I shall also speak to Motion B. Your Lordships will remember that, during our consideration of Commons amendments on Monday this week, two amendments were carried by the House for further consideration by the other place. The first, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, was on virtual attendance at local authority meetings, and the second, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, related to consideration of climate change within the planning system. I will take each of these in turn.
Amendment 22B, tabled by my noble friend, has been decisively rejected by the other place. I well appreciate that this issue has elicited a range of differing views among your Lordships. However, I have to tell my noble friend, whom I greatly respect, that the Government’s position on the matter has not changed. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have not wavered from their clear, strong and principled view that preserving in-person debate is important for maintaining the integrity of local democracy. My noble friend’s amendment is quite clearly at odds with that position, as it provides the power to any future Government to potentially make regulations that go so far as allowing all local authorities to always meet remotely, without any limitations.
Local authorities need councillors to be physically present, to actively take part in democratic decision-making affecting the citizens they represent, and to interact with their fellow councillors at every opportunity to develop a sound understanding of local needs and priorities. That understanding is clearly vital for ensuring the strong local leadership that councils depend on to deliver for the electorate. Perhaps most importantly, councillors need to be physically present to interact with citizens in a way that builds meaningful relationships with their community and ensures that they are, in the fullest sense, accountable to their electorate.
The Government stand by their opposition to this amendment. The other place has agreed with that position. Therefore, again with great respect to my noble friend, I suggest that we have reached a point where it is right for us to draw a line under this issue. I hope that, on reflection, my noble friend will agree.
I now turn to the other outstanding issue, which is the way in which climate change is considered within the planning system. The Government continue to be committed to ensuring that the planning system supports our efforts in meeting our legal net-zero commitments by 2050 and tackling the risks of climate change. As I said earlier this week, we believe that there are already strong provisions within the Bill and other legislation that set the framework for this to happen. We have also committed to developing national policy in a way that is consistent with this.
But we have heard the strength of feeling that this commitment should be further enshrined in law. Therefore, the Government have gone a step further in tabling an amendment to require that, in preparing any national development management policies:
“The Secretary of State must have regard to the need to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change”.
As I have already made clear, we are fully supportive of the intentions of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, but we remain concerned that the amendment, as drafted, would give rise to significant challenge to how local councils fulfil their obligations to consider climate change within their planning functions. Notably, the combined effect of local authorities having to prove that their plans and decisions have “special regard” to climate change, while also proving that they are consistent with strategic national targets on carbon reduction, will at the very least create significant debate and deliberation on how to demonstrate this, but will very likely also give rise to litigation over the justifications presented.
The additional legislative provisions we have bought forward put climate change considerations at the centre of the development of new national development management policies, and in turn enable those considerations to influence all local planning decisions. I believe that this new provision takes us a lot closer to the position the noble Lord sought to arrive at with his amendment. I hope that both he and the House will be content to approve it. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for coming to the Dispatch Box in his charming and inimitable way to consider my humble little amendment once again. It is almost 20 years to the day since I joined a shadow team of which he was an eminent member; I hope that our co-operation will continue long into the future.
I think that any primary school pupil who has been watching our proceedings will be confused by our exhausting not just every letter of the alphabet except the letter O but additional letters of the alphabet. I am inclined to agree to disagree with the House of Commons’s disagreement with Amendment 22B, and will rehearse a couple of reasons why. The revised Amendment 22B was very modest in its remit. I accept my noble friend’s premise that local councils should primarily meet physically, but we went on to state that limited circumstances specified in regulations passed by the Government would permit a normally wholly physical meeting to be attended virtually. I am a little baffled and bewildered by the Government’s unwillingness to move a little more along these lines.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering ExcerptsMonday 23rd October 2023
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 175-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons - (20 Oct 2023)
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, within this group is Amendment J1 in my name; I wish to speak very briefly to this revised amendment in lieu. First, I send my good wishes to my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook and wish her a speedy recovery. She has been indefatigable in her presence otherwise on this Bill, so we wish her the very best for a speedy recovery.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Howe and others for attending the very useful meeting we had last week, as a result of which I have tabled revised Amendment 22B in lieu. As my noble friend pointed out, both during the meeting and in his response to the revised amendment in his opening remarks, it has been brought forward in recognition of the fact that the Government wish primarily that council meetings be physical. However, the purpose of this amendment is to recognise the position that pertains in the House of Lords, certainly as regards the position of hybrid meetings and some Members being able to attend virtually under certain conditions. It is incumbent on us to extend the same criteria to those who meet in local authorities.
I am grateful for the support I received from both the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils. We debated this in Committee and on Report, and it is fair to briefly sum up that this amendment reflects the challenges of those living in rural areas in particular but also other areas. As we have seen in the flood and storm conditions over recent days, the distances that councillors in rural areas have to travel are much greater than for those in urban areas, and in many cases there is no adequate public transport. In addition, as I mentioned, due to the weather we have seen in parts of the country over recent days, such as in Scotland, North Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Derbyshire, councillors have been prevented from attending physically.
I understand from the National Association of Local Councils survey that one in five councillors cited childcare commitments as one of the top four reasons for wanting to attend meetings virtually. There will be other reasons, such as temporary or permanent illness and disability, that, under the criteria that I have set out in Amendment 22B, will permit councillors to attend virtually as opposed to physically.
I accept that a large part of the meetings of local councils will continue to be physical. The terms of Amendment 22B reflect that, but would permit the Government to bring forward, by regulation, conditions which, while mostly reflecting councils meeting physically, would allow councillors to join virtually or remotely in certain circumstances according to the criteria to be set by the Government. One would hope that, in setting the regulations, the Government would consult with councillors and the organisations that represent them to set the criteria.
Amendment 22B recognises the fact that I got the balance wrong in the earlier amendment, with councillors meeting only virtually. I accept that we wish councillors to meet physically, but certain set criteria to be determined by the Government, I hope in consultation with those concerned, would allow councillors to represent their wards and attend remotely. It would equalise the situation between, for example, House of Lords committees and others which can meet virtually, physically or in hybrid form. It seems extraordinary that, despite the fact that this worked so well during the Covid pandemic, when all meetings of councils were virtual, councils have now been excluded from having any form of virtual representation whatever.
With these few remarks, I hope my noble friend will accept that this would work extremely well for councillors. It is not fair that they should be excluded from attending a meeting because they cannot get there physically either because of weather—floods and storms, or snow in the winter—or due to some disability or illness or childcare commitments. I hope my noble friend will look favourably on this amendment, and I intend to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion ZE1 as an amendment to government Motion ZE. My Motion is on the same terms as my amendment on Report which the House was good enough to vote in favour of.
The Mayor of the West Midlands wants to be the police and crime commissioner as well; he is from one political party, the elected police and crime commissioner from another. The mayor wants to ensure there is no election for the post of an independent police and crime commissioner in the West Midlands in May next year. The way he will do that is that he and the Government will abolish the independent role of police and crime commissioner in the second-largest metropolitan area in England by the stroke of a pen. To achieve this extremely undemocratic power grab, the Government’s Motion means that Clause 59 of the Bill will come into effect on the very day the Act is passed, in marked contrast to similar reforms which allow for a longer period.
I am, of course, grateful to both Ministers who have spoken and written to me on this matter, aided by their very able officials; however, disappointingly, no real concession has been offered. This remains an attempt to provide for an elected representative from one party—by a stroke of the pen, as I say—to abolish an elected representative from another party, not while that other one is serving but post election without any real consultation. The Government are not prepared—according to the letter I received from the noble Lord—even to suggest guidance in the statutory instrument that would have to follow this process; they are merely going to advise a mayor that he should do some consulting.
In his letter to me, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, cites Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire as examples of what the Government want to do here, but I am afraid that is incorrect. I have spoken to the chiefs of staff of the mayors of Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire, and it is clearly not what happened. In both those cases, the transfer of the police and crime commissioner’s powers to the mayor was an essential part—as my noble friend said a few minutes ago—of the devolution deal, agreed and signed by all parties, from Ministers to local authorities to others, after, inevitably, considerable consultation and, very significantly, general consent. All this happened before the respective mayoralties in Greater Manchester or West Yorkshire began.
Without that consultation and consent, it just would not have happened. Here, no consultation or consent is required: the mayor will ask the Government to abolish the independent PCC role and then there will be no election for a PCC on 2 May next year, even though the devolution deal signed in the West Midlands after consultation and with consent maintained the two roles, both to be elected every four years. The Government will agree with the mayor’s request—I am sure the House is not so naive as to believe this has not been sorted out already—and the abolition will take place, I repeat, without any consultation or consent.
This is close to an abuse of power. It goes against this country’s constitutional traditions and relies, absurdly and ridiculously, on the Government’s insistence that the local consent, which they agree is necessary, is given by the mayor himself. However, the mayor is the guy who wants the job—talk about being judge in your own case. I am of course not referring to the case in question, but it is the sort of device that some tinpot dictator might use to increase his power. You can imagine the conversation, what he tells himself: “I want more power and I therefore give consent for it. That will do nicely”. It is Newspeak at its best and Parliament should not permit it. This unseemly and undemocratic rush to abolish the independent post of police and crime commissioner in the West Midlands is quite unacceptable. If passed, my amendment would attempt to stop it happening.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion J. I beg to move.
Motion J1 (as an amendment to Motion J)
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Moved by
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 22B in lieu—
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I have Motion P1 in this group. I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Howe and others who attended the meeting last week, which was extremely helpful. I refer to my interests on the register and, in particular, that I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Water. As my noble friend referred to in his opening remarks, we are in the midst of yet another storm and widespread flooding, not just in Scotland but parts of Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire and other parts of the country as well. My heart goes out to those families experiencing flooding at this time.
My noble friend mentioned that I may be minded to insist, and I hope that we may achieve a closer meeting of minds on this occasion than on the last occasion when we discussed this. In current planning policy, it depends entirely on local authorities, as I understand it, mapping the divisions between zones 3a and 3b, to which my noble friend referred. As I understand it, this currently is not being done as widely as one would hope. If the mapping is not being done, my first question to my noble friend is: how do we know which properties lie in zone 3b and which in zone 3a? Secondly, the information I have received is that Environment Agency advice, to which my noble friend referred, is currently not always being followed. I commend the fact that the Government of the day called on the Environment Agency to be statutory consultees in planning procedures and what a ground-breaking decision that was at the time. But, sadly, between 2016 and 2021, 2,000 homes were given planning permission against Environment Agency advice. If its advice is not being followed, what is the come back for purchasers who live in those houses where the advice has not been followed?
Post Flood Re—which was a very welcome development—houses built on a flood plain after 2009 are not covered by insurance. In those circumstances, it may be that someone purchases a house in good faith, perhaps without a mortgage, and may not realise that they are not eligible for insurance. As a Flood Re official expressed it, it would be better that houses were simply not built on functioning flood plains. I am afraid the question of whether houses built after 2009 are covered by insurance, or at the very least offered affordable insurance where the excess is not prohibitive, is still one of the outstanding issues that lie behind Amendment 80.
However, I am heartened by my noble friend saying that national development planning policies should express how best to achieve the lifetime protection that the Government are so committed to and which I support. This evening, can my noble friend put more flesh on the bones and particularly specify how he and the Government expect to achieve this? I am not entirely convinced that what my noble friend seeks to achieve is set out in the latest iteration of the National Planning Policy Framework, published as recently as September this year.
The reason why this is so important is set out very eloquently by the National Infrastructure Commission in its quinquennial assessment published on 18 October, in which it recommends requiring
“planning authorities to ensure that from 2026 all new development is resilient to flooding from rivers with an annual likelihood of 0.5 per cent for its lifetime and does not increase risk elsewhere”.
That aspiration could be achieved by regulation or, as my noble friend set out earlier this evening, in the National Planning Policy Framework. I urge my noble friend before we leave this Motion entirely to confirm this and give a little more detail as to how we expect this will be achieved through the National Planning Policy Framework.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I will talk to Motion Q, which deals with developments that affect ancient woodland, and I declare an interest as chair of the Woodland Trust. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who supported this amendment at earlier stages of the Bill. Huge thanks go to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who has persuaded whoever needed persuading to take the body of my amendment into a government amendment. Although my amendment has not gone ahead, to a large extent it will bring into the consultation direction the ability for the Secretary of State to call in and direct local authorities against developments that will impact on ancient woodlands by destroying them or by influencing them from adjacent developments. That is terrific, and I really thank the noble Earl for his support and help in this.
Of course—conservationists and environmentalists always have a “but” after everything they say—this is very good, but the Government have introduced a couple of additions to the amendment we proposed. One is good: clarification of the definition of ancient woodland; the other is not so good, as it says basically that when we come to review and withdraw or amend the 2021 consultation direction, we could sweep the legs out from under this one, which would be rather short-lived since a review of the 2021 direction is under way at the moment. I hope that justice will prevail and that anyone reviewing the direction will be of the same mind as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and will support the ancient woodland provisions because there is currently no protection for ancient woodland whatever.
I should say that my two co-sponsors and I and many others will be watching the department’s intent intently, both in the review of the direction and, more importantly, in the implementation of the provision. It will be in operation by the end of this year and the way in which the Secretary of State and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities deal with it will be a real test of whether they recognise the importance of what is currently being put into statute. That is going to be the proof of the pudding. If we do not see any real efforts by the department to hold local authorities and developers to account against this provision and stop some of the frequent damage to ancient woodland caused by development, we will not have achieved much.
At that point, I must stop descending into churlishness and once again I say a big thank you to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for putting forward the alternative government amendment. But we are watching.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 80.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank those who supported the original amendment at earlier stages. I thank the Minister for the certain assurances that he has made this evening, on which I will press him further, but I will not move the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
Motion P1 has been moved as an amendment to Motion P.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering ExcerptsWednesday 13th September 2023
(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 142-VII(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Seventh Marshalled List) - (13 Sep 2023)
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly, just to say a huge thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitchurch, for the three of us working together, and most of all to the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, for taking note and working this through. We have come to the point where we will have a good outcome for nature, but also a good outcome for the local economies and the people who work in these areas. I believe it is a win-win for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty in the UK.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I hate to dampen the overall enthusiasm, but I would just like to put in a word for the countryside and those who live and work in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. They sometimes feel that their interests are overlooked. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister in being mindful of their interests when he comes to draft his amendment, if he would do so.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this is a good day. I thank all noble Lords who have worked hard with the Government to get to a place where there is landscape protection for those areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks. I am fortunate to live in a place where I can easily get to three great national parks—the Yorkshire Dales, the North York Moors and the Peak District—so I particularly welcome, from a selfish point of view, what has been achieved here.
Turning to government Amendment 230A, I am pleased that the Government have closed a loophole here in the way that biodiversity net gain is measured. That is very positive. I applaud the whole biodiversity net gain approach.
I will make one comment about an issue which constantly concerns me when dealing with local planning applications: applicants trying to wriggle out of their responsibilities in biodiversity net gain. As the Minister will know, there is a hierarchy of how applicants can achieve biodiversity net gain—on site, close to, by, or as near as possible. If you live in a built-up area like me, “as near as possible” can be a big distance away. The town where I live—I guess this happens to small towns all across the place—will often see its biodiversity further depleted because the hierarchy allows applicants to put their biodiversity net gain at some distance away. I wonder whether the Minister could perhaps address that and enhance what I believe is a very positive approach adopted by the Government.
“Sustainable drainageThe Secretary of State must make provision under section 49 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 so as to bring Schedule 3 to that Act (sustainable drainage) into force in relation to England before the end of 31 December 2023, insofar as it is not already in force.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, in moving this amendment I will speak to it and to other amendments in this group. At the outset, I would like to declare my interests on the register, and also that I am co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Water, and that I chaired a study into bioresources and was co-author, with Westminster Sustainable Business Forum, of Bricks and Water: Managing Flood Risk and Accelerating Adaptation in a Climate Emergency. Many of its recommendations lie behind these amendments.
I would like to speak to each of the amendments in turn. I thank my noble friend Lord Wigley for co-signing and supporting Amendment 231. This amendment, together with Amendments 232 and 245, are probably the key amendments in the group. I find it staggering that, whereas Wales implemented Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 as far back as January 2019, and in July published the first post-implementation review into Schedule 3, on SUDS, and how it had been implemented in Wales, we have still not implemented Schedule 3 in England. The reason why this amendment is required is that, since 2013, more than 10% of all new homes in England have consistently been built on land at risk of flooding, in particular flood zones 2 and 3.
I will quote briefly from page 47 of the revised National Planning Policy Framework, which was published this month. Paragraph 159 says:
“Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere”.
That simply does not go far enough. In essence, we have encapsulated in Amendment 232 a prohibition on building on residential flood plains. It is just not appropriate to continue to build on areas prone to flooding, displacing the water retained there into existing developments.
The reason why Amendment 231 is important is encapsulated by the work of CIWEM, the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, which came out with a report earlier this year, the findings of which are that
“Surface water flood risk is commonly managed by small teams frustrated by unclear duties and remit, complicated funding processes, fragmented data and a lack of capacity and skills”.
CIWEM has asked that the Government
“show greater leadership on surface water management … ensure that sufficient funding is provided to surface water management schemes … clarify and consolidate surface water management regulations, standards and plans”
and
“improve approaches to the collection and sharing of data and development of asset registers”.
Those conclusions chime with many of the amendments and recommendations set out therein.
As far back as 2007, Sir Michael Pitt said that there should be an end to the automatic right to connect: that you cannot have developments which are in inappropriate places but also try to connect to inappropriate piping. That is why Amendment 245 is crucial. It calls on water undertakers—in effect, water companies—to become statutory consultees. I am mindful of what my noble friend Lord Howe said in summing up a previous debate about the number of statutory consultees to date, but I believe it is appropriate for water companies to become statutory consultees so that they will have the power in the same way as the Environment Agency, which can recommend against a particular development being built in an appropriate place to make sure that it connects only where the infrastructure is appropriate. It is not appropriate to connect new developments to antiquated pipes that simply cannot take them.
In fact, Amendment 245 would help the Government, who were criticised as recently as yesterday by the Office for Environmental Protection for falling short in their understanding of its review of sewage spills over recent years. As well as Defra, the OEP has criticised Ofwat and the Environment Agency. Amendment 245 would assist the Government by ensuring an end to an automatic right to connect, which was called for as far back as 2007, following the floods, by Sir Michael Pitt.
Sustainable drains are part of this. Any new development should be built only if there are sustainable drains. They could be natural or physical, but they should ensure that the water is kept out of the combined sewers at all costs. This has to be front ended. We have to stop building three, four or five-bedroom houses, which multiply by three, four or five the amount of wastewater—let us call it what it is: sewage—which so often spills into the combined sewers, causing a health hazard, or on to public highways. Let us note that no highway authority is contributing in any shape or form financially to keeping the water out of those combined sewers. That is why Amendment 231 is required.
Amendment 232 would ban residential building on flood plains for the reasons I rehearsed a moment ago. That is a key amendment, along with Amendments 231 and 235.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am slightly concerned because the legal position is very clear: any new development built after 2009 on a flood plain, whether functional or not, simply does not qualify for insurance. That is the purpose of the amendment. Unfortunately, if a house purchaser does not require a mortgage, they will not realise that they are not covered by insurance until such time as they are flooded, hence the need for the amendment.
Earl Howe (Con)
I am in some difficulty because the advice that I have received is different. I shall need to take advice and write to my noble friend on that point. I come back to what I said earlier: properties built since 2009 should be insurable at affordable prices because of the changes made to planning policy back in 2006. That is the position as we understand it.
With regard to small and medium-sized enterprise premises, Flood Re was designed to provide available and affordable insurance for households, but that does not include businesses. There is no evidence of a systematic problem for businesses at high flood risk accessing insurance.
Amendments 240 and 241 would require, first, the Government to establish a certification scheme for improvements to domestic and commercial properties in England made for flood prevention or flood mitigation purposes and, secondly, the Financial Conduct Authority to make rules requiring insurance companies to consider flood prevention or mitigation improvements that are either certified or planning permission requirements in setting insurance premiums.
We are committed to promoting the uptake of property flood resilience and are working closely with Flood Re, the property flood resilience round table and the insurance industry to determine how best to develop the mechanisms needed for insurers to take account of property flood resilience when setting premiums. Additionally, the industry is exploring how to improve standards and skills. For example, as part of the joint Defra and industry round table, the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management is developing a certified competent PFR practitioner scheme to help grow the pool of trained professionals and improve the standards for the design, installation and maintenance of PFR projects.
Amendment 245 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh seeks to make water undertakers—that is, water and sewage companies—statutory consultees on planning applications for major development that is likely to affect water supply. I am grateful to my noble friend for this amendment. Like her, I appreciate the important role of water undertakers in maintaining public health and ensuring access to clean water for communities. This is why in the other place the Government committed to consult after Royal Assent on whether we should make water companies statutory consultees, how that would work in practice and any implications flowing from that. As the DLUHC Secretary of State can make changes to the list of statutory consultees through secondary legislation, we do not need to use the Bill to do that. With that in mind, I hope my noble friend will not feel the need to move her amendment when we reach it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for supporting Amendment 231 and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Hayman of Ullock, for their support. I will not go through each and every amendment.
Amendment 245 is a direct consequence of the Pitt recommendation to end the automatic right to connect. We are placing the Government, the department, Ofwat and the Environment Agency, but in particular the water companies, in a difficult position by forcing them to connect when the pipes simply cannot take the sewage. It goes into the watercourses right at the beginning of the process, then into the rivers and to the coast, and we know that everyone gets upset about that.
To correct my noble friend, the ABI briefing for today’s debate says: “It is important to note that Flood Re does not provide cover for properties built after 1 January 2009. The 2009 exemption is an extension from previous amendments between the insurance industry and the UK Government, which jointly agreed to purposely exclude these properties from the scheme to ensure that inappropriate building in high flood risk areas was not incentivised”. That is why I shall be pressing Amendment 232 to a vote.
Earl Howe (Con)
If my noble friend would be kind enough to give way, I will repeat that my advice is that properties built since 2009, as she said, are not eligible for Flood Re. However, they should be insurable via the commercial market.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Hand on heart, I do not know of any commercial insurance company—I know others are better versed on that, including the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—that would offer that.
I will respond briefly to the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, which raise wider issues. I believe we are fixated on new build, which is forcing people to build on flood plains. One measure would be to remove VAT on the renovation of houses and put VAT on new build. But I believe it is the responsibility of local authorities to rule out building on flood plains where the direct consequence of that will force floodwater and displaced water into existing developments. I do not think the National Planning Policy Framework adequately addresses that. I will not go on any further, except to beg leave to withdraw Amendment 231.
“Residential buildings on floodplains(1) Local planning authorities must not grant permission for residential properties to be built on functional floodplains or areas at high risk of flooding.(2) An area is a functional floodplain or at high risk of flooding for the purposes of subsection (1) if the Environment Agency assesses it as a Zone 3a or 3b flood zone.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering ExcerptsWednesday 22nd March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-VII(b) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Seventh Marshalled List) - (22 Mar 2023)
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
As a Scot by birth living in England, I support my noble friend the Duke of Montrose in his Amendment 181. It is good that in this clause, as my noble friend said, the Government are committed to consulting in specific circumstances. However, too frequently we are not seeing the results of the consultations in a timely fashion, particularly before any regulations under this part of the Bill may be drafted and come before the House. Therefore, I lend this amendment my strongest support.
My noble friend also raised collaborating with the Scottish Parliament with a view to obtaining legislative consent. We have had two recent regrettable circumstances where the Scottish Parliament—and in one case, the Senedd—withheld their consent. This could be avoided if discussions took place with the relevant committees of the Scottish Parliament at the earliest stage and throughout the course of the Bill. I am thinking particularly of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which has exercised the House at quite some length, and the recent Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill. The withholding of legislative consent could have been avoided by the Scottish Parliament if the Government had liaised with them and the relevant committees at a much earlier stage.
With those remarks, I support all the amendments in this group, particularly that in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, Part 3, Chapter 1 of the Bill, entitled “Planning Data”, asks more questions than it answers. I will be grateful if the Minister can answer some of them.
First, what is the purpose of requiring an approved national planning software? Is it so that the Government can more readily access planning data from across the country? If so, to what purpose do they want to put the data that they acquire in that way?
Secondly, how many different planning software systems are in operation at the moment? Digitising planning is a complicated operation, so you would not expect that many but, if there are, have local planning authorities already expressed a clear preference to use a single system? This takes me to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, in that, if the Government are requiring a single approved planning software, there would be considerable costs attached to local planning authorities transitioning to a new software system. You would want to balance those costs against the benefits. The Bill makes no obvious benefit of using a single system. Another issue is about compatibility. If the current software systems are compatible, is this a solution seeking a problem? There may not be a problem if they can already speak to each other.
My third concern with Clause 79, and the stand part question expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is that planning applications have to be retained for a long time. I cannot remember for how long; I think it is 30 years, but it may be longer. If that is the case, all previous planning applications going back a certain length of time would have to be put on to a new system, so that the systems could talk to each other. As all noble Lords know, there are planning applications made on the same place time and again and in different forms. I want to understand the purpose of this: why and who benefits?
Another of my concerns is this. I am in favour of digitising; I think it has huge benefits for many people, particularly planning professionals, in this case. It would be much easier to have it all online. However, if it is going to be a digital-only system, as seems to be the thrust of this group of clauses, the Government will be guilty of digital exclusion.
The Government must recognise two things. First, many people access all their digital needs only through a mobile phone. Accessing a planning application, with all its complexity, through a mobile platform will not provide the level of detail that they want. Secondly, many parts of the country still do not have either sufficiently good broadband or mobile signal. Digital exclusion could be a growing issue, especially in planning. People get involved in planning applications, big and small, and I am sure that the last thing the Government want is to exclude residents for different reasons—accessibility or knowledge of use.
I have asked many questions, but I hope the Minister is able to answer them. While digitising planning systems has many positives, they have to be weighed against some of the many negatives that exist.
COP 27
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
Again, I am sorry if I was mildly critical of the last Labour Government. When I hear my Prime Minister being criticised for going to COP 27, I might note that Mr Blair did not once go to COP during his period as Prime Minister. The noble Lord must not tempt me to stray into these party matters; he was a bit guilty of that.
A fundamental point that your Lordships are making to me, and which I want to take away, is that whatever happened in the past, we have to work together across your Lordships’ House—and as broadly as possible, I hope, cross-party—to ensure clean, safe secure energy for all in the future. That is our intention, and we have committed up to £1.7 billion to enable one nuclear project this Parliament, with £700 million available for Sizewell C to provide clean, reliable energy to homes. Nuclear energy is part of the equation, and I am sure that further announcements will come on that front.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for taking questions on the Statement, and I commend its stating that climate security and energy security go hand in hand. I am fully signed up to renewables, but does my noble friend agree that it would be much better if wind generated offshore and onshore were used and deployed by those living closest to where it reaches the shore? I do not think the public are going to like pylons—that was certainly my experience in North Yorkshire when we ended up with two lines of them. I also urge my noble friend to use his good offices to look at using more energy from waste schemes, and the energy generated staying close to where it is produced. That way, we will not lose 30% in transmission costs.
Lord True (Con)
My noble friend makes some important points, and in in a sense she balances the opening question. Sometimes there are difficult issues; not everyone is as zealous on these matters as we in your Lordships’ House. The enthusiasm of the younger generation for these policies and the things we need to do is a great sign of hope. But we will seek to carry the whole population with us, in whatever way, in doing the important things we have to do. I agree with the substance of what my noble friend said.
Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, who set out so eloquently the mystery of the monarchy. What a wonderful occasion to celebrate Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee. I add my good wishes on the Motion for a humble Address, so beautifully moved today by my noble friend the Leader of the House.
First and foremost, the Queen is a fantastic role model, particularly for those of us who are women in public life. In her exceptional and long service spanning 70 years, Her Majesty has managed to embrace both continuity and change. Her reign has been characterised by her remarkable relationship and extraordinary marriage to Prince Philip. Through their extended family, they are related to many of the royal families across Europe. As co-chair of the All-Party Group for Denmark and as a proud half-Dane, I welcome the fact that there is a particularly close relationship between the British and Danish royal families. It is particularly fitting that her cousin, Queen Margrethe of Denmark, celebrates her Golden Jubilee—her own 50 years on the throne. Both offer a shining example of constitutional monarchy at its best. Queen Margrethe’s attendance at the memorial service for Prince Philip reflects the closeness of the two royal families.
The Queen’s love of racing has featured throughout the humble Address, most notably in the speech my noble friend Lord De Mauley, the Master of the Horse. I pay tribute to the occasion of her visit to Royal Ascot in York, which transformed North Yorkshire that week in June 2005 into a state of high fashion of which the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, would be proud. It was also a perfect celebration of all that racing has to offer in the north of England.
Indeed, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, how fortunate we are to have welcomed the Queen to Parliament on so many state visits. Such occasions are watched over by our ever-vigilant Black Rod and our glorious sovereign’s doorkeepers who always ensure that these visits, and indeed the workings of Parliament, go as smoothly as they do. I remember one occasion when I did not have the good fortune to be introduced to the Queen; I was in the line-up to meet Prince Philip, who was on very good form—immensely charming and as humorous as ever. However, I managed to almost trip the Queen up on her way out of the Palace that day and I said, “Would you not like to have stayed longer?” She said, “Indeed I would, because I now have to go to the dentist.” That sums up her wit, humour and presence of mind.
I for one am pleased to have lived in this Elizabethan age all my life, and pleased to contribute today to the humble Address on the occasion of Her Majesty’s Platinum Jubilee. May God bless her and keep her safe.
Health and Care Bill
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering ExcerptsMonday 7th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 View all Health and Care Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 114-III(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (4 Mar 2022)
“(10) The Secretary of State may not exercise the powers provided by virtue of—(a) this section to request a water undertaker to enter into arrangements to increase the fluoride content of the water, or(b) section 164 to request modifications to old English fluoridation arrangements,until an impact assessment has been published setting out the impact on health and the environment, including a cost-benefit analysis.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 156 is in my name, and I declare at the outset that I am co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Water Group. This is a simple amendment, and I would like to cover ground that has possibly not been covered at earlier stages of the Bill.
I understand from the Bill and, more particularly, its Explanatory Notes that the purpose of the clause to which this amendment relates is to transfer from local authorities the power, which they have had since 2013 through the Water Industry Act 1991, to propose and consult on new fluoridation schemes and variations to or terminations of existing schemes. It transfers that authority to the department, the reason being that local authorities and the NHS, which previously had responsibility for water fluoridation schemes, have faced difficulty in implementing them. This includes, most recently, the fact that local authority boundaries are not coterminous with water flows, which requires the involvement of several authorities in such schemes in a complex and burdensome way.
The first question, to which I will return later is: if this authority is passing from the local authorities to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, where in the scheme of things do water companies fit? Presumably, it is the water companies themselves that will perform the act. In Amendment 156, I therefore ask simply that the Secretary of State does not exercise the powers within the Bill until such time as
“an impact assessment has been published setting out the impact on health and the environment, including a cost-benefit analysis”.
I was very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for arranging a teach-in, if you like, with the officials in the department and my noble friend Lord Reay. We both benefited from that and were very grateful for it. Subsequently, I also thank the officials for providing, in the first instance, a number of responses to my questions. In particular, I query with my noble friend the level of expenditure, which is significant. We know that we are facing a time of additional pressures—not just an energy crisis but a cost-of-living crisis—and the expenditure incurred by each fluoridating local authority in the financial year 2020-21 is not insignificant.
I will pick out those councils that relate to the largest area, broadly speaking: the West Midlands. I will round the figures up, rather than giving each individual figure. Birmingham City Council spent over £290,000 in that calendar—or, presumably, financial—year. Coventry City Council spent over £206,000. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council spent over £198,000. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council spent over £188,000. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council spent over £56,000. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council spent over £167,000. Finally, the City of Wolverhampton Council spent over £121,000. How is this financing passed on to the consumers in those local councils? If adding fluoride to the water supply is passed in the Bill, it is for the Department of Health and Social Care to pick up the cost, so how will it do so? From which part of the budget will this come? Perhaps I have missed it, but I do not see anything in the Bill or the Explanatory Notes that says how water companies have been consulted and how they are expected to enter fluoride into the water supply.
Clearly, the debate on which I have not reached agreement with my noble friend the Minister and the department is on the extent to which it is legal to add fluoride to the water supply. In the court case that I was involved in in my training for the Scottish Bar, in preparation for joining the Faculty of Advocates, I sat through pretty much the whole of the McColl v Strathclyde Regional Council case. The petitioner could see no benefit from fluoride being added to her water supply because she had dentures and was not in need of fluoride for that reason. In fact, it was deemed ultra vires. I shall quote the relevant passage of the judgment:
“In my view the word ‘wholesome’ falls properly to be construed in the more restricted sense advocated by the petitioner as relating to water which was free from contamination and pleasant to drink. It follows that fluoridation which in no way facilitates nor is incidental to the supply of such water is outwith the powers of the respondents. The petitioner therefore succeeds on this branch of her case.”
If my recollection is correct, although they lost on the ultra vires point, the Scottish Government—I cannot remember whether it was in the UK Parliament or the Scottish Parliament—reintroduced a water Act that made legal provision in Scotland that gave them the authority. However, and as my noble friend Lord Reay rehearsed in Committee, I understand that Scotland has chosen not to go down that path. I will come on to that in a moment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to all those who have spoken and to my noble friend for the reassurances that he has given. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for pointing out the importance of the cost-benefit analysis. It is disappointing that we have not been told the relative cost-benefit of supervised toothbrushing, particularly since a number of experts, including the adviser to the Select Committee in the other place, have argued that it would be a much better route to go down. I take great comfort from my noble friend saying that the situation will be kept under constant review and that this will continue as more evidence emerges from Sweden, the US and other places outside the UK. I shall, obviously, watch very carefully the secondary legislation to which my noble friend referred. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment at this stage.
Health and Care Bill
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering ExcerptsFriday 4th February 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 View all Health and Care Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-VIII(a) Amendment for Committee - (3 Feb 2022)
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, on the one hand, I am strongly in favour of the government proposals in Schedule 17 to bring in further curbs on the promotion and advertising of junk food by introducing a 9 pm watershed and a ban on paid-for advertising online. I also support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lady Boycott and Lady Finlay of Llandaff. On the other hand, I strongly oppose a raft of amendments in this grouping that we have heard a lot about in the last half an hour or so that seek to dilute or delay the measures in various ways. I do not have time to go through each one in detail, but if the Government were to accept any of them, it would be children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, who would suffer the consequences.
Before I move on, I want to try to find an area of common ground with the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Moylan. I agree with the implication of what they have said that this is not a single-fix magic bullet. Promotion and advertising of food makes a contribution to the obesity crisis, but there are many other factors, whether education, school meals or in-store promotions, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, just referred to. I do not think anybody would claim that this is going to solve the crisis, but the question is: would it make any difference at all? We have heard various arguments that it would not, but I want to refer back to the evidence.
I first came across this nearly 20 years ago when I was chairman of the Food Standards Agency. We commissioned an independent review by Professor Gerard Hastings of the University of Strathclyde on the impact of the promotion and advertising of food on children’s diets. It showed incontrovertibly, with the range of evidence available, which was partly observational and partly experimental, that, yes, it does affect children’s diets. It affects not just brand loyalty but preferences for categories of food—chocolate versus apples, for example. In a way, that is blindingly obvious because, if it had no effect, why on earth would the food industry spend so much money doing it? We do not really need to have research to show it, but nevertheless the research is absolutely clear cut. Other reviews since then have supported the Hastings findings.
The second point I want to make is about the various objections that come from the food and advertising industries that this will have a negative impact on revenues and broadcasting. If noble Lords want to look at the analysis on this, I suggest they read pages 39 to 42 of Henry Dimbleby’s National Food Strategy Part One, where he thoroughly debunks the arguments we have heard. I will read a quote from the report, from John Hegarty, founder of the leading brand agency, Bartle Bogle Hegarty—I gather it created the Audi slogan “Vorsprung durch Technik” and is very well known. He said:
“Advertising junk food … is no longer a decent thing to do. Instead of fighting the new 9pm watershed rule, the advertising industry should be using its power to help fight the health crisis. We all have our part to play in encouraging food companies to invest in healthier meals, and encouraging the public to buy them.
No one is against profit – but profiting from illness and misery is not a sustainable business model.”
That is from the advertising industry itself.
I have talked about evidence and the impact on industry. My third point is really about inequality. Two days ago, we had the levelling-up White Paper, which contains a number of missions. One of the missions is to reduce health inequalities by 2030, and as we know, they are absolutely staggering. According to the King’s Fund’s latest analysis, males from the least deprived areas in the United Kingdom have a healthy life expectancy of 71 years; from the most deprived areas, they have a healthy life expectancy of 52 years. The White Paper states:
“we will act now to deal with one of the biggest contributors to ill health: poor diet and obesity.”
Whatever one thinks the average effect of these measures might be across the country, we must bear in mind that those effects will not be borne equally by different parts of society. The people who will bear the brunt if we do not implement these measures will be the poorest and most disadvantaged children in the country.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who, a week ago last Monday, organised a moving and interesting session with an organisation called Bite Back 2030. I hope he will not mind me quoting a little from that session. The facts and figures are absolutely mind-boggling. The raw statistics are that, in the UK, 15 billion junk food adverts are pumped out every year—in other words, 500 adverts per second—targeted mainly at young people. That is one of those numbers that is so outlandish that it is hard to grasp. That is why I found that the personal accounts of the young people and teenagers we heard from told a richer story. I will give your Lordships an example.
Dev Sharma, who I think is a 16 year-old boy, said:
“junk food advertising is part of my life”.
It is on bus tickets, Spotify, Instagram, YouTube, et cetera. Particularly chilling for me was the fact that Domino’s Pizza sends him an advert every day at 4 pm, just as he is leaving school and is really hungry, like any teenage boy. That is when he is at his most vulnerable, and he is being persuaded to buy calorie dense junk food then. Another witness, Becky Odoi, talked about “subliminal conditioning” of young people, and Yumna Hussen said that food companies are preying on young people when they are most vulnerable.
These are not my ideas; they are the ideas of the young people on the receiving end. I could go on at greater length, but I think I have made my point. I strongly disagree with the amendments that would dilute these measures, and I strongly support the measures. I regret that the Government’s own amendments introduce the possibility of delaying implementing the measures, and I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government do not intend such a delay. They will not be the total solution, but they will play a significant part in tackling the obesity crisis in this country, which, in the longer run, is a far bigger health crisis than Covid. We must not get distracted by the short term from looking at the long term.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and pay tribute to the work he has done in this area. I shall speak to Amendment 257C, but I shall first make just one general comment on something to which he alluded, and which follows from the earlier remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. We are working in a vacuum at the moment, and it would be extremely helpful if the Government could say when they will publish their food strategy, drawing on the excellent work done by Henry Dimbleby, who is the main adviser to the Government on this.
I support and have appended my name to Amendment 257C in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. He is unable to be here today, which he regrets greatly. The offending part of the Bill in this regard is on page 241, in proposed new Section 368Z18 on the guidance the Government intend to draw up from time to time. Subsection (2) states:
“The appropriate regulatory authority must consult the Secretary of State before drawing up or revising the guidance.”
Subsection (3) states:
“The appropriate regulatory authority must publish the guidance and any revised guidance in such manner as they consider appropriate for bringing it to the attention of the persons who, in their opinion, are likely to be affected by it.”
I draw the Committee’s attention to the Constitution Committee’s report on the Bill, and the following statement on Clause 144:
“This is a Henry VIII clause, enabling the Secretary of State to modify an Act of Parliament, an Act of the Scottish Parliament, a Measure or an Act of the Senedd Cymru, or Northern Ireland legislation. The Secretary of State is required to consult those he or she considers appropriate before making regulations via the affirmative resolution procedure.”
The Constitution Committee concludes:
“The House should consider amending Schedule 17 to require either the consultation of the relevant devolved administration or the consent of the relevant devolved legislature if the Secretary of State were to use this power to enact regulations modifying devolved legislation.”
I speak as a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates and must say that it is a source of concern to all of us who have an interest north of the border, west of the border in Wales or in Northern Ireland that, sadly, the Government are developing a history of not consulting the devolved Administrations where appropriate.
Regarding Amendment 257C, which is, in my view, a probing amendment, I put it to the Minister that the clause gives the Secretary of State the power to alter the legislation of devolved Administrations by regulations, as set out in the guidance to which I referred. The Committee will be aware that the Sewell convention does not apply to the exercise of delegated powers, so there is no obligation on the Government to seek consent. In its very helpful report on the Bill, the Constitution Committee suggests that, given the nature and extent of this power, consent should nevertheless be sought. There is nothing in the Bill to respect the spirit of the convention, not even a duty to consult. How do the Government square that with the respect they should give to the devolved Administrations, especially in view of my right honourable friend Minister Gove’s initiative on intergovernmental relations and the levelling-up agenda, to which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred and which I, for one, support?
I conclude by asking my noble friend what precisely the Government intend to do, or what action they would be willing to take, to address this issue when the power in the guidance is being exercised.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a freelance television producer. I speak in support of Amendments 253ZA, 255A, 255B and 257B, which all attempt to give some parity in HFSS advertising restrictions between broadcasters and platforms. I apologise for having not been able to speak on Second Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has already spoken about the reduction in broadcasters’ advertising revenue as the platforms take an ever-increasing share of the market. The restriction in the Bill on television advertising further tilts the playing field in their favour. What concerns me is that this part of Schedule 17 is about the media which disseminate HFSS advertising taking responsibility for it, yet once again the platforms are allowed off scot free. My concern is the complete absence of tech companies’ responsibility for the content of ads appearing on their video-sharing platforms—mainly YouTube, but also Facebook video and Snapchat’s vertical video service. This is the media to which children are migrating. Enders Analysis estimates that by 2027, children will spend more than half their viewing time looking at content on these platforms—an average of 85 minutes per day per child. Clearly, this is where advertisers and brands are going to push HFSS products.
Yet, as noble Lords know, the digital space is the Wild West. Last year, the digital task force produced its excoriating report on the near-monopoly control of digital advertising by the big platforms. The report also mentioned the opacity of the programmatic interface, which allows advertisers to target products at specific users. Of course advertisers are themselves responsible for where they place their ads. This marketplace is the basis of the platforms’ wealth, but it is where they shirk any possibility for the content of ads. I am sure that, if platforms were made legally responsible for imposing restrictions on HFSS advertising, they would soon insert filters—or, better still, humans—into the process, much in the same way as we are seeing them do in content mediation.
Health and Social Care
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I said at the outset that only a broad-based tax such as VAT, income tax or NICs could raise the sums needed for this kind of investment, and we believe that NICs is the fairest way to do that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, historically, no Government have imposed a percentage increase on national insurance contributions because it hits the very people—the NHS and local government—who are delivering health and social care. For what reason have the Government changed the position on this?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
As I have said, the reason we went to NICs is that we believe that is the fairest, as the higher your earnings, the more you contribute; I gave some figures to show that. As I said, the highest-earning 14% of people will pay around half of revenues, and 6.2 million of the lowest earners will be kept out of the levy.