Home Insulation: Health and Mortality Rates

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

No, I do not accept that. There has not been a rota of schemes. The most successful scheme, the ECO scheme, has been going since the early part of the previous decade and we have committed funding for a number of years to come. The more successful schemes, such as the social housing decarbonisation fund and others, are also multi-year programmes precisely to provide the long-term certainty to industry that so many contractors say they desire. We have already announced the funding for 2025-28—another £6 billion—and we have set out the schemes on which it will be spent. So, no, I am afraid I do not accept the noble Baroness’s analysis.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, 20 years ago, when I had some responsibility for the insulation programme, health issues were just as important, if not more so, than fuel poverty as such, or climate change. I made some attempt to get the Department of Health to recognise the preventive nature of this programme. I failed totally, but would the Minister care to comment on his ability to persuade the current Department of Health that a preventive insulation programme is very much in its interests and the long-term interests of the health service?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I have not had any discussions with the Department of Health on this. I am not sure of my ability to persuade it of anything, but I would have thought it relatively self-evident that spending money on insulation schemes saves people money and has long-term health benefits. I do not think we need any studies to show us that.

Advanced Modular Reactors: Criticality Tests

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Of course it is not disregarded. The safety of the UK’s nuclear programme—the disposal of waste nuclear fuels, et cetera—is one of our highest priorities. We have an excellent record when it comes to nuclear in this country.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, while we are on nuclear, what do the Government make of the reports last week of a major breakthrough in fusion technology, and what support are they giving to British technology in this field?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

There is indeed lots of exciting talk and articles about developments in fusion, and there are a number of British companies at the forefront of that—we are supporting them. The note of caution I give is that fusion has been the coming technology for about the last 30 years; every year it is 10 years away. To not be cynical about it, there are some great breakthroughs and we are now finally getting more energy out of the system than we put into it, which is very encouraging. But it is a long way away yet.

Limiting Global Temperature Increase

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Wednesday 13th December 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Whitty]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether (1) the position of the OPEC states, and (2) the lobbying of fossil fuel companies, at the Dubai COP 28 have made it more difficult to achieve the goal of limiting global temperature increase by 2050 to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, the UK Government do not comment on the positions of different groups and countries. The UK worked tirelessly with all parties to push for an ambitious outcome at COP 28 that keeps 1.5 degrees within reach, and we welcome the deal reached this morning, which is the first time that there has been a global agreement to transition away from fossil fuels. It maintains the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I join with the Minister in accepting that the current draft is a darn sight better than the dreadful draft presented two days ago, but it is still, sadly, deficient. In the run-up to the COP, we not only saw the petrostates and fossil-fuel companies trying to derail any reference to fossil fuels in the agreement; we also saw the IPCC and the scientists warning us that we were well off the Paris trajectory towards 1.5 degrees, to which we are all supposed to be signed up. Perhaps we also ought to acknowledge that any improvement due to the UK Government’s intervention was down to our own Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, with the actual leader of the British delegation being called back from saving the world to saving the Prime Minister. Is not this Government’s moral authority to persuade smaller, more vulnerable and poorer nations to adopt a net-zero policy sadly undermined by our continued licensing of oil and gas extraction in the North Sea and other retreats from our green policies? Can the Minister give us a date for abandoning those polices?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

There was a whole series of questions in the noble Lord’s statement. This was an international agreement, involving almost 200 countries. Is it perfect? Is it everything we would have wanted? No, but it is certainly a great achievement by our extremely hard-working negotiating team. I do not agree with the noble Lord on the second part of his question about licensing and increased production in the North Sea. Even if they come on stream, the output in the North Sea will still continue to decline and we are still committed to phasing out oil and gas production.

Hydrogen Heating

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

There is a long and detailed answer to that, but there are a number of different elements to it. We will be consulting very shortly on the future homes standards, which will take advantage of new technology in terms of setting standards for all new developments. Clearly, there is a big challenge with existing, particularly residential, properties. I have said that heat pumps and heat networks will play the majority role in decarbonisation efforts. There could also be a role for renewable heating fuels, where there are some exciting developments.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, given the growing case against using hydrogen as the main source of domestic and office heating, are the Minister or Ofgem about to stop supplier companies offering so-called “hydrogen-ready” boilers to those who need a boiler replacement? Is the Minister any further ahead on the kind of technology that is going to be used for district heating schemes?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I think the CMA is looking into some of the claims. Chancellor, it is a complicated area, because you can blend hydrogen into the existing gas network and that will work perfectly satisfactorily with all existing gas appliances. In that respect, all appliances are hydrogen-ready. But I am sure Ofgem will want to look at the full implications of that as well.

Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th April 2023 Lords Chamber

I will also speak to Amendment 138 in this group, which seeks to rename under statute the Oil and Gas Authority as the North Sea Transition Authority, which we already know. I could be accused of being desperate to finally find an amendment that the Government will agree to. This one is so totally obvious that I wonder whether the Minister might actually be tempted to agree to it. I beg to move.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a small amendment in this group—Amendment 68—which deals with electricity storage. This very comprehensive Bill looks a bit different from the one that we first saw, and I am not absolutely confident that I have inwardly absorbed the implication of every government amendment that we have had in the last few months. But I am pretty sure that one dimension of investment in the system that has not been fully spelled out is that of electricity storage.

We have obviously dealt with it as a way of subsidising and encouraging investment in generation and there are big changes which are welcome, by and large, in relation to carbon capture and storage, and slightly more controversial in relation to hydrogen. But one of the key things about the new system—which will be much more decentralised than previously and dependent on different forms of generated electricity—is that we need some real investment in electricity storage. We need it partly because those who have always opposed some renewables stress that they are variable and there is occasional intermittence. That will happen, but investment in pipes, pylons and wires may not be sufficient to avoid some faults and breakdowns in the system.

We need to be able to call on electricity which is stored in some form to ensure that supplies are continuous. I am not sure why this has not appeared in the strategy. It needs to be somewhere. I attended part of a seminar over at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers a few weeks ago which explained the different technologies that exist for electricity storage. There are obviously some old-fashioned ones such as hydroelectric power, where you keep the water back, but there are many new technologies that could be developed for a significant investment in electricity storage. The common assumption is that it will be batteries in some form or another, but batteries in themselves raise considerable problems. In particular, a significant installation would involve problems of maintenance and of the critical materials needed for large-scale battery storage.

There is the possibility of storage in hydrogen—and that may raise other problems with hydrogen—and there is storage in ammonia and storage in compressed air. Any of these technologies need to be pursued, but we do need some system of storage. The least I would hope for from the Minister today is an acceptance that part of the strategy will be to ensure that we have cutting-edge technology in electricity storage, and an indication of how that will be financed, what the government incentives are and what the regulatory structure will be. If the Government can give me that general assurance, I will be happy.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a project director and engineer working for Atkins in the nuclear industry. I also chair the cross-party group Legislators for Nuclear.

In Committee, my previous amendments in this area—they were originally put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, before she joined the Front Bench—aimed to define nuclear as taxonomy-aligned within the UK’s green taxonomy. Naturally, I was delighted to see the Government commit to this in the Spring Budget, pending a consultation,. I shall speak briefly to my resulting Amendment 137.

Following the green taxonomy announcement and progress on the renewable transport fuel obligation, there remains one glaring aberration in the treatment of nuclear in the Government’s financing frameworks: the current exclusion of nuclear from the UK green financing framework, which describes how the UK Government plan to finance expenditures through the issuance of green gilts and the retail green savings bonds. Now that nuclear is due to be specified as taxonomy-aligned, I am sure that the Minister would agree, for consistency if nothing else, that it should also now be eligible under the green financing framework. This would have many benefits in ensuring the availability of vital extra funding for nuclear projects to enable the decarbonisation of our energy system.

I would be grateful if, in summing up, the Minister could state when the Government intend to address this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Whitty]

68: Clause 164, page 134, line 4, at end insert—
“(A1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must place before each House of Parliament a strategy for a significant increase in the provision of electricity storage facilities to enhance the resilience and flexibility of electricity supply.(B1) This strategy must cover all forms of electricity storage, including battery, hydrogen, ammonia, adiabatic compressed air energy storage systems, and hydroelectric storage; and cover potential licensing, planning, regulation, subsidy and taxation considerations.”Member’s explanatory statement
A future electricity network based largely on renewable sources of generation will require significantly increased storage capacity – which could be based on multiple technologies and is likely to require some form of government support in its development. This amendment would ensure that this dimension is considered and reported to parliament.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 68, and if my voice holds out I will also speak to Amendment 74. I appreciate that the Bill is primarily about the system, the capital investment and the totality of the supply of electricity, but, as the Minister recognised in his reply to the first group, the issues among the public are, “How much does it cost?”, “What effect does this have on my standard of living?”, and, in particular for the more vulnerable consumers, “Can I afford to keep my family and my house warm?”. There is no mention of any new initiatives in the Bill.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord may think that he is on the following group of amendments; this is the amendment in the previous group that I suspect he did not want to move. He is perhaps a touch premature.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

Oh! My apologies to the House and to the Deputy Speaker. I will return to the subject.

Amendment 68 not moved.

Moved by

[Lord Whitty]

69: After Clause 166, insert the following new Clause—
“Introduction of a social tariff for vulnerable energy customers(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare a plan in relation to bringing forward a social tariff for vulnerable energy customers and lay that plan before Parliament.(2) The Secretary of State may by notice in writing require the economic regulator to introduce a social tariff for energy that satisfies the following conditions—(a) it is additional to the Warm Home Discount and Default tariff price Cap,(b) it is mandatory for all licensed electricity and gas suppliers,(c) it is targeted on households that are in or at risk of fuel poverty,(d) it is set at a level that is below the market price, and(e) it automatically enrols eligible households onto the tariff.”Member’s explanatory statement
An amendment to give the Secretary of State the power to introduce a social tariff for energy and place a duty on the UK Government to prepare a plan for the introduction of such a tariff.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I will now move this amendment properly. I will not repeat what I just said, but the fact is that in this massive Bill, which gives the strategy for the energy sector for the next 10 years, the social dimension of that strategy and its effect on consumers are not entirely but largely ignored.

I moved a similar amendment in Committee and the Minister was not particularly interested. He claimed that we were already looking after the interests of vulnerable consumers. A couple of years ago, or slightly more, I did a small job for Energy UK, looking at the effect of the energy system on vulnerable consumers. To be fair, as a result of that both the trade body and some individual companies significantly improved their consumer service to the more vulnerable consumers, but they have not dramatically changed the tariff structure in favour of those who are least able to pay or who require a rather larger amount of energy than average because of their family condition, health, age, mobility and so forth.

A simple requirement that energy suppliers must include in their tariffs a social tariff for identified vulnerable consumers seems the most obvious and straightforward way forward. We have the warm home discount and the major intervention, using taxpayers’ money, to off-set the effects of the gas price rise, which I fully recognise is the biggest intervention the Government have made on this front, but this would be an obligation on the companies to ensure that they have a social tariff. This is because the present structure of tariffs is unfair and discriminates against more vulnerable consumers. Anybody who does not pay by direct debit is at a disadvantage with almost all the energy-supplying companies. A failure to pay by direct debit means that you pay more.

At a more extreme level even than that, those who are on prepayment meters—we have seen the scandals that have appeared in the last few months—systematically pay significantly more than those who pay by direct debit. This is not right. Those consumers are the most vulnerable. In many cases they are put on prepayment meters because they find it difficult to meet the cost. I appreciate that the Government have intervened to ensure that the more draconian measures to force people on to prepayment meters have been tackled, and I thank them for that, but it is still the case that the most vulnerable consumers, using the easiest method for them to pay, pay more than the rest of us on higher incomes. That is wrong. The easiest way to get out of that is to require all companies to have a social tariff, and to ensure that the system of the priority service register, which in theory exists to identify those customers, actually leads to an offer and a supply of a differentially favourable tariff.

The priority registration system was originally to make sure that they were not hit by shortage of supply. It has been used by companies to identify those who are most vulnerable, but it is differentially effective. Our study found that the level of signing up for the priority service was very different region by region and company by company. Also, the use to which it was put was not at all systematically clear. The large number of people who do not know of the register, or that they could perhaps use their presence on it to ask for a different tariff, means that, in essence, people who perhaps are not digitally literate or do not have time to compare the market—or “Compare the Meerkat” or whatever—are doubly disadvantaged with respect to the systems of pricing and tariffs available to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, this group covers amendments tabled regarding support and protections for the most vulnerable energy consumers. First, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their amendment to introduce a social tariff for vulnerable energy customers.

I am all too aware of the context for the noble Lords’ amendments, as energy bills have dramatically increased for all households over the past 18 months. This, coupled with the wider cost of living, has put the budgets of vulnerable households under considerable pressure. Noble Lords will be aware that the Chancellor set out in the Autumn Statement that the Government would work with consumer groups and industry to explore the best approach for consumer protection from April 2024. He also said that the Government would assess options, including a social tariff. These discussions are already well under way and are ongoing.

As set out in Powering Up Britain: Energy Security Plan, the Government have committed to consult this summer on options to provide better targeted support for those who need it most. In addition, the Chancellor announced in the Spring Budget that the energy price guarantee will be extended at £2,500 for an additional three months to the end of June 2023. This is in addition to the expanded warm home discount scheme, which has been extended until 2026 and which provides £475 million in support per year in 2020 prices.

The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, relate to the smart prepayment meter rollout and the restriction of the use of prepayment meters. The Government want to see the highest possible levels of smart meter coverage across the country, including for prepayment. Energy suppliers are each being set annual minimum installation targets and large suppliers are required to publish their performance against those targets, broken down by credit and prepayment.

This amendment would go further, effectively mandating the replacement of legacy prepayment meters by the end of 2025. This would present significant logistical challenges, including the need for energy suppliers to obtain warrants to enter consumers’ homes. I think we can all agree that that would not be a satisfactory outcome. Prioritising the replacement of legacy prepayment meters may have the unintended consequence of creating disincentives for suppliers to install smart meters for vulnerable credit customers. Data from Ofgem indicates that around 70% of those with disabilities pay by direct debit and may therefore benefit from the automated readings which smart meters deliver.

I understand the sentiment that lies behind the noble Lord’s calls for measures aimed at ending self-disconnections, such as a social tariff. However, his amendment is not the way to achieve this. The best way is through the work under way to explore the best approach for consumer protection, which I outlined earlier.

Regarding the noble Lord’s second amendment, the Government agree that the recent findings in the Times in relation to customers of British Gas having prepayment meters forcibly installed were both shocking and unacceptable. It is critical that our most vulnerable energy users are protected, and that is why the Government acted quickly to tackle this issue of inappropriate prepayment meter use. The Secretary of State wrote to energy suppliers insisting they revise their practices and improve their action to support vulnerable households.

Following that, all domestic energy suppliers have agreed to cease the forced installation of prepayment meters, and the remote switching of smart meters to prepayment mode, while Ofgem and industry agree and implement a code of practice to improve consumer safeguards. Ofgem will then start a formal statutory consultation process to modify suppliers’ licence conditions in line with the code, which will allow Ofgem to use its full enforcement powers to enforce compliance with the code.

I am pleased that the Chancellor has acted through the Budget to remove the premium paid by prepayment meter customers. That will happen from July initially, through the energy price guarantee, with Ofgem bringing forward options for longer-term solutions to be implemented by April 2024.

Prepayment meters can continue to play an important role in the market. They are a useful tool for some customers to prevent debt building up, and a complete ban on prepayment meters would likely see a move to using debt enforcement via the courts and bailiffs, which is not a desirable outcome. However, it is important that the rules around their use are sufficient and properly enforced. That is why Ofgem is undertaking a review to consider how prepayment meters are handled across the market. The Government will continue to review progress to ensure that these processes lead to positive changes for vulnerable consumers.

Amendment 74 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, relates to protecting heat network consumers. Robust consumer protection rules are of paramount importance, which is the primary reason that the Government are regulating the heat network sector. Schedule 16 provides for regulations to make the regulator’s principal objective to protect the interests of existing and future heat network consumers. That mirrors Ofgem’s principal objectives regarding existing and future gas and electricity consumers.

I would like to provide more detail on what that principal objective will mean in practice. It will ensure that the regulator prioritises enforcing rules that ensure that heat network consumers receive fair prices and reliable supplies of heat. The regulator will have powers to investigate and intervene where prices appear unfair or are significantly higher than comparable heating systems. The regulator will also introduce heat supply standards of performance, including adequate compensation for consumers who experience outages. That will ensure that heat network consumers receive comparable standards to gas and electricity consumers.

We are introducing these measures through secondary legislation and authorisation conditions, as with gas and electricity consumer protections, to ensure that rules can be updated more easily as the market matures and decarbonises. The Government will consult on the specific consumer standards that need to be met, and I encourage the noble Lord to consider that consultation once it is published later this year.

I hope that noble Lords are reassured by this explanation and feel able not to press their amendments.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that considered reply and the recognition in her remarks that there is still a serious problem. She referred to Ofgem coming up with something in relation to the way in which prepayment meters operate. In this new era, with a new structure following the Bill, it would be useful if Ofgem and the Government looked at the totality of structures for all forms of supply of energy, and particularly at the impact on more vulnerable consumers—Ofgem would need to take the lead, I guess. I hope the issues that I raised on the structure of tariffs in relation to the priority service register and the impact on vulnerable consumers would be included. I am watching this space. The noble Baroness has moved some way towards recognising that there is an issue.

I refrained from commenting in detail on heat networks because my voice was going. There is a problem. I very much welcome the fact that this is one bit of consumer protection in the Bill; it has been extended to the users of district heating. District heating has been convenient and is usually quite cheap but is now faced with real problems. I hope that the consultation will cover it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, having been introduced by the noble Lord, I want to try to help the Government. We all know that, first, energy efficiency is the most sensible way of proceeding towards the statutory targets that this Government have supported and this Parliament has voted for. Secondly, we know that every mechanism that we have tried so far has not delivered to the extent that we hoped it would. Thirdly, we know that this is an all-party view; nobody disagrees with it except those who still believe that climate change is not happening. Even if you do not believe in climate change, you must understand the cost of living crisis and, therefore, that doing this is crucial to reduce costs, particularly for those who are least able to bear them. So there is every reason for energy efficiency.

It is therefore not surprising that every adviser of the Government has emphasised this—not just as one among many possibilities but as the most important thing that any Government could do at this time. That is not just the Climate Change Committee but the National Infrastructure Commission and everybody else who has paid any attention at all to this. Yet the Government, in explaining to their supporters why this would not be an acceptable amendment, suggest that somehow or other it would add unnecessarily to the various schemes and programmes that are already in place.

I have to say to the Minister that the Climate Change Committee has looked very carefully at this and it does not actually meet the facts, because none of these other things satisfactorily deals with the reduction of energy use. There is a bit of an argument about how much of a difference you could make but, roughly speaking, if we had real energy efficiency, we could do all the things we are doing at the moment at about half the energy use. This is a hugely important matter.

These particular amendments may well have failings, but that is to remind the Government that they should have brought this forward in the Bill themselves, so that it did not need to be amended. I beg the Minister, whom I hope is in a sympathetic mood, even to statements by me, to take seriously the fact that no one believes that we should not have this amendment or something like it—no one who I can find logically does.

There will be some people who, if it is pressed to a vote, will support the Government because they feel that they must. I am happy to meet any of them and listen to their arguments for not doing this; it will be difficult for those arguments to be effective. I merely ask the Minister to please not put us yet again in the embarrassing position that either we vote against energy efficiency on the side of the Government or we vote against the Government for energy efficiency, which is what every independent adviser advises and which is, I happen to be sure of, actually the view of any Minister who has looked at the facts.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Deben; in the way he has spelled it out, it is clear that there is a huge gap in the energy strategy being presented by the Government. You would not believe that from the size of the Bill and the details within it, but the fact is that, unless we have a strand of policy, properly delivered and enforced, that deals with energy efficiency, we are missing the easiest target: to stop households and businesses spending money on energy when relatively simple adjustments to their homes or to the regulations that cover buildings could change that.

I am lost in admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who raises this issue on every piece of legislation going through the House. I am astounded that the Government have not taken it up.

There is something odd about this. More than 20 years ago, I was sitting where the Minister sits, and I was responsible for policies against fuel poverty and for energy efficiency. At the end of the Labour Government, we were doing roughly four times the number of interventions that the Government have done. So when the Minister turns around, as he did in Committee, and says that they are already doing a very substantial amount of stuff—they are doing some stuff; there is a social housing fund for energy efficiency and the ECO scheme, which is not a particularly efficient way of delivering it but does deliver something—at the end of the day, it does not amount to what we were doing 20 years ago. Had we continued doing that for the last 20 years—maybe we would have had to alter it and to update the interventions—then the energy efficiency of our buildings would be substantially greater. The Minister is required to explain to the House why this glaring omission is not in this or any other Bill.

There are relatively simple things you can do which make a dramatic difference, though it is slightly difficult to do it. Why, for example, do regulations on new builds not universally require new-build houses to approximate to a net-zero position? Why, for example, does the planning system tend to favour demolition of buildings, which itself is carbon-releasing and carbon-inefficient, rather than effective retrofitting? Why, in effect, have the schemes that the Government have come forward with in the owner-occupier sector—the green homes grant and the Green Deal—not worked, despite the fact that industry and campaigners have been very much in support of them? The answer is that they have not been made sufficiently attractive and the delivery has not been made sufficiently attractive to businesses—installers and the workforce—to ensure that we have a massive effort on this front.

I am glad that the Government have established a more effective Energy Efficiency Taskforce, but that task force needs to come up rapidly with a strategy which will address all of these issues and deliver for us a contribution to solving the energy-induced part of the cost of living crisis, and at the same time begin to reduce our dependence on energy use and enhance our contribution towards meeting net zero. It is so obvious that I am astounded, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben is, that the Government have not seized this opportunity.

I hope that, before the Bill finishes its turn in this House, we will see a rectification of that and a real commitment to an energy efficiency strategy which makes sense, is attractive and works.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I support these amendments and the concept of improving energy efficiency. I probably cannot express the rationale for that better than the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and my noble friend Lord Deben.

I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister if there are particular issues in the wording of these amendments that the Government have a problem with. Is it the EPC ratings or the six months? If there are such issues, would the Government consider coming back at Third Reading with their own version of what seems, universally across the House and across the country, to be so sensible? Given the Government’s excellent record and excellent intentions in improving the energy performance and net-zero performance of the British economy and our country, would they consider these measures?

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th March 2023 Lords Chamber

For those reasons, it is my opinion that the view expressed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights is too modest. If the Bill goes through, we run a real danger in this country of violating the convention, and I would be grateful to hear a refutation of those views from the Minister.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hendy. This discussion on the first amendment is bound to stray widely, but one of the areas it does have to consider is whether the various sub-committees and our adherence to and acceptance of international conventions going back more than half a century need to be jeopardised by this rather inadequate Bill. It is also a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Balfe; he says this Bill is unnecessary, and I totally agree.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, implied but did not say, it is not only hyper-skeletal but hyper-political. It is political in a way which is dangerous, not least to the Government themselves. The clause we are debating does not say when or at what stage in the process Ministers would intervene and, if necessary, unilaterally set minimum service levels. Is it when a strike is first contemplated? Is it when the executive starts consulting its members? Is it when the members vote yes, in accordance with legal provisions? Is it when the first strike day is announced, or on the strike day? When is it? Either way, the difficulty is that in many cases, the Minister will be intervening unilaterally with a minimum of parliamentary scrutiny, and, as my noble friend said, there will already be jointly agreed minimum service levels. That is why it is dangerous to the Government: every dispute in which the Minister intervenes in this way becomes a political dispute.

We have spent years trying to take industrial relations out of politics, but this brings them right back in. A central feature of this Bill is that at any stage, the Minister’s own view can override all agreements and unilateral action by the unions to observe the health and welfare of the population at large and the minimum service level. That politicises industrial relations in a way that has not happened for many years. I hope the Conservative Party understands what it is doing in this respect.

The Bill is also unnecessary and political in the sense that the reason for it—which is largely coincidental—is that a number of different disputes have arisen at roughly the same time because of the cost of living crisis and the squeeze on public sector pay. The public are getting anxious about the situation and they see the Government are not able to resolve it, so the Government have invented this Bill. They want to use the period from now until the general election, which the noble Lord, Lord Balfe wants to jump, to tell the public that they have a solution to all this industrial unrest. But it is not the solution; it is a promulgation, if they are not careful, of that industrial unrest.

When I intervened at Second Reading, I told the Government that they had an alternative: they could sit down and talk, make a new offer and change things. At least somebody in government—albeit not universally—has listened to me or come to the same conclusion. As a result, the Government are now sitting down with the RCN, which they refused to do at one point. They have made a better offer to firefighters—or at least, the fire brigade’s executive thinks the offer could be referred back to its members. Even in some of the disputes involving the railways, the next period of strikes has been postponed because the employer or the Government have moved. That is the alternative to intervening unilaterally and politically, in a way which is very dangerous to this Government and to the rights of workers and trades unions. But think how much worse it would have been if, instead of making an offer to the FBU, the Government had taken a unilateral decision to make the present MSL irrelevant and to statutorily impose a new one, and if some firefighters or their representatives had been nominated in the employer’s work notice, been told they had to strike-break, and refused to. Workers would have been dismissed, becoming potential trade union martyrs, and the union could have been sued for vast sums.

If that happened, how would noble Lords imagine that trade union executives, and ultimately members, would respond? This measure, the ability to intervene in this way, will actually prolong strikes and create more strikes, not solve them. The Government are going to tell the country that they have the solution but they have the opposite, and it is time this Bill was withdrawn.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 6th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

The noble Viscount is absolutely right, and I agreed with every word of his earlier contribution.

What the amendments do, instead having of a one-way impetus to the judges, is to introduce some balance to the exercise. Both these amendments would introduce two factors—they are repeated for the two scenarios—which might incline the judge in favour of caution:

“the consequences of disturbing a settled understanding of the law”

and

“the importance of legal certainty, clarity and predictability”.

The amendments give the judges more space for their judgment, which is—I am quoting the notes of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—“after all what judges are for”. What is the point of having judges if all they have to do is read the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill? Good luck with that.

Then the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, says of the quotation and reference in the Explanatory Notes to the Court of Appeal case of TuneIn Inc v Warner Music Ltd that “this, I am afraid, is disingenuous and I do hope the Minister will not repeat it from the Dispatch Box”. I am looking at the Minister—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy—and hoping that he does not do that, because TuneIn was a case in which the Court of Appeal decided not to depart from the jurisprudence of the CJEU for a number of reasons which were carefully enumerated. One decisive factor was that to

“return to the drawing board and start all over again … would create considerable legal uncertainty”.

So, the judges are stressing continuity, predictability, being able to weigh up factors and not being constrained. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, with respect, that he has got this wrong: if you say that the judges must do something and allow them to take into account only certain factors, it does not allow them to exercise their training and judgment. That is what we pay them for: to continue the law to provide the predictability that we need.

I finish by conveying that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, wanted to register his strong support for Amendments 90 to 93 in the names of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope, Lord Judge and Lord Thomas. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said: “They know a thing or two about the pressures of business in the highest courts, and this Bill is going to create a tsunami of business for lawyers. A sturdy floodgate is needed if those courts are not to be swamped, and these amendments provide one.” I respectfully recommend these amendments to the Committee.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, your Lordships may have noticed that there is a rather cruder amendment in my name towards the end of this group: Amendment 99A. I am not a lawyer, but much of my life in politics and trade unionism and as a consumer champion has been defined by decisions of the British courts—some of the most important of which have been influenced by European law or by the judgments of the European courts. The advances we have made on equalities, employment rights, a number of consumer items and the environment, and indeed on issues such as intellectual property and digital protection and so forth, have been in large part—not entirely; I will not overstate the case—affected by European law, now called retained EU law, or the European courts’ own judgments which have been followed by the British courts.

In the exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Callanan—he is not here at the moment; I welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy—and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said that the courts will go on interpreting cases as they have done from time immemorial. However, from time immemorial, the courts have interpreted the law on the basis of what is on the statute book at that time. They continue to do so until that law is changed by this Parliament. The implications of parts of Clause 7 are that that will no longer be the case; that the courts will need to have less regard to the types of cases that arose because they were influenced, at least in part, by European law; and that European decisions will not need to be held in the same regard in future. That is the purpose of Clause 7, which is why my amendment would delete it.

I largely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that it could be rewritten—we do need some guidance on case law—but this is taking it in entirely the wrong direction and destabilising what has, from time immemorial, been the basic role of the British courts in interpreting legislation. If the Government and Parliament change the law, that changes it; some of those cases no longer have the same effect as they do at the moment. However, if we take Clause 7 as it stands, we are undermining a number of improvements in the conditions of our people and, at the same time, undermining the credibility, consistency and historical role of our courts. I therefore suggest to the Government that they should remove this clause. If the Bill proceeds—noble Lords know that I am not in favour of it—the Government could come back with a rather more sensible Clause 7. However, as it presently stands, it is one that we ought to oppose root and branch.

The role of our legal system is being undermined by a political doctrine that has yet to find its way into the legislation and the statutory law of our land. That is a dangerous road that we should not go down; I therefore suggest that we remove Clause 7 and think again.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I have no legal training, so I going to rely on noble and learned Lords to tell me whether I have understood this whole section properly. It seems a bit odd.

In contrast to the first clauses of this Bill, which have been designed by the Government to take power away from Parliament—all the decision-making process and scrutiny—Clause 7 seems designed to outsource the task of making sense of the huge legal mess in the Bill. It is wrong on many levels but, in particular, it calls on judges to make political decisions that Parliament ought to take instead. The Bill is potentially going to create a huge legal mess; it does not seem fair for the Government to outsource this issue. That is worrying enough on its own, but it is all the more worrying because of the way in which this Government have demonised lawyers and judges over the past two or three years. They have been scapegoated at every twist and turn of the Brexit process. It has been a nightmare to see people who clearly have our best interests at heart being demonised in this way.

Clause 7 seems to have a very specific purpose. Forgive me if my language is oversimplified but, quite honestly, the Government are making a huge legal mess and are going to ask other people—judges, lawyers and the courts—to sort it out for them so that those people will take the blame when it all falls apart. Can the Minister explain whether I have understood it properly?

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 2nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, of which Amendment 62A is the key one. It covers much the same ground as that of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. It would bring this whole process back under parliamentary scrutiny by establishing a Joint Committee of both Houses which would do the review that we understand is currently taking a lot of the time of civil servants in Whitehall: their work would be absolutely germane to the work of this committee. My Joint Committee is similar to that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane; the only substantive difference is that my amendments in this group are actually remnants of a rather more ambitious original intention—namely, to delete all the first three clauses of the Bill and establish, right from the beginning, that this was a parliamentary process, not a process by the Executive alone. I still think there is merit in attaching this concept right at the beginning, before we go into more detail.

The other amendments in this group all attempt to bring some control back to Parliament. My noble friend Lady Chapman and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, wish to clarify what laws fall into which groups; then we would have a process for dealing with them systematically—through the Joint Committee, in my view, in the first instance, and then being brought back, with that Joint Committee’s recommendations, to Parliament. Of course, it is not intended that that would preclude any other initiative by the Government. If the Government wish to do this more urgently, they have every right to bring legislation, either in the form of an Act or a statutory instrument, in the normal way. The Government have raised the issue of reviewing the totality of anything that has any smell of Europe about it but, if that is what they intend, let us do it in a parliamentary way.

I just want to recall two episodes of history which might perhaps remind those who oppose departing from the Government’s view of this. The first is relatively recent. In 2018, when we were still in bitter post-Brexit arguments, many of us nevertheless accepted that we had to clarify the position of European-derived law in this House and in Parliament as a whole. We accepted the suggestion of the Government that they would make clear that EU law that had been accepted during the 50 years of our membership of the European Union and its predecessors would be part of UK law. We did not realise at the time that it was not quite the same as the rest of EU law. The reasons we accepted it were, first, that we needed some stability, for business and other elements of society, immediately following the completion of Brexit; and, secondly, that the Government needed a bit of time to consider how they would deal with that law—whether they wanted to change it, amend it or revoke it. We never contemplated, at that time, that we would have a process that completely departed from normal practice in Parliament and effectively put so much power into the hands of Ministers. That power, if it were through a statutory instrument, would be subject to only minimal scrutiny—but perhaps more importantly, and equally or rather more worryingly to parties outside, is that a whole chunk of what was European law, and is now deemed to be retained EU law, could actually fall in less than 10 months’ time, without any discussion whatever in this House or another place. That also needs to be dealt with at this stage. We need to delete the sunset clause for the end of this year and, if people think it is necessary to have an eventual sunset clause, then let us accept what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, was arguing in our last sitting.

The other episode of history is perhaps a bit more esoteric, but it might appeal to some on the Conservative Back Benches and the Brexiteer press, if I can put it that way, who claim that we have escaped the tyranny and domination of Brussels. There are plenty of precedents in history for this. When all the countries of the British Empire attained their independence from the old Commonwealth—the old dominions in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, more than a century ago, and even the establishment of the Irish Free State, right through to the countries of Africa and the Caribbean—part of that independent settlement, except where it was surrounded by war, was always that the rules which applied during the colonial period would continue to apply until the new independent judiciary and legislature changed them in Jamaica or the Irish Free State, for example. That remained the case in almost every country which gained independence from the British Empire. Those that did not follow this precept—Zimbabwe, for example—are usually crucified by the right wing in this country for doing so.

In most cases, there was a peaceful transfer of power, as there has been a peaceful transfer of power from Brussels back to this Parliament. We should follow the example of the Macmillans and the others who gave independence to all those countries. Even with the establishment of the Irish Free State, as I said, you still get Irish lawyers in the Irish courts quoting case law from Victorian times. This issue has an implication for case law as well, which we will come to at a later stage.

I hope that whatever the Government do in relation to this debate, they will see all the different proposals in this group and elsewhere and bring back on Report a proposition of their own which restores the systematic assessment of EU retained law to Parliament—with decisions resting with Parliament, not in the hands of Ministers—and prevents it from disappearing as the bells chime on New Year’s Eve later this year.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I have put my name to two amendments in this group: Amendment 32 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and Amendment 141A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. I have done so because, if the Government were to accept them, they would significantly enhance the ability of Parliament to scrutinise the legislation arising out of this Bill more effectively. They would do so by introducing for the first time the beginnings of a triaging system, which would enable the House to focus its efforts on those probably relatively fewer bits of legislation that really matter and ignore the rather larger number that do not.

My noble friend on the Front Bench has taken a lot of “incoming” over the past couple of days. I have some sympathy with the conflicting advice he has been given. If I were to distil what he has been criticised for, I would say that the concerns about the Bill relate to uncertainty about the Government’s approach to specific policy areas on the one hand, and the lack of parliamentary involvement on the other. These two amendments—and indeed some others in this group—would go a long way to answering those criticisms and concerns. I hope my noble friend will listen carefully to the arguments being put forward, because he might catch the sound of the cavalry arriving to bring some help to his rather beleaguered post.

We have heard a magisterial speech from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, on Amendment 32. I am not a lawyer, and in such circumstances, to try to add to a speech made by a past Lord Chief Justice would indeed invite an accusation of hubris. Therefore I hope that Members of the Committee will come with me, if not into the weeds then into the grass—the long grass—and explore on a more practical level what I believe these amendments will achieve, how important they are in ensuring that Parliament is not taken for granted, and how they will lead to a greater level of public acceptance of the implications of particular policy choices, so reducing disconnect between the governors and the governed. Finally, in consequence of all this, I will explain why I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench and the Government will give very serious consideration to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, have proposed.

I want to draw on my experience of the past three years as chairman of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. During that time I have seen the sands of power and influence trickling through Parliament’s fingers, which has meant that the Government have gained more power at the expense of Parliament. This has long roots here. It probably began with the Blair Government, who had a very substantial majority and thought they could use secondary legislation to push stuff through quickly. It has had twists along the way with things such as the pandemic, where emergency legislation has been used for purposes for which it was not originally intended. However, the real game-changer has of course been, as we all know, the emergence of skeleton Bills—framework Bills—of which what we are discussing today is a classic example.

It is worth pausing momentarily to think about what my noble friend is going to say on why this group of amendments should not be accepted. I think the first thing the Government will claim is that, if they were to be accepted, it would be likely to lead to the government machinery being gummed up by additional legislative time taken. I reject that—it is not true. In the 600 or 700 instruments that the SLSC looks at every year, between two-thirds and three-quarters are entirely uncontroversial—they are essentially technical—and I am firmly of the view that no lesser a proportion of the regulations that will come from the Bill will fall under the same category. They will essentially be technical and uncontroversial and will not give rise to controversy, which means that your Lordships’ House and the Government will have a much smaller population of instruments on which to focus their attention.

The second thing that I think the Government will allege is of course that both Houses give their consent to each regulation. We have all heard the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who is not in his place today, on the question of amendability, and the noble Lord who just spoke referred to that as well. Technically, we know it is true, but the consent is the equivalent of having a pistol at your forehead which will fire bullets marked “constitutional crisis” and “the Strathclyde review”. In those circumstances, I argue that the consent is grudging at best.

What is really valuable about these amendments and indeed the others is that for the first time we can begin to concentrate on what really matters. This is by any standards an immensely complex Bill, and the actions taken under it will set the course for this country for many years. This House—indeed, Parliament as a whole—is entitled to know what the Government is thinking, not just in broad statements of principle but in their detailed application, which is, after all, what really matters to every citizen. If my noble friend and the Government are concerned about the generally adverse reaction to the Bill, I gently remind them that sunshine will be the best answer and these two amendments represent sunshine.

I am not against the Bill—I voted to leave the European Union and I believe it was the right thing to do—but I am also a democrat, and I voted to bring back powers to the United Kingdom. Although this is happening, sadly, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham memorably pointed out at Second Reading, those powers have been sent to the wrong address. If I may continue with his analogy, I regard these two amendments as attempts to redirect the repatriation of powers to their proper destination, and that is why I support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend in her amendment. I take the view, as the Committee well knows, that if you give the bureaucracy longer to implement all of this, it will use the time. Therefore, the shorter the time we can make it, the better.

I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he considers the fact that the sunset clause is operating at the end of this year as almost the sole reason we now know roughly how many bit of retained EU legislation there are. If the sunset clause had not been in there, I do not believe that the bureaucracy of this country—pace the noble Lord, Lord Wilson—would have come up with the answer at all.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 56A in this group. Noble Lords have probably gathered by now that I profoundly hope that the Bill never reaches the statute book. However, if it does, we need to know what the heck we are talking about. My Amendment 56A requires the Government, within three months of the passage of the Bill into law, to ensure that all of us here and those whom they are going to consult out there—the businesses, consumers, workers and everyone else whom the Bill may affect—know what we are talking about; namely, by providing a definitive dashboard at that point, preferably with an indication of how the Government intend to deal with different bits of the dashboard. But, in any case, it requires that they provide a “definitive list”. If we do not have that, no one will know how we will behave, whatever the deadline.

I support the deadline proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, which is reasonable, given that we are talking about 4,000 pieces of legislation, at the last count. I do not agree with the deadline in the Bill or with extending it by only one year, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, suggested. The key point of my amendment is that the world needs to know what the Bill means, what it is about and, preferably, how the Government will deal with it. I do not think that the word “dashboard” has appeared in many pieces of legislation, but we need something based on the dashboard as it is currently. Noble Lords who have tried to use it will have found it rather difficult and certainly not yet definitive. So we are giving the civil servants—I can go along with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, on this to some extent—three months from the passage of the Bill to produce a definitive list of what we are talking about, and we need that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

Your Lordships should know that, if Amendment 59 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 61 or 67 for reasons of pre-emption.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I have three amendments in this group, Amendments 61A, 61B and 61C. I first apologise to the Committee: at the rate things are going, I may not be here by the end of the group. No discourtesy is intended. I hope to be here, but it depends on the length of your Lordships’ speeches.

These three amendments seek to exempt from the sunset in Clause 3 various categories of retained European law. These categories and why they are so important were extensively debated earlier in Committee, but they also need to be excluded from this part of the Bill. These areas relate to employment, environment, food and transport safety, and I pick them out for two reasons. First, these are the areas on which noble Lords have received most representations from organisations, businesses and others anxious about whether key areas of retained law will fall on 31 December.

Secondly, and maybe this has more appeal to the Government, each of those three areas has profound implications for international relations. They are either traded issues, such as food, issues which are clearly covered, for example by the trade agreement with the EU that we will not lessen standards, or else areas which are very complicated in their origins. I take for example transport safety, and aviation and shipping safety in particular. They are partially British laws, partially EU laws and partially international laws coming from the ICAO and various conventions. Unravelling that in any way which diminishes the effect of those laws will have very significant implications for international travel and transport, and organisations which operate in those fields.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, I start by apologising to the Committee for not speaking at Second Reading. I support Amendment 63, tabled in my name along with those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and declare an interest as President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, RoSPA.

We tend to think of the United Kingdom as a global beacon for safety. Over the last 50 years, legally enshrined protections have saved more than 125,000 lives and prevented more than 1 million hospitalisations. This has not happened by luck; it has happened because of our role as pioneers in evidence-based research, alongside our international partners. Many of these vital measures are in retained EU law and are on track to be repealed at the end of this year. They include, quite alarmingly, rules on child and adult seat belts—my noble friend Lady Randerson touched on this—hazardous substances and chemical safety standards, and essential product safety.

I want to put flesh on the bones, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and take the example of toys. On average, every year, 100 dangerous toy products are prevented from being supplied in the UK by trading standards. According to data from RoSPA, should the toy safety regulations be revoked, statistics tell us that the UK will go from zero recorded deaths caused by toys to two deaths and 5,000 children being seriously injured and needing to be admitted to hospital every year, the same as we experienced before regulations were put in place in 2002. This is just one example out of hundreds of laws that protect our citizens, including children, on a daily basis, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

I understand the need for this Government to uncouple themselves from the EU as part of Brexit, but this is a very important, very delicate exercise, which must be treated with the utmost care. It is no use “taking back control” if the way this Government choose to use their control is by bypassing proper parliamentary scrutiny and repealing thousands of laws, of which hundreds are life-saving safety laws, without any due process.

That is why I propose this amendment, which will require a health and safety impact assessment for each piece of EU-derived legislation set for revocation not less than 90 days prior to the intended date of revocation. Parliament deserves to see the truth about every law set to be repealed, so that we can make an informed decision about how to proceed. I am sure that plenty of revocations will pose no health and safety risk and that this House will be comfortable repealing many of these laws. However, just as there are things in this list that we do not need, there are also many that we do, and this House must be given the necessary information to be able to distinguish between the two.

The NHS is facing an unprecedented crisis. Hospital emergency departments are more stretched than ever and ambulances are queuing to offload their patients and go to their next emergency. Actively creating the conditions for thousands of people to suffer more accidents and emergencies at a time like this would be absurd. I hope that reason prevails and the Government back this essential amendment.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I came in this afternoon to join the environmental debate, because I knew of the anxieties among those concerned with the environment. They feel that there is a strong possibility that their area of concern will fall without proper consultation, involvement or debate 10 months from today.

Having sat through the environmental debate, I began to feel a strange emotion: I felt very sorry for the Government—for Ministers on the Front Bench and other Ministers here. The inadequate letter we received from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, shows that they are really not on top of this, and they will not get on top of this in the timescale they have set themselves. We can make all sorts of detailed amendments, but the Government’s main way out of this is to accept the two amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and extend the period of consideration for retained law so that stakeholders, business, consumers, et cetera, can consider the real implications of the laws and the alternatives, and so that the Government will have the ability to introduce a proper parliamentary process for reviewing the totality of this exercise.

I really think that Ministers will have to think again if they are going to attempt to meet the deadline that they have unnecessarily set themselves. If they give themselves more time, maybe something like this Bill will survive and the process that they started will succeed. If not, I am afraid that I can see nothing but the defeat of this Bill as a whole, and a lot of people continuing to feel great anxiety until that happens. So I appeal to Ministers to recognise reality, accept the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and let us move on.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

Would the Minister agree that, as the United Kingdom has one of the best employment records in the entire world, which was never dependent upon the EU, these amendments are utterly pointless and could probably do more harm than good?

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, further to that point, even this discussion on the first amendment that we are faced with requires the Minister to withdraw some of the assertions he has made, and which his noble friend has just made again. The very fact that we are debating maternity rights which were brought in because of the European Union means that his statement that British workers do not depend on the European Union for their employment rights is made absurd. It is correct that successive British Governments have decided that they will go along with the European rights, but it was because of the European Union that we have those rights. Therefore, we need a specific exclusion from the fact that, by 31 December this year, these regulations, and many other workers’ rights regulations and related regulations, will fall automatically, without any parliamentary decision.

I would like the Minister to withdraw his assertion about European rights. He forgets his history. Why does he think that Mrs Thatcher fell out with Jacques Delors? Why does he think that John Major refused to sign the Social Chapter? Until the Labour Government came in, British workers’ rights were less than those of workers in Europe. This is an absurd assertion, as has been made clear by the debate on this very first amendment.

I have one more general point. I tried to table an early amendment which would give Parliament an alternative way of dealing with this, where we would have a Joint Committee to look in a reasoned way at the priority, the status and the need for action to change European laws. There is an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to do a similar thing, but we are not debating that today.

However, there must be a better way than leaving a whole tranche of European-derived law to an unknown process, ministerial decree—when they come in with their own version of the law—or simply leaving it until 31 December when the law will then disappear. This Parliament, this House, must assert a better way of dealing with this. That is clear from this amendment and from the complete absurdity of how we are dealing with the subject matter in this Bill.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend has done that in his Amendment 40, which is the sensible way forward.