Vol. 814 Tuesday No. 39 20 July 2021

PARLIAMENTARYDEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT

ORDEROFBUSINESS

Introduction: Baroness Davidson of Lundin Links ...... 119 Questions Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents ...... 119 Human Rights Due Diligence ...... 123 Chinese Products and Companies: Human Rights Violations ...... 126 National Food Strategy Independent Review...... 130 Minimum Energy Performance of Buildings Bill [HL] First Reading...... 133 Conduct Motion to Agree...... 133 Medical Devices (Northern Ireland Protocol) Regulations 2021 Motion to Approve ...... 142 Medical Devices (Coronavirus Test Device Approvals) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 Motion to Approve ...... 142 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL] Report...... 154 Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021 Motion to Approve ...... 204 Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past Statement...... 232

Grand Committee Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] Committee (2nd Day)...... GC 1 Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office. No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report of their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the Daily Report, which, with the column numbers concerned shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of the Daily Report. This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet at https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2021-07-20

In Hybrid sittings, [V] after a Member’s name indicates that they contributed by video call.

The following abbreviations are used to show a Member’s party affiliation: Abbreviation Party/Group CB Cross Bench Con Conservative DUP Democratic Unionist Party GP Green Party Ind Lab Independent Labour Ind SD Independent Social Democrat Ind UU Independent Ulster Unionist Lab Labour Lab Co-op Labour and Co-operative Party LD Liberal Democrat LD Ind Liberal Democrat Independent Non-afl Non-affiliated PC Plaid Cymru UKIP UK Independence Party UUP Ulster Unionist Party

No party affiliation is given for Members serving the House in a formal capacity, the Lords spiritual, Members on leave of absence or Members who are otherwise disqualified from sitting in the House. © Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2021, this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 119 Introduction [20 JULY 2021] Council of Europe: Official Documents 120

House of Lords The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con) [V]: My Lords, I apologise for not being present Tuesday 20 July 2021 in your Lordships’ House—I have been since the first lockdown—but I am currently isolating and will not be The House met in a hybrid proceeding. able to attend the House this week. The United Kingdom Government have no plans to adopt the Convention Noon on Access to Official Documents.

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark. Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op): I send my sympathies to the Minister but that is a very unsatisfactory answer, and I wish he was here in person so I could tell Introduction: Baroness Davidson of him to his face. Does he agree that, with certain Lundin Links limited exceptions, access to official documents is essential for transparency, good governance and a functioning 12.07 pm democracy? A number of countries—Ukraine, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Norway, Sweden and others—have agreed to adopt this convention. Can the Minister give The right honourable Ruth Elizabeth Davidson, having us just one simple reason why the British Government been created Baroness Davidson of Lundin Links,of Lundin are not doing likewise? Links in the County of Fife, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Keen of Elie and Lord McInnes of Kilwinning, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Lord True (Con) [V]: My Lords, the noble Lord Code of Conduct. always tells me that my Answers are unsatisfactory; I do not always agree with him. As it stands, the convention, which has not been adhered to by the overwhelming Oaths and Affirmations majority of EU nations, would not, in our view, allow for the appropriate protection of sensitive information 12.11 pm or of journalistic independence, as Parliament intended when it passed the Freedom of Information Act 2000. TheEarlof Leicestertooktheoath,followingtheby-election under Standing Order 9, and signed an undertaking to Lord Adonis (Lab): My Lords, can the Minister abide by the Code of Conduct. help the House? Can he explain what it is about releasing the official documentation concerning the £37 billion test and trace scheme and the £12.5 billion Arrangement of Business of PPE contracts—including the VIP route, which has Announcement been roundly criticised by the National Audit Office—that might conceivably make the Government reluctant to 12.13 pm sign this convention? The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith): My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Lord True (Con) [V]: My Lords, I have given the Some Members are here in the Chamber while others House the reasons for the Government not wishing to are participating remotely,but all Members will be treated adhere to the convention. However,the United Kingdom equally. Government are absolutely committed to transparency and the principles behind the convention and recognise The social distancing requirements in the Chamber the work done by the Parliamentary Assembly of the have been removed, but I strongly encourage Members Council of Europe in this sphere. We routinely disclose to continue to wear face coverings while in the Chamber, information well beyond our freedom of information except when speaking, and to respect social distancing obligations and in line with many of the provisions of in relation to staff in the Chamber. the convention. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them no longer Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]: I am sure the than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Minister is entirely apprised of the fact that the Council Ministers’ answers are also brief. of Europe is completely separate from the EU. The attitude of the Government on an issue such as this Council of Europe Convention on Access to tends to smack of an anti-European thread in the Government, which I am sure is not in the interests of Official Documents this country. Can the Minister kindly explain why such Question a universally accepted treaty should not be acceded to by this Government? 12.14 pm Asked by Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Lord True (Con) [V]: My Lords, I have underlined the principle of this Government’sbelief in transparency. To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans I refute the idea that there is anything anti-European they have to adopt the Council of Europe Convention here. The current adherents to the treaty are Bosnia, on Access to Official Documents (CETS No. 205). Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Lithuania, Montenegro, 121 Council of Europe: Official Documents[LORDS] Council of Europe: Official Documents 122

[LORD TRUE] resolve of your Lordships’ House, of the Government Norway, the Republic of Moldova, Sweden, Ukraine and the whole of Parliament. All central government and Iceland. The majority of EU countries are not departments are required to publish datasets, including signatories. I think that answers the noble Lord’s point central government contracts, tender opportunities that this is some kind of EU line. and contract award notices over £10,000, central government spending over £25,000, the gender pay Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con): My Lords, can gap data—I will not prolong the list, because other the Minister say whether a Cabinet paper would be an Members wish to ask questions. However, I stress to official document in terms of this treaty and, if so, would your Lordships that a great deal of information is it be protected under Article 3k? voluntarily published by the Government and that we do and will adhere to the law. Lord True (Con) [V]: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is right to draw attention to this. Although Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP): I am absolutely protection for deliberations within public authorities thrilled to hear that the Government are, in the words is allowed for in the convention, it does not provide of the Minister, committed to transparency. A few the specific exemption that Parliament felt was necessary Members of this House—I do not know how many—have in order to protect Cabinet collective responsibility, been told that MI5 has files on them. Can the Minister which is one of the key conventions underpinning our therefore, in this spirit of transparency, get those files form of Cabinet government. It informed the Labour for us so that we can see exactly what information is Government in 2000, at the time this Act was passed, held on us? I cannot believe that any of us is a threat to and continues to inform us. national security—apart from, obviously,the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab): My Lords, the Minister has given quite inadequate answers as to why Lord True (Con) [V]: I could never conceive that the the Government will not adopt the convention. Can I noble Baroness would be a threat to anyone and I press him on the issue of transparency and whether rejoice in her kindly words always. The reality is that the Government would obey the law—their own laws? Parliament agreed in 2000 that it was appropriate to In February, the High Court confirmed that the failure protect sensitive information from inappropriate disclosure to publish the details of all the PPE contracts is and legislated for exemptions in some areas, including unlawful. The Government responded that they were absolute exemptions for information relating to security working hard to do so. Just how far have the Government and intelligence agencies and communication with the got? In March, more than 100 of the contracts awarded sovereign. That decision was taken by Parliament, and last year were still unpublished. Some 93% of contracts in the spirit of adhering to the law, the Government awarded to suppliers with political connections have continue to follow that provision. been published late, and it is estimated that nearly £2 billion-worth of contracts have gone to those with Lord Balfe (Con): My Lords, I also have an MI5 file, Conservative Party links. The Government will not which I discovered after a recent government publication. adopt the treaty, even though other countries have What distressed me was that all the information in it published this information. As of today, how many was wrong. Can the Minister make these files available contracts awarded more than 30 days ago have yet to so that MI5 at least has accurate information about be published by the Government? why we are totally untrustworthy? Lord True (Con) [V]: My Lords, the noble Lord would Lord True (Con) [V]: My Lords,on the specific question not expect me to have access to any such file, and we of the number that the noble Baroness asks about, I do not comment on security matters in any case. will have to write to her; I apologise for that. Obviously, the Government hold the principle of transparency as Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]: My Lords, paramount. There are always issues of commercial given that England, Wales and Northern Ireland already confidentiality, as all noble Lords will understand. have the Freedom of Information Act in place, could However, we go far beyond the requirements of the the Minister comment on whether, after 20 years of that Freedom of Information Act in publishing information Act, it is due for review to assess its effectiveness and about the conduct of business within government. whether it needs to be broadened to cover other bodies?

Baroness Altmann (Con): My Lords, I thank my Lord True (Con) [V]: My Lords, other bodies are noble friend for his answers and his assurance that covered. If I said that it was time for a review, people there is not an anti-European element to this, which I would immediately say, “Oh, they are planning to do wholeheartedly accept. However, does he agree that something different to what we have now.” There are access to official documents is even more important in no current plans for a review. Obviously, every piece of times of crisis and that there is a need for openness legislation is constantly kept under consideration both and transparency in public authorities, partly to restore by Parliament, including your Lordships, and by those trust but also to expose or reduce any corruption and responsible for conducting government business, but make the public feel more confident in their authorities? currently there are no such plans.

Lord True (Con) [V]: My Lords, wherever, if ever, The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith): My corruption exists, it should be mercilessly rooted out Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and dealt with; I think that would be the united and we now move to the second Oral Question. 123 Human Rights Due Diligence[20 JULY 2021] Human Rights Due Diligence 124

Human Rights Due Diligence who play a vital role in protecting forests. Our proposals Question in the Environment Bill will require UK companies to conduct due diligence based on the laws of producer 12.24 pm countries, in particular those laws that relate to land use and land ownership. Asked by Baroness Sheehan To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans Lord Moynihan (Con): I declare my interests as set they have to make human rights due diligence out in the register. Does my noble friend the Minister mandatory for businesses, in particular those engaged agree that human rights due diligence should not be in forest risk commodities. mandatory for businesses given the modern slavery and supply chain requirements, the welcome shareholder demands for ESG transparency, and the widespread TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department adherence in this country to the UN Guiding Principles forBusiness,EnergyandIndustrialStrategy(LordCallanan) on Business and Human Rights? (Con): My Lords, the Government expect businesses to target their human rights due diligence approaches Lord Callanan (Con): As I said in my initial Answer, according to the UN Guiding Principles on Business I agree with my noble friend. Human rights abuses are and Human Rights. We currently have no plans to a wide and varied issue, which is why the UK Government make this mandatory because there is existing legislation prefer the approach of encouraging businesses to follow which holds businesses to account on human rights. the voluntary framework of the UN Guiding Principles All UK quoted companies are required to report on on Business and Human Rights. relevant human rights issues in their annual reports, andlargebusinessesmustpublishsupplychaintransparency statements on steps they take to prevent modern slavery. The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]: My Lords, the rainforest needs urgent protection—we all know that, as does the Minister. The Government have already Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]: My Lords, I thank the made good progress with the Environment Bill, but Minister for his reply. The European Commission how will they enforce compliance; for example, on plans to publish its sustainable corporate governance companies which are not in the Retail Soy Group or proposal this autumn, and UK companies operating which do not intend to convert to sustainable products? in the single market would fall into its scope. I hear Does the Minister agree that any UK financial services what the Minister says about the Government having which clearly support the production or trading of no plans, but what consideration are they giving to forest risk commodities would be acting illegally and keeping pace with the European Commission? Does should be caught by Schedule 16 to the Bill? he really believe that the current law is satisfactory to enable business practices to ensure that all commodities andservicesaresubjecttohumanrightsandenvironmental Lord Callanan (Con): The noble Earl is perhaps due diligence processes? getting a bit ahead of himself, as we are still considering the Environment Bill—it is not in law yet. When it is, as I hope it will be, details on the enforcement regime Lord Callanan (Con): Of course, we will keep these will be subject to further consultation and regulations matters under review, but we believe that mandating will be subject to the affirmative procedure so that the compliance presents some practical challenges in House can debate them fully. definition, enforcement and so on. However, we will of course keep it under review. Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]: Given the complexity of supply chains and the way business with indigenous The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I draw populations is conducted, will the Government give an the Minister’s attention to the policy of the National undertaking that human rights should be written into Investing Bodies of the Church of England on extractive the contracts of the small companies that then sell to industries, which has an explicit commitment drawn larger companies, as well as the need for satisfactory from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous equal pay and the gender lens? This is a complex situation Peoples to the and we need to get a grip of it and have it written into “free, prior and informed consent” contracts. of indigenous communities on major projects. Indeed, the Church Commissioners and other Church of England Lord Callanan (Con): The noble Baroness is right; investment bodies engage with investment partners this is indeed a complicated subject with a lot of across a range of industries, including where forest different areas for consideration. We need to be careful clearance is involved. Will Her Majesty’s Government not to impose undue burdens, particularly on small consider the principle of the free, prior and informed businesses. consent of indigenous communities as a legislative requirement for companies incorporated in the United Lord Oates (LD) [V]: My Lords, I hope the Minister Kingdom but operating overseas? will agree that Governments as well as businesses have a moral duty of due diligence on human rights. Can he Lord Callanan (Con): I thank the right reverend therefore tell the House what due diligence the Prelate for sharing that research. The UK is committed Government conducted prior to chartering a flight to to supporting indigenous peoples and local communities, deport Zimbabwe nationals tomorrow to a country 125 Human Rights Due Diligence[LORDS] Chinese Human Rights Violations 126

[LORD OATES] fine. My noble friend will be aware that the Environment where human rights are consistently violated? Will the Bill will introduce even tougher controls on illegal waste Government now halt that flight and place a moratorium exports, including powers to make it harder for criminals onfurtherdeportationsuntiltheZimbabweanGovernment to obtain and export waste illegally. can demonstrate that they respect the human rights of their citizens and the rule of law? Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab): My Lords, I am supporting a project with Rewired.Earth, which Lord Callanan (Con): I admire the noble Lord’s aims to deliver full and proper ESG audits, including ingenuity in getting a question on deportation flights through the supply chains. If achieved, this would into one considering forest communities. I do not have provide a huge step forward in delivering environmental, the information about that particular flight—I was not social and governance oversight, going a long way to aware of it—so I will write to him. answer the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. Baroness Sugg (Con): My Lords, local indigenous With $110 trillion of worldwide investment already communities are the best custodians of the forest, yet being directed through ethical investing, this would be they are often not considered, consulted or listened to. a great opportunity for the UK. Do Her Majesty’s Looking ahead to COP 26, how will the Government Government support the premise of ESG audits as a ensure that the voices of indigenous groups are heard? way for the UK financial sector to lead the way across the globe, both in financial investing and by creating a vehicle that can help save the planet? Lord Callanan (Con): My noble friend makes a very good point. The UK is working closely with the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Climate Lord Callanan (Con): As the noble Lord will be Change and the UNFCCC Local Communities and aware, we have just finished a consultation on the Indigenous Peoples Platform to champion engagement audit reform proposals, which include extending audit and participation by indigenous groups in COP 26. to some non-financial matters such as climate change. Of course, we will be very happy to consider all other proposals. Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]: A recent G7 communiqué said that the G7 was “concerned by the use of all forms of forced labour in global Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]: My Lords, in an earlier reply, supply chains”, the Minister said that he is considering enforcement and G7 Ministers have been tasked issues. Given that the UK has no central enforcer of company law or regulator of corporations, and that “to identify areas for strengthened cooperation and collective auditors, just mentioned by him, have absolutely no efforts towards eradicating the use of all forms of forced labour in global supply chains”. expertise in human rights, how will the Government monitorcompliancewithandenforcementof anyproposed Can the Minister clearly outline how this engagement legislation? will work ahead of the G7 ministerial meeting in October, and what do the Government want to achieve through this process? Lord Callanan (Con): We are considering the issue of enforcement in the audit reform consultation that I mentioned in my previous answer. We are extending Lord Callanan (Con): The UK was the first state to the powers of the FRC, creating a new audit reform produce a national action plan to respond to the regulator in ARGA and we will be issuing our response guiding principles. We have continued to develop our to the audit reform consultation later in the year. approach, particularly with the Modern Slavery Act. We are working across the UK Government on this, and involving the devolved Governments in proper The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith): My enforcement of the provisions. Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the third Oral Question. Lord Sarfraz (Con): My Lords, Eid Mubarak to all those celebrating. While we are very efficient in detailing Chinese Products and Companies: the human rights abuses in overseas supply chains that Human Rights Violations we source from, we do not demonstrate the same enthusiasm when we export our trash to those same Question countries. What about the environmental and human rights abuses that happen in the global waste trade in 12.35 pm which we participate? Can my noble friend see how Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool this sends mixed messages internationally? To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps Lord Callanan (Con): Businesses involved in the they are taking to curtail reliance on Chinese products export of waste are required to take all necessary steps and companies linked to violations of human rights. to ensure that the waste they ship is managed in an environmentally sound manner,throughout its shipment Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB): My Lords, I beg leave and during its recycling. Current penalties for breaching to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order the legislation are a two-year jail term and an unlimited Paper, and in so doing declare my interests as the 127 Chinese Human Rights Violations[20 JULY 2021] Chinese Human Rights Violations 128 vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on weight if we looked closely at our policies? Does he Uighurs and patron of the Coalition for Genocide agree that refugees fleeing the Middle East are human Response. beings, and that jailing them for daring to try to escape their misery is hardly consistent with Christian teachings? Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): My Lords, in 2020, China was the UK’s third largest import market, Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): The noble Lord and in 2019, more than 60,000 UK VAT-registered makes an important and, indeed, a moral point. The businesses imported goods from China worth about UK launched the global human rights sanctions regime £46.4 billion. We want a positive and constructive trade in July last year, giving us the power to address the relationship with China, but we will not sacrifice our very worst human rights violations across the world. values in doing so. In January, the Foreign Secretary We have already used that regime to place sanctions announced a comprehensive package of measures to on more than 70 individuals and entities around the help ensure that no UK organisations are complicit in world. The noble Lord will know that this, for the first the serious human rights violations being perpetrated time, includes assets that are frozen and travel bans on against the Uighurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. four Chinese government officials.

Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB): My Lords, given Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab): My Lords, according what the Minister just said, why has Hikvision, the to the latest ITUC Global Rights Index, the UK now Chinese company banned in the United States, which has trade deals with dozens of countries with the makes the surveillance cameras used to oppress Uighurs worst track records in the world for exploiting workers. in Xinjiang, where the House of Commons has During debates on the Trade Bill, the noble Lord, determined that a genocide is under way, and which Lord Grimstone, argued forcibly against my amendment has installed CCTV cameras all over the United Kingdom, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, because the not been banned here? Will he say what the cost of the FCDO’s Human Rights and Democracy report 1 billion lateral flow tests that this country bought “touches on many relevant issues”, from China was, whether slave labour in China was used to produce them and why they could not have and would be been produced in the United Kingdom? “enhanced in further reports.”—[Official Report, 23/3/21; col. 766.] When I read the report that was recently published, Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): That was a series it is clear that no enhancement has been made. Trade of questions from the noble Lord, and I start by agreement is not even mentioned once. Can the Minister applauding his persistence on this important subject. explainwhathashappened?WhyhavenottheGovernment On his questions relating to the US, I shall have to kept their word? write to him, but I may be helpful to him by saying that ensuring a tough response to modern slavery, Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): We have taken a which is part of what we are trying to do here, remains lot of action in this respect, and at the UN Human a great priority of this Government. The Government Rights Council in February 2021 the Foreign Secretary have already committed to strengthening the landmark called on China to allow the UN High Commissioner transparency provisions contained in the Modern Slavery for Human Rights or another independent expert Act 2015, following the transparency and supply chains urgent and unfettered access to Xinjiang. More countries consultation. than ever are speaking out about Xinjiang; China has already been forced through our actions to change its Baroness Helic (Con) [V]: My Lords, what steps are narrative about camps, and its denial of these violations Her Majesty’s Government taking to follow the example is increasingly hard for it to sustain. We believe that of Japan and the United States and encourage our the actions that we are taking are having effect, but it companies to relocate key supply chains out of China is not, of course, always a fast process. and, where possible, back to the United Kingdom? Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD): My Lords, I Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): I hope I can be declare an interest as an officer of the APPG on helpful to my noble friend by saying a little more Magnitsky. The Minister did not manage to answer about the measures we are taking—which are being any of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, implementedbytheGovernment—includingstrengthening about lateral flow tests. We are exhorted to take those the overseas business risk guidance; a review of export tests twice a week before coming into the Chamber or controls;introducingfinancialpenaltiesundertheModern into your Lordships’ House. Why are all those tests Slavery Act, alluded to earlier; and increasing support made in China and what due diligence has been carried for UK government bodies to exclude suppliers complicit out to ensure that none has been made using slave in violations or abuses. labour?

Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB): My Lords, I fully Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): My Lords, I do support the need for sanctions against China and not have any information in my pack about lateral Chinese products for the gross abuse of human rights flow tests. Picking up on what the noble Lord, Lord in the persecution of the Uighur Muslims and other Alton, said, I will certainly look into that and make minorities, and the people of Hong Kong. Does the sure that I write to him and the noble Baroness on Minister agree that our actions would carry greater those points. 129 Chinese Human Rights Violations[LORDS] National Food Strategy Review 130

Lord Dobbs (Con): My Lords, we live in a “chips regulations, which contain a list of the foreign entities, with everything” world and have recently seen what including businesses, that are subject to specific licence disruption to the supply of semiconductors can do in requirements. closing down vital manufacturing industries in this country. Taiwan is the biggest supplier in the world of Lord Robathan (Con): My Lords, the global economic semiconductors, and what happens there matters. What power that China has established must concern us all. plan or strategy do the Government have to ensure What assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made that our manufacturing industries can deal with any of the intentions of that global reach? Is it purely about disruption of supply? the economy or is China in fact trying to establish a hegemony that will lead to it being able to dictate to Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): Supply to these the rest of the world how it behaves? markets is obviously important, certainly when talking about the Far East. Looking at that area, although I Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): It might be both do not have figures on Taiwan, some crucial goods are of those but if we look at the work being done through imported and exported, and it is therefore important the G7, which is the high-level stuff, trade Ministers to keep those lines open. have committed to work together to protect individuals from forced labour, including mitigating the risks of it. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab): My Lords, I know We are convening a technical discussion in order to that the noble Viscount says that he has no information share lots of data and evidence. G7 leaders are committed about lateral flow tests, but he must surely know that to continuing to work together through domestic means during the public procurement of those tests for the and multilateral institutions to protect individuals. NHS, only 25% passed through all stages of validation, That very much relates to my noble friend’s question including assessments of performance and quality on China. standards. Surely the Government must be concerned at the poor quality of imports, often from very dubious The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith): My sources. Is it not the case that his department must be Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. concerned that the UK becomes self-sufficient? We now come to the fourth Oral Question.

Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): I cannot comment National Food Strategy Independent on that; it is certainly a point that I am taking extremely Review seriously, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I will take back the Question three questions on lateral flow tests, which is clearly an 12.46 pm important subject. Asked by Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Lord Blencathra (Con): My Lords, several countries To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps have accused China of committing genocide, and so they will take in response to the recommendations has the House of Commons. The FCDO said in a of the National Food Strategy independent review, Written Answer to me that China is running concentration published on 15 July. camps, yet we are encouraging more trade with a country that is behaving like Nazi Germany. Is it not TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department high time that we brought in sanctions to prohibit for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) organisations and individuals doing business with (Con): My Lords, we should like to thank Henry companies known to be associated with the atrocities Dimbleby and his team for their work on this independent taking place in Xinjiang province? review. We are committed to carefully considering the review and its recommendations and responding with Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): I alluded earlier a White Paper in the next six months setting out the to the named people affected by the sanctions system, Government’s ambition and priorities for the food which is ongoing and working. On 12 January, the system. That will support our exceptional British food Foreign Secretary announced the series of measures to and drink producers, protecting and enhancing the which I alluded, which includes a review of export nation’shealthandthenaturalenvironmentforgenerations controls to make sure that we are doing all that we can to come. to prevent the export of goods that may contribute to human rights violations. Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. There was Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]: Last week, considerable dismay in many quarters last week at the President Biden released formal guidance for US Prime Minister’s public perfunctory dismissal of the businesses operating in Hong Kong following the increased National Food Strategy’s recommendations on the restriction of freedoms as a result of the national need for sugar and salt taxes. Can the Minister ensure security law.When will the UK Government issue similar that all levels of government understand that the guidance? sugar tax on soft drinks that this Government—or, I should say, Mrs May’s Government—introduced in Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): The UK has no 2018 was seen generally as a success? It did not raise plans at the moment to issue guidance but I am very prices but instead encouraged manufacturers to aware of the United States export administration reformulate their products on a healthier basis. Why 131 National Food Strategy Review[20 JULY 2021] National Food Strategy Review 132 should the principle of that sugar tax not be extended Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]: My Lords, to help ease the country’s obesity crisis and a salt tax the national food strategy is clearly important and be similarly explored, instead of being so summarily timely. It should help us as a country combat carbon dismissed? emissions and deal with the obesity crisis, so graphically underlined by the pandemic. Like others, I encourage Lord Benyon (Con): The noble Lord is absolutely the Minister to bear in mind the great success of the right to say that the soft drinks industry levy—it is not soft drinks industry with the 28% reduction of sugar, a tax—has been a great success. The sales-weighted inducing change in producer behaviour. I also ask my average sugar content per 100 millilitres in fizzy drinks noble friend to ensure that there is concerted action in reduced by 43.7% between 2015 and 2019. It is worth this important area across the devolved Administrations. looking at how Henry Dimbleby has nuanced his recommendations by proposing a look at wholesale LordBenyon(Con):MyLords,HenryDimbleby’sreport sugar and salt used by the industry to make food items was focused on England, but he worked very closely with that are becoming a serious problem to the health of the devolved Administrations as well. Our food network this country. and supply chains are interwoven, as they are with the European Union and beyond, so we absolutely will. Lord Berkeley (Lab): My Lords, are the Government proud of our status as the second most obese nation in Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]: My Lords, will the White the world after the United States, with which, presumably, Paper include ensuring that people without gardens they have a special relationship? Surely a tax on salt who wish to grow their own healthy food have access and sugar will reduce obesity and the cost to the NHS to land for allotments without having to pay high fees? and, maybe, even make people happy. Why are the Will local authorities be funded to provide these facilities Government not doing it? in the interests of public health and to encourage school gardens? Does the Minister accept that children Lord Benyon (Con): The noble Lord raises an important who grow vegetables eat vegetables? point. The Government have set out a very clear obesity strategy, with particular emphasis on children. Lord Benyon (Con): Getting children used to the Henry Dimbleby’s report is stark in its warnings about production of food is a vital part of helping them to the health trends that have been created in this country. enjoy it, so I am absolutely on the same side as the They are mirrored in other countries as well, but we noble Baroness. I would like to see a great many more have a serious problem. What the ground-breaking schemes being developed. It is probably not for the obesity strategy sets out is important. It is not just Minister to do this from here, as local schemes are best about what we eat but about how we encourage people suited, but I will work with other departments to make to eat, through using watersheds in advertising and a sure that that is happening. range of other means. We are considering this report and all its recommendations, and will publish a White Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl): Does the Minister share Paper within six months, which may satisfy the noble my disappointment that the national food strategy Peer. made no mention of the importance of physical education and sport for young people in schools? We are seeing Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]: My Lords, I am encouraged that being very reduced—not in private schools, but it to hear the Minister say that the Government want to is still being reduced in our state schools. Surely for a encourage people, particularly children, to eat better. youngster starting off, getting the opportunity to learn I ask specifically about the recommendations in the about sport and physical education means that they Dimbleby report, and I declare an interest here as one will be much healthier, whatever they eat. of its advisers. The holiday activity fund ensures that poor children get a decent meal in the holidays; the Lord Benyon (Con): The noble Baroness is right early start vouchers enable pregnant mums and young that this is not my ministerial responsibility, but what kids to get fresh fruit and vegetables; and the extension we are doing in Defra to encourage people to get of free school meals enables all people in poverty to outside, to learn outside and to enjoy the outside is have one decent meal a day. What are the Government really impressive. Weare working with other government going to do about these recommendations or will they departments to help her ambitions come true. again wait for Marcus Rashford to run them up the publicity flagpole, then give in? Baroness D’Souza (CB): My Lords, the national food strategy proposals are evidence based and are Lord Benyon (Con): We are very grateful to the further steps towards correcting the UK’s diet, which noble Baroness for her involvement in this report. She is the worst in Europe. The Prime Minister’s dismissal knows we have increased the Healthy Start programme; of a salt and sugar tax is a political decision. Can the we have provided schools with fruit and vegetables; Minister assure the House that, in future, scientific and we have had an impact particularly on low-income evidence will form the basis of decisions affecting the families, in the variety of ways we have supported health of the whole country? them. Food and our diet have to be looked at holistically with household income and all the pressures on it. Lord Benyon (Con): My Lords, scientific evidence is Within a month, we as Ministers will be clear about the basis of what my department works for and through. how to respond to this and will take forward six work We will certainly apply scientific and societal evidence streams, most of which will please the noble Baroness, to inform our White Paper. I assure her that that will and we will publish that White Paper within six months. happen across government. 133 National Food Strategy Review [LORDS] Conduct 134

Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab): The report The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble): highlights some key questions for the UK’s trade I remind the House that, under Standing Order 68, policy. The UK cannot work to transform its own reports from the Conduct Committee resulting from food system and support people to make food choices an investigation under the Code of Conduct are non- that are better for their health and the environment if debateable. we allow foods to be imported that are produced to lower safety, environmental or welfare standards. I ask Lord Mance (CB): My Lords, I beg to move that the the Minister how the Government will heed the report’s third report of the Conduct Committee be agreed to. warning on the worrying precedent that the Australia As your Lordships are aware, and as has just been deal could set on food standards for imports. said, the House, by Standing Order 68, has decided that such a report is decided without debate, so I will Lord Benyon (Con): Australia is a country that confine myself to a brief introduction. shares our values and it is important that we have a On 3 November last year, the House agreed to a free trade agreement with it. The noble Baroness will recommendation from the Conduct Committee,consistent be pleased that it contains a chapter on animal welfare, with the independent reports of Naomi Ellenbogen QC, which is often overlooked in criticisms. I assure her as she was, and Alison Stanley, that all Members of that the Government’s commitment to standards will the House be required to undertake Valuing Everyone be underpinned throughout all the trade agreements training—a study course—by 1 April this year. Nearly we sign. all Members did so by the deadline. The House recognised that some Members might, Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]: Would the for exceptional reasons, not be in a position to undertake noble Lord accept and consider two points? It is not this. In a report on 18 May, the commissioner identified just sugar or salt but the combination of the two that seven Members as falling within this category. She held often makes many foods moreish, if not addictive— that a further 47 Members were in breach by failing to Chinese takeaways and tomato ketchup, for example. take the course by the deadline, but she accepted Secondly, it is not just obesity that we should worry sufficient remedial action, arrangements or promises about, as another noble Lord said, but the chemical made by them to undertake the course in the immediate and psychological effect on mood and behaviour. Anyone future. with children knows the hyper-effect of sugar on children’s moods. The four Members who are the subject of the present Conduct Committee report did not proffer Lord Benyon (Con): One of the most fascinating any exceptional reason for not taking the course. Of parts of the report was when it spoke about satiety. the four, one, although in breach, then explained to The junk food cycle is based on the desire to eat more the Commissioner that she was willing to undertake than we need to feel sated. That is a real problem and a the course; she has now done so. A second, the noble cycle that we have to break if we are to tackle obesity Lord, Lord James of Blackheath, has very recently, and other wider health issues. since the Commissioner’s report was published, also agreed to undertake the course and has signed up to The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble): do it tomorrow. My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. The second Motion in my name before the House therefore relates only to the two remaining noble Lords, Lord Kalms and Lord Willoughby de Broke, Minimum Energy Performance of who have not appealed the Commissioner’s finding Buildings Bill [HL] that they breached the Code of Conduct, and have First Reading continued to refuse or fail to undertake the course. This second Motion therefore seeks to restrict their 12.57 pm access to staff of the House and other Members of the parliamentary community, as well as facilities, until A Bill to make provision to increase the energy performance they undertake the training. The Committee believes of buildings and for connected purposes. that this is a proportionate sanction which balances The Bill was introduced by Lord Foster of Bath, read a the importance of protecting staff with the undoubted first time and ordered to be printed. right of the two noble Lords to continue exercising their core parliamentary functions. Lord Foster of Bath (LD): I draw attention to my I include a further word on Standing Order 68, entry in the register. under which the two Motions in my name fall to be decided. The report recommending the new Standing Conduct Order was agreed in a full sitting of the House after Motion to Agree nearly two hours of debate on 30 April 2019. Members who are the subjects of reports by the commissioner 12.58 pm have a full right of appeal to the Conduct Committee, Moved by Lord Mance a right which I stress again that neither noble Lord has exercised in this case, but certain sanctions can only be That the Report from the Select Committee imposed by the House itself on recommendation of The conduct of Lord James of Blackheath, Lord Kalms, the committee. The Standing Order was designed to Lord Willoughby de Broke and Baroness Mone promote an objective and independent process protecting (3rd Report, HL Paper 36) be agreed to. complainants who cannot speak for themselves and 135 Conduct [20 JULY 2021] Conduct 136 ensuring that future complainants know that their forthcoming recess, after a very tiring and difficult year, conduct will not be debated on the Floor of the to reflect, “Have we got this right? Is this the way to House. A similar Standing Order exists in the House treat colleagues?” I beg to move. of Commons. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, 13:07 pm Lord Cormack, is a matter for the House. There is little that I wish to say. Standing Order 68 will apply Division on Lord Cormack’s amendment. on 12 October, as the House will be no more or less Contents 107; Not-Contents 331. legitimate then than it is today.Delay would not change the appropriateness of the sanction but could convey Amendment disagreed. an unfortunate message about the House’s willingness to enforce its own agreed code. I beg to move. Division No. 1 CONTENTS Amendment to the Motion Aberdare, L. Howard of Rising, L. Moved by Lord Cormack Balfe, L. James of Blackheath, L. Black of Strome, B. Kakkar, L. Leave out after “that” and insert “consideration Blencathra, L. Kerr of Kinlochard, L. of the Report from the Select Committee The Conduct Bowness, L. Kilclooney, L. of Lord James of Blackheath, Lord Kalms, Lord Brabazon of Tara, L. Lamont of Lerwick, L. Willoughby de Broke and Baroness Mone (3rd Report, Bridges of Headley, L. Lawrence of Clarendon, B. HL Paper 36) be deferred until 12 October.” Brownlow of Shurlock Row, Lexden, L. L. Lindsay, E. Buscombe, B. Liverpool, E. Lord Cormack (Con): My Lords, I have put down Caine, L. Loomba, L. this amendment for one simple reason. By voting for Caithness, E. Mackay of Clashfern, L. Campbell-Savours, L. Mallalieu, B. it—and I intend to test the opinion of the House—we Carey of Clifton, L. Mancroft, L. will give ourselves time to reflect on the wisdom of Carrington of Fulham, L. McIntosh of Pickering, B. Standing Order 68 and to decide whether it is in Cavendish of Little Venice, B. McLoughlin, L. accordance with natural justice to impose penalties on Chartres, L. Meyer, B. those who have done no personal wrong or injury to Clark of Windermere, L. Morgan of Drefelin, B. Cormack, L. Morris of Aberavon, L. anyone within or outside the House but who are being Cox, B. Moylan, L. punished because they have not followed, within a Dannatt, L. Naseby, L. prescribed time and in a difficult year, an instruction Deech, B. Neville-Rolfe, B. to follow a training course on how to behave. Standing Dobbs, L. Noakes, B. Order 68’s constraints, within which I am having to D’Souza, B. Northbrook, L. Eames, L. O’Loan, B. speak, do not permit of others to speak in this debate. Eaton, B. Patel, L. However, I know that many in your Lordships’ House Eccles of Moulton, B. Rees of Ludlow, L. share my concern. Eccles, V. Reid of Cardowan, L. The Standing Order prevents discussion. I know Elder, L. Robathan, L. that a number of colleagues share my feeling that in Empey, L. Rogan, L. Fairfax of Cameron, L. Saatchi, L. the high court of Parliament we should not be forbidden Flight, L. Sandhurst, L. from exercising our judgment on the recommendations Forsyth of Drumlean, L. Sandwich, E. of a small group of colleagues and outsiders who are Foster of Oxton, B. Shinkwin, L. deciding sanctions on a small group of other colleagues. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Shrewsbury, E. We may debate at length the recommendation of every Fox of Buckley, B. Simon, V. Framlingham, L. Smith of Gilmorehill, B. other Select Committee but, to those reports from the Freyberg, L. Snape, L. Conduct Committee, we can only say “content”or “not Geidt, L. Southwark, Bp. content”. Glasman, L. St John of Bletso, L. This final week of term is a very full one, and our Glenarthur, L. Stair, E. brief September sitting is very crowded, with four long Golding, B. Stern, B. Green of Deddington, L. Stone of Blackheath, L. days devoted to the vast and important Environment Greengross, B. Symons of Vernham Dean, B. Bill. In October there should be a chance to look at Greenway, L. Trefgarne, L. how we regulate and organise ourselves, perhaps reflecting Hailsham, V. Trimble, L. on Harold Macmillan’s famous reminder that: Hamilton of Epsom, L. Truscott, L. Hannan of Kingsclere, L. Tyrie, L. “Quiet, calm deliberation disentangles any knot.” Helic, B. Vinson, L. I submit that we have tied ourselves in a very restraining Henig, B. Walker of Aldringham, L. knot. I urge that we begin to untangle it today. Do we Henley, L. West of Spithead, L. really want to treat former captains of industry and Hoey, B. Wheatcroft, B. others as recalcitrant schoolboys and say: “Because Horam, L. Wigley, L. you didn’t do your prep, you can’t go to the tuck shop Houghton of Richmond, L. Winston, L. or the library,” especially as the Library has a number of books on good behaviour? NOT CONTENTS I urge those of us who share my concerns to vote Adams of Craigielea, B. Alderdice, L. for this amendment, which does not pass any judgment Addington, L. Allan of Hallam, L. on the report that the noble Lord, Lord Mance, has Adonis, L. Alli, L. moved, but which gives us an opportunity, during the Agnew of Oulton, L. Altrincham, L. 137 Conduct [LORDS] Conduct 138

Anderson of Ipswich, L. Cruddas, L. Judge, L. Rana, L. Anderson of Swansea, L. Curry of Kirkharle, L. Kamall, L. Randerson, B. Andrews, B. Davidson of Glen Clova, L. Keen of Elie, L. Ranger, L. Anelay of St Johns, B. Davies of Brixton, L. Kennedy of Southwark, L. Ravensdale, L. Arbuthnot of Edrom, L. Davies of Gower, L. Khan of Burnley, L. Rawlings, B. Ashton of Hyde, L. De Mauley, L. Kirkham, L. Razzall, L. Astor of Hever, L. Deighton, L. Knight of Weymouth, L. Reay, L. Bach, L. Devon, E. Kramer, B. Rebuck, B. Bakewell of Hardington Dholakia, L. Krebs, L. Redesdale, L. Mandeville, B. Dodds of Duncairn, L. Laming, L. Redfern, B. Barker, B. Donaghy, B. Lang of Monkton, L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. Barran, B. Doocey, B. Lansley, L. Rennard, L. Barwell, L. Drake, B. Leigh of Hurley, L. Ritchie of Downpatrick, B. Bassam of Brighton, L. Duncan of Springbank, L. Leitch, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Bates, L. Dunlop, L. Lennie, L. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. Beecham, L. Erroll, E. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Rock, B. Beith, L. Evans of Bowes Park, B. Liddle, L. Rooker, L. Bennett of Manor Castle, B. Evans of Weardale, L. Lipsey, L. Rose of Monewden, L. Benyon, L. Fairhead, B. Lister of Burtersett, B. Rosser, L. Berkeley, L. Farmer, L. Livingston of Parkhead, L. Rotherwick, L. Berridge, B. Faulkner of Worcester, L. Lucas, L. Russell of Liverpool, L. Bertin, B. Fink, L. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Sanderson of Welton, B. Bethell, L. Finlay of Llandaff, B. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, Sarfraz, L. Bichard, L. Fleet, B. L. Sassoon, L. Billingham, B. Fookes, B. Mance, L. Sater, B. Blake of Leeds, B. Foster of Bath, L. Mandelson, L. Scott of Bybrook, B. Bloomfield of Hinton Fox, L. Manningham-Buller, B. Scott of Needham Market, B. Waldrist, B. Fraser of Craigmaddie, B. Marland, L. Scriven, L. Blower, B. Freud, L. Masham of Ilton, B. Seccombe, B. Blunkett, L. Gadhia, L. Maxton, L. Sharkey, L. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Gale, B. McAvoy, L. Sharpe of Epsom, L. B. Garden of Frognal, B. McColl of Dulwich, L. Sheehan, B. Borwick, L. Geddes, L. McConnell of Glenscorrodale, Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. German, L. L. Sherlock, B. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Glasgow, E. McCrea of Magherafelt and Shields, B. Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Goddard of Stockport, L. Cookstown, L. Shipley, L. Bradley, L. Godson, L. McDonald of Salford, L. Sikka, L. Bradshaw, L. Gold, L. McInnes of Kilwinning, L. Smith of Basildon, B. Brady, B. Goldie, B. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Smith of Finsbury, L. Brinton, B. Goodlad, L. McNicol of West Kilbride, L. Smith of Newnham, B. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Goudie, B. Meacher, B. Soley, L. Brougham and Vaux, L. Grender, B. Mendelsohn, L. Somerset, D. Brown of Cambridge, B. Griffiths of Fforestfach, L. Merron, B. St Albans, Bp. Brown of Eaton-under- Hain, L. Mone, B. Stedman-Scott, B. Heywood, L. Hannay of Chiswick, L. Monks, L. Stephen, L. Browne of Belmont, L. Harding of Winscombe, B. Montrose, D. Stirrup, L. Browne of Ladyton, L. Harris of Haringey, L. Morgan of Cotes, B. Stoneham of Droxford, L. Browning, B. Harris of Peckham, L. Morris of Bolton, B. Strasburger, L. Bruce of Bennachie, L. Harris of Richmond, B. Morrow, L. Stunell, L. Bryan of Partick, B. Haselhurst, L. Moynihan, L. Sugg, B. Bull, B. Haskel, L. Nash, L. Suri, L. Burnett, L. Haworth, L. Newlove, B. Swinfen, L. Burt of Solihull, B. Hay of Ballyore, L. Northover, B. Taylor of Goss Moor, L. Butler of Brockwell, L. Hayman of Ullock, B. Norton of Louth, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Callanan, L. Hayward, L. Oates, L. Teverson, L. Cameron of Dillington, L. Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Osamor, B. Thomas of Cwmgiedd, L. Campbell of Pittenweem, L. Herbert of South Downs, L. O’Shaughnessy, L. Thomas of Gresford, L. Campbell of Surbiton, B. Hodgson of Abinger, B. Paddick, L. Thomas of Winchester, B. Carlile of Berriew, L. Hollins, B. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Thornhill, B. Carter of Coles, L. Holmes of Richmond, L. Pannick, L. Thornton, B. Cashman, L. Hope of Craighead, L. Parkinson of Whitley Bay, L. Thurso, V. Cathcart, E. Howe, E. Patel of Bradford, L. Tope, L. Chakrabarti, B. Hoyle, L. Patten, L. Touhig, L. Chandos, V. Humphreys, B. Penn, B. Tunnicliffe, L. Chapman of Darlington, B. Hunt of Bethnal Green, B. Pickles, L. Turnberg, L. Chisholm of Owlpen, B. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Pidding, B. Tyler of Enfield, B. Choudrey, L. Hunt of Wirral, L. Pinnock, B. Tyler, L. Clarke of Nottingham, L. Hussain, L. Popat, L. Uddin, B. Coaker, L. Hussein-Ece, B. Porter of Spalding, L. Udny-Lister, L. Colgrain, L. Inglewood, L. Powell of Bayswater, L. Ullswater, V. Collins of Highbury, L. Janke, B. Prashar, B. Vaux of Harrowden, L. Colville of Culross, V. Janvrin, L. Price, L. Vere of Norbiton, B. Colwyn, L. Johnson of Marylebone, L. Primarolo, B. Wakeham, L. Courtown, E. Jolly, B. Prosser, B. Waldegrave of North Hill, L. Couttie, B. Jones of Cheltenham, L. Purvis of Tweed, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Craig of Radley, L. Jones of Moulsecoomb, B. Puttnam, L. Walmsley, B. Crathorne, L. Jones of Whitchurch, B. Quin, B. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Cromwell, L. Jopling, L. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Wasserman, L. 139 Conduct [20 JULY 2021] Conduct 140

Watkins of Tavistock, B. Wilcox of Newport, B. Clark of Windermere, L. Janke, B. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Williams of Trafford, B. Coaker, L. Johnson of Marylebone, L. Watts, L. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Collins of Highbury, L. Jolly, B. Wellington, D. Wolfson of Tredegar, L. Colville of Culross, V. Jones of Cheltenham, L. Wharton of Yarm, L. Woodley, L. Corston, B. Jones of Moulsecoomb, B. Wheeler, B. Wrigglesworth, L. Cotter, L. Jones of Whitchurch, B. Whitaker, B. Young of Cookham, L. Courtown, E. Jopling, L. Whitby, L. Young of Hornsey, B. Cox, B. Judge, L. Whitty, L. Younger of Leckie, V. Craig of Radley, L. Keen of Elie, L. Crisp, L. Kennedy of Cradley, B. Motion agreed. Cruddas, L. Kennedy of Southwark, L. Curry of Kirkharle, L. Kerr of Kinlochard, L. 1.21 pm Davidson of Glen Clova, L. Khan of Burnley, L. Davies of Brixton, L. King of Bridgwater, L. Davies of Gower, L. Kirkhope of Harrogate, L. Motion De Mauley, L. Knight of Weymouth, L. Desai, L. Kramer, B. Moved by Lord Mance Dholakia, L. Laming, L. Donaghy, B. Lancaster of Kimbolton, L. To resolve that, in accordance with paragraph 159 Doocey, B. Lansley, L. of the Guide to the Code of Conduct, and without D’Souza, B. Leigh of Hurley, L. prejudice to their ability to carry out their parliamentary Duncan of Springbank, L. Lennie, L. duties, Lord Kalms and Lord Willoughby de Broke Dunlop, L. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Eaton, B. Liddle, L. be denied access to certain facilities of the House Erroll, E. Lister of Burtersett, B. and be restricted in their access to certain services, Etherton, L. Livingston of Parkhead, L. as set out in paragraph 18 of the 3rd Report from Evans of Bowes Park, B. Lucas, L. the Conduct Committee; and that these arrangements Falkner of Margravine, B. Ludford, B. shall continue until they have completed Valuing Farmer, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L. Everyone training. Faulkner of Worcester, L. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Featherstone, B. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, Fellowes of West Stafford, L. L. Lord Mance (CB): I beg to move. Fink, L. Mance, L. Finlay of Llandaff, B. Mandelson, L. 1.22 pm Fookes, B. Manningham-Buller, B. Foster of Bath, L. Masham of Ilton, B. Division conducted remotely on the Motion Fox, L. Massey of Darwen, B. Freud, L. Maude of Horsham, L. Contents 315; Not-Contents 86. Freyberg, L. Maxton, L. Gadhia, L. McAvoy, L. Motion agreed. Gale, B. McConnell of Glenscorrodale, Garden of Frognal, B. L. Division No. 2 Geddes, L. McCrea of Magherafelt and German, L. Cookstown, L. CONTENTS Glasman, L. McDonald of Salford, L. Goddard of Stockport, L. McInnes of Kilwinning, L. Adams of Craigielea, B. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Gold, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Addington, L. B. Golding, B. McNally, L. Adonis, L. Borwick, L. Goodlad, L. Meacher, B. Agnew of Oulton, L. Botham, L. Goudie, B. Mendelsohn, L. Alderdice, L. Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. Grade of Yarmouth, L. Mendoza, L. Allan of Hallam, L. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Greenhalgh, L. Merron, B. Alli, L. Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Grender, B. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Alton of Liverpool, L. Brabazon of Tara, L. Griffiths of Burry Port, L. B. Anderson of Ipswich, L. Bradley, L. Griffiths of Fforestfach, L. Mitchell, L. Anelay of St Johns, B. Bradshaw, L. Hain, L. Morgan of Cotes, B. Arbuthnot of Edrom, L. Brinton, B. Hannay of Chiswick, L. Morris of Bolton, B. Broers, L. Ashton of Hyde, L. Harris of Haringey, L. Morris of Yardley, B. Brown of Cambridge, B. Harris of Richmond, B. Morrissey, B. Bach, L. Brown of Eaton-under- Haselhurst, L. Morrow, L. Bakewell of Hardington Heywood, L. Haskel, L. Moynihan, L. Mandeville, B. Browne of Belmont, L. Haworth, L. Nash, L. Barker, B. Browne of Ladyton, L. Hay of Ballyore, L. Newby, L. Barran, B. Browning, B. Hayman of Ullock, B. Northover, B. Barwell, L. Brownlow of Shurlock Row, Hayter of Kentish Town, B. Norton of Louth, L. Bassam of Brighton, L. L. Hayward, L. Oates, L. Bates, L. Burnett, L. Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Osamor, B. Beith, L. Burt of Solihull, B. Helic, B. O’Shaughnessy, L. Benjamin, B. Campbell of Pittenweem, L. Herbert of South Downs, L. Paddick, L. Bennett of Manor Castle, B. Carey of Clifton, L. Hope of Craighead, L. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Benyon, L. Carlile of Berriew, L. Howe, E. Pannick, L. Bethell, L. Carrington, L. Howell of Guildford, L. Parkinson of Whitley Bay, L. Bichard, L. Cashman, L. Humphreys, B. Parminter, B. Billingham, B. Chadlington, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Penn, B. Black of Brentwood, L. Chapman of Darlington, B. Hunt of Wirral, L. Pickles, L. Blake of Leeds, B. Chartres, L. Hussain, L. Pinnock, B. Bloomfield of Hinton Chidgey, L. Hussein-Ece, B. Pitkeathley, B. Waldrist, B. Chisholm of Owlpen, B. Inglewood, L. Popat, L. 141 Conduct [LORDS] Medical Devices Regulations 2021 142

Porter of Spalding, L. Stedman-Scott, B. Hamilton of Epsom, L. Meyer, B. Powell of Bayswater, L. Stewart of Dirleton, L. Hannan of Kingsclere, L. Montrose, D. Price, L. Stirrup, L. Harris of Peckham, L. Moylan, L. Prosser, B. Stoneham of Droxford, L. Henig, B. Naseby, L. Purvis of Tweed, L. Strasburger, L. Henley, L. Neville-Rolfe, B. Puttnam, L. Stroud, B. Hodgson of Abinger, B. Noakes, B. Quin, B. Stunell, L. Hoey, B. Nye, B. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Sugg, B. Hogan-Howe, L. Patten, L. Randall of Uxbridge, L. Suttie, B. Hogg, B. Rana, L. Randerson, B. Howard of Rising, L. Rawlings, B. Taylor of Goss Moor, L. Razzall, L. Hoyle, L. Ridley, V. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Reay, L. James of Blackheath, L. Robathan, L. Rebuck, B. Teverson, L. Kamall, L. Shinkwin, L. Redfern, B. Thomas of Gresford, L. Kilclooney, L. Stone of Blackheath, L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. Thomas of Winchester, B. Lilley, L. Suri, L. Rennard, L. Thornton, B. Loomba, L. Trefgarne, L. Ritchie of Downpatrick, B. Thurso, V. Mallalieu, B. Trenchard, V. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Tope, L. Mancroft, L. Trimble, L. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. Touhig, L. Manzoor, B. Vinson, L. Rock, B. Tunnicliffe, L. Marland, L. Watts, L. Rooker, L. Turnberg, L. McColl of Dulwich, L. Wills, L. Rose of Monewden, L. Tyler of Enfield, B. Rosser, L. Tyler, L. Rotherwick, L. Tyrie, L. Medical Devices (Northern Ireland Royall of Blaisdon, B. Udny-Lister, L. Protocol) Regulations 2021 Russell of Liverpool, L. Ullswater, V. Sandhurst, L. Vaizey of Didcot, L. Motion to Approve Sarfraz, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L. 1.36 pm Sassoon, L. Vere of Norbiton, B. Moved by Lord Bethell Sater, B. Wakeham, L. Scott of Bybrook, B. Walker of Aldringham, L. That the draft Regulations laid before the House Scott of Needham Market, B. Wallace of Saltaire, L. on16Junebeapproved.ConsideredinGrandCommittee Scriven, L. Walmsley, B. on 12 July Seccombe, B. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Shackleton of Belgravia, B. Wasserman, L. Motion agreed. Sharkey, L. Watkins of Tavistock, B. Sharpe of Epsom, L. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Sheehan, B. Wellington, D. Medical Devices (Coronavirus Test Device Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. Wharton of Yarm, L. Approvals) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 Sherlock, B. Wheatcroft, B. Motion to Approve Shields, B. Wheeler, B. 1.36 pm Shipley, L. Whitaker, B. Moved by Lord Bethell Shrewsbury, E. Whitby, L. Sikka, L. Wilcox of Newport, B. That the draft Regulations laid before the House Simon, V. Williams of Trafford, B. on 17 June be approved. Smith of Basildon, B. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Smith of Finsbury, L. Wilson of Dinton, L. Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Smith of Gilmorehill, B. Wolfson of Tredegar, L. Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn Smith of Hindhead, L. Woodley, L. to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on Smith of Newnham, B. Wrigglesworth, L. 12 July. Soley, L. Young of Cookham, L. Somerset, D. Young of Hornsey, B. TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department St Albans, Bp. Younger of Leckie, V. of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con) [V]: I beg to move. NOT CONTENTS Aberdare, L. Couttie, B. Amendment to the Motion Altmann, B. Crathorne, L. Armstrong of Hill Top, B. Cumberlege, B. Moved by Baroness Thornton Arran, E. Dannatt, L. At the end to insert “that this House welcomes Astor of Hever, L. Deech, B. that the draft Medical Devices (Coronavirus Test Astor, V. Deighton, L. Balfe, L. Dobbs, L. Device Approvals) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 Beecham, L. Dubs, L. introduce a quality approval process for all COVID-19 Berridge, B. Eccles of Moulton, B. tests sold in the UK; but regrets that the regulations Bhatia, L. Eccles, V. assume a change in policy by not making guaranteed Boothroyd, B. Elder, L. provision for the continuation of free NHS COVID-19 Brougham and Vaux, L. Flight, L. Bryan of Partick, B. Forsyth of Drumlean, L. tests and will therefore rely on private sector testing Buscombe, B. Foster of Oxton, B. for which fees are charged; further regrets that Butler of Brockwell, L. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. private sector tests do not appear to be integrated Caine, L. Fox of Buckley, B. with the NHS test and trace system, including legal Carrington of Fulham, L. Framlingham, L. requirements to report and self-isolate; notes with Carter of Coles, L. Fullbrook, B. concern that Her Majesty’s Government have Cathcart, E. Glenarthur, L. Cavendish of Little Venice, B. Greengross, B. previously stated that regular testing is an essential Colwyn, L. Greenway, L. part of the easing of coronavirus restrictions; and Cormack, L. Hailsham, V. calls on Her Majesty’s Government to guarantee 143 Medical Devices Regulations 2021[20 JULY 2021] Medical Devices Regulations 2021 144

that reliable, high-quality, free NHS tests remain has closed. The Government’s website says the cut off available to all beyond 19 July to support the effective for new orders was 19 July—the UK Government’s management of COVID-19.” freedom day in England—as the requirement for masks and social distancing ended. Can the Minister confirm Baroness Thornton (Lab): My Lords, noble Lords whether the scheme for businesses will also run until who have read the record of the debate on this SI in September? Does he agree that responsible employers Grand Committee will not be surprised that this regret who are ensuring their workers are regularly undertaking amendment has been brought to the House today, lateral flow tests should be congratulated on their given the Minister’s inability to answer the questions approach rather than suddenly being asked to source posed by noble Lords or indeed to reassure us over tests from a private provider, which would dramatically our concerns. Since then, we have had a weekend of increase costs? further chaos on testing, tracing and isolating, which My noble friend Lord Rooker, the noble Lord, we will discuss tomorrow when the House takes the Lord Moynihan, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, latest Statement on the matter. I understand that it is all raised the issue of the missing impact assessment, the 49th such Statement; it is certainly the 49th in the which the Explanatory Memorandum said would be Commons. published in time for the parliamentary debate, which For complete clarity, as the amendment states, I say was on Monday 12 July. Again, the Minister failed to that we on these Benches are in favour of guaranteeing answer this question during Committee, but his letter and improving the quality of Covid tests. We also of 19 July reveals that the impact assessment has been recognise that the private sector has a role to play in red-ratedbytheindependentRegulatoryPolicyCommittee providing tests for those who wish to travel abroad on and withheld. Noble Lords will be aware that red-rated holiday and for business purposes. My amendment impact assessments are deemed not fit for purpose. highlights the issues that were of concern to the Grand This is deeply concerning. In his letter, the Minister Committee and which prompted many questions, based further committed to publishing the impact assessment not least on the excellent report from the SLSC, that I as it currently stands and a supporting statement am afraid went unanswered. “shortly”, and therefore before the parliamentary vote, I thank the Minister for his letter yesterday, which following the opinion of the RPC, outlining the areas provided much-needed clarity on some of the issues where further improvements can be made. Here we raised and contained the kind of details that would are, over a week later, about to vote—possibly—yet have been helpful in last week’s debate. These regulations this important documentation has still not been published. are not being introduced with the urgency characteristic Can the Minister explain why this has not happened, of previous points in the pandemic, and they must be despite his assurance? Where does the buck stop for introduced and debated in a considered fashion. this latest failing? Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and I are very This is a public health pandemic and surely no concerned about the seeming lack of link between test barrier, particularly a financial one, must be put in and trace and the proposed new private testing regime. place that hinders testing and tracing, yet there has While the noble Lord’s letter to me notes that it is been deep unease that lateral flow tests were guaranteed “vital that we introduce a regulatory regime to ensure COVID-19 to be free only until the end of July and that people could tests available on the market are of sufficient quality and produce subsequently be charged under plans being considered accurate results”, by the Government. The Minister’s letter includes it does not offer assurance in detail about how this welcome confirmation that free NHS tests and universal regime and the NHS Test and Trace will work together testing will continue until the end of September. That to provide a comprehensive safe regime that the UK raises the question of why the Minister could not give can depend upon. I sincerely hope that the Minister us that answer last week in Grand Committee. He can provide some much-needed clarity. should have been well prepared for it given the public There are many matters to regret here: the impact, interest, media reports and indeed the SLSC report on or lack of it, the policy changes, the process and the this instrument, which specifically raised concerns about timeliness. This was not an urgent matter, the Minister changing policy and recommended that free testing said. It could have been done over a month or so, and it continue. Can he confirm when that decision was would have definitely benefited from that. I beg to move. made and when it will next be reviewed? The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked some thoughtful Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab): My Lords, I am questions about the supply of tests and their reliability. very glad to support my noble friend in her Motion. I He asked the Minister to explain the Government’s want to put two points to the Minister. The context of intention on charging for tests, particularly for employers this SI is the poor quality of many tests. Paragraph 7.2 who want to institute testing regimes to bring their of the Explanatory Memorandum makes the point staff back into their premises and to protect the public that, during public procurement of lateral flow tests for and their customers while doing so. He eloquently the NHS, made the point that businesses have lost significant “only 25% passed through all stages of validation including revenue over the last week and have asked whether it is assessments of performance and quality standards.” right to expect them to meet further costs at this stage. That is a pretty shocking statistic. Can I take it that Since April, companies have been able to order rapid most of these tests came from China? We had an Oral lateral flow tests for their workers. While we now know Question on this from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that individuals can still claim free tests through the only a few minutes ago. That being so, can the Minister NHS, at least until the end of September, there seems assure me that Uighur slave labour in Xinjiang was to be confusion as to whether the scheme for companies not used in the manufacture of those tests? 145 Medical Devices Regulations 2021[LORDS] Medical Devices Regulations 2021 146

1.45 pm individuals, to ascertain, as the purchaser of these lateral I want to go on to the issue of poor-quality tests in flow tests, what the supply chain transparency is. general. In Grand Committee, the Minister said he I should mention two things here: I am a vice-chair of would not settle for low-quality CE-marked tests that the All-Party Group on Uyghurs and I have a Private manipulated their instructions for use or constructed Member’s Bill before your Lordships’ House on supply their own rigged validation. This, of course, is a very chain transparency. What due diligence has been done interesting insight into the way that devices are regulated in establishing the provenance of these lateral flow at the moment, through the current CE marking process. tests, and why have we not had answers? Perhaps the In relation to most Covid-19 tests, this essentially involves Minister can give the answers to us now. Who are the a self-certification process, in which manufacturers affirm companies that have been involved in the purchasing that their products meet the relevant standard. Many of of these tests and what has been the cost overall? theCE-markedproductsthathavebeenreviewedpreviously I would also like to ask the Minister something that have had insufficient or poor data sets that do not was put to him on 12 July by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, accurately reflect how a test product performs. This data in Grand Committee. It is always a pleasure to find and evidence do not facilitate accurate assessment of myself on the same side of arguments as the noble the product by the end-user and can be misleading. Lord, Lord Rooker. When I took my seat in another This seems to me to raise two points. First, we should place, over 40 years ago, it was the noble Lord, then as do everything we can to ensure the manufacture of Jeff Rooker MP, who welcomed me; I am glad he has high-quality tests in this country, rather than rely on lost none of his bite. imports from countries whose human rights record is The noble Lord asked the noble Lord, Lord Bethell— nothing but utterly deplorable. Secondly, it must call I read the Minister’s reply and he did not appear to into question the whole future of CE marking. I want answer him in that debate, so I simply reiterate the to ask the Minister whether we can take the action noble Lord’s question: being taken by the Government—essentially applying “why do we need to buy the NHS Test and Trace kits for the their own standards to these tests, because the current lateral flow test, the one being given out by local chemists, from CE marking is not sufficient—as a precedent for the one of the Chinese Communist Party-approved companies? How future. Does it lay the foundations for a new regime in do we know they are not made with slave labour? What kickbacks go to that corrupt political party? What efforts are being made to relation to the regulation of medical devices? get them made in the UK—dare I say Europe—or, indeed, Commonwealth countries? We now have the capacity to check the Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB): I thank the noble tests in laboratories. Why have we not done something about Baroness, Lady Thornton, for giving us the opportunity manufacturing capacity? Why are we reliant—we appear to be to have a discussion around this; I will support her reliant—on the fix of the Chinese industrial structure, which is controlled by the Communist Party or it cannot operate?”—[Official amendment. I am very pleased to follow the noble Report, 12/7/21; col. GC 430.] Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and to echo some That is at the heart of this question and of the debate of his remarks and questions. today. It is not a trivial issue. One billion of these tests In doing so, I return to a Question that I put during have been purchased by the UK. Just think what the Oral Questions, in an earlier part of our proceedings costs of that will be: if it is 50p a time, that is half a today, where I specifically asked about the number of billion pounds; if £1 a time, that is £1 billion. We have lateral flow tests that have been produced and where a right to know. they have come from. My interest in this originated This is a point that the noble Baroness made in her during a hearing of the International Relations and remarks earlier: there needs to be not just due diligence Defence Select Committee, when were told by a witness but transparency. As far as I am concerned, there has that he was delighted that a package had arrived at his not been sufficient transparency. We are right to press home containing a lateral flow test and that it had on this, just as it was right earlier to raise the issue of originated in China. This prompted me to ask a Written Hikvision. These are cameras that have been put up Questionabouthowmanyof thesetestshadbeenproduced in our town centres and high streets all over this in the People’s Republic of China. The Answer I was country, in NHS hospitals and in schools, and they are given was staggering: we had bought not 100,000 or 1 manufactured in Xinjiang. They are the same cameras million, but 1 billion. I also asked, in that same Question, being used to monitor Uighur people, 1 million of two other things: how much this had cost British whom are incarcerated in camps. That company has taxpayersandwhichcompanies,bothBritishandChinese, been banned in the US but not here, and I would be were involved in these deals. I did not get an answer to keen to hear from the Minister what the Government— the second two parts of my Question, so I tabled a because he will be speaking for the whole Government— further Written Question, asking again. It stands on are doing to enforce such a ban in the UK. our Order Paper today as having the greatest longevity of any unanswered Written Question. It was tabled on 12 May and it was due to be answered by 26 May; it is Lord Scriven (LD): My Lords, we on these Benches now 20 July. It is grossly discourteous to the House for support the principle of this SI. Of course we want to Written Questions not to be answered in this way—it see a mandatory standard for tests. I do not think would have maybe saved the Oral Question having to anyone who spoke in Grand Committee argued against be asked earlier on. the principle of the SI, but there are concerns about a At the heart of that Question is the issue of due few issues in it. The Minister replied to the issues raised diligence. I echo something that the noble Baroness, in Grand Committee with soothing words rather than Lady Smith of Newnham, asked during our earlier convincing answers, hence the noble Baroness, Lady exchanges. The duty is on the Government, not on Thornton, has tabled her amendment to the Motion today. 147 Medical Devices Regulations 2021[20 JULY 2021] Medical Devices Regulations 2021 148

I want to raise a few of the issues that the Minister When I and others asked in Grand Committee, the either ignored by not answering or used soothing Minister said that this is also a significant public words about but did not give convincing answers to. health policy change. I am not aware of any infectious The first question is: if we are to have a mandatory disease anywhere in the UK or in the world where a standard for tests, why have we got new Clause 39A, market approach to the testing of infectious diseases which is an exemption from the mandatory tests and has become the bog-standard approach, but that seems standards that can be applied at the stroke of a ministerial to have been the Government’s policy after September. pen? What is the point of having a mandatory standard TheMinistermentionedGermanyinGrandCommittee, for safety if the Secretary of State, at the stroke of his saying that that country had moved to a specifically or her pen, can decide to do away with that? In what private-led testing system. There are two differences in circumstances and for what reasons would the Secretary the German system. First, it is controlled by state of State wish to bring in tests that would lower the subsidies; to do it, the companies get a state subsidy, mandatory standard, and how would the public know which has now been reduced significantly so the level that they were purchasing a test that did not meet the of private testing is levelling off. Secondly, and most statutory standard that had been set? importantly,there is a mandatory requirement in German I want to address the issue of openness and law to report positive cases from those positive tests to transparency, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the national Covid test and trace system in Germany. and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, regarding This statutory instrument, while well intentioned, is the validity of the standard of the test as well as riddled with weaknesses. It is not linked to the test and human rights issues. Where is the research in public on trace system and will not help keep the country safe. It the validity of the standard of the lateral flow tests, will not have the desired effect, and we will end up with particularly the one from China brought in via Innova, a system that basically has a good standard of tests the main intermediary for a Chinese company? This but then does not do the next, vital part, which is to test, as raised in Grand Committee, was given a class trace people and then support them in isolating. I notice in America, and an FDA email says it is not That is why we on these Benches will support the effective and gives the instruction: amendment to the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, “Destroy the tests by placing them in the trash”. Lady Thornton—unless the Minister can come up with That is the same lateral flow test bought for billions of convincing answers this time, not just soothing words. pounds by the UK. Again, there were soothing words from the Minister in Grand Committee about this: he Lord Bethell (Con) [V]: My Lords, I thank the noble said that the Government were working with the FDA. Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her support for the That might be true but having two differing positions— regulations in the round, for her supportive words the Government saying that the test is safe while the about the role of the private sector in the round and FDA says to throw it in the trash—is not working for raising many important points in her amendment together. Could the Minister elucidate on why the to the Motion, stressing the vital role of NHS testing British Government still feel these tests are safe when as we continue to manage the pandemic. the FDA says they should be thrown in the trash? I want to clarify that these regulations are not connected Which part of the FDA’s analysis do the Government to the future of free NHS testing. This SI, as noble disagree with? Lords have noted, is solely focused on ensuring the The key issue for me is the one that the noble quality of any Covid test in the UK and that they Baroness, Lady Thornton, has already raised: this is are of the same standards as I would procure for not linked into the total public health system to deal the NHS. with the virus. The key issue is not the standard of the It is self-evident that poor-quality tests, when used tests themselves but that it should be linked into test privately, could pose a risk to the health of not only and trace. To say that we are going to have a high the individual but the public. All that is necessary for standard without linking it into the test and trace entry of Covid test products into the UK market is system is like saying you want the best electric car in controlled by EU CE marking, which, as noble Lords order to be environmentally friendly, buying it and noted, is currently a self-declaration process for most then, once you get it home, realising that the nearest Covid-19 tests on the UK market. The performance charging point is 100 miles away. This is not fit for declaration made as part of this EU marking does not purpose. To be so, tests must be integral and integrated need to be independently verified ahead of sale of into the test, trace and isolate part of the public health such tests. There is no legally binding agreed process response to coronavirus. for establishing performance. That just is not good I ask the Minister, as I and others did in Grand enough. It became clear as I sought to procure tests at Committee: if someone carries out a private test, how scale for the national effort that many kits that had does that link into test and trace? There is no mandation passed a CE mark were not fit for the real world. I say anywhere in UK law to say that a private test, once to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that it is not right that proved positive, has to be fed into the test and trace the quality of tests correlated to any particular nation; system. All the evidence suggests that the way to deal this applied to all nations. with the virus most effectively is to break the chains of I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that we have transmission within 48 hours. If tracing is not told audited the supplies of medical devices and there are that you have tested positive, there is no way to have no current slavery or human rights concerns. We do, an effective public health response. So, even if you have however, remain vigilant. I regret that his question on the best standard of tests, with no tracing or isolation sourcing has not been answered, particularly because the chain of transmission will continue. there is a very large amount of public material on the 149 Medical Devices Regulations 2021[LORDS] Medical Devices Regulations 2021 150

[LORD BETHELL] objective of the legislation is to ensure that the same procurement framework, the suppliers to it and the high standards for tests that we see upheld when the arrangements we make to run that framework. I will Government buy them are equally reflected in the address that gap with speed, and with regret. testing market for all consumers. That market already I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that there exists in this country; over 1,000 providers are already is a very large amount of published material on the going through the UKAS accreditation process. These internet on the validation of tests, including the protocols tests are being used to enable activity across many and the results from Oxford University and Porton areas of the economy,including travel, film, TV production Down, which conducted the validation of the tests. and sport. It is critical that we put in place processes to These validation protocols have been assessed by a ensure that these tests are high quality and accurate: very large number of experts, and I would be glad to that is what this law does. send him links to the protocols and the assessment On the integration of private tests and the NHS test processes. I reassure him that our tests have been and trace system, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord tested against alpha, beta, gamma and delta variants Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that and successfully detect all of them. significant work has already successfully linked private The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referenced “kickbacks” sector testing results with the NHS Covid app, the to the Communist Party. I very kindly and respectfully JBC and test and trace. When a test is conducted by a ask him to remember that British officials have operated testing provider, whether public or private, the result a remarkable procurement programme during the of that test, whatever the outcome, is legally required pandemic at the very highest standards of integrity. I to be reported to PHE as a notifiable disease by the gently ask him to provide evidence for such accusations provider. To the noble Lord, Lord Scriven: this is true before making them in the House. for a private test or a public test, and I would be glad To the question of why we buy so many tests from to send him a copy of the long-standing regulations China and not from Britain, the simple answer is that that make this law. This must be done within 24 hours they pass our protocol and meet the requirements of for all positive tests. Any self-administered test provided the procurement framework regarding quantity, speed by the Government can be reported via our online portal and product design, for example. We buy them to ensure by members of the public. Any positive test reported to a good deal for taxpayers and effective tests for the public. PHE will be passed on to our contact tracing system. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, The draft impact assessment has now been published that we need a strong UK manufacturing base. I reassure in the interest of transparency, as has an impact the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Scriven, and statement. It is a living document, and we want to others who have raised this point that we have a major make the best analysis available. We intend to update programme on this, with subsidies, expertise and support the impact assessment and address the RPC’s comments available. I would be glad to arrange a briefing session ahead of the introduction of the second SI in the to run noble Lords through all the measures we have autumn. I would like to put on record my thanks to in place to support the UK diagnostics industry. I the RPC for working so closely with us and at such believe the high-quality regulations we are discussing pace on this matter. today provide the certainty business and investors I want to ensure that all tests are available in the need to invest in the UK diagnostic system. We need UK, whether they are offered by the NHS, a charity or this market to provide additional capacity at the time a private provider, and whether they are supplied by a of the pandemic, to ensure that we have outstanding British diagnostic firm or an overseas firm. I thank the testing capability while also encouraging innovation. noble Baroness for giving me this opportunity to respond I was keen to take an evidence-based approach to to her important points. I beg to move. developing this policy, so we ran a very successful consultation that had a broad range of respondents. Some 73% agreed that mandatory validation of tests Baroness Thornton (Lab): My Lords, I start by prior to entry to the market was the best approach; thanking the Minister. I feel for the Minister, and I 88% of those agreed that this should be legally backed; wish him well in his self-isolation, and I congratulate 71%agreedthatavalidationprocesswouldnotsignificantly him on his immediate and unfussy decision to obey reduce supply; and 79% agreed that mandatory validation the ping and the trace system. I hope he is going to processes will increase safety. have a great summer, because I think he has earned it. In April this year we launched the universal testing I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Alton offer, so now anyone in England can access free LFD and Lord Scriven, for their support and the questions self-tests by ordering online or collecting then at over they have asked. I apologise to the House that we did 9,000 pharmacies across the country. To reassure the not put this amendment down in the first place. It noble Baroness and all noble Lords concerned about should have come straight to the floor of the House this, our recently published road map out of lockdown rather than going through the Grand Committee first. made it clear that we are keeping in place key protections, It was only the gathering concern in Committee that including free testing for people with symptoms, but led me and other noble Lords to the conclusion that we are standing down the workplace testing regime, as we needed further discussion about this. the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, rightly pointed It is not up to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to prove out, from 19 July. the veracity of the sources of any goods we purchase On the rationale for regulation, I welcome the support through the NHS or anywhere else. If it is being of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for NHS tests, bought by the Government, it is up to the Government which have always been of the highest standard. The to demonstrate that those supply lines are not exploitative 151 Medical Devices Regulations 2021[20 JULY 2021] Medical Devices Regulations 2021 152 anddonotuseslavelabour.Thatispartof thetransparency Hayter of Kentish Town, B. Primarolo, B. we are calling for. I do not think the Minister answered Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Prosser, B. very well on that matter. Hendy, L. Purvis of Tweed, L. Henig, B. Quin, B. I am concerned that workplaces, as I suspected, will Hoyle, L. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. now have to pay for the testing regime we have. I am Humphreys, B. Randerson, B. somewhat reassured by the noble Lord assuring us Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Razzall, L. that tests have to be fed in through the test and trace Hussain, L. Rebuck, B. Hussein-Ece, B. Rees of Ludlow, L. system wherever they happen, but I am concerned Hutton of Furness, L. Rennard, L. that, given that workplaces will now have to purchase Janke, B. Ricketts, L. all those tests, the system will break down quite quickly Jay of Paddington, B. Jolly, B. Ritchie of Downpatrick, B. over the summer. We still have many questions and Roberts of Llandudno, L. regrets, so I wish to test the opinion of the House. Jones of Cheltenham, L. Jones of Whitchurch, B. Rooker, L. Jordan, L. Rosser, L. 2.10 pm Kennedy of Cradley, B. Rowe-Beddoe, L. Kennedy of Southwark, L. Sandwich, E. Division conducted remotely on Baroness Thornton’s Kerr of Kinlochard, L. Scott of Needham Market, B. amendment. Kerslake, L. Scriven, L. Khan of Burnley, L. Sharkey, L. Contents 229; Not-Contents 230. Kilclooney, L. Sheehan, B. Knight of Weymouth, L. Sherlock, B. Baroness Thornton’s amendment disagreed. Kramer, B. Shipley, L. Laming, L. Sikka, L. Division No. 3 Layard, L. Smith of Basildon, B. Lennie, L. Smith of Finsbury, L. CONTENTS Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Smith of Gilmorehill, B. Liddle, L. Smith of Newnham, B. Aberdare, L. Clark of Calton, B. Lipsey, L. Snape, L. Adams of Craigielea, B. Clark of Windermere, L. Lister of Burtersett, B. Soley, L. Addington, L. Coaker, L. Ludford, B. Somerset, D. Adonis, L. Collins of Highbury, L. Lytton, E. Stern, B. Alderdice, L. Colville of Culross, V. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. Allan of Hallam, L. Corston, B. Mallalieu, B. Stone of Blackheath, L. Alli, L. Cotter, L. Mandelson, L. Stoneham of Droxford, L. Alton of Liverpool, L. Coussins, B. Mann, L. Strasburger, L. Anderson of Swansea, L. Crisp, L. Manningham-Buller, B. Stunell, L. Andrews, B. Davidson of Glen Clova, L. Masham of Ilton, B. Suttie, B. Armstrong of Hill Top, B. Davies of Brixton, L. Massey of Darwen, B. Symons of Vernham Dean, B. Bach, L. Deech, B. Maxton, L. Taverne, L. Bakewell of Hardington Dholakia, L. McAvoy, L. Taylor of Goss Moor, L. Mandeville, B. Donaghy, B. McConnell of Glenscorrodale, Thomas of Gresford, L. Barker, B. Doocey, B. L. Thomas of Winchester, B. Beecham, L. Drake, B. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Thornton, B. Beith, L. D’Souza, B. McNally, L. Tope, L. Benjamin, B. Dubs, L. McNicol of West Kilbride, L. Triesman, L. Bennett of Manor Castle, B. Eatwell, L. Mendelsohn, L. Truscott, L. Billingham, B. Elder, L. Merron, B. Tunnicliffe, L. Blake of Leeds, B. Etherton, L. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Tyler of Enfield, B. Blunkett, L. Evans of Watford, L. B. Tyler, L. Boateng, L. Faulkner of Worcester, L. Mitchell, L. Uddin, B. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Featherstone, B. Monks, L. Verjee, L. B. Filkin, L. Morris of Aberavon, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Boothroyd, B. Finlay of Llandaff, B. Morris of Yardley, B. Walmsley, B. Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Foster of Bath, L. Neuberger, B. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Bowness, L. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Newby, L. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Bradley, L. Fox, L. Northover, B. Watts, L. Bradshaw, L. Freyberg, L. Nye, B. West of Spithead, L. Brinton, B. Gale, B. Osamor, B. Wheeler, B. Broers, L. Garden of Frognal, B. Paddick, L. Whitty, L. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. German, L. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Wilcox of Newport, B. Brookeborough, V. Giddens, L. Pannick, L. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Browne of Ladyton, L. Glasman, L. Parminter, B. Wills, L. Bruce of Bennachie, L. Goddard of Stockport, L. Patel, L. Wilson of Dinton, L. Bryan of Partick, B. Golding, B. Pendry, L. Winston, L. Bull, B. Goudie, B. Pinnock, B. Wrigglesworth, L. Burnett, L. Greengross, B. Prashar, B. Young of Hornsey, B. Burt of Solihull, B. Greenway, L. Campbell of Pittenweem, L. Grender, B. NOT CONTENTS Carlile of Berriew, L. Griffiths of Burry Port, L. Carter of Coles, L. Grocott, L. Agnew of Oulton, L. Balfe, L. Cashman, L. Hamwee, B. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Barran, B. Chakrabarti, B. Harris of Haringey, L. Altrincham, L. Bates, L. Chapman of Darlington, B. Harris of Richmond, B. Anelay of St Johns, B. Benyon, L. Chartres, L. Haskel, L. Arbuthnot of Edrom, L. Berridge, B. Chidgey, L. Haworth, L. Ashton of Hyde, L. Bertin, B. Clancarty, E. Hayman of Ullock, B. Astor of Hever, L. Bethell, L. 153 Medical Devices Regulations 2021[LORDS] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 154

Bhatia, L. Goldsmith of Richmond Pidding, B. Stewart of Dirleton, L. Black of Brentwood, L. Park, L. Polak, L. Stirrup, L. Blackwood of North Oxford, Goodlad, L. Popat, L. Strathclyde, L. B. Greenhalgh, L. Porter of Spalding, L. Stroud, B. Blencathra, L. Griffiths of Fforestfach, L. Powell of Bayswater, L. Stuart of Edgbaston, B. Bloomfield of Hinton Hailsham, V. Price, L. Sugg, B. Waldrist, B. Hamilton of Epsom, L. Rana, L. Suri, L. Borwick, L. Hammond of Runnymede, L. Randall of Uxbridge, L. Swinfen, L. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Hannan of Kingsclere, L. Ravensdale, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Rawlings, B. Brabazon of Tara, L. Hanworth, V. Tebbit, L. Brady, B. Harris of Peckham, L. Reay, L. Redfern, B. Trefgarne, L. Brougham and Vaux, L. Haselhurst, L. Trenchard, V. Browne of Belmont, L. Hay of Ballyore, L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. Risby, L. True, L. Browning, B. Hayward, L. Tugendhat, L. Brownlow of Shurlock Row, Henley, L. Robathan, L. Rock, B. Udny-Lister, L. L. Herbert of South Downs, L. Ullswater, V. Buscombe, B. Hill of Oareford, L. Rogan, L. Vaizey of Didcot, L. Butler-Sloss, B. Hodgson of Abinger, B. Sanderson of Welton, B. Caithness, E. Hogan-Howe, L. Sandhurst, L. Vere of Norbiton, B. Callanan, L. Hogg, B. Sarfraz, L. Verma, B. Carrington of Fulham, L. Holmes of Richmond, L. Sassoon, L. Wakeham, L. Carrington, L. Hooper, B. Sater, B. Walker of Aldringham, L. Cathcart, E. Horam, L. Scott of Bybrook, B. Walney, L. Cavendish of Little Venice, B. Howard of Rising, L. Seccombe, B. Warsi, B. Chadlington, L. Howe, E. Selkirk of Douglas, L. Wei, L. Chisholm of Owlpen, B. Hunt of Wirral, L. Sharpe of Epsom, L. Wharton of Yarm, L. Choudrey, L. James of Blackheath, L. Shephard of Northwold, B. Whitby, L. Clarke of Nottingham, L. Jenkin of Kennington, B. Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. Williams of Trafford, B. Colgrain, L. Johnson of Marylebone, L. Shields, B. Wolfson of Tredegar, L. Colwyn, L. Jopling, L. Shinkwin, L. Wyld, B. Cormack, L. Kamall, L. Shrewsbury, E. Young of Cookham, L. Courtown, E. Keen of Elie, L. Smith of Hindhead, L. Young of Norwood Green, L. Couttie, B. Kirkham, L. Stedman-Scott, B. Younger of Leckie, V. Craig of Radley, L. Kirkhope of Harrogate, L. Craigavon, V. Lancaster of Kimbolton, L. Motion agreed. Crathorne, L. Lang of Monkton, L. Cruddas, L. Lansley, L. Cumberlege, B. Leicester, E. Arrangement of Business Dannatt, L. Leigh of Hurley, L. Announcement Davies of Gower, L. Lexden, L. De Mauley, L. Lilley, L. 2.23 pm Deben, L. Lindsay, E. Dobbs, L. Lingfield, L. The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) Dodds of Duncairn, L. Liverpool, E. (CB): For Report on the Leasehold Reform (Ground Duncan of Springbank, L. Livingston of Parkhead, L. Rent) Bill, I will call Members to speak in the order Dunlop, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L. listed. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s Eaton, B. Mancroft, L. response are discouraged. Any Member wishing to Eccles of Moulton, B. Manzoor, B. ask such a question must email the clerk. The groups Eccles, V. Marland, L. Empey, L. Marlesford, L. are binding. A participant who might wish to press an Erroll, E. McColl of Dulwich, L. amendment other than the lead amendment in a group Evans of Bowes Park, B. McDonald of Salford, L. to a Division must give notice in debate or by emailing Fairfax of Cameron, L. McGregor-Smith, B. the clerk. Leave should be given to withdrawamendments. Fairhead, B. McInnes of Kilwinning, L. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Fall, B. McIntosh of Pickering, B. Farmer, L. Mendoza, L. Chamber only.If a Member taking part remotely wants Fellowes of West Stafford, L. Meyer, B. their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they Fink, L. Mobarik, B. must make this clear when speaking on the group. Finkelstein, L. Mone, B. Fleet, B. Montrose, D. Flight, L. Moore of Etchingham , L. Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL] Fookes, B. Morgan of Cotes, B. Report Forsyth of Drumlean, L. Morris of Bolton, B. Foster of Oxton, B. Morrissey, B. 2.24 pm Fox of Buckley, B. Morrow, L. Moved by Lord Greenhalgh Framlingham, L. Moylan, L. Fraser of Craigmaddie, B. Moynihan, L. That the Report be now received. Freud, L. Nash, L. Frost, L. Neville-Rolfe, B. Clause 1: Regulated leases Fullbrook, B. Nicholson of Winterbourne, Gadhia, L. B. Gardner of Parkes, B. Noakes, B. Amendment 1 Geddes, L. Norton of Louth, L. Moved by Lord Greenhalgh Gilbert of Panteg, L. O’Shaughnessy, L. Glenarthur, L. Parkinson of Whitley Bay, L. 1: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after second “a” insert “single” Godson, L. Patten, L. Member’s explanatory statement Gold, L. Penn, B. This amendment excludes leases of multiple dwellings from Goldie, B. Pickles, L. the definition of “regulated lease”. 155 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[20 JULY 2021] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 156

The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of as these, so, for the purposes of clarity, the Government Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord have tabled these amendments.They provide that regulated Greenhalgh) (Con): My Lords, I take this opportunity leases will be only those leases granted in exchange for to thank all noble Lords who have participated so far a premium; as a consequence, we have also defined a in the debates on the Bill and who have met me to “premium” in government Amendment 38 as discuss the policy and principles behind it. These “any consideration in money or money’s worth for the grant of a discussions have led directly to the first set of amendments lease, other than rent”. under consideration today.The government amendments I trust that this allays the concerns of the House on in this group provide greater clarity in two key areas—rack the matter of market rents for long leases. rents and intermediate long leases—addressing issues Amendment 3, in the name of the noble and learned that emerged both at Second Reading and in Committee. Lord, Lord Etherton, would remove new leases where First, government Amendment 1 inserts the word there is a “deemed surrender and regrant” from the “single” into Clause 1 to put beyond any doubt or provisions of the Bill. I am grateful for his explanation ambiguity the fact that the Bill is intended to apply that his amendment is to address concern that landlords only to a lease of an individual dwelling. My noble may be reluctant to change a lease, even where requested friend Lord Hammond has noted, both in this Chamber to by a leaseholder, if this would result in a deemed and in various meetings, that, as drafted, the Bill could surrender and regrant because this would mean that perhaps be interpreted as also applying to cases where the peppercorn limit would apply. a lease is made up of multiple dwellings, held collectively. The noble and learned Lord has explained that the Where a lease is for multiple dwellings, such as a two common circumstances where a leaseholder may where a business has a lease for all or part of a building, request that a lease is varied are a change to the demise the intention of the policy is that there should be no —for example, to include additional land or property—or restriction on such leaseholders arranging their finances to change the term. I will address the concerns about with the superior landlord in a manner that suits the the change to the demise first. We agree that such commercial needs of both parties. This amendment variations would usually take place in a way that results clarifies that the Bill is intended not to capture such in a deemed surrender and regrant and that the Bill leases but to protect individual leaseholders. would discourage that because the resulting new lease Noble Lords will have heard me say many times would need to be for a peppercorn ground rent. that this is narrowly focused legislation. Ending this However, the same outcome can also be achieved legitimate practice is not, and never has been, the with the agreement of the leaseholder by the grant of intention of this Government. By amending this clause an additional separate lease, meaning that the ground so that it refers to a long lease of a “single” dwelling, rent can remain on the unaltered existing lease. This we ensure that this legislation does not inadvertently might also be done by altering the lease and extending put an end to this business model. The addition of this the lease for a single day. This would then be caught by word provides welcome clarity on this matter, and I Clause 6, thereby allowing the ground rent for the hope that the amendment will attract support from existing term to be retained. As we have discussed across the House. previously, any extension would be at a peppercorn Government Amendments 2 and 38 concern the rate. We believe that this is an achievable workaround exemption from the provisions of the Bill in cases that means that variations for the leaseholder’s benefit where a leaseholder has taken up a long residential can be introduced without detriment to the landlord’s lease without the customary payment of a premium existing rights. and instead pays a full rent for the term of the lease. As I am sure your Lordships are aware by now, the 2.30 pm purpose of the Bill is to protect the large majority of However, the noble and learned Lord’s concern that leaseholders who pay a substantial premium on the the amendment is needed to enable variations to the granting of a lease, often with a mortgage, from further term of the lease leads me to the main reason why the rental charges. Our guiding ambition here has been to Bill is drafted as it is. It includes deemed surrender and put an end to the otherwise continuing unfairness of regrants within the definition of a “grant of a lease” to such leasehold arrangements. avoid a potential loophole. Without this provision, a It has been brought to my attention by noble Lords, lease could be varied to change the term; for example, particularly my noble friend Lord Hammond, that a to the usual process of a lease extension. Such a variant small number of long residential leases are let where would constitute a deemed surrender and regrant. no premium is paid for the granting of the lease and We have been clear that this Government do not where, instead, a market rent is paid by the leaseholder. want monetary ground rents in new leases, except in I thank once again my noble friend Lord Hammond very limited exceptions, as provided for in Clause 2. for drawing our attention to this issue with the drafting We have been careful to ensure that lease extensions of the Bill. It is perhaps no surprise that a former are not excepted, using the provisions in Clause 6. Chancellor should have such attention to detail, and This amendment would undermine that and, indeed, we are grateful to him. the whole purpose of the Bill, and, therefore, I hope Although such arrangements would still be possible that the noble and learned Lord will not move it. for a lease of 21 years or less, we understand that there I now turn to Amendment 5, tabled by the noble are occasions when such arrangements may take place Earl, Lord Lytton, which, if accepted, would mean with leases over 21 years—a commonly understood that a large swathe of dwellings would no longer be definition of a long lease. I reiterate that it is not the subject to the peppercorn ground rent limit. I have intention for the Bill to apply to long rental leases such listened carefully to the noble Earl’s explanation, but I 157 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[LORDS] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 158

[LORD GREENHALGH] land than is currently within the original lease. It makes remainunconvinced.TheGovernmentagreethatlandlords absolutely no sense to include something dealing with should of course be able to recover the costs they have the one but not the other, when those are the only two incurred in providing and maintaining the building circumstances which would normally give rise to a and any services provided. Legitimate service charges deemed grant and surrender. It leaves a lacuna in the remain the proper and accountable way to do this. The Bill, in that there still may well be a landlord who is amendment would in fact enable unlimited ground not aware of the terms of the Bill and who may not rents for many new leaseholders, with no ability to appreciate that granting, in accordance with the tenant’s challenge them. As such, I hope that the noble Lord request, a greater piece of land to them has the effect will not move his amendment. of removing the ground rent to which the landlord would The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has also tabled an otherwise be entitled. amendment to the Government’s Amendment 38. Although I very much welcome what the Minister Amendment 39 seeks to amend the definition of has said about many of the amendments he has tabled, “premium” and ensure that any repairs that may need and his explanation, legally speaking we are left with a to be carried out under a market rent lease would not very untidy situation. There is now a distinction between be considered to be a premium for the purposes of the the two circumstances in which there is a deemed Bill. I reassure the noble Earl that we understand his surrender and regrant, one being expressly dealt with position and that it is not the Government’s intention in Clause 6, and the other not at all. That could lead to that the cost of such repairs would fall within the a landlord with no awareness of the situation—and definition of a premium. However, I am advised that with no intention of doing so—losing the benefit of further research is needed with lawyers to determine the ground rent under the original lease. whether an amendment is necessary for the avoidance of doubt at a later stage of the Bill. The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]: My Lords, it is a I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for raising this pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord issue, which I am of course happy to continue discussing. Etherton, and I thank the Minister for introducing I hope, therefore, that he will not move Amendment 39 this group of amendments, in which I have two: 5 and at this stage. I also ask that the noble Earl does not 39. I declare my property interest but hasten to add move his Amendment 5, and that the noble and learned that it does not involve long leasehold; I also declare Lord, Lord Etherton, does not move his Amendment 3. my interest as a property professional. I particularly thank the Minister for meeting me this morning at Lord Etherton (CB): I wish to speak to Amendment 3, short notice; I very much appreciate that and I think it in my name. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for is fair to say that we had a frank and generally constructive speaking to me about my concerns about Clause 1(4). conversation. I am indebted to the British Property Itisimportantthattoday,wehavehadanacknowledgement Federation for the comments it sent me, to the Wallace that Clause 6, which I understand is the way the Partnership Group for its observations on the Bill, Government intend to deal with preserving the right of and to the Homes for Later Living group, which is a a landlord to continued receipt of ground rent for the retirement homes specialist. duration of the original lease, does not extend to a The pivotal point here is the question of who takes situation where the tenant requests, and the landlord on the responsibilities of property management and might otherwise agree, subject to this Bill, to grant an things such as safety oversight, particularly in complex extended demise or an extended grant of property. buildings. I am thinking of developments such as Salford At the moment, the Bill does not address one of the Quays, but there are others in the pipeline, including two circumstances in which, in the normal course of King’s Cross and Battersea, that will come on stream events, there will be a deemed surrender and regrant and are in the process of evolving even as I speak. by operation of law, which operates irrespective of the The British Property Federation believes—and I agree intention or awareness of the parties. The Minister says with it—that most leaseholders in these large, complex, that it does not matter because the landlord can always often urban developments will not want to take on the agree with the tenant to grant a separate lease of any sort of responsibilities implicit in the management extended area of land which the tenant wishes to include and future-proofing of the common areas and common in the lease, and that the landlord would otherwise be parts of buildings in these multi-occupied developments. willing to grant. This leaves a very messy situation. Hardly had I considered that point when it was pointed Clause 6—which, with respect, is not entirely straight- out to me that a poll by Savanta found that only forward—is intended to deal with the second situation 31% of people would willingly take on the management whereby there is a deemed grant and surrender,and that of their apartment block, even when faced with the iswherethereisanyextensiontothedurationof thelease. option of saving on ground rent. I have some experience The second normal circumstance is not addressed that reinforces this, so much more so when we come to at all. It is an everyday occurrence, not an unusual one, the scale of some of these urban and often redevelopment for a tenant and a landlord to agree informally to situations that are truly industrial in their complexity. changes in the area of the lease. Therefore, subject to A buy-to-let investor is hardly going to have interest the solution that is proposed, which is a separate lease in participating in the day-to-day running of an estate. of this grant of extended land included within the Freeholders, with a nil or peppercorn rent and no lease, there is nothing in the Bill that addresses this. other interest beyond the maintenance and management This can be dealt with quite simply, either by taking charges that may be taken away from them by right to out Clause 1(4) or by extending Clause 6 to include manage, are hardly going to have an interest in taking this second situation, which is the granting of greater on costs that they might not be able to recover. By that 159 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[20 JULY 2021] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 160

I mean costs on things such as long-term capital Buildings are of increasing complexity, and so is expenditure on visual improvements or repurposing their day-to-day management. In many cases we are parts of the development—matters that are not a service dealing with matters of extraordinary technical and charge and therefore there is some question as to the interactive complexity. These bring new challenges. degree to which they could be recovered. With no skin The Building Safety Bill will of course add significant in the game, how is the freeholder going to finance or new ownership and management responsibility in due forward-fund these things? For practical purposes, the course. There is no certainty that by default there will Bill ends up providing us with the opportunity for be a competent and motivated freeholder as last man non-responsive freeholders. standing. If leaseholder-led arrangements fail or the leaseholders I was going to make a passing comment about want to hand back the management process, an effective managing agents, but I simply say that the report by freeholder is traditionally there as a backstop to take the noble Lord, Lord Best, on the regulation of property on the responsibilities. Curiously, under the Bill that agents is still not brought into effect by the Government. onus will persist, with the freeholder having a peppercorn It ought to be, because the competence of agents is a rent. I question whether the liabilities will in fact be factor here. shouldered in that way or can be imposed in practice. There are several large ground rest investors. They I do not intend to press either of my amendments, often invest in pension savings and ground rents and but it is worth my while going into Amendment 5 in a have a very long-term perspective. Long Harbour and little more detail. The amendment would make leases Wallace Partnership are two of those. Some of the that meet certain criteria excepted leases and therefore great estates will be household names, such as the still able to operate on a ground rent principle.Freeholders Grosvenor Estate, Cadogan and Howard de Walden would thereby be incentivised to invest in the property in London. They all have very long-term objectives in the long term and to bring their expertise, their and on the whole are credited with managing their ability to deal with complex developments at scale and estates, particularly the common parts, very effectively. their property management skills and safety oversight. That is where this amendment comes in. As buyers of individual long leaseholds, consumers Were commonhold in place at the moment, in the would still have the choice at the market-wide level as sense of being widely used, that might deal with some to whether they wanted to live in a block run by a of my concerns, but the British Property Federation freeholder and pay a ground rent or to purchase a flat points out that it gets particularly messy in mixed-use in a communally run block. Consumers would also retain contexts where there are layers of different ownership the right, as they have now, to enfranchise or exercise and phasing of development delivery. I gather that the their right to manage and take over the block, which BPF is in constant consultation with the Government, the Government have said they will seek to make easier and I hope that that will bear fruit. as they work on a second leasehold reform Bill. At the moment, the Bill creates what I describe as I propose the choice of a functioning leasehold an open-ended transition. It proposes the hollowing-out system in larger and particularly complex apartment of the freehold as a policy but solely on ground rent building arrangements because, as I say, there is good terms, leaving the obligations and rights of the freehold evidence that a lot of leaseholders do not want the interest in some sort of economic, if not legal, limbo. responsibility of running these blocks. It must be pointed I think it demands better than that. out that service charges relate to current expenditure. I appreciate and recognise that this amendment They do not customarily cover future investment, runs counter to the Government’s policy. I ask noble improvement or adaption and may potentially be Lords not to spend too much time concentrating on challengeable by leaseholders. the precise wording but to recognise that there is a A point about retirement developments was rather matter that the Government need to address and that eloquently made by Homes for Later Living. These often this is simply the vehicle I have adopted for raising the have specialised development models, including extensive issue. It must also be a matter of general public interest communal facilities, so although they are not the same that the freeholder, so long as it persists as a party to as these large, mixed-use commercial redevelopments, leasehold and freehold arrangements, is competent, they have some of the same problems. motivated and solvent. I simply ask the Minister to reflect on that issue. 2.45 pm I do not believe that the Bill adequately covers what Amendment 39 is fairly self-explanatory. It seeks I refer to as the orphan freehold syndrome. In saying simply to clarify what government Amendment 38 that, I do not espouse a particular solution—not even extends to and to ensure that, where a long leasehold the preservation of freehold tenure under a long leasehold is entered into with rent and the tenant undertakes to situation. I take that as read. I am trying to deal with do certain upgrading and improvement works, the the Bill’s consequences and the importance of long-term rent will not end up being peppercorned by default. stewardship of buildings and places: the constant The Minister helpfully said that this matter requires upgrading, adaption, repurposing and enhancements further consideration. I agree, and I am perfectly happy that go on all the time. In my opinion, it needs a to leave it in the capable hands of the Minister and his purposeful freeholder or body that can respond to the department. obligations embodied in the covenants between landlord and tenant, and indeed the freehold covenants that Lord Stunell (LD): My Lords, my noble friend Lady may affect the block more widely. To do that, it needs Grender is very sorry that she is not able to be present, to be solvent, motivated and competent. having led for this side of the House in the previous 161 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[LORDS] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 162

[LORD STUNELL] each tabled by the Minister, deal with the definition of stages of the Bill. She has put into my somewhat “regulated leases”. Specifically, they exclude leases of inadequate hands the job of taking us to the next stage. multiple dwellings, with Amendment 2 adding that a I thank the Minister for his very helpful approach to regulated lease is considered such only all sides of the debate so far—in the preceding stages “if it is granted for a premium”. and, indeed, right up to this morning, as the noble Earl, Can the Minister confirm whether there have been any Lord Lytton, has commented. impact assessments or informal consultations on the These government amendments are examples of application of these changes? clarifications that have emerged as a result of our Amendment 5, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, discussions; I am sure we would all agree that they are probes the relationship between the Bill and “large leading to an improvement on the Bill in its original and complex buildings”. He gave a large and complex form. Not all of us brought to bear the knowledge and explanation of his amendment. In there somewhere, background of a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think he said that the commonhold might present which was credited by the Minister a few minutes ago, a solution to the complex problem raised, but it is but, even so, we have been treated with courtesy and probably a little more difficult than that. These Benches respect, and we very much appreciate that. fully support the removal of ground rent for all I turn briefly to the proposals tabled by the noble leaseholders, but I hope the Minister can confirm what and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Earl, support and engagement are ongoing with this impacted Lord Lytton. The noble and learned Lord made the group. point that an untidy situation will be left should his The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has amendment not be adopted by the Government. The probed the provision on “deemed surrender and regrant”. noble Earl, in his extremely technical presentation I look forward to further clarification from the Minister of the difficulties and intricacies of leases on big on this as well—to tidy up the somewhat contradictory developments, has also shown very clearly the further nature of the legislation in Clause 1(4) and Clause 6, unfinished business that the Bill by no means addresses. as the noble and learned Lord explained. Because of my own interest in the Building Safety Bill, I picked out his suggestion that that Bill—in its current Lord Greenhalgh (Con): I thank noble Lords for form,atleast—couldputontopropertyownersobligations their ongoing engagement and for the substantive that they will no longer be funded to support should points raised. I want to pick up on the issue raised by various scenarios sketched out by the noble Earl come the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, of orphan freehold syndrome, to pass. in particular with regard to complex leases. I point out The Minister’s initial response was that he could that leaseholders can collectively exercise the right to not accept Amendment 5; I take that to mean that manage; they can appoint a managing agent to discharge neither does he accept the arguments that the noble the stewardship function that the noble Earl outlined. Earl has just presented to your Lordships’ House. It The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, asked whether we seems to me that, if not here then at some later stage, carried out an impact assessment for the two technical he will have to answer and have properly investigated changes, which really preserve what is happening today the question of whether the Building Safety Bill, if and were not meant to be captured by the provisions enacted in its present form, would lead to an unacceptable of this narrow Bill. We have not carried out any impact outcome because it would mean that the obligation to assessments. We are looking to continue a practice inspect, certify and rectify would be placed on the that we see as being sensible, on occasion. It was never shoulders of a person or body without the means to meant to be captured as part of this Bill, so it is not do it. something that requires a full impact assessment as The Minister has very helpfully said that he will such. consider the practical consequences outlined by the Once again, I commend Amendments 1, 2 and 38 in noble Earl in relation to Amendment 35. I will be very my name. These changes address important points interested to see how that proceeds. He gave us a little raised by noble Lords in previous debates on the Bill. I hint that something might come up at a later stage of thank noble Lords for recognising that they do so. the Bill. I hope that that will be the case. I think they will agree that they improve the legislation— In conclusion, I say only that the Minister has been indeed, as a direct result of the scrutinyin this House—and presented with strong evidence from every side that that it will not have effects beyond those intended. I this is an incomplete Bill. It does not tackle the whole have listened carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, problem even in terms of its own limited reference on his two amendments; I remain of the view that point. I am grateful, as I think the whole House will Amendment 5 is inconsistent with the intent of the be, that improvements are being made, but further Bill and that the case for Amendment 39 needs further improvements are needed and the urgency of proceeding consideration. to the second stage of leasehold reform is underlined every time one of your Lordships contributes to this 3 pm debate. I have actually changed my position a little in the course of listening carefully to the noble and learned Lord Lennie (Lab): My Lords, the amendments in Lord, Lord Etherton. I agree that we have covered a this first group, like most that have been tabled on lot of the issue of informal lease extension but not Report, are technical amendments that do not alter change of demise. You could hypothetically look at the central provisions of the Bill but none the less aim ensuring that there was no disincentive to landlords to to improve its application. Amendments 1, 2 and 38, do that by having the same practical approach: ground 163 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[20 JULY 2021] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 164 rents could still be levied on the existing term of the Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, all the amendments lease, and then it would fall to peppercorn where there in this group relate specifically to Wales. This legislation has been a change of demise for any future period. So applies to Wales as well as England, and it is our I will take that thought away and consider tabling an intention that it works in the best way possible for amendment at a later stage. I hope that noble Lords leaseholders in both England and Wales. We have been will not move their amendments. working with colleagues in the Welsh Government to understand how the Bill might impact leaseholders in The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) Wales. I take this opportunity to thank Ministers and (Con): I have received a request from the noble Baroness, officials within the Welsh Government for their Lady Greengross, to speak after the Minister. constructive engagement on the legislation. Amendments 14 to 24, 45 and 46 make a common- Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]: My Lords, can the sense change to the legislation that I hope all noble Minister confirm that the definition of rent in the Bill Lords will agree is appropriate. They would see breaches is not intended to include other fees and charges, such in Wales taken to the relevant residential property as event fees and indexed service and management tribunal—the leasehold valuation tribunal—instead of charges, which the Law Commission has concluded the First-tier Tribunal. These are pragmatic amendments, play a key role in supporting consumer choice in the and I hope that they will have support of noble Lords UK retirement community sector? Do the Government from across the House. still intend to implement the Law Commission’s The other amendments in this group confer powers recommendations in this area? on Welsh Ministers that would, as the legislation is Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, I can confirm currently drafted, be exercised by the Secretary of that the definition of rent does not include the items State. We have carefully considered which of these that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, mentioned. powers it would be appropriate to confer and which I cannot state, at this stage, exactly how we will take should be restricted. For instance, we share the concerns forward the legislation for the next stage beyond the that my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham raised measures that we have already announced, which are at Second Reading about the potential for different to make enfranchisement easier, to adopt full-throated commencement dates in England and Wales. This commonhold—we have already created a commonhold would cause unnecessary confusion for both leaseholders council—and to look at issues around the right to and developers working in both jurisdictions. However, manage, but I am sure that we will be able to give the there are areas where we believe that powers should be noble Baroness a response in due course, and that will given to Welsh Ministers to allow them to align these play a part in the next stage of reform. reforms with the housing policy that they are pursuing for Wales. Amendment 1 agreed. First, Amendment 4, read with Amendment 40, would give Welsh Ministers the power to update definitions of excepted leases in relation to community housing. Amendment 2 This would give the Welsh Government more flexibility Moved by Lord Greenhalgh and allow them to ensure that this legislation is fit for 2: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end insert— the purpose of Welsh community housing schemes, “(aa) it is granted for a premium,” including work related to co-operative housing. These Member’s explanatory statement amendments recognise the importance of the devolution This amendment provides that a lease will only be a regulated settlement and are intended to facilitate the Welsh lease if it is granted for a premium. “Premium” is defined in Lord Government in exercising their powers in relation to Greenhalgh’s first amendment to Clause 22, page 13, line 28. housing policy. Secondly, Amendments 11 and 12, read with Amendment 2 agreed. Amendment 40, would allow Welsh Ministers to increase Amendment 3 not moved. the size of the penalty in line with changes in the value of money. This would allow them to ensure consistency The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) of approach with other penalties in their competence. (Con): We now come to the group beginning with For example, they could increase the penalties for Amendment 4. I remind noble Lords that anybody breaching the provisions of this Bill in line with increases wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a to other housing-related penalties set by the Welsh Division must declare that in debate. Government, even if the UK Government decided not to increase the penalty in England. Conversely, the Clause 2: Excepted leases Welsh Government could decide not to increase penalties even where they were raised in England. However, it is important to note again that any increase, whether in Amendment 4 England or in Wales, would only be in line with inflation. Moved by Lord Greenhalgh It is therefore unlikely that we would see a large gap open up between the levels of penalties in the two 4: Clause 2, page 2, leave out line 21 and insert “relevant authority” jurisdictions. Member’s explanatory statement Amendment 13 would enable the Welsh Government This amendment, with Lord Greenhalgh’s second amendment to produce their own guidance for enforcement authorities to Clause 22, page 13, line 28, allows the Welsh Ministers to make to achieve the best fit with the Welsh context. This regulations under Clause 2(6)(b) in relation to premises in Wales. recognises that the Welsh Government’s understanding 165 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[LORDS] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 166

[LORD GREENHALGH] democracy;thatisexactlywhyIwelcometheseamendments. of the different local authority structures in Wales I look forward to clarification on the questions that I would ensure the effective implementation of this have put to the Minister. legislation there. The Welsh Government would also ensure that the guidance is translated into Welsh. We Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, I will have to will, of course, work closely with the Welsh Government write to the noble Lord on exactly what occurred. I to ensure consistency across all guidance on enforcement. know that this issue raised its head only very late last I mention at this point that we no longer intend to week. I am happy to outline that and put a copy in the move Amendments 31 to 34, 36 and 37, related to Library in response to those questions. conferring the powers for Welsh Ministers to make We want to ensure that this legislation works for consequential amendments in relation to the Bill. As both England and Wales. This group of amendments noble Lords will know, consequential amendments are achieves this by giving certain powers to Welsh Ministers essential in ensuring consistency across legislation. that would otherwise be exercised by the Secretary of While we have made every effort to identify where State.Wehave worked closely with the Welsh Government existing legislation needs to be updated in drafting the on this issue and I hope that these amendments will Bill, we need to ensure that further changes can be have your Lordships’ support. made when needed. Not moving these amendments today does not Amendment 4 agreed. mean that we are no longer seeking to provide Welsh Ministers with the appropriate powers.However,following Amendment 5 not moved. discussions late last week with the Welsh Government, we both agree that further engagement is required to The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) ensure that we achieve the right result in setting out (Con): We now come to the group beginning with how Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State should Amendment 6. Anyone wishing to press this or anything exercise their respective powers under Clause 20. Tothat else in the group to a Division must make that clear in end, we intend to continue our constructive discussions debate. over the summer and reach an agreeable position to bring forward any appropriate amendments at a later stage. The Welsh Government want to ensure alignment Amendment 6 of this legislation, including within the context of Moved by Lord Mackay of Clashfern their ongoing codification of Welsh law. Our continued 6: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause— joint working should ensure that this can be achieved. “Leases with an option of redemption Amendment 35, the final amendment in this group, (1) In this Act a lease with an option of redemption means provides that the default procedure for regulations a lease which meets the following conditions— made under the Bill by Welsh Ministers is the negative (a) it is a long lease of a dwelling, procedure. (b) it is in force on the “relevant transition date”, and Taken together, the amendments in this group will (c) it is not an excepted lease. ensure that the Bill works in the Welsh context. They (2) The “relevant transition date” is the day on which this recognise the interconnected nature of property law section and the other relevant provisions of this Act and housing policy and give reasonable powers to come into force in relation to leases of that kind. Welsh Ministers to adapt this legislation to ensure the (3) After the relevant transition date the tenant has an best fit for Wales. The amendments that we have not option to pay a capital sum to the landlord, on payment moved will continue to be discussed and do not have a of which the rent payable under the lease shall be a significant impact on the operation of the Bill as currently peppercorn rent. drafted. I beg to move. (4) The capital sum in subsection (3) shall be calculated in accordance with a formula specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State. Lord Lennie (Lab): My Lords,I welcome these technical (5) The option to pay a capital sum to the landlord set out amendmentstorecognisetheroleof theWelshGovernment in subsection (3) may only be exercised within two years in these matters. While I will not go through each in of the relevant transition date.” turn, I would appreciate clarification on a few broad points. Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con): My Lords, this First, the Government stated that provisions are amendment repeats one I put forward in Committee. not within the legislative competence of the Senedd It is obvious that the Government’s policy suggests Cymru. Can the Minister confirm whether the that the ground rent arrangements that apply at the Government received any advice to the contrary, and moment are unfair to many people. This Bill prevents whether this was anything to do with the decision to that kind of arrangement being made for the future withdrawthe amendments that were originally scheduled? but does not cover many people suffering from the present Secondly, why were the amendments not included in disadvantage. the initial draft of the Bill? Thirdly and finally, can the It has been made clear to me by the Minister—indeed, Minister detail how the Government have engaged fairly clear from the start—that dealing with the existing with both the Welsh Government and the wider Senedd position is quite complex. The Competition and Markets during the passage of the Bill? Authority has dealt with it, and we have seen some I am sure the Minister will agree that the principle arrangements that have come out of that. I was particularly of devolution has become a cornerstone of our modern pleased to notice that one at least of these arrangements 167 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[20 JULY 2021] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 168 looked quite like what I had proposed in the new I am not sure whether my noble friend’s amendment clause in Amendment 6—paying off what remained of or that of the noble and learned Lord is the best one. the obligation according to some formula. They both try to find some way of providing financial I move this amendment only to emphasise the need comfort to those who have been caught in this sudden for early implementation of the next stage. I am sure upsurge—to me anyway—of increasing ground rents that the Government wish to move quite quickly, but I or other similar charges. think we need as a House to make sure that that is When we do these stages, it is funny that the Minister made quite clear to the Government. I know that among answers before the amendment has actually been the other proposals is one to make it easier to move to proposed—but that is another thing we will get to. I commonhold. Long ago when I was Lord Chancellor, look forward to my noble friend speaking on this I was keen to promote the idea of commonhold, matter, as he is much more knowledgeable than I am because I had been brought up under a system of tenement on it. I shall also be very interested to hear what the property where people owned their own property. I Minister has to say.It is really important that something was keen to seek to avoid the idea of leasing all the like this is done very quickly, long before the next stage property. Of course, commonhold was difficult, but it of the Law Commission’s report becomes a Bill. has come in as a reasonable proposal now, and I would be very keen to see it being easier to get there than it has been in the past. The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]: My Lords, I am largely supportive of this group of amendments, particularly I very much welcome what the Government are theonemovedbythenobleandlearnedLord,LordMackay proposing in this area. I am supported very much in of Clashfern. It always seemed to me that some of that by my noble friend Lord Youngof Cookham who these clauses, particularly relating to escalating ground did the much more difficult task of tabling a very full rents, were unfair, with hidden implications that were amendment in Committee for dealing with the matter. not apparent to purchasers at the time when they were I left the main difficulty with the Minister, which entered into. The CMA intervention is welcome but I think is always quite a wise thing to do. the ongoing blight continues. This is certainly an evil I simply move this amendment for the purpose that causes me to support this amendment very much. I have mentioned and do not propose to insist on it at all. I also support Amendment 9. This seems to be a logical provision against pre-emption and creates, as I see it, greater transparency, which really should be the 3.15 pm hallmark of landlord/tenant relationships in this area. Lord Berkeley (Lab): My Lords, I support the It is unfortunate perhaps that I am speaking before amendments in this group and I am grateful to the Amendment 26 has been spoken to. I see it as potentially Minister for finding the time to have a meeting with retroactive, and think it might remove the value of an me. It was very helpful. asset without fair compensation. In its specific scope, I shall come on to another amendment I have later. it would not distinguish between a fair and reasonable For this group, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, ground rent and one that was flagrantly unfair. I do mentioned the need to speed things up. I entirely support not in any way defend leasehold interests as such, but that. We should get the rest of the Law Commission’s if we go down this road it has much wider public interest report on the statute book as quickly as possible. The and property law implications. noble and learned Lord’s amendment and that from my noble friend Lord Lennie are fundamental in Again with Amendment 30, I would have liked to trying to, shall we say, stem the tide of very unfair have spoken after the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, whom practices that seem to have developed in some parts of I believe will speak to it, but, from a technical standpoint, the market. I do not know how widespread it is, and I the question of rent is a payment that in this instance am quite surprised that the CMA has not been more the tenant makes to the landlord for the bits of the helpful because its role, after all, is to look after the property which exist but which are not within the tenant’s interests of consumers. Sometimes I feel that it possibly specific demise under their leasehold. It is not a service does not do that, but we can discuss that another time. charge.Are we at risk of getting rent and services provided for rent confused—in other words, the use of property I have the pleasure of being on your Lordships’ as opposed to a tangible benefit in terms of the service Built Environment Committee that has just started charge? In general, however, subject to those points, one inquiry—out of two—into housing. At our meeting I support this group of amendments. this morning, I was struck by three of the witnesses all saying that security of tenure was one of the biggest problems in housing. Whether it is leasehold or rental, Lord Stunell (LD): My Lords, I will speak to it does not really matter very much. It is important to Amendments 7, 8, 9 and 30. I will focus most of my understand that people need to have some comfort remarks on Amendment 9, but I cannot speak without that they can continue to live where they are living if first saying that the amendment tabled by the noble they want to, and that the amount that they pay and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, which I cannot go shooting up because of the wishes of the see as essentially introducing an early buy-out option owners or other people involved in a way that could for existing leaseholders, is the next necessary step and not have been foreseen when they took out the lease. It should have been endorsed by the Minister and is not good when people are locked in—there are incorporated in this legislation. It is yet another of the many press comments about it—and cannot sell. What unfinished bits of business dogging our debates on the do they do? That is before you get into the problem of Bill. Like others, I am looking forward to Amendment 26 cladding, which again is outside this discussion. being presented by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, 169 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[LORDS] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 170

[LORD STUNELL] under the full enactment of the Bill they would have which, as far as I understand its meaning and intention, been eligible for its new provisions limiting the ground has essentially the same purpose of moving forward rent to a peppercorn. the implementation of leasehold reform for that cohort We have tried to fix this statutorily. Amendments 7 of existing leaseholders who will be left out of this and 8 set this out in different ways, but Ministers legislation. As such, in principle, we support that strongly. resisted our efforts strenuously.We have had discussions Amendments 7, 8, 9 and 30, tabled by my noble with the Minister, which I have very much welcomed. friend Lady Grender and myself, are various alternative He has been very generous with his time and with his approaches to ensure that if the limited circumstances officials’time in working on this problem. Amendment 9 of this Bill are as far as the Minister is prepared to go, is therefore really quite modest in its intent and its it is at least not a cause of exploitation of existing impact. It simply proposes that landlords should have leaseholders who may be very close to agreeing an an obligation to alert their leaseholders in advance of informal lease extension. The process of informal lease these changes coming into force of informal leasehold extensions is a well-accepted norm in the leasehold extension terms being altered by this new legislation. industry and, as was discussed extensively at previous It is a proportionate safeguard which is not onerous stages of this legislation, one which comes into play on landlords but gives leaseholders a clear sight of the when the existing lease is within sight of its end. That forthcoming changes before they commit to less favourable may be some distance away but nevertheless the value terms under the existing law. It does not prevent those of the lease is declining rapidly, and perhaps its to whom the balance of advantage still lies with a mortgageability on resale is compromised because there speedy signature on the existing terms for an informal is not a sufficient existing term of the lease.If a completely leasehold extension from choosing to do so, but it seeks new lease is not to be entered into, an informal lease to protect the unwary from making a costly mistake extension may be negotiated between the leaseholder which ultimately, as in one or two of the examples and the proprietor. which my noble friend Lady Grender brought to the The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, described Amendment House in Committee, may lead to them losing that 9 as an anti pre-emption provision. Perhaps his three-word property entirely. soundbite says it all. The risk at the moment is that an I intend to test the opinion of the House on owner—or, should we say, one of the less-scrupulous Amendment 9 when the appropriate moment arises. landlords—may see this as an opportunity to preserve the value of his asset by offering an informal leasehold 3.30 pm extension on terms which would be applicable under Lord Lennie (Lab): My Lords, I will speak primarily the current legislation now to pre-empt the possibility to Amendment 26 in my name, which would ensure of that extension value declining to nil once the new that the Government bring forward legislation to end legislation comes into force. ground rent for existing leaseholders. I also add my The Government have set their face against either thanks to the Minister for making himself and his of the approaches set out by the noble and learned officials available and for seeking to explore whether Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, at least at this stage, there is any chance of a solution to this. There was and I suspect that they will strongly resist the amendment not, although he described this problem as “a top proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. That is a priority for the Government”. That is something that pity and comes despite the evidence that has been put the noble Lord, Lord Young, heard when, in the other on the table by the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership House, he was trying to deal with the question of and the examples given by my noble friend Lady hereditary Peers in this place. He was persuaded not to Grender in Committee, which were referred to extensively move an amendment by the then Government and was at Second Reading. That leaves precisely the problem promised that legislation would be forthcoming. That that I have outlined. An informal leasehold extension was 20 years ago. may very well be useful to both parties when the Millions of people are trapped in these contracts leaseholder is shortly to sell or is making arrangements and the Government must end the feudal system for prior to disposal, but clearly it is dangerous if the them as well as for new leaseholders. That is the whole leaseholder simply wants to continue their lease. purpose of this amendment—to make life equal for all It is also dangerous if the condition for entering leaseholders. Almost 5 million properties in England negotiations is that the lawyers will be appointed by are leasehold dwellings—around one in five of all homes the owner, and it is dangerous if the new terms which —and the House will be aware that many of them, if are inserted into that leasehold extension are not not all, are seeing their ground rent increase at incredible drawn properly to the attention of the leaseholder. rates. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, memorably The evidence shows that it is not unusual for escalator described this in Committee as a legal racket. That is clauses to be built into those leasehold extensions, what it is: it leaves a loophole available which sees which are not transparent and not brought clearly to rents increasing without any explanation, for no service the notice of the leaseholder who is going to sign. The whatever to leaseholders. It is creating immense misery risk is that unscrupulous landlords can see very clearly and financial difficulties and there is no reason for the that, after Royal Assent, their golden goose will be Government to maintain the system when they have stuffed. If I can mix my metaphors, they have an already acknowledged how outdated ground rent is. incentive to offer new lamps for old when it comes to That is why the amendment would ensure that the extensions. To offer informal leasehold extensions to Government bring forward early legislation within unsuspecting leaseholders locks them into a new, 30daystoendthepracticeonceandforall.Theamendment unfavourable set of terms when, if they had waited, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, identifies 171 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[20 JULY 2021] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 172 the same issue and tries to deal with it, but I am afraid with onerous ground rents. We will also introduce an I do not believe it goes far enough. Ground rent must onlinecalculatortosimplifytheprocessof enfranchisement be ended for leaseholders, including those in existing and ensure standardisation and fairness. We believe arrangements, and for that reason I will be testing that these measures will achieve broadly the same the opinion of the House on Amendment 26 at the effect as my noble and learned friend’s amendment, so appropriate time. I cannot accept it today. I confirm the support of these Benches for Amendment Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Baroness, 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and I Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, would also welcome other amendments he has tabled to restrict ground rent for existing leaseholders who enter probe aspects of these provisions. Amendment 9 raises into non-statutory lease extensions to 0.1% of the value the crucial point that leaseholders must always be of the landlord’s interest in the dwelling. It is important informed of arrangements, and I hope the Minister to state for the record that the peppercorn requirement will accept that point. With that, however, I will leave will apply to the newly extended portion of the lease it to the Minister to respond. once an extension has been granted under the voluntary route. In addition, for the period of the lease that Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, several issues reflects the term that remained on the original lease, have been raised in relation to existing leaseholders in the ground rent cannot be higher than in that lease. previous debates and engagements, and I thank noble There will be no opportunity for a landlord to use the Lords for their close examination and engagement point of lease extension to increase ground rent. with the Government on these issues. However, as I I have discussed Amendment 8 with the noble Baroness, have stated previously, this Bill is deliberately focused Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and tightly on only new residential long leases. we are of course all of the view that we do not wish to As noble Lords will know well by now,the Government see exploitation of this legislation. However, it cannot are approaching their leasehold reform programme in be right that we take away the option of a non-statutory two stages. First, the ground rent Bill before us today lease extension which would enable the leaseholder to is intended to look ahead and transform the economic pay a lower premium in return for continuing to pay relationship between leaseholders, freeholders and some ground rent on the remaining term of their lease, developers. A comprehensive leasehold reform Bill with limitations as set out in the Bill. Where a leaseholder will follow during the course of this Parliament to end wishes to follow this route, Clause 6 allows for a monetary unfair practices in the leasehold market, ensure that ground rent to continue to be paid on the remaining consumers are protected from abuse and poor service, part of a lease—that is, the “pre-commencement lease”. and reinvigorate commonhold. This can be common where the leaseholder wishes to Noble Lords are understandably keen to know agree this approach with their landlord in return for a precisely when this second and more comprehensive reduced premium payment. leasehold reform Bill will be introduced. They will of The “voluntary” or non-statutory process is a more course understand that scheduling of legislation is a flexible route to lease extension and can in some cases complex process, and that consideration must be given actually be more cost effective and quicker for both to the Government’s wider legislative agenda. It is the leaseholder and the freeholder. Naturally, therefore, therefore simply not possible to make such concrete as I am sure we would all agree, we do not want commitments at this stage. However, your Lordships to remove that option from the Bill. I can reassure the should rest assured that the Government have no Housethataspartof takingforwardtheLawCommission’s intention of going slowly when it comes to leasehold recommendations on leasehold enfranchisement we reform, which is one of the Secretary of State’s top will be considering the matter of non-statutory extensions priorities. further, and when the time comes we will again seek Amendments 6, 7, 8, 26, and 30 ultimately seek to input from noble Lords on this important issue. widen the scope of the Bill so that it applies to existing Amendment 9 is also in the name of the noble Lord, leaseholders. Amendment 6, moved by my noble and Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. learned friend, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, would Attempting to amend the Bill as proposed in the allow existing leaseholders to pay a capital sum to amendment will not guarantee the outcome that the reduce their ground rent to a peppercorn. As I have noble Baroness, Lady Grender, wishes to see, and laid out in previous debates on the Bill, while we are the Government continue to consider this issue a sympathetic to the aims of this amendment, the matter of implementation detail rather than something Government do not believe that it is necessary. Existing to change on the face of the Bill. Amendment 9 would legislation already allows leaseholders of flats to reduce require all landlords to inform leaseholders of the their ground rent to a peppercorn on extending their changes introduced by the Bill before entering a formal lease through the statutory route.Meanwhile, leaseholders or informal renegotiation or extension of an existing of houses can buy the freehold of their property and lease. Where a landlord failed to do so, they would so eliminate ground rent altogether. face a penalty of between £500 and £30,000. However, In January of this year, the Government committed the drafting of this amendment means that it would to allowing existing leaseholders to buy out their ground coveronlytheperiodfromRoyalAssenttothecommencement rent without the need to extend the term of their lease: date. for example, where their lease is already long. For the I appreciate that consumer rights and awareness is purposes of calculating the premium payable for this, of particular concern to the noble Baroness, Lady the ground rent will be capped at 0.1% of the property Grender, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, value, making it significantly cheaper for leaseholders and I would be very keen to work with them and 173 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[LORDS] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 174

[LORD GREENHALGH] the Bill and see it delivered as smoothly as possible. others on the issue of implementation. Wehave concerns That is why my officials are working carefully to craft that, while we recognise the need to ensure that an implementation plan that takes account of these leaseholders are aware of their rights and are not concerns, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, rushed into a lease extension before this Bill can take and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, to do what we effect, we also need to ensure that any penalties are can to ensure that leaseholders are aware that this fair, justified and as far as possible are not incurred change in the law is coming and that they are equipped accidentally. Were the fines set out in the amendment with the information they need to make the decision to apply immediately upon Royal Assent, there is that is right for them. limited time to ensure that landlords are aware of the This is a good opportunity to inform your Lordships requirements and could end up receiving a fine for that I can today commit to the House that the extending a lease in line with a request from a leaseholder. commencement date for this legislation will be within We agree with the principle of this amendment, and six months of Royal Assent, an issue which my noble I have discussed with the noble Baroness that we friend Lord Young raised on numerous occasions. would like to work with her on the implementation of This issue was raised multiple times at previous stages the Bill. This will include, for example, provision of and, while writing the date into the Bill would be comprehensive information to conveyancers, landlord inappropriate for reasons that I hope noble Lords will representatives and leaseholder groups to ensure awareness understand, I am pleased to make that commitment of the new ground rent limits. today. I have had constructive conversations with the noble More broadly on consumer awareness,the Government Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady are pleased to hear the recent update published by the Grender, about how we might get the word out about CMA on 23 June, whereby settlements secured with a these upcoming changes. Several solutions were proposed leading housing developer and an investor in the leasehold and I was particularly taken by the noble Lord’s sector have committed them to changes that will benefit suggestion about engagement with the legal profession thousands of leaseholders by refunding homeowners to ensure that it can best advise its leaseholder clients. who sawtheir ground rents double, and allow leaseholders I have asked my officials to consider how we might to buy the freehold of their properties at a discount. take forward these proposals. This is important not One of those companies has also committed to extending just so that leaseholders are aware of their rights but the timeframe that prospective buyers are given to so that landlords know what is required of them and exchange contracts after reserving a property, and to do not inadvertently receive a large fine. However, we providing people with more up-front information about do not believe that financial penalties should apply as the annual costs of buying a home. proposed by the noble Lord’s amendment, and I hope I am sure that noble Lords will also be pleased to that he will not move it. hear that that includes ensuring that all marketing Amendment 30, again in the names of the noble materials provided to consumers before the signing Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady of a reservation agreement clearly and prominently Grender, would put a requirement on landlords to state a greater level of information of benefit to the write to their leaseholders to justify the payments by leaseholder—for example, the tenure of the property, reference to the expenses to be met from the ground the ground rent payable and any circumstances that rent, or else to confirm that the ground rent is not used may potentially lead to an increase in service charges. to pay any expenses. We agree that transparency is These landmark commitments will ensure greater vital in the leasehold sector. However, we do not transparency for leaseholders, thereby helping future believe that this is the appropriate way to ensure that buyers to make informed decisions without feeling existing leaseholders are better informed about ground pressured by time constraints. The CMA has made rents. As noble Lords know, ground rents are charges excellent progress, and that is just the start. We support paid with no clear service in return. Most leaseholders the ongoing investigation and believe it will send a will be aware of this and it is unclear what benefit they clear signal to others in this sector to follow this lead would get from receiving a letter from their freeholder or face legal action. or managing agent to that effect. Finally, Amendment 26, tabled by the noble Lord, However, we are working to prepare the sector and Lord Lennie, would require the Government to produce leaseholders alike, assessing where better advice and draft legislation within 30 days to reduce ground rents support can be provided through ongoing regular to a peppercorn in existing long residential leases. I engagement with the sector and our delivery partners. have listened carefully and appreciate the noble Lord’s However, I acknowledge the broader concerns raised sense of urgency in wanting to address issues faced by by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble existing leaseholders. I can reassure the House that the Lord, Lord Stunell, in their Amendments 7, 8, 9 and Government are working at pace to bring these reforms 30 about pre-commencement leases and the consumer forward. However, I must once again state that arbitrary awareness challenges in the run-up to this legislation deadlines are not useful in this context. It is, frankly, coming into force. It is a noble intention, and we are not possible to publish a Bill to the timescale proposed agreed that leaseholders should have the right information by that amendment. The reforms we are planning are to hand when making important decisions about whether a once-in-a-generation shake-up of the leasehold system, to extend or vary their lease. with the effects being felt for years to come. I am grateful to noble Lords for raising their concerns I have outlined some of the changes, including about the implementation of this Bill. I understand on enfranchisement, transparency, a commitment on that it is noble Lords’ desire, as it is mine, to improve commencement and the ongoing work of the Competition 175 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[20 JULY 2021] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 176 and Markets Authority. I hope that the information I Andrews, B. Goudie, B. have given satisfies noble Lords that we take the issues Armstrong of Hill Top, B. Grabiner, L. facing existing leaseholders very seriously and that we Bach, L. Greengross, B. are working at pace to deliver the improvements that Bakewell of Hardington Grender, B. Mandeville, B. Griffiths of Burry Port, L. all noble Lords here today want to see. As they will no Barker, B. Grocott, L. doubt appreciate, this ambitious reform programme is Bassam of Brighton, L. Hain, L. complex and has many interdependencies. Therefore, Beecham, L. Hamwee, B. while being mindful of the need for progress, it is Beith, L. Hanworth, V. important to take the time required to get it right. It is Benjamin, B. Harris of Haringey, L. for these reasons that the Government cannot accept Bennett of Manor Castle, B. Harris of Richmond, B. Berkeley of Knighton, L. Haskel, L. these amendments and I urge that they be withdrawn Berkeley, L. Haworth, L. or not moved. Billingham, B. Hayman of Ullock, B. Blackstone, B. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con): My Lords, I am Blake of Leeds, B. Healy of Primrose Hill, B. greatly obliged to the Minister for his answers and, so Blower, B. Hendy, L. far as I am concerned, the commitment to bring the Blunkett, L. Henig, B. legislation into effect is an important one that we were Boateng, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Hollick, L. given some time ago. So far as my amendment is B. Howarth of Newport, L. concerned, I am keen that the new proposals come Boothroyd, B. Humphreys, B. forward quickly but their nature is such that it would Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. be impossible to formulate them in a clear timescale of Bradley, L. Hussain, L. the kind suggested. However, that is for others say. Brinton, B. Hussein-Ece, B. Broers, L. Hutton of Furness, L. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Janke, B. Brown of Cambridge, B. Jolly, B. Amendment 6 withdrawn. Browne of Ladyton, L. Jones of Cheltenham, L. Bruce of Bennachie, L. Jones of Moulsecoomb, B. Clause 6: Permitted rent: leases replacing pre- Bryan of Partick, B. Jones of Whitchurch, B. commencement leases Burnett, L. Jones, L. Burt of Solihull, B. Jordan, L. Amendments 7 and 8 not moved. Campbell of Pittenweem, L. Kennedy of Southwark, L. Campbell-Savours, L. Kennedy of The Shaws, B. Carlile of Berriew, L. Khan of Burnley, L. Amendment 9 Carter of Coles, L. Kilclooney, L. Moved by Lord Stunell Cashman, L. Knight of Weymouth, L. Chakrabarti, B. Kramer, B. 9: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause— Chandos, V. Lawrence of Clarendon, B. “Duty to inform the tenant Chapman of Darlington, B. Layard, L. (1) Before entering a formal or informal renegotiation or Chartres, L. Lea of Crondall, L. extension of an existing lease, the landlord must inform Chidgey, L. Leitch, L. the tenant of the changes introduced by this Act, if the Clancarty, E. Lennie, L. sections of the Act in relation to prohibited rent are not Clark of Windermere, L. Levy, L. Clement-Jones, L. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. yet in force. Coaker, L. Liddle, L. (2) An enforcement authority may impose a financial penalty Collins of Highbury, L. Lincoln, Bp. on a person if the authority is satisfied beyond reasonable Corston, B. Lister of Burtersett, B. doubt that the person has breached the duty in this section. Crawley, B. Ludford, B. (3) The amount of the financial penalty under subsection (2) Cromwell, L. Macdonald of River Glaven, is to be such amount as the authority determines but— Davies of Brixton, L. L. Davies of Stamford, L. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. (a) is not to be less than £500, and Deech, B. Mair, L. (b) is not to be more than £30,000. Dholakia, L. Mallalieu, B. (4) This section comes into force on the day on which this Donaghy, B. Mandelson, L. Act is passed.” Donoughue, L. Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Doocey, B. L. Member’s explanatory statement Drake, B. Masham of Ilton, B. This amendment would require landlords to let tenants know Dubs, L. Maxton, L. of the upcoming changes to ground rents to try and prevent lease Eatwell, L. McAvoy, L. extensions before the changes in this Bill are implemented. Elder, L. McConnell of Glenscorrodale, Falkner of Margravine, B. L. 3.46 pm Faulkner of Worcester, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Featherstone, B. McNally, L. Division conducted remotely on Amendment 9 Filkin, L. McNicol of West Kilbride, L. Foster of Bath, L. Meacher, B. Contents 243; Not-Contents 238. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Mendelsohn, L. Fox, L. Merron, B. Amendment 9 agreed. Freyberg, L. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Gale, B. B. Division No. 4 Garden of Frognal, B. Mitchell, L. CONTENTS German, L. Monks, L. Giddens, L. Morris of Aberavon, L. Adams of Craigielea, B. Allan of Hallam, L. Glasgow, E. Newby, L. Addington, L. Alli, L. Glasman, L. Northover, B. Adonis, L. Alton of Liverpool, L. Goddard of Stockport, L. Oates, L. Alderdice, L. Amos, B. Golding, B. O’Loan, B. 177 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[LORDS] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 178

Osamor, B. Snape, L. Eaton, B. Marlesford, L. Paddick, L. Soley, L. Eccles of Moulton, B. Maude of Horsham, L. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Stephen, L. Eccles, V. McColl of Dulwich, L. Parekh, L. Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, Empey, L. McCrea of Magherafelt and Parminter, B. L. Erroll, E. Cookstown, L. Patel of Bradford, L. Stone of Blackheath, L. Evans of Bowes Park, B. McGregor-Smith, B. Pinnock, B. Stoneham of Droxford, L. Fairfax of Cameron, L. McInnes of Kilwinning, L. Prashar, B. Storey, L. Fairhead, B. McIntosh of Pickering, B. Prescott, L. Strasburger, L. Fall, B. McLoughlin, L. Primarolo, B. Stunell, L. Farmer, L. Mendoza, L. Prosser, B. Suttie, B. Fellowes of West Stafford, L. Meyer, B. Purvis of Tweed, L. Taverne, L. Fink, L. Montrose, D. Puttnam, L. Taylor of Bolton, B. Finkelstein, L. Moore of Etchingham , L. Quin, B. Taylor of Goss Moor, L. Fleet, B. Morgan of Cotes, B. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Teverson, L. Flight, L. Morris of Bolton, B. Randerson, B. Thomas of Gresford, L. Fookes, B. Morrissey, B. Razzall, L. Thomas of Winchester, B. Foster of Oxton, B. Moylan, L. Rebuck, B. Thornton, B. Framlingham, L. Moynihan, L. Redesdale, L. Thurso, V. Frost, L. Nash, L. Rees of Ludlow, L. Tope, L. Fullbrook, B. Neville-Jones, B. Reid of Cardowan, L. Touhig, L. Gardner of Parkes, B. Neville-Rolfe, B. Rennard, L. Truscott, L. Garnier, L. Newlove, B. Ricketts, L. Tunnicliffe, L. Geddes, L. Nicholson of Winterbourne, Ritchie of Downpatrick, B. Turnberg, L. Glenarthur, L. B. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Tyler of Enfield, B. Godson, L. Noakes, B. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. Tyler, L. Gold, L. Northbrook, L. Rooker, L. Uddin, B. Goldie, B. Norton of Louth, L. Rosser, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Goodlad, L. O’Shaughnessy, L. Rowe-Beddoe, L. Walmsley, B. Grade of Yarmouth, L. Pannick, L. Rowlands, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Greenhalgh, L. Parkinson of Whitley Bay, L. Russell of Liverpool, L. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Greenway, L. Patten, L. Sandwich, E. Watts, L. Griffiths of Fforestfach, L. Pickles, L. Scott of Needham Market, B. West of Spithead, L. Hailsham, V. Pidding, B. Scriven, L. Wheatcroft, B. Hamilton of Epsom, L. Popat, L. Sharkey, L. Wheeler, B. Hammond of Runnymede, L. Porter of Spalding, L. Sheehan, B. Whitaker, B. Harris of Peckham, L. Price, L. Sherlock, B. Whitty, L. Haselhurst, L. Rana, L. Shipley, L. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Hayward, L. Randall of Uxbridge, L. Sikka, L. Wood of Anfield, L. Helic, B. Ranger, L. Smith of Basildon, B. Woodley, L. Henley, L. Rawlings, B. Smith of Finsbury, L. Wrigglesworth, L. Herbert of South Downs, L. Reay, L. Smith of Gilmorehill, B. Young of Norwood Green, L. Hill of Oareford, L. Redfern, B. Smith of Newnham, B. Young of Old Scone, B. Hodgson of Abinger, B. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. Hoey, B. Ridley, V. NOT CONTENTS Holmes of Richmond, L. Risby, L. Hooper, B. Robathan, L. Aberdare, L. Caine, L. Hope of Craighead, L. Rock, B. Agnew of Oulton, L. Caithness, E. Horam, L. Rogan, L. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Callanan, L. Howard of Lympne, L. Rose of Monewden, L. Altmann, B. Carey of Clifton, L. Howard of Rising, L. Rotherwick, L. Anelay of St Johns, B. Carrington of Fulham, L. Howe, E. Saatchi, L. Arbuthnot of Edrom, L. Carrington, L. Howell of Guildford, L. Sanderson of Welton, B. Arran, E. Cathcart, E. Hunt of Wirral, L. Sandhurst, L. Ashton of Hyde, L. Chadlington, L. James of Blackheath, L. Sarfraz, L. Barran, B. Chalker of Wallasey, B. Jenkin of Kennington, B. Sassoon, L. Bates, L. Chisholm of Owlpen, B. Johnson of Marylebone, L. Sater, B. Bellingham, L. Clarke of Nottingham, L. Jopling, L. Scott of Bybrook, B. Benyon, L. Colgrain, L. Kakkar, L. Seccombe, B. Berridge, B. Colville of Culross, V. Kamall, L. Selkirk of Douglas, L. Bertin, B. Colwyn, L. Keen of Elie, L. Shackleton of Belgravia, B. Bethell, L. Cormack, L. Kinnoull, E. Sharpe of Epsom, L. Bhatia, L. Courtown, E. Kirkham, L. Sheikh, L. Black of Brentwood, L. Couttie, B. Kirkhope of Harrogate, L. Shephard of Northwold, B. Blackwell, L. Craig of Radley, L. Laming, L. Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. Blencathra, L. Craigavon, V. Lamont of Lerwick, L. Shields, B. Bloomfield of Hinton Crathorne, L. Lang of Monkton, L. Shinkwin, L. Waldrist, B. Cruddas, L. Lansley, L. Shrewsbury, E. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Dannatt, L. Leicester, E. Smith of Hindhead, L. Brabazon of Tara, L. Davies of Gower, L. Leigh of Hurley, L. St John of Bletso, L. Brady, B. De Mauley, L. Lindsay, E. Stedman-Scott, B. Bridges of Headley, L. Deben, L. Lingfield, L. Stewart of Dirleton, L. Brookeborough, V. Deighton, L. Liverpool, E. Stirrup, L. Brougham and Vaux, L. Devon, E. Livingston of Parkhead, L. Stowell of Beeston, B. Browning, B. Dobbs, L. Lupton, L. Strathclyde, L. Brownlow of Shurlock Row, D’Souza, B. Mackay of Clashfern, L. Stroud, B. L. Duncan of Springbank, L. Mancroft, L. Sugg, B. Buscombe, B. Dunlop, L. Manzoor, B. Suri, L. Butler-Sloss, B. Eames, L. Marland, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. 179 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[20 JULY 2021] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 180

Trenchard, V. Watkins of Tavistock, B. For those noble Lords who think we are a soft True, L. Wei, L. touch, I note that this is the first example of a minimum Tugendhat, L. Wharton of Yarm, L. penalty in leasehold law.This amendment will significantly Tyrie, L. Whitby, L. Udny-Lister, L. Willetts, L. strengthen the enforcement regime and further deter Vaizey of Didcot, L. Williams of Trafford, B. freeholders from attempting to breach this legislation. Vere of Norbiton, B. Wilson of Dinton, L. I beg to move. Verma, B. Wolfson of Tredegar, L. Wakeham, L. Wyld, B. Lord Stunell (LD): My Lords, I enthusiastically Waldegrave of North Hill, L. Young of Cookham, L. Wasserman, L. Younger of Leckie, V. welcome this amendment from the Government. I am very pleased that the Minister has seen the strength of the arguments put forward by noble Lords from all 4.01 pm around the House on this issue. It is not just that the The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) original figure would not have been a significant deterrent (Lab): My Lords, we now come to the group consisting for those determined to carry on with bad practice. of Amendment 10. Anyone wishing to press this Worse than that, it was not going to be sufficient to amendment to a Division must make that clear in the fund or permit trading standards to carry out their debate. enforcement duties. The enforcing body around the country is short of funds and staff, and a new burden placed on it to enforce this provision without the Clause 9: Financial penalties means to do so was a recipe for failure. I am delighted that the Minister has seen the compelling strength of Amendment 10 the view that my noble friend Lady Grender and Moved by Lord Greenhalgh others advanced passionately and congratulate him on persuading his colleagues around government of the 10: Clause 9, page 7, line 10, leave out “£5,000” and insert need to move forward on this as he has. “£30,000” Member’s explanatory statement Lord Lennie (Lab): My Lords, the sole amendment This amendment increases the maximum penalty that an in this group increases the maximum penalty to £30,000 enforcement authority may impose. per lease, in line with other housing legislation—namely, the Tenant Fees Act. I am pleased that the Minister Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, in constructing has brought forward this change following concerns a penalty regime for any landlords who breach the raised in Committee, but I trust that the sum of provisions of this legislation, we wanted to set the £30,000 has not been decided purely based on precedent penalty at a level that was proportionate but acted as a —not just because there is not a direct precedent to deterrent. As the average ground rent is around £250 compare it to. The use of £30,000 penalties in this per year, we felt that £500 would be a reasonable and legislation will apply to freeholders, many of which proportionate minimum penalty. Once again, I remind are incredibly wealthy businesses. Does the Minister noble Lords that this would be paid in addition to believe that £30,000 will be sufficient deterrent in such repaying the prohibited rent with any interest due, and cases? As I said, I am concerned that this figure has that £500 is a minimum penalty amount. Breaches been chosen because of the so-called precedent. Can across multiple leases could also be penalised, resulting the Minister dissuade us of that notion by confirming in heavy fines. that an impact assessment has been carried out and, if However, both at Second Reading and in Committee, so, tell us when it will be published? noble Lords felt that the balance between proportionality We welcome an increase in the maximum penalty, and deterrence was not quite right. The noble Baronesses, but I am not entirely confident that it will be sufficient Lady Grender and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and deterrent. I look forward to the Minister’s assurances. the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, were among those who made very strong arguments that the proposed regime Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, I point out that was set at too low a level to act as a serious enough the maximum penalty would apply per lease and, for deterrent to freeholders, particularly larger freeholders highly complex buildings, that soon multiplies to a with high annual turnover. In addition, while local substantial amount of money, so we believe that we authorities should not design their enforcement strategy have got the balance right in meeting the need for to function as a revenue stream, we have been clear deterrence while recognising that some freeholders are that we believe that any penalty recovered through the not in the class of those that own considerable amounts enforcement process should cover the cost of that of property.The amendment should be broadly welcomed enforcement. and will strengthen the enforcement regime as a result, I have listened carefully to the arguments made in responding directly to the points made at various Committee in favour of higher financial penalties and stages of the Bill. I believe it significantly strengthens considered the impact that changing these amounts the legislation. would have. We have concluded that the maximum Amendment 10 agreed. should be raised to £30,000 which, as some noble Lords may know, is in line with this Government’s Tenant Fees Act 2019. However, we intend to keep the Amendments 11 and 12 minimum penalty at £500, in recognition that this is Moved by Lord Greenhalgh proportionate where, for example, a small freeholder 11: Clause 9, page 7, line 37, leave out subsection (9) and charges a non-peppercorn rent. insert— 181 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[LORDS] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 182

“(9) The relevant authority may by regulations amend this Member’s explanatory statement section so as to change the minimum amount or the This amendment and Lord Greenhalgh’samendment to Clause 14, maximum amount.” page 10, line 5 are consequential on Lord Greenhalgh’s amendments Member’s explanatory statement to Clause 13, and enable a leasehold valuation tribunal to order This amendment, with Lord Greenhalgh’s second amendment interest to be paid on amounts of prohibited rent that it orders to to Clause 22, page 13, line 28, enables the Welsh Ministers be repaid to the tenant under that Clause. (instead of the Secretary of State) to make regulations changing 18: Clause 14, page 10, line 5, leave out “First-tier Tribunal” the amount of the minimum and maximum penalties for breaches and insert “appropriate tribunal” of Clause 3 in relation to leases of premises in Wales. Member’s explanatory statement 12: Clause 9, page 7, line 39, leave out “Secretary of State” and See the explanatory statement to Lord Greenhalgh’s amendment insert “relevant authority” to Clause 14, page 10, line 4. Member’s explanatory statement This amendment is consequential on Lord Greenhalgh’s Amendments 17 and 18 agreed. amendment to Clause 9, page 7, line 37. Amendments 11 and 12 agreed. Clause 15: Application to First-tier Tribunal as to effect of section 7 Clause 12: Enforcement authorities: supplementary Amendments 19 to 22 Amendment 13 Moved by Lord Greenhalgh Moved by Lord Greenhalgh 19: Clause 15, page 10, line 19, leave out “First-tier Tribunal” 13: Clause 12, page 9, line 3, after “Act”insert “in relation to a and insert “appropriate tribunal” lease of premises in England; Member’s explanatory statement (b) the Welsh Ministers about the exercise of its This amendment, with Lord Greenhalgh’s amendment to functions under this Act in relation to a lease of Clause 17, page 11, line 17, requires applications as to the effect of premises in Wales.” Clause 7 on the terms of a lease of premises in Wales to be made Member’s explanatory statement to a leasehold valuation tribunal (instead of the First-tier Tribunal). This amendment requires enforcement authorities to have 20: Clause 15, page 10, line 22, leave out “First-tier Tribunal” regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State in relation to and insert “appropriate tribunal” enforcement action in England and by the Welsh Ministers in Member’s explanatory statement relation to enforcement action in Wales. This amendment is consequential on Lord Greenhalgh’s amendment to Clause 15, page 10, line 19. Amendment 13 agreed. 21: Clause 15, page 10, line 24, leave out “Tribunal” and insert “appropriate tribunal” Clause 13: Recovery of prohibited rent by tenant Member’s explanatory statement This amendment is consequential on Lord Greenhalgh’s Amendments 14 to 16 amendment to Clause 15, page 10, line 19. Moved by Lord Greenhalgh 22: Clause 15, page 11, line 1, leave out “First-tier Tribunal” and insert “appropriate tribunal” 14: Clause 13, page 9, line 24, leave out “First-tier Tribunal” Member’s explanatory statement and insert “appropriate tribunal” This amendment is consequential on Lord Greenhalgh’s Member’s explanatory statement amendment to Clause 15, page 10, line 19. This amendment, with Lord Greenhalgh’s amendment to Clause 17, page 11, line 17, requires applications for the recovery Amendments 19 to 22 agreed. of prohibited rent paid under a lease of premises in Wales to be made to a leasehold valuation tribunal (instead of the First-tier Tribunal). Clause 16: Assistance 15: Clause 13, page 9, line 36, leave out “First-tier Tribunal” and insert “appropriate tribunal” Member’s explanatory statement Amendment 23 This amendment is consequential on Lord Greenhalgh’s Moved by Lord Greenhalgh amendment to Clause 13, page 9, line 24. 23: Clause 16, page 11, line 12, leave out “First-tier Tribunal” 16: Clause 13, page 9, line 39, leave out “First-tier Tribunal” and insert “appropriate tribunal” and insert “appropriate tribunal” Member’s explanatory statement Member’s explanatory statement This amendment is consequential on Lord Greenhalgh’s This amendment is consequential on Lord Greenhalgh’s amendments to Clause 13. amendment to Clause 13, page 9, line 24. Amendment 23 agreed. Amendments 14 to 16 agreed.

Clause 14: Interest on amount ordered to be paid under Clause 17: Interpretation of enforcement provisions section 13 Amendment 24 Amendments 17 and 18 Moved by Lord Greenhalgh Moved by Lord Greenhalgh 24: Clause 17, page 11, line 17, at beginning insert— 17: Clause 14, page 10, line 4, leave out “First-tier Tribunal” “(1) For the purposes of sections 13 to 16 and the Schedule, and insert “appropriate tribunal” the “appropriate tribunal” is— 183 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[20 JULY 2021] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 184

(a) in relation to a lease of premises in England, the First- Member’s explanatory statement tier Tribunal; This amendment aims to ensure that the Government introduces (b) in relation to a lease of premises in Wales, a further legislation to remove ground rent for all leaseholders, leasehold valuation tribunal.” whereas the Act currently only applies to newly established leases. Member’s explanatory statement This amendment defines the “appropriate tribunal” for the Lord Lennie (Lab): My Lords, I beg to move and purposes of Lord Greenhalgh’s amendments to Clauses 13 to 16 wish to test the opinion of the House. and the Schedule. Amendment 24 agreed. 4.11 pm Division conducted remotely on Amendment 26 Amendment 25 Moved by Lord Greenhalgh Contents 219; Not-Contents 243. 25: Clause 17, page 11, line 19, at beginning insert “except in relation to section 16(1)(b),” Amendment 26 disagreed. Member’s explanatory statement This amendment corrects the drafting of Clause 17(b) to Division No. 5 reflect the fact that the right to apply to a tribunal for a declaration as to the effect of the Bill on the terms of a lease does not extend CONTENTS to a tenant’s guarantor. Adams of Craigielea, B. Featherstone, B. Addington, L. Foster of Bath, L. Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, I will speak very Alli, L. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. briefly on government Amendment 25, which is a minor Alton of Liverpool, L. Fox, L. technical change to correct a small drafting error. Amos, B. Gale, B. Andrews, B. Garden of Frognal, B. Clause 17 defines “tenant” for the purposes of Armstrong of Hill Top, B. German, L. Clauses 10, 13 and 16. Clause 16(1)(b) enables an Bach, L. Giddens, L. enforcement authority to assist a tenant in an application Bakewell of Hardington Glasman, L. as to the effect of Clause 7—that is, in regard to the Mandeville, B. Goddard of Stockport, L. effect of a term reserving a prohibited rent on the Barker, B. Golding, B. terms of a regulated lease. This amendment rectifies a Bassam of Brighton, L. Goudie, B. Beecham, L. Grantchester, L. discrepancy in the Bill, in that the assistance provided Beith, L. Grender, B. under Clause 16 would not extend to the tenant’s Benjamin, B. Grocott, L. guarantor, as a guarantor does not have the right to Bennett of Manor Castle, B. Hain, L. apply for a direction as to the effect of Clause 7. This Berkeley, L. Hamwee, B. amendment ensures that there is no discrepancy between Billingham, B. Hannay of Chiswick, L. Birt, L. Hanworth, V. the clauses of the Bill. I beg to move. Blake of Leeds, B. Harris of Haringey, L. Blower, B. Harris of Richmond, B. Lord Lennie (Lab): My Lords, obviously we welcome Blunkett, L. Haskel, L. this amendment to the drafting error in the original Boothroyd, B. Haworth, L. Bill.CantheMinisterexplainbrieflywhattheconsequences Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Hayman of Ullock, B. Bowness, L. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. would have been if it had not been identified? I mean Bradley, L. Healy of Primrose Hill, B. briefly; I do not want a whole essay on the subject. Is Bradshaw, L. Hendy, L. there a risk that similar errors could be identified in Brinton, B. Henig, B. other legislation which relates to guarantors? Broers, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B. Browne of Ladyton, L. Houghton of Richmond, L. Lord Greenhalgh (Con): I thank the noble Lord for Bryan of Partick, B. Hoyle, L. Burnett, L. Humphreys, B. testing my knowledge of the consequences of a small Burt of Solihull, B. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. technical amendment. I am just glad that we picked it Campbell of Pittenweem, L. Hussain, L. up; I will have to write to the noble Lord on what the Cashman, L. Hussein-Ece, B. consequences would have been had we not done so. Chakrabarti, B. Hutton of Furness, L. This happens from time to time. I am fairly new to the Chapman of Darlington, B. Janke, B. Chidgey, L. Jolly, B. House but, when we find these errors, there are plenty Clark of Windermere, L. Jones of Cheltenham, L. of opportunities to correct them before the Bill receives Clement-Jones, L. Jones of Moulsecoomb, B. Royal Assent. Coaker, L. Jones of Whitchurch, B. Collins of Highbury, L. Jones, L. Amendment 25 agreed. Cotter, L. Jordan, L. Davies of Brixton, L. Kennedy of Cradley, B. Davies of Stamford, L. Kennedy of Southwark, L. Amendment 26 Deech, B. Kennedy of The Shaws, B. Dholakia, L. Kestenbaum, L. Moved by Lord Lennie Donaghy, B. Khan of Burnley, L. 26: After Clause 18, insert the following new Clause— Donoughue, L. Kilclooney, L. Doocey, B. Knight of Weymouth, L. “Ground rent for existing long leases D’Souza, B. Kramer, B. Within 30 days of the day on which section 3 comes into Dubs, L. Lawrence of Clarendon, B. force (for any kind of lease), the Secretary of State must Elder, L. Lennie, L. publish draft legislation to restrict ground rents on all Evans of Watford, L. Levy, L. existing long residential leases to a peppercorn.” Faulkner of Worcester, L. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. 185 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[LORDS] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 186

Liddle, L. Sharkey, L. Brownlow of Shurlock Row, Hayward, L. Lipsey, L. Sheehan, B. L. Helic, B. Lister of Burtersett, B. Sherlock, B. Buscombe, B. Henley, L. Ludford, B. Shipley, L. Butler-Sloss, B. Herbert of South Downs, L. Macdonald of River Glaven, Sikka, L. Caine, L. Hill of Oareford, L. L. Simon, V. Caithness, E. Hodgson of Abinger, B. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, Smith of Basildon, B. Callanan, L. Holmes of Richmond, L. L. Smith of Finsbury, L. Cameron of Dillington, L. Hooper, B. Mallalieu, B. Smith of Gilmorehill, B. Carey of Clifton, L. Hope of Craighead, L. Mandelson, L. Smith of Newnham, B. Carlile of Berriew, L. Horam, L. Mann, L. Carrington of Fulham, L. Howard of Lympne, L. Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Snape, L. Soley, L. Carrington, L. Howard of Rising, L. L. Carter of Coles, L. Howe, E. Masham of Ilton, B. St Albans, Bp. Stephen, L. Cathcart, E. Howell of Guildford, L. Maxton, L. Cavendish of Little Venice, B. Hunt of Wirral, L. McAvoy, L. Stern of Brentford, L. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. Chadlington, L. Jenkin of Kennington, B. McConnell of Glenscorrodale, Chalker of Wallasey, B. Johnson of Marylebone, L. Stone of Blackheath, L. L. Chartres, L. Jopling, L. Stoneham of Droxford, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Chisholm of Owlpen, B. Kamall, L. McKenzie of Luton, L. Strasburger, L. Clarke of Nottingham, L. Keen of Elie, L. McNally, L. Stuart of Edgbaston, B. Colgrain, L. Kinnoull, E. McNicol of West Kilbride, L. Stunell, L. Colwyn, L. Kirkham, L. Mendelsohn, L. Suttie, B. Cormack, L. Kirkhope of Harrogate, L. Merron, B. Taylor of Goss Moor, L. Courtown, E. Laming, L. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Teverson, L. Craig of Radley, L. Lamont of Lerwick, L. B. Thomas of Gresford, L. Craigavon, V. Lansley, L. Morris of Aberavon, L. Thomas of Winchester, B. Crathorne, L. Leicester, E. Northover, B. Thornhill, B. Cruddas, L. Leigh of Hurley, L. Nye, B. Thornton, B. Curry of Kirkharle, L. Lilley, L. Oates, L. Thurso, V. Davies of Gower, L. Lindsay, E. O’Loan, B. Tope, L. De Mauley, L. Lingfield, L. Osamor, B. Touhig, L. Deben, L. Liverpool, E. Paddick, L. Truscott, L. Dobbs, L. Livingston of Parkhead, L. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Tunnicliffe, L. Duncan of Springbank, L. Loomba, L. Parminter, B. Turnberg, L. Dunlop, L. Lucas, L. Patel, L. Tyler of Enfield, B. Eames, L. Lytton, E. Pinnock, B. Tyler, L. Eaton, B. Macpherson of Earl’s Court, Prashar, B. Uddin, B. Eccles of Moulton, B. L. Primarolo, B. Verjee, L. Eccles, V. Mancroft, L. Purvis of Tweed, L. Walker of Aldringham, L. Erroll, E. Manzoor, B. Puttnam, L. Walmsley, B. Evans of Bowes Park, B. Marland, L. Quin, B. Walney, L. Fairfax of Cameron, L. McColl of Dulwich, L. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Fairhead, B. McGregor-Smith, B. Randerson, B. Watkins of Tavistock, B. Falkner of Margravine, B. McInnes of Kilwinning, L. Ravensdale, L. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Fall, B. McIntosh of Pickering, B. Razzall, L. Watts, L. Farmer, L. McLoughlin, L. Rebuck, B. West of Spithead, L. Faulks, L. Meacher, B. Reid of Cardowan, L. Wheeler, B. Fellowes of West Stafford, L. Mendoza, L. Rennard, L. Whitaker, B. Fink, L. Meyer, B. Ritchie of Downpatrick, B. Whitty, L. Finkelstein, L. Montrose, D. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Wilcox of Newport, B. Fleet, B. Morgan of Cotes, B. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Flight, L. Morrissey, B. Rooker, L. Wills, L. Fookes, B. Morrow, L. Rosser, L. Wood of Anfield, L. Forsyth of Drumlean, L. Moylan, L. Russell of Liverpool, L. Woodley, L. Foster of Oxton, B. Moynihan, L. Sawyer, L. Wrigglesworth, L. Framlingham, L. Neville-Jones, B. Scott of Needham Market, B. Young of Norwood Green, L. Freud, L. Neville-Rolfe, B. Scriven, L. Young of Old Scone, B. Freyberg, L. Newlove, B. Frost, L. Noakes, B. NOT CONTENTS Fullbrook, B. Northbrook, L. Gardner of Parkes, B. Norton of Louth, L. Aberdare, L. Black of Brentwood, L. Garnier, L. O’Shaughnessy, L. Agnew of Oulton, L. Blackwell, L. Geddes, L. Pannick, L. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Blackwood of North Oxford, Gilbert of Panteg, L. Parkinson of Whitley Bay, L. Anelay of St Johns, B. B. Glenarthur, L. Pickles, L. Arbuthnot of Edrom, L. Blencathra, L. Godson, L. Pidding, B. Ashton of Hyde, L. Bloomfield of Hinton Gold, L. Popat, L. Astor of Hever, L. Waldrist, B. Goldie, B. Porter of Spalding, L. Baker of Dorking, L. Borwick, L. Goodlad, L. Price, L. Balfe, L. Grade of Yarmouth, L. Rana, L. Barran, B. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Greengross, B. Randall of Uxbridge, L. Bates, L. Brabazon of Tara, L. Greenhalgh, L. Ranger, L. Bellingham, L. Brady, B. Griffiths of Fforestfach, L. Rawlings, B. Benyon, L. Bridgeman, V. Hailsham, V. Reay, L. Berridge, B. Bridges of Headley, L. Hamilton of Epsom, L. Redfern, B. Bertin, B. Brookeborough, V. Hammond of Runnymede, L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. Bethell, L. Brougham and Vaux, L. Harding of Winscombe, B. Ridley, V. Bhatia, L. Browning, B. Haselhurst, L. Risby, L. 187 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[20 JULY 2021] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 188

Robathan, L. Stirrup, L. on leaseholders. Reviewing the impact of legislation is Rock, B. Stowell of Beeston, B. important, especially in instances such as these, where Rogan, L. Strathclyde, L. changes to an already complex situation are likely to Rose of Monewden, L. Stroud, B. Rotherwick, L. Sugg, B. result in unforeseen consequences—despite many noble Rowe-Beddoe, L. Suri, L. Lords and the Minister doing their utmost to ensure Saatchi, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. that all aspects are fully considered. The amendment Sanderson of Welton, B. Tebbit, L. then goes further to ask that the review actively considers Sandhurst, L. Trefgarne, L. and makes a recommendation about “further legislation” Sarfraz, L. Trenchard, V. Sassoon, L. Trevethin and Oaksey, L. —either for or against it. Sater, B. True, L. Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause makes Scott of Bybrook, B. Tugendhat, L. specific reference to those leaseholders and tenants Seccombe, B. Ullswater, V. Selkirk of Douglas, L. Vaizey of Didcot, L. who have been charged for “fire remediation work” Shackleton of Belgravia, B. Vere of Norbiton, B. consequent to the Grenfell tragedy. Noble Lords will Sharpe of Epsom, L. Verma, B. notice that I am taking the opportunity provided by Sheikh, L. Vinson, L. this Bill to raise again very grave concerns many of us Shephard of Northwold, B. Wakeham, L. have for those leaseholders and tenants who are, through Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. Waldegrave of North Hill, L. no fault of theirs, at the heart of the cladding scandal. Shields, B. Wei, L. Shinkwin, L. Wharton of Yarm, L. The fact that up to 1.3 million households are at a Shrewsbury, E. Wheatcroft, B. very considerable risk of bankruptcy as a direct result Smith of Hindhead, L. Whitby, L. of serious construction failings must never be allowed Somerset, D. Wilson of Dinton, L. St John of Bletso, L. Wolfson of Tredegar, L. by decision-makers to remain unresolved. Leaseholders Stedman-Scott, B. Wyld, B. have done everything right and nothing wrong, yet they Sterling of Plaistow, L. Young of Cookham, L. are being expected to pay for the failures of construction, Stewart of Dirleton, L. Younger of Leckie, V. developers and materials manufacturers. I recognise that the Government have provided over 4.24 pm £5 billion towards remediation but the total cost is The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) anticipated to be over £15 billion—the vast proportion (Lab): My Lords, we now come to the group beginning of which is being passed via so-called service charges with Amendment 27. Anyone wishing to press this or to leaseholders. We are not talking about charges that anything else in this group to a Division must make are in any way affordable. For example, Pippa in Leeds that clear in the debate. has a bill for £140,000. The highest bill I have seen was reported in the latest article on this issue in the Sunday Times: a staggering £204,000. Amendment 27 Perhaps the Minister will be able to provide advice Moved by Baroness Pinnock on how these leaseholders are to pay the bills that have 27: After Clause 18, insert the following new Clause— landed on their doormats. He will be aware that a “Review of the financial impact of the Act leaseholder’s major asset is their flat and that, currently, (1) Within 6 months of the day on which this Act is passed has no value. It is not only the costs of remediation the Secretary of State must carry out a review of the that are pressing down on leaseholders, there are service financial impact of this Act on leaseholders. charge increases—consequent, again, to the cladding (2) The review must make a recommendation as to whether scandal. further legislation should be introduced to extend the ban on ground rents to existing long leases. I have heard from a leaseholder today, who says: “I am knee-deep in service charge admin. I am being (3) The recommendation in subsection (2) must take into account the potential financial impact of an extension of harassed with bills that I know are inflated and incorrect, the ban on ground rents on those leaseholders and tenants and with huge penalties for late payment. No one who have been charged for the cost of fire remediation should have to live like this. It takes a toll on every work.” aspect of your life, and that is before consideration of Member’s explanatory statement planning bills.” This amendment would require a review of the financial It is not only leaseholders who fear the worst. The impact of this Act and make a recommendation as to whether a has reported in the last two weeks further extension of the ground rents ban could benefit existing Investors Chronicle leaseholders, especially those facing bills for fire remediation that this may become the next PPI scandal. Flat sales work. are in decline. They affected flats are neither sellable nor mortgageable. Before long, the Government will Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]: My Lords, I speak to have to take action to save leaseholders from bankruptcy Amendment 27 in my name and those of my noble and homelessness and the housing market in flats friends Lady Grender and Lord Stunell. I draw the from collapse. This amendment simply asks the attention of the House to my relevant interests in the Government to take stock within six months and, in register as a member of Kirklees Council and a vice- doing so, to be cognisant of the leaseholders whose president of the Local Government Association. dreadful plight I have described. The leaseholders have done everything right and nothing wrong, which Amendment 27 asks that: is a phrase I cannot attribute to developers, constructors, “Within 6 months of the day on which this Act is passed” material manufacturers or the Government, as the the Government final regulator. Between them, they have responsibility “carry out a review of the financial impact” for this absolute scandal. 189 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[LORDS] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 190

[BARONESS PINNOCK] There was a failure of regulation, a failure at every I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response. level of the supply chain, a failure of the designers and However, if he is not inclined to accept this simple a failure of those responsible for monitoring progress. amendment, I give notice of my intention to seek the Of course, the fallout is not simply that one building opinion of the House. I beg to move. was found to be dangerous and defective and burned at the cost of 72 lives, but that more than 400 other 4.30 pm buildings have been found to be equally defective or The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]: My Lords, I welcome worse. As is so often the case, once you begin to look, the opportunity to speak to the amendment just moved you see plenty else. The British Woodworking Federation by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. estimates that 600,000 defective fire doors are installed I am a fan of what I see as post-occupation evaluation. in buildings in this country. In that context, it is good I welcome the amendment for that alone. I would to know that the Government have come forward with more comfortable if it did not just refer to leaseholders, a compensation scheme, allocating £5 billion. Perhaps because the whole dynamic—as regards the ongoing the Minister can tell us whether the guidelines for interaction between leaseholders,freeholders,management applying for that compensation have yet been published. and so on—is ever moving. That needs to be seen in My last understanding is that they have not, but the round. It should include not just the financial matters maybe he can bring some information to your Lordships’ referred to in the amendment but a more holistic House today. measure in terms of the sense of place, security, ability It has to be right that this House considers the to control or influence outcomes and user contentment. situation facing those leaseholders and, in so far as we I suspect that the Government have a system anyway can, safeguards their position. This is actually a very for reviewing the effects of legislation, but I ask whether modest amendment; it calls only for a review within that is frequent enough to meet the noble Baroness’s six months, not for the spending of government money, objectives. In general, I support the other amendments so there is nothing for Ministers to shy away from. It in this group. would simply make sure that this legislation, relevant The noble Baroness referred to the driver behind to the ongoing tragedy of Grenfell and the ongoing this being the tragedy of Grenfell. Although the process battle that hundreds of thousands of leaseholders are of evaluation and what has come out of it may be facing with enormous bills—which the noble Baroness, seen, in government terms, to be moving at lightning Lady Pinnock, eloquently spelled out—cannot be passed speed, it has not been nearly fast enough for leaseholders by your Lordships’House without serious consideration. and those who pay service charges. The consequences I know that the Minister has repeatedly found of that have been amply exposed by the noble Baroness himself at the Dispatch Box having to say essentially and are ongoing. This is truly a tragedy for many the same thing: “This is not the time; this is not the households, which have walked unknowingly into a place; this is not the right legislation.” We have to reply situation created by the neglect of others. The auguries to him: “Well, when is the time? Where is the place? are not particularly good. The proposal, as I interpret Where is the legislation?” We need to see some answers. it, to leave the power in the hands of leaseholders to Certainly,this is a matter we wish to press in the oncoming claim—admittedly on a longer timeframe—against those vote. who did not observe basic construction standards creates an almost insuperable hurdle. Lord Lennie (Lab): My Lords, I will speak to It is appropriate that I pay tribute to those outside Amendments 28 and 29, in my name, and welcome the House who have promoted the polluter pays principle. Amendment 27, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady I know that this matter has been brought to the attention Pinnock, and also in the name of the noble Lord, of the Government, and it would place the basic strict Lord Stunell. liability on those who failed to make the grade in construction standards. My question is: when are the Amendment 28 is intended to raise four issues, Government going to act on it? I consider the matter of which I have focused on at previous stages of the Bill: such importance that if the noble Baroness decides to lease forfeiture, transfer fees, redress schemes and test the opinion of the House, I shall be voting with her. enfranchisement. This amendment is intended to probe, and, while I will not introduce each issue again, I hope Lord Stunell (LD): My Lords, this is a devastating that the Minister can provide clarification in the following case, again, of unfinished business. We have talked areas. On lease forfeiture, can the Minister confirm several times about unfinished business in respect of that legislation will be forthcoming to prevent possession reforming the whole leasehold system. The noble Baroness, being taken over small debts? On transfer fees, has the Lady Pinnock, has spoken with great passion about Minister made an estimate of how many freeholders the need to deal with the unfinished business of getting are placing charges on the sale of properties? On redress the damaged blocks discovered since the Grenfell fire schemes, will the Minister consider a trial for the most put back in a safe and workmanlike position. That is serious of leasehold abuses? Finally,on enfranchisement, a terrible story, which is still unravelling and still what assessment have the Government made of the producing—I think we can say—shock and amazement obstacles currently in place? as the evidence comes out of the inquiry at Grenfell. The intention of Amendment 29 is to raise the need As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, it is not an for the Government to champion commonhold isolated failure. I ought to have started by reminding arrangements. The House will be aware that the Mayor the House that I was the Minister with responsibility of London is committed to furthering commonhold, for building regulations between 2010 and 2012, which and his manifesto pledged to trial the arrangements in was well before this but is nevertheless relevant. London. Can the Minister confirm what support will 191 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[20 JULY 2021] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 192 be offered to the mayor as part of these pilots? Will he further enhance the proposed Building Safety Bill. Of make a statement on the Government’s policy on course, we have already looked at strengthening redress commonhold? by extending the statutory limitation period in the Finally, I turn to Amendment 27, which calls for a Defective Premises Act 1972 from six to 15 years, applied review of the relationship between the Bill and those retrospectively. This could provide further support to facing bills for “fire remediation work”. Unfortunately, ensure that it is the polluter who pays. We are looking the Government have again ignored those people during at that very carefully, as I said. thedraftingof thislegislation.ThisGovernment’scontinued Also in response to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, mismanagement of the remediation work is one of on the Building Safety Bill, I say that the first £1 billion their most shameful aspects. I hope that the Minister of this has of course been in play and spent. In fact, will use this opportunity to finally change track and at the fund is very much overcommitted. Further details last deal with the issues of remediation costs being around the further £3.5 billion will be published in charged to leaseholders for building safety faults. Rather September, but works are not being delayed because of than another betrayal of their promises to leaseholders, that. I am happy to provide assurance that the further we need legal protections to ensure that millions of expenditure will therefore be outlined at that stage. pounds of building safety remediation costs are not passed on to innocent home owners and tenants. 4.45 pm Obviously and clearly, the Bill is about future leases Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, this group of and applying ground rent at the peppercorn level. It is amendments calls for a variety of impact assessments not about existing leaseholders and the bills that some to be produced. It is, of course, very important that we of them are facing with regard to historic fire safety understand the impact that this legislation will have. costs. Opportunities to address fire safety and related That is why we have already produced an impact issues will be plentiful, as the Building Safety Bill assessment, which I would encourage all noble Lords makes its way through this House. to read. I will move on to Amendment 29, in the name of Amendments 27 and 28 would both require impact the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, which would require assessments relating to how this legislation would impact an impact assessment on the levels of commonhold on issues facing existing leaseholders. As throughout ownership within 60 days of the Bill passing. Noble the passage of the Bill, I understand noble Lords’ Lords will know that levels of commonhold ownership desire to assist existing leaseholders. Noble Lords will are currently very low. Despite being introduced be well aware by this point that this is just the first of a almost 20 years ago, there are fewer than 20 common- two-part legislative programme, with further leasehold hold developments across England and Wales. This reform due later in this Parliament. Government are committed to increasing the take-up We have considered the impact of the Bill on existing of commonhold so that more home owners can enjoy leaseholders, and this is informing the process of policy the benefits of freehold ownership. We have established development, ahead of future legislation. This is within a Commonhold Council—a partnership of industry, the broader context of the important work being done leaseholders and government—to prepare consumers by the Competition and Markets Authority to address and the market for the widespread take-up of full-throated unfair terms and mis-selling. As discussed previously, commonhold. we are committed to measures to help existing leaseholders Under the commonhold tenure, it is already the through significant changes to the enfranchisement case that ground rents cannot be charged. However, valuation calculation, making it cheaper for many commonhold has struggled to compete with leasehold leaseholders to extend their lease, buy their freehold or because it does not generate additional income streams buy out their ground rents. for developers or landlords through ground rents. Noble Lords can rest assured that my officials have Therefore, the Bill will help to level the playing field been listening very carefully to all of the points that for commonhold. There are other challenges that include have been raised during the debates on the Bill. However, some legal shortcomings or ambiguity, and we are producing detailed impact assessments is likely only to considering the Law Commission’s recommendations distract from the important work that is being done on on how we can improve the law to strengthen the leasehold reform. commonhold tenure. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, again raised While the market adjusts to an increase in commonhold historic fire and building safety remediation costs. I properties, the vast majority of flats are likely to was struck by the very high bill of around £204,000 continue to be developed and sold on a leasehold per leaseholder that was quoted. This may be a building basis. This legislation will ensure that owners of new in Manchester, but I would be very keen to know long residential leasehold properties will not have to further details and to understand the approach that pay a monetary ground rent and will share this important has been taken. Very often, when I have inquired and feature with the owners of commonhold properties. understood the situation, I have found that the most As such, the Bill and our work on commonhold share proportionate response is not necessarily considered the common objective of providing future home owners by the building owner—but I would be very interested with more fairness and transparency. Having carefully to look into that case in more detail. considered the impact that this legislation will have on In response to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, I say our policy towards commonhold, we have concluded that we are very aware of the polluter pays Bill and the that both should be pursued together. It is also worth work that is being led by Steve Day of RAQ. We are noting that the benefits of commonhold go far beyond looking at it very carefully to see whether it could the issue of ground rents. 193 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[LORDS] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 194

[LORD GREENHALGH] Brinton, B. Janke, B. While I sympathise with the good intentions behind Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Jolly, B. all three of these amendments, and thank the noble Brown of Cambridge, B. Jones of Cheltenham, L. Lords for tabling them, I remain of the view that the Browne of Ladyton, L. Jones of Moulsecoomb, B. Bryan of Partick, B. Jones of Whitchurch, B. benefits of any of these impact assessments would not Burnett, L. Jones, L. be proportionate to the time and resource needed to Burt of Solihull, B. Jordan, L. satisfy all the requirements in these amendments. Both Campbell of Pittenweem, L. Kennedy of Cradley, B. in this Chamber and in various meetings, noble Lords Campbell-Savours, L. Kennedy of Southwark, L. have impressed upon me, time and again, the need to Carter of Coles, L. Kerr of Kinlochard, L. introduce our leasehold reforms at speed, and I agree Cashman, L. Kestenbaum, L. Chakrabarti, B. Khan of Burnley, L. with them. These amendments would inevitably slow Chandos, V. Kilclooney, L. down the pace of reform, with little, if any, tangible Chapman of Darlington, B. Kingsmill, B. gain for leaseholders to make up for this. It is for that Chidgey, L. Knight of Weymouth, L. reason that I ask noble Lords not to press their Clancarty, E. Kramer, B. amendments. Clark of Windermere, L. Lawrence of Clarendon, B. Clement-Jones, L. Layard, L. Coaker, L. Lennie, L. Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]: My Lords, I thank all Collins of Highbury, L. Levy, L. noble Lords for their contributions and support on Corston, B. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. the very important issue I have raised again today. I Craig of Radley, L. Liddle, L. particularly thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his Crawley, B. Lincoln, Bp. supportive contribution. He is a recognised expert on Cromwell, L. Lipsey, L. Davidson of Glen Clova, L. Lister of Burtersett, B. these issues, and he expanded on my points. He has Davies of Brixton, L. Low of Dalston, L. raised them before, and I certainly think the Government Davies of Oldham, L. Ludford, B. need to listen carefully to what he has to say. Davies of Stamford, L. Lytton, E. The Minister has been handed the impossible task Devon, E. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Dholakia, L. Mallalieu, B. of defending the indefensible. Unfortunately, he always Dodds of Duncairn, L. Mandelson, L. has to rely on the fact that future Bills will help solve Donaghy, B. Marks of Henley-on-Thames, this problem—but the future will never come soon Doocey, B. L. enough for leaseholders struggling now. They have Drake, B. Masham of Ilton, B. these bills now and will have to pay them by the end of D’Souza, B. Maxton, L. Dubs, L. McAvoy, L. the year. Elder, L. McConnell of Glenscorrodale, As my noble friend Lord Stunell said, this is just a Evans of Watford, L. L. modest amendment. All it seeks is a review of the Bill’s Faulkner of Worcester, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. impact in six months,with special reference to leaseholders Featherstone, B. McKenzie of Luton, L. Finlay of Llandaff, B. McNally, L. who have been adversely and gravely affected by the Foster of Bath, L. McNicol of West Kilbride, L. consequences of the Grenfell tragedy. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Meacher, B. I apologise to the House for not having moved my Fox, L. Mendelsohn, L. amendment formally at the end of my initial speech. I Freyberg, L. Merron, B. beg to move it now, but I also have to say that, having Gale, B. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Garden of Frognal, B. B. heard what the Minister said, I wish to seek the opinion Glasman, L. Morris of Aberavon, L. of the House on this matter. Goddard of Stockport, L. Morris of Yardley, B. Golding, B. Newby, L. 4.51 pm Goudie, B. Northover, B. Grabiner, L. Nye, B. Division conducted remotely on Amendment 27 Grantchester, L. Oates, L. Greenway, L. Osamor, B. Contents 245; Not-Contents 256. Grender, B. Paddick, L. Griffiths of Burry Port, L. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Amendment 27 disagreed. Grocott, L. Parminter, B. Hain, L. Patel of Bradford, L. Division No. 6 Hamwee, B. Pinnock, B. Hannay of Chiswick, L. Pitkeathley, B. CONTENTS Harris of Haringey, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. Harris of Richmond, B. Primarolo, B. Aberdare, L. Beecham, L. Haskel, L. Purvis of Tweed, L. Adams of Craigielea, B. Beith, L. Haworth, L. Puttnam, L. Addington, L. Bennett of Manor Castle, B. Hayman of Ullock, B. Quin, B. Adonis, L. Berkeley, L. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Alderdice, L. Billingham, B. Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Randerson, B. Allan of Hallam, L. Birt, L. Hendy, L. Razzall, L. Alli, L. Blake of Leeds, B. Henig, B. Rebuck, B. Alton of Liverpool, L. Blower, B. Hilton of Eggardon, B. Redesdale, L. Anderson of Swansea, L. Blunkett, L. Hollick, L. Rees of Ludlow, L. Andrews, B. Boateng, L. Howarth of Newport, L. Reid of Cardowan, L. Armstrong of Hill Top, B. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Hoyle, L. Rennard, L. Bach, L. B. Humphreys, B. Ricketts, L. Bakewell of Hardington Boothroyd, B. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Ritchie of Downpatrick, B. Mandeville, B. Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Hussain, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Barker, B. Bowness, L. Hussein-Ece, B. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. Bassam of Brighton, L. Bradshaw, L. Hutton of Furness, L. Rosser, L. 195 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[20 JULY 2021] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 196

Rowe-Beddoe, L. Thomas of Winchester, B. Frost, L. Mone, B. Rowlands, L. Thornhill, B. Fullbrook, B. Montrose, D. Royall of Blaisdon, B. Thornton, B. Gardner of Parkes, B. Moore of Etchingham , L. Sandwich, E. Thurso, V. Garnier, L. Morgan of Cotes, B. Scott of Needham Market, B. Tope, L. Geddes, L. Morris of Bolton, B. Scriven, L. Touhig, L. Gilbert of Panteg, L. Morrissey, B. Sharkey, L. Truscott, L. Glenarthur, L. Morrow, L. Sheehan, B. Tunnicliffe, L. Godson, L. Moylan, L. Sherlock, B. Tyler of Enfield, B. Gold, L. Moynihan, L. Shipley, L. Tyler, L. Goldie, B. Naseby, L. Sikka, L. Uddin, B. Goldsmith of Richmond Nash, L. Simon, V. Vaux of Harrowden, L. Park, L. Neville-Jones, B. Smith of Basildon, B. Verjee, L. Goodlad, L. Neville-Rolfe, B. Smith of Finsbury, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Grade of Yarmouth, L. Newlove, B. Smith of Gilmorehill, B. Walmsley, B. Greengross, B. Nicholson of Winterbourne, Smith of Newnham, B. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Greenhalgh, L. B. Snape, L. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Griffiths of Fforestfach, L. Noakes, B. Somerset, D. Watts, L. Hailsham, V. Northbrook, L. St Albans, Bp. West of Spithead, L. Hamilton of Epsom, L. Norton of Louth, L. St John of Bletso, L. Wheatcroft, B. Hannan of Kingsclere, L. O’Shaughnessy, L. Stephen, L. Wheeler, B. Harding of Winscombe, B. Pannick, L. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. Whitaker, B. Harris of Peckham, L. Parkinson of Whitley Bay, L. Stone of Blackheath, L. Whitty, L. Haselhurst, L. Patel, L. Stoneham of Droxford, L. Wilcox of Newport, B. Hayward, L. Patten, L. Strasburger, L. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Helic, B. Penn, B. Stunell, L. Wills, L. Henley, L. Pickles, L. Suttie, B. Winston, L. Herbert of South Downs, L. Pidding, B. Taverne, L. Wood of Anfield, L. Hill of Oareford, L. Polak, L. Taylor of Goss Moor, L. Woodley, L. Hodgson of Abinger, B. Popat, L. Teverson, L. Young of Norwood Green, L. Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Porter of Spalding, L. Thomas of Gresford, L. Young of Old Scone, B. L. Price, L. Hoey, B. Rana, L. NOT CONTENTS Holmes of Richmond, L. Randall of Uxbridge, L. Hooper, B. Ranger, L. Agnew of Oulton, L. Chalker of Wallasey, B. Horam, L. Ravensdale, L. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Chartres, L. Howard of Lympne, L. Rawlings, B. Altrincham, L. Choudrey, L. Howard of Rising, L. Reay, L. Anelay of St Johns, B. Clarke of Nottingham, L. Howe, E. Redfern, B. Arbuthnot of Edrom, L. Colgrain, L. Howell of Guildford, L. Risby, L. Arran, E. Colville of Culross, V. Hunt of Wirral, L. Robathan, L. Ashton of Hyde, L. Colwyn, L. Jenkin of Kennington, B. Rock, B. Astor of Hever, L. Cormack, L. Johnson of Marylebone, L. Rose of Monewden, L. Baker of Dorking, L. Courtown, E. Jopling, L. Rotherwick, L. Balfe, L. Couttie, B. Kakkar, L. Saatchi, L. Barran, B. Cox, B. Kamall, L. Sanderson of Welton, B. Barwell, L. Craigavon, V. Keen of Elie, L. Sandhurst, L. Bates, L. Crathorne, L. King of Bridgwater, L. Sarfraz, L. Bellingham, L. Cruddas, L. Kinnoull, E. Sassoon, L. Benyon, L. Curry of Kirkharle, L. Kirkhope of Harrogate, L. Sater, B. Bertin, B. Dannatt, L. Laming, L. Scott of Bybrook, B. Bethell, L. Davies of Gower, L. Lamont of Lerwick, L. Seccombe, B. Bhatia, L. De Mauley, L. Lancaster of Kimbolton, L. Shackleton of Belgravia, B. Black of Brentwood, L. Deighton, L. Lang of Monkton, L. Sharpe of Epsom, L. Blackwell, L. Dobbs, L. Lansley, L. Shephard of Northwold, B. Blackwood of North Oxford, Duncan of Springbank, L. Leicester, E. Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. B. Dundee, E. Leigh of Hurley, L. Shields, B. Bloomfield of Hinton Dunlop, L. Lilley, L. Shinkwin, L. Waldrist, B. Eaton, B. Lindsay, E. Shrewsbury, E. Borwick, L. Eccles of Moulton, B. Lingfield, L. Smith of Hindhead, L. Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. Eccles, V. Liverpool, E. Stedman-Scott, B. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Empey, L. Livingston of Parkhead, L. Sterling of Plaistow, L. Brabazon of Tara, L. Erroll, E. Loomba, L. Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, Brady, B. Evans of Bowes Park, B. Lucas, L. L. Bridgeman, V. Fairfax of Cameron, L. Lupton, L. Stewart of Dirleton, L. Bridges of Headley, L. Fairhead, B. Macpherson of Earl’s Court, Stirrup, L. Broers, L. Fall, B. L. Stowell of Beeston, B. Brougham and Vaux, L. Farmer, L. Mancroft, L. Strathclyde, L. Brownlow of Shurlock Row, Fellowes of West Stafford, L. Mann, L. Stroud, B. L. Fink, L. Manzoor, B. Stuart of Edgbaston, B. Butler of Brockwell, L. Finkelstein, L. Marland, L. Sugg, B. Butler-Sloss, B. Finn, B. Marlesford, L. Suri, L. Caine, L. Fleet, B. McColl of Dulwich, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Caithness, E. Flight, L. McGregor-Smith, B. Taylor of Warwick, L. Callanan, L. Fookes, B. McInnes of Kilwinning, L. Tebbit, L. Carlile of Berriew, L. Forsyth of Drumlean, L. McIntosh of Pickering, B. Trefgarne, L. Carrington of Fulham, L. Framlingham, L. McLoughlin, L. Trenchard, V. Cathcart, E. Fraser of Craigmaddie, B. Mendoza, L. Tugendhat, L. Chadlington, L. Freud, L. Meyer, B. Udny-Lister, L. 197 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[LORDS] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 198

Ullswater, V. Wei, L. Vaizey of Didcot, L. Wellington, D. Amendment 41 Vere of Norbiton, B. Wharton of Yarm, L. Moved by Lord Greenhalgh Verma, B. Whitby, L. Wakeham, L. Williams of Trafford, B. 41: Clause 22, page 13, line 29, at end insert— Waldegrave of North Hill, L. Wilson of Dinton, L. “(2A) A sum expressed to be payable in respect of rates, Walker of Aldringham, L. Wolfson of Tredegar, L. council tax, services, repairs, maintenance, insurance or Warsi, B. Wyld, B. other ancillary matters is not rent for the purposes of Wasserman, L. Young of Cookham, L. this Act merely because it is reserved as rent in the Waverley, V. Younger of Leckie, V. lease.” Member’s explanatory statement 5.03 pm This amendment clarifies that service charges and similar payments are not to be treated as rent only because they are Amendments 28 to 30 not moved. reserved as rent in the lease. Clause 20: Consequential amendments Amendments 31 to 34 not moved. Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, before coming to the detail of this amendment, I want to stress the Clause 21: Regulations importance of the broad definition of “rent” as it appears in the Bill. Your Lordships are aware of the Government’s position. We believe it is vital for the Amendment 35 effectiveness of the Bill that the definition of ground Moved by Lord Greenhalgh rent is drawn up in such a way as to head off the 35: Clause 21, page 13, line 2, after “Parliament,” insert “if potential for avoidance measures by the small proportion the regulations are made by the Secretary of State, or of landlords who are intent on abusing the leasehold (b) Senedd Cymru, if the regulations are made by the sector for their own financial gain. Any attempts to Welsh Ministers,” change this approach would do little more than provide Member’s explanatory statement a fixed obstacle around which a nimble landlord may This amendment provides that the default procedure for divert with relative ease, certainty and confidence. regulations made under the Bill by the Welsh Ministers is the negative procedure. Alternative versions for the definition of a rent that stray away from this approach have been considered Amendment 35 agreed. but they all reached the same conclusion and were Amendments 36 and 37 not moved. found to be lacking. It is precisely because of the broad definition of rent in the Bill that any landlords Clause 22: Interpretation and their investors seeking to charge what is in essence a ground rent by any other name will need to think very carefully if they believe the definition provided in Amendment 38 the Bill offers an easy workaround—it does not. That Moved by Lord Greenhalgh is to say, if a landlord were to attempt to charge a 38: Clause 22, page 13, line 28, at end insert— ground rent by any other name and that charge provided ““premium”means any consideration in money or money’s no meaningful benefit or service to the leaseholder, worth for the grant of a lease, other than rent;” that charge may be considered within the nature of a Member’s explanatory statement rent for the purposes of the Bill, and a tribunal or See the explanatory statement for Lord Greenhalgh’s second enforcement authority could consider the case for amendment to Clause 1, page 1, line 5. enforcement against that landlord. Amendment 39 (to Amendment 38) not moved. I believe that Amendment 41 will provide further clarity regarding the meaning of a “rent” for the Amendment 38 agreed. purposes of the Bill. Noble Lords will recall that there was a good deal of debate over that definition in the Amendment 40 Bill in Committee. My noble friend Lord Young made Moved by Lord Greenhalgh reference to the Law Society and raised his concerns 40: Clause 22, page 13, line 28, at end insert— that the wide definition of rent contained in the Bill ““relevant authority” means— could give rise to unnecessary litigation as the lawfulness of certain charges being able to continue as being (a) in relation to a lease of premises in England, the Secretary of State; “reserved as rent” was not wholly clear. (b) in relation to a lease of premises in Wales, the I have listened carefully to the arguments made by Welsh Ministers;” my noble friend and others and am not unsympathetic Member’s explanatory statement to the views expressed that tighter wording of what is This amendment defines “relevant authority” for the purpose considered a rent would provide even greater clarity of Lord Greenhalgh’s amendments to Clause 2, page 2, line 21 for both leaseholders and landlords. The amendment and Clause 9, page 7, lines 37 and 39. therefore provides that valid charges, even if they are Amendment 40 agreed. “reserved as rent” in a lease, are not intended to be captured by the provisions in the Bill just because they The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) are “reserved as rent” within a lease. (Con): We come to Amendment 41. Anyone wishing to It is not our intention for valid charges, such as the press this amendment to a Division must make that charging of insurance or service charges, to be adversely clear during the debate. affected by the Bill. Neither is it the purpose of the Bill 199 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[20 JULY 2021] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 200 to address the practice of reserving as a rent charges Clause 23: Crown application that are not in fact rent. The amendment simply clarifies that, just because a charge is reserved as a rent, it does Amendment 42 not automatically follow that it is a prohibited rent for Moved by Lord Berkeley the purposes of the Bill. I reassure noble Lords that the amendment does 42: Clause 23, page 14, line 5, leave out paragraph (c) not give a green light for landlords seeking to avoid the Member’s explanatory statement This would remove the Duchy of Cornwall from the definition measures of the Bill to merely reserve any charge as a of Crown Land since the Duchy describes itself as a private estate. “rent”. As I have described, the definition of a rent is drawn deliberately as widely as possible and will capture Lord Berkeley (Lab): My Lords, in moving the any charge that is in fact in the nature of a rent, amendment in my name, Amendment 42, I will speak whatever it is called. I beg to move. also to Amendment 43. This returns to the subject of the Duchy of Cornwall, which we discussed at some Lord Stunell (LD): My Lords, I always welcome length in Committee. The Minister responded very efforts by Ministers to clarify the law, although I helpfully, at col. GC 362, setting out the current sometimes struggle to understand exactly how the law exemptions from existing legislation for the right to has been clarified. It has been suggested that this is, if buy. He also mentioned that the Crown Estate had you like, a step of relaxation or at least inclusion that given a parliamentary undertaking that it will not seek will permit landlords to get away with—I think that is any special arrangements. He mentioned the comments the technical term—bad practice. I am sure the Minister on the Law Commission report about the concerns will reassure me that that is absolutely not the case that the Duchy of Cornwall had on enfranchisement and, far from opening a door, it is trying to make sure itself. Not much has happened since then. that the door is firmly shut. The Minister did say that he would write to the Duchy I fear that the technicalities of this will be worked of Cornwall. I would be interested to know whether he out in the law courts over time, whatever provision the has written, whether he will put a copy of the letter in Minister puts in the Bill or takes out of it. I wish him the Library and whether he has had an answer. If he luck and I hope he has succeeded in what he hopes to has, it will be the first that any Minister has published—a succeed in. I guess we shall find out, when we do the first certainly for any noble Lords who have written. evaluation in a year or two, how accurate that is. As I have mentioned before, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Crown Estate respond very helpfully and in a Lord Lennie (Lab): My Lords, the Minister will be timely manner to letters from me and others; that does glad to hear that this amendment is another technical not apply to the Duchy of Cornwall. Mind you, the change that we on these Benches fully support. However, Duke of Cornwall is visiting the Isles of Scilly today; has the department identified whether the same drafting maybe that will remind him that there needs to be an issue is present in any earlier legislation? answer, but I am not holding my breath. Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, we could not The Duchy of Cornwall has confirmed, in its latest have had more different responses to the government’s annual report, that it is in the private sector. On that amendment. I would like to assure the noble Lord, basis, I would like to reinforce my argument: if it is in Lord Stunell, that this is indeed a clarification around the private sector, as it says it is, then it should obey enabling landlords to continue to pass legitimate valid the same rules, laws and everything else that the rest charges. It will not promote the practice of continuing of the private sector has to. There are many other ground rents by another name, and I made that point private estates—earlier today, somebody mentioned very clearly in outlining this in my speech. I am sorry the Grosvenor Estate—and they will all comply with it was quite technical; obviously, people with legal eyes the legislation, I am quite sure. Therefore, it seems to helped me to formulate the syntax but I give that me that, in respect of this particular clause, the Duchy assurance. But the noble Lord is right: only time will of Cornwall should be removed from it, which would tell how the legislation will work in practice. turn it into the private estate that it says it is. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, I have Amendment 43 reinforces the arguments about Crown never heard anything quite so overwhelmingly positive land not including land belonging to the Duchy of about an amendment that I have moved—perhaps we Cornwall. This is the continuation of my probing are reaching a new era in understanding. I am not amendment. I certainly will not seek the opinion of aware of this being relevant in any other part of our the House, but I will be interested to hear whether the approach to the reform agenda that we are putting Minister has made any progress on this, because it forward. However, leaseholder legislation covers many will, I hope, have much more effect on the next Bill, decades. Despite having studied some land law in the which we hope will come soon. I beg to move. 1980s, I am not in a position to give a very detailed 5.15 pm legal answer on that point. Lord Lennie (Lab): My Lords, I welcome the Amendment 41 agreed. amendment of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, which returns the House’s attention to the application of The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) ground rents charged by the Crown, such as the Duchy (Con): We now come to the group beginning with of Cornwall. It is a bad day to be away from the Scilly Amendment 42. Anyone wishing to press this or anything Isles, but there you go. My noble friend is probing the else in the group to a Division must make this clear in issue again, after clearly incomplete answers in Committee. the debate. I look forward to the Minister’s response. 201 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[LORDS] Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill 202

[LORD LENNIE] Amendment 42 withdrawn. Since the Minister was also unable to provide answers to my questions during Committee, I hope he will be Amendment 43 not moved. able to do so on this occasion. They are these. First, can he confirm how many Crown properties this relates The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) to? Secondly, do the Government intend to engage the (Con): We now come to the group consisting of residents of these homes? Amendment 44. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a division must make this clear in the debate. Lord Greenhalgh (Con): I now turn to Amendments 42 and 43, brought to your Lordships’ House by the Clause 25: Commencement noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I understand that it is his wish for the Duchy of Cornwall to be considered as private land and not Crown land under this Bill. Amendment 44 Irrespective of the definition, both Crown land and Moved by Lord Lennie private land are captured by the Bill. This Bill will 44: Clause 25, page 14, line 18, leave out subsection (4) therefore apply to the Crown Estate, of which the Bill Member’s explanatory statement stipulates the Duchy of Cornwall is part. As I am sure This amendment aims to ensure that the provisions also apply noble Lords are all aware, the Duchy of Cornwall is a to retirement properties, whereas at present the Bill will prevent private estate which has a Crown exemption. However, provisions coming into force for retirement properties before the purpose of this Bill is not to decide how these April 2023. estates are defined; rather it is to get a better deal for future leaseholders to prevent them being exploited by Lord Lennie (Lab): My Lords, this amendment may ground rent in the leasehold market. be the final one to be considered by the House today, The Duke of Cornwall’s estates will be treated as but I hope the Minister agrees that the issue at hand is any other private landlord under the provisions of this very important none the less. It relates to retirement Bill and will no longer be able to collect ground rent in properties, which are excluded from the main provisions future leases. I will clarify again that this Bill is narrowly of the Bill. I was grateful for the Minister’s confirmation focused on ground rents and not all leasehold matters. in Committee that they will soon be included, following That is why, in response to the noble Lord, Lord the transition period. While this is welcome, I hope Berkeley, we have not yet written to the Duchy of the Minister confirms that there are no reasonable Cornwall about the issues around enfranchisement circumstances in which this period would be extended. and other matters, but we will be doing so as part of Over 50,000 people in the UK live in retirement the second stage of the legislation. I will obviously community units and they each deserve the same keep noble Lords informed if we get a response, but housing rights as everyone else. That is why I remain the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seems rather sceptical concerned that they will not benefit from the provisions of that. Nevertheless, we have made that commitment until much later. I have no intention to divide the and will write at that stage. House on this issue, but I hope the Minister recognises The Government have committed to an ambitious, that I am not alone in raising it, given the interest in large-scale reform programme, and we will deal with Committee. all these other issues not related to ground rents in the Finally, I ask the Minister to confirm how the near future. I am very sorry that, on two occasions department is informing these 50,000 residents of their now, I have not been able to give a precise response to leasehold rights and that they will be delayed by at the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, but I will make sure that least two years. I beg to move. we get the information to him at the earliest opportunity, in writing, and lay a copy in the Library—I believe that Lord Stunell (LD): My Lords, I speak only briefly is precisely what you have to do in these circumstances. to say that the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, has raised an The Government will consider the concern of the important issue that was debated in Committee, to some noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, regarding the Crown Estate extent, when I heard voices calling in both directions. exemptions from the parliamentary undertaking on The overwhelming requirement of this legislation is enfranchisement rights for leaseholders in the next that it leaves certainty in the market about the position stage of the leasehold reform programme. I can also of leaseholders. However partial or slow it may be, or reassure the noble Lord that the Government will consider however much you might criticise it overall, the noble his concern in tandem with the Law Commission’s Lord, Lord Lennie, has advanced a very strong case recommendations on the issue of enfranchisement that this should apply to all leasehold contracts from a rights for leaseholders. On that basis, I ask the noble set date and not with a phased introduction. Lord to withdraw the amendment. I would be interested to know if there is a reason for this staggered introduction and, if so, what it is. A Lord Berkeley (Lab): My Lords, I am very grateful number of major landlords run very large businesses for the Minister’s response and I will read it with great on the leaseholding of retirement homes, not all of interest. He has tried to answer most of my questions, which have always proceeded entirely ethically. There even if he has not yet got my noble friend’s numbers. have been some well-evidenced scandals, one of which We will look forward to seeing them in the Library. It I played a part in unravelling when I was at the other is very important that what he has said may well set a end of this building. I hope the Minister has not been precedent for the next Bill. That is why we will need too influenced on this provision by any pressure he to read what he has said with great interest. In the may have received from landlords about some complexity, meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. difficulty or whatever with an earlier introduction. 203 Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill[20 JULY 2021] Health and Social Care Act 2008 204

I would be interested to hear the Minister’s justification That was from 1 April this year, giving two years’ for the subsection that the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, is notice. The main argument of the noble Lord, Lord proposing to delete. Best, was that this would cause price rises, as it would falsely inflate the market from people not receiving Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, in considering ground rent and prices would therefore go up. That Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord may have had some justification, but was not part of Lennie, it is important to once again lay out the the Government’s assessment of what would happen rationale for the transition period for the retirement to retirement properties. I am happy to withdraw the sector. In October 2018, the Government launched a amendment, but we need to look closely at the impact consultation on reforms to the leasehold system, which this has on retirement property leaseholders. attracted over 1,200 responses. In our response to the consultation, published in June 2019, we announced Amendment 44 withdrawn. that we would Schedule: Enforcement “proceed with the proposal to exempt retirement properties” from the peppercorn ground rents policy. This decision Amendments 45 and 46 was made on the basis that developers of retirement properties incur additional costs, as a result of the Moved by Lord Greenhalgh communal spaces that are characteristics of these kinds 45: The Schedule, page 16, line 37, leave out “First-tier Tribunal” of developments. and insert “appropriate tribunal” However, having reviewed this in further detail, we Member’s explanatory statement This amendment, with Lord Greenhalgh’s amendment to concluded that arguments in favour of an exception Clause 17, page 11, line 17, requires an appeal against action did not outweigh the desirability of ensuring that taken by an enforcement authority in relation to a lease of those who purchase retirement homes are able to premises in Wales to be made to a leasehold valuation tribunal benefit from the same reform as other future leaseholders. (instead of the First-tier Tribunal). Therefore, we decided to capture retirement properties 46: The Schedule, page 17, line 13, leave out “First-tier Tribunal” in the Bill, so that those who live in retirement housing and insert “appropriate tribunal” are protected from exploitation in the same way as Member’s explanatory statement other leaseholders. We announced this in January this This amendment is consequential on Lord Greenhalgh’s year, and it is effectively a change in the Government’s amendment to the Schedule, page 16, line 37. position. I am sure all noble Lords agree that, as a Amendments 45 and 46 agreed. basic matter of fairness,those buying retirement properties should also benefit from these reforms. 5.26 pm As a result of this change, we have consulted closely Sitting suspended. with the retirement sector and continue to do so. As such, we have decided to grant a transition period in Arrangement of Business recognition. As a result of their initial exemption, this Announcement new transition period will allow developers of retirement properties time to adapt to the forthcoming changes. 6.31 pm We believe this transition period has been fairly granted, The Deputy Principal Chairman of Committees (The in balancing the needs of developers and fairness to Earl of Kinnoull) (CB): My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting leaseholders. It will be sufficient to allow the retirement of the House will now resume. The time limit for the sector to adapt to the changes. The Government do following debate is one and a half hours. I call the not wish to extend the period at the expense of noble Lord, Lord Bethell. Lord Bethell? leaseholders. I give that undertaking; we believe we have got it right. Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con): My Lords, I As it stands, the commencement date for retirement suggest that we adjourn for two minutes to see whether properties is no earlier than 1 April 2023. We have no the technical connections with my noble friend can be reason to believe that the commencement date will be restored. If not, I have his opening speech. any later than this. Given the sector was first informed 6.32 pm in January this year, this commencement date has given them over two years’ notice. Sitting suspended. This issue has been carefully considered and we believe we have struck the right balance for both lease- Health and Social Care Act 2008 holders and developers. Indeed, in Committee, we had (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) a competing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021 Best, which would have extended this transition period. Motion to Approve I am sure noble Lords agree that our proposals are a pragmatic and fair compromise between these two 6.35 pm positions. I beg to move that the noble Lord withdraws Moved by Lord Bethell Amendment 44. That the draft Regulations laid before the House Lord Lennie (Lab): I will briefly comment on the on 22 June be approved. position that has been arrived at on retirement properties. Relevant documents: 8th and 10th Reports from Initially, there was to be an exception for retirement the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special properties; then it was decided that there would not be. attention drawn to the instrument) 205 Health and Social Care Act 2008[LORDS] Health and Social Care Act 2008 206

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department We have considered this policy incredibly carefully, of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con) [V]: My consulting thoroughly and extensively to get this right Lords,morethanever,thesocialcareworkforcedemonstrates both for residents who are so vulnerable to Covid and unwavering compassion and dedication for our elderly the staff who go above and beyond in caring for them and most vulnerable. We are proud of and immensely every day. The policy will therefore apply to all people grateful to them. I pay huge tribute to their tireless over 18 who work inside a care home unless they have work during this pandemic to protect people who are a medical reason not to be vaccinated. most vulnerable to Covid-19, including their incredible Further limited exceptions have been made to ensure efforts to support the vaccination rollout across the sector, that this works on the ground. Emergency services, to bring in infection controls and to provide pastoral people providing emergency assistance and those care during this most heartbreakingly lonely episode. undertaking urgent maintenance work can all enter a To date, 1.2 million social care workers in England care home without needing to show that they are have been vaccinated. This is an incredible achievement vaccinated. Visiting family and friends are also exempt, and an important step for staff to protect themselves, given the significant well-being benefits such contact their loved ones and the people they care for from provides. While we would always encourage all these becoming seriously ill or potentially dying from Covid-19. people to take up an offer of a vaccine, we have acted However, there is a tipping point here. It is a tipping on the advice from SAGE that a balance must be struck. point of safety when it comes to care homes, where Before I turn to our assessment of the impact this many of our most vulnerable priority-list loved ones may have on the workforce, I acknowledge the vital live. We are not quite there yet. role the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee SAGE recommends that 80% of staff and 90% of has played in its calls for further details outlining the residents should have received their first dose of the Government’s current analysis of the expected impact vaccine to provide a minimum level of protection of the draft regulations. Following its eighth report, against coronavirus outbreaks. We have all been witness we made an impact statement available to this effect, to the incredible pace at which vaccination programmes and we note the further points raised in its 10th report have been rolled out. I am delighted to report to the yesterday. I can also confirm to the House that we will House that 96% of those living in older-age care be publishing a full impact assessment as soon as possible. homes have received their first dose and 93% their After everything care home staff have done in the second dose. Meanwhile, 93% of those living in younger- pandemic, we owe them the greatest consideration and age care homes have received their first dose and respect. We understand that providers and their staff 88% their second dose. need time to prepare for these changes, which is why In many places, take-up among care home staff is the 16-week grace period immediately following the also impressive. Some 87% of those working in older-age enactment of regulations will allow staff who have not care homes have had their first dose and 76% their been vaccinated to make arrangements to have both second dose.This compares with 83% and 73% respectively doses. Unfortunately, we recognise that there will be for staff working in younger-age care homes. However, some staff who will choose to leave rather than be there is also significant variation at a regional and a vaccinated. Our central analysis estimates that around local level. Only 65% of older care homes in England 7% of current staff may not meet the requirement by are meeting SAGE’s stipulated safety tipping point in the end of the 16-week grace period. This equates the latest published data. This drops to an even more to 40,000, out of a workforce of 570,000, who may worrying 44% in the London area. need recruiting to replace staff who do not meet the As a result, despite very high levels of vaccination, requirement. testing, PPE and other infection control measures, we However, this estimate is very uncertain. We just do are still seeing outbreaks in care homes, where residents not know yet exactly how staff will respond to the are incredibly vulnerable to the serious effects of this requirement, not least because staff turnover in this terrible disease. Since January this year, care homes sector is around a third each year. I am grateful to have tested staff more than 21 million times and made Professor Martin Green of Care England for talking proper use of 1.2 billion items of PPE. Yet nearly me through these concerns. Of course, we do not want 14,000 care home residents have died because of the to lose valuable care home staff who have made an virus this year alone. enormous sacrifice over the last year and a half, and This winter will be challenging and, in the face of we will continue our efforts to drive uptake across the rising case rates across the country, we need to make sector. We owe it to ourselves and to their commitment sure that we have done everything we can to prepare to try our hardest. However, our overriding priority and to minimise the risks for residents in care homes has to be the safety and well-being of the people they and the incredible staff who care for them. care for. This is the context. It makes this legislation critical. Before closing, I pay a final tribute to all care home By November this year—and subject to the usual staff, past, present and future, who have played a vital parliamentary approval and, we hope, a helpful and role in our nation’s recovery from the pandemic. We practical 16-week grace period—anyone entering a did not take lightly the decision to introduce this CQC-registered care home in England must be vaccinated, legislation. However, the risks that this winter will unless a valid exemption applies. This will apply to all undoubtedly pose to the most vulnerable in our society care home workers, agency staff and volunteers. Visiting make clear the choice that we must make: to do healthcare workers, tradespeople, hairdressers and everything in our power to protect them. With that CQC inspectors will also be obliged to follow the new sentiment in mind, I commend these regulations to the requirement. House. I beg to move. 207 Health and Social Care Act 2008[20 JULY 2021] Health and Social Care Act 2008 208

the proposals expressed during the consultation, which Amendment to the Motion could provide helpful guidance on how it is to be addressed. Moved by Baroness Wheeler This SI is muddled, confused and disjointed and, in At the end to insert “but that this House regrets places,contradictory—across the SI itself, the Explanatory that the Regulations do not include any information Memorandum and in the Government’s consultation about how the legislation will operate and that this response. This makes even more urgent the publication will be left to guidance that will not be available of clear and detailed guidance which includes not just until the end of July; further regrets that a full the practical detail the committee wants to see but the impact assessment has not been published including full policy framework. We are assured that the guidance analysis of the number of current staff who may has been produced in consultation with the sector. not comply and the potential impact on care homes Can the Minister confirm that this has included care if care home staff become ineligible for work because home providers from both large and small group homes, they are not fully vaccinated or medically exempt; and the staff unions? Is there now a firm publication notes that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny date, other than just the end of the month, in 11 days’ Committee recommended that the debate on the time, that we have been promised? instrument should be deferred until the operational guidanceandfullimpactassessmenthasbeenpublished; Specifically on consultation, the Government’s and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to provide consultation response document itself admits that 57% of strongersupportingevidenceforpermanentlyrequiring respondents were against the mandatory vaccination staff to have received both doses of the vaccine or, if of staff. Nadhim Zahawi stressed to the committee they have not, to be banned from entering their how important it was to “carry people with us” and workplace.” our Minister told the House on 8 July: “We are in a consultation … it is an honest consultation. We 6.43 pm have to take people with us: this is not something that we can impose on people against their will.”—[Official Report, 8/7/21; Baroness Wheeler (Lab): My Lords, I thank the col. 1454.] Minister. I am moving my amendment in the light of the deep concerns of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny How will the Minister now honour that commitment, Committee in its eighth report. I listened to its 13 July and how does he square it with the legislation that the questioning of Nadhim Zahawi, the Vaccine Minister, Government have actually produced? which was held on the same day that the SI was In its report, the committee is particularly scathing debated in the Commons. The committee produced a about the DHSC’s failure to provide justification for further, 10th report yesterday in response to this. As the substantial policy change from using the SAGE its eighth report says, advice, mentioned by the Minister, of at least 80% of “effective Parliamentary scrutiny is impossible” care home staff needing a first vaccination in order to by the House because crucial operational guidance provide a minimum level of protection against Covid-19 and the impact assessment are not available, because to the requirement for them to have two doses or they none of the practical information about how the guidance will be banned from the workplace and stand to lose is to operate is in the actual legislation before us, and their job. Why this shift and what is the detailed because no reasons have been provided as to why the evidence which led to such a major policy change? legislation is not a restricted pandemic measure rather Despite our deep concern about the health and than the permanent measure that the Government are safety of care home residents, no one doubts the proposing. impact that mandatory vaccination will have on care The Commons debate was focused on the failure to home staff in their jobs, the risks to the viability of produce the impact assessment so essential for care homes and the confusion that will reign, especially understanding the full consequences of the legislation. in small care homes coping with even worse staff The Health Minister promised that we would have it shortages and recruitment problems than they currently before our debate today; the Vaccine Minister instead have and trying to administer and monitor the trades- undertook to provide an impact statement, which the person, et cetera, visiting arrangements. The National committee still had not had at the time of its further Care Forum has been particularly vocal on that latter report. I am still not clear which piece of the last-minute point. We just do not know the scale and extent of the information promised has been delivered, and the risk in a sector that already has 100,000 unfilled posts. Minister’s speech may have confused me still further about what is and what is not available. These are dedicated staff who have been in the front line of care through the pandemic. Weneed to understand So we have more documentation and more information why there is vaccine hesitancy among the minority of but not the full and detailed impact assessment that is staff and build and strengthen the excellent work that needed. Overall, we still do not have the answers to the has been done with so many to allay fears and assuage committee’s fundamental questions: why has the concerns arising from cultural or personal health fears. vaccination programme not managed to achieve the required levels despite care home staff being prioritised, Can the Minister explain how the Government will and why the regional variations? Why has there been ensure that the 16-week grace period is used to intensify no detailed analysis of the impact the policy will have and ramp up the take-up campaign and ensure the on care home staff and the possible risk to the viability targeting of regions and areas where there is relatively of care homes as a result? We still have had no real low take-up? Will it be extended if the impact assessment analysis of the degree and nature of the opposition to and implementation plan show that that is needed? 209 Health and Social Care Act 2008[LORDS] Health and Social Care Act 2008 210

[BARONESS WHEELER] a medical exemption. In my view, anything else would Paragraph 12 of the EM contains only five short be negligent. Let us never forget the human tragedy points dealing with the serious staff shortages that the this cruel pandemic has wreaked in care homes. Some care sector will face, starting with the bald understatement 20,000 care home residents died in the first wave, that there will be accounting for 44% of all excess deaths for that period “the short-term cost of dealing with staff absences”. in England and Wales. We surely owe it to all who died Moreover, the EM goes back to the Care Act 2014 and their families to ensure that care home residents provision, which assumes that local authorities have a receive every possible protection at a time when cases contingency plan to address workforce shortages and are rising again with a far more transmissible variant. care provider closures. Given the Government’ssweeping Today we learn from the latest ONS figures that care council social care funding cuts for the past 10 years, home deaths are on the rise too. we know just what state councils would be in if they Months ago, Professor Chris Whitty expressed the tried to meet that contingency. Last week ADASS view that front-line health and care workers have what reported up to 250,000 vulnerable people across England he termed a “professional responsibility”to get vaccinated, languishing on social care waiting lists for care assessments to reduce the risk that Covid poses to patients and or service reviews to check their physical and mental care home residents. It seems odd that the mandatory state. Will additional funding be made available to hepatitis vaccination for some front-line health workers councils to meet the extra costs of staff shortages and is hardly, if ever, queried. turnover? I regret that today we are not looking at both NHS In conclusion, the House must be reassured that and social care workers together. According to the there will be a detailed, coherent, well-resourced and evidence provided to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny fully thought-through plan for moving forward and Committee, published only yesterday, take-up of the finding solutions for carrying and taking people with first dose in the care home workforce stands at 85.6% us—in the words of the Ministers—and addressing but with significant variation, as the Minister set out. the major challenges that implementing the mandatory It is clear from the two reports of the Secondary vaccination of care home staff will present. We must Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the debate in the be reassured that the Secondary Legislation Committee’s other place on 13 July that this SI is deficient in many rightful concerns have been fully addressed. For the record, respects. The confusing data provided in the Explanatory its 10th report, published yesterday, stresses that, despite Memorandum, the lack of an impact assessment— the welcome “further information and explanations” particularly on the workforce implications—and detailed from the Government, operational guidance not being available until the end “we remain unclear about the justification for some of the policy of the month are inexcusable. Frankly, I also found it choices underlying these Regulations and also the basis on which the department struck a balance between public health benefits peculiar that the regulations cover a range of tradespeople and the impact on the rights of individuals.” and other service providers who are unlikely to have close I look forward to the contributions of other noble contact with residents. In reality, proper parliamentary Lords and the Minister’s response, and I will wish to scrutiny was pretty much impossible. I totally get that. test the opinion of the House on this very important I have argued from the outset that far more support issue. I beg to move. was needed to improve vaccine take-up rates among care workers. In early days, slow vaccine take-up was 6.50 pm partly due to practical problems, such as vaccinators Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]: My Lords, this coming to homes with enough vaccine only for residents, is an extremely tricky issue, and I find myself deeply staff being expected to travel to vaccination centres conflicted. On the one hand, I strongly support the but not given time off or money to get there, and those principle of mandatory vaccination of care home staff not on duty when vaccinators came missing out. workers, for reasons I will explain. On the other hand, Despite all the efforts made locally to encourage staff I think the Government have gone about it in entirely to have the vaccine, crucially, the Government should the wrong way. As so often in this pandemic, we are take more proactive steps for carers to be paid for time trying to reconcile forces that pull in entirely opposite spent on getting vaccinated, especially if they have to directions—in this case, the public health need to come in when they are not on shift and if they have safeguard some of our most vulnerable citizens, which to take time off because of any short-term reaction to in my view is overwhelming, pitched against the individual the jab. These things are critically important to low-paid liberties of care home workers. staff, some of whom are on zero-hours contracts. For me this is deeply personal. My mother is a GPs spending time in care homes talking to staff long-term care home resident and in the first wave of who are vaccine hesitant has proved highly effective. the pandemic, when hospital patients were being On top of this, I feel the Government should step in to transferred to the home without proper testing, there help with the costs of redeployment and retraining for was a significant number of deaths. I need hardly say staff who still refuse to have the vaccine. Without seeing that this was deeply distressing for my whole family the operational guidance, we do not know whether and, I know, many other families up and down the this will happen. country. It is with a heavy heart and after much thought that Care homes have a duty of care to their residents, I am unable to support the amendment in the name of which in my view they are not fulfilling if they do not the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. I am sympathetic require care workers who perform close-contact and to its intent and broadly support the first three elements, intimate tasks to be fully vaccinated, unless they have but I cannot support the final element, which says that 211 Health and Social Care Act 2008[20 JULY 2021] Health and Social Care Act 2008 212 stronger supporting evidence for requiring staff to be says that recruitment on average costs £2,500, which is vaccinated is required. The case is clear, and we need £100 million for the sector in consequence of this to see both more action and more support to ensure measure. That is before you begin to look for the other that more lives are not lost. However, we need to see support it needs from the healthcare system, its general the right action. practice colleagues, and in dealing with the insurance I plead with the Government, even at this late stage, sector and others. I hope my noble friend will be able to think again and to provide the help and support I to say that the Government will add significantly—at have outlined above. I also feel that it sends out the least that £100 million—to the infection control fund, wrong message to the public, who will not be following which is £1.1 billion, and do so in close consultation the minutiae of parliamentary procedures and impact with the care home sector to give it the support that it assessments and the like. The message will simply be needs. that we do not support the principle of mandatory Thirdly, and finally, the point of reassurance I am vaccine for care workers other than those with the looking for is that I expected, having discussed this medical exemption, which I do, and strongly. This is with Ministers, that this statutory instrument would the right policy but, sadly, the Government have gone be brought forward with a sunset clause. That is about it in entirely the wrong way. It should also apply transparently something that should apply during the to NHS workers and it was wrong to exclude them. emergency. It would be reasonable if the Government However, two wrongs emphatically do not make a right. had said, “This time next year, we should be deciding whether legislation of this kind should be renewed, Lord Lansley (Con): My Lords, I am very glad to and a sunset clause would enable that to happen.” I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield. Like have no confidence that a review, as Regulation 7 says, her, I would not be in a position to be able to support means that if the review concluded that legislation in the amendment to the Motion. I support this statutory this form was not needed, it would not be retained. I instrument but, I have to say,with some reluctance—and am sorry, but I am afraid that from the parliamentary it is not simply because of the procedural issues. It is a point of view, that is unacceptable. Therefore I am step we should take only in a health emergency. I will looking for my noble friend to make it absolutely clear come back to that point before I conclude. that if Ministers conclude next year that the review I am grateful to my noble friend, who explained the says that this legislation is no longer needed, they will SI with his customary clarity, but we are especially ensure that it is repealed. grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, whose painstaking work has illustrated many of the 7 pm issues, including those I want briefly to refer to. I am looking for my noble friend in responding to this Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I greatly debate to give one explanation and two sets of assurances. welcome this debate and the tabling by my noble friend of her very relevant amendment. According to The explanation is because I simply do not understand the Explanatory Note, the regulations provide that for, why care homes have been brought forward and legislated for in this way where other settings have not been. I “the purposes of preventing, detecting and controlling the spread … … cannot understand the difference between a care worker of infection, registered persons must secure that a person does not enter the premises used by A unless B meets specific going into a domiciliary care setting with a vulnerable requirements”, person and how that differs from a care worker in a residential care home. I cannot understand how the which are then set out. However, the list of requirements vaccination of a residential care worker is different excludes the crucial requirement that is now the subject from the vaccination of a healthcare worker in a of a national debate: the wearing of masks.The regulations geriatric ward in a hospital. Why are these things appear to put in place a non-statutory framework different? If the Government are going to move forward governing mask use, thereby relying on a voluntary on this, they should have moved forward on all these approach under guidance notes. Guidance notes will settings together and should have had the clear argument not work. They will be widely ignored, perhaps even in presented rather than what appears to be a piecemeal care homes to some extent. argument. I hope that my noble friend will explain In anticipation of liberation day, there already has why the Government have proceeded in this piecemeal been widespread non-compliance in wider society. We fashion with a further consultation to come, which are ignoring at our peril the experience of countries may lead to different conclusions even at the margin worldwide where the real benefit of mandatory masking for other settings and for care homes, which will create under properly enforced regimes has been at the heart unnecessary confusion. of policy, not only in care homes but in wider social Secondly, I am looking for an assurance about interactions. Masking crucially helps to alert the public support for the care home sector. My noble friend said to the real dangers of the virus. that the statement of impact—which I found on the If, as I suspect, and for reasons that I understand, government website but of course not published alongside the Government remain torn, they should put the the legislation—says that the Government’s central wider question of masking in its broader application estimate is 40,000 potential losses of staff. This is in a to the House of Commons. Let MPs take that decision sector where Skills for Care reported 112,000 staff this week before the House rises. Let them face up to vacancies in the autumn of last year and where we their responsibilities. They will have to listen to a know that there is a dependence on workers from divided public while arguing their case. The whole overseas, some of whom have gone back home and issue could then be decided on a free vote. It is not not returned. The sector needs help.The impact statement unprecedented. An informed decision on masking cannot 213 Health and Social Care Act 2008[LORDS] Health and Social Care Act 2008 214

[LORD CAMPBELL-SAVOURS] Furthermore, the department’s contempt for Parliament be ducked and if the Government themselves are is demonstrated by the lack of accompanying operational uneasy over the decision, Parliament, where I believe detail or an impact assessment, as has been pointed there is majority support, must take it. out. Mandatory masking is absolutely crucial in the The department has doggedly resisted releasing full building of public confidence in the Government’s impact assessments on Covid instruments. Whenever wider Covid relaxation strategy. I am convinced that possible, it has hidden behind the small print of Cabinet the alternative is increased Covid hospitalisation as a Office rules on impact assessments to claim that they more liberalised regime leads inevitably to disease are not required. The small print does not cover today’s spread, cancelled operations in the NHS, a lack of statutory instrument so the department has instead confidence in public protection leading to increased resorted to—there is no easy way to say this—lying. workplace absences, further damage to the high street TheExplanatoryNoteandtheExplanatoryMemorandum with the possibility of renewed restrictions, public state that a full impact assessment has been prepared anger over government vacillation, further deterioration and is available. The Minister in the other place admitted in the public finances and a prolonged epidemic. last week that it has not even been prepared. As we The mask is a signal, an alarm bell and constant heard last night, a flimsy document called an impact reminder. It acts as an amber light and is the only way statement appeared on the website, but this falls far in which one can signal to the public the danger of short of an impact assessment, and an impact assessment infection and the scale of personal risk—the risk from published after Parliament has considered an instrument onward transmission to colleagues and friends, and does nothing to contribute to parliamentary scrutiny. the need to be constantly on the alert. The moment The department has rightly drawn the condemnation that one drops the requirement for a mask, the public of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of will act defensively by withdrawing from public your Lordships’ House, which recommended in its engagement, whether at the place of work or socially, eighth report on the instrument that this consideration or they will mistakenly conclude that the problem is be delayed until both the detailed impact assessment past and life is returning to normal, which it is not. and operational guidance were available. Yesterday’s That is my fear. 10th report emphasised the many questions left Liberation day is potentially opening the door on a unanswered. The department has cocked a snook at disaster and I cannot understand why those who oppose Parliament by ramming this instrument through now. lockdown but who are calling for an early return to Allowing proper parliamentary debate in September normality cannot support mandatory masking. It helps would do nothing to delay the implementation of the their case and would facilitate the early return for policy. It already has a 16-week implementation gap which they yearn. It secures a wider form of individual built into it. The consultation showed that more people freedom. I say to the Government that they need to opposed the policy than supported it. UNISON does get real and take the lead. The public are looking to not support it. The Government cannot claim that the Government to show the way. Either take a big they are acting in uncontroversial territory. I suspect decision to maintain masking or let the Commons that the real truth is that this policy would never take it on a free vote. survive the scrutiny that a fully informed debate would Do not get bogged down in misinterpretation of bring. It is also far from clear that the policy solution what constitutes liberty. Your liberty should not be at is the right one. As the Minister pointed out, 96% of the cost of my liberty that dropping the guard in care residents of older-age care homes and 92% in working-age homes will soon expose. If, as an individual citizen, I care homes have had a first vaccination dose, with the have to lock myself away and lose my freedom as a figures for staff being 86% and 83%, which is well in consequence of you securing your freedom, we then excess of the SAGE guidelines of 90% for residents need arbitration. Care homes, offices, shops, public and 80% for staff, so in aggregate there is no problem. transport and, indeed, all public places are similarly at The Minister has said that only 65% of older-age risk and threatened by this new approach. I plead with care homes were meeting that guideline, falling to the Government, even at this late stage, for sanity in 44% in London, although he gave no figures for the the policy that they are pursuing. Please do not make two-thirds of care homes in that sector that cater for this grave mistake. working-age adults. These limited data do not provide support for the intrusive rules in these regulations; 7.05 pm rather, they speak to the need for more targeted Baroness Noakes (Con): My Lords, whether or not interventions on a local basis and with smaller care noble Lords agree with the intent behind this statutory homes to level them up to the very great achievements instrument, they ought to share my deep sense of that have been made so far at national level. outrage at how Parliament is being treated. None of this is explored, because we have no impact We have become inured to the cavalier way in which assessment, in particular in relation to care home the Department of Health and Social Care uses secondary staffing. Last night’s impact statement came up with a legislation to interfere with citizens’ lives but this central estimate of a one-off cost of £100 million in instrument reaches a new low. For the first time since respect of the recruitment of 40,000 staff who would the Victorian era, vaccination will be mandated by law. be lost because of the instrument, but I do not think I believe that it is wholly inappropriate to use unamendable that that estimate will stand up to much scrutiny. secondary legislation to cross that line. It raises deep If some staff decide not to be vaccinated—as is issues of civil liberties and human rights and should entirely their right to do—they will be forced out of have been fully scrutinised in primary legislation. employment in the sector, but the Government have 215 Health and Social Care Act 2008[20 JULY 2021] Health and Social Care Act 2008 216 no evidence presented that there are people willing I always work very well with the Registered Nursing and able to come into the sector to replace that large Home Association, which says that, at the moment, it number of people going out of it. There is no excess does not know how staff will react—how can it? It has capacity in the market for care home staff, as many been asked to respond to the current draft guidance, care home operators will testify. The impact of the loss and it says that it is very light on, for instance, exactly of care home capacity is simply not addressed in the how the regulator—the CQC—will regulate this impact statement, along with a host of other consequential regulation. There is an oral statement that the CQC issues. will be proportionate but, as it asks, what does that While I agree with the amendment from the noble mean when the requirement is that 100% of staff need Baroness, Lady Wheeler, I shall not be voting for it to be vaccinated? It also says that the guidance is very this evening, because it is a mere gesture and it does light on the issue of what providers and local authorities, not defend the role of Parliament; but neither shall I as commissioners, should do to support those services vote for the Government. that are short of vaccinated staff. Will the Minister give us an assurance that this will be dealt with in the 7.11 pm guidance that will be produced in a few days’ time? Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab): My Lords, I will The Care Provider Alliance is concerned about the be supporting my noble friend’s amendment; I am overall impact of losing critical staff. It says that we very glad that she has put it before us. Like the noble currently have around 112,000 vacancies. If the Minister Baroness, Lady Noakes, and other noble Lords, I is right, and another 40,000 vacancies are added on cannot help but feel that this regulation is not the way top of that, how on earth will the sector cope with to deal with such an important and sensitive subject. that? On the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, Even at this late stage, I appeal to the Minister to about the inconsistencies, one must assume that those allow it to be delayed until the autumn, when the full 40,000 people will find jobs, either in the NHS as care impact assessment and the guidelines are made available. assistants, in the domiciliary care sector or in any of This is not the way to treat Parliament. those sectors where they are not required to be vaccinated. This is a challenging issue, and I am very mindful of How on earth can that be seen as a sensible policy? the opinion of Big Brother Watch, which I respect. It I will finish on a completely different subject. I want warned that mandatory vaccination is to raise the case of Christian Scientists. In discussion “crossing … the Rubicon on medical choice, medical confidentiality with the late Lord Weatherill, as a Minister in 2000, I and bodily autonomy …vital components of the right to privacy.” was able to agree a special provision in the Care Equally, I have been alarmed at the unwillingness of Standards Act for Christian Scientists. At the time, some staff to have the vaccination. In these uncertain I said from the Dispatch Box: times, I accept that action normally considered as “the Government have no intention of preventing or discouraging unacceptably undermining our personal liberties may people from being cared for in accordance with the principles and have to be taken in the wider interest. practices of the Church of Christ, Scientist.”—[Official Report, 28/3/00; col. 740.] In the end, I come down in favour of the principle The issue today concerns the two homes that the of the regulations, but I am dismayed by the way in Christian Scientists run in England. The Church believes which the Government have handled them. We have that it should be permitted to claim a religious exemption already heard the criticism of the Secondary Legislation from Covid-19 vaccination. Will the Minister confirm Scrutiny Committee. It is an absolute disgrace that the the assurances that I gave to the House from the Government have not produced either the operational Dispatch Box 21 years ago? Would his officials meet guidance—even though they say it will be produced with the Church to discuss the details? within a few days—or the impact assessment, which is required to be submitted to the Regulatory Policy 7.17 pm Committee for independent scrutiny and presented to Parliament. Why has this not been done? To expect us Lord Cormack (Con): My Lords, I have been calling to agree to the incursion on personal liberty, in the way for the vaccination of care home workers for months that these regulations provide for, is very bad indeed. and months. I believe that, when we have had to have My guess is that the Government are very so many restrictions imposed upon us—on the number uncomfortable with what a proper RIA would say. of people we could have in our own homes, where we Clearly, what has happened is that, once again, the could go and what we could do—it is entirely reasonable poor old residential care sector has been picked upon to say that those who care for the most vulnerable and could be devastated as a result of these regulations. members of society should be obliged to be vaccinated. The Government are embarrassed by this, and therefore I think that that is reasonable. The noble Baroness, do not want Parliament to know the full facts. If the Lady Tyler,indicated that that was the line that she took. Minister says it is because officials have been working However, I have been doing this for month after very hard and are not ready, I just do not believe it. month after month, going back to the very beginning His department has so much form in treating this of this year, if not before. I regret infinitely the way in House with contempt that I am afraid I cannot give it which there has been prevarication. It seems to me so the benefit of the doubt on this. This is a deliberate obvious that, if this had been said at the beginning of attempt to hide from Parliament the consequences of the year, proper legislation could have been produced. a hugely important policy decision. It will not be My noble friend Lady Noakes talked about the forgotten. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I would contempt with which Parliament has been treated. I like an assurance that this will last only for a minimum do not think that anyone since Cromwell has treated period of time. Parliament with greater contempt, over a whole range 217 Health and Social Care Act 2008[LORDS] Health and Social Care Act 2008 218

[LORD CORMACK] legislation. The Commission was not keen to change of issues. We are a parliamentary democracy, and the the status quo, but some of us were, and eventually it Government are answerable and accountable to gave way—albeit reluctantly. But the battles continued, Parliament. We have been through an extraordinary as it would never admit that it was wrong. As for us, series of emergencies, when it has been understandable the politicians, a little courage and fortitude to hold that certain measures had to be taken, but there has your ground is very difficult and it is so much easier been far too much retrospective legislation, far too much just to give in. The EU sought more and more centralising secondary legislation and far too many Henry VIII powers and aimed to micromanage every element of clauses. I beg the Government and my noble friend our lives, so we left—quite literally. When the vaccine Lord Bethell—I am sorry that he is not here; he debacle blew up last year, it summed up why we had cannot be with us because he is in isolation. He has had to go. We wanted to take back control—well, not treated your Lordships’ House with contempt—far most of us did, anyway. from it—but there has been an arrogance that has not I do not underestimate the challenges in making the been attractive. most difficult decisions that Ministers have had to It is right that we proceed, but it would have been make.Initially,theBritishpeoplewholeheartedlysupported very much better to have primary rather than secondary the actions that were taken. The vaccine was and is the legislation. Lessons should be learned. We have to silver bullet, and we all bought into it. However, in my come back—the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, made view, the hand of the state is now riding roughshod this point in her speech—to the fact that a very large over the will of the people, still controlling everything percentage of those who perished from Covid were in we do and how we are allowed to think. If you question, care homes. There were all sorts of factors such as the say, a lockdown or a mask, you are accused of wanting release of people from hospital to care homes. But the to “let rip”—not my words. If you publicly disagree, plain, blunt fact is that over one-third—probably 40%—of you are normally too stupid to understand, and if you those who make up the frightening statistic of those actually demonstrate then obviously you are an anarchist, who have died were in care homes. Those in care which the majority plainly are not. So when Ministers homes are,by very definition, not very mobile,particularly turn up to the Dispatch Box, hiding behind the 2020 the elderly in care homes. They are fixed. emergency powers Act, without a full business impact I first brought this to the attention of the House assessment and wishing to broaden the scope without and Ministers because of a great friend of ours who consultation, that is a step too far. had a mother who has since died. She was 99 when she I am a great supporter of the vaccines but I will not died and she had a long life and a good life, until support coercion or anyone being forced to have it to towards the end. Our friend used to say to us, “I have keep their job or feed their family. This debate is now to dress up in all manner of accoutrements, I cannot moving away from public health and into the realms of hold my mother’s hand”—and she could not until just state control. The goalposts move daily. The public a week or two before she died—“and I cannot and businesses have no idea what is happening next. communicate with my deaf mother properly.” And Contradictions abound. “Ping-gate”, as it is called, is yet, in the care home in which she was being well causing chaos. It was always advisory but the public looked after, something like one-third of those looking were deliberately kept in the dark. Thousands of workers after her most intimate needs were refusing to be and children have been self-isolating who are fit and vaccinated. That cannot be right. well—500,000 last week. Test and trace is all over the Of course, I do not believe in compulsory vaccination place while, in my view, forcibly testing school children regardless, but I do believe it is entirely reasonable to with no symptoms has been an outrage. say that those in certain positions have an obligation And so to holidays. The Minister decides and to their vocation and those they are looking after to announces that France is now in amber plus, despite do so as safely as possible. We know the efficacy of the fact that the beta variant is in Réunion, which is vaccination; it is not perfect, but it gives a high degree 6,000 miles away. It is a bit like a new “foxtrot” variant of protection. It is therefore entirely reasonable that emerging in the Falklands. Portugal went back to we ask those fulfilling those tasks to be vaccinated. amber—naturally, post the Champions League—and But it could have been done in a much better way. The the Balearics are where all the families go, so they are policy could and should have been announced at the in amber too, but not if it is a pilot. At concerts in beginning of the year because the facts have not Liverpool three months ago, Royal Ascot, Wimbledon changed. There would have been ample time then for and Wembley there was no distancing and no masks primary legislation. and there have been no spikes so they were not dangerous. I will not, of course, support the amendment to the This brings me to SAGE. Some 366 members sit on Motion moved very eloquently by the noble Baroness, 10 working groups and committees, 18 of whom remain Lady Wheeler, although I respect her very much. I anonymous. I do not question their integrity but they shall vote for the Government; I will be voting with are unelected, wielding powers that affect our freedoms, relief but, at the same time, with a heavy heart. movement and association with people. It beats me how they would ever agree—but they do not, really, 7.23 pm because different medics and scientists contradict their Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con): My Lords, on my colleagues on mainstream media every day, normally election to the European Parliament more than 20 years those appearing to want to wallow in bad news. The ago, it became clear early on that the Commission—or behavioural commissions admitted that they had used the Executive—wielded great power. There were no scare tactics and propaganda to make the public business impact assessments, despite our enacting primary comply—terrified, more like it. 219 Health and Social Care Act 2008[20 JULY 2021] Health and Social Care Act 2008 220

So here we are, 18 months down the line. Ministers I am sure many noble Lords will have received, as I and politicians cannot continue to hide behind the did, a briefing from Neil Russell, chairman of PJ Care science, advisers, focus groups and opinion polls. It is Ltd. I do not know Mr Russell, but I know a cri de about being accountable, transparent and bold. Can coeur when I read one, and that is what his briefing you imagine a Thatcher Government or the likes of was. He calculates, believably, with figures that broadly my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke and my reflect the scant information we have from the noble friends Lord Tebbit, Lord Lamont, Lord Lilley Government, that 5% of staff may, as a result of this, and Lord Forsyth, or many others in this House, not leave the sector—75,000 staff in a sector that already rigorously challenging the advice? has 100,000 vacancies. There is clearly a risk that some In conclusion, no one gave any Government the homes will be able to poach workers from those that authority to take away the civil rights that we earned cannot keep them. over centuries. We fought and died for them. No We have a disastrously financialised care home Government can demand respect; they have to earn it. sector—something that the Financial Times, among We, the people, will take back control. We will get other unlikely media outlets, has increasingly been back to normal. So it behoves the Minister, along with highlighting—with a significant degree of ownership his colleagues, to make sure that that happens. It gives concentrated in the hands of hedge funds that have, on me no pleasure to speak out against my own Government their classic model, loaded them with debt while shipping but, in my view, to remain silent today would have been out massive profits of 12% to 16%, usually off to tax remiss of me. havens. However, that situation could be even further worsened by this measure, with large chains being able 7.29 pm to ship staff around while smaller, independent family Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]: My businesses and the few remaining homes run for public Lords, I preface my remarks by noting that I have had good not profit do not have that option. two vaccinations, which I got at the earliest opportunity. Workers in this sector have made their views clear. I recommend that everyone who possibly can do the The UNISON briefing says this measure is same. “counterproductive, risks serious staff shortages and could drive What we have in these small but extraordinarily the problem underground.” significant regulations is a collision between the I am not suggesting doing nothing. I note the Government’s social care policy—the one we were article titled “Excess mortality for care home residents told was “clear” and “prepared” two years ago, but during the first 23 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic which, we have learned this afternoon, is not expected in England” in the BMC Medicine journal. Up to to be available until the autumn—and their Covid 7 August 2020, there were, tragically, nearly 30,000 policies. These are two areas of the greatest government excess deaths in all care homes: 65% of those were failure—two areas of confused, confusing, contradictory confirmed or suspected Covid-19. and clearly disastrous policies, which, when put together To protect the residents of care homes—as the in these regulations, produce what could be a disaster Government so comprehensively failed to do last year as well as a severe procedural tangle. The likely outcome exactly when Germany was applying strict testing and of this policy is a dangerous diminution of care provision quarantine requirements for residents returning to or for some of the most vulnerable in our society, and entering homes, meaning far fewer deaths—is obviously great stress, worry and possibly loss of employment crucial. But the London School of Hygiene & Tropical forthose—mostlylow-paid,tooofteninsecurelyemployed, Medicine study, to which other noble Lords referred, mostly women, many from minoritised communities— emphasises who care for them. “the importance of COVID-19 vaccination remaining voluntary.” As is all too often the case, I regret that the regret amendment, which I support and which the Green It says: group will back, is only that and not stronger. In this, I “Feeling pressurised had damaging effects, eroding trust and may be in rare agreement with the noble Baroness, negatively affecting relationships at work, and often exacerbated COVID-19 vaccination concerns and hardened stances on declining Lady Noakes. Nearly two years ago, the first vote I vaccination.” took part in in your Lordships’ House—in that strange, archaic procedure of trooping down long corridors, That is not surprising. It is human to think that if you attaching myself to another Peer to check I was heading are being forced to do something, there is a reason in the right direction—was on a regret amendment. why that force is necessary. That Peer, a Lib Dem, kindly explained that it was a Many, presented with the evidence and given time vote but it would not change anything, to my considerable to think it over, are likely to come on board—the right disappointment. way for any medical procedure to be given—with full Wetalk a lot about affirmative and negative instruments informed genuine consent. UNISON presents a half-page and wrestle with the Government about converting list of useful voluntary measures that could and should the latter to the former. But really, if we are not prepared be undertaken. I particularly highlight the need to to actually stop something that is as clearly wrong and remove any financial disincentives. chaotically mismanaged as this, should we not think I started with my personal experiences. After both about what is askew with our constitutional arrangements doses, I felt pretty rotten for three or four days and less —those antique, accidentally accreted structures, which than perky for a few more. I say that not as a we have managed to demonstrate, through the Covid-19 discouragement, but as an honest account. That is the pandemic, can be quickly modernised when there is kind of honesty we need to build trust and confidence. the will? It is obviously vastly preferable to catching Covid or 221 Health and Social Care Act 2008[LORDS] Health and Social Care Act 2008 222

[BARONESS BENNETT OF MANOR CASTLE] in principle, but the challenge is in the transition. passing it on to others, but I am lucky; I have a job Those who work in care homes today did not sign up where I can mostly work sitting down or, if I suddenly to compulsory vaccination when they applied and need to bail out of the day, I can. For a low-paid care accepted their job offers, so there is an ethical issue worker, one struggling to pay the rent and put food on about what we do about those who choose, rightly or the table and knowing vulnerable people depend on wrongly, to object for their own ethical and other them, those luxuries are not available. We need to reasons. If this were another job, for example in certain make sure people who work in care homes can choose units in the Army where vaccination is the expected to have these vaccinations, and are not forced into them. behaviour upon receiving an offer, this would not be an issue, but we now face having to impose it 7.35 pm retrospectively on current workers. More thought needs Lord Wei (Con): My Lords, I declare an interest as to be put into how we deal with this dilemma. For an adviser to Future Planet Capital, a sustainable example, could the Minister consult the care sector to investment firm that has a stake in Vaccitech, the explore what roles people who have been a front-line start-up that licensed the intellectual property and carer could play, which would not require vaccination, original R&D relating to what is known as the either remotely or on site, but separated from vulnerable AstraZeneca vaccine, of which I have received two service users? Could steps not be taken to separate doses. I begin by congratulating the Minister for running different groups of patients in care homes based on the marathon of this past year or so, managing the the latest clinical science? This would at least reduce demands of the pandemic tirelessly and responding the risk of discrimination and the perception of rules swiftly to requests, certainly from me, for information being changed arbitrarily and after the event, rather or action. For example, I remember us speaking at one than in a planned way. point early in the pandemic about the need to restrict Ultimately, we have to accept that we are still fighting inbound travel from Italy. He and his colleagues at the this pandemic and that emergency measures like these Foreign Office ultimately took the necessary action. are needed, but we also need to remember that we are I recognise the reasons behind this measure, given in a democracy and that you cannot unvaccinate someone, the high number of fatalities and infections that have so, unlike other measures, this cannot be temporary or taken place in care homes and facilities over the course reversible. We have to give more thought to what we of the pandemic and the need to ensure that those in do to look after those who object to being vaccinated, them are protected. It is a step in the right direction even if we may disagree with them, rather than casting proactively to seek to ensure that safeguards are in them and their concerns aside, even if for the very place, given that, last year, we found that the speed of worthy cause of keeping service users healthy, protected events could, at times, truly overwhelm us and the and alive. It is a very slippery slope, changing the system. To this end, I echo the Minister’s tribute to staff terms of someone’s job such that they suddenly find in the social care system who have tirelessly sacrificed themselves forced to do something against their conscience. to protect those in their care. Let us hope that this and future Governments will do My main point is that, while seeking to vaccinate this only very rarely and ensure that they have thought those working in care homes may make sense in the through the implications for everyone, including workers, short term, I would love to see a more systemic approach carefully in the future. by the Government to make our health and social care system more resilient generally, rather than reacting to 7.40 pm events after the horse has bolted. By doing so, we would be able not only to address the problems we Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl): My Lords, face in our social care system and its funding, but to there have been some excellent speeches in this debate. deal with the long waiting lists we face and ultimately I speak the day after the rather misnamed “freedom make our economy and society less of a hostage to day” was used by the Prime Minister to herald a “show whatever crisis next turns up to fill our hospitals with your papers” society. No doubt the threat of domestic patients. passports—a policy that the Minister for Vaccines has Hospitals and care homes are particularly vulnerable regularly described as discriminatory—is just a ploy to within our wider system right now, because they nudge or blackmail young people to get vaccinated or concentrate a lot of vulnerable people and thus make be denied access to nightclubs and public life. it easy for the virus to reach them, relatively speaking. Today I am here to speak against another illiberal Of course, defending them helps, but I would love to measure: mandated vaccines for care workers. That see more thinking in government to tackle root causes, message is, “Get vaccinated or you will be denied such as whether we should be concentrating so many access to your job”. Have the Government abandoned vulnerable people in one place at all and whether more using the usual democratic means of persuasion— diagnosis, care and treatment could be done at home, convincing citizens of the merits of policies—and remotely, in the community or in smaller facilities. If resorted instead to a lazier,coercive approach, bypassing they have to be in larger units, bubbles could be Parliament while they are at it? created within them, so the truly vulnerable are separated The Government claim that they have tried extensive from the others. Only in that way, I believe, will we communications programmes to try to persuade care truly eliminate the likelihood of future lockdowns. workers to get jabbed, but how hard have they tried? I However, today we are talking not about this more think the UNISON suggestions were very helpful. We holistic or comprehensive approach to preventing have heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes infection, but about the measure before us. I support it and Lady Bennett, about some other ways we can have 223 Health and Social Care Act 2008[20 JULY 2021] Health and Social Care Act 2008 224 targeted persuasion, peer-to-peer reassurance initiatives emergency but more recently the welfare of the many and so on. I just do not believe that we have tried hard of the same vulnerable residents has been jeopardised enough. by draconian restrictions on visits from families. I We all understand that vaccine hesitancy among commend to all noble Lords Midsummer Milestones, a care workers is a moral dilemma. Ideally, those who briefing paper from John’s Campaign and supporters work with vulnerable people should not put them in of Rights for Residents, to get a visceral sense of the danger, and it would be better if they were immunised. horrors inflicted on those in care homes by the mandatory As my mother lived in a care home and my aunt is still 14-day isolation rules. The protective ring around care a resident, I am sensitive to the idea that, in certain homes really does ring hollow and now the everyday protective environments, following health and safety heroes of care homes, who worked their guts out rules is key to the job. If care workers who have during the pandemic, feel victimised. I have received intimate contact with our loved ones refused to wear droves of emails from front-line staff who say that PPE, for example, we might think them negligent, so I they feel like third-class citizens. can see both sides. Can the Minister concede that this Finally, and ironically, this policy could make care is an ethical minefield? This legislation is a blunt homes less safe in the future. We have already heard instrument that does not take into account any nuance that if only 5% of staff refuse the vaccine and are at all. sacked, that will mean tens of thousands of workers Ministers say that the policy is based on consultation, leaving a sector that already has severe staff shortages. and they claim that they have listened to the experiences Does the Minister think homes should operate with and concerns of providers and people living and working dangerously low staffing levels or close down? Many in care homes, but have they really listened? A majority professionals believe that mandated vaccine policy of the consultation respondents did not support mandated will see them close altogether, with a loss of 50,000 vaccines, and 62% of care home residents themselves beds. Does the Minister realise that that would mean are unsupportive of the proposal. residents ending up in hospitals, increasing pressure on the NHS? Oh, the irony. The consultation is credited with the extraordinary decision to broaden the scope to include, with limited This SI is not serious policy. I will abstain because exemptions, everyone who enters a care home, regardless regret is not strong enough for how I feel. The issue of their role. Can the Minister explain whether the requires proper,nuanced, moral argument in this House— driver who regularly delivers food should be sacked the vulnerable deserve it. too? What about the hairdressers and the arts and crafts teachers who went into my mum’s home and 7.47 pm who service homes? Will they be banned? Will there be Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]: My Lords, I declare my bouncers at the door? Will homes have fewer services? interests as a vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Then there are the unintended consequences. A Adult Social Care. Many have spoken from the heart, recent study by the London School of Hygiene & including my noble friend Lady Tyler,about the principles Tropical Medicine was very clear that the Covid-19 of ensuring that those who need to be cared for by the vaccine should remain voluntary for care workers or it care sector are kept safe. From these Benches we would risk negatively affecting relationships at work, unequivocally support that principle but we argue that hardening stances against the vaccine and undermining this SI itself is flawed, as demonstrated by the eighth the trust in all vaccines and the process of policy-making. and 10th reports of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Let me be clear: I am an enthusiastic supporter of Committee. These echo the concerns of cross-party vaccination. The 18th-century Edward Jenner is one MPs in their debate on this SI last week. of my personal heroes. Specifically, Covid vaccines are First, it is important to say that a year ago the proof that humanity can deploy scientific ingenuity in shockingly high death toll in care homes was because managing and overcoming deadly challenges. I have neither residents nor staff were protected by our no time for the anti-big-pharma tropes or the rejection Government. In the early days, patients with Covid of pharmacological interventions—nature does not were discharged from hospital into homes. Worse, know best. But I also believe in freedom, specifically staff could not get access to proper PPE. I do not take freedom of choice and conscience, and surely it is the view of our Prime Minister—as reported by Dominic dangerous and regressive to weaponise medical Cummings—that anyone over 80 is going to die soon interventions as the price of freedom. Ever since trade anyway. For too many, Covid is a very nasty disease, as unions and radicals forced the repeal of the Contagious he well knows. Shame on him for dismissing the lives Diseases Acts in 1886, the voluntary principle of opting of anyone over 80. out has worked well. At the very least, overturning I turn to the regulation itself. There is still no that principle in law should require far more scrutiny impact assessment. The statement of impact, hurriedly than a rushed-through statutory instrument given only published yesterday, does not answer the questions 90 minutes of debate. I thank the noble Baroness, raised in the Commons debate last week and does not Lady Wheeler, for forcing us to at least have this provide the evidence for its assertions. Further, it is debate, but this is not the way it should be done. not clear exactly where the boundaries of the Minister’s The Government insisted that this was necessary, powers lie in the regulation and what ability there is, however, to protect vulnerable residents. That might therefore, for mission creep and Henry VIII powers. be more convincing if so many vulnerable people had One example is the nature of the evidence required not died of Covid in care homes due to government for vaccination status. It might be an app. It might be policies that were not debated. All right, that was an an NHS letter. There is no evidence yet for your 225 Health and Social Care Act 2008[LORDS] Health and Social Care Act 2008 226

[BARONESS BRINTON] “Since March 5th 2021 we have had 2 covid deaths, during Lordships’ House to understand how secure this process which time 955 residents have passed away. Covid therefore would be. Nor are the duties under law of the registered accounts for 0.2% of all our deaths in the past 18 weeks.” person in a care home or a care company stated. The Can the Minister provide the nationwide data on deaths Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed in care homes over the last four months? I believe it out that it was not certain matches these figures, so is this SI necessary? The Government admit that SAGE’s target was met, but “whether that would provide a sufficient defence to a registered person if they needed to contest a sanction for non-compliance.” have said there should be even more vaccinations. Other than the Minister, every speaker tonight has raised The real concern from the evidence given by Ministers problems with these regulations, from all sides of the and their officials is the actual size of the problem they House. From these Benches, we say that the litany of are trying to solve. SAGE has said that the target for minor and major issues means that the instrument staff vaccinations should be around 80% and, in his should not be brought into effect, so we will support opening speech, the Minister said that we are so nearly the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. there with the vaccinations and then quoted the data to confirm that, despite localised variations. The 7.53 pm 10th secondary legislation report says: Lord Bethell (Con) [V]: My Lords, I thank noble “It became evident that the DHSC are trying to target this legislation on particular groups of people”. Lords for their considered questions and huge interest in the instrument laid before us today. Tragically, there It is not explained in the Explanatory Memorandum, have been more than 30,000 deaths recorded among perhaps because it is those people in deprived areas, care home residents during this pandemic. We have a younger staff and ethnic minorities. duty to do all we can to prevent further suffering. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wei, the noble Testing,PPE and infection prevention can go only so Baroness, Lady Fox, and others that, for months, the far in the mitigation of risk. Ensuring very high levels care sector and unions have been working with vaccine- of vaccination for people living and working in care hesitant staff. Back in January, a GP in Newcastle was homes is an essential public health intervention for a reported as saying that the single most effective tool to serious vaccine-preventable disease. overcome vaccine hesitancy was getting local doctors Toanswer my noble friend Lord Lansley,the residential who staff know to listen to their concerns and answer care workers covered by these regulations are handling them. Care providers confirm that this technique is the most vulnerable and elderly in priority list 1, which highly effective and, frankly, it is probably why the is why we started with them. Forthcoming consultations SAGE targets and more are achievable. Why are the will address those who work with priority lists 2 to 4 Government not backing this route, which would appear and, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to overturn staff hesitancy more than any other technique, we may ultimately consult on extending further into and certainly more than coercion? the rest of the health and social care workforce. My noble friend Lord Lansley asked about resources. Our There is a long litany on the lack of legislative focus has been on ensuring that the social care sector compliance, commented on by many noble Lords, in has the resources it needs to respond to the pandemic. addition to the lack of the vital impact assessment. The On 27 June, we announced a further £251 million of sector has faced a perfect workforce storm in the last adult social care Covid-19 support, through an extension 18 months. Brexit has resulted in large numbers of EU of the infection control and testing fund. staff leaving the UK. Now, as restrictions are lifted, staff are being wooed by those able to pay premium salaries I say to my noble friend Lady Foster, who spoke with in hospitality and, in rural areas, agriculture. Social such passion on individual choice, that it is worth bearing care providers say that there are already over 120,000 in mind that many people are not afforded much, if vacancies. They know that they will have to sack those any, choice in who cares for them. We have heard from who refuse vaccinations and will find it even harder to people with lived experience of care. They want to recruit from an ever decreasing pool. All the Government know that the person who cares for them is vaccinated. say is that it will cost the sector £100 million—much I am not instinctively a supporter of mandatory measures. better to work with the sector to do this voluntarily. I note my noble friend’s philosophical points on this with great interest. I am even less keen to impose To workforce issues, we must add the lack of detail in obligations on those people just at the time when the the Explanatory Memorandum about how this proposed rest of society is opening up around them. But the system would work. Nor do the SI or the EM have key noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, put it very well. She made definitions, again leaving your Lordships’ House in the a strong case, with moving personal testimony, that it dark. I add to the comments of others about the is right that we protect the most vulnerable, even if it inconsistencies of targeting just this sector and not would take us further than we would normally go. We others in the NHS. So, care assistants, plumbers and simply cannot be in a position where those most in hairdressers must be vaccinated if they are going into need of care and the highest level of protection from care homes, but not GPs and other doctors—that is the threat of Covid face a lottery of risk depending on extraordinary. the level of vaccine uptake by those working in their I end by returning to the fundamental issue of care. My noble friend Lord Cormack has spoken on whether there is a need for this SI. One of the largest this on several occasions extremely movingly. care organisations, Four Seasons Health Care, challenges It is not our intention to compel anyone to take the the Minister’s assertions that care homes are not safe vaccine against their will. We can, and should, make it at the moment. In its evidence, it said: an essential criterion for working in care homes—to 227 Health and Social Care Act 2008[20 JULY 2021] Health and Social Care Act 2008 228 make it an explicit duty of care, providing peace of Tothe concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, mind to colleagues, residents and all who visit. Barchester, I say that it is right that we start with care homes, where a large care home provider with over 16,000 staff, residents and staff are the top priority, and we intend already requires staff to be vaccinated. The evidence to consult further on the rest of health and social care. there gives us real cause to be hopeful, showing that, It is also right to acknowledge the important role of the having taken the time and effort to engage with employees, Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in considering understand their concerns and encourage them to take the regulations. I acknowledge fulsomely the vital role up the vaccine, only 0.5% of staff left the workforce. I of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, that there scrutinising the legislation and holding the Government have been huge efforts to drive vaccination take-up to account. Weare particularly grateful to the committee among care home staff in recent months already. In for giving us the opportunity to explain the policy in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and further detail in an evidence session last week. others who have spoken on this point, I would welcome the opportunity to update noble Lords on these efforts, 8 pm in detail, at a suitable briefing. In addition, I put on record that we will be correcting the error regarding the impact assessment in both the We have heard the arguments made by the noble Explanatory Memorandum and the Explanatory Note Baroness, Lady Tyler,that social care teams need support. to the regulations. This will make it clear that an That is exactly why vaccination teams have visited care impact assessment has not been published, but set out homes to offer vaccinations to both residents and that an impact statement has been laid in Parliament staff, with actions at the national, regional and local and published, and where it has been made available. I level to improve access and address concerns. To answer hope the recent publication of the impact statement the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, on and the point I have outlined today on the rationale guidance, I reassure the House that we recognise the for these draft regulations have helped to address the need to introduce these changes with the utmost care points raised today by the committee, as well as those and sensitivity. To the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, and other we are working with representatives from the sector to noble Lords who have raised concerns by correspondence. produce detailed operational guidance to support implementation. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, is To my noble friend Lord Lansley, and the question right that the implementation is complex, so we will of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about a sunset clause, I also be working with Skills for Care, the charity focused draw their attention to the annual review clause with on workforce development, to ensure that guidance the draft regulations which will require the Government and best practice are available to support providers and to carry out a review one year after coming into force local authorities. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell- to assess whether they still think it is appropriate. Savours, that the wearing of masks in a care home Given the amount of consultation we have done, we setting is properly governed by regulations. I reassure think that is a proportionate approach, but I reassure him that the guidelines are rigorously enforced. them both that, if the review calls on us to revoke these measures, we will not hesitate. I will address the heartfelt, tough and, if I may say, Again, I thank all noble Lords present for their challenging remarks of noble Lords on the impact time today and for their tough but thoughtful remarks. statement. I reassure noble Lords that this Minister, To the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, I say that the this department and this Government fully respect Government hear her reservations, but I hope the Parliament, and the scrutiny and challenge brought by reassurances I have provided will persuade her to Parliament and this House. We have published an withdraw her amendment. I repeat my gratitude to impact statement. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, social care workers across the country for the valuable that there is no question of us trying to hide that. But work they do every day. I beg to move. it is very complex. I hope the House will appreciate that there is an enormous amount about this pandemic Baroness Wheeler (Lab): My Lords, I thank the that is unprecedented. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, put Minister for his response and all noble Lords for their it well. We cannot be sure how staff will react to this contributions on this very important SI. Of course, I unprecedented measure. That is what drives the financial join in the tributes to social care staff across the sector model, but how do we know how many will leave the during the pandemic. As I said in moving the amendment, sector or take a lateral move to a non-sensitive role? my focus is on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Much about the vaccine has confounded expectation. Committee’s rightful concerns about the inadequacy Who would have thought a year ago that the take up of the legislation and the Government’s failure to of the vaccine among the elderly would be in the produce the essential guidance needed or the full mid-90% range, or that the take-up among the young impact assessment of the risks to the future of many would be incredibly encouraging? As I said, one major care homes from the huge disruption that will take care home provider has already brought in such a place. It is not an SI that is pandemic-restricted, a measure and saw a drop-off of less than 1%. That is temporary measure; instead it is permanent legislation, why the drafting of the impact assessment has been which makes the quality of the SI even more important such a struggle. There is no question of hiding or of and reinforces the inadequacy of the legislation we misleading the House. We are working with partners have before us today on such an important issue for to generate the most credible calculations possible. We care homes, their staff and residents. will publish the impact assessment as soon as possible My noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Lord, and we are using this time to hammer out the best Lord Lansley, sought an assurance from the Minister estimate we can. that the measures will be temporary and time-limited, 229 Health and Social Care Act 2008[LORDS] Health and Social Care Act 2008 230

[BARONESS WHEELER] Hayter of Kentish Town, B. Patel, L. but we did not get that assurance. Once again we have Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Pinnock, B. an SI that seeks to extend unspecified government powers Hendy, L. Pitkeathley, B. Henig, B. Prescott, L. in legislation without justifying why those powers are Hilton of Eggardon, B. Primarolo, B. needed. In other words, this is, as the Secondary Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Prosser, B. Legislation Scrutiny Committee says, L. Purvis of Tweed, L. “guidance exceeding its ancillary function and taking on the role Hollick, L. Quin, B. of legislation”. Hope of Craighead, L. Randerson, B. Howarth of Newport, L. Razzall, L. Noble Lords raised many points and I fear there is Hoyle, L. Rees of Ludlow, L. just not time now to respond to them. Overall, this SI Humphreys, B. Rennard, L. remains an incoherent, muddled and confused piece of Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Ritchie of Downpatrick, B. legislation and further last-minute information and Hussain, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Hussein-Ece, B. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. reassurances from the Government have not made it Hutton of Furness, L. Rooker, L. any clearer or dealt with the key issues that need to be Janke, B. Rosser, L. addressed. I wish to test the opinion of the House. Jones of Cheltenham, L. Rowlands, L. Jones of Whitchurch, B. Scott of Needham Market, B. Jones, L. Scriven, L. 8.04 pm Jordan, L. Sharkey, L. Kennedy of Cradley, B. Sheehan, B. Division conducted remotely on Baroness Wheeler’s Kennedy of Southwark, L. Sherlock, B. amendment. Kennedy of The Shaws, B. Shipley, L. Kilclooney, L. Sikka, L. Kingsmill, B. Simon, V. Contents 221; Not-Contents 211. Knight of Weymouth, L. Smith of Basildon, B. Kramer, B. Smith of Finsbury, L. Baroness Wheeler’s amendment agreed. Laming, L. Smith of Gilmorehill, B. Lawrence of Clarendon, B. Snape, L. Division No. 7 Layard, L. Somerset, D. Lee of Trafford, L. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. Leitch, L. Stoneham of Droxford, L. CONTENTS Lennie, L. Storey, L. Aberdare, L. Coaker, L. Levy, L. Strasburger, L. Adebowale, L. Collins of Highbury, L. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Stuart of Edgbaston, B. Adonis, L. Colville of Culross, V. Liddle, L. Suttie, B. Alderdice, L. Cooper of Windrush, L. Lisvane, L. Taylor of Bolton, B. Allan of Hallam, L. Corston, B. Ludford, B. Taylor of Goss Moor, L. Alli, L. Cotter, L. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Teverson, L. Amos, B. Crawley, B. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, Thomas of Gresford, L. Anderson of Ipswich, L. Davidson of Glen Clova, L. L. Thomas of Winchester, B. Anderson of Swansea, L. Davies of Brixton, L. Mallalieu, B. Thornhill, B. Bach, L. Davies of Stamford, L. Mandelson, L. Tope, L. Bakewell of Hardington Dholakia, L. Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Touhig, L. Mandeville, B. Donaghy, B. L. Triesman, L. Barker, B. Donoughue, L. McAvoy, L. Truscott, L. Bassam of Brighton, L. Doocey, B. McConnell of Glenscorrodale, Tunnicliffe, L. Beecham, L. Dubs, L. L. Turnberg, L. Bennett of Manor Castle, B. Elder, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Tyler, L. Berkeley, L. Featherstone, B. McNally, L. Uddin, B. Billingham, B. Finlay of Llandaff, B. McNicol of West Kilbride, L. Verjee, L. Birt, L. Foster of Bath, L. Meacher, B. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Blake of Leeds, B. Foster of Oxton, B. Mendelsohn, L. Walmsley, B. Blower, B. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Merron, B. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Boateng, L. Fox, L. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Watson of Invergowrie, L. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Freyberg, L. B. Watts, L. B. Gale, B. Mitchell, L. West of Spithead, L. Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Garden of Frognal, B. Monks, L. Wheeler, B. Boycott, B. German, L. Morris of Aberavon, L. Whitaker, B. Bradley, L. Glasgow, E. Murphy of Torfaen, L. Whitty, L. Bradshaw, L. Glasman, L. Newby, L. Wilcox of Newport, B. Brinton, B. Goddard of Stockport, L. Northover, B. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Golding, B. Nye, B. Wills, L. Bruce of Bennachie, L. Goudie, B. Oates, L. Winston, L. Bryan of Partick, B. Greengross, B. Osamor, B. Woodley, L. Bull, B. Grender, B. Paddick, L. Wrigglesworth, L. Burnett, L. Grey-Thompson, B. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Young of Hornsey, B. Burt of Solihull, B. Griffiths of Burry Port, L. Parminter, B. Young of Norwood Green, L. Campbell of Pittenweem, L. Grocott, L. Patel of Bradford, L. Young of Old Scone, B. Campbell-Savours, L. Hain, L. Cashman, L. Hamwee, B. NOT CONTENTS Chakrabarti, B. Harries of Pentregarth, L. Chapman of Darlington, B. Harris of Haringey, L. Adams of Craigielea, B. Arbuthnot of Edrom, L. Chartres, L. Harris of Richmond, B. Agnew of Oulton, L. Arran, E. Chidgey, L. Haskel, L. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Ashton of Hyde, L. Clancarty, E. Haworth, L. Altmann, B. Astor of Hever, L. Clement-Jones, L. Hayman of Ullock, B. Anelay of St Johns, B. Balfe, L. 231 Health and Social Care Act 2008[20 JULY 2021] Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past 232

Barran, B. Goodlad, L. Rotherwick, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Bates, L. Goschen, V. Sanderson of Welton, B. Taylor of Warwick, L. Bellingham, L. Grade of Yarmouth, L. Sandhurst, L. Tebbit, L. Benyon, L. Greenway, L. Sarfraz, L. Trefgarne, L. Berridge, B. Griffiths of Fforestfach, L. Sassoon, L. Trenchard, V. Bethell, L. Hailsham, V. Sater, B. Trimble, L. Black of Brentwood, L. Hamilton of Epsom, L. Scott of Bybrook, B. True, L. Blackwood of North Oxford, Haselhurst, L. Seccombe, B. Udny-Lister, L. B. Hayward, L. Selkirk of Douglas, L. Ullswater, V. Shackleton of Belgravia, B. Blencathra, L. Helic, B. Vaizey of Didcot, L. Bloomfield of Hinton Henley, L. Sharpe of Epsom, L. Sheikh, L. Verma, B. Waldrist, B. Herbert of South Downs, L. Wakeham, L. Borwick, L. Hogg, B. Shephard of Northwold, B. Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. Walker of Aldringham, L. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Holmes of Richmond, L. Wasserman, L. Brabazon of Tara, L. Hooper, B. Shields, B. Shrewsbury, E. Wei, L. Brady, B. Howard of Lympne, L. Wharton of Yarm, L. Bridgeman, V. Howard of Rising, L. Stedman-Scott, B. Whitby, L. Brougham and Vaux, L. Howe, E. Sterling of Plaistow, L. Browning, B. Howell of Guildford, L. Stewart of Dirleton, L. Willetts, L. Brownlow of Shurlock Row, Hunt of Wirral, L. Stirrup, L. Williams of Trafford, B. L. James of Blackheath, L. Stowell of Beeston, B. Wilson of Dinton, L. Buscombe, B. Jenkin of Kennington, B. Strathclyde, L. Wolfson of Tredegar, L. Caine, L. Jopling, L. Sugg, B. Wyld, B. Caithness, E. Kamall, L. Suri, L. Young of Cookham, L. Callanan, L. Keen of Elie, L. Taverne, L. Younger of Leckie, V. Campbell of Surbiton, B. King of Bridgwater, L. Carey of Clifton, L. Kinnoull, E. 8.17 pm Carlile of Berriew, L. Kirkham, L. Carrington of Fulham, L. Kirkhope of Harrogate, L. Carrington, L. Lang of Monkton, L. Motion, as amended, agreed. Cathcart, E. Lansley, L. Chadlington, L. Leigh of Hurley, L. Chalker of Wallasey, B. Lexden, L. Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past Chisholm of Owlpen, B. Lingfield, L. Statement Choudrey, L. Liverpool, E. Clark of Windermere, L. Livingston of Parkhead, L. Colgrain, L. Lucas, L. The following Statement was made in the House of Colwyn, L. Mancroft, L. Commons on Wednesday 14 July. Cormack, L. Manningham-Buller, B. “I would like to make a Statement now about the Courtown, E. Manzoor, B. way forward in addressing the legacy of Northern Cox, B. Masham of Ilton, B. Cruddas, L. Maxton, L. Ireland’s past. Cumberlege, B. McColl of Dulwich, L. The Troubles saw a terrible, extensive period of Curry of Kirkharle, L. McDonald of Salford, L. violence that claimed the lives of some 3,500 people, Dannatt, L. McInnes of Kilwinning, L. left up to 40,000 people injured, and caused untold Davies of Gower, L. McIntosh of Pickering, B. De Mauley, L. McLoughlin, L. damage to all aspects of society in Northern Ireland. Deben, L. Mendoza, L. The Belfast/Good Friday agreement in 1998 sought to Deech, B. Meyer, B. move Northern Ireland forward, setting a bold and Deighton, L. Morgan of Cotes, B. visionary path that would guide all the people of Dobbs, L. Morris of Bolton, B. Northern Ireland towards a shared, stable, peaceful Duncan of Springbank, L. Moylan, L. Dunlop, L. Moynihan, L. and prosperous future. Eaton, B. Naseby, L. It is wonderful to mark, in this centenary year, just Eccles of Moulton, B. Neville-Jones, B. how far Northern Ireland has come. While Northern Eccles, V. Neville-Rolfe, B. Ireland is undoubtedly today a fantastic place in which Evans of Bowes Park, B. Newlove, B. Fairfax of Cameron, L. Norton of Louth, L. to live, work and visit, the unresolved legacy of the Fairhead, B. O’Shaughnessy, L. Troubles remains. It continues to impact and permeate Fall, B. Pannick, L. society in Northern Ireland. The past is a constant Farmer, L. Parkinson of Whitley Bay, L. shadow over those who directly experienced the horrors Fellowes of West Stafford, L. Patten, L. of those times, and also over those who did not but Fink, L. Penn, B. Finkelstein, L. Pickles, L. who now live with the trauma of previous generations. Fookes, B. Pidding, B. It is clear that the current system for dealing with Forsyth of Drumlean, L. Polak, L. the legacy of the Troubles is not working. It is now a Framlingham, L. Popat, L. difficult and painful truth that the focus on criminal Fraser of Craigmaddie, B. Porter of Spalding, L. investigations is increasingly unlikely to deliver successful Freud, L. Price, L. Frost, L. Rana, L. criminal justice outcomes, but all the while it continues Fullbrook, B. Randall of Uxbridge, L. to divide communities and it fails to obtain answers Gadhia, L. Ranger, L. for a majority of victims and families. That is borne Gardner of Parkes, B. Rawlings, B. out in the figures. The Police Service of Northern Gilbert of Panteg, L. Reay, L. Ireland is currently considering almost 1,200 cases, Godson, L. Redfern, B. Gold, L. Ridley, V. which represents just a fraction of the 3,500 deaths Goldsmith of Richmond Rock, B. and wider cases. These would take over 20 years to Park, L. Rogan, L. investigate. More than two-thirds of Troubles-related 233 Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past[LORDS] Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past 234

[BARONESS WHEELER] and the best way to help Northern Ireland move deaths occurred over 40 years ago, and it is increasingly further along the road to reconciliation. It is a painful difficult for the courts to provide families with the recognition of the very reality of where we are. answers they are seeking. If we fail to act now to As I say,these issues are complex and they are sensitive. address, acknowledge and account for the legacy of That is why they remain unresolved, 23 years after the the Troubles properly, we will be condemning current Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We also understand and future generations to yet further division, preventing the importance of the Stormont House agreement, reconciliation at both the individual and societal level. and remain committed to its key principles, which this That is why I am today laying before the House, paper will outline and cover.In particular,we acknowledge and publishing, a paper that proposes a series of that any proposal that moves away from criminal measures to address the legacy of the past in Northern justice outcomes would be a very significant step that Ireland. These proposals are being considered as part will be extremely difficult for some families to accept. of an ongoing and an important engagement process, The Belfast/Good Friday agreement was a bold step which I announced alongside the Irish Government at —one to address the past—and there have been other the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference last bold steps, such as the decommissioning of weapons month. As set out in the framework, which we published and the limiting of sentences, all those years ago, to at the same time, that engagement process is committed two years. However, it is increasingly clear to us that to involving not just the UK and Irish Governments the ongoing retributive criminal justice processes are and the Northern Ireland parties, but those directly far from helping, and are in fact impeding the successful affected by the Troubles, and experts and Members delivery of information recovery, mediation and and committees of this House and the other place. reconciliation that could provide a sense of restorative The objective of this engagement is to deal with legacy justice for many more families than is currently the case. issues in a way that supports information recovery and reconciliation, complies fully with international human The Government are committed to doing all in their rights obligations and responds to the needs of individual power to ensure that families from across the United victims and survivors, as well as society as a whole. Kingdom do not continue to be let down by a process This is a hugely difficult and complex issue, and that leads only to pain, suffering and disappointment many have strongly held and divergent views on how for the vast majority. As part of that, we will deliver to move forward, but I hope we can all agree that this on our commitment to veterans who served in Northern is an issue that is of the utmost importance to the Ireland. We will provide certainty for former members people of Northern Ireland and beyond. It is critical of the security forces, many of whom remained fearful that all involved continue to engage in a spirit of of the prospect of being the subject of ongoing collaboration in order to deliver practical solutions on investigations that will hang over them for years to this most sensitive of issues. This Government reaffirm come, even though the vast majority acted in accordance their commitment to intensive engagement in that with the law, and often at great personal risk. spirit, and we are committed to introducing legislation We are also unequivocal in our commitment to by the end of the autumn. delivering for victims and survivors. Time is crucial, The measures set out in the paper will include three and as it moves on we risk the very real possibility that key proposals: first, a new independent body that will we will lose any chance to get the vital information focus on the recovery and provision of information that families want and need. They have waited long about Troubles-related deaths and most serious injuries. enough and a focus on information would offer the That body will be focused on helping families to find best chance of giving more families some sense of out the truth of what has happened to their loved justice through acknowledgment, accountability and ones. When families do not want the past raked over restorative means.Weneed to progress our understanding again, they would be able to make that clear. For those of the complexity of the Troubles and in doing so seek families that want to get answers, the body will have to reconcile society with the past as we go on to look the full powers to seek access to information and find forward together. out what happened. This Government are determined to address all aspects Secondly, a package of measures will also include a of Northern Ireland’s troubled past. We know from major oral history initiative, consistent with what was our recent history, particularly with the implementation included in the Stormont House agreement. That initiative of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, that we can would create opportunities for people from all achieve more when we are bold and move forward backgrounds to share their experiences and perspectives together. I want us all to continue to engage on the related to the Troubles and, crucially, to learn about shape and the detail of the proposals as we work to those of others. Balance and sensitivity would be of address this issue, which is of the utmost importance central importance and a concerted effort would be to the people of Northern Ireland and beyond. made to engage with those whose voices may not have Finally, I draw the attention of the House to a quote been heard previously. from Margaret Fairless Barber. I came across it when Thirdly, there will be a statute of limitations, to apply reading the report by Lord Eames and Denis Bradley equally to all Troubles-related incidents. We know that into Northern Ireland’s past and I think it is worth the prospect of the end of criminal prosecutions will repeating today in the House: be difficult for some to accept, and this is not a ‘To look backwards for a while is to refresh the eye, to restore position that we take lightly, but we have come to the it, and to render it more fit for its prime function of looking view that it is the best and only way to facilitate an forward.’ effective information retrieval and provision process, I commend this Statement to the House.” 235 Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past[20 JULY 2021] Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past 236

8.17 pm I do not need to tell the Minister—I am sure he is very much aware of it—that the Motion was unanimously Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab): My Lords, it is a supported and passed without a vote. It is quite an shame that Statements are not read out in your Lordships’ achievement for the Government to unite every Northern House now. I know that it saves time and it can feel a Ireland political party.In addition, the Irish Government bit odd when all a Minister does is read out another are also opposed to this approach. Minister’s Statement word for word, but it helps to understand why certain questions are being raised in As well as those in Northern Ireland, there is great the debate that follows. If it is the intention to continue concern here in Great Britain. Even today, as the in this way, perhaps we could consider having just a families of the victims and survivors of the Birmingham precis of the main points prior to the comments and bombing petitioned Downing Street, they have still questions. not had any communication from the Government about what this means for them. What we need today The issue before us today is a Statement on the from the Government is some clarity, honesty and legacy of Northern Ireland’s past—but this past is humility—clarity and honesty that this is not the way closely bound to the present and the future, which has forward that victims were promised. Only last year, the always made the process of moving forward to a Government promised to legislate on the Stormont peaceful future more challenging. The euphemistically House agreement through the New Decade,New Approach called Troubles saw over 3,500 people killed and tens deal. Instead of progress on Stormont House, the of thousands injured. As a former Northern Ireland proposal rides roughshod over it. Office Minister with responsibility for victims and survivors, I met so many, including veterans, from Can the Minister say something about how Operation across communities, who still carry the physical and Kenova fits into the Government’s plans? I give the psychological scars of that time. Beyond that, the pain example of Tom Oliver,who was abducted and murdered of so many and the impact on local communities by the IRA in 1991 at the age of 43. As part of reached into more areas of life than I had previously Operation Kenova, his family reported yesterday that anticipated. I listened and heard what they had to say, new DNA evidence gave them “fresh hope” for the and it has to be said that, at times, those conversations investigation. They have illustrated this as “a prime about the way ahead and the future were difficult and example” of why cases should not be closed. Does the challenging for all of us—but no progress is ever made Statement mean that the Government intend to shut without understanding the other side. down all live cases regardless of their status? Have they sought legal advice to ensure that this is compliant In Prime Minister’s Questions last week, the Prime with the duty to provide effective investigations under Minister said that the plans before the House and Article 2 of the ECHR? those before us today would allow Northern Ireland to I think everybody in your Lordships’ House today knows how difficult this is. But we also know it is “draw a line under the troubles”.—[Official Report, Commons, possible to make progress when some dismiss it as 14/7/21; col. 365.] impossible. That is where the humility comes in. We We cannot live in the past, but the phrase “draw a line do not want the Government to squander an opportunity under”, referring to something so vast as that period to seriously address very real, genuine concerns about in Northern Ireland’s history—and that of Great Britain the legacy of the past, through a failure of effective —implies a lack of understanding. engagement. I put it to the Minister, with a genuine Alongside the Statement, the Government’sCommand commitment to co-operation, would it not be better to Paper wisely states: pause, listen and work with others to consider “The best outcomes for Northern Ireland have been achieved all options—including other options—for moving when we have collectively taken bold steps.” forward? However, the difficult truth for the Government is that there is no collective support for these proposals. The Government have failed to undertake the meaningful Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]: My Lords, I echo the and genuine engagement and discussions in order to words of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, build collective support. There is no strength or wisdom about not hearing the original Statement; it does make to be found in the Government unilaterally announcing for a slightly peculiar debate, even remotely, as I am a policy or process that seems to have no support this evening. It is also regrettable that such an important beyond 10 Downing Street. issue is being discussed so late in the day. It is now 18 months since renewed hope was given These plans have been resolutely rejected by victims to the people of Northern Ireland through and survivors in Northern Ireland and Great Britain New Decade, in January last year. That was an approach and across the political spectrum by all five parties in New Approach agreed by the previous Conservative Government, the Northern Ireland. Today Stormont was recalled urgently Irish Government and had broad support across the to debate the proposals. The Motion before the Assembly communities and parties of Northern Ireland. Last stated that week’s Statement represents a dramatic and deeply “victims and survivors should have a full, material and central unwelcome move away from the Stormont House role and input into the content and design of structures to agreement, with its approach of peace and reconciliation, address the legacy of the past” towards a blanket amnesty that does not distinguish and called on the Assembly to reject the Government’s between those who broke the law and those who proposals upheld it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has “for a statute of limitations”. said, almost uniquely, last week’s Statement in the 237 Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past[LORDS] Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past 238

[BARONESS SUTTIE] unresolved legacy of the Troubles remains and casts a House of Commons by the Secretary of State for long shadow. We bear in mind that Northern Ireland Northern Ireland succeeded in uniting all five of Northern is celebrating its centenary year; noble Lords may see Ireland’s parties against these proposals. that I am wearing the badge. However, the legacy These proposals are insulting to the victims and continues to impact and permeate society in Northern their families, across all communities and backgrounds, Ireland, both for those who were directly involved and who have already waited so long to see justice and to affected and those who were not but live with the be able to have closure. It would be interesting to know trauma of previous generations. whether the Government can give a single example of It is now a painful reality that the focus on criminal when such an approach has ever succeeded in promoting investigations is increasingly unlikely to deliver successful a move towards genuine reconciliation. It is hard not criminal justice outcomes. More than two-thirds of to conclude that these proposals owe more to pressures Troubles-related deaths occurred more than 40 years from within the Conservative Party and certain elements ago, and it is increasingly difficult for the courts to of the media than to a genuine desire to deal with the provide families with the answers that they seek. Time legacy of the past and seek lasting peace and reconciliation. is not on our side. If we do not act now, we will The approach now adopted by the Government has condemn current and, importantly, future generations introduced equivalence between all veterans, the vast to ongoing division and prevent the reconciliation majority of whom served the community with honour needed for Northern Ireland to move forward. and respect for the rule of law, and terrorists, who That is why—to give a little bit of background—the deliberately sought to cause death. Justice and equality Secretary of State published the Command Paper, before the law are essential elements of trust in the law, which sets out, very briefly, the three key measures: the which is a vital element of a path to reconciliation and new independent body that would focus on the recovery moving on from the legacy of the troubled past. and provision of information; a package of measures Given the strength of opposition to these proposals that includes a major oral history initiative, consistent in Northern Ireland, can the Minister say whether it with what was included in the Stormont House agreement; remains the Government’s intention to impose this and, as has been mentioned, a statute of limitations to approach over the heads of Northern Ireland political apply equally to all Troubles-related instances. parties and victims’ groups? Does he not fear that I want to try and address some of the questions these proposals risk being seen as having no legitimacy raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, stated that and no credibility? Can he clarify their impact on there had been no engagement and particularly that inquests and ongoing investigations and prosecutions? there was no collective support. Okay, I note what she Can he say whether the Government’s proposals says. However, I point out to her that there was apply only to Troubles-related deaths or to any other 18 months of preparation for this Statement, and we crime committed by members of proscribed terrorist have indulged in a lot of engagement, particularly in organisations between 1968 and 1998? If an investigation recent months, with a range of groups. Part of the concludes that an individual’s death was caused by a point of this Statement is that these proposals are member of a proscribed organisation or a member of leading to an intense and short period of engagement the security services, will the option to pursue the with all groups within Northern Ireland, including individual responsible via a civil claim also be closed victims’ groups, to see how we can find a way forward. off? That is the honesty and the clarity for which the noble As Sir Jeffrey Donaldson MP put it so powerfully Baroness, Lady Smith, was looking. We should be in the House of Commons last week: open about that. “I want to take the path to reconciliation, but I cannot believe that Operation Kenova has proved to be valuable in the path to reconciliation is made easier when we sacrifice justice. terms of drawing out information about the Troubles, The victims have to be at the centre of this, and I would urge the which we are looking to build on by drawing out Secretary of State, in taking forward his proposals, to listen to their voices. This must be a victim-centred process; it cannot be at reconciliation and bringing out historical information their expense.”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/21; col. 396.] that we hope will provide some comfort to victims, should they wish this. However, part of the reason we Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): I thank the have brought forward these proposals is that Operation noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Suttie, for Kenova has led to no prosecutions, and that is a sad their comments and questions. I also particularly thank fact. the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her sensitive The noble Baroness raised the issue about Tom words about the victims, because of course they remain Oliver. It would be inappropriate for me to comment very much in our minds. on a matter under criminal investigation, but the I echo the thoughts of both noble Baronesses about Government are clear that a continued focus on criminal the way the House has to be at the moment and my justice outcomes will deliver neither justice nor information inability to read out the Statement. I have echoed to the vast majority of families. That is why obtaining similar words before—I think it was on the Ballymurphy information, as I said earlier, which we know is so Statement—when I agreed with the comments made important to many victims and survivors, is the that it is often better to have the Statement read out, cornerstone of the proposals that the UK Government because it provides a sensitive and suitable base from have put forward. We want to deliver tangible outcomes which to discuss challenging issues. for as many families as we possibly can. As the Secretary of State set out last week in the The noble Baroness,Lady Smith, made great play—and other place, while Northern Ireland today is undoubtedly I understand why—about why we are bringing forward a fantastic place to live in, work in and visit, the these proposals and cannot find an agreement. We are 239 Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past[20 JULY 2021] Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past 240 determined to drive progress and deliver legislation on of anger and disbelief. The Government talk about this issue, but we are consulting first. This paper sets not making an equivalence between terrorists and out our proposals and, as I said earlier, it will be an members of the Armed Forces and the police, but intensive and time-limited period of engagement. There these proposals are in grave danger of breaching that are many different perspectives on this difficult issue, principle. I have great respect for the Minister and which we recognise, but we must all work together to know that he cares deeply for Northern Ireland. Why find a way forward that works for Northern Ireland, are the Government setting aside the unanimous political which comes back to a point the noble Baroness made. consensus in Northern Ireland and, more perplexingly, These issues are sensitive; they will require courage the unanimous views of victims of the terrorists? and, importantly, they will include collaboration. Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): I, in return, very The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The much respect the huge amount of experience and Earl of Kinnoull) (CB): We come to the 20 minutes knowledge that the noble Lord has from his continuing allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions time in Northern Ireland. The UK Government and answers be kept short. understand, fully appreciate and are very sympathetic to the immense difficulty for some families of accepting 8.33 pm any prospect of a shift from criminal justice outcomes. Lord Caine (Con): My Lords, like the noble Baroness, However, this approach offers the best chance of Lady Smith of Basildon, I have spent many, many giving more families some sense of justice through hours in meetings with victims and survivors of the acknowledgement, accountability and restorative means, Troubles and was also heavily involved in the Stormont rather than a focus on retributive justice, by looking at House negotiations in 2014. My noble friend will reconciliation and how we can deliver for victims in be aware that all previous attempts by successive order to end the cycle of investigations. Governments to deal with legacy have foundered because of lack of consensus in Northern Ireland. None the Lord Mandelson (Lab) [V]: My Lords, it must be less, is it not the case that for any proposals to succeed, right in principle that every family bereaved in the they will require significant support from across the conflict should have access to an effective investigation community? Can he therefore assure the House that and meaningful process of justice, regardless of the legitimate points and concerns raised during this short perpetrator. This, rightly, has guided every Government and intensive consultation will be fully and properly since the Good Friday agreement. However, in practice, considered? we must be honest with ourselves that effective, conclusive Secondly, does my noble friend agree with me that investigations in the numbers demanded is simply not without the contribution and sacrifice of the Royal possible. The likelihood of prosecution is remote and Ulster Constabulary George Cross and the Armed therefore the original perpetrators, for all practical Forces, there would have been no peace process in purposes, are being shielded by the rule of law, not Northern Ireland and no 1998 agreement? Will he, living in fear of it. Therefore, it is reasonable to therefore, picking up on the point made by the noble weigh alternative approaches. We should consider the Baroness, Lady Suttie, assure me and the House that Government’sproposals on their merits, however painful this Conservative and Unionist Government will never it is—and I acknowledge that it is painful—for victims’ accept any equivalence between those who upheld the families to accept a statute of limitations. rule of law in Northern Ireland and those terrorists However, there is a suspicion that the Government who sought to destroy it? might be half-hearted about a system of information retrieval if it is introduced, and that the Prime Minister Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): On the last let the cat out of the bag when he talked of drawing a point, my noble friend is right that there is no moral line under the so-called Troubles the other day. Does equivalence between veterans and service personnel the Minister accept that if any new body is created to who defended the rule of law and those who sought to retrieve information and confront people with the destroy it, particularly from terrorist organisations. truth, it must be genuinely independent and powerful— On the way forward, and slightly repeating what I said fearless and fearlessly led? If not, it would be much earlier, we will enter an intensive but brief period to worse than useless; it would be an insult to, and a engage with all parts of the community, including betrayal of, every bereaved family in Northern Ireland. victims’ groups, to allow them to discuss and consider Do the Government accept this? their proposals. On my noble friend’s point about the RUC and the Armed Forces, they have served with Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): Indeed, and bravery, professionalism and distinction but, it must again, I appreciate the knowledge and huge experience be said, with some exceptions. that the noble Lord has from his time in Northern Ireland and when he was in government throughout Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP): My Lords, people all those years. I reassure him that we indeed wish to talk about moving on, but it feels that many families set up a fully independent body to look at this. It is of victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland are being very important that it is fully independent, and the asked to move aside,which is unacceptable and intolerable. issues relating to that independence will be laid out, as Their rightful desire for justice, already tempered by we will see over the coming weeks. Again, we are concessions to terrorists such as release from prison consulting and we would like to hear from all parties after two years, on-the-runs’ letters and royal pardons on this. However, the noble Lord will also know—I secretly delivered, has been sacrificed. The latest step appreciate his helpful remarks—that Northern Ireland from the Government has been greeted with a mixture has already seen difficult but necessary measures put 241 Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past[LORDS] Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past 242

[VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE] they are proposals—will move the focus away from in place that have in the past put aside normal criminal this endless cycle of investigations into the past and on justice processes for the cause of peace and reconciliation. to a future based around reconciliation and delivering He will know that this includes the early release of answers for all victims. prisoners, restricting prison sentences to just two years, even for the most heinous Troubles offences, and Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl) [V]: My Lords, does the concluding the process of secretly decommissioning Minister understand the dangers of an amnesty—let paramilitary weapons. Therefore I believe he is right us call it what it really is—playing into the hands of that we are in a position where we need once again to Sinn Féin/IRA’s long-term war strategy of rewriting explore alternative proposals. history to establish moral equivalence between legitimate soldiers and police, who donned the uniform and in Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD): My Lords, may the vast majority of cases served with restraint and I begin by endorsing the powerful response to the honour, and the terrorist, whose sole aim was to Statement from my noble friend Lady Suttie? If you murder, bomb and destroy lives? Does he accept that look in the body of the Statement, you see that these this moral equivalence is exactly what these proposals issues are described as being “complex and sensitive”. are bringing about? Given that all political parties in Northern Ireland have united in their opposition, how can the Government Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): I would like to possibly expect that they can implement these proposals? correct the noble Baroness: this is not an amnesty, and What price devolution of power if they attempt to we never said that it was or would be an amnesty; it is do so? a statute of limitation. There is a difference, which is that there will be no pardons. However, we must be Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): I am afraid I do clear that, with the passage of time, the number of not accept the rather negative views from the noble convictions flowing from any investigative process is Lord. That may be the case, and I am not complacent likely to be extremely low, as I said earlier. If our focus about the views that have been expressed so far. However, is criminal justice, we will fail almost every family. I say again that these are genuine proposals that we have put on the table which we wish to talk about to all Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]: My Lords, there is an equivalence parts of the community. Our hope is that in discussions in the pain that all victims feel. I do not see how the and in listening to what they think, we will be able to Government are going to move forward unless there is find a way forward. I say to the noble Lord, who has a drastic change in their proposals. Do the Government not put forward any alternative proposals himself, that have any further plans to consult the community and there is nothing else on the table and we need to look to amend their proposals so that there is some element at alternative means, as I said to the noble Lord, of acceptance for what is, at the moment, a unanimous Lord Mandelson. view against the Government’s idea? The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): I find the noble Earl of Kinnoull) (CB): The noble Baroness,Lady O’Loan, Lord’s comments quite helpful, because they allow me and the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, have to say again that this is a consultative process and that withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. we will be listening to views expressed. As I said earlier, for some, what we are proposing may—and will—be Lord Dannatt (CB) [V]: My Lords, it is now some very difficult to accept. We recognise that these issues three years since I led a debate in your Lordships’ are highly complex, sensitive and steeped in—how House to call for legislation to end the unfair and shall I put it?—a dark history, and therefore will be, as unreasonable pursuit of veteran soldiers arising from they have been for decades,hard to address.I acknowledge their actions during the Troubles, the vast majority of the noble Lord’s point about the pain of all victims. which were firmly within the law. I therefore welcome the statement of intent that puts forward a statute of Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]: My limitations to end all investigations that might lead to Lords, a previous Conservative Government negotiated prosecutions in a continued but sadly vain attempt to the Stormont House agreement, upon which many seek the truth through the criminal justice system, as parties in Northern Ireland agree. They also, jointly the collapse of recent trials has shown. However, I am with the Irish Government, commissioned New Decade, sure that the Minister agrees that no one is above the New Approach in January last year, which saw the law, so I press the question of whether, in the event of restoration of institutions, and which contained a new and compelling evidence becoming available, the commitment to implement the Stormont House Government intend to insert a clause in the proposed agreement. However, both of those elements have now legislation to cover that eventuality. If not, why not? been ditched and binned by this Conservative Government. So I ask the Minister: do the Government, Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): I am sure that having signed up to previous agreements and ditched the noble Lord will be part of the proposals that we them, now have any credibility, when all five political have put forward and that we will engage with him. I parties in Northern Ireland, along with the Irish am not able to give an answer to him at the moment. Government, the Northern Ireland Assembly and victims, He is right that nobody is above the law. I appreciate have opposed this latest Statement containing proposals his general welcome for these proposals and I recognise, because it violates and undermines the position of as he also will, that these measures are intended to victims and survivors? We must always remember that bring greater certainty for all communities, including reconciliation—a truly reconciled society—requires justice veteransandthefamiliesof victims.Ourproposals—again, and accountability. 243 Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past[20 JULY 2021] Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past 244

Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): I note the comments back in 2009. But what have the Government done to made by the noble Baroness about the Stormont House consider,even in part, that report, which went to enormous agreement. As I think I said earlier, we continue to lengths to address precisely what the Government are adhere to the principles of the agreement. I think we still talking about today, 12 years later? should be positive rather than negative in looking at these proposals and at the details within the Command Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): The noble Baroness Paper. I am sure that the noble Baroness, with her brings to light the problems that we have all been experience of Northern Ireland, has already gone facing over decades in Northern Ireland; and here we through it with a fine-tooth comb, but I encourage her are, with the Government looking at, and working and all others involved in this process to look carefully extremely hard to find, a way forward. I took note of at what we are proposing, to engage with our process the Secretary of State’s comments at the end of the intensively and to help us find an alternative way Statement. We are at a point where we must find a way forward in this very difficult matter. forward, having the victims in mind. We must also look at a process of reconciliation and not look to find Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]: My Lords, routes that are simply not going to lead to any in the other place, the Minister was content to use the prosecutions. quote from the excellent report by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and Denis Bradley published House adjourned at 8.49 pm.

GC 1 Arrangement of Business[20 JULY 2021] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 2

Grand Committee I think it is highly desirable that, in this field, the Government should support legislation which is similarly Tuesday 20 July 2021 supported by all parties. Her Majesty set out the animal welfare programme The Grand Committee met in a hybrid proceeding. in her gracious Speech with these words: “Legislation will also be brought forward to ensure the United Arrangement of Business Kingdom has, and promotes, the highest standards of animal Announcement welfare.”—[Official Report, 11/5/21; col. 3.] I fear that, whatever the Government’s intentions, this 2.30 pm Bill will add nothing to our excellent standards and is The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy likely to be counterproductive. of Primrose Hill) (Lab): My Lords, the hybrid Grand My Amendment 17 seeks to restrict the activities of Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in the committee to policies that are in course of formulation, person, respecting social distancing, and others are or at least have not been formulated. I support participating remotely, but all Members will be treated Amendments 18 and 23 in the name of my noble friend equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a Lord Howard of Rising, which seek to ensure that the face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak committee is not required to review policies that are sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and already being lawfully implemented. I also support his any other touchpoints before and after use. If the capacity Amendment 29, which ensures that on any further of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety formulation of a policy already being applied the requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn committee is not expected to report. All these amendments the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the are designed to remove retrospectivity from the workings Committee will adjourn for five minutes. of the committee and its reports and recommendations. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Retrospective laws which upset legally compliant During the debate on each group, I invite Members, settled patterns of life and expectations are not good including those in the Grand Committee Room, to policy. They undermine the security and continuity of email the clerk using the Grand Committee address if a way of life consistent with the values of the community they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members and a sense of its continuity. Legislation which to speak in order of request. The groupings are binding. retrospectively changes a legal activity into an illegal Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. one is likely to have adverse repercussions on decisions When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the made reasonably and in good faith by citizens in the Grand Committee Room only. I remind Members that past. In the context of this Bill, that might cover farming Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee. It or other business plans and investment or the purchase takes unanimity to amend the Bill, so if a single voice of property in order to carry on a particular activity says “Not content”, an amendment is negatived, and or country sport. if a single voice says “Content”, a clause stands part. I also support Amendment 35A in the name of my If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice noble friend Lord Caithness. Measures which support accounted for if the Question is put, they must make conservation or biodiversity may very well not support this clear when speaking on the group. crop protection or indeed human health. How to balance these conflicting policy areas while having to have regard Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] to animal welfare for reasons different from those for which we look after animals so well in this country is Committee (2nd Day) an extremely complicated subject. Indeed, most policies 2.31 pm that the Government might develop may well have negative consequences for at least one of the excluded areas in my noble friend’s amendment. Clause 2: Reports of the Committee I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, and I beg to move. Amendment 17 Moved by Viscount Trenchard Lord Howard of Rising (Con): My Lords, I commented 17: Clause 2, page 1, line 9, leave out “or has been” earlier in Committee on the potential problem which would be created if existing policy could be reviewed Viscount Trenchard (Con): My Lords, I am pleased by the committee. The trouble that could be caused by to be able to move Amendment 17, which my noble reviewing existing policies is as nothing compared to friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean had intended to move, the turmoil which could come from the ability to go but he is unable to be in his place today. I was unable backwards and review existing law. This would be an to speak at Second Reading due to my incompetence enormous power which very easily could, and almost in failing to put my name on the speakers’ list on time. probably would, get out of hand. It would require I was able to take the Animal Welfare (Service almost unlimited resources and place intolerable burdens Animals) Act through your Lordships’ House in spring on other departments of state. 2019, rightly removing the argument of self-defence In addition to that, unlike European countries, Britain from those who attempted to escape arrest by attacking has had animal welfare laws for 200 years. Allowing the and harming police dogs and horses. Finn’s law received committee to recommend repealing or amending already unqualified support from all sides of the House, and implemented law would be a recipe for unimaginable GC 3 Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL][LORDS] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 4

[LORD HOWARD OF RISING] of life and livelihood, taking away certainty of freedom chaos and expense. I cannot believe that this is what from criminal and civil prosecution. We cannot allow this Bill intends. If the Bill is to have any sensible purpose, this committee to propose legislation to take away the it must be limited to recommending on future policy validity of decisions made in the past and in good faith and legislation which, by itself, would be a monumental by people relying on the law as it was. In the case of task, without the potential of causing almost unlimited the traditional Jewish way of killing animals for food, trouble by going back historically. it has been permissible ever since the Jewish return to England some 350 years ago and it is established policy Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con): I support my noble under UK regulations to permit it, as it was under EU friend Lord Howard of Rising’s amendment, to which legislation—although not that it could be relied on, as I have put my name. It strikes me that the Government I explained in my last speech on this when I pointed have not really thought this through very carefully, out that the European Court of Justice allowed the Belgian because if this is going to be retrospective and it will prohibition of Jewish non-stunning methods. be possible for this committee to review all legislation As a legal situation, at common law, there is a that has already been passed, then this will provoke a presumption against retrospectivity. Article 7 of the need for massive new legislation stretching into the Human Rights Act prohibits arbitrary prosecution, future. The Government have the option, I suppose, of conviction and punishment. At common law, there is ignoring recommendations from the animal sentience also a presumption against interference with vested committee, but if they do not ignore its recommendations, interests. A leading judgment on this was in the case of then of course that means they will inevitably get involved Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in in more legislation in the future. I am not sure that 2003; one of the judges in that case, my noble and learned that was really the intention of the Bill in the beginning. friend Lord Hope, is happily still with us. The judgment Surely, the original point of the Bill—not that I am a explained that there is a powerful presumption against great supporter of it—was that there should be some statutes changing the substantive law in relation to form of oversight of government legislation to ensure events in the past; this is precisely what could happen that the sentience of animals was being taken into if the powers of this new committee are not curbed. account, but if it works retrospectively, then of course There is also a presumption against legislation affecting it has unlimited capacity for creating ever more work vested rights unless Parliament is expressly making a and expense, as has been mentioned by my noble friend. newstartforthefuture.So,ontheonehand,recommendations Therefore, I very much support his amendment. by this new committee to change existing practices would be a waste of time in that, if they were acted on, Lord Trees (CB): My Lords, I shall speak briefly to they would be contrary to the rule of law; on the other Amendments 18 and 23, which carry my name, and in hand, the Bill would accord better with human rights support of Amendments 17 and 29. These all rule out and the rule of law by making it express that its actions scrutiny of policies established in the past and are must be confined to future policy. consistent with my Amendment 3, which we discussed I hope that this amendment will be supported by on the first day in Committee, which laid out the function the Government; otherwise, I can see legal action of the committee and confined it to considering policies looming ahead on the horizon. This also applies to subsequenttothecommittee’sestablishment.Thearguments Amendments 18, 21, 23 and 29, all of which I support. for not having any retrospective powers have been well made by others. TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) Baroness Deech (CB) [V]: One of the worst things in (Con): My Lords, the conspiracy theorists among you this Bill, with its miasma of uncertainty,is its retrospective will wonder whether the insufferable heat in this Room effect. Along with others, this amendment is designed is a plot by me to speed up events. to cure this defect. We have to stop the committee considering, let alone making suggestions to change, policies that were established in the past, that are currently Noble Lords: Oh! being lawfully implemented and on which people base their livelihoods, food and sporting pursuits. Lord Benyon (Con): However, I can assure noble As it stands, the Bill would allow the committee to Lords that that is not how I operate. I am looking forward reopen of its own volition policies that have been in to lengthy discussions this afternoon. place for perhaps a century, as some of our animal I thank my noble friend Lord Trenchard for his welfare laws have. It could make recommendations Amendment 17, with which I will take Amendments 18, designed to undermine the use of animals in medical 23 and 29 in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard research, the practice of killing animals according to of Rising. I agree that we would gain little from a Jewish law and country sports, already hedged about committee that devotes its energies to reopening old with qualifications and reached by consensus a long debates. We want a committee that improves the policy time ago. We might accept that this committee, expert decision-making and implementation process now and or not, will consider future proposals, but we cannot in future. let it loose on the established law. However, policy is not a static thing. This afternoon, I say this not wholly as an advocate of the positions we have heard descriptions of policies that go back I have mentioned but as a reminder that retrospective centuries. Policy is always being reassessed, reinterpreted legislation and changes of policy are to be assumed to and, above all, implemented. It would be difficult to be a bad thing. They may undermine settled patterns pin down a working definition of established policy, GC 5 Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL][20 JULY 2021] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 6 particularly in statute, that does not shut the committee welfare takes it down different priority routes. The out of a number of areas where its scrutiny would be amendments would obviously quite dramatically restrict most valuable. the ability of the committee to influence government policy, but I cannot put a monetary value on that. It 2.45 pm would be part of the economic impact assessment, I remind your Lordships that the committee has a which would have to take place at a different stage in very specific role, which is to publish reports on the this process. policies it has reviewed, giving its assessment of the ways in which they might have an adverse effect on The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy animal welfare. Expert scrutiny of this sort is vital to of Primrose Hill) (Lab): I have also received a request good policy-making, particularly in areas such as animal to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord sentience, where our specific knowledge is advancing Hamilton of Epsom. rapidly. Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con): I want to follow up While I am sympathetic to some of the beliefs and on the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, concerns of certain noble Lords here today, I affirm about ritual slaughter. We have been reading in the that it is for Ministers to make and account for individual newspapers that, if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, policy decisions and not the committee. We simply do it will become illegal to drop lobsters into boiling not have to worry that, one day, the committee will water to kill them. Is that one aspect of the thinking demand that we tear up a piece of legislation. It has no behind what the Government are doing? If that is the powers to do so, and this is simply not what it is there case, where does it leave pigs being slaughtered? They to do. are highly intelligent animals and with a very high sense I would not want to prevent the committee identifying of smell. One might say that the slaughter of pigs does potential improvements in the implementation of existing serious damage to them and to their feelings. I would policy, nor would I want to prevent it learning and just like to know where the Minister stands on this. sharing lessons from the recent past. A good driver pays a lot of attention to the road ahead, but he also Lord Benyon (Con): If my noble friend is referring needs a rear-view mirror. to the article that I read at the weekend, it was full of I say in specific response to the noble Baroness, inaccuracies and hyperbole, which is not what this Bill Lady Deech, that this Bill is about the government is about. At a later stage in this afternoon’s proceedings, policy-making process. It is not about some method of we shall move on to talk about decapods and cephalopods. changing the slaughter of animals for religious belief. In relation to the amendments concerned, if the I want to make that absolutely clear. government Minister in the future felt obliged to include some of those species within the terms of the Bill, they With these assurances in mind, I hope my noble friends could be looked at by the committee, which could will feel content not to press their amendments. advise a future Minister what they could or should be doing in terms of how different animals are treated at The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy end of life. However, my noble friend is absolutely right of Primrose Hill) (Lab): I have received a request to to point out that there are gradations in unpleasantness speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord involved for the animal, whether it is a pig or a lobster. Bellingham. The point is that the Bill does not dictate how a lobster is killed at the time of cooking or how a pig is killed at Lord Bellingham (Con): My Lords, I have a quick the time of slaughter. This is about informing policy question to ask the Minister. The cost of the committee using experts who can guide a Minister to take the will be very substantial indeed, with its wide-ranging right position. But that Minister, when considering all remit across all government. If these amendments are the factors that my noble friend mentioned, can take passed, can he tell us exactly what would be saved in into account other matters,such as the value of sustainably the costs of running the committee? produced seafood in a diet or the importance of the rural economy or the Government’sbalance of payments Lord Benyon (Con): I am sorry, but I did not quite in terms of rearing pigs. This Bill does not affect that, hear the last part of the question. I wonder whether and so my noble friend can be quite relaxed about his my noble friend could repeat it. concerns. Viscount Trenchard (Con): My Lords, I thank all LordBellingham(Con):Yes,indeed.If theseamendments noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and are passed, they will obviously greatly restrict the remit I am heartened that both my Amendment 17 and the of the committee in what I think would be a very wise other amendments in the group, tabled by my noble manner. Can my noble friend give this Committee friend Lord Howard, have received such unqualified some indication as to what would be saved in the costs support. of running the committee? I totally understand my noble friend the Minister’s response that legislation does not stand still, and it is Lord Benyon (Con): I understand the question and of course reasonable that, where the Government apologise for missing it first time. No, I cannot give my propose a new policy that requires changes to existing noble friend that assurance, because the work programme legislation, the committee or the Animal Welfare and what the committee would look at will change Committee might be tasked with looking at how the from year to year as developing evidence about animal policy impacted on the welfare of animals, including GC 7 Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL][LORDS] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 8

[VISCOUNT TRENCHARD] I am very pleased that my Amendment 20 would having regard to their sentience, which any look at have the opposite effect. I would like to see a strong, animal welfare automatically does anyway.Nevertheless, broad-based animal sentience committee that conducts I find his answer unconvincing because I think that deep analysis of all government policy to ensure that there is a real danger, especially since we know nothing its impact on animals has been properly considered. I about any requirements for the composition of the would much rather that the committee looked at committee, that a huge amount of public time and public everything in the round than sporadically look at money would be spent looking at all past legislation piecemeal bits of policy. The former seems the right that affects animal welfare. I worry that this would be way to go, especially when the Bill is premised on the counterproductive. fact that these animals are sentient beings with the However, having heard my noble friend’s response, capacity to feel, perceive and experience.I have confidence I will at least for now withdraw my amendment. that your Lordships can improve the Bill and give short shrift to the wrecking amendments that would Amendment 17 withdrawn. reduce the sentience of the committee to a lump of stone. I beg to move. Amendments 18 and 19 not moved. The Earl of Caithness (Con): My Lords, I will speak The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy to these amendments because I have an amendment of Primrose Hill) (Lab): We now come to the group in my name, which I will come to in a minute. First, beginning with Amendment 20. I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, when she said that she hoped the committee would look at policy in the round. That is Amendment 20 what we all hope. However, we all fear that it will not. Moved by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb We need reassurance from my noble friend the Minister to convince us. We are not conspiracy theorists; we are 20: Clause 2, page 1, line 10, leave out “may” and insert practitioners who wish to see this operating sensibly in “must” the United Kingdom. The reason for my Amendment 38 is perhaps best Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]: My Lords, illustrated when we look at Amendment 46, which is before speaking to my amendments, I should just say alsointhisgroupandisinthenamesof thenobleBaronesses, that there is a certain underwater quality to the sound, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Hayman of Ullock. and it has been quite difficult to follow the previous I look forward to hearing what they have to say on group.I think that is because somebody called John Turner their amendment. I cannot detract from subsection (1) has not muted. There are quite a lot of people who of their proposed new clause. It is quite right that, if a have not muted on the call, and I think that is giving piece of legislation sets up a committee, that committee some feedback—oh, he has now. Thank you. Let us ought to report to Parliament to be properly scrutinised. see if that improves things. But then we come to subsection (2), which is where I It is my pleasure to open this debate on this group get a little concerned. First, in subsection (2)(b), the of amendments—or at least those amendments that noble Baronesses propose seek to improve the committee and strengthen its “an overview of the implementation of animal sentience requirements functions, such as those of the noble Baroness, Lady across government”. Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. As I read and understand this, if my noble friend the I remind all noble Lords that this was a government Minister is right that the animal sentience committee promise. Something has to come out of this that is is all about—and I quote his words—“informing policy”, positive and that the general public, who asked for it should not be looking at the implementation of policy. this,understand as being a reasonable policy.The Minister That is for the Government and Ministers, having said that expert scrutiny is needed and that policy is looked at whatever report comes out of the committee. not static. Can we not live 100 or 500 years in the past? Can we understand that things have to move on? As he 3 pm also said, animal sentience is a fast-evolving field, and There is a second reason for being slightly dubious we need to make sure that we are up there, aware and about Amendment 46, and that is that there are two legislating in the right way. animal welfare committees. There is the animal sentience I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trees, who signed my committee, which the Bill is setting up, and there is the Amendments 27 and 41, and the noble Baroness, Lady Animal Welfare Committee, which already exists in Fookes. She is unable to be here for this group but she Defra and is highly respected but was not set up by will be here later. legislation and, as far as I know, does not have to My Amendment 20 is the crucial one because it report to Parliament annually. So there will be a lovely would toughen up the committee.I am not very welcoming turf war in Defra and Sir Humphrey is going to really of Amendments 21 and 22, which seem designed to enjoy it because there will be two committees doing weaken the committee into total obscurity. Why any almost the same thing, covering the same area, one of scrutiny body would be reduced to the position of which reports to Parliament and the other, which is seeking permission from those it is scrutinising to more long-standing and is highly respected, does not. actually do the scrutinising is beyond me, but then I can see the civil servants for the animal sentience there are those who believe in the divine right of kings committee saying, “Weare the most important committee. and see scrutiny of the Government as a bad thing. We were set up by legislation. We have to produce an GC 9 Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL][20 JULY 2021] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 10 annual report to Parliament.” I also think that, because protect the associated livelihoods of those whom the of the way the Government have drafted the Bill, they action will impact. Be under no illusion: as drafted, the will allow the animal sentience committee to become powers of this committee are significant. The demands more powerful than the Animal Welfare Committee. on government will be even more significant and the Therefore, my simple amendment, Amendment 38, potential consequences may be enormous. We must requires the animal sentience committee to publish a therefore have answers to the why, the what and the note in the report that it makes of the Animal Welfare whens before this legislation becomes law; otherwise, Committee’sopinion and advice on the recommendations. it will be far too late. This meets two of my noble friend’s objectives: it keeps the animal sentience committee looking at the broad Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con): My Lords, I will speak perspective and it makes the report of the animal to Amendment 38, in the name of my noble friend sentience committee much more valuable and perhaps Lord Caithness, to which I have added my name. I was stronger if it is honest enough to put in what the Animal not here—because I was at a previous engagement—when Welfare Committee has said, which might in some cases the debate was held in this Room about merging the be totally contradictory. Animal Welfare Committee and the animal sentience I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept committee. My noble friend the Minister made the this amendment. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord point that the two committees did two different jobs Trenchard and Lord Hamilton of Epsom for supporting and therefore there had be two different committees. me on this. That was really accepted rather too glibly. There is no reason why we should not keep one committee and Lord Mancroft (Con): My Lords, Clause 2 sets out give it two different jobs to do. It is a pity that we seem the manner in which the animal sentience committee to be so dedicated to the spread of bureaucracy and reports. In particular, Clause 2(2) sets out quangos in this way, when the Government have made “whether, or to what extent, the government is having, or has had, it clear that they do not really agree with that. all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an However, let us leave that and move on to the fact adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.” that there is obviously potential for conflict between Assuming that there is an adverse effect, subsection (4) the Animal Welfare Committee and the animal sentience imposes a duty on the Government to have “all due committee,as outlined by my noble friend Lord Caithness. regard” to this adverse effect. Amendment 44 ensures We have to do everything we can to avoid that and that, in making their response to the committee’s ensure that they work together—not in opposition to report, the Government include what steps they are each other, which seems highly likely knowing the way going to take to remedy this adverse effect. The primary that Whitehall works. I therefore sincerely hope that purpose of the Bill is to advance animal welfare, and my noble friend the Minister will look hard at this the Government are setting up this animal sentience amendment, because it has great value. committee to provide a critique of the Government’s policies as a way of achieving this. The committee will Viscount Trenchard (Con): My Lords, although I publish reports and the Government will respond. agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Amendment 44 deals with another what and when. Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lord Caithness What happens when the committee finds that the that the committee should look at policy in the round, Government have not had all due regard for the welfare I regret that I cannot support Amendment 20 in her of animals as sentient beings? In the case of past name and that of my noble friend Lady Fookes. I also policy, will it be repealed or amended? In the case of strongly support the objective of my noble friends present policy, will it be paused? In the case of future Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Hamilton of policy, will it be suspended? What happens when a Epsom in their Amendment 2, previously debated, policy is found to have been answered negatively but that the duties of the animal sentience committee cannot be repealed or amended? Do the Government could better be given to the existing Animal Welfare continue with the policy in conflict with their own Committee. committee’s report? Can the Government then be As my noble friend Lord Forsyth said on 6 July: subject to a judicial review? These are important questions, “It feels as if this is just a bit of window dressing, a bit of and it is therefore necessary that the Government in virtue-signalling, which is actually going to create great problems their response go to some length in trying to satisfy for the Government.” them so that they can continue governing. My noble friend the Minister told the Committee that It is equally necessary for businesses to be made the Government aware of any changes, so that they, too, can prepare “want the animal sentience committee and the Animal Welfare and make appropriate changes to their actions. We Committee to have a constructive relationship, but it is not quite know what happened when Natural England suspended as simple as saying that we could hand over the ASC’sresponsibilities general licences. We cannot experience such chaos and to the AWC with no legal powers to back them up.” such tragedies again. We all agree that we must do our That would of course have been far better. best to prevent unintended consequences, especially I have the highest regard for my noble friend ones that harm the welfare of animals and people’s Lord Benyon, but I found his explanation as to why we livelihoods. need two committees completely unconvincing. It is a In short, that is what Amendment 44 seeks to do: to disproportionate and unnecessary response to the ensure that any actions to be taken are properly Government’s manifesto commitment. Those animal communicated and delivered in such a way as to avoid rights activists who support the Bill claim that the harming the welfare of animals, and in doing so to public want it. If you tell the man or woman on the GC 11 Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL][LORDS] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 12

[VISCOUNT TRENCHARD] any policy.Earlier, we debated the incorrect assumption street that there is an Animal Welfare Committee of the Bill that any effect would be adverse. Obviously, already and ask if he or she thinks we should have a any policy designed to make it easier for gamekeepers second committee, you will get a different answer. to cull predators has positive effects for the prey of My noble friend said: those predators. I support my noble friend and look “It is important to remember that the two committees have forward to the answer from my noble friend the Minister distinct roles. The Animal Welfare Committee exists to provide on this question. advice to Defra and the devolved Administrations, whereas we I cannot support Amendment 46, in the name of are establishing the animal sentience committee to scrutinise policy decision-making across the whole of government. Any the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, because relationship between the two would need to support these two subsection 2(b) of the proposed new clause makes it distinct functions.”—[Official Report, 6/7/21; cols. GC 337-8.] clear that she intends that the committee’s remit should I do not think these functions are distinct in any way. extend across government, whereas I believe that it Without exception, noble Lords who spoke on 6 July should be limited to those areas that were previously asked him to come back with at least some definition covered by Article 13 of Title II of the Lisbon treaty, of the committee on Report. as I mentioned. Furthermore, the amendment raises the question of the other activities that the committee I also support Amendment 16, in the names of the may have undertaken during any financial year. noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, which stated that the new There seems to be no limit to the scope and remit of requirements to consider animals as sentient beings in the Bill. Unless it is appropriately restricted, the committee the formulation of policy should be limited to those will need huge resources. areas covered by Article 13 of Title II of the Lisbon treaty. UK Parliaments have recognised the sentience Lord Trees (CB): My Lords, I will speak to of animals since the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822, Amendments 27 and 41, in the names of the noble and our animal welfare standards go far beyond what Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady we were required to do under EU law.If the Government Fookes; they also carry my name. really think that they must establish a new quango of such dubious merit and opaque purpose, the four These two amendments are linked. Amendment 27 amendments in this group will at least restrict that askstheanimalsentiencecommitteetoanswerthequestion quango’s activities to examining new policies under asked in Clause 2(2) consideration rather than opening up the entire existing “in the affirmative, or … in the negative.” statute book to reconsideration at great expense. For example, if the animal sentience committee states Although I was unable to speak in the earlier debate, that the Government have had all due regard to animal let me say that I also support Amendment 31, which welfare in the formulation and implementation of would provide exceptions for religious rites and cultural policy, Amendment 41 would remove the requirement traditions. Without that, a large part of Japanese cuisine in Clause 3(1) for the Secretary of State to lay a —to which I am partial, having lived in that country response before Parliament. This seems to be a common- for many years—would probably be deemed illegal. sense reduction in the obligation of the Secretary of State while retaining the fact that the report of the I have added my name to Amendments 21 and 22 in animal sentience committee, whatever it concludes, the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. remains a matter of public record. It removes the burden Amendment 21 could have been grouped with of work on the Secretary of State. amendments that we have debated previously, which also sought to prohibit the committee reporting on established government policy. Amendment 22 would 3.15 pm require the committee to obtain the consent of the Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD): Secretary of State before committing taxpayers’ funds. My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, I cannot support Amendments 27 and 41, in the Lord Trees. This group of amendments is varied and I name of the noble Baroness,Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, am grateful for the various briefings I have received, because they assume that the committee’s answer to particularly from the Better Deal for Animals coalition. the question is binary—that is, yes or no. The existing I am disappointed that some Peers taking part today draft at least raises the question of the extent to which are asking the Minister questions which he already the Government are having due regard to animal provided full answers to on the first day in Committee. welfare in the formulation of policy. Surely this is an Amendment 21 restricts the work of the animal instance where the proportionality principle should be sentience committee to impending policy and prevents applied. it reviewing existing policy, even though there may be I strongly support Amendment 38, in the name of evidence that a review is necessary. I agree with the my noble friend Lord Caithness, to which I have added noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard: I am not sure why my name. If we must have two overlapping committees, this amendment was not included in the previous at least the animal sentience committee should consult group. Amendment 22 requires the ASC to obtain the Animal Welfare Committee and publish a note consent from the Secretary of State before beginning explaining its opinion on any report. to construct the report on its work. The noble Viscount In Amendment 44, my noble friend Lord Mancroft spoke to these two amendments. seeks to find out what the Government might do in The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, cases where the committee finds that they have not has introduced Amendments 20, 27 and 41, which had due regard to the animal welfare consequences of deal with ensuring that a report is produced by the GC 13 Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL][20 JULY 2021] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 14

ASC and that it should declare whether it is to be Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab): In this group, I answered through the affirmative or negative procedure. support Amendment 46 in the name of my noble The noble Lord, Lord Trees, has supported these friend Lady Young, to which I have added my name. amendments, as do we. This is a fairly straightforward amendment designed The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has introduced to enable the animal sentience committee to submit Amendment 38, which is supported by the noble Lord, annual reports to both Houses of Parliament. I thank Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and the noble Viscount, the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb Lord Trenchard. Again, this introduces more bureaucracy and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for their into the workings of the ASC by insisting that it support. The amendment would ensure transparency consults the Animal Welfare Committee. While these and oversight of the work of the committee. two committees are complementary and should share Coming to the points raised by the noble Earl, information in order for both of them to be effective, I Lord Caithness—I thank him for his introduction to do not believe that making it a requirement that the his amendment—he referred to the three points in view of the Animal Welfare Committee should be subsection (2) of the proposed new clause in our published in all the reports of the ASC is necessary. It Amendment 46. The first is may well be desirable and happen as a matter of “a statement of the policies on which the Committee has reported”, course, but making it a legal requirement in the Bill is which I cannot imagine anyone would object to, as we unnecessarily bureaucratic. need to know what the committee has been looking at. I also do not feel it necessary to include Amendment 44, Then there is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. The “anoverviewof theimplementationof animalsentiencerequirements”, animal sentience committee is there to provide additional which is the part the noble Earl raised. evidence to inform policy rather than directing policy itself. The Minister will decide whether they wish to The reason for this provision is that I have often take notice of this, and it is therefore unnecessary to seen in pieces of animal welfare legislation, covering put it into the Bill. Whether the Minister should have a wildlife crime, for example, that legislation is brought duty to take notice of the advice is another matter, but forward in good faith but then not enacted. It does not attempting to prove whether the advice has been adhered get enforced and is not implemented properly. Often, to is not currently a requirement of the Bill. There are that legislation does not work to deliver what it was examples of other countries’ animal welfare legislation designed to deliver. We want to have oversight of that which offer advice: the Scottish Animal Welfare and to ensure that other government departments Commission; New Zealand’s National Animal Welfare co-operate with the committee in the way that is expected. Advisory Committee and its National Animal Ethics That is the purpose behind it and I hope I have explained Advisory Committee; and the Dutch Council on Animal it to the noble Earl. Lastly, there is Affairs.All these bodies offer advice which their respective “a statement of the other activities”. Governments may consider when forming policy; they I am aware that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, do not direct policy themselves. took exception to that, but we think it is important I put my name down on this group to be able to that we get proper oversight of everything that the speak in favour of Amendment 46 in the names of the committee is currently expected to look at. noble Baronesses, Lady Youngof Old Scone and Lady Just before I finish on these, the noble Earl, Lord Hayman of Ullock. For animal charities and the Caithness, introduced his Amendment 38. I agree with public to have confidence in the work of the ASC, a the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington published annual report on its work will be necessary. Mandeville,that it could bring in unnecessary bureaucracy. Transparency, rather than bureaucracy, is essential. However, there are clearly important questions that he has asked the Minister to consider. We have seen through the first day of debate in Committee that there is some considerable opposition I support Amendment 20, in the name of the noble not only to setting up the animal sentience committee Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady but to the way in which it will go about its work, and Fookes, which would provide that the committee “must” the groups of animals that it can consider. The Bill produce a report when any government policy is currently limits the animal groups to vertebrates, formulated or implemented. Again, I agree with the which is very wide. We will return to whether this noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that we should be widened in the last group of amendments need a strong, broad-based committee that looks at this afternoon. On the first day in Committee, several everything in the round. We have talked about this Peers wanted to limit the group of animals to be before: the remit and the focus are of such importance covered by certain activities such as agriculture, transport that we all know exactly what is expected from the or space, with others wanting to exclude the words committee once it starts working. “sentient beings”. I also support Amendments 27 and 41, in the names Given the level of unease around the Bill and the of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb setting-up of the committee and its work, it is essential and Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees. I that a report of its deliberations and advice given to thank the noble Lord for introducing that amendment the Minister should be published annually. The noble clearly. Again, this is all about proper reporting, which Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has also spoken will be critical. in favour of a published report. As I have indicated, On Amendment 44, in the name of the noble Lord, transparency is very important, and I look forward to Lord Mancroft, we agree with the noble Baroness, the Minister’s response. Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, that this GC 15 Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL][LORDS] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 16

[BARONESS HAYMAN OF ULLOCK] formulation and implementation decisions with a view does not necessarily need to be in the Bill. But in to publishing reports containing its views on whether introducing his amendment, the noble Lord asked Ministers have paid “all due regard” to the welfare some important questions that need to be considered needs of animals as sentient beings. When the committee as we move forward. publishes a report, this will trigger the accountability Finally, Amendments 21 and 22, tabled in the names mechanism to ensure Ministers respond formally to of the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Parliament. The committee will be able to issue reports Lord Etherton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, on central government policy decisions,without exception. were introduced today by the noble Viscount. Webelieve This includes past policies as well as policies in the that these amendments are unhelpful. Amendment 21 process of being formulated. amounts to a significant weakening of the animal Naturally, the committee will not be able to scrutinise sentience committee because of the way it restricts the every single policy-making decision. This would be an committee’swork. By not being able to report on existing impossible undertaking for a single committee, so we government policy, it rows back from the original will support the committee to identify and prioritise vision of a body that is free to consider sentience areas where it can have the most important impact. I questions right across the range of government policy. am sure your Lordships would agree that the committee I know a number of noble Lords do not think this is should focus on policies where it can add the most value. necessary, but we think it is very important. As the experts, it is ultimately for the committee to We also think it is important that the initial vision is decide how best to use its time. We therefore do not retained in the Bill so that the animal sentience committee want to prescribe what it must do any further in can make a positive contribution to policy-making. It statute, beyond the powers given to the committee in can best do that as a public body that provides expert the Bill. We want to give the committee flexibility to input to inform complex policy questions that touch work in a way that best suits its priorities. For example, on the welfare of animals as sentient beings. As we and the committee may decide to issue advice and input as the Minister have said, this is not about the committee a policy is being formulated. We will support the making policy; it is about the committee informing, committee in identifying opportunities for this. I assure answering questions, passing comment and being there the noble Baroness that the committee will have a as a critical friend, if you like, for policy decision-making work plan that will be made publicly available. We think in this area. it best for the committee, as the experts, to decide what If we erect arbitrary barriers to that expert advice, it chooses to look at. it will impoverish the policy process. We should not We will, of course, work closely with the committee, make laws that prevent Ministers accessing knowledge which will have a dedicated secretariat to support its that could improve their decision-making. The noble work. We want to ensure that the committee is Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, appropriately resourced with sufficient membership mentioned the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, and administrative support to make an impact and which we know is carrying out this important work. It scrutinise the most important decisions but is not so is an interesting example of what could be achieved if large as to become unmanageable or overbearing. we move forward with the Bill as proposed. As the Your Lordships tried to pin me down on this when the Minister said on the first day of Committee: Committee last met. I am happy to give a little more “In our manifesto, this Government as a whole committed to clarification. As has been said, your Lordships can the introduction of new laws on sentience, with no suggestion of look at the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, carve-outs or exemptions.”—[Official Report, 6/7/21; col. GC 288.] with its 12 members and a proportionate dedicated We strongly support him in that ambition. secretariat, as a rough indication of the scale that we are looking at. As we heard, Amendment 22 would require permission to be received from the Defra Secretary of State before I offer my reassurances to the noble Baroness that it a report could be prepared. We believe this would also is very much intended that the committee will publish significantly weaken the committee and reduce it from reports on how Ministers have paid “all due regard” to being a body that is free to consider sentience questions the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings. This across government policy to basically a Defra scrutiny will be a key tool in embedding consideration of committee, which would then scrutinise only with the animal welfare into the policy decision-making process. Secretary of State’s permission. We therefore cannot support the amendment. 3.30 pm This has been a really interesting discussion on this Turning to the noble Baroness’s other amendments, group. It has been good to hear all the different Amendment 27 and 41, which would require the animal contributions from noble Lords. I now look forward sentience committee to categorise its reports as either to hearing the Minister’s contribution. affirmative or negative, I fear this approach may be unworkable in practice. Most issues are not so clear-cut. This will be a committee of experts, and experts rarely Lord Benyon (Con): I entirely agree: this has been a like to give a yes or no judgment—we only have to really interesting discussion. look at Covid to see that. The committee will no doubt I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of wish to provide more nuanced views which might Moulsecoomb, for her Amendment 20, which would contain both positive messages and constructive criticism. place a legal duty to publish reports on the animal In practice, Ministerial Statements to Parliament will sentience committee. This Bill makes provision to be commensurate with the complexity of the issues empower the committee to scrutinise Ministers’ policy involved and the nature of the committee’s views. GC 17 Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL][20 JULY 2021] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 18

I will now turn to the amendments tabled by the Finally, Amendment 46 in the name of the noble noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, Amendments Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, would require 21 and 22. We have discussed in detail the scope of the the animal sentience committee to publish an annual committee where it relates to past or retrospective report. The role of the committee is key to this Bill, policies.I will therefore focus on addressing his amendment and of course we want to ensure that it is as effective which would require the committee to seek approval as possible. The committee’s reports, to which Ministers from the Secretary of State in order to produce a will respond in Parliament, will be publicly available. report. The committee can publish reports on how This will provide full transparency about those policies Ministers have paid “all due regard” to the welfare that the committee has examined and considered. It needs of animals as sentient beings. Ministers will will also provide the mechanism for Parliament to need to respond to these reports within three months hold Ministers to account. by means of a Written Statement to Parliament. Of course, there will need to be reviews of the The committee is there to raise the bar in the committee’s work, and we intend to conduct a regular policy-making process. The committee’s contributions performance review to ensure that it has fulfilled its will not be realised if it gives government policies only purpose. This review will cover any work that the a pass or a fail, although it can and should call out committee has undertaken with other government problems or omissions. Rather, it will be felt through departments. Defra will work with other departments ongoing improvements to the way the Government to explain the committee’s role and how to engage make decisions affecting animals. The committee’s with it most effectively.Indeed, my officials have already role is not to comment on the merits of any individual begun working with other government departments policy—that will remain the role of Ministers—but it on this. is right that the committee should have the freedom to The success of the animal sentience committee will set its own agenda. Committee members are the experts be felt in improvements to the policy-making process. on sentience and will be able to offer informed views The committee will be transparent in its ways of that Ministers can consider alongside other important working, publishing all its reports. It will be subject to social, environmental or economic issues. Asking the the Freedom of Information Act and the Public Records relevant Secretary of State for their consent before Act. We would not want to commit to a rigid and undertaking work to produce a report would undermine potentially onerous annual reporting process in statute. this role. This could take resources away from the committee’s Amendment 38, in the name of my noble friend primary role in scrutinising policy formulation. Naturally, Lord Caithness, would place a duty on the animal we want the committee to succeed and will work sentience committee to consult the Animal Welfare constructively with its members to ensure that it does so. Committee. I have already addressed their relationship, A concern was raised by my noble friend Lord but I would like again to highlight the scope for a Mancroft about the likelihood of judicial review. This productive and mutually beneficial relationship between is a matter that has greatly exercised us through the the two organisations. The broad principles of this formulation of the legislation, and I think we have got will be outlined in the animal sentience committee’s it as near right as we can. The Government’s response terms of reference. We are committed to sharing these to a report from the committee will help to explain to in draft before Report. Parliament why the Government may have, legitimately, I thank my noble friend Lord Mancroft for his reached a different conclusion from that of the committee. Amendment 44 concerning Ministers’ responses to Alternatively, if the Government intend to review the reports from the animal sentience committee. The policy decision in the light of the committee’s views committee will have the power to scrutinise ministerial they can say so. If the Government’s response is found policy formulation and implementation decisions. The to be wanting, it might be possible for someone to committee can publish reports on how Ministers have establish sufficient grounds to bring a judicial review, paid “all due regard” to the welfare needs of animals but we believe that, in this situation, the grounds on as sentient beings. The Bill requires Ministers to respond which a judicial review might be brought would be to these reports within three months by means of a present irrespective of the committee’s report. Written Statement to Parliament. I hope your Lordships A number of your Lordships raised the difference agree that this mechanism helps to provide assurance between the Animal Welfare Committee and the animal that animals’ welfare needs as sentient beings are sentience committee. A first key difference is in scope. taken into consideration across government policy. The animal sentience committee will deal with England, However, there may be other important policy while the Animal Welfare Committee has a responsibility considerations that Ministers also need to reflect in across borders with devolved Administrations. The their decision-making. It is the role of Ministers to Animal Welfare Committee is advisory. The animal determine how these different considerations should sentience committee’s job is scrutiny across Whitehall be weighed up. The whole purpose of the accountability and all departments, whereas the Animal Welfare mechanism in the Bill is to allow Parliament to examine Committee is responsible only to Defra. My noble the Minister’s response to a committee’s report. We friend Lord Caithness spoke about a possible turf war. would expect Parliament to want to hold Ministers to I would prefer to look at this with a slightly more account if they fail to provide an adequate explanation glass-half-full approach, which I am sure some might of the actions they propose to take in response to a consider naive. I believe there is scope for a productive committee report. For this reason, we do not think and mutually beneficial relationship between the two that it is necessary to prescribe what the Government’s committees, the broad principle of which will be outlined response should include. in the animal sentience committee’s terms of reference. GC 19 Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL][LORDS] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 20

[LORD BENYON] friend could help me—about how much of sentience is In the light of those remarks, I hope that the noble devolved and what exactly the committee will be able Baroness, Lady Jones, will feel able to withdraw her to do in the devolved countries. Will it be able to go to amendment. the Scotland Office and thus up to Holyrood, look at its policy and tell Scotland that it has to change its The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy ways? I am not quite certain how this will work in of Primrose Hill) (Lab): I have received requests to practice. As this is Committee, it is an ideal time for speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord my noble friend to explain the Bill a bit more to us. Robathan, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.

Lord Robathan (Con): I am moved to intervene Lord Benyon (Con): I am grateful to my noble briefly because the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said friend, and I hope to be able to reassure him. The job that the people want it—I think I quote her exactly. I of the animal sentience committee will not be to walk think the people want animals to be well treated; into Holyrood and instruct our friends in Scotland I think that everyone in this Room wants them to be how they should deal with animal sentience. It is a well treated, and we have pretty good legislation that committee based around the UK Government that, as already protects animals, both domestic and wild, he rightly says, covers Scotland, but these matters are from unnecessary cruelty and ill treatment. However, devolved issues—animal welfare is a devolved issue. in my 23 years in the House of Commons—I know But, on these small islands, it would be absurd if we that the noble Baroness represented people in the were not working closely across borders with the devolved London Assembly—I can certainly say that nobody Administrations to make sure that our animal welfare mentioned animal sentience. They mentioned lots of laws broadly align. Wehave livestock bred in one country animal welfare issues, but nobody mentioned animal and slaughtered in another, or bred in one country sentience. I think they were about as concerned about and fattened in another. We have other activities, such animal sentience as about the divine right of kings, as fishing and all forms of animal welfare, which require which the noble Baroness also mentioned. Although a cross-border understanding. the noble Baroness cannot intervene, perhaps my noble friend the Minister might say how many people came The Animal Welfare Committee’s remit is right to him when he was an MP and said they wanted an across the country. The animal sentience committee animal sentience Bill. will be restricted to the UK Government and will work with the devolved Administrations to make sure Lord Benyon (Con): Quite a lot actually. that the policies it is commenting on are properly managed in respect of the department to which it is Noble Lords: Oh! making its report. Lord Benyon (Con): I will explain why. My noble friend was—as the previous Speaker used to say—a 3.45 pm great denizen of the House of Commons for many Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]: My Lords, years, as he rightly reminds us. But, sadly, he was not I think that I may be interrupted by a vote at some there when the Government of the day decided, for point so I will try to be quick, although I might not be. reasons that have always been slightly obscure to me, not to include the provisions of Article 13 in the I thank the Minister for his comments; I will read legislation that took us out of the European Union. them in Hansard to make sure that I have understood Those of us who were there found a tsunami of emails fully where our interests overlap and where there is and letters from people who may not have understood any divergence. I also thank all noble Lords who took the most detailed aspects of animal sentience but were part in the debate. I listened carefully to everybody. I very concerned that the Government were not reflecting know that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble their views. This resulted in rather a lot of mid-air Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lords, Lord turbulence in trying to get to this point. Without baring Hamilton and Lord Mancroft, care deeply about these the soul of the discussions over that time, I respectfully issues. Their views are valuable, but I found them quite correct my noble friend to say that this was something repetitive. We have heard all this before. We have been people were very concerned about in the much wider told that the two committees will not clash and will sense of where animal sentience and animal welfare have particular remits that will be extremely clear. I combine. think that we perhaps underestimate the interest of both committees in terms of being able to understand Lord Robathan (Con): Perhaps my noble friend where they might work together and where they absolutely might list the constituents who wrote to him. must not because it is not relevant, so I do not have the same fears about any sort of overlapping. The Earl of Caithness (Con): My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his very full reply. He did comment I am happy that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on my amendment; I will have to read what he said and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, agree with in the Official Report, but towards the end, he said the concept of policy in the round. The minute they quite rightly that the remit of the animal sentience started agreeing with me, I started to wonder whether committee was across Whitehall. That includes the I did not know what I was talking about, but I will devolved Administrations. The Scottish Animal Welfare look into that. Commission was set up specifically to look at how the The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is trying to tie the welfare needs of sentient animals are being met by hands of the animal sentience committee. I just do not devolved policy. I am now unclear—perhaps my noble think that that is appropriate. GC 21 Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL][20 JULY 2021] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 22

ThenobleViscount,LordTrenchard,mentionedanimal Amendment 42, which is linked. The purpose of these rights activists. This term has been thrown at me since amendments is to require that any report of the animal we did round one of this Bill; perhaps he can tell me sentience committee be peer-reviewed academically what he thinks he means by it in reference to me. He before publication and, connected to that, that the can always send me a private email if he would prefer. period for the Minister to respond to any such report I offer a big thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, be not three months after it is published, but three for his comments and to the noble Baronesses, Lady months after it is published in the said peer-reviewed Bakewell and Lady Hayman, for their support, which journals. The second amendment is tidying up and isincrediblyvaluable.Theybothmadeanexcellentsummary consequential. —much better than I did. I thank them for that. Science is at the heart of the Bill. Every proponent The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, talked about and supporter of it would agree that the claims for the committee being a critical friend, which is incredibly animal sentience must be scientific, not merely a sort valuable and something that the Government do not of infantile anthropomorphism. At Second Reading, have enough of. I would argue that your Lordships’ my noble friend Lord Inglewood said rather tellingly, House is a critical friend, but we do not always have and rightly I thought, that Bambi was an illusion. If the same opportunities to support the Government our approach to animal sentience is simply that animals when they change their mind. feel and look nice—what I would call Bambi-ism—then The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, talked about the the whole Bill is pointless. The Bill has to rest on a tsunami of people who wanted us to put animal proper scientific basis. I thought it was worth having a sentience back into legislation. Of course, most people few moments while we are in Committee to discuss some probably had not used that term before, but they things about the science of animal sentience because certainly had once the Government had taken it out of they have not as yet been debated. These amendments the EU legislation that they moved over— give an opportunity to do that and a rationale for them as well. The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy When we met a couple of weeks ago, the noble of Primrose Hill) (Lab): I apologise to the noble Baroness Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, pushed back against but I must adjourn the Committee for five minutes. any suggestion that there was no science behind animal welfare. Before she becomes too worried or excited, I 3.48 pm am going to agree with her on this: there is indeed science behind it. She cited courses in animal welfare Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. at the University of Glasgow and the University of Winchester and the Royal Veterinary College’s animal 3.53 pm welfare science and ethics group, which specifically The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy researches in the field of animal welfare,animal behaviour, of Primrose Hill) (Lab): My Lords, the Committee is veterinary ethics and law. What is notable and revealing resumed and I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. about that list—as I say, I agree with everything the noble Baroness said, as a matter of fact and a matter Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]: Finally, I of opinion on this point—is that nowhere in it is animal thank the Minister for his simple explanation of how sentience. the two committees will work. That is incredibly useful, It might be easily thought by the Committee that and I hope that it calms the fears of the noble Lords “Ah, you see, animal behaviour generally must include who have worried about that during the course of the sentience” and so forth, and that it must be all wrapped Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. up in there, but there is a genuine conflict between animal behaviourism and animal sentience as a scientific Amendment 20 withdrawn. methodology. If one goes back, in the great part of the 20th century, studies of animals and animal welfare Amendments 21 to 27 not moved. were based on behaviourism—the study of behaviour. So if you apply a stimulus, the animal reacts in a The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy certain way; if that is repeated in other cases and of Primrose Hill) (Lab): My Lords, we now come to experiments, you begin to establish a body of knowledge the group beginning with Amendment 28. about the behaviour of animals. That scientific approach specifically eschewed trying to delve into what was Amendment 28 happening in the animal’s mind, so to speak, because Moved by Lord Moylan there is almost no scientific way in which one can establish that. It dealt with the epiphenomena of behaviour 28: Clause 2, page 1, line 16, at end insert “, but such in trying to understand how to deal with animals and recommendations may only be made after the report referred to in subsection (1) has been published in an academic journal how to do so in a kind and humane fashion. following peer review.” The origins of animal sentience science come much Member’s explanatory statement later. At Second Reading I mentioned the work of This amendment aims to ensure the academic robustness of Professor Peter Singer and his seminal book Animal the Committee’s work. Liberation, published in 1975. I remind noble Lords that when a young man, Professor Singer was suddenly Lord Moylan (Con): My Lords, I shall speak to converted to vegetarianism and then, as a professional Amendment 28, which is supported by my noble friends philosopher, later wrote a book trying to justify the Lord Trenchard and Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and choice he had made. At the root of this was the GC 23 Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL][LORDS] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 24

[LORD MOYLAN] Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con): My Lords, I have concept that what animals and humans had in common added my name to my noble friend Lord Moylan’s was sentience. It is not surprising that studies of animal amendment. It brings us back to the concern expressed sentience science as a discipline originated in that last on previous amendments about the committee’s quarter of the 20th century, but it is at odds with the composition—that people who feel very strongly about traditional and established behavioural approach, which this will not necessarily share the broad spectrum of has not been abandoned, as the noble Baroness, Lady views on this whole issue. I have nothing against Hayman, illustrated when she listed the subjects of people being vegetarians or vegans but the reason why study there. they are is because they cannot bear the thought of animals being killed to feed human beings. If we were 4 pm to have a significant number of vegetarians and vegans The consequence we have from this is that this on this committee, it might start producing rather strange scientific methodology is still contested to some extent, judgments about animal sentience. is operated as a relatively young science and tends to My noble friend Lord Moylan is absolutely right to attract—I mean no disrespect—practitioners who have express concern about this. This committee will have to some extent a prior mental, perhaps even political enormous power and its composition will be critical to in some cases, disposition to certain sorts of outcomes the judgments it will come out with; that is why it is and who, in the literature, often attract funding from very important that it gets subjected to peer review organisations that have such a prior political agenda. and that others can comment about the judgments A review of the literature will show this and can be made by it. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister done on the internet to some extent. For example, I will say that he is determined to set this committee up printed off a paper—I will not mention the name of in a way in which it is sensibly and broadly based and the academic but they are a perfectly respectable person— reflects all people who might have an interest in this giving a review of where we are on animal sentience matter, but of course it will be set up by statute and I science. It is a very balanced paper and I have no have no doubt that subsequent Governments might complaints with it but, when I turned to the end, I saw have different views about its composition. That is that the financial sponsorship for it came from the why I think that we need some form of academic peer World Society for the Protection of Animals. review so that this can be subjected to expert opinion We are not dealing with the fundamental principles from outside and have a bit more balance in some of of physics, about which there is no dispute. We are not its judgments. I support this amendment. even dealing with something like climate science, on which, although it is perhaps disputed at the margins, there is broad consensus among scientists. We are Viscount Trenchard (Con): My Lords, I support dealing with something that is relatively young, relatively Amendments 28 and 42 in the name of my noble friend prone to capture and still contested to some extent, Lord Moylan; I have added my name to Amendment 28. and we are putting it at the heart of government As my noble friend pointed out in his impressive decision-making. All these amendments do is say that, speech at Second Reading, and again today, our animal if it is to be at the heart of government decision-making, welfare legislation to date has not been based on any it needs to be on a proper academic footing. It needs animals rights deriving from our recognition of their to have appeared in peer-reviewed academic journals sentience; it has been based on our moral obligations first. In a sense, I regard this as a helpful amendment, as rational human beings endowed with conscience. I as I hope the Government will, because it would give agree with my noble friend that the scientific basis for the animal sentience committee greater credibility and the recognition of sentience needs to be examined. I show that the Government are responding to correct do not believe that sentience is something that one science. species has and another does not. I am sure that all The final question is, what are the appropriate forms of life possess a degree of sentience—perhaps academic journals in which that peer review should be even trees and plants. It is not the reason why we should carried out? Across science in general, there are highly look after animals well. respected academic journals and others where being This Bill could become a Trojan horse and be used peer-reviewed probably does not add very much to the by activist groups to attack proper wildlife management, credibility; I notice the noble Lord, Lord Trees, smiling farming and the economic well-being and way of life in what I take to be agreement at that remark. When I of our rural communities. Throughout my life, I have originally drafted the amendment, I included the words noticed that those who genuinely care for wildlife are “reputable academic journal” but was persuaded by often the same people who engage in country pursuits the clerks that that was much too fuzzy. and field sports.They are often the people who understand I will leave that issue for the moment but, when we animals, birds and fish better than most. They are come back to it—I am sure that we will—we will have prominent among people who perform acts of kindness to hear from the Government what they think is an towards animals and are most determined to spare appropriate type of vehicle for academic peer review. animals suffering. I worry that the Bill will be used As I said, it is important to think about the science against them and that our rich and diverse wildlife and to understand that it is in a relatively new state. If will suffer. it is to be credible, it needs to have academic peer These amendments will ensure that the committee’s review. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will work is underpinned by robust academic findings. I see that and find a way to agree to this very modest ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm that the and supportive suggestion. I beg to move. Government will accept them. GC 25 Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL][20 JULY 2021] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 26

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) I hope that this reassures my noble friend and that (Con): The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, has he will withdraw his amendment. withdrawn so I call the noble Lord, Lord Benyon. The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) Lord Benyon (Con): I thank my noble friend Lord (Con): My Lords, I have received one request to speak Moylan for his Amendments 28 and 42. Members of after the Minister. I call the noble Baroness, Lady the animal sentience committee will be appointed through Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. a rigorous procedure of fair and open competition. As I have said previously, the committee will be comprised of experts who will be best placed to decide what the Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD): committee’s priorities should be, although they will of My Lords, I just want to refer to the contribution course be able to consult others. made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom. Peer-reviewed evidence from academic journals will He said that he hoped that vegans and vegetarians will have a role in informing the committee’s work. While not be on the committee as they might sway its decisions. we do not propose to dictate to the committee how it Can the Minister confirm that the appointment of should set out its reports, it is usual for expert committees members to the committee will not be prejudiced such as this to present well-reasoned reports that show against those of religious persuasions or other protected their working. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, characteristics? for example, publishes its reports online and includes its reasoning and references. However, I do not believe The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) that it is necessary for the committee’s reports themselves (Con): My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. to be published in academic journals. To require The Committee stands adjourned for five minutes. the committee’s recommendations to undergo a full academic peer-review process would be impractical 4.12 pm and inappropriate, and would risk creating a process that would slow down the publication of the committee’s views and delay the opportunity for Parliament to Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. hold Ministers to account. It is key that the committee should be able to advise 4.17 pm onpolicieswhiletheyarebeingdeveloped.Thisamendment The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) would severely compromise its role. The committee (Con): My Lords, it is time to resume. Perhaps the will publish reports, so it will naturally have an open Minister might like to say a word in reply to the noble wayof working.Ibelievethatthiswillprovidetransparency Baroness, Lady Bakewell. about its work. If a Minister felt that a report of the committee identified a need for further evidence or assessment, they would be free to highlight this in their Lord Benyon (Con): I thank the noble Baroness for response to the report. her question. It would not be our intention to edit the Nothing would please me more than to spend time committee’s membership by their eating habits or by talking about the philosophy behind what we are any other habits or disciplines. We want a balanced talking about. We could even, if we had time, discuss committee that draws together a wide range of expertise Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, in which across the whole field of animal welfare. he said that animals possess life “nobler than any merely corporeal grade of being”. Lord Moylan (Con): My Lords, I am grateful to However, in terms of how we approach this Bill, the noble Lords who have spoken in support of the definition of sentience is important. Our scientific amendment, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, understanding of sentience has come a long way in for contributing to the debate. I reiterate the point that recent years and will continue to evolve. The Bill does the science that underlies animal sentience is of crucial not therefore have a fixed definition of sentience. It is importance to the Bill and deserves further debate, not necessary to define sentience in statute for this Bill which may come at a future stage in the Bill. To be to work. We can all recognise that animals are sentient absolutely clear on my own position in case it was not, and that their welfare should be considered in decision- I am not saying that there is no such thing as animal making; there is no need to make it more complicated sentience science—I believe there is such a branch of than that. science—but I am saying that it is a relatively new, Our GB-wide Farm Animal Welfare Committee relatively specialist and slightly political branch of issued a definition of sentience in 2019. The Scottish science. It needs the buttressing of peer review. Animal Welfare Commission recently published a In that regard, I was disappointed by the response statement on sentience. There are some differences; of my noble friend the Minister. He said that the this shows the importance of adopting a flexible approach Government did not want to dictate to committees that can evolve. It is worth noting that neither definition such as this because they usually did well-reasoned is set out in statute. The Scottish Animal Welfare reports. I thought “usually” was interesting. I quite Commission’s definition is one that it has adopted for understand that the Minister does not appear to want its own purposes; similarly, if the animal sentience to dictate to committees that do badly reasoned reports; committee considers it expedient to adopt a working he wants to stand aloof from good research, from definition of sentience, it would of course be free to do good reason and from bad reason alike. But that is not so, but that is a discussion for its members to have. a very good basis for carrying the public with you. GC 27 Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL][LORDS] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 28

[LORD MOYLAN] of those species than they are of some others. That is When this committee comes into existence and produces why local authorities have pest divisions that deal with its reports, I think that much of what it says will be wasps—I have had to use them—mice and rats. What met by the challenge, “Well, that’s not really science about bedbugs? Until recently, they were fairly common anyway.” in this country, and in lots of places they are sadly still It is slightly remarkable that, given the opportunity common. People’s perception of a bedbug is not the by these modest amendments to rebut that challenge same as their perception of deer or seals. We need to and say, “No, this is science at the cutting edge. It is have a scientific basis on which to approach this matter. the best science we have and we know that because we We could turn to brown hares. Brown hares are on have ensured that it is properly peer-reviewed”, the our biodiversity action plan and are rated an important Government have turned away in distain and said that species but, at certain times of the year, in certain they would rather have uncertain science and not have parts of the UK, the hare is a pest, and there needs to any checks on what the committee is going to do. I am be the ability to control it. The ability to control pests sure that, if they reflect, they will think that that is not in the most humane manner possible was a great really a sustainable or credible position. For the omission from the badger Act, and we are paying the moment, to allow them time to reflect, I am happy to price for that with the increasing amount of predation see my amendment withdrawn. of ground-nesting birds by badgers. We have seen it with lapwings and curlews. I have given examples in Amendment 28 withdrawn. the environment committee of the destruction of lapwing at the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust farm up in Amendments 29 to 35 not moved. Aberdeenshire, where the badgers have actually been photographed destroying the nests and reducing species The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) as a result. (Con): My Lords, we now come to the group consisting During debates on the Environment Bill, we came of Amendment 35A. across the conservation covenants. These will be an important part of the Government’spolicy on improving Amendment 35A our biodiversity and species number, but, again, action Moved by The Earl of Caithness needs to be taken with management in view, not just the habitat. 35A: Clause 2, page 1, line 20, at end insert— So, what I am getting at with this amendment is “(4A) Recommendations under subsection (3) must not be whether the Minister, when he gives the brief to this detrimental to— Committee, will include management and pest control (a) conservation, as an important aspect for the animal sentience committee (b) biodiversity, to take into account so that the policies it comments (c) crop protection, or on and the position it urges the Government to take (d) human health.” do not contradict with the Government’swell-intentioned position on conservation, biodiversity, crop production TheEarlof Caithness(Con):MyLords,thisamendment and human health. came to me when we were discussing the Environment Ihavetalkedmostlyaboutconservationandbiodiversity, Bill last week. I know that it is not drafted as well as it but I would like to give an example that was raised should be; I apologise to the Committee for that. I say during the debate on the Environment Bill by my noble to my noble friend the Minister, “Forget about the friend Lord Lucas, again on deer. It was about a wood drafting. It is the principle of what I am trying to get at that the RSPB looked after in Dorset. The RSPB got that is important here”. round the problem of the deer by fencing that bit of Most of our conservation work to improve our wood so that the deer were no longer a problem. biodiversity and wealth of species has been habitat-based. However,that forced the deer on to the neighbour’s land It has not been very successful because when we were —this is pretty bad management—and the devastation in the European Union, and since our exit, the of the crops growing on the adjacent farmland was Government have not focused on the critical issue of much more intense because the deer were not allowed management. Management requires human decision. into that bit of woodland. There are some fairly easy examples to make about As usual, there is a balance to be struck in all this. I species and how people will react to them, but when hope that my noble friend will be able to make some you look at pests, people’s opinions start to vary and comments on this. I beg to move. that perception could be translated into legislation. That is my concern here. Take deer, for instance. You Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con): My Lords, I can have lots of photographs and everybody will look am grateful for the opportunity given by my noble at Bambi and ooh and ah, but deer are a pest that need friend Lord Caithness in moving his Amendment 35A to be controlled. We discussed this in the Environment to probe my noble friend the Minister and the Government Bill and there seemed to be unanimity there. It would a little bit more on the cross-departmental responsibilities be an easy species for a committee to make an emotional, of the animal sentience committee. I also want to rather than scientific, decision on. explore what the relationship will be within Defra and One can get into more questionable species. What the relationship between existing legislation and soon-to-be about rats and wasps? If you analyse what people legislation in the form of the Agriculture Act and the think about them, they have less feeling for them and Environment Bill, the latter of which my noble friend are much more prepared to allow proper pest control Lord Caithness referred to. We spent some time in the GC 29 Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL][20 JULY 2021] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 30 first day of Committee on the amendments looking at the noble Lord, Lord Trees—of species. We make pests—particularly deer, badgers, bats, grey squirrels gradations of cuteness in our own minds. We look at a and insects—and sentience. It begs the question: are deer and compare it to a rat; we often do not mind insects to be treated as sentient beings within the remit very much what happens to the rat but mind when it is of this Bill? the deer, when the latter may be more of a pest in terms of conservation and biodiversity. As one person 4.30 pm lecturing me on forestry when I was studying land I mention this because, recently, when my brother management said, “Remember”—he was referring to innocently picked up a weed from a flagstone at the grey squirrels—“it is not the squirrel’s fault that it is a farm where he occasionally stays so that he can ride pain in the backside”. His point was well made. Even out his horses, he was told by a neighbour not to do allegedly non-interventionist activities, such as rewilding, that because the weed was a living creature with feelings actually require enormous amounts of interventionism and obviously must not be destroyed. In our approach when it comes to animal welfare. If you go to Knepp, here, we are perhaps unleashing different feelings and that estate still has cattle, horses and pigs to manage, priorities to those shown by Governments in the past. so there are animal welfare considerations. In the context of Amendment 35A, can my noble However,Ireiteratethattheanimalsentiencecommittee friend say what the relationship of the provisions will isnottheretomakerecommendationsabouthowMinisters be? In particular, in making recommendations under should decide what policy should be. The purpose of Clause 2(3), what will be the position of the animal its recommendations is to highlight certain effects on sentience committee’s remit in respect of the pre-existing which it has the expertise to assess, so that Ministers responsibilities under the Agriculture Act and the can understand those effects better. The committee’s responsibilities that we will be giving to the Government members will be well aware that Ministers have myriad under the Environment Bill, once that is finally enshrined other important factors to consider when reaching in law? their decisions—I hope this addresses my noble friend’s We also had a little debate about the animal sentience point—and that their recommendations are likely to committee’s responsibilities in respect of its cross- relate to one of a number of important considerations departmental nature. I confess that I am still vague as that Ministers will want to take account of. to what the responsibility across departments will be. I fear that directing the committee to prejudge It would be helpful to probe my noble friend the recommendations based on factors other than animal Minister on this. I can clearly see that the Department welfare would risk undermining the clear distinction of Health will be responsible for zoonotic diseases, we have drawn and force it to assess matters beyond its which may have crossover and on which the Bill may expertise. It bears repeating that, rather than being have an impact. Personally, I do not like bats—I am some sort of power-grabbing cabal, this will be a fearful of them. They carry rabies and are believed to committee of experienced scientists, veterinarians and lie at the heart of the Covid pandemic; that has not other experts. These will be level-headed, thoughtful been disproved at this stage. We are potentially on a people who are unlikely to wish to advise on matters collision course between the preservation of bats and beyond their remit. the need sometimes to control their numbers. Obviously, There is also a real opportunity for the committee there is the work of BEIS and other departments as to add value to the policy-making process. I know that well. This amendment is useful in that regard. some of your Lordships fear that we will be told we With those two points, I leave on the table the must sacrifice important human needs, such as crop question for my noble friend the Minister as to what protection, to animals. Instead, the committee will the exact crossover is with the other departments, to help policymakers to reach intelligent solutions which which he briefly referred last week, and to what extent allow us to advance human interests in ways that are this Bill relates to the provisions of the Agriculture compatible with the welfare needs of animals. I say to Act and the Environment Bill. With those few words, my noble friend that we both want to see the committee I support my noble friend’s Amendment 35A. make suggestions on how well the welfare needs of animals have been taken into account in policy decisions. Lord Benyon (Con): I thank my noble friend Lord But I reiterate that it is for Ministers, not the committee, Caithness for his Amendment 35A, which seeks to to decide how animal welfare itself should be balanced ensure that the animal sentience committee’s against other matters of interest, such as conservation recommendations are not detrimental to conservation, and biodiversity. biodiversity and other matters. The House has been To be specific on whether the Bill will interfere with clear that the committee should not usurp or encroach pest control, the answer is no. Pest control is highly on the role of Ministers to formulate and implement regulated. Rules ensure that the trapping and killing of policies in the public interest. It is, and will remain, for vermin is humane, using permitted methods. I say to Ministers to decide policy and for Parliament to hold my noble friend Lady McIntosh that we are talking us to account. If the promotion of animal welfare is about vertebrates here. A vertebrate is an animal with ever not fully compatible with other important goals, a spine: mammals such as dogs, cats and cows; birds; it is for us—not a committee—to determine the best reptiles; and amphibians, such as frogs and toads. course of action. Vertebrates do not include decapods and cephalopods I agree entirely with my noble friends Lord Caithness —we might come to that later—arachnids, insects and and Lady McIntosh of Pickering. They are right to myriapods. With those assurances in mind, I hope that state their concerns about the anthropomorphisation—I my noble friend Lord Caithness will be content to think that is the right word but I am not sure; I look to withdraw his amendment. GC 31 Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL][LORDS] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 32

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) are having our dog treated at the vets or talking to (Con): I have received two requests to speak after the farmers or discussing wider policy areas in this field. I Minister from the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton of hope I can prove to him that his glass should be half Epsom and Lord Moylan. I call the noble Lord, Lord full on this; we will find the right people. Hamilton.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con): My noble friend The Earl of Caithness (Con): My Lords, I am grateful Lord Caithness mentioned the predation of badgers, to those who have taken part in this debate, in particular which of course do not come under pest control; they my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her are protected. He did not mention that badgers very helpful contribution. When my noble friend Lord much like eating hedgehogs. They are skilled at rolling Hamilton intervened, I too immediately thought of them over and disembowelling them. When we worry cats and the very good debate on cats that we had about the decline in hedgehog numbers, very rarely does before my noble friend the Minister joined the House, anybody mention that perhaps badgers are responsible when the wonderful work and research done by SongBird for this. Survival was referred to, because of the millions of birds that cats take every year. Another protected species is the sparrowhawk. If you shoot a sparrowhawk you get fined £1,000 because I listened with care to what my noble friend the all hawks are protected, but 34 songbirds every week Minister said and was heartened by a lot of it. If what account for their diet. We have to bear in mind that in he said works in practice, I think that a lot of our nature, almost all species are predated on by others. concerns will evaporate. My fear is that when he goes We just want to get all this into perspective. and the Ministers change, the committee will undoubtedly change too, and then the trouble will begin. That will Lord Benyon (Con): I would be going down a very be a few years down the road; I do not wish my noble dangerous path if I moved on to cats and how many friend to leave his position any time in the next four songbirds they account for, and would probably find years or even thereafter, because this committee will this getting out of hand, but my noble friend is be too important. absolutely right. What we seek to achieve through not I am grateful for what my noble friend said. I shall just animal welfare provision but other legislation and read it. He was absolutely right that this is not an exact regulation is a balanced countryside. We do not get it science; it is not, but I fear that we have spent too right; we are suffering a cataclysmic decline in species, much effort on habitats and not enough on management. which means that our children and grandchildren will Therefore, the problem has been exacerbated. I hope not see the species that we have perhaps relied on that, with my noble friend’s experience and knowledge, seeing regularly. That is a tragedy that we are seeking Defra will spend more time on management than it to reverse through a variety of other policies. At the has in the past, because it is only through management same time, when it comes to pest control, we can do it combined with habitats, species and the right amounts as humanely as possible, and we can have management of food given at the right times of year that we will be techniques that protect both species and landscapes. It able to increase the biodiversity of this country, which is not an exact science and it will be got wrong at has suffered in the recent past. I am happy at this stage certain times, but, by and large, I think there is a great to withdraw my amendment. unity of purpose in trying to reverse these tragic declines in species. Amendment 35A withdrawn. Lord Moylan (Con): My Lords, given our discussion at our earlier session two weeks ago about the composition Amendments 36 to 38 not moved. of the committee, I was struck by the Minister’s certainty that he could describe the members of the committee Clause 2 agreed. in such paradigmatic terms. I cannot recall his exact words—I will look at them in Hansard—but he said that the members of the committee would be Amendments 39 and 40 not moved. knowledgeable, balanced, cautious, restrained and unwilling to rush into areas where they were not wanted. This must narrow the number of people who Clause 3: Response to reports would qualify to sit on the committee to the point where I suspect the Minister must have a list of names Amendments 41 to 44 not moved. already. If he has not, or is not willing to disclose it, is he at least willing to assure us that, when the public Clause 3 agreed. appointment process is launched and the person description drafted, the words that he has used now will be carried over verbatim into the person description Amendments 45 to 47 not moved. for the applicants so that we get exactly who he appears to be promising us? Clause 4 agreed. Lord Benyon (Con): I am very worried about my noble friend. He appears to have a very jaundiced The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) view of human nature. There are a great many people (Con): We now come to the group beginning with with those skills whom we meet every day, whether we Amendment 48. GC 33 Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL][20 JULY 2021] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 34

4.45 pm doubts at all that the vertebrates we are discussing can feel in the former sense but, simply as a matter of their Clause 5: Interpretation neural and brain capacity, the notion that they even have the ability to feel love, affection, fear and complex emotions such as those is a very challenging one. Amendment 48 Wereally need to understand that sort of background Moved by Lord Moylan before we do what the Bill does, which is to cast an 48: Clause 5, page 2, line 32, leave out “vertebrate” and insert extremely wide net. It includes all vertebrates, but it “mammal” goes beyond that: it gives the Secretary of State the Member’s explanatory statement power, which I think is completely unprecedented, to This amendment limits the application of the Bill to mammals. decide that any invertebrate, including the insects referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Lord Moylan (Con): My Lords, there are four are in fact sentient. That is the power given to him amendments in this group in my name, Amendments 48, which, as I say, is almost incredible. 52, 53 and 57. I will come in a moment to say exactly I turn to the detail of what my amendments seek to what they would do, but I shall make some preliminary do. They would cut the thing in different ways. First, remarks that arise from something my noble friend Amendment 48 suggests we “leave out ‘vertebrate’” Lady McIntosh of Pickering said and which has not and limit the scope of the Bill to mammals. This would been sufficiently discussed. This is the famous metaphysical make it much easier for the public, and for many bit that the Minister has been worried about, although members of this Committee and your Lordships’House, I hope to get through this while skirting Descartes—or to accept the Bill. It could be regarded as a first stage; anybody difficult or foreign, for that matter. there would be nothing to prevent the Government The difficulty we have is that we are asked to assess coming back subsequently and saying, “Having won to what extent, in a meaningful way, we think that over opinion on the question of mammals, we could animals can feel pain. That requires us to think a little now extend it to the broader class of vertebrates.” about what pain and feeling are. My noble friend Lady Amendment 52 explicitly invites the removal of fish—it McIntosh brought up insects as an example of this, is playing the same tune—and Amendment 53 proposes but it relates to other creatures as well. Pain itself, of the removal of birds. These are all different ways of course, is not just an interior experience; it is, to some coming at the same thing. extent, a social concept. Pain is an abnormality, but Amendment 57 is slightly different, because I still we learn from others that it is an abnormality that is cannot get over my outrage that Parliament is proposing expressive of something that requires a response. So, to give the Secretary of State the power to designate we learn as children, “Don’t put your hands on the any invertebrate as sentient. Here, simply for the sake coal. If you do put your hands on the coal, that is what of modesty and respectability,this amendment would limit we call pain; learn not to do it again.” There is a social that power to “cephalopods and decapod crustaceans”, element to it, and it is not by any means clear that that simply because one knows from conversation and can be translated to animal experience. This is the debate that that is the category of animals most likely problem of operating on a non-behavioural scientific to come within scope of this unprecedented power. basis. It should none the less, in my view, be limited. We humans also have coping strategies for dealing That is the purpose of these amendments and it is with pain. When I know I am going to have an important that we explore them, because I do not accept injection in my arm, I always make sure that I look the that it is easy to map notions of feeling and pain on to other way; that is a very small example of a coping these classes. Perhaps I may briefly refer to— strategy.That illustrates another thing about the human experience of pain, which is that very often it is worse in anticipation than in the experience itself. All of this The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) is tied up with what we understand by pain: for (Con): My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. humans, it is not simply a neurological experience that The Committee stands adjourned for five minutes. can be tracked by chemicals and electrons, although it has all those aspects to it. 4.52 pm It is very difficult to know how one can map that across the bulk of animals. It is easiest to do so, of Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. course, in the case of mammals, because there we have a closer link with ourselves in terms of DNA composition 4.57 pm and so forth. To map it to fish and birds is extremely difficult. Indeed, it is scientifically quite challenging to The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) understand how the very limited neural capacity, or (Con): My Lords, we shall resume. The noble Lord, brain capacity, of fish and birds could accommodate Lord Moylan, may complete his speech and move his that range of complex experiences of pain characteristic amendment. of humans and, perhaps, of primates and other higher mammals. Lord Moylan (Con): My Lords, I had just finished There is also a similar question about what it is to commenting on my own amendments when we were feel something. In ordinary English, “feel” has two interrupted, so it was a convenient break, but before I aspects: I can feel a table—that is a physical sensation—but conclude I shall comment on a few other amendments I can also feel love, disdain and other emotions. Nobody in this group. GC 35 Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL][LORDS] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 36

[LORD MOYLAN] I regard myself as a conservationist. The noble Lord, Amendment 50, in the name of my noble friend Lord Randall, referred to himself as such in a previous Lord Robathan, would exclude the actions of wild debate. However, unlike him, I see the way this Bill is animals upon other animals from the scope of the phrased as paving the way for interference in anything committee’s activities, and I think that must be sensible. and everything. It has been suggested that it is a Amendment 56, from my noble friend Lord Trenchard, Trojan horse and that there will be mission creep. I to leave out the power to designate invertebrates is in think it will be an activists’ charter. My noble friend keeping with my amendment, and I support it. Lord Herbert said in another debate that we need My noble friend Lord Mancroft’s Amendment 59, clarity. which would require a scientific report that a being is The Minister,for whom I have a very high regard—we sentient before it is redesignated as such by the Secretary go back quite a long way and he called me, I think, a of State under this very broad power, is an absolute “denizen” of the last Chamber we served in—said minimum requirement and one that is very much in earlier today that there is a very specific role for the keeping with my comments on the previous group. committee. What is that role? It is not clear to me, and Finally, Amendment 49, in the name of the noble I am afraid that the debates so far have not clarified Baroness,Lady Hayman of Ullock, concerns cephalopods the situation. I hope this amendment may go some and decapods. As the same words are used in a different way towards clarifying the situation: that we are order it might easily be confused with my amendment, responsible for those animals for which we are responsible but on careful examination it has a very different and not responsible for those which we cannot be effect. My proposal at least puts some decency on this responsible for. unprecedented power so that it is confined to the most likely class of animals. I understand—and I am sure I The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) can be corrected—that Amendment 49 effectively takes (Con): My Lords, the next three speakers—the noble the decision for the Secretary of State and includes Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the noble cephalopod and decapod crustaceans as sentient beings Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lord, Lord on the face of the Bill. That is quite different from what Forsyth of Drumlean—have all withdrawn, so I call I am proposing, if I have understood the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. correctly, and I do not think that without proper and rigorous scientific reports, as indicated by my noble friend Lord Mancroft, this august Committee is quite the place Lord Mancroft (Con): My Lords, I will speak to my in which to make such a radical transformation in our Amendment 59 in this group. Clause 5(2) gives the understanding of the natural world. I beg to move. Secretary of State the power to bring any invertebrate of any description within the meaning of “animal” 5 pm and thus within the scope of the Bill—thus declaring them sentient in law. My noble friend Lord Moylan Lord Robathan (Con): My Lords, I shall confine has already drawn attention to the extraordinary breadth myself to speaking to my Amendment 50 for reasons of this new power. At Second Reading, he said: of brevity.The more astute Members of the Committee “The clause that strikes me as most extravagant, however, is will have realised that this refers to Section 2 of the the one that gives the Secretary of State the unfettered power to Animal Welfare Act 2006, but this seems to me, to a declare, should he wish, that an earthworm is a sentient being. certain extent, the nub of the Bill. It concentrates on This is a power greater than that given by God to Adam in the what we, as people, are responsible for. Garden of Eden, which, as I recall, was restricted to the power to As a slight side-issue, I was asked to change the naming animals. Here, we are giving the Secretary of State the language because, of course, these days parliamentary power to reclassify them almost without check.”—[Official Report, 16/6/21; col. 1921.] language should be gender-neutral. However, surely everyone—however ill-educated—knows that the term I do not feel qualified to comment on the powers that “mankind”, or “man” in this context, has always God gave to Adam, so I will, if noble Lords forgive included all human beings, all humanity, of whatever me, confine myself to this Bill. gender. I mention that because language is important, Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord and this is legislation. To have been not specific about Randall, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the noble “mankind” might have been an example of lack of Baroness, Lady Bakewell, called for decapod crustaceans, clarity, of which I fear this Bill is also an example. including lobsters, crabs and crayfish, and cephalopods, On the substance, if I am responsible for an animal, including octopus, squid and cuttlefish, to be included I have responsibilities and duties to that creature, be it in the scope of the Bill. Some argued this point on the my dog, my rather foolish hens—which are not laying basis of a film called “My Octopus Teacher” and were eggs at the moment—a cow or, indeed, a pheasant. advised to have tissues on hand to watch it. However, However, I am surely not responsible for the rats we all the evidence contained in a tearjerker does not seem to live with, nor the squirrels destroying the trees I have be the best foundation for the law of the land. The law planted, nor if my dog catches a rat—it is a terrier, and should be based on hard evidence—hard science and that is what terriers do. We then come on to fish in a sound evidence—and that is where the problems on river. Is the owner of a particular stretch of river animal sentience start and lie. responsible for a fish moving up and down it? Fish While everyone agrees that animals are sentient, have backbones and are indeed sentient beings. Or is a philosophers and scientists are still arguing about fishing club responsible? Am I responsible if I run what that means. Does a dog, for example, have the over a squirrel or hit a bird in the road, which I try same feelings as a crab, or a crayfish the same feelings pretty hard not to do? as a cow? Perhaps that is why there is no definition of GC 37 Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL][20 JULY 2021] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 38 sentience in the Bill. Scientists are not agreed, despite name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, the fact that in the previous debate the Minister gave to which the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, us two separate definitions of sentience, although and I have also added our names. At Second Reading, neither of them are included in the sentience Bill, reference was made to the evidence on decapod which strikes me as a bit odd. So how will a committee crustaceans and cephalopods being sentient beings. I opine on something that is neither defined and on am not naturally squeamish, but I found the deliberate which there is no widespread agreement, in fact, on shocking of shore crabs to see whether they were which there is widespread disagreement? capable of feeling and remembering pain somewhat The Government have commissioned an independent unpleasant. The experiment having been conducted review of the sentience of decapod crustaceans and during trials, the result is conclusively that they are cephalopods. This amendment would require only sentient and have some advanced cognition. Similarly, that where the Secretary of State declares an invertebrate the octopus is capable of feeling and remembering sentient, the scientific evidence on which the declaration pain, so I believe both groups should be included in is based should be published. It seems unarguable that the Bill rather than being left to be added at some later such transparency on the science must be good, and I stage. cannot imagine any arguments for hiding the evidence The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, has and not publishing it. If the Minister rejects the raised some interesting publicity on the fate of lobsters amendments, perhaps he can enlighten the Committee and how those destined for the restaurant trade should about why the science and the evidence should be meet their end. Given that the vast majority of lobsters hidden away. reach restaurants in a live condition, I cannot see that the Bridlington lobster trade will be adversely affected The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) by how lobsters are prepared for the table. (Con): The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, whose I can also see that some will think that the Bill is a name is next on the list, has withdrawn, so I call the back door to banning angling and the shooting of noble Baroness,Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. game birds. I believe that we are a long way from reaching that conclusion; I would not support it if that Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD): were the case. My Lords, the last group of amendments is quite long I fully support moves to include decapod crustaceans and seeks to limit the scope of the Bill and the groups and cephalopods in the classification of sentient creatures. of animals considered to be sentient. I will listen carefully to the arguments in favour of the rest of the amendments in this group and the outcomes The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has spoken in favour their tablers are looking to achieve. of Amendment 48, which would remove vertebrates in favour of mammals, Amendment 52, which would In response to a question on the first group, the add fish, Amendment 53, which would add birds, and Minister gave the impression that the inclusion of Amendment 57, which would limit the classification these groups is something for another Minister. I hope of invertebrates to cephalopods and decapods. The he can confirm that the classification of animals included noble Lord makes a claim that animals are capable of in this Bill should be widened at this stage and not at feeling pain but not other emotions, such as pleasure. I some date in the future. fear I do not agree. A family pet dog is very capable of showing pleasure. When I get home after a week in The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) London, our collie is overjoyed to see me, and there is (Con): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of no mistaking his enthusiasm. As regards the scope of Epsom, whose name is next on the list, has withdrawn. sentience, we should be led by the science available for each group of animals. The Earl of Caithness (Con): My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Robathan’s Amendment 50 and Amendment50,movedbythenobleLord,LordRobathan, have added my name to it. It would be a sensible and is to apply to domesticated animals in the British Isles, logical addition to the Bill. It is absolutely right that “under the control of man” where men and women are in charge of an animal they and not living wild. I am certain that he would have are responsible for it being treated in the most humane been supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, way possible, but if that same animal is running free if he had not withdrawn. I support the noble Lord, and is wild, then it cannot possibly be under the Lord Robathan, in not changing the wording of proposed control of a human being. Therefore, the words that new subsection (1)(b). He is correct: we all understand my noble friend wishes to include in the Bill would what is meant by mankind, and I am not personally make the position absolutely clear. I support him on offended by the use of that word. While I sympathise that basis. with these amendments, I am not sure why it is necessary to limit the group of animals to be included or excluded. The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) It is likely that by adopting Amendment 50 in particular, (Con): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of some animals which are being farmed and also live Uxbridge, who is next on the list, has withdrawn. wild, such as deer—not really cute ones—are likely to be treated differently depending on their status. That is Lord Trees (CB): My Lords, a crucial aspect of the likely to cause unnecessary confusion. Bill is determining which animals within the vast The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, animal kingdom are sentient. Crucially, of course, put her name to Amendment 51, which we support. I that depends on how sentience is defined. The Bill am speaking in particular to Amendment 48 in the does not attempt to define sentience, and various GC 39 Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL][LORDS] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 40

[LORD TREES] been asked by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge expert opinions, which I respect, have suggested that and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that is sensible. But we can be sure that, if and when to say that they fully support the remarks I intend to the Bill becomes law, there will be those who will start make about it. to question the limit currently in the Bill or that I make no apology for wishing to see cephalopods proposed in Amendment 57, which I support. It is and decapods included in the realms of sentience and almost certain that at least some scientific opinion will not left until some future date. I am aware that the be arguable and credible to propose further extending Minister is awaiting the LSE report to which the noble the range of animals included. Lord, Lord Trees, referred. I would be interested to Current definitions of sentience include capacity to know from the Minister when we might expect to see have feelings. I know of no way of determining what that report and whether it is likely to be in time to animals feel, but we know that many lifeforms sense make a decision about including these creatures in the and avoid potentially harmful stimuli, which we do, of Bill before it reaches its final stages. For my part, I course. Although we would sense pain on that occasion, believe that there is already sufficient hard evidence to we can only guess at the feeling the animal has, but make it perfectly acceptable to include them here and presumably it is not a pleasurable sensation. Of course now. it is important to consider the science, but extremely It is interesting that, way back in 2005, the European respected scientists can and do differ even when confronted Food Safety Authority’s Scientific Panel on Animal with the same data. Health and Welfare considered these animals sufficiently The frontiers of what sentience is will likely shift. I sentient to be included. Since then, a lot of work has listened yesterday to the evidence given to the EFRA been done by Professor Robert Elwood of Queen’s Committee in the other place by Jonathan Birch of the University; I believe that he has provided good scientific London School of Economics. He is the lead author evidence. I am happy to accept scientific evidence. I of the LSE report referred to on the first day of think mention was made earlier of one experiment Committee, which has yet to be published but has where hermit crabs, which like to retreat to quiet been carefully considering whether to include cephalopods places, were given an electric shock if they entered one and decapod crustaceans as sentient beings. Professor refuge but not if they entered another. It soon became Birch commented yesterday with respect to the definition evident that they knew which one to choose and that of sentience that the science is evolving. Indeed, the they remembered it. Shortness of time forbids me Minister commented in much the same way today. from giving any further examples, but I firmly believe Clearly it would raise huge issues were more and more that there are good examples that give hard evidence. animal taxa credibly—and, indeed, scientifically—argued We know, too, that a number of other countries are to be sentient. So, although I accept that Amendments ahead of us on this issue. They include, for example, 59 and 60 are improvements on the current Bill, I feel New Zealand, some of the Australian states, Austria that the range of animals included in the Bill should and even, surprisingly, Italy. be a political decision determined by the Secretary of The final point I want to make is that I commend to State and with the complete and full consideration of the Minister the precautionary principle. Great publicity Parliament, where the cost-benefit considerations can was given to it in the Environment Bill as one of five be properly weighed—taking scientific opinion into principles. It was given a good boost. I suggest that the account, of course, but not being bound by it. precautionary principle is one to adopt here and now. As I understand it, it means that, if there is some 5.15 pm evidence, you do not have to wait until something is Thus I support Amendment 57 in the name of the proved to the hilt before you take action. On that noble Lord, Lord Moylan. It would limit the extension basis, I have no hope that the Minister will accept to cephalopods—they are already protected in the Amendment 51 as it stands, but I hope for better Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act so there would be things before the Bill reaches the statute book. consistency there—and decapod crustaceans; there is mounting evidence that the latter are sentient beings. The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) They are protected in the animal welfare legislation of (Con): The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, whose name many other countries and are a subject on which the is next on the list, has withdrawn. LSE report is about to pronounce. This amendment would provide a hard stop at that point. It implies Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab): I am speaking that, should there be further pressure to extend the to Amendment 49 in my name and those of the noble range of animals, this can be considered but through Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and the noble Baroness, primary legislation duly debated, considered and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I thank them scrutinised in Parliament. for their support. Before I move on, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that he has understood the purpose Baroness Fookes (Con): My Lords, I apologise to of my amendment completely correctly.Wealso support the Committee for not being here earlier in the afternoon Amendment 51 in the names of the noble Baronesses, when noble Lords debated amendments to which I Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Fookes. added my name. Unfortunately, there was an additional Clause 5 currently defines “animal”as any vertebrate meeting of the Constitution Committee, of which I other than homo sapiens. Amendments 52 and 53 talk am a member, meeting on a different day and at a about adding “fish” and “birds” to the scope of the different time. However, I am here now. I will speak to Bill. I know that they are probing amendments, but Amendment 51 in particular; in that connection, I have they are vertebrates— GC 41 Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL][20 JULY 2021] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 42

Lord Moylan (Con): After “except homo sapiens”. “Regarding decapod crustaceans: although it would be possible for animal welfare law to protect some infraorders while excluding Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab): Okay. As I was others, this has the potential to generate significant confusion. A saying, they are probing amendments that are basically better approach would be to protect all decapod crustaceans in very general legislation such as the Animal Welfare (Sentience) asking for animals to come in that are already covered, Bill”. as they are vertebrates. I am just a bit confused about Having made that point, I would like to look at the that. If we look back to the European Council directive work of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission. In in 1998 which preceded the Lisbon treaty, fish and February this year, it issued a definition of sentience birds are included all the way back to then. I will be to cover both groups we have been discussing in light interested in what the Minister has to say and why the of the accumulating evidence, and that preceded the probing amendments are felt to be necessary. evidence I have just read out to noble Lords. Our Looking at Clause 5(2), we have had some debate amendment acknowledges this growing amount of about the fact that the definition could be widened in evidence and seeks to embed it within the Bill by future to include invertebrates if evidence of sentience extending the definition of “animal”to cover cephalopods among invertebrates comes forward. Wehave put forward and decapod crustaceans. We know that they are this amendment because we believe that evidence of already protected in some other countries—Australia, sentience among two groups of invertebrates,cephalopods Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand—and in some —for example, octopuses—and decapod crustaceans, states in the United States and Australia. The recognition is already established and has been for a number of of cephalopod and decapod crustacean sentience years. has already been acknowledged within the scientific The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, spoke about the community, so in our mind there is no good reason to importance of scientific evidence in the debate on an delay acknowledgement of it within the Bill. earlier group, so I am sure he will be interested in the The independent review has been mentioned by the fact that back in December 2005, the Panel on Animal noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Health and Welfare of the European Food Safety Fookes. There is huge expectation that this report will Authority published a report that examined the scientific be published soon, and it has a significant role to play evidence about the sentience and capacity of certain in informing the Bill we have been debating in this invertebrate species to experience pain and distress. It Committee. It would be extremely useful if the Minister concluded that decapod crustaceans and cephalopods could give us an update on its progress because to have can experience pain and distress, and that the largest it before us before Report is very important. decapod crustaceans are complex in behaviour and Before I finish, I want to speak very briefly to a have a pain system and considerable learning ability. couple of the other amendments. First, on Amendment As regards cephalopods, the scientific panel concluded 50 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, the that they have a nervous system and a relatively complex noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Earl, brain similar to many vertebrates and sufficient in Lord Caithness, I just feel a bit disappointed that it structure and function for them to experience pain. has been tabled to remove wild animals from the scope Notably, they can experience and learn to avoid pain of the Bill. I do not think there is a case for their and distress, such as avoiding electric shocks. In addition, removal. I heard the noble Lords’ concerns around they have significant cognitive ability, including good responsibility, and I would be very keen to hear some learning ability and memory retention, elaborate clarity from the Minister on this area. I really think communication systems and individual temperaments. that if we accept that animals are sentient by virtue of More recently, a number of scientific papers strongly their biology, sentience applies whatever the condition point to the conclusion that both cephalopods and an animal is in, whether it is wild, farmed or kept as a decapod crustaceans are capable of experiencing pain companion. Human activity—what we do—impinges and suffering. on wild, farm and companion animals alike. So, Even more recently—the noble Lord, Lord Trees, consideration of how our activity impacts on the welfare referred to this—evidence was given to the Select of sentience should cover all animals that would come Committee in July, this month, by Dr Jonathan Birch under the scope of the Bill at the moment. from the LSE, who is, of course, the author of the Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord report that Defra is producing. He provided written Moylan, and other noble Lords, would limit the Bill’s evidence, along with Professor Nicola Clayton and coverage to mammals, as we heard in the introduction. Dr Alexandra Schnell from the University of Cambridge, I would just like to make this point: when we consider and Dr Heather Browning and Dr Andrew Crump whether an animal is sentient, we should not be affected from the LSE. These are serious academics, who are by how like it is to us. That is not the point of the kind of people we should listen to when we consider sentience. As noble Lords, we need to consider this scientific evidence in making decisions. If noble Lords fact very carefully, and that is borne out again by the will bear with me, I just want to pull up a couple of scientific evidence. On that basis, being an invertebrate their points on this Bill. They say: should not automatically preclude sentience, so the “In our opinion, the evidence vindicates the 2012 extension of limitations proposed by the amendment would then the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to cover all cephalopod molluscs. We now have a very strange situation in the UK: all become an entirely arbitrary limitation given the cephalopod molluscs are protected in science but they are not overwhelming evidence I have just expressed concerning protected by robust animal welfare laws outside scientific settings.” the fact that sentience exists across vertebrates. Coming to Amendment 57 in the name of the noble I am aware that there has been quite a bit of press Lord, Lord Moylan—and perhaps to answer his interest in our amendment. I know we are not allowed considerations about this—they also say that: to use props, but I have a newspaper here, the Times, GC 43 Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL][LORDS] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 44

[BARONESS HAYMAN OF ULLOCK] Naturally, when we talk of possible extensions to whose editorial on 8 July said, “Considering the Lobster” the Bill’s scope, many noble Lords are thinking primarily —it is almost getting a bit Lewis Carroll, is it not? The about its extension to decapods and cephalopods. This subheading was: is reflected in Amendment 57 in the name of my noble “Ministers are right to ban the practice of boiling shellfish friend Lord Moylan, as well as Amendment 49 in the alive.” name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, In light of this, I urge the Minister to take action and and Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Baroness, accept our amendment. Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. As noble Lords know, my department has commissioned an independent review of the available scientific evidence on sentience 5.30 pm in decapod crustaceans such as crabs and lobsters as Lord Benyon (Con): I will start with Amendment 48 well as sentience in the cephalopod class, which includes in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan. With it, octopus, cuttlefish and squid. I can confirm that the I will take his Amendments 52 and 53, together with report will be published before the Bill returns to the Amendment 59 in the name of my noble friend Lord House on Report. Mancroft and Amendment 60 in the name of the We want this Bill to stand the test of time. Our noble Lady, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb. understanding of animal sentience has developed in It is evident that there is a rather wide range of recent years and will continue to do so. I say to my views in the Committee about which animals should noble friend Lord Moylan that I would be reluctant to be recognised in this Bill as sentient. Some noble do away with the ability to extend the Bill’s scope to Lords wish to see the scope of the Bill immediately other species, subject to parliamentary approval, if broadened to include decapods and cephalopods; others that is what the evidence calls for. additionally wish to see the exclusion of certain classes of vertebrates. As drafted, the Bill defines an animal Turning to Amendments 55 and 58, in the name of as a non-human vertebrate—that is, an animal with a the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I backbone. The scientific evidence is clear that vertebrate am not sure whether there is anything to be gained animals can experience pain and suffering. It is on that from explicitly excluding or including foetuses and basis that the definition of “animal” in the Animal embryos from the committee’s remit, as the noble Welfare Act 2006 extends to vertebrates. Baroness’s amendments would require. In practice, it would be difficult for the committee and government Government policy will continue to be guided by departments to identify the way in which a policy under scientific evidence. That is why we have future-proofed consideration affects the welfare needs of a foetus or the Bill with a delegated power for Ministers to add embryo, as opposed to those of the mother animal. It different species of invertebrates to the definition of is therefore unlikely that the committee could find “animal” by regulation. We will use this power where itself considering a policy beyond its remit. supported by robust scientific evidence. This corresponds to the similar delegated power contained in the Animal To conclude my remarks on what species the Bill Welfare Act. I am mindful, of course, that this House covers, I recognise that there are strong views advocating has mixed feelings about the inclusion of delegated for many different directions. We want to ensure that powers such as this in public Bills. It is rightly expected any extension of the recognition of sentience is informed that Ministers offer a good reason for their inclusion. I by engagement with the evidence from experts and can assure your Lordships that we would not have stakeholders. Parliament can expect us to weigh the taken the trouble to seek this power if we were not evidence carefully, with the assurance that it will always prepared to use it when needed. I can confirm that have the final say on the matter. new additions to the remit of the Bill—new species—are subject to an affirmative resolution, so noble Lords I saw and was profoundly affected by the documentary can scrutinise them. “My Octopus Teacher”, which has been frequently quoted. Other than the beauty of that particular animal, On Amendment 56, my noble friend Lord Trenchard it also showed the healing power of nature for the would, had he been able to speak to it, have sounded individual who made that film. It is one of the most a note of caution regarding the delegated power in remarkable programmes that I have seen for a very the Bill. I can assure him that such a power will be long time. exercised appropriately, as I said. That is why the affirmative resolution process applies; Parliament will I turn now to Amendment 50, in the name of my have the final say on any extension to the Bill’s scope. noble friend Lord Robathan, which seeks to refine the If either House is not satisfied that Ministers have scope to kept animals. Your Lordships might wonder good evidence to justify their use of the delegated what is the point of recognising the sentience of animals power, then its use can be vetoed. We know that that are outside human control, such as wild animals—the scientific research is a continuous process and new noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made this point. It is evidence on sentience will emerge over time as our simple: these animals are sentient and equally capable understanding increases. That is why we have included of feeling pain and suffering. Sentience is not a capacity the delegated power. I am aware there may be different limited to those animals under the control of man, nor views on the inclusion of a delegated power in the Bill. does government policy impact solely on kept animals. However,this power is necessary to allow us to recognise There are numerous ways in which a government other species as sentient if there is sufficient evidence policy might affect wild animals. Crucially, we share to support it, and I can confirm we intend to use the an environment. Hence we should not limit the committee power if that is the case. to considering the sentience of kept animals alone. GC 45 Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL][20 JULY 2021] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 46

I will answer various points that have been raised. noble friend. I understand the point that he makes. He Tomy noble friend Lord Moylan, I will quote Rousseau’s is a seasoned political debater. This is an issue which Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among requires people who will make decisions about such Men: animals should be part of natural law matters, and that should not be lay men like me. “less because they are rational than because they are sentient”. I do not usually pray him in aid—his writings led to Lord Moylan (Con): My Lords, I am grateful to my the French Revolution and the Terror—but I think noble friend the Minister and to other noble Lords that, in this case, he was right. who have spoken on this group of amendments, Like many others, my noble friend Lord Robathan particularly my noble friends Lord Caithness, Lord referred to the words “Trojan horse”. I do not understand Robathan and Lord Mancroft. I was pleased that the why they keep being used in the context of the Bill. noble Lord, Lord Trees, felt able to express support for The Trojan horse was a special forces operation, as he Amendment 57 in my name. should be well aware, and it led to the sacking of a I also want on this occasion to thank the Minister civilisation. I do not see that it has any corresponding for handling us so well. These have been two afternoons circumstances here. of extremely informative and at the same time very Finally, my attention was drawn to something in good-natured debate, and he has taken everything that Hansard on 25 July 1979—so in the first few weeks of we have thrown at him and come back with a dazzling the then Conservative Government—where an MP who display of intellect and sympathy, though it is mildly then went under the name “Miss Fookes” asked the regrettable that the only philosophers he cites are all Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food French—maybe he should have a closer look at that “what progress has been made with the Government’s review of for the future. their animal welfare policy”. I apologise for expressing myself badly if I conveyed She was clearly on the march on animal welfare matters to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington eventhen.Inhisreply,theMinister,PeterWalker—obviously Mandeville, that I did not think that dogs could feel late of this parish—set out the parameters that he pleasure. That is not what I intended to say. In fact, thought were important for the Farm Animal Welfare one of my amendments specifically preserved mammals Council, which is obviously a different organisation. as part of the scope of the Bill. I was trying to say that, However, his reply clearly sets out the level of expertise while we can certainly understand pleasure and indeed and—I say this to my Conservative colleagues—an pain in a dog or in the higher mammals, it is very enduringdeterminationtoimprovethewelfareof animals. difficult to understand what that means in any meaningful It finishes: sense when one is talking about fish, for example. It “The actions the Government intend to take will provide a was simply that point that I was trying to make; I am more efficient and effective means of furthering the interests of sorry if I did not express myself well. animal welfare.”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/07/1979; cols. 295-98W] I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of I could not have put it better than that in the context Ullock, that Amendments 52 and 53 would add fish of this Bill. and birds to a clause that excepts—it is an exception clause—so that it would except homo sapiens “and Finally, as this is the last group, I thank every one fish” and so on. It takes them out of the scope of the of your Lordships who has spoken on the Bill today Bill. Clearly, the noble Baroness does not want them and at the previous session. As a new Member of this taken out. However, she was never going to express House, I can certainly say that its reputation as a place support so, in a way, it does not matter. of careful consideration and scrutiny is well deserved. I hope that my noble friend will feel content to withdraw As a final point, I want to pick up on what the his amendment. noble Baroness said about cephalopods and decapod crustaceans, and it is a bit of commentary on much of TheDeputyChairmanof Committees(BaronessGarden the Bill. I think that we are all agreed that the Bill has of Frognal) (LD): My Lords, I have received a request to say something, and we have a Bill here which is so to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord empty of content that it would almost be a scandal if Bellingham. it passed in its current circumstances. Today and on previous occasions, we have discussed how it ought to Lord Bellingham (Con): My Lords, does the Minister say something about composition and about term think that there is a fundamental difference between limits—which we discussed last time. Perhaps there is a lobster and a prawn? If an image of a prawn is a feeling that it ought to say something too about magnified many times, we see that it is not dissimilar cephalopods and decapod crustaceans. Where we might to a lobster. Of course, when children go shrimping or differ around the Committee, because we have not catching prawns, whelks, cockles or mussels, those sufficiently coalesced, is on what exactly it should say creatures are all put into boiling water, pretty well on those issues, but I think that many of us sitting killed immediately and cooked. Does the Minister feel here, from all political parties and groups, can probably that there is a fundamental difference between those agree with me if I say to the Minister that as the Bill bigger crustaceans such as lobsters and crabs and the stands, it is not good enough, and that when it comes smaller ones? back on Report we expect many things that we have said to be heard and the Bill to be improved in a Lord Benyon (Con): I am not an expert, and that is number of respects. why I want an animal sentience committee that will I wish the Minister well in his endeavours to make advise me and my successors on the rights and wrongs the Bill better so that we are all as happy with it as we of dispatching species of all kinds. I cannot answer my havebeenwithhim.Ibegleavetowithdrawtheamendment. GC 47 Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL][LORDS] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] GC 48

Amendment 48 withdrawn. Amendment 62 not moved.

Amendments 49 to 60 not moved. Bill reported without amendment. The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden Amendment 61 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled of Frognal) (LD): My Lords, that concludes the List. Committee’s proceedings on the Bill. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Clause 5 agreed. Room. Clause 6 agreed. Committee adjourned at 5.45 pm.