Vol. 802 Monday No. 32 2 March 2020

PARLIAMENTARYDEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT

ORDEROFBUSINESS

Questions Artistic Content: Copyright Protection ...... 387 Organ Trafficking: Sanctions...... 389 Holyhead ...... 392 Universal Credit ...... 395 European Arrest Warrant, Europol and Eurojust Private Notice Question ...... 397 Fisheries Bill [HL] Committee (1st Day)...... 401 Ministerial Code: Breaches Statement...... 430 Airport Expansion Statement...... 434 Coronavirus: British Citizens Imprisoned Abroad Statement...... 438 UK-US Trade Deal Negotiating Objectives Statement...... 441 Fisheries Bill [HL] Committee(1st Day) (Continued) ...... 452 Mental Health: Unregulated Treatment Question for Short Debate...... 468 Fisheries Bill [HL] Committee (1st Day) (Continued) ...... 482

Grand Committee Pension Schemes Bill [HL] Committee (3rd Day)...... GC 191 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/2020-03-02

The first time a Member speaks to a new piece of parliamentary business, the following abbreviations are used to show their party affiliation: Abbreviation Party/Group CB Cross Bench Con Conservative DUP Democratic Unionist Party GP Green Party Ind Lab Independent Labour Ind LD Independent Liberal Democrat 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 2020, this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 387 Oaths and Affirmations[2 MARCH 2020] Artistic Content: Copyright Protection 388

House of Lords continue to co-operate closely with our friends in the EU on these matters. Artists will continue to want to Monday 2 March 2020 transfer backwards and forwards for their work. 2.30 pm The Earl of Clancarty (CB): My Lords, with respect Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury. to the Question, will culture, media and arts services be included in future trade deals with the US, with Oaths and Affirmations which we already have a close cultural relationship in the performing arts? 2.36 pm Baroness Morgan of Drefelin took the oath, and signed Lord Callanan: As the noble Earl will be aware, an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct. most trade deals contain a number of paragraphs on cultural exchanges and creative industries. I am sure Artistic Content: Copyright Protection that that will be the case with the EU agreement and Question with the US agreement. 2.37 pm Asked by Lord Clement-Jones Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con): My Lords, with the onward march of the digital revolution and our pre- To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps eminence in artistic areas such as music and arts, they are taking to ensure that United Kingdom copyright is becoming ever more important. Can the creators of artistic content have the same level of Minister give us an assurance that intellectual property copyright protection as those working in the European has a high priority in policy-making for this Government? Union. However we attack that in any particular trade deal, TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department the overall point is to protect our artistic success and forBusiness,EnergyandIndustrialStrategy(LordCallanan) endeavour everywhere. (Con): My Lords, UK copyright works, such as books, films and music, will continue to be protected in both Lord Callanan: Of course, my noble friend makes a the EU and the UK because of the UK’s participation very important point. As I said earlier, we have one of in the international treaties on copyright. the strongest copyright protection frameworks in the Lord Clement-Jones (LD): My Lords, in contrast to world. Many of these are subject to international the Government’s present intention not to implement agreements, such as the TRIPS agreement. We will the copyright directive, the Culture Minister, Nigel continue to engage in international fora and make sure Adams, said in January: that artists and creators have protection for their works. “It is imperative that we do everything possible to protect our brilliant creators”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/1/20; col. 56WH.] Lord Fox (LD): My Lords, a number of different Does the Minister recognise that creative workers are ministries have commented on this, as my noble friend crucial to the success of the UK’s creative industries; pointed out, including BEIS and DCMS. Am I to that many rely on payments related to copyright to conclude from the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, sustain their careers; and that the new rights in the is speaking to this that BEIS will be accountable for copyright directive, for which they fought hard to be this and will be the ministry that makes sure that included, are absolutely essential? These include people—including,Ishouldsay,peopleinmyfamily—who transparency, contract adjustment and, of course, fair work in this industry get paid? If they do not, they remuneration. Should these not now be introduced in need to know who is accountable. UK law? Lord Callanan: As the noble Lord will be aware, the Lord Callanan: Yes, BEIS is responsible for intellectual UK has now left the EU and the transition period will property and copyright, but of course there is considerable end on 31 December. This means that the UK is not input from DCMS concerning the creative industries. required to implement the copyright directive, but the DCMS is taking forward a creative industries forum UK has one of the strongest copyright protection and various round tables with content providers and frameworks in the world. Many of these are subject to social media platforms, et cetera. So it lies across the international treaties, which we will continue to be two departments. members of. We will continue to value the creative sector; of course its work should be recognised. Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab): Does the Minister Lord Watts (Lab): My Lords, the creative industries agree that unless Article 17 or an equivalent measure will face major problems when we finally leave Europe. is introduced, creative personnel in this country are Is the Minister working with the industry to do something going to be disadvantaged relative to how they would about visas, which are a particular problem for travelling have been had we stayed in the EU, and certainly in artists? comparison with their counterparts in the EU, which was the basis of the Question? Is this not a case of Lord Callanan: The visa system will be the subject cutting off your nose to spite your face? Why would of negotiation. The UK is about to implement a new we not want to make sure that those who are earning immigration system, but we will, of course, want to benefits from the cultural industries for this country 389 Artistic Content: Copyright Protection[LORDS] Organ Trafficking: Sanctions 390

[LORD STEVENSON OF BALMACARA] Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong which and for themselves are able to earn, and that their shows that over 7,000 doctors in China are involved in copyrights are not being ripped off by the tech giants, the systematic killing of prisoners through the horrific as is currently happening? enforced body harvesting trade in that country. Could he assure me that, notwithstanding what he has Lord Callanan: We will continue to advocate for the just said, the Government will none the less look rights of the creative industries. We shall see how the sympathetically at taking action under these new copyright directive is implemented and how the various provisions in order that these doctors are brought to enforcement regimes within it will work, but of course book? it is not possible for us to remain part of it, because we will not accept the jurisdiction of the CJEU in these Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I note and matters. We will see how it works and will continue to pay tribute to the noble Lord’s work on this. I assure keep the matter under review. It is of course a matter all noble Lords that the whole purpose of the scope of for this Parliament to determine how our copyright the sanctions regime is to ensure that we hold individuals protection framework goes forward. who abuse human rights to account for their actions, whatever the basis of those human rights—indeed, I Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB): My Lords, at a remember many a debate in your Lordships’ House on time when royalties are being cut at almost every this legislation—and whatever the abuse. level—I include the BBC in this—it is more essential than ever that the creators of intellectual property are able to reap some sort of reward. What alarmed me Baroness Northover (LD): My Lords, the China slightly about the Minister’s replies was that he kept Tribunal has concluded that China’s forced organ using words such as “hope” and “expect”. That is not harvesting constitutes a crime against humanity. I so good for those of us who have to know that we can know the noble Lord takes his responsibilities as Minister pay our bills. for Human Rights seriously. Has he read the China Tribunal’s report? A draft was out about six months Lord Callanan: We should be proud in this country: ago, and it has now been finalised. If he has, does he we have one of the strongest copyright protection agree with it? I note that he did not raise this issue at frameworks in the world, as I said earlier. Many of the Human Rights Council the other day. these matters, as the noble Lord will be aware, are the subject of international agreements and we will continue Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, on that final to engage in those fora to make sure that creators get point, as the noble Baroness will know from her own the value of their works. experience as a Minister, when you are at international fora you are very much time-limited on all the issues, Organ Trafficking: Sanctions and the exclusion of a particular issue does not mean that there is not a focus or priority attached to it. She Question will know that the final report was issued yesterday; it 2.44 pm is 562 pages long. I have not yet read it, but we are considering it and I will respond to her in detail once Asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath we have done so more fully. To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the response by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB): My Lords, in his 23 January (HL Deb, col 1148), whether the proposed reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the Minister said United Kingdom autonomous global human rights that he would not make a preliminary decision, yet in Magnitsky-style sanctions regime will apply to persons a letter to me on 25 February the Government said engaged in (1) illegal organ trafficking, or (2) obtaining that, having consulted the World Health Organization organs for transplant without consent. and Beijing, their view is that China is implementing “an ethical, voluntary organ transplant system”. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth How does that square with the China Tribunal’s findings Office and Department for International Development that organised butchery of living people compares to (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con): My Lords, we will soon lay secondary legislation for the UK’s first “the worst atrocities committed in conflicts of the 20th century”, autonomous sanctions regime under the Sanctions including the gassing of Jews by the Nazis and the and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The work is Khmer Rouge massacres in Cambodia? Will he revisit complex, and it is important to take the time to get the full report referred to by the noble Baroness, this right. This sanctions regime will allow us to impose Lady Northover, published this weekend, a copy of sanctions in response to serious human rights violations which I sent to him, and look at the inquiries and or abuses around the world. As it is not yet in force, it investigations carried out by one of the Sundaynewspapers would be inappropriate to comment on the specific published yesterday, which I have also sent him and aspects of the scope. which detail these horrendous crimes committed against both Falun Gong practitioners and Uighur Muslims? Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab): My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said and the action Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, my Sunday that is being taken to introduce the sanctions regime afternoons would not be the same without emails he has referred to, but he will know that I have recently from the noble Lord. I assure him that I have underlined been sent a report from the World Organization to my commitment and the commitment of Her Majesty’s 391 Organ Trafficking: Sanctions [2 MARCH 2020] Holyhead 392

Government to the important issues raised in relation underpinning lawful storage and use of body parts—organ to the Falun Gong. As I said to the noble Baroness, and tissue? This is the level of consent we expect of Lady Northover, we will respond once we have fully international standards for an organ transplant system. considered the details of the report. The noble Lord rightly raises those details and the details of other Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: It is always a challenge reports, one of which was issued today on human when a former Health Minister asks you a pointed rights issues and the plight, particularly, of Uighurs in and specific question, but the answer to my noble China. We raise this in multilateral fora and the Uighurs friend is yes. Across the piece, the United Kingdom issue was mentioned in my contribution at the Human prides itself on the standards it sets. Those standards Rights Council last Tuesday. also determine how we prioritise particular issues and human rights concerns on the world stage. Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab): My Lords, the Government have had powers to make Magnitsky-style Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op): My Lords, regulations—visa bans and asset freezes—since the there have been some confused reports on human passage of the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and Sanctions rights in the media over the weekend. They seem to and the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. Why the have confused the European Court of Justice with the delay? It cannot be EU membership, as other EU European Court of Human Rights. Will the Minister members such as Lithuania and Latvia have Magnitsky- confirm that it is still the intention of the Government to style regulations. play a full, constructive and positive role in the European Court of Human Rights, to continue to adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights and to Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, there is no participate fully in the work of the Council of Europe? sense of a lack of priority. I assure the noble Lord that we are very committed to this sanctions regime. Indeed, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: In all those respects, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has the Government’s position is clear. We continue to made it a personal priority. The noble Lord points to uphold the issue of human rights, not just in a European issues and the use of other restrictions. We have had context, but globally. On the final question, we remain those levers at our disposal. Only last week, when very much committed to the Council of Europe, and I answering a Question on another country—the Kingdom was pleased recently to see the Prime Minister approving of Saudi Arabia—I reassured noble Lords that we the new nominations to it. have used levers at our disposal, including visa restrictions. Holyhead Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab): My Lords, last July Question I had the opportunity to ask the Minister a question precisely on the WHO and its definition of whether 2.52 pm what is going on in China is ethical. He replied that the Chinese are saying that. Last July, he undertook to Tabled by Lord Roberts of Llandudno raise with the WHO our concern about the farming of To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans organs and this continuing atrocity.What has happened they have for the Port of Holyhead. since July? Have we continued to put pressure on the WHO? Baroness Humphreys (LD): On behalf of my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno and with his Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: The short answer to the permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in noble Lord is yes; we have taken up direct conversations his name on the Order Paper. and consultations with the World Health Organization. I put on record again that the allegations that have TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department been raised in various reports, including the final for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con): My report conducted by Sir Geoffrey Nice, raise questions Lords, the UK and Welsh Governments have committed that need to be answered in the context of that report. £240 million of joint funding to the north Wales growth I know the noble Lord is aware that the view of the deal. The UK Government are working to bring greater World Health Organization remains that China is investment growth and job opportunities to communities implementing an ethical, voluntary organ transplant across Wales. The north Wales growth deal represents system, in accordance with international standards, real progress in achieving those aims. although it has now raised concerns about transparency. I assure the noble Lord that we will continue to Baroness Humphreys: I thank the Minister for that prioritise this issue and that of human rights within reply. The Northern Ireland protocol signed by the the context of China. Prime Minister in October establishes a border in the Irish Sea. According to the boss of Stena Line, Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con): My “there’s a border, and the border requires checks”. Lords, I thank the Minister for his commitment to The assumption is that these checks would be consider the report, as his department develops the carried out in British ports, including Holyhead. If the regime. While he does, will he have in mind the standards Government do not intend to renege on the agreement, that we implement through the Human Tissue Act what plans do they have to provide new infrastructure 2004? It puts consent as the fundamental principle at ports and how will this be financed? 393 Holyhead [LORDS] Holyhead 394

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: My Lords, the Government Baroness Vere of Norbiton: I agree with the noble are engaging with the Welsh Government and local Lord that that has to be a concern. As I mentioned in partners to understand not only their plans, constraints my opening Answer, the Government and the Welsh and opportunities, but how best to support the planning Government have committed £240 million to the north for operational readiness. The ports that are best Wales growth deal. One of the projects within that prepared on 31 December will have a competitive deal will involve enormous changes for the better at advantage. Holyhead. I will endeavour to find out whether facilities to plug into shore supplies will be available. Baroness Redfern (Con): My Lords, post Brexit, we are told that the Government will create 10 superports. Baroness Randerson (LD): My Lords, the Minister The Humber ports are not merely an alternative to suggested that it is up to ports to be prepared but, Dover but a driver for the northern powerhouse. They while it is of course for the Government to give a can provide a quicker, cheaper and greener solution to signal on borders and potential borders in the Irish trading logistics. When will a decision be made on Sea, the uncertainty of the situation in respect of those ports? Holyhead is having very serious implications. At what point in the negotiations with the EU over the coming months do the Government expect to discuss and Baroness Vere of Norbiton: I thank my noble friend finalise the border arrangements between Northern for asking me about the free ports because they could Ireland and Great Britain? be a great way of boosting trade, attracting inward investment and driving productivity. The Government Baroness Vere of Norbiton: As the noble Baroness, have published a consultation document. We will be Lady Randerson, will know, I cannot possibly answer looking for up to 10 national hubs to work as trade, that question at this time because those sorts of things innovation and commerce centres. A consultation process are still being finalised. However, we have been talking is under way and we look forward to being able to about this for a very long time now. An enormous announce the results soon. amount of planning has already gone on, particularly around the previous exit date of 31 October. The Lord Wigley (PC): My Lords, is the Minister aware Border Delivery Group has been up and running for a of the recent decision by Stena Line to re-register its long time and we are working with local partners to new boat, the “Stena Estrid”, which was originally understand what needs to be done. We have already registered in Cardiff, in Limassol, with significant looked at any potential disruption and what could be implications for those working in the Port of Holyhead? done to mitigate it—work is well under way. If she does not have the answer to this at hand, will she write to me with any details she can find? Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab): My Lords, is the noble Baroness confident that the new infrastructure at Holyhead will be completed by the end of this year? Baroness Vere of Norbiton: I thank the noble Lord for his question. I was very prepared to respond to questions about ports but not on ships today, so I will Baroness Vere of Norbiton: In terms of border have to write to him. checks, I hope so because as I said in a previous answer, the best-prepared ports will have a competitive advantage. I very much hope that Holyhead will be at Lord Lexden (Con): My Lords, the noble Baroness, the forefront. Lady Humphreys, referred to the creation of a border in the Irish Sea, and there has been a great deal of speculation about this. Will the Government permit Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab): My Lords, Holyhead relies such a border or not? on seamless trade both across the Irish border and through UK ports. Does the Minister share my concern that border checks could lead to Wales being bypassed Baroness Vere of Norbiton: My Lords, that is a long completely in favour of alternative routes that facilitate and complex question with a long and complex answer. seamless trade across the EU, with devastating As noble Lords will know, arrangements for borders consequences for trade and the economy? in the Irish Sea or elsewhere are currently under discussion. Baroness Vere of Norbiton: My Lords, we want Lord West of Spithead (Lab): My Lords, the trade to be as frictionless as possible, and are therefore infrastructure in Holyhead, like the infrastructure in in discussions with ports to understand exactly what many ports around the UK, does not include the they will be doing to make the checks that will be ability for ships, particularly ferries in the case of needed. There will be new checks, but for traders that Holyhead, to plug in and go on to shore power. are ready there will be little or no delay in getting Consequently, when they are berthed alongside, they through the port. have to run their diesel generators all the time, which has a huge impact on the environment. Is there is any Lord Geddes (Con): My Lords, the question from intention to make sure that the ports around our the noble Lord, Lord West, prompts me to ask my nation have shoreside electrical supplies so that we can noble friend about the paucity of charging points for cut this huge spike in diesel emissions? the much-vaunted electric cars. 395 Holyhead [2 MARCH 2020] Universal Credit 396

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: I so thank my noble Baroness Stedman-Scott: Like all noble Lords in friend for that question. I believe there will be a debate the House, I am only too well aware of the size of the fairly soon about charging points for electric vehicles. problem of homelessness and people sleeping on the It is obviously a huge priority for the Government. We streets. I normally agree with the noble Lord, and I do are making great investments through the plug-in car agree that universal credit may have added to some grant for people who want to buy electric vehicles, and people’s anxiety and their issues. Many of them have are matching that investment for charging points. had issues for a long time that we have not done what we should have done to deal with—but I do not think they are 100% attributable to universal credit. Universal Credit Question Baroness Janke (LD): My Lords, is the Minister aware that a large body of evidence supports the case that benefits sanctions have a devastating effect 3 pm on claimants’ mental health and could even result Asked by Baroness McDonagh in suicides? In the light of last week’s report in the Lancet, when will the Government conduct a Toask Her Majesty’sGovernment what assessment comprehensive assessment of the impact of benefits they have made of (1) the debt levels, (2) the mental sanctions on claimants, as the DWP pledged to do health, and (3) the ability to work, of people in in 2013? receipt of Universal Credit. Baroness Stedman-Scott: I have read the report in TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department the Lancet, and the Government’s response is that we for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con): have no concerns surrounding the general thrust of ThenobleBaroness’sQuestionrecognisesissuesexperienced the methodology. However, it is difficult, in that it says by many people in our society. The department has it would not have caused the issue but would have made no official assessment of universal credit’s effect contributed to it—a point I tried to make in answering in these three specific areas. We often find that people the prior question. I am not aware of the commitment experience debt and mental health issues that existed the Government made then, but that will be down to priortoclaiminguniversalcredit.Wethinkthatattempting me, not them. However, if the noble Baroness agrees, I to make an accurate assessment could be difficult—but will go back to the department, get an answer to that not impossible. question and write to her.

Baroness Couttie (Con): My Lords, could the Minister Baroness McDonagh (Lab): I thank the Minister for update the House on what the Government are doing her Answer. She is very straightforward, and I know to support those with mental health issues in accessing she will want to get this right. I know too that the universal credit seamlessly, so that those issues are not majority of people in this House agree that individuals exacerbated, and to help them get into work, which, as are better in work—better for themselves, their families we all know, can sometimes help with mental health and the broader society—and benefits need to be and well-being? simplified. However, we are spending billions of pounds of public money here. Theory is one thing, but practice is another. I ask the Minister to attempt again to Baroness Stedman-Scott: I thank my noble friend persuade the Government to conduct an assessment, for that question. Mental health is a major issue for so that we can see whether there are any unintended people on universal credit, and in other walks of life. consequences for mental health well-being, work mobility At present, we are introducing health model offices and indebtedness, and that we can properly debate this in 11 jobcentres. These focus on claimants with health issue and recommend any changes and improvements conditions. Blackburn jobcentre has agreed a new where needed. initiative, “advance to ausome”, for people with autism. Another jobcentre, in north London, is running quiet sessions for people who cannot cope with coming in. Baroness Stedman-Scott: I am so glad that we agree This is what I would like noble Lords to go away on the principle that people should be, and in the with today. A young man came to the jobcentre who majority of cases are, better off in work. I like the was working full-time, had mental health issues and noble Baroness’s idea, and I am touched that she did not know how he was going to keep his job. He thinks my powers of persuasion are so good. In order was in a bad way. Our work coaches worked with him that I can deploy them to the maximum, let us meet and, through the Access to Work mental health support prior to me going back to work the magic. I would like programme, he is now back at work and working to go with the best case possible to see if we can do towards a promotion. None of that would have been this, to get the information that helps us help people possible without that support. We are doing everything more. we can—and there is more to be done—to help people with these issues. Lord Bird (CB): Are the Government aware that a number of the people sleeping rough on our streets at Baroness Sherlock (Lab): My Lords, may I ask the the moment have fallen through the universal credit Minister something quite specific? What plans does net? Would the Minister like to comment on that? DWP have to deal with the outbreak of coronavirus? 397 Universal Credit [LORDS] European Arrest Warrant 398

[BARONESS SHERLOCK] sharing. The Government say that they want a similar For example, can people on zero-hours contracts who agreement to that reached by Norway and Iceland to cannot go to work get universal credit to support them replace the European arrest warrant, but that agreement if they have to isolate themselves at home and are took 13 years to negotiate and implement and does unable to work? In a similar vein, can she guarantee not allow extradition of an EU member state’s own that those on universal credit will not be sanctioned if nationals. Is it not inevitable that the UK will be less they cannot go to a job interview, to the jobcentre or safe and less secure if we withdraw from these fulfil their commitments because they are isolating arrangements? themselves at home? Will the Government suspend sanctions and advertise universal credit for those affected Baroness Williams of Trafford: The first thing to by isolation patterns? say is that the Norway-Iceland agreement might have taken 13 years but the initial agreement took very little Baroness Stedman-Scott: I was not prepared for time at all; it was the commencement that seemed to that one, that is for sure. I know that the Permanent take so long. It did not take very long to get agreement Secretary has a plan to make sure that people get paid on this. The agreement we are negotiating should and get the help they need. However, I will be really provide for co-operation between the UK and Europol upset if people are sanctioned because of this. I will go and Eurojust to facilitate multilateral law enforcement back to the department and write to the noble Baroness, and criminal justice co-operation. The agreement with to make sure that the issue is understood. Europol should go beyond existing precedent, given the scale and nature of co-operation between the UK Baroness Boycott (CB): Does the Minister understand and Europol. For example, the UK was the highest the correlation between new attendants at food banks contributor of data to Europol for strategic, thematic and universal credit sanctions? What are the Government and operational analysis in 2018. going to do about that? Almost all new sign-ups to food banks are caused by delays. Not only is that bad Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op): My Lords, for your health, it is bad for your mental health. will the Minister set out for the House who she believes are the beneficiaries of this decision other than criminals Baroness Stedman-Scott: The issue of food bank seeking to evade justice? How will she ensure that usage and the reasons for it came up during a Question fugitives in Europe will not just laugh at us for failing I took recently. I have no doubt that, as I have agreed to bring them to justice? before, universal credit has contributed to the increased use of food banks, but that is not everything. However, claimants will only ever be sanctioned where, without Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, the good reason, they fail to meet the reasonable requirements beneficiaries of this should be the people of the UK. It agreed in their claimant commitment. seeks to replicate many of the operational capabilities in the European arrest warrant, while containing safeguards. European Arrest Warrant, Europol and Eurojust Lord Robathan (Con): My Lords, is it not the case Private Notice Question that not all European arrest warrants are the same? A European arrest warrant from France or Germany, 3.08 pm with whom we share the same respect for the rule of Asked by Lord Paddick law, is one thing, but a European arrest warrant from one or two other countries—here I particularly mention To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their Romania—is not the same because often political assessment of the impact of the UK withdrawing interference has taken place in the judicial system. from participation in the European Arrest Warrant, membership of Europol and membership of Eurojust. Baroness Williams of Trafford: My noble friend makes a very good point about political interference. The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams In fact, that is one of the safeguards within what we of Trafford) (Con): My Lords, the UK stands ready to are seeking. He is right to make the point that not all discuss an agreement on law enforcement and judicial EU states are the same. co-operation in criminal matters. An agreement in this area should support data exchange for law enforcement, operational co-operation between law enforcement Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab): My Lords, will the authorities and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. situation after withdrawal be as effective as it is at This agreement should equip operational partners on present? both sides with capabilities that help protect citizens and bring criminals to justice, promoting the security Baroness Williams of Trafford: I would hope it will of all our citizens. be enhanced.

Lord Paddick (LD): My Lords, the Minister has not Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP): My Lords, even attempted to answer the Question. Not being a this seems the most bizarre decision. Perhaps the member of Europol or Eurojust relegates the UK to Minister can tell me whether it is that the Prime observer status, rather than driving and directing pan- Minister’s hard-right colleagues in the Cabinet do not European law enforcement operations and intelligence like anything with the word “Euro” in it. 399 European Arrest Warrant [2 MARCH 2020] European Arrest Warrant 400

Baroness Williams of Trafford: Not that I have was he consulted in this decision and how much has heard. The agreement we are negotiating should provide the relationship between the north of Ireland and for co-operation. But we will have left the EU. Ireland been considered in this decision?

Lord Cormack (Con): My noble friend talks about Baroness Williams of Trafford: As the noble Baroness political interference. This, to many of us, smacks of will know, and as I have said on several occasions, we political interference: fixing something that is not have engaged with the devolved authorities on all broken. Time and again in the last two or three years, things, particularly in the area of law enforcement. Ministers on the Front Bench have indicated the value of these arrangements. Why are we walking away from Lord Dubs (Lab): My Lords, is it not the case that them? the European arrest warrant has one enormous advantage among many in that countries that do not normally Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, there are extradite their people, do so under the EAW? What areas in which we will attempt to have very similar assurance have we that, in future, this will hold good? arrangements to those we have now with the EU. As I Many signals have come from European countries said, this will be very similar operationally to the saying that they will not do so in the future. Does that EAW, but with enhanced safeguards. not make us as a country weaker and more vulnerable to criminality? Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD): My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Baroness Williams of Trafford: I think it would Lord Cormack, how is it that we have come to this mean that those states will try in their own countries—I pass when, time and again, before our departure from have talked about the enhanced safeguards—but I do the EU, we were promised from those on the Front not think that will make this country less safe. Bench that we would work towards replicating the arrangements for the European arrest warrant, Europol Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op): My Lords, and Eurojust? Wenow appear to be negotiating something is this one of the areas in which the Permanent Secretary inferior and different. advised the Secretary of State of the dangers of going ahead, and which the Secretary of State paid no Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I would attention to and shouted? not say it is inferior, but I agree that it is different. The Norway-Iceland arrangements seem to work perfectly Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, one thing well with those enhanced safeguards. I cannot comment on is private conversations between Secretaries of State and their officials— Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab): My Lords, back when we were discussing the European withdrawal Noble Lords: Oh! agreement six months ago, it was frequently said that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Can the Baroness Williams of Trafford: I cannot. The noble noble Baroness confirm that the same rules apply as Lord will know that. we go forward towards the new agreement that we are now negotiating? If we do not manage to agree everything, what position will we be left in with respect to these Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD): Given the aspects of criminal justice? continued controversy with regard to the treaty on extradition between the United Kingdom and the United States, and that the bars in each country are Baroness Williams of Trafford: We obviously want different—“reasonable suspicion”in Britain and “probable an agreement across all areas of law enforcement cause” in the United States—which of these standards co-operation—I cannot hypothecate what the noble will Her Majesty’s Government insist upon when they Baroness says—because we want to keep our citizens enter any new extradition treaties? safe. Baroness Williams of Trafford: The noble Lord asks Lord Watts (Lab): My Lords, how will the Government a question which I do not think I can answer in terms extradite criminals from Germany given that, of the level, but I can get back to him. I would be constitutionally, they are not allowed to do so unless it making it up if I were to give an answer. is within the European Union? The Earl of Erroll (CB): My Lords, one of the BaronessWilliamsof Trafford:MyLords,arrangements problems of the European arrest warrant was that, if will have to be in place that allow the system or the there was a crime in the country that was trying to arrangements to take part in that country. extradite but not in the country that the person was being demanded from, we used to have difficulty. I Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab): My Lords, I seem to remember there being an issue over xenophobia wonder whether the Minister remembers what the in one of the European countries and there was also a head of the Police Service of Northern Ireland said problem with plane spotters who took photographs of about the loss of the European arrest warrant. It was airplanes. Presumably, these issues will disappear under one of his highest concerns about Brexit. How much the new negotiations. 401 European Arrest Warrant [LORDS] Fisheries Bill [HL] 402

Baroness Williams of Trafford: This will come under industry that has become quite fossilised and significantly what we call “dual criminality”. If the issue at hand foreign owned, with no apparent appetite to change was not a crime in this country, it would not be that. applicable. We would add some of those more difficult We will come on to a number of those issues as we cases where the crime was not a crime in our country. go through the Bill and the amendments, but we are trying to state the completely obvious: if fish stocks belong to anyone while they are in the UK EEZ, they Fisheries Bill [HL] should belong to the nation. That is simply what the amendment says: they are not the everlasting property Committee (1st Day) of a vessel, an individual, a company or even a public body such as the one we have in Cornwall that buys up 3.19 pm quota for the local fishing industry. They do not belong to them for eternity; they belong to the nation. Relevant document: 6th Report from the Delegated I do not understand how anybody could argue Powers Committee against this concept, but it is really important, since it is fully in line with the ideals of Brexit, becoming an Amendment 1 independent coastal state, and Parliament and the nation having control, that we notice and mark that Moved by Lord Teverson these fish stocks belong to the nation. That does not 1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— mean that there should not be, through the Secretary “Fisheries principles of State or the devolved authorities, a way that those (1) Marine stocks within the UK Exclusive Economic Zone fish stocks— are a resource that belongs to the nation as a whole. (2) Any quotas or other rights to harvest marine stocks Lord Grocott (Lab): I wholeheartedly agree with the whether allocated to vessels, public bodies, or persons noble Lord about the fish stocks in the zone belonging natural or corporate remain the property of the nation. to the nation. Presumably that could never have occurred (3) No vessel, public body, or person natural or corporate had we remained a member of the European Union. shall have a permanent claim over quota or other rights Will he confirm that? granted to them by a public authority or authorities.” Member’s explanatory statement The amendment makes clear that UK fish stocks belong to the Lord Teverson: Absolutely. I agree with that. That is nation and not to private organisations. what I am saying. Given the new opportunity that we have, we should take advantage of being an independent coastal state. The Bill does nothing to change the Lord Teverson (LD): My Lords, it seems that whenever status quo in any way. This is one thing we can we start a fisheries discussion there is rather a lack of do—lay down a marker on the ownership of those sustainability among our Members. One of the useful stocks. As to how those stocks are distributed, the things between Second Reading and Committee is amendment does not prevent them being leased for a that we can reflect on the arguments and the Bill until period, rented or allocated without charge. We are we get into the discussion of amendments. One thing trying to make the point that, at the end of the day, that struck me very strongly after Second Reading, on these stocks belong to the nation and not to any looking through the Bill again, is that it has hardly any individual. ambition whatever. The withdrawal Act effectively Coming back to the point made by the noble Lord, makes us an independent coastal state, which we will 17 million people voted for Brexit and for taking be after the transition period, but, apart from that, all control of our own resources. They did not vote the Bill does is provide an administrative framework for—in relation to fishing—a profitable industry keeping to keep the status quo. all the advantages that it has at the moment. They I do not think that the status quo is good enough were thinking more of the smaller fleets and the fact for the fishing industry. For instance, there is no that those fishing stocks should belong to us rather provision for new entrants into the industry, which is than to individuals and perhaps, if you would like to important. There is no improvement in sustainability call them that, to the elite of the fishing industry at the methods for fisheries. In fact, the Bill fudges sustainability moment. I beg to move. even more than when we were in the common fisheries policy.There is no particular help for the small under-10 Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB): My Lords, I fleet. Because of that, there is no specific help for support the amendment. At the beginning of last year, coastal communities either. in Committee in the Commons on the earlier incarnation That is why I tabled this amendment, which goes to of the Bill, the Minister—who is now Secretary of the fundamental matter of who fish stocks belong to, State—George Eustice MP, said: because the Bill does nothing to change that. At the “I do not believe we need a statement that fisheries resources moment, we have a situation where half of English are a national asset or public property, because that is self-evidently stocks are owned by companies that are effectively the case and our common law has always held as much.”—[Official owned by Iceland, Holland or Spain. In Scotland, a Report, Commons, Fisheries Bill Committee, 13/12/18; col. 285.] vast majority of the industry is owned by a very small At the time I took that as gospel. I admire his legal number of people. It is a very efficient operation and I confidence—I say that in a “Yes Minister” context— certainly have nothing against that, but we have an because I am not certain that the legal confidence is 403 Fisheries Bill [HL] [2 MARCH 2020] Fisheries Bill [HL] 404 supported by all involved in the industry. There is a said at Second Reading: the more you know about famous case where Justice Cranston suggested that fisheries, the less you actually know. It is much more there was a type of property right attributed to a fixed complicated than one originally thinks. This amendment quota allocation and that owners would probably is an example of something that is practically simple, need to be given in the region of seven years’ notice of but would be very difficult if it ever got on to the face the intention to move away from those FQA units as a of the Bill, because—my noble friend is absolutely type of property right. Such a legal hitch—this is right—it does infringe on the Scottish Government’s important—might hamper the Government’s intention right to allocate quotas,and it is one of many amendments to move away from relative stability to zonal allocation. before us that cannot be accepted because it infringes The point I am making is that if the Government on the Scottish Government’s devolution ability. It believe that quota and marine stocks belong to the would be quite wrong for us in this Chamber—or nation as a whole, it cannot possibly do any harm to indeed the other Chamber—to legislate on it. make that clear in the Bill right at the start, so there is absolutely no doubt throughout the industry; and, Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD): more importantly, that in any future court case, trying My Lords, I added my name to this amendment, and to prove the opposite will founder on the rock of this fully support the contribution made by my noble legislation, set out in 2020, at the start of a new fishing friend Lord Teverson. There are a number of amendments era by the express will of Parliament. to the Bill which refer to the fact that fish are not static. They move with the seas, towards their spawning Lord Lansley (Con): My Lords, I declare an interest grounds, and according to the temperature of the at this stage as a director of a company that is in a water and other conditions. The fish are not owned by partnership with another agency among whose clients any individual person, organisation or fishing fleet. is UK Fisheries. I put that on record. I will not repeat They know nothing of quotas or public authorities. It it every time I intervene in Committee, but I hope is therefore right that marine stocks should belong to noble Lords will be aware of that interest. the nation as a whole. This amendment is not grouped with anything else, As has been referred to, no doubt the Scottish because if we were to include it in the Bill it would not Fishermen’s Federation and the Scottish Government change any other part of it; it would simply be a might have a different view, being very keen on fish statement at the outset. As the noble Lord suggested, being a devolved matter. I do not subscribe to that it is a statement of the obvious and of fact. In my view view. As the amendment makes very clear, we it is not the purpose of legislation to state pre-existing believe that marine stocks within the UK exclusive facts. It is not necessary in legislation always to state economic zone are a national resource, whether they the obvious for the facts to be true. Were this amendment are swimming around Scotland, Ireland, Wales, the to be included in the Bill, people would say that it had coast of Northumberland or Cornwall. This should to be included in the Bill, otherwise it would not be be declared on the face of the Bill. My colleague has true. I am trying to work out in what sense it could not laid out the arguments cogently, and I look forward to be true that would give rise to it being included in the the Minister’s response. Bill, which would then give a court a reason to try to interpret it. I then got into trouble because I am looking at it Baroness Worthington (CB): My Lords, I rise to saying, “the nation”. If the amendment were to be speak in general support of the principles behind this included in the Bill in the form in which it exists, it amendment. We must consider in this debate how we would drive a coach and horses through the devolution establish—without any shadow of a doubt—that in settlement. The Bill very carefully establishes the rights the handing over of quota for fisheries activities, we of, for example, the Scottish Fisheries Administration are transferring something that should be held as to determine the allocation of quota in relation to public property, in trust for the people of the nation. Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, spoke about That should be established in law, without doubt. moving away from relative stability. Indeed, we could, I worry that, as mentioned by the noble Lord, if we wished to, under this legislation change the fixed Lord Teverson, this is far too similar to the current quota allocations, although it is not the Government’s system that we experience under the European Union, present intention to do so, as I understand it. To that where there is an explicit conference of rights to extent, it is evident that the Government could change fishermen based on the principle of relative stability. the allocation of and access to fish stocks. They can This had led to a race to claw back the rights that have do so because they effectively own the fish stocks. The already been given out. We will see, as the debate on Bill has, as we will discover, a sophisticated mechanism the Bill progresses, that a lot of what this centres on is for planning how this will be done, how it will be how we take control of those rights, so that they are consulted on and how it will be managed between the granted with the appropriate level of scrutiny,transparency devolved Administrations. This amendment, in my and consideration of the multiple benefits that accrue view, would frustrate all of that at the outset, and for to us as a nation from the maritime resources within that reason I do not support it. our waters. I am not sure that this is the right approach, but I 3.30 pm completely support the principles behind it. As we go The Earl of Caithness (Con): My Lords, I rise to forward, we must consider, as we are now doing with support what my noble friend Lord Lansley has said. I our agricultural policy, that, freed of the common recall the words well that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, policies of Europe, we must have the courage and the 405 Fisheries Bill [HL] [LORDS] Fisheries Bill [HL] 406

[BARONESS WORTHINGTON] explore and spell out in more detail what that really ambition to do something that is truly transformative. means during consideration of the Bill. I look forward We will certainly come back to this principle that the to the Minister’s response. rights to fish are, essentially, a public property held in trust for the nation. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con): My Lords, I am Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab): My Lords, I grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for bringing am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for forward this amendment and, indeed, to all noble allowing us to debate these important principles about Lords who have spoken. While I fully understand the the ownership of our marine stocks. He is right to say aim of this amendment, to make it clear that UK fish that the Bill currently lacks ambition and relies far too stocks belong to the nation, I take this opportunity to much on sustaining the status quo, with all the inequalities explain why I cannot support it and, indeed, why the and inadequacies that we have identified, which have Government cannot do so. I am mindful of what my belied our fishing negotiations over the years. noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Caithness have During the course of the Bill, we will have some said, particularly when it comes to devolution. difficult discussions about the allocation of existing We were clear in our fisheries White Paper that we and future fishing rights, and I suspect that they will consider that not be so easily resolved by this simple declaration. I “The fish in our seas, like our wider marine assets, are a public accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, resource and therefore the rights to catch them are a public asset.” about the issues of devolution. We have to be careful I should also say at this juncture, in declaring my about our language, but it is important to say at the farming interests, that the sustainable harvest that we outset that no claim on rights should be permanent get from our seas, our lakes and, indeed, from our and all should be subject to our overriding commitments farming sector are absolutely crucial to this nation. I on sustainability. emphasis particularly—as, I am sure, would the noble This is also a welcome opportunity to register the Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch—that, as far as I important role that the fishing industry plays in many am concerned, it is in the national interest that we have coastal communities across the UK. This Bill must be a vibrant farming and fisheries sector. We want that a vehicle for supporting and strengthening those not only because it is a public good but because, in communities while at the same time protecting our order to feed the nation as well as in terms of our marine stocks, rather than being the means through exports, with climate change and all the pressures which we exploit a natural resource for purely business from that, we are going to have to find innovative ways and economic benefit. At the same time, a flourishing of feeding ourselves and the wider communities of the fishing industry is good for the nation as it provides world. So I say absolutely that in my department, and healthy, locally accessed food, as well as trading indeed across the nation, we look to our farmers and opportunities with our neighbours. our fishers. In this regard, would the Minister like to comment I put on record that there are dangers in both on the words of the Treasury advisor, Tim Leunig, sectors and there are too many fatalities; I think safety who has been quoted as saying that the is of primary importance. I take this opportunity to “Food sector isn’t critically important” say to the noble Baroness and all your Lordships that to the economy, and that this—after all, Defra covers environment, food and “ag[riculture] and fish production certainly isn’t”? rural affairs—is a very important part of our food I know the Minister will say that this is not government supply and a very healthy one. policy, but what message do comments like this send On a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron to a sector already nervous about its future? From our of Dillington, during the passage of the previous side, we want a vibrant UK agriculture and fisheries Fisheries Bill the then Fisheries Minister—now the industry and to encourage UK consumers to buy Secretary of State—made it very clear in the other British and have faith in locally accessed food. I hope place that that the Minister will disassociate himself from these “it is a statement of fact that” comments and send a message back to the Treasury fish that it should not be employing or listening to advisers “are a public asset, and our common law tradition enshrines who are so out of kilter with the views of most that.”—[Official Report, Commons, Fisheries Bill Committee, politicians and the vast majority of the British public. 11/12/18; col. 141.] On the subject of trade deals, although the Bill is The need to view fisheries as a public good is reflected intended to be negotiation neutral, does the Minister in the measures that we take to promote sustainable agree that there is a responsibility on the Government fishing. It is, for example, reflected in our approach in to secure a deal with the EU and EEA which allows us, Clause 27, “Sale of English fishing opportunities”. first, to catch more of what we eat and, secondly, to Any scheme set up under this power, having been easily sell the catch that we will not eat into those through consultation, would recognise the value of markets? We understand the intentions behind tabling fisheries and raise revenue for the public good. That this amendment today. It is of course important to revenue could be used to support fisheries science, restate that the resource belongs to the nation, but I particularly the stock surveys that underpin annual suspect that we will be debating these issues for many negotiations on the total allowable catch and in-year days to come, no doubt giving us the opportunity to fisheries management. 407 Fisheries Bill [HL] [2 MARCH 2020] Fisheries Bill [HL] 408

I assure the noble Lord that this principle is further 3.45 pm covered by the objectives in the Fisheries Bill. The key Lord Teverson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for objectives in this instance are the national benefit and his reply. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made an sustainability objectives, which state that interesting and important point. He assumed that this “fishing activities of UK fishing boats bring social or economic was already the case, but the British courts do not see benefits to the United Kingdom or any part of the United it that way. The Minister, now Secretary of State, tried Kingdom” to reallocate quotas towards the under 10-metre fleet, but that was disputed within the legal system. There is and that fishing activities are an underlying assumption here that this is a privatised “environmentally sustainable in the long term”. resource, not a resource of the nation. That is why, to deliver what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, wants, it is That is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of important to have an amendment like this in the Bill. Whitchurch, referred to: we want our fishing and As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, pointed out, this coastal communities to have a vibrant future. makes no difference to the quota allocation in Scotland: the devolved management authorities can make what We believe that the effect of this amendment would decisions they want in allocating harvesting rights in have a profound implication for the existing quota those territorial areas. Weare saying here that, ultimately, system. I know there are critics of the current regime, fundamental ownership of those rights is not for keeps, but it is also not without its supporters. Indeed, there whereas at the moment they can be interpreted that has been considerable investment in the regime, and it way.I am not suggesting that, as part of this amendment, has allowed our quotas to be well-utilised. For example, we should not allow a degree of certainty and ability the flexibility to sell or lease quota has proven helpful to invest, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, to fishers as it enables them to continue to fish for put it very well, these rights are in trust to the nation. certain stocks when there has been more of an abundance, or if a fishing stock for which they have a quota is not As to how one interprets “the nation”, I see our proving to be profitable. It can also be a solution to fishing stocks as a national resource, not as devolved. fishers not being able to fish all their quota for one Clearly, however, how they are shared out and used is species because their quota for another species in a an issue for the devolved authorities. I look forward to mixed fishery has been exhausted. the later amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, which come back to this subject, This is another point that I would like to make but I believe that this is fundamental to the way in to the noble Lord. While under 10-metre vessels which we should view this national resource and how may receive only a small percentage of the total UK that affects policy decisions as we go through this Bill quota, they receive a greater share of the stocks that and make fisheries policy. But, for the moment, I am are important to them. For example, in 2018 around content to withdraw my amendment. 77% of the weight and 78% of the value of UK under 10-metre landings were from non-quota species such Amendment 1 withdrawn. as crabs and lobsters. The UK Government recognise the need for balance between continuity in the existing system and opportunities for change in future. That is Clause 1: Fisheries objectives why the fisheries White Paper noted that existing quotas would continue to be allocated using the existing methodology but that additional quotas negotiated Amendment 2 will be allocated using a different methodology. This Moved by Lord Teverson approach has been broadly welcomed across the industry, which agrees that this is a sensible way to proceed— 2: Clause 1, page 1, line 4, at end insert— learning, piloting and ensuring that the industry is not “( ) the socio-economic objective,” destabilised. That really is an important feature of this Member’s explanatory statement matter. We do not wish the industry to be destabilised; This amendment ensures that socio-economic issues are included in fact, quite the reverse. in the fisheries objectives. I say to the noble Lord that I think the amendment rocks the delicate balance between the certainty of the Lord Teverson: My Lords, as the Minister said, we existing system and the new opportunities that new have here a list of objectives of great importance. I quota would bring. I also have to say at the beginning would not disagree with most, but one or two I have of this Committee stage that what resonates with me is an issue with. There is always a danger in having too that not only has the Bill been through an earlier many objectives: which is the important one that phase in the other place but it has been worked out guides regulatory authorities and which guides legislators really strongly and collaboratively with the devolved in drafting subsequent secondary legislation? That is Administrations. I say to your Lordships, as we embark difficult, because it is almost impossible to meet all upon this particular voyage, that it is important to objectives at the same time. This amendment, and the recognise that this is a piece of work that we are also others in my name—Amendments 6, 10 and 27—are legislating for the devolved Administrations, and the based on my belief that sustainability is the most points that my noble friends have made are extremely important objective. I take “sustainability” as here pertinent. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will meaning the aquatic biosphere and the health of our feel able to withdraw his amendment. fish stocks. 409 Fisheries Bill [HL] [LORDS] Fisheries Bill [HL] 410

[LORD TEVERSON] business as usual; everything is shifting. We must put I do not accuse the Government of putting it this the resilience of our marine resources at the heart of way, but the Bill reads to me as having a muddled everything we legislate on and at the heart of everything sustainability objective, because it is prejudiced by the we do today in considering the Bill. addition of what is almost a socioeconomic objective. My amendment would simply take away the qualifier; A socioeconomic objective is very valid. In fact, one of there is no need to qualify this. It is simply logical that my amendments in this group states that there should we legislate so that we do not overexploit fishing be a socioeconomic objective. The sustainability objective stocks. That is the only purpose of this legislation. should, however, relate to the marine ecology, fish Therefore, it must be stated unequivocally in the Bill. stocks and the wider marine inhabitants. I therefore suggest that we leave out subsection (2)(b), which states Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con): My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, “the fishing capacity of fleets is such that fleets are economically viable but do not overexploit marine stocks.” Lady Worthington. I regret that we have to say it, but it is important to point out that there will be no That is a socioeconomic objective and should go under socioeconomic benefits if there are no fish left. The that heading. The sustainability objective has to be the cod fishermen of Newfoundland would understand lead objective. There are various ways of sorting out this clearly. Apart from that, the noble Baroness said the socioeconomic objectives, including financially, exactly what I needed to say. and that is how we should do it. We need clarity; we need the sustainability objective to be the prime objective, and we need it to be well Lord Lansley: My Lords, I have just one thing to policed. That is why my Amendment 27 would bring say about this group. Amendment 6 addresses an issue in the office for environmental protection. I would be we discussed at Second Reading: managing so many interested to hear what the Minister says. He may tell objectives. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, drew the me that this is unnecessary,and I could well be persuaded attention of the House, forcefully and compellingly, to that it is, but it is vital that that office, once founded the way in which the sustainability objective in the and operational, has full oversight of the fisheries Bill, as drafted, includes socioeconomic objectives. industry and the protection of our marine environment. They ought to be identified and listed separately. To I beg to move. that extent, I support Amendment 6. Noble Lords will be aware that it includes the sentence: “The sustainability objective shall be the prime objective”. Baroness Worthington: My Lords, Amendment 7 is Not everybody is in favour of that, but I think we need in my name. I support many of the comments made by to say it. My noble friend Lord Randall was talking the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. My amendment would about Amendment 7, but the same thought applies change Clause 1(2)(b) simply to state here. He is quite right that if we do not sustain our fish “the fishing effort does not overexploit marine stocks.” stocks all the other objectives will be vitiated. It has to The Bill states be clear that there is a first objective, even though it “the fishing capacity of fleets is such that fleets are economically would be beyond this Committee to list, sequence or viable but do not overexploit marine stocks.” rank the others. However, the joint fisheries statement The purpose behind trying to simplify the provision is will probably have to do something of that kind, at to make it clear that we cannot have a sustainable least, to show how they are being interpreted and long-term fishing effort if we overexploit stocks. That balanced. I do not envy it that difficult task. The should not need to be said, but we have seen routine Committee should look carefully at Amendment 6 overexploitation of stocks as a consequence of how and see whether it is possible to incorporate its principles the common fisheries policy is interpreted, with member into the Bill before it leaves this place. states then allocating quota to private fishing enterprises. To state first that fleets should be economically Lord Cameron of Dillington: My Lords, I added my viable and then to qualify it by saying that they should name to Amendment 2 and would have done so to not overexploit marine stocks gives entirely the wrong Amendment 6, had I been allowed, but there were too impression. It implies that we are to continue with the many subscribers. I support Amendment 2 because, as belief, commonly held in Europe, that fishing rights many noble Lords know,the existence of intergenerational and the economic viability of the fishing industry are poverty and deprivation in rural areas has long been the first and foremost concerns.That speaks to short-term of concern to me. While the numerous villages and political considerations because these are entities that market towns throughout rural England all have their employ people and pay taxes. My amendment tries to problems in this respect, there is no doubt that coastal correct for that short-termism endemic to political communities suffer more than most. The main reason thinking by stating that it is the sustainability of the for this is that an ordinary market town can survive, stock that we should regulate for, not the commercial and sometimes thrive, on services maintained by its viability of the entities that exploit it. The latter is surrounding farmers, businesses and maybe even wealthy entirely what has been wrong with the common fisheries retirees. However, a coastal community, by its very policy since we have been in it. There is an assumption geography—I realise that I am straying into the realms that the exploiters’ rights should come first, with the of the bleeding obvious here—only ever has 50% of environment an afterthought. Wemust turn that around. the catchment of an inland market town. Coastal It is short-termism not just politically but in the context communities therefore struggle. The sea provides very of the changing climate. Nothing from now on is little except fish and tourism, with, perhaps in the 411 Fisheries Bill [HL] [2 MARCH 2020] Fisheries Bill [HL] 412 future, some form of energy added to that mix. It is be like those of Iceland—although I know that fishing therefore important that a firm part of our fisheries is a lot more important to the overall economy of objectives should include the socioeconomic objective. Iceland than it is to that of the United Kingdom. In all I totally agree with Amendment 6 that the sustainability the discussions of the details of the various amendments, objective should always be the prime one. I support that is surely the basis on which this debate is taking that, maybe even to exclusion of Amendment 2, place. Let us not miss the wood for the trees: the wood as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said. As the noble is precisely that in a democracy a Chamber of Parliament Baroness, Lady Worthington, said, we need these is discussing how best our nation should use its resources coastal communities, and their harvest, to survive in in a way that is accountable; which of course it never the long term. In the past, I always said that one of the was when it was entirely a European responsibility. problems with the common fisheries policy is that the The Council of Ministers is nothing like a responsible children and grandchildren of today’sfishing communities body in the way that this is. never get a vote. We now have the chance. When we I will not go any further down this route, the repatriate our fisheries policy, we must always think of Committee will be relieved to know, but I just wanted the socioeconomic prosperity of these grandchildren. to point out how happy I feel about this debate. IalsosupportAmendment27,whichputsthemonitoring of the sustainability objectives firmly in the hands of the OEP in future. That makes very good sense. The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Committee Returning to Amendment 2, a key part of the will note that I am in agreement with the noble Lord, socioeconomic objective should include recreational Lord Grocott. It does not happen all the time and will sea angling. There is not much about recreational not happen in future, I know, but today we are very angling in the Bill, which is fine because there is not much in agreement. What he says hinges very much on much to say.I see that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, the agreement we get with the EU, because however has tabled an amendment on this point; I came across sustainable we are, if the fish decide to move and the that quite late in the day. The socioeconomic benefit of EU has different sustainability goals, the fish we have recreational angling to coastal communities is huge. so carefully sustained will be harvested by the ever-hungry Even in 2012, the latest year for which I could get hold Spanish fleet and others that will be poised outside of statistics, the sea angler spend was £2.1 billion our waters—some of them will even be allowed in—and locally, supporting more than 20,000 local jobs. They will be taking what they can. say that a fish caught with rod and line is worth at I hope my noble friend the Minister will confirm least six times more than one caught in a net. Recreational that all the objectives that are so well set out in the Bill fishermen use local boats and local crews, and they use have the aim of sustainable development, because local pubs, hotels, shops, garages, car hire et cetera. sustainability really matters. If all our objectives adhere All of this is vital to the socioeconomic objectives in in that way, there is hope for the grandchildren that this amendment and needs nurturing. the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned. He also made the very important point about coastal communities. 4 pm It is not just the fishing fleets but the whole coastal The other socioeconomic point to introduce concerns communities and the people who feed off them who some sort of replacement for the European maritime are important in the socioeconomic goal. We need to and fisheries fund. I know the Government are making take a wider look at this between now and the next arrangements to put a replacement fund in place. The stage. EMFF has been particularly beneficial for some of What has not been mentioned so far with regard to the smaller fishing communities in western Scotland, sustainability is human health. Can my noble friend Wales and Cornwall, and some consideration definitely say how many of the fish caught are used for fishmeal? needs to be given to the socioeconomic well-being of The latest statistic I can find, which I looked up on the these small fishing communities that depend on the internet, dates from 2008 and claims that a third of the seas for their economic wherewithal. I strongly support world’s fish is used for fishmeal. What is the point of Amendment 2, but primarily Amendment 6. fishing—some may even ask what is the point of agriculture—if not to provide a healthy, sustainable Lord Grocott: My Lords, it is with considerable diet for human beings? That ought to take priority diffidence, and I do mean that, that I make any over producing fish for fishmeal. I hope that that will contribution to this discussion, and I do not intend to be taken into account in the sustainability goals my make any more, partly because it is impossible to live noble friend is aiming for, because health and diet quite as far as I do from the coast. Perhaps we inlanders have deteriorated badly in the western world and should remain largely silent in these discussions, but I fishing is one area which can help us on that. found it almost exhilarating, I think that is the word, I hope my noble friend will also bear in mind to hear specialists—I am not one, which is why I will trade—another area which could undermine our not contribute any further—making points all related sustainable goals. If we have a strong, sustainable to the principle that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, policy but by trade allow fish to be caught in an has just enunciated, which is that we are talking about unsustainable way, that would undercut our market the consequences of the repatriation of our fishing and be to the detriment of the Government’s whole policies. policy. For me, as a Brexiteer, it is exhilarating, and I am I come now to the tricky question of the batting not exaggerating, that these discussions can take place order of our goals. There is a good argument for in the context of knowing that our coastal waters will putting the environmental sustainability objective first, 413 Fisheries Bill [HL] [LORDS] Fisheries Bill [HL] 414

[THE EARL OF CAITHNESS] While we want a viable fishing fleet for many years but I wonder whether that is right and whether it to come, we have been in meetings with outside groups would not be better to leave it as it is, agreed with the that feel that the current wording of the Bill may allow devolved Administrations. It is currently top of the list the economic to trump the environmental, particularly, and, to me, probably the most important, but I am not as I have already said, as it refers to overexploitation yet convinced about singling it out. rather than maximum sustainable yield. If that were to be the case, ironically, we would find ourselves in no Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab): My Lords, this better position than we are under the common fisheries has been a very interesting discussion—a counterpart policy. It would make this Bill a missed opportunity to to the discussion on the first group, where we failed to put sustainability front and centre of the new approach. agree. This had a lot more agreement, though there are There is enough support around the Committee to drafting issues that need to be addressed in the Bill if suggest that the Minister might want to look at this we are fully to realise the sorts of changes that are in carefully when he responds. everybody’s minds as we approach this opportunity, as I am aware that the Minister has met many Members my noble friend Lord Grocott described it, to improve of your Lordships’ House and has made time to what we do in relation to our fishing and fishing discuss amendments. I understand that these discussions resources, as we have been trying to do for some time. I have been valuable, and I hope that he will be able to point out to him that, although it is nice that he is offer the same reassurance to others who wish to join happy and feels joyful about this debate, the real test the debate now and in the future. I hope that when the will be whether we end up with something different Minister responds, he will confirm what he envisages from a simple rehash of the existing common fisheries happening if the second part of the sustainability policy. That test is now ahead of us as we begin to drill objective cannot, despite the best endeavours of the down into the particularities of the Bill. fisheries authorities, be met. Would boats be allowed to overexploit stocks to ensure their viability? If not, I will speak to Amendment 8 in the name of my what options would the Government or the devolved noble friend Lord Grantchester, who we did not think Administrations have available if they wanted to step would be here in time to speak but luckily has appeared— in? This is a tricky balancing act. It is certainly not almost in time; he will take over from me as we go easy, and I know the Minister appreciates that and through the Bill—and Amendment 9, tabled by my takes it seriously. I look forward to him providing noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Amendment 8 further detail on the Government’s approach. is a probing amendment to ask the Government to specify more clearly what “economically viable” means in practice under the Bill and how it might be applied, Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, at Second and to gain a clearer understanding of the relative Reading I made it clear that sustainability is at the heart importance of viability compared with sustainability, of the Bill, so I am pleased that one of the first which has been the theme of most of the contributions discussions we are having in Committee relates to so far. this area of utmost importance. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, said, this work involves Amendment 9 targets the same sustainability objective balance. Balance is necessary in these matters and is and seeks to bring the term “maximum sustainable why our work with the devolved Administrations has yield” into the Bill. At present the Government favour been so valuable but intricate. a phrase which we do not think has quite caught the The Government’sview and that from our discussions essence of what we are trying to do about overexploitation with the devolved Administrations is that sustainability of marine stocks and which seems to offer less clarity is often considered a three-legged stool, consisting of than the forward-looking point made by just about all environmental, social and economic factors. To achieve noble Lords: there will be no fishing unless we have a the true sustainability of a healthy environment, thriving sustainable stock on which to operate. communities and a vibrant industry, it is important All noble Lords agree there has to be a vibrant that a balance exists between them. That is a point fishing industry. It is part of our heritage as an island that, in the wrestling of this, was referred to by the nation and, as we will discuss during the Bill’s passage, noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. They are also not mutually our catch both helps feed people here and is sold exclusive. For instance, if fish stocks are managed at abroad to others who want to buy these products. As sustainable levels, the stocks are protected into the the Minister said in his opening statement, we are future, while allowing the fishing industry to remain talking about a highly organised industry.Hard-working profitable and able to provide benefits to coastal fishers being fairly rewarded for their work at sea is communities and beyond. That point was referred to important. It is a very physically demanding and often by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and dangerous job, and they have to endure long periods my noble friend Lord Caithness. of separation from their loved ones. They should be The fisheries objectives in the Bill work together remunerated accordingly.The economics of the industry to set out the core principles to achieve a successful must be geared to ensure that there is something there and sustainable fisheries management regime, with the for everybody, not just the fishers; the ports and joint fisheries statement setting out the policies that processing plants need to make their fair share. This is will contribute to achieving our objectives. While I important if we are to encourage them to contribute therefore fully support the aim—and I emphasise to the climate change objective—something that will aim—of Amendment 2, which seeks to ensure that socio- be the focus of subsequent debates but has already economics are included within the fisheries objectives, been raised. I believe it is unnecessary and will explain why. 415 Fisheries Bill [HL] [2 MARCH 2020] Fisheries Bill [HL] 416

The sustainability objective currently sets out a this issue because in 1990 the figure was just 12%, requirement in the Bill that fish and aquaculture activities which demonstrates that we are transitioning. However, are we recognise that more needs to be done to protect our “managed so as to achieve economic, social and employment marine environment and fish stocks. benefits”. The Bill provides the legal framework for pushing The Bill includes a number of objectives relating to more stocks towards MSY as quickly as practically environmental sustainability, while also recognising possible, and in line with our international obligations. the need to take into account socioeconomic issues. Policies to achieve MSY will be set out in the legally Given that, in response to Amendment 6, I should like binding joint fisheries statement and fisheries management to set out in more detail what we aim to achieve by plans. A key objective of the joint fisheries statement seeking a balanced approach to the objectives set out will be to ensure that fisheries policy is based on the in Clause 1. I also understand that Amendment 10 in best scientific advice. The setting of MSY can often this group further seeks to change the Bill in the occur without full scientific certainty, so it makes context of Amendment 6. sense to include it under the precautionary objective, although it clearly supports sustainability. 4.15 pm While I fully support the ambition to ensure that The framework provided by the objectives will operate environmental sustainability is not compromised, I do on a UK-wide basis and will bind all the UK’s not believe that Amendment 6 is appropriate in the Administrations. As I have said, it has been developed context of a Bill that seeks to establish a framework to in close co-operation with officials in Scotland, Wales manage all aspects of our fisheries. The weight given and Northern Ireland and is carefully balanced to to each of the fisheries objectives may vary from case reflect the interests of all the Administrations. The to case, and Clause 2(1)(c) provides that the joint Government wholly support the need for environmental fisheries statement must include a statement explaining sustainability, and our 25-year environment plan makes how the objectives have been “interpreted and it clear that it is only by putting the environment first proportionately applied.” The approach of balancing that we can deliver social and economic benefits for environmental, economic and social sustainability lies future generations. In delivering this vision, we also at the core of best international practice as established have a responsibility to maintain the livelihoods of by the United Nations Sustainability Framework. That fishers and their coastal communities. Fishers have chimes with the point raised by my noble friend already made significant strides in improving their Lord Caithness: it is international best practice to sustainability and there has been a sea change in combine sustainability issues in the way I have described. attitudes, with the fishing industry understanding the The achievement of socioeconomic benefits through need for better stock management. our fisheries and aquaculture management is therefore currently covered by the existing fisheries objectives, Of course, more action is needed to transition to and the proposed amendment would not change more sustainable practices, but I hope that noble their effect. Lords will agree that we must also avoid economic hardship in the short term. We believe that developing I turn to Amendment 7, which seeks to ensure that a hierarchy within the objectives would not be appropriate fish stocks are managed sustainably and not over- since it would undermine this approach. Through our exploited—an aim that we all share, of course. The international negotiations, we seek to achieve sustainable precautionary objective already includes a clear objective catch limits set in accordance with the maximum to restore all marine stocks to sustainable levels. As I sustainable yield, while balancing this with economic have made clear, the provisions in the Bill for fisheries opportunities for the UK fishing fleet. Maintaining management plans set out a framework for ensuring flexibility in our negotiating position will ensure that the sustainable management of our fish stocks. We we are able to undertake this transition in co-operation believe this amendment would inadvertently weaken with our coastal state partners and avoid the abrupt the objectives—first, because an express reference to closure of fisheries, so as to maintain our coastal managing fishing “effort” would not be the full picture. communities. Indeed, at Second Reading, a number of Managing how many days fishermen fish is one of the noble Lords talked about the need to revive our coastal tools for fisheries management, but we also manage communities. Achieving that revival will require a through restrictions on quota. Secondly, by removing balance of objectives to maintain our focus on economic the reference to fleet capacity, this amendment would and social matters, while pushing for environmental weaken the objectives by not requiring the fisheries sustainability. authorities to set out policies relating to the overall I should say at this point to the noble Lord, size and structure of the fleet. Lord Cameron of Dillington, that we are going to Turning to Amendment 8, I highlight once more discuss recreational sea fishing in considering later that the Bill’s sustainability objective seeks to ensure amendments because it is a very important part of the that we have healthy fish stocks and seas, while promoting fishing world. Indeed, I am led to believe that 2% of economic, social and employment benefits. These two our population engages in sea fishing, which is quite a aspirations are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In large number of people. the past we have brought forward initiatives that address Returning to the point about maximum sustainable fleet capacity with the twin aims of avoiding overfishing yield, recent analysis shows that in 2019, 37 stocks and protecting the economic viability of active fishers. were fished at MSY levels, representing 59% of the For example, we have restricted fishing licences that stocks for which we have the necessary data. I raise have not been used so as to prevent them being sold on 417 Fisheries Bill [HL] [LORDS] Fisheries Bill [HL] 418

[LORD GARDINER OF KIMBLE] to promote objectives that lie outside its remit, nor and others entering fisheries, which could both put fetter its ability to determine independently its own added pressure on the stocks and reduce the profitability work programme. of those already fishing. On the point that my noble friend Lord Caithness raised about fishmeal, I think the best thing is for me I was grateful to learn that the noble Baroness’s to write to my noble friend, because the latest data is amendment—putforwardbythenobleLord,LordStevenson from 2008. According to Seafish, however, in 2014 —is a probing amendment. I welcome the opportunity around 16.5% of total catches went to fishmeal and to explain the rationale for the current drafting of the fish oil. Bill. The UK Government remain fully committed to sustainablefishingandtheprincipleof MSY.Wereiterated I realise the complete bona fides of all noble Lords this in our manifesto, with the commitment to produce who have spoken in this debate about the importance plans to restore all stocks to MSY.However, due to the of sustainability. I have tried to explain that the word international nature of fishing and fish stocks, which “sustainability” is not just environmental in our view; span national boundaries, MSY cannot be delivered it is a sustainable package. Indeed, the objectives are a unilaterally through management of the size of the package. Working through the fisheries statement and UK fleet. Furthermore, for some stocks we do not yet the fisheries management plan, this range of objectives have the data to conduct an MSY assessment and so is the best way of tackling a matter which should not instead use other measures, such as effort limits, to be straitjacketed. There needs to be a flexibility to deal ensure that stocks are fished sustainably. In practice, with each and every stock. we control the level of catch by the English fleet While understanding what noble Lords across the through the quota allocation system and effort controls. House have said, I am not in a position to support We have also been clear that we have no plans to amendments which seek to unpick a very intricate increase capacity beyond current vessel numbers. seeking of the right balance. For now, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. The existing language in the Bill recognises the different tools that we have in place to ensure that stocks are fished sustainably. It is important to read Baroness Worthington: Before the Minister sits down, this objective alongside the precautionary objective, may I enquire in good faith whether we are saying that which sets out our commitment to restore stocks to we have taken back control from Brussels, only to cede levels above those capable of producing MSY. it to Scotland? It would be a waste of time if every answer is “We cannot do anything, because we have I turn to Amendment 27. As your Lordships know, had a really delicate discussion with our devolved the office for environmental protection will be established Administrations”. through the Environment Bill currently being discussed We are still the UK Parliament; this is an important in the other place, so it does not yet exist—nor have its issue that has been repatriated to us first, and then we role and functions been set in law. I strongly support will repatriate it through devolution. Should we need the need for independent scrutiny and advice on our to change the devolution arrangements, we will. Perhaps policy and its delivery, and the OEP may have a role in I am speaking out of turn, but surely we are not taking this in due course. The Environment Bill is clear that back control from Brussels only to give it to Holyrood. the new body’s principal objective will be the protection and/or improvement of the natural environment. It will have a duty to scrutinise environmental improvement Lord Gardiner of Kimble: Wehave had very successful plans and targets, and can advise on the implementation and collaborative discussions and arrangements with of environmental law.As I have detailed, the sustainability all the devolved Administrations. They have taken this objective in this Bill covers environmental, social and matter very seriously, and we are legislating on behalf economic elements, including fleet capacity, so we of the devolved Administrations as well. I do not cannot assume that all elements of this objective will think many noble Lords are seeking to change the fall within the OEP’s remit. devolution arrangements through the Fisheries Bill. That would be unwise and not sensible. We are establishing the OEP as an independent We are seeking to have sustainability at the heart of body. It should therefore be for the OEP to decide the Bill, but sustainability—as the UN describes it—is where and how to exercise its functions and what not just environmental; it is a balance. Clearly, we priority should be given to matters it proposes to want fisheries stocks which enable communities to review. We believe that creating a duty for the OEP to prosper. That is the whole thrust of this, and why it is a “promote” these objectives could undermine the OEP’s package. I say to the noble Baroness: I do not see it in independence. The Environment Bill already provides those terms. We are collaboratively working with our the OEP with functions to scrutinise the Government’s friends and partners across the United Kingdom, on progress on their environmental commitments. These something which requires balance. Sustainability is at will include relevant fisheries and other marine functions. the heart of the Bill, and that is why I have made the The Environment Bill is also clear that the new body remarks I have. should not overlap with the functions of the Committee on Climate Change. There is no doubt that the review of many aspects of fisheries management would fall Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: To follow up on what within the remit of the office for environmental protection. the noble Baroness has said, we understand the delicacy However,the UK Government do not feel it is appropriate of the situation and that considerable discussion has for the Fisheries Bill to place a duty on the new body preceded the Bill we are debating today. I wonder 419 Fisheries Bill [HL] [2 MARCH 2020] Fisheries Bill [HL] 420 whether she has a point: if it is already all sewn up and are very clear that we need to work through all stocks— too difficult to change, what is the point? Will the that is what the fisheries management plans are intended Minister reassure us that this amendment is not just to do—so that for those stocks for which we do not being turned down because it would be too difficult? have sufficient information, there is this precise The mood of the House seems to be that this is worthy precautionary objective. As my noble friend Lord Lansley of further consideration, if not necessarily being voted referred to, there is a difficulty in trying to put these through. objectives in some order of priority. As I say, we are seeking to improve all stocks because the truth is that, Lord Gardiner of Kimble: No, my Lords. Obviously, at the moment, we do not have an assessment of all I recognise that the noble Lords who have spoken feel stocks. That is precisely why, picking up the point particularly strongly about environmental sustainability. raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, it is an I have argued, what the Government feel is a compelling enormous opportunity for us to look now across the case, that sustainability is a balance. Therefore, the whole of the marine environment at all our stocks. package we are bringing forward has been worked on This will not be sorted out overnight; I do not think not with one devolved Administration, but with all of any noble Lord expects there to be a magic switch and, them. suddenly, we are now responsible and it can be turned It has always been the point that noble Lords need around immediately. But the whole purpose of the to make a compelling case in all matters.The Government structure that we have put in place is precisely to and the devolved Administrations have worked on address the sustainability of all stocks. this, mindful of observations made during the period of, let us say, the Fisheries Bills. That is how I would The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend gave a describe it; it is important we have these considerations. comprehensive answer, but can I make one suggestion I have been clear—as when I referred to the UN—that that might help in driving forward our sustainability sustainability has a range of points to it, and that is objectives? He has made it very clear to the farming what I have been seeking to describe. community that there will be public money for public goods. Surely exactly the same argument is true for 4.30 pm the fishing and coastal communities: if they follow the sustainability line, there will be public money Baroness Byford (Con): My Lords, I apologise that I for public goods. Perhaps that would help to sell the did not speak earlier in the debate, but I will read argument. Hansard very carefully tomorrow. From what I gather, my noble friend has indicated that, for some stocks, we do not have data available, and some of the data we do Lord Gardiner of Kimble: During this Committee, I have is 12 years old. I agree with the view of the noble think we will probably go on to talk about some of the Lord, Lord Grocott: I am excited by the Bill because it further arrangements for financial assistance. Clearly, gives us an opportunity to move forward in a sustainable the Government see this as a vital interest, a source of way. However, we need information on which we can food and an opportunity for the whole of the coastal base our assumptions. Will the Minister indicate where community. I agree with the thrust of what I think my there are gaps in that information and what is being noble friend Lord Caithness is saying: this is an area done about it? Referring to my noble friend contained in the Bill. As has been mentioned, there Lord Caithness’s comments on the whole question of will be a need for a replacement of the European trade and standards,it is essential that we have information funding, which we will discuss again. I am sure there on which we can base the decisions we have taken. I will be ways in which financial assistance to support have listened carefully to my noble friend and know coastal communities will be considered and will come that an enormous amount of work has gone on with forward. the devolved Administrations—I am perhaps happier about that than some other Members of the House Baroness Worthington: My Lords, I believe the noble are—but we need as much information as we can get Earl, Lord Caithness, was going beyond grant funding at this stage. and referring to the allocation of fishing rights. That For me, sustainability has to be key: at the end of confers a financial benefit to the recipient of those the day, you cannot fish if there are no fish. If we do rights, so it is much broader than just grants. not have the data and information that we need, how can we make the assumptions that we will be dealing Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: I would like one with in the Bill? There is an amendment to come more chance to narrow down the point on which we shortly on the question of discards, and we will return were exchanging before the other two very good to this issue in that debate. I have one or two queries, contributions came in. but if the Minister cannot answer them at the moment, The noble Lord has a reputation in this House for perhaps he will look into it—or somebody will—so being very easy to talk to and very willing to engage in that we have a better overall picture of the sustainability debate. I am slightly trading on that because, in my side before we come back on Report. That would be experience, on any Bill there is a worry that the Minister immensely helpful. will get it drummed into him by those sitting in the Box that he must never concede anything. Sometimes, Lord Gardiner of Kimble: I made it clear that the however, we can be in quite a difficult mode, when precautionary objective already includes the clear objective good points are made but the willingness to concede is to restore all marine stocks to sustainable levels. We not there from the Minister concerned. I know that 421 Fisheries Bill [HL] [LORDS] Fisheries Bill [HL] 422

[LORD STEVENSON OF BALMACARA] One fundamental thing, on which I disagree completely the noble Lord is not like that. It may not happen on with the Minister, is that referring to “balance”between the point that we have been discussing, although it socioeconomic issues and sustainability was exactly is a very good one from the noble Baroness, the argument that Ministers used on the common Lady Worthington, but issues will come up in future fisheries policy from the 1980s to about five years ago, amendments to do with the workforce health and when the whole regime changed. Because of that so-called safety, on which the Committee may feel that a change balance, stocks disappeared from the North Sea and in wording is possible. Will he just confirm, for the the Baltic Sea and were depleted from western waters. sake of allowing us to go forward, that he is not If we do not decide to make sustainability a prime against the possibility of that happening and that, if it objective, that is what we will end up with. The history were the case, he would undertake the necessary shows that the politics takes over from the science. consultations that might be required to bring the I was very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, devolved Assemblies, and others who signed up to the mentioned Newfoundland. I went out to Newfoundland previous version of the Bill, up to the new standard in 1996 at the height of the conflict with the Portuguese that will be set by this House? and the Spanish. I went out on an aeroplane with the Canadian fisheries department to look at the line of Lord Gardiner of Kimble: I will conclude on this, big Atlantic fishing vessels fishing right along the EEZ otherwise the “Ah, buts” will lose the force of the line. I saw the communities of St John’sin Newfoundland sustainability point of this debate. It is clear,I believe—as that were unable to fish their own waters because there I always have—that the House and your Lordships was nothing left. That was due to the short-term need to make a compelling case, which a government socioeconomic objective taking the place of the Minister will always want to listen to. If a compelling sustainability objective. That is exactly what you get case is made, as I have said previously, my answer will and exactly what we must not have in this country, be, “Gosh, I wish we’d thought of that.” I emphasise whether in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England. that the Bill has been considered over a very long time. We cannot afford that. We have one go at this Bill and there have been a lot of If I was chief executive of a company and somebody representations. It has gone through a mincer in a way gave me eight different objectives and did not rank that most other Bills do not. Given our very close them, the first thing I would do is ask the chairman to connections and our responsibilities, and given that fire the non-executive directors, because it is absolutely fishing is devolved, we have worked collaboratively impossible to have eight equal objectives in any subject. and positively with the devolved Administrations. I That is for running a company; if you are running the emphasise to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, marine environment of a nation, surely it is far more that I do not use that as an excuse. It is a statement of important. fact that we are legislating on behalf of all parts of the To come back to the point from the noble Lord, kingdom. That is really what I wish to say at this point. Lord Cameron, we absolutely need a socioeconomic objective. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is absolutely Lord Teverson: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords right as well—we will come to the financing part of for probably one of the most important debates during the Bill. There are amendments to that part to say that this Committee and for all the points made. They were we will need to intervene when there is a socioeconomic made pretty much in the same direction, even if they problem and that we should not be afraid to do so. We did not totally agree on the detail. should protect those communities in that way. We should not pretend that we are protecting them by I was very grateful for the intervention of the noble letting people go out for fish stocks that are not there Lord, Lord Grocott—I thought it was fantastic. The and are not sustainable. sad thing to someone like me is that, apart from relative stability and technical regulations, which are IamverygratefultothenobleBaroness,LadyWorthington. not dealt with in the Bill, we could have done everything She made her argument very strongly. The same goes else over the last 40 years, but we did not because we for the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on the points he just went along and did what was easiest. We did not made. Although my amendments may not be perfect, I need to let our quotas go to foreign owners, we could have tried to stick within the Government’s framework have changed the balance between the large and small by changing around some of the words but using the fleets completely, and we could have put far more Government’sownsettlementwiththedevolvedauthorities. European money into our coastal communities when I am absolutely sure that we will come back to this on they did not have enough quotas. We could have done Report, but at this point I beg leave to withdraw my all those things, but we did not. However, the noble amendment. Lord was absolutely right: we have here an opportunity Amendment 2 withdrawn. to really open our minds. The Minister says, “We’ve gone through all of this before, it’s been looked at before and we’ve talked to all the other sides”, but we Amendment 3 have had a break, we are now out of the European Moved by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Union, we have opened our minds and we have had 3: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert— some really good suggestions on the Bill. We should “( ) the discards objective,” not be railroaded by past negotiations.Clearly,devolution is key—we do not want to change that settlement Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con): My Lords, I in any way—but that cannot prevent our making am grateful for the meeting that I had prior to today some changes. with my noble friend the Minister. I assure him that 423 Fisheries Bill [HL] [2 MARCH 2020] Fisheries Bill [HL] 424 this is indeed a probing amendment. It enables me to which will be elaborated later, and to ensure that press him on why the original objective in the initial there will be a meaningful implementation scheme to Bill, which clearly stated that discards were an objective enforce it. under Clause 1, has been dropped and replaced with a bycatch objective. The House had the chance to debate Baroness Byford: My Lords, I take the amendment the difficulties involved in the landing objective on very seriously. I will point the Minister in the direction reports adopted by the EU Energy and Environment of Clause 1(6)(c) refers to, Sub-Committee before I was a member of it, but I will press my noble friend very specifically on the narrow “bycatch that is fish is landed”, point of discards to ask him what the Government’s and then goes on to say, policy is in connection with the Fisheries Bill, and why “but only where this is appropriate”. they have removed the discards objective in Clause 1 I would be glad of some clarification of that. It and replaced it with one for bycatch. There is clearly a continues that it, difference between those policies of reducing discard “does not create an incentive to catch fish that are below minimum as a result of the use of bycatch. conservation reference size”, and perhaps that is exactly what is meant by it. Certainly, I was grateful for the conversation I had with my we have had discussions over the weeks about discards, noble friend but, separately and elsewhere, I would about which I think many of us are concerned. My like to raise the possibility of using some of the question is on the phrase that they have used here. Is bycatch of inshore fishermen in ways currently not the Government worried that moving from the discard allowed. Can he take the opportunity to explain how to the new bycatch will help to disincentivise people the Government intend to reduce discard and bycatch from catching fish that are below a minimum standard? and what measure of enforcement is envisaged? As far Why was the decision made to change it from discarding as I can see, the Bill in its present form is silent on what to the particular wording of the Bill? When we come the enforcement and implementation measures for at a later stage to discuss how we can look at the way discards will be. I give notice that I have tabled two we record and know what is being discarded and what more amendments on discards. is being landed at ports, it will be immensely important. I am just a little bit unhappy with the wording that we have in subsection (6)(c), and would be glad of some 4.45 pm clarification. The Government need to make onboard monitoring of discards a condition of licensing. Can my noble friend explain why there is no mention—that I can Lord Grantchester (Lab): My Lords, I rise to speak see—in the Bill and its schedules of onboard enforcement to my Amendment 16, specifically on subsection (6) cameras? When we come to consider the issuing of on page 2 of the Bill; it is grouped with this Amendment 3 licences, is it not the Government’s intention to make on page 1, on the issue of discards, or “bycatch” as it a condition that there should be onboard enforcement referred to in the Bill. It complements the tabling of and cameras? Clauses 28 and 32 allow the Government Amendment 3 by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh and the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations, of Pickering, which alludes to the inclusion of a but will my noble friend please take this opportunity dedicated objective on fish discards among the list of to reassure us today that the discards policy will be objectives. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, enforceable and enforced, and not a voluntary scheme? for her probing on this. Has my noble friend taken the opportunity to consider For a variety of reasons, and as I am sure we will discards policy, in particular, and discards charging by hear from the Minister, it is virtually impossible to other countries? Obviously, New Zealand springs to avoid catching some of the wrong species—or, indeed, mind. It had teething problems but has now introduced the wrong sized members of the right species—when a more successful and reliable discards charging policy. fishing. There have been some great advances in techniques and technologies, but some degree of bycatch remains We need to maintain a discards objective in Clause 1. an inevitability. I would like to see a discards policy elaborated later in the Bill but, if my noble friend does not come up with The Bill’s bycatch objective, which is lifted from the a policy for implementing this, would he consider that common fisheries policy, rightly seeks to reduce the a successful reduction in discards will need monitoring catching of fish that are below minimum conservation and the use of cameras as part of the necessary size and to ensure a proper audit trail for those caught. enforcement associated with either bycatch policy or The latter also raises issues around monitoring and discard reduction policy? Can he put my mind at rest? recording; this will in turn contribute to better data At the moment, the Bill seems not to require onboard that can be used to inform future quota decisions. monitoring of discards and other activities, but are the Paragraph (c) of subsection (6), which my probing Government thinking about it in connection with the amendment proposes leaving out, refers to allowing licensing regime, and will it be an obligatory—not a bycatches to be landed voluntary—scheme? Otherwise, we have time to come “only where this is appropriate” back at a later stage and help the Government to come and an incentive to catch undersize fish is not created up with such a scheme in the Bill. as a result of the landing. As we sought to make clear I have tabled this probing amendment because it is in our explanatory statement, we wish to understand extremely important to maintain the discards objective—in the circumstances in which Ministers believe the landing addition to a bycatch objective—in the Fisheries Bill, of bycatch will be “appropriate”. Presumably this is 425 Fisheries Bill [HL] [LORDS] Fisheries Bill [HL] 426

[LORD GRANTCHESTER] catch that would otherwise push them into illegal meant in the context of the landing obligation, in fishing. Alongside the MMO and industry, Defra is order to prevent fish simply being discarded back into exploring the use of remote electronic monitoring— the sea—a practice which we have fought for many REM—as a cost-effective and efficient way of monitoring years to bring to an end. fishing activities, including the effectiveness of selected If this is the case, would it not be better for the Bill gear types, and ensuring compliance. to be explicit in this regard, and for the references to the prevention of incentivising the landing of bycatch I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, to make clear that such fish cannot be sold for human for saying that his amendment is a probing amendment. consumption, thereby producing an economic benefit? I am aware that he seeks to understand the circumstances Or, if the phraseology does not relate purely to the in which the Government believe that landing bycatch landing obligation, perhaps the Minister could outline will be “appropriate”. I believe that this is something which other circumstances are deemed as being to which my noble friend Lady Byford also referred. appropriate for landing bycatch at ports? Under the common fisheries policy—CFP—the landing obligation, which was fully implemented last year, Weare very much probing at this stage of proceedings, requires all species subject to catch limits to be landed but I think I speak on behalf of many across your and counted against quota rather than discarded at Lordships’ House when I say that we need confidence sea, subject to certain exceptions. Now that we have that, whether we use the terms “discards” or “bycatch”, left the EU, the UK will develop a discards policy that the Government and devolved Administrations will be is tailored to our industry. It will have an emphasis on properly equipped to build on recent progress and reducing the level of unintentional and unwanted answer the wider probing made by the noble Baroness, bycatch through sustainable and selective fishing. However, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. even when our fishing practices are highly selective—this is a point that the noble Lord absolutely recognised—there Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, the Government will be instances when this unwanted bycatch cannot remain fully committed to ending the wasteful discarding be avoided entirely, given the high number of mixed of fish, acknowledging the impact this can have on fisheries in UK waters. The sub-objective that the fisheries management and the marine environment. I noble Lord seeks to remove with his amendment specifies fully support that the issue of illegal discarding should that bycatch is landed only if appropriate. This is be addressed within the fisheries objectives. In doing because, for example, if catch is scientifically proven to so, we will ensure that policies in the joint fisheries have high survivability, it could be beneficial to the statement will focus on this important area. long-term sustainability of the stock for it to be returned alive to the sea, rather than landed dead. I use that as The prevention of illegal discarding is addressed in an example that we need to think through. the fisheries objectives through the “bycatch objective”, which sets out a series of “sub-objectives” to address However, the crux of the amendment is that the the issue of illegal discarding. These include avoiding Government would not have to describe how and or reducing bycatch, ensuring that catches are recorded when bycatch would be landed in the joint fisheries and accounted for, and ensuring that fish stocks are statement. I have already set out the critical importance landed. It is overfishing and the catching of unwanted of understanding what is taken from the sea; removing bycatch that result in illegal discarding, and the objective this sub-objective could undermine our future discards has been named the “bycatch objective” to address the policy and our ability to advance our scientific root cause of the issue. For example, unreported catches, understanding of the state of our fisheries. whether landed or discarded, contribute significant uncertainty to the scientific assessment process. Such I should add an embellishment for my noble friend uncertainty enhances the risk that stocks are fished at Lady Byford. Where we refer to a good chance of levels beyond MSY. survivability—which I have already raised—there could, One limb of the bycatch objective is that catches are for instance, be high-survivability exemptions. Where recorded and accounted for.Wewill improve the accuracy it is accepted that unwanted catches of certain species of the data available on fishing mortality and enable in certain fisheries are unavoidable and costly to handle, sustainable quota setting that avoids overfishing. I a small percentage of the catch is permitted to be therefore believe that my noble friend’s aims are already discarded through the de minimis exemptions. met through the existing bycatch objective. An additional discards objective—which the amendment does not I say in particular to my noble friend Lady McIntosh, seek to define—risks adding complexity and confusion with whom I was pleased to discuss this matter, that in when read in conjunction with the existing objective, further consideration of the Bill the word “bycatch” is which already serves the purpose of setting a clear not intended to denigrate the absolutely clear requirement framework for tackling discards. that discard is addressed; rather, “bycatch” is a better In future, we will have the opportunity to be creative description of dealing with the issue and its root and adopt new measures and flexibilities outside the causes. My noble friend knows that there are, as I said, current common fisheries policy toolkit, to implement references to “discards” in the draft legislation. The a workable discards ban. The Fisheries Bill—we will point about bycatch as an objective is precisely that we no doubt come on to this—sets out provisions to think this wording covers and addresses the matter in introduce one such flexibility: a discard prevention a wider sense. However, I think we all want the same charging scheme to provide a mechanism that allows objective, and I hope that my noble friend will feel able fishers to pay for additional quota to cover any excess to withdraw her amendment. 427 Fisheries Bill [HL] [2 MARCH 2020] Fisheries Bill [HL] 428

5 pm Therefore, there is a very clear objective missing from the Bill, which is to accomplish that wider integration Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, I am in public policy. Many users of the marine environment grateful to those who have contributed. The amendment interact with fisheries, not least the growing and highly tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is entirely profitable energy sector. We are shifting towards greater consistent with my amendment, in the sense of probing. use of our marine environment for the production of I am a little disappointed that I have no greater sustainable energy. That has an interesting intersection understanding of why the discards objective was dropped with fisheries: the offshore wind farms that we are between the initial Bill that was published and this putting into the marine environment can act as no-take version. While I am sure that it is of interest that zones for vessels over a certain size, and as hatcheries remoteelectronicmonitoringequipmentisbeingproposed, and protected areas that allow fish stocks to return to my noble friend did not explain whether or not that an area that would otherwise be decimated through would be on a voluntary basis. Other amendments overexploitation by large vessels with large gear. There that I have tabled at later stages will provide him with is a real benefit to be gained from integrating fisheries the opportunity to do so. Also, will foreign fishing with our spatial planning. boats be policed? Will they also be required to have such monitoring systems in place? It is not just about reducing fishing effort, although another key part of planning—now in UK law—is In summing up, my noble friend did not actually the protection of areas of high biodiversity interest or respond to whether or not the monitoring equipment sites of scientific interest in the marine environment. would include cameras but, as a subsequent amendment We have a marine planning process that designates that I have tabled relates specifically to cameras, I marine planning areas, some of which are working would be grateful if he could reply on that specific well while others need to be better thought-through point at that stage. and planned. It would be much more effective if, when I emphasise that even if we use “discards”or “bycatch” setting these new fishing policies, we think of them as interchangeably in the way that we seem to now, for an integral part of our marine planning for conservation. the policy to work effectively, and for more fish to be There are other uses of the marine environment landed so that we have a better idea of the state of the that require planning, including dredging the shipping current stock, it must be effectively policed or it will channels. It is an environment that requires careful fall flat on its face. I will return to this issue in later management and balance—I agree with that—but not amendments, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw to mention the existing marine plans that are required the amendment. to be made, and not to integrate them with the fishing objectives, feels like a missed opportunity. I tabled this amendment in the hope that we can have a wider debate Amendment 3 withdrawn. about spatial planning and how it relates to fisheries management. It is not a negative proposal: it could Amendment 4 bring greater benefits as we think about how we manage our seas. I look forward to the Minister’s response, Moved by Baroness Worthington and I hope that we have a good debate. I beg to move. 4: Clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert— “( ) the marine planning objective.” Lord Teverson: My Lords, I very much welcome marine planning. I should perhaps declare a past interest as a board member of the Marine Management Baroness Worthington: My Lords, in moving Organisation, which is responsible for marine planning Amendment 4 in my name I shall speak also to in England. Last week I talked to Gillian Martin, the Amendment 25, which is grouped with it. I also seek convenor of the environment committee of the Scottish permission to speak to Amendments 47 and 56, which Parliament, about marine planning. It is happening in will come up later in Committee but are related to this Scotland, too. point, so I hope I can speak to all four in this speech. I am certainly not advocating this as yet another The purpose of Amendment 4 is to add a new objective—we have too many already—but it is important fisheries objective to the Bill stating that there is a that the Bill takes account of marine planning and all “marine planning objective” in relation to fisheries the work going on in that field. Today our seas are, to management. The reason is that there is a real need to put it mildly,used in multiple ways—for trade, renewable integrate fisheries into our wider marine planning energy, undersea carbon capture and storage, and lots processes. The phrase “fisheries exceptionalism” has of other areas. I am not sure that the Bill even mentions been used. In essence, what is being got at there is that things such as marine conservation zones, which are the way we plan for our use of the marine environment part of marine plans and, inevitably, part of the for fisheries is very separate from our wider spatial management of the fishing regimes. I would like to planning that we use for other activities that occur in think that there was a way to refer to marine plans in the marine environment. Sometimes we forget that, the Bill, although not quite in this way. although fishing is a hugely important part of our marine environment, it is certainly not the only Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: My Lords, I am economically productive activity that occurs within grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for our seas. It is important that we integrate fisheries into tabling these amendments. As she said, they relate to marine planning and that marine planning integrates the importance of marine planning and the conservation fisheries into its processes. obligations of the fishing sector. 429 Fisheries Bill [HL] [LORDS] Ministerial Code: Breaches 430

[BARONESS JONES OF WHITCHURCH] for England are out for consultation by the Marine The Marine and Coastal Access Act is an important Management Organisation and will be in place by piece of legislation, passed in the final years of the 31 March 2021, delivering the Government’scommitment Labour Government, of which we are very proud. It in the 25-year environment plan. already requires the UK and devolved Administrations Marine plans support economic growth in a way to prepare marine plans. The point made by the noble that benefits society while respecting the needs of Baroness was important: new legislation should local communities and protecting the marine environment. incorporate the marine plans where they overlap and That is why I understand the importance of the points apply. With this Bill it is sensible to incorporate them that the noble Baroness has raised. We believe that into the joint fisheries statements and the fisheries what her amendment requires is already provided for. management plans. We should not risk one piece of As was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones legislation overriding the obligations of another: the of Whitchurch, Section 58 of the Marine and Coastal case for integration is well made. Access Act 2009 requires public authorities to have As marine plans have been with us for some time, regard to there is an argument that they should provide the “the appropriate marine policy documents”— bedrock on which other policies are built and developed. which could be a marine policy statement or a marine There is little sense in having marine conservation plan—when taking decisions affecting the marine measures in place if certain protections are at risk of environment. The amendments would therefore duplicate being disrupted by fishing activities authorised under this requirement. I am advised that the requirement is the Bill, so the case for integration is strong. already sufficient to meet what I know are the noble We have raised previously with the Minister the Baroness’s positive intentions. wider challenge of how all Defra Bills integrate; for With that explanation and the assurance that I have example, how this Bill will integrate with the Environment been advised that Section 58 covers this point and that Bill. They all need to interlink and create a bigger the amendment would merely duplicate what is already whole. I am sure that we will be told that a number of a legal requirement, I hope that she will feel able to the issues that we raise here will be dealt with in the withdraw her amendment. Environment Bill. We need to make sure that everything is in its place and is interlinked. Everything should be developed as a package. The points made by the noble Baroness Worthington: I thank the Minister for his Baroness about the links between this Bill and marine response and explanation. Perhaps there will be an conservation are well made. As with all these things, it opportunity to discuss this further after Committee, is about finding the right wording and the right place as I am minded to withdraw the amendment. Even if in the legislation, but the principle is one that we that piece of legislation predates the Bill and states should adopt. that the planners must take into account certain factors, the amendment creates an objective relating to marine planning, ensuring that the fisheries plans drawn up Lord Teverson: My Lords, I should have made under the Bill take into account the marine planning another declaration: I am co-chair of the Cornwall aspects.As the noble Baroness,Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. Obviously, said, it is to make sure that the Bill is fully up to date being surrounded by sea apart from the Tamar—which with our marine planning requirements, not the other is an even more important boundary with our brothers way around. However, on the basis that we can discuss in Devon—Cornwall has a marine interest. this further, I beg leave to withdraw.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, I am most Amendment 4 withdrawn. grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for her amendments. Together, they would require policies House resumed. made to achieve the fisheries objectives to be consistent with the objectives and policies in relevant marine plans. Ministerial Code: Breaches Statement I want to take this opportunity to make it clear that the UK Government recognise the importance of marine 5.15 pm plans,which enable the increasing and, at times,competing demands for use of the marine area to be balanced The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) and managed in an integrated way—a way that protects (Con): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will the marine environment while supporting sustainable repeat, in the form of a Statement, the Answer given development. Using our marine resources effectively to an Urgent Question in the other place by my right and sustainably has the potential to provide significant honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of benefits for the UK economy and for coastal communities. Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office. The The economic contribution of marine-related industries Statement is as follows: to the UK’s GDP in 2015 was estimated at £27 billion, “Mr Speaker, on Saturday 29 February the Cabinet with scope for further growth. Secretary and Head of the Civil Service received and In England, the East Inshore and East Offshore accepted the resignation of Sir Philip Rutnam as Marine Plans were published in April 2014 and the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office. On the same South Inshore and South Offshore Marine Plan was day, the Cabinet Secretary announced that Shona published in July 2018. The remaining marine plans Dunn, then the Second Permanent Secretary at the 431 Ministerial Code: Breaches [2 MARCH 2020] Ministerial Code: Breaches 432

Home Office responsible for borders, immigration and Lord True: My Lords, in answer to the second citizenship, would become Acting Permanent Secretary question, any Minister holds office at the wish of the with immediate effect. Allegations have been made Prime Minister and if he considers, in the case of any that the Home Secretary has breached the Ministerial Minister on any subject, that that Minister is not Code. The Home Secretary absolutely rejects these performing, that Minister will be subject to the appropriate allegations. The Prime Minister has expressed his full sanctions. As for the noble Baroness’s first question, confidence in her. Having worked closely with the my right honourable friend answered this in the other Home Secretary over a number of years, I also have House. Allegations have been made that the Home the highest regard for her. She is a superb Minister Secretary breached the Ministerial Code and the Cabinet doing a great job. Office has been asked to look at the facts, as reported. This Government always take any complaints relating to the Ministerial Code seriously. In line with the Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD): My Lords, I fear process set out in the Ministerial Code, the Prime that this affair may have some further way to go. There Minister has asked the Cabinet Office to establish the are, for example, various reports in the newspapers facts. As is usual, the independent adviser on ministerial that there was a hitlist of other Permanent Secretaries interests, Sir Alex Allan, is available to provide advice that the Government would like to get rid of. None of to the Prime Minister. It is long-standing government us, I think, wants to go down the road of Washington, policy not to comment on individual personnel matters, where relations between members of the American in order to protect the rights of all involved. What I Cabinet and its staff are clearly toxic in a number of can, and will, say is that I know that the dedicated ways. Do we not now need some sort of investigation ministerial team at the Home Office, and its superb that will be published to re-establish the necessary civil servants, will continue their critical work on the confidence between Ministers and civil servants, without public’s behalf—keeping our country protected from which effective government is very difficult to carry on? the terror threat; bearing down on the criminals who seek to do our communities and our country harm; Lord True: No, my Lords, the allegation of a hitlist and delivering a fair, firm immigration system that is false and has been denied. All in this House would works in the interests of the British people. The Home agree that good government depends on all the elements Office works tirelessly to keep our citizens safe and of a ministry and a Government working well together. our country secure. We all stand behind the team I had the privilege of working in the Civil Service as a leading that vital work.” special adviser in the past and I know that to be the case. This Government wholly respect the role of the 5.17 pm Civil Service; they need the Civil Service to be free to Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab): My Lords, I am give robust advice and there needs to be proper respect grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement, between all arms of government decision-making. and for his measured delivery which has given me time to catch my breath after racing to the Chamber. Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB): My Lords, will the The events leading to this Statement are extraordinary noble Lord clear up one point that was a little ambiguous and unprecedented. Sir Philip Rutnam’s resignation in his answer to the Leader of the Opposition? I statement, that he had been the victim of a welcome the fact that, in line with the Ministerial “vicious and orchestrated briefing campaign” Code, the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Office by allies of the Home Secretary, followed by reports to establish the facts—that is clearly very important—but that he was offered, but refused, a substantial pay-off— in answering the Leader of the Opposition, the noble presumably to leave quietly—illustrates alarming levels Lord said that the Cabinet Office has been asked to of dysfunction at the very heart of government. On inquire whether the Home Secretary has breached the Thursday, the noble Lord, Lord True, told the House: code. However, there are also allegations that the code was breached when Ms Patel was in the Department “The current Prime Minister expects the highest standards of performance and behaviour from all his colleagues.”—[Official for Employment and in DfID. Can he assure us that Report, 27/2/20; col. 278.] the inquiry will be wide-ranging and will cover that That is quite right. I am sure that I am not alone in full range of complaints? thinking it quite strange that, having initiated a Cabinet Office investigation into the facts regarding the Home Lord True: My Lords, I used the term “Home Secretary’s behaviour, before it even gets going the Secretary”because the person engaged is Home Secretary, Prime Minister states his full confidence in her, even but where allegations of breach of the Ministerial describing her as “fantastic” and Code has been made against a Minister,those allegations, “a superb Minister doing a great job.” from wherever, will be investigated. Can the Minister answer just two questions? First, can he confirm that the Cabinet Office investigation is Lord Marlesford (Con): My Lords, the undignified into whether the Home Secretary has breached the whinge in front of television cameras by the former Ministerial Code in this department or in any other? I Permanent Secretary at the Home Office certainly appreciate that he cannot give details of investigations, shows that he is no Sir Humphrey Appleby. What but straightforward confirmation that it is into breaches matters is that the Home Office is arguably the most of the Ministerial Code would be helpful. Secondly, if constipated department in Whitehall, but one of the that code is proven to have been broken, what sanctions most important. There is much still to be done to are available? follow up what the noble Lord, Lord Reid, said in 433 Ministerial Code: Breaches [LORDS] Airport Expansion 434

[LORD MARLESFORD] he reflect that, after seven months, it would have been May 2006 about the department being “not fit for perfectly reasonable for the Home Secretary to have purpose”. What really matters is that we get on with approached the Prime Minister and Cabinet Secretary the reforms and we must welcome the fact that my to arrange a sensible departure for the Permanent right honourable friend Priti Patel is a vigorous Home Secretary if she could not get on with him? Is it not a Secretary who is determined, among other things, to worry that she might not be able to get on with root out the deep corruption, demonstrated in anybody? Parliamentary Questions I have asked and had answered, in the immigration department of the Home Office. Lord True: My Lords, again I will not be tempted to follow a personal line, except to say that the noble Lord True: My Lords, I will not follow my noble Lord, when he was an outstanding Home Secretary, friend on all his comments. All I will say is that the was never backward in coming forward with his views. Home Office has been charged with a vital job, from It is in everyone’s interest that the heat is taken down a creating a points-based immigration system to bit and the facts are established; once the facts are strengthening the police and so on. I have no reason to established your Lordships and the rest of the world believe that the Home Office, led by an outstanding can address their consequences. ministerial team, will not perform to the highest levels expected of Her Majesty’s Civil Service. Airport Expansion Lord Kerslake (CB): My Lords, I read the statement Statement and heard of the resignation of Sir Philip with extreme sadness and shock. Will the inquiry talk to Sir Philip 5.28 pm about his allegations and include the First Division TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department Association chief executive Dave Penman to establish for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con): My the reality of what happened? I welcome the inquiry, Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat and the Statement says that it is not the Government’s in the form of a Statement the Answer to an Urgent practice to comment on personal matters. All I can say Question asked in another place on airport expansion. is that an awful lot of other people seem to have The Statement is as follows: commented on Sir Philip. Will the Minister distance himself from the shameful comments that have been “Madam Deputy Speaker, the Secretary of State is made in the newspapers over the weekend? very sorry that he is unable to be here today. He is visiting the north as a long-standing commitment for discussions with northern leaders following the Lord True: My Lords, I make no comment about Government’s takeover of the Northern franchise. It is any individual. My job is to see that the conduct of a pleasure to respond on his behalf as Minister for government is carried on appropriately. The noble Aviation. Lord will know from his distinguished service in the Airport expansion is a core part of boosting our Civil Service that how the matter is conducted is not a global connectivity and levelling up the UK. It is matter for me but for the Cabinet Secretary, taking crucial that vital infrastructure projects, including airport advice appropriately, as I am sure he will do. Sir Philip expansion, drive the whole UK economy. This said in his statement that he intends to begin legal Government support airport expansion, but we will action; I am sure the House will understand that I permit it only within our environmental obligations. cannot make any further comment on that matter. This Government have been clear that the Heathrow expansion is a private sector project which must meet Baroness Quin (Lab): My Lords, is a timetable strict criteria on air quality, noise and climate change, attached to the inquiry by the Cabinet Office? My as well as being privately financed, affordable and understanding is that it is the Prime Minister who delivered in the best interests of consumers. decides in the end whether the ministerial code has Last week, the Court of Appeal ruled that the been broken or not. Is that the case, or will he also rely designation of the Airports National Policy Statement on advice and input from independent sources? did not take account of the Paris Agreement, of non-carbon-dioxide emissions or of emissions post Lord True: My Lords, I will not speculate on how 2050, and therefore, has no legal effect unless and until long the work, which has only just begun, will last. It is this Government carry out a review. This Government in everybody’s interest that it be performed as swiftly have taken the decision not to appeal the court’s but also as thoroughly and fairly as possible. The judgment. We take seriously our commitment on the findings will be presented to the Prime Minister and environment and reducing carbon emissions. then it will be a matter for his judgment what might or It is a complex and important judgment, which the might not follow. Government need time to consider carefully. At this stage, the Government will not be able to make any Lord Blunkett (Lab): My Lords, will the Minister further comment beyond what was set out in the reflect that it would be deeply unfortunate if, as with Written Statement of 27 February from the Secretary the BBC or the courts, the people’s Government versus of State for Transport. Following the judgment, scheme the Civil Service overrode the duty of people to be promoters have applied for permission to the Supreme encouraged to work sensibly on behalf of the people Court to appeal this decision. The Government will we seek to represent? As a former special adviser, will not comment on an ongoing legal case. 435 Airport Expansion [2 MARCH 2020] Airport Expansion 436

Aviation will play a key role in leading our economic I understand there is an appeal process, but does the growth and driving forward the UK’s status as an Minister agree that the Government need to use existing outward-facing trading nation, attracting investment airports more efficiently and ensure, with speed, that and growing our trade links with new overseas markets. all airports adopt zero emissions as an approach to Today, our airports support connections to more than their ground services, which can be provided at this 370 destinations in more than 100 countries. Aviation time? Does the Minister also accept that all airports, drives trade, investment and tourism, contributing and the Government, have to work on improving £14 billion to our economy and 500,000 jobs. The next public transport links? Can the Minister guarantee decade will mark an unprecedented moment of that the Government will up their game environmentally? opportunity for the UK. That is why we are investing in transport and infrastructure across the country— Baroness Vere of Norbiton: I feel that the last comment investing in our strategic roads network, proceeding in particular from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, with HS2 and committing £5 billion of funding to was a little harsh. We are the first major economy to improve bus and cycle services outside London. have legislated for net zero by 2050. We have already Airport expansion is a core part of our commitment reduced the amount of emissions by a quarter since to global connectivity, but we are also a Government the Conservatives came into office. I am sure that the who are committed to a greener future, as the first noble Baroness will have heard on the grapevine that a major economy in the world to legislate for net zero transport decarbonisation plan will be published soon. emissions by 2050. This Government are therefore That will cover how we are going to decarbonise our committed to working with the aviation sector to transport system. But the noble Baroness is right that make sure we deliver on the opportunities available transport between the different regions is incredibly to us, while meeting our environmental commitments, important. That is why this Government are committed whether that is on modernisation of our airspace, to investing in infrastructure, with the biggest rail innovation in sustainable fuels or research and technology. modernisation since Victorian times, green-lighting This will ensure a prosperous and sustainable future HS2, £500 million for Beeching reversals and £29 billion for the whole country, and the House will be updated on upgrading or maintaining our strategic roads network. on next steps as soon as possible.” A making best use policy is already in place for airports, which says that all airports can invest in their 5.31 pm infrastructure, provided they meet environmental constraints. Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab): My Lords, I am becoming sympathetic to the Minister. She seems destined to repeat Statements from the House of Commons that Lord Haselhurst (Con): My Lords, not even Heathrow have little or no substance. It is no surprise that the Airport Ltd believes that a third runway at Heathrow Heathrow expansion plan failed to reflect the UK’s could be available before 2029. Would it not be a safe commitment to tackling the climate crisis, given that insurance policy for the Government to upgrade the the former Transport Secretary said that the Paris railway to Stansted Airport, which has legal spare agreement was “not relevant”to expansion. Who provided capacity? legal advice to the Government saying that they did not have to take the Paris agreement into account Baroness Vere of Norbiton: I thank my noble friend when approving Heathrow expansion? Will the for raising one of the other London airports. It is true Government rule out amending the Airports National that we are incredibly lucky in this country, in that we Policy Statement to allow expansion to go ahead, and have a number of options when we fly from the do the Government now accept that the Paris agreement south-east or from London. The Government are must be taken into account in all their domestic decisions? focused on connections to airports, because we want to make sure that there are as many different options Baroness Vere of Norbiton: My Lords, I will not go as possible to get to airports, so that people do not into the detail of who received what legal advice and necessarily have to use their car. Train is often the when, but the court ruled in the way it did. It is worth best bet. looking at one thing: the court did not conclude that airport expansion was incompatible with climate change Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP): My Lords, I targets. It remains the Government’s position that we do not know how the Minister’s department manages have our climate change targets, it is possible to expand the mental gymnastics to think it possible to have airports within them and where possible we will do so. airport expansion and fulfil our climate change targets. Could the Minister explain that? When Heathrow Baroness Randerson (LD): My Lords, the Liberal Airport said it would go net zero, it did not include Democrats have always opposed Heathrow’s expansion, any of its flights—so it will be rather difficult to believing that it could not be done without serious square that circle. environmental damage. I have always argued here that there has been far too much concentration on air Baroness Vere of Norbiton: This Government are services in the south-east, when there are airports in anti-aviation emissions, not anti-flying. That is the the north with spare capacity.Any expansion at Heathrow entire point. The Government are working incredibly would be bound to skew investment towards the south- hard to make sure that we get emissions down by 2050. east, at the expense of the Midlands and north. So the I have already mentioned the transport decarbonisation Government now need to develop alternative policies. plan, but we are also spending £2 billion on aviation 437 Airport Expansion[LORDS] Coronavirus: Imprisoned British Citizens 438

[BARONESS VERE OF NORBITON] Lord Lilley (Con): My Lords, this is a bizarre judgment, research and technology. I ask the noble Baroness given that the previous court ruled that the Paris whether, if all planes were netzero, she would still be judgment was not legally binding, but is not the real against flying. root of the problem the fact that we have made these targets legally binding? When the climate Bill went Lord Howell of Guildford (Con): My Lords, the through Parliament, I voted against it and pointed out decision of the courts is very interesting and the Paris that the sole effect of enshrining targets in statute agreement is extremely important. We have to go would be that the Government’s policies would be much further than the Paris agreement if we are to open to judicial review. It is bizarre that judges should make a proper impact on global emissions, through decide on policies costing billions of pounds without assistance to countries that are increasing their emissions being accountable to the electorate for the costs that very fast. Surely the decision of this country on how will be incurred. That fills with me foreboding, and our infrastructure, planning and development should that foreboding has proved to be justified by this accord with our climate aims and zero emissions is a strange ruling. Should we not cease to have legally matter for Government policy and not for the courts. binding commitments and make these decisions politically If the courts are to decide this, we will have very little by the Government and Parliament of the day? chance of having any success at all. Baroness Vere of Norbiton: I thank my noble friend. Baroness Vere of Norbiton: My noble friend raises The Government stand by their decision to legislate an important point. I go back to what I said earlier: that this country will be net zero by 2050, and what we the courts did not conclude that airport expansion have been able to achieve in terms of the decarbonisation was incompatible with climate change, simply that the of our energy system has been very significant. It is ANPS did not take into account the items that I now time to turn to transport, and I believe that we mentioned earlier. The noble Lord is right that it is can do it. government policy to decarbonise our transport system, which is what we are doing. Coronavirus: British Citizens Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB): My Lords, the effect Imprisoned Abroad of the Court of Appeal’s ruling is that the Airports Statement National Policy Statement is defective and has no legal effect, unless and until the Government carry out 5.41 pm a review. Are the Government planning to carry out a review? If they are not, do we have an Airports National The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign Policy Statement? If we do not, how can the Minister andCommonwealthOfficeandDepartmentforInternational say that expansion of other airports will go ahead Development (Baroness Sugg) (Con): My Lords, with without an overall policy? the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the response given by my honourable Baroness Vere of Norbiton: This is an important friend the Minister for Asia and the Pacific to an point, but it is a complex and important judgment Urgent Question in the other place. The Statement is running to several hundreds of pages. The Government as follows: are taking their time to consider the judgment, and we “Protecting British citizens at home and abroad is a will set out the next steps for the Airports National top priority for this Government and amid the outbreak Policy Statement and other matters in due course. of Covid-19, known as coronavirus, the UK is leading the response. First, we are providing support to British Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con): My Lords, I citizens abroad. This includes, of course, travellers and congratulate the Government on not appealing this their families in countries around the world. The FCO judgment. That is a very wise decision. Is my noble is closely monitoring coronavirus throughout the world friend confident that other plans the Government through its diplomatic network. We are providing have, such as HS2, will also be in line with the Paris travel advice to British nationals so that they can be commitment? sure of the facts before deciding whether to travel and sure of what they should do if they are affected by an Baroness Vere of Norbiton: This is of course incredibly outbreak of Covid-19 when travelling. important, because there are potential read-acrosses The UK has also put in place measures to ensure to various other infrastructure builds. However, we are that travellers returning from abroad do not spread confident that they fall within our climate obligations. the virus further. Wehave enhanced monitoring measures at UK airports. Health information is available at all Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD): My Lords, is it international airports, ports and international train not a fact that this decision has had the effect of stations. We have established a supported isolation letting the Prime Minister off the hook? He does not facility at Heathrow Airport to cater for international have to lie down in front of the bulldozers—so there is passengers who are tested, and to maximise infection a clear advantage in judicial review. Why are the control and free up NHS resources. Government seeking to restrict it? For British nationals caught up in the initial outbreaks of the virus, HMG have co-ordinated repatriation for Baroness Vere of Norbiton: I do not think that I am those impacted in Wuhan and the passengers on board willing to go down that track. the “Diamond Princess”cruise ship, and we are working 439 Coronavirus: Imprisoned British Citizens[2 MARCH 2020] Coronavirus: Imprisoned British Citizens 440 with the Spanish authorities and tour operators to the dire situation that Iran is in—it is clearly in the support the return of British nationals affected by the middle of a major epidemic—and that we are doing situation in Tenerife. our best to help Iran and its people in any way we can. We also continue to insist that British nationals However, this crisis clearly shows why action needed who are being detained in countries such as Iran, to be taken a long time ago to get Nazanin Zaghari- which has seen reports of a high number of cases of Ratcliffe and the other dual nationals released. Do the coronavirus, are temporarily released. France, Germany Government not have a special responsibility as far and the United Kingdom have expressed their full as she is concerned? Her health has clearly been solidarity with those who are impacted by Covid-19 in compromised, while we hear that new prisoners are Iran, so we are offering Iran a comprehensive package not being admitted to her prison because of the virus. of both material and financial support to stem the There are apparently no medicines or disinfectants. rapid spread of the disease. Today, a plane departed Surely the Government have to do their very best to the UK with vital materials such as equipment for secure her release, get her into quarantine and bring laboratory tests as well as other equipment, including her home to the United Kingdom. protective body suits and gloves. The E3 has also committed to providing urgent additional financial Baroness Sugg: My Lords, we are calling on the support of close to ¤5 million to fight the Covid-19 Iranian Government to immediately give detained British- epidemic affecting Iran through the WHO or other Iranian dual nationals access to appropriate medical UN agencies. treatment and our colleagues in Tehran will continue We will continue to support global efforts to combat to lobby for the temporary release of all our detainees the outbreak of Covid-19. Our support is directed at in Evin Prison. Of course, it is important that we helping the most vulnerable across the globe and support Iran as best we can. We have seen an alarming strengthening the global health system to protect our increase in the number of cases there, with 523 confirmed own nationals.Wehave provided £40 million of investment in the previous 24 hours. That is why it is so important into vaccine and virus research and £5 million for the that the E3 supports Iran in the way that it is. World Health Organization. We will continue to do all we can to keep British nationals safe and healthy around the world.” Lord Robathan (Con): My Lords, I am sure everyone in the House has huge sympathy with the appalling 5.43 pm predicament of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her, frankly, Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab): My Lords, I thank unreasonable imprisonment. On the broader issue of the Minister for repeating the response to that Urgent coronavirus—I look forward to listening to the Chief Question. In the other place this afternoon, my right Medical Officer when he comes to us on Wednesday— honourable friend Emily Thornberry recalled British while this is of course a very serious outbreak, it seems aid efforts to help the people of Iran during a that there is a danger of overreacting. I am in the humanitarian crisis. She asked the Minister to join her danger zone, as are most of your Lordships because in making a plea to the Iranian Government to see all old men aged over 60 are in it. But, on average, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe as one of those innocent some 17,000 people die of flu every winter, yet so far people in a humanitarian crisis whom they have it in we have had no deaths at all from coronavirus in this their gift to save. She also hoped that the Minister country and the numbers around the world are would make a solemn commitment that if Iran acts slim. Can the Minister reassure me that we are not with compassion, we would not forget our obligations overreacting? to act with fairness and justice in resolving the other issues of dispute between our countries. Baroness Sugg: My Lords, I agree that it is absolutely Unfortunately, it is not only Nazanin who is suffering right that we should get the balance of our reaction in Iranian prisons today. There is Aras Amiri, who in correct. Of course, public safety is our top priority 2018 was sentenced to 10 years, or Anoosheh Ashoori, and I thank all those already working around the sentenced to 12 years in 2019—and there are many clock so that we are ready at home and can ensure the others. Can the Minister offer an update on any of safety of UK nationals abroad. Our approach in this these cases? In particular, can she confirm whether country is being guided by the Chief Medical Officer, concerns about Covid-19 have been raised by the Professor Chris Whitty, and independent experts. We families of other dual nationals imprisoned in Iran? will continue to work closely with the World Health Organization and the international community to ensure Baroness Sugg: My Lords, we have been in close that we get our response to this outbreak right. touch with the Iranian authorities to urge them to secure a temporary release on medical grounds for Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, while her release remains a top Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB): My Lords, is it priority for the Government. Of course, the welfare of true that the prisoners who are ill abroad are not being all British nationals imprisoned in Iran is a top priority tested? Surely all of them should be tested and treated. and we will continue to lobby for the temporary release of all detainees in Evin Prison. Baroness Sugg: If the noble Baroness is referring directly to the prisoners in Iran, as I say, we are Baroness Northover (LD): My Lords, I too thank working closely with the Iranian authorities to ensure the noble Baroness for that answer. I am glad that we that we have access to them and that they get the are working with France and Germany in recognising testing and the medical attention they need. 441 UK-USTradeDealNegotiatingObjectives[LORDS] UK-USTradeDealNegotiatingObjectives 442

UK-US Trade Deal Negotiating Objectives and whisky trade and support new market access for Statement beef. The north of England could see more exports of manufactured goods and new data agreements for its tech firms. The south-west can gain from eased customs 5.49 pm procedures for beverages, luxury sports and marine Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): My Lords, with equipment. The south-east could see benefits for its permission, I will now repeat a Statement made in the globally competitive professional business firms. London other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary could see benefits through agreements on digital trade of State for International Trade. The Statement is as that will boost our world-leading tech firms. The east follows: of England will see a boost to its food and life science “Today my department is publishing a suite of industries. Wales stands to gain market access for its documents that mark a crucial step in the process of fantastic lamb, and reduced tariffs and red tape for its beginning formal negotiations for a free trade agreement steel and ceramic sectors. Northern Ireland can benefit with our largest bilateral trading partner, the United through liberalisation of tariffs in furniture and States. These documents comprise the Government’s pharmaceuticals. negotiating objectives, our response to the public North, east, south and west, from agriculture to the consultation, and a scoping assessment to provide the creative industries, my department’s analysis finds that House and the British people with analysis of the a US trade deal has the potential to deliver benefits potential long-run economic impact of an FTA. These throughout the UK economy, with more choice for are available online and will be placed in the Libraries. consumers at lower prices and new opportunities for The UK stands at an historic moment, building its businesses, and to grow high-skills jobs. It has the independent trade policy for the first time in almost potential to slash trade barriers and tariffs totalling half a century.This Government will seize this opportunity some £493 million per year and could boost British to be an independent, global champion with a simple workers’ wages by £1.8 billion. message: free trade is good for all nations and will Small and medium-sized businesses provide around deliver benefits for businesses, households and consumers three-fifths of jobs in the UK. They are increasingly across the UK. We aim to have 80% of UK trade with international traders in their own right. In 2018, 97% countries covered by free trade agreements within of businesses exporting goods were SMEs, representing three years, starting with the US, Japan, Australia and 28% of our total exports. Some 30,000 SMEs across New Zealand. Seeking these agreements is part of our the UK trade with the US already. So we will make it a efforts to level up, deliver opportunity and unleash the priority in these negotiations to support UK SMEs to potential of every part of our United Kingdom. seize the opportunities of UK-US trade. We will do The USA is the world’s largest economy, our closest this by aiming to agree a dedicated SME chapter to security and defence partner, and one of our oldest facilitate co-operation on SME issues; to ensure that friends. We are the biggest investors in each other’s SMEs have easy access to information to take advantage economies. An FTA represents a fantastic opportunity of the new opportunities; to build on the successful to strengthen and deepen our strong trade, investment UK-US SME dialogue to strengthen co-operation; and economic relationships, bringing us closer to the and to ensure that throughout the agreement there are world’s economic powerhouse. In 2017, according to SME-friendly provisions covering both services and US statistics, 1.7 million people worked for US majority- goods. owned companies operating in the UK, and 1.3 million We are also looking to rewrite the rules of the game for UK majority-owned companies based in the US. on digital trade to create a world-leading ecosystem UK-US total trade was valued at £220.9 billion in the that supports businesses of all sizes across the UK. last year, representing 19.8% of all our exports. An This could include provisions that facilitate the free ambitious FTA with the US could deliver a significant flow of data and prevent unjustified data localisation long-term boost for the economy. Compared with requirements, while ensuring that the UK’shigh standards 2018, it could mean a £15.3 billion increase in bilateral of personal data protection are maintained and that trade and a £3.4 billion lift to the economy. government continues to maintain its ability to protect The negotiating objectives we are publishing today users against online harm. We can ensure that customs are underpinned by one of the biggest consultations duties are not imposed on electronic transmissions ever undertaken with the UK public, businesses and and create fantastic opportunities in areas such as wider society.It received the views of 158,720 respondents, blockchain, driverless cars and quantum technology. all of which have fed into the Government’s broad approach to FTAs and specific negotiating objectives. In these trade talks, as in all our future trade talks, We have scaled up our trade negotiator expertise and this Government will drive a hard bargain for the have a similar size of team to the US trade representative, British people. The NHS, the price it pays for drugs and including a wealth of experience from the private its services are not for sale. There will be no compromise sector, trade law, Commonwealth nations and WTO on high environmental protection, animal welfare and experts, ready to deliver for the UK. food standards. Throughout these negotiations, the My department’s analysis shows that the US deal Government will continue to engage collaboratively we are seeking benefits every region and nation of the with Parliament, the devolved Administrations and UK, delivering improved access for businesses, more the public. investment, better jobs and higher wages. For the I can also assure the House that now the UK is free Midlands, a UK-US FTA could reduce tariffs on cars to negotiate outside the EU, we will be aiming to begin and ceramics. For Scotland, it could lock in salmon negotiations with the US as quickly as possible. The 443 UK-USTradeDealNegotiatingObjectives[2 MARCH 2020] UK-USTradeDealNegotiatingObjectives 444 appetite is clear on both sides. We welcomed the US primary legislation. There is an amendment to the Government’s negotiating objectives, particularly on Trade Bill that left your Lordships’ House in a previous developing state-of-the-art provisions in financial services Session that would do it. Why do they continue to and digital trade. We welcome the enthusiasm in both prevaricate on this point? the US Congress and the US Administration, as was There is a lot in the Statement about tariffs and made clear during my discussions last week with US quotas, which are important, but there are already Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. We see in this very low tariffs between the UK and the US. The main not just an opportunity to deepen our bilateral trade problem is regulation. To take food as an example, the and investment relationship, important though that is; US position is generally that its food is just as good as it is about setting an example to the world of how two European food and our standards are just protectionism. leading, open and mature economies can trade with The problem is that American food is not the same, by one another. any standards. Farming in the US is mostly on a large, As an independent trading nation, the UK will industrial scale, and the animals are kept in conditions champion free trade and lower trade barriers at every so poor that they get ill or do not thrive unless they are opportunity. Striking free trade agreements will give also fed a lot of antibiotics and steroids, not to mention our businesses the opportunities, certainty and security hormones that maximise growth. We, on the other they need to prosper. The greatest opportunity to do hand, through the EU have a farm-to-fork policy that this is with our closest ally and largest single trading regulates conditions throughout the life cycle. So what partner, the United States. We have the mandate. We you dunk a chicken in before it is presented for sale is have the team. With the documents we are publishing really shorthand for a wider question of how that today, we have the tools. With hard work, I believe we animal has lived. How are the Government going to can get it done—so I commend this Statement to the square that circle? House.” In the same field, will the Government reaffirm My Lords, that concludes the Statement. their commitment to international labour standards and rights and require the US to sign up to the ILO 5.57 pm conventions, which it has so far failed to do. Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab): My Lords, I Thirdly, what is most striking about the document first apologise for not being present at the very start of is that it seems to ignore the US negotiating position, proceedings on this Statement. Unfortunately,my printer although there was a mention of that in the Statement. got stuck and I had to wait until I was able to clear it The language of the US document is highly aggressive, with technical help. I therefore missed the opening demanding concessions but offering little in return. sentence, but I had been given a copy of the Statement For example, it says: and had read it before. “The United States seeks to support higher-paying jobs in the United States and to grow the U.S. economy by improving U.S. We support an ambitious trade agreement that opportunities for trade and investment with the UK.” unlocks economic growth, creates new jobs and elevates rights and standards. I thank the Minister for repeating That does not sound like a very open-ended commitment the Statement following the publication of today’s to work with the UK. The framework for negotiating negotiating mandate for the Government’s flagship the UK-US trade deal is centred around reducing trade agreement with the USA. Of course, some tariffs and non-tariff barriers but only in ways that 20% of our current trade is already with the USA. It is benefit the US. For example, we read that one of the our second-biggest market and we have enjoyed decades negotiating objectives of the US is to of two-way trade with no underlying trade agreement. “Secure comprehensive duty-free market access for U.S. industrial So, while I welcome the publication today, I wonder goods and strengthen disciplines to address non-tariff barriers that constrain U.S. exports.” whether it was quite necessary to do it in the way it has been done and to carry the tone it does. I am a bit perplexed why the document published today does not confirm that the UK has properly The Statement says that an “ambitious” free trade analysed the US position and will have the necessary agreement with the US could result in tools to negotiate round these difficult operations that “a £15.3 billion increase in bilateral trade and a £3.4 billion lift to are in print. the economy.” Finally, we accept that there has been wide public These are substantial figures. However, can the Minister consultation, but this Statement does not constitute confirm that this is over a 15-year period? These adequate parliamentary engagement on this process. results will be slow to come and indeed, given the We await the return of the Trade Bill, which left this length of time, are not very substantial on their own. House with a proposed structure for engagement with Can he also confirm that, at the end of that time, the Parliament and its committees. Can the Minister tell British economy would be only 0.16% larger by 2035? us how the Government intend to enable effective This hardly compares well with the loss in trade of scrutiny of this and future trade agreements? some 5% of GDP—some argue it could be worse—if we fail to complete an ambitious free trade agreement with the EU. Lord Fox (LD): My Lords, I too thank the Minister Secondly, the Secretary of State has said positive for repeating the Statement given in the other place. things about the NHS and the price of medicines, and As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, we are that there will be no compromise on environmental building on substantial trade with the United States, protection, animal welfare and food standards. However, which receives some 20% of our exports and is our the Government have so far failed to enshrine this in largest international market after the European Union. 445 UK-USTradeDealNegotiatingObjectives[LORDS] UK-USTradeDealNegotiatingObjectives 446

[LORD FOX] with the EU is mutually exclusive with one with the Tobe clear, business achieved those substantial numbers United States? We could have a deal with the United while the United Kingdom was still in the European States but at the expense of a meaningful FTA with Union. Leaving the European Union is not a prerequisite the EU, or perhaps vice versa. I am interested to know for doing business with other countries and regimes. the Government’s view on Boris Johnson’s “Cake and That said, the process of negotiation is now under eat it” strategy. Can the Minister explain how that way, so what light does the Statement throw up? First, works in terms of regulatory alignment? could the Minister acknowledge that, with respect to Andwhatisthisfor?AsthenobleLord,LordStevenson, services, our largest sector, it is often the states rather said, in about 15 years we will have advanced our GDP than the federal Government which hold sway? So bylessthan0.2%—aquantumthatpalesintoinsignificance there are severe limitations on any FTA going forward, with the benefits that we were receiving due to our because it is difficult to cover the services sector, which relationship with the European Union. This Statement is very important for the United Kingdom. fails: it fails to prioritise the livelihoods of people and Data appears a number of times in the Statement their businesses over an ideological approach to trade and plays a big role in the supporting documents. The and trade policy. Government say they are going to “rewrite the rules of the game on digital trade”. Viscount Younger of Leckie: I thank both noble Lords First, can the Minister confirm that this will mean the for their points. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, UK moving away from GDPR, as clearly that is for his broad support for this Statement; perhaps the important? In the Statement, the Minister also talks noble Lord, Lord Fox, did not quite fall into that about including provisions to category. “facilitate the free flow of data and prevent unjustified data localisation requirements”. The first point the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, It would be interesting to know, either today or in a raised was about the point I made concerning the total Written Statement, what “unjustified data localisation value of trade between the UK and the US, which will requirements” this refers to? This is a real issue. For soar—as I had said—by £15.3 billion, adding £1.8 billion example, is the Minister happy that UK users of to wages across the country. It is true that is over a Google are having their data moved from the EU 15-year period, as he asked me. domain into the United States’ domain, where there is The noble Lord spoke about environmental protection. no accountability from the EU, which until very recently I know this is an issue which is important for many of provided democratic accountability for UK users. Does your Lordships in this House and has come up in the Minister think that, in moving the data, Google is previous debates. In all our trade agreements, we will expecting to make more money from people’s lives or not compromise on our high standards of food safety less? and animal welfare. The Government will stand firm On democratic accountability, as the noble Lord, in trade negotiations to ensure that any future trade Lord Stevenson, pointed out, there is considerable deals live up to the values of farmers and consumers uncertainty. Congress, on the other hand, will get the across the UK. The UK is proud of its world-leading job of approving this deal in the United States, as will food, health and animal welfare standards. I say again: the European Parliament in the event of an EU deal we will not lower our standards as we negotiate new being struck. The Statement says that trade deals. “the Government will continue to engage collaboratively”, The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned the but following the decision to shelve, or otherwise, the ILO and the link to labour standards, and alluded to Trade Bill, Parliament has no formal role. Can the the conventions as part of the negotiations. He will Minister explain what collaborative engagement actually know that we have very high labour standards in this means? There is a strong danger that every MP will be country, and we want to uphold those. That will be a held accountable as time goes forward for the effects red line in our approach to these discussions, as it is of trade deals, without having had any say over what with the EU. the deal was. Perhaps MPs on all Benches will be The noble Lord also alluded to the US position and considering that. said that some of the information coming out was—to Furthermore, during negotiations—and I have heard use his word—on the “aggressive” side. It is entirely to this said in this House by those who have participated be expected that the US would lay out its stall. We in negotiations—it is very handy for the US negotiators have known its position, which is a very good thing, to have the get-out clause, “Well, I would agree with and will be taking what it has to say very seriously. you on this, but Congress will not let me do it. My On scrutiny, primarily parliamentary scrutiny, this hands are tied.” UK negotiators will have no such falls in line with what the Government wish to do to constraints. keep the nation in touch. The noble Lords, Lord Fox The absence of regulatory alignment, which is clearly and Lord Stevenson, will know of the strategic trade something that the EU negotiations will continue go advisory group, or STAG, and the expert trade advisory forward with, will ensure that no meaningful deal can groups, or ETAGs. We are consulting these groups on be struck with the European Union. In reports, the a regular basis. The STAG’s principal purpose is for Secretary of State and others have made it clear that the Government to engage with stakeholders on trade Her Majesty’s Government are prepared to walk away policy matters. On parliamentary engagement, we have from negotiations with the European Union in 2021. pledged to keep Parliament—both the Commons and Does the Minister agree that, in this context, given the this place—up to date as we see fit on the timing and conflicting nature of regulatory alignment, an FTA deal how we are approaching the negotiations. 447 UK-USTradeDealNegotiatingObjectives[2 MARCH 2020] UK-USTradeDealNegotiatingObjectives 448

I should also mention, very importantly, the devolved negotiations. Noble Lords might ask me, as the Minister, Administrations. In the Moses Room the other day, I what we are going to get in return from America. That mentioned the forums. We have had our first forum includes raisins and wine from California, and, as the engaging with the devolved Administrations. That is Prime Minister said, Stetsons replacing salmon. There another important facet. is a lot to be hopeful about in the negotiations. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised the issue of services, which is indeed a very important sector for Lord Liddle (Lab): My Lords, I have not had an the UK; it is our largest sector. The point was made opportunity to read this long document, but I congratulate that negotiations were, on occasion, perhaps more the Minister in one respect: at least in this document, applicable with the states rather than at a federal level. the Government have tried to produce a proper economic Negotiations are primarily with the US Fed—if I may assessment of the potential of a free trade agreement put it that way. As negotiations continue, there will be with the United States. Is it not odd that, on the much more of a focus on the states. I reassure the noble Lord more important free trade agreement with the that these negotiations are at a high level, with the EU—despite what the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said, it federal Government. still accounts for two and a half times more of our I cannot comment on data and moving away from trade than the United States—no economic assessment the GDPR. I stick by what I said earlier: data protection was produced at all? How can he explain that? is incredibly important in this country. The noble Secondly, will the Minister acknowledge that, while Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned unjustified data requirements. any growth as a result of a UK-US deal would be It should be part of the negotiations between the UK welcome and important, it is trivial by comparison and the US to make absolutely sure that our standards with the numbers at stake in our EU relationship? and protections are not lowered; that includes Google, Finally, will he acknowledge that, in the special case which the noble Lord mentioned. of President Trump, trade deals are extremely difficult On our approach to negotiations, we have said, and to negotiate? He does not believe, like Britain and the continue to say, that we are prepared to walk away European Union, in the concept of a rules-based from negotiations if we feel that that is right. However, multilateral order governing trade. He has been trying we approach them in a good spirit. That has been the to weaken the WTO by not appointing judges to its case in the working groups, which have been operating highest arbitration panels. He believes that might is for quite some time—at least two years. more important than right, and he judges trade by The noble Lord raised regulatory alignment. That how much powerful America can grab—it is what will come up as part of our negotiations with the EU academics would call “managed trade”, not free trade. and our negotiations with the US. I hope that that We are putting far too much importance—we need covers most of the questions. realism—about getting anything substantial out of these negotiations. 6.13 pm Lord Lilley (Con): My Lords, I welcome the Viscount Younger of Leckie: I am much more optimistic Government’sStatement and hope that these negotiations than the noble Lord. I can perhaps reassure him that are successful, but is it not important to put the we are aware that some reforms are required for the importance of trade agreements into perspective? What WTO. We very much want to play our part in ensuring actually drives trade is the production of goods and that those reforms are carried through. services that other people want to buy.Trade agreements The second thing to say is that the US deal is the are of secondary importance, as illustrated by the first of several. The noble Lord will know that we have relative growth in our trade with countries with whom Japan, New Zealand and Australia to come, and of we trade solely on WTO terms and have no free trade course the EU. There was a chance in the past few agreement with. The WTO and the single market were days,and yesterday,to question my noble friend Lord True set up at the same time, when I was Secretary of State on the EU deal. I do not want to be drawn in on that for Trade and Industry. Our exports of goods to except to say that, in the US deal, we start from a very WTO-only countries has grown by 87%, faster than good platform because we are one nation negotiating those economies themselves have grown and six times with one other nation; with the EU, it is of course a bit faster than our exports to the EU, which have grown more complicated, in that we are dealing with 27 countries by barely 0.5% a year, which is slower than the growth —and the House will understand when I say that there of the economies of the EU. are a few more complications than that. However, we are very confident that we will be able to negotiate Viscount Younger of Leckie: My noble friend makes both a US deal and an EU deal in parallel. I hope that an excellent point. The opportunities for the UK are helps to answer the noble Lord’s questions, but I substantial. I say again that this is a landmark deal doubt it. that will set the standard for world-leading trade agreements. Starting off with the US is a very good Lord Howell of Guildford (Con): My Lords, the start. For example, it is very exciting that tariffs will Department for International Trade has obviously likely be reduced for Bentleys from Crewe, Aston done an enormous amount of work on this issue, a Martins from Warwickshire and Wales, UK cheese, large amount of it under my right honourable friend which currently has a 17% tariff, and ceramics from Dr Liam Fox, the former Secretary of State who was Warwickshire, which have a 28% tariff. We hope that doing a very good job on all fronts. It is absolutely these tariffs will be reduced, as they should be, in the right, as your Lordships have observed, that the USA 449 UK-USTradeDealNegotiatingObjectives[LORDS] UK-USTradeDealNegotiatingObjectives 450

[LORD HOWELL OF GUILDFORD] Viscount Younger of Leckie: There were several is far the largest single country market force at 20%; questions from the noble Lord, so I will not be able to about half is services and is growing, and the other answer all of them, but I say at the outset: the respect half is goods, which is shrinking. But most consumer is there between the two countries—it always has market growth in the next 10 years will not be in been. We have very strong and close relations with the America, or indeed in Europe—it will be in Asia, by US for a whole range of reasons and there is no reason far. That is the huge new area where we have to why that will not continue in terms of our negotiations. succeed. Asia will shortly make up half of the world’s In fact, as I said earlier, talks in the working groups GDP, if not more. That happens to be where we are have been extremely constructive, and we very much weakest, so I urge my noble friend to remind his hope they will continue in the same vein. Having said colleagues in the Department for International Trade that, I have no doubt that the US will talk tough. We that we should think carefully about our priorities and are prepared to talk tough and have said that we are not spend too much time trying to perfect our excellent prepared, if necessary, to walk away from negotiations trade with America—that may now get more difficult, if we feel that any of the issues that we are negotiating not easier—when we should really be concentrating all on do not fall in with the national interest. our resources on finding our way into the giant Asian markets, which will really determine our future and prosperity. Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB): My Lords, I think we risk being a little churlish. What we have here is what I Viscount Younger of Leckie: I agree with my noble recognise as a White Paper. We have a serious document friend that the Asian market is very important. I with some serious economic analysis resulting in some mentioned Japan earlier, which he will know is very serious consultation with a serious attempt to quantify much on the agenda. There is, of course, more to do in the effects of the policy the Government chose to Asia, but I go back to the statistic that I gave earlier: follow, broken down sectorially, geographically and in we intend, over the next three years, to cover 80% of different categories of citizen, and there has been our trade deals. That, I would argue, is a very good consultation with the devolved Administrations. In all start. It is right that we are starting not just with the these respects, this is admirable and in striking contrast EU but also with the US. It is on the basis that the US, with what we got last week about the negotiation with clearly, is on our side: it wants to secure a deal as well. the European Union, which started today. I think that one should give the Government credit Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD): My Lords, I must for being honest about how small the likely scale of comment on the comparative tone of the two Statements increase in trade would be if one managed the scenario we have had on the negotiations with the European that is sketched out here. If, optimistically, one achieved Union and the United States. The announcement on what is here, one would be gaining, after 15 years, a the relations with the EU insisted several times that we fraction of 1% of GDP, whereas, with the European expected the European Union to treat us as a sovereign Union, the Government’s own economic analysis shows equal. Can the Minister assure us that we will similarly that they would be some 5%, 7 % or 8% down in GDP. expect the United States to treat us as a sovereign So this is small stuff. equal? The phrasing was, instead, that the United I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that States is our closest ally, which I think is code for what matters is what the traders do. More than two-thirds saying, “We expect them to be nice to us because they of transatlantic trade in goods is intra-company trade, like us.” Is it not more likely that, in trade issues, the so it is issues such as taxation that matter as much as United States will be as transactional as the European any of this here. I also find the optimism of this quite Union is likely to be? I remember during a conference striking. I was always struck, when in America, that on transatlantic trade some years ago a Democratic the land of the free is not the land of free trade: it is Congressman saying to me, “People of my district are the land where might is right. Remember that the entirely in favour of free trade provided they do not Jones Act is still on the statute book in the United have to accept any more imports”. That is the problem States, that we are the small party—the demandeur—and right there. that the United States is out to, “Make America Great One of the biggest consultations on future trade Again”. It is out to bring home jobs; it is not out to relations for Britain was the balance of competences support jobs in this country, even though we are a exercise during the coalition on the relations between close ally. the UK and the EU. The overwhelming sense from the It is an admirable document; I see no harm at all in returns, including those from the Scotch Whisky the attempt the Government are making, but let us be Association, whose director at that point was David realistic. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is right: it is in Frost, was that the balance of competences between Asia, not America, that there are the real prospects for the EU and the UK suited our industry and our expanding trade. In America, we will come up against services very well. The Conservative part of the coalition, fierce protectionism: America is the most protectionist by and large, wished to ignore that consultation and economy of all our trading partners. carry on. I also note that on digital regulation, we now “have the opportunity to help shape global rules through ambitious Viscount Younger of Leckie: It is praise indeed that digital trade provisions.” the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has said that the document That means we clearly expect to share in shaping US is admirable and I am pleased to have been able to regulations in the way that we do not think we can in listen to that very carefully. I take note of what the the EU. Can the noble Lord explain that contradiction? noble Lord says about the US and our prospects, but I 451 UK-USTradeDealNegotiatingObjectives[2 MARCH 2020] Fisheries Bill [HL] 452 do not agree. If we take, for instance, SMEs as one want them. We realise that some are now trading particular issue, there are 5.9 million small businesses, under WTO terms, but the whole point of negotiating but relatively few export to the US. This new deal will with the US, and in particular with the EU, is to get to provide a tremendous opportunity for SMEs to do a point where we lower those barriers. That will obviously business in the US. From the analysis we have done—the be good for businesses and jobs. On the point that I noble Lord will have probably read the document—we think the noble Lord was making, as I said earlier, we believe we have more to gain in the UK in terms of have for some time been prepared to negotiate with business with the US than the US has in return. I the EU at the same time as negotiating with the US. think it is exciting and I am not at all dismissing the Wehave the people, the working groups and preparations point made by my noble friend Lord Howell and the in place. I see the two working very well in tandem. noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about the importance of the The linkages that will be made between my department— Far East. The point is that, as we have left the EU, and the Department for International Trade—No. 10 and as we go through this transition period, the opportunities other departments will be made for both negotiations. are absolutely tremendous in terms of what we can do in global deals generally, but it makes sense for us to Viscount Waverley (CB): My Lords, more generally, start with the US. could the Minister indicate what timetable the Government are working towards with these trade negotiating rounds, Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con): My Lords, which, together with the EU round, will require face- will my noble friend remind me: was is not the United to-facedeliberations?GivenCovid-19,aretheGovernment States that imposed a tariff of 25% on exports of in any way anticipating delay to the transition period Scotch whisky to the United States from Great Britain? to achieve the results they wish? Will my noble friend ensure that the Government make it a commitment of these negotiations that that tariff will be removed? Can I pin him down on the Viscount Younger of Leckie: I am not entirely sure wording used in both Houses? He said that the whether the noble Viscount was referring to the EU; Government will not lower our standards of obviously this subject is the US. However, I reassure environmental and animal welfare. Will he commit to him that, on the US negotiations, I am laying out the prohibiting imports of any product of animal origin last process in informing the House, as my right from the United States that does not meet the same honourable friend in the other place Liz Truss has standards of production in this country? informed the Commons,which is to set out this document, which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, alluded to as being pretty good—“admirable”, I think. I answer the noble Viscount Younger of Leckie: I will first take up my Viscount’s question by saying that we therefore fully noble friend’s question about Scotch whisky. Yes, it is expect to go pretty quickly into actual negotiations. I true that there is this 25% tariff on Scotch whisky, but was told earlier today that we fully expect to do that by my understanding is that that is linked to an unfortunate the end of March. state aid issue linked to Airbus. This is unfortunate and disappointing. My noble friend will know that we are looking to work through those issues. We very Fisheries Bill [HL] much hope, wish and expect that the tariffs on Scotch Committee (1st Day) (Continued) whisky will come down. My noble friend makes a very good point—I know that she has raised the issue of environmental standards on several occasions. Once 6.34 pm again, we will not lower our standards as we negotiate new trade deals. Amendment 5 Moved by Baroness Byford Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab): My Lords, should the EU be minded at some stage in the negotiations 5: Clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert— with us to allow new trade barriers, tariffs and quotas “( ) the collaborative objective.” to be erected that affect trade between the EU and the Member’s explanatory statement UK, will it not be all the more important that we get This amendment ensures that collaboration with external on with some urgency to negotiate for the reduction of authorities is included in the fisheries objectives. tariffs, quotas and trade barriers between ourselves and the US? If we do so, will that not encourage our Baroness Byford (Con): My Lords, I have the great exporters and consumers to believe that the damage pleasure of speaking to the amendments standing in caused by the unsatisfactory progress of negotiations my name and that of my noble and learned friend with the EU will be offset? Will it not also encourage Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Unfortunately,he is delayed. exporters and consumers in the EU to put pressure on He had hoped to arrive in time, but I have the pleasure their negotiators to think better of it and not allow of moving the amendment anyway. Together, the two new trade barriers to be erected between the EU and amendments call for collaborative working on the the UK? Bill. While in our earlier discussions we asked whether 10 objectives were plenty, here we are calling for one Viscount Younger of Leckie: I am sure the whole extra. To a certain extent we will understand if, standing House will agree when I say that trade barriers and alone, it is not accepted. However, the point behind tariffs are a disincentive to business and that we do not collaborative working is very important. 453 Fisheries Bill [HL] [LORDS] Fisheries Bill [HL] 454

[BARONESS BYFORD] I welcome the spirit of the amendments. They are Amendment 5 speaks for itself, so I turn to the basement of what we need but I hope the Minister Amendment 26, which itemises the intentions behind will take strongly the message that there needs to be this whole idea. The “collaborative objective” is to consultation and working with not only the industry ensure that but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, the “the fisheries policy authorities receive guidance on fisheries larger stakeholders to make this sector work. I will be management from the fishing industry, scientists and other relevant interested to hear the Minister’sresponse to this proposal. stakeholders.” That engagement has not been as close as it could have Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab): I am grateful been over the years. The amendment would provide to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the the opportunity to establish a proper common base on noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for tabling these which these decisions can be made. Proposed new amendments, and I listened carefully to what the subsection (9B) says that guidance under proposed noble Baroness said. new subsection (9A) The noble Baroness raised an important point about “must be formally established and shared by a consultative group”— consultation, although, as we discussed in the earlier in other words, there will be a direct link to make sure amendments, I am not sure—I think she acknowledged that it is established and that working together happens. this—that adding it to the list of objectives is the right Proposed new subsection (9C) states: way to go about it. But the sense of what she is trying “Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of to achieve certainly has merit. State must issue a consultation on the establishment of a consultative A number of the delegated powers in the Bill contain group under subsection (9B) or an alternative vehicle for producing consultation requirements with devolved Ministers and/or guidance under subsection (9A).” representatives of the fishing industry. However, in I am very grateful to the National Federation of that respect, the need for consultation is reserved for Fishermen’s Organisations for its help in putting this specific purposes and is envisaged as a one-off, whereas amendment together. If my noble friend the Minister this amendment proposes a more regular and longer-term cannot accept it, I hope he will look carefully at what consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said he is being suggested, which is the need to make sure that thought it was at the basement of the types of consultation we bring together all those who work in the fishing we should have but, nevertheless, we agree that there industry to come up with positive suggestions for should be more comprehensive regular engagement future sustainability. The consultative group would with relevant stakeholders. guide and advise on policy; promote collaboration Moving further than the noble Baroness’samendment, between central government and the devolved we need to make sure that the different sections of the Administrations; allow ongoing dialogue on the viability UK’s fleet—the trawlers and the 10s and so on—are of the industry; and channel the fishing industry’s all effectively represented in the process. We need to knowledge and experience, about which I spoke earlier, make sure that the spread of stakeholders is right. into the design and implementation of management We are not doing very well with this Bill because we measures. This would be hugely helpful. keep having to revisit and go back and forth to parts The consultative group would play a leading role in that we have already discussed. We have amendments the use of secondary legislation—as we all know, the later in the Bill which deal with the issue of consultation, Bill will set up systems, but a lot of the detail will come and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has said that he in the secondary legislation—to ensure that we have has more detailed proposals with regard to the an agile and responsive approach to future fisheries establishment of advisory boards and so on. management. The inclusion of the consultative group In the mix of all that there is the fundamental issue of fishery experts would guarantee that sustainability of consultation, and all these proposals have merit. issues are fully considered. It would also play a valuable We will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say role in the development and operation of the management on this issue and, when we have dealt with all the plans proposed later in the Bill. amendments we have tabled, we will try to pull together As I said, we might be adding an 11th objective—I a considered view about the best wording and the best still think number one,sustainability,is the most important way forward. We would like to get this element of the overall—but it is important that those who work on Bill right and we may well have to come back to it on the sea, those who plan for what is happening, the Report. As I say, we will listen to what the Minister scientists and the data collected should work together. has to say but we may need to pool our ideas to take I have great pleasure in moving the amendment. this issue forward, and we should do so.

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department Lord Teverson (LD): My Lords, I agree that there for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner needs to be far more collaboration. It is the big missing of Kimble) (Con): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble thing in the Bill in many ways. We have a Bill that friend and my noble and learned friend—I am sorry he covers the whole of the United Kingdom. We have is not able to be present—and wholeheartedly agree devolution in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales with the principle that fisheries management should be but I am concerned that we have no devolution in informed by the best available evidence and that there England despite the fact that the English fishery is should be close working between the UK Government, diverse—as are those of the other nations—and I have the devolved Administrations, industry, scientists and amendments later in the Bill that seek to tackle that in interested parties. All noble Lords who have spoken in a sensible and not too radical way. this shortish debate have referred to that. 455 Fisheries Bill [HL] [2 MARCH 2020] Fisheries Bill [HL] 456

It is a long-established approach for the Government Given the complexities of fisheries management, to engage widely on the implementation of policy. We the different interests and the different levels at which have an expert advisory group considering issues relating advice and engagement need to take place—be it at to fisheries policy and, because the noble Baroness, national, administration or local level—a one-size-fits-all Lady Jones of Whitchurch, raised one or two points, I body is unlikely to work. Consultation and collaboration would like to indicate which organisations are part will need to flex and adapt as we improve our fisheries of that to show the spread: the National Federation of management. Fishermen’s Organisations, the Scottish Fishermen’s In addition, I am advised that, as drafted, the Federation, the United Kingdom Association of Fish amendment would present some challenges given the Producer Organisations, the Scottish Association of devolution settlements. Officials in the UK Government Fish Producer Organisations, the New Under Ten have worked very closely with their counterparts in the Fishermen’s Association, Greener UK, the British Retail devolved Administrations to develop and draft this Consortium, the Association of IFCAs and the UK new set of fisheries objectives. We appreciate the level Seafood Industry Alliance/Provision Trade Federation. of engagement that the devolved Administrations have Additionally,we have a Marine Science Co-ordination shown in this work. The objectives are truly shared Committee, bringing together bodies across government, ambitions for our future fisheries management. I am together with senior scientific advisers. I mention in pleased to report that the devolved Administrations particular Professor Mike Elliott, director of the Institute already collaborate and consult widely in developing of Estuarine and Coastal Studies and professor of their own future fisheries management policies. estuarine and coastal sciences at the University of Hull, As I say, we will come to discussions on consultation and Professor Michael J Kaiser, professor of marine at a later stage but I hope it has been helpful to my conservation ecology at the School of Ocean Sciences, noble friend that I have set out in slightly more detail Bangor University.I mention this because it is important than I might have intended the organisations that are that your Lordships understand the range of the expert part of the expert advisory group. As we all know, we advice we are receiving. need to base what we do on scientific advice—and we The UK Government are also supporting initiatives are seeking the best scientific advice we can. from the industry— With those extra words, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment. 6.45 pm Lord Teverson: I promise the Minister that I will not Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister go through a list of even more organisations that for his response, and the two other noble Lords for should be consulted but Natural England is a key supporting—in principle, I think—the ideas behind government and Defra body for looking at everything, this amendment. Obviously, we look forward to looking including take-free zones and so on. Is it involved at at theirs in greater detail as well. all or is that done by the Secretary of State? The one thing that slightly concerns me, as the Minister rightly said, is that there is no one size that Lord Gardiner of Kimble: All the organisations that fits all. I understand that but, on the other hand, if we I have referred to are organisations rather than statutory have lots of little bits doing different things, surely you bodies. Clearly, bodies such as Natural England have need something overall, like an umbrella, which brings statutory functions and interests, and obviously are it together. This is the thought behind the amendment. part of the work. The Environment Agency, Natural It is an ongoing consultation: it is not that you go out England and other such bodies would all have an to consult on one issue, but that it would be something interest in marine areas and so on. As to the part they that goes on into the future. As my noble and learned will play in the expert advisory group—I will try not to friend Lord Mackay could not be here tonight, I say at mislead your Lordships—clearly all such statutory this stage that I will obviously read Hansard very organisations and bodies would have a locus in this. carefully, as I know he will. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. As to the initiatives from the industry itself that the UK Government are supporting to manage fisheries, these include, for example, the work of the Scallop Amendment 5 withdrawn. Industry Consultation Group and the newly created shellfish industry group. We have also held a call for Amendments 6 to 10 not moved. evidence on how we allocate additional English quota. In addition—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Amendment 11 Whitchurch, referred to this and we shall have discussions Moved by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch about it—the Bill includes statutory provisions requiring consultation and parliamentary scrutiny of proposals 11: Clause 1, page 2, line 7, leave out “, where possible,” in the joint fisheries statement, any Secretary of State Member’s explanatory statement fisheries statement and fisheries management plans. This amendment strengthens the “ecosystem objective” in The provision for consultation in these three areas— relation to the reversal of the negative impacts of fish and particularly when we get down to the fisheries management aquaculture activities on marine ecosystems. plans, which are about each and every stock—shows the level of ability and the importance of consultation. Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: My Lords, in moving Its purpose is to get these matters right and to have Amendment 11, I shall speak also to Amendment 13; sustainable fishing. both are in my name. These amendments tighten up 457 Fisheries Bill [HL] [LORDS] Fisheries Bill [HL] 458

[BARONESS JONES OF WHITCHURCH] set out, and not having too many loopholes that will the definition of the ecosystem objective, by removing enable Ministers or future fisheries management groups the get-out phrase of “where possible”. They raise the to disregard what was intended to be a firm policy. I issue of how we are going to measure what is possible am grateful for the opportunity to explore that further; and achievable. I therefore beg to move. We welcome that the Bill seeks to emphasise the need for an ecosystem-based approach to fishing and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP): My Lords, I aquaculture activities, and to minimise and eliminate rise to support Amendment 11 and the amendments in incidental catches of sensitive species. This is really my name. I note that the Minister did not ask me to important: we have a long way to go in firmly embedding meet him before today, and so I am hazarding a guess the ecosystem objectives so that we can start to restore that he is happy with all my amendments, which is a the damage that human overexploitation has caused thrill for me. I almost think I do not need to argue for over many years. them here. For too long fisheries management has been carried out in isolation from other marine management activities, However, the Conservative Party manifesto, from with little consideration of its wider ecological impact. which this Government obtained their democratic We debated this issue earlier with the amendments of mandate less than three months ago, made a very the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, which raised specific promise about fisheries. In the section entitled marine planning and the need to integrate these policies. “A Post-Brexit Deal for Fisheries”, big bold letters The recent marine strategy review found that the promised: UK is failing to achieve good environmental status in “There will be a legal commitment to fish sustainably.” 11 out of 15 indicators. The review went on to state At the moment, that is a broken promise. There is that good environmental status nothing in the Bill about a legal commitment to fish “may not be achieved for many years, unless there are further sustainably. There are ambitions, powers, objectives, improvements to fisheries management measures.” statements and a whole load of other bits and pieces, We need to drive that change as a matter of urgency. but no legal commitment. I would like the Minister to This leads us to the question: what are the legal explain when that legal commitment will be put into implications of specifying that these measures should the Bill. If it is because I have tabled my amendment, occur only “where possible”? I realise that this might that is absolutely fantastic. The Government promised be a legal nicety, and it might be necessary to put some this to the people in exchange for their votes, so I do of these checks and balances into a Bill, but I am also not think there is any way that the Government can concerned that this is a loophole through which all say that it is not the will of the people and not put it sorts of bad practice will slip. We are probing the into the Bill. extent to which the Government are committed to securing the reversal of negative impacts and the My Amendment 12 will eliminate the catching of elimination of incidental catches, rather than simply sensitive species within five years of the Bill becoming minimising them. Of course, we accept that these law. That is important because the current drafting is amendments are not perfectly worded, but we believe very weak. Sensitive species should be protected whether that the Government can go further than the current incidentally caught or not, and this should not just be position in the Bill. I hope the Minister will acknowledge minimised but eliminated altogether. Five years gives our concerns about the extent to which the existing industry plenty of time to adapt its methods and wording waters down what would otherwise be a equipment to achieve this aim. So this is not a probing strong objective. amendment; it is obviously going to be picked up. Amendment 14 takes a slightly different route to Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Baroness, defining the ecosystem objective, by specifying the Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and others in this group protection of endangered aquatic species and undersized have similar intentions. Any legal commitment to fish fish. Again, we welcome this amendment as a helpful sustainably would contain these provisions, so the way of improving the current wording. Government really need to listen to the Committee on these issues. Amendment 12, on the catching of incidental species, seeks to impose a deadline on the Government’s delivery. My Amendments 126 and 127 refer to the definitions We agree with the spirit behind this, and would be set out in Clause 48. The definition of sensitive species interested in exploring ways of achieving it; for example, is very curiously drafted, as it refers to having a reporting requirement rather than a hard “any species of animal or plant listed in Annex II or IV of deadline. Directive 92/43/EEC of the Council of the European Communities on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and Amendments 126 and 127 deal with the specific fauna (as amended from time to time)”. definition of sensitive species with regard to cetaceans, I read that out in full because it raises another very or aquatic mammals. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, important point. Unless I am mistaken, and I am sure Lady Jones, for raising this concern. I am sure she will the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, this is not speak on this in a moment. It is clear that our conservation referring to retained EU law but to ongoing, actual policies need to be at least as good as those provided EU law. Can the Minister please clarify that for me? It by EU law. seems that a decision has been made to impose this I am glad to have the opportunity to raise this issue. little snippet of EU law onto our fisheries policy, Again, it goes back how firm the Government are in which seems slightly strange. I would like to know following through on some of the objectives they have more about that. 459 Fisheries Bill [HL] [2 MARCH 2020] Fisheries Bill [HL] 460

Amendments 126 and 127 seek to improve this this something that the Minister is aware of, and that definition of sensitive species so that it is not so the Government may see fit to add to the Bill, or is it heavily dependent on EU law, which is amended from encompassed in their thinking elsewhere? time to time. This is particularly important for cetacean species: our dolphins, whales, porpoises and other Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con): My Lords, I rise similar highly advanced marine creatures, which, as to support Amendments 126 and 127, as tabled by the we all admit, suffer extremely under the treatment noble Baroness opposite, in so far as I want to hear the they currently get. It is important to have cetaceans wise words of my noble friend the Minister. I am named in the Bill in case the Government later decide concerned that cetaceans should be included; I am to remove reference to the EU directive, perhaps because sure he will tell me that they are, in some form or they do not like it any more. I am in no way suggesting another, but I want to be assured of that. On that note, that this is the only way to deal with this issue, but the I would expect sea turtles to be included somehow, as current decision to base the definition on EU law that is another species very vulnerable to bycatch. needs explaining and I think it needs to be improved. I should probably declare that I am a longstanding Coming back to the will of the people, I want the member of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Minister to reassure me that the Conservative Party’s charity as well as the Marine Conservation Society. manifesto will be delivered on this issue. I hope he can One of the problems when you talk about endangered commit to working with noble Lords from across the species is that, while some are endangered and remain Chamber, who care deeply about this and bring a great endangered, some are endangered but, after sustained deal of knowledge and expertise. On his earlier point work, might come off that list while others will go on. on the meanings of sustainability, the fact is that if I would say that it is a moving feast, but that would you do not have environmental sustainability, neither rather imply that we are going to eat them all. As we do you have social and economic sustainability. If you deal with the Bill, we need rigorous measures in place deplete fish stocks, fishers will go out of business. to ensure that those species most at risk are protected. That is far as I will go. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones 7 pm of Moulsecoomb, is perhaps a little down on this Bill. There are issues of sustainability, but it is our job in Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con): My Lords, I this Chamber to ensure that these are addressed. I am shall speak to Amendment 14 in my name and that pretty certain that the Government’s motives of—if I may say so—my noble friend Lady Jones of are genuine in this regard; I wait to hear the words of Moulsecoomb. I was grateful for the opportunity to my noble friend the Minister so that he can assure me discuss this with my noble friend the Minister when we of this. met. Currently, Clause 1(4) relates to the ecosystem objective. I agree with much of what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and lend The Earl of Caithness (Con): My Lords, I should my support to her comments. But there is currently no like to say a brief word as I have a question for my mention at all of endangered species in Clause 1(4). noble friend on the Front Bench: if the amendments in Even a cursory glance at the list of endangered species the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of shows how deeply worrying this is, and that list is Whitchurch, are carried and the words “where possible” growing by the minute. I would also like to see some are deleted, what would happen in a situation where mention of sensitive habitats, which I think could negative impacts cannot be reversed? Will the Government loosely be encompassed within the ecosystem objective; be liable for something over which they have no control? perhaps the Minister, when he replies, will tell me that I agree with my noble friend Lord Randall, who said it is. that he believes the Government are heading in the right direction. I just hope that perfection will not be Certainly I would look for some form of recognition the enemy of the good and of what we can really that we need measures to protect endangered species achieve. where they are being caught. In particular,I am conscious that dolphins and porpoises are being caught inadvertently in nets. I noticed that the Minister referred to mesh Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, I recognise sizes and gear. When we met, I spoke about the work that the proposed Amendment 11 is designed to enhance that I had seen when I visited Denmark and Sweden protection of the marine environment. It would, though, with Defra’s Select Committee. In the narrow stretches have hugely significant impacts if we took it as it is of water that they share, they are doing a lot of work drafted. Indeed, the impact could be as radical as to pool and collaborate on mesh sizes and gear. I stopping all management of the terrestrial environment, would like to think that, particularly where endangered including farming. species are concerned, we could work towards this I will explain why we have a concern about what is with our international partners. obviously a very laudable range of amendments.Requiring The reason behind Amendment 14, as I raised with the reversal of all negative impacts on the marine the Minister, is that there are species such as sharks environment is, we believe, not practicable if we are and rays which seem to have been overlooked, and also to support the UK’s fisheries and aquaculture which I believe need statutory protection for the simple sectors. As a maritime nation, the UK’s vision of reason that they reproduce more slowly.I understand— “clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and have heard evidence to the effect—that most and seas” commercial fish species reproduce more quickly. I acknowledges that we must balance the protection of believe it can be two years before sharks reproduce. Is our marine environment with our objective of supporting 461 Fisheries Bill [HL] [LORDS] Fisheries Bill [HL] 462

[LORD GARDINER OF KIMBLE] At Second Reading my noble friend Lady McIntosh thriving fishing and aquaculture sectors. As I responded referred in particular to the more vulnerable nature of in an earlier group of amendments, that is because this sharks and rays, and I understand, as she has mentioned, is some of our best and most healthy food. We must that this is the background to her Amendment 14. I remember that men and women go to sea to produce wholeheartedly agree with the purpose of protecting food for us. This approach is already supported in the endangered species and minimising the catching of UK Marine Strategy Regulations. Requiring our fisheries undersized fish. I hope I can reassure noble Lords of and aquaculture sectors to reverse all the negative the UK’s commitment to their protection through impacts of their activities on marine ecosystems, as both the existing fisheries objectives and the current proposed in this amendment, would in our view render legal protections that are in place. The Bill has a many fishing activities uneconomic. We must also definition of “sensitive species” that encompasses recognise that fishing is not the only maritime activity endangered species and goes beyond by including all that can affect the marine environment. Indeed, natural species that are due protection under Annexes II and IV events do the same. of the European habitats directive, which will become I will turn to Amendments 12 and 13, and take the part of retained EU law. In relation to sharks and rays opportunity to highlight that the UK Government specifically, these species are protected from incidental agree with the purpose of protecting sensitive species catches in the bycatch objective in Clause 1(6) of from incidental catches in fishing nets. I hope that I the Bill. can reassure your Lordships that the existing objective Our fisheries objectives are also enforced by current already provides the utmost protection possible for domestic legislation—for example, the Wildlife and these species. The Government are resolutely committed Countryside Act 1981 and the Tope (Prohibition of to minimising bycatch of sensitive species as much as Fishing) Order 2008. These establish a legal framework is practically possible. To achieve this, we are developing for the protection of both threatened and endangered UK plans of action for cetacean and seabird bycatch, species. The bycatch objective in the Bill will require working closely with the fishing industry and policies, which will be set out in the joint fisheries environmental groups. Our various bycatch monitoring statement, to address the recording and accounting of programmes are essential to inform this work. bycatch. We will also be launching a broader programme of work on protected, endangered and threatened species I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of bycatch, which will support a holistic, ecosystem-based Moulsecoomb, that the legal commitment is met through approach to fisheries management and will encourage the fisheries management plans and statement. That is the development of sustainable fisheries with minimal where the legally binding aspect of the points that she impact on sensitive species.The proposed Amendment 12, and other noble Lords have raised comes in; obviously however, would legally require fishers to eliminate all we are wrestling with the objectives at the moment, bycatch within five years; Amendment 13 would require but their legally binding nature is through the fisheries this as soon as the Act is passed. Sadly, I have to say statement and the management plans, which of course that this is not practical or realistic. I mention this encompass all stocks. because—I think the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, may have referred to this in a different set of I return to the point about the recording and accounting amendments—with the mixed fisheries that we have, of bycatch. This will help us to understand the issue of actually eliminating bycatch is not practical. It is shark and ray bycatch better, which in turn will support desirable to do all that we can, and that is why our goal the development of effective adaptive management is to reduce bycatch to as close as zero as possible, but strategies for shark and ray fisheries. EU technical in many situations the complete elimination of bycatch conservation measures that prohibit the fishing of is sadly not possible. Some sensitive species will inevitably certain sharks and rays as protected species will be be caught in nets and gear despite the implementation incorporated into UK law as retained EU law. Catches of effective mitigation measures. of undersized fish are also included as part of the The wording bycatch objective, which states that “to minimise and, where possible, eliminate bycatch” “the catching of fish that are below minimum conservation is accepted by environmental organisations and fishers, reference size, and other bycatch, is avoided or reduced”. and is in various international agreements such as the The purpose of the amendments is therefore already Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans achieved through the existing fisheries objective and of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North reinforced with existing legislation. Seas, ASCOBANS, as well as existing legislation such as technical conservation measures and regulations. On Amendments 126 and 127, I agree with the So we do have a concern because of what we think purpose of protecting all species of cetacean from would be a disproportionate impact that would incidental catches in fishing nets. Again, I hope that I significantly and adversely impact the industry. can reassure noble Lords that the existing objective The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, provides the utmost protection possible to species. I Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, also seek to extend the also say to my noble friend Lord Randall that the objective beyond incidental bycatch to include deliberate Convention on International Trade in Endangered catch. Again, I am advised that this extension is not Species and the CITES regulations include turtles. required as Article 12 of the habitats directive already That is an international agreement to which the UK is prohibits the deliberate killing of sensitive species. a signatory. 463 Fisheries Bill [HL] [2 MARCH 2020] Fisheries Bill [HL] 464

7.15 pm legal definition of what is and is not possible, but as The definition of “sensitive marine species” used in long as you say that you will do something “if it is the Bill already includes all species of cetaceans by virtue possible”, in my book that means it might not happen. of its reference to Annexe IV of Council Directive 92/ Of course, I am not saying that our wording is right, 43/EEC, which will become part of UK law as retained but an ecosystem-based approach should be an all- EU law. I say to the noble Baroness that I am advised encompassing approach that determines what is possible that the proposed amendment is already covered by and what is not, what is measurable and which deadlines what we have. I will be very happy to discuss this should be used to achieve all that. We should not need matter in detail with officials. I am afraid that I would to have all the extra caveats that are in the Bill. As I have loved to have had meetings with every noble Lord say, I realise that I was pushing the limits of all this, who submitted amendments, but there was such a wave but I feel as if we have left that door a little too far of them for about 48 hours last week that it was not open and we might have to come back to it again. possible to meet everyone. However, if possible, I like I heard what the Minister said about sensitive species to have such meetings, which give us the ability perhaps and I will certainly want to look very carefully at it in to iron out some of the misconceptions before we Hansard. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, embark on the Bill in the Chamber. Lady Jones, was reassured about the retained EU law. I hope that the noble Lords who have tabled these It seemed to make sense to me but she may take a amendments will find my explanations sufficient. I different view on that. We will certainly need to check reiterate my practical point to the noble Baroness that it again. We may come back to some of these issues there are really serious issues when one starts requiring but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the elimination; with the best will in the world we want to amendment. have minimal bycatch as close to zero as possible, but actually achieving zero can be incredibly difficult. Amendment 11 withdrawn. However, with innovation and all that we need to do at a practical level, we want to find ways, possibly involving Amendments 12 to 14 not moved. new fishing nets and gear, to reduce it. I hope that I have been able to emphasise the Government’s clear commitment to sensitive marine Amendment 15 species and to the marine environment, both through Moved by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering the Bill and through other strategies because this is 15: Clause 1, page 2, line 16, at end insert— part of a continuum of other pieces of legislation that “( ) the fisheries policy authorities cooperate with make up our statute book. On that basis, I ask the international parties as appropriate.” noble Baroness whether she feels able to withdraw her amendment. Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, this is another probing amendment, following on from the Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: I thank the Minister discussion I had with my noble friend the Minister in for that answer. I also thank the noble Baroness, preparing for Committee. Its aim is to tease out from Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for mentioning the wording the Government which international fisheries policy in the Conservative manifesto about the legal commitment authorities they intend to co-operate with. to fishing sustainably. This goes back to the discussion The back narrative of this is that in paragraph 71 of we had at the beginning of today’s debate: there seems the political declaration published in October, it is to be a chasm between our understanding of what stated, in respect of fishing opportunities, that: fishing sustainably is, and indeed what was implied by “The parties should cooperate bilaterally and internationally the Conservative manifesto, and what the Minister has to ensure fishing at sustainable levels, promote resource conservation, told us it is. We use the word “sustainable” to mean and foster a clean, healthy and productive marine environment, environmentally sustainable but earlier the Minister noting that the United Kingdom will be an independent coastal was adding all sorts of other interpretations of the state.” word. We need to thrash this out because I feel This will be extremely important when, as we see later uncomfortable with “sustainable”having a much broader in the Bill, a fisheries policy authority, when publishing definition that encompasses economic and social a fisheries management plan, has to have regard to sustainability. That is not what I mean; nor do I think changes in circumstances, one of which could be changes it is what was intended by what is in the manifesto. in the UK’s international obligations. The Minister said that the legal binding would be My noble friend has expressed very clearly our through the fisheries statements and so on, but when it desire to maintain our role in UNCLOS—the United comes to the legal requirement it is different if you use Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Presumably his interpretation of “sustainable” or ours. I do not we were an independent member of UNCLOS before think we have sorted that question. We need to come we joined the European Union. I would like confirmation back to it and we will, as I am sure the Minister that our status in that regard has not changed. I know will be aware. that there is a verbal commitment to our continuing On our amendments on the ecosystem-based approach, engagement with ICES—the International Council I realise that taking out “where possible” was perhaps for the Exploration of the Sea—but will we maintain a stretch too far, but equally it brings up the question the same level of spending as in the past? I am not of how you measure what is possible. Anyone can say clear,either,about which budget this will come from—the that something is not possible. I am not sure of the Defra budget or another departmental budget. It would 465 Fisheries Bill [HL] [LORDS] Fisheries Bill [HL] 466

[BARONESS MCINTOSH OF PICKERING] Later in the Bill we come to amendments where, I be helpful to know that. We took evidence from ICES hope, we can strengthen it so that it notes and acts in connection with our work on the energy and on the real world, where this resource is not exclusive environment sub-committee, and I have visited the to us. ICES headquarters in Copenhagen twice. It is important I welcome the Bill in relation to the scientific side, for us to continue to rely on the excellent research which, to give the Government their due, is well advanced work that it does. in terms of using ICES and stock assessments,for example, I am not aware whether there will be any change in and I hope that the Minister will tell us about a lot of our status in relation to the Food and Agriculture other things that they are doing with regard to keeping Organization—particularly the fisheries and agricultural within those international areas. However, we are a aspects of its work—or what our dependence on it will member of all sorts of regional fisheries organisations, be, but that is also extremely important. One non- such as the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, governmental organisation that I presume we have the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission and left, now that we are an independent sovereign state, is various tuna organisations, as well as UNCLOS, as the European Environment Agency. It is of particular the noble Baroness mentioned. These are basic, historic interest—I want to place this on record—that fundamental aspirations that we need to exceed to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s father, make sure that we have the sustainability that we need. Stanley Johnson, is a great expert in this field and was a leading environmentalist in the European Commission for a number of years before he was elected to the Lord Grantchester (Lab): My Lords, I rise briefly to European Parliament. He is still a highly regarded and support the thrust behind Amendment 15, in the name internationally respected environmentalist in his own of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, right. Will the Government commit to continuing to which seeks to add a reference to appropriate international work very closely with, and rely on the work of, the co-operation to the scientific evidence objective—an European Environment Agency with regard to fisheries extension to the debate on a previous grouping. I am but also on other environmental work—particularly sure that we will return to the point about science and agriculture, when the Agriculture Bill comes up? I international co-operation throughout Committee—and, hope that we can keep the door open to the work of depending on the Government’s clarifications, perhaps the European Environment Agency. on Report as well. I would be interested to learn about the nature of As your Lordships’ House has observed and debated our new relationships with international parties such on numerous occasions in recent years, fisheries as Norway, Iceland and the Faroes that the Bill sets management is complicated not only by the fact that out, particularly—dare I say—if a fisheries dispute fish have no knowledge of, or respect for, the boundaries arises. The Government have clearly stated that we of national waters, but that each species’ habitat shifts will not be subject to any jurisdiction of the European as ocean temperatures and conditions fluctuate—a Court of Justice, but I argue that there is a degree of phenomenon that is likely only to increase with climate urgency about fisheries policy—and other policies—since change. This was the thrust of the point just made by we are now an independent coastal state. Who will the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. arbitrate in the event of any fisheries dispute in our The Government are committed under international new relationships with Norway, Iceland and the Faroes? law to co-operation with neighbouring states. They More importantly, what will the dispute resolution have indicated that they want annual negotiations mechanisms be with regard to any dispute with the with the EU on access to UK waters and quota, other 27 European Union countries? If, for example, although on the premise that a fishing deal has been France was to follow through with its threat to blockade concluded by 1 July. While commitments to work with the continental ports, despite a fisheries agreement neighbouring states exist, such co-operation is important being in place, thereby preventing our fisheries products particularly for the gathering and analysis of scientific accessing the market—a very real prospect—what would data. We are lucky to have world-class scientists and the dispute mechanism be? We need to know. I am not conservationists in the UK, but that does not mean aware what it would be and I seek reassurance on that. that we cannot engage with and learn from others International relations are particularly important from wherever they come, and with organisations that because—I place this on record—the UN Convention the UK may also wish to co-operate with long into the on the Law of the Sea requires the UK to participate future. in management based on an agreement on straddling I hope therefore that the Minister will be able to stocks, which means that we would need to negotiate offer assurances that his department will engage with almost everything. With those few introductory remarks, international partners as appropriate, not just to agree I look forward to clarification on the issues that I have high-level terms on access but to share science, practical raised this afternoon. I beg to move. knowledge and best practice, and that this will be included in the Bill. Lord Teverson: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for introducing at last 7.30 pm the other people who deal with our fish stocks—other national authorities. The fundamental flaw of this Bill Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con): My is that it seems to ignore the rest of the world, while Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh our fish stocks—most of them, including their spawning of Pickering for her amendment in relation to international grounds—are outside our exclusive economic zone. co-operation and for her indicating that it is a probing 467 Fisheries Bill [HL][2 MARCH 2020] Mental Health: Unregulated Treatment 468 amendment. I agree with the sensible recognition that Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: I am grateful for international co-operation will be important in the the opportunity to have this short debate. Alarm bells collection of scientific data. are ringing given the leaked email over the weekend The UK currently works closely with international about the lack of importance apparently attached by bodies, particularly through our membership of ICES— the Government to farming and potentially to fisheries, the International Council for the Exploration of the so my noble friend the Minister will understand why Sea—which advises on the status of fish stocks. I am there is considerable concern among the fisheries delighted to confirm that the UK is in the process of community. Your Lordships will have heard what she establishing a further agreement with it. This will said about the financing for ICES now being a matter ensure that the advice that we require is in place so for the Budget and in particular for the spending that the UK can continue to meet its international and review. I hope that there will opportunities for us to domestic commitments and obligations on sustainability. contribute to that. It was helpful to learn what the The UK’s share of funding for ICES will be a matter dispute resolution mechanism will be, but my heart for the Budget and the spending review. sinks a little, because if one thought that a case before The UK will continue to make a strong contribution the European Court of Justice took a while, I shudder to international co-operation on data collection and to think how long an average case involving fisheries related fisheries science. The scientific evidence objective before the International Court of Justice would take stipulates that the management of fish and aquaculture to conclude. activities is to be undertaken on the basis of the “best I am sure that we will return to these issues at a later available scientific advice”. The best advice can be stage, so I shall not press the amendment now. I beg obtained only by co-operation. The UK also has leave to withdraw the amendment. obligations through the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to co-operate with other coastal states in Amendment 15 withdrawn. relation to shared stocks. Such co-operation includes the sharing of scientific research and data. Amendment 16 not moved. The UK is also a contracting party to a number of multilateral environmental agreements that have a remit House resumed. Committee to begin again not before within the marine environment and for marine species. 8.36 pm. These include the International Whaling Commission and the convention on migratory species and its sub- Mental Health: Unregulated Treatment agreements. Working with a variety of parties, both Question for Short Debate domestic and international, is therefore covered within the existing objective. 7.36 pm To ensure that we are able to fulfil these obligations Asked by Baroness Jolly and to co-operate with international parties, including in the scientific space, the Bill gives us a power under Toask Her Majesty’sGovernment what assessment which regulations can be made relating to specific they have made of the impact of treatment by technical matters as long as they are for a conservation unregulated and unregistered persons offering purpose or a fish industry purpose. psychotherapy or counselling services upon the mental One leg of the conservation purpose means that health and wellbeing of their clients. regulations can be made for the “purpose of conserving, improving or developing marine stocks”. Baroness Jolly (LD): My Lords, I thank my noble This will allow the UK Government and the devolved friend Lord Marks for bringing this issue to my attention Administrations,forwhomequivalentpowersareprovidedat and for introducing me to someone whose family had theirrequest,tomakeregulationstomeettheseinternational been turned upside down as a result of the “treatment” obligations for scientific and research purposes. of a member of it—I have used inverted commas, as it My noble friend also asked about the forums for is was not treatment recognised as such by any professional dispute settlements. These are covered by Article 287 body. I am also grateful to noble Lords who will speak of UNCLOS. They are: the International Tribunal for in this debate, bringing both professional and personal the Law of the Sea, the International Court of Justice, experience. I hope that the Minister or one of his an Annex VII arbitral tribunal and an Annex VIII colleagues will be able to meet me and the family special arbitral tribunal. I hope that answer her question. member to understand to some extent the harms that As for other international organisations, we have came from unregulated counselling. prioritised joining five regional fishing management I want to touch on what it takes to be a professional organisations now that we have left the EU on the counsellor; the importance of registration, regulation basis of where the UK has a direct fishing and/or and protected terms; online and face-to-face counselling, conservation interest. They are: the North East Atlantic and the research about harms done to individuals by Fisheries Commission, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries unregulated counsellors. Of course, I will expect the Organization, the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission Minister to clarify the role of the NHS in the world of and the International Commission for the Conservation counselling. of Atlantic Tunas. In addition, we shall want to join The terms “counsellor” and “therapist” are not the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization— protected. All of us could call ourselves such. While NASCO—where our interests are focused primarily on the number of unregistered therapists is low, the conservation. With this explanation, I ask my noble expectation is that clients or patients working with friend to consider withdrawing her amendment. unregistered counsellors and psychotherapists are more 469 Mental Health: Unregulated Treatment[LORDS] Mental Health: Unregulated Treatment 470

[BARONESS JOLLY] When he sums up, will the Minister tell the House vulnerable to the possibility of harm. This is because where the progress is with this ambitious claim since they have no assurance of the level of training or the publication of the NHS Long Term Plan? competence of the practitioner nor a redress system to This issue is only becoming more urgent. Waiting access should something go wrong. A register of qualified lists for non-primary care NHS mental health services counsellors is held by the Health and Care Professions are long, and patients are turning to private healthcare Council, and I would not wish there to be any confusion solutions which are less likely to be affiliated to voluntary between these perfectly legitimate individuals and others regulators. Also becoming more common are online who are not. The register protects the public from the treatments, where there is little accountability for any harm that could be caused by people practising in a harms caused, making it easier than ever for patients profession when they are not qualified. to be exploited. Online counselling is a different matter Let me be clear: it takes many years to train to be a altogether, as there are no boundaries. Mobile phone psychiatrist. One has to qualify as a doctor, undergo apps abound to increase well-being, gain confidence the extra qualification in psychiatry and then work and sort personal problems. But there is not a lot of under supervision until ready to practise. Training as a research on this. We know there is no regulation, no psychotherapist takes 400 hours over several years way of knowing where the site is based, or the and, in most cases, this is paid for by the individual, as qualifications of the counsellor, or a guarantee that are their own therapy sessions which are a prerequisite you will be connected to the same person each time. for qualification. Counsellors have a shorter timescale The risk is real. Without protecting these terms, we but, typically, they would have a relevant degree and leave the profession open to abuse by those who practise then several years in training before they qualify. They pseudoscientific therapies with the outcome of doing can work in both the NHS and the private sector. harm to their clients. If they are not on the register, they are not qualified. It is vital that the Government assess the impact of If they are using one of the terms on the register to these harms. I have been contacted by individuals describe what they do, without qualification, they are whose stories, although anecdotal, paint a picture of a breaking the law.Article 39(1) of the Health Professions real risk to their mental health and safety. The stories Order 2001 makes it a criminal offence for a person, are extremely distressing. They tell the tale of vulnerable with intent to deceive—whether clearly or by people putting their trust in therapists only to be implication—to say that they are on the register of the exploited and isolated from their loved ones. It is no Health and Care Professions Council, or use a designated exaggeration to say that lives have been ruined. It is title to which they are not entitled, or say falsely that essential that these harms are documented so that we they have qualifications in a profession regulated by can find solutions. One possible solution, which I the HCPC. In times past, they would just have been favour, is statutory regulation. This has been debated called quacks. before in this House, largely driven by my noble friend Lord Alderdice. Unfortunately, the issue has been To demonstrate how easy this is, a BBC journalist, pushed off the agenda in recent years, but now is the Jordan Dunbar, recently obtained a counsellor time to revisit it. The Government have previously qualification certificate online for the price of £12.99—the stated that statutory regulation may be introduced if cost of a session in a 24-hour gym or a wind-proof harms to the public can be demonstrated and this risk umbrella. At present, it is up to patients to make sure cannot be addressed through other means. Will the that counsellors are qualified and registered with an Minister give some indication of what the department accredited body. The onus is on the patient, not the might do to help with the issue of assessment of provider. A well mocked-up certificate, accompanied harms? by a brass plaque, offers confidence to an anxious and vulnerable member of the public looking for someone Patients say that reporting harms through voluntary to share their confidence with. However, practitioners regulatory bodies can be an arduous process. This has interact with people at some of the most distressing been demonstrated in cases such as that of Patrick times in their lives, leaving them vulnerable or worse. Strud. His therapist subjected him to so-called conversion Research has shown that fewer than two-thirds of therapy. Mr Strud had to wait two years for the BACP patients are aware of whether their therapist is a to withdraw her membership. The Government have member of a professional body. indicated that they will outlaw conversion therapy. We all need to be comfortable with the way we are, and Many people who use private services do so because not feel that we are different. I hope that the Minister the NHS service is hard to access and there is a waiting agrees that even one such case is too many and that time. A quick look at the NHS website does not our current system needs updating. When will the mention waits and these may be quite short if access is Government take action on those therapists who offer via your GP. The NHS website also has an online these services? assessment tool called “Mood self-assessment” which takes a very top-line look at depression and anxiety The most concerning issue is that, even if these and makes sensible recommendations based on the regulatory bodies strike off a practitioner for misconduct, results. I used it this morning; it was time not terribly there is no legal requirement for that individual to well spent. The NHS Long Term Plan promises to stop practising. This includes those who are struck off “deliver the fastest expansion in mental health services in the for very serious allegations, including serious sexual NHS’s history, with thousands more adults being able to access misconduct. When I agreed to table this Question for talking therapies for common disorders and better support being Short Debate, I was surprised at the number of people off ered to children and young people.” who wrote to me with tales of family members who 471 Mental Health: Unregulated Treatment[2 MARCH 2020] Mental Health: Unregulated Treatment 472 had been harmed through counselling, not helped or 7.50 pm healed in the process. Although voluntary registers, Lord Astor of Hever (Con): My Lords, I have seen such as the BACP and the UK Council for Psychotherapy, at first hand the devastating effect on a family whose provide some safeguards, they are not enough, and lives have been turned upside down as they see a loved they say that they would welcome regulation. one being exploited and isolated from them by a bogus Given the experience and interest of all noble Lords, therapist, so I am delighted to support the noble I am sure we are in for an excellent debate. Baroness, Lady Jolly. She has said everything that I would wish to have said and asked the questions that Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con): My Lords, as I would have asked. this is a time-limited debate with a dozen speakers, I I will make one further point: Section 76 of the remind the House of the three-minute speech limit. Serious Crime Act covers domestic abuse. The Government accept that individuals can be coercively controlled, and they have rightly made it illegal for a 7.46 pm spouse, partner or parent to coercively control somebody Lord Giddens (Lab): My Lords, I congratulate the with whom they have a relationship—that is an noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on introducing this debate imprisonable offence. However, in the case of coercive so ably. We live in a world of dazzling change, in which control, the law does not apply equally to everyone. A the digital revolution and AI are among the major person coercively controlling their daughter would be driving forces transforming our lives. This is new breaking the law, but the same person coercively territory for all of us, but children and young adults controlling someone else’s daughter is not covered by are especially on the front line. The online world is the law. There does appear to be a gap in the law, so almost wholly unregulated. Many traditional pathologies, will the Government look into this? such as addiction, appear in new forms. According to The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, made the point NHS estimates, 75% of people in England experiencing that the terms “counsellor” and “therapist” are not mental health problems get no treatment at all. It is protected—all of us could call ourselves such. I have not surprising, therefore, that the internet is awash been sent a list setting out some of the differences with, in the words of the Question, “unregulated and between healthy therapy with a trained professional unregistered persons” offering treatment for mental and unhealthy therapy with an untrained person. A disorders, including in the shape of a swarm of apps trained professional therapist is accountable and does offering counselling and therapy. Almost all of this is not hide behind fronts, whereas an untrained person is without any backup from registered healthcare not. Their qualifications are recognised by an outside professionals. Will the Minister update the House on body,whereas an untrained person is often self-appointed the progress of the NHS’s Moodzone, which contains and usually hides behind fronts. Healthy therapy a directory of approved mental health apps? However, rehabilitates and is for the benefit of the client; unhealthy there is surely a need for a much more comprehensive therapy debilitates and is often for the benefit of the strategy to deal with this new Wild West frontier. therapist. A healthy therapist’s objectives are agreed with the client, as opposed to being the therapist’s own The issues here for mental health are far-reaching goals; they promote healthy relationships with others, indeed, since it is hard for any national Government to as opposed to fostering alienation from others. A stamp their authority on the use of data that are in a healthy therapist will aim for the independence of the large part global. Young people today spend a high client, as opposed to their dependence, and will proportion of their life online. Digital addiction is a psychologically enable the client and not disable him huge issue in itself, with largely unknown consequences, or her. In healthy therapy, questioning is encouraged, since no previous generation has grown up in such a whereas a bogus therapist will discourage it. context. Have the Government set up any research projects on how to cope with its likely longer-term The noble Baroness has raised a really important impact and its pathologies? issue. 1 look forward to hearing the Minister’s ideas on how vulnerable people can be protected from unregistered It is good to see that the Government are seeking at and often very dangerous quack therapists. least to grapple with these issues, both in the context of the NHS and more widely. They have announced plans to upgrade the ways in which health apps and 7.53 pm other digital technologies are reviewed and monitored Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB): My Lords, I by the NHS. To do so, it is said, Ministers are working should first declare an interest; I am married to a with the digital corporations to try to establish proper chartered psychologist who works for the National standards of scrutinyand transparency—daunting though Health Service. I too congratulate the noble Baroness, that is, given the speed with which the digital world Is Lady Jolly, on securing this debate and on her very evolving. A new digital health technology standard is powerful speech. being developed. The Government have rightly chosen to prioritise It is clear from ongoing research in this country, in mental health in recent years, but, if we are going to the US and elsewhere that the selective use of Al could take mental health seriously,we really must take seriously make a major contribution to diagnostics, which would the question of who becomes a mental health practitioner. mesh with the reforms that I believe are needed. As my We do not allow unqualified people to carry out final minute elapses, will the Minister say whether the surgery, but we allow anybody to call themselves a Alan Turing Institute is at the forefront of such research? therapist, a counsellor or even a psychologist. I recently 473 Mental Health: Unregulated Treatment[LORDS] Mental Health: Unregulated Treatment 474

[LORD MACPHERSON OF EARL’S COURT] with who they were engaging and whether that person did some research of my own. I came across a college was professionally accountable and trained. The offering a level 2 “Introduction to Counselling” course. Government, however, did not accept it. They said The course has no specific entry requirements. It is that they still had to be persuaded about matters of online and to pass it requires just 80 hours of study. effectiveness—though, frankly, that has nothing to do The advertising material states: with regulation and registration. They have now had a “The course is approved by the ACCPH”— further 20 years to address that question. the Accredited Counsellors, Coaches, Psychotherapists During that 20 years,professions such as medicine—my and Hypnotherapists, and— own core profession—social work, clinical psychology, “at the end of this course students will be able to join and become nursing and, indeed, the functions of the NHS itself a member of the ACCPH. The ACCPH is an independent self- have all had to undergo increasing amounts of regulation regulated professional body for counsellors, psychotherapists and and supervision, and absolutely properly so. Are the hypnotherapists.” Government still convinced that, while doctors, nurses, I went to that body’s website, which states that, clinical psychologists and social workers all need to be “joining as a professional member will prove to potential clients regulated, psychotherapists, almost alone among all that you are fully qualified.” these professions,can be left to simply regulate themselves? Now, for all I know this course, which costs £379— rather more than the £12.99 course previously referred Let us consider that the vast majority of such to—may be very good value for money, but I question therapists are operating on their own, outside the whether 80 hours of tuition, without any practical NHS, and not as part of a core profession. Those who face-to-face experience, is sufficient to become an are part of a core profession are, in that sense, already accredited counsellor. Needless to say, the Professional regulated. Working within the NHS, they are almost Standards Authority does not recognise the ACCPH all working not on their own but as part of multi- as an accredited register, but it is expecting a great deal disciplinary teams, and they are operating within a of often vulnerable and anxious people to know that health service structure which is itself highly regulated. the PSA exists in the first place, to visit its website and So it is not just a question of psychotherapists; the to understand what it means when it lists a register as context in which they are working is so much more “in” or “out”. open and flexible and therefore has the potential for abuse. My three minutes are virtually up, but, 20 years The Five Year Forward View for Mental Health after my Private Member’s Bill, I think that the recommended, four years ago: Government’s time ought to be up in terms of doing “The Department of Health should consider how to introduce something serious about the registration and regulation the regulation of psychological therapy services.” of psychotherapy and counselling. I was optimistic that things would change, but the department dragged its feet. The recent statement by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood of North Oxford, 7.59 pm that Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab): My Lords, I join “The Government has no plans to extend professional regulation the thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for to psychotherapists or counsellors” securing this debate. I absolutely support the aim of is, for me, at least, deeply disappointing. Her statement properly regulating psychotherapy and counselling. I that will make two quick points. First, there should be “We urge anyone seeking the services of a psychotherapist or routes into counselling for people from all walks of counsellor to take the time to find a reputable, insured and life. Secondly, supervision for counsellors should include appropriately qualified practitioner”, casework supervision. sounds a little complacent. I hope the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, will tell me that I have I had the privilege to work for over 20 years misunderstood that statement. as a director of the charity Employee Counselling Service. During that time, I must have worked with 60 or 70 counsellors, all accredited and registered. I 7.56 pm came to appreciate the importance of different routes Lord Alderdice (LD): My Lords, like other noble into counselling. The clients we worked with included Lords I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Jolly for refuse workers, school caterers, hospital orderlies, care securing this debate. As a psychiatrist in psychotherapy home workers, train drivers and office workers. Half for the whole of my professional life, I found that the the clients were men; they were people who probably question of unregulated psychotherapy came to me as never dreamed in a million years that they would be a problem quite early on. It is now 20 years since I talking to a counsellor. It was important that the introduced a Private Member’s Bill. I did not do that counsellors they worked with understood something simply off my own bat; I spent many months consulting of their lives and the day-to-day pressures that made it all the major psychotherapy and counselling bodies in hard to step back and take time to reflect. They often this country—and almost all, even at that time, were needed to prioritise changes to help secure their jobs, entirely in agreement about the need for regulation of homes and health before they could give space to psychotherapy. other issues. However, it is not an easy business. Indeed, the The world of counselling can sometimes seem designed practice of psychotherapy is difficult to regulate, so we for middle-class therapists working with middle-class focused on a Bill that would require the registration of clients. Counsellor supervision is generally focused on psychotherapists—in other words, the protection of supporting the counsellor, which is of course essential. title, so that people would at least know the person A common factor in the reports of BACP disciplinary 475 Mental Health: Unregulated Treatment[2 MARCH 2020] Mental Health: Unregulated Treatment 476 hearings is that counsellors work alone and without 8.05 pm accountability until a client makes a complaint. It Baroness Murphy (CB): My Lords, I have been a should not be left to the client to have to identify psychiatrist for 40 years, and it will not surprise your problems. Lordships that I agree with every word that has been In the voluntary sector, it was usual for counsellors said in this welcome short debate of the noble Baroness, to receive casework supervision. This, more than anything Lady Jolly. else, safeguards the client from counsellors who may I have long been astonished that we have such lose focus or get out of their depth in their work. regulation for practically every healthcare profession Casework supervision, which involves a supervisor under the sun except psychotherapy. Art therapists, regularly discussing the direction and progress of each for example,are registered and regulated; so are osteopaths case, safeguards both the client and the counsellor. I and chiropractors, who both have their own regulatory hope the Minister will take up these two issues to councils. Yet we left the Professional Standards Authority ensure the well-being of clients and counsellors. struggling to think through how it would approach this problem. It could not regulate this massive amount 8.02 pm of mental health care without doing something about Lord Garnier (Con): My Lords, I join other noble it, and so it developed its accreditation scheme— Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for and all credit to it for doing so—but the time really introducing this debate. At its heart, this debate is has come. about preventing the exploitation of the vulnerable—not Efficacy is clearly not the issue at stake because, of the mentally ill, the elderly or children, who are after all, there are many qualified physicians and protected quite widely by the law already, but of those psychiatrists who are not very efficacious. Nevertheless, whose vulnerability, be it emotional or psychological, we try to ensure that they do not cause positive harm permits them to be preyed on by charlatan counsellors. by making sure they have appropriate training. The These charlatans suborn them through their cynical issue is whether a person is setting themselves up to promises of peace of mind and future happiness; provide care and support to somebody else. That is through lies about their families and bogus therapy healthcare, and somebody doing that needs to be they suborn them into breaking off contact with them. regulated. Frequently, since they target people with money, they I have heard it said that some of these therapists do charge exorbitant fees for doing so. They are purveyors not want to be regulated. I am sure they do not, but if of deceit, misery and distress. They need to be stopped. you were here in 1856 and listened to the antipathy in I first came across this form of quackery in the late the debates towards the notion that you might regulate 1970s, when I was acting for the Daily Mail against a doctors, you would hear the same arguments. The time cult called the “Moonies”, who broke up families has come. wholesale and brainwashed children. Most of them There are now over a million new people coming were adult children in a vulnerable and emotional into the health service to ask for psychotherapy every state, lonely and far away from home. I was reminded year, and we provide that to them, admittedly through of them in about 2013 or 2014 when I came across the accredited organisations. Nevertheless, there are a huge case of a young woman who had been suborned into number of people getting it, and it is clear that the leaving her family, cutting herself off and paying this time has come to offer proper regulation and reassure extraordinary woman vast sums of money for her the people coming to ask for help that individuals have quackery. Supported by David Cameron, the then got at least some accreditation and that we can protect Prime Minister,Sir Oliver Letwin, then the Government’s the public from harms. policy chief, and Mr Tom Sackville, a former Home Office Minister, I attempted to amend the law to 8.08 pm prevent these quacks operating and exploiting their victims. Although we tried, we could not find an Baroness Barker (LD): My Lords, I thank my noble opportunity to amend the law and achieve our aim. friend Lady Jolly for the opportunity to talk a bit However, it can and has been done. It has been about conversion therapy, or the use of non-accredited done in France, Luxembourg and Belgium. They have counsellors offering psychotherapy or counselling to passed laws to amend the criminal law which have those seeking help for their unwanted same-sex attraction, withstood challenges in the Strasbourg court under which is prevalent in some churches. It is defended by the European Convention on Human Rights. With some religious groups as a legitimate part of their care, provision can be made to protect freedom of faith, but the majority of churches, alongside the religion, assembly and association so that, for example, professional bodies, see it as a very harmful practice. adult children can if they want to, even if their parents In December 2018, there was a small study of object, join closed religious orders, give their money people who had been subjected to conversion therapy. away or just cut themselves off from their families. But Of those, two-thirds said that they wanted to see the quacks should not be permitted any longer to exploit practice made criminal. The remaining third did not emotionally vulnerable adults. want to see it criminalised, but they did want to see it This cruel practice must stop. We should ensure stopped, because it had profound and harmful effects that it does. I suspect that we give more protection to upon the people who were subjected to it. cats and dogs against quack vets than to emotionally That is the point I want to make, following that and psychologically vulnerable adults against quack from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. We counsellors. It is time we did better. go to religious organisations in the extremes of happiness 477 Mental Health: Unregulated Treatment[LORDS] Mental Health: Unregulated Treatment 478

[BARONESS BARKER] who is here tonight—and leading academics in seeking and of despair. They are rarely neutral places in which amendment to the Serious Crime Act 2015, which to transact matters such as counselling. Therefore, it is outlaws controlling or coercive behaviour, but in a only right for us to ask the Government, when they domestic context only, where perpetrator and victim bring in some form of regulation—and they will inevitably are in an intimate personal relationship or live together have to—not to allow, as they do in other cases, any as family members. The Act needs to go wider to cover form of exemption for religious organisations. There so-called therapists causing psychological damage and should be ethical standards to which all practitioners, distress to their clients and their clients’ families and no matter the context in which they practise, conform. friends. Such legislation would be simple and effective. The Government’s LGBT Action Plan recognised Will the Government bring forward such an amendment this as a very important issue for our community. to the Act now? There are some particularly vulnerable young people who are perhaps locked into religious communities, 8.14 pm from which it is difficult to find a way out or alternative point of view. It is of the utmost importance that we Baroness Thornton (Lab): I thank the noble Baroness, make sure that, when those young people live their Lady Jolly, for securing this debate and I assure the faith, they do so in safety. Therefore, I ask the Minister noble Lord, Lord Marks, that we will be unanimous in to update us on what is admittedly a technically difficult this discussion. What the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, area of law but one that is of the highest importance has done is to illustrate the problems and dangers of a to a number of people and one that, I would suggest, sector that is not properly regulated, and it goes from is urgent. one extreme to another. One extreme was outlined in the letter that we all 8.11 pm received about unregulated abuse, coercive control and cultic abuse. It makes the point outlined by the Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD): My Lords, noble Lord, Lord Marks, about recognition of coercive I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Jolly for control covering domestic matters only and failing to securing this debate and her clarity in opening it. We recognise the harm that can be done by the sorts of have had an excellent and, so far, unanimous debate. organisations that were graphically described to us by In a humane society, unqualified practitioners may the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. Therefore, not set themselves up as doctors and dentists to practise the law is inadequate in this regard and needs to be medicine or dentistry without training, supervision or addressed. The Minister must realise that the whole regulation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and House is unanimous in thinking that that needs to others have eloquently argued. We now promise, and are happen. He needs to know that, when the first Bill comes promised, parity of esteem between mental and physical along in which we can bring forward that amendment, health, which the Mental Health Foundation defines we probably will. The Government would be wise to as do it themselves, because they will lose otherwise, “valuing mental health equally with physical health”, because the House is united in this. with commitments for The other extreme is the regulatory framework, “equal access to the most effective and safest care and treatment with which all noble Lords are familiar. It is significant … equal efforts to improve the quality of care … equal status within healthcare education and practice”. that the Professional Standards Authority felt it needed If those commitments are to be more than glib platitudes, to draw attention to the inadequacies in this direction, we must end the scandal of untrained and unregulated in the letter that we received from Christine Braithwaite, self-styled therapists, counsellors, healers or life coaches the director of standards. She says: peddling untested and dubious treatment to the “for a number of years we have requested changes to the Rehabilitation psychologically and emotionally vulnerable and suffering. of Offenders Act 1974 and the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 to include Accredited Registers to better strengthen the We have heard harrowing accounts of victims, often protection they are able to provide. To date, no amendments have young, brainwashed by unscrupulous and controlling been made.” individuals. These charlatans play on their clients’ If the body that registers the different counselling and suffering, deluding them into a false belief in their psychoanalytic organisations is saying that this is treatment, often conjuring up in them fake memories inadequate,as well as saying that the regulatory framework about their early years and inducing unhealthy long-term is inadequate, the Government really need to sit up dependence on the therapist and rejection of families and listen to what is being said right across the piece. and friends. For this, they often take significant fees and frequently inflict devastating and long-term damage. It is a matter for the Government to regulate this This debate has pointed the way to what is needed. profession. Statutory regulation will offer great protection to the public. The Government also need to look at First, we must insist on licensing and regulation for the titles of counsellors and psychotherapists to make therapists, for which my noble friend Lord Alderdice sure that they are recognised as such and are being and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, have protected under statutory regulation. I look forward long argued. We need an approved body that maintains to what the Minister has to say. a register of practitioner members, who must secure qualifications, comply with a clear statement of ethical standards and submit to supervision. 8.17 pm Secondly, I support the call by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell (Con): My Lords, I join others in Lord Astor, the charity Family Survival Trust chaired thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for raising by Tom Sackville—a former Home Office Minister, this important issue. Before I make my formal comments, 479 Mental Health: Unregulated Treatment[2 MARCH 2020] Mental Health: Unregulated Treatment 480

I should like to recognise the clear and strong feelings trained and accredited practitioners with appropriate expressed on this issue in the House today, which one skills in providing individualised support to people cannot help but feel moved by. On a personal note, with mental health problems. The intensity and duration perhaps I may share that I have myself lost a friend to of each IAPT therapy is designed to optimise patient manipulative individuals. It was a friendship that I outcomes and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, valued very much, so I can feel some of the hurt that alluded to, all IAPT clinicians should have completed Members have expressed about that sensation of losing an IAPT-accredited training programme with nationally loved ones in such difficult circumstances. agreed curricula aligned to NICE guidelines. High- I shall move on to the more formal comments intensity therapists in IAPT services should be accredited about the Government’s approach to mental health by the relevant professional bodies and all IAPT clinicians services.I want to reassure the House that this Government should be supervised weekly by appropriately trained absolutely put the modernisation of mental health supervisors in the manner rightly described by the services at the heart of our commitment to the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan. health of the British people. The message on mental None the less, we are aware of concerns regarding health has come up again and again in the Chamber the treatments that some people receive from some and I have stood at this Dispatch Box many times to services outside the provision of government services. hear it. I want to reassure noble Lords that that My noble friend Lord Astor spoke very movingly message is 100% understood. about healthy and unhealthy therapies, and in this I need hardly remind some of those here that matter he is entirely right. The anecdotes recounted by spending on NHS mental health services has already noble Lords, including the story from the noble Lord, risen under this Government from £10.9 billion in Lord Macpherson, about the ACCPH, are clearly 2015-16 to £12.5 billion in 2018, and that under the disturbing. Weacknowledge that some private individuals mental health investment standard, for the first time are delivering therapies that may be putting patients’ clinical commissioning groups are increasing the amount safety at risk. I have read the Unsafe Spaces blog and spent on mental health services by at least the amount the contributors’ concerns. I watched the BBC of their overall budgets. The noble Baroness, Lady documentary that noble Lords referred to. Who can Jolly, asked for clarification of the role of the NHS. read these stories without feeling a sense of sadness? I Let me reassure her that the NHS Long Term Plan think of my own lost friend. also explains that there will be a comprehensive expansion Let us be clear. The Government are committed to of mental health services, giving 380,000 more adults a proportionate system of safeguards for the professionals access to psychological therapies, which represents a who work in the health and care system. I join the huge expansion in the Government’s investment in noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, in paying tribute to mental health. the Professional Standards Authority and its important However, I recognise that as well as expanding the letter that was circulated among noble Lords, and size of mental health services provision, the Government describing its recommendations as interesting. need to understand the importance of ensuring the quality of the services that are delivered. We agree Where practitioners pose a direct risk of harm to absolutely that service users should be able to expect the health and well-being of patients, legal avenues will high-quality psychological therapies that bring about and must be explored. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, positive impacts on mental health and recovery. The described many of the legal remedies. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, asked specifically what noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, that coercive or progress has been made on mental health goals in the controlling behaviour has been an offence since 2015. NHS Long Term Plan. I reassure her that 12 pilot sites The Government remain committed to supporting the have already received £70 million of funding for new police to bring offenders to justice and to ensuring that specialist services and that that is the first step in a victims have the support they need to rebuild their £975 million investment as part of the long-term plan lives. to transform community mental health services. However, more rules are not always the answer to The Government are committed to improving access every problem. While statutory regulation is sometimes to psychological therapies through the Improving Access necessary where significant risks to users of services to Psychological Therapies programme. Each year, cannot be mitigated in other ways, it is not always the more than 1 million people access IAPT services and most proportionate or effective means of assuring the the Government are committed to expanding them safe and effective care of service users. massively so that by 2023, 1.9 million people will be We do not take this position without careful thought. able to access those services. I can reassure the noble We have previously considered the introduction of Baroness, Lady Jolly, that waiting times, which she statutory regulation of counsellors and psychotherapists. asked about, for access to IAPT services have also We have considered various Private Members’ Bills, improved to the point that 98% of patients seeking a including from the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. None first referral get that referral within 16 weeks, against a the less—in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, target of 95%. and others who have asked the question straight—I The IAPT service provides a gold standard, highly will give a straight answer: we currently have no plans professional service, routinely monitored on outcomes to do this. This may come as disappointing news but, achieved, and the professionals providing these services as I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate, there undergo regular outcomes-focused supervision. These is a wide range of mental and physical therapies on principles ensure that therapies are delivered by fully offer in modern Britain and an important focus on 481 Mental Health: Unregulated Treatment[LORDS] Fisheries Bill [HL] 482

[LORD BETHELL] 8.29 pm personalised approaches to mental health care and treatment. What might suit one person today might be Sitting suspended. snake oil to another. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, asked about health Fisheries Bill [HL] apps. The NHS app library contains a number of Committee (1st Day) (Continued) mental health apps, which undergo a number of quality 8.36 pm checks before they are allowed on the website. Some apps, such as Chill Panda and Cove, are currently Relevant document: 6th Report from the Delegated being tested in the NHS. Powers Committee The regulation of these services is complex. Issues that must be considered carefully include the impact Amendment 17 of any regulation on delivery, quality, ensuring that we Moved by Lord Teverson do not stifle innovation, ensuring that we do not 17: Clause 1, page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (7) discourage individuals from working in mental health and the principle of consumer choice. However, I Lord Teverson (LD): My Lords, I suspect that this assure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who amendment will not take up a lot of the Committee’s have spoken in this debate that the Government remain time. I want to understand what the equal access committed to addressing the important recommendations objective is trying to do and what its implications are. of the— The objective says that “the location of the fishing boat’s home port, or … any other connection of the fishing boat, or any of its owners, to any place Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: My Lords, I am in the United Kingdom” sorry to interrupt, but I know the Minister has a few does not affect their rights. If I read that objective as a minutes left. There was mention of the Serious Crime local fisher—perhaps in Mevagissey, the nearest port Act. Does the Minister recognise that Act’s limitation— to me, or in a smaller fishery down further west, let which the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and I mentioned—to alone those along the south coast—I would be concerned the domestic context? Will he do something about it? that any decision by government to allocate anything Will he also confirm agreement to a meeting to discuss at all could be challenged by a larger fleet, or by the future of regulation? someone from further round the coast, and could disrupt or exploit a well-managed local fishery. I understand entirely that the last thing we want to do is Lord Bethell: My Lords, I was just reaching the key compartmentalise the United Kingdom in any way, segment of my speech. With kind permission, I will and I think the system works fairly well as it is at the finish the speech, since time is of the essence. moment. This is the one area where perhaps I would I assure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords like to keep the status quo, rather than introduce who have spoken in this debate that the Government this objective. remain committed to addressing the recommendation My concern is that this makes local fisheries susceptible in the Five Year Forward View for Mental Health to to challenge when it comes to fishing rights and their consider the regulation of psychological therapy services, ability to look after particular stocks or to get Marine including their inspection. The department is currently Society accreditation. This is a threat. I would be very considering issues around regulation of this area. I interested to hear from the Minister why the Government assure the Chamber that we will carefully consider the want to do this and whyI should not fear the consequences potential impact on services and the people who use for the lesser fleets in the United Kingdom. There is them. I will endeavour to update the House on progress also a slight risk that this might encourage further as it happens. consolidation of the market. We already have market I assure in particular the noble Baronesses,Lady Barker concentration and it concerns me that those are the and Lady Jolly, that the Government are committed to fleets with the money, capacity and ability to buy or to ending the practice of conversion therapy. The 2018 trade fishing rights, so this is an area of susceptibility. LGBT Action Plan clearly outlined that commitment. When I first got involved in fisheries in the 1990s, I The Government Equalities Office is currently working used to talk regularly to fishing organisations down in on this. the far south-west. Publicly, there was always a concern In the meantime, I extend my thanks to the noble about the Spanish fleets. Whenever you put a microphone Baroness for securing this debate and to all noble Peers or camera in front of someone, they were the big here today. It is an important debate. The noble Lord, threat. If you talked to them otherwise, it was the Lord Alderdice, said there had been no progress in the Scots who came down and took everything out of last 20 years. We now have more than 50,000 talking the water when they had nothing better to do north of service professionals on the registers, accredited by the the border. I am not for a minute saying that is the case Professional Standards Authority. The department is today, but I have a real concern here and I would be currently considering the regulation of psychological very interested to hear from the Minister why I should therapy services, as per the recommendations in the not be so afraid. I beg to move. Five Year Forward View for Mental Health. This is progress. The department will set out further details of Lord Lansley (Con): My Lords, perhaps I might its considerations on these matters later in the year add a question to this. To understand what the equal and Ministers will be happy to update the House as access objective is about, one should look at Clause 17 this work develops. of the Bill. If a Scottish fisheries authority were to 483 Fisheries Bill [HL] [2 MARCH 2020] Fisheries Bill [HL] 484 grant a licence to a non-UK fishing boat under the the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is concerned that our new regime, that would be a licence to fish in Scottish provisionsrelatingtoequalaccesscouldleadtounintended waters. Both this current objective and, indeed, the consequences,whichcouldincludeafurtherconcentration related amendment on the determination of fishing of the fishing industry, and incentivise the purchasing opportunities say that, when a ship is licensed, or of additional quota from other fisheries authorities. when fishing opportunities are allotted, this cannot be The UK Government believe that the equal access done to British boats on the basis of where they come objective in the Fisheries Bill is vital as it sets out a from. If I understand correctly—I put this simply joint commitment for all four fisheries administrations because I am sure the Minister will put us both right to work together to ensure that boats based all over when we have presented our questions—the object of the UK enjoy the same rights of access to fish in UK the equal access objective is to make sure that, when waters, no matter where their home port is. This is the administrations put forward their joint fisheries important, since many vessels fish in the waters of statement, they must do so on the basis that a British multiple fisheries authorities. As with all the objectives, fishing boat can go anywhere in British fishing waters. this objective has been carefully developed and designed That seems a desirable objective because otherwise we with close discussion with the devolved Administrations. could well end up with not British fishing waters but This is one of the key points that I would like to make entirely separate Scottish, Welsh or English fishing to the noble Lord: the objective is limited to access to waters. I do not regard that as the objective we are waters only and does not grant any access to quota. seeking, so to that extent, I rather like keeping the equal access objective and I would not see it removed Amendment 95 relates to UK quota-setting and from the Bill. seeks to remove the restriction on setting different maxima by reference to a UK boat’s home port or other connection. I will provide some further detail on Lord Grantchester (Lab): The noble Lord, the provisions in Clause 23. Clause 23 relates to the Lord Teverson, poses some serious challenges in his determination of the pot of UK fishing opportunities. amendment. Indeed, quota allocation is already a It does not relate to the subsequent allocation of those highly complex and opaque feature in fishing. The opportunities to the fisheries administrations, or to tabling of Amendments 17 and 95 affords us a brief their subsequent distribution to the fishing industry. opportunity to probe the Government over how equal Total UK fishing opportunities are defined by the access will work in practice once the constituent parts criteria set out in the clause: the description of sea of the UK have the freedom, at least theoretically, to fish, the area of the sea and the description of the determine their own quota allocations and wider fishing vessel. regulatory frameworks. The reason for the stipulation in Clause 23(4) that In view of the earlier discussion today, I am sure the fishing opportunities cannot be set based on any reference Minister will argue that these amendments are unwise to a boat’s home port or connection to a particular as they undermine the work that the Government have part of the UK is to ensure that this power can be used already undertaken with the devolved Administrations to set only the overall amount of UK-wide fishing in drafting the Bill. I also pre-empt his commitment opportunities. It cannot be used to determine how that the various issues raised by the noble Lord, quota, once divided between the fisheries administrations, Lord Teverson, will come out in the mix once the Bill is allocated to each administration’s industry. This is is in place and the various statements and management clearly a devolved matter. plans begin to appear. Be that as it may, I am sure that fishers in different parts of the UK will be interested Amendment 95 would therefore give the Secretary to hear his comments on how all of this will work of State the power to set quota within devolved in practice. competence—for example, setting quota for boats fishing out of Peterhead in Scotland. This is clearly not For example, how will the Government and devolved something that would be desired by the Committee; Administrations work together to ensure that the nor do I think it is the noble Lord’s intention. He may regulations of each part of the UK are compatible, hope that the amendment addresses the need for local being both available and accessible to those who will boats to have access to local quota. This is a matter for have to rely on them? How will issues such as enforcement each administration, but Clause 17, which my noble be managed to ensure that the devolution settlement is friend Lord Lansley referred to, maintains the current upheld, while also respecting the equal access objective, approach on this: each administration will use transparent as it is currently drafted, when they could diverge over criteria, including environmental and socioeconomic time? This topic arose during the Commons Committee criteria, when deciding how to allocate quota. The stage on the previous Bill, so I hope that the reassurances amendment therefore does not achieve the exact effect offered tonight will meet all the Committee’sexpectations. the noble Lord may have hoped for. A significant amount of time has passed since those debates and we are only a short time away from I also provide further reassurance that the methodology potential problems ceasing to be purely hypothetical. for allocating quota to industry within England is published in the publicly available English quota management rules, alongside the allocations themselves. 8.45 pm Each administration also has its own quota management TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department rules. The Government are committed to supporting for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner fishers around the country and we are engaging with of Kimble) (Con): My Lords, I am most grateful to them to ensure that our coastal communities see the noble Lords for this short debate. As I understand it, maximum benefit from the quota that we hold. 485 Fisheries Bill [HL] [LORDS] Fisheries Bill [HL] 486

[LORD GARDINER OF KIMBLE] I will provide a further piece of information. The Amendment 18 equal access objective in Clause 1 preserves the status quo. Currently all UK boats can fish in all UK waters. Moved by Baroness Worthington Clause 17 provides for each administration to license 18: Clause 1, page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (8) and foreign boats in its waters, since licensing is a devolved insert— matter. In practice, each administration will delegate “(8) The “national benefit objective” is that the public its licensing functions to, or allow the administration exploitation of the fishery for commercial, recreational of, a single UK licensing regime through the single and environmental purposes brings benefit to the United licensing authority. Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom.”

I am very happy to have a further discussion with Baroness Worthington (CB): I must confess to feeling the noble Lord if there are any residual matters of that perhaps I am not the best person to lead off this concern. I hope that I have got across that the equal segment of the debate, because my amendment seeks access objective is precisely on the basis to ensure— to change subsection (8) of the clause but the group as particularly with many vessels fishing in the waters of a whole will take into account a wider range of issues multiple fisheries authorities—that this is equal access relating to the definition of “national benefit”. I look for all rather than the way in which the noble Lord forward to hearing the many views that will be expressed describes it. Our intention is for the four constituent around the amendments in this group. parts to have the ability to fish in UK waters. My amendment simply seeks to make the point—I fear this is a return to the discussion at the start of the Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB): My Lords— debate—of what it is that we are doing in the handing out of a fishing quota, which is held in public trust, for Lord Gardiner of Kimble: I have not finished yet. So private benefit. I therefore seek to amend the description that is where the position lies. I will now take the noble of the national benefit objective as set out in the Bill Lord’s intervention. from a fairly narrow definition that “fishing activities of UK fishing boats bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom”, Lord Cameron of Dillington: I apologise to the and suggest that it should be reworded that the national Minister. It may be that he cannot answer this question benefit objective is that but, when it comes to the future division, he said that the boats may have access to the waters but not “the public exploitation of the fishery for commercial, recreational and environmental purposes brings benefit to the United Kingdom”. necessarily to the quota, which explains many of the problems. Is the quota going to be divided into the So the amendment seeks to make it clear in the Bill areas that currently exist—7A, 7B, 7C, 7D and 6—or that it is more than simply the fishing activity for are we going to have completely new areas? How which we are granting quotas that constitutes a national localised will these areas be? Will they be near to the benefit. Cornish ports that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is I know that noble Lords will speak to other worried about? It may be that that has not been amendments around the principle of the UK benefiting decided yet. from the granting of quotas, but my amendment seeks to probe why it is that we are defining national benefits so narrowly and restricting it to fishing activities and Lord Gardiner of Kimble: I will avail myself of fishing boats. The phrase seems a little odd, given that, receiving some information and let everyone in this as we have discussed, the founding principle of the Bill debate know. Clearly, it is a devolved matter and is that we have a national asset in our fishing resource therefore all three devolved Administrations and the that is held in trust for the public and granted out to UK Government will make those considerations. That fishing activity. I feel that the national benefit has been is why I mentioned in particular the English quota too narrowly drawn and too narrowly attached to management rules. These are matters of responsibility fishing activities and fishing boats. for the devolved Administrations and ourselves in terms of quota. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord That is the purpose of the amendment. As I say, the will feel able to withdraw his amendment. rest of the amendments in the group seek to consider and assess different aspects of the national benefit—but I beg to move my amendment. Lord Teverson: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his question because even if we use the traditional ICES areas, those do not reflect the boundaries between Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con): My Lords, my the devolved nations. It is an interesting question. Amendment 19 is trying to deal with the same matter, but it attempts to use the activities of fishing fleets to I thank the Minister for his explanation. I feel bring reassured by that. If it does not relate to quotas and “social, economic and employment benefits to the United Kingdom refers only to vessels steaming around in circles doing or any part”. nothing at all, who can complain? However, it does In other words, it is intended that the activities of not seem to be much of an objective if that is the case. fishing boats should not merely benefit the fisheries, On that basis, I withdraw my amendment. but also the rest of the United Kingdom, and in particular produce social, economic and employment Amendment 17 withdrawn. benefits. One can see that this is a bit wider than the 487 Fisheries Bill [HL] [2 MARCH 2020] Fisheries Bill [HL] 488 proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, vessels licensed to fish in UK waters also to land in the but it is just a question of what precisely this “national UK. I am slightly more hesitant about that approach; benefit objective” is aiming at. the last thing we would want is retaliation, or reciprocation. I think it does not aim at benefiting the fishing industry The last thing we would want in, say, Norwegian itself, but at benefiting others through the activities of fisheries, is for British boats to have to land their catch the fishing industry. Paragraph (b) of my proposed new in Norway. I do not really think that that would work. subsection, which contains a reference to fish and aqua- I am not so bothered about foreign vessels that are culture activities, manages to achieve the same sort of licensed here; as long as they pay us good money, or thing. In other words, in both cases the activities of we have swaps on quota allowances, that would be the boats and the management of the fleets are supposed sufficient. But we do need to tackle this area of effective to bring these general social, economic and employment foreign ownership of UK quota and bring some of benefits to the United Kingdom and parts of it. that back home to our ports—so that they can thrive The issues in this amendment were brought to my and make the most of the new situation that the noble attention by the national authority, or corporation, of Lord, Lord Grocott, described. the fishing fleets of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Scottish people are somewhat separately Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab): My Lords, we represented, and it is not altogether surprising that have five amendments in this group: Amendments 20, their attitude is that the Bill is pretty good and perhaps 21, 77, 80 and 84. First, a number of noble Lords have the best thing to do is to leave it alone. It may be that sought to amend and clarify the definition of “national they have ideas about the present situation, and the benefit” in different ways. The fact that different Peers way in which the Bill is constructed is, from their point have tried to do that shows that this is open to a huge of view, very acceptable. range of interpretations. It is a rather vague, catch-all phrase so it is right that we should probe it; it needs Lord Teverson: My Lords, I will speak to my further clarification. It is also important that we return Amendment 78, which is in a similar vein around to our earlier discussion. If the phrase is too vague, it national benefit. It is quite clear, certainly in the could be used to override some of the other important south-west, that if all the fishing vessels with British objectives that could be subsumed under it. So it is flags actually landed their catch—or a major proportion important that we understand exactly what it means, of it—in their home port, the number of landings in and that it holds its place proportionately with all the the UK and the viability of those ports would be other objectives; it is clearly better defined by that. hugely increased. Of course, we have here the issue of I think we are all still struggling with those objectives. what used to be called “quota hoppers”, around which We identified at the beginning of the debate that everything has gone staggeringly quiet during the Brexit eight—or however many there are—is too many, and negotiations and the formulation of the Bill. asked how we rank them and so on. The vaguer they As we know, a little under half of the English—not are, the more difficult any of that ranking will be. The Scottish—quota is effectively owned by Dutch, Spanish phrase “national benefit” is so vague; we need to do a or Icelandic interests. Grimsby, which I think used to bit more work on the phrase itself but also on how to be the world’s or Europe’s largest fishing port, now interpret and define it. We need to bottom out that has a very important fish processing industry, but discussion; maybe the Minister can help us a bit more hardly any activity in terms of landings. Most of the with that. quota there is effectively owned by Dutch vessels that Our Amendment 20 has a simple intent: it seeks to land in Holland. ensure that foreign vessels fishing in our waters should So, we have a question: how do we change that? have the same obligation to respect the national benefit— The Bill does nothing to change this area. In a way, it however we define it—as required of the UK fleet. suits the fishing industry establishment to keep things This should be the basis on which licences are granted. as they are, because those are the members. Whether We believe it is a straightforward and uncontroversial vessels are English or foreign-owned, those are the amendment; we hope that noble Lords will agree. members of the fishing organisations. That is why, in Amendments 21, 77, 80 and 84 raise a very different Amendment 78, I have used the scientifically calculated issue—some of these amendments have been grouped number of 75%, which came out at the end of my rather oddly, but I shall address them as they have spreadsheet, to suggest what proportion of fish should been set out—which is the concept of a national be landed by English-flagged—or British-flagged, landing obligation. We believe this is vital to ensuring depending on how we want to define the devolution the long-term health of our coastal fishing fleets and thing—vessels. It is a probing amendment, but only in communities. This is spelled out in detail in Amendment the sense that something needs to be done in this area. 84, where we specify that all licensed boats should be Very few other EU member states have allowed the subject to the national landing requirement to land a foreign ownership of quota in the way that we have. percentage of their boat’s catch at a port in the UK. We decided to do that. We are where we are, but we Our proposal is that the percentage of the catch should need to make sure there is a national benefit; I assume be set at 70%, rather than the noble Lord’s 75%, that is why this objective is here. unless the Secretary of State determines otherwise and sets out his reasons, but we could discuss trading 9 pm that figure. I very much support the majority of the amendments This is an important principle and we set out our in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. However, argument for it at Second Reading: a requirement to one of them slightly suggests an obligation for foreign land at UK ports could herald the renaissance of our 489 Fisheries Bill [HL] [LORDS] Fisheries Bill [HL] 490

[BARONESS JONES OF WHITCHURCH] we want to end up. I am glad that both speakers from coastal communities, which is long overdue. While the Labour and the Liberal Democrats have endorsed the numbers vary according to the type of fisher, we know view that this should apply only to fishing in our that for every job created at sea many more are created exclusive economic zone; it would need not to apply, on land as a result of the need for landing, processing or to be able to be exempted, for distant-waters fishing. and onward transportation, for example. It is estimated I hope noble Lords will forgive me for saying that to that about 10 times as many jobs are created on land set 70% or 75% in primary legislation would make no as at sea, and currently many of those jobs are going sense whatever. Putting that to one side—and saying to other EU ports. Meanwhile coastal communities that therefore the amendments do not work—it raises currently have higher rates of unemployment and a very interesting question: does the Bill, under any lower wages. They have the additional challenges of a circumstances, allow fishing authorities in the United drain of young people, social isolation and poor health. Kingdom to set any kind of landing requirement? I do A policy based on a national landing requirement not know the answer; I cannot find it anywhere. I would provide more local jobs for local people and wonder whether it is thought potentially never to be would save fishers having to travel hundreds of miles necessary under any circumstances. It seems to me in search of a fair price for their catch because then, that there is a potential mischief involved in the ownership we hope, the market would come to them rather than and use of quota, which could be remedied either them having to chase the markets overseas. through the allocation of quotas or through a landing If we were to introduce a minimum landing requirement. I am not sure that Ministers have told us requirement for fish caught in our waters, that would whether under any circumstances they would use the provide a level of certainty for the sector that historically former and never the latter. That is an interesting has been lacking. That in turn would, we hope, facilitate question. investment and innovation, which could help with Lord Mawson (CB): My Lords, I will not detain the other matters such as decarbonisation and, as I say, House for long. I am encouraged by this debate. Last would bring local regeneration based on good year I sat on the committee on regenerating coastal and environmental principles. I hope noble Lords will see seaside towns. We looked in a lot of detail at what is the sense of this argument and support the amendments. happening to our seaside towns—at the poverty and Amendment 78, tabled by the noble Lord, great difficulty they are experiencing. I am certainly not Lord Teverson, which he has just eloquently described, an expert on what the quotas should or should not be, also deals with the requirement to land a proportion but this kind of discussion is a source of encouragement, in UK ports. He has an exception for landing in and is putting its finger on the issues and on the distant-water fisheries, which I think we accept; you opportunities that may come to these towns if we push can take the principle that we are suggesting only so these ideas. It feels as though there is movement on far, so there is merit in that. That is also an issue that getting to grips with the positive opportunities that we have covered in our Amendment 90. We need more may now result from the time we are in. I thank the clarification on it but I think we are all fishing in the Committee for this helpful discussion. same water around those principles. We also welcome the tabling of Amendment 18 by Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I wonder the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. It would bring whether this question of landing obligations will need other forms of fishing, such as recreational fishing, to be resolved in the fisheries negotiations during the into the scope of the national benefit objective. Again, coming “passage of arms” with the EU. I believe that this underlines the fact that the phrase is very vague there is a good deal of voluntary landing in our ports and therefore you could tack all sorts of things on to by foreign fishing vessels at the moment, and one of it. However, we support the principle. We have other the reasons for that is the efficiency of the transfer amendments that spell out in more detail the importance from these ports to the European market. They are of recreational fishing. Perhaps it could be better sited able to get their fish stocks to the European market elsewhere but it is an important principle and we are from some ports very quickly—in a way that, if they happy to find the appropriate place to put that wording had to take them back to Spain or southern France, for the future. I look forward to the Minister’s response. would take much longer and probably be less efficiently organised. I do not know whether it needs compulsion, but compulsion would need to be authorised as part of Lord Lansley: My Lords, if my noble friend will the future negotiations. forgive me, I want to interject for a short moment, not Lord Teverson: Perhaps I may intervene on the about the definition of the national benefit objective noble and learned Lord. We should not forget that we but on the second part of this group of amendments, are talking about British boats in British waters—it is relating to a landing requirement. It struck me as a not about foreign vessels. Sorry, I will sound like useful debate to have in Committee. For a start, it Michael Gove or the Prime Minister, but this has allows us to expose the question of whether Ministers nothing to do with the European Union or the want to be in the position to impose any kind of Commission: it is purely a British decision, apart from landing requirement under any circumstances. foreign vessels and where they have to land. That is Personally, I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, why we have raised the issue. Lord Teverson, say that setting a landing requirement for foreign boats in UK waters would simply lead to Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I can see that, if it is the imposition of the same requirement on British restricted to British vessels, it is perfectly within the boats in other waters, and I am not sure that is where powers of this Parliament, but I am not at all clear 491 Fisheries Bill [HL] [2 MARCH 2020] Fisheries Bill [HL] 492 that it would be right to impose that kind of obligation Other parts of the Bill, in particular paragraph on British vessels without attempting to encourage (a)(ii) of the sustainability objective in Clause 1, already foreign vessels to do the same. As I mentioned at state the UK Government’s aim of ensuring that fishing Second Reading, something like this is already happening, activities are managed so as to achieve economic, and in pretty small ports—though they have a large social and employment benefits, which I hope provides amount of traffic, usually overnight, when refrigerated the reassurance that my noble and learned friend vehicles go straight to Europe and arrive quickly at Lord Mackay seeks in his Amendment 19. This would their markets, which are pretty hungry for the result. include the management of recreational and environmental use of fisheries. As such, Amendment 9.15 pm 18 does not need to be included because the Bill achieves the same effect as the noble Baroness, Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, this debate has Lady Worthington, seeks. I am happy to have further turned into rather an intriguing one, with lots of conversations if that presents difficulties for her, but contributions. I am grateful to noble Lords for these that is the position as I understand it. amendments, which all relate to a matter emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson; that is, ensuring There are some further, practical issues to consider that coastal communities which rely on fishing see a in relation to these amendments. It is not clear what benefit from fish caught in UK waters. The UK any national benefit requirement for the recreational Government agree that this is a matter of the upmost sector could be or for those exploiting the resources importance, but I suggest that other routes beyond for environmental reasons; nor would it be easy to this Bill should be used to secure this outcome as well. consider how any wider national benefit requirement Amendment 18 would include recreational and could be delivered. environmental use of fisheries in the national benefit objective. Amendment 19 seeks to ensure economic, The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, seeks through social and employment benefits from fish and aquaculture Amendment 20 to extend the scope of the objective activities. The objective as it stands in the Bill highlights that the fishing activities of UK fishing boats should that UK boats, including foreign-owned but UK-flagged benefit the UK to include the activity of foreign boats, should provide economic, social and employment vessels and, through Amendment 21, to require that a benefits to the UK when fishing against the UK’s majority of fish be landed by UK boats for processing fishing opportunities. This is currently achieved through at UK ports. I shall speak to these amendments in a licence condition requiring all UK vessels to demonstrate turn. an economic link to the UK. The Bill also extends the In the future, any access by non-UK vessels to fish ability to prescribe an economic link in respect of in UK waters will be, as all noble Lords know, a foreign vessels licensed to fish in the UK through the matter for negotiation. Access will be on the UK’s foreign vessel licensing regime, if this is negotiated terms and for the benefit of UK fishermen. Our access internationally. negotiations will always seek to bring environmental, Perhaps I might take a moment to set out what the economic and social benefits to the UK. Therefore, economic link requirement currently stipulates of UK through our negotiations, benefits to the UK from any vessels. The requirement is delivered through the licensing foreign vessels fishing in our waters would be sought regime and can be controlled and enforced by the and secured, without such an amendment to the Bill. fisheries authorities and the Marine Management Organisation. The economic link is a devolved matter, There would be a number of practical challenges to but currently this licence condition is UK-wide, as delivering the change that Amendment 21 seeks to agreed in the 2012 fisheries concordat between the impose. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my Administrations. noble friend Lord Lansley referred to this.The imposition of this requirement on UK vessels would make many I say in reply to my noble friend Lord Lansley that vessels’ existing business models inoperable, as they we do not need legislation to amend or set an economic rely on non-UK markets for the sale of their catch. link; it is managed through licence conditions. The This is often the case where prices are higher or, in conditions of the economic link are that vessels must some instances, where appropriate port facilities in the land at least 50% of their catch of quota species into UK are not available. There could be implications for UK ports; have at least 50% of their crew normally safety if vessels are not able to access suitable ports at resident in the UK; spend at least 50% of operating the appropriate time.Further,enforcing increased landings expenditure in the UK; or demonstrate an economic into the UK could result in lower prices for the catching link by other means. In practice, this last option sector. usually involves the donation of quota to the under-10 metre quota pool. The amendment refers specifically to fish for In 2018, the majority of vessels met the economic “processing in UK ports”. While we want to encourage link by landing at least 50% of their catch in UK ports. greater processing in the UK, as it creates value and Twenty-seven vessels met the economic link through brings employment, there are challenges in practice. other economic link criteria. Of the 27, 22 complied We have some world-class processing plants in the by donating 714 tonnes of quota worth £2.5 million, UK, but they are not necessarily found in ports. It will and five employed a crew the majority of whom were also take time and money to invest and build processing resident in the UK. This quota was put into the capacity. We must also recognise that markets for under-10 metre pool, which is managed by the MMO, processed fish need to be developed and there can be and vessel owners who have valid licences are entitled good value to be gained from the sale of, for example, to fish for it. unprocessed fish or live shellfish. 493 Fisheries Bill [HL] [LORDS] Fisheries Bill [HL] 494

[LORD GARDINER OF KIMBLE] I realise that this has been a fairly lengthy explanation, Landing requirements currently exist as part of the but I hope that it has been helpful in demonstrating economic link condition attached to all UK vessel the UK Government’s commitment to, first, seeing a licences, as I have already detailed. This proposed real benefit from fishing for our coastal communities, amendment would make it more difficult for other and secondly, ensuring that our fishing industry is mechanisms which benefit UK coastal communities given enough flexibility to flourish. I understand the to operate, including quota donations made under the rationale behind all the amendments, but I have sought economic link condition, resulting in a fall in fishing to outline some of the practical intricacies of the opportunities for the inshore fleet. Schedule 3 to the fishing industry. Bill sets out vessel licensing powers, which we will One of the generous remarks by the noble Lord, continue to use to impose economic link conditions on Lord Teverson, repeated today, is that the more you UK registered boats. The economic link policy is learn about the fishing industry, the more you realise being reviewed, to ensure that it remains as effective as how little you really know, because of its intricacy and possible as we leave the CFP. However, I believe that a complexity. I have tried to outline some of the points licence condition remains the most flexible and effective of difficulty that the amendment presents, although I way of achieving this objective. absolutely respect the importance of supporting our coastal communities. With all that in mind, I ask the Amendments 77, 78, 80, and 84 seek to introduce a noble Baroness at this stage to withdraw her amendment. new national landing requirement and apply it to vessels licensed using powers in the Bill. While the Government support the intent of these amendments, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: I shall read what the which is to ensure that the UK benefits from its Minister said in detail in Hansard. He said that this is valuable natural resources, we believe that their aims riddled with complexity, and I am sure that that is are addressed both in the Bill through the national true, but did I understand him to say that there is a benefit objective, as I have previously highlighted, and working party already working on issues around the the provisions to license foreign vessels for the first national landing requirement? Is it that he thinks this time, which would allow us to impose on them is a good idea but, as we were discussing earlier, requirements which are equitable with our licensing everything has to be agreed with the devolved nations regime for UK boats. and therefore we cannot agree anything in the Bill? Is this something that is already in train but has not yet There is already work being undertaken on this been signed off? Is that really what he is saying? I topic by the Government and by the devolved understand that there may be details underneath it. Administrations. The amendments as drafted would not be appropriate to include in the Bill as they do not Lord Gardiner of Kimble: I repeat what I said: work respect the devolution settlements—the economic link is already being undertaken on this by the Government being a devolved matter, as I have set out. As made and the devolved Administrations. It is work in progress, clear in the UK Government’s fisheries White Paper, but that is the right route, particularly as these are the economic link conditions will be reviewed with a devolved matters and that is important. The Government view to strengthening them. The Scottish Government want to find ways: although we must and do respect consulted on this issue three years ago. We wish to the devolution settlement, there are many respects work with the devolved Administrations to consider where we have been seeking to work together and why whether having the same economic link conditions we are legislating on behalf of all four parts of the across the UK would simplify matters for industry. United Kingdom on this matter. It is the case that we are acting in concert with the devolved Administrations. I am sure noble Lords will agree that, in developing We are very mindful that many of these areas are options for reform, we must consider the best interests devolved, but we think that in the interests of simplicity of the whole fleet, including those British vessels that and straightforwardness there are many areas where land abroad when it is most profitable, and ensure that we would like to have a single focus, as it were. vessels can continue to operate as successful businesses. As we review the economic link, we will carefully consider the impact of changing the required share of Lord Teverson: Perhaps I can be helpful to the landings into UK ports. Setting a fixed percentage for Minister, in that the whole area of foreign ownership required landings into UK ports by all vessels could of British-flagged vessels is an English issue, and I am present practical difficulties, as the infrastructure for sure that we can solve it in that way and help the handling large increases in landings may not be in Minister get this into the Bill. It is an English, not a place, and it could disrupt existing supply chains. Scottish, problem. That is one thing we can do. The Furthermore, it would not necessarily benefit the inshore other thing is that, on the under-10 fleet redistribution fleet, as quota that has been donated to the under-10 of quota, of course the big promise of the Government metre pool in the past would, instead, be required to is that the pie is going to increase anyway, so there will be landed into UK ports by foreign owned vessels. The be plenty for the under-10 fleet. If the Government’s current drafting of the Bill respects and reflects the promises, in terms of taking back control and getting devolution settlements, where each Administration is rid of relative stability, is what we manage to achieve, responsible for setting licence conditions, including then that should not be a problem. the economic link. It would therefore not be appropriate What I particularly want to do at this stage is to go for the Secretary of State to be legislating for the through a thought experiment with the Minister. Taking whole UK, as proposed. the point that it is the Government’s objective, quite 495 Fisheries Bill [HL] [2 MARCH 2020] Fisheries Bill [HL] 496 rightly, post Brexit to have a much larger pie—because this is a really odd phrase and that the narrow definition the fish stocks are within our EEZ and we will have of “national benefit” needs revisiting as we go through this whole idea of zonal attachment—we will have the Bill. However, at this stage I am happy to withdraw much larger fishing opportunities for the fleet as a this amendment. whole. So, with that bigger pie, are we going to allow the foreign-owned British companies with British-flagged vessels to take even more quota than they have now, or Amendment 18 withdrawn. have the Government got a cunning plan to make sure that this expanded quota stays and resides more with Amendments 19 to 21 not moved. real British fishing fleets? I would be very interested to hear the Government’s answer. Amendment 22

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: For tonight, I will say Moved by Lord Grantchester that these are matters under active consideration. We 22: Clause 1, page 2, line 34, after “minimised” insert “, in take the point that there is scope for additional quota particular through efforts to— to benefit coastal communities. I am not in a position (i) improve the environmental performance of fishing to give precise details because this is under active ports, and consideration, but the noble Lord has absolutely hit (ii) promote the decarbonisation of fish and on the point that this is about additional opportunities. aquaculture activities” The Government are working on and considering how Member’s explanatory statement best we fulfil that in a way which benefits coastal This amendment strengthens the “climate change objective” communities. That, as with a number of other aspects, by requiring action to improve the environmental performance of is work in hand. ports and decarbonise the catching process.

9.30 pm LordGrantchester:MyLords,inmovingAmendment22, Baroness Worthington: My Lords, I am grateful for I will speak also to Amendment 23. These amendments the Minister’s response to this group of amendments. I are tabled with slightly different intentions in mind, so will read Hansard in detail. Touching on the point of while they may be grouped together, they address the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, it struck me as odd slightly different aspects of climate change. The addition that we still seem to be referring to the current system of the climate change objective is very much to be under the CFP as some sort of gold standard we welcomed, and must be fundamental to all policy should seek to continue. I think most people would developments, perhaps second only to the sustainability agree it is the exact opposite of what we are trying to objective, as debated earlier tonight. achieve. Amendment 22 would strengthen the climate change This concept of an economic link being proofed by objective by requiring two sets of actions: one on land the charitable donation of quota back to a deserving to improve the green credentials of ports and the other cause seems out of kilter with what we are trying to at sea to help the fisheries fleet decarbonise. Both are achieve. We should not give the vast majority of quota important and must reflect together the environmental to a small number of players and then rely on their sustainability practices on landed catches while beneficence to give it back to those located in coastal making the industry undertake precise measures on communities who are actually fishing in our waters, decarbonisation. Either step or both would have a employing people, feeding local markets and producing positive impact on the country’s net zero aspirations. sustainable food. Something is a bit awry in the way The amendment was tabled to probe how action the that this opportunity is being interpreted by our Government propose to take will be specified and Government. We will probably come back to probe measured, including what support they will provide this further as we go through the Bill, particularly on in the future to allow the industry to improve its the quota allocation clauses, but I am grateful for the environmental footprint. The Bill allows financial response—it will tee up an interesting debate later. assistance to be provided for a variety of purposes, On whether recreational fishing could in any way including many linked with the overarching fisheries contribute to the national benefit, it is a bit dismissive objectives. Can it, therefore, be safely assumed that to state that only commercial fishing and fish stocks such support would be made available to fishers who have any contribution to make to the benefit of the wish to fit cleaner engines, and perhaps to ports and nation. It is clear that, if we are a destination for a processing plants that want to upgrade equipment to large number of recreational fishers, that will be of run on low-carbon technologies? national benefit. If we can sustain a really rich and Amendment 23 deals directly with achieving net biodiverse marine environment, that will enable us to zero in the industry. I was disappointed to see no link encourage any manner of recreational activities—not between this framework legislation and the legally just fishing but whale watching, porpoise watching binding targets for the UK to achieve net zero by and birdwatching are inherently linked to the sustainability 2050. Amendment 25, in the name of the noble Baroness, of our fish stocks. Without fish in the seas, we do not Lady Worthington, seeks to achieve a link and we have birds. support such a consultation. However, we propose There are lots of reasons why good management of that the Government are not taking action quite as our marine environment produces a national benefit, seriously as we would like and need to proceed faster, so I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that with more urgency. 497 Fisheries Bill [HL] [LORDS] Fisheries Bill [HL] 498

[LORD GRANTCHESTER] should not just seek to have zero emissions, it should We have been told time and again, and will no be seeking to be a positive sink. We will have to use doubt be reminded in the Minister’s response, that the policies and the framework for managing the natural UK is a world leader in the race to decarbonise, with world to ensure that we are not just reducing our this Government being the first to adopt a binding outputs, but seeking to enhance the ability of the target to achieve net zero by 2050. However, I hope the natural world to absorb carbon dioxide. Minister accepts and can forgive that, across your That has to be an aim because we have left it so late. Lordships’House,many are sceptical of the Government’s We are about 20 years behind where we should be in claims. Reference need be made to the court’s ruling reducing emissions on a global level, so the challenge only last week on Heathrow expansion to see that, just now will be that of eliminating emissions in a decade. because an environmental target has been adopted, it Thereafter it will be about soaking out the greenhouse does not necessarily filter through to everyday decision- gases that have been emitted. The oceans and the making in Whitehall. There remains a gulf between marine environment are a huge component of that, so stated ambition and reality.The UK, working alongside we should be ambitious. I think that the bare minimum others, needs to do more to tackle the climate crisis should be to achieve net zero, not simply minimising before it is too late. adverse effects and adapting to climate change. As part of that, industries such as fisheries should be encouraged to be ambitious by working to an My third point is about accepting that we may have accelerated timescale.Although it would require significant to implement the precautionary principle, which states effort, we believe this could be achieved. If the Minister that for the period we are in, where there is so much rejects the premise of achieving net zero in fisheries by uncertainty, we will be allocating below scientifically 2030, or if he believes that decarbonisation is better determined maximum sustainable yields because of dealt with in the upcoming Environment Bill, he at the risk of climate change that overlays everything. We least needs to indicate what progress he would like to might have to get used to allocating quota on a very see made in the next decade. precautionary basis because we are entering uncharted With this in mind, what will our fishing fleet look waters, if I may be excused the pun. like after nearly 10 years of the UK operating outside I turn to my Amendment 125. Amendments that the CFP? What is the size of the Government’sambitions? seek consultation always feel a bit redundant in primary What gear will our fishers be using? How will the way legislation, but my point is that, under the powers that their catch is processed and transported be different granted under the Climate Change Act 2008, we have from today? When will emissions targets be made the ability to introduce a policy. Before any activity binding on international shipping? These are but a few that causes a net contribution to greenhouse gases, we of the questions to which we need answers, and we can simply consult and then use secondary legislation ideally need them before either this or the Environment to introduce that policy. If the Government were Bill reach the statute book. To include ambition in the minded to get going on achieving the net zero target, Bill, the House must be assured that it will be key simply asking for public consultation would be the feature in the drawing up of fisheries statements and trigger to introducing secondary legislation to bring in management policies. There is a climate emergency very targeted, market-based policies to encourage now and every sector should play its part in addressing investment in low-carbon activities. The Government it. I beg to move. now have the opportunity to consult on how we can best make this sector carbon neutral and use the powers that already exist to bring in those policies; Baroness Worthington: My Lords, I shall speak to hence the quest for a public consultation. Amendment 125 in my name, also in this group. I also lend my support to the two amendments spoken to by It is worth stating that, at the moment, the fishing the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. This is very welcome. industry has an effect on climate change in a number I start by being positive about the climate change of ways. It is not just about how vessels are propelled objective being added to the list of 12—or however or the energy choices made by processing plants, it is many we have now. It is good to see it there. As I stated also about how the degradation of the natural environment earlier, there really is no business as usual anymore. can release greenhouse gases. Trawling activities, for Climate change impacts are upon us and we are living example, can disturb the sediment at the bottom of through an age of consequences. This will permeate the ocean, which releases otherwise stored carbon. all the discussions around fishing policy that we bring There are plenty of examples and reasons why one on the back of the Bill. Fishing quotas will change, the would want the sector to take this issue seriously. availability of fish stocks will change and the resilience This is an opportunity to do something really positive. of the natural environment will be increasingly affected We must think about the provision of licences to cover and diminished, so it is incredibly important that we the activities that take place in this environment with a take this seriously. positive vision that will create jobs and allow activities The amendment moved by the noble Lord, to be carried out in the natural world that will help us Lord Grantchester, rightly goes to the heart of the as we seek to combat climate change. There is no definition here. It seems a little lacking in ambition reason why fisheries cannot be part of that process. and specificity, as stated in the Bill, which refers to There are particular types of fish stocks and particular “the adverse effects of fishing and aquaculture minimised”. ways of fishing that can lock carbon up while low-impact What does “minimised” mean when, really, they should aquaculture can make a net-positive contribution to be eliminated? In fact, any economic activity now our carbon budgets. I hope this is not seen as an taking place specifically within the natural environment imposition; rather, it should be seen as an opportunity. 499 Fisheries Bill [HL] [2 MARCH 2020] Fisheries Bill [HL] 500

Again, to finish on a positive note, seeing this an evidence-based approach to deciding which areas objective included is very welcome. I happen to be in to prioritise in achieving this objective. We believe that the camp of thinking that sustainability is the primary the best way to do this is through the joint fisheries objective, so this climate objective is integral to that. statement, rather than in the Bill. However, we need to see a little more action and commitment to some of the specifics of what making Amendment 23 enables me to highlight that the this a primary objective would really mean for how we UK—as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said—is manage our fisheries. I am glad to have had the at the vanguard of global ambition to reduce greenhouse opportunity to discuss these amendments. gas emissions, having last year committed to achieving economy-wide net-zero emissions by 2050 through the Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Lord Teverson: I put my name on the amendment Order 2019. While I fully support the noble Lord’s and am pleased to welcome it. One message from the ambition to transition to net-zero emissions in the climate change committee was that we cannot do fisheries and aquaculture sector, we have a clear target decarbonisation and net zero sequentially; we have already enshrined in primary legislation. To introduce to do it all at the one time. That must include this a further acceleration of that target in the Bill would industry. create a sectoral disparity that could unfairly disadvantage My only word of caution is that fish oil is used as an industry already facing challenges to adapt to the an energy source on some occasions, and could be impacts of climate change. This is not to say that we described as renewable. It is used as biodiesel, like should not seek to be ambitious as we work towards fishmeal. That should be excluded completely. We do decarbonising our fisheries and aquaculture operations, not do that in this country, but I have a feeling the but rather that we take a measured approach that Danes have occasionally done it before. supports the sector through the transition on a timescale achievable for all—from small, single-vessel operators 9.45 pm to large processing operations. Legally binding policies will be contained in the joint fisheries statement, which Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, this Government will set out in more detail the steps we will take to have committed to ambitious action to tackle climate deliver against the objectives in the Bill. change, including reaching net zero by 2050. To support this objective, it is right that we have included a Turning to Amendment 125, I take the opportunity climate change objective in the Bill. to set out some of the work already going on across The Government share the ambition of the UK to support the fishing industry’s progress, Amendment 22, which is to make sure that we take along with the rest of the country, towards achieving meaningful action to decarbonise fishing and aquaculture economy-wide net-zero emissions by 2050. I apologise activities and the infrastructure that supports them, as to noble Lords who were aware of this, but I shall put we must do across our economy. Indeed, I believe we this on the record. are the first major economy to include an objective of The national adaptation programme—NAP—sets this kind in legislation in relation to fisheries. the actions that Government and others will take to Evidence of the links between fishing and climate adapt to the challenges of climate change in the UK. change continues to grow, and our approach must Published in 2018, it sets out key actions for the adapt to follow new evidence over successive iterations following five years across a wide range of sectors, of the joint fisheries statement. Therefore, while I including fisheries and aquaculture. agree that action to support decarbonisation of ports and fishing activities must form part of our policies, I The UK Clean Maritime Plan, published by the am reluctant to prioritise these in primary legislation Department for Transport, sets out a national action ahead of the full development of, consultation on and plan for the whole of the UK maritime sector. The scrutiny of the joint fisheries statement. This is also an plan includes commitments to support maritime issue for other departments, and we will work together innovation, establish a maritime emissions regulation to ensure that our functions under this legislation and advisory service and consult on how the renewable other specific climate change and environmental legislation transport fuel obligation can be used to encourage the are carried out effectively. uptake of low-carbon fuels in maritime sectors. The aim of the plan is to achieve zero-emission shipping by The amendment would also have broader unintended 2050, as set out in the Government’s Maritime 2050 consequences. For example, it could lead to future strategy. This recognises the need to take action to fisheries funding having to prioritise subsidies for fishing tackle greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris port energy efficiency measures that may better be agreement and the UK’s 2050 net zero ambition. delivered through measures other than fishing policy, Together, both plans ensure the fishing industry will such as planning and energy efficiency regulation, effectively contribute to the target for zero net emissions over measures to support directly the industry-focused of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 2050. infrastructure such as auction halls and landing sites. It could also lead to future fisheries funding having to The climate change objective in Clause 1 will support priorities support for energy-efficient engines over this ambition by requiring the fisheries administrations more targeted fishing gear. The Government should to consider these matters in consultation with industry be able to change their priorities for a future funding and interested parties, as they develop the policies that scheme in consultation with stakeholders so that it will sit in the joint fisheries statement. I recognise, and best delivers the government policies needed in response I am pleased, that a number of noble Lords have to the conditions at the time. We should always take recognised, in the hurly-burly of the exchanges, that 501 Fisheries Bill [HL] [LORDS] Fisheries Bill [HL] 502

[LORD GARDINER OF KIMBLE] Agriculture Bill, and will be talking about it a lot as we we did insert this new climate change objective. It is go into the Glasgow talks, but the definitions the absolutely right we did so, because it is at the very department is thinking about in the fishing sector are heart of what we have to do. For the sake of tonight, I quite limited; for example, just the propulsion of the hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the vessels.Weare not thinking holistically about nature-based amendment. solutions, which are very important. When we have discussions following on from today’sdebate, I encourage Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I am grateful to the us to think about this holistically to make this a Minister for that reply, and I take it entirely in the positive thing the maritime sector can help deliver, as spirit in which he makes it. We are all committed to we think about the net zero question. this objective, and we all work as fast as we may. We will study the Bill’s words very carefully, to look at Lord Grantchester: I thank the noble Baroness, where it is appropriate to put in a little more ambition, Lady Worthington, for reminding me of the important and whether it is right to leave it to the fisheries issue of nature’s ability to store carbon at sea. This is statement or whether we could devise some plan to part of the wider implications of what we are seeking escalate it up to being a stronger commitment. But at to achieve through amendments to the Bill’s climate this stage— change provisions.I beg leave to withdrawthe amendment.

BaronessWorthington:BeforethenobleLordwithdraws Amendment 22 withdrawn. his amendment, I want to comment on the Minister’s list of activities that relate to this. It is welcome to hear Amendment 23 not moved. about the marine plans and the alternative fuels. We also need to integrate into this that the Government House resumed. are pursuing nature-based solutions and carbon stored in the natural environment. We are doing that in the House adjourned at 9.54 pm. GC 191 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][2 MARCH 2020] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 192

Grand Committee Yesterday, the Olympic medallist Sharron Davies said “Property.”The question makes the point that, for many Monday 2 March 2020 people, there is a choice of how to provide for retirement. This amendment is a permissive one, which would Pension Schemes Bill [HL] enable a pension provider with a dashboard to include Committee (3rd Day) information on the equity locked up in someone’s home. 3.30 pm Relevant documents: 4th Report from the Delegated For millions of people, the equity in their home is Powers Committee and 2nd Report from the Constitution worth more than their pension pot. Increasingly, that Committee equity can be and is unlocked to provide an income stream in retirement. According to the ONS, we have The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden £14.6 trillion in wealth—perhaps a little less following of Frognal) (LD): My Lords, if there is a Division in the slump on the stock exchanges last week—within the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will which private pension wealth makes up 42% of national adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and wealth, while net property wealth is not far behind at resume after 10 minutes. 35%. Arguably, equity release should play a higher role in proactive financial planning. Potentially, it is a Clause 118: Qualifying pensions dashboard service valuable source of supplementary retirement income, particularly for pensioners on low incomes in homes Amendment 38 that they own. Moved by Lord Young of Cookham Many pension providers also provide equity release: 38: Clause 118, page 105, line 7, at end insert “or any person for example, Aviva, Liverpool Victoria, Scottish Widows named as a beneficiary under that individual’s pension scheme” and Legal & General. It would make sense for them to be able to include illustrations about equity release Lord Young of Cookham (Con): My Lords, alongside the pensions dashboard. Equity release is Amendment 38 in my name endeavours to fulfil the regulated by the FCA and can be sold only through a objectives of the pensions dashboard by ensuring people financial adviser. It is now one of the most highly have access to all their pension entitlements. At the regulated financial service products in the UK. In moment, they will be able to access entitlements under many ways, the decision whether,when and how to access schemes only in their own name; they will not be able equity release is not unlike the decision to access a to access information about entitlements they may pension pot. Independent advice is necessary, taking have because their husband, wife or partner has named all considerations into account. I repeat what I said them as a beneficiary under another scheme. More and at Second Reading: I do not want to do anything to more couples are both at work, and most pension slow down the introduction of the dashboard, but I schemes enable a beneficiary to provide for a surviving want to ensure that, when it is up and running, it can spouse.My amendment would enable a named beneficiary be used by those providing it to give customers a to access a dashboard where they had an interest. comprehensive view of assets and options, rather than Without that information, that beneficiary will not a partial one. know whether they have made adequate provision for their old age, which is a primary objective of the I turn finally to Amendment 45, which deals with dashboard. the verification process before one is allowed to access There may be other ways of achieving this objective. the dashboard. This is the weakest link in the chain. When a policy is taken out, beneficiaries could be sent The ABI website—incidentally, it still proclaims that a copy; I do not think this happens at the moment. the Government’s objective They could be sent an annual statement, as the main “is for the service to be available to consumers by 2019”— policyholder is, or the main policyholder could be says this about verification: given the option of ticking a box so that beneficiaries can access the relevant dashboard with their consent. “The process to confirm the identity of users is based on the The point made in the amendment is a simple one: if gov.uk/verify system which has already proved to be a secure the dashboard is to give people a complete picture so portal for people accessing personal information.” they can make informed judgments, they need to have That could be an understatement. So secure is the access to this relevant information. portal that, as I will come on to in a moment, 56% of Amendment 43, supported by my noble friend those who try to verify that they are who they are fail Lord Flight, and Amendment 44 have a similar objective to do so and hence would be unable to use the dashboard. in enabling someone to see whether they have made There are risks in building the dashboard on the enough provision for their old age by including relevant shaky foundations of Verify—one of the Government’s assets that can provide a pension income on the least successful IT initiatives—from which it is hastily dashboard. The helpful policy brief says on page 45: disengaging, leaving its future in doubt. The NAO “Putting individuals in control of their data, dashboards described Verify in March last year as should support engagement in pensions and planning for retirement.” Planning for retirement involves more than pensions. “intended to be a flagship digital programme to provide identity Each Sunday, the Money section of the Sunday Times verification services for the whole of government ... In its 2016 business case, GDS identified the following key targets and has a “Fame and Fortune” feature, in which there is a expectations for the platform: 25 million people would use Verify standard question: by 2020, and 46 government services would be accessible through “What’s better for retirement—property or pension?” Verify by March 2018.” GC 193 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][LORDS] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 194

[LORD YOUNG OF COOKHAM] So, we have the odd situation where a purely passive As of 13 February, 22 government services use Verify— site such as the dashboard, which can provide only fewer than half the number expected by March 2018—and information and is not interactive—Amendment 39 only 5.8 million people have signed up. There is a secures that—has a different and higher standard of verification success rate of 44%, against an initial security than the pension provider’s site, which is target of 90%. I failed twice to verify who I was. interactive. I do not understand why a pension provider In July 2018, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority that has satisfied itself about the bona fides of a recommended that Verify be closed as quickly as customer to the extent that it will respond and pay practicable. In a recent report, the NAO concluded: drawdown cannot allow access to a dashboard on its site, which is purely passive, without obliging the customer “Even in the context of GDS’s redefined objectives for the programme, it is difficult to conclude that successive decisions to to go through a cumbersome verification process. continue with Verify have been sufficiently justified.” Perhaps that could be looked at as well. I beg to move. The Institute for Government’s Whitehall Monitor recently commented that the scheme continued to be Lord Flight (Con): My Lords, I support “mired in issues”, had fallen short of targets and had Amendments 43 and 44 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young. He made the point that equity “failed to build its intended user base and it is not delivering the efficiencies that the government sought.” release is a growing source of income for people later in life. I would say it more strongly than that: I can In October 2018, the Cabinet Office announced imagine it being the biggest source of income for such that the Government would stop funding the scheme people in 20 years’ time. I understand that the financial in March 2020. Against the background of the advisers who advise otherwise on pension fund matters unpromising progress of the scheme, the then Minister are not qualified to advise generally on equity release. for Implementation stated, in words that could have That has been substantially cleaned up, as it were, over been crafted by the scriptwriter of “Yes Minister”, the past 10 years so it is not a problem, but if the that it was dashboard cannot include equity release, it does not “now sufficiently mature to move to the next phase of its meet its objective of setting out what people have to development.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/10/18; col. 3WS.] live on in older age. We do not want to delay wider The intention is that the private sector will take over progress but if equity release is not included quite responsibility for the scheme, despite the NAO finding speedily in the dashboard, it will not do its job. that the Government have failed to make the scheme self-funding and the Government failing to convince Baroness Drake (Lab): My Lords, the purpose of their own departments to use the scheme. What will Amendment 39 is to contain the delegated powers in the the private sector do with the scheme? With no government Bill so that they do not provide the power to authorise support, the providers of the service may have to commercial dashboards to engage in transactional increase the charges to government departments, which activities.Any authorisation regime to permit transactions the NAO warns may make it unaffordable for them to should be addressed in a future Bill. use. Of the 22 that use it, half have alternative means In a previous contribution, I sought to set out the of accessing the services provided. policy still to be settled when the dashboard is focused This is what the whole dashboard depends on. Will on enabling individuals to view their pensions information the private sector continue with it? If so, will it be free in one place. When functionality is extended to the for consumers, as at the moment? What happens if ability to transact on a commercial dashboard, the there is no Verify process? On charges, the policy brief challenges and potential risks are even greater; there says on page 51: are multiple ways in which detriment to savers can occur. “Government is clear that accessing basic information via We should again remind ourselves that the dashboard pensions dashboards must be free at the point of use for consumers.” project can extend to the whole of the UK pension I ask this in passing: where in the Bill is that commitment system—public and private—embracing many millions legislated for, and what is the point of making it free to of people. Allowing transactions over dashboards needs access the dashboard if the verification process has a separate and clear consideration. It cannot be implicitly charge? I appreciate that my noble friend the Minister tucked into the delegated powers in this Bill. is dependent on the Cabinet Office for support on this Issues of private and public good will be impacted issue, as that is where responsibility for Verify rests, by whether the dashboard is fit for purpose when it but she has an obligation to satisfy the pension industry comes to transactions: private good at the individual and pensioners that the system proposed in the Bill is level and public good at the whole pension system level. fit for purpose. I have yet to see the behavioural outcomes strategy Finally, at the moment, many pension providers associated with the dashboard. I assume the Government have websites that customers can access and where are not agnostic on the matter,given that the state supports they can get information about their individual pension the long-term saving system with some £45 billion of pot. They can not only access that information but top tax relief, so they will have a direct interest in knowing up their pot, withdraw sums and switch investments. that the outcomes are good. But under the Government’s proposals, if that pension provider then provides a dashboard, existing customers 3.45 pm will not be able to access it using their usual log-on The delegated powers in this Bill are pretty open-ended, procedure; they will have to go down the Verify route but Parliament needs to be satisfied that as the dashboard first. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that that is transitions, adding more functionality, the controls indeed the case. and supports are in place for good consumer outcomes GC 195 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][2 MARCH 2020] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 196 to be achieved, and that the aggregate outcome of the The FCA conduct rules have not prevented repeated decisions made by individuals as a result of the dashboard failures or scandals. The failure of support to the Port service makes a positive contribution to retirement Talbot steelworkers is just a recent example on the outcomes for the public good in the UK. The evolution continuumstretchingfromthepersonalpensionmis-selling of the dashboard beyond the initial mandatory find, scandal of the late 1980s. Any brief reading of the release and view of information should come back to FCA reports on the functioning of the financial advice the Houses of Parliament for proper scrutiny. market to support pension savers does not leave one with a high level of confidence. The long-term saving market is particularly susceptible to consumer detriment, and the evidence and informed However, clarity on the model of liability, including opinion, including all relevant regulators, is that the that carried by the state which is mandating the release consumer demand side is weak and increasingly focus of data, will be essential if transactions are allowed has to be on provider supply-side controls to protect over the dashboard. The FCA will not be the only consumer interests. I shall illustrate the spirit of that regulator with an interest. Protecting the data and its comment. Commercial dashboards would make it much holding, access and use in a transactional model of easier for firms who have attractive front-end offerings dashboards will be of major importance, given the to capture consumer assets through encouraging easy scale of harm to consumers that could occur if it is not consolidation of pension pots via mobile apps, but done properly. Parliament should have the opportunity sometimes the business models of those firms mean to scrutinise to satisfy itself about what is being proposed. charges on those assets will be considerably higher. The dashboard, properly implemented, can empower and inform individuals and contribute to them making The Bill may set a framework for deciding what better decisions. However, the long-term savings sector information should be on a dashboard, but the as a whole is not that far up the digitalisation curve, presentation of that information is hugely important. the good examples excepted, and it should harness the For example, some dashboard providers could have an positives of financial technology to the benefit of incentive to present information on certain pension customers. But the scale of the project and the schemes more favourably, either because the dashboard consolidation of an individual’s data in one space can provider is also a pension provider or because their also enhance the scale and consequences of consumer business model is based on helping some pension schemes detriment if the risks are not properly addressed and a to attract customers. Value-for-money assessments are high level of confidence provided. as variable as the criteria against which assessments This amendment is not forcing a debate about are made, and the weightings given to each criterion whether transactions should or should not be allowed making comparisons are extremely difficult. As a trustee, over the dashboard. It seeks to limit the delegated I am directly involved in trying to deliver value-for-money powers in the Bill so that authority cannot be given to assessments under our regulatory obligations, so I feel allow transactions across the dashboard service. confident in making that assertion. Transactional activity is so significant that it should be Dashboards are not a silver bullet for removing the approved by Parliament, through another Bill, in receipt risk of consumer detriment. The evidence demonstrates of reports as to why the Government have a level of that most individuals will not proactively engage with confidence that transactional activity could now be their pensions until they have to. When they do, they added to the functionality on the dashboard. can be price insensitive and vulnerable to judgments I reiterate: the dashboard project potentially can detrimental to retirement incomes. Noble Lords do extend to the whole UK workplace pension system, not need to take it from me. There is a heavy weight of embracing many millions of people. The impact on public evidence from regulators such as the FCA which supports good outcomes is in danger of being lost in the debate. that. In fact, it is evidence that the FCA contributed to Parliament has a right, and indeed the responsibility, with its report on the drawdown market. to put them centre stage. The regulation of consumers granting delegated access through the dashboard will need careful consideration, Baroness Altmann (Con): My Lords, I will make because any exposure through a weak delegated access a few observations about this suite of amendments. It system could be much greater when all the information strikes me that the demands to add even more to the is available at one point. It is important because the current current proposal for the dashboard are fraught with body of evidence reveals that consumer behavioural danger from the customer perspective. I agree that, biases have more impact on financial capability than from a strategic, overall macro perspective, if one is lack of knowledge and information. They take what looking to plan one’s retirement income, it will be most the FCA describes as the path of least resistance, even helpful to have as many sources reflected in any dashboard in the face of information available to them. that will contribute to that income. However,the problem we face in getting this dashboard up and running is The provision of dashboards may be a regulated that there are so many different types of pension and activity, and therefore the FCA’s FiSMA powers come of scheme that we already face a monumental task in into play. However, there is the issue of whether the just trying to list people’s pensions and make sure that FCA will require additional powers to impose supply-side the dashboard reflects all the elements attached to controls in order to protect consumer interests,particularly them over the many decades: the different tax regimes given that we do not yet know what government policy they have been under; whether they have a guaranteed will be on many issues, including the pricing model for annuity or protected tax-free cash; a guaranteed return commercial providers,which the noble Lord, Lord Young, of some kind; whether benefits have to be taken at referred to. specified ages, otherwise certain things are lost; whether GC 197 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][LORDS] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 198

[BARONESS ALTMANN] systems of some pension providers do not always flag there is any extra insurance in there that might be up the guarantees that can be very valuable for individuals. attached to the pension from old-style schemes; protected If people are being not advised but merely guided, or rights, and so on. And that is just for defined contribution, if it is merely information and they are not aware of before we even get on to the defined benefit records. the guarantees,they could lose out and have no comeback. Equity release has significant dangers for any consumer who is considering it. My worry is that, if consumers Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD): My Lords, I look at this information on a dashboard, they will not was not intending to speak to these amendments, but understand those dangers and will think that the it has been quite an interesting debate to listen to. In money is available. Recently I have seen very many some ways, I have changed my mind during the course cases where individuals or their families have taken of the debate. I found the notion of having everything out an equity release loan for something like 25% of all in one place, as put forward by the noble Lords, the value of the equity of their home, with an interest Lord Young and Lord Flight, an interesting idea. Of rate rolling up at 6% per annum for 20 or 30 years, course, it can already be done, but for historic reasons— meaning not only that, if they were to pass away, no because I have been self-employed for most of my life, value would be left in the home but, more worryingly, as has my husband, and we have quite a lot of pension if they needed to sell the home and move to a smaller schemes around—I am well versed on various different one—if they took out equity release in their 50s or 60s platforms. Yes, I do a lot of mystery shopping, as I call and, in their 80s, needed to downsize for reasons of it, on these things. I have loaded up information and care or convenience—they would be unable to do so practised telling lies as well—putting in overvaluations because there would be no equity left for them to use. of my house or saying what other things I have—to see Therefore, I caution significantly against trying to how a platform projects what my income will be, so it go more broadly. I think that we have enough of a is difficult to get right. I wonder about the house challenge in trying to get pensions alone on to a valuations that people might be tempted to put in, dashboard. I completely agree that it is important to because there is a tendency to be optimistic when it have the state pension on there and, in that regard and comes to that. in speaking to amendments in the name of my noble In this last week, I was looking at one platform, friend Lord Flight to which I have added my name, we thinking, “Where is the sell-all button for absolutely want people to be able to see what their projected state everything?” I could not do it; I had to go through pension will be. However, we will need an electronic several times, so I very much take the point made by system so that people can go online to check their the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, that you will take the state pension. If Verify is not the gateway to that, we path of least resistance when there is something that you will need to develop an alternative secure gateway. We think is urgent. If I can fall for that kind of wanting need to make sure that the dashboard has a standardised something to be there, others will too, but when I went protocol and standardised systems so that every pension through everything and had to think, “Do I really want provider has to use the same IT structure that can then to sell that or don’t I?”, I made different decisions be securely fed to a dashboard. from those I might have made if I had had a sell- all, transfer-all button. Given that I like to think that I Lord Flight: With the state pension, you already get know a thing or two about these things, I would rather from social services advice on what your pension will err on the side of caution, as the noble Baroness, be about a year before you draw it, so it strikes me that Lady Drake, pointed out. I do not want to interfere the state pension information is just sitting there waiting with people’s freedoms, but it has to be good to have a to be used by the dashboard. certain number of hurdles to give people a pause to Baroness Altmann: I thank my noble friend. Of think. course, he is absolutely right but the point of the I tend to agree that equity release will have to be a dashboard is that much younger people can plan their big part of the future, and I wonder whether some of future pension income. The current procedure is to the people already taking out lump sums are thinking encourage people to log on to the state pension checker, that way as well. Perhaps that is safer left until we can where they can verify their future predicted state pension more broadly investigate what is going on there and income so that, as they get into their 50s and closer to make a rather safer and better environment, though I retirement, they will be able to make more meaningful acknowledge that that there have been improvements financial planning. However, as my noble friend that I have not tested yet. Lord Young pointed out, there are significant security concerns with the current gateway system that allows Baroness Sherlock (Lab): My Lords, I will speak to you to find out what your state pension is. Therefore, if the three amendments in my name in this group and we want the state pension to be on the dashboard, we respond to the others. Amendment 39 in my name, will need a certain level of security. and that of my noble friend Lady Drake, would, as she The aims of the amendments are correct. We want indicated, prevent the powers granted under the relevant to be able to see the state pension and a comprehensive sections of this Bill from being used to extend dashboards list of pensions, but I caution against trying to go into becoming transactional. My first question, therefore, more broadly. I also caution against commercial is whether that is necessary: will transactions be permitted? dashboards which might use their own IT systems that The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said last Wednesday: lock people out of checking their pensions on other “Wealso intend all dashboards to start with a limited functionality providers’ systems and which try to encourage people until we better understand how individuals interact with their to merge their pensions. Indeed, we have seen that the information. ”—[Official Report, 26/2/20; col. GC 183.] GC 199 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][2 MARCH 2020] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 200

Does that rule out transaction? I think not specifically. sample regulations produced for consideration as part of a future The excellent policy brief from the DWP says this: bill. We have observed previously that ‘Skeleton bills inhibit parliamentary scrutiny and we find it difficult to envisage any “Dashboards will present simple information, without the circumstances in which their use is acceptable. The Government ability to carry out transactions.” must provide an exceptional justification for them’”. That seems really clear: no transactions. A bit later on, CantheMinistertelluswhattheexceptionaljustificationis? however, it says: “In future we expect that dashboards should be able to provide The case for not allowing regulations to be made a greater level of functionality and information.” under the Bill to allow transactions is overwhelming. Having thought about it over the weekend, I now think So here is the rub: does functionality include transactions? it is even stronger than when we tabled the amendments, Will the Minister tell the Committee plainly: is it the because the debate in Committee last week surfaced Government’s intention ever to allow transactions at more information about the Government’s plans for any point on the dashboards? If not, then let us make dashboards. We have learned that they are committed that clear on the face of the Bill. If they do, then, as to MaPS providing a dashboard service, but we also my noble friend Lady Drake said, they should have to learned that they are open to anyone who can meet the come back to Parliament and seek further authorisation criteria running a qualifying dashboard and that they before going down that road. The reason is simple: we have no idea how many people that will be. are being asked to authorise the establishment of a service that will be based on the compulsory release of We learned that the Government think that having data about the assets of some 22 million people, with multiple dashboards running right from the launch no clarity about what is being created. would actively be a good idea because they think it In the debate on the last group of amendments last would increase reach, and we learned that they are week, my noble friend Lady Drake offered the Committee relaxed about commercial dashboards being there first a short list of some of the matters not yet resolved. and MaPS coming in, if necessary, some time later. If The Minister—the noble Earl, Lord Howe—said: MaPS took a long time to get a dashboard up and running, which is not impossible, there could be years “It is not that the policy is not settled but that the implementation in which the only way the consumer could view the of the policy is not settled.”—[Official Report, 26/2/20; col. GC 190.] data on her own pension, the release of which the Obviously, it depends where one thinks policy stops Government had mandated, would be on a commercial and implementation begins. If the policy is, “Have at dashboard. I asked the Minister last week if the least one dashboard with some pension information Government think that it is a good thing to have a on it”, I acknowledge that the policy is settled. If it is public dashboard, and if so why. I ask him that again much beyond that, we are into murkier water. now. If he thinks it is a good thing, why are the Let me add my shortlist of a few things we do not Government relaxed about there potentially being a yet know. We do not know how many dashboards there period of years when there is no public dashboard yet will be. We do not know who will run them. We do not the mandated data has been released? I should be know what information will be provided on them or in interested to hear the answer to that. what form. Wedo not know what uses of the information Also last week, the Minister said that accessing the will be permitted. Wedo not know how the whole system information on dashboards will remain free. That will be governed and regulated. We do not know is good news, but it means that, as my noble friend where liability will lie for each of the links in the chain. Lady Drake said, we need to understand the charging Without that, we do not know how complaints about model of commercial dashboards. If they cannot charge failure and compensation for detriment arising at each you to look at it, why would they do it unless they can point will be handled. We do not even know who will make money at it some other way? Weneed to understand get to make rules for the dashboards, because the what those other ways are. I do not know; I can only regulations provide for that to be literally anyone. speculate. Are they hoping to find a way to monetise There are so many points in the information and the access to data that the dashboard gives? Would action chain where something could go wrong: data that be allowed? Will they want to use the dashboard loss or leakage; errors in data being supplied to the to show a consumer her various assets and encourage dashboard, by either the state, TPR-regulated schemes her to consider a more efficient way of organising or FCA-regulated firms; compliance failures in displaying them? For example, “Look, it is all spread over here. it inappropriately; transactions on or off screen, regulated Would it not be tidier if you brought it all over in this or unregulated, where the consumer ends up with a fund over here, which—oh look?—my firm happens to poorer outcome than should have been the case. run?” That way, the firm might stand to make money Last week, the Minister defended the proposed either from transactions or from the scheme itself. delegated powers, saying to my friend Lady Drake What about through advertising? Perhaps when a user that they were needed to provide momentum to the logs on to her dashboard, up pops an advert that process of co-operation that would be required to either encourages her to engage with a firm or asks, develop the dashboard infrastructure.But the Constitution “Have you thought about equity release? Would not Committee addresses that specifically in its comments that be a better way of going about what you do?” on Part 4 and the use of broad regulation-making Or even, as my noble friend said, there could be powers. It said: careful presentation of the data that seems to privilege some kinds of assets over others, depending on who is “There is a need for some of these powers in order to commence the work on pensions dashboards and facilitate the sharing of running the scheme. This is potentially a really powerful data to make them function. However, the rest of the powers tool and we need to place some firm limits on its use could have been omitted until the policy had been prepared and until the market is much clearer. GC 201 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][LORDS] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 202

[BARONESS SHERLOCK] After the comments between the noble Baroness, Amendments 49 and 50, in my name, specify that Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of regulations may require the provision of information Cookham, I am interested to hear the Minister’sresponse on likely retirement income and administrative charges. on questions of identity verification. I found his comments I put these out as probing amendments to find out on the challenges of some of the services very interesting. what information will be on the dashboard. What will I take her point that, if one is to get personal data, consumers see? Without an estimate of their likely some verification process will be needed. His points income on retirement, many consumers who do not about beneficiaries are important as well. have the skills and knowledge of the noble Baroness, I am a little more nervous on the point about equity Lady Bowles, may have no idea of what the size of a release. The FCA has just started to look into this fund will mean in terms of an income on retirement, market. The noble Lord, Lord Flight, said that it has and without some guide they may struggle to understand cleaned itself up, and certainly some practices which that. Often, it should be possible to provide that, were standard 10 years ago, such as negative equity, because for occupational DC schemes that are used are no longer standard. However, there are still a lot of for auto-enrolment, trustees must produce a chair’s questions about this, and a number of people are statement with value-for-money assessments which concerned that we are seeing patterns of commission- include illustrations on the likely retirement income. driven decisions; these have raised concerns in other Presumably, if schemes are doing this properly, that markets in the past. Certainly, if any noble Lord has data can be uploaded to the dashboard. the misfortune to find themselves self-isolating for There should also be transparency on charges, but coronavirus and watching daytime television, they may the presentation of charges to members often does not at some point see advertisements for equity release, distinguish between the many kinds of charges that because a lot of advertising on this is going out in can be levelled on a fund. This amendment would require different forms. the disaggregation of investment and administration One of the main arguments for having all the bits of charges, so individuals could readily see the administrative pension on the dashboard is that you know where they charges that they face on the scheme in which their are. Most people, even if they do not have the expertise savings are held. Schemes can differ a lot in their of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, know where their administrative efficiency, and consumers should be house is, are reasonably confident that it is there, have able to see at a glance which schemes are levying high some idea of its value and could find out readily administrative charges. if not. I take the point about people wanting to look at the whole of their assets, but, given some of the Can the Minister confirm that this information— nervousness around this market, before we dive too firmly indeed, the requirement to be on the dashboard at into that area I would be interested in the Minister’s all—will not apply to any legacy private schemes or view on this—as I am in in his view on all the amendments. new private pensions not covered by auto-enrolment? That leaves out quite a chunk of the market where 4.15 pm transparency would be particularly important because a lot of those old schemes are very inefficient, with Earl Howe (Con): My Lords, I am grateful to all very high charges. Do the regulations permit the noble Lords who have spoken to this group of Government at some point to force those schemes to amendments. Perhaps I can start by addressing the come on board? If so, do the Government intend to questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, use that power? in the context of the issues posed by the Constitution Committee. I appreciate the points she and the noble I understand that any dashboard developed by Baroness, Lady Drake, made on this. The Constitution MaPS would have a liability model developed alongside Committee raised the skeletal nature of the provisions it. I asked about the liability model and the Minister in this part of the Bill and sought clarification on how, said that he would come back to it this week; I cannot and by whom, some of the powers might be exercised. remember if he is coming back to it now or later, but I Notwithstanding that, as I have pointed out previously, look forward to hearing about it at some point today. the committee accepts the need for some of the powers, That would be marvellous. I would also like him to even if in skeletal form. The noble Baroness was kind answer this question: if it is to be developed alongside enough to concede that. the MaPS dashboard, and that is delayed, will there The noble Baroness picked me up on the distinction none the less be a liability model in place before any I made last week between policy and policy dashboard goes live, so that we are not waiting for the implementation. The policy in this area is developed: public dashboard? we are clear about what we want to achieve and what Amendment 57, from the noble Baroness, needs to occur for that to happen. There was a full and Lady Altmann, requires that the projected state pension thorough government consultation. Following that, a on retirement be available on the dashboard. It is government response was published and our policy important that people can readily access information aims were set out. As we have made clear throughout on the state pension, which for many of them will be a this process, further work on the technical development core part of their retirement income. The challenge is must be carried out and in due course, we will bring that it will change at different points in their life forward the affirmative regulations that provide much depending on choices made, working patterns, et cetera, of the detail that noble Lords seek. but it seems quite hard for the DWP to mandate everyone I would like to explain why it was necessary to bring else to provide their data, and not do it themselves. the Bill forward at this point. The noble Baroness It will have to go into that space. asked me why we think dashboards are a good thing. GC 203 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][2 MARCH 2020] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 204

In our government consultation, there was overwhelming to a dashboard? If past history is any guide, some support across consumer groups, individuals and industry people will always prefer not to join such a system. for our proposal to introduce a legislative framework They might feel that they do not need it. Therefore, I in order to, express the hope that it will be possible to opt out. “deliver dashboards within a reasonable timeframe”. Our experience over the past five years of trying to Earl Howe: It will be entirely up to the consumer to make progress on this matter—a long time, as noted decide whether they wish to have a dashboard showing by my noble friend Lord Young—is that without the all the information relating to their pension entitlements. clarity of our commitment brought by legislation, it Nobody will be forced— would prove impossible to bring together the industry in a way to develop the service that consumers require Baroness Drake: At one level it is entirely up to the and have said they want. consumer, but if somebody hacks into the system or We have asked the industry delivery group, under steals their identity, that is not under the control of the the guidance of the Money and Pensions Service, to consumer. develop the infrastructure required to provide dashboards by working with a range of stakeholders, including Earl Howe: I will come on to the question of pension scheme providers. This process will inform the identity in a second when I address the amendment content of the delegated powers.The alternative approach tabled by my noble friend Lord Young. Clearly, we would be to table a Bill once all the technical work has want to do our utmost to ensure that the system is been completed but, as I have just outlined, we would secure and that data can be accessed only by those struggle to get industry to engage with us to enable entitled to access it. this technical work to complete. We took the view that I share the aim of noble Lords to make dashboards that course of action would be impractical and simply as useful as possible to individuals planning for their further increase the time that consumers need to wait retirement. To that end, we are considering many of for a dashboard service. the aspects in these amendments as potential features I am the first to recognise the Constitution Committee’s of pensions dashboards in the future. Having said reservations about the use of delegated powers but, in that, I need to come back to a point that I made earlier. this instance, we consider their use to be entirely The development of a pensions dashboard service that appropriateandinkeepingwiththecommittee’ssuggestion gives consumers a single point of access to their pensions that they meet “an exceptional justification”. As to information is a complex undertaking. that justification, the reasons for the nature of the I remind the Committee that there are over 40,000 delegated powers are fully set out in the delegated schemes, around 25 million people with private pensions powers memorandum. This recognises the need for a wealth and a huge amount of state pension information. degree of flexibility while creating a digital service My noble friend Lady Altmann was absolutely right solution in order to ensure that the service provided to stress that. It is why we have asked the industry remains up-to-date, secure and accurate. Technical delivery group to work with representatives from the requirements and user needs change and the legislative pensions industry and consumer groups to ensure that framework needs to be able to adapt at pace to meet the service is accurate, secure and consumer focused. those requirements. Once again, I underline the word “secure”. I have to sound The committee also referred to Clause 118 and a cautionary note to noble Lords who want to broaden asked the Government to explain who might be prescribed out the service in short order. Again, my noble friend by the Secretary of State as someone who can publish Lady Altmann is quite right: adding any further standards, specifications or technical requirements for complexity at this stage, however well intentioned, a qualifying pensions dashboard service. Pensions risks delaying the delivery of pension dashboard services dashboards fit with wider government aims to give to individuals. consumers access to and control over their own data, I am sure we can agree that it is important that the particularly across financial services. The Government’s design of this service is consumer focused. It must approach is therefore to ensure that dashboards are fit consider potential risks to the consumer and provide for purpose over the long term, which includes recognising benefits to individuals planning for their retirement. that ownership of the dashboard infrastructure and The industry delivery group will undertake further responsibility for the setting of standards may need to user research and testing to ensure that that is the case. change over time, as explained in paragraph 1.364 of Any additional functionality should be made available the delegated powers memorandum. It is not possible only if three conditions are met: a clear consumer to set out now who might be asked to take on this need should have been identified; safeguards and responsibility in future, nor to state now the mechanisms protections must be in place; and any functionality of accountability to Parliament. That would need to must be controlled and tested. be determined according to the circumstances but, as With those thoughts and aims in mind, I turn, we have already set out, such changes will occur within first, to the amendments tabled by my noble friend the wider legislative framework, which offers multiple Lord Young. In Amendment 45, he raises the important layers of consumer protection. point of identity verification. This is crucial in giving consumers and pension providers confidence in the Viscount Eccles (Con): Perhaps I should already security of their data. In order to ensure a consistent know this, but will it be possible, in the additional consumer experience,the dashboard infrastructure should technical work, for an individual to decline to have the have one digital identity standard agreed across the information about his or her pension position put on industry. The level of identity verification used must GC 205 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][LORDS] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 206

[EARL HOWE] That cautionary note is quite a good segue into be consistent with the internationally recognised standard Amendment 39 in the name of the noble Baroness, published by government—the good practice guidance Lady Sherlock, on financial transactions. The document on identity proofing and verification. The good practice Pensions Dashboards: Government Response to the guidance is designed to be as inclusive as possible, so Consultation sets out that qualifying pensions dashboard that as many people as possible are able to securely services will not initially have the capability to facilitate access the online services. transactions. They will start with a “find and view” function,allowingonlyindividualstoseetheirinformation. The creation of a digitally secure identity is complex. Further functionality will be carefully considered, taking Last year,the Government introduced the digital identity into account the potential risks to consumers alongside unit, which is now leading work to develop a digital the potential benefits. identity solution that can be used across the public It may reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and private sectors. The industry delivery group will that although the Government have been clear that we work with the digital identity unit to enable the delivery want to enable consumer-focused innovation in the of a secure, effective and inclusive identity service for long term, this does not necessarily lead to transactions users of the pensions dashboard. I understood what on dashboards. I also respectfully remind her of the my noble friend said about Verify, and I assure him mantra that we have uttered many times: that the that the industry delivery group has this issue squarely consumers’ interests must come first. We set out in our on its radar. It is being informed by industry experts consultation document three overarching design principles, and consumer groups, and it will carefully consider which underpin the pensions dashboard ecosystem. available options and make recommendations on the These are: first, to put the consumer at the heart of the best identity solution for pensions dashboards. The process by giving people access to clear information solution may not be Verify. online; secondly, to ensure that consumers’ data are ID verification will have to meet the standards for secure, accurate and simple to understand; and, thirdly, all parties, including state pension, and that requires a to ensure that the consumer is always in control over high level above that for an individual scheme. Whatever who has access to their data. happens, I can assure my noble friend that dashboards will be free at the point of use for consumers; that 4.30 pm includes identity verification. Digital identity remains Having said that, individuals wishing to use dashboards a priority for government and we are considering ways will be able to delegate access to Money and Pensions in which to continue this work with departments across Service guiders or FCA-authorised and regulated financial government. We hope to make announcements on advisers via the dashboard. But individuals will, as I that in due course. have just said, always have control over who has access to their data and will be able to revoke that access On Amendment 38, the Government fully support permission at any time. beneficiaries with entitlements having access to their Woe betide anyone who infringes the rules. The FCA pension information via dashboards. I can tell my noble has said that it is willing to use a range of compliance friend Lord Young that this clause, as already drafted, measures. The FCA’s rules are legally binding and, if a enables this to happen. The delivery of this facility will firm contravenes them, it may be subject to enforcement be considered by the industry delivery group. However, action. The FCA has a range of sanctions available to his amendment does not distinguish between beneficiaries it. The level of service provided by dashboards will be with entitlements and potential beneficiaries, without set out in regulations under the Bill. I remind the current entitlements to the scheme. Creating provision Committee that those regulations are all subject to public for a person with a potential entitlement introduces consultation and the affirmative resolution procedures, considerable legal and technical challenges about data with the parliamentary scrutiny that this involves. protection and confidentiality in relation to the principal Dashboard services will need to meet the requirements scheme member. The members themselves should have and standards set out in these regulations before they control of the access to such information, and this can connect to the dashboard infrastructure. We are should happen only with consent. We should be wary well aware that each additional level of functionality of undermining confidence that an individual’s own needs to be approached with care. pensions data will be kept safe, confidential and secure. It is of course very important that individuals access On Amendments 43 and 44, the Government recognise advice and guidance before making decisions on that some people will have a range of assets, including undertaking significant pensions transactions.Regulations their homes, which could be used to form part of an are already in place on this, and we will consider how individual’s retirement income. I understand all that best to use dashboards to signpost sources of information my noble friend said in favour of adding to the dashboard and guidance. For example, we could require qualifying in this way.However,I question whether such amendments dashboards to signpost to free and impartial guidance are either wise or necessary. Many income projection through the Money and Pensions Service. Consumers tools are available through independent financial advisers will also be able to consent to authorised, independent to support individuals with this. The amendments financial advisers or Money and Pensions Service guiders open up the possibility of financial advisers being able having time-limited, delegated access to their information to add information and make calculations directly on on a dashboard, as I indicated a moment ago. to a dashboard. This would significantly extend the Amendments 50, 53, 62 and 67 were tabled by the scope of pensions dashboards, adding more complexity noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and my noble friend and risk to delivery. Lord Flight. These cover the provision of information GC 207 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][2 MARCH 2020] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 208 on an estimated retirement income, and costs and actually lined up behind the Government’s starting charges to the individual via a dashboard service. The with a public-owned dashboard and had quite strong Government share the desire that this information is views about proceeding without one? Does he accept that shown in the future. The Bill already allows us to when one disaggregates the responses to the consultation, require schemes, via secondary legislation, to provide that is a correct summary? I am quite happy to name projections of retirement income and costs and charges. the organisations on which I base that view. We must recognise that costs and charges are not the Secondly, the Minister actually gave a very good sole indicator of value for money; they need to be explanation of why one should not run into transactions understood alongside other factors. Further, schemes on the dashboard: not just because of the technical have different ways of applying costs and charges, so and IT requirements to building a safe dashboard, but information provided on the dashboard may not be because of the whole behavioural market- weakness easily comparable. Weneed to consider what information issues that come into play. However, I do not think I is shown, and how, as we would not wish for individuals heard him say that, as a result of recognising that, the to make decisions about their pensions based on costs issue would come back to the Houses of Parliament and charges alone. through another Bill before proceeding to transactions. In the same vein, we need to make sure that any That was the assurance. I do not think that simply a information on projected retirement income is easily discussion on regulations would meet Parliament’s understood and consistent. We also need to understand need to scrutinise such a big transition. To push again, how an individual interacts with such information, so will he confirm that the Government would need to we can ensure it does not prompt decisions that potentially come back to Parliament before proceeding to have poor outcomes.This applies equally to Amendments transactional activity? 53 and 63, tabled by my noble friend Lord Flight. Thirdly, the Minister mentioned delegated access, Requiring the publication of a plan within six months about which I am deeply concerned. I have no issue of these measures coming into force risks decisions with MaPS having delegated access, because it was set being made to meet a legislative deadline, rather than up on a certain basis where it was implicit that the in the best interests of the consumer. dashboard would improve the efficiency of the guidance Finally, I turn to Amendments 40 and 57, tabled service. Financial advisers are an issue of some substance. by my noble friend Lady Altmann. I share her aim that The FCA’s report and actions on the market in financial a forecast of state pension income is presented on advice to pensioners is not good reading. Just by dashboards as soon as it is appropriate and practical. September 2018—and the up-to-date figure will be We are currently working with Her Majesty’s Revenue greater—the transfer advice in DB covered assets worth and Customs on a technical solution to ensure that state £82.8 billion. In terms of the recommended product, pension information is provided by dashboards.The ability the regulator found 35% were suitable,24% were unsuitable to provide forecasted state pension income information and 40% were unclear. They produced other reports to is being considered in the design of this solution. express their deep concern. I put a simple question: in Consumers are currently able to view their forecast state the case of Port Talbot, if advisers did not advise pension income on the Government’s online service, those steel-workers well and delegated access to all Check Your State Pension. The design of this service their pension-pot assets, how great would the detriment reflects the considerable user testing that was undertaken have been to those steel-workers? It is not a principle to understand what was important for individuals. that delegated access may be given to advisers at some Our intention is to learn from the experience gained point when there is a high level of confidence down and the user research carried out during the development stream, but evidence provided by the regulator—not of the Check Your State Pension service, alongside anecdotal evidence from me—says that this market is any specific recommendations made by the industry not working well, which fills it with deep concern. design group. I can confirm to my noble friend that all dashboards will be supported by the same digital Baroness Sherlock: My Lords, I want to ask a infrastructure and as a result will display the same couple of questions so that the Minister does not need level of pensions information from the same number to come back to us twice. of schemes. My noble friend Lady Drake powerfully picked up I hope that noble Lords appreciate the need for a the points on transactions that I wanted to make. I balance here between specifying detailed information heard the Minister say that the Government’s intention in legislation now and the impact that this might have is to proceed to transactions at some point—I would on consumer interests and the delivery of the dashboard. be grateful if he could correct that if I misunderstood—but With apologies for having spoken for so long, I hope I did not hear him say why they feel that this is a good that those remarks will have clarified whythe Government idea. I heard him say carefully that they would want have approached these issues as we have. I also hope assurances to protect consumers, but I did not hear that I have thrown light on the detailed issues raised by anything about the positive driver for doing so that noble Lords during the debate. outweighs the risks that manifestly come with it, which my noble friend just articulated. Baroness Drake: Perhaps I may put three questions I apologise; I have two more questions. I should say to the Minister in response to his comments. First, he that I am hugely grateful for the Minister’s thorough opened by pointing out the overwhelming support for response; I appreciate him taking the time to give us the dashboard that was evident in the consultation; I that. It may be that, in all that, I missed the answers to have no argument with that. Does he accept that the a couple of my questions; I apologise if he gave them consumer focus groups, taken in the broadest sense, and I did not pick them up. GC 209 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][LORDS] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 210

[BARONESS SHERLOCK] Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB): My Lords, the noble First, am I right in understanding that the dashboard Baroness, Lady Sherlock, talked about the business will not cover legacy private pensions and new private model of these dashboards. The noble Earl has just pensions not covered by auto-enrolment? If so, do the talked about multiple commercial dashboards. There regulations, as they stand, allow those to be included must be a reason why people will wish to create these subsequently, and do the Government have any views things, and therefore there must be a business model on whether they were going to do so? behind them. What is the Government’s vision for that? The Minister touched on my second question but did not answer it. On Wednesday, he said that Earl Howe: The Government’s vision is for consumers to have access to their own information if they wish, “we entirely understand the importance of having a dashboard run by a public body without any commercial interest.”—[Official and a multiplicity of ways to achieve that. We believe Report, 26/2/20; col. GC 182.] that more is better in this context. That is not to make Why do the Government think that that is a good comparisons between one provider and another, but idea? Why are they not worried that there could be a multiple dashboards will give consumers more choice long period when there are only commercial dashboards in where they access their pensions information, and and no public dashboard? will drive innovation to meet what are bound to be the varied needs of those 25 million people with private Earl Howe: My Lords, on the final point made by pension wealth who are not yet in receipt of their pension. the noble Baroness, it is fair to say that our debate last Wednesday gave my colleagues and me considerable Lord Vaux of Harrowden: My apologies: my question food for thought as to the scheduling of all this. The was not clear. I was asking specifically about the strong wish expressed by noble Lords to prioritise a business model behind this. What is the incentive for publicly funded and owned dashboard was duly noted. commercial providers to create these things? Is it I hope to provide her with further thought on this as advertising? Wehave talked about transactions, et cetera. we go forward. I will come back to her in writing on If we are going to have this multiplicity of them, there her specific question on the inclusion of auto-enrolment must be a multiplicity of reasons. Do the Government schemes and so on. have a view on the best model and controls around The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked whether that, whether it might be advertising, transactions or the consumer groups expressed a particular preference charges to funds? for the MaPS dashboard coming before any others. I Earl Howe: Scheme providers have been absolutely bow to her on that. I will have to check whether that is clear that they are keen for this to happen, mainly a fair reading; I do not doubt that it is if she says so. I because the more exposure that the information has to do not have the specific information to hand. The the particular consumer, the more opportunities there majority of respondents suggested and supported multiple may be for a dialogue between the consumer and the dashboards, not just one. I can only repeat that the scheme provider—“Are you saving enough? Can we rollout of dashboards will be considered as part of a do more for you?”, that sort of thing. They see marketing carefully controlled implementation plan. opportunities in this, but that is very distinct from I do not believe that I expressed a categorical allowing the dashboard to enable them to enter into government intention to include transactions on the transactions. I hope that I have already covered that dashboard. I said that we would make that incremental point satisfactorily. step only after the most careful consideration and public consultation, and assessment of all the risks. I freely Lord Flight: My Lords, is there not the point that, acknowledge that risks exist in that quarter. If we with people having on average 11 different jobs during venture into that sphere relating to dashboards, we must their career and potentially 11 different pension pots, be absolutely certain that the risk of abuse, scams, particularly those they were part of when they were misleading nudges and so forth is as minimal as it younger, many of them have no information at all can be. Each incremental step will require further about it. They do not even know who the manager or parliamentary scrutiny.The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, the provider is. Already, the amount of unclaimed believes that this should be through primary legislation. I financial assets in this country is colossal. Without have to differ with her on that. We have made provision what is happening under this legislation, the problem for secondary legislation by affirmative procedure, will get worse, and we urgently need to sort out the which provides a good measure of parliamentary scrutiny, ownership of lesser pension schemes, going back a preceded by public consultation which will inform long time. parliamentary scrutiny.She and I have to part company in this area. Lord Young of Cookham: My Lords, this has been a long debate, and I do not propose to lengthen it much 4.45 pm more. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken On delegated access, of course there are risks attached, part, in particular my noble friend Lord Howe, who but again I say that until we are absolutely content gave a very full response to the many issues raised. I that the system for delegated access represents a secure was particularly encouraged by what he said a few one that consumers can be confident in and are not moments ago—that the debate we had last Wednesday, liable to be misled by, we will not use it. No doubt the and the view of the Committee that it would be best if nature of those risks and what we have to guard against the MaPS scheme was up and running before the will be made clear as we proceed through the consultation. other ones, had made some impact. I noted that he We need to look at all responses from all groups as we said that he hoped to come back to us with more news go forward. on that in the future. GC 211 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][2 MARCH 2020] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 212

I will say just a word on Amendment 39, in the name Baroness Altmann: My Lords, the amendments in of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. I read page 56 of this group stand in my name and those of my noble the policy brief, which says: friend Lord Flight, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, “Dashboards will present simple information, without the and the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Hutton. ability to carry out transactions.” A number of us have tabled amendments in this As I understand it from what my noble friend said, group on similar themes. I will leave other noble Lords that has been qualified and, subject to all the reservations to talk specifically to their amendments but the main and safeguards that he mentioned, it may be that under concern that we are trying to address is that there this existing legislation, transactions could be provided—I should be proper protection for consumers when using think that is where we ended up. In that case, the wording these dashboards. What is proposed in different formats in the policy brief, if it is by any chance ever reprinted, is that the Financial Conduct Authority should oversee might be qualified. At the moment it is quite stark: any dashboards—particularly the commercial ones—as “Dashboards will present simple information, without the a regulated activity. We have not seen that specified in ability to carry out transactions.” the Bill and feel that clear regulatory protection for I am being given a look; I am not quite clear what it any consumers using a pensions dashboard needs to means, but I will move on. be on the face of the Bill. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Flight for the Obviously there are different ways in which the support he gave to my amendment on equity release. FCA may impose regulatory protection. However, if However,I take the overall view that, while it makes sense this is meant to be an activity that benefits consumers, at some point to have the opportunity to take a picture of then, given all the experience that we have had in all the assets available that can form a pension income pensions and the issues that have arisen for consumers stream, perhaps using the pensions board to do it up from time to time when there is an asymmetry of front is not the right place. I was reassured by what my information and pension providers, and providers of noble friend Lord Howe said—that in future, we could different products are able to take advantage of the consider some embellishments to the scheme, but the fact that consumers are not always totally au fait with top priority was to move ahead as currently planned. the information on their pensions that they are presented I am afraid that my concerns have not been satisfied with, it is really important, for example, that the FCA at all on Verify. I was grateful to my noble friend for makes sure that the information is clear and that there the assurances, first, that there would be no charge for is a recognised standard for a dashboard so that it accessing any pensions dashboard; and, secondly, that cannot be misleading for consumers in some way, as there would not be a charge for accessing the verification might sometimes be the case. Sometimes providers do process.The Government have spent hundreds of millions not intentionally try to mislead consumers but the of pounds and many years developing Verify, so I was language that they use every day is natural vernacular slightly surprised when he said that the identification for them, although it does not mean a thing to a process for the pensions dashboard may not be Verify. consumer. A provider might think that they have If it will not be Verify, what will it be? There is no explained something very clearly for anyone who knows other game in town at the moment. As of yesterday, all about pensions but, on reading it, the customer the Government lost all leverage over Verify by stopping might get totally the wrong idea or not understand any funding, so its development is now entirely in the what is being presented and perhaps take an incorrect hands of the providers. Given that the providers have conclusion from it. now heard that Verify may not be the scheme for the Amendment 68 suggests that the provider of a pensions dashboard, that may weaken even further pensions dashboard should have a fiduciary duty to their incentive to develop it. What is the business the user of the dashboard. There is merit in our model for Verify if you cannot charge the people who considering that as an extra layer of protection so are having themselves verified? that, once again, the provider of the dashboard is There is therefore still a huge question mark over how required to consider what the consumer might understand we will get access to the pensions dashboard if there is and need, and the provider therefore has a duty to some doubt, as I explained a few moments ago, about help them rather than take advantage of them in some Verify, and no clarity at all about what this alternative way, whether intentionally or not. system might be, which is not Verify and which will unlock I am not sure that I need to take up the time of the the key to the dashboard. Having said that, I do not want Committee any further. That is the thrust of the intent to sound at all mealy-mouthed to my noble friend, who behind these amendments, and I look forward to did a heroic job dealing with all the other amendments, hearing from other noble Lords on this issue. but I still have some lingering doubts on that one. However, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 38. Lord Flight: My Lords, the point that I want to Amendment 38 withdrawn. make is that there are four cases where the FCA is the Amendments 39 and 40 not moved. regulator but no reference is made to where the Pensions Regulator will provide the regulatory task. It might be readily understood by the industry why regulation is Amendment 41 divided but there is a question mark over whether Moved by Baroness Altmann citizens will automatically know to go to the FCA for 41: Clause 118, page 105, line 9, at end insert— certain things and to go to the Pensions Regulator for “( ) Requirements prescribed under subsection (2) must others. I am sure that there are sound reasons for it but require that the provision of pensions dashboard I would be interested to hear the Government’s view services is an activity regulated by the FCA.” on what the regulatory model should be. GC 213 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][LORDS] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 214

5 pm Hurrah, say I. That is marvellous.The Minister continued with only very slightly less certainty: Lord Hutton of Furness (Lab): My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 68. I put my name to it and “Clause 118 provides the power to set out detailed requirements ‘for qualifying pensions dashboards’. It is also likely that this will raised the issue at Second Reading in the Chamber. be linked to the new regulated activity outlined by the Financial We have had a long debate this afternoon, and I think Conduct Authority.”—[Official Report, 26/02/20; col. GC 183.] most of us are pretty clear that pension dashboard I think we are being told that this means providing a services are going to provide a significant service to dashboard service will be added to the regulated activity pension scheme members. We might be able to track order. I am assuming that is what that means. down £20 billion-worth of lost pension scheme assets, and we might be able to encourage more people to Those requirements in Clause 118 may include save for their retirement if it becomes clear to them “what … information is to be provided” through accessing a pensions dashboard that they may and not be in possession of all the means they might wish “how the ... dashboard service is to be … operated.” to have in their retirement. However, we must not lose sight of one very important risk, which is that although They may also, I hope that pension dashboard services will bring “require a dashboard service to comply with standards, specifications significant advantages, they could also be the route or technical requirements published … by ... the Secretary of through which potential harm is done to pension State ... The Money and Pensions Service” scheme members by bad or sharp commercial practice or another specified person. Crucially they may, or whatever else. It is particularly important that we “require the provider of the pensions dashboard service to be a consider ensuring that a safety-first approach is adopted person approved … by … the Secretary of State … the Money when it comes to the establishment of these new and Pensions Service” services. or another specified person. The last of those is crucial. I cannot think of anything more fundamental—this If running a dashboard service is to be an FCA- is what I think Amendment 68 is trying to flush regulated activity, should that not mean that those out—or more important than to place on the shoulders running it have to be approved by the FCA—in which of those responsible for running these schemes a duty case, ought that not to be made clear? It could be to act in the best interest of pension scheme members. another body, but the bodies named do not include I am sure that through these regulations and other the FCA. If the activity is on the ROA, does that mean provisions a welter of regulation will bear down on to that the FCA will then be able to use its full range of the shoulders of those services, but the idea is that FiSMA powers of supervision and regulation on anyone they have a direct legal responsibility to pension scheme providing dashboard services? Can the Minister further members to act in their interests when they are accessing confirm that that would mean that complaints about data on the pensions dashboard. A very clear line of anything to do with the dashboard could be made to legal responsibility will go a very long way in establishing the Financial Ombudsman Service? the right overall governance and attitude of mind that This is the train I am trying to establish. It is great should be at work when these schemes come into that the activities are regulated by the FCA. Will the operation. Those who are running pension schemes people running it have to be FCA approved and have similar fiduciary duties and therefore it is therefore subject to the full range of FiSMA powers? entirely appropriate. If this amendment is not accepted, It seems that that is where the real firepower is located. there may be some other more effective approach. Alternatively, are the Government envisaging that a I hope the Government will give some consideration dashboard service might be run by an organisation to how this further level of accountability and aid to that was not FCA approved, supervised or regulated? the good governance of these new services is best Would there be a real risk of consumer detriment if advanced. the FCA cannot use its full range of powers on anyone using a commercial dashboard? Baroness Sherlock: My Lords, the six amendments Provision of information to a dashboard also needs in this group in my name and that of my noble friend to be subject to a scheme of regulation and compliance. Lord McKenzie of Luton are probing amendments Information will come from various sources. Will the designed to get Ministers to reassure the Committee provision of information from trust-based schemes to that there is a robust system of regulation and supervision a dashboard be regulated by the TPR? What about the for those involved in the dashboards. Rather than go information provided from contract schemes? Will through them one at a time, as there are overlapping that come from via the FCA? Will it be directly under amendments from other noble Lords, it might be FCA supervision or by the fact that they regulate the easier if I simply ask the Minister to clarify some of firms providing the information? Who will oversee the the key aspects of the supervision and regulatory provision of information from the state and make sure regimes which the Government have in mind. it is accurate? Where does the consumer go to complain I was delighted last week when the Minister indicated about their data? At the moment, if a bank misuses that the Government have acceded to the request from your data, the ICO will deal with the bank, but the my noble friend Lady Drake and many others around consumer will go to the Financial Ombudsman Service the Committee: to deal with detriment. What will happen here? “we shall be introducing a new regulated activity under the My biggest concern is what will be done with data Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to reflect the provision provided on dashboards and the potential for mis-selling. of dashboard services.” Amendment 68 would require that those providing GC 215 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][2 MARCH 2020] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 216 dashboard services would have to act in the fiduciary interests of customers into account. The Government interest of savers. My noble friend Lord Hutton just will again set out in regulations the conditions that a made a compelling case for that. Our argument is that dashboard will have to meet. This will be supported by this is a special situation where the state has mandated new, dashboard-specific regulated activity, as I have that consumers’ data should all be gathered together just explained. in one place. That is helpful, but it is a little like saying, Strong consumer representation on the industry “Rather than having them wandering freely across the delivery group, alongside new regulations and a new, hillside, all the lambs have been gathered into one pen”. dashboard-specific regulated activity, will ensure that In that case, you want to be pretty sure that there is a the design is in the interests of consumers and that good lock on the gate and that anyone coming along they are protected. The regulatory framework for the pretending to be a shepherd can be spotted early new regulated activity will be proposed in the FCA’s and—“Stop. Enough of this analogy. Ed.” I think the consultation on the corresponding handbook rules point is made. and guidance. Because of this higher challenge, there should be a higher duty of care to the consumer. If an organisation Lord Hutton of Furness: I hear what the Minister is running a dashboard service is regulated by the FCA, saying and am very grateful for the thoroughness with it will be subject to the “treating customers fairly” which he is responding to these issues, but will pension FCA standard, but this goes higher. It becomes even scheme members have any direct legal redress against more important if it is possible that any of those people a dashboard services operator should things go wrong? will not be subject to the full range of FCA supervision As I am hearing him, most of the remedies seem to lie and regulation powers. There should be a duty of care in the hands of regulators or others, but if my data is to the consumer. We can see the benefit of gathering misused or I feel that some problem has occurred as information/lambs in one place, but it of course makes the result of the inappropriate organisation of a pensions the information/lambs much easier to access. Can the dashboard service, where do I stand? Minister give us some reassurance on those points? Earl Howe: Consumers will have various modes of redress available to them if they are not served legally Earl Howe: My Lords, the amendments in this or properly by their scheme provider or the dashboard group are designed to ensure that consumers are placed provider.Our response to the consultation on dashboards at the heart of dashboards and that the Financial highlighted the need for a clear liability model for the Conduct Authority is given responsibility for certain whole dashboard system. The objective is to enable aspects of that. I say straightaway that I wholeheartedly users to identify easily where to raise a complaint or a agree with this aim. What I cannot agree with is the dispute if a dashboard fails to work, or if they fail to way of achieving it proposed in the amendments. receive their pension information. We have asked the The Government are persuaded that a strong regulatory Money and Pensions Service,through the industry delivery regime is key to maintaining public confidence in group, to consider how this might operate and to dashboards. There are existing powers which we will make recommendations. The Pensions Regulator and use to introduce a new regulated activity for dashboard the FCA will regulate compliance by pension schemes providers. We can do this by amending the regulated and the Information Commissioner will have a role in activities order set out in Section 22 of the Financial ensuring that the disclosure of pension information Services and Markets Act 2000. This will bring the takes place in accordance with data protection legislation. provision of a qualifying dashboard service within the Only FCA-approved bodies can provide a qualifying regulatory and supervisory the remit of the FCA. dashboard. Only qualifying dashboards can connect There is no need for the new dashboard-specific regulated to the infrastructure, and they will fall under the full activity to be in the Bill. regulatory regime. We are working with Her Majesty’s Treasury New Section 238G, introduced by Clause 119, ensures and the FCA to agree the nature and scope of the that the regulator will be able to monitor and enforce changes. Legislation amending the order will be brought compliance with the new requirements, in keeping forward in due course. I can also confirm that the with the existing regulatory regime. The FCA also has Financial Services and Markets Act covers Northern the power to enforce rules that it will make under this Ireland, meaning that any new regulated activity would legislation. Part 14 of the Financial Services and Markets also extend to Northern Ireland. It is important to note Act 2000 allows the FCA to enforce any requirement that the new regulated activity will apply only to on authorised persons, including those setting up or dashboard providers. Pension scheme trustees and operating a personal stakeholder pension. operators are already within the regulatory remit of either the Pensions Regulator or the FCA. The 5.15 pm requirement on pension schemes relating to the provision Turning now to the need for dashboard providers of information via dashboards will be set out in regulations to act in the best interests of their customers, I agree and FCA rules pursuant to this Bill. that the needs of customers must be taken into account, The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked whether but not through fiduciary duties as proposed in the FCA will be able to use its full range of powers; Amendment 68. The FCA has an existing framework yes, it will. All the FCA’s existing powers will be to ensure that authorised firms, which will include available where a dashboard provider must be FCA- dashboard providers, take the interests of customers authorised. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, into account. This includes the principle of paying due the Financial Conduct Authority has an existing regard to the interests of customers and treating them framework to ensure that authorised firms take the fairly.Fiduciary duties arise out of fiduciary relationships GC 217 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][LORDS] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 218

[EARL HOWE] Baroness Drake: The liability model has not been —those of trust and confidence—mainly in relation to settled. That is perfectly understandable; I do not rush prudently taking care of money or other assets for to criticise it because there is a lot to do. All I would another person. Providers of dashboards will not be say, because I cannot resist doing so, is that it goes to in a fiduciary relationship with dashboard users as the argument that one should start with a public they are merely an intermediary facilitating access to dashboard. My question follows on from that asked information about people’s pension savings. by my noble friend Lord Hutton. On reading Clause 118, clearly powers are given to certain parties to set Baroness Altmann: I thank my noble friend for his requirements—with the exclusion of the Secretary of very thorough response to this group of amendments. State, who is in a totally different position. Can the Is it not possible that without a comprehensive, Minister confirm that no such powers under Clause 118 overarching regulatory framework for all dashboard can override the FCA’s existing powers? He may not activities, consumers could fall between different cracks, be able to answer that yet but it would give clarity. and the provider of the dashboard that has provided them with misleading or incorrect information could Earl Howe: I believe that to be so but I need to take then say, “Well, it was the person who gave us the data advice; I will write to the noble Baroness on that point. who was misleading: it wasn’t us. We are just providing information.”? Or could this activity in some way be Baroness Sherlock: On a related point, I tried hard related to unregulated lead generation, which is part to listen to what the Minister said because I am of the pensions landscape and has been so damaging particularly interested in whether somebody can run a to consumers? Therefore, what I hoped we might dashboard service if they are not FCA-authorised. I achieve with my amendment was an overarching regulated heard him say that the full range of FiSMA powers activity for anybody participating in or providing data could be used, so a dashboard must be FCA-authorised, to the dashboard and for the dashboard provider but I think I heard him say also that only FCA-approved providing the data to a customer. bodies can run dashboard services. Is that right? Earl Howe: Yes. Earl Howe: We come back to the question of a liability model. I might as well deal with that now. We Baroness Sherlock: Excellent. In that case, I am trying set out in the consultation response that we expect the to relate that to New Section 238A(5)(c), to be introduced industry delivery group to make recommendations on by Clause 118(2), on page 105 of the Bill. It states that a robust liability model that ensures that there are requirements prescribed under subsection (2) may, in clear roles and responsibilities and a clear process for particular, dealing with complaints. The point made by my noble “require the provider of the pensions dashboard service to be a friend that there is a risk that something might fall person approved from time to time by— through the cracks is a very good one. The best that I (i) the Secretary of State, can do at the moment is to say that, as the service is (ii) the Money and Pensions Service, or developed, the detail of where liability exists will emerge. (iii) a person specified or of a description specified in the regulations”. She will agree with me that we are not dealing with new data or with new financial transactions, but yes, If, as the Minister just said, the FCA must authorise potential service risks might emerge. The IDG will, as someone to run a dashboard, does it not make more I have said, recommend robust liability models, and sense for a government amendment to come forward to the framework of any new liability arrangements will make that clear in the regulations, rather than naming be set out in regulations. That is one of the reasons two bodies—neither of which is the FCA—and having why we need delegated powers in this area. a catch-all for the third? I think that the industry delivery group is the best While I am on my feet—hey, why waste an forum to build a liability model to which all parties are opportunity?—and the Minister reflects a little more signed up and that takes into account good practice on that point, I want to ask about the duty of care and and lessons learned from open banking. While I realise the fiduciary duty. I take the Minister’s point about that there are many differences, there are certainly the wording there, but are the Government resistant to lessons that we can draw from that sphere. the underlying point made by my noble friend Lord Hutton and me: that, in these particular circumstances, there should be a higher duty of care to Lord Flight: My Lords, is not the big issue in this the consumer on the part of the organisation running territory that when people have discovered that they the dashboard services than would be the case in the have four, five, six or seven different pension funds, general mêlée of the FCA? Treating customers fairly they will want advice as to what to do with them? and related things may suit that generic environment There is the whole problem of who can give advice, but this is a very particular circumstance; the Government guidance or help in that area, but unless arrangements have initiated this and put all this information in one are determined about how to deal with this question, I place and mandated its release. If it were more felicitously can see all sorts of regulatory issues arising. worded, would the Government resist the notion of a higher duty of care in this circumstance than the one Earl Howe: My noble friend is quite right. The that prevails generally in FCA supervision? industry delivery group has these matters squarely on its agenda. I can go no further than to say what I have Earl Howe: I will certainly go away and consider said thus far on his points, but I will consider the that point, even if “fiduciary”is not the appropriate word, matter further and write to him if necessary. and look in conjunction with my officials at whether GC 219 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][2 MARCH 2020] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 220 there is a mechanism that would achieve that aim My concern is that, although this is portrayed as an without inventing some new legal status. I am grateful information dashboard, we know that the provision of to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, guidance and information has no consumer protection for their points. whatever—it is a matter of caveat emptor. If, for The question posed by the noble Baroness,Lady Drake, example, those dashboards carry advertisements that boils down to this: if MaPS or another specified may be perceived as enticing people to buy products person sets the data standards, how will they be but they do not fall under such a regulation in FCA accountable to Parliament? As I said, the regulations terms, we might be well advised at this stage to place enable parliamentary scrutiny and debate on any specific an overriding emphasis from the consumer perspective future proposal as they come forward. on regulatory protection and authorisation for the entire framework, rather than relying on liability being We need to ensure that dashboards are fit for purpose proven later and redress being provided to the customer over the longer term. That cannot happen in a summary after a problem has occurred. For the moment, however, way. Delegating the ability to set and update standards I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. and technical specifications support through secondary legislation will, in our view, ensure that dashboards Amendment 41 withdrawn. remain beneficial and relevant to consumers. Our approach recognises that ownership of the Amendments 42 to 45 not moved. dashboard infrastructure and the responsibilities for the setting of standards may need to change over time, 5.30 pm but I reiterate that, taking into account the good practice that exists, the industry delivery group will develop and make recommendations on a robust liability Amendment 46 model to ensure that there are clear roles and Moved by Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted responsibilities in the event of a breach. That includes a clear consumer redress mechanism. In answer to the 46: Clause 118, page 107, line 28, at end insert— noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, the policy intent is “( ) Any regulations made under section 238A or this that the FCA should authorise dashboard providers section which make provision for privately owned or and that this should be achieved by order. commercial providers of pensions dashboard services to enter service must include provision about— The FCA takes seriously the need to consult the (a) designation of the responsible regulators for— public. It has a general duty to consult the public by publishing draft rules. This duty will apply equally in (i) operators of the pensions dashboards, this case. The FCA will also consult the Secretary of (ii) displayed dashboard information, State and Her Majesty’s Treasury prior to public (iii) conduct relating to the use of data, consultation on draft rules. That will ensure that the (iv) advertising, and rules have regard to the regulations that place obligations (v) revenue generation from the pensions dashboard on trust-based schemes, which will provide a consistent service for the provider, including revenue from and coherent approach. advertising; We have covered quite a lot of ground, but I hope (b) redress mechanisms and designation of the responsible that I have effectively explained the role of the FCA in body for claims arising from harm to users of a pensions dashboard service including for loss or protecting consumers and provided the assurance that improper use of data; noble Lords are seeking that we will bring dashboard (c) mechanisms to mitigate the risk of fraud; services within the FCA’s scope. If I have not covered all the ground, I hope that I can rely on meetings with (d) rules about type of content, presentation of information, assumptions regarding predicted pension income, noble Lords following Committee so that, by Report valuation, projections, risks and comparisons; stage, I am able to come up with any further and better (e) rules about advertising on the pensions dashboard particulars that they seek. With that, I hope that for service and any revenue generated from the pensions the time being the noble Baroness will feel comfortable dashboard service for the provider of the pensions in withdrawing the amendment. dashboard service or any third party; (f) display of charges or any commission received by the dashboard provider for any services, transfer of Baroness Altmann: I thank my noble friend for his funds or purchases available through the pensions detailed response and the broadness of his willingness dashboard service, and to consider the points that we have made on this (g) display of the projected cash effect on expected pension important issue. I am delighted that he agrees that we income or lump sum outcomes of any services, all seem to have the same aim, which is to protect the transfer of funds or purchases available through the consumer. However, I would be grateful if he went pensions dashboard service.” back to the department and perhaps wrote to me and other interested noble Lords about this. We all aim to Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted: My Lords, I am have consumer protection but, if that is to be put in conscious that, in the two groups we have already via a series of regulations with a liability model that discussed, we have touched quite thoroughly on the we do not yet quite have, would there be any specific background that inspired my amendment. The Minister harm in putting in the Bill the regulatory framework has explained several times that it is the intention that and the requirement for FCA authorisation and protection this legislation is flexible, that because of the ability to for consumers, so that there is a comprehensive, make regulations it can develop over time and that overarching framework? many of the things that noble Lords have already been GC 221 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][LORDS] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 222

[BARONESS BOWLES OF BERKHAMSTED] within the regulatory perimeter. As I have said previously, pressing for are potentially in the mind of government. it regards that as a matter for government and Parliament There was a similar discussion at an all-Peers meeting to authorise. An example is that although the FCA a couple of weeks ago, which several noble Lords—in covers conduct in banks—which, as we well know, are particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock—were also heavily regulated by the Prudential Regulation at and which inspired this probing omnibus amendment Authority—banks can do quite a lot that, although that puts together all the things we discussed in that they have that heavy regulation, falls outside the regulatory meeting and a few more. I do not see that it in any way perimeter for conduct. Commercial lending is one competes with the amendments about the content of example. People tend to trust regulated entities but regulations or the SCA being the dashboard regulator. then do not realise that things that do not have that The purpose of this amendment is to discuss how supervisory and conduct backing can be done. It is to make certain that there will be joined-up, end-to-end necessary to dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s here. coverage by the regulator and the regulations—or in For example, it might be that the phrase “Click here supervision, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, to transfer your pension” would be covered, but as the expressed it. Again, I am sure that it is the intention noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, hinted in her previous for a lot of this to happen—there are certainly enough suggestions, would it be against the regulations to say, powers in the Bill to do it—but there is nothing yet in “Click here and buy a Maserati”? It was once suggested the Bill to make it certain. I acknowledge that things that that might happen with pensions freedoms. What have been said but that is not the same as having about equity release for double glazing and conservatories, something in the Bill. which feature heavily in the advertising about equity release? If we do not cover advertising and the FCA It has been said that a lot of these things might develop does not, who does? It must be covered. It cannot be as a result of consultations with industry groups. If left open. My amendment aims to draw attention to these industry groups decide that they do not want some of matters through my list. I will obviously be interested this, what happens? There needs to be a basic obligation to hear the reply. that these things will be covered—in particular, as my amendment envisages, if we are getting to the point However,when it comes to drafting regulations—again, where we have commercial dashboards. If these things this has relevance because the Minister has already are not resolved by the time we get them—it looks as if mentioned it—there should not be too much left to the we might be getting them anyway, not after a delay—I regulatory rules. They can create holes, especially after do not think that it is satisfactory to have nothing in the regulator has consulted the people it is attempting the Bill. to regulate. I touched on that in a debate last week, when I explained how regulators’ rules—FCA rules, to To ensure end-to-end regulatory coverage for the be precise—had watered down the generality of “fit process of loading information on to dashboards to and proper” as a test for behaviour. It is by no means the dashboard itself and for any consequential actions the all-encompassing test that was originally intended; arising from the dashboard, my wish list, or probing it was narrowed down by the rules of the regulator. list, covers: dashboard operation; information; data; When it comes to pensions, I therefore want a belt-and advertising and revenue generation; redress mechanisms; -braces approach. As I said, I have attempted to draft fraud mitigation, which the Minister has already something that sweeps together all the concerns in a mentioned;content;presentation;assumptions;valuations; probing, omnibus-type way; I will not go through the projections; risk; comparison; third-party revenue charges; list because quite a lot of it has already featured in our and commissions and their effect on projections. debate today on previous amendments. I do not aim to Noble Lords said on the previous group that it is say how it is to be done but I suggest that when there is difficult to have information about charges because to be a commercial dashboard, the regulations must they are done in different ways and are the be-all and be done for all these things. I believe that that is what end-all. That in particular is why I have said that the the Government say they will do, but it is better to have effect of the charges should be given because that is it on a piece of paper inside the Bill. I beg to move. where you can assess them. If there are lots of different mechanisms and they can make things weaselly wordy or look wrong, they should not be able to disguise the Lord Sharkey (LD): My Lords, my noble friend’s cash effect of the charges that can be extracted. That is amendment,amongotherthings,speaksaboutadvertising. probably more important than saying what the charges The underlying question about advertising, however, are. I do not think that this is in conflict with anything is surely why allow it at all? That was touched upon by else that has been said today. the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. You can see the benefit, obviously, to However, what happens if there is a data breach? commercial dashboard providers: another revenue stream That might be a matter for the Information Commissioner. and/or the cross-selling of their products. However, it It might be automatic or a matter for redress by the is hard to see why the customer would want yet financial ombudsman. These mechanisms are all out another advertising channel while there are already there. How will they join up? We want to know for thousands—perhaps tens of thousands—of advertising certain that they will. Nothing in my amendment channels. What really is the benefit to the consumer; suggests how this must be done; it just says that it must or perhaps more accurately,what really is the risk-benefit be done. balance for the consumer created by the existence of While mentioning the FCA, we need to be clear that advertising on commercial dashboards? What assessment unless it is told categorically in legislation or regulations have the Government made of this risk-benefit balance? that something is regulated, it will not consider it as If the answer is none, perhaps they should consider GC 223 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][2 MARCH 2020] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 224 doing exactly that. I am curious about whether the They judge things by slightly different criteria and in Government have, in fact, indicated to potential different ways: fair or reasonable versus the legal position. commercial dashboard providers that they will be able However, it does matter that nothing falls down the to run ads on their dashboards. Is there some implicit cracks. If a complaint is submitted to an organisation quid pro quo going on here? such as the Financial Ombudsman Service and there is any possibility that it is out of scope, firms will, and Baroness Drake: My Lords, I have some sympathy do, regularly take them to court to try to stop the with the noble Baroness’s amendment in wanting to complaint being heard, and exactly the same thing will set out in regulation, rather than rely on regulatory happen with the regulators. rules, some of the things that will be required to make Therefore, it is really important that somebody has the dashboard function well. I suspect that there are gone through the regulatory map incredibly carefully three drivers behind that sentiment. One is that, in this and made sure that either the regulator already has all market, the providers are particularly dominant: there the powers and the full scope necessary to cover all is not an equality of arms when it comes to seeking these matters or that it will be granted them. I am sure people’s opinion or influencing government policy. that that is already happening but it would be helpful Secondly, the FCA itself recognises that it is very if the Minister could reassure us about it. difficult to get a functioning market and that it needs My noble friend Lady Drake made a very strong to think more and more about intruding in controlling point about both the drivers of the need for this providers’ supply-side behaviour. Thirdly, although change and the inequality of arms. The latter is also the Government understandably want to rely on very strong on the advocacy side. Many times I have consultation, those consultations can be dominated by seen that there has been a lot of money behind those the providers in this market. advocating on behalf of the firms but very little resource Very often, some of the raw consumer issues somehow behind those advocating on behalf of the consumer. do not come to the surface and the consumer groups Therefore, it will be very important to make sure that often do not have sufficient resources to do the kind of one amplifies the voices that speak up for the consumer detailed analysis that a submission requires to pull out interest as well as those that speak for the provider some of the fault lines when these things are looked at interest. through a consumer perspective. Members of the public are not going to participate because they simply do 5.45 pm not understand what the issues are in relation to their Earl Howe: My Lords, I fully appreciate that the interests until they experience them. I therefore have a noble Baroness is trying to ensure that consumers are lot of sympathy, leaving aside the precise wording of properly protected and have confidence in the dashboard this amendment. The Government need to understand infrastructure. Indeed, an aspect of this is the need for that sense of those three sentiments that often drive robust supervision, and I share her belief that it is many of these amendments: the providers are over- important to make clear who will be responsible for dominant; even the FCA recognises the need for greater oversight of the different aspects of the infrastructure. intrusion on providers in the supply-side; and consultation I do not think that much divides the noble Baroness is often not an effective remedy for sufficiently capturing and me on the objective to be achieved. the consumers’ interests. Therefore, the more that is I recognise the need for a strong supervisory and put in regulation, the better. regulatory regime for dashboard providers. I also agree with the thoughts expressed by many noble Lords at Baroness Sherlock: My Lords, I am grateful to the Second Reading about a new regulated activity being noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for having opened up key to maintaining public confidence in dashboards. this territory. She is a creative inventor of amendments: As I explained earlier, we intend to do this by amending she has drawn out here a good selection of the kind of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated things that regulations would need to cover. Will the Activities) Order 2001.This will bring the provision of Minister tell the Committee—whether or not he wants a qualifying dashboard service within the regulatory to accept this amendment—whether it is the Government’s remit of the Financial Conduct Authority.Unauthorised intention to cover those matters within regulation? firms will neither be able to connect to the supporting Are any of these items on the list matters that the infrastructure nor be able to provide a dashboard service. Government think are inappropriate for regulations to Once the amendment to the order has been made, cover them? the regulatory framework for the activity will be proposed The noble Baroness also made a strong case in in the FCA’s public consultation on the corresponding general for end-to-end regulation. The Minister has handbook rules and guidance. This will allow the public described the process that the Government are going and the industry a chance to comment. The FCA must through to develop a liability map. I presume that in have regard to any representations made to it during the this, there will also be a similar kind of regulatory map. consultation period. This framework can be used to set There also needs to be a redress map to ensure that outanyexpectationsregardingthebehaviourof dashboard there are no gaps down the middle of all of those providers and, in this way,will supplement any conditions things. It is also particularly important that there is imposed on dashboard providers set out in regulations. not a regulatory gap. In terms of redress, it is important I would argue that this is where we dot the “i”s and that there are no gaps; if things overlap, that does not cross the “t”s, as the noble Baroness put it. matter so much. For example, there are times when a I note that the amendment also refers to revenue pension complaint could go either to the Pensions generated by both dashboard providers and third parties. Ombudsman or the Financial Ombudsman service. It might not be necessary for me to do so but I want to GC 225 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][LORDS] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 226

[EARL HOWE] Of course, as the noble Baroness will be aware, reassure the Committee that all qualifying dashboard individuals can already access information on costs services, like the dashboard provided by the Money and and charges. The DWP has consulted on simpler Pension Service, will not be allowed to charge simply annual benefits statements; the noble Baroness may for consumers to see their own information. The provision like to know that it will publish a response on that of financial services and products by firms that are subject in the spring. The consultation looks at the dashboard providers will remain subject to FCA presentation of costs and charges and how projections regulation. Fundamentally, our aim in allowing multiple are calculated. It acknowledged the crucial need for dashboards is only to give customers more options simpler statements to be consistent with the work on in accessing their information, not different information. dashboards. We will consider how insights from the consultation can be incorporated into dashboards. The mention of information should remind us that The noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Sherlock, pension information is the lifeblood of a sustainable emphasised the need for adequate consumer dashboard. Dashboards will work within the existing representation. The Money and Pensions Service has framework established by the general data protection brought together an industry delivery group whose regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. Dashboard job it is to ensure that the design of pensions dashboards providers will be subject to penalties under these laws is informed by industry experts and consumer groups. should they fail to meet required standards of consumer Membership of its steering group was announced in and data protection. One of the key principles in the September last year. It includes a strong representation design of the dashboard is that the individual will always of consumer groups, including representation from be in control over who has access to their data. Qualifying Which? and an independent representative with significant dashboard service providers will not be able to see experience in consumer protection. There will also be information about the individual’s pension rights. opportunities for other consumer representatives to The responsibility for the provision of accurate take part in working groups, which will help to ensure data falls on pension schemes. The Pensions Regulator that the final design is on what information and features will be responsible for ensuring occupational pension consumers value. schemes’ compliance with requirements. The FCA will The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked specifically regulate personal and stakeholder pension schemes. about the need to include advertising on a dashboard. Enforcement options, including fines, will be among I can do no other than refer back to my earlier points. the tools available to the regulators if requirements are Rules on advertising are as those around any other not met. incremental addition to the dashboard, and rules on the parameters around the use of data will be looked The role of these regulators will be complemented at very carefully. They will be developed by the by the Money and Pensions Service, which will establish Government in conjunction with the FCA, which will and maintain the dashboard infrastructure. While it work with industry and consumer representatives on will not act as a regulator, it will work with the the delivery group to make sure that if we go down regulators to enable their compliance activity. It is also that path, it is with our eyes open and with the risks obliged, as part of its consumer protection function minimised. We will of course consult on any rules under the Financial Guidance and Claims Act, to surrounding that issue. report to the FCA where regulated persons are behaving I hope that I have given sufficient reassurance around in a manner detrimental to customers. consumer protection to show that the dashboard infrastructure will build on existing regulatory frameworks. That leads me to the issue of redress. If an individual That, with the need to keep dashboards simple, means wishes to seek redress, any queries around possible that while I understand the rationale of the amendment, incorrect information should be directed to the scheme I consider it unnecessary. I hope that, on reflection, in the first instance. Schemes are already required to the noble Baroness will feel that she is comfortable in have dispute resolution processes. To come back to a withdrawing her amendment. question asked earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, if people are not satisfied with the outcome of the internal dispute resolution procedure, they can Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted: My Lords, I thank take their case to the relevant ombudsman. the Minister for his response. As I said, this is a probing amendment but also an attempt to indicate a The amendment covers the need for regulations framework that could be constructive, perhaps in around assumptions, projections and comparison of particular around some of those issues on which all costs and charges. I reiterate that we expect that the noble Lords have spoken. It covers things such as initial information provided on dashboards will be advertising; it may be that the regulation that one simple in the first phase. Adding further information, would want around advertising is that there cannot be such as projected pension income and costs and charges, any of it, but that would still be a regulation to requires consideration on the delivery and consumer prohibit. I feel that there is a need for an explanation protection aspects of these proposals, as we have of this vision, somehow all in one place. Yes, a lot of it discussed. I am not ruling out the possibility of including could be extracted from today’s debate and the such information, but the industry delivery group reassurances that have been given. However, it would should be allowed to consider the implications fully be much better at the very least if it was all put and make its recommendations.Tocommit to regulations together, perhaps in an Explanatory Memorandum. I around possible assumptions and comparisons before still tend to think that there should be something in then would be premature. the Bill, even if more dilute than what I have proposed. GC 227 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][2 MARCH 2020] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 228

I very much thank the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. Clause 119: Information from occupational This inequality of arms is extremely important. When pension schemes it comes to FCA consultations, how many members of the public respond? I am not sure whether I am a Amendments 49 to 53 not moved. member of the public, but I have done it from time to time,and I can tell your Lordships that, even for somebody Amendment 54 like myself who is well used to this kind of thing, the Moved by Baroness Altmann way it is composed and constructive can be jolly difficult to get your head around. It can be difficult to 54: Clause 119, page 111, line 45, at end insert— get yourself organised to put it in, unless you happen “238FA Accuracy of occupational pension scheme to be an industry specialist who does these kinds of information things all the time. I therefore very much doubt that Regulations must impose requirements on the trustees you get members of the public responding; you may or managers or administrators of a relevant occupational pension scheme to ensure that information get some of the consumer organisations, but again, I held in respect of each member which may be submitted doubt that they have the familiarity that is necessary to a pensions dashboard service is regularly checked always to be able to nail the point. for accuracy and any errors are corrected within six As was also suggested, there is a tendency with months.” consultations to weigh the responses: X% says this, Member’s explanatory statement and Y% says that, and the ones who struggle and have This amendment aims to ensure that those running pension difficulty, which is always on the consumer side, are schemes must check data for accuracy and any errors are corrected regularly to prevent incorrect and misleading information appearing outweighed. An awful lot of people with a financial interest on a user’s pensions dashboard. from the industry side will respond. There needs to be a better mechanism for communicating with, if you Baroness Altmann: My Lords, I rise to speak to like, the public and their representatives. One thing Amendments 54 and 65, both of which are on the that could be done is for the FCA to obligingly inform same topic. I beg the Committee’s indulgence. This is Parliament when it is coming out with its consultations. such an important issue that I want to expand on I do not camp on the FCA’s website, looking for its some of the areas involved and my reasons for tabling consultations, and if I do not, I do not know how these amendments. many members of the public will. This is a work in Accurate and complete member data is surely an progress. I have to come back again on the costs. essential prerequisite for the success of any pensions 6 pm dashboard. I was struck by the Minister remarking that pension information is the lifeblood of the dashboard, In my previous life as chair of the Economic and which is absolutely right. These are probing amendments; Monetary Affairs Committee in the European Parliament, I do not claim that they are the perfect answer to the I had a calculator that showed the effects of charges issues that I am raising, but I have tried to insert into and commissions on a variety of funds at the various the Bill specific requirements that must be imposed on levels. Every five years, the charges were the effect of a trustees, managers and administrators of occupational stock market crash. The end computation was that more pension schemes to ensure that the information submitted money had been extracted in charges and commissions to the dashboard has been checked regularly for accuracy. than had built up as added profit in the pensions. This I have suggested that errors must be corrected within was about fund management in general rather than six months. That may not be a reasonable timeframe, pensions, but the same point applies, and probably but it is a start. That is Amendment 54. even more so. To get somewhere with the projections is the only way to show the member of the public—the Amendment 65 seeks to do the same kind of thing saver—the effect of these charges. It does not look very for personal and stakeholder pensions which Amendment much when it is a fraction of a percent, other things 54 is seeking to do for occupational schemes. I am not happen only when there is overperformance and there sure whether I need to mention this each time I speak has been a lot of improvement in this area, but the in Committee, but I draw noble Lords’ attention to my deductions that your end value suffers are still interests as set out in the register. Auto-enrolment has extraordinarily high. This is not a subject that I intend been a great success as all UK employers have set up to let go easily. Work should be done to make this pension schemes for their staff. Workers will be building more publicly available. towards a better retirement, which is a force for good, but it cannot be right that there are currently no I doubt that an industry delivery group will say how formalised requirements that data records are verified wonderfully easy it is, but maybe something like the as accurate regularly. calculator that I had could be put up there, because In the past, pensions have been plagued by data that shows how these fractions add up over 20 or problems. Recently a number of pensioners have had 30 years. I welcome the reassurances and agree with to repay some of their pensions and face future pension the noble Earl that there is no difference in the objectives. cuts as they have been told that past errors in their For now, I will beg leave to withdraw my amendment, pension entitlement have been discovered, many decades but I may wish to return to it at Report. later in some cases. Records were not regularly updated Amendment 46 withdrawn. or corrected. In the past there was manual record-keeping, which was prone to human error, and failure to ensure Amendments 47 and 48 not moved. robust data reconciliation had been regularly carried out meant that errors were not discovered promptly, Clause 118 agreed. and they persisted over time without people knowing. GC 229 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][LORDS] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 230

[BARONESS ALTMANN] I was trying to put into the Bill a mechanism For any dashboard initiative to work, consumers have whereby we can draw a line at a point in time and to be able to trust that their pension contribution records make sure that the pensions dashboard data has been are accurate. This is a particular problem because the through a process of cleansing and verification as a complexity of pension rules makes it almost impossible requirement for submitting the data. I am not saying for individuals, especially workers enrolled in auto- that this will be simple or easy, but as more schemes enrolment schemes, to know whether the amounts being emerge it will be more difficult to go back and try to paid in on their behalf are correct. The complex reconcile past records. We have an opportunity now to calculations must calculate the employee contribution, put that sort of requirement into the Bill. the employer contribution, the tax relief, and potentially I quote from the Pensions Administration Standards the national insurance relief as well. The member Association, a body that oversees pensions administration would naturally assume that their employer or their and has been directly involved in some of these areas: pension provider was ensuring that the amounts being “Data cleansing is costly, so in low margin operations there is recorded on their behalf were accurate, but unfortunately little appetite to invest in either clean data or in digitisation which this has not been the case in the past and it is still not depends on the quality of data. There is no incentive to do better the case for new pension schemes. For example, a than your competitor, as you are all in the same boat. Customers study I was involved in last year which analysed data do not demand improvements and where they do trustees choose representing more than 1 million contributions from to ignore the calls either because of cost, resource constraints or more than 100,000 schemes—these were small employers other priorities for the scheme.” —showed that the data had a 50% initial error rate. It goes on: Some 50% of some aspects of the information was “There is an expectation that introducing mandatory data incorrect and had to be sent back for correction. Those provision as part of the dashboard project will act as an incentive to schemes and providers to clean up data that has been in a poor error rates did not persist, but the data was not necessarily state for decades … The uncomfortable truth is that while compulsion checked as thoroughly as it could have been. will encourage some clean up, it will only be to the minimum level Pension administration is the Cinderella of pensions. needed to show some data in a field, which essentially means that It is the low-margin end. It is not the sexy end. It is the presence of a data item will take precedence over the accuracy of it. Schemes already report 90% compliance with common data under cost pressure, and administrators seem to have standards set by the Pensions Regulator. This should mean 90% of been expected to absorb often very complex changes. schemes will be able to present data that identifies an individual, Sometimes pension providers change their data but of course we know this is not reality, because it has been requirements and their payroll software is not updated self-reported and not robustly checked.” to reflect the latest version, so administrators then We have an opportunity to recognise the poor quality manually adjust spreadsheets to try to make sure that of data. This is not a blame game; it is about trying to they have some data recorded. Data includes incorrect put into the legislation a mechanism through which contribution amounts, contributions made for workers providers and everyone involved in the dashboard who did not belong to the scheme or who had already know that they can no longer rely on other people not opted out, wrong identifiers for the pension scheme, correcting their data and no longer not attend to this inaccurate postcodes, incorrect pay period dates and themselves. so on and, for example, incorrectly believing that a Of course, it will never be possible to ensure 100% pension scheme operates on a relief at source basis accuracy, but having processes in place that constantly when it is net pay or the other way around so the check and which allow errors to be corrected promptly amounts are simply not right. is urgently required. Random regulatory checks, mystery Unfortunately there are no regulatory checks to shopping and systematic accuracy verification by an ensure that data is verified for accuracy. What we have independent body would be of value and is surely a seen in legacy schemes is the detriment that this can vital ingredient of any dashboard on which consumers cause to pensioner members, and if we have a pensions are expected to rely. dashboard that people are relying upon to make their As I said, I am not suggesting that the wording of retirement plans, it is not good enough that administrators the amendments is appropriate, in the right place or will just to try to make sure that by the time people expressed correctly, but I hope that my noble friend reach retirement and get their pension all the errors the Minister can give us some information on and are corrected because people will need that all along. consideration of whether this could be built into a For example, the auto-enrolment declaration of dashboard requirement. I beg to move. compliance does not have accuracy checks built in. Employers are asked to confirm that they have paid 6.15 pm the right amount but nobody ensures that that is the Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab): The noble Baroness case. paints a bleak picture; I do not doubt that she is If they want to check, many pension providers absolutely right. currently do not collect the information that they need Is there not a role in all this for the auditors, and a to verify because they are not getting the pensionable body whose feet can be held to the flames for not pay data sent over to them; they just get an amount of doing its job and not checking the systems, for example? money and are told that it is correct, and that is that. It would not be a solution, but presumably it would We are in the middle of pensions master trust contribute to an improvement. authorisation. Again, there is a risk of records being incorrect but the authorisation does not entail robust Baroness Altmann: The noble Lord raises an important checks on data accuracy or proof that proper processes point which highlights that I have not necessarily are in place to discover and correct errors. covered all the areas to be dealt with on this. Including GC 231 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][2 MARCH 2020] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 232 auditors and having a requirement for them to verify If a pension scheme fails to administer the scheme the accuracy of data is indeed another way of approaching to a sufficient standard, or to comply with any other the issue. I went to trustees and scheme managers aspect of pensions legislation, the Pensions Regulator widely, but auditors are another area which might be is able to issue an improvement notice. Where trustees considered. fail to comply with an improvement notice, the regulator can issue a fine of up to £5,000 in the case of an Baroness Sherlock: My Lords, I do not want to say individual or £50,000 in other cases. very much, but I have a couple of questions on the back My noble friend and the noble Baroness, of what the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has said. Lady Sherlock, stressed the importance of promoting Can the Minister tell the Committee a little about data quality on dashboards to scheme providers. Pension what the regulators and the Government are doing to trustees and providers have been aware of our intention ensure that companies are ready to clean up data to introduce dashboards for some time now. We have ready for transferring to the dashboard? Is there any been clear that they should start preparing their data intention for providers to check that members recognise now. The Pensions Regulator has increased its scrutiny the accuracy of the data at any point? Regarding what of scheme records in recent years, and launched a the noble Baroness described, if data had been wrong specific targeted initiative in October 2019. It will take for decades, perhaps the member would not have time to resolve data issues, which have in some cases known the details, but they might have known if they been ongoing for decades, but the regulator is seeing were not in a scheme, were in a different one, or if the good results from its engagement. There is still work basics were different. to do, as my noble friend will be the first to agree. The Cheviot Trust said that it was concerned that An in-depth understanding of the challenges that deferred members’ data would be less accurate. Is this pension schemes and providers will face in complying on the DWP’s horizon? If so, what is being done with compulsion is essential. The industry delivery group about it? has therefore commissioned specialist independent and qualitative research. This will be conducted on a Earl Howe: My Lords, I completely appreciate my completely anonymous basis and will explore the noble friend’s desire to ensure that the information on challenges of meeting the requirements on data through the dashboard is accurate and secure. I absolutely deep-dive interviews with sample pension providers agree that accurate information is essential to the and schemes. This builds on the Pension Regulator’s effectiveness of a pensions dashboard. The answer insight. It will inform the delivery group’s ultimately must lie with appropriate regulations and recommendations for data requirements, taking into sanctions. The Government believe that these protections account the needs of different scheme types. It may be are in existing regulations, and that the relevant regulators helpful to my noble friend if I note that, as part of the have the powers to intervene if compliance is not delivery group’s activity, a priority is to consider these maintained. Having said that, I shall explain in a specific items of people’s pensions data, which pension minute what work is going on in relation to this set of providers and schemes should supply for dashboard proposals. displays. In relation to personal and stakeholder pensions, rule 9.1.1 in the FCA’s senior management arrangements Experiences from other countries with dashboards systems and controls sourcebook requires pension indicate the importance of agreeing data standards providers to with all industry stakeholders and the benefits of using the widest possible consumer research. The industry “arrange for orderly records to be kept of its business and internal organisation, including all services and transactions delivery group, working with its steering group, is undertaken by it, which must be sufficient to enable the FCA … developing a data-scope paper, which will highlight its to monitor the firm’s compliance”. latest thinking on dashboards’ data across the whole If a scheme fails to meet these requirements, the FCA pensions industry. The IDG plans to publish this will select the most appropriate regulatory tool in the paper in due course, asking industry for feedback and, circumstances. Responses are proportionate and could in particular, its provision of additional evidence where include supervisory intervention. it exists. Where enforcement action is deemed appropriate, The first iteration of the industry working group on the FCA aims to ensure that the sanction is sufficient data will effectively involve the whole industry before to deter the firm or individual from reoffending and a small, focused working group will then refine this deter others from offending. Where it takes disciplinary data thinking as we move on through the spring. I action against a firm or an individual, it will consider therefore hope that my noble friend can be reassured all its available sanctions, redress and restitution powers, that the process that we have in mind has several stages including public censure, financial penalty, prohibition, to it, that they are logical stages, and that they should suspension or restriction orders; it has quite an armoury. tease out the issues that she has very rightly drawn Regarding occupational pension schemes, trustees attention to in her remarks. and managers are also required under existing legislation I hope that I have illustrated that the current obligations to put processes in place to ensure that the data they placed on schemes by the FCA and TPR, together hold is accurate. Section 249A of the Pensions Act 2004 with the enforcement powers which both regulators and the internal controls regulations 2005 require have, combined with the work that I have just described, occupational pension scheme trustees to establish and are sufficient to ensure that the schemes will provide operate internal controls that are adequate to ensure accurate data to the dashboard. I hope, therefore, that that the scheme is administered and managed in my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment accordance with scheme rules and the law. at this stage. GC 233 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][LORDS] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 234

Baroness Altmann: I thank my noble friend very much BaronessNeville-Rolfe(Con):MyLords,Amendment72 for his response.I said that this was a probing amendment, would require the Secretary of State to lay an impact and I recognise that, in theory, such powers appear to assessment before Parliament, once the Bill becomes exist. In practice, they do not seem to be used and an Act, setting out the expected costs of our pension there seems to be rather a reliance on self-reporting, dashboard proposals for businesses, government and which clearly has not produced the accuracy that one not-for-profit organisations. I envisage the assessment might wish. I am delighted that our honourable friend covering business pensions, civil service pensions—of the Pensions Minister has been raising the issue of the which I am lucky enough to be a beneficiary—and need for accurate contributions. We need to encourage other government unfunded schemes such as the old-age pension schemes to get going on cleansing the data. pension, which we were discussing, along with funded They do not need to wait for any regulations or government schemes, such as the universities pension legislation. If they already have the duty, perhaps they scheme, and the pensions of non-governmental bodies: should just get going. charities such as Oxfam or small not-for-profits such I also accept, and am delighted to hear, that the as Red Tractor, which I chair. industry delivery group is working on some qualitative I start by thanking the Minister for the helpful research and data standards. I have to express my briefing that she arranged with the Bill manager and concern that in 2015, there was an agreed data standard the DWP team on the Pension Schemes Bill 2020 practice; unfortunately, the industry decided not to impact assessment. They have tried hard to respect the adopt it. I hope that there will be a different attitude spirit of impact assessment, which allows Ministers this time to the importance of pension scheme data. and Parliament to address costs alongside the case for I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but I hope new legislation. The page numbering is confusing, but that this debate has at least raised the issue. Perhaps it I found the document, particularly the section on may encourage some schemes to get on with data dashboards, which is more than half way through, cleansing and have the regulators looking more closely timely and informative. That is not always the case at it. with the legislation that we scrutinise, so well done. My concern today is that not enough attention is Amendment 54 withdrawn. being given in our discussions to the costs of the new dashboards and that all the debates so far in this Clause 119 agreed. Committee—everything stretching from the climate change provisions debated last week to the long list in Amendments 55 and 56 had been withdrawn from the Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Baroness, Marshalled List. Lady Bowles—are likely to increase them further.

Clause 120 agreed. 6.30 pm Let me try to summarise my concerns. We are talking Schedule 9: Pensions dashboards: Northern Ireland about costs—both once-off and ongoing—amounting to at least many hundreds of millions of pounds on a Amendments 57 to 63 not moved. discounted basis. We are dealing with large and growing sums, the burden of which must fall somewhere; of Schedule 9 agreed. course, as we have heard, some of a new regulatory regime is in the hands of the FCA, whose requirements Clause 121: Information from personal and are notoriously—and often rightly—burdensome. There stakeholder pension schemes is a substantial cost to business. Then we need to add the costs involved in making governmental information Amendments 64 to 69 not moved. on pensions available electronically in the dashboard. They are more modest but the money must still be Clause 121 agreed. found by the public sector. Where schemes have the resources to be professionally Clause 122: The Money and Pensions Service: the run, as is the case with bigger schemes—that do a lot pensions guidance function to clean up their data—which cover about 90% of pension members in the private sector, administration Amendments 70 and 71 not moved. of the dashboard system will be relatively easy.However, there are uncertainties that will carry administrative Clause 122 agreed. costs, which I am not sure we have allowed for. For example, what is to be done with staff who have worked overseas or staff who benefit from overseas Amendment 72 schemes, such as the parallel ones in the Netherlands Moved by Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Germany? 72: After Clause 122, insert the following new Clause— More significant is the problem of small players. As “Pension dashboards: impact assessment with much new legislation, where bodies are small, concerns pile up and the cost imposes a much bigger Within six months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must lay an impact assessment before each House relative burden. I know from my work with small of Parliament setting out the expected costs of the provisions business that it is always kept busy with a plethora of of this Part for businesses, and governmental and non-profit demands and cost pressures. For today’s purposes, organisations.” I have in mind not only small and micro-companies GC 235 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][2 MARCH 2020] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 236 but smaller charities and micro-employers, such as hesitate over how the costs are looked at. One would plumbers or an independent coffee shop. Some of us think from some of the debates that I have participated will remember the debates about how small groups in that I am reluctant to harness financial technology, could deal with the challenges of the data protection but that is absolutely not the case. I am very pro it; I laws. I have similar concerns here, and I am not sure just want it done well. how they are being addressed. I spoke at an industry event the other day. I will not On data protection, there is the threat of the large name the person but it was the first time I had heard fines required under the EU law we were implementing. the CEO of a major financial organisation say,absolutely Here, the penalties are self-imposed. It is not entirely correctly, that a single piece of public policy—auto- clear how all this will be organised, nor exactly how enrolment—brought billions of pounds into the financial enforcement will work. I credit my noble friend the services industry which providers themselves did not Deputy Leader, who gave us some useful information achieve. I am conscious that the industry is very aware on how the enforcement system will work. The trouble of its costs but it benefited hugely from a simple piece is that although every new burden may be justified in of public policy, and I found it quite rewarding that some sense, as we have heard, they pile up, erode our there was recognition of that. I have often said that all competitiveness and job creation, and hit small operators. this money is coming in because the state took the New burdens must also be well communicated and decision to use the private sector to deliver a second-tier explained with time to adopt them. I know that the pension and therefore it has a wider responsibility for Minister will learn from the hostility we saw towards delivering a big piece of public policy. the introduction of auto-enrolment, which was important, I am not saying how one should do it, but it would from the groups that I have described. We need to take be wrong not to attribute to the cost of the pension steps to minimise the fear of bureaucracy, cost and dashboard costs that should be incurred anyway.Where fines in this kind of change. you start in looking at costs influences what they I am speaking today because I want the department aggregate to. Getting the data accurate in order for the to be under pressure to maximise simplicity—my noble dashboard to work has to be done anyway. You cannot friend Lord Howe made a rather positive point about make a profit on inaccurate data. I know that that has that earlier—and minimise costs as far as it can. The been the model for a long time but it is not the correct costs of the dashboard are substantial and will be paid model; it is a dysfunction in the market. On the for largely by pension schemes, and therefore often by trust-based side, the Pensions Regulator is driving, pensioners themselves in due course. That is what one and is required to drive that occupational trust-based has to remember. In aggregate, the total costs over schemes and master trusts increase the accuracy of 10 years now feel to me to be likely to be closer to the their data. If you are auto-enrolling somebody into a £2 billion mentioned by my noble friend Lady Noakes—a product, the least you should do is provide them well-known accountant—at Second Reading than my with accurate data about what they have accrued. earlier estimate of £1 billion. I would not want to attribute to the costs of the dashboard something that the industry and pension There are of course benefits in bringing pension schemes should be doing anyway, which is getting information into one place, but I am not convinced their data accurate. It is indefensible to say, “It’s an that they are commensurate with this huge compliance unacceptable cost to require us to get our data accurate.” cost, and one perverse effect, unfortunately, could be If they were told, “You’ve got to get it 100% as that more retired people will be encouraged to take opposed to 99.9% accurate,”that might be unreasonable money out of their schemes—the equity release that within the timescale, but that should be at the heart of my noble friend Lord Young referred to earlier—to providing pensions, whether contractually, by trust or give it to their children, perhaps lose it or, as my noble whatever. friend Lady Altmann, suggested, run it down completely. This could compound the long-term problem that we Also, the sector has a duty to harness what is have in society of unaffordable care for the elderly. available in financial technology so that people can access more easily what is available. I agree that there We have to be careful about how we tackle the should be this visibility, but I make a plea. Some of dashboard issue and make sure it is as cost-effective as these things required by the dashboard should be done possible. One cannot help wondering whether a single anyway, and some are being driven to be done by government-run scheme might, after all, be the simplest regulators. We must not overstate the costs attributable and cheapest way forward. It might at least be best to to the dashboard when they would be incurred anyway prioritise this to try to get the dashboard off the to meet other government priorities or the efficient ground in a simple, cost-effective way. operating of pension schemes or market providers. I have tabled an amendment which would require That is my only hesitation. Ministers to review the estimated costs in the light of the forthcoming consultation on the dashboard detail Baroness Neville-Rolfe: I am a big supporter of and to publish a new impact assessment six months auto-enrolment, which has been transformative and after the passage of this legislation, once the future helps with this long-term problem of providing for old details are clearer. I look forward to the Minister’s age. The cleaning of data is not a big aspect of the comments on this area. impact assessment I read, although I am sure that we will be advised on that by the department. A lot of it is Baroness Drake: I certainly agree with the spirit setting the things up. It is good that data is gradually behind the amendment—that transparency is a good being tidied up. We must ensure that the system is thing and that the costs should be known—but I just clean for the future. GC 237 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][LORDS] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 238

Lord Vaux of Harrowden: I am staggered by the not including micro-schemes. The assessment recognised numbers on the cost of doing this that are bandied around. that it was not possible to provide more meaningful As far as I can see, the main work here is formatting costs until the development of the system was more data into a consistent format so that it can be uploaded advanced; nor did it seek to estimate the potential to whichever platform it needs to be uploaded to. Frankly, significant benefits to consumers as a result of connecting the creation of a platform is pretty trivial stuff. It is to all of their pension savings or to business from not dramatically different to what happened with open more streamlined administration. banking in that respect; that was a question of formatting The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked whether we had data and ensuring that it was in a consistent format. any information from the open banking exercise. I will Do we have any idea of the open banking process make suitable inquiries about that. I do not have the costs so that we can compare them—and, if they are information to hand, but if I can get it to him, I will dramatically different, ask why? certainly do so. Baroness Altmann: I echo the words of the noble The new impact assessment, which will be produced Baroness, Lady Drake. A number of elements of the alongside the regulations, is the most appropriate place expense shown in the impact assessment are elements to set out these more detailed estimates of costs and that one would have hoped that the industry would benefits, since it will be able to reflect the detail of take upon itself in any case. I sometimes need to remind the proposed dashboard infrastructure as well as the providers that automatic enrolment has been an absolute information needed. However, I assure my noble friend gift to them. It has brought them 10 million new customers that the number of qualifying dashboard services will on a plate, with all the associated tax relief money. have no impact on the cost to schemes; we believe that Surely they need to take an obligation upon themselves allowing multiple dashboards will maximise the potential to modernise their processes and bring their IT into benefits to consumers. Costs might arise from schemes the 21st century. The standard answer is: “It’ll cost too ensuring that data is accurate, but they should already much”, or, “We’ve got our own system, we don’t want be doing this as part of data protection and disclosure to change to a new one”, but in Australia, the Government legislation. Having accurate data is an essential feature mandated a particular system that everybody had to of a healthy pensions landscape. As such pension adopt so that there was a common standard. It worked schemes should routinely commit to making their data very well. My noble friend suggested that the industry more accurate, my colleague in the other place, the delivery group is working on such a potential procedure, Minister for Pensions, has repeatedly called for schemes which would be excellent. It would incur costs but it to clean their data now instead of waiting for dashboard would set the industry up for much more business in implementation. future on a long-term, sustainable basis. I appreciate the importance of making it simple for schemes to connect to the service. That is why the Earl Howe: I am grateful to my noble friend for Government have recommended that there be only raising this important issue. one pension finder service. Smaller schemes, which The Government published impact assessments for may have more difficulty updating their systems, can each measure in the Bill at its introduction. As is usual consider the use of an integrated service provider, practice, we will publish updated impact assessments which may be able to facilitate connections and limit when the Bill is enacted, setting out the impacts of any the changes required directly to the scheme’s IT material amendments to the Bill. I assure my noble infrastructure. friend that for measures where regulations that are subject to consultation are required, we will publish My noble friend emphasised her concerns about impact assessments when those regulations are brought burdens falling on the smallest and poorest schemes. forward. This must be the most beneficial time to The industry delivery group commissioned revisit the impacts, when further policy detail is set out PricewaterhouseCoopers to carry out further research and we are able to apply that element of further with pension schemes. This will help to understand insight to our estimates of costs and benefits. I suggest better what problems they might face in connecting to that adding another impact assessment between Royal the dashboard infrastructure and the costs of such a Assent and the laying of the regulations would not change. Developing this research and understanding provide any further transparency. will also enable us to start to consider in what order schemes might move into the scope of the pensions Turning to dashboards specifically, the Government dashboard and the issues and risks to be faced. are well aware of the additional costs necessary to support the set-up and maintenance of pensions dashboards. The Government recognise that there will be one-off As my noble friend knows, when we published an impact implementation and ongoing maintenance costs for assessment that accompanied the Bill, we set out initial pension schemes and other developers of dashboards. estimates of the possible costs. However, we should As I have said, our impact assessment provides potential recognise that many schemes already provide similar levels indicative implementation and ongoing costs over a of information directly to their consumer through annual 10-year window.However, by having a single supporting benefit statements or digital platforms, so not all schemes dashboard infrastructure that schemes must connect will necessarily incur significant additional costs. to, we have ensured that costs to industry are lower compared to if they had to connect to all dashboards 6.45 pm individually. In addition, as I said, we recommended The impact assessment showed illustrative estimates that there should be a single pension finder service in suggesting that the total cost to business over 10 years the initial phases of dashboards. That will help to could be within the range of £245 million to £1.48 billion, minimise costs compared to having multiple pension GC 239 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][2 MARCH 2020] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 240 finder services. Practical considerations of small schemes spirit of this discussion is that we should avoid that to may also be taken into account as we develop our the extent that we can and bring in a simple system in approach to staged onboarding. a staged way. As noble Lords know, I always worry The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, made the very about small businesses, small operators and small sensible point that schemes should have accurate data charities because they find these things very difficult. I anyway. I agree with her on that. As we stated in our am delighted to hear that the Government have brought consultation response, many respondents in industry in outside advice from PwC. We will be looking at that saw the benefits to consumers as outweighing the in terms of what might be done and how it might be potential costs to industry. The cost of data cleansing sequenced. If the Minister would like any assistance, I has not been taken into account in the impact assessment have a lot of experience of difficult tales from small precisely because it should be done anyway. businesses. I thank my noble friend, and I beg leave to My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe referred to the withdraw the amendment. TCFD climate change amendment and asked whether it could increase the cost of the dashboard. We do not Amendment 72 withdrawn. anticipate significant burdens on pension schemes because we will legislate for only the largest schemes in the first Clause 123 agreed. instance. The largest schemes should have governance and risk-management processes in place and have Amendment 73 in-house resources that will allow them to comply Moved by Baroness Stedman-Scott readily. The climate change amendment will not have any business impact on the other measures in the Bill. 73: After Clause 123, insert the following new Clause— However, I emphasise again that we will test our “Climate change risk assessment of business burdens extensively when we (1) The Pensions Act 1995 is amended as follows. consult on the policy detail following the passage of (2) After section 41 insert— the Bill. “41A Climate change risk My noble friend also asked how we would stop (1) Regulations may impose requirements on the trustees pension schemes passing on to consumers the cost of or managers of an occupational pension scheme of meeting their dashboard requirements. Working with a prescribed description with a view to securing that the industry delivery group, the regulators and others, there is effective governance of the scheme with we will continue to assess the potential impact of respect to the effects of climate change. legislation relating to dashboards. As I said earlier, the (2) The effects of climate change in relation to which implementation of dashboards is seen by many in the provision may be made under subsection (1) include, in particular— industry as a cost to be incurred for the long-term benefit of members. The charge cap limits the amount (a) risks arising from steps taken because of climate change (whether by governments or otherwise), and that auto-enrolment schemes can charge members invested in default schemes; that places an upper limit on the (b) opportunities relating to climate change. costs that could be passed on to members of pension (3) The requirements which may be imposed by the schemes. regulations include, in particular,requirements about— (a) reviewing the exposure of the scheme to risks of a We recognise the scale of the challenge presented prescribed description; by providing simple pension information via a dashboard. (b) assessing the assets of the scheme in a prescribed We want to start to bring forward the consumer benefits manner; as soon as possible by remaining focused on making (c) determining, reviewing and (if necessary) revising a an initial service offer deliverable without overcomplicating strategy for managing the scheme’s exposure to requirements, which would also drive up costs. The risks of a prescribed description; Government are committed to working with the industry (d) determining, reviewing and (if necessary) revising delivery group to shape dashboard infrastructure. We targets relating to the scheme’s exposure to risks of are also committed to being transparent about the costs a prescribed description; and benefits that will accrue as the result of the range (e) measuring performance against such targets; of measures in the Bill. (f) preparing documents containing information of a I hope that this commitment to further assessments prescribed description. at the most appropriate time provides at least some (4) Regulations under subsection (3)(b) may, in particular, reassurance to my noble friend and that she will feel require assets to be assessed by reference to their able to withdraw her amendment. exposure to risks of a prescribed description and may, for the purposes of such an assessment, require Baroness Neville-Rolfe: As I said right at the beginning, the contribution of such assets to climate change to I value the work that the department has already done be determined. on this matter and the thought that it has given to it. I (5) In complying with requirements imposed by the regulations, a trustee or manager must have regard very much agree about the value of the single pension to guidance prepared from time to time by the finder which reduces multiple costs. On climate change, Secretary of State. I was not really commenting on the Government’s 41B Climate change risk: publication of information amendment as much as on the additional amendments that have been suggested and on many amendments (1) Regulations may require the trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme of a prescribed on different areas. The point I am making is that often description to publish information of a prescribed things seem a very good idea, but when they are added description relating to the effects of climate change together, they bring cost and complexity. I feel that the on the scheme. GC 241 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][LORDS] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 242

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, among other Clause 124: Exercise of right to cash equivalent things— (a) require the trustees or managers to publish a document of a prescribed description; Amendment 77 (b) require information or a document to be made Moved by Baroness Stedman-Scott available free of charge; 77: Clause 124, page 118, line 11, after “(d)” insert “, (2A)(a), (c) require information or a document to be provided (b) or (d)” in a form that is or by means that are prescribed or Member’s explanatory statement of a prescribed description. This amendment extends to unfunded public service defined (3) In complying with requirements imposed by the benefits schemes the requirement that prescribed conditions are regulations, a trustee or manager must have regard satisfied before trustees or managers may use a cash equivalent to to guidance prepared from time to time by the buy into other pension arrangements. Secretary of State. 41C Sections 41A and 41B: compliance TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department (1) Regulations may make provision with a view to for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott): My ensuring compliance with a provision of regulations Lords, Amendment 77 seeks to extend the scope of under section 41A or 41B. Clause 124 to include transfers from unfunded public (2) The regulations may in particular— sector schemes: those where the pension promised is (a) provide for the Authority to issue a notice (a underwritten by the Exchequer.This amendment ensures “compliance notice”) to a person with a view to parity of protection for those members of unfunded ensuring the person’s compliance with a provision public service schemes. of regulations under section 41A or 41B; Clause 124 relates to cash equivalent transfer rights (b) provide for the Authority to issue a notice (a “third and amends Section 95 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993. party compliance notice”) to a person with a view It provides the Secretary of State with a power to to ensuring another person’s compliance with a provision of regulations under section 41A or 41B; make regulations that can place new conditions on a member’s statutory right to transfer their pension rights (c) provide for the Authority to issue a notice (a “penalty notice”) imposing a penalty on a person to another scheme. This amendment seeks to ensure where the Authority are of the opinion that the that members of unfunded public sector schemes can person— exercise their statutory right to transfer only once the (i) has failed to comply with a compliance notice or conditions to be specified in the regulations made third party compliance notice, or under this clause are satisfied. The intention is to (ii) has contravened a provision of regulations under apply the same conditions to transfers from unfunded section 41A or 41B; pension schemes as will be applied to transfers from (d) provide for the making of a reference to the First-tier other pension schemes. These conditions can include Tribunal or Upper Tribunal in respect of the issue of the member providing evidence or information about a penalty notice or the amount of a penalty; their employment link with a pension scheme or their (e) confer other functions on the Authority. residency overseas. (3) The regulations may make provision for determining Pension transfers from unfunded public sector schemes the amount, or the maximum amount, of a penalty are rare. No concerns in relation to scams were raised in respect of a failure or contravention. during the 2016 government consultation, so transfers (4) But the amount of a penalty imposed under the from unfunded pension schemes were not included in regulations in respect of a failure or contravention the original draft clause. The Department for Work must not exceed— and Pensions has since been made aware of criminals (a) £5,000, in the case of an individual, and trying to set up a scheme that can receive unfunded (b) £50,000, in any other case.” pension transfers, so we believe this amendment is (3) In section 116 (breach of regulations), in subsection necessary to safeguard members of unfunded schemes (3)(b), after “10” insert “or under provision contained in from fraud. Amendment 99 mirrors the provision for regulations made by virtue of section 41C ”. Northern Ireland in paragraph 12 of Schedule 11. It is (4) In section 175 (Parliamentary control of orders and essential to provide the same protection when transferring regulations)— savings to members of unfunded public sector schemes (a) in subsection (1), after “(2)” insert “, (2A)”; as those saving in other pension arrangements. For (b) after subsection (2) insert— these reasons, I beg to move Amendment 77 standing “(2A) A statutory instrument which contains the first in my name. regulations made by virtue of section 41A or 41C must not be made unless a draft of the instrument Baroness Altmann: My Lords, I support my noble has been laid before and approved by a resolution friend’samendment and will speak to my Amendment 78, of each House of Parliament.”” which is grouped here. I fully agree with her that it is Member’s explanatory statement important to protect members’ pensions on transfer, This amendment imposes requirements on trustees and managers whether they come from one type of scheme or another. of certain occupational pension schemes as regards taking into account the effects of climate change and publishing information I am delighted to see the government amendment and relating to those effects. its intent. My amendment would do something that I have Amendments 74 to 76 (to Amendment 73) not moved. sought for a time, and I wondered whether we might Amendment 73 agreed. be able to get it into the Bill. It relates to partners of pension scheme members who transfer their pension Schedule 10 agreed. from one scheme to another. One hears so often of a GC 243 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][2 MARCH 2020] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 244 divorced couple where the wife has no pension of her divorce or the dissolution of a civil partnership. The own and has sometimes even had a pension-sharing law identifies when pensions should be taken into account order.However,when the member’spension is transferred as part of a financial settlement on divorce or dissolution as a cash-equivalent transfer value, there is currently of a civil partnership, and the courts will make the no mechanism to ensure that the spouse, who clearly final decision if there is no agreed settlement. has an interest in potentially half that amount, is Where a couple are negotiating a financial settlement made aware that that is happening. Of course, once on divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership, they the money has been transferred, should the previous are obliged to disclose all assets, including pensions. partner have ill intent, it is possible that the spouse— The process includes provisions to compel disclosure usually the wife—will be left pensionless when in fact where the court is concerned that the financial disclosure she had expected to share the partner’s pension. might not be honest or complete. The amendment This is a probing amendment. I support my noble introduces a radical precedent where someone other friend’s amendments and would be grateful to hear than the member will determine the final use of their whether any other Members of the Committee are financial asset without a court order or notice being in interested in this type of protection, which we might place. It is not a requirement for individuals to seek be able to request be inserted in the Bill, so that if their spouse or civil partner’s consent in respect of somebody calls up to transfer their pension, some other financial assets, such as sole name bank accounts. procedure is in place before that is done to ensure that Why then would we include such a requirement in anyone else with an interest in the pension has given pension legislation? their consent or has at least been informed, which does In addition, the amendment would place additional not always happen. burdens on trustees to verify that the spouse or civil partner consents to the transfer. In doing so, it risks 7 pm causing a conflict with the trustee or manager’s fiduciary Baroness Janke (LD): I have some amendments duty to act in the best interests of members. which we will come to later concerning similar issues. I The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about types very much support this amendment. The briefing that of pension and the name of the scheme, and said that we had from the ABI gave us quite an insight into the people might lose out in a divorce settlement. Both way that women suffer as a result of not having a persons in a couple are obliged to declare assets when proper pension settlement. I very much welcome coming to a financial settlement in the context of the Amendment 78, which seeks to get the spouse’spermission dissolution of their relationship. for the transfer of a pension.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, there are three Lord McKenzie of Luton: My question related to amendments in this group. Amendment 78, in the Amendment 77 and unfunded public service DB schemes name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, focuses where there is a requirement for prescribed conditions on the evidence of a member’s spouse’s consent when to be satisfied before trustees or managers can use the a transfer is to be made. We believe that this amendment cash equivalent. I sought to determine what those has considerable merit and are supportive of it. Quite prescribed conditions might be. what the technicalities that come to confront us might be remain to be seen, but certainly we should seek to Baroness Stedman-Scott: In the circumstances, I make progress on it. will write to the noble Lord if he will allow me. Regarding the other two amendments in this group, In conclusion, for the reasons I have outlined, I ask Amendment 99 is simply the Northern Ireland equivalent the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, to withdraw her of Amendment 77, which, as we have heard, deals amendment. with unfunded public service DB schemes. I am alarmed to hear that without this amendment they would be attacked by some source. That is rather worrying. Baroness Drake: This has become more problematic Regarding the prescribed conditions that must be satisfied because of pension freedom. Before that, you could for the purposes of the provision, can the Minister not quickly rush to play Gauguin in Tahiti and disappear, outline what those might contain? taking all your money with you, because you could not get it out in that way. At the age of 55, you Baroness Stedman-Scott: I thank my noble friend can now do that if the taxman can chase you for the Lady Altmann for tabling her Amendment 78, which marginal rate of tax. There were partners, particularly introduces further conditions to the right to transfer. women, who had certain protections in DB. In DC, at It would require the consent of a current or ex-spouse least the requirement to annuitise left some mechanism or civil partner of the member before a trustee or to temper this problem, although it did not deal exclusively scheme manager could transfer a member’s savings. with it. Pension freedom has transformed that. This condition would apply where the member was I know that we will come later to the issue of gender getting divorced or dissolving their civil partnership or and pensions—where I suspect that we will come back might do so in the future. It would therefore apply to to this issue, among others—but there is a real issue all members who might seek to transfer and are married here for partners, particularly women. If the person or in a civil partnership. with the pension chooses simply to take the cash and The amendment would introduce unnecessary and go, once that has happened, it is very difficult for the onerous conditions into new legislation. Options already partner to protect themselves or do anything about it. exist for those who seek a financial settlement on That is the underlying tension. GC 245 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][LORDS] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 246

Baroness Sherlock: My Lords, I want to ask a (b) 60 days have elapsed since the application was question before the Minister comes back on this. In made in writing, or her reply, she gave a rather forceful defence of the (c) the member has provided responses to approved current situation and directed the Committee’s attention questions laid down in regulations to ascertain to the courts as a means of settling this. However, she whether the member has detailed knowledge of the scheme to which rights are being transferred and made the point that an agreement on pension sharing whether the provenance of the transfer request may already be in place. The problem is that this originated from an unsolicited phone call or other allows an agreement that had previously been reached unsolicited communication. to be frustrated by someone taking advantage of the (2) The condition in subsection (1)(a) may be satisfied by pension freedoms. If the Minister does not like the way written confirmation from Pension Wise that they have that this is being is sold, will she go back to the given guidance to the member either orally or by other department and ask for some advice on whether there means relating to this transfer or cash equivalent transfer is a problem here? Then, when we come back on request.” Wednesday, we can at least have a conversation about whether we agree that there is a problem here, and Lord Sharkey: My Lords, many of the problems then we can think about the best way to address it. faced by our pensions system are to do with drawdown and transfer, some of which we have just discussed. Baroness Stedman-Scott: The suggestion made by This amendment would introduce a cooling-off period the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, is very helpful. I to help to reduce these problems and increase the would be happy to do that before we come back to this frequency of taking independent financial advice and on Wednesday. Pension Wise guidance. The FCA recently surveyed our pensions landscape Baroness Altmann: I thank my noble friend for her in its excellent Sector Views, published two weeks ago. reply, which does not come as a surprise to me. I also The introduction noted: thank noble Lords for their useful contributions. “Key issues causing consumer harm include unsuitable advice, I believe that there may be an issue here. I hope that the sale of unsuitable products, poor value across the value chain the department will consider it. As the noble Baroness, and pension scams.” Lady Drake, specifically said, things are different now The gravity of these things led the regulator to conclude: with pension freedoms, whether for DB or DC. If “From a wider perspective, the prospect that consumers may there is a pension-sharing order and a member transfers not get a retirement income that meets their needs or expectations out of their DB scheme and takes a cash equivalent remains the central challenge.” transfer value when their spouse had relied on a This is entirely appropriate, given the scale of consumer guaranteed pension income from half of that defined harm. benefit pension, now that we have the freedoms, that The review estimates that unsuitable transfers out pension could be dissipated. Certainly, a cash-equivalent of DB schemes could collectively result in losses of up transfer value, in terms of buying an annuity with an to £20 billion-worth of guarantees over five years, that inflation protection to replace the income that could consumers making unsuitable product choices in be lost, is not likely to be financially feasible. I accept retirement could also collectively lose £20 billion from that this would be an extra burden and that it would unsuitable investment strategies over five years, and need careful consideration. I echo the request from the that more than 15 million consumers of NWP pensions noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that the department and retirement income products could be affected by considers this and sees whether there is a way of poor value pension products. The compound effect of protecting these women. I beg leave to withdraw my high charges could lead to consumer benefits being amendment. reduced by more than £40 billion over five years. All this is worrying enough, but on top of this, Amendment 77 agreed. there are the scams. Consumers who are scammed lose, on average, 22 years’ worth of pension savings. Amendment 78 not moved. That is around £82,000 each. There are also warnings for the future from Australia’s more mature DC market. Clause 124, as amended, agreed. There we see that economies of scale are not being passed on to consumers and that poorly governed Amendment 79 investments in alternative asset classes are leading to lower returns. There are also higher costs associated Moved by Lord Sharkey with the proliferation of small pots, created each time 79: After Clause 124, insert the following new Clause— a worker moves jobs. “Consumer protection on pension drawdown or transfer All these factors are at play now in the UK, and we (1) Pension scheme providers must not comply with an have special factors of our own to contend with. For application of a member of a scheme to transfer their example, the FCA has found that 29% of pension funds out of the scheme into another pension or to transfer advice was unsuitable and that 23% was unclear— exercise the right to take a cash equivalent transfer (under section 94 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993) unless – or, to put that another way, more than 50% of transfer advice was unsatisfactory. The FCA planned to write (a) the member demonstrates that he or she has received independent financial advice from an authorised or to 1,841 financial advisers about potential harm in regulated independent adviser pertaining to the their DB transfer advice. That is 76% of all advising proposed transfer out of the scheme or exercising firms—a truly alarming development and an unacceptably the right to cash equivalent, or large number. GC 247 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][2 MARCH 2020] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 248

The problem with bad advice is a present and clear Baroness Altmann: My Lords, I have added my danger; so is the problem with unadvised and unguided name to this amendment, which is a very important drawdowns and transfers. Since we last addressed this amendment in the context of consumer protection. As problem in the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey,has so excellently explained, FCA data suggests that more than 645,000 people the amendment is an attempt to ensure protection, have accessed their pensions. Of these, only a tiny 15% particularly against scams. What we tried and succeeded are believed to have had a Pension Wise appointment in doing during the passage of the Financial Guidance before accessing their benefits. More than half of the and Claims Act was to pass an amendment that would pensions accessed by savers for the first time between automatically see people before they transfer money April 2018 and March 2019 saw the saver withdraw out of a pension—or withdraw money from a pension— the maximum amount. Perhaps even more worryingly, receiving at least the independent, impartial guidance the FCA’s latest data shows that for retirees taking a that was originally intended to accompany the pension regular income from their pensions, 40% were taking freedoms. When they were introduced, the aim was for out cash at an unsustainably high withdrawal rate of everybody to be able to have this impartial guidance 8%-plus. This 40% rises to 63% for those with funds of so they did not do the wrong thing and understood the less than £50,000. That is the road to destitution. risks of taking money out too quickly. This is another line of defence for the consumer given that that 7.15 pm amendment, which was passed in the Lords, did not All this is extremely worrying. It is true that the make it into the Bill. It was taken out in the Commons. FCA and the Government are addressing some aspects One line of defence would obviously be if someone of the problems.In January last year,the FCA announced has an authorised adviser or can demonstrate that a consultation on investment pathways, “wake-up” they have received independent advice. A second line packs and disclosure of charges. It is to be commended of defence would be the providers themselves asking a for these initiatives and its determination to press few very basic, approved questions: “Are you asking to ahead, but timing is the problem. When will we see any transfer out because of an unsolicited communication of this in the marketplace? How long will we have to of some kind?”, and, “Do you know anything about wait as harm continues? the scheme you are transferring into?”. The provider The Government have been active too. In line with could ask two or three basic questions; should those the provisions of the Financial Guidance and Claims questions raise red flags, there would be an opportunity Act 2018, MaPS has in the field two pilot nudge to protect the member before they transferred out. programmes designed to make consumers more likely Other than that, there is a 60-day limit because, again, to seek advice or guidance. I understand that the results of scams normally require you to transfer your money these trials, or the latest news, are expected in the very quickly. summer; that might run until next April, of course. I hope that there may be some consideration of the In other words, there does not seem to be much importance of this protection and the use of Pension prospect of any relief before mid-2021 at the very Wise in the way that it was originally intended. As we earliest. Moreover, there is the possibility that the look to introduce a new Pension Schemes Act, we MaPS nudge trials might fail, and that the investment might find ways in which we can enhance the consumer pathway process might also fail or its implementation protection that I know my noble friend understands is be delayed. so important. I mention these measures not only to give credit where it is due but because I expect the Government to Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, this amendment use them to suggest that the amendment is unnecessary. goes to the heart of protecting people’s pensions. We Amendment 79 introduces a cooling-off period of have touched upon a number of issues surrounding 60 days between a member requesting drawdown or the same sort of concepts during debate on the Bill transfer and that drawdown or transfer taking place. It and in other legislation, such as financial guidance provides for three ways in which this 60-day moratorium provisions. Weshould see whether we cannot get together can be waived. The first is by the provision of relevant a comprehensive note of how these things are covered. independent financial advice from an authorised or I am bound to say I am unclear as to what is and is not regulated financial adviser. The second is by answering covered in all circumstances, so it seems that would be approved questions, demonstrating detailed knowledge beneficial. of the scheme to which rights are being transferred Concerning the specifics of the amendment, we and specifying whether the requested transfer originated clearly give it broad support. It raises practical issues, in unsolicited communications. The third way of waiving as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, would the 60-day moratorium is by showing that the member identify,particularly on responding to approved questions. has received guidance from Pension Wise. I am not sure who is on hand when the questions are I am not arguing that the amendment or something being asked. We have seen what happened with taxi like it will solve the problems of ill-judged drawdowns licences and such things in the past. The provision or transfers; I am arguing that the amendment will could give rise to challenges but the thrust is right: it is help. We all know that Pension Wise satisfaction rates another attempt to make sure that people are aware of stand at 95%. I am also arguing that the amendment the consequences of what they do, to the fullest extent will help soon—as soon as this Bill becomes law, possible. As I say, I am not sure whether we have a probably before the summer and certainly long before comprehensive arrangement yet across all pensions and the FCA’s proposals see the light of day and before the circumstances. It seems that it would be worth some MaPS nudges are in place. I beg to move. effort to try to get that into place. With those words, GC 249 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][LORDS] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 250

[LORD MCKENZIE OF LUTON] such we are already preparing for a public consultation I am happy to it give broad support. When the Minister this year. The Financial Conduct Authority will also replies, I am sure there will be some stumbling blocks consult on rules that have regard to these regulations, to in it but if we do not keep pushing and shoving, we are make sure that there is consistency between occupational not going to make progress on this. pensions and personal and stakeholder pensions. The noble Lord seeks to require a member to Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble provide responses to questions before a transfer can Lord, Lord Sharkey,and my noble friend Lady Altmann proceed. The effect of the amendment is that trustees for tabling this amendment because it provides me would have the power to refuse a transfer should with an opportunity to update the Committee on the members’ responses not meet the conditions which the progress that the Department for Work and Pensions, amendment proposes should be set in regulations. I the Financial Conduct Authority and the Money and assure him that the Government are already introducing Pensions Service have made on delivering the stronger conditions that seek to safeguard members against the nudge to pensions guidance. As noble Lords are aware, risk of being defrauded. That change will strengthen this is a requirement of Sections 18 and 19 of the trustees’ discretion in respect of transfers. Transfers Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018. were discussed in the earlier debate on Clause 124. The Before that, however, I would like to talk briefly Government are amending members’ statutory right about the take-up of Pension Wise guidance, which is to transfer, to allow conditions to be imposed for a very positive story. The service is on target to exceed transfers between schemes. That is aimed at ensuring 200,000 guidance sessions this financial year, more that transfers are made to safe destinations.Non-statutory than tripling those in its first year of operation. Recent transfers can still take place, if the scheme rules allow. Financial Conduct Authority data suggests that 52% of However,the amendment puts responsibility on members, personal and stakeholder pensions accessed for the not trustees, to assess the appropriateness of the receiving first time in 2018-19 received either regulated advice or scheme. If the questions to be asked of members are Pension Wise guidance. That clearly demonstrates that specified in regulations, as proposed new subsection (1)(c) the work the Money and Pensions Service, Government requires, an unintended consequence could be that and the industry are already doing to promote both fraudsters will be enabled to game the system. Members Pension Wise guidance and regulated financial advice could be coached to provide answers that lead to is working. transfers that should have been refused. I would like to talk about the measures in the As noble Lords will recall, we have banned cold Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 which were calling on pensions in legislation and established Project designed to further increase the take-up of Pension Bloom: a joint task force between government, regulators Wise guidance.Sections 18 and 19 require the Government and law enforcement to share intelligence, raise awareness to deliver a stronger nudge to pensions guidance. As of scams through communications campaigns, and the Committee is aware, MaPS is testing options for take enforcement action when appropriate. The FCA the best way to do that, in a way that complements the and the Pensions Regulator launched the latest ScamSmart suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, advertising campaign on 1 July 2019, which has targeted during the passage of the Act that his amendment was those approaching retirement, as they were identified “designed to be a nudge, rather than any kind of probably as being most at risk from scammers. There is also an unenforceable or counterproductive compulsion.”—[Official Report, 31/10/17; col. 1294.] FCA warning list, an online tool that helps investors check if a firm is operating with the right authorisation As noble Lords are also aware, the drafting of Sections and find out more about risks associated with investment. 18 and 19 was influenced by the Work and Pensions Select Committee. Following trials, those sections will The noble Lord raised a specific concern about deliver a final nudge to consumers to consider taking transferring out of DB schemes. Since January 2018, guidance prior to accessing their pension. following its work on the British Steel pension scheme, The Government firmly believe that, to effectively the FCA has been working closely with both the prompt more people to take guidance before accessing Pensions Regulator and the Money and Pensions Service their pension where it is appropriate, we need to to ensure that it monitors pension transfer activity in understand the impact of the nudge, and ensure that DB pension schemes that might be subject to increased we avoid creating perverse incentives. Wedo not disagree transfer activity. Also since January 2018, the FCA with the principles of the amendment—work is already has issued tripartite letters to over 50 defined benefit under way to establish how best to ensure that people pension scheme trustees. The tripartite letter reminds thinking about accessing their pensions are encouraged scheme trustees of their responsibilities when issuing to take guidance. We believe it is essential to use the transfer values to members and requests them to provide evidence base that the trials on a stronger nudge will data that allows it to monitor scheme activity. On provide, and to consult before implementing the primary 21 January 2019, the FCA published a new protocol legislation in the Act. We would welcome the thoughts for how the three organisations—the FCA, TPR and of the noble Lord and my noble friend on the proposals MaPS—will work together to share information and in the consultation. work with pension scheme trustees, and that protocol addresses many of the recommendations made in the The trials to test the most effective way to deliver on Rookes report. Sections 18 and 19 are due to conclude shortly, and an evaluation report is expected to be published by MaPS I want to touch on one other point raised briefly by this summer. We are working to deliver on the the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. He suggested that the requirements of the Act as quickly as possible, and as new pension freedoms might be encouraging people to GC 251 Pension Schemes Bill [HL][2 MARCH 2020] Pension Schemes Bill [HL] GC 252 draw down savings too fast, putting them at risk of I was also interested in the comment about whether scams. In fact, the Financial Conduct Authority’s the current drawdown rate was sustainable. The Minister Retirement Outcomes Review did not find significant might recall that in the original discussions on the evidence of consumers drawing down their savings too pension freedoms Bill, the foreseen sustainable drawdown fast. The study’s findings, published in June 2018, rate was 3%. Now, it is running at 6% and 8% for pots found that most of those withdrawing had some other under £50,000. Although I admit that I might be form of retirement income or wealth. mistaken about this, I think that the FCA may in fact Clearly,it is of the utmost importance that information have said that 6% was not sustainable in the longer and guidance are available to people and that they are term either. Therefore, I think that there are warning aware of it. That is why there are now more opportunities signs about the rate of drawdown. for people to access guidance earlier in the pensions I had one other question about the nudge programme. journey. Alongside the stronger final nudge trials, I know that two schemes are being tested against each Pension Wise continues to run successful advertising other, in an absolute sense as well, but when this campaigns across multiple channels, as well as working programme was designed, did it incorporate a level of with employers nationally and locally to encourage success at which a rollout would be justified? I would them to engage with their employees at their place of be interested to know if that were the case—I think it work. The Financial Conduct Authority’s “wake-up” should be—and what the number was for these schemes. packs also encourage people to think about their What would trigger a rollout nationally of these two pension options and include signposting to Pension small tests? I mentioned the FCA and the investment Wise. pathways initiative. Can the Minister write to me with I reassure noble Lords that we are very aware of more detail of what is happening with investment the importance of the need to make progress with pathways; that sounded a very promising way of coming implementing the requirements placed on government, at the problem. the Money and Pensions Service and the Financial Finally, there is the question of timing. Timing is Conduct Authority, as set out in the Act. Our aim is to behind a lot of what I was saying. It is a long time find an effective and proportionate way to do this. since we started on the Financial Guidance and Claims To conclude, I accept that this work might not have Bill and debated all this thoroughly here and in the progressed as quickly as perhaps noble Lords would other place. We are still not in a position to do as much like, but that is for a good reason. I believe it is very as we wanted about providing guidance or advice at important to get this right and ensure that the policy is drawdown. A very long time has elapsed, and I have developed based on evidence. We always talk about demonstrated the harms being done to consumers in evidence-based policy and this is a classic example of the meantime by ill-judged drawdowns or transfers. I that. The trials will conclude very shortly and will be continue to worry that these timetables will slip and followed by an evaluation report. We will consult this the harms will continue. I am reassured by the Minister year and will seek to lay regulations as soon as possible expecting a result from the nudges in summer—which after that, alongside the rules that will be made by the I take to be ending in September—and then to move Financial Conduct Authority. as quickly as we can to implement it, if it is a success. Perhaps he and I can have a conversation later; I For the reasons I have explained, I hope that the would be interested to know what plan B is, because it noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. is possible that neither of those nudge trials produces what is needed. Having said all that, I beg leave to Lord Sharkey: I am very grateful to the Minister for withdraw the amendment. that very comprehensive answer. There are one or two observations that I would like to make about components Amendment 79 withdrawn. of the answer. We seem to disagree about quite what the reach of Pension Wise is. The Minister quoted a composite figure of, I think, about 52% in Pension Clause 125 agreed. Wise and other advice. The figure that I had was, as I said earlier, about 15% using Pension Wise. Committee adjourned at 7.36 pm.

Volume 802 Monday No. 32 2 March 2020

CONTENTS

Monday 2 March 2020