Lord Mitchell
Member of the House of Lords · Labour · United Kingdom
“In those days, no one quite understood the long-term dangers of radiation, and protection was rudimentary. For him, it was fatal. In 1998, he was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia, which he knew was terminal. He told me, in his usual blunt way, “I know how this story ends and it is not pretty.”
“My Lords, on 9 October 2000, my parents-in-law, Jack and Ruth Lowy, committed joint suicide. He was dying and she had decided to accompany him on this last journey. Jack was born in Bratislava in what was then Czechoslovakia. The family were Jewish and following the events in Munich in 1938, they fled to Philadelphia.”
“My wife in particular sensed that they would carry out their wishes. After all, they were both intelligent people who had carefully thought this through. There was no one to support Jack and no one on hand to help Ruth in what must have been hell for her.”
“I cannot be certain about my mother-in-law’s motivation to join him, but they both knew that his own suicide at home could well run the risk of her being charged with committing a crime as an accomplice. What I do know is that had this Bill been law, she probably would have chosen life.”
“I always felt that the issue of antisemitism on campus did not emanate solely from the students. It also came from the laissez-faire attitude of the faculty.”
“We kept the brief tight, with no references to the Middle East; we judged that there was nothing we could do or say that could make any difference. Where we could definitely make a difference was through reference to our common UK experiences and our heritage. I think we made progress.”
The complete record
Every one of 881 lines we hold for Lord Mitchell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 18.
“I cannot be certain about my mother-in-law’s motivation to join him, but they both knew that his own suicide at home could well run the risk of her being charged with committing a crime as an accomplice. What I do know is that had this Bill been law, she probably would have chosen life. My family would have been spared a double bereavement that was unnecessarily brutal and psychologically damaging for us all. Not surprisingly, I support the Bill.”
“My wife in particular sensed that they would carry out their wishes. After all, they were both intelligent people who had carefully thought this through. There was no one to support Jack and no one on hand to help Ruth in what must have been hell for her. The main practical problem for Jack was procuring enough barbiturates to ensure one and then another successful suicide. He found a way. Being the scarred Holocaust survivor that Jack was, and the brilliant scientist that he had become, there was no way he was going to get the dosage wrong. If there had been assisted dying legislation at that time, I am certain that things would have turned out differently. We could have talked about it openly, without the fear of legal consequences. We could have engaged professional help.”
“In those days, no one quite understood the long-term dangers of radiation, and protection was rudimentary. For him, it was fatal. In 1998, he was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia, which he knew was terminal. He told me, in his usual blunt way, “I know how this story ends and it is not pretty. I’m bloody well going out with my boots on”. Not much room for doubt on that one. As he became weaker, they both cut themselves off from us, gradually then completely, so as not to involve us in their deaths. Letters were returned, emails bounced back, and telephone calls went to the answering machine. We were bereft. We had no one to talk to and, to be honest, when we tried, no one believed us. When we said there was a chance that Ruth would commit suicide along with him, people shook their heads in disbelief.”
“My Lords, on 9 October 2000, my parents-in-law, Jack and Ruth Lowy, committed joint suicide. He was dying and she had decided to accompany him on this last journey. Jack was born in Bratislava in what was then Czechoslovakia. The family were Jewish and following the events in Munich in 1938, they fled to Philadelphia. When war was declared, Jack went to Canada and joined the Czech division of the RAF. He survived a punishing war and then worked for British intelligence. Jack went to Cambridge as a demobbed airman and became a brilliant scientist, a professor in biophysics, specialising in the movement of muscles. His work required him to conduct experiments on animal tissue. He spent much of his time using X-ray refraction in his lab at King’s College and at the Daresbury synchrotron in Cheshire.”
“What is happening to Jewish students is pure and simple antisemitism. How should we deal with this problem? Yes, through more interchange, as we had at the Coexistence Trust, but clearly that is not enough. University leaders need to be cajoled into changing their lazy indifference and reminded that they have a duty of care to all students. Why should faculties be allowed to permit casual and not so casual racism against the Jewish community when they would fight tooth and nail to protect other groups?”
“I always felt that the issue of antisemitism on campus did not emanate solely from the students. It also came from the laissez-faire attitude of the faculty. From the chancellors and vice-chancellors to the professors, lecturers and administrators, many of whom were worse than indifferent, it is they who permitted antisemitism, and indeed Islamophobia, to fester unchecked. Why should it be permitted? Why should my or anyone else’s grandchildren be subjected to abuse and violence merely because of their birth? Just imagine what would happen if we were to substitute the word “Jewish” with the word “black”, “gay” or “trans”. There would be a national outcry. Will we now see Indian and Pakistani students being harangued on campus for what is happening in Kashmir? There is no need to answer that question, but, for the record, the answer is no.”
“We kept the brief tight, with no references to the Middle East; we judged that there was nothing we could do or say that could make any difference. Where we could definitely make a difference was through reference to our common UK experiences and our heritage. I think we made progress. We held joint social events and spoke about common worries on campus, including issues to do with food—halal and kosher—and the non-recognition of religious holidays by university administrators. Seared in my memory is one Muslim woman wearing a hijab saying to an Orthodox Jewish woman: “I do not understand why we can’t be friends just because of what is happening 2,000 miles away”. It was shocking to see the institutional ignorance of the beliefs and traditions of our two great religions.”
“My Lords, a headline in today’s Times states that antisemitism on UK campuses is getting out of control. This is hardly news—it has been out of control for many years, it is just that events in Gaza have made what was already a bad situation even more toxic and often terrifying. I speak with some experience. For five years I chaired and financially contributed to an organisation called the Coexistence Trust. Our remit was to bring Muslim and Jewish students into positive social contact with each other, and we had some success. We were a joint Muslim and Jewish organisation. Our two CEOs were from both communities. We were jointly financed by Muslim and Jewish private sources. Typically, four Jewish and four Muslim peers would visit campuses together.”
“Secondly, there is device envy. Most children can spot an up-to-date phone immediately. Is it healthy to have children putting pressure on parents for the latest model? Thirdly, there is content. Can this be controlled by schools and parents? In theory yes, but we all know that it is easy to circumvent. Do we really want children looking at unsuitable content at school? Many schools are subjected to intense pressure to allow mobiles to be used on their premises. It is often hard for a school to resist. Making it mandatory would resolve the problem.”
“Today, Meta and Apple sell virtual-reality goggles. They are expensive and cumbersome, but they point to the direction of travel. Devices that look like normal reading glasses, but with the same capability as mobile phones, are just around the corner. All these developments will pose challenges to the school environment. How will they be detected and controlled? The noble Baroness is the joint author of an outstanding report produced by the LSE. It states that more evidence is needed on whether to have mobile phones in schools. My instinct is that we should not. I believe that children or teenagers should not be permitted to use their devices on school premises. Why? First, the smart devices have value; they cost several hundred pounds each. London is the world centre of iPhone theft, so it is all too tempting and dangerous.”
“Like many of us, it is an essential part of my being, and I do not know how I could live without it. Today, we have the terminology wrong, because the word “phone” is a misnomer. This debate has the word “phone” in its title, but when was the last time you saw a child using a mobile as a phone? They do not talk; they text, they use FaceTime and they use social media. The mobile today is a very powerful communications tool that just happens to have a phone and camera attached. It is a window to the world that provides access to most of human knowledge and activity—for better and for worse. This story is nowhere near over. Shortly, new iPhones will have powerful AI built into them—Apple Intelligence—and Google will follow just behind. Where is that going? I have no idea. I sense that much of it will not be good.”
“My Lords, it was joy to listen to the excellent maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, and we look forward to her future contributions. In thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for securing this debate, I will not go through the usual pleasantries. Simply put, I cannot think of anyone else in this country who has done more to influence policy and legislation to protect children from the ravages of the internet than the noble Baroness. We all owe her a great debt of thanks. She never gives up. I first bought a mobile phone in 1985—I guess a few years before the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, first bought hers. In those days, you had to have the strength of Hercules to lift it to your ear. That was almost 40 years ago, which means that for nearly half of my life I have possessed a mobile phone.”
“This medication is up there with statins, Prozac, aspirin and even the contraceptive pill in changing our health and behaviour. Then there are the economic benefits. Some 25% of the population are obese. Many are prone to illness. Their potential productivity is often diminished. At present, the annual cost of obesity to the NHS is around £6.5 billion, and it is expected to increase by 50% by 2050. It is the second-biggest preventable cause of cancer. Add to that the cost of treating all the other illnesses that I have mentioned which GLP-1 might be able to arrest, and you can see that the NHS could make some major savings from the wholesale employment of GLP-1. If these drugs are as game-changing as I suggest they are, they will have a profound and positive effect on our health and on our economy. They are to be encouraged.”
“It suppresses the appetite and reduces the craving for food—you just lose interest. To me, the difference between dieting and Ozempic is that when you diet all you ever think about is food. When you inject, all you ever think about is the next morning’s rendezvous with a weighing machine. However, there is more to Ozempic than just weight loss. First, there are all the other health benefits. This week, the Economist , not known for hyperbole, called it the most important drug ever. A drug that started out being used to regulate diabetes can now reduce weight. There is strong evidence that it can control the incidence of kidney and liver disease, cardiovascular issues and sleep apnoea, and reduce drug addiction and opioid inflammation. They say that it can contain ageing and even Alzheimer’s. That is a lot of things.”
“The key to weight loss can be summarised in two words—eat less—but that is easier said than done. I suppose the corresponding two words are: exercise more. Fewer carbs, more carbs, protein only, no fruit, skip breakfast, do not eat after 6 pm, fast for 18 hours a day and of course the 5:2 diet—I tried them all. The trouble is, you work hard at it, perhaps you reach your target weight and then it creeps back again. You are always miserable. As for exercise, those who know me can attest that I can bore for Britain on the subject. Three intense workouts every week, and my phone tells me that I average 7,200 steps per day over a year and often over 10,000 paces—all this is to no avail. Then along came Ozempic. A weekly self-administered injection is all that it took.”
“My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for securing this short debate. It is certainly of the moment, but I come at this issue from a slightly different viewpoint. I am not in the habit of discussing my weight in public, but this is the moment of truth; I am going to out myself. For the past two years, I have been injecting myself every week with either Ozempic or Mounjaro. As a result, I have lost over 12% of my body weight and I am keeping it off. Yes, it is expensive and, yes, I will probably have to continue my injections for the rest of my life, but to me it is worth every penny. I was not fat, but I was in danger of getting on the wrong side of chubby. I knew the risks. I never eat desserts nor sweets nor any junk food, but still the dial went in one direction.”
“Finally, let us look at salaries. Top AI programmers and system designers can earn six or even seven-figure amounts, which is light years away from what our public sector can pay. Such disparities will grow and it will be increasingly difficult for the MoD to recruit top employees. So what do we do? One answer could be for private companies to second their staff to the public sector. We suggested that, but I am not sure that we were heard. Ours was an outstanding report. The Government could have produced a much more helpful response but, sadly, they did not.”
“It manufactures AI weapons that can hover and then identify their target—in effect, attack drones. It did not cross our radar either, but now its weapons are in use in Ukraine. Its founder, on a formal day, wears Hawaiian shirts, shorts and flip-flops—he is 30 years old. There are many like him in the tech world and, more and more, they are turning to weapon systems. Our report highlights that the MoD procurement processes are particularly lacking in relation to software and data, both of which are important for the development and use of AI. Tech bros and Whitehall mandarins are not natural bedfellows. We need translators. I wonder whether our Ministry of Defence procurement officials are temperamentally equipped to engage with those Silicon Valley companies. My guess is that they are not. Perhaps the Minister can comment on this.”
“At its heart, it is sophisticated software designed by the informal tech bros in Silicon Valley, emotionally ill matched to the arms suppliers of yesteryear. It is a measure of the pace of external developments that some key actors in the AI sector today are barely referenced in our report, not because of incompleteness in our deliberations but because of the sheer pace of development. Let us take the case of Nvidia. In our report it warrants just one footnote but, today, it is the third most valuable company on the US stock market. It is a leader in designing AI chips and is indispensable in building many forms of autonomous weapon systems. It has come from nowhere to world leader in just a few short years. Anduril Industries is also based in California.”
“Because the subject matter is so dynamic and changes by the day, I pushed hard to set up a formal review mechanism to keep this report up to date but, predictably, the Government totally ignored this request. Is the Minister able to suggest a structure for keeping this important subject continuously reviewed and relevant? I will confine my comments to the section dealing with procurement, innovation and talent. My constant worry with government procurement in the fast-moving tech market is that Whitehall is ill equipped to manage relationships with tech companies. Instinctively, the MoD is old school, totally at home purchasing hardware equipment from the likes of Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems and Raytheon—they have been doing it for years. But AI is a different story.”
“My Lords, I have had the honour to sit on many committees of your Lordships’ House; some were good, some not so good. This committee and its investigation into autonomous weapon systems have been in a different league. The committee was masterfully chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and I have never witnessed such skill in chairing a committee and then combining our deliberations so seamlessly. And what did we produce? A cracking report, which is of the moment. We should all be very proud. Sadly, I cannot be so complimentary about the Government’s response. Ours was a serious and well-researched document, but the Government took little on board. Their reply was tepid and, on occasion, wrong. We deserve better.”
“They could also give Israel guarantees by way of a military alliance, and they could ensure that the Palestinian state remains demilitarised for the foreseeable future. I have been a friend of Israel since its creation 76 years ago. Believe it or not, at the age of five, I remember Israel being created. Nobody could call me a fair-weather friend—I have been there through thick and thin—but now I think it is necessary that it accepts a sustainable ceasefire, works hard to make it permanent and gets back the hostages. I will end by quoting Abba Eban once more: “History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives”. We saw that in Northern Ireland. Surely, that moment is now.”
“He has allied himself with an ultra-right-wing clique. Ironically, they too believe in “from the river to the sea”, but in their case meaning the total annexation of the West Bank and Gaza. Both countries need new leaders who have new visions. Noble Lords may say that all this has been tried before and it has failed. That is true, but the Oslo accords and the negotiations in 2000 came very close. What is different now? First, the parties are exhausted. Secondly, there are now other powers that can guarantee a peace: the US, of course, and Europe too, but also Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Egypt and Jordan. They all have skin in the game. They could provide the massive funding that could rebuild Gaza and give hope to Palestinians, both in Gaza and in the West Bank.”
“Fifty years ago, the great Israeli statesman, Abba Eban, made the famous quote that the Palestinians “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity”. Sadly, the same can be said of Benjamin Netanyahu today. His “day after” plan was presented last week; it offers the Palestinians nothing more than continual subjugation. The great tragedy of the situation is the craven, ineffective leadership of both the Palestinians and the Israelis. Mahmoud Abbas is old and immovable. I have never heard a brave or constructive word pass his lips; he does the Palestinians no favours. Benjamin Netanyahu is just as immovable. His mantra has always been: not an inch. He portrays himself as Mr Security, and he will never give the Palestinians the state they deserve. For him, it is always about the next election.”
“I could hear the pounding of the shells; I could see the smoke hovering over the buildings, and I could smell the explosives hanging in the air. I felt rage that such barbarity was committed against innocent Israeli civilians, but I also felt horror that such pain and death were being inflicted on the people of Gaza. It is hard to reconcile such inner conflict. Five months into this war, the hostages have still not been fully released, and Hamas is still functioning. Gaza has been flattened, and its people are starving and desperate. Some 1,700 Israelis are dead, many wounded. Tens of thousands of Palestinians—men, women and, most of all, children—are also dead and wounded. If we condemn one party, we must condemn the other, and I do.”
“My Lords, 6 October saw Israel approaching the zenith of its dreams. Following the initial success of the Abraham accords, full diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia were tantalisingly close. After 76 years of rejection by the Arab world, Israel was poised to achieve what she wanted most of all—international acceptance. Cruelly, 7 October changed all that. At the beginning of January, I went to the Gaza border with the noble Lord, Lord Polak. I saw the mangled bicycles and the smashed barbecues; I saw the bullet holes and the bloodstains on the walls; I read the names and saw the photos of those who were butchered. The people of Israel were traumatised; I was traumatised. They still are; I still am. As I stood there, I looked to my left, and no more than a kilometre away I could see the Gaza border.”
“My Lords, five weeks ago I was at Kibbutz Kfar Aza on the Israel-Gaza border. Hamas had ransacked the place. It did not take much to imagine the carnage and depravity that took place. I then turned to my left and faced Gaza, no more than a mile away. There were explosions. It also did not take much to imagine the thousands of innocent Palestinians who were dying and whose lives were being wrecked. But it was Hamas that spent billions building subterranean fortresses when it could have built thriving communities. It was Hamas that located military command centres under hospitals and schools; and now it is Hamas that is commandeering the distribution of food and water to the Gazan people.”
“If the Bill stays unamended, it will remove the incentive for staff to move from a successful restaurant to a start-up, or from a larger site to a smaller one. That does not make sense. Surely a group should have the facility to amalgamate its tipping pool across multiple restaurants. As I said, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with the noble Lord. The hospitality industry was battered by Covid, and now it is being battered by inflation and staff shortages. We have a good Bill before us. We should do all we can to minimise the burden on employer and employee alike.”
“The Bill as it stands states that the tipping pool should originate from the bar or restaurant where the employee works. That makes sense. But there are many restaurants and bars which have associated premises, and it is not uncommon for staff to be transferred from one to another. Imagine a situation where a successful restaurant wants to open another restaurant and wants to transfer skilled staff from one to the other to get the place up and going, or where a business operates a large establishment which generates significant tips and a smaller restaurant a mile down the road with a much lower level of tips. New restaurants take time to find their feet and build up clientele. Operators will, from time to time, need to move staff from one premises to another, perhaps to cover illness or staff shortages.”
“If there is a built-in tip of, say, 12.5%, and the total bill is paid by credit card, which most bills are, then the establishment will have to pay the credit card charge on not only the base cost but the tip portion of the bill. Surely the credit card fee is a direct cost of the transaction, and the restaurant and the staff should bear that cost proportionately. My suggestion is that a maximum deduction of up to 2% should be netted off from the tipping pool. That does no more than cover the additional cost to the business arising from the customer’s generosity, and with a maximum rate set to avoid any abuse or excessive deduction from an unscrupulous operator. Finally, I would like to address the issue of multiple-site operators.”
“But I am told that agency rates have now gravitated upwards, to the extent that there is now an implicit tipping share built into the daily fee. Therefore, if agency people also share in an establishment’s tips, does it not mean that, in effect, they get the benefit of the tip twice over? That cannot make sense. If it stays as the Bill proposes, will that not mean that many staff will move towards being hired as agency workers rather than direct employees? That cannot be a good thing. The second point concerns credit card payments. I know that fundamental to this Bill is the concept that employees should participate in the sum total of all tips, with no deductions. However, I think credit card charges should be exempted.”
“I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, as well as Dean Russell in the other place, for introducing this Private Member’s Bill, which now has Government support. It is a vital Bill, and when it becomes an Act it will give certainty of earnings and security to many hundreds of thousands of people who work in the hospitality industry. I would like to raise a few areas where I believe we are at risk of unintended consequences. I ask the noble Lord to consider these points, and I would welcome the opportunity to meet him prior to the Bill going to Committee. The first point concerns agency workers. I fully understand why, at first glance, it seems equitable that agency workers qualify for sharing in the tip allocation on the same basis as directly employed staff.”
“I would earn about $60 per evening—and that was in 1965. In the days before credit cards it was all about cash tips. I learned about dynamic tipping—assessing the customer and working out how best to maximise my reward. Most important of all was positioning the change on the tray so that he took the coins and notes nearest to him and left me with the tip I felt I deserved. For me, it was the difference between happiness and misery. I secured my MBA, returned to London, had a fulfilling career in IT, and here I am today. Without those tips, who knows how it might have turned out? All this is to emphasise as strongly as I can that my heart and soul are with the recipients of tips. I know just how crucial these payments are to those who work in pubs, bars and restaurants.”
“My Lords, if it were not for tips, I probably would not be standing here today. In the mid-1960s, I was living in New York, studying for my master’s degree in business administration at Columbia University. Sadly for me, I had no money, and New York city is no place to be poor, so I got a job as a waiter at a restaurant enticingly called Your Father’s Mustache. It was located in Greenwich Village; it was noisy and crowded, and it sold beer and cocktails, burgers and huge sandwiches—I loved it. I worked four nights a week, starting at 9 pm and finishing at 3 am. It was hard work, especially because, by 8.30 am the next day, I had to be at my class, all prepared. My basic pay was 99 cents per hour, minimum wage, plus tips. Being English, at the time of the Beatles I achieved some degree of notoriety, and I was good at hustling for tips.”
“Already we have read of examples of virtual reality sex orgies, and participation in gruesome violence, all viewed through a Meta headset, where the avatars are quasi-people and it becomes almost impossible to distinguish reality from fiction. Imagine where that is all going. Frances Haugen, the Facebook whistleblower, had it right when she said that only profit motivates the company. This is a landmark Bill. We have to get it right, and we have to make it tough, with no room for loopholes or ambiguities. I have tried to paint a picture of the participants. I have worked and been involved in the digital industry for over 50 years. I know the nature of the beast. They will fight to the last to preserve their business model. Do not underestimate them. These people are not our friends.”
“The big tech companies are richer than us, they move faster than we do, they are aggressive, they are litigious, they are accountable to no-one, they have enormous power, and they make their own rules. They employ the smartest people in the world, even including a previous Deputy Prime Minister of our country. The Zuckerberg shilling can buy a lot of influence. Let us take a look at Facebook. Its platform has allowed the most unspeakable acts of violence, hate and perversion to go viral, pretty much unchecked. It says that it moderates content, but it is not enough, and usually too late. Now we learn that Mr Zuckerberg is spending $10 billion a year on developing his metaverse.”
“What do they do with this hoard of data? They synthesise it through algorithms. They sell their results to advertisers. Traditionally advertisers spend huge amounts on newspapers, television and other media, struggling to target their markets. It was imprecise. Today, using the data provided by the social media companies, advertisers can personalise their message and pinpoint it accurately. It is hugely cost effective and it generates hundreds of billions in revenue. Data truly has become the new oil. Of the five largest companies in the world by market value, four are big tech: Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet/Google and Amazon. Indeed, Apple alone has a market value equal to the combined value of all the companies on the FTSE 100 Index. Big tech is bigger than most countries.”
“My Lords, they say that there is no such thing as a free lunch. When it comes to the social media companies, that is certainly true. Google Search is free, as are Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube, TikTok and a host of other online services. All of them are great products, hugely popular and used by billions of people every day throughout the world. So it begs the question: why are they free? It is because the mass of data that the internet companies hoover up on their billions of users is a treasure trove. They collect data such as location, shopping, searches, medical records, employment, hobbies and opinions. It is said that Google alone has more than 7,000 data points on each one of us. In our innocence, we all thought that we were searching Google; little did we realise that Google was searching us.”
“I do not have the foggiest why the Government have said that they want to regulate that but are telling us that it is not appropriate. I ask the Minister: why are the Government dragging their feet on something that seems so dangerous, obvious and uncontentious? I have one further point to make. Buy now, pay later is growing exponentially and we now have a measure of just how big it is. Half the population use this unregulated form of finance. Casting our minds back to the financial collapse of 2008, we cannot ignore the subprime mortgage crisis in the US that triggered all the turmoil. We are not there yet, but massive and increasingly unaffordable debt is simmering below the radar, and it is a huge potential danger. Can the Minster assure the Committee that the Government are tracking this sector and are aware of the risk?”
“Buy now, pay later has no interest component, and because of this, it is not regulated by the FCA, it is not protected by Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act and individuals do not have recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service. This loophole was surely never intended and ought to be closed. It is currently too easy for consumers to acquire debt beyond their affordability, and therein lies the danger. Plus, of course, consumers can acquire payment liabilities through a host of different providers, each of whom has no knowledge of the existence of the other. We saw that in payday lending, whereby you got to your limit with one payday lender, so you went to another and then another, you got the money from here to repay this one, and so it went, until people got into terrible situations.”
“Demonstrate the product to the lady of the house and then present her”—it was always her—“with the dual positive suggestion: ‘Will madam like to pay cash, or would she prefer hire purchase?’ Whatever the outcome, you’ve got the deal.” So, I know about deferred payments, which in those days were also called “the never-never”. I emphasise to noble Lords that I am not against buy now, pay later. In fact, I think it is a good thing. People’s budgets are squeezed, and if a financial mechanism can be devised to make purchasing easier, it surely must be applauded. The problem is when it gets out of control, as many noble Lords have said.”
“My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for drawing your Lordships’ attention to the three-year campaign we had on payday lending, which in the end won. We removed a great scourge from consumer credit in this country. I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading; I intended to, then Covid got me. I will make a couple of general points before getting into buy now, pay later. When I was 16, I was asked to leave school. One mock GCE pass out of seven subjects at O-level led to my marching orders. I got a job at Hoover selling vacuum cleaners and washing machines door to door. That truly was the school of hard knocks. It was 1959. We were sent to sales training school to learn how to complete a sale. They told us, “Wear a dark suit, white shirt, firm handshake, and at all costs, get your foot in the door.”
“Is the net-zero target at risk? I think the answers are yes and no. Will the Minister please tell me that I am wrong?”
“As has been mentioned, a South Korean firm has invested $3 billion in a cathode factory in Tennessee. I agree that we need our own equivalent of the IRA in terms of long-term financial commitment, otherwise we will just shuffle along. As has been mentioned, Britishvolt is a prime example of a tepid government response. Launched with such fanfare only three years ago, it is now on life support in the battery ICU ward. Can the Minister say whether the Government are committed to support Britishvolt at this crucial moment? If they are not, they should be. Success in modern technologies comes not from slogans and bluster but from hard-nosed, long-term commitment. The successful quest for the Covid-19 vaccine showed that in sharp relief. The title of our report begs two questions. Has our battery strategy gone flat?”
“We simply cannot allow any hostile country to hold us to ransom again. China produces 75% of the world’s batteries. It plans to have 149 gigafactories by 2030. The EU has 19, the US 11 and we have two. It makes us very exposed, and it is a clear demonstration of how China plans to dominate automotive production and electricity storage. As the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, mentioned, according to an upbeat report by Goldman Sachs featured in the FT this week, the US and Europe have the opportunity to become independent of China by 2030. It will require a capital expenditure of $160 billion. That may sound a lot but, it is less than the cost of HS2. The recent US Inflation Reduction Act is showering vast amounts of money in the US by way of subsidies and tax credits on renewable energy and electric vehicles.”
“I think that that is a very positive goal, but the Government need to do their part to ensure that it happens. All of us know of the panic that we get into when our mobile phones are just about to run out of battery. Electric vehicles evoke an enhanced panic of being stranded. Charging points are key to dispelling vehicle panic. It is forecast that we will need 325,000 charging points by 2032. Can the Minister say whether we are on track to hit that target? I would also like to know what the Government’s plans are for encouraging hydrogen charging points. Few charging points lead to reduced take-up—it is as simple as that. I turn to the geostrategic challenges posed by battery and fuel cell technology and development. This year we have seen all too clearly our vulnerability to energy blackmail.”
“Another feature that we saw when we were taking evidence, and which has been mentioned today, was the contrast in attitude between Ministers and officials compared with those at the coal face. Ministers were gung-ho about our country’s advances in battery technology; scientists and industrialists were much more cautious. My money is with the experts. Even now, I kick myself for not asking every witness just one question. I should have asked: “Do you believe that net zero by 2050 is going to happen?” Sadly, I asked it only twice. Ministers agreed, of course; those who knew lowered their eyes. Electric vehicles are not pie in the sky; we see them all around us. Tesla’s market cap exceeds that of every other automobile producer. The Government have set a directive that no petrol or diesel cars will be sold beyond 2029.”
“Since then, COP 26 has been and gone—and so too has COP 27 in Egypt. Can somebody please explain to me why, as we approach 2023, we are only now debating this report for the very first time? Procrastination does not make for good policy. Certain themes come from the report that are screaming for government focus. The first is the plea for long-term commitment. Scientists and industry need strong direction. Industry, contemplating massive long-term investments, needs to know the ground rules, and to know that the rules will not change. Individuals looking to their careers, whether as academics or scientists, need to know that the rug is not going to be pulled from under their feet. Sadly, this is not the case. It all feels uncertain and unpredictable.”
“My Lords, despite the ravages of Covid and the requirement for much of this report to be compiled remotely, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has done a masterly job in leading us to produce this crucial study. We must thank him for it. We must also thank the team who helped us in crafting this high-quality document, again under the difficult conditions of lock- down. Together we present to your Lordships’ House a report of great depth, which contains strong recommendations. Such a pity, therefore, that the Government have given us such short shrift. This report was presented to your Lordships’ House in July 2021. In September of that year, we received the Government’s response—a document I can best describe as “thin”. If noble Lords can believe it, the narrative of our report talks about our hopes for COP 26 in Glasgow.”
“I ask the Minister whether the Government have any plans to encourage the CMA to investigate the monopoly powers and influence of big tech. Big tech moves fast and breaks things. Big tech also facilitates hate and evil. We, the lawmakers, are ponderous and slow to act, but the threat to our democracy is real and we need to move with haste.”