Draft Investigatory Powers Commissioner (Oversight Functions) Regulations 2022
Draft Investigatory Powers (Covert Human Intelligence Sources and Interception: Codes of Practice) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 12 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Investigatory Powers Commissioner (Oversight Functions) Regulations 2022.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Investigatory Powers (Covert Human Intelligence Sources and Interception: Codes of Practice) Regulations 2022.
Tom Tugendhat
It is a pleasure, as always, to see you and to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. The draft Investigatory Powers (Covert Human Intelligence Sources and Interception: Codes of Practice) Regulations 2022 were laid before the House on 19 October, while the Investigatory Powers Commissioner (Oversight Functions) Regulations 2022 were laid on 18 October.
Maintaining our national security and keeping the public safe is the top priority of this Government and, I hope, every Government. We seek to make these regulations to ensure the maintenance of transparent oversight and the effective operation of the safeguards that are in place to manage the important powers exercised under both the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
There are three key points to discuss. First, there are the amendments to the covert human intelligence sources code of practice, which I will refer to as the CHIS code—a lovely phrase. The regulations will update the CHIS code in light of the amendments made to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, henceforth known as RIPA, by the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021. The amendments to part 2 of RIPA sought to ensure that there is a clear and consistent statutory basis to authorise CHIS to engage in conduct that could otherwise be criminal where it is necessary and proportionate to do so, having regard to the UK’s obligations under the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. The CHIS code sets out the processes and safeguards governing the use of CHIS by public authorities, and provides detail on how CHIS powers should be exercised and duties performed, including examples of best practice. The draft revised CHIS code also sets out enhanced protections for children and vulnerable adults where they are to be authorised as CHIS in exceptional circumstances. There has been extensive, valuable consultation with charities and interest groups to inform these changes.
This instrument will also make necessary changes to the interception of communications code of practice, which I will refer to as the draft revised interception code. The draft revised interception code provides further guidance on the use of interception by public authorities that exercise such powers, which are also known as intercepting authorities. The changes to the draft revised interception code will reflect the Government’s long-standing position on serving intercept warrants on cloud service providers and the enterprise service that they provide to customers. These limited changes will bring much-needed clarity for relevant UK and US companies that are impacted by enterprise service issues.
A public consultation on the proposed changes was carried out between July and October. After further cross-governmental engagement on the draft revised interception code, there are three additional changes to the proposed revisions, to reflect that an intercepting authority may opt not to serve a warrant on the enterprise if doing so would compromise national security. These changes are intended to provide further examples of the circumstances under which a warrant may be served on a cloud service provider instead of an enterprise customer, and outlines the obligations imposed by the Investigatory Powers Act regarding unauthorised disclosure to help protect national security.
Finally, I turn to the changes to the investigatory powers commissioner’s oversight functions. I will refer to the investigatory powers commissioner as the IPC. These regulations place two areas on a statutory footing: first, the IPC’s oversight of the GCHQ equities process, and secondly compliance by members and civilian staff of SO15 at the Metropolitan Police Service and members of the National Crime Agency with the guidance referred to as “The Principles relating to the detention and interviewing of detainees overseas”. These areas have previously been overseen by the IPC and his office on a non-statutory basis.
The changes will provide greater public accountability and enable the effective discharge of the IPC’s responsibilities. As a statutory authority, the parameters of the IPC’s remit are set by Parliament and the IPC has made it clear, and the Government agree, that he considers formalising his oversight responsibilities as being in the best interests of transparency and robust oversight. In summary, the regulations provide clarity and transparency around the use of oversight powers that are vital for keeping the public safe. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Robert. I thank the Minister for his opening contribution.
On the draft Investigatory Powers Commissioner (Oversight Functions) Regulations 2022, as the Minister has said the new regulations stipulate that the oversight functions of the commissioner include keeping under review, by way of audit, inspection and investigation the exercise of GCHQ processes relating to determining whether information about vulnerabilities in technology should be disclosed. Furthermore, the statutory instrument provides the commissioner with oversight of compliance by members and civilian staff of the Metropolitan police force in relation to counter-terrorism legislation and officers of the National Crime Agency with the guidance referred to as “The Principles relating to the detention and interviewing of detainees overseas and the passing and receipt of intelligence relating to detainees”.
We interrogated those principles for the purposes of the National Security Bill. It is worth being clear and on the record that the principles are explicit that:
“The UK Government does not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone unlawful killing, the use of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (“CIDT”), or extraordinary rendition. In no circumstance will UK personnel ever take action amounting to torture, unlawful killing, extraordinary rendition, or CIDT.”
As the Minister knows, we are always very supportive of independent commissioners and reviewers of legislation. I thank Sir Brian Leveson and his team for the valuable work that they do in ensuring that our security services are as accountable and transparent as they are able to be. I am also grateful to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office for its feedback when I approached the office about these provisions. On that basis, we welcome this further extension of the oversight powers allocated to the commissioner to consider the conduct of these additional agencies.
We sought a legal opinion on some of the provisions. One thing that was not clear in relation to the oversight of GCHQ and the disclosure of technological vulnerabilities is whether the commissioner will only have powers to consider GCHQ’s decision-making processes on whether to disclose such vulnerabilities or not disclose, or if he will have the power to intervene and compel a disclosure should he warrant that necessary.
The second statutory instrument will bring into force the revised code of practice prepared under section 71 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, providing guidance on the authorisation for the conduct or use of covert human intelligence sources by public authorities. Under section 72 of that Act, a person must, in so far as applicable, have regard to a code of practice when exercising any powers or duties to which the code relates.
Labour recognises the fundamental importance of covert intelligence and the role it plays in keeping our country safe. As an example, in 2018 alone, covert human intelligence sources helped to disrupt more than 30 threats to life, leading to the arrest of numerous serious organised criminals and the seizure of more than 3,000 kg of class A drugs, while taking more than 50 firearms off the street. Given the inherent nature of what covert intelligence entails, it is vital that proper safeguards and the processes for accountability and proportionality are introduced and used exhaustively.
We welcome that this statutory instrument will update the code of practice following the Government consultation that ran for eight weeks, from December 2021 to February of this year. I note however that at least one organisation who made a submission to the consultation felt that eight weeks over the Christmas period and at the height of the prevalence of the omicron variant put a strain on stakeholders to respond.
Colleagues led on the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 during its passage. We agreed it was a marked improvement on the status quo, but Labour raised concerns around the number of public agencies approved. The powers granted by that Bill are incredibly serious and must only be conferred to public agencies where the use of such powers is vital for their work. We pushed for more real-time involvement of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, and we argued extensively for the most comprehensive protection of children and vulnerable adults in this space.
I note that most of the consultation responses had a focus on protecting children and vulnerable adults, and I can see that the Government have reflected on those submissions. While we remain and will always be very uncomfortable about those with vulnerabilities, be they age-related or otherwise, being involved in this line of work, the updated guidance is an improvement on the guidance that predates it, and it benefits from the consultation submissions. The standardisation of the use of the word “child” or “children” rather than “juvenile” is welcome, and we hold the Government to their statement in the response to the consultation that
“Children are only authorised as CHIS in exceptional circumstances and the duty of care that is owed to children in this context is taken extremely seriously.”
I look to the Minister for assurances that, in these circumstances, every other possible means of gathering intelligence is explored and exhausted first.
The Minister will be aware of the distressing case earlier this year of a person acting as a CHIS for our intelligence services who had used that status to abuse his former partner. I cannot see that the code reflects the potential for abuse of the status by a CHIS, and I hope the Minister can provide assurances to the Committee that that situation is being investigated and that processes are being revised accordingly, so that we close down opportunities for anyone acting as a CHIS to use the status to abuse others.
I note that the explanatory memorandum states:
“A person must have regard to the Code when exercising powers and any function to which this Code relates.”
However, it goes on to say:
“Failure to comply with the Code does not render that person liable in any criminal or civil proceedings.”
It says that
“the Code is admissible in evidence in criminal and civil proceedings”,
but given the seriousness of these powers and the fact that we all want and need to see the guidance adhered to in the strictest sense, what assurances can the Minister provide that there will be consequences of a failure to comply with the code?
We will continue to follow closely the work of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner in his ongoing assessment under these statutory instruments, and we renew our commitment to always engage with Government constructively, to find the right balance between keeping people safe and upholding the personal freedoms we hold dear.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I was pleased to be nominated by my party to contribute to the scrutiny of these measures, not least because I had the unexpected duty of speaking on Second Reading of the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill on 5 October 2020. I think it is fair to say that at that stage, we were not terribly impressed with the measures in the Bill and were looking for a number of assurances from Ministers, which, sadly, were not forthcoming. That is one of the major reasons why we voted against the Bill’s Third Reading and the Scottish Government withheld their legislative consent.
Notwithstanding that, the measure is a positive development, given the benefits it brings in placing informal arrangements for oversight of GCHQ and others on to a statutory footing. We welcome the revised CHIS code and the revised interception code, albeit cautiously. However, we remain concerned that they do not appear to deal with the dangers caused by agents provocateurs, and the CHIS code still does not require authorising officers to be completely independent of the investigation. That separation of powers is extremely important, because there is an obvious conflict of interest, and as far as we can see, no measures in the SI or the code deals with that. Like the hon. Member for Halifax, we also remain concerned about the lack of oversight in real time of the use of covert human intelligence sources.
We will keep these matters under review, and we urge the Minister to reflect on the fact that those concerns still exist. Nevertheless, in the narrow terms of the measures before us, we think that they are a positive development, and on that basis, we are content to see them progress.
Tom Tugendhat
I thank both Opposition parties for their co-operation. Both codes are very important, and the commissioner is an important addition, so I am extremely grateful that they have given their consent.
Sadly, tracking not only individuals but state-based threats around our country requires powers that many of us wish we did not have to exercise or use, but it would be irresponsible of the state not to have them. Governments in the past have always supported this, so I am glad that we have done so.
It is worth noting that the IPC only has the powers to oversee the process and report, not to intervene or act in any other way, so that has not changed; it has just been extended. Chapter 2 of the CHIS code makes clear that criminal conduct authorisation must be set out clearly for each CHIS. The hon. Member for Halifax is right to ask about the use of children. Of course, children would always be extremely cautiously used in any Government activity and only in the most appropriate circumstances, when no other way could be found to achieve the same result. I assure her that no authorisation would be given unless it was absolutely necessary and the interests of the child were fully taken into account. It is such commitments that have allowed us to get through the consultation process with many groups that are rightly entirely focused on the interests of the child.
I thank the Committee for considering these regulations. Thank you, Sir Robert, for your chairmanship; it is always a pleasure to see you. I thank the Opposition parties for supporting these important SIs.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT INVESTIGATORY POWERS (COVERT HUMAN INTELLIGENCE SOURCES AND INTERCEPTION: CODE OF PRACTICE) REGULATIONS 2022
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Investigatory Powers (Covert Human Intelligence Sources and Interception: Codes of Practice) Regulations 2022 .—(Tom Tugendhat.)
Draft Road Vehicles and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Type-Approval) (Amendment and Transitional Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022
Draft Road Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance standards (Cars, Vans and Heavy Duty Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 12 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Road Vehicles and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Type-Approval) (Amendment and Transitional Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the draft Road Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance Standards (Cars, Vans and Heavy Duty Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
Mr Holden
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
As the Department responsible for vehicle regulation, we have conducted intensive work to ensure that there continues to be a functioning legislative framework for this crucial sector of our economy. The EU type approval scheme for road vehicles—in other words cars, buses and goods vehicles—is being converted to an independent GB type approval scheme, to replace the current interim arrangements whereby EU type approvals have been accepted following scrutiny by our Vehicle Certification Agency, the VCA. Alongside that, these regulations create an interim GB approval scheme regulating emissions from machinery engines, which, like the existing interim schemes for motorcycles and agricultural tractors, will be aligned with EU requirements until the end of 2027, by which time we intend to have independent GB approval schemes for these sectors, too.
The purpose of type approval legislation is to ensure that motor vehicles and machinery engines meet prescribed safety and environmental standards. EU law previously set out the regimes under which a new vehicle, engine or part was required to be tested. A substantial proportion of the standards come from an international body based in Geneva, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, or UNECE. The UK will of course continue to play a prominent role in that body, alongside our excellent VCA, which works internationally.
The Road Vehicles and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019—which I shall refer to as the interim SI—introduced an interim provisional approval regime lasting two years, until the end of this year. That allowed manufacturers of motor vehicles to submit evidence of an EU type approval to the British authority, the VCA, to enable vehicles to be submitted for registration. Trailers, machinery engines and replacement parts continued to be sold on the basis of an EU type approval issued by a member state or the VCA.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
So far the Minister has referred only to GB approvals, but the explanatory memorandum refers to the whole of the UK. Can he clarify for the Committee why he is making that distinction when the explanatory memorandum refers to the whole of the UK?
Mr Holden
I certainly will. I should come to that issue further in my speech, but if the hon. Member is still unsure and wants to raise it again, I would ask him to please speak again.
Under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, the body of EU law on type approvals is retained in UK law. These are around 2,500 pages setting out approval processes and detailed technical standards for cars, buses and goods vehicles. This morning’s SI corrects deficiencies and creates GB type approval, although I would emphasise that at present the technical standards are essentially identical to those across the EU, so for manufacturers this is essentially, initially at least, an administrative exercise. This SI will require manufacturers of cars, buses and goods vehicles to transition into the GB type approval scheme no later than 1 February 2026, with approval being available from 1 January 2023, assuming the Committee’s agreement. With respect to the Northern Ireland protocol and unfettered access, this instrument will continue to exempt vehicles that meet EU rules that are made in or approved in Northern Ireland from the GB type approval regime. I hope that clarifies matters slightly for the hon. Member.
The SI gives Ministers powers to amend the retained direct minor EU law on road vehicles—in other words, the detailed technical specifications originally set by the European Commission. There will be a statutory requirement to consult representative bodies such as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, and similar groups, whenever Ministers are seeking to amend the technical standards. This will ensure that the vehicle industry and interested non-governmental organisations are able to have their say on any proposals that we make.
Machinery engines placed on the market from 1 January will be required to obtain GB approval under a new interim provisional approval scheme for machinery engines, which will recognise an EU approval with oversight from our VCA. These arrangements are already in place for agricultural tractors and motorcycles. The provisional schemes for all three groups of product will continue until the end of 2027, by which time we expect to have an independent GB type approval regime available for all those groups of vehicles.
The draft Road Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance Standards (Cars, Vans and Heavy Duty Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 amend various retained EU new car, van and heavy duty vehicle carbon dioxide emission regulations to ensure that they can continue to function appropriately.
The new car and van carbon dioxide emission regulations were retained following EU exit and establish mandatory average carbon dioxide emission targets for manufacturers of new cars and vans across the UK. The regulations set out how the carbon dioxide emission scheme is to be monitored, reported on and enforced. They also include provisions to help manufacturers to meet their carbon dioxide targets, including derogations for smaller volume manufacturers, the awarding of more credits for producing low emission vehicles, and allowing manufacturers to join together to be considered as one entity to meet carbon dioxide targets, inter alia.
The HDV carbon dioxide emission regulations were also retained following EU exit; however, they do not set mandatory carbon dioxide emission targets on HDV manufacturers until 2025. Until that time, manufacturers are legally required to report specific data points on their vehicles annually to the enforcement body, the VCA.
This draft instrument primarily amends references to EU type approval in the regulations to EU, GB or UK (NI) type approval, where appropriate, to reflect the creation of the GB type approval scheme. As the car, van and HDV carbon dioxide emission regulations apply UK-wide, it is appropriate to reference all three type approval schemes; due to the protocol, vehicles registered in Northern Ireland will continue to receive EU type approval or, now, UK (NI) type approval.
Kevin Brennan
That interests me. Am I right in saying that the regulations will have no effect whatsoever in practice, because EU type approval will continue to be legal in GB due to the Northern Ireland protocol, and vehicles that are subject to UK (NI) type approval will continue to be legally available in GB? Is that a correct interpretation of what the Minister is saying?
Mr Holden
The changes in regulations are merely, at the moment, moving from one to the other. Obviously, there are broader discussions around the Northern Ireland protocol, what that will mean down the line and whether there is any derogation in the future, but at the moment the regulations are essentially the same for both GB and Northern Ireland under the protocol.
Kevin Brennan
It says in the Minister’s own explanatory memorandum, in paragraph 7.9:
“As a result of EU exit and the GB type-approval 2022 Regulations vehicles with either GB, UK(NI) or EU type-approval can be sold on the UK market.”
What I just said was right, was it not?
Mr Holden
Yes, indeed—on markets using EU approvals issued by an EU approval authority, or to seek approval for EU rules from the VCA, known as a UK (NI) approval. GB-based manufacturers will have the same choice when selling in Northern Ireland. Whichever route manufacturers choose, they will be able to sell products—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—throughout the rest of Great Britain without additional approval. The point at the moment is that we want to get these regulations on the statute book in advance of anything further. Particularly with respect to bus manufacturing, which has a significant presence in Northern Ireland, we may wish at some further point to derogate.
References to type approval are fundamental to the regulations as they determine which vehicles are in scope of either scheme, as well as defining who will receive a carbon dioxide emissions target, including a fine for any non-compliance. A number of minor EU exit-related deficiencies, and a simple typo made in a previous statutory instrument, are also corrected by this instrument.
The type approval instrument creates an independent GB type approval scheme for cars, buses and goods vehicles, continues the interim regime for other categories of motor vehicle, and creates a similar interim regime for machinery engines.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend just clarify something for the slower members of the class, i.e. me? Page 16 of the regulations refers to the differences between GB type approval, UK (NI) type approval and EU type approval. Were, for example, the bus manufacturers in Northern Ireland to decide that they wished, for all sorts of good reasons, to have different regulations surrounding their bus manufacture, and if that were approved by the Government, that would change GB type approval and UK (NI) type approval, and the resulting buses would be available for sale under those rules here across the UK, but would they also be available for sale in the EU, if they differed from the EU type approval?
Mr Holden
No, because if in future the regulations differed, they would affect the UK, but not the rest of the EU, so they would potentially be different regulations. At the moment, the regulations are essentially the same in the EU and Northern Ireland. For example, although Nissan, near my constituency, which has experience of this, imports several parts of cars and cars from Japan, they are not made in the UK under the Nissan badge. They have to meet UK or EU standards at the moment, whereas there are different standards when Nissan is selling to, say, to east Asia. At the moment, those are not the same as those we see in the EU. We have had the same regulations. The UK (NI) regulations and the GB regulations are going to be the same as in the EU at the start, however in future we will see what happens and what differences there might be.
Richard Graham
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to come back on this. If we were to manufacture buses in Northern Ireland with the intention of selling them in south-east Asia, for example, would the Department do research on whether the Asian standards required for their buses were compatible with whatever changes we might want to make to GB and UK law?
Mr Holden
I think if a company is manufacturing purely for export, it can manufacture purely to the standards of the other country it is exporting to, so it would totally depend. The VCA works internationally and has offices in eight countries, including in all our major manufacturing partners that export cars or car parts to the UK, including India. We do a lot of international work, and a lot of it comes through the VCA, because Britain is recognised, even post EU exit, as an important and independent international body when recognising such regulations.
Richard Graham
So is the overall purpose simply the conversion of EU law into UK law, or is the intention to do that, but also pave the way for further changes that may be beneficial to manufacturers?
Mr Holden
At this point, it is the first, because these provisions do not cover all the additional areas, including motorcycles and stand-alone engines. Down the line, and obviously with regard to the protocol and Northern Ireland issues, there might be further moves, but these regulations essentially mirror where we are within the EU at the moment. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s questions.
The type approval instrument creates an independent GB type approval for cars, buses and goods vehicles, continues the interim regime for other categories of motor vehicles, and creates a similar interim regime for machinery engines. The carbon dioxide instrument ensures that the existing carbon dioxide monitoring scheme can cater for vehicles approved under the GB type approval scheme. The GB approval scheme is vital to provide the platform to ensure that we have control over vehicle standards in areas ranging from environmental protection to automated and self-driving vehicles. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Dowd. I welcome the Minister to his place. Tackling high and illegal levels of air pollution is a key battleground in our fight against the climate crisis. Therefore, we will not be opposing these instruments, which relate to type approval for road vehicles.
However, unfortunately, I do not believe that the Government have gone far enough on environmental targets. For instance, I am concerned that the UK has not adopted World Health Organisation targets on air pollution into domestic legislation. As a member of the Bill Committee for the Environment Act 2021 two years ago, I voted in favour of such a measure, but that was unfortunately voted down by the Government. Still, we are seeing the measures of the Environment Act being watered down or ignored. The delayed 2040 target to tackle PM2.5 particulate pollution sends the message that that is not a priority for this Government. It is not just us saying that; even the Government’s own watchdog has criticised the delay and stated that targets are too weak.
Our communities cannot afford to wait another 18 years for clean air. As we all know, the impacts of dangerous and illegal levels of air pollution are not felt equally across our society. Those in the most deprived areas often have to breathe the most toxic air, and disproportionately suffer from the worst health risks as a result. Clean air is therefore not just an environmental issue; it is a social issue, an economic issue, and a levelling-up issue.
We can already see Labour in power delivering on cleaner air. Our local councils, Mayors and Welsh Government are putting in huge efforts to fix the problem today, not decades from now. But they are being held back by a UK Government that is showing a lack of ambition in that area.
To conclude, we will not be opposing today’s instruments to create a new system for the type approval of road vehicles. However, I hope the Minister can address those points, and put in a renewed effort to go further in tackling dangerous and illegal levels of air pollution.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Road Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance Standards (Cars, Vans and Heavy Duty Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Road Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance Standards (Cars, Vans and Heavy Duty Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.—(Mr Richard Holden.)
Draft Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) (Terms of Agreement) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 12 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) (Terms of Agreement) Regulations 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott, in particular after our recent Westminster Hall debate. I am pleased to introduce this draft statutory instrument, laid before the House on 19 October, which is part of the implementing regulations under the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act 2021, or TILPA.
Providing greater access to fast, reliable and secure connections is a priority for the Government. We all understand the economic, social and cultural benefits of improving digital connectivity. Improving our infrastructure to deliver gigabit-capable connections will enable a step change in what digital connectivity can contribute to our daily lives.
The benefits can only be realised to their fullest extent, however, if they reach every home. For that reason, last year the Government passed TILPA, which we believe will support those living in flats and apartments—multiple-dwelling units or MDUs—to access broadband services. The aim of TILPA is to encourage landlords to respond to requests for access issued by network operators. That could be landlords or a property management company, depending on the arrangements for any particular building. In TILPA, that person is referred to as the “required grantor”.
The rights sought by operators are essential to the delivery of connectivity. That is because, while a tenant in a flat may be able to provide permission for the operator to install equipment in their own flat, operators may be unable to deploy their services without first obtaining permission to install equipment in areas that are not part of the target premises itself, such as shared corridors or riser cupboards.
Data provided by multiple operators suggest that about 40% of their requests for access receive no response. When an operator finds itself in that situation, our understanding is that the operator opts to bypass the property to maintain the momentum of its wider deployment. The result of the operator’s commercial decision is that residents in that property are left with little choice but to accept that they will miss out on a good connection. We think that that is unacceptable.
TILPA addresses that issue by amending the electronic communications code to create a new streamlined route through the courts, named the part 4A process. Operators may use that process to access lots of flats and apartments if a service has been requested by a tenant, but the landlord is repeatedly unresponsive to requests for access. The legislation will thus prevent a situation in which a leaseholder is unable to receive a service simply because of the silence of a landlord.
Government policy in this area, however, also works to keep a proportionate balance between public benefit and the rights of individual landlords. That consideration is particularly important in TILPA where an operator may gain rights to access a property without the express permission or, potentially, even knowledge of a landlord. TILPA is designed such that the terms and conditions applied to part 4A code rights will ensure that that balance between the public benefit of network roll-out and private property rights is maintained.
The terms and conditions are contained in two statutory instruments, the draft terms-of-agreement SI which we are debating today and the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) (Conditions and Time Limits) Regulations 2022. The latter SI, which was laid in Parliament on the same day as this one, was subject to the negative procedure. It specifies conditions to be satisfied before an operator can give a final notice to the landlord. Those regulations are designed to ensure that the operator has made sufficient attempts to identify and contact the landlord before making an application to the court to have an agreement imposed. It gives a time limit within which the operator must apply to the court for a part 4A order and an expiry period for the code rights themselves to ensure that the rights gained through the process are balanced to facilitate the provision of new connections without encroaching on private property rights.
All rights conferred under the code, whether under part 4A or another part of the code, are subject to the terms contained in the agreement granting those rights—for example, particular requirements to give notice before entering the land in question. The precise terms to be applied to a code agreement have never been set in legislation, so the draft SI we are discussing has been informed by detailed consultation with stakeholders and contains the exact terms to which any code rights imposed under the part 4A process will be subject.
Those terms include the notice requirements that the operator must satisfy before entering the building, entry times for the operator, a requirement for the operator to indemnify the landlord for up to £5 million and requirements to label equipment, among other details. By prescribing those exact terms for a part 4A agreement, the draft SI represents a novel approach in telecoms infrastructure policy.
That approach has been taken for two reasons. First, the circumstances in which the part 4A process can be used are very specific: it can only be used where the operator needs to access land connected to the premises to which it wishes to deliver a service, and where both the target premises and the connected land are in common ownership. The process currently applies only to multiple-dwelling units. The limited situations in which the part 4A process can be used mean that whereas in most cases, legislation cannot effectively pre-empt the terms that a particular situation warrants, in this case, the scope is so narrow that it can. Secondly, fixing the terms of a part 4A agreement makes the process of courts dealing with applications for code rights far less complex, so that we can grant decisions very quickly. Given that the process is designed to provide a quicker route to gaining code rights to avoid an operator having to bypass a building altogether, we think that is crucial. It also has the benefit of allowing courts to concentrate on the most complex cases.
Before concluding, I wish to note that the regulations apply to Scotland, England and Wales, but not to Northern Ireland. That is due to an issue stemming from the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive between 2017 and 2019, which caused the jurisdiction of code court cases in Northern Ireland courts to fall out of step with the rest of the country. Work is under way to resolve that, and separate regulations will follow in 2023. These regulations, and the Act they help to implement, represent an innovative new approach to enabling digital infrastructure roll-out, and we have designed them carefully to deliver improved connectivity for tenants while protecting private property rights. I hope that the regulations will receive the support of hon. Members.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Elliott. In our modern world, broadband is an essential utility, and in order to access many aspects of society—including shopping, schooling, public services and banking—a reliable, fast and affordable connection is needed. As such, people living in multiple-dwelling units such as blocks of flats or converted townhouses need broadband just as much as everyone else. However, Openreach has warned that without much-needed reforms, it may be unable to connect up to 1.5 million flats, risking the creation of a major digital divide. I am therefore pleased that measures are being introduced that will help operators to connect people living in flats where landowners are repeatedly unresponsive. These measures will help to resolve a subset of extreme cases, but if we are to meet the scale of the challenge of connecting everyone in MDUs, further support and reforms will be needed.
The draft statutory instrument before us today and the connected statutory instrument regarding conditions and time limits seek to strike a reasonable balance between operators and landowners, helping to connect some people in flats who might otherwise be left behind. As the Minister has outlined, where the required grantor refuses to respond to an operator time and time again, there will now be a new avenue through the courts for operators to deploy their services. For the reassurance of landowners, the SI also requires that operators adhere to certain standards while carrying out the work, a positive move that will improve trust in the industry as a whole.
Operators have raised some concerns that some of the terms are unnecessarily onerous. For example, they have questioned the need to send notice by recorded delivery when all previous attempts to make contact have been ignored or rejected, and when many contact addresses for grantors are simply overseas PO boxes. Others have said that they will find it hard to line up permissions, such as those needed from the local authority and those needed for preserving heritage, at the same time. How will the Department review whether the use of part 4A orders is working as intended—will it record how many are successfully issued and followed through, for example? Overall, however, we recognise the need for a reasonable amount of communication between parties, and for proper procedure to be followed. The Government did consult on the terms and have tried to strike a balance, and the result will allow for a small number of properties to be connected that otherwise would not be.
When looking at the bigger picture, however, this piece of delegated legislation addresses only a very narrow part of the problem with connecting flats. At present, operators are often forced to move build teams that are installing full fibre in a particular area onwards when they get to multiple-dwelling units, meaning that those flats are not connected. That is because in many cases, it is simply too difficult and costly for operators to come to an agreement with the required grantors in the timeframe during which they are in the area. Operators can theoretically go back and connect those flats at a later date, but that is much less efficient than doing so when they were already building there. That means that if the build team moves on, those living in the block will be left without a full fibre connection for years.
Today’s SI may provide a new legal route for accessing flats in some cases where landowners are being completely unresponsive, but showing a repeated lack of responsiveness itself takes time, meaning that build teams may still be moved on before they are actually able to use it. Furthermore, many landowners do communicate with operators, but in a manner or at a speed that delays the process to a point where, again, operators still need to move their teams on; in those cases, this legislation will not help at all. As a result, to ensure that people in flats are not left behind or connected inefficiently at a later date, we must look at reforms that target the broader issues behind MDUs—something that could and should have been done during the passage of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister what recent consideration has been given to the possibility of issuing full automatic upgrade rights to operators, while giving thought to their need for competition. It would also be an opportune time to provide an update on when requirements for new builds to be fitted with full fibre will finally be in force.
The Government have revised their broadband roll-out targets too many times. To prevent that from happening again, they must consider the broader concerns of those implementing the roll-out, and attempt to balance these with the needs of landowners and other interested parties. This SI is a step in the right direction, but further reforms will no doubt be necessary to ensure that tenants in flats do not unintentionally become a digitally excluded group. If we truly believe that broadband is an essential utility and not a luxury, this is something that Members across the House should be concerned about.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I attach myself to the remarks made by the Minister and the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) about garnering consensus on MDUs. The timescale involved in doing that is making it difficult for some companies to roll out broadband at the speed at which they would like to roll it out.
The reform of the code, placing additional requirements on operators not to disrupt the landowner’s use of the land and damage properties, is welcome. The SNP has no intention of standing in the way of this SI, but I will highlight a concern that has come to my attention. Telecommunications giants were involved in lobbying on both sides of the reform argument, investing money in campaigns. The Protect and Connect campaign, which lobbied relentlessly on the recent telecommunications Bill, asking for an independent review of the code, is almost entirely funded by a single US telecommunications company that makes money from UK mast rents. It spent £400,000 on Facebook adverts that lobbied MPs, and called on the public to write to their MPs—of course, we always welcome hearing from our constituents. The campaign, which runs in the UK to change UK law, is almost entirely financed by a US company, which only lightly alludes to its role in the campaign deep in the privacy section of the Protect and Connect website. While many businesses have legitimate cases, with small landowners facing huge drops in rent due to code reform, it is extremely concerning that a large foreign company is co-ordinating a campaign in the UK without declaring that and hiding behind others. The SNP has repeatedly raised the issue of the influence of dark money in UK democracy, and this is just another example. It should be taken as a sign of the range of influences that foreign countries seek in our democracy that even a matter such as the electronic communications code garners such huge attention.
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley East for what I thought was constructive feedback; I am glad that we very much agree on the importance of connectivity. As she knows, we have looked carefully at the Openreach-backed amendments to the PSTI Bill in great detail. TILPA is neutral to all operators without giving any single operator a particular commercial benefit, and we believe that the amendment that Openreach has persistently tried to get through the House gives it a commercial benefit. The hon. Member will be aware that the presence of competition in our broadband roll-out has been an absolutely critical factor in ensuring that that roll-out is rapid, so we are sensitive to anything that would give one commercial operator an advantage over another. We believe that we are getting connectivity to people much faster through that commercial competition. I will take some of the other feedback from the hon. Member back to my officials, but I reassure her that we have been talking carefully and constructively with all operators throughout this process. I am sure that all the issues that she raised will be ones that we continue to look at to ensure that the system is working as it should. We fundamentally have the same aim, which is to get this great connectivity out to everybody as quickly as possible.
I also welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Inverclyde on Protect and Connect. I share some of his frustrations, and it is interesting to look at some of those that are backing the campaign and how it is funded. I believe that it is backed by a former Labour MP for Redcar. While I appreciate some of the issues that it raises, some of the ways in which the campaign has been conducted use sensitive community cases to disguise a wider commercial interest. We are making huge progress in our roll-out, and the new procurements that we are rolling out under Project Gigabit to some of the hardest-to-reach areas will deliver great connectivity to some of those parts of the country that have suffered for too long with poor superfast and mobile connectivity. We look forward to having the support of the House as we engage in that programme, and I thank both hon. Members for their comments in this debate. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Biocidal Products (Health and Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 12 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Biocidal Products (Health and Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. This draft statutory instrument was laid before Parliament on 18 October. It is a technical change only, and there are no policy changes. It relates to biocidal products, which are used to control harmful organisms and include disinfectants, insecticides and rodenticides. These products have important roles in protecting human health and critical infrastructure, and it is therefore essential to society that their legal supply is not disrupted.
Although biocidal products are critical to society, they can pose risks to human health, animal health and the environment if used incorrectly. Therefore, to allow a biocidal product on the GB market, a two-step authorisation process is in place. First, the active substances used in biocidal products must be approved. Approval involves a rigorous scientific evaluation to ensure safety and efficacy—a process that takes one to two years and costs approximately £180,000. If an active substance is approved, applications can be made to authorise biocidal products containing that active substance. This evaluation looks at the safety and efficacy of the formulation—a process that takes about a year and costs approximately £25,000. As Members will understand, the applications are large dossiers of scientific data, and require complex evaluation and assessment by a range of specialist scientific disciplines to ensure that there is no danger to human health, animal health or the environment. The Health and Safety Executive operates a cost recovery model, so applicants bear the full cost of processing applications.
Biocidal products are regulated under the Great Britain biocidal products regulation—GB BPR—which was retained following EU exit. The authorisation process in Great Britain is similar to the EU, except where references to EU arrangements were replaced by domestic arrangements. Also retained in the legislation were legal deadlines by which applications should be processed. Those legal deadlines were in place to ensure consistency across the EU in how long was given to process applications and to provide transparency to applicants. While the UK was still in the EU, a steady stream of applications was processed across EU member states, though even at that time, deadlines were often missed.
In preparation to meet our ambition for the HSE to become a world-class stand-alone chemicals regulator following the UK’s departure from the EU, significant investment has been made to increase the HSE’s capacity and capability, and to embed new processes and procedures. Through a major transformation programme, the HSE’s headcount for its chemicals regulation division has increased by around 40%, with ongoing significant investment in both people and IT.
As part of EU exit preparations, transitional arrangements were put in place to ensure a smooth transition for businesses to the new domestic systems. Those arrangements required businesses that had applications in process at the end of the implementation period to re-submit them to the HSE by deadlines in 2021 if they wanted to retain access to the GB market. Under the arrangements, biocidal products already on the GB market could continue to be made available until their application was processed. It was unknown at the time how many re-submissions would be made by applicants to access the GB market until those deadlines passed.
I am pleased to report that more than 70% of the biocides applications seeking access to the UK market under the previous EU system have been resubmitted to GB. That clearly shows that the industry has faith in the GB market and in the HSE as the regulator, but it also generates a greater workload than was originally anticipated. As a result, it is not possible to process the large one-off influx of biocidal product authorisation applications within the legal deadlines in place.
The HSE has been hindered by its loss of access to EU databases that hold historical reports containing scientific information relevant to the processing of applications. However, a resolution should be in place by the time the information is required to process the applications. The HSE will also consider what future digital solutions may be required once a resolution has been implemented. Nevertheless, we must recognise that the issue has caused some further delays in the processing of applications.
Following EU exit, the legal deadlines in the Great Britain biocidal products regulation amount to deficiencies in current retained EU law; therefore, the appropriate course of action available to the HSE is to make technical amendments through this statutory instrument under the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to remedy deficiencies in the current legal framework. The technical changes proposed by the statutory instrument are straightforward: the legal deadlines in place to process biocidal product authorisation applications will be temporarily extended for an additional five years.
The period of five years is derived from resource modelling from the transformation programme to which I referred earlier. It represents the amount of time that the HSE forecasts it will take to address the backlog and return to a position in which applications can be processed within the original legal deadlines. I trust it is understood that the processing of applications is not simply a rubber-stamping exercise and that it requires highly trained staff who cannot simply be brought in in large numbers at short notice.
To clarify, the amendment to the legal deadlines should have no impact on businesses. An extension of the deadlines does not cause any additional cost to the applicant; instead, this statutory instrument provides legal certainty that when biocidal products are on the GB market awaiting the outcome of their application, they can remain there. That may not otherwise have been the case had the legal deadlines been missed. In turn, that ensures that there is no disruption to the legal supply of essential biocidal products while the applications are cleared.
The statutory instrument will affect a small number of new biocidal product authorisation applications. However, those applications will be prioritised to ensure that where businesses are waiting for authorisations before they can supply their products, they will not experience any delays.
Finally, this statutory instrument also adds an additional transitional measure—an oversight in the previous EU exit statutory instruments—that allows a type of biocidal product authorisation application called “same product applications” to transition to the GB market and be treated in the same way as other applications. This, too, has no impact on businesses. It is a technical correction to ensure that the biocide regime is fully functioning as intended.
I hope it is helpful for the Committee to know that this statutory instrument was robustly debated in the other place and passed without challenge. I can confirm that consent to make the statutory instrument has been obtained from Ministers in Scottish and Welsh Governments, in line with the normal conventions. The regulation of biocides in Northern Ireland follows separate arrangements under the Northern Ireland protocol and is not affected by this instrument. I hope colleagues of all parties will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Robertson. I thank the Minister for presenting the statutory instrument. We do not consider it controversial, but I have a few questions for her.
This is one of the many statutory instruments being introduced by the Government as part of the return of powers from the European Union. This particular instrument aims to
“extend the legal deadlines in place for processing biocidal product authorisation applications by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) acting as competent authority.”
Importantly, the regulations will ensure that there is sufficient time to process applications and that biocidal products can remain legally on the market in Great Britain, as intended by the legislative framework. They will ultimately ensure business as usual—something the Labour party will always back. I do, however, have questions for the Minister.
What would the Minister say to businesses and the general public about the need for this SI? As I, the Minister and many Members here will know, following EU exit we no longer have access to the vital databases storing historical EU reports. These reports contain information concerning the evaluations that EU member states carried out to inform decisions on the approval of biocidal active substances and the authorisation of biocidal products. Although some of that information has been published, some aspects are confidential and not published at all. Many will worry that the consequences of EU exit have simply not been planned properly. How could the Government not prepare for this or see it coming? The scale of potential disruption caused by our exit from the EU sits firmly with successive Tory Governments.
I hope the Minister can also provide clarification on the extra workload. The Minister will know that the transitional arrangements requiring the resubmission of applications to the HSE have resulted in a one-off influx of simultaneous applications around transitional deadlines, and this has caused a temporary backlog of applications. One of the main reasons for this SI, as the Minister outlined, is that the HSE will not be able to meet the legal deadlines for processing authorisations set out in GB BPR. Why is the Minister asking the HSE to do more with less? In 2010, Government funding to the HSE stood at £231 million; 12 years later, it stands at £178 million. That is a cut of £53 million. It is simply baffling to ask the HSE to take on more following the EU exit. Will the Minister clarify what extra support is being put in place to support the increased workload?
I hope the Minister will remember that this SI covers material that must be handled with care. The HSE deserves the proper support to manage the increased workload. Not doing so would leave the public at risk, and that is something I am sure we can agree no one wants. I appreciate the Minister laying this SI before Parliament. As I said, it is one that we will support, but it would be helpful if the Minister could answer a few of those questions.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
I have some questions for the Minister. The first concerns the resubmission rate of 70%. What are the actual numbers? If this instrument is to be extended for five years, what are we looking at 70% of? My next question is about the data that was lost because of EU withdrawal. That will now mean that a lot of work has to be done again from scratch, which will involve some intense resources and support for HSE, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford mentioned. How much extra resource will be put into the HSE? In five years, there will be the 70% of re-submitted applications, as well as the submissions that would normally come in. Will we be in a position in five years’ time where we have another backlog and have to look at another extension?
Mims Davies
I have many notes. I thank the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford for her questions and the spirit of them—I am being passed even more notes, so I feel pretty sure that I can answer most of her questions.
Let us start with the most important issue: resourcing and funding. The HSE has already increased the number of staff working on chemicals regulation by around 40% from 256 in March 2020 to 355 in March 2022, with further significant recruitment planned over the next two to three years, which I hope answers the question raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green. That reflects the need for increased resources for the HSE’s post-EU exit responsibilities.
Likewise, the total budget for the HSE’s chemicals regulation division has grown by 39% from £22.4 million to £31.2 million between 2018-19 and 2022-23. It was always anticipated that it would take several years to reach full operating capacity following Brexit, due to the need to recruit and train large numbers of new staff in specialist disciplines required for chemicals regulation.
It is an honour to be the Minister responsible for the HSE. The depth of work it does across covid and all sectors is a joy to behold and learn from, with its cost recovery scheme and the way that it works. One of its recruitment plans is to grow and progress more of its own people, which I very much welcome.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Given what the Minister just said, does she see it as a matter of regret that we have lost over 400 HSE inspectors since 2010? During the covid crisis, their roles had to be adopted by debt collectors, who were performing their functions by inspecting premises and carrying out tick-box exercises in their stead.
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. In the time that I have been working with the HSE as a Minister, whether on visits to Derbyshire or to Bootle, I have been really impressed with its ingenuity and the way it has got people to come into the sector, grown its local workforce and given people opportunities. It is brilliant at bringing people in and training them. If he is saying that we welcome people from all walks of life to come into this growing sector, we are on the same page.
Sir Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that, as part of this welcome recruitment drive, the ministerial head of the HSE will insist that all new employees have to work from an office base, rather than working from home? We are talking about deep scientific research, a key part of which is collaboration. I understand that the Government cannot do much about civil servants who had their terms and conditions altered during covid, but will she confirm that, on an ongoing basis, the civil servants she is recruiting into the HSE will have to work from an office, rather than from home?
Mims Davies
My right hon. Friend is right to talk about learning and development within the business, which is really important. In my engagement with and visits to the HSE, it has been very clear about that, but it also has many people in the field and around the country who balance working from home with working from the base where they deliver their processes. It is a mixed picture, but I am happy to look at that point and raise it with management.
The HSE’s chemicals regulation division has reached full capacity and will be in a position to meet the usual timescales set out in the legislation, but it is important to bring this measure to the House, to give us the time to achieve this recruitment and, ultimately, make sure that this area is safe and works. I hope that reassures hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford asked why we have to do this and whether we envisaged the timetables. The changes will ensure that regulatory deadlines provide sufficient time for the HSE to clear the backlog of applications, and will give legal certainty to the affected businesses, whose products, vitally, will be able to remain on the market while their applications are, rightfully, assessed.
The active substances will be reviewed by the HSE, and the legislation allowing flexibility and timeliness should be welcome. I reassure hon. Members that the work to review the programme is in development. The HSE will continue to communicate and engage with stakeholders on its work in due course. It has already started work on evaluating the active substance applications, which fall outside the formal review programme.
There was a question about how the businesses will be notified about applications. Businesses have been notified and have submitted more than 400 biocidal product applications. That includes new applications, changes to existing authorisations and renewals, while 250 are complex new applications, which require the most resources. Compared with the EU workload, that represents about 70% more than anticipated, but I strongly believe that the HSE can withstand that. I thank the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford for making those points.
I have covered the staffing measures. On the long-standing transition arrangements that allow the biocidal products to stay on the market until their applications are assessed, most affected products have previously been on the market for many years, and in most cases in the EU as well. I reassure colleagues that this is nothing for us to worry about. The HSE has the experts, and the draft regulations will allow it to do its work and to monitor as it can and should.
The HSE has a process for monitoring international scientific information of relevance to UK active substances and products, including the EU assessments. Should new evidence emerge, the HSE will again work with any relevant regulatory agencies and take any suitable action as a result.
Andy McDonald
The Minister is being generous in giving way. Given the commitments she has made this afternoon, is she able to give any indication to the Committee as to the increase in the HSE’s budget following the autumn statement? It has an awful lot more work to do.
Mims Davies
I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about the budget. I have information about the staffing that I can give him, but I point to the cost recovery in this area. The HSE is exemplary on that. I am happy to write to him with more detail, if that is helpful.
I want to cover data; forgive me, I have so many notes here, I cannot find the bit on data. Here we go—so many bits of paper! I hope hon. Members appreciate that this is a technical instrument and it is important that we get it right. I would rather give more detail and data than less.
The HSE’s assessment of biocidal products remains based primarily on the data submitted by the businesses. They have to act for the authorisation in place for their products on the market. The businesses can continue to do that without access to the EU databases. That is not under threat. The risks of loss of access to the EU databases are being considered as part of HSE’s work to manage biocide authorisations taking into account the loss of access to EU databases, but HSE’s long-term objective is to develop solutions that will allow the authorisation processes to work without disruption, so that no risks materialise.
I hope that I have covered most of the questions put to me. I welcome the Committee considering the draft regulations. I reiterate that the statutory instrument is a technical change only and that there are no policy changes. It relates to biocidal products that are used to control harmful organisms, including disinfectants, insecticides and rodenticides—products that have important roles in protecting human health and critical infrastructure. The instrument will therefore allow us to ensure that the legal supply of such products is not impacted in the long term.
The draft instrument provides important additional time for the HSE to complete biocide authorisations while applications are addressed, and extends the relevant deadlines by a one-off period—I stress the “one-off”—of five years after the regulations come into force, by which time the HSE forecasts that the authorisations will have been cleared. After that, it will return to the normal processing times set out in legislation.
I remind the Committee that no cost to businesses arises from the changes made in this draft statutory instrument. Importantly, it provides legal certainty that, where biocidal products are already on market in Great Britain waiting for an authorisation decision, they can continue to be used and supplied. That will ensure that suppliers of biocides are treated fairly and that there is no disruption to the legal supply of essential biocidal products while the backlog of applications is cleared.
The draft regulations provide a transitional measure to supplement the existing Great Britain biocidal products regulation or GB BPR, bringing over the last elements of pre-EU exit regulation. That change ensures that a certain type of biocidal product authorisation application, namely same product applications, can be treated in an identical way to other applications. Again, that has no impact on businesses and is a technical correction to ensure the biocide regime is now fully functioning as intended.
To conclude, the draft instrument will provide the necessary extension to the legal deadlines to enable HSE to process affected biocidal product authorisation applications. That will provide legal certainty to businesses that biocidal products on the market awaiting their application to be processed can remain there. In turn, biocidal products essential to the functioning of society can continue to be made available and used appropriately.
Question put and agreed to.