Draft Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
The draft regulations will be made under powers provided by the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022. The PSTI regime comprises part 1 of the 2022 Act and a set of regulations made under that Act, the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) Regulations 2023. This world-leading regulatory regime came into force on 29 April this year, and it will better protect consumers, businesses and the wider economy from the harms associated with cyber-attacks.
The law now requires consumer connectable products—baby monitors, Ring doorbells and so on—that are made available to customers in the UK to meet baseline cyber-security requirements. For instance, manufacturers will be banned from using universal default or easily guessable passwords such as “admin123”. That will reduce one of the most commonly exploited vulnerabilities in connected products.
Subject to the approval of both Houses, the draft regulations will add three new categories of products to the list of excepted products in schedule 3 to the 2023 regulations. In the 2020 call for views for the regime, the Government indicated that products would be excepted from the product security regime if it was deemed inappropriate to include them prior to further investigation, they were already covered by robust legislation, or they would be covered by future legislation particularly relevant to that product category.
My Department has committed to except automotive vehicles, because the Department for Transport is working at international level to agree regulations setting cyber-security requirements for vehicles. That would allow the cyber-security of those products to be addressed by regulations specific to the sector and to their functionality. The DFT intends to mandate UN regulation No. 155 on cyber-security and cyber-security management system in Great Britain for all new cars, vans, buses, trucks and motorbikes. The requirements of that regulation are more appropriate as it was created in response to the expanding capability and connectivity of vehicle systems.
To avoid dual regulation and unintentionally placing undue burden on the automotive industry and trade, the Government are seeking to except specific vehicle categories from the PSTI regime. The products in scope of the draft regulations include cars, vans, buses, motorcycles, mopeds, quad bikes and tractors. Those products are already excepted from the PSTI regime when they are made available for supply in Northern Ireland.
Regulation 3 will correct a minor error in the language of the 2023 regulations. Adding the word “period” will ensure that the original intent of the relevant paragraph is preserved.
These measures will ensure that the regime works as intended and that the security of vehicles can be addressed through appropriate sector-specific regulations. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Rees, I believe for the first time. I thank the Minister for setting out the draft regulations.
Before I start, I must declare an interest. I worked in technology for two decades before entering Parliament, the last six years of which I spent with Ofcom as head of telecommunications technology, which included internet security. I am proud to have been the first Member of Parliament to mention the internet of things—connected devices—in this place, in 2011 during a Westminster Hall debate I secured on machine-to-machine communications, partially as a consequence of my experience in the tech and regulatory sectors.
Over the years I have regularly called for better security for consumers with regard to this important enabling technology. Indeed, the exponential growth that I predicted in the number of connected devices in our homes, on our wrists and on our roads has taken place, and with it the need for robust protections has grown. We on the Opposition Benches are glad that the Government finally took action in 2022 and are building on that with these latest draft regulations, which will take the next steps towards a bespoke cyber-security regime for vehicles. Automated vehicles have the potential to create a market worth £42 billion by 2035, create 38,000 new jobs, and improve road safety and connectivity for all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists. It is right that this highly exciting sector is supported to grow with targeted pro-innovation and pro-consumer regulation.
Members will be glad to hear that I do not intend to detain the Committee long, but I want to address some of the fundamental concerns with the legislation. Above all else, safety is paramount. During the passage of both the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 and the Automated Vehicles Act 2024, which received Royal Assent this week, Labour was crystal clear that the first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe. Our cyber-security is a No. 1 priority, and Labour would never play fast and loose with it.
As such, we welcomed the security aspects of the PSTI Act, as well as Government concessions to put the highest standards of safety on the face of the Automated Vehicles Act. The Government’s “Connected and automated vehicles: process for assuring safety and security”, or CAVPASS, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar, is intended to provide Government assurance of the safety and cyber-security of self-driving vehicles by 2025—that is, at the end of this year. Is the Minister confident that the Government are on track to achieve that goal? What assurances can she give the public in the meantime—in the next six months or so, until CAVPASS bears fruit, if that is when it will bear fruit—that automotive products with connected capabilities are being sold secure?
Are the Government taking steps to address the national security implications of connected vehicles, which is an increasing concern for the public? In the debate on the 2023 regulations last September, I highlighted how cellular internet-of-things modules, or CIMs, power much of the consumer connected device landscape by enabling internet access. China is attempting to corner the global market in CIMs, which could have immense national security implications, since, for example, when they are embedded in cars, they transmit location, route and even passenger video. With Chinese firms such as BYD and Geely becoming major players in automotive manufacturing, is the Minister assured that the regulatory regime is strong and flexible enough to protect the British public as the technology adapts and evolves?
Lastly, I want to raise the need for ongoing dialogue in this space. It is right that the Government have communicated to businesses years in advance their intention for automotive vehicles to be exempted from the PSTI regime. I also appreciate the extensive work by organisations such as the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles and the Law Commission in preparing for the Automated Vehicles Act.
The explanatory memorandum to the draft regulations leaves open a few options for the Government to regulate further, such as mandating UN regulation No. 155 on cyber-security, as the European Union has already done for some vehicles from July 2022. Given that we export 600,000 cars a year, have the Government considered alignment with international partners on cyber-security—the Minister seemed to suggest that she had—through the UN and other fora, and the implications for trade and exports? Can the Minister explain what the Government are doing to keep businesses abreast of their plans? It is vital that businesses, particularly in our incredibly important automotive industry, which is undergoing so many changes, can plan ahead for the next generation of cars.
On that subject, it was disappointing that the Government did not accept any of Labour’s amendments during Committee stage of the Automated Vehicles Bill, which would, in particular, have established an advisory council to aid the Act’s implementation and strengthened the accessibility of automated vehicles for disabled people. Will the Minister commit to consult regularly with business and trade unions during the roll-out of the connected and automated vehicles security regime, and to embed accessibility in all the safety regulations from day one?
Innovation in road transport will create huge opportunities for our economy and society, and we must embrace them. But we must make sure that security and safety are built into these technologies from the outset. Labour and the British people will accept nothing less. I thank the Minister in advance for her answers to my questions.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I do not want to detain the Committee long, but I have two questions and possibly some congratulations.
My first question is whether we will see a more risk-based approach to this kind of regulation. I remember thinking when the PSTI Bill was going through the House in 2022 that if the Chinese really wanted to know what time I turn my central heating on, they would be pretty welcome to that information. Similarly, if I happen to have a connected oven and I have something in there for the evening, they can know about that too. I am actually not that bothered about them hearing my children vomiting in the middle of the night through the baby monitor, if that is what they want—they can listen to the screaming as much as I can. I hope the Minister will accept that a risk-based approach seems sensible in this area.
My second question is whether this deregulatory measure is likely to be replaced at some point with an even more regulatory system for some of the bits of equipment that we are removing from the scope of the legislation. I understand that there is something coming on vehicles, but on electric bicycles, for example, are we likely just to replace this measure with another set of regulations? Will another Committee be sitting in just a few months’ time to consider the Electric Bicycles (Telecommunications Safety) (No. 14) Regulations, or whatever it might be?
If that is not the case, I offer the Minister my congratulations. I have sat on dozens of Delegated Legislation Committees over the last decade, nearly, and despite promises by the Government, this is the first I have known to consider something mildly deregulatory. I just wanted to mark that special moment in my parliamentary career. I am grateful to her.
Julia Lopez
First, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire for his speech. One of the rationales behind the draft regulations is to avoid double regulation. I cannot say that they are deregulatory; we are simply avoiding duplication.
Julia Lopez
I know—I do apologise. My understanding—I also apologise for not being an expert when it comes to vehicles and transport, which fall within the DFT’s remit—is that vehicle regulation is done at UN level on some of these matters.
I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central for her support and for bringing to bear her considerable expertise in technology. I agree with a number of the points that she made. She is right to be concerned about whether the sector has been given due notice. We have been in touch with the sector throughout. It was made clear that there would be exemptions and exceptions to the regime, and we are bringing the draft regulations forward now so that the sector can have those exceptions as swiftly as possible.
On some of the questions about automated vehicles, as I said, the Department for Transport intends to mandate UN regulation No. 155, but the automotive industry and its supply chain are already beginning to comply with that regulation, as it has been mandatory for new types of passenger and goods vehicles in the EU since July 2022. I shall certainly ask DFT Ministers to get back to the hon. Lady on some of the specific points that she made about transport and vehicles. I very much agree with her about the need to make sure that accessibility is at the heart of these new regulations. I have responsibility for telecommunications, and she will be aware that we have brought in a number of new security requirements.
On whether there are certain types of risk-based approach that we should take to new technologies, that is certainly the case. These are baseline security requirements that are intended to give flexibility according to the type of product. We are also looking at which types of data we should seek to protect and safeguard and which we should not be too concerned about. I assure hon. Members that that work is under way. These are areas of fast-moving technological development, and we in the Department try to make sure that we have maximum flexibility so that we do not have to come back and legislate every time there is new technology in the market. Hopefully, that will mean that we can avoid bringing hon. Members into these Committee rooms too frequently.
I am grateful for the engagement by all hon. Members as this legislation has gone through the House. It is a couple of years ago now that we went through Committee stage of what became the PSTI Act—we felt the pain of it together. That Act is now on the statute book and implemented, and we are bringing forward the exceptions so that it works well for the automotive market.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Human Medicines (Amendments relating to Registered Dental Hygienists, Registered Dental Therapists and Registered Pharmacy Technicians) Regulations 2024
(1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dame Andrea Leadsom)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Human Medicines (Amendments relating to Registered Dental Hygienists, Registered Dental Therapists and Registered Pharmacy Technicians) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The Government are proposing changes that would improve patient access to medicines in both dental practices and pharmacies.
First, hon. Members will know the vital role that pharmacies play in communities across our country, and I am sure that they will join me in expressing enormous gratitude and appreciation for the incredible work of brilliant pharmacists up and down the country. Of course, pharmacists dispense prescription medicines to the public, but for many people they are also the first port of call for healthcare advice. Pharmacies can provide a number of different services, including vaccinations, blood pressure checks and contraception, and that takes pressure off hospitals and GPs while playing an essential role in safeguarding the nation’s health. Pharmacists are fully trained and qualified, and pharmacies in hospitals are a key source of advice for doctors, nurses and other clinical staff. As well as supplying basic healthcare products, they support the management of complex medication regimes.
Pharmacies are a priority for this Government, and of course for the Prime Minister personally. Indeed, I do believe that the Prime Minister’s own mother was a pharmacist—colleagues may have heard that. [Interruption.] Have they? I think they have. I thank her for her lifetime of service, and pay tribute to every pharmacist who is helping us to deliver for the British people by taking NHS appointments, day in and day out. In recognition of the clinical expertise and knowledge that pharmacists have to offer, this Government have invested in pharmacy as part of our primary care recovery plan. We have made significant funding available for more blood pressure checks and more contraception consultations, as well as for Pharmacy First, which launched in January 2024, enabling community pharmacies to supply prescription-only medicines for seven common conditions without a prescription from a GP. Together with the investment in more blood pressure checks and oral contraception consultations, Pharmacy First will save around 10 million GP appointments once fully rolled out. The sector has embraced Pharmacy First, with over 125,000 consultations delivered in February, which was the first month of the service. Data on Pharmacy First delivery will start to be published from the end of this month.
Secondly, hon. Members will be only too aware of how important dental practices are in local communities. Dentistry is a top priority for this Government, and that is why we published our dental recovery plan in February. I am delighted that the plan is already delivering results on the ground, with nearly 500 more dental practices now open to new NHS patients. Dentists not only deal with emergencies, of course, but play a critical role in prevention.
Although the draft statutory instrument covers two very distinct professions, it will enable both to use their full range of skills to supply patients with the medicines they need in a timely manner. Legislation already allows some registered healthcare professionals to supply or administer certain medicines as part of their usual clinical practice. These are called exemptions. Our proposed changes will put exemptions in place for dental therapists and dental hygienists to supply or administer a range of medicines that are already a part of their day-to-day jobs. The changes will mean that they can supply or administer those medicines to patients without first having to refer to a dentist, so that they can deliver care without the need to organise additional appointments or interrupt dental colleagues who are already busy with other patients. These sensible, common-sense measures will free up precious time for clinicians and patients alike. The medicines are listed in the draft regulations. Seven of them are topical or local anaesthetics, three are fluoride products, and there is one antibiotic gel and one antifungal medicine.
Healthcare professionals have a responsibility to carry out care only where it is safe to do so and they are competent to do so. Many already have extensive experience of using these medicines, but of course we will not be compromising on safety one inch. Dental practices will continue to be responsible for making sure that clinicians undertaking the procedures have the knowledge, qualifications and skills to carry them out safely, and training will be made available for all those who want to make use of the exemptions. That will help dental practices to safely deliver more care for their patients as part of our dental recovery plan.
Our proposals will allow pharmacy technicians to supply or administer medicines to patients using mechanisms called patient group directions, or PGDs, which are written instructions that allow some healthcare professionals to supply or administer specified medicines to patients with certain conditions, without the need for a prescription. They are developed by experts from a range of fields, who thoroughly kick the tyres of every PGD before they are passed. Pharmacy technicians will be responsible for assessing whether patients fit the criteria. Once implemented, PGDs are carefully monitored to check they are being used appropriately on the ground. It is up to local healthcare organisations to decide, following national guidelines, whether a PGD route is appropriate for a clinical service. Local clinical managers are responsible for permitting healthcare professionals to work under PGDs, while making sure they are trained to use them safely.
Hon. Members might have come across pharmacy technicians in their local hospitals without necessarily realising who they are or what they do. However, pharmacy technicians are well placed to take on these roles. In fact, they already carry out a wide range of tasks in many healthcare settings, including hospital and community pharmacies, GP practices, care homes, prisons, our armed forces and the pharmaceutical industry. In recent years, their roles have given them opportunities to work face to face with patients, making them highly adept at answering questions about medicines.
We are making changes to training for pharmacists that will soon mean they can graduate as fully qualified prescribers.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I fully support what the Minister proposes, but I have a maths question for her. I know that she did not prepare the impact assessment herself, but she probably reviewed it. It states:
“We have discounted benefits to patient health and the NHS at 1.5% per annum and all other benefits at 3.5% per annum.”
Of course, that lower discount rate has the effect of making the later benefits look better—they are not discounted to a lower level now, so we can spend more money for the same amount of benefits later on. Is the Minister comfortable with those discount rates? Given where interest rates are now, will she put some questions to the people who made the impact assessment about why those particular discount rates were used?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
As always, my hon. Friend makes a very good point about the finances. I cannot answer his question immediately—I would have to refer back to the impact assessment—but perhaps I can write to him on that point. It is vital that we look at the longer-term impact of any change that we make. Without addressing his specific point, I can say more generally that in introducing these further flexibilities for pharmacy technicians, we are increasing capacity in the very important sectors of dentistry and pharmacy, and doing so will benefit patients and the national health service alike.
Let me conclude by pointing out that, together with the proposals we are debating, all these measures will expand capacity in pharmacies for the prescribing, supply and administration of medicines, providing patients with access to a wider range of clinical services delivered by healthcare professionals with the right skills, at the right time. That supports the Government’s ambition to improve outcomes for patients while reducing demand on other parts of the service. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Hollobone. I want to start by echoing the Minister’s comments about pharmacies and pharmacists; I will even go so far as to thank the Prime Minister’s mother. We rely on our pharmacists to do an awful lot and Labour supports the concept of Pharmacy First. We think that pharmacies could and should play an even greater role in providing healthcare services in the closest places where people can most easily access them. In our towns, cities and villages, that is often on the high street, in our pharmacies. We would roll out more services to pharmacies and have proposals to do that, should we be fortunate enough to form the next Government.
I have to say, though, that the least said about NHS dentistry the better. I do not recognise the Minister’s description of her dentistry recovery plan. It does not go far enough for us. We want to see a proper, concerted effort in dentistry and in getting NHS dentistry back to where it should be. Even the professional bodies say that the dentistry recovery plan does not go far enough, and we echo their concerns. We can and should do more.
We support the overall terms of the draft regulations, particularly the measures on pharmacy technicians and dental hygienists. In particular, we think that dental hygienists are a useful tool to deliver timely and quality care to patients where it is safe and suitable for them to do so. The dental profession is supportive of the intention to enable dental hygienists and dental therapists to supply and administer the vast majority of the medicines listed in the regulations.
However, the inclusion of two medicines on the list—minocycline and nystatin—was not supported by the British Dental Association or the College of General Dentistry. These bodies tell me that for a number of reasons, including antimicrobial resistance and, in the case of minocycline, efficacy, they are not recommended in any national clinical guidelines and their use in dentistry is no longer accepted practice. Will the Minister be able to explain whether the concerns of key dental stakeholders were taken into account when the decision was made to retain these two drugs on the list? Will she also assure us that there has been full and proper consultation with both the British Dental Association and the College of General Dentistry on ensuring that the regulations are compliant with both national practice and existing clinical guidelines?
Efforts to increase the skill mix in our NHS dentistry workforce and across pharmacy more generally are welcome, but the Minister will forgive me for thinking that we need to go much further than technical tweaks if we are to reverse the crisis in which NHS dentistry finds itself. I know that she wants to do more—I want her to do more—but it will likely be left to the next Labour Government to fix NHS dentistry. We will support the regulations, and I hope that the Minister can reassure us about the medicines that are included in the list when they perhaps should not be.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the measures. He is absolutely right to highlight that we all want to see greater capacity and more depth in these sectors, as well as more access for patients. It is a good thing to do and I can absolutely assure him that there has been full consultation, with views taken into account. I can also assure him that it is for professionals to decide which particular medicine can be used by which particular technicians and therapists in each case, so I do not think he needs to be concerned. Should there be views that a particular medicine is not effective or that it should not be used because of considerations of antimicrobial resistance, its inclusion does not necessarily mean that it must be used. I hope that I can reassure him that all views have very much been taken into account and the regulations are permissive, not compulsory, if I may put it like that.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (2019 Hague Convention etc.) Regulations 2024
(1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (2019 Hague Convention etc.) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. The draft regulations form part of the implementing framework for the 2019 Hague convention on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil or commercial matters. They will amend the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 to incorporate the convention into domestic UK law.
Following unanimous support in response to a Government consultation, the UK signed the 2019 Hague convention on 12 January this year. It was laid before Parliament on 25 March for treaty scrutiny, which was completed last week without objection. The UK Government are now preparing to ratify the convention to bring it into force between the UK and the existing parties, which will be the European Union, Ukraine, Uruguay and all European Union member states apart from Denmark. This legislation is instrumental to the UK joining the convention and needs to be in place prior to ratification to ensure that the UK can meet its obligations under the convention.
The convention will come into force for the UK just over a year after ratification. The Government aim to complete ratification as soon as possible this summer, which will allow the UK to start applying the 2019 Hague convention with the other parties a year later. The UK stands to be an early adopter of the convention, as a leader in the field of private international law.
I turn to the content and aims of the draft regulations, which will implement the 2019 Hague convention in UK law and facilitate the operation of the convention once it enters into force. The purpose of the convention is to establish a set of rules about whether a civil or commercial judgment made in the court of one country may be recognised and enforced in another. Without a uniform scheme, each country’s own domestic rules determine whether a judgment from another country will be recognised and enforced there. Those rules vary from country to country, which can give rise to uncertainty and a range of challenges for effective cross-border enforcement. The convention addresses many of those challenges by providing a uniform set of rules that all parties to the convention agree to apply with each other.
Joining the 2019 Hague convention will provide greater clarity and confidence for businesses and individuals in disputes, will reduce costs, will encourage international trade and will enhance access to justice. It will also provide greater predictability as to whether a UK judgment can be enforced abroad. This will encourage businesses to choose the UK’s world-beating courts for their international litigation, further increasing the attractiveness of the UK for international dispute resolution.
I turn to the detail of the draft regulations, which make implementing provisions for how the convention will operate in the UK. These comprise three key elements.
First, the draft regulations will create a registration requirement so that anyone seeking to recognise and enforce a foreign judgment in the UK under the convention has to apply to a UK court to register the judgment first. The applicant will be required to set out initial evidence that their judgment is eligible for recognition and enforcement under the convention. That will create a form of safeguard that enables the court briefly to assess whether the grounds for recognition and enforcement under the convention have been met, rather than its being automatic. However, it is designed to be as light-touch as possible; it is not akin to new proceedings. This is a well-understood, proven model with which legal practitioners and UK courts are already familiar. It is used consistently across the existing recognition and enforcement regime in the UK. Once the judgment is successfully registered, it will be treated as a judgment made by that court.
Secondly, the draft regulations will give either party the right, once a UK court has decided whether to register a judgment under the 2019 Hague convention, to apply to have that decision set aside if they do not agree with it. This provides an opportunity for either party to ask the court to reassess its decision in the light of any additional information. This is a form of recourse similar to an appeal. The setting aside route is well established for recognition and enforcement decisions, where the court will examine only a limited amount of information at the registration stage. This is deliberate, in order to make the process swift and not unnecessarily overburden the courts. However, there will be cases in which the court might not have had all the relevant facts. The decision can then be made again with further information provided.
Sir Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I am generally supportive of the Government’s case. If the aim is partly to bring parties in dispute to UK courts for dispute resolution, have the Government made any assessment of the impact that that will have on the capacity of our court system?
Gareth Bacon
We believe that we have sufficient capacity to cope. Actually, we are speeding up the process, because these cases would have to be taken to a UK court anyway. Taking this approach will mean that the rules have been agreed in advance; we believe that that will streamline capacity and make things easier.
Thirdly, the draft regulations will ensure that foreign judgments do not make their way into the intra-UK recognition and enforcement system in the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. The 1982 Act’s rules govern the recognition and enforcement of judgments between the different jurisdictions of the UK; they allow judgments made in one UK jurisdiction to be near-automatically enforced in another.
The draft regulations will exclude judgments registered under the 2019 Hague convention from that mechanism. This is to ensure that courts in each jurisdiction— Scotland, Northern Ireland and England and Wales—can individually decide whether to recognise a particular foreign judgment. In practice, that means that although a judgment from a court in England can be near-automatically recognised and enforced in Scotland under the 1982 Act, a foreign judgment registered in an English court under the 2019 Hague convention will need to be registered separately in a Scottish court under the convention.
The 1982 Act also implements other conventions to which the UK is already a party, including the 2005 Hague convention on choice of court agreements. That convention includes recognition and enforcement rules for judgments given where an exclusive choice of court agreement was in place. This is an agreement stating that a dispute between parties will be determined exclusively by a specified court or by the courts of a specified country.
To ensure consistency with the UK’s recognition and enforcement regime and to avoid confusion for users, the draft regulations will make some amendments to the implementing provisions for the 2005 Hague convention, to bring them into line with the approach taken for the 2019 Hague convention. This includes amending the recourse route from a right of appeal to the application to set aside that I have described, as well as excluding the 2005 Hague convention from the same provisions in the 1982 Act from which we are excluding the 2019 convention: those that provide for the recognition and enforcement of judgments between the UK’s jurisdictions.
The draft regulations are an important step in implementing the 2019 convention. They will strengthen the framework for the international recognition and enforcement of judgments, giving UK businesses and citizens greater clarity, certainty and confidence as they work, live and operate across international borders. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting them.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the Minister for setting out the purpose and the detail of the draft regulations. As we know, the 2019 Hague convention was signed on behalf of the UK on 12 January this year, following the announcement on 23 November that the UK would join as soon as possible in response to a public consultation that the Government described as positive. The draft regulations will amend the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 to give the 2019 convention force of law in the UK and to make further provision for the 2019 convention’s operation in the UK.
The Opposition support the draft regulations. We feel that in the post-Brexit era there are clear advantages that being a party to the 2019 judgments convention will bring to the UK. Labour has an iron-clad commitment to the rule of law, and it is upheld by the UK’s legal sector, which is worth £34 billion each year, which is a marvel on the world stage and second only to the United States.
It is welcome and perhaps unsurprising that all respondents to the consultation, from the legal sector to the public sector, thought that the UK should join Hague 2019. Having a uniform set of rules for a wide range of judgments between the UK and other contracting parties can increase confidence in the UK legal system. We agree with the Government’s stated belief that the convention will therefore benefit both businesses and consumers operating and living across borders between the UK and other countries. It will provide assurance that UK judgments in scope will be recognised and enforced by current and future contracting parties to the convention, and vice versa, which in turn will encourage trade and investment. We know that there are already 29 contracting parties for which the convention entered into force on 1 September 2023, with more to come.
Although we welcome the draft regulations, I am keen for the Minister to clarify a point about implementation and to answer a further question. The Hague 2019 convention was signed on behalf of the jurisdictions of Scotland, Northern Ireland and England and Wales, because the decision to join an international convention is a reserved matter, but the implementation of the convention is devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland, as it relates to private international law, which is a devolved matter. The Minister touched on implementation in the devolved nations, but I would like a little more detail on the engagement that the Government have had and continue to have with the devolved Governments on the implementation process.
Several respondents to the public consultation that preceded the draft regulations identified some downsides to Hague 2019, although they did not consider that they outweighed the merits of joining. I want to highlight one such concern. One stakeholder’s submission said:
“A potential concern may arise if a state which does not have a reliable or fair judicial system, for example because judges are subject to improper political (or other) influence, became a party to the Convention, or if a state that was party to the Convention experienced a deterioration in the independent functioning of its judicial system or no longer upheld the rule of law. Whilst there are safeguards under Article 29 permitting a state to make a notification preventing the Convention from applying with another Contracting State, the notification can only be made at the time of ratification of the other state, and not subsequently, meaning this safeguard would not be available in the latter instance.”
I will be grateful if the Minister can assure the Committee that an appropriate safeguard is in place.
I conclude by reaffirming our support for the draft regulations. Seldom do we find such agreement in this place, but—and there is a “but”—there is a wider picture of an entrenched crisis across our justice system that we cannot forget: access to justice is dwindling, our crumbling court estate is buckling under the weight of unprecedented backlogs, and our prison estate is not fit for purpose and is hugely over capacity.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I will not detain the Committee long, which I am sure will be a relief to the many Committee members who saw me walking in and thought they might be here for 90 minutes. They won’t be.
The Minister described very well the position as it relates to Scotland. He will be able to confirm, I am sure, that the Scottish Parliament has given legislative consent to the draft regulations, and that the Minister for Victims and Community Safety has written to the Convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee saying that Scottish Ministers intend to consent to this UK-wide statutory instrument. The regulations before the Committee appear to me to be fairly uncontentious, and I will not be opposing them.
Gareth Bacon
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth for her support. She asked for two clarifications. The first was about the engagement that has taken place with the devolved Administrations; I am happy to confirm that there has been more or less constant engagement throughout the process. I understand that formal consent was provided for Northern Ireland by the permanent secretary at the Department of Justice in January 2024, that the Scottish Government notified the Scottish Parliament of the instrument in March, and that the Scottish Parliament agreed earlier this month that it is content for the Scottish Government to give formal consent. The delay is simply a matter of the processes going through in both Northern Ireland and Scotland. I hope that that has answered the queries of the hon. Members for Brentford and Isleworth and for Glasgow South West; I am grateful for their contributions to this debate.
Ruth Cadbury
There was also a point about the subsequent weakness of judicial process in certain circumstances.
Gareth Bacon
I apologise to the hon. Lady for that oversight. As she correctly said, there is a provision under article 29 such that if the UK objects to a new country formally ratifying the treaty, we can apply for this not to apply, both in that country and in this one. For a country that is already subject to it, she is correct to point out that there is no formal mechanism for withdrawing from it. I would venture to suggest—I will correct this if I inadvertently mis-speak here—that what would then happen is that there would be a negotiation among the parties to the convention. If agreement cannot be found, the UK could unilaterally withdraw from it, albeit that that would take a 12-month period of notice.
I am grateful for hon. Members’ contributions to the debate. Joining the 2019 Hague convention as soon as possible is in the UK’s best interests. As I have said, it is an important step for the UK to provide greater clarity and confidence for UK businesses and citizens who work and live across international borders. I am eager to see the necessary legislation in place to facilitate that. I therefore commend this draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.