European Union: Court of Justice
Lord Balfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether, in seeking a “reset” of relations with the European Union, they have considered accepting a role for the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, there has been no change in the jurisdiction of European Court of Justice rulings in relation to the United Kingdom. We are clear that we will not be rejoining the single market or the customs union or re-establishing freedom of movement.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I am not sure whether I want to thank the Minister for her Answer or just note it. I am disappointed that the Attorney-General is not answering this Question, because it is fundamental: we say we will never leave the European Court of Human Rights but, if we are to have a reset of our relations with the European Union, surely we must have a dispute resolution procedure, and the dispute resolution procedure of the European communities is the Court of Justice of the European Union. So how can the Government reconcile their stated intention of resetting relations with the European Union with their other intention of not accepting any foreign judge being able to judge whether we are keeping our side of whatever bargains we strike?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I hate to disappoint the noble Lord that he had to have me and not the Attorney-General; if he would like to talk to the Attorney-General, he is more than welcome to join me in the Not-Content Lobby this afternoon.
With regard to the Question, we are quite clear: we are not giving a running commentary on this. We will always act in the national interest to secure what is best for Britain, including British businesses and citizens, while keeping to the red lines that were clearly outlined in our manifesto.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, what role does the European Court of Justice have in overseeing the Windsor Framework agreement and what steps will the Government take to improve access to that court by the Northern Ireland Government and Northern Ireland citizens?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the negotiated deal in the Windsor Framework and the update, Safeguarding the Union, had a very clear role. We are doing everything we can to deliver on Safeguarding the Union; as colleagues will know, I work regularly with noble Lords from Northern Ireland to do that, as do the rest of my colleagues on the Front Bench.
With regard to the role of the ECJ and associated courts, those are not specifically relevant to this, but I will update the House if I am wrong.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I wonder why any third country would sign a trade agreement with us as long as we have passed part of our regulation to the control of a body that is beyond us and may in the future make all manner of decisions that are not foreseeable today.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question and obviously appreciate his expertise in this area. Let me be clear that we have left the European Union. We continue to engage with the European Union as our largest trade partner—it represents £823 billion-worth of trade across the piece—and we will continue to work in the best interests of our nation.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister share my scepticism about the judges of the ECJ? One’s definition of independent judges is unsackability, expertise, fearlessness and long tenure. Many ECJ judges are not even lawyers: in their past careers they were administrators. Their salaries run to something like €300,000, with lots of allowances. They have tenure for only six years and it is then dependent on their Government to reappoint them. That does not shed good light on their independence, because they will be so dependent on the good will of their Government to continue claiming that huge salary.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
There are times when I get all the easy questions.
I thank the noble Baroness for her question, but I have to disagree. I would never criticise the independence of any judiciary.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister grateful that the Opposition keep raising the problems that have been created since Brexit? Have any of them contacted her to apologise for the mess they left?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. I think we did have an apology from the current leader of the Opposition who, on 16 January, said:
“We announced that we would leave the European Union before we had a plan for growth outside the EU”.
I think that is probably the closest we will get to an apology.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, if we signed up to the ECJ again, as was the case under the previous Government, we would be, to some extent, moving towards reversing the referendum of 2016? Will she also confirm who was in government when we signed up to the Single European Act, to Maastricht and to the growth and stability pact? Which Government forced us into the exchange rate mechanism, which led the then Chancellor, who is sat in his place today, to lose 20 billion quid without even going near a betting shop?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. He will appreciate that I was slightly too young for some of those agreements. But I am very aware of my history and appreciate that it was colleagues now on the Opposition Benches. We are very clear about where we stand in our relationships with the European Union. We will work to ensure that businesses and consumers are protected and that the best possible deal for Britain is delivered, while we work closely with people we consider to be friends and allies.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I wonder whether noble Lords will allow me to say something about the ECJ. I used to attend its hearings on a regular basis. I listened to many judgments, not all of which I agreed with, but I am rather dismayed to hear it criticised. In the days when I went, the judges—particularly the British judge, I have to say, but also the other judges—were excellent. They gave excellent judgments, many of which benefited women, particularly in this country—myself included.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble and learned Baroness for her question and for all the work she has done historically.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I regularly hear from the Conservative Benches the idea that the worst thing we could ever do is to accept some sort of alignment of regulation with the European Union. I do recall, just before the Maastricht treaty, a publication by Chatham House on the extent to which British regulations, under pressure from exporting businesses, by and large followed the American lead and accepted American extraterritorial jurisdiction. Does the Minister think that is what the Conservatives want us all to do?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Thankfully, I have the pleasure of speaking for the Government, not the Opposition. With regard to our actions, we will do everything to protect British consumers. I want to be clear with noble Lords that, when we talk about standards and engagement, this Government will not support a race to the bottom on those issues.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the trade and co-operation agreement set up a number of committees that should meet regularly, particularly to iron out some of the problems that there might be. How often do these committees meet and how signed up to them are this Government in making sure that there is a dispute resolution mechanism available along those lines?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I will write to the noble Baroness with the details of the meeting dates, because I do not have them to hand, but I reassure noble Lords that, since this Government came to power, we have had nearly 70 ministerial-level meetings with our opposite numbers. That is in addition to the day-to-day official conversations and I know, from the conversations that I have been party to with regard to the Windsor Framework, that those conversations are regular: in fact, daily. This is all part of how we reset relations with our closest trading partner.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, could the Minister update us on the Government’s intentions with regard to sanitary and phytosanitary standards? We know that the current arrangements impose a huge burden on the food industry, which is our largest manufacturing sector. If, as she says, the Government wish to do what is best for British business and British people, surely we should align our sanitary and phytosanitary standards with the European Union.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The Government, as we were clear in our manifesto, are committed to pursuing an SPS agreement that could reduce trade friction and bring benefits to both the UK and the EU. The UK and the EU are like-minded partners with similarly high standards. We have been clear that an SPS agreement could boost trade and deliver benefits on both sides. I hope that reassures the noble Lord.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, as part of the discussions on the reset, will my noble friend the Minister, along with her ministerial colleagues, ensure that discussions take place about reducing the democratic deficit that is felt in Northern Ireland, and that public representatives—namely, MLAs—will be able to have at least observer status on the large number of committees between the UK and the EU as part of the TCA?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question. If she is happy to discuss this further, I would be happy to have a meeting with her to discuss how we might make it work.
Higher Education: Creative Courses
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the announcement that the Bristol Old Vic Theatre School is closing its undergraduate courses, what support they plan to give drama schools and other creative courses in higher education.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to supporting creative and performing arts in higher education. For the academic year 2024-25, we have allocated around £12.9 million in high-cost subject funding to creative and performing arts courses to cover course costs. Additionally, we have allocated £58 million in strategic priorities grant funding to world-leading small and specialist providers, including 12 creative and performing arts institutions. This funding supports the provision of those courses and promotes opportunities for students.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, we know that universities and other institutions are having a tough time but creative courses are bearing the brunt of the current cuts, with closures and scaling down not just in drama but in visual arts, performing arts and film. Does the Minister recognise the paramount importance of these courses to the pipeline of the arts and creative industries, not just to provide much-needed skills but to ensure that voices from the whole of society are heard in future? What are the Government’s specific plans, beyond what she has just told us, to reverse this destructive trend and provide the targeted help that is required?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I agree with the noble Earl’s view of the significance and importance of creative and arts subjects. We need to ensure there is a pipeline of young people with those interests and expertise who are then able to go further. I also share the concern he identified about the way the financial instability in the higher education system is causing some of those courses to be part of the cuts that universities are being forced to make. Of course, the situation would not be as bad had the previous Government not made a 50% cut in 2021 to the strategic priority grant funding for creative subjects. We have begun to increase that funding this year, as I have outlined, but there is clearly more that we need to do on top of what we have done to stabilise higher education funding to ensure that the opportunities the noble Earl refers to are available for all young people, with all the benefits they bring not only to them but to our creative industries, economy, culture and society.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from my noble friend Lord Lemos first then we will come to the other Benches.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I hope my noble friend the Minister will agree that as well as the problems in higher education we also need to reverse the dramatic drop-off in students studying arts and humanities subjects at GCSE and A-level. There has been a more than 47% drop for those GCSEs since 2010. As she mentioned, we also need to strengthen the career pathways between education and employment in the creative industries. I fear that we are still living with the ancient and false binary between arts and science education; I hope my noble friend agrees that we need both.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I very strongly agree with my noble friend that we need both. This Government believe that creative subjects, such as art, music and drama, are important elements of the rounded and enriching education that every child deserves. That is why we expect part of the response to the curriculum and assessment review to be to enable that broader curriculum that my noble friend references, so that children and young people are able to gain the benefits of that broad, knowledge-based education and the particular benefits of creative subjects.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland is the only UK performing arts conservatoire in the top 10 of the QS world rankings outside London, yet its funding model has a built-in disincentive for it to accept students from the rest of the UK. The equivalent London colleges receive a minimum additional uplift of £8,000 per under- graduate on top of regular fees. What can the Minister do to ensure that all our world-class conservatoires across the UK can offer a financial level playing field for talented students?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I cannot necessarily take responsibility for what is happening in Scotland, but I can say that we recognise the particular need for support for small and specialist providers. That is why we have maintained the strategic priorities grant for those providers at £58 million this year. As I said, 12 of those are creative and performing arts providers, where that additional support enables their very specific but internationally important provision to continue.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, the previous Government’s obsession with the EBacc and the knowledge curriculum led to many state schools stopping the provision of creative subjects, such as music, art, drama and dance. The knock-on effect, as the Minister has already mentioned, is the lack of pipeline into further and higher education. We all know the creative industries make a massive contribution. How do this Government intend to resurrect the importance of these subjects in state schools to ensure that this country can continue its international reputation, and that in future not all our top actors will be old Etonians?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness asks a broad-ranging question—I will not be tempted by certain parts of it. She makes a very important point about the need to ensure, as I think I have already touched on, that our children are able to benefit from creative subjects such as art, music and drama, and that we have a curriculum that supports those subjects, an accountability system that recognises their significance, and schools with sufficient highly qualified teachers to be able to deliver them to the necessary standard. That then enables us to ensure that that pipeline is there, both for higher education courses and for the enormous range of jobs in the creative industries, which, of course, this Government have made one of their growth-promoting sectors in the industrial strategy.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Clancarty makes an important point about the talent pipeline into the creative sector, but is the Minister aware of the important roles that creative graduates play across the wider economy? At least one-third of the total creative workforce is embedded in non-creative sectors, in roles such as innovation, product design and communications. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the closure of so many creative courses on UK innovation and economic growth?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an important point: we have both the contribution the creative industries and the contribution that creative education and training more broadly make to the economy. I am not aware of a specific assessment on that topic, but given our focus on creative industries in the industrial strategy and on growth, providing opportunities for that sort of learning to contribute to innovation in a whole range of areas in the economy is important.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about widening access to the arts and ensuring we have a talent pipeline. Why, then, did her department announce earlier this month that it was not going to continue with the support it has been giving to national youth music organisations, such as the National Youth Orchestra? Arts Council England has stepped in to make sure those organisations are not affected, but the funding will be turned off from next month. As the spending review approaches, will she make the case for continuing to fund these brilliant organisations, which do so much to widen access to the arts?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As the noble Lord identified, support is continuing for those very important organisations to provide access for the most able musicians to the sort of development that is important to them. The Government have had to take some very difficult fiscal decisions, given the legacy we inherited from the previous Government; notwithstanding that, we are committed to developing creative subjects and, for example, launching a new national music education network to help families, children and schools access broader opportunities and support in that area.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, 290 jobs are set to be cut from Bangor University and the University of South Wales, and 400 jobs are proposed to be cut at Cardiff University, including by closing its music courses. What formal role will the Welsh Government play in the HE review that is to be conducted by the Minister? What consideration has she made of how to include the voices of students and those working at universities in that review?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As the noble Baroness suggests, this is a responsibility for the Welsh Government, but I was able to talk to Members of Parliament representing Cardiff constituencies and to the Welsh Minister who has responsibility for higher education. In those conversations, we talked about the need for a long-term sustainable funding system for our higher education. Although that is a responsibility for the Government as it relates to England, I am also committed to ensuring that we keep those forms of communication open and are able to work together with our colleagues in Wales in order to put our higher education institutions back on to a much sounder financial footing, and ensure that universities are making long-term strategic decisions—autonomously and independently, rightly—supported by longer-term stability in their finances.
Musculoskeletal Health: Chiropractors
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to incorporate a role for chiropractors in national musculoskeletal health prevention strategies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, improving health outcomes for over 17 million people in England with musculoskeletal conditions forms a key part of this Government’s commitment to build an NHS for the future. Healthcare professionals play a vital prevention role in supporting people to self-manage their conditions. NHS England does not commission chiropractic care nationally. However, ICBs have their own clinical or commissioning policies and so may commission a limited amount of such treatment, based on the needs of the local population.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her Answer. I say initially that I am someone who avails periodically of chiropractic services. Will my noble friend the Minister, along with her ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, review the allied health professions list to include chiropractors working within the NHS to deal with musculoskeletal conditions, which in turn could alleviate the burdens on an already overburdened NHS? Could this also be included in the national health plan, which I hope will be published shortly?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I recognise the importance of mitigating the long-term burdens of MSK conditions, which are considerable, and the role that healthcare professionals, including allied healthcare professionals, can play in supporting not just prevention but early detection and the management of conditions. I know that chiropractic care is appreciated in a number of cases, including that of my noble friend. However, clinical evidence from systemic reviews does not support national commissioning of chiropractic treatment, as I mentioned, although ICBs can commission these services. To the point on the 10-year plan—a report on that is expected in the spring, as my noble friend referred to—I place on record that I am grateful to the British Chiropractic Association, the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance, Versus Arthritis and the Royal Osteoporosis Society for ensuring that the voices of the MSK community have been well heard in the consultation.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, 30% of GP consultations are for people with musculoskeletal problems. As a previous back sufferer who has made use of chiropractors in the past, I know personally the transformation that chiropractic treatment can achieve. I can afford that treatment, but many NHS patients cannot, so why can chiropractors not practise across the NHS, when waiting lists for treatment on the NHS are causing the loss of over 6 million working days every year?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to highlight the extent of the impact of MSK conditions not just on individuals but on our economy and our health service. However, to extend my earlier comments, chiropractic care is regarded as being in the category of complementary and alternative medicines. Some treatments have an evidence base that is not recognised by the majority of independent scientists, whereas others have been proven to work for a limited number of conditions. I appreciate the point that the noble Baroness is making, but probably the simplest way I would wrap it up is in talking of sufficient and reliable evidence, because that is what NHS commissioning at a national level is based upon.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, is it not the case that chiropractic treatment is included in the World Health Organization’s guidance on MSK conditions? Will the Government keep that guidance clearly in mind as they work, as I am sure they will be working, to develop a better approach to helping people with these painful conditions?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am glad that the noble Lord acknowledges the ongoing work, because we are indeed exploring how best to support dealing with MSK conditions—not least to encourage and provide greater parity in the support that is given. That will be alongside the 10-year plan and the long-term workforce plan. Of course, we keep all evidence continually under review.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, I take the point my noble friend the Minister makes about national commissioning and the ability of integrated care boards to do some commissioning, but would not the answer be for the integrated care boards to get all preventative healthcare practitioners to sit down together and work out local strategies? It may well be that one condition can have an effect on another, and perhaps that would make the commissioning of chiropractors easier and fit in with a local preventative healthcare strategy.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend helpfully emphasises the point about the need to provide for local populations, and ICBs are in the pole position to do that. I am sure that noble Lords will recall that we recently announced changes in the NHS operating model to move power from the centre to local leaders. I particularly refer to the NHS planning guidance, whereby we follow the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, to take a whole new approach and reduce the number of national targets from 32 to 18. The reason for that is to give the local systems my noble friend refers to greater control and flexibility on how local funding is deployed. Indeed, one such model could be the one my noble friend referred to.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, an estimated 30% of the population of the UK are burdened with a painful and debilitating MSK condition. That is over 20 million people in the United Kingdom. Given the Government’s priority of shifting treatment into communities in the 10-year health plan, will the Minister meet again with representatives from the chiropractic profession to hear how they can increase capacity for community MSK treatments?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am certainly happy to have such discussions. Perhaps I could use this opportunity to say to noble Lords that part of the recently published elective reform plan sets out funding to boost bone density scanning—or DEXA—capacity, to provide an estimated 29,000 extra scans per year. The work goes on also to support workforce health. For example, we are commencing training so that over 200 doctors and nurses can undertake occupational health training and qualifications. The numbers of physios and OTs are increasing. This is very much work in progress. I certainly agree with what the noble Lord said about the impact and extent of this; it really does affect so many.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, according to the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance report on health inequalities and deprivation, an important way to reduce health inequalities in these conditions, particularly in those groups of people who are underserved, is to help them to manage their own conditions. Often it is much harder because they often have more than one complex condition; often they are much more complex and are picked up much later. One of the recommendations was around moving NHS care into the community. Could the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to encourage the NHS to build partnerships with community groups, including faith groups, to seek to reduce inequalities in these conditions and communities?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Working with community-based organisations, including faith communities, has come up a number of times in the 10-year plan consultation, as I am sure the right reverend Prelate will find. I would certainly associate myself with the comments about the importance of getting healthcare provided in the community.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving me the time to ask a question. Following the tragic death of Joanna Kowalczyk in October 2021, the coroner has recently raised concerns over the fact that chiropractors are not required to request their patients’ medical records before they begin treatment. While I recognise that there is scepticism from many in the NHS, and in fact physiotherapists, towards osteopaths and chiropractors, will the Government take on board the recommendations of the coroner to look at changing guidance to ensure that all healthcare treatments require consideration of a patient’s medical history, especially as we move toward a digital single patient record that could be shared across our system of health and care?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point about what is required before healthcare is provided. I can certainly assure the noble Lord that, as I know he is aware, where there is a coroner’s report, we look at all of the lessons to be learned to consider how we might make it a safer and more effective environment for people. Certainly in the case to which he refers, that will happen.
Ukraine: Frozen Russian Assets
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to release frozen Russian assets to help Ukraine.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, alongside our G7 allies, we have been clear on the principle that Russia must pay for the damage it is causing to Ukraine. We are considering all lawful routes to ensure Russia pays. We are also providing Ukraine with an additional £2.26 billion, earmarked for military spending, as part of the G7’s $50 billion extraordinary revenue acceleration loans, which will be repaid using the profits generated on sanctioned Russian sovereign assets in the EU.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that excellent Answer. I think she knows that I have written to the Chancellor, as I wrote to previous Chancellors, asking that the £2.5 billion which Abramovich got for the sale of Chelsea Football Club be unfrozen and sent to Ukraine, where it is urgently needed. If the Government were able to take quick action on this, it would be welcome on all sides of the House.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for sending me a copy of the letter he has written; it is very helpful, and it is now with officials. I commend him for the tenacity with which he approaches this and every other issue, but this issue in particular. He is right to do so, and he must keep pressing the Government on this. We are moving as fast as we can, but it is good to have the encouragement and support of Members of this House.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, is there not considerable irony in the fact that Ukrainian capital resources will be used to refund some of America’s costs in the war, but the Russian aggressor’s capital assets are not being used to refund Ukraine? Will the Prime Minister be raising this issue during his visit in Washington, at the very least regarding its use as leverage in any negotiations on an end to the fighting?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The principle we apply here is that Russia must pay for the damage it has caused to Ukraine, but we want to make sure that we do that in a way that is legal, and in co-ordination with our partners and allies. The conversations that need to be had to bring that about will be taking place.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, the Government have been saying for many months since they came into power that they have been considering the use of frozen Russian state funds for reparations for Ukraine. Do the Government accept that the time for a decision has come, before it is too late?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We all want to see Russia pay to rebuild Ukraine; it is right that that happens. The way that is done needs to be legally sound, and it needs to be done in co-ordination with our allies. That is the approach we are taking. I appreciate the encouragement to speed, and I acknowledge that we have been in this position for some months now. I accept what the noble Lord says, and I take his question as a spur to action for the Government. I can assure him that we are keenly seized of the argument he makes.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, these Benches have argued consistently that the assets should be seized and aid should not be cut. But yesterday, the Government announced drastic reductions to programmes that would support victims of sexual assault and rape in conflict. Does the Minister agree that it would be wrong if the Kremlin gets its money back from the United Kingdom, but our support for victims of sexual crimes in conflict does not get their lives back? At this last minute, before the programmes are cut, will the Government reconsider and ensure that not one penny supporting the victims of sexual assault in this conflict will be cut through overseas development assistance reductions?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The Prime Minister was very clear yesterday when he made the Statement in the other place that programmes in Ukraine, Sudan and Gaza were to be prioritised. The decision that was taken yesterday was difficult but important, and it is one that I completely support. It was the right thing to do: we must provide the additional resources to our defence to provide security. This is essential. It is not a situation that anybody is happy about, but I am afraid that politics, governing and leading are about tough choices. We have a Prime Minister who is prepared to make those tough choices, and I am proud of the decision that he made yesterday.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, there is a great degree of unanimity across the House that, as we mark the sombre third anniversary of this illegal and barbaric war, we stand wholly and entirely with the brave people of Ukraine, and we support the Government in their actions on this. I understand the Minister’s point about the difficult legal complexities of seizing Russian assets outright; I would like to see that done but I understand that it is difficult. Have the Government considered using these assets as collateral for long-term loans to help to support Ukraine’s reconstruction, while avoiding the unintended financial consequences that I know the Government are concerned about?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
In a sense, that is already what is happening because the interest on the assets is being used to repay the loan that has been made. We are contributing around £2.6 billion to that, alongside partners in the EU, United States, Canada and Japan. That is the right thing to do, and I know his party supports it. I take the opportunity again, as we did last night, to thank the Opposition for their unwavering support for the Government in our approach to Ukraine, just as we supported his Government since the beginning of this conflict.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, many of the frozen assets are properties, and many of those properties are empty. I look across the Thames and see a great building where Abramovich had four floors. Will the Government explore the possibility of using those empty buildings, in particular for Ukrainians and immigration?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is an interesting idea; it is the first time I have heard that suggestion. I will take it back and ask that it be explored by officials. It is important, though, that whatever we do is legally sound and is done collaboratively with our partners and allies. Whatever we do, we have to be acting within the law, because part of our argument against what Russia has done is that it was a breach of international law. We take our obligations very seriously, and we want to make sure that whatever we do, alongside our partners and allies, is legally sound.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, as of January, UNESCO has verified damage to 476 cultural sites: churches, museums, libraries—noble Lords know what they are. This is not mere collateral damage; it is a deliberate attempt to destroy identity, culture and heritage. The 100-year partnership agreement commits us to working together to avoid looting, to restore this heritage and to counteract this cultural erasure. What consideration has been given to the use of these frozen assets towards that important shared endeavour?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is such an important point. Often, when we talk about reconstruction, we are talking about airfields, roads and railway tracks. The cultural assets of a country that has been under such threat as Ukraine has experienced are so important in rebuilding that sense of identity—the Ukrainian sense of self and confidence—and in the message that that sends. We will do everything we can to support Ukraine in that, as we have said, in our 100-year partnership. On whether those assets can be used, the same argument applies that applies to any other form of reconstruction, and it must be done legally and correctly, in accordance with law.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister will know that there are millions of pounds of frozen Libyan assets in London, and that there has been a long campaign by victims of Libyan Semtex supplied to the IRA for compensation through that. Will she look again at this? Other countries have managed to get the compensation. Will she also please put into the public domain the Shawcross report, which we are all waiting to see and which looked into this whole issue?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The point about doing this legally applies equally in every situation. I will look into the question the noble Baroness raises about the Shawcross report, but I want to be completely clear that we are examining all legal routes available to us in order to get the money that should rightfully be spent on reconstructing Ukraine.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Petitgas, please.
Lord Petitgas (Con)
It is fine to talk about frozen assets and say that Russia should pay, but I want to switch gears a little bit. It looks like the Americans are focused on getting Ukraine partly to pay through this rare earth deal. I read that Zelensky was going to fly over on Friday to sign the deal. Do the Government think we should be involved in some way in a deal like this? President Macron pointed out to Trump that the European Union had put up more money than the US, and today the FT has an article with a very simple graph showing that the EU is a bigger contributor than the US—and actually, the UK looks pretty big too. When it comes to the question of sending troops, not having anything on the rare earth deal and then chasing the Russians, it feels like something is missing. What is the Government’s position on that?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I hear what the noble Lord is saying, but, as he has given quite a full summary of public statements over the last few days, he will be aware that it is probably not helpful for me to speculate from this Dispatch Box on conversations and the agreements that may or may not be reached in the coming days, tempted as I am. The thing that concerns us all is to find a way to end this conflict and restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and that whatever deals are done are in line with what Ukraine and its leadership wants. That is the firm ground on which this Government stand.
Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2025
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the draft Order laid before the House on 13 January be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 25 February.
Football Governance Bill [HL]
Baroness Twycross
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 5, Schedule 2, Clauses 6 to 9, Schedule 3, Clauses 10 to 18, Schedule 4, Clauses 19 to 20, Schedule 5, Clauses 21 to 24, Schedule 6, Clauses 25 to 67, Schedule 7, Clause 68, Schedule 8, Clauses 69 to 75, Schedule 9, Clauses 76 to 81, Schedule 10, Clauses 82 to 93, Schedule 11, Clauses 94 to 97, Schedule 12, Clauses 98 to 100, Title.
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:24 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 177 / Noes: 228 - Amendment 1 disagreed.
17:25 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 189 / Noes: 232 - Amendment 2 disagreed.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Purpose(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the regulation of products and metrology.(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under this Act, advance that purpose while prioritising the maintenance of the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy.(3) Accordingly, and so far as it is possible to do so, provision made by virtue of this Act must be read and given effect so as to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) to the extent that it is consistent with the maintenance of the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy.(4) When taking action to improve regulation under this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to maintaining the highest quality regulatory framework.”
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, this Bill has a troubled history. It should not have been introduced to either House in its current form. It has now fallen foul of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on three occasions and of the Constitution Committee on two occasions. We acknowledge the Government’s efforts to assuage the DPRRC’s concerns, and we thank the Minister for engaging so fulsomely and openly and driving through a number of government concessions. Those concessions are welcome, and we will support them, but, regrettably, they do not go far enough, in our view.
I speak today about the critical importance of having a purpose clause in the Bill, and its implications for the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy. In its current form, the Bill contains no explicit mention of respecting the UK’s regulatory autonomy, which is the foundation of a prosperous, independent economy. This absence is exactly why we need this purpose clause: to fill that gap and provide clear direction for the actions of the Secretary of State under the provisions of the Bill. After all, the reason we left the European Union was to regain the ability to make our own decisions, free from external control. Yet without this purpose clause, the Bill does not sufficiently safeguard the autonomy we have worked so hard to reclaim. This is precisely why we need this purpose clause. It explicitly addresses the need to protect and prioritise the UK’s regulatory autonomy in any actions taken under the Bill. It would establish a guiding principle that the Government must always act in a way that protects the UK’s sovereignty in regulating products and metrology, free from undue influence by foreign laws or regulations.
By explicitly requiring the Secretary of State to ensure that regulations are of the highest quality, this proposed new clause would push the Government to focus on creating a regulatory environment that stimulates rather than stifles business, and extend a clear message that the UK’s regulatory framework should encourage technological development, support start-ups, protect consumers and ultimately contribute to economic growth. We live in a highly competitive global market, where businesses need certainty and the freedom to operate according to clear and fair rules. A regulatory framework that ties the UK’s hands by aligning with foreign laws could create significant barriers to growth and innovation.
I appreciate that this preamble is lengthy in the context of an amendment on Report, but the proposed addition of this purpose clause makes sense only with some of that historical context. These arguments will inform many of our other amendments, so noble Lords will be relieved that they will not need to listen to them again too often.
If the Government are determined to force through this unfinished skeletal legislation in the teeth of perfectly reasonable objections from the committees of this House, and, indeed, from their own Attorney-General, the least we can do is give the Bill an overarching purpose: to improve the regulation of products and metrology, while prioritising the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy. If the Government are serious in their stated growth intentions—earlier today, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, said, “We will always act in the national interest to secure what is best for Britain, British businesses and citizens”—surely they will find nothing to object to in either of those aims and will therefore accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Deben (Con)
I apologise to the House for not being able to be present at many of the earlier debates, but I have come specifically to hear the explanation of this amendment, and I have to say that I am not convinced. The purpose of regulation is, of its nature, to do the best for growth and for business, and if it is best for growth and business to have a regulation that aligns us with somebody else then that must be sensible. There is no reason to say that the priority is not to be aligned. Indeed, I rather think the opposite: the priority is probably, in most cases, to be aligned.
To tie the arms of a future Government on the basis that somehow or other we are living not in the world that we now live in but in some mysterious world that people would like to live in seems wholly unacceptable, and I must say that I am sad that the Government have been opposed on this basis. It runs through all these out-of-date amendments, all of which seek to reassess and restate the disastrous policy of leaving the European Union, which we all know to be a huge success—everyone, throughout the country, knows how very good it has been, so let us make it even better by making it even more difficult to try to come to terms with the world in which we now live. I very much hope that the House will not agree to this amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I did not intend to support my noble friend on the Front Bench, but I am moved to do so by the speech from my other noble friend. I say to my noble friend Lord Deben that there is a later amendment, which we may or may not pursue, the purpose of which is to make it clear that, when making regulations, Ministers should have regard to the likelihood of the United Kingdom being an attractive place in which to manufacture or supply products. I am sure he agrees that is right.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Sharpe. We discussed what the point of the Bill is on many occasions in Committee, but I am afraid we are none the wiser and certainly no better informed on that subject as a result. That is why it is necessary to have a clearer purpose clause written into the Bill. The nearest we have is in the Explanatory Notes from a few months back; I will not read the full text, but they say:
“The Bill intends to ensure the UK is better placed to address modern day safety issues”
and high modern standards
“by allowing the UK Parliament the power to update relevant laws”.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the UK Parliament already has the power to update any law that it wishes, so I do not see how that can be the purpose of this Bill; there must be something else to it. Of course, one could speculate about it. Perhaps it is just to relieve the Government of the burden of having to go through the effort of legislating for the full range of manufactured goods that we still produce in this country, to delegate that power to the European Union and to recreate the situation that existed before we left that organisation. Perhaps it is to help with the woeful arrangements of the Windsor Framework and to make it a little easier to move goods across the internal border from Great Britain to Northern Ireland—I do not know.
What the purpose of the Bill cannot be is to reduce trade barriers—or it can be so only on one condition—because aligning with EU law does not reduce trade barriers. The EU itself is very clear about that; the process remains because it is a different legal system. The one condition on which that could be true would be if the UK and the EU reached an agreement that the aligned legislation under this Bill was to be considered as EU law and would be enforced by the Commission and the court—in other words, a Swiss-style arrangement. We have heard chat that that might be what the Government are aiming for in their reset.
In so far as I can see a purpose to the Bill, without the proposed new purpose clause in Amendment 1, it is maybe to prepare the ground for a Swiss-style agreement. Can the Minister, when commenting on this group, confirm or deny whether that is the intention of the Government and the purpose of this legislation? If it is not, it is very hard to see why the Government would not accept the proposed new purpose clause in Amendment 1.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I hope that over the course of my remarks I can illuminate the rationale for the amendment, for the benefit of my noble friend Lord Deben. This amendment is not about relitigating the Brexit battles. It is about holding the Government’s feet to the fire in a Bill that is deeply flawed. It is found to be deeply flawed by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee and delegated legislation committee—more of that later.
The two reasons that Ministers should look benignly on this amendment are that it is not substantially at odds with the Bill’s raison d’être and it is not only a noble aspiration of the Government. The Government were concerned—indeed, the previous Government were also concerned—that they did not have sufficient powers to respond to the EU’s regulatory initiatives efficaciously and that this would have negative trade consequences. It is perfectly proper that the Government seek to address that issue.
The fundamental problem of the Bill is that it does not articulate how far the Government intend to exercise the wide-scale, sweeping enabling powers in favour of alignment with the European Union only, and not other jurisdictions. For that reason this amendment should receive the support of your Lordships’ House. It is a purpose clause and a fundamental issue. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I stray into the remit of Amendment 2. They are very similar and both look at Clause 1.
Before I go any further, I thank the Minister for how congenial and open he has been in engaging with all sides of the House—including our friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches—in seeking to improve the Bill and have a proper debate. Although there is no specific mention of dynamic alignment in the Bill, my noble friend Lord Frost makes a very astute point on whether the Government are moving towards a Swiss-style agreement—multiple bilateral agreements—which would potentially not be in the best interests of the UK as a much larger and more substantial economy than Switzerland.
The Minister should accept that our amendment seeks clarity, certainty and an explicit purpose, without undermining the concept of improving the regulation of products and metrology. This is not one giant statutory instrument. It is a piece of primary legislation. It is quite sensible to have the purpose of that legislation explicitly set out. It has an impact in terms of protecting the autonomy of the UK as an independent trading nation. As my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere made clear in Parliamentary Questions earlier, adopting a regulatory regime over which we have no effective influence, input or sanction is not a sensible way to proceed. It would certainly circumscribe our capacity to make new, advantageous trade arrangements with countries—not just those outside the EU but others that will come into the EU as new members subsequently.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, chunters that “It would be in our interest” from a sedentary position. That is a value judgment.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
I said that what we do is totally in our own hands. The Bill gives us the right to adopt if we want to—to change, if we want to. This is about the UK having control. I thought that is what the party opposite wanted.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
That would be the case if the Bill was not an egregious offence in respect of huge Henry VIII powers and enabling powers.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am sorry to intervene on the noble Lord again but I cannot resist it. Surely the whole point about the Bill is to give us flexibility to do what the noble Lord is asking us to do.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Then the noble Lord would support a purpose clause, which—one might make the case—is much clearer and more explicit. Incidentally, I agree with every word said by my noble friend Lord Lansley and will be supporting his amendment later.
But, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, rises to the Dispatch Box, I would just like to conclude my remarks with the words of his noble friend the Attorney-General. This has been mentioned before, because it is very important within the context of the Bill. It is not just that this is primary legislation; it is unclear. It gives ministerial fiat—wide-ranging ministerial powers—and there are not explicit protections. Indeed, the Delegated Legislation Committee specifically says there are not proper procedures for even consultation with key stakeholders. But the noble Lord will know that on 14 October, the Attorney-General—who is not as high-profile in this House as he used to be—said in his Bingham lecture on 14 October that
“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law values … but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty. In my view, the new Government offers an opportunity for a reset in the way that Government thinks about these issues. This means, in particular, a much sharper focus on whether taking delegated powers is justified in a given case, and more careful consideration of appropriate safeguards”.
I could not have put it better myself. On that basis, I hope that Ministers may be minded to support my noble friend Lord Sharpe’s amendment.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Report debate and to speak to this amendment.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for reminding us that we are not relitigating the Brexit debate, because sometimes in Committee it was very hard to understand that point, given the speeches that came from his Benches. We are not relitigating the Brexit debate; we are trying to put in place a regulatory regime and the ability to deliver regulation that benefits the people of this country.
I was minded to consider that if I was using an electric lawn-mower and I started either to be electrocuted by it or have my toes removed by it, the last thing I would worry about was whether the regulation for that was autonomous. I would be worrying: why was it not safe? Why was the product not preserving my rights as a consumer not to be electrocuted or amputated? There is a serious point to this. If the noble Lord wanted to put a purpose to the Bill, its purpose is not to deliver some mystical autonomy—if we look at Amendment 8, we see that the Minister, far from delivering autonomy, is going to tie us to a whole bunch of other regulatory regimes. It is about delivering a regime that protects people and the environment, and gives consumers right of recompense if they are sold faulty products—all those sorts of things that we see before us. If we look in the draft code of conduct, that is what is set out in the introduction to it.
Sometimes we use before Clause 1 purpose amendments to make sure that we are the first speaker up. I do not think in this case that was in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. His amendment is designed—
Lord Fox (LD)
If I can finish my sentence, please. The noble Lord’s amendment is designed to completely change the purpose of the Bill. I think he has admitted that, and that is right. I suggest that in all the discussion we have had, all the amendments that we have talked about through Committee have been about the consumer, safety and the other issues that actually matter. If we want a purpose, I am very happy to sit down with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the Minister and we can draw up a purpose that encompasses that if it makes people feel happier, but the key issue is not the autonomy, it is the effectiveness of that regulation. I give way.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I remind noble Lords that we are on Report, we are not in Committee. It is very clear in the Standing Orders that you can speak only once on Report unless you are the mover of the group, in which case you can respond to the Minister. It is not within the rules to have this sort of debate. That is for Committee, not for Report.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I realise that I should apologise to the House, because I should not really have intervened on the noble Lord. In apologising to the House, I suggest that we allow the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to finish his speech.
Lord Fox (LD)
Thank you. There is not much more, your Lordships will be pleased to know. We will be focusing on the key issues. When we come to further groups, your Lordships will see that the work we on these Benches have done has been to try to prioritise proper scrutiny of the issues that I have talked about—safety, the environmental impact and the consumer, as well as legal issues—and to make sure that that can be done and this Bill changed in a way that survives contact with a huge government majority in the House of Commons. That is what we will be doing, and that is why we will not be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on his amendment.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I am awfully sorry: I was not quick enough on my feet before the noble Lord, Lord Fox, spoke. I should like to speak for a few minutes in support of my noble friend Lord Sharpe—if that is all right with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
I support my noble friend’s amendment because I think it sets out the framework and purpose clearly, and that is very important when we are making laws by statutory instrument. Besides, I think it is important to retain regulatory autonomy, and I will discuss that point with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in a later group, but I do not think this is the time to have that discussion. It is regulatory autonomy that allows us to do all kinds of things to protect our consumers and ensure that we make the right sorts of laws for our products and our economy. That regulatory autonomy also allows us to align with any laws we like from any jurisdiction and, of course, the Government have a point in that.
My concern about not having an explicit regulatory autonomy aim in the purpose clause is that it would make us out of step with our existing arrangements with other trading partners, where we have agreed outcomes, conformity assessment procedures and other arrangements to recognise. We should not militate against that, which we may be in danger of doing if our purpose does not state these things explicitly.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have given up so many hours to meet me and my officials to go through this Bill. I really appreciate those meetings. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his amendment seeking to introduce a new clause about the purpose of the Bill. Likewise, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon.
We have had many hours of debate on the Bill and I think that we all support the intent of this amendment—the importance of improving product regulation. On that, I hope that there is consensus. As the Secretary of State for Business and Trade pointed out when giving evidence to the Lords International Agreements Committee, the powers that the Bill would provide give the UK regulatory autonomy. If the previous Government had continued in office, they would have needed the same Bill.
We require this Bill, as powers in other legislation are inadequate for updating our extensive product metrology and regulatory regime and responding to new risks and threats. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, about secondary legislation. This is about 2,000 pages of highly technical regulations. It is not a good use of parliamentary time to use primary legislation every time these are updated. There are, however, differences in how we go about improving regulation. That often requires a balance to be struck, such as where obligations sit, or regarding requirements that businesses must meet. That nuanced debate, which we heard during the Bill’s passage, may not be best served by introducing a broad “purpose to improve” in the Bill.
The Bill is about strengthening the UK’s regulatory autonomy. It will make sure that there are appropriate powers to regulate products to suit the UK’s needs and interests. Parliament will have ultimate control, with oversight of the regulations made under the Bill. The Bill is about providing powers to enable the UK to change regulation to suit the UK’s needs and interests, ensuring consumer safety and certainty for businesses. The Bill is necessary because we do not currently have those powers as a nation state. As I said earlier, all changes will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
I hope that I have been able to outline why this amendment is not necessary and ask that it be withdrawn.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly my noble friends Lord Lansley, Lord Frost, Lord Jackson and Lady Lawlor for their support of this amendment. I also thank my noble friend Lord Deben for his intervention, which gives me an opportunity to agree with my noble friend Lord Jackson that this is absolutely not about relitigating Brexit. Regulatory autonomy guarantees the freedom to pursue the best-quality regulation, as is made clear in the amendment. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause states:
“The purpose of this Act is to improve the regulation of products and metrology”.
There is no disagreement about that, and it more than takes care of the lawnmower that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to. Precisely as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, it allows the Government to retain control.
The Minister asserts that the previous Government would have delivered this Bill in its current form. They would not have done so; it would not have come in this form. As my noble friend Lord Jackson pointed out, this amendment is straightforward. There does not seem to be much disagreement about the purpose of the Bill. Therefore, I am at a bit of a loss as to why the Government will not just accept the amendment. As my noble friend Lord Jackson pointed out, it provides clarity, certainty and explicit purpose. I am afraid that I am not satisfied with the Minister’s response and would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 2, I will speak also to Amendment 60, both standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Amendment 2 seeks to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State under “Product regulations”.
As my noble friend stated in Committee:
“Clause 1 grants wide-ranging powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations through statutory instruments, SIs, a process with limited parliamentary oversight. Such discretion risks undermining democratic accountability, as SIs are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as primary legislation”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; col. GC 24.]
Unfortunately, since Committee, the Government, despite the valiant efforts of the Minister, have still failed to address this adequately.
I am very grateful for the tremendous amount of work that has been done on the Bill by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In October last year, the DPRRC published its second report on the Bill after an evidence session with the Minister and his Commons colleague. The committee was not mollified and, on 28 October, published the following:
“In our view, the delegation to Ministers of law-making powers in this Bill involves legislative power shifting to an unacceptable extent from the democratically appointed legislature to the Executive”.
Having now had a chance to look at the Government’s recent concessions, the committee has just published its latest views, on 21 February. Its unanimous view is that
“these are limited changes that do little to address the significant concerns that we expressed about the Bill in our Reports of 15 and 28 October. The Government has not taken the opportunity to add flesh to the bones of this skeleton Bill … We remain of the view that … the delegation to Ministers of law-making powers in this Bill involves legislative power shifting to an unacceptable extent from the legislature to the Executive”.
Nothing, therefore, has changed.
Meanwhile, on 18 October our colleagues on the Constitution Committee also published a very scathing report. They unpicked the Government’s arguments that much of the existing law in these areas is already secondary legislation by pointing out that the transposition of EU law into domestic law by way of secondary legislation was previously constrained by Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, which allowed for the use of delegated powers only to implement EU law, and that invariably this law had been subject to scrutiny by EU law-making institutions. They were backed up by the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, among others.
This Bill will replace those limited secondary powers with potentially open-ended ones. I do acknowledge—and the House must acknowledge—that the Government, and in particular the Minister, have moved a long way in terms of consultation and some use of affirmative powers. Nevertheless, the DPRRC noted on 21 February that,
“even if the House were to agree to those delegations of power, in our view those powers should be constrained so that product regulations and metrology regulations are in all cases subject to affirmative procedure scrutiny”.
This is not to oppose for the sake of opposition; it is a vital issue of principle. We take the view that, if two vitally important committees of this House express such serious reservations on more than one occasion, those reservations should be taken seriously. We accept, of course, that the Government have the right to disagree and to make their case—indeed, we did so in government on a number of occasions—but this Bill quite simply asks us to go too far.
It is not just the committees that think this. I speak, of course, as the immediate past chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. We have dealt so much in the past with the inadequacy of controls on the Executive so far as secondary legislation is concerned. I do not know whether the House will remember— I do not want to go too far back in history—but the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee published on 10 October 2022 Losing Impact: Why the Government’s Impact Assessment System is Failing Parliament and the Public. Then, on 2 February 2023, came Losing Control? The Implications for Parliament of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. Even more important was the report published as long ago as 24 November 2021—so this is a reflection on the previous Government—entitled Government by Diktat: A Call to Return Power to Parliament. I suppose that is what I am now asking for.
I do have an ally. My noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough has quoted very persuasively already, although he was unconstitutionally interrupted twice by my fellow Lord Hunt, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. This was totally contrary to the rulebook, as I understand it—but I hesitate to criticise because I am sure I have probably done the same thing myself. Report stage, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, quite correctly pointed out, is constrained. Here am I, asking everyone to pay attention to the views of our Select Committees; I should also ask everyone to pay attention to the Companion.
It is quite right. I saw the Attorney-General last night during the course of the votes and warned him that we would be quoting, as my noble friend did, from his Bingham Lecture. I thought it was an absolutely brilliant lecture. Indeed, it was so good that I circulated it at the time, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, will know, to all my fellow members of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and asked the clerk to make sure that all our Select Committees were made aware of what was, I felt, a brilliant speech by the Attorney-General.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, I must inform the House that, if Amendment 2 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments 3 and 4 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I rise not to support the noble Lord, although it is a pleasure to follow him, but to address government Amendments 44 and 61 in this group, which I have signed, together with government Amendment 55, which will be for another day.
The Constitution Committee has already been kindly mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt. As a member of that committee, I register my appreciation for the fact that the Government have not only listened to the committee’s concerns and to those developed with impressive persistence by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee but have reacted constructively to them. The Henry VIII powers have been greatly reduced in scope and a credible explanation has been given for the small remainder. While the Bill continues to contain uncomfortably wide ministerial powers to make significant policy decisions, the broad duty of consultation in Amendment 61 is a welcome mitigation. The third part of the package—an extension of the affirmative procedure—is another positive step.
It might have been possible to go further, as the Delegated Powers Committee has rightly said. But, for my part, I would not go so far as to support the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his—I am tempted to say “wrecking” —Amendment 2. How to avoid the unconstrained use of excessively broad delegated powers is a problem that will not go away. It was raised by this Bill in a particularly acute form. The Government have grappled with it conscientiously and they deserve credit for that.
I have one final thought. It is rather a dry one, I am afraid, but what do you expect from the Cross Benches? I hope that, some day, the relevant committees of this House might have occasion to discuss the constitutional issues around framework Bills and delegated powers with the Government, not only Bill by Bill, as we do at present, but in a more structured and strategic way. Such discussions would give proper weight to the constraints on government but could also draw on the guidance provided by our committees and bodies such as the Hansard Society over many years. Perhaps the Minister will agree, after his generous and productive engagement on this issue, that the goal of a more consistent and principled approach on both sides of the fence might at least be worth pursuing.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I shall speak to my Amendment 4 in this group, which, we are advised, would be pre-empted if Amendment 2 were to be passed, by reason of the deletion of the relevant provision in Clause 1(1), to which it would add an additional subsection. It would add to the overarching objective of making regulations, which is to secure safe products:
“In considering whether regulations should be made … the Secretary of State must have regard to the likelihood of the United Kingdom being seen as a favourable place in which to develop, manufacture or supply products”.
Of course, many of the debates that we have on the Bill will relate to the question of alignment, or otherwise. One of the reasons why we are considering this legislation is because there would be significant issues to do with the manufacture, distribution and supply of products in this country were we to diverge significantly from the standards that lie behind the CE marking from the European Union. Rather than continue, as we have done, with reliance on the retained EU law legislation, it is the Government’s intention, through this legislation, to enable us to accept CE marking. That is not necessarily on a dynamic basis—I agree that it is a matter of choice whether we do so—but the Bill’s structure is intended to enable that to happen. Because we seek to do that by reference to the adverse economic consequences that may flow from failing to be able to bring products here, which may drive some economic activity elsewhere, it seems important that Ministers making regulations under this legislation should consider whether, as a result, the UK is an attractive place in which to manufacture, distribute or supply products.
This is not a new concept. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on the Government Front Bench will recall that the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 includes effectively the same provision in relation to medical devices. Medical devices are outside the scope of this Bill but it is relevant to a wide range of other industrial products. I do not understand why it should not be an essential part of the way that Ministers consider making regulations that have such an impact to have regard to the positive benefits that can accrue to business from ensuring that we have the right product regulatory framework for them, so I commend Amendment 4 to the House.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, that Amendment 2 is a wrecking amendment. Why not? Because, if the first subsection were to be removed by that amendment, the regulation-making power would be removed from the Bill so the Government would have to think again. However, the noble Lord and the House will note that later in this group is government Amendment 44. The original formulation in the Bill was to have consequential amendments to Parts II, IV and V of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. In response to the suggestion from the Delegated Powers Committee, which was unhappy with the sweeping power to amend that Act, the Government have instead said, “We’re going to omit Parts II and IV now”. Part II is the bit I am interested in; it is the part of the Act that relates to product safety. The Government simply propose to remove Part II of that Act.
I say to the House and to my noble friend on the Front Bench that if Amendment 2 were to be passed the Bill would clearly have no further regulation-making power in it. However, if at the same time the House were to resist government Amendment 44 then there would continue to be powers in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 for the purpose of making regulations for product safety. The House will be reminded that Section 11(1) of the 1987 Act says:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations … make such provision as he considers appropriate for the purpose of securing … that goods to which this section applies are safe”.
More detail follows, including the respective ways in which provisions can be determined.
The Government should tell us either how they are going to legislate using the powers in the 1987 Act or, if they want to get rid of them, how they are going to replace them in detail. They have done neither of those things. I know we are going to come back to talk about legislation on product liability at a later stage. The Consumer Protection Act is nearly 40 years old and we know it needs updating, but the Government are not doing that; they are sweeping it away and not giving us anything like the detail that was in that Act as to how the powers are going to be used. Nearly 40 years’ worth of scrutiny of the Section 11 provisions on product safety will also be swept away, because the language in this Bill is not the same as in that Act.
The House will have to forgive me: I am slightly anticipating the next group and Amendment 3, because if Amendment 2 is passed, Amendment 3 will not be debated; it will have been pre-empted. I want to make it absolutely clear that although I support my noble friend’s criticisms of the way the Bill is constructed, there is a route available to maintain the powers for determining regulations for product safety. That would force the Government to come back and amend the Consumer Protection Act in ways that are more substantive and clearer than what the present Bill offers us.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I recognise and value the constitutional principle that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, eloquently draws to our attention. Ministers should not be given broad delegated powers, but constitutional principles are not absolute; they have to recognise practical reality.
In the context of this Bill, the practical reality is that technical regulations of the breadth and complexity that will be produced cannot sensibly be enacted by primary legislation. We are dealing, in Clause 1(1), with regulations that reduce or mitigate risks presented by products; to ensure that products “operate efficiently and effectively”; and that ensure that products designed for weighing or measuring operate effectively. Are we really to debate each and every such regulation in this House, either on the Floor of the House or in Grand Committee? We would have little, if any, time for anything else.
If the regulations raise issues of principle, Parliament retains control. Parliament does not have to accept the regulations; it can vote against them under the normal principles. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested, quoting someone from one of the committees—I cannot remember which—that this is Government by diktat. I suggest to him, with the greatest of respect, that that is unfair and inappropriate in this context, for the reasons I have given.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I make it clear that, having disagreed with Amendment 1, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his discussion here. I fundamentally disagree with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, because this is exactly the moment when we give away basic parliamentary control. We know perfectly well that, although it is better than it was, it is still true that a great deal can be done by ministerial diktat which ought to come to Parliament.
I am not in any way suggesting that everything should come to Parliament. Of course, it is very easy to say, “You can’t have everything”, but that does not mean that we should allow this to go through without insisting on having a much clearer definition of where ministerial diktat is proper and where it is not. Until we get that right, this is, if I may dare say so to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the slippery slope.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 39, tabled in my name, which has ended up in this particular group almost by accident. It relates to a specific issue about the making of regulations as they relate to criminal offences arising from non-compliance in respect of metrology. This amendment is quite important because it requires that, at least 30 days before the making of a provision in respect of regulations as described in Clause 6(9), those regulations be placed in the Libraries of both Houses in the form of an Explanatory Memorandum.
This is important because the creation in secondary legislation of any criminal offence is a serious matter, and one that needs proper scrutiny and oversight. On that basis, it is a reasonable request for the Government to look benignly on this amendment, because they have previously committed to transparency and openness in many respects in the Bill. This would give parliamentarians an opportunity to raise some questions about the likelihood of a criminal offence arising from metrology regulations. For that reason, I may press this amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, following the theme of benign attention from government to amendments that have washed up in this group, I shall speak to my Amendment 41. In doing so, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register, not least as it applies to Socially Recruited, an AI business.
There are many things that are not in the Bill, data centres being one of them; yet these are the factories and foundries that are going to fuel our fourth industrial revolution, which is already well under way. We might think back to all that Victorian factories legislation, all quite appropriate and proper, whereas all I am seeking here is not even a whole statute—which we could have on data centres alone—but merely one amendment, which I hope the Government can look benignly upon. It simply asks the Government to undertake a consultation to look at a new standard for the measurement of the power usage of data centres.
We are going to rely increasingly on data centres for almost everything that we do in this country. How we power them, where we site them, the inputs, the outputs, where the technology comes from—all of these are key features currently utterly unconsidered in any legislation or regulations. All that my Amendment 41 seeks to do is suggest that the Government launch a consultation, following the passage of the Bill, to look at the effectiveness of a,
“metrology standard for the power usage of data centres”,
and, not least, to reconsider the current power usage effectiveness—PUE—standard and whether it is up to the job in hand.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this has been a really interesting debate. It is a shame that we cannot have this debate on group 3, where we could set out some of the issues that I am going to explain very briefly—without repeating the speech that I am going to make in group 3 —on how scrutiny can be enhanced for secondary legislation. I share the concern of your Lordships’ House that insufficient and inadequate scrutiny happens even when we have statutory instruments. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, pointed out, we need something better than the way in which we deal with statutory instruments at the moment. Very rarely, if ever, are they turned away; we have regret Motions that, in sum, make no difference at all.
To some extent, we are protecting a paper tiger here. What we should be talking about is whether there is a way we can make sure that these future regulations go through a process that is properly scrutinised. The proper debate on that will happen in group 3, and we will take it through. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that the issue of criminal sanctions is a concern and that we need to have a way of scrutinising it. That will be included when I speak to group 3, as will be the environmental measures raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in this group, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in the next group.
We do have a way of having greater transparency, but it is not by statutory instrument to be nodded through over and over again. We have to be honest with ourselves about what we actually do when we are dealing with secondary legislation. That is why I have been working very hard, and why I welcome the conversations I have had with the Minister and his team, to try to open up something that will not only give us better scrutiny—I would say nearly proper scrutiny—but also something that will survive contact with the government majority at the other end. That is the opening point which, to some extent, is a speech for a different group.
With respect to this group, Amendment 61 mandates additional consultation, and Amendment 55—which has strangely been put in group 12—strengthens the affirmative process. I was very pleased to see the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, added to those amendments; I very much appreciated his speech today, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Those amendments add further resilience and help to meet some of the issues that were raised by your Lordships’ committee.
Once we have discussed the changes in group 3, hopefully with the response of the Minister, they will also contain some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. Again, the fundamental question is: how do we properly review legislation? I am hoping that we have come up with a way that will do this. That is why we are keeping our powder dry on these Benches. We have put a lot of work and a lot of hope in what we are going to be doing in the next group, and I think we can give your Lordships’ House, and indeed parliamentarians as well as all the external bodies, a way of participating in the proper pre-scrutiny of statutory instruments before they ever reach your Lordships’ House, whether it is by affirmative or negative process when they get here.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, to his place; I look forward to working with him constructively in the months ahead. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for giving us a little peek into what to expect in the next group.
I have listened carefully to the concerns around the scrutiny of such regulations from Peers, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and the Constitution Committee. I have also read my noble friend the Attorney-General’s lecture, which we have taken on board. That is why the Government propose to introduce a mandatory consultation requirement on the Secretary of State to consult such persons as they consider appropriate. This was welcomed in the DPRRC’s latest report; I particularly appreciate the committee’s constructive engagement. Consultation is a crucial part of the Government’s commitment to continued stakeholder engagement.
I refer to Amendment 4, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Basically, we are amending the Bill to require consultation. The Government will need to consider how to ensure that the UK is a good place to manufacture, develop and supply products. I am sure that businesses will let us know their strong views.
Amendment 61 has been drafted in such a way to ensure that consultation is appropriate to the circumstances, reflecting the potential risks posed and those with an interest. This is well precedented in existing legislation and allows for a variety of approaches, including: calls for evidence on specific areas, such as the recent common charger and outdoor noise calls for evidence; full consultations, such as that undertaken as part of the product safety review; and technical discussions to consider sector-specific actions—for example, on cosmetics—where a specialist scientific committee has been commissioned to form an opinion.
We have set out more details in an accompanying statement within our new code of conduct on how, when and with whom the Government currently engage on regulatory matters associated with product safety and metrology. This code of conduct is available in the Library of the House, and I hope Peers will find it a useful document.
Amendment 60 seeks to introduce a mandatory six-week minimum period for consultations. We believe that this will not always be necessary or appropriate because changes to product and metrology requirements can range from minor technical amendments to more substantial changes. It is important that the consultation requirement gives flexibility to the Secretary of State to consult as needed, and as appropriate, on a case-by-case basis. However, we have not stopped at a consultation requirement.
We have thought hard about an overall package of amendments. I now refer to Henry VIII powers. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his insightful contribution, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, a member of the Constitution Committee, for his contribution.
We have heard the concerns expressed about Henry VIII powers and are amending the Bill to eliminate most of them. Amendments 44 to 47, 62, 63 and 65 therefore restrict the number of Henry VIII powers to the absolute minimum necessary. We are removing entirely the power to amend or repeal provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. We are putting in the Bill repeal of the absolute minimum necessary for provisions in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Weights and Measures Act 1985. Commencement regulations will be used to bring those repeals into force at the right time, once regulations are made under this Bill to remove duplication in the statute book or to provide for regulatory continuity. We are pleased to see the DPRRC welcome these amendments.
Alongside these changes, the Government have introduced two small changes through Amendment 42, which is a necessary technical fix to the Bill, and Amendment 52, which is consequential.
I understand that noble Lords have concerns about the creation of criminal offences, which is the subject of Amendment 39, from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I reassure the House that regulations that introduce or widen the scope of criminal offences will be subject to the affirmative procedure. This is right and proper. To inform this debate, an Explanatory Memorandum will justify the proposed changes and be drafted after the justice impact tests and impact assessments have been completed. Additionally, the Government have brought forward an amendment to remove the criminal offence in the Weights and Measures Act 1985 applying to the sale of goods in non-permitted quantities.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. I thank the Minister for his kind tribute to me at the start of his remarks. We have had a good tour d’horizon. It reminds me of someone I always counted on in moments like this; we still hugely miss Lord Judge. He taught me so much about Henry VIII clauses. In fact, he told me things that I did not know as a practising solicitor. He was brilliant, and we miss him so much.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox—I read his contributions in Committee, particularly about the Delegated Powers Committee—that he was in total agreement, and I do not know what has happened. Perhaps we should have a consultation about a consultation. I will come back to what the Minister said in just a moment. The Attorney-General said that
“the new Government offers an opportunity for a reset in the way that Government thinks about these issues. This means … a much sharper focus on whether taking delegated powers is justified in a given case, and more careful consideration of appropriate safeguards”.
The one message that I take from this short debate—but one of great substance—is that we need to give further reflection to the Private Member’s Bill of the noble friend of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill. I made a special journey—I will not go into the detail—to support that Bill. My colleagues on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee thought it was a breath of fresh air, but it met with a stonewall from the Government. If only the Government would just think again about how we deal with secondary legislation, so much of what we have been discussing would be unnecessary.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, how wounding it can be to describe this important constitutional debate as a wrecking amendment. I was giving the Minister an opportunity to come forward with some new proposals. He has failed to convince the Delegated Powers Committee. Are we to consign that committee’s further report to the rubbish tip? I will not; I will continue to return to its theme that the Government have got it wrong at the moment.
It is perfectly possible for the Government to come forward with something on Third Reading. If we pass Amendment 2 tonight—I am minded to test the opinion of the House—the Government have a real opportunity to listen even more closely to this latest report, which they have only just received from the committee. It was a unanimous report: Cross-Bench, Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Labour Peers all united in saying that the Government have got it wrong in producing what is in effect a skeletal Bill.
I am disappointed that the Minister, who had an opportunity to give more ground and to go away and consider this further, did not take that opportunity. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley, who directly contradicted what the Minister has just said about the effect of this amendment, as it would not have that effect. His Amendment 4 is such a good amendment.
I am so surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, should come forward and oppose this. It flies in the face of many of the speeches he has made before. My noble friend Lord Deben—it is like old times; we worked together for 16 years in government—pointed out that we are on a slippery slope, and we just need to make the Government think again.
My noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough has a really good amendment in Amendment 39, as does my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond in Amendment 41. We have had such a good debate, and it is a shame that the Government have refused to think again. That is why, in my view, we should test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, I must reinform the House that if Amendment 2 is agreed, I will not be able to call Amendment 3 or Amendment 4 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Lansley
“(za) securing that products to which this section applies are safe;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would retain the existing requirement in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 that product requirements must include that they are safe.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, having supported Amendment 2—unsuccessfully—I now have the opportunity to move Amendment 3. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, and I both slightly anticipated some of the arguments in the previous group, but we very much look forward to him speaking to his amendments in this group. I will speak to two sets of amendments: Amendments 3 and 12, which are linked, and then Amendment 28, which is to a separate and different purpose.
Amendment 3 would insert into the regulation-making power a requirement that the regulation should have the purpose of
“securing that products to which this section applies are safe”.
Where does this come from? As noble Lords may recall from the previous group, the amendment seeks to reinsert into this legislation the same provision that is in Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. As we discovered from the Minister in the previous group, the Government are going to remove Part II of the Consumer Protection Act 1987; they will not simply have a consequential power to amend it but, under this Bill, will remove it.
I am not an expert on product safety legislation, but for nearly 40 years this provision has been in place and has been the basis for much of our product safety legislation until, broadly speaking, it was augmented or replaced by the general product safety regulations coming out of the European Union. Those regulations, through the assimilated legislation, are the basis on which much of our subordinate legislation has been created for product safety.
Why do I want to do this? I freely admit why I am moving my amendment and have already told the Minister so. Partly, I am trying to find out why the Government believe that the language of the Bill—which, as noble Lords will recall, is that it should have the purpose of
“reducing or mitigating risks presented by products”—
is a better construction than the proposition that products should be safe; it is certainly different. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, in the debate on the previous group, helpfully used a very straightforward analogy: when he uses his lawn-mower, he wants it to be safe. I do not think, if I may paraphrase him, that he wants to stand there, with the lawn-mower going across his toe, and think, “I do wish that the Government had introduced regulations that mitigated the risk of this happening”; he wants it to be safe.
I have included Amendment 12 because, of course, there is no point in putting the word “safe” back into the legislation unless one defines it. The Consumer Protection Act 1987 defines “safe”; for these purposes, I have amended that definition by taking out “goods” and inserting “products”, because that is consistent with the structure of this Bill, which relates to products. There has been case law that has found difficulty in the limitations of the interpretation of “goods”.
Amendment 3 is there to ask Ministers whether it would not have been better—and it is not too late, in either this House or another place—to consider whether it might be straightforward to maintain the intention that products should be safe, and define “safe”, alongside the reduction and mitigation of risk? There is arguably—only arguably—a difference between the two. I know that when you use different language in legislation you are generally thought to be intending to secure a different objective. Since we are, in this Bill, removing the requirement for products to be safe, and inserting a requirement for products to have their risks reduced or mitigated, I suppose there is a difference that is more than semantic between these two constructions. If the Minister can assure us that they will, in effect and in reality, mean the same thing, then I will not press my amendment.
I turn to Amendment 28, which proposes a new clause. Its purpose is to build on what is in the Bill about the regulation of online marketplaces. There is some rather helpful material in Clause 2(3)(d) which brings online marketplaces within the scope of the product regulation and product requirements. Amendment 49 to Clause 10, which we have not yet reached, also helpfully clarifies the definition of online marketplaces. That is all good news. However, none of that would change the fact that limitations remain in relation to the determination of liability for unsafe or defective products that are sold through intermediary online marketplaces. I do not need to tell the House of the increasing use of online marketplaces, or that many of them are not necessarily domiciled in the United Kingdom.
In Committee, the Minister, in response to a helpful amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, said:
“The primary route to seek damages for harm caused by defective products is through the Consumer Protection Act 1987”—
I should point out this is a different part of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 from those parts which are to be deleted by this Bill. The Minister went on to say:
“My department is currently reviewing this legislation and we will consider the UK’s product liability regime holistically”.—[Official Report, 27/11/24; col. GC 232.]
However, we have here a situation which is very similar to that in relation to product regulation generally, but in relation to product liability: the European Union has moved and we have not moved with it. I am not making an argument for dynamic alignment—the Minister laughs as he knows I have never been one for dynamic alignment in these debates—but I can see the merit in our ability to align where it is in our interests to do so.
There is clearly a problem. Under the existing legislation, the liability applies to the producer of the product, somebody who holds themselves to be the producer —for example, through trademark—or the importer. That does not necessarily apply to online marketplaces, which often do not fit within any of those definitions.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, before turning to my Amendment 7, I pick up the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in relation to his Amendment 28. Perhaps to his surprise, I accept that this is a case where there may be dynamic alignment between us. As he rightly pointed out, in Committee I tabled amendments in relation to the need for a liability approach and a redress mechanism. In fact, I went further and suggested that we need to do things such as remove the anonymity of sellers on online platforms so that such a redress mechanism would be possible. Like the noble Lord, I certainly hope that the Minister—who, as he says, has been enormously helpful—will be able to explain how the Government intend to handle this issue. It is my understanding that it may not be possible to do it through this legislation but that alternative routes will be found. I very much hope that is the case.
I similarly hope there will be a positive response to Amendment 7 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Fox and the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. In your Lordships’ House I have frequently raised my concern about the safety of lithium-ion batteries and the urgent need for tighter reform. In doing so, I have pointed to significant support for such action from a wide range of bodies including Electrical Safety First, local fire brigades, many local councils, insurance companies and many others. They have all pointed to the need for tighter regulation in this area.
One of the sponsors of the amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, is the president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, which is equally concerned about this issue. Its concerns, like mine, have arisen from the tragic loss of life we have seen and the huge amount of damage to property from fires caused by, for example, poorly manufactured lithium-ion batteries or faulty charging systems. It is worth reminding ourselves, I hope for the last time, that the London Fire Brigade has to respond to such a fire every two days. It is now the fastest-rising cause of fires throughout the city. More than 180 parliamentary constituencies have had fires caused by lithium-ion batteries in the last two or three years. Work needs to be done.
I am delighted that Electrical Safety First, in its very good report Battery Breakdown, has provided a great deal of technical information about not only the fires but their causes, and has provided some sensible solutions and ways forward. I am therefore delighted that in the debate on the previous group of amendments, the Minister made absolutely clear that there is now a commitment to detailed consultation before new statutory instruments are brought forward on this matter and lots of others that will come forward. It is right that the technical expertise that Electrical Safety First, for example, has demonstrated is made use of.
Lithium-ion batteries are clearly not the only high-risk products that need to be identified and regulated appropriately. Fireworks are a good example. But many are not covered by existing product safety regulations or covered adequately by the General Product Safety Regulations. I am also concerned that we need not only to cover a wide range of products but to have future-proofing for the legislation to be flexible enough to take into account new products that come on to the market in future.
Sadly, at the moment there is no systematic approach to the identification and regulation of such high-risk products. Hence my amendment relates to
“the marketing or use of certain products, or categories or groups of product, that present a high risk (known or emerging) to consumer health and safety”.
I am particularly grateful to the Minister and his officials for meeting with me, Electrical Safety First and the London Fire Brigade to discuss establishing such a proactive system for assessing and regulating high-risk products and emerging technologies. I am the first to accept that there are more ways than one of skinning the cat and that there may be alternative ways, other than my amendment, of achieving what I wish to achieve.
My noble friend Lord Fox’s Amendment 9 would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement, before SIs are laid, outlining how product risks will be identified and assessed, including those posing a high hazard, such as lithium-ion batteries. I am willing to accept that, if his amendment is accepted by the Government, and is backed by the appropriate statement and a code of practice in relation to the identification and regulation of higher-risk products, it may well provide a way forward and ensure the flexibility and transparency that my amendment has sought.
I will listen with great interest to my noble friend Lord Fox, and in particular to the response from the Minister. I very much hope that today’s outcome will mean that, at last, action will be taken to tackle the very real dangers to public health and safety caused by inadequately regulated high-risk products, including lithium-ion batteries.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am looking forward to the novelty of my noble friend Lord Foster listening to me.
I will explain how Amendment 9, in my name, supports Amendment 7, in the names of my noble friend Lord Foster, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and me. At the heart of both amendments is the desire to ensure that there has been sufficient scrutiny of the regulations that are designed to make products safe; I use that word advisedly, in support of the noble Lord Lansley, because “safe” is a good word to find in there somewhere, and I hope that through these discussions we will find a way. In my experience, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is relatively tenacious, so I suspect that something may emerge.
We need a process that takes into consideration all high-risk and higher-risk products. Lithium-ion batteries are a stark and horrific example when they go wrong, as set out eloquently by my noble friend, but there are other products, some of which we do not yet know about. Legislation has to be broad enough to be able to take those into consideration.
Amendment 9 also addresses the important elements of parliamentary scrutiny that we discussed in the last group. We have heard the concerns. If applied properly, this will go a long way towards ameliorating many of them. If we get it working properly, it will provide greater genuine scrutiny than the affirmative process tends to do, because it will edit secondary legislation before it is laid—in other words, it will have gone through a process.
Amendment 61, tabled by the Minister and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, undertakes that the Secretary of State will consult when the Secretary of State thinks it is appropriate. My Amendment 9 seeks to move this on to a more structured footing. It causes the Secretary of State to issue a statement that sets out the consultation process that the Secretary of State must undertake before tabling secondary legislation.
In some trivial cases, that will not be much consultation, but in other cases a great deal of work could be required, such as for an entirely new product, an entirely new use of an old product, or the reregulation of something that has proved problematic. All these would need to be addressed and assessed, to decide what level of risk we are dealing with. Higher-risk products would need a greater scrutiny process in order to reduce and mitigate risk, and make them as safe as possible.
As a result of this amendment, the Secretary of State would have to notify Parliament of the process for the identification and assessment of risks in products. I thank the Minister and his team again for the discussions we have had on this. We have had a number of meetings and each time we have moved forward in this process; together, we have been able to get to something that can work. I am happy that, rather than enshrining a particular technology in primary legislation, we are putting in place a process, and one that can evolve, if it needs to, going forward.
I hope that the Minister will set out further details of how this process will work and what the statement will include. I hope that he will take into consideration the concerns that have been demonstrated by my noble friends Lady Brinton and Lord Foster, as well as many other noble Lords during Committee. I should say, as an aside, that I was pleased to see the code of conduct, which is another brick in the wall, but this is the process by which that puts people’s noses to the grindstone and starts to apply it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to the four amendments in my name in this group, starting with Amendment 26. Backed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Freeman of Steventon and Lady Smith of Llanfaes, it is about period-products regulation. It sets out a requirement that, within one year of the Act being passed, the Secretary of State must create regulations to reduce the health risks of period products.
I have circulated to many noble Lords, and will be delighted to share it with any who has missed it, a briefing prepared by the Women’s Environmental Network. The briefing is now complete, and includes a list of NGOs that support the briefing, which backs the amendment: the Women’s Environmental Network, the Pesticide Collaboration, the Hazards Campaign, City to Sea, Hey Girls, UK Youth 4 Nature, Pesticide Action Network UK, Natracare, the Soil Association, MCS-Aware, Savitri, the Menstruation Research Network, the Rivers Trust, Period Positive, Fidra and the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. There is a lot of backing for this amendment.
I offer my thanks to the Minister and his officials, who have kindly provided their time for a science-rich, detailed debate looking at policy in this area, but I am afraid that they have not convinced me that we do not need this amendment. Although many large-scale across-product actions need to be taken, this is something that can be done now, directly for health. It is perfectly possible, and this amendment would deliver it.
These period products are, of course, as the removal of VAT recognised, a necessity and not a luxury consumer item, used by roughly 15 million people who menstruate each month. Currently, these products theoretically come under the General Product Safety Regulations, but there is no specific mention of period products there. That lack of specific regulation means that there are few limitations or restrictions on the presence of potentially harmful chemicals or additives in period products. This is in sharp contrast to, for example, cosmetics.
The practical reality is that period products are used next to or in one of the most absorbent parts of the human body, unlike the other consumer items which come under the GPSR. Internal products, such as tampons, menstrual cups and discs, have direct access to the bloodstream. The absorption rate through the vulva is much greater than through the skin of the rest of the body.
In the past 10 years or so we have seen an advertising arms race among period products. A worrying number of potentially harmful chemicals and metals have often been explicitly added to or are found in single-use disposable and reusable period products. I went into this at some length in Committee, but I will identify just some of the biggest issues.
Biocidal silver, an untested additive currently waiting to be assessed for safety by the UK Government, is being used in many period pants as an antimicrobial. There is research showing that it affects the microbiome in the vulva. After the first 10 washes, 72% of it washes out. It is very toxic to aquatic life and contributes to antimicrobial resistance. I note that the National Audit Office has explicitly said today that we are not collectively doing anything like enough about antimicrobial resistance.
Also found in period products are endocrine-disrupting chemicals, such as phthalates, bisphenols and parabens, all of which have been identified as disrupting the function of our endocrine system. They are linked to cancer, reproductive and development disorders, birth defects, asthma and allergies. PFAS is an acronym that will be familiar to many noble Lords as forever chemicals. These have been found in period products and are used for waterproofing. They are also widely used elsewhere, as I will come back to. There are also heavy metals. Last year, lead, arsenic and cadmium were all found in tampons tested in the UK and internationally. For lead, there is no safe level of exposure.
Of course, I now come to microplastics. Despite their apparent cottony appearance, tampons and pads can both be up to 90% plastic and very likely continually shed microplastics. I say “very likely”, but I can point to research from Galway that recently found microplastics from period products in outlets from wastewater treatment plants, having gone through those plants. The University of Manchester found that tampons can shed 17 billion nanoplastic fibres—an average of 9.4 billion per tampon. That means people are being exposed to 86 trillion fibres over a lifetime of use.
Synthetic fragrances, encouraged by advertising, have been used in period products to address consumer anxiety about the social construct of so-called menstrual odours. These add nothing to functionality but contribute to stigma. If a comparable amount of fragrance was found in a cosmetic product it would have to be labelled, yet there is no such regulation for period products.
Noble Lords might say, “Oh, but this is an amendment that says the Government must act within one year”, but I can point them to New York state, Catalonia, Wales and Scotland, where regulations are already in place. The European ecolabel prohibits the use of many of the chemicals I referred to, although it is unfortunately only a voluntary code of excellence. These examples show that it is possible to act. What is needed is political will to protect our population. That is what I am asking for and I have given notice to the House that it is my intention to put this amendment to a vote.
I refer also to my other amendments in this group, which help put Amendment 26 on period products in context. Amendment 33 is a development from two amendments I tabled in Committee about the harmful impacts of clothing and a call for a ban on single-use plastics. As one is supposed to, I have developed that in bringing this forward on Report to see what we might be able to do in the short term to understand the scale of the problem we face.
I say this in the context of a study out this month that many noble Lords may have seen about the number of tiny fragments of plastic that will be in your brain. They were thought not to be able to cross the blood-brain barrier, but they very clearly are. The study showed that the concentration of microplastics in analysed brains increased by 50% from 2016 to 2024. On examination, the brains of 12 deceased patients with dementia had three to five times as much microplastic as people who died without suffering from dementia. That is one study, but we know that the amount of plastics produced in the world doubles every 10 to 15 years. The figures from these brains reflect what we are doing to the environment.
Microplastics are, of course, just one in the cocktail, alongside PFAS, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, pesticides and pharmaceutical products, all of which are accumulating in our environment every day. Governments and regulators have failed to consider how human bodies are being barraged and penetrated by these dangerous materials, and how they interact with each other, potentially damage our health and make us more susceptible to the impacts of other challenges, be they these materials or infectious agents.
When I started the discussion of these issues in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, acknowledged that it had started him wondering about the non-iron shirt he was wearing that day, what had altered the fibres of the cotton to produce such a result, and what impact it might be having on his health. The answer is almost certainly a resin that releases formaldehyde, which is a known carcinogen and mutagen. It might also be a direct immediate problem for anyone who suffers from contact dermatitis. The EU has introduced new stricter regulations on that substance, starting from next year, noting that people are likely to be exposed to it from a wide range of sources—from car interiors to furniture, and from electronics to construction materials.
When they tackle these issues, Governments’ responses are almost invariably siloed. It is great, and world-leading, that the French Government have just banned the manufacture, import and sale of most PFAS-treated products from next year and of all PFAS-treated textiles by 2030, but they are tackling just one issue among many, and cleaning up the universal contamination of this class of chemicals just cannot be done.
I said I would tie this to Amendment 26. If we think about the bodies of people using period products in our society today, they are, like all of us, exposed to all of this and they are also getting the extra from the period products.
Finally, and very quickly, I come to Amendment 27A and the linked Amendment 66. This is a probing amendment that relates to the Environment Act. It is now 1,205 days since that Act became law.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I could have split these amendments out but chose not to. Perhaps I can have another minute, as others have had? The Act grants the Government powers to work towards the ending of the UK’s contribution to deforestation. Are the Government—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am sorry to intervene but the rules are quite clear.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I think a previous noble Lord spoke for 12 minutes. I will ask the Minister a question and write a comment piece to cover the rest.
Do the Government plan to bring forward rapidly the necessary secondary legislation under Schedule 17 to the Environment Act, and to confirm that regulations will take the most ambitious form possible within existing UK law?
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 26, to which I have added my name. Period products are currently regulated in the UK only under the General Product Safety Regulations, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said. In many other countries they come under more stringent regulations, even being considered as medical products. It is fantastic to see innovations in period products—we have seen improvements to them and a greater range of options over recent decades—but innovations can raise safety risks as well. I will give one example.
In the late 1970s, a super-absorbent alternative to cotton in tampons was invented. It could absorb 20 times its own volume, and so it needed changing much less frequently. It seemed life-changing. Unfortunately, its super-absorbency and longer use created the perfect environment for the bacteria staph aureus. Then, the tampon caused scratches because it absorbed too much and left people dry. It was a deadly combination. The bacteria could then get into the bloodstream, causing toxic shock—a syndrome that could rapidly kill, with minimal warning signs. Thousands of people died from it before the problem was identified and the product withdrawn.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I would like to say a quick word about Amendment 3 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. It has the attraction of introducing the word “safe” into the Bill, which does not appear anywhere else. The Bill uses the word “safety” and talks about minimising risk and so on. It recognises that products may involve some element of risk, whereas the amendment suggested by the noble Lord talks about eliminating risk. It is a desirable aim in itself, but I am not quite sure how that can be achieved. The noble Lord asked the Minister to say that the Bill is saying the same thing as he is, so he will not have to press his amendment. It seems to me that there is a real difference, and it is a very interesting difference, so I think that may be stretching the matter too far.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I apologise for not being involved in earlier discussions on the Bill. I rise in support of Amendment 26, which attracted me to contribute to today’s discussion. As a young woman and a user of these products, I was very shocked and surprised to hear about the different chemicals in them. A lot of young women would also be surprised and shocked to know about these chemicals, that they are not advertised, and that this information is not shared with the products’ users. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on bringing forward this very important amendment, and I urge the House to support it.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, we are on Report, and I draw this House’s attention to the report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which I am on. We certainly put the Minister through his paces and took the unusual step of asking him to give us evidence, because we felt that the Bill was skeletal and had regulatory powers, which we will come on to in a later group of amendments.
I want to use our latest discussion on Report to address support for Amendment 9. The importance of consultation has been brought up. I am most grateful— I am speaking personally and not on behalf of the committee—to the Minister for meeting with me and others from the committee to draw the consultation phases to our attention.
I hope that in summing up, the Minister will also cover the issue of consultation where there is a potential mismatch of products. The problem with lithium batteries is that people buy the batteries and chargers separately; it is when they put them together that the chance of a fire goes up dramatically, not when the right charger is bought with the right battery. We are dealing with a complex world, and I am well aware that there are an enormous number of regulations to be made, potentially, some of which are very complicated. Consultation will be critical to make sure that they are appropriate.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fire Safety and Rescue. In that context, I support Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and endorse his comments on lithium batteries, given that I had similar amendments in Committee. Importantly, the product is not included, and I hope the Government will be able to take note of that and help.
I also support Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I think I was the first person at Second Reading to raise the question of criminal issues. The amendment helps us to get to a solution that provides scrutiny. Early scrutiny by Parliament is much stronger than the affirmative procedure.
I continue to support the campaign of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which is encapsulated in her Amendment 26. I also support the powerful example given to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman. However, I disagree, in that, in my view, tampons should be as well-regulated as blusher. They should be deemed to be a medical device, for all the biocidal reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, explained —and I will not rehearse those. I remind your Lordships’ House that paragraph 9 of the schedule at the end of the Bill removes medicines and medical devices as defined in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act. Unfortunately, with period and incontinence products there are health issues. If they are not defined under that Act, there needs to be some way of recognising that they have an impact on individual health. I therefore support Amendment 26 and hope that the Government will listen to that as well.
I should also point out that there is more information on the government website about the correct taxation of period products and incontinence products than there is elsewhere on the health issues.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments in this instructive and interesting debate. I am a little wary about speaking after finding out how much plastic is in our brains, because that is obviously potentially to invite unfavourable comment.
I shall speak sympathetically to my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendments 3 and 12. One of the many problems that we have already discussed at some length, now and in Committee, is the vagueness of the Bill as drafted. That lack of clarity creates significant uncertainty for both businesses and consumers, so I thank my noble friend for his contributions. His amendments offer important suggestions that could help to address some of these issues, particularly by expanding the definition of safety and, indeed, providing a definition of safety.
As technology continues to develop, it is critical that we recognise that our understanding of what constitutes safety must also evolve. My noble friend’s amendments reflect that forward-thinking approach, acknowledge that new technologies and innovations may require updates to safety standards over time and, by expanding the definition, would ensure that the legislation remained flexible and adaptable, allowing for future growth and innovation without sacrificing safety. As my noble friend pointed out, different language suggests different outcomes, so I hope the Minister will be able to address that in answering my noble friend’s questions. We believe that these amendments provide much-needed clarity in areas where the Bill could have been more precise, and we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for bringing this issue into sharper focus.
Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Lindsay—who, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, pointed out, is president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute—has significant merit. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, made a persuasive case, with some alarming statistics and illustrations. Consumers should have confidence that the products they buy, whether from a high street store or an online platform, are safe and, if things go wrong, that there is a clear route to accountability. By allowing regulations to extend liability to online marketplaces and ensuring the proper disclosure of evidence in claims for compensation, this amendment would strengthen consumer rights and help to create a fairer system. We will return at a later stage to the definitions of online marketplaces.
Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would also help to do things better. I should remind the noble Lord that, in effect, it would mean more consultation. I am reluctant to remind the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, of this, but the DPRRC, on which she sits, said in its most recent report on 21 February that
“consultation is not a substitute for Parliamentary scrutiny”.
However, I recognise that, in pointing that out, I am probably flogging something of a dead horse.
I turn to Amendment 26 and the other amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which were spoken to—again, very persuasively—by the noble Baronesses, Lady Freeman and Lady Smith. These amendments address an important issue: ensuring that period products meet high safety standards while also considering their environmental impact. Given that these products are used by millions of women and girls, often over a lifetime, it is only right that their safety, composition and labelling are subject to clear and effective regulation; the list of organisations quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is illustrative of the interest in this particular area.
The safety and regulation of period products is a matter of both public health and consumer protection, so ensuring that individuals can make informed choices about the products they use is obviously essential. Amendment 26 seeks to introduce clear and necessary provisions for testing, marking and risk information, reflecting the need for greater transparency and oversight in this area. By addressing both single-use and reusable products, it acknowledges the evolving nature of the market while prioritising safety and well-being. We ask the Government to take further consideration and to carry out additional study on this important area—and, indeed, to expand it to some of the other areas that the noble Baroness mentioned, such as the formaldehyde that is present in non-iron shirts. Of course, one of the other uses of formaldehyde is to preserve dead bodies; I am not sure what that tells us about our sartorial choices, but there we are.
As the market for period products continues to evolve—particularly with increasing interest in reusable products—it is obviously essential that any regulation stays relevant and up to date, so we expect to return to this issue in future health-related Bills. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made some very good points about the fact that these products should be treated as medical devices; those deserve to be explored further. It is crucial that we continue to monitor and adapt the regulation of these products in order to ensure that public health and consumer protection are maintained.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. May I put on the record that I do not buy any non-iron shirts? I am pretty old-fashioned: I buy 100% cotton shirts.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for Amendments 3 and 12. Both in Committee and on Report, he has illustrated his thoughtful scrutiny of this legislation. A major element of our product regulations, and a focal point of this Bill, is consumer safety. Safety is at the very heart of this Bill, but products exist on a spectrum of risk, which can be mitigated to different levels and in different ways. That is why the Bill refers to risk rather than to safety.
Turning to Amendment 7, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his consistent and thoughtful engagement on this issue; I also thank him for his relentless campaigning on both this issue and areas such as lithium-ion batteries and various other fire risks. In many ways, he has got to the nub of our system of product regulation with his amendment and his remarks: how do we consider risks from products? I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his constructive discussions and for tabling Amendment 9.
As I set out in Committee, our current system of product regulation quantifies risk in a number of ways. At the most basic level, all consumer products must meet the baseline general safety requirements unless specific, additional or unusual risks are identified and they therefore need additional bespoke requirements; cosmetics or pressure equipment may be an example of that. Identifying and assessing risk are already at the very heart of Clause 1; indeed, it is inherent in passing product regulations that a risk must be identified in the first place. The powers in this Bill already enable regulations to consider product risks and the response to them in such cross-cutting ways.
Lord Fox (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, can I ask just briefly whether he can confirm that the consultation process which we have discussed, and he very carefully laid out, will include parliamentarians and the devolved Governments?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I can confirm that. In fact, the Secretary of State will publish a Written Statement when the consultation happens and this will extend invitations to civil society groups, any stakeholders, parliamentarians and interested parties.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I know that we are all most grateful to the Minister for what I thought was an extremely helpful response to these important and interesting issues that we have debated in this group.
For my part, in relation to Amendment 3 and the use of “safe”, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, that the use of “safe” in a Bill that is intended to ensure that products are safe would be most helpful. He will note that Amendment 12 defines “safe” in a similar way—not precisely the same as the Consumer Protection Act does at present—as meaning
“that there is no risk, or no risk apart from one reduced to a minimum”,
so it is not to say that a product has no risk.
The Minister is right that this is about product safety—I completely agree—and identification of risk. I think where the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is coming from is on understanding how risk is identified and so on. I have some sympathy with the points he makes on Amendment 9, but I find it entirely arguable whether the definition of safe in the present legislation and the definition in this Bill are very close to one another. I slightly rest my argument for the Minister, and perhaps his officials, to think about: would it not therefore be helpful to include a provision in Clause 1 saying that products should be safe, meaning that there is no risk or a risk that is reduced to a minimum or mitigated, since that is what the Government intend to do? They are intending that people should be able to say that products are safe; they have just chosen to take the word out of statute. I think it would be rather helpful to put it back in. I rest my case there and will not press it further.
On Amendment 28, the Minister very helpfully said more than he said in Committee, although it was not inconsistent with what he said then. In particular, he gave us a timetable, which, of course, is immensely helpful. It is quite a long one and goes to the end of 2026, but I know how these things grind through the machines. He will find that there is a pressing need for a review of the product liability directive, especially in relation to online marketplaces, not least because the Law Commission identified this as an area for reform of the law in its 14th work programme—and that was something like three years ago. We are not only well out of date but well beyond the point at which a need for action on product liability had been identified. I hope we might keep pressing, alongside the Minister, for the progress that needs to be made in the consultation and subsequent legislation.
I have one more point. On Amendment 26 and the question of period products, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I was wondering about this. I have checked, but if I understand the position correctly, period products are not regarded as medical devices; they are regarded as consumer products. Incontinence pants—disposable body-worn pads—are treated as medical devices by the MHRA. That is a distinction without a difference, one that I do not understand. I think that period products are regarded as medical devices by the Food and Drug Administration in America. Of course, we follow where the European Union’s general product safety regulation has been and the definitions it has put into its own regulations. One area that Ministers might think about is whether it would be more appropriate for these products to be regarded as medical devices and brought under the scope of the regulations.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I have a very minor and technical point, but I referred to products and not just pants, because the whole line of products has changed. I do not believe that either period or incontinence pants are covered. That is my concern but I thank the noble Lord for his point.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I will not argue but there is probably a good basis for thinking about whether—rather than including them in the Bill, I say with great respect to the proposers of Amendment 26—it would be more appropriate to revisit the question of having them covered under the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. I will leave it there.
On the basis of the point that we have reached with Amendment 3, and that the Minister will have heard, at the very least, the argument for the consumer and communications benefit of saying that we are aiming to make products safe, I will leave it in his capable hands and not seek to press this. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 3.
Lord Frost
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes from the Bill the broadly-drawn power to align with EU environmental regulation.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to the several other amendments in my name in this group. I thank my noble friends Lord Sharpe, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lady Lawlor, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for supporting them. The provisions we are now considering are the core of the Bill—the novel provisions granting Ministers unprecedented powers by secondary legislation to align our laws with those of the European Union. This is a significant constitutional matter that you would probably not have been aware of if you had relied only on the Bill’s Title. I will try to be brief about the groups of amendments I have tabled, which cover different aspects of the problem generated by Clause 1(2) and Clause 2(7) and (8).
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Beith) (LD)
If this amendment is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments 6, 8 or 27A by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to one of the many amendments in this group, Amendment 13, which in essence is perhaps a more balanced version of the amendment tabled in Committee. This more balanced amendment seeks to ensure complete and utter equivalence and transparency, whether the Government decide—for reasons that have to be stated, clear, transparent and the result of consultation—to align with the EU or with any other country or group of countries. It is simply to try to make sure there is complete equivalence and transparency, with no hidden agendas, no constitutional crisis, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, described it, in understanding the rationale behind the decisions that are taken. As I stated at Second Reading and in Committee, however people may interpret my intentions, they are decidedly Cross-Bench and apolitical. I have no interest in revisiting some of the painful politics and turbulence of the last decade or so, which this country has willed on itself.
In relation to the specific amendment, what is really driving this is what I think should be paramount: the interests of the country, obviously. In an instance such as this, I personally regard the interests of the country to be predominantly to do with the views of the businesses most directly affected by these regulations. The organisation that I think has taken the closest interest in this and has been talking to its members in great detail about it is the British Chambers of Commerce. Your Lordships may or may not be aware that I should declare an interest in that its president is a fellow Cross-Bencher, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. It did an extensive survey of its membership, which was published just before Christmas. I remind your Lordships that the chambers represent about 50,000 businesses across the UK, which employ about 6 million people and have an aggregate turnover across all the companies involved of about £600 billion per annum—a not inconsiderable part of the economy.
The views of the membership are pretty clear. They are in no way ideological about this, but there is a clear view on the part of a majority of the businesses that, in many instances, alignment with the EU is in the direct interests of their businesses and employees, particularly if they wish to grow their businesses. Many are involved in exports—and imports—to the European Union, which continues to be their single largest export market. They have an understandable wish for the ability to grow their businesses to be as easy as possible. What has happened over the past few years has, in many cases, made it a great deal less easy than they would wish.
There is, therefore, a very clear stated wish. They have come up with a wish list that they hope the Government will focus on. It is interesting that one thing they said should be a medium-term view relates specifically to the Bill that we are discussing. They say that the UK should build on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill to facilitate alignment of UK regulation with relevant—but only where it is relevant—primary, secondary and tertiary EU decisions in the traded goods sectors. That does not deny the fact that, in some areas and in some sectors and instances, it will not make sense to align with the EU. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, made—and I am sure others will make—about having the ability to align with other countries or groups of countries is entirely open to the Government to do. I think, however, that they will do that only as a result of careful consultation with the interested bodies. They would then have to make a judgment call on what is in the best economic interests of the UK in terms of which direction they go in.
That is quite simply what this amendment is about. It is meant to promote growth. Those businesses are looking for greater predictability, transparency and consultation—the feeling that they have actually been listened to. Above all, what I think they are looking for—and what sometimes one senses, from some of the interventions on this Bill, is missing—is rebuilding a sense of genuine trust between those who may have slightly different views about the direction that we should take on issues such as this, as well as a relationship that is more trust-based and transparent and where dialogue is easier with some of the bodies, including the EU but also those other countries that we might align with, than has been the case hitherto.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I want to speak briefly to Amendment 20 in this group, which is in my name. It is an opportunity to restate an argument, which I will not dwell on at length but which noble Lords may recall from Committee: there is an inherent advantage and desirability that, when we are determining product requirements and regulations, we should, wherever possible, do so by reference to international standards and agreements.
This is of course something that the Government, like the previous Government, are committed to, not least under the latest statement of public policy in relation to standardisation, which was published this year. It gives very useful examples of how this country, the British Standards Institution, some of the organisations to which we contribute and the innovations that we have led have been the basis of the establishment of many of those international standards. I am convinced that it is not absolutely necessary to put it into the legislation in order for this to be the case. I hope that, in response to this debate, the Minister will again restate the Government’s intention that international standards should be the basis.
However, I wanted the opportunity to add one further thought. If we were to arrive at a point where EU legislation or regulations diverged, in our view, from an international standard or agreement or from sound science—for example, the precision breeding legislation and statutory instruments that have just been brought forward, which technically diverge from where the European Union is now; I hope, declaring an interest in the European Union context, that the EU will change its legislation to bring it much closer to us, rather than the other way round—there should be a presumption that adherence to international standards would be the priority. We should look to that as the basis on which we set our standards and not treat the decisions made by the European Union as ones to which we should necessarily incline.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I very much support the comments that have just been made. My concern is that we should live in the world that actually exists, rather than some mythical world that we might like to exist.
Some of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Frost seem intent on trying to make it impossible for people to organise themselves in the world in which we live, because of the particular view that he takes about the rest of Europe. I do not want that to be the view that we should have. We should have a fundamental view: first, that our regulation should be in accordance with the science—which is why I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Lansley—and, secondly, that we should take into account where our major markets are and where it is important that we have common standards, if they are possible. We should not be hidebound by some past view.
It happens to be true that the world in which we live includes the fact that the rest of Europe is pretty close to us, and we will therefore find that it is probably true that the area where we will most need to have common views will be there. I say that not to try to reverse the decision made by Britain but to face the facts of geography and trade.
In my business life, I advise a very large number of big and small businesses. We do not discuss whether we were in favour of our leaving the European Union; we discuss how we should run the business and make it work today. One thing that we all agree on is that the present system does not work very well. We can leave the past aside, but if we are to make it work in the future, we must give the Government the opportunity to align where alignment seems sensible in the context of the science. We will have to accept, by the nature of life, that much of that alignment may be with the countries with which we do most of our business and with which we will continue to do so.
We must not insert into the Bill matters that are not about it, but about reasserting a particular view of the way the world ought to work. We in this House should be prepared to accept that we are where we are, and that our job is to make life easier for the businesses we want to grow and to be able to work with other countries in our continent as well as beyond. Sometimes it will be more sensible to be aligned in a much wider sense. Much of the time it will not be, but that will be for the particular issue, the particular moment and the particular decision. We should not make it more difficult here to make the best decision on every occasion.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 13, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Fox. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Deben, whose common sense I often agree with. I am happy to echo his request that we treat and judge these amendments in the world we live in, rather than the world we would like to live in.
My name was attached to a predecessor of this amendment when the Bill came before your Lordships’ Committee. Its absence at this stage does not reflect any diminution of my belief that its provisions would both enhance the effectiveness of this legislation and strengthen Parliament’s scrutinising role. The fact is, I just left it too late to add my name.
The moving spirit behind this amendment is a desire for the greatest possible transparency and, leading from that, the greatest role possible for your Lordships’ House and the other place in examining regulatory decisions and subjecting them to scrutiny. The coverage surrounding this legislation has frequently described it as an enabling Bill, but I see this amendment as one that enables Parliament to have access to the thinking of relevant Ministers when they choose to align with or diverge from EU or other law. These decisions should and will be made according to a calculus of national self-interest, rather than—as I suspect some on the Opposition Benches are determined to believe—a desire unthinkingly to ape EU regulations, whether such alignment is in the interest of British business and industry or not.
In that respect, this amendment is rather more narrowly drawn than its predecessor, to which I put my name. It does not represent dynamic alignment but offers a greater measure of regulatory certainty for business, while ensuring that decisions that prove not to be in our interest are regularly reviewed. As I have said, I am aware of the fears of some on the Opposition Benches, and the suggestion that the Bill encompasses the extinction of British regulatory independence. I do not agree with them but suggest that if this is indeed their belief, the greater transparency and reviewing requirements of this amendment should offer a vehicle for more effective scrutiny.
This amendment has been drafted carefully and is consonant with the aims of the Bill as a whole. It does not suggest or conform to any preconceived determination that alignment with EU standards is inherently desirable. As we have heard, it simply imposes on Ministers a duty to report to Parliament when a decision has been made against or in favour of regulatory alignment. In a further departure from this amendment’s predecessor, the yardstick against which that decision has been taken will be a simple one: whether the decision is to the benefit of British businesses.
Recent weeks have made it abundantly clear that we now live in a more transactional world. Although I might regret that fact, I recognise it and accept that this is the world that we live in, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, would say. Even judged by that metric, this amendment’s value is clear. Its starting point is what is good for our national economy and businesses; it ensures that Parliament is to be apprised of the basis on which Ministers make their regulatory determinations; and it ensures that if these have proved mistaken, they can be scrutinised and, where necessary, reversed. For those reasons, it should be part of the Bill. Whether through proceedings in your Lordships’ House or the other place—which, I am sure, will have an opportunity to consider it—I hope that this amendment, or something very like it, will make its way on to the statute book.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Frost’s amendments in this group, tabled in his and other noble Lords’ names.
I begin by focusing on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and others. It would be churlish and unreasonable not to concede that it is slightly different from the amendment tabled in Committee and that it is slightly better, although I am surprised by the noble Lord’s comments, echoed by my noble friend Lord Lansley, about the basis on which we seek to legislate with primary legislation. We do not do it for businesses; we do it for the good of the greater population of this country and not necessarily a small group, however estimable it is in the case of the British Chambers of Commerce. This is not a bad amendment but it is potentially a Trojan horse amendment, in that it closes out options other than the regulatory and legal regime of the European Union.
That brings me to Amendment 11, tabled by my noble friend Lord Frost. The key issue here is that we are considering a Bill that we hope will improve the productivity and competitiveness of British business and commerce and reduce trade frictions. It is not sensible to close off the possibility of different opportunities for the United Kingdom to prosper outside the European Union. The ideas are not mutually exclusive. Being open and transparent, and putting in legislation the means to improve trade globally, does not necessarily mean that we are resiling from our friends in the European Union and our trade with them. However, by dollar denomination, global trade with the EU has reduced from, I think, 32% 30 years ago; it is likely within the next 10 years to drop to about 14%.
Therefore, we have a duty and a responsibility. It is imperative for us as legislators to put in place legislation that recognises those economic realities—that we will be trading more with Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, South Africa and other countries. Of course, we are not taking the view that Europe cannot prosper. It is in our best interests that the European Union prospers. But to put in the Bill only the legal and regulatory regime of one part of the global trade possibilities closes off options that Ministers would be sensible not to close off.
My final remarks are on my noble friend’s Amendment 25, which affects Clause 2, on page 3 of the Bill, concerning the legal jurisdiction of potential supranational legal entities and the impact they will have on the regulatory regime of the United Kingdom. Again, I press the Minister to answer my noble friend’s question: as a result of this Bill passing, are we going to have a situation in the near future analogous to that of Switzerland—a fractious and difficult relationship as a result of many bilateral agreements with the European Union, and is that in the best interests of the United Kingdom? That is the rationale behind this very sensible amendment. For those reasons, I support my noble friend Lord Frost’s amendment, and I would resist the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of my Amendments 21 and 59, and to support the amendments, to which I have added my name, from the noble Lord, Lord Frost.
Amendment 21 is designed to prohibit ambulatory provisions and dynamic alignment with any foreign law, including that of the EU, which is specifically mentioned in the Bill. Amendment 59 would introduce a sunset clause for regulations under subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 1 for using foreign laws under subsection (7), so that they expire after four years. As explained throughout all the proceedings on this Bill, this is an open-ended measure; it gives sweeping powers to the Minister to make law by decree, including to import and mirror EU laws. That is a very different matter from updating and making safe our own laws. I would like to thank the Minister for his constant courtesy and willingness to discuss these issues, and for making it a pleasure to work on this Bill, though the subject is not to my liking.
The Government justify this approach by referring to the highly technical nature of the Bill and the sheer number of regulations. They seek to reassure us by saying that they will use these powers only when in the best interests of the country. There are good reasons for prohibiting dynamic alignment with any foreign laws, as well as for not allowing ambulatory provisions. I will speak about those first. Not only should we do so to temper the use of the open-ended power proposed for the Executive, which is the subject of constant discussions and of my noble friend Lord Hunt’s eloquent and persuasive amendment today; there are also good economic and trade reasons to prohibit dynamic alignment with foreign laws, including those of the EU, which the Bill specifically mentions.
I would like to mention a few of those reasons. UK law is well tested and brings certainty to businesses in developing goods for market and competing overseas. Here, the Minister is on very strong territory in saying that many of us would be happy with such laws having gone through such a process, without having to go through parliamentary process every time. Our processes operate under a legal system that is celebrated for its expertise, experience and independence. It follows well-understood process systems: evidence-based testing, some scientific assessment, and consultation with consumers and producers alike. So, by the time the goods get to market and are approved, everyone understands what is at stake. They know the laws and they have been consulted on them; they trust the science and the evidence base.
However, laws and regulations made elsewhere under a code-based system—I refer particularly to the EU’s—are often based on input from officials who are remote from the area of law they are making. With the EU, there is the danger that we are importing anticompetitive laws because, as has been pointed out—including by one of the current President’s economic advisers—EU laws are protectionist. The EU has a different economic system, which was designed by the French to lock in, for very good reasons, the German economic growth that was expected after the Second World War. I can understand the French’s reasoning. They have a centralised command-system economy, which may work for France. So there are very good reasons not to import, on a dynamic basis, laws which are protectionist.
In Committee, I gave examples of where these laws add cost, drawn up by EU economists. They would also mitigate—some economic law lawyers will corroborate this—against our free trade treaties with other trading partners, such as the CPTPP. These are reached on the basis of mutual agreement over standards, which are subject to conformity assessment and independent dispute arbitration and regulation. If we are going to mirror—and mirror dynamically—one set of laws, particularly those of the EU, we may be increasing costs and changing standards, and be in breach of our agreement with the CPTPP.
I turn briefly to why we want a sunset clause. There are very good reasons for having sunset clauses. They bring benefits to legislation, and they give Parliament the chance to consider its merits after a fixed period, which is especially needed for a law imported by statutory instrument. They involve the user in the regulatory plan: for instance, they know that the law in question is going to be introduced on condition that it will be assessed, and that involvement can institute behavioural changes. A sunset clause helps to safeguard democracy and bring legal certainty. It makes clear in legislation what is subject to expiry, when, and under what conditions. Professor Helen Xanthaki, at UCL, has pointed out that sunset clauses improve the quality of legislation and they
“serve as tools of clarity, precision and unambiguity; and as tools for efficacy”.
For these reasons, I ask the Minister to consider my amendments and the others in this group. They open up this measure, and require any Government to be more open, broadly, to foreign laws, ensuring that any laws we do import are subject to a sunset clause and that there will not be dynamic alignment, which goes very much against the transparency and clarity that are the hallmarks of good legislation.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I was going to give a long analysis of the economics that demonstrate how poorly manufacturing businesses have performed since the implementation of the trade and co-operation agreement, but that would have been a Second Reading speech, so I decided not to give it. Instead, I will speak to the amendments we have before us. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for tabling his amendment and for allowing me to sign up to it.
Members on the Conservative Benches seem to find terror wherever they go. There is danger; there are plots, schemes and Trojan horses all over place. I would not like to live in their world; it must be very frightening. This Bill does what it says it does, and this amendment does what it says it does. It makes simple a process that has been put forward very carefully and in a measured way by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.
There are all sorts of things that the Liberal Democrats would like to do that are far more extreme than the noble Lord’s amendment, but we recognise the limitations of this legislation and the nature of what we are debating. That is why I have supported the noble Lord, Lord Russell. It is a simple and modest measure that has the practical benefit of helping out businesses.
To close, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said that it would not be sensible to close off options—quite. Closer alignment with EU regulations within the government negotiated red lines would yield a boost to the UK economy of between 1% and 2%. That sounds like an option to me.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour and the closeness of the dinner break, I will also be very brief. I thank my noble friends Lord Frost, Lord Jackson and Lady Lawlor for bringing forward these important amendments. I was happy to sign some of them. They raise a fundamental concern about the potential alignment with the European Union, specifically through regulations that could be made under the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Frost put it, that is a significant constitutional matter and, I might add, it is one that has been highlighted by the Constitution Committee—again, we are back to the committees of your Lordships’ House.
The issue at hand is that, as currently drafted, the Bill contains provisions which would allow the United Kingdom’s regulatory framework to align with EU laws in—this is key—a dynamic or ambulatory manner. This means that, as time goes on, our regulations could automatically change in line with the evolving laws of the EU without any further scrutiny or review by the Houses of Parliament. This is deeply problematic. It would allow the UK to be influenced by regulatory frameworks and standards that are set externally and potentially lock us into a regulatory direction that we do not wish to follow. That is not the same as saying that we should not be able to adapt, adopt, negotiate, recognise or seek mutual recognition of the best regulations from whichever equivalent regime they come from.
These amendments address and achieve the aims set out so eloquently by my noble friends. If my noble friend is minded to test the opinion of the House later, we will support him.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate. Although more general issues to do with Brexit have emerged, it has been very helpful to focus minds on what this Bill will actually do rather than the fears some noble Lords have expressed. In essence, all the Bill does is to allow the United Kingdom to choose to recognise or to end recognition of relevant EU product requirements where it is in the interests of both consumers and businesses so to do. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell. He was certainly right to acknowledge the contribution of chambers of commerce. I understand the point he made about business requiring transparency, predictability and stability, and I would add a flexible approach to alignment within that context.
Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is right that the ultimate interest is the public interest—the interest of consumers. That goes to the heart of what we are seeking to do. Essentially, the power in Clause 1(2) will allow us to update UK regulations which address the environmental impact of products where a similar provision exists in EU law. We know the EU is updating its product safety regulations. We are seeing an increase in the changes being made, including provisions to mitigate products’ environmental impact. This power will allow us to provide regulatory certainty and stability for industry.
Let me make it clear that this is not designed to regulate the wider environment but to let us choose whether to make similar product rules where we believe it is in the interests of the country so to do. Clause 2(7) makes clear that we can provide that requirements in our own law can be satisfied by meeting specified EU requirements. We believe that this means we can act in the best interest of our businesses and consumers. Let me make it clear that these clauses in no way oblige the UK to recognise or mirror EU provisions. Let me reassure the House that we have been clear that such decisions will be taken only on a case-by-case basis and will be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I have listened with care and interest to the eloquent words of the Minister, but I am sorry to say that I have not found them particularly reassuring. I suspect that that will not surprise him, and I will not dwell on the reasons now.
There is perhaps a contradiction between his attempt to say that all this Bill does is give the power to align with EU rules—so where is the problem with that?—and his then going on to say that everybody wants to align with EU rules: businesses want it, consumers want it, allegedly, and we have a Government who want it. I therefore think that this power will in fact be used rather extensively, however reassuring the Minister seeks to be now.
On a point of detail, the Minister said—and it was said before in Committee—that the Bill does not allow dynamic alignment. I simply cannot see what that statement is based on. The Bill seems very capable of allowing dynamic alignment, and I cannot see any provision which would preclude it. I will just leave that hanging.
I will make two brief final points. I expect to test the opinion of the House on some of these amendments, one of which is Amendment 11, and so I want to respond to the point made by my noble friend Lord Lansley. I do not believe that there should be a specific UK-only rule for every manufactured good—that does not make sense. We have an opportunity to look at rules from around the world and align with them, and indeed we do just that in pharma regulation. The MHRA has a new explicit provision, the international recognition procedure, which allows accelerated recognition of products that have been approved in other jurisdictions, not just the EU but the US, Japan, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Singapore and so on. If it can be done there, I cannot see any reason, in principle, why it could not be done more widely.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I do not think we live in a world of plots—although perhaps one person’s plot is another person’s vigilance. Certainly, we have learned over the years just how many people are not particularly confident or comfortable with this country’s self-government and want to see it undermined. We are right to be careful and to look at the detail. On the basis of what I have heard so far, I am not particularly reassured. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Defence and Security
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I will repeat the Statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday on defence and security:
“It is three years since Russia launched its vile assault on Ukraine and I would like to address the international situation and the implications for Britain’s national security. In my first week as Prime Minister, I travelled to the NATO summit in Washington with a simple message: NATO and our allies could trust that this Government would fulfil Britain’s and, indeed, the Labour Party’s, historic role of putting our collective security first. I spoke of my great pride in leading the party that was a founding member of NATO, the inheritor of the legacy of Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin, who not only stood behind Winston Churchill in wartime but won the peace by establishing the great post-war order here and abroad.
It is a proud legacy, but in a world like ours it is also a heavy one, because the historical load that we must carry to fulfil our duty is not as light as it once was. We must bend our backs across this House, because these times demand a united Britain and we must deploy all our resources to achieve security.
As a young man, I vividly remember the Berlin Wall coming down. It felt as if we were casting off the shackles of history; a continent united by freedom and democracy. If you had told me then that in my lifetime we would see Russian tanks rolling into European cities again, I would not have believed you. Yet here we are, in a world where everything has changed, because three years ago that is exactly what happened.
Britain can be proud of our response. British families opened their doors to fleeing Ukrainians, with the yellow and light blue flags fluttering on town halls and churches the length and breadth of the country. The party opposite in government were robust in our response. I supported that in opposition and I applaud them for it now. We have built on that, bringing our support for Ukraine to a record level this year.
We should not pretend that any of this has been easy. Working people have already felt the cost of Russian actions through rising prices and bills. None the less, one of the great lessons of our history is that instability in Europe will always wash up on our shores and that tyrants like Putin respond only to strength. Russia is a menace in our waters, in our airspace and on our streets. It has launched cyberattacks on our NHS and—only seven years ago—a chemical weapons attack on the streets of Salisbury.
We must stand with Ukraine, because if we do not achieve a lasting peace then the economic instability and the threats to our security will only grow. And so, as the nature of that conflict changes, as it has in recent weeks, it brings our response into sharper focus; a new era that we must meet—as we have so often in the past—together and with strength.
The fundamentals of British strategy are unchanged. I know that the current moment is volatile, but there is still no good reason why they cannot endure, so let me now spell out to the House exactly how we will renew them for these times. First, NATO is the bedrock of our security and will remain so. It has brought peace for 75 years. It is as important today as the day on which it was founded. Putin thought he would weaken NATO; he has achieved the exact opposite. It remains the organisation that receives the vast bulk of our defence effort in every domain, and that must continue.
Secondly, we must reject any false choice between our allies—between one side of the Atlantic or the other. That is against our history, country and party, because it is against our fundamental national interest. The US is our most important bilateral alliance. It straddles everything from nuclear technology to NATO, Five Eyes, AUKUS and beyond. It has survived countless external challenges in the past. We have fought wars together. We are the closest partners in trade, growth and security.
So this week, when I meet President Trump, I will be clear. I want this relationship to go from strength to strength. But strength in this world also depends on a new alliance with Europe. As I said in Paris last week, our commitment to European defence and security is unwavering, but now is the time to deepen it. We will find new ways to work together on our collective interests and threats, protecting our borders, bringing our companies together and seeking out new opportunities for growth.
Thirdly, we seek peace, not conflict, and we believe in the power of diplomacy to deliver that end. That of course is most pressing in Ukraine. Nobody in this House or this country wants the bloodshed to continue—nobody. I have seen the devastation in Ukraine at first hand. What you see in places such as Bucha never leaves you. But for peace to endure in Ukraine and beyond, we need deterrence. I know that this House will endorse the principle of winning peace through strength, so we will continue to stand behind the people of Ukraine. We must ensure that they negotiate their own future, and we will continue to put them in the strongest position for a lasting peace.
Fourthly, we must change our national security posture, because a generational challenge requires a generational response. That will demand some extremely difficult and painful choices, and through those choices, as hard as they are, we must also seek unity—a whole-society effort that will reach into the lives, the industries and the homes of the British people. I started this Statement by recalling the era of Attlee and Bevin, and this year we will mark many anniversaries of that greatest generation. We must find courage in our history and courage in who we are as a nation, because courage is what our own era now demands of us. So, starting today, this Government will begin the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War. We will deliver our commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence, but we will bring it forward so that we reach that level in 2027, and we will maintain that for the rest of this Parliament. Let me spell that out: that means spending £13.4 billion more on defence every year from 2027.
However, we also face enemies that are sophisticated in cyberattacks, sabotage and even assassination, so our intelligence and security services are an increasingly vital part of protecting both us and our allies. On top of the funding of 2.5% that I have announced, going forward, we will recognise the incredible contribution of our intelligence and security services to the defence of our nation, which means that, taken together, we will be spending 2.6% on defence from 2027.
We must go further still. I have long argued that, in the face of ongoing and generational challenges, all European allies must step up and do more for our own defence. Subject to economic and fiscal conditions, and aligned with our strategic and operational needs, we will also set a clear ambition for defence spending to rise to 3% of GDP in the next Parliament.
I want to be very clear: the nature of warfare has changed significantly. That is clear from the battleground in Ukraine, so we must modernise and reform our capabilities as we invest. I equally want to be very clear that, like with any other investment we make, we seek value for money. That is why we are putting in place a new defence reform and efficiency plan, led jointly by my right honourable friends the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary.
This investment means that the UK will strengthen its position as a leader of NATO and in the collective defence of our continent, and we should welcome that role. It is good for our national security. It is also good for this Government’s defining mission to restore growth to our economy, and we should be optimistic about what it can deliver in those terms. Yet, in the short term, it can be funded only through hard choices. In this case, that means that we will cut our spending on development assistance, moving from 0.5% of GNI today to 0.3% in 2027, fully funding our increased investment in defence.
I want to be clear to the House that this is not an announcement I am happy to make. I am proud of our pioneering record on overseas development, and we will continue to play a key humanitarian role in Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza, in tackling climate change and in supporting multinational efforts on global health and challenges such as vaccination. In recent years the development budget was also redirected towards the asylum backlog, paying for hotels. So, as we are clearing that backlog at a record pace, there are efficiencies that will reduce the need to spend on our overseas programme. None the less it remains a cut, and I will not pretend otherwise. We will do everything we can to return to a world where that is not the case and we can build our capacity on development, but at times like this the defence and security of the British people must always come first. That is the number one priority of this Government.
It is not just about spending. Our whole approach to national security must now change. We all have to ask British industry, British universities, British businesses and the British people to play a bigger part and use this to renew the social contract of our nation—the rights and responsibilities that we owe to one another.
The first test of our defence policy is of course whether it keeps our country safe, but the second should be whether it improves the conditions of the British people. Does it help to provide the economic security that working people need? Ultimately, as Attlee and Bevin knew, that is fundamental to national security as well. We will use this investment as an opportunity that will translate defence spending into British growth and British jobs, British skills and British innovation, and will use the full powers of the Procurement Act to rebuild our industrial base.
As a strategic defence review is well under way, and across government we are conducting a number of other reviews relevant to national security, it is obvious that these reviews must pull together. So, before the NATO summit in June, we will publish a single national security strategy and bring it to this House. As I said earlier, that is how we must meet the threats of this age: together and with strength; a new approach to defence; a revival of our industrial base; a deepening of our alliances; the instruments of our national power brought together; creating opportunity; reassuring our allies; and delivering security for our country.
At moments like this in our past, Britain has stood up to be counted. It has come together and demonstrated strength. That is what the security of the country needs now, and that is what this Government will deliver. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating this eloquent and important Statement. In the three years since Putin’s tanks rolled into Ukraine, imagining then an easy victory, his brutal war still grinds on, at an immense cost to the Russian people, let alone the brave people of Ukraine. In all this time, the House has been united in its support for those brave people, and that will not change. The Leader of the House was staunch in her support when I sat in her place, and I assure her that we on this side will not be lacking in our support for the Prime Minister when he does the right thing, as he has in this very welcome Statement.
It was the Conservative Government—yes, I will dare to speak his name—of Boris Johnson who led from the front, sending weapons before the invasion and helping to stop the first assaults while others then hesitated. Thereafter, under successive Governments, Conservative and Labour together, the United Kingdom has taken in many refugees, delivered immense military aid to Ukraine and sanctioned those who have aided Putin’s war machine. This House stands united and unfaltering beside the Ukrainian people today.
We also agree with the Prime Minister: in this troubled world, we must do more to ensure our own security. As my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition set out yesterday, we must now accept reality. We must speak the truth. We must acknowledge that the world has changed. We must be ready to face the inescapable challenges that lie ahead.
The primary purpose of a nation is to protect and defend our borders, our values and our people. That is why we welcome the announcement that the defence budget will be increased. In the face of the assertiveness of Russia and China, we can no longer live off the post-Cold War inheritance of Thatcher and Reagan. We commend the Prime Minister on his decision to boost spending on our Armed Forces. We on this side see the necessity of some trade off of soft power for hard. Indeed, my right honourable friend Kemi Badenoch urged the financial measure, however difficult, that the Prime Minister has now adopted.
Although we believe the Government have made the right decision in relation to aid, the Statement raises some questions, which need clarification. The Statement says the increase will be funded by a reduction in aid spending from 0.5% of GDP to 0.3%. Based on figures in the Autumn Budget, that would free up some £5.3 billion towards the increase in defence. That is in line with the clarification by the Defence Secretary that the real increase, factoring in inflation, is closer to £6 billion. That is very welcome, but it is not the £13.4 billion claimed in the Statement. Can the noble Baroness explain the disparity in the two figures? The second point requiring clarification is how this money will be allocated. I do not expect the noble Baroness to be able to answer that now.
The Statement says the strategic defence review is well under way, but that a single national security strategy will be published before the NATO summit in June. Does that mean the previous commitment to publish a strategic defence review in the spring is now delayed? Will the review reflect on the significant implications of British troops being sent on wider deployments in Europe? A key aspect of defence is sending the right signals. Percentage points are not the heart of the matter, which is people and materiel. Urgent procurement decisions need to be taken. Can the noble Baroness assure the House that they are not being delayed?
Finally, the Government still seem to be committed to the extraordinary plan to surrender the Chagos Islands and pay £9 billion for the privilege. As a matter of fact, what is the figure? Presumably, when the Prime Minister sits down with President Trump and the President asks him, as he surely will, “So, Keir, what’s this deal costing?”, surely the Prime Minister cannot credibly say “I can’t tell you”. If the President can be told, then surely this Parliament can be told, so will the noble Baroness tell us? The Prime Minister was evasive earlier when asked whether any of the money the Government want to pay to Mauritius to lease back a base we presently own will come out of the defence budget. Will any of the costs be paid from the defence budget or not? No doubt the President will ask the Prime Minister. Can this House have the answer?
The Prime Minister is right: we face an ever more dangerous world. This is the fundament of the matter. He is right about the importance of NATO—something all the parties in this House have always cherished. Let no one doubt that Britain stands by our allies. As I said on a recent Statement, there can be no peace without Ukraine. The Prime Minister was also right when he said that any Government’s first duty is the defence of their country. We on this side will stand with the Government when they do the right thing, as they are now. We will always share with them putting the national interest first.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, we welcome this Statement. From the outset of the brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine, there has been a consensus across Parliament that we must support the Ukrainian people in their struggle against aggression. We do so not just because they deserve our support in their own right but because success for Putin in Ukraine would simply be a prelude to further Russian expansionism, whether in the Baltics, the Caucasus or elsewhere in eastern Europe.
Nothing which has happened in Ukraine over the past three years has caused us to question this approach—quite the opposite. What has changed is the posture of the United States. It is now clear that European nations cannot continue to rely on the US to support the defence of the continent in the same way as we did in the past. From day to day, it is impossible to know quite what the US President will say next, but in one respect President Trump has been consistent: he expects Europe to pay more for its own defence and he will make the continuation of the US’s military commitments in Europe contingent on this.
We and other European nations are going to have to spend more—considerably more—on defence, and to do so at a time when public sector finances are already under considerable strain. We therefore welcome the Government’s decision to move to a level of defence expenditure of 2.5% of GDP by 2027, and their further aim of getting to 3% in the next Parliament. We need to considerably increase our capabilities and replenish our equipment stocks. As a first priority, the Government should reverse the 10,000 reduction in the number of our troops, over which the previous Administration presided. It is now highly likely that we are going to have to provide boots on the ground in Ukraine; the Army is simply too small at present to be able to do this on anything like the scale required. We must also, however, achieve much greater value for money on equipment development and procurement than we have in the past. We therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to a new defence reform and efficiency plan.
We are, however, surprised and disappointed that the Government have decided that the entire funding of this additional expenditure should come from further cuts to development assistance. This seems to be a strategic error as it will simply reduce further our soft power, leaving space for Russia and China in particular to fill. Given that most aid is preventive of disease, climate change or conflict, it will exacerbate problems which will spill over to us. That is a false economy. Can the Government, at the very least, commit to protecting expenditure on Sudan—not just prioritising it, which is a rather weaselly phrase—given the extraordinarily severe humanitarian crisis now facing that country?
We have suggested funding the increase to 2.5% in a different way—by an increase in the digital services tax from 2% to 10%—but there are other ways of raising the necessary revenue, as we suggested in our general election manifesto, which could be deployed without raiding the aid budget. As for the 3%, we have already suggested that there should now be urgent all-party talks to explore how we can achieve that on a cross-party basis. Can the noble Baroness the Leader say whether the Government have any plans to adopt this approach?
Further to the Question earlier today in your Lordships’ House on the £20 billion of frozen Russian assets in western banks, there is agreement that those should be released to help Ukraine in its continuing military activities and to help rebuild the country once hostilities end. Frankly, nothing seems to be happening to achieve this. The Prime Minister could play a leadership role here by convening a European conference in London to agree on how this can best be achieved and by raising it tomorrow with President Trump. Do the Government have any plans to take such initiatives?
Faced with the changed US posture on European security, all European nations will have to play a greater part in the continent’s defence. This Statement demonstrates that the UK is willing to make that commitment, and we support that stance, but let us not do so by further decimating our aid budget and making some of the world’s poorest people pay.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments, in particular their support for the increase in defence spending. It has been important that since my time as Leader of the Opposition, as the noble Lord, Lord True, said, the House has always been united on this issue. In fact, the whole of Parliament has been united. Many noble Lords will recall when President Zelensky spoke in the House of Commons and some of us were fortunate to meet him afterwards. I remember him coming to a Cabinet meeting shortly after the election, as I know he did with the previous Government. But at all times, it is not just the Government but the entire country and the entirety of Parliament supporting the Ukrainian people.
That is an important message—and not just to Ukraine. It is also a very important message to President Putin, because we stand united in support of the self-determination of the Ukrainian people. Their security and safety is of the utmost importance, and that concerns people in this country. The noble Lord also referred to families taking in Ukrainians who have had to flee their homes. Friends of mine did so. There is enormous pride in the work that they did, but they benefited and gained from hosting a family that was fleeing from such terror and violence.
I turn to the specific points the noble Lords made. It is not GDP for the ODA but GNI—a different measurement. I had to look it up as well to tell the difference. On how the additional spending is allocated, the strategic defence review—I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who has led on that, in his place—will lead. I made the point that it is not just the amount of money: how it is spent and used is crucial. That will be aligned with the comprehensive spending review as well, so it is very important that we look at them in the whole, and we will get more information on that.
The noble Lord asked specifically about the money. I am fortunate in having the Defence Minister alongside me today, and I can say that it is a £13.5 billion increase in cash terms from the Budget now to the Budget in 2027, which takes us to 2.5% of GDP in April 2027. He will have heard the Prime Minister’s words that we know we have to go further than that but, on the timescale, we need to ramp up that kind of spending to get the right supply chains, training and recruitment in place. We have heard many times in this House about the lack of recruitment and retention in our Armed Forces, and it is very important that we plan that carefully. The strategic defence review will be crucial to that.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for his comments. His words about solidarity with the people of Ukraine were important, and he had wise words about how President Putin would take advantage of any weakness in Europe. Strength within Europe is really important. It is not just for the people of Ukraine but for our domestic safety and security as well. He asked specifically about the funding from the ODA. As the Prime Minister said, these choices are not easy, but the primary objective is the defence, security and safety of this country.
I can say to the noble Lord that this will not come into effect until 2027, so the current programmes for 2025 and 2026 remain in place. The protected areas are in Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza. The focus as we plan ahead—there is a particular strategic review on this in the FCDO—will be the planning of how this will happen, working with partners, and we will focus on the impact and outcomes of projects. I can also say to him that the legislation remains in place. We remain committed to 0.7% and want to get back to it, because we recognise that we have a proud history in our party. We are very proud of our role on this, so it is not a decision taken lightly. As we have said, this is a generational shift, a generational change, and we have to respond to it in the most positive way possible. That is why it is so important that we see the increase in defence spending announced today.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the increase in defence spending which has been announced. I hope that the money will be spent effectively, and I hope that others in Europe will take this sign and also raise their defence spending. Armed as he now is with this new commitment, when the Prime Minister goes to Washington later this week will he impress on President Trump that Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine; that the defence of Europe benefits the defence of America; and that the Ukrainians are fighting for their independence and their sovereignty, principles which should be defended by all of us who value or benefit from economic and democratic freedom?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. She is right: how money is spent is so important. That is why I made the comment about the strategic defence review. I think the Prime Minister is in flight at the moment on his way to Washington; if he has not arrived, he will be arriving shortly. He has been very clear in his comments over the last few days about Ukraine and how the sovereignty of Ukraine is really important. I am sure that will form part of his discussions with President Trump.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I will raise two brief but important points. I accept entirely that we should make savings to pay for the resources we are giving to defence, and I entirely support the strongest possible support for Ukraine. However, I do not understand why all the savings are concentrated on overseas aid. Out of the whole government budget, why are we concentrating just on overseas aid? Given all the things that we have said on the importance of overseas aid —on both sides of the House; I can see noble Lords here who have spoken on this—it does not seem to be in proportion. We are in danger of affecting the poorest people in some of the poorest nations in the world, very much to their detriment.
Britain has—or had—a very high reputation in this area. My concern is: will this new concentration on cutting overseas aid alone not take away from that reputation? Above all, will it not encourage other nations, which have so far not been very happy on overseas aid, health aid or anything of that sort, to follow suit? That is the question that I think the noble Baroness needs to answer.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments and his support for the additional funding. I think our reputation is enhanced because we are, by having additional spending on defence, standing up to Russian aggression and making that very clear. They are difficult choices; I do not shy away from that at all. That is why we are saying how we will manage the cuts in ODA at this time. It is not a permanent cut; the legislation remains in place and we wish to return to that.
There is a trade-off between diplomacy, aid—I do not always like to use the term “aid”, because in many cases it is not aid but support—development and defence. At this time, the threat is such and the moment is such—it is a generational shift—that we are focusing on the defence budget. We will be informed on how that is used by the strategic defence review. As I have said to noble Lords already, we will also look at the areas that will be protected in the ODA budget. The work of the Government goes on in working with those countries to ensure that we become a force for good and take a leadership role in those areas.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests: I am the chair of Christian Aid. I am very privileged to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, because I think we need to reject this false choice between defence spending and development spending. They are not competing priorities. This is not just about reputation. Properly used development funding helps to prevent conflict. It tackles instability and provides a greater and more just world. We have heard the concern that cutting aid in this way risks exacerbating instability and leads to conflict. Will the Government not just make an assessment of the outcomes of this cut in funding but make a proper assessment about the risk of increased insecurity, instability and conflict as a result of the cut?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for her comments. She asked how the assessment will be made. It will be made on the overall outcomes of the impact that the cut will have and how best to ensure that the best use of the money is being made. We are still talking about £9 billion of international aid, which will go into a range of projects. Between now and 2027 there is an opportunity to look at that, and the FCDO is actively undertaking that work at the moment. She is right; these are difficult and hard decisions that must be made, but we have to ensure that we stand to protect the nation and the safety and security of our citizens and those in other countries.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, as chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I welcome the emphasis in the Statement on our security services and the extra funding for them. The threat to us from Russia is not only on the eastern European border but on our own homeland through cybersecurity and other threats. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that we will have to keep this under review? Our security services are doing a fantastic job, but they are very busy countering state threats, including Islamic terrorism and right-wing extremism, so we may well have to look again at whether more funding will be needed in future.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments, which come from his experience on the committee. He is right to highlight the threats that exist. People sometimes think that threats in relation to defence issues are happening to other countries and other people—but, no, they happen to us as well. We have seen people attacked in this country because of Russian aggression, including with the Salisbury poisonings. We should not forget that the fundamental first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their own citizens. He also makes the important point that this is not just about the military might of a country; it is also about how we use our equipment and personnel, as well as intelligence and modern technology. Bringing security, in its widest sense, into defence spending—not as part of, but above, the 2.5%—will be very important. Unless we take a stand to show that we are determined and have the ability, the will and the finances to protect our citizens, we will not get respect across the entire world. We have to take the leadership role today that we need to take, and we are able to do so today.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we have plenty of time. We will hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches next, and then we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Howard.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I suspect that it will not surprise anyone in this House that I welcome the Government’s Statement to increase defence expenditure, although I might have taken a slightly different approach to where it comes from in the budget line. Can the Leader of the House tell us what the Government are doing to look at military expenditure in terms of working with the defence sector and recruitment, so that by the time we increase spending we have ensured that we have let the necessary contracts? Increasing the budget is one thing, but expanding our capabilities may not come about unless we get that right.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right: you cannot suddenly turn on a tap for defence expenditure, say it is however many billions of pounds more and then spend it the next day. Supply chains, research and development, and recruitment must be put in place. That is where the work of the strategic defence review that I mentioned will be vital. We totally concur with her important point.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, the comfortable world in which we lived up to two weeks ago has gone, and we now have to face some harsh realities. The stark truth is that we can no longer rely on a country that votes with Russia, North Korea and Iran in the United Nations for our defence or that of Europe. Does the Leader of the House agree that, while the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday of an increase in defence spending is welcome, it is just a start? Does she also agree that we need to look radically at the entire remit of government spending to accommodate the very substantial increase in the defence budget, which, alas, is now necessary?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. He makes the point, which I also made in an earlier answer, that this is a generational shift: the world has changed, and we have to respond to that. The role that the Prime Minister has taken is one of leadership. It is important that we recognise that we want to maintain our alliance with the United States—we hope that that goes from strength to strength—and that we want to work within Europe in a leadership role. Some will try to lead us to make a false choice, but we will not do that. The noble Lord also made the point that this is a step in the right direction; it is not the end. The Government have committed to 3% following on from 2.5%, and that will be important. As a nation, we will have to come to terms with what our defence capability should be, how we fund that and how we maintain that moving forward. He is right to say that this is part of a process; it not the end of the story.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, the move to 3% is necessary and involves some hard choices, but does the Leader of the House agree that the defence and security of the British people is a three-legged stool that demands defence, diplomacy and development; and that, if you cut one leg, there is a danger of imbalance to the whole structure? Does she agree that there will be a need for smart procurement, there will be a need for innovative funding mechanisms and there will be a need for targeted interventions in development if we are to recognise the facts that the fastest-growing military force in Africa is the People’s Liberation Army and that the Russian Wagner Group has been deployed in not just Ukraine but Sudan, Mali and the Sahel and throughout Africa, and that needs to be recognised?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank my noble friend; his experience and powerful words are to be listened to. I made the point in an earlier answer that diplomacy, development and defence have to be balanced, and there is a rebalancing here, but we retain that commitment to return to spending 0.7% on ODA. But there is also the point, which my noble friend made, about how that money is spent and used to affect fundamentally those three areas of diplomacy, development and defence. That is really important, which is why issues such as procurement and the effectiveness of the money must be looked at, as must our relationships with other countries and working in partnership with other countries. As I have said and can only repeat, there is a generational shift today in how we look at these issues going forward.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Army Board. I welcome the rise to 2.5%; it goes some way to delivering the means that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, needs to balance the ends and ways in the SDR. However, the aspiration to go to 3% after 2030 in the next Parliament is a tacit acceptance that it is simply not enough at the moment. It is no secret that, over the next two years, there will be significant financial pressures on defence, meaning that we will have to defer or cancel capabilities and defer capital programmes. This year, we have already seen announcements from the Government over the scrapping of HMS “Bulwark” and “Albion”, as well as the withdrawal of the Watchkeeper drone programme from the Army. Given that we have identified where this money is coming from—rightly or wrongly, it is coming from the aid budget—I simply ask: why are we waiting until 2027? Why are we not delivering it now?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The comments and response that I gave to the other Baroness Smith—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham—highlights part of this issue: you cannot just turn on the tap and spend the money. You work up to how it is going to be spent, looking at supply chains and procurement. We will be very much informed by the strategic defence review in terms of how this money is spent.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, next and then the noble Baroness, Lady Helic.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, the Prime Minister’s recognition that the whole of the country needs to step up is critical, as is the recognition that that includes industry and universities. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will show greater leadership in challenging the idea that defence spending is unethical, when in fact it is a foundation of preserving our liberties? Will the Government do more to stop defence companies—and, indeed, the Armed Forces—being menaced off the campuses where they need to recruit the next generation of fighting men and women and employees in the forces?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord’s words are wise ones and are taken on board entirely. I used to represent a constituency that had a defence industry, and I was proud to be the MP of that area. The simple fact that we are announcing an increase in defence spending, and the words the Prime Minister used, show that we are committed to the industry. There is an economic impact from this on the country as a whole, and we should recognise that. I assure the noble Lord that we will show that leadership, as required.
Baroness Helic (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s Statement and his commitment to increasing defence spending. The clarity with which he has approached this is encouraging and is good for our long-term security. However, making sure that peace in Europe is not eroded again, as it has been eroded in Ukraine, is crucial.
The western Balkans is currently in the worst possible security crisis since the end of the war in 1995. With that in mind, will the Government consider rejoining Operation Althea? At the moment, our deterrent is both weak and insufficient.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. She is absolutely right, and we accept that. We are currently working with key allies on that area. My noble friend may have something more to say on that at another point, but I entirely take the point she makes.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has rightly pointed out the need to ramp up supply chains, but that requires a sense of urgency on the part of both the Ministry of Defence and industry. Up to now, it does not appear that they have seized the opportunities or the necessity of this conflict. Are we going to see that major change? Will we see early results?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My noble friend makes a particular point. The certainty of the funding helps industry to meet the challenge. Previously, announcements have been made but there has not been the funding behind them, and that makes it more difficult for industry to make the plans they need to. He is right, and there are ongoing discussions about how industry and government will work together.
Lord Sharma (Con)
I of course welcome the increase in defence spending and the resolute support for Ukraine. However, I am disappointed that all this increase seems to have come from the overseas aid budget, which will, unfortunately, erode the UK’s soft power. The Minister has made it very clear that those cuts to overseas aid will not come in until 2027. Can she give the House a commitment that the previous Government’s desire to spend £11.6 billion on international climate finance between 2021 and 2026 will be delivered in full?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not have the exact details on that policy; I will write to the noble Lord about it. There will be a lot of ongoing work with the various government departments, particularly the FCDO, looking at how the finance is being spent and how we manage having to make those cuts. I will come back to the noble Lord on the precise point he makes.
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:46 - Division on Amendment 8 - Ayes: 86 / Noes: 167 - Amendment 8 disagreed.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(2A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (2) that will disadvantage the United Kingdom or its trade under—(a) the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership,(b) the Japan Economic Comprehensive Partnership Agreement,(c) the UK-Canada Trade Continuity Agreement,(d) the UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement,(e) the UK-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, or(f) any other trade treaties to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, including any free trade agreement with the United States of America.”
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 8 is a vital safeguard to ensure that the UK’s regulatory decisions do not inadvertently disadvantage our trade relationships with some of the world’s most dynamic economies. The global economic balance is shifting. Others have alluded to the statistics in previous debates, but they are very straightforward and bear repeating. The US economy is growing while the EU’s share of global GDP is shrinking. Fifteen years ago, the US and the EU each accounted for around 22% of global GDP; today, the US share has grown to 26.3% while the EU’s has declined to 17.3%. These are simple facts, not qualitative judgments.
The economic future lies with markets that are expanding, not contracting; for the record, that is not the same as arguing that it may not still be in our interests to align with some of those in certain cases. Britain’s membership of the CPTPP, for example—one of the fastest-growing trade blocs—will soon be under way, creating immense opportunities for British businesses. With the US, our largest single trading partner, which accounts for about 16% of all UK exports, Britain trades under its own laws. It is essential that our regulatory framework reflects this reality and does not impose unnecessary constraints that hinder our ability to capitalise on these agreements.
The importance of strengthening our economic ties with the US cannot be overstated. On 20 January, the Minister acknowledged that:
“The US is a country that we have to deal with, and our businesses ask us to work with the US”.—[Official Report, 20/1/25; col. 1474.]
We agree. We recognise and acknowledge that the slow progress is no fault of the Government’s, and there will be more to say on that in the months to come; but alignment with the EU, for example, as President Trump’s advisers have made clear, would make a free trade deal with the US all but impossible. Stephen Moore, a senior economic adviser to President Trump, recently stated that Britain must decide whether it wants to follow “the European socialist model” or embrace the US free market. His warning is clear: if the UK continues to shift towards EU-style regulations and economic policies, the United States will be far less inclined to pursue a free trade agreement with it.
This amendment ensures that our regulatory framework does not create barriers to securing future trade deals or diminish the competitive advantages that we have gained because of Brexit. This amendment is about ensuring that our trade policy remains aligned with our national interest and therefore supports jobs, investment and economic growth on the global stage.
I draw attention to a serious concern raised about deep regulatory alignment with the EU, particularly in the context of the UK’s position with the CPTPP. When the UK acceded to the CPTPP, it underwent a regulatory review to ensure that its domestic regulations complied with CPTPP obligations. This included scrutiny of various sectors, including agri-food, where Canada raised concerns about the UK’s precautionary prohibition on hormone-treated beef. The UK was ultimately allowed to accede despite this issue, but significant uncertainty remains about how the UK’s alignment with the EU’s regulatory model in the agri-food sector, among others, would be received by other CPTPP parties. Regardless of whether it is better for the UK to align with the EU or the CPTPP, can the Minister confirm that this should be a matter for debate in Parliament? The potential implications of such a decision are far-reaching, and Parliament must have the opportunity to engage in a thorough and informed discussion on this matter.
As the Government have put forward a Bill that has done nothing but provide uncertainty to this House, my Amendment 64 introduces the basic yet crucial requirement of accountability. If their No. 1 priority is truly growth, they must give serious consideration to this amendment. All it does is ask them to conduct an impact assessment on future economic growth—in other words, it allows room for manoeuvre. Businesses need stability, consumers need confidence and Parliament needs clarity.
As we have discussed at some length, unnecessary ambiguity about the future regulatory framework risks deterring investment and slowing economic progress at a time when we can least afford it. To be clear, growth is not achieved through vague promises or by blindly introducing sweeping powers without accountability. It is achieved by ensuring that every piece of legislation contributes positively to our economy. That is an aim we believe this Government should share, and for that reason I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 8 and 64 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. We are playing on a similar set of variations that we have already played on in several groups. These two amendments are intended to impose additional restrictions on the implementation of this Act.
As we have heard, Amendment 8 prevents the Secretary of State making regulations that could be seen as disadvantaging the UK, or conflicting with its trade agreements. The amendment goes on to list a range of trade agreements, which assumes that if you agree with one of them, you are going to agree with all of them. There is a nature where you have to choose; there are puts and takes. All those trade agreements have varying conditions, and the Government’s job is to try to choose the best option, in a sort of 3D chess game, to make sure that they do the best for this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, pointed out. But there is a sort of “cake and eat it” idea, that if we do not do the EU, then we can somehow do all those in the list set out by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. His example then illustrates exactly that we cannot, because there are issues in all of these that we will agree and disagree with. The Government’s role is to have a sufficient tool that enables them to move in the right direction.
I am surprised that the noble Lord chose an agri-food example because, as far as I am aware, that is not in the scope of the Bill, but I may be wrong. Perhaps there are other examples but, using his example, I do not see the banning of the hormone boosting of beef as being something the Europeans imposed on me. I am very pleased we have it, and if I am not in the European Union, I still expect the United Kingdom to uphold those kinds of standards for rearing meat in this country. If the Minister is proposing a wholesale change in the United Kingdom’s animal husbandry processes, techniques and security, then perhaps he should tell your Lordships what other things he expects to change about our food, because they are there to protect consumers from the effects of hormones and antibiotics leaking into our system. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, will probably have lots of statistics, but I hope she does not use them at this time of night.
Neither of these amendments is helpful to the process, and in both cases—particularly the second— I question how an impact assessment of what I think the Minister is proposing can be done. The impact will happen through the regulations that the Act is used to implement. Until we know what the regulations are, we do not know what the impact will be. It is perfectly reasonable for the Minister to say that when the Government are tabling a new regulation, we want to know what the impact of that regulation will be on the economy, the environment and other things. We cannot do a holistic analysis of the impact of the Bill without taking into consideration all the regulations that the Bill will cause to happen. I hope he understands what I am saying. With that in view, it seems to me to be deliberately slowing up the implementation of the Act, and we do not see that the nation benefits from that.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. The UK Government remain firmly committed to maintaining and enhancing our international trade relationships, ensuring that the UK remains an attractive and competitive trading partner and creating opportunities for UK businesses.
This is an enabling Bill; it does not override or contradict any of our trade agreements. Instead, the Bill provides the flexibility needed to ensure that our regulatory framework can keep pace with international developments, supporting both businesses and economic growth. This will support our current and future trade agreements.
Regarding Clause 1(2), the UK Government would not use this power, or indeed any Bill powers, in a way that would disadvantage the UK or its trade agreements, including those, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, set out in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—CPTPP—or, for that matter, any other trade deals the UK has signed since our exit from the EU. Any use of Clause 1(2) would also be subject to the usual process relating to secondary legislation, such as impact assessments and relevant parliamentary scrutiny.
In developing our trade strategy, we are clear that free trade agreements, while not the only tool, are an important lever for driving growth. The Government have announced their intention to publish an ambitious trade strategy that will consider the range of trade tools to drive economic growth, in addition to announcing their intention to deliver a UK free trade agreement programme.
The Government are committed to meeting their obligations under the free trade agreements and nothing in the Bill contradicts that. The powers will be used to make changes to legislation where that is in the UK’s best interests.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned agri-food. Food is excluded from the scope of the Bill, under the Schedule. Agri-food is in our FTAs. This Government will not sign deals which undermine UK standards.
The Government have consistently stated that all changes to UK product regulation will be made in a way that upholds our international obligations, including our commitments in FTAs, as well as supporting UK businesses. This amendment seeks to solve a problem that does not exist. To be absolutely clear, the Bill is compatible not only with our existing FTAs but with our ambition to sign further agreements. Nothing in the Bill will prevent us signing ambitious agreements in our ongoing negotiations with partners, including India and the GCC; nor would it prevent us pursuing agreements with other partners, such as the United States of America, should the Government decide to launch additional FTA negotiations in the future.
I turn to Amendment 64. The Bill as drafted allows the Government to update domestic legislation, keep pace with global changes and ensure that UK product regulations keep pace with evolving technologies and emerging risks. These powers will support the interests of UK businesses and consumers, providing regulatory certainty and creating the conditions for investment, innovation and economic growth.
Regarding the economic impacts of the Bill, it has already undergone a comprehensive impact assessment, which considers economic and business impacts. It is available to noble Lords via the Bill page on the UK Parliament website. The impact assessment will also be updated and republished when the Bill moves to the other place to reflect any changes made to the Bill since it was introduced to this House.
All secondary legislation made under the Bill will be subject to the statutory and non-statutory assessments set out in our code of conduct. The code of conduct sets out the current framework, as well as how the Government intend to use the Bill to provide that product safety measures brought forward are proportionate and effective. Product regulation that is proportionate will protect consumers, support responsible businesses and drive growth across the economy.
I hope that I have been able to provide reassurance on this matter and the Government’s wider commitment to supporting economic growth. I therefore respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their responses. I will answer some of the specific questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. First, I am very grateful for him calling me a Minister on more than one occasion; I would that were the case.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Secondly, I point out that the amendment does not prevent; it just says that it should not “disadvantage”. That is not mere semantics but a very substantive point which, I would argue, invalidates the noble Lord’s arguments.
To both noble Lords I would say that the reason I chose the agri-food example—I am well aware that it is not covered in the scope of this Bill—is that it is highly topical and relates to a current trade agreement. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that I did not say that we should not have a ban on hormone-treated beef; I said merely that the merits of such a ban should be debated in Parliament.
I thank the Minister for his response. It was very comprehensive, but it is disappointing that the Government will not accept Amendment 8. We believe this is a proposal that does nothing but strengthen the Bill. It promotes the very growth that Ministers are claiming to prioritise. Given the importance of this issue, I think we have not found agreement and therefore I would like to test the opinion of the House.
“(4A) The Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out how they expect to identify and assess risks presented by products for the purposes of this section.(4B) A statement published under subsection (4A) may be amended or replaced from time to time.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a statement setting out how the Secretary of State expects to identify and assess product risks.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 27, 34 to 37 and 40, also in my name. In a Bill that is completely absent of AI and silent on technology, how fortunate it is that we have a group of amendments dedicated almost exclusively to the subject of artificial intelligence. In measure of the hour, I will speak in depth only to three of the amendments, but the themes run through all of them—the sense of consumer protection through consumer awareness, and clarity for consumer, investor and innovator. Products are currently on the market that have been developed using AI, contain it and are controlled by it but with no ability for consumer or citizen to know that that is the case, nor is there any labelling or protection.
I shall speak particularly to Amendment 34, which would not in any sense cut across any of the Government’s plans for their AI journey and their potential AI Bill. It simply suggests that it would make sense that where AI is in a product, there is a label on that product to say that that is the case. Further, it says that a QR code should be deployed to give the consumer more detail on the power used in the AI in that product, and the energy and other natural resources used. It is simply a case of labelling a product so that consumers, citizens and all of us can be in the know that AI has been used.
On Amendments 36 and 37, I reserve the right to test the opinion of the House when we come to them next week. Amendment 36 is critical, as was demonstrated by the actions of musicians at the end of the Government’s consultation on IP and copyright. Musicians on Tuesday released a completely silent album to demonstrate the impact that AI is having and can have on music and all creative products. On tracks 1 and 2, there was complete silence, making the point that our creatives are currently having their works taken by AI with no remuneration, consent or respect.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 34, 35, 36 and 37, in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes, and Amendment 43, in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that I am not doing so from the Front Bench on this occasion.
On my noble friend Lord Holmes’s amendments, I will address two key issues: first, the labelling of AI-generated content, including music; and, secondly, the promotion of inclusive design in AI products.
On labelling AI-generated content, the Government’s Explanatory Notes rightly highlight the need to adapt to new technologies such as AI. This amendment supports that goal in, I think, a sustainable and sensible way. During the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, I spoke about the importance of digital watermarking, and particularly the development of internationally accepted technical standards to support this. These labelling amendments are an excellent illustrative pair of use cases where such watermarks can and should be applied. The noble Lord, Lord Vallance, at the time expressed his positive views towards such standards. I hope that, on the back of the Government’s consultation, they will pursue this energetically.
Consumers have to be able to distinguish between human-generated and AI-generated content—for their own sanity, among other reasons. This is particularly important in sectors such as music, where the line between human creativity and AI involvement may not always be clear. My noble friend has proposed a characteristically sensible way to bring this about, but if the Government have an even better idea then I look forward to hearing it.
Next, I will address my noble friend’s amendment on inclusive by design. This principle is vital in ensuring that the products developed and marketed in the UK, especially those leveraging advanced technologies such as AI, are accessible to all, regardless of disability or other factors. This improves designs not just for those who would otherwise be excluded but for everyone. My noble friend rightly emphasised the importance of acknowledging accessibility and inclusivity at the design stage, and this amendment will create a framework for that.
There is a story—I do not know whether it is true—that the first seat belt design teams had no women in them, to the enormous detriment of all their eventual users. In fact, early seat belts did not work at all not only for women but for men. By making inclusive design a key part of the development of AI technologies in particular, we have the opportunity to ensure that the benefits of AI are shared more widely.
Before I turn to my noble friend Lord Sharpe’s excellent amendment, I will make a broader point about AI in the Bill. The Minister said earlier that this is not an AI Bill. That is fine, but where is the AI Bill? The party opposite, both in opposition and in government, have told us we will have an AI Bill, but I am sad to say that we still know next to nothing about it. We do not know its scope, its timing or its purpose, let alone any of its contents. This uncertainty is a real problem for everyone involved in AI in this country. If the plan is to distribute AI laws across different Bills, that is fine, but we need to know. Either way, I urge the Government to share their thinking on AI regulation, because we urgently need to understand at least the direction of travel.
I strongly support my noble friend Lord Sharpe’s Amendment 43. We need to address the gaps that he rightly identifies, to ensure that we are setting clear expectations for the development and regulation of AI technologies. Without such clarity, we risk stifling innovation rather than promoting it, and creating unnecessary regulatory burdens for businesses, especially SMEs, working in this sector.
Finally, as we look to develop the technical standards and regulations for AI, we must consider the risks posed by foreign actors who may seek to manipulate AI systems or to exploit them for their own malicious purposes, whether for economic advantage or geopolitical leverage. The security and sovereignty of our AI systems must be paramount. The establishment of the robust regulatory framework set out in these amendments should include safeguards to prevent undue foreign influence, ensuring that UK businesses and consumers are protected.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, briefly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for bringing this up. It was a good idea to have these amendments, and clearly the issue comes in two different parts.
I was happy to vote for the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. The issue of what I would call piracy is one that we should all be very concerned about, having as we do a national creative industry that we need to protect and preserve.
I am going to throw myself on the mercy of the Government, because I am not 100% sure that some of the products being mentioned in connection with music fall into this category. Consumer products can do, or not, so to some extent we may find that the noble Lord’s suggestions fall into categories that do not necessarily get covered by the Bill. I will be interested to hear from the Government on that, because I should know the answer, but I do not. My sense, having heard what the noble Lord had to say on his Bill, is that we should have another conversation with the Minister about the code of conduct. There is quite a lot of work to be done on the pre-scrutiny of products process to understand where AI has come in.
To single out the energy use of AI from any other energy use is a little strange. If you are buying a product and you care about energy use, it is not just a question of the energy consumed by AI technology. If it is made of steel, a large proportion of the energy came from somewhere else, and that is still important if energy is important to us. On subjects like energy use, there is one set of considerations, and on the use of other people’s intellectual property there is another. That is where we should have a conversation with the Minister.
On the issue of design for accessibility, I agree with the noble Lord. Again, when we have that conversation, the Minister can suggest what the best route might be to take that forward. Perhaps there is more work to be done, and I am happy to join the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the Minister if they want me there.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
That was an interesting, if brief, debate. Before speaking to my amendment, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes for his important amendments. As has been pointed out, Amendment 37 deals with the concept of “inclusive by design”, which is obviously vital in creating products that cater for everyone. It ensures accessibility, usability and fairness across all sorts of diverse populations. By designing products with inclusivity in mind from the start, we acknowledge the varied needs of consumers, including those with disabilities, elderly users and so on.
Through his Amendment 36, my noble friend has raised an important issue. Labelling AI-generated content, including music, is crucial to ensuring transparency and consumer protection. This subject is growing in prominence and importance, and I have little doubt that we will return to it. In a world where AI-generated works are becoming more prevalent, it is essential that consumers can distinguish between content created by humans and that created by AI.
In addressing my Amendment 43, I begin by referencing the Government’s Explanatory Notes, which, as my noble friend Lord Camrose has mentioned, state that consideration is given to the need to be able to adapt to new technologies such as artificial intelligence. With that in mind, we have tabled this amendment to promote innovation and investment in the UK’s AI sector, which will continue to be vital in the coming years.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Leong, that this not an AI Bill, but this is not particularly an AI amendment. It is not about what AI is or does. Many of those discussions, as we have heard in this brief debate, have yet to be had in broader society, never mind in this House. However, we have to acknowledge that the UK has a thriving tech sector that has consistently been a leader in developing cutting-edge technologies, and we want to strengthen it by ensuring that we have sensible, pro-growth AI regulation that fosters innovation while safeguarding consumer interests. That should include a focus on small and medium-sized enterprises, which are vital for generating new ideas and driving technological advancements.
International competitiveness is crucial, especially in emerging technologies like AI. We have already seen how overly burdensome regulations such as those proposed in the EU’s AI Act can have a stifling effect on innovation. When the EU’s AI Act was in the works, executives from 160 leading companies in the industry came together and drafted an open letter warning of the potential negative consequences of excessively strict regulations. They highlighted that such an approach could ultimately harm businesses, slow innovation, put Europe at a competitive disadvantage globally and therefore, by extension, aid those in other parts of the world whose intentions are perhaps not so benign as we like to think ours are.
We must avoid falling into the same trap here in the UK. It is essential to ensure that AI is developed responsibly and ethically, but we must strike the right balance. Overregulating this vital sector could choke off the growth of our tech ecosystem, discourage investment and drive the innovation that we need here overseas. This amendment aims to protect this growing and vital industry. It is specifically drafted in such a way as to ensure that British industries have their interests taken into account, and that, of course, includes SMEs. I urge the Government to accept.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, although it has been a short debate it has been a very interesting one that covered areas much wider than the Bill encompasses, but we do take very careful note of the points being raised.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, that I very much take his point about consumer protection. His amendments require a review of AI and product regulations, regulations on the labelling of AI-related products and musical content, and the role of metrology in artificial intelligence. A number of noble Lords said what I am going to say, which is that this Bill is not an AI Bill. Its powers extend to intangible components such as software and AI systems only in so far as this is needed to keep our product regulations for physical products updated and responsive to new technologies and new risks. In amending the Bill, we make absolutely clear that such intangible components can include software but not AI systems in themselves, digital products or music.
I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, that the Government launched a wide-ranging consultation on AI and intellectual property on 17 December. It is clear that we are receiving many views, very strongly expressed. Obviously, we are looking at them, and taking views on a number of topics which look at how copyright laws interact with AI.
We will of course be considering how the growth of AI affects the safety of the products this Bill seeks to regulate, and our regulatory response to that, as a number of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, suggested. Throughout our approach to product regulation —not just things applicable to AI—we are committed to supporting and enabling innovation. For instance, we see AI-supported machine learning in products such as robot vacuum cleaners. A future in which robots that would function as home carers are being developed with AI is just one example of how this is being used, and its potential for the future.
It is a fast-developing sector, as we know, and we will obviously continue to work with businesses and consumer groups to understand the needs and development of the AI sector, and what that means for the risks that physical products may present to consumers, before we consider any regulation of products containing AI under this Bill.
In defence of the Bill and the way it has been drafted, I would argue that the flexibility we have is essential in relation to this sector. Alas, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is not with us to lend support to that.
The noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, asked about legislation, and it is a very fair question. He knows that we set our intent in our manifesto. We are developing legislative proposals which will allow us safely to realise the enormous benefits of the most powerful AI systems. We have the consultation and we are engaging with stakeholders, but I cannot really give him any more detail than that.
In the light of the very important amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and given the lateness of the hour, I would really like to offer a meeting with him, perhaps between now and next week, if he would find it helpful. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, elegantly invited himself to the meeting, and if the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is willing—and I suspect he is—that would be very welcome too. At that meeting we can also pick up the helpful suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about the potential use of the code of conduct to deal with some of these matters. I will pick up the very important contribution from the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, raises an important issue in Amendment 43. We cannot support the amendment, but I hope he knows from the Government’s response that we consider the need to encourage innovation and growth to be very important. He will also know that we set out measures to achieve our AI ambitions as part of the AI opportunities action plan. We think it is a bold and forward-leaning position that will establish the UK as a global leader in AI. We have a platform. We have made considerable progress but clearly, we need to go further. I hope the noble Lord recognises that I very much accept the principle of his amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I fear I might have got the noble Lord, Lord Fox, more on side if I talked about AI lawn-mowers, but perhaps that is for another evening. I thank the Minister for his response and for the offer of a meeting, which I am delighted to accept. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Leong
“(aa) the installation of products;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that product regulations may include requirements relating to the installation of products.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I will try to be brief on this set of government amendments, as outlined in the Marshalled List. They are largely intended to ensure absolute clarity and that the Bill covers a number of matters raised by noble Lords in Committee. Amendments 14 and 17 make clear that the Bill’s powers are able to set requirements on how products are installed in wider systems and on the people who carry out that installation. Many products do not operate in isolation and their safety can be significantly affected by how they are installed in the wider systems. As I explained in Committee, the Bill already enables requirements to be set on the installation of products. However, I accept that absolute clarity on this matter in the Bill is helpful.
Amendment 23 covers a similar matter. The Bill covers tangible products and the risks they present. Software is now a fundamental component of many physical products and can significantly affect their risk profile. Amendment 23 makes clear that software as a component of the physical product is included.
Amendments 50 and 51 relate to the definition of online marketplaces. These amendments reflect the points raised by noble Lords in Committee and aim to ensure that marketplaces that are part of a wider platform —such as Facebook Marketplace as part of Facebook—are captured. Our use of a broad and clear definition of online marketplaces in the Bill enables new requirements to be introduced in a flexible and proportionate way via secondary legislation by using the powers provided in the Bill—for instance, by tailoring specific requirements to particular online marketplace activities or business models.
On Amendment 67, which addresses aviation, in Committee my noble friend Lord Liddle raised the question of wider products used in aviation. The Department for Transport oversees a comprehensive body of legislation that extends beyond the finished aircraft to the whole system of components that make it up. The Government have no plans to create any kind of parallel regulatory framework. This amendment therefore clarifies that, alongside the exclusion of aircraft, the Bill does not apply to component products and parts in so far as they are used or designed for use in aircraft. As an exception to this, the amendment would allow for the Bill’s powers to be used in relation to unmanned aircraft that are toys, or for radio equipment used to operate or control unmanned aircraft.
It is useful to clarify that aviation safety products are exempted from the Bill, but we are aware of questions from industry about several other areas. We will always work closely with all sectors before bringing regulations, but it is not our intention to use the powers under the Bill to regulate where there are existing comprehensive product regulatory regimes—for example, in relation to transportable pressure equipment and ships and their equipment.
I hope I have been able to provide assurance to noble Lords and I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, while the Minister recovers his breath, we will all carefully reflect on every word that he has just said but, given the speed with which he delivered that speech, I hope he will forgive me if I do not respond in detail. I shall just deal with what we believe is the overly broad current definition of an “online marketplace”, as the scope could be inadvertent. I speak to Amendments 49 and 53 on behalf of my noble friend.
The current definition of an online marketplace would inadvertently capture a number of online services not thought of as marketplaces, such as search engines, online advertisements and price comparison websites. Potentially, even further removed services, such as app stores, could be captured by this proposed definition. This risks placing disproportionate requirements on services whose functionality is not what the Bill is intended to regulate and will require careful drafting of the necessary secondary legislation to avoid confusion and potential challenges. That is not guaranteed, however, due to the extensive delegation of powers and limited oversight provided by the Bill.
This broad scope will create unnecessary regulatory burdens on businesses that were never intended to be covered by the legislation. It could also discourage innovation and investment in digital services if companies fear that they will be subject to complex and costly compliance requirements. Our amended definition would therefore capture services that are not meant to be dealt with under the Bill but is more appropriate in its scope when it comes to goods and products, giving greater context and identifying the subjects of the sellers being provided, namely consumers and third-party sellers. I hope that gives an indication to the Minister of why we feel these amendments are required.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for their comments. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in the amendments that he is putting forward, really puts his finger on the problem and the challenge of defining an online marketplace. What was not an online marketplace yesterday can be one tomorrow. You can be looking at what starts off as a chat site where people exchange photographs, which suddenly becomes somewhere you can sell things. The problem that we therefore have, in being very specific in the definition, is that we create the loopholes for other people to use.
I am sympathetic to the problem that the noble Lord sets out, which is the inadvertent inclusion of other things, but the more we try to nail it down with a framework, the less likely we are to legislate for what is coming round the corner. I am very happy to have that discussion with the noble Lord. Perhaps there is a way of having something that can flexibly move, but we have all seen the changing world of online selling—it is absolutely changing every day. I am sympathetic, but sceptical that the amendment would do what we need it to do.
I co-signed government Amendments 23 and 51, which took on board issues that I brought forward in Committee. I thank the Minister for his reaction to that. Overall, with the exception of that key issue—marketplaces are where this is happening and we need a process whereby liability can be properly attributed, but I am convinced that primary legislation will not be the place to do that because of the changing world that we live in—and with those provisos, I think we need a way of moving forward that gives us that flexibility.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, before I turn to the substance of the debate and the government amendments, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Fox, for their contributions. The engagement that I have had has been very constructive; I hope that is reflected in the amendments the Government have brought forward.
On Amendment 49, I agree about the need for a clear definition of “online marketplace” in the Bill. One way in which we seek to achieve this is by setting out a straightforward definition that is broad enough to clearly capture the vast range of online marketplace models, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said so eloquently. This is important to avoid loopholes where an online marketplace could seek to define itself outside the scope of this regulation. For example, the definition should be clear that online marketplaces include those such as Amazon, which sell their own products alongside those sold by third-party sellers. We therefore believe that specifying in the definition that an online marketplace
“typically does not own the inventory sold”
could cause confusion. We would also like the definition to be clear that it captures not only online marketplaces that sell to consumers but those that may sell to businesses, such as B&Q Marketplace.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2024
Baroness O'Loan
That this House regrets that the proposed Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2024 does not address all areas of the 2023 Act identified by the courts as being incompatible with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I express my appreciation to the Minister for meeting me to discuss these matters. I hope that we will be able to continue that dialogue in the future.
The passage of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 through your Lordships’ House was marked by the then Government’s refusal to accept that much of its content was in breach of existing legal obligations. The High Court and the Court of Appeal in the Dillon cases confirmed this. There was some transient comfort in the fact that the Government declared their intention to repeal the Act. That comfort disappeared, however, when it became clear that the Government were determined to amend the Act rather than repeal it, and to keep the ICRIR, which lies at the heart of the Act.
The proposed remedial order addresses only four of the eight specific issues declared to be incompatible with the ECHR after the hearings in the Dillon case. Of course, a limited number of issues were selected by the judge in Dillon; other problems with the Act are not affected by the draft remedial order. It is for this reason that I have tabled this regret Motion.
By this Act, the Conservative Government withdrew from citizens across the UK—whether from Birmingham, Belfast, Brighton, Ballygawley, Enniskillen, Manchester, Warrenpoint or Warrington—who have been affected by Troubles-related crimes between 1966 and 1998 the right to access criminal investigations, legal proceedings, inquests and police complaints processes. People who suffered Troubles-related atrocities before and after the relevant period continue to have access to all legal routes available in the United Kingdom.
It is important to say that this regret Motion is not about the coroner’s report findings in the Clonoe case, which was the subject of a recent Question in your Lordships’ House. Equally, it is not about whether Gerry Adams and other IRA members should receive compensation because they were unlawfully detained in 1970s. The reality is that many of those interned in the 1970s were simply scooped up because they lived in particular areas and belonged to particular communities. Some of them were still children. They were arrested and detained for a period of years in some cases, although there was no evidence produced against them. The IRA and the Real IRA committed the most appalling atrocities and murdered indiscriminately, as did the UVF, the UDA and all the other paramilitary groups. But this is not about whether Gerry Adams should receive compensation.
The four measures repealed under the draft remedial order include Section 8, which prohibited the admissibility of evidence gathered by the ICRIR in civil actions, inquests and inquiries under the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016, and the exceptional powers conferred on the Secretary of State in Schedule 9. That is good. Also repealed are Sections 46 and 47, which prevented any person who was interned under an interim custody order authorised by a Minister of the Crown, rather than the Secretary of State as required—or anyone whose subsequent conviction was quashed as a consequence of detention authorised by a Minister of State rather than the Secretary of State—bringing civil proceedings for damages. The proposed remedial order removes all the provisions on the matters relating to the granting of immunity from prosecution and associated issues that were included in the Act. That is good. Section 43, which prohibited continuing civil proceedings issued on or after 17 May 2022 and the commencement of new civil proceedings after 18 November 2023, and Schedules 9 and 10, will be repealed. That is good.
However, four matters are not addressed by the draft remedial order. Section 44 terminated inquests started before 1 May 2024 unless they had reached final determination, verdict et cetera, and prohibited the holding of any new inquest into a Troubles-related death after 1 May 2024. The associated Court of Appeal findings in the Dillon case stated that the ICRIR could not conduct investigations that were compatible with the UK’s ECHR obligations in inquest cases because of the failure to provide properly for involvement of next of kin in such investigations, and because of the power of the Secretary of State to veto the disclosure of material to and held by the ICRIR. Schedule 11 relating to these matters is also untouched by the proposed remedial order. I acknowledge that the Government are appealing these matters to the Supreme Court—but why? Why put the families through this when the findings are so clear?
These issues are at the core of how we provide proper process to deal with the past. The previous Government proclaimed their wish to bring closure by providing much more information to the victims than had hitherto been available. They said the ICRIR would be granted unparalleled access. They then legislated to ensure that the ICRIR would not even have the powers previously held to access information from the police, let alone from the security services and the MoD, and brought these appeals to restrict disclosure.
What is really at stake here, I am afraid, is the control of information held by MI5, the MoD and the PSNI. A post-conflict society must be built on the rule of law. People distrust institutions perceived to be biased or controlled by the Government, particularly by individuals from the security services, I am afraid— I acknowledge that the security services do a huge amount of good for our country, but there is a problem in this context. If people repeatedly find out, as has been the case, that information is being withheld or distorted, they will know that they are not being allowed to know, and trust will not grow.
A number of cases illustrate the consequences of withholding information. In 1981, 15 year-old Paul Whitters was killed by an RUC plastic bullet in Derry. He was throwing stones at a bakery. Ninety-three pages of his file will not be made available until 2084, over 100 years after his death. I have read those files. There is no justification for withholding them. Also in 1981, 14 year-old Julie Livingstone was shot in the head by a plastic bullet fired from an Army Land Rover. Her files are closed until 2054. Why?
It may be said that the contents would be distressing for the families. But there is nothing more distressing than losing a loved one, especially a child, to a violent death. Will His Majesty’s Government appoint an independent commission to re-examine these locked files and determine whether there is any real national security reason to withhold them from the families?
Two cases currently before the courts are most important. Sean Brown, described by the coroner Justice Kinney as “an entirely innocent man”, was the subject of a planned execution by LVF gunmen in 1997. That case is now before the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. For a long time, the coroner sought disclosure of information which he needed. Eventually, information relating to 25 individuals linked to the murder was disclosed. Further information was withheld on grounds of national security. Unable to continue the inquest, the coroner called for a public inquiry. The Secretary of State refused a public inquiry and told the Brown family to go to the ICRIR. The Brown family brought proceedings in the High Court, which ordered the Secretary of State to establish a public inquiry. The Secretary of State has appealed this ruling, and the Court of Appeal began hearing the case on 16 January 2025. For the 57th time, Mr Brown’s family attended court. That matter continues. This should not be happening, nearly 28 years on. There should be a public inquiry.
In another inquest case, that of Liam Paul Thompson, 25, who died in 1994 after being shot by loyalists in Belfast, the coroner, Louisa Fee, decided in 2024 to disclose a summary or “gist” of the evidence contained in a sensitive security forces file. The gist had been prepared by the chief constable of the PSNI, and he was satisfied that the disclosure of the information would involve no breaches of national security.
The Secretary of State judicially reviewed the coroner, asking, in effect, whether it was lawful for her to release a gist of sensitive information, having conducted a comprehensive PII exercise. The High Court upheld the coroner’s decision. The Secretary of State appealed. The Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, and the Secretary of State has appealed again to the Supreme Court. It is anticipated that the current chief constable of the PSNI will give evidence in June 2025 as to why there is nothing unlawful in the proposed disclosure.
Finally, in the Kenova cases, the current chief constable of the PSNI presented an interim report a year ago on a number of cases arising inter alia from the activities of the British agent known as Stakeknife. Twenty-six bereaved families affected by these activities have been due to receive an individual report on those cases. Those individual reports were sent to MI5 in August last year. Nothing has emerged from MI5, and there has been no explanation as to why the families cannot have their reports, which were very carefully drafted.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, is contributing remotely.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP) [V]
My Lords, in dealing with the very difficult subject of legacy in Northern Ireland, there is always the risk of dangerous and lazy myths distorting our thinking on the subject, which can then be exploited by the men of violence. At the heart of that are wrong assumptions. The first is that, in looking back at the Troubles, everyone in Northern Ireland was in some way responsible—that we were, in effect, all perpetrators. The second lie is that everyone in Northern Ireland and beyond was a victim. Worse than that, we have seen those two concepts conflated, so that, in the worst possible cases, perpetrators are sometimes presented as victims and, latterly, in a rewriting of history, some are portrayed as community defenders, heroes and examples for our young people. Nothing can be further from the truth. Let me try to deal with some of those myths.
Not everyone in Northern Ireland was a perpetrator. The vast majority of people opposed violence throughout. Indeed, every Northern Ireland Member of this House has a proud record of opposing that violence.
Not everyone in Northern Ireland is a victim. There are Members of this House who have suffered directly as a result of the Troubles—I think of those who have been targeted, or whose families have been targeted, by terrorist actions: people such as the noble Lords, Lord McRae and Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, to name just three.
I am fortunate enough that I am not a victim of the Troubles. My family went through them unscathed, and I was able, as much as possible, to grow up with a relatively normal childhood in Northern Ireland. I was able to do so by way of the protection provided to me by the security services—and, indeed, the security services providing that protection to all the citizens of Northern Ireland. They stood as the great defenders of democracy and peace at a time when people in both republican and loyalist circles were intent on inflicting violence.
Not being a victim is one of the reasons why I believe that the legacy Act put through in the last mandate was the wrong way forward. While it is difficult for many of those who have suffered as victims of terrorism to achieve justice, in particular from a long time ago, there was a perception that in trying to draw the line over what had happened in the Troubles, we were snuffing out the opportunities for any innocent victim, the survivors of the Troubles and their families to achieve justice. That is fundamentally wrong.
To that extent, the action the Government are taking in providing a remedial order is at least a partial step in the right direction by moving away from that situation, but for very different reasons from those outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, I think that it does not go far enough. Some of the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, while genuine in concept, run the risk of taking us in the wrong direction. We must look first at the bigger picture and ensure there is genuine equality in the law for everyone.
The stark reality when looking at the legacy of the Troubles is that over 90% of the victims were killed by republican and loyalist terrorists. Around 10% of the deaths were caused by members of the security forces. Within that, on many occasions, the deaths that were as a result of the actions of the security forces were justifiable in preventing further loss of life. One thinks, for example, of the intervention of the security forces at Loughgall or, more recently and as has been highlighted in the news, at Clonoe, where it was not the security forces acting beyond their remit but intercepting active terrorist units and preventing them inflicting further death and misery on the civilians of Northern Ireland.
Some 90% of the Troubles deaths were caused by paramilitaries and terrorists, yet an outside observer looking at Northern Ireland today could be forgiven for not realising that. That is because, clearly, the concentration of inquests and court cases has had an overwhelming focus on the role of the state and individual members of the security services, to the extent that, for a lot of people in Northern Ireland from both sides of the community, there is a concern that, in looking at the past, we are seeing a very one-sided process.
What is the impact of that? First, it creates a sense of false equivalence: that the security services were simply one other player in a multifaceted war between different factions—that must be nailed down as a lie. The security services did all they could to protect all sections of the community all the time. We know that there were occasions when individual members of the security services overstepped the mark and engaged in criminal behaviour. I have no hesitation in saying that anyone who was engaged in criminal murder, from whatever source, deserves to face that, but if we are to try to persecute and to blame, for example, the Army in relation to an event such as Clonoe, I think that we have got something fundamentally wrong.
Even worse than that false equivalence between the forces of law and order and those who sought to inflict death and injury throughout the community in Northern Ireland—be they loyalist or republican—there is a greater and more dangerous myth now beginning to persist. There are those within our society who would seek to rewrite history to present the security forces not simply as being on a par with paramilitary organisations but as the source of the Troubles and to suggest that those involved, particularly in republican organisations, were really there simply to defend their community; they were the people who took up the shield on behalf of their community.
A narrative has been put about, particularly by republicans, that in some way tries to rewrite this history. We have seen that in a very stark way, over the last week or two, since the death of the IRA commander Bik McFarlane, who was directly involved in committing five murders of innocent civilians. Indeed, it was highlighted by the Taoiseach, in the last day or two, that he was also involved with the murders of Garda and state forces within the Republic of Ireland. Yet this individual is now eulogised; the words of the leader of Sinn Féin throughout Ireland were that he was a “great patriot”.
That is the danger we have with the rewriting of history. If we go down a route that provides that level of imbalance—that does not focus on the role of paramilitaries but, instead, concentrates almost exclusively on the actions of the security forces and digs deeper into what it can find out about them and blame them for—we are reinforcing a false narrative. That is both damaging to the perception of the past and deeply insulting to innocent victims and survivors of the Troubles and their families. It is not simply an attempt to rewrite the past; it has grave dangers for the present and future, because it provides for those on the republican or loyalist side who are still committed to seeing violence in any shape or form both to excuse what has happened in the past and potentially to act, particularly for dissident republicans, as a form of recruiter.
I think that is very dangerous, and that is why I would be in favour of, for example, the Private Member’s Bill that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, is currently talking about, which would make the glorification of terrorism a criminal offence. When we look to remedies on legacy, not only must we be careful to provide the opportunity for everyone to achieve justice but there must be a level playing field. To scapegoat the security forces will take us in completely the wrong direction. While I believe that the regret Motion from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, comes from the best of motivations, there is a danger of it taking us in the wrong direction. I will therefore oppose it today.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for bringing forward this regret Motion. She and I have had meetings with my noble friend the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General on the issue of legacy and on the issue of what is and is not contained in the remedial order.
The previous legislation was brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Caine, when he led for the then Government under their mandate. My belief is that we have not yet reached a human rights-compliant place on legacy to address the needs of victims and survivors. The current legacy Act does not do it and, while the remedial order has some welcome developments, there is a need to build on it as a matter of urgency. It is my clear understanding that that should and, I hope, will be built on in the repealing legislation. Can my noble friend outline the exact process that will be involved?
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, spoke clearly about the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland; I grew up and went to school and university during the Troubles, and none of my contemporaries was ever involved in violence. As democratic Irish nationalists, we abhorred the use of violence for political means, because nothing could ever be achieved through that. That was proven to be the case through the negotiations that led to the Good Friday agreement. Only dialogue, negotiations and peaceful compromise achieve any political development in Northern Ireland. Many people have been killed over the years by paramilitaries, both IRA and loyalist, and there has been some state violence—you have only to look at Bloody Sunday in Derry—but raking over those coals does not achieve political progress. We have to move on.
As I have referred to, there are some welcome developments in the remedial order. It will repeal the relevant provisions on immunity from prosecution already disapplied under the Windsor Framework by the High Court and the relevant provisions relating to the termination of civil claims. These are very welcome developments. However, the remedial order does not address the Court of Appeal’s declaration of incompatibility in respect of Section 45 of the Act, which precludes complaints about police conduct from being progressed. The incompatibilities relating to ICRIR’s role in replacing inquests in respect of victim participation and the role of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in disclosure of sensitive information are also not addressed. The Secretary of State seeks to appeal these findings in the UK Supreme Court, as has been addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. The incompatibility arising from Section 44 on the restriction of legacy inquests is also not addressed in the order.
It is a regrettable consequence of the Secretary of State’s plan to appeal that it precludes the use of Section 10 of the Human Rights Act to restore inquests in response to the NICA declaration of incompatibility in respect of Section 44 of the Act, despite the SOSNI’s claimed commitment to this outcome. There is a fear in Northern Ireland that the qualifications in the draft remedial order to end inquests infers an aim to limit their availability. I suppose tonight I am looking to hear from my noble friend the Minister what the exact position is in this case. Will all these issues be covered in the proposed repealing legislation? What is the timeframe for such legislation?
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has already referred to the impact of the existing legislation on legacy that was brought forward by the previous Government and the impact that has had politically in Northern Ireland in terms of the rule of law and policing, and particularly in reference to recruitment to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I support the PSNI, and I want to see young Catholics, both men and women, joining the PSNI and to reach the levels when we had 50:50 recruitment. I believe that, in order to redress that imbalance in recruitment, we need to go back to 50:50 recruitment. I heard last week the leader of the DUP saying that this was some form of wokeism. It is not; it is simply about trying to redress an imbalance to adhere to the rule of law and ensure there is fairness and equality. I would like to see that happening. However, the lack of young Catholics joining the PSNI can be directly correlated to the provisions in the legacy Act and the decisions on some of the potential areas for public inquiry which have been rejected, particularly with reference to the sad case of Sean Brown from County Derry who was killed in 1997.
I urge my noble friend the Minister to ensure that she is able tonight to provide us with a timeframe for the proposed repealing legislation. What will be in that repealing legislation? I know those areas may be difficult for my noble friend at this time, but I want her to provide those assurances or at least tell us that there will be a timeline that will lead to the eventual repealing of the iniquitous legacy legislation. I say “iniquitous” because that is how it is viewed in Northern Ireland; it is viewed as not the way forward. I hope that we can see the issues to do with police recruitment addressed and that we can have a police service in Northern Ireland that is capable of implementing the rule of law in a fair and impartial way—one that I want to see young people, particularly young Catholics, join.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this Motion of regret tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, asserts that the Government have failed to take account in their remedial order of every aspect of the Belfast court judgments, which effectively gutted the legacy Act. What was the government crime? The legacy Act apparently contravened Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights as well as Article 2 in the Northern Ireland Protocol or Windsor Framework.
In a way, this is a needless and premature discussion, because the remedial order has been laid in draft form for consultation and will be retabled, with or without improvements, for parliamentary decision in, I think, May. No doubt we will then have to repeat this debate—I hope it will not be as late starting. However, this serves a useful opportunity to spell out exactly what the rulings have brought about.
In my view, there are only three outstanding items from the judges’ findings of ECHR breaches which are not covered by the remedial order or by an NIO appeal. The major one for me is the required reintroduction of inquests, which the Secretary of State, Hilary Benn, has indicated may be passed to the new information recovery body, the ICRIR, under Sir Declan Morgan. We await the proposals in the forthcoming legacy Act replacement, though who knows when in the future we might get that to look at.
There are two other minor aspects that I know have probably been particularly close to the noble Baroness’s heart, since they relate to her previous work as the Police Ombudsman and a member of Kenova’s advisory panel. They concern the absence from the ICRIR’s remit of historic police misconduct, which she referred to, and which was in the Stormont House agreement Bill, and offences such as misconduct in public office and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Ironically, the 10,000 Troubles bomb attacks are another omission, but that did not seem to concern the judges.
If the ICRIR was to extend its remit to all these lesser offences, its budget would need a mammoth increase beyond its current £250 million. We know from the recent Policy Exchange report on the price of legacy that past and future compensation payments and reinvestigations are getting close to £3 billion. The Government need to produce their statistics, to show whether they dispute the Policy Exchange figures. I hope the Minister can respond on that specifically.
The remedial order was first laid in December and it is immensely long. It runs to 24 pages, and involves 29 sections and seven schedules of the legacy Act having to be amended or removed. Such orders are rare, and never before has there been one quite so lengthy. Its size proves the point that overturning the Act should be done by primary legislation and not by remedial order, which, as I understand it, the Attorney-General advised in July 2024, which was when the Northern Ireland Office decided not to appeal most of the ECHR incompatibilities found by Judge Colton in the Belfast High Court.
I am very disappointed that the Attorney-General is not here to listen to this debate. Did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, participate in a decision in July to abandon the Colton appeal? If he did, whether he knew that at the time or not, it was obviously a huge conflict of interest, because a key part of the Colton judgment was the removal of Sections 46 and 47 of the Act, which had reversed the bizarre decision—I think that was how we all felt when it was discussed here—by Lord Kerr in the Supreme Court that custody orders in the 1970s were signed by the wrong Northern Ireland Office Minister.
This second reversal will lead to compensation claimed by Gerry Adams, and hundreds of other internees who have lodged civil suits, being paid. Have the Government found a way yet of getting round this? Can we be sure that, in any advice that is happening on this, the Attorney-General is not involved, because he represented the same Gerry Adams in a compensation case where he was being sued by victims of the IRA murdered in London bombs? As we all know, Adams was for years a member of the IRA Army Council, although he rather unconvincingly denies that. He certainly was brought over by Her Majesty’s Government to negotiate as a member of the IRA with the British Government at Cheyne Walk in July 1972. The Attorney-General must explain whether he did advise or not, otherwise the rumours will continue to register, and it is not a very sensible situation.
We have two bites at repealing and replacing the 2023 Act. The first, we are told, is required by the Colton judgment, followed by Lady Chief Justice Keegan’s concurring judgment on appeal. But that does not have to happen. Your Lordships should know that the Belfast courts increasingly see themselves as an adjunct to the European judicial system, be it the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg or the EU court in Luxembourg, so they have disapplied large parts of the legacy Act. Governments are not obliged to act as a consequence of this. They could leave well alone, even if it means facing down the well-funded, very well-organised human rights industry that we have in Northern Ireland, in particular—some of it, of course, paid for by the Government.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I will not speak in the detail that the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and others have done, and I do not have the knowledge of Northern Ireland that various noble Lords have, on both the republican side and the unionist side, but I would like to say a few words on behalf of the soldiers who are currently under threat, be it from Clonoe or elsewhere. I am afraid to say that I know some of them, from past lives. Indeed, I was talking to one last week or the week before about exactly this, because he is under threat of being prosecuted for something that happened nearly 40 years ago. We have to ask: is that right?
This Parliament—every person in this Chamber—is responsible for sending troops to war and for the officers in the Metropolitan Police, including the poor chap, whose name I cannot remember, who shot Mr Kaba in the street. These people go out armed with weapons that are designed to be used. They are not meant to use them, but they do so if they are threatened—that is why they use them. I will defend all officers, including those in the British Army, the PSNI and the Metropolitan Police, if they behaved reasonably—I am not talking about murder. If they behaved reasonably, they should be given the benefit of the doubt by this Parliament, which sent them out to do that work.
The Army and the police keep records. Funnily enough, the IRA do not. I do not know whether anyone has noticed that. The Human Rights Act refers to records, but the IRA does not have any, so it cannot refer to them. I know far too many dead soldiers. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, about people’s lives. She is right. I think of Simon Ware, one of my young corporals, who was murdered in 1991 somewhere in South Armagh. I think of Robert Nairac, who I knew quite well in the 1970s before he was taken away and murdered. I think of Andrew Green, a staff college student who was murdered somewhere in in the south—I cannot remember exactly where. I think of all those soldiers who were killed, including the Queen’s Own Highlanders who were killed along the coast in 1979.
Guess what? There is no evidence. We heard earlier that there must be evidence. But where will the evidence come from? It comes from forensic evidence, if you can get it, or from people’s witnesses. But guess what? If you are a witness to an IRA killing, you do not say anything because you will end up with your throat cut. It is quite straightforward. I should also mention Jean McConville, because her case came up as an issue when I was working in the Northern Ireland Office. I spent only a year working in the streets of Northern Ireland; it was quite long enough, walking the streets of west Belfast. I spent about a year in the Northern Ireland Office as well. Jean McConville’s case came up. For those who do not know, I will briefly recount it. She was married to a nationalist and lived in the Divis flats. He died, and she was left with their 10 children. She went out and gave a blanket to a soldier who had been shot. The next day, the IRA came knocking on the door and dragged her away from her children. Her body was found some years later, buried on a beach in the south. Jean McConville was murdered by the IRA.
Now, who was the leader of the IRA at that time? I cannot say because I was not there, but the dogs in the streets of Northern Ireland will tell you that Gerry Adams was most certainly on the army command council at the time. In fact, if I were to say that outside this place, he would probably try to sue me; but luckily, in here I can get away with it—I hope. He was certainly there. He was a member of the IRA, responsible for murder, and yet he is still living. Should this measure go through, he might get financial compensation from the British Government for all the harm he did. This is outrageous.
Do we, as a Parliament, want to be able to send our soldiers out to fight, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has just said? Do we want them to go and protect our interests—not just one interest from time to time, but our national interests? Do we want to send them out to fight, or are we going to say, “Under the Human Rights Act, you’d better be very careful what you do. You’d better take the bullets out of your magazine”? This is just nonsense.
I suggest that everybody in this House, when it comes to it, would say that it is more important that we defend our public servants. If soldiers misbehave, yes, let them be prosecuted, but we defend our public servants. What really upsets me more than anything else—I will say this before I sit down—is this: do we wish to see the IRA win the Troubles that have taken place over the last 50 years?
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, the issues tonight need to be addressed collectively. Any primary legislation ought to take a broad, forward-facing approach, rather than narrowly focusing on the discrete issues raised either in the legacy Act or by the Court of Appeal. For much of the past 28 years, there has been an erosion of justice when it comes to dealing with the troubled past in Northern Ireland. For many victims of terror in Northern Ireland, there has been a hope of justice. But for many, justice has only been a repeated word and results have not been delivered. We have witnessed a process whereby terrorists were released from prison. It was then followed by comfort letters that certainly offered no comfort to the innocent victims of terror.
Across Northern Ireland, many people realistically accept that there is a limited possibility of successful prosecution and meaningful jail terms for those who carried out atrocities against innocent victims. Much of the focus around the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery has been on issues of independence and, specifically, concerns expressed by those who feel that the state holds vital information on the circumstances of their loved one’s death. The ICRIR has limited influence when it comes to requiring or disclosing that information to families, yet the stark reality is that it remains a far more significant inducer of information from the state than from the terrorist.
Little in the way of attention has been paid to how the ICRIR can provide answers for those families who are met with a wall of silence by terrorist organisations responsible for murder and bloodshed. Why should the family of a terrorist atrocity be left bereft of disclosure when the family of an act involving the state receives answers? There ought to be an acceptance that the primacy of the European Convention on Human Rights in our statute books and the courts is not just facilitating but accelerating that double standard in justice outcomes for victims of the Troubles.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, Northern Ireland has a unique past, and we cannot ignore the contemporary importance of that when we seek to provide reconciliation and justice to the bereaved, the injured and the deceased. We in the DUP have an approach to dealing with the past that includes our test for future proposals. First, there can be no amnesty for wrongdoing or wrongdoers; secondly, there should never be any equivalence between the innocent victim of terrorism and the perpetrator; and, thirdly, the door to justice must remain open through a system of investigations that is fair and reflects the fact that paramilitary and terrorist organisations were responsible for the vast majority of deaths during the Troubles. If anyone wants to look at the figures they will come up with a figure like 90%, but the 90% are seldom talked about. It is always the 1% or 2% of the security forces who seem to get all the attention, for reasons that are right out over my head.
Every family deserves a fair and full investigation into the death of their loved one. Equally, vexatious investigations into former soldiers and members of the security forces are unjustified and must stop. It is difficult to consider justice in respect of Northern Ireland when, still to this very day, one of the leading parties that occupy the post of First Minister continues to perpetuate the invalidation of the justice process. We recently saw myriad tributes from Sinn Féin for the Irish republican killer Bik McFarlane. We watched as John Finucane, Gerry Adams and Gerry Kelly gathered in Belfast to remember a man who Mary Lou McDonald said had
“lived his life in pursuit of freedom, peace and equality”.
If anything was a misquote, that certainly was it. She ought to bow her head in shame and she needs to be called out on it. He
“lived his life in pursuit of freedom, peace and equality”,
but he did not give the same right to his victims—not a chance. No noble Lord would be so deceived as to believe that the murder of five people, including a 17 year-old girl, and the murdering of a great many others, were done in the pursuit of freedom, peace and equality. That is why we must always call out the glorification of terrorism as we seek to bring justice to the bereaved.
The Government’s proposed remedial order rightly negates the abhorrent immunity provisions legislated for by the last Government, and we wholeheartedly support that. Likewise, we welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has acted out of the moral imperative that the Government have to protect the memory of innocent victims rather than out of acceptance of the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of Article 2 of the Windsor Framework.
It is apparent that the courts and statutory rights bodies have wrongly taken an expansive approach to interpreting Article 2 of the protocol, which deals with “no diminution of rights”. This has constrained the UK Government in legislating for Northern Ireland as in the rest of the UK on fundamental issues such as immigration. To accept the Court of Appeal’s specific finding on this would open the door to the further erosion of the principles that underpin our constitutional position within the United Kingdom and the sovereignty of our national parliament in reserved matters. For exactly the same reason, we support the Government’s appeal in respect of the Court of Appeal’s finding with regard to non-disclosure on national security grounds and the involvement of next of kin in inquests or investigations.
The Government’s remedial order does not seek to abolish the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. In fact, the Secretary of State has indicated an intention to bring forward reforms aimed at improving the independence and operation of the body. We will wait and see. This begs a question. If the Government believe that the ICRIR remains capable of providing human rights-compliant investigations into Troubles deaths, why was it not deemed appropriate for the Finucane family? Ultimately, there can be no hierarchy of victims—except in the case of the Finucane family.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has highlighted that the proposed remedial order does not address all issues of incompatibility with the ECHR, as determined by the Court of Appeal. In some respects, that is true. However, the Government have committed to separately bringing forward primary legislation to deal with a number of elements, in addition to appealing specific findings on disclosure and the Windsor Framework. This is an ongoing process. The question we politely pose to the noble Baroness is why she believes the process should be rushed. As a party, we would be deeply concerned with any legislative intent to restore provision for inquests—particularly beyond those that had already commenced prior to the implementation of the current Act—without a fundamental reappraisal of how the coronial system in Northern Ireland approaches Troubles-related cases and, specifically, the actions of members of the security forces.
The Clonoe inquest findings have reignited an anger and alienation among veterans, innocent victims and the wider community in Northern Ireland. There is a disbelief that the actions of the SAS that day could be construed as anything other than a reasonable and justified response to the threat to life posed by heavily armed PIRA terrorists. Moreover, it seems that the wider context in which the security forces were operating at that time, as well as the prior actions of the deceased men just moments prior to their deaths, were not given fulsome consideration as part of the inquest process. That, to our mind, demonstrates a fundamental weakness in the coronial process which ought to be addressed, substantively, prior to giving consideration to restoring inquests.
This simply does not add up when we consider the ruling handed out last April by the coroner in respect of the Coagh murders of June 1991. The ruling heard that the SAS soldiers were justified in their use of lethal force because:
“The use of force by the soldiers was, in the circumstances they believed them to be, reasonable”.
It was believed that these three men—all members of the murderous East Tyrone Brigade of the IRA—were en route to murder a member of the security forces. Yet in respect of Clonoe, we are seeing a blatant attempt to rewrite the historical narrative. This is retraumatising our veterans of the security forces, who put their lives on the line against a terrorist cabal. Now they watch in horror as they are being prosecuted for the actions they took to protect their fellow servicemen and their country.
Similarly, in respect of police complaints, the apparent chasm in accountability for the failings of the current Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland—who has been found by the courts to have overstepped the mark in alleging “collusive behaviour” against RUC officers in recent times—must not be ignored by the Government if real progress is to be made in ensuring that legacy investigations do not vexatiously target former police officers or soldiers or otherwise retrofit the events of the past to suit a particular political narrative.
We must ensure that there is never a targeted nor a mendacious approach to legacy issues in Northern Ireland which indiscriminately blames the security forces. Those brave people valiantly gave their lives for the safety of our communities. We must turn our attention to the likes of Bik McFarlane, who is so glorified and extolled by Sinn Féin. There are many families in Northern Ireland who every day wake up without someone who should have been with them today; instead, they were murdered by terrorists—who still have not been brought to justice.
The Dublin Government need to stand up and take their responsibility. We have an inquiry in Omagh; the bomb that killed all those people in Omagh was manufactured in the Irish Republic and transported from the Irish Republic, yet the Government of the Irish Republic say they have nothing to answer for. Not half they haven’t. There is not a soul in Northern Ireland, or the whole of Ireland for that matter, who believes that. They need to stand up and accept their responsibilities.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, there are two points I want to make this evening. The first concerns the fact that in December 2023, the Government of Ireland decided to take action against the United Kingdom Government over the offer of immunity for Troubles-related crimes. Of course, there was opposition in Northern Ireland from political parties to the immunity side of the legacy proposals, albeit other parts of the legislation were deemed acceptable by quite a number of people.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, the real backcloth to this debate is that 58% of all murders were perpetrated by republicans and 29.2%, we are told, were carried out by loyalists. We are told that 10% were at the hands of security forces. Whenever you drill down into that figure, however, you will find that the real figure is 0.5% to 1%, because the vast majority of those attributed to the security forces were cases when terrorists were on their mission to murder but were thankfully intercepted by the security forces, preserving the lives of innocent, law-abiding people in Northern Ireland. We must also remember that thousands were injured, and billions of pounds of damage was done not only to property but to the fabric of our society.
One has to ask the question: why did successive Governments fail to protect the innocent people of the Province and allow the IRA to rain such terror on Northern Ireland for 30 years? The IRA sought to make Northern Ireland ungovernable and drive it into civil war. The IRA tried hard to turn not only south Armagh but Northern Ireland into bandit country, but, even after all their years of murder and mayhem, they failed. Sadly, because of decisions recently made by this Government, the republican agitators are using legacy to fight old battles, rewrite the narrative of the history of their murderous deeds, sanitise their evil actions and of course keep the pot stirred to cause division, from which they in the past have gained oxygen and electoral success.
There are those in Northern Ireland who are greatly exercised about having inquiries into the actions of the security forces alone, but they do not have the same urgency when it comes to recalling that most of the IRA victims were gallant members of our security forces or members of the isolated Protestant communities along the border areas.
Let me make it clear. I stand tonight to salute the bravery and professionalism of our security personnel during the years of republican terror. They faced a merciless foe that usually hid behind their hedges, waiting to carry out their acts of murder, whether it was of one of our young British soldiers, or members of the RUC/RUCR GC or the UDR—or indeed by planting bombs under the vehicles of their Protestant neighbours.
I remember when I was in the other House, holding a wedding photograph of a young Castlederg couple. It was the happiest day of their lives. In July 1984, a 20 year-old UDR woman, Heather Kerrigan, and her colleague Norman McKinley were murdered when an IRA landmine exploded while they were on a UDR foot patrol. Heather’s brother was injured in that attack and left to lie in his sister’s blood. Previously, in March 1984, Heather’s brother-in-law, Thomas Loughlin, the groom, was also murdered while off duty.
Let me remind the House of what I am recalling. The photograph that I held that day had four persons in it—a groom, a bride, a bridesmaid and a best man. The groom, the bridesmaid and the best man were all murdered by the IRA and the only one left was the bride, left to journey through life alone. I wonder how many remember that and how many really care.
Out of the 29 people from Castlederg murdered by the IRA, 93% of those cases remain unresolved and their families have no closure nor hope of closure. The loss, the hurt, the injustice and grief that they feel to this very day have been carried with great dignity, but in many ways, they feel abandoned by successive Governments. Like so many families, I understand their hurt, for no one has been brought to justice for the murder of my loved ones; nor is there any hope of them being brought to justice. Nor is there any hope for justice for the eight workmen murdered along the roadside at Teebane, outside Cookstown; nor for the 10 men who were ordered out of the bus at Kingsmill and massacred—although at the inquest, the families were told that one of the suspects had been linked to almost 50 murders; nor for the 11 innocent people brutally murdered at the Enniskillen Remembrance Day service on 8 November 1987. Some 63 people were injured that day as a bomb ripped the Fermanagh town, and Ronnie Hill, a school principal, spent 13 years in a coma afterwards, dying in 2000, aged 68. The list goes on.
Why do I mention these? Most of them, the media will not mention. They have been long forgotten. Indeed, their names seldom, if ever, appear in news headlines. However, republicans parade their dead and the media will readily present the anger and the tears of their families, forgetting to remind especially the international world that it was the IRA which commenced and deliberately carried on this campaign of slaughter.
The security forces could have stopped this carnage years ago, but their hands were tied by successive appeasing Governments who were more concerned about international opinion than the safety and protection of their citizens. The southern Government also stands condemned, because, let us remember, it was the Haughey Government who first armed the IRA, and their territory was used by the IRA for years as the safe haven to run to after carrying out their evil and murderous deeds.
Lord Godson (Con)
My Lords, the much-maligned legacy Act of the last Parliament, so ably taken through this House by my noble friend Lord Caine, sought to draw a line under the Troubles and encourage the people of these islands—all of us in our own ways—to opt for a different, better way of addressing these historical matters of the utmost importance.
However, with this remedial order, the Government now propose to return to dealing with legacy questions with tried and, I am afraid to say, failed methods by seeking prosecutions and convictions that are increasingly unlikely to happen. It is a fact that, as we all know, prosecutions of Troubles-era offences conducted by paramilitaries of all parties and sectarian affiliations are less and less likely to happen because of a lack of admissible evidence. As other noble Lords have pointed out, the Government’s decision to gut the legacy Act of the previous Parliament will result in a disproportionate and unfair prosecutorial focus on the security forces, which had to work under infernally difficult circumstances throughout much of the Troubles.
To my mind, what is worse here is that the Government propose to do all of this in response to a High Court judgment that is open to very serious question indeed. Despite what the Lady Chief Justice appeared to say in her press conference last week—and indeed seemed to walk back from in her testimony today before the Constitution Committee—it is vital that we in this House and in the other House on all sides of the divide, Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition alike downwards, be able to continue to scrutinise the actions and the judgments of those courts.
The 2023 legacy Act extends constitutional immunity to those who give information to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. The High Court and now the Government are treating these provisions as if they were somehow unprecedented. But as I and others pointed out in this place during the Second Reading debate on the legacy Act, immunity provisions have featured extensively in the peace process throughout the last 25 years. Immunity has already been widely granted to terrorists through the early release scheme for prisoners which, as we all know, was a key element of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement of 1998 and was implemented furthermore in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. Immunity provisions were also part of the decommissioning process—a prolonged process, as we all know—and the search for the location of the victims’ remains was another aspect of that process.
Repealing these conditional immunity provisions means making it much more difficult now to establish the truth about many unresolved cases—cases which, as I have already said, are increasingly unlikely to result in prosecutions or convictions. Parliament is not required simply to agree with the High Court, but policy choices in the legacy Act, including using conditional immunity in exchange for information, are beyond the pale. I recognise that conditional immunity provisions are highly controversial, and that many in this place will, as I pointed out, now welcome their repeal.
The same cannot so easily be said for Sections 46 and 47 of the legacy Act, which should not have been included in the remedial order and should not now be repealed at all. Many noble Lords will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and others, including me, tabled an amendment that led to these sections being adopted in order to reverse the legal effects of the Supreme Court’s extreme judgement in the Adams case. The intention behind the legislation was twofold. The first purpose was to restore the Carltona principle, which is so important to the day-to-day conduct of government business, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. The other purpose was to prevent windfall compensation becoming payable to those whom, on a correct understanding of the law, had been lawfully detained for suspected involvement in terrorism.
Any such payment would be unjust and a complete waste of taxpayer money. It would also be received with understandable horror by many in the Province, and indeed in all these islands, including Great Britain. As someone pointed out, one of the unknown heroes of the Northern Ireland Troubles was the Great British taxpayer. While the Government have now signalled their opposition to Gerry Adams and others receiving compensation, I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that this Government freely chose not to appeal the High Court declaration that Sections 46 and 47 were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
I must declare an interest as the director of Policy Exchange. For the reasons set out at length in a recent Policy Exchange paper written by Professor Richard Ekins and Sir Stephen Laws, a former First Parliamentary Counsel, and backed by many noble Peers here, the High Court’s analysis seems to many to have been plainly wrong, and it is inexplicable that the Government have chosen not to appeal it.
There is no good reason for the Government to have included repeal of these sections in the remedial order. They are clearly severable from the controversy that exists in relation to other provisions of the 2023 legacy Act, which the Government have consistently opposed. The Prime Minister himself has told Parliament that he will look at every conceivable way to avoid paying compensation in these cases. He is right to do so. The obvious way to achieve this end is to withdraw the remedial order and maintain Sections 46 and 47 in force.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady O’Loan for her important speech this evening. She is one of the victims of the Troubles, and it is important to pay attention to everything that she has said tonight. I think that the outstanding issues in her speech will be resolved either by the Government taking actions to improve the workings of the ICRIR or by subsequent cases in the courts. That is the likely future for the issues she raised.
If I have gathered correctly, my noble friend is a critic of the ICRIR in principle, and I approach this problem from a very different angle. I am not a critic of the ICRIR project. I admire enormously the way that Sir Declan Morgan has led it through very difficult times in the last few months. I therefore have a very different angle of vision from that of my noble friend.
This week, the Prime Minister, in his very important speech on defence, said that in 1989 he could not have envisaged a situation in Europe where the Ukraine war was happening and there was an invasion of boundaries and so on. At a moment of great hope with the collapse of communism, he could not have envisaged this. It provoked a thought in me: at the time of the Good Friday agreement, I could not have envisaged that, more than a quarter of a century later, we would be sitting in this House debating legacy cases and how legacy cases have been carried on.
If you look at the language in the Good Friday agreement itself, you could reasonably argue that it is somewhat curt on legacy victims. They are advised to take pleasure in the fact that we had negotiated peace. You would not gather from the Good Friday agreement that we would have this long, traipsing agony continuing through the courts this week—and which is likely to continue ad infinitum, unless something like the ICRIR works. It is the most important part of the 2023 Act, which I supported almost in its entirety. The ICRIR remains, and without it, we would have a future where these cases straggle on and on.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I should declare an interest as a lawyer. They have not been getting a particularly good press during this debate although, having said that, I agree with many of the comments that have been made about their role. The great importance that seems to be attached to lawyers in this process is not always helpful.
I want to speak briefly about Sections 46 and 47, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Godson, has given: namely, that I was one of those who put down an amendment which eventually resulted in those provisions finding their way into the legacy Act. I should remind noble Lords that the provisions were not in fact ultimately controversial. The current Government did not oppose the amendments, and I think all parties had some enthusiasm for them.
My interest in that area was that the decision of the Supreme Court in Adams in 2020 seemed to me, and to many lawyers, to be contrary to the Carltona principle and, effectively, to ride roughshod over a number of constitutional conventions. Of course, it produced what was, to many of us, the undesirable result that Gerry Adams and many others were going to be able to achieve compensation against the British Government for their wrongful detention. I say nothing about the internment policy. The Act was, in my view, perfectly clear that it was an authorised internment, signed by the right level of Minister.
However, we know that there was a First Instance judgment in Northern Ireland in the case of Fitzsimmons, which decided that these and a number of other provisions in the legacy Act contravened the European Convention on Human Rights, and therefore a declaration of incompatibility was appropriate. The previous Government were in the process of appealing that decision. When this Government came into power, they took a different view about, presumably, the correctness of that decision. It may be that the Minister can enlighten us, without breaching any convention, as to what the different construction that this Government placed on that decision was, as opposed to the lawyers who were advising the previous Government.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said that the remedial order will
“enable all civil proceedings that were prohibited by the legacy Act, including future cases, to proceed”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/24; col. 418.]
However, in Question Time on 15 January, the Prime Minister said that he was anxious to prevent Gerry Adams obtaining compensation. Can the Minister clarify who is right and what the current position is? The declaration of incompatibility does not, of course, require the Government to amend legislation. It gives them a discretion. Why do they have to exercise that discretion in the way that they have?
Where an Act of Parliament has been passed, ultimately without controversy, to amend it by way of statutory instrument is a violation of proper constitutional practice —one that I know was deprecated by the current Attorney-General in a recent speech.
I respectfully ask the Minister to consider very carefully whether it is really appropriate to fly in the face of what Parliament decided was appropriate and yet to allow these compensation claims to proceed. They will amount to many, many pounds—we do not know how many. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, cited the figure given by Policy Exchange and the Minister is invited to say what her estimation is. I do not think the general public or the legislature will be happy with that situation.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. A lot has been said here tonight but the one thing we are absolutely sure of in Northern Ireland is that the vast majority of victims of the Troubles will never see an end or a resolution to their issue. That is the sad reality we live in.
My second point is that there will be no agreement as to the blame game there. What is turning out to be a one-sided process, where we are hauling the former security forces before the courts and inquests while the terrorists seem to be getting away without any retribution, is not right either.
Let us not forget that, over the last 25 years, a number of those in government in Northern Ireland have been former IRA terrorists. I hear all the stories that the only people who have the information are the security forces —that is not right. Some of those people in government, some of those people walking the streets of Northern Ireland, who were openly members of the IRA and other terrorist organisations, know what happened in many of those cases. They should be compelled to come forward and provide that information to the innocent victims of Northern Ireland. That is not happening. Why?
Maybe some people are afraid that it will ruin the process we have. Maybe there is an approach to it almost of cowardice. You cannot continue to not face up to the reality that those people know what happened and should be bringing that information forward to give the loved ones of those innocent victims some degree of comfort that they do not have at the moment.
I noticed, quite recently, that the courts have also ruled on the issue of collusion and collusive behaviour, where the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers Association had to take cases to stop the police ombudsman referring first to collusion and then to collusive behaviour. I welcome those judgments. But why is it that we continue to talk about the information that the Government hold but not talk about the information that those terrorists hold—we all know who they are, some are in government, many walk in the streets—and could give to help our loved ones?
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, given the lateness of the hour, I shall endeavour to be extremely brief and will concentrate primarily on the parliamentary process. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for tabling this regret Motion and allowing us to have this thought-provoking and wide-ranging debate, which has perhaps been more about legacy issues in general than specifically this order. She raised a number of extremely important points and spelled out some of the positives in this order. I recall, as she did, that during the debates we had on the previous Government’s legacy Act, all political parties in Northern Ireland were absolutely united in opposing the immunity provisions. For that reason alone, we on these Benches support this draft order.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, as a Minister I spent some 28 hours in your Lordships’ House debating the legislation that is the subject of this draft remedial order and the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. In addition, I held somewhere in the region of 80 meetings on this subject between summer 2022 and September 2023. I hope noble Lords will therefore be relieved to hear that I have absolutely no intention of going over the same old ground on what became the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act, not least given the lateness of the hour.
All I will say is that in our view the Act represented a realistic assessment of what could be delivered for victims and survivors of the Troubles, over half a century after they began and over a quarter of a century since the Belfast agreement of 1998 effectively brought them to an end, in the context of the prospect of prosecutions and successful convictions being vanishingly rare, as my noble friend Lord Godson pointed out. I also fully appreciate that, for many people, some aspects of the legislation were extremely challenging—that has been brought out again in this debate—as they were for me, as I made clear at Second Reading in November 2022. That was why I made more than 100 amendments to the legislation as it passed through your Lordships’ House in an attempt to improve and strengthen it.
I still believe that the independent commission has the capacity to deliver better outcomes for victims and survivors of the Troubles than established processes that work for only a small minority of those who suffered and offer virtually nothing for those who suffered at the hands of terrorism. I repeat our welcome for the fact that the Government intend to keep the commission, which has the powers to compel witnesses with penalties for non-co-operation.
The Government set out in their Statement on 5 December how they intended to respond in those areas where the courts in Belfast found the legislation to be incompatible with provisions of the European convention. Of course, we set out our views accordingly. While we do not agree with the provisions of the draft remedial order concerning conditional immunity and civil cases, we respect the right of the Government to bring them forward given the strength of their opposition to them as the legislation was going through your Lordships’ House. But we fear that there is a real danger that the changes they are proposing will return us to a fragmented and incoherent approach to legacy issues and cases, which our legislation sought to address. It will result in a hierarchy of investigations, lead to the very real prospect of elderly veterans being dragged back once again before the courts and facilitate, unwittingly or otherwise, those who seek to rewrite history.
We remain puzzled over the rash decision in July to drop the appeal against the High Court judgment in respect of Sections 46 and 47 of the Act, which deal with interim custody orders, the provisions for which I inserted at Third Reading in your Lordships’ House, following extensive discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and my noble friend Lord Godson. At the time, this was supported by the then Opposition. I commend the speeches of my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. I also commend the brilliant Policy Exchange paper by Sir Stephen Laws and Professor Richard Ekins on this subject.
As a result of the remedial order, Sections 46 and 47 will be removed from the Act, reopening the door to significant claims for compensation from those who argue successfully that they were unlawfully detained in the 1970s. Taken with the reopening of inquests and the resumption of civil cases, the burden on the PSNI and the court service risks becoming absolutely huge, with costs running into the tens of millions, if not more.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew, in a customarily erudite and eloquent speech, reminded us of some of the costs associated with public inquiries, including the Bloody Sunday inquiry with which he was so closely associated. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the resource implications of the changes they are proposing? Where exactly will that money come from? Will it come from the £250 million pot from the Stormont House New Decade, New Approach agreement, which is intended to fund legacy issues?
The Prime Minister promised on 15 January:
“we will look at every conceivable way to prevent these types of cases from claiming damages”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/25; col. 324.]
But surely, as my noble friend Lord Godson argued, the best way to achieve this would be to withdraw Sections 46 and 47 from the remedial order. We hope that, by the time the Government come to publishing the final order, they might think again on this particular matter.
Where we do agree with the Government is in continuing to appeal the court’s rulings in respect of the Windsor Framework and on the powers of the Secretary of State to preclude the disclosure of sensitive information that could put individuals at risk and make people less secure. As a result, these form no part of the remedial order, and that is something that the Opposition welcome. It follows, therefore, that the Opposition do not support the regret Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan.
While I respectfully disagree with the noble Baroness, I can understand some of her frustration, given her forthright and principled opposition to the legislation that I took through this House. The current Government came to power with a pledge to reform and repeal the legacy legislation, yet it is clear that the bulk of it will remain, including the independent commission to which the noble Baroness objected so strongly, so I understand some of her personal frustrations.
The Government say that they are seeking consensus on legacy proposals, which is commendable. However, tonight’s debate has demonstrated clearly just how difficult that might be, as it was for all their predecessors since 1998—and the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard, alluded to that in his comments.
On one final point, my noble friend Lord Empey spoke of the role of the Irish Government in respect of legacy cases and the comments of the former Justice Minister and former Attorney-General Michael McDowell, who, he will not be surprised to hear, was one of the 80 meetings I had between 2022 and 2023. It is clear that the Irish Government have questions to answer about their handling of legacy issues within their own jurisdiction. At two successive meetings of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, in November 2023 and April 2024, I raised these matters, and individual cases, directly with the then Foreign Minister, now the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the current Government will continue to raise the issues of Omagh, the Ian Sproule case and the inter-state case, which is totally unjustified, with the Irish Government at future meetings of BIIGC.
We will of course return to all these matters in detail when the Government finally reveal their proposals. For now, given the lateness of the hour, I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I will respond to the regret Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, regarding the scope of the proposed draft remedial order which addresses various incompatibilities found by the Northern Ireland courts in respect of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I acknowledge and welcome the sincerity of her concerns, and the importance of ensuring that future mechanisms for addressing Northern Ireland’s legacy issues fully comply with our human rights obligations and are capable of commanding public confidence.
Before I move on to the substance of the debate, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. There is no more emotive or long-standing issue for us to discuss in your Lordships’ House than the legacy of the Troubles, and the real and tangible impact that this has had on too many families. I put on record my sincere thanks to everybody present who has worked tirelessly to try to deliver a level of peace and justice for those affected by the brutal and horrific acts of terror perpetuated during one of the most painful periods of British history. I want to especially thank the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, for his contribution this evening. His speech demonstrated for me the sheer scale of the trauma of the Troubles, and the reality of the horror and evil of paramilitary terrorism.
Last week, I had the honour of spending some time in Northern Ireland, meeting some of the groups that work with and support those affected by the Troubles. I am in awe of the people I met; their determination was inspiring and their stories were devastating. I thank each and every one of them—people who were prepared to share the terrible traumas that they experienced during the Troubles, including in the line of duty. I cannot comprehend the scale of the pain they continue to experience, and it is something that I will always remember.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt. To clarify, the amendments that found their way on to the statute book were government amendments that I moved at Third Reading of the legacy Act. They were not amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Godson.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I apologise, and stand corrected on the record.
This Government take their human rights obligations extremely seriously, and the provisions therefore need to be repealed. The Government are carefully exploring how to lawfully address this complex issue alongside our clear commitment to implement legacy mechanisms that are fully compliant with human rights.
For clarity, although we did not proceed with an appeal on this issue to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal commented on the issue, saying that
“it will rarely be permissible in Convention terms”
to make the changes “with retrospective effect”, which fed into our decision-making. I will revert to some of the other points associated with this later in my speech.
I also recognise that a number of submissions from individuals and organisations say that the draft remedial order could or should do more, and some state that it is entirely the wrong legislative vehicle to use. I reiterate that the JCHR will very shortly publish its report, and the Government will carefully consider any recommendations made, as well as the written submissions, before coming back to Parliament to lay the remedial order for a further 60 days.
On the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, on the Dillon appeal, the steps outlined in the Secretary of State’s oral statement make it clear that the Government will respond directly to recent court judgments, including by bringing forward measures to create a fairer and more balanced disclosure regime, fulfilling the Government’s promises to allow inquests previously halted to proceed and to remove the bar on civil proceedings.
However, the Court of Appeal’s finding in relation to disclosure and effective next of kin participation raises issues that could reach far beyond the scope of the legacy Act, including on the state’s ability to keep people safe. Our approach to repealing Article 2 of the Windsor Framework’s grounds is framed by the importance of maintaining a clear human rights framework in Northern Ireland and across the UK.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the current Brown legal proceedings. She will appreciate that, given their ongoing nature, I cannot comment.
Many noble Lords rightly raised the current, pervading issue of the rewriting of history. I have been clear from this Dispatch Box historically, and will continue to be, that I and this Government do not and will not support the rewriting of history. I reassure noble Lords on that matter, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Weir, for being the first Peer to raise it this evening.
With regard to the issues pertaining to the Irish Government, as raised by the noble Lords, Lord Browne, Lord Morrow, Lord Empey and Lord Caine, the Government will continue detailed discussions with the Irish Government on a way forward. The Government consider the Irish Government an essential partner in this process. It is important that the UK and Irish Governments seek to agree a way forward that helps provide victims and families with as much information as possible, and to do so in a way that is underpinned by the principles set out in the Stormont House agreement.
However, the process of discussion cannot be unending. Time is passing and, as families get older, they must be afforded ways to obtain the information, accountability and acknowledgement that they have long sought. This evening, the Secretary of State was going to come and join us, but he is with the Tánaiste. They have been discussing issues between the two Governments in seeking an approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland in which all communities can have confidence.
On the inter-state case raised by noble Lords, of course I hope that one of the consequences of our promised legacy reform will be the withdrawal of that case, although that is a matter for the Irish Government.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
As the noble Baroness pauses, I wonder whether she could help me by just clarifying one thing. I think I heard her say that the Government have come to the clear conclusion that it would be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights to allow someone in Gerry Adams’s position—or, rather, not to allow him—to proceed with his claim for damages because that would be against the convention. Is that the Government’s position?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
That is absolutely not the Government’s position. The Government’s position is clear, and the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have been clear: we will find a lawful way to move forward. We are still consulting with lawyers on what that should be. As a lawyer, the noble Lord will know that that is not something that can be done overnight.
The Clonoe inquest was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. I very much appreciate the sensitivities of this inquest and its findings, as well as the anger that they have caused. The Government will come back in due course, as they are currently considering the details of the inquest.
We have discussed veterans and immunity provisions before. My position has not changed. This Government will do everything we can to support those who served—those who ran towards the fire and put themselves between terrorists and civilians in order to keep people safe.
I want to touch on the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Robathan. Unusually, I find myself agreeing with much of what he said—it had to happen once— including that people in uniform must operate within the law and that the overwhelming majority of those in Northern Ireland did exactly that. We owe them a debt of gratitude; I am grateful for their service. We will continue to work with them and with veterans groups to make sure that, as and when any support or legal advice is required, we are there with them.
The Policy Exchange funding was raised by several noble Lords. This Government do not recognise the basis of the figures for any future costs in this report; they are entirely speculative. The figures include estimates based on policies that are yet to be determined. Therefore, they are highly speculative—I make no comment to the noble Lord, Lord Godson. To touch on the future costs, obviously that will form part of our debate when we bring forward primary legislation.
There were comments this evening about the role of the Attorney-General. I want to be very clear and remind noble Lords that, due to precedent, neither we nor he can comment on the specifics of which cases he advised on, and noble Lords would not expect me to do so.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate tonight. It has been wide-ranging, going way beyond the scope of the regret Motion that I tabled—I knew it would be thus.
I would like to correct one issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Caine. For 20 years, I have called for the establishment of an independent body to deal with the past. My objection to the legislation about the ICRIR was the way in which it lacked independence and was to be so circumscribed and controlled by government.
What we are contemplating now is the future handling of the legacy of the past. Tonight’s debate has enabled wide-ranging discussion of the past. The multiple atrocities of the past have been well articulated here tonight. We should never forget. When I do this work, I am always catapulted back to the darkness, the terror and the pain of the bomb explosion in 1977, which took the life of my first baby as I was pregnant, and to the terrible attempted murder of one of my boys almost 20 years ago by loyalists. The IRA killed my first child; the loyalists tried to kill this child. They left him with life-changing injuries. There are many tears, my Lords—many, many tears.
For many decades I have worked also with victims. I remember the police widow who told me that she sat at her window in her lonely farmhouse for decades, waiting for the police officers, her husband’s colleagues, to come back and tell her what had happened—what they had found. But they never came. They were moved on to other cases. I remember the parents of the last soldier to die in Northern Ireland, Stephen Restorick, whose case I dealt with. I remember the children of Jean McConville and all the disappeared of the Troubles —disappeared by the IRA—with whom I have worked extensively, and I was thinking most recently of the victims of the Omagh bombing, whose stories have been told so graphically in the past weeks. So much pain—so much grief.
We must find a way to provide one system, accessible to all, which seeks to provide for the needs of all. It will be difficult but we must find a way. In that spirit of positivity I tabled this regret Motion. It is important to explore together as constructively as we can how we can care for all our people as we journey forward into the future. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.