Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Local Government (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) (England) Order 2026
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Local Government (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) (England) Order 2026.
Relevant document: 46th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, this order delivers on the Government’s commitment to build a stronger economy in all parts of the country. It gives local authorities in England the tools they need to support local and UK-based businesses and to strengthen local communities through the power of public procurement.
The order enables local government authorities to reserve public procurement competitions for below-threshold contracts to suppliers based within the UK or their local area. Below-threshold contracts are those valued below the financial thresholds set out in Schedule 1 to the Procurement Act 2023 and which are subject to a much more limited set of rules than contracts valued above the thresholds. Those thresholds are set to align with the UK’s international obligations on public procurement.
These may be lower-value contracts, but they matter enormously. Between February and November 2025 alone, they accounted for over £1 billion of spend and represented almost two-thirds of the contracts awarded by subcentral authorities—I think that is Civil Service-speak for local authorities. Currently, local authorities are prevented from considering supply location when carrying out procurements by Section 17(5)(e) of the Local Government Act 1988. That provision was enacted to prevent politically motivated boycotts of foreign countries through procurement—an essential safeguard that this order fully maintains. The order permits this restriction to be set aside only when authorities reserve competitions for below-threshold contracts to either UK-based businesses or to businesses based in a defined local area. Authorities cannot target specific countries, and political boycotts remain unlawful.
Before bringing forward this legislation, we listened carefully to local authorities. The previous Government consulted on a similar proposal in 2023, which received strong support in principle. However, authorities were clear that the proposed approach then—limiting reservations to a single county or a single London borough—was too restrictive. It was unworkable for combined authorities spanning multiple areas, for councils procuring jointly across boundaries and for parish councils.
This Government have taken a different approach. The order provides the greater flexibility that authorities asked for by allowing them to set the local area as their own area or the entire county or borough within which they are located, or to extend it to include any bordering counties or London boroughs. This matches the reality of how local government operates. Economic geographies do not stop at administrative boundaries.
Authorities can also combine this geographic flexibility with existing powers to reserve contracts to small and medium-sized enterprises and voluntary, community and social enterprises. This means that an authority could reserve a contract to local SMEs or to UK-based social enterprises, maximising flexibility to support their communities in the way that makes the most sense.
Transparency remains paramount. When authorities use these powers and advertise the opportunity, they must clearly state in their procurement advertisement what area the competition is reserved to.
The order also amends the Procurement Regulations 2024 to require that authorities state the relevant area in any below-threshold tender notice that is published. Suppliers will know up front whether they are eligible, and the public can see how their local authority is using its powers.
Statutory guidance has been published to support implementation and was prepared in consultation with the Local Government Association. The broader policy of enabling authorities to reserve competitions for below-threshold contracts had cross-party support during the passage of the Procurement Act. Labour welcomed it in opposition and local government has asked for it consistently. The order empowers local authorities in England to support local economies, strengthen UK businesses, and create opportunities for SMEs and social enterprises, all while maintaining essential safeguards against political boycotts. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I will intervene briefly. First, I declare a long-gone interest: I was a county councillor many years ago. I always believed, as did my local authority, that, whatever one did in terms of procurement, the overall aim and need was to obtain best value for money in any contracts of any size, so I have slightly mixed views about this order. On the one hand, as the Minister said, it is very important that we support our native suppliers and contractors as far as is possible when it comes to work, particularly below the threshold. I would like the Minister to clarify that low threshold when she responds.
However, it seems that there are one or two questions here. First, this order would give a local authority the ability to determine a defined local area. Is that within the particular boundaries of the local authority? I see that there is provision here for that to include bordering authorities. Bearing in mind the nature of unitary local government nowadays, that would be an enormously large area. Does this mean either that you can choose to have a very small defined area, such as a particular town or village that contains certain traders who may be able to be part of the procurement, or, more generally, that it would be a wide area? Does the advertisement that will be placed, which is required, have to give reasons why a defined area has been chosen?
My only worry there, in looking back at the history of local government, is that a selection procedure that aims at a defined area within a local authority surely could—I am not saying that it would, but it could—be used politically in certain circumstances: for example, in a political operation where a number of procurements were made available in certain parts of a local authority area that happened to have a particular political complexion. There does not appear to be much of a safeguard against that here, so I would like some reassurance from the Minister on this point.
I mentioned the advertisement. I would like to know a little more from the Minister about the nature of that advertisement, as well as the reasoning that there has to be in it for doing what the local authority has chosen to do. The Minister is right when she talks about boycotts regarding countries; that is a very difficult area indeed. Again, we must be very careful that there is no indication here of a boycott, in the hands of politicians, against a particular country—or, indeed, to come back to the low-threshold procurements, of a boycott against particular individuals, firms or people who are being ruled against, either because they have different political views or because they have some other discriminatory situation with which they might not comply.
I am sorry to raise these few doubts in my mind. Although I see the intention here as very positive, I want to be absolutely sure that, in its delivery, it will not only maintain support for local contractors and local services but continue on the basis with which I started: providing council tax payers with the best value for money.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for this statutory instrument, which I support and which will be hugely helpful for local taxpayers in the generation of local jobs. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate; I look forward to the Minister’s response to all the points made by the noble Lord. I would say just two things. First, we are talking here about procurement contracts below the threshold. Secondly, I believe that best value can include the generation of local jobs as a consequence of that procurement process; there has to be an allowance for that.
I want to ask one specific question of the Minister, which I hope can be replied to now. It touches on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate: the definition of local area. I have not understood it; nor have I understood why there is reference in the Explanatory Notes to the consultation that took place in relation to combined authorities. My immediate reaction when I read this statutory instrument was that I did not understand how combined authorities fitted into this structure. It is quite difficult to see how that would work.
In particular, in Article 3(5)(a), the local area is defined very clearly. It is stated that,
“where there is one relevant authority”—
let us say one council—
“which intends to enter into a relevant contract … the area of that authority”
is the whole of the area of that authority. My understanding of this is that a council cannot subdivide its area; it has to be within its whole area. However, it can also be “the area specified” as
“the area of that authority, or … any of the areas of the counties or London boroughs that border that area”.
I have not understood why the counties and London boroughs are pulled out in this order as being a special case when the metropolitan districts are not in the old metropolitan counties—from my perspective, in the north-east of England, West Yorkshire or South Yorkshire. If one council decides to enter a procurement process, is it forbidden to define its local area as a neighbouring authority or part of one?
For the sake of choosing a random example, if Bradford Council decided that it wished to procure as a single authority, would it be able to run the process including a neighbourhood area such as Calderdale, Kirklees or Leeds? I have not understood this; nor have I understood why this issue is not addressed in the context of the Bill on English devolution that is going through, where this issue is not mentioned at all. Procurement does not appear in that Bill. It seems to me that there is a need for clarity on why the combined authorities are excluded and why the London boroughs have become a special case. All metropolitan areas should be a special case.
Beyond that, I am happy for the Minister to write in reply, if this is seen as at all complicated, but we need absolute clarity here now; otherwise, when people start to implement the order, there is going to be confusion about what they are allowed to do. Otherwise, I am in favour of this order.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire.
We are generally coming to a fairly positive view across the parties on this instrument. It makes a notable change to the long-standing restrictions in Section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988, which were originally designed to prevent local authorities taking account of non-commercial considerations, including location of supplier, when awarding contracts. As the Minister clearly outlined, this order proposes to disapply that restriction in a narrow set of circumstances, allowing local authorities, best-value authorities and parish councils to reserve below-threshold contracts either to suppliers based anywhere in the United Kingdom or within a defined local area.
The intention is clear: to give local authorities greater flexibility regarding their local economies, their local supply chains and, where appropriate, the use of local SMEs and VCSEs. Many of us recognise that that is a positive move for local government on small-scale contracts. However, it would be helpful to get further clarity on some issues. The noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Shipley, raised the issue of the definition of boundaries. Is it sub-local? Does it include metropolitan boroughs and so on? I would like assurance and clarity on that, as well as on what level of flexibility there is.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate seeking—quite rightly—some clarification.
I will refer first to the below-threshold limits, because I think that that would put this in a context that might be helpful. The below threshold for local authorities is £207,720 for goods and services and £5.193 million for works; that is the threshold that applies here. I should add that central government has had similar powers to these since December 2020, so we are doing something for local government that central government has had for some time.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, spoke about best value in procurement. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said: it is my belief that best value should definitely include the social value of local procurement, which is why the Government were keen to take this step as soon as we could. It brings jobs locally and helps local businesses. That can be very much added into the best value equation for local people.
On the definition of local authorities, there is a flexible definition of what a local authority is. To refer to the questions that have been asked, it is for the local authority to determine what that local area will be. The order has been drafted to take account of changes that will be made by the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill regarding local government reorganisation and authorities’ geographic areas of responsibility. Strategic authorities are already covered by the order, and combined authorities and county combined authorities are already listed as best value authorities under Section 1 of the Local Government Act 1999. This order applies to all best value authorities.
Importantly, for strategic authorities, a designation applies to particular combined authorities and combined county authorities; the underlying corporate entities remain the county authority or the county combined authority. When they receive a strategic authority designation, they continue to be best value authorities and, therefore, to be covered by this order—so no amendment to the order will be needed. It is intended that this measure is future-proofed, which will include new local authorities formed as part of the reorganisation process.
On the advertisement issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, I understand his point about this having the potential to be a political matter, but these are economic decisions taken in terms of the contract. It is hard to see a situation where a local authority would take a decision about where it was going to have its boundary in relation to politics, because that will change; you might very well cause yourself a future problem if you were to do that. These decisions should be taken as economic and financial decisions for the council concerned. Of course, the advertisement must state the area to which the contract applies, so it has to go out in public with that.
I hope that I have covered the question from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about definition in my response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. Local authorities will be able to determine in a flexible way what their local area is; they can set it as their own area, or the entire county or borough in which they are located, or they can extend it to bordering English counties or other areas local to them as they see fit, or to London boroughs. If you are in the south of my county, you will have London boroughs on your southern border, so you may wish to extend it to them as well.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I would like to be clear about this, because I have not understood what the Minister said. The order does not say that a metropolitan district council, as a single authority, can join another authority to theirs. In other words, if a metropolitan district council, such as Calderdale, as a single authority wishes to procure a contract, can it invite bids from a neighbouring council which is not a London borough or a county? That is what the Minister just said that they can do, and I think it is not specified in the order. I think we need to be very clear about this, because it is not just about strategic authorities; in my case, the strategic authority is 120 miles long, and that is not a local area.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Councils can procure either singly in an area that they have determined or jointly with an area that is next to them. I am not sure that I can be any clearer in setting the proposal and I am not sure where the confusion is arising.
Lord Shipley (LD)
The confusion lies in Article 3(5)(a)(ii). The point is that it refers to one relevant authority— not more than one—that seeks to procure a contract. The sub-paragraph says that
“where there is one relevant authority which intends to enter into a relevant contract”,
it can do so only in
“the area of that authority”,
which means its own area, or
“any of the areas of the counties or London boroughs that border that area”.
There is no mention at that point of a neighbouring metropolitan council.
If it would help the Minister, I would be very happy to have a response in writing, as long as it is posted in the Library. I am in favour of this happening, so do not want to hold things up, but would like to be clear about whether the councils—I live in Tyne and Wear—can work together in procurement. Can one relevant authority procure, but advertise the contract in a neighbouring authority, even if that neighbouring authority is not a part of the procurement process? You can do it in London and when you are next to a county but, at the moment, according to this order, you cannot do it in an urban metropolitan area.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will take away the issue that the noble Lord has raised, review it and write to him on it, but it looks clear to me that the order says
“where there are two or more relevant authorities which intend to enter into a relevant contract … the areas of those authorities, or … the areas specified in (i) and any of the areas of the counties or London boroughs that border those areas”.
I think that it is clear, but I will take it back, review it and come back to the noble Lord.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has spoken in the debate.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I want to say a quick word. I think one of the problems, as far as I can see, is the word “counties”. Changes in local government and so on mean that I, for instance, reside in North Yorkshire, which is a county, but next to it is West Yorkshire. That may cause a problem in terms of interpretation. I am sorry; I do not want to complicate the Minister’s position, but it would be very helpful if she could write to us about this point, because defining it as just counties and London boroughs does not help with the other structures in local government.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We are discussing a matter of semantics here, but the confusion might have occurred because, under the Local Government Act 1972, “county” includes metropolitan authorities. That might be the issue, but it is only fair that I set that out more clearly in writing to all the noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to frameworks —and, yes, councils can still jointly procure under this process. He spoke about VCSEs. We will, of course, keep all matters under review in that way. I hope that this is a real opportunity for VCSEs; over many years of procuring contracts, I have often heard them say that not enough consideration is given to the possibility of VCSE delivery, so I hope that this will expand the opportunities for VCSEs.
The noble Lord spoke about the restriction that meant that this was not implemented before. Again, we did not go out to consultation because the consultation had already been done. I do not know why the previous Government took the decision to change tack and not implement it, but the response to the consultation was very clear that the previous proposals would be too restrictive, which is why we made these changes and brought them in, in the way that we have.
I just want to say that I said the term “subcentral”, but it is not a term that I would ever use myself. I will make sure that it does not appear in any of my future appearances before the Committee.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I want just to clarify the point that I tried to make about consortiums. I want to make sure how the consortium will function where maybe people are looking, shall we say, to give some local focus. If you end up in a consortium, which might be Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Kent, will you be able then to say, “We’ll only accept bids from people from Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Kent” because they are not coterminous, not neighbouring? I am not expecting an answer now, but perhaps the Minister could kindly give it some thought and just say whether, if one enters into a consortium, the footprint can effectively be the consortium?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think the answer is yes but I will come back to the noble Lord in writing. The threshold might step in there because, as I have set out, there are limits on the threshold for this process.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I want just to clarify one small point. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, raised the issue of council areas that border each other but, where there is a river between them, there is a question of whether the border is the middle of the river. I just want to say that because, when I read this, I realised that there are lots of rivers where councils work across the river together and they ought to be in a position where they can procure jointly.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think administrative boundaries take account of rivers generally, so I hope that there being a river in between you would not get in the way of you procuring jointly with your neighbouring area. At some point in the past the Boundary Commission would have taken account of that river and said which area it lies in; as we know, rivers tend to go in and out of different counties.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
As regards changes in local government, the River Tyne, for instance—which I know extremely well, being a Geordie—was always the border between Northumberland and County Durham. Of course, the Tyne and Wear authority encompassed the whole thing. But at the same time, a number of rivers have management operations in which the board is made up of different components of a number of interested local authorities, which are not necessarily local authorities that are, as it were, on one side or the other of that river. I do not know whether that confuses this even further—I suspect that it does.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
There is enough flexibility in this order for local authorities to determine these matters, to put their heads together and decide how they want to operate in procurement terms. That is what is intended in the order; I hope that is what happens. No doubt it will get tested at some point, but I hope that it works as we intend it to.
As we all know, local government has been asking for a very long time to have this flexibility to issue and award contracts locally. I hope that this order will give local authorities that flexibility. We all want to support local and UK businesses through the procurement that we do for people in our own areas.
I thank colleagues across government who have developed the policy, particularly at the Cabinet Office and in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and I thank the Local Government Association for its support. I have had support from both the Cabinet Office and MHCLG today. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting this order and I commend it to the Committee.
Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (Application to Immigration Officers and Designated Customs Officials in Northern Ireland) and Consequential Amendments Regulations 2026
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (Application to Immigration Officers and Designated Customs Officials in Northern Ireland) and Consequential Amendments Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 46th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before Parliament on 4 December. They will apply certain provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 to customs officials and immigration officers in Northern Ireland, thus fulfilling a commitment made by the Labour Government in 2009 during the passage of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act, or BCIA, of that same year—that was a long time ago, but the Government have fulfilled its application—and replacing stop-gap measures used in the intervening years.
By way of what I hope is helpful background, Section 22 of the BCIA 2009 was intended as a temporary measure to ensure that customs officials transferring to the former UK Border Agency from HM Revenue & Customs had access to the PACE powers they needed to do their jobs. The ultimate intention at that time was to replace this measure in due course with a separate set of regulations that would apply the relevant provisions of PACE to customs officials and immigration officers investigating crime. This was achieved for England and Wales through the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Application to immigration officers and designated customs officials in England and Wales) Order 2013. However, it was not possible to make the same provision for Northern Ireland at the time; although I can potentially guess why that happened, I am not responsible for the decisions taken between 2010 and 2024.
Immigration officers have hitherto relied on statutory powers in the Immigration Acts to discharge their duties, but these do not provide adequate powers, nor do they allow for the level of interoperability and co-operation that is essential in the modern law enforcement environment. That brings me on to the two principal reasons for bringing these regulations forward before the Committee today. The first purpose is to replace the temporary application of PACE powers in respect of customs officials with a permanent legislative solution in Northern Ireland—one that grants those officers greater legitimacy and assurance in the use of their PACE powers.
The second purpose is to bring immigration officers in Northern Ireland—specifically those engaged in criminal investigation work—in line with their law enforcement counterparts in the police and the National Crime Agency. This will remove the reliance on the incomplete powers afforded to them by the various Immigration Acts. It will also reduce the need for multiple briefings for the same operation; minimise the confusion around which officers are empowered to fulfil certain functions; and, I hope, improve the situation all round. It will also support interoperability with An Garda Síochána counterparts working in cross-border operations.
By addressing these dual needs, the regulations we have brought forward will provide the legislative framework that is needed for customs and immigration investigations conducted by both Border Force and Immigration Enforcement in Northern Ireland. The powers conferred on immigration officers and customs officials by virtue of these regulations will be limited to the exercise of their functions in relation to immigration and customs matters where a criminal prosecution is realistically in prospect. Only those officers who have been trained in connection with the exercise of these powers will be permitted to use them.
To summarise, the Government are wholly committed to tackling immigration and border-related crime throughout the United Kingdom. These regulations will aid us in that vital endeavour. I commend them to the Committee and beg to move.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his explanation of this draft statutory instrument. I declare an interest as an outgoing member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee; our clerk is presiding over our proceedings here today.
I was intrigued when I read the submission from the committee again; my noble friend the Minister referred to that. Why the delay in implementation? We had to wait until some 17 years later. The Conservatives were in government during many of those years, so perhaps this question might be better addressed to the shadow Minister on the Opposition Front Bench, who might be able to offer an explanation for the delay; it seems quite incredible that that is the situation and that we did not have a service in Northern Ireland.
I also point out that these are issues of particular relevance to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, because they are dealing with and have direct responsibility for issues to do with Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, which deals specifically with issues in the wider purview of the Good Friday agreement in relation to immigration and migrants to ensure that people are properly protected. Maybe some of those issues will impact on other legal judgments that have taken place, so perhaps my noble friend the Minister could outline what discussions may have taken place with those commissions. Could he also outline—because work is required with the Police Service of Northern Ireland—what work will take place with it and what work took place with it during that intervening period? Were reports made from the Home Office directly to the Northern Ireland Policing Board? Could I receive assurances that the PACE SI will adhere to the principles of equality, fairness and human rights? What discussions took place in that intervening period with An Garda Síochána and the Home Office to counter any potential for terrorism or for people to seek to avail of potential opportunities through movement on a north-south basis on the island of Ireland?
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his explanations. I look forward to the explanation for the lack of representation in those 17 years from the shadow Minister—and I support the PACE SI.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly on these regulations. I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this SI today. The purpose of this instrument is straightforward; it extends to immigration officers and designated customs officials in Northern Ireland the powers contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989—powers that their counterparts in England and Wales have exercised for more than a decade under the equivalent provisions of PACE 1984.
Without this instrument, officers in Northern Ireland would continue to rely on a patchwork of powers under the immigration Acts, which the Government argue do not align with the framework used elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The intention here is therefore to ensure consistency, improve co-operation between agencies and provide officers with the tools that they need to tackle organised immigration crime effectively. We support these regulations today.
The equality impact assessment makes it clear that these changes are not expected to lead to a significant increase in arrests or prosecutions. Rather, the effect should be to strengthen cross-authority working between criminal and financial investigations, Border Force and the police, and to support the effective operation of the common travel area. On that basis, and given our long-standing support for ensuring that immigration officials have the powers necessary to implement existing law, we support the instrument and deem it totally necessary.
This is a modest and largely technical instrument, bringing Northern Ireland into alignment with powers established elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We support that objective while recognising the sensitivities that have surrounded the timing of its introduction. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
Before my noble friend the Minister makes his response, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, if he can provide any explanation of why, during that period, there was no implementation of this SI in Northern Ireland.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I cannot answer those questions. I was not here at the time, so I cannot. Sorry.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I do not wish to delay proceedings. I recall that the noble Lord came into your Lordships’ House at the same time as me around October or November 2019. From my recollection, the Conservatives were in government. So, the noble Lord is bound to have had some recollection and he had Front Bench responsibilities.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I was not the Minister. I cannot answer the question, and it is not my place to answer it now.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I can assist my noble friend with some comments. Self-evidently, I was a Minister in the Labour Governments of 1997 to 2010, and the power to make these regulations came into play originally when I was in government. But self-evidently, nothing happened between 2010 and the regulations being brought forward now.
I am not party, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, is not, to what happened in those years because for nine of them I was in opposition and, for five of them, I was not in Parliament. But I can potentially help my noble friend by saying that it was initially planned to extend the PACE powers to Northern Ireland in 2013, alongside the same processes being undertaken in England and Wales. I am advised that limited resources and/or competing priorities meant that that was not implemented. There was also the additional factor of the closure of the Belfast criminal financial investigations office between 2017 and 2022, which made it difficult to pursue those regulations until now. Questions of why those decisions on resources or legislative capacity were made and why the office was closed are beyond my capacity, but those are the facts of the assessment that has been made. That is what I have been advised.
My noble friend also asked what changes these powers make. The regulations give officers a number of powers that they do not already have. Immigration criminal investigations in Northern Ireland will now benefit from a number of provisions of PACE, notably: Section 19 in relation to powers of seizure in relation to evidence of non-immigration offences; Section 8, relating to warrants; Sections 9 and Schedule 1, which give access to excluded or special procedural material; Section 20, giving extension of seizure powers to include information on computers; Section 46A on power of arrest for failure to answer bail; and Sections 18 and 32 on simplified powers of seizure and search.
Border Force officers with customs powers will no longer have to rely on the temporary measures that were set out in Section 22 of BCIA back in the day. Therefore, officers will benefit from the following provisions not currently applied in 2007: guidance and consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions; telephone review of custody; detention after charge, search and examination; and a number of other points.
These powers have successfully been exercised in England and Wales with no controversy over the past 13 years. When the powers come into force, agreed by Parliament, which I hope will be soon, then in late February or early March, pending parliamentary approval, they will be available to customs officers on the ground. That is important because the powers will be available also to officers from the rest of the United Kingdom undertaking in-country investigations when required. Immigration Enforcement officers currently undertake criminal investigations and have powers of arrest and detention. Border Force designated customs officers do not lead on criminal investigations, which is a point that my noble friend asked about. This is done predominantly by the police or the National Crime Agency. Again, she asked about consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive. We have had no response on those issues from the Executive, and I am taking no response in terms of no comment.
I also potentially do not have the detail of the consultation with the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission at this moment but, if my noble friend will allow me, I will look into that and respond to her in due course—if need be. On reflection, I think a full equality impact assessment probably has been completed and that would have included discussions in which the two bodies that my noble friend mentioned would have had an opportunity to input.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response so far and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his response. There is a particular issue here about the interpretation of Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, which is seen under the greater aegis of the Good Friday agreement as extending not solely to residents of Northern Ireland but to those who come into Northern Ireland as migrants, as part of immigration. It is important, because both organisations have a dedicated mechanism, under Article 2, and responsibility for the implementation of that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend and, as I say, will look into specifically whether either of the bodies that she mentioned has made any comments, but I not aware of any. The point on which I give her assurance—that the full equality impact assessment has been completed—is one that I hope will assuage any of her concerns. But I will check that and write to my noble friend if needed.
In conclusion, the purpose of these regulations is to ensure that we give additional powers to tackle bad actors on immigration and criminal activity. I am grateful for the welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and for the testing comments of my noble friend, but I commend this instrument to the Committee.
United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (Exclusions from Market Access Principles: Glue Traps) Regulations 2025
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, the regulations the Committee is being asked to consider were laid before the House on 1 December 2025. The instrument makes an exclusion to the market access principles of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020—also known as the UKIM Act, for convenience—for legislation prohibiting the sale of glue traps. I will first set out the background of what the UKIM Act does, as well as what a glue trap is, before turning to the reasons why it is necessary to bring forward this statutory instrument.
The United Kingdom Internal Market Act aims to create a seamless internal market across the UK by removing trade barriers to ensure that goods and services can move freely. This is facilitated by the UKIM market access principles: the mutual recognition principle and the non-discrimination principle. It is the former that concerns us today. The mutual recognition principle means that goods that meet one UK nation’s rules can be sold in the other nations without having to comply with any additional requirements that would otherwise apply to the sale. Excluding glue traps from the market access principles means that those principles will not apply to any legislation that prohibits the sale of glue traps.
For the sake of clarity, a glue trap is a board, often made of cardboard or plastic, on to which a non-drying glue is applied. It is placed on flat surfaces so that small rodents, such as rats or mice, will walk on to them and become unable to escape as their fur or limbs get stuck to the glue. They may then suffer from torn skin, broken limbs and hair removal, and they die a slow and painful death from suffocation, starvation, exhaustion and even self–mutilation. Despite concerns that glue traps are inhumane, until recent changes to legislation in 2022 in England and in 2023 in Wales, glue traps were commonly used across Britain to catch rats and mice in households and commercial premises.
In the UK, we are committed to high standards of animal welfare, but we recognise that devolution means that each Administration may pursue shared goals in different ways. For example, in Wales, the use of glue traps is strictly prohibited. In England, the previous Government regulated glue traps so that they may be legally used only by pest controllers under licence to preserve public health or safety when there is no other satisfactory solution, such as in hospital theatres or inside aircraft. In Northern Ireland, there are no restrictions on using glue traps, and we are not aware of any plans to change that.
In 2024, the Scottish Government legislated to ban the use, possession and sale of glue traps in Scotland via the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act. However, unless glue traps are added to Schedule 1 to the UKIM Act, to exclude them from the application of the UKIM market access principles, the Scottish Government’s ban on the sale of glue traps in Scotland will not be fully enforceable. This is because glue traps produced in or imported into England, Wales and Northern Ireland will continue to benefit from the mutual recognition principle and could still be sold in Scotland.
Let me turn to why the exclusion has been agreed. The previous Government decided that banning the sale of glue traps would not be substantially more effective than a ban focused on their use and possession. However, this Government have carefully considered the impact of an exclusion for glue traps and concluded that this will have minimal economic impact on trade within the UK, further to the Scottish Government’s ban on the use and possession of glue traps in Scotland. Ministers from the Welsh and Scottish Governments, as well as the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, have consented to the making of these regulations.
This instrument therefore delivers on this Government’s commitment to implement a UKIM exclusion, as announced in December 2024, in response to the Scottish Government’s request for an exclusion relating to glue traps. This underlines our commitment to taking a more collaborative approach to the management of the UK internal market and developing both closer working relationships and increased transparency between the UK Government and the devolved Governments on UK internal market matters that impact significantly on devolved responsibilities. Given all this, I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly. First, I commiserate and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Katz, because, for the past two months, he has sat diligently on the Government Front Bench and listened to about 30 speeches I have made on amendments to the crime Bill; admittedly, he rejected every single one of them, but he did so graciously. Yesterday, on our 11th day, I said that I had no more speeches to make on the Bill. Noble Lords ought to have seen the sheer delight on his face when he heard that he would not have to reply to me any more—yet here we are again; I commiserate with him for that.
I also congratulate him on moving on to greater and, at least, nicer things. For the past two months, we have debated terrorism, knife and machete killings, child abuse, stop and search, vile online abuse and pornography, and animal sexual abuse—all thoroughly unnatural things—so it is good for him to speak today about nature and removing one other aspect of animal abuse, albeit admittedly a very small one. At the outset, we recognise that this instrument is narrow in scope and technical in nature, but it touches on matters of animal welfare, public health and the operation of the internal market, all of which merit careful consideration.
Glue traps are quite simply cruel devices. As the noble Lord rightly said, they cause prolonged suffering through starvation, dehydration, torn skin, broken limbs and, in some cases, self-mutilation. They are also indiscriminate, frequently trapping non-target species, including birds and domestic pets. Few who have seen the consequences of these traps can reasonably describe them as humane.
Lord Katz (Lab)
Follow that. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his comments. He is right that there is a searing inevitability, having finally disposed of his many amendments, particularly around cycles, in Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill that we should encounter each other the very next day—but it is always a pleasure to debate with him. I am grateful for his gracious comments about the Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill.
Let us turn now to this instrument. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support. The UKIM Act is there to protect, rightly, the internal market of the United Kingdom, which is vital to every nation within it and plays an integral role in their economies. Today’s debate demonstrates that we are able to respond to requests, such as that from the Scottish Government, to make exemptions. That shows that the current Act works and that we can be flexible, implementing exclusions on a case-by-case basis as appropriate.
The UK Government are determined to continue to lead the way in protecting animal welfare and we will continue to work with the devolved Governments to achieve this. Where there are grounds for divergence, which in this case is primarily about the best way to achieve similar goals, and where that divergence is expected to have minimal economic impact on trade within the UK, we will work together to ensure flexibility where we can.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about the UK Government actively considering banning the sale of glue traps in England. Once a Scottish ban is in effect, a wider ban on sale may become a feasible option for reducing illegal use, should there still be a need, if Ministers wish to bring in further legislation to do this. However, it is not something we are actively pursuing at this time, for two main reasons.
First, licensed pest controllers are still permitted to use these traps when they are necessary for preserving public health and safety. The noble Lord posed a question about the number of licences that have been given. I do not have that number to hand but, to save him the trouble of tabling a Parliamentary Question, I am very happy to follow up and write to him with that detail. Although these circumstances are very limited, they do exist. It is therefore not as straightforward as simply implementing a blanket ban on sale.
Secondly, since the Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022 was passed, market-leading suppliers have been removing glue traps from sale and promoting more humane alternatives instead, giving confidence that the number of these devices deployed across England has been significantly reducing. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recognises that stopping illegal use does not end simply at the point of passing legislation. The department has reached out to retailers to call attention to the fact that amateur use is now banned and that alternative forms of DIY pest control should be considered instead.
Indeed, to respond to another point the noble Lord made, we are exploring how we can work with online retailers to similarly raise awareness. The Government recognise and appreciate the good work that professionals do to keep the public safe, and we will work closely with them on future changes.
To conclude, I trust that the noble Lord understands and accepts the need for this instrument. It makes an exclusion to the UKIM Act for legislation in respect of glue traps, which means that, where they are produced in or imported into other parts of the UK, they cannot be sold in a country that has banned them, regardless of whether an equivalent ban is in place. Scotland will therefore be able to bring in an effective ban on using and selling them.
I am afraid I have to tell the Committee that I cannot possibly begin to match the poetic oratory with which the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, concluded. However, as we have been discussing throughout the debate, we are ending on a particular Scottish note. Ahead of Burns Night, I will not talk about the variety of mice that the noble Lord mentioned, but I will talk about another beast—my preferred beast, the haggis. In Burns’s “Address to a Haggis”, he rightly calls it:
“Great chieftain of the pudding race!”
I very much hope the noble Lord will be joining many people, including me, on Burns Night on Sunday in a wee dram and a healthy slice of haggis. With that, I beg to move.