Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]
Baroness Brinton Excerpts(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful for the explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, of his amendments on AI and digital products, which are particularly appropriate, given the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on the first group when we were discussing sandboxes, because of his experience during the passage of the digital medicines Act three or four years ago. A number of noble Lords in this Grand Committee worked on that—I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in particular.
I raise this because one area that concerns me about new products, especially those using AI, is that we do not have the same mechanisms that we have, full of fault though they are, for being able to allow our personal information to be used and to give our consent. I have mentioned before the issue of my dentist. Before you go to see your dentist, you have to go online to fill in a consent form, and at some point mid last year I noticed that there was something about the IT suppliers and it said, “It is assumed you give your consent”—and 10 layers further down they had a completely different set of consents that breached UK GDPR law. Had I not been working on another Bill about digital consent, I would not have looked much further. I have to say that the moment my dental surgery was aware of this, that firm was not just told to change it but was sacked. My problem with AI is that none of that work is visible; it is completely invisible.
My question to the Minister is, in the discussion about sandboxes but also about products that will come under this Bill: will he ensure that our current GDPR laws—and indeed our copyright laws in relation to music—are complied with at all times, so that there would not be any freedom for somebody using AI to develop a product to breach those? I say that in light of the final remark the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, made about consultation. Two sets of Government Ministers have had a very bitter time about patient data and care.data—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is smiling at me—when the public were not fully informed about what was going on, and in both cases the proposals had to be abandoned.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, the first amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, Amendment 14, seeks to ensure that the production reliance on software and artificial intelligence are included in the scope of the Bill. Clearly, all our remarks are somewhat irrelevant if the Minister gets up and says, “No, they are not”. However, on the assumption that the Minister is going to say, “Yes, they are”, I draw particular attention, if I may, in supporting all the noble Lord’s amendments, to Amendments 75 to 78, on the issue of labelling. This seems to me to be an opportunity for real joined-up government thinking.
The Minister will be well aware that the Communications and Digital Committee, on which I had the opportunity to serve at the time of this, produced a very detailed report on the development of LLMs, large language models, and AI. In so doing, we particularly raised concern about the way in which these large language models were being trained by scraping tons of data from a variety of sources, then creating products over which they were then able to get intellectual property coverage. In so doing, they had scraped a great deal of data.
Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in respect of the labelling and so on, requires the Secretary of State to lay
“regulations to ensure no product or content … uses an individual’s image, likeness or personality rights without that individual’s express consent”.
Had I been drafting the amendment, I would have gone much further, because it seems to me that a large amount of other data is scraped—for instance, novels written by authors without their permission. I could go on; it is well worth looking at the Select Committee report.
Does the Minister accept that this is a real opportunity to have joined-up thinking, when the Government finally decide what their position is in relation to the training of LLMs and people being required to get the permission of all data owners before they can bring their product to market? Does he agree that the labelling of such products, when developed, should include specific reference to them having gained the appropriate permission, paid the appropriate fee or got the appropriate licence to make use of the data that was made use of in the training of those AI products?
Baroness Brinton
“(c) EU REACH regulation restrictions that are applied to the manufacture, placing on the market, and use of certain chemicals to mitigate unacceptable risks to human health or the environment;”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment ensures that EU REACH regulations covering certain chemicals are included in the Bill.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, REACH regulations cover the safety of chemicals. We simply ask: how can the Bill regulate cosmetics without considering the safety of the chemicals used to manufacture them? I do not buy the idea that Defra is in charge of chemical regulations—in the same way that the DWP is in charge of the chemicals database, other than via its responsibilities in managing the Health and Safety Executive. I will come back to a regulation that the DWP presented to the Grand Committee last year. So, should the Bill ignore chemicals or not? We need an explicit reference in the Bill to cover it. We have talked a lot about AI but the use of chemicals is equally important, particularly in online marketplaces.
I am sure that the selection of EU REACH rather than British REACH will raise certain hackles. I would grab any REACH in a storm, but the EU one is a system that functions, unlike its British cousin, which has proved expensive to business and is failing to react to new challenges.
Over a year ago, I was substituting for my noble friend Lord Fox when the biocidal products regulations 2022 were being discussed in Grand Committee. I think that none of us, including the then Minister, if she were honest, knew very much of what we were talking about. However, it was the most illuminating regulation that I have ever taken part in. We discovered that this was, in essence, a time extension for the use of the EU chemicals database, because Whitehall had not understood that the day we left the EU, we would lose access to the chemicals database. As a result, the Health and Safety Executive had to take on a very large number of staff. Its chemicals sections had increased by 30% to try to rewrite the chemicals database while also consulting with users, whether they were manufacturers importing, exporting or creating in this country. We know that there are systems out there that work but because of our bizarre structures, we tend to have government departments that are not focused on chemicals.
The cosmetics industry imports many of its ingredients from the EU, and often in very small quantities. These would certainly be covered by EU REACH, because these sales represent such a tiny proportion of total production. If there were a substantive difference between EU REACH and British REACH, it is unlikely that the manufacturer would invest in accrediting its products in the UK, causing the UK cosmetic manufacturer either to stop making its product or to move manufacture to the EU—hence my noble friend Lord Fox’s proposal about REACH in this amendment.
Can the Minister confirm whether, under the terms of the Bill as it stands, if a product contains a chemical that was allowed by EU REACH but blocked by British REACH, and yet it conformed to QC standards, it would be legal in Britain? That is what this amendment seeks to clarify. Given the interconnected nature of the UK and EU chemicals industries, it offers a route for aligning the UK chemical regulation with that of the EU. But perhaps the Minister thinks that the current wording of Clause 1(1) means that it could be used to amend and update UK REACH to align with EU REACH. I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to both amendments in this group, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her introduction of them.
When examining the purport of these amendments and considering whether to include provisions that require us to adopt regulations that correspond with the EU’s REACH provisions, I suggest that the metric by which we should judge that is simple. Would doing so make the people of this country safer? Every other consideration should be secondary to that.
As I said both at Second Reading and in Committee last week—I apologise to those who have heard this before, but it is worth repeating—the past few years have seen a significant divergence between the UK’s approach to chemical regulation and that of the EU. The previous Government decided to leave REACH—the EU’s body responsible for the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals and their regulations—and to set up a parallel organisation.
Since then, we have not adopted a single registered restriction on a harmful substance, compared with 10 new protections offered by EU regulation, including on harmful microplastics deliberately added to products. While REACH has regulated PFAS in the EU, not a single river or water body in England is in good chemical health. Since we left REACH, the EU has initiated 23 risk assessments related to harmful substances, while we have initiated three.
In considering why that is the case, I point to two contextual factors. This is not a function of the legislative constraints. The Government have the power under the EU withdrawal Act and Schedule 21 to the Environment Act to adopt new restrictions and controls where necessary. However, reviews undertaken by the NAO and the Public Accounts Committee in 2022 pointed to a lack of operational capacity and insufficient data as factors that have hampered the ability of the UK’s chemical regulator properly to do its job. For instance, brominated flame retardants were identified as a risk to health and globally significant exposure rates were identified in this country. Indeed, they were identified as a regulatory priority over two years ago and a review was promised. So far, no review has been published and it is difficult to discern how this apparent priority has been acted upon, if at all.
However, while the EU has added eight flame-retardant chemicals to its list of substances of very high concern, no substances in this category have been added to the parallel UK list. The EU restrictions road map has proposed a ban on brominated flame retardants while no equivalent step has been proposed, let alone planned. This is not because we have data which diverges from that upon which the EU has based its conclusions but because we are working more slowly. I vividly remember the promises of greater regulatory agility and speed which would inevitably result once we were free of the sclerotic influence of the EU. This example is but one of many—including lead in PVC, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in synthetic football pitches and formaldehyde in wood furniture—which suggest that far from being more agile and responsive, our current system of chemical regulation is slower, less efficient and consequently less safe than its predecessor.
In April this year, Hazards magazine published a parallel analysis of the 25 new standards that have been introduced across the EU since our departure in 2020 and the UK’s response. Of the 25 standards, 12 were identical. There were 10 in which the UK’s standard was weaker, sometimes significantly. Only in one case has the UK adopted more protective measures than the European standard. Again, this is suggestive of regulatory incapacity as much as a deliberate exercise of our power independently to regulate.
Fiscal stringency creates significant challenges in remedying this situation, but both these amendments obviate the need for the otherwise necessary significant increase in investment in our chemical regulator. Ensuring that our domestic regulations correspond with those of REACH not only offers greater safety but removes a barrier to trade and promises to ease the burden on our chemical regulator which, as I said earlier, the NAO and Public Accounts Committee suggested has compromised its ability to work with appropriate speed.
At Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister said, in response to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that the Government are currently considering the best approach to chemical regulation in the UK separately to this Bill. In deciding our approach to these amendments, it would be extremely useful if my noble friend who is responding to this debate could at least give us an idea of the direction of travel on this. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, made the point also at Second Reading that the absence of such a Bill from the King’s Speech makes it unlikely that we will see it in this Session. That being so, what plans do the Government have, in the absence of adopting the amendments that are the subject of this discussion, to exercise the powers in Clause 2(7) to ensure that we catch up and keep pace with the EU chemical regulation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the quick answer is that these matters are being considered by Ministers at the moment, but I will feed back to them what noble Lords have raised today.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I would be glad to give way to the noble Baroness, but as we will come back to her in any case—
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I have a question. I am very grateful for the Minister’s response, but he has not yet responded to my final question and, following his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, I need to repeat it to check. I said that this was a probing amendment to clarify the interconnected nature of, and differences between, the UK and EU chemicals industries. Under its current wording, Clause 1(1) says:
“The Secretary of State may … make provision, in relation to”.
Could that be used to amend and update UK REACH to align with EU REACH? I ask this in light of the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Leong, wrote to colleagues on 17 October:
“Though the Bill is not intended to cover REACH specifically, chemicals have not been excluded from its scope … We are currently considering the best approach to chemicals regulation in the UK and will set out priorities”.
That is the fundamental bit of this amendment. We can debate EU REACH and UK REACH, but it is about the influence on this Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the quick response is that we do not envisage it being used in that way because we already have separate legislation to deal with that. I will follow up with a more detailed response, but I do not believe that the provisions would allow that to happen. However, I will double-check and clarify that.
On my noble friend’s point, I have listened to the debate and understand the concerns. I know that Ministers are considering this, and I will ensure that the strong points raised here are put to them as they consider how to take forward this work.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the short debate on this group. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for covering the 10 restrictions adopted in the EU but not in the UK, since it left the EU. I was debating whether to raise them or not; I am glad that I left them to him. He pointed out the cost-benefits of using REACH. Manufacturers have made it very clear that they want things as simple as possible and, usually, would prefer one form of REACH—the one to which they are likely to export or from which they will have products coming in. I recognise that other Members of the Committee will disagree with that. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor; lemon and lavender sound like a lovely, simple way of looking at it, but cosmetics are much more complicated. We need to be very careful about that. I look forward to hearing from the Minister but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I will also speak to Amendment 22. Amendment 21 is fairly self-explanatory. It asks that people be made aware of where the goods they are buying come from and, therefore, what confidence they can place in their quality. Secondly, it explores whether we might place liability on marketplaces for the quality of the products they allow to be listed there, which is clearly not the case at the moment.
My view is that Amazon makes a great deal of money out of selling what are, essentially, counterfeit products. This is not a satisfactory state of affairs. Amazon is quite well enough off to do a bit of investigation, which does not take long with these products, to make sure that they are what they say they are. This would result in greater stability and higher quality of companies doing business through Amazon. I do not think it would lose Amazon any business, but I am prepared to be shocked to find that the Government disagree with me. For now, I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 45 in this group is in my name. I also support my noble friend Lord Foster’s Amendments 117 and 122.
I come back to an issue debated at some length on the first day of Committee. I am particularly pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, in his place because my amendment relates directly to his Amendment 33, which questions whether Clause 2(3)(h) should stand part of the Bill; my amendment also looks at paragraph (h). He spoke about it in the context of parliamentary scrutiny and consultation, but my focus is a different one: I am trying to look at how it will work in practice. During our debate last week, my noble friend Lord Fox said that
“the wording of Clause 2(3)(h) is ‘any other person carrying out activities’. All the other items refer to the activity of the sale and marketing of that product. This does not refer to it but any person carrying out activities unspecified”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; col. GC 40.]
We are moving from products to people in this debate.
At Second Reading, I asked the Minister who is caught by this very wide, catch-all paragraph. In his letter of 17 October, in which he responded to issues that he did not have time to cover at Second Reading—I thank him for it—he said:
“These supply chain roles may be undertaken by individuals as well as by businesses. The Bill will enable the responsibilities of supply chain actors to be rationalised and modernised, including to reflect the development of new business models that were not anticipated by current legislation, such as online marketplaces”.
I read his reply carefully, but it did not answer my question. That is partly because “actors” could mean anybody; it does not necessarily mean somebody mentioned in one of the clause’s previous paragraphs. I remain concerned about that in the context of Clause 2(3), which identifies the
“persons on whom product regulations may impose product requirements”.
It appears that paragraph (h) can include absolutely anyone involved in selling a relevant product, without limitation. This matters because a private individual selling an item with a lithium-ion battery, for example, on eBay or Vinted may be an actor at the very end of a long supply chain, but that does not mean they are a professional in the business. The wording is important.
Where does the responsibility for satisfactory compliance lie? In our Second Reading debate, there was some discussion about online marketplace platforms having responsibility for ensuring compliance but, frankly, eBay and Vinted cannot check the detail of a regulated item—in the case I gave, a lithium-ion battery in a bicycle—or how it meets the regulations. Also, the individual at the end of the supply chain has no obvious way of finding out whether they are responsible for ensuring that the item they wish to sell meets the regulations. Of course, there is a future actor in all of this: the person who buys it.
Which?, in its very helpful briefing prior to Second Reading, pointed out that the Bill needs strengthening in a number of areas, including clearer definitions of key terms, so that existing and future online marketplaces cannot take advantage of gaps to avoid responsibility. Clause 2(3)(h) is one such area. Will the Minister help by making it clear who is covered? Can he also explain exactly how the online marketplaces can manage the extension of liabilities for defective products sold by individuals, which those online marketplaces have not seen themselves? Alternatively, if individuals selling items are covered by Clause 2(3)(h), how do those individuals become aware of their responsibilities under the Bill for ensuring that the goods they sell meet the requirements and are not defective? Frankly, eBay sending them an email saying, “You are entirely responsible” is not good enough for compliance. If this is not clarified, we have a gaping hole in the Bill.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 48, 71, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123 and 124 in this group, on the topic of online marketplaces, which are in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay.
Turning first to Amendment 48, I recall that, in the King’s Speech, the Government made a commitment to ensure that the responsibilities of those involved in the supply of products, such as online marketplaces, are clear. That commitment is to be welcomed, but the clarity and detail will be in the secondary regulations after the Bill is passed and not in the Bill itself. As set out in the explanatory statement, the proposed new clause in the amendment
“provides a non-exclusive list of duties that must be imposed upon online marketplaces by regulations made by the Secretary of State … to be made to Parliament within 3 months of Royal Assent regarding the exercise of the duties conferred by this section”.
These duties include an explicit provision to place a duty on online marketplaces to take the necessary measures to ensure the safety of products offered on their platforms and a commitment to publish any draft secondary legislation on how this duty and related provisions will work in practice in good time before the measures are due to come into force. Finally, there is a duty to consult with key stakeholders on the design of these regulations.
I make it clear to my noble friend the Minister that the duties in this amendment are about the transparent process by which the Government will ensure a safer online marketplace, rather than a long list of possible actions taken to bring this about. The Office for Product Safety and Standards, in its 2021 research, found that 81% of the products it found online failed safety tests. I am sure that the figure would probably be far higher if they were tested today. Which? tells us that around 23.4 million consumers in the UK make monthly transactions on these marketplaces, yet they are unwittingly putting themselves at risk because, at present, they do not have the same protections as they have come to expect when buying from traditional high-street retailers. This evidence should encourage us to reform online marketplace regulations as urgently as possible.
Amendment 71 allows for regulations to provide liability of online marketplaces for defective and unsafe products and to ensure redress for those harmed by these unsafe and defective products, including civil litigation. It is important that the law on product liability can be updated to take account of the responsibilities of online marketplaces and others in the supply chain, and to provide effective redress for consumers who suffer harm from these dangerous products. We know that online marketplaces have become a mainstream method for people to shop, particularly when they are looking for value for money in these difficult economic times. This amendment seeks to ensure that there is redress for those online shoppers if they buy unsafe or faulty goods.
From the briefing sent to us by the London Fire Brigade we know that e-bikes and e-scooters are one of the capital’s fastest-growing fire risks. On average, there was a fire every two days in 2023. Sadly, deaths and injuries have resulted. Many of these fires are caused by incompatible chargers and faulty products that are purchased online. The London Fire Brigade believes, as many of us do, that product innovation has gone far ahead of proper safety standards and that there is inadequate regulation, especially for conversion kits, batteries and chargers. A strengthened version of the Bill would go a long way to answering these safety gaps online.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I thank the Minister very much for the detail he has gone into in his answer, but there are two types of regulation. The one he has described is the one that you would expect the Government, trading standards and other bodies to take. But, in litigation terms, if somebody bought an electric bike in good faith, who would they sue? Paragraph (h) does not make it clear. This is not purely about the parameters of the products and the Bill; it is about the consequences of having something that is very general. I think platforms will say, “It’s nothing to do with us”, and the individuals will say, “But I’m not part of the chain, as described”. I am genuinely struggling to understand and I wonder whether the Minister can help me.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that; I will come to it. We are talking about product liability to some extent; I have a paragraph on it in my brief, if she will bear with me for a moment.
Amendments 32 and 45 highlight some of the different actors in online supply chains that may need to be captured appropriately in these new requirements. The Bill gives powers to introduce requirements on online marketplaces to improve the safety of products sold online. These requirements can be tailored and updated appropriately to reflect the wide range of online marketplace models, and other relevant supply chain actors and their activities, now and in the future. Clause 2(3) is therefore sufficiently broad to enable requirements to be introduced on any persons carrying out activities in relation to a product. This could include, where appropriate, private individuals selling products via online marketplaces, whether in return for payment or free of charge.
I will now focus on Amendments 117 to 124, which seek to broaden the definition of online marketplaces. The definition of online marketplaces in the Bill has been created in a way that is broad enough to capture the full range of online marketplace business models, including social media platforms such as TikTok Shop, which was mentioned earlier. I assure the Committee that all the changes proposed in the amendments are captured within the existing definition. For example—and of relevance to Amendment 123—the expansion of the term “marketing” within the definition of an online marketplace is not required due to the definition of “marketing” within the Bill, meaning the “making available” of products. This in turn is defined as goods
“supplied or advertised for distribution or use on the market, whether in return for payment or free of charge”.
Amendments 117 and 122 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, seek to change the definition of an online marketplace, replacing “internet” with “internet service”, as defined in the Online Safety Act 2023. The definition we have used in the Bill includes a service on any other platform by means of which information is made available over the internet. We are therefore confident that the issue the noble Lord raises in his amendments is covered by the Bill as drafted.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his clarification about data and GDPR being captured by the Data (Use and Access) Bill. I shall read Hansard and confirm accordingly. I totally agree with him that all unsafe products should never be allowed to be offered for sale on any online marketplaces, whether original or second-hand. We have to address his point about accountability. Who is accountable to be held responsible for some of these unsafe products?
The Bill also includes a power in Clause 10(2) that allows for the definition to be amended later by regulations, if this were necessary to capture any future models not captured by the current definition. I will come back to the issue of product liability.
Amendment 71, tabled by my noble friend Lady Crawley and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, would allow the Secretary of State to make provisions to ensure that online marketplaces can be held liable for products purchased via their platforms. The primary route to seek damages for harm caused by defective products is through the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Depending on the specific facts, an online marketplace may have responsibility under this legislation. The Government are currently reviewing this legislation and we will consider the UK’s product liability regime holistically, including the question of how it should apply to online marketplaces. This is not a change that we would seek to make without considering all the evidence, so we do not want to pre-empt this important work by adding to the scope of the Bill.
Product liability also covers products that extend beyond the scope of the Bill, including, for example, food and medical devices. A considered review of this area would be the most appropriate way to ensure that our product liability laws are up to date and fit for the future and to take account of the broad-ranging interests in this body of law. I will keep the Grand Committee updated on the Government’s progress with this review and plans for wider engagement.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and other noble Lords: we have listened to the debate and reflected on all the points made. We are aware of the Grand Committee’s strength of feeling on a number of points, including the scrutiny of secondary legislation. With that, I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords that these amendments are therefore not required to achieve their laudable aims. Consequently, I would ask for the amendments in this group not to be pressed.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Clause 1(5) says that
“‘marketing’ means making available on the market”,
which is a much shorter definition than the one that the Minister just read out at the Dispatch Box. Is he telling me that I am not correct in saying that I market a product on eBay when I put it up on eBay?
Baroness Brinton (LD)
This is very important, because this is partly about liability and partly about the clarity in the Bill about who has responsibility. Whether it is a buyer or, as I think the Minister argued, an individual seller, someone has to tell them that they have to follow the regulations, and they need to know how to do that. When he read out the definition of marketing in his speech, he gave a whole sentence more than is included in the definition in the Bill, which very simply says,
“‘marketing’ means making available on the market”.
It goes on to discuss “related terms”, but they are not relevant to my problem. While he ponders between Committee and Report, can he look at that? More than one of us is likely to come back with amendments on Report on this issue.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. We are trying not to be too prescriptive because it is constantly changing. I am sorry about this, but the Bill defines “marketing” as
“making available on the market”.
Clause 10, line 8, states,
“a product or goods … supplied or advertised for distribution or use on the market”—
Baroness Brinton (LD)
That is exactly what happens with a private individual. They will advertise an item on eBay. The language the Minister is using is what I would describe as the old-style manufacturing and business model. It does not take into account all the comments that people have made about where online marketing is in the 21st century. Therein lies the problem, and I would be very grateful if the noble Lord would look at that.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that as well. Online marketplaces are changing overnight. I have just learned over the weekend of dropshipping. Dropshipping means that if someone orders a product on eBay, the person supplying it is not eBay or whoever claims to be on eBay. It is dropshipped by AliExpress straight to that buyer’s home. How are we going to control that? How are we going to capture that? That is why we cannot be too prescriptive. We need to have the flexibility to address ever-changing marketplaces. That is what this Bill is trying to do. If the noble Baroness is still unclear or unsure about this, perhaps we can have another follow-up meeting so we can discuss this in depth.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I think a number of noble Lords who have participated in this debate might be interested in a meeting, if that is okay. I shall very briefly respond to the Minister to say that flexibility is fine, until the point at which there is nobody to hold accountable. That is the problem.
Lord Leong (Lab)
The Bill is drafted in this way to address who is going to be accountable. My invitation to all noble Lords to a meeting stands, and I welcome each and every one of them. I hope this amendment can be withdrawn.
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2024
Baroness Brinton Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, this order has been laid to introduce a power to charge a fee for UK visa qualification equivalency and English language proficiency assessment services, and to set the maximum fee that can be charged. For noble Lords’ benefit, I will provide some background to the fee structure we currently have in place. For the Home Office to charge for immigration and nationality functions, the Immigration Act 2014 requires that fees must be set in secondary legislation. The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016, an amendment to which we are discussing, sets out the functions for which a fee can be charged and sets the maximum fee that can be charged. Fee levels are subsequently set in separate secondary legislation—the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018—which is subject to parliamentary agreement through the negative procedure.
The fees for the services we are seeking to regulate are for assessments used on certain visa and nationality routes, including family, skilled worker, settlement, and student routes, where that route requires an applicant to demonstrate proficiency in the English language at a specified level or that they have gained a qualification that is equivalent to one obtained in the UK. There are a number of ways in which the English language proficiency test can be taken, using an academic qualification obtained in English and awarded by an educational establishment outside the United Kingdom.
Where an applicant is seeking to demonstrate that they have gained a qualification equivalent to one obtained in the UK, or their proficiency in the English language by using an academic qualification obtained outside the UK, these must be provided by Ecctis Ltd. Ecctis Ltd provides these services through a concession contract with the Home Office and has done so for over a decade.
It is important to be clear at this point that we are not introducing a new cost for applicants seeking to enter or remain in the UK: the requirement for applicants to use these services has existed for a number of years. Where a visa or nationality applicant uses the services provided by Ecctis, they apply through the website and pay an appropriate fee. The outcome of the assessment can take in the region of 10 working days for the English language assessment and around 30 working days for a qualification equivalency assessment. The maximum fee in this order for the qualification and English language proficiency assessment is set at £400. This will allow the Home Office to set fee levels later this year at the current levels, which are £140 for English language and £210 for the qualification equivalency assessment. By setting the maximum above this level, we have a reasonable degree of headroom to adjust fees if, for example, there is an increase in the cost of providing these services.
The Home Office is bringing this order forward today and legislation to regulate these fees now where they have already been charged and where the nature of the service itself, or the requirement in the Immigration Rules, have changed. This is due, again, to the department identifying, in the course of preparing for a reprocurement of the existing service earlier this year, that these fees should already have been regulated, due to the requirement to use the service in respect of applications on certain routes. Having identified this oversight, action was taken immediately to legislate at this earliest opportunity to ensure that the fees have an appropriate statutory footing, although this process was delayed, as indeed was the instrument we dealt with earlier, because of the general election in mid-2024.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee drew special attention to the Explanatory Memorandum that was published alongside this order, and produced a report on 10 October raising concerns that the Explanatory Memorandum did not provide a clear and open statement about why this instrument was brought forward. I fully appreciate the need for transparency. I recognise the committee’s view that further explanation of the context of this legislation was required, and my colleague the Minister for Migration and Citizenship sent a letter to the committee chair, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, on 15 October explaining in more detail why the order was brought forward now and the exploration of the possibility of pursuing retrospective legislation that would put fees paid to date on a statutory footing.
I am not yet able to confirm the specific approach to be taken on how we regulate those fees downstream and, given the uncertainty, it is not appropriate or helpful to go into further detail now. However, I emphasise that this department takes its responsibilities on parliamentary transparency seriously. I assure noble Lords that we are taking forward considerations in respect of previously charged fees as a priority and the intention of this order, subject to the approval of this House, is to lay an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations in early December to set the fee levels that we have considered in the order today. I hope noble Lords will accept that we are trying to rectify an oversight that has crossed over from before the general election. We are regulating to close that loophole and I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I cannot sit at the right desk, so I apologise for being in the wrong place.
I thank the Minister for explaining the reason for the order, although I think his description of “an oversight” for fees that have actually been charged illegally, because they were not approved by Parliament, is a bit of an understatement. I am also concerned that we still have no opportunity to see a new Explanatory Memorandum that sets out the record, but I will come back to that. I particularly thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful and thoughtful third report of Session 2024-25.
However, before I come on to that, I want to note that this is the second Home Office SI on immigration matters that has come to Grand Committee since the Summer Recess which has not just been problematic. The other one—the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (Amendment) Regulations 2024—corrected policy matters in the Act that meant it could not be enacted because they were wrong, so it was also illegal. Therefore the amendments that the Grand Committee saw—I was going to say last month but it might have been a little before that—were to remove retrospective elements of the Illegal Migration Act that were themselves illegal.
Unaccompanied Migrant Children
Baroness Brinton Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I hear what my noble friend says. I wish to find the 90 children who are still missing. I wish to ensure that we give support to local authorities and the police to do that, and it has to be the primary focus of the Home Office. I can reflect in due course on what both she and my noble friend Lord Touhig said, but ultimately our focus has to be to find those people who went missing because of the performance of the previous Government’s management of this issue.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the Minister referred to Kent County Council. Earlier this year, questions were asked in your Lordships’ House about whether Kent was getting extra reimbursement for the phenomenal responsibility of being the first point of call for these children. Has that happened? It is wonderful that Kent is doing all that it can, but if it cannot do it without resources then children in Kent will also suffer in the longer term.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There was an enhanced incentivised funding programme in operation for Kent County Council, which gave support of £15,000 for transfers within two working days and £6,000 for transfers within five working days. Those schemes are coming to an end because the pressure is not there as it was, but that support was put in place to help Kent to deal with the initial challenges.
Operation Conifer
Baroness Brinton Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that the College of Policing has looked at investigating allegations and calls for allegations made against individuals both living and dead and is currently potentially issuing guidelines to police forces around these matters. Again, this is a complex area. I want to reflect on the points raised today, and I am open to further scrutiny from this House in due course.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, both noble Lords can get in; we have plenty of time. Shall we take the noble Baroness’s question first?
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, following the publication of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in October 2022 and the government response a year later, the Government issued a consultation on mandatory reporting by professionals working with children when they suspect possible abuse. The result of that consultation has still not been published a year on. One of the best ways of ensuring that there are no malicious allegations against senior politicians is to see that result and for a government response. When do this Government plan to implement the recommendations of the IICSA report?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If I may, I will look into the issues that the noble Baroness has raised and write to her with the detail very shortly in response.