Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fire Safety and Rescue. In that context, I support Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and endorse his comments on lithium batteries, given that I had similar amendments in Committee. Importantly, the product is not included, and I hope the Government will be able to take note of that and help.

I also support Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I think I was the first person at Second Reading to raise the question of criminal issues. The amendment helps us to get to a solution that provides scrutiny. Early scrutiny by Parliament is much stronger than the affirmative procedure.

I continue to support the campaign of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which is encapsulated in her Amendment 26. I also support the powerful example given to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman. However, I disagree, in that, in my view, tampons should be as well-regulated as blusher. They should be deemed to be a medical device, for all the biocidal reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, explained —and I will not rehearse those. I remind your Lordships’ House that paragraph 9 of the schedule at the end of the Bill removes medicines and medical devices as defined in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act. Unfortunately, with period and incontinence products there are health issues. If they are not defined under that Act, there needs to be some way of recognising that they have an impact on individual health. I therefore support Amendment 26 and hope that the Government will listen to that as well.

I should also point out that there is more information on the government website about the correct taxation of period products and incontinence products than there is elsewhere on the health issues.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments in this instructive and interesting debate. I am a little wary about speaking after finding out how much plastic is in our brains, because that is obviously potentially to invite unfavourable comment.

I shall speak sympathetically to my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendments 3 and 12. One of the many problems that we have already discussed at some length, now and in Committee, is the vagueness of the Bill as drafted. That lack of clarity creates significant uncertainty for both businesses and consumers, so I thank my noble friend for his contributions. His amendments offer important suggestions that could help to address some of these issues, particularly by expanding the definition of safety and, indeed, providing a definition of safety.

As technology continues to develop, it is critical that we recognise that our understanding of what constitutes safety must also evolve. My noble friend’s amendments reflect that forward-thinking approach, acknowledge that new technologies and innovations may require updates to safety standards over time and, by expanding the definition, would ensure that the legislation remained flexible and adaptable, allowing for future growth and innovation without sacrificing safety. As my noble friend pointed out, different language suggests different outcomes, so I hope the Minister will be able to address that in answering my noble friend’s questions. We believe that these amendments provide much-needed clarity in areas where the Bill could have been more precise, and we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for bringing this issue into sharper focus.

Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Lindsay—who, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, pointed out, is president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute—has significant merit. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, made a persuasive case, with some alarming statistics and illustrations. Consumers should have confidence that the products they buy, whether from a high street store or an online platform, are safe and, if things go wrong, that there is a clear route to accountability. By allowing regulations to extend liability to online marketplaces and ensuring the proper disclosure of evidence in claims for compensation, this amendment would strengthen consumer rights and help to create a fairer system. We will return at a later stage to the definitions of online marketplaces.

Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would also help to do things better. I should remind the noble Lord that, in effect, it would mean more consultation. I am reluctant to remind the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, of this, but the DPRRC, on which she sits, said in its most recent report on 21 February that

“consultation is not a substitute for Parliamentary scrutiny”.

However, I recognise that, in pointing that out, I am probably flogging something of a dead horse.

I turn to Amendment 26 and the other amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which were spoken to—again, very persuasively—by the noble Baronesses, Lady Freeman and Lady Smith. These amendments address an important issue: ensuring that period products meet high safety standards while also considering their environmental impact. Given that these products are used by millions of women and girls, often over a lifetime, it is only right that their safety, composition and labelling are subject to clear and effective regulation; the list of organisations quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is illustrative of the interest in this particular area.

The safety and regulation of period products is a matter of both public health and consumer protection, so ensuring that individuals can make informed choices about the products they use is obviously essential. Amendment 26 seeks to introduce clear and necessary provisions for testing, marking and risk information, reflecting the need for greater transparency and oversight in this area. By addressing both single-use and reusable products, it acknowledges the evolving nature of the market while prioritising safety and well-being. We ask the Government to take further consideration and to carry out additional study on this important area—and, indeed, to expand it to some of the other areas that the noble Baroness mentioned, such as the formaldehyde that is present in non-iron shirts. Of course, one of the other uses of formaldehyde is to preserve dead bodies; I am not sure what that tells us about our sartorial choices, but there we are.

As the market for period products continues to evolve—particularly with increasing interest in reusable products—it is obviously essential that any regulation stays relevant and up to date, so we expect to return to this issue in future health-related Bills. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made some very good points about the fact that these products should be treated as medical devices; those deserve to be explored further. It is crucial that we continue to monitor and adapt the regulation of these products in order to ensure that public health and consumer protection are maintained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I know that we are all most grateful to the Minister for what I thought was an extremely helpful response to these important and interesting issues that we have debated in this group.

For my part, in relation to Amendment 3 and the use of “safe”, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, that the use of “safe” in a Bill that is intended to ensure that products are safe would be most helpful. He will note that Amendment 12 defines “safe” in a similar way—not precisely the same as the Consumer Protection Act does at present—as meaning

“that there is no risk, or no risk apart from one reduced to a minimum”,

so it is not to say that a product has no risk.

The Minister is right that this is about product safety—I completely agree—and identification of risk. I think where the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is coming from is on understanding how risk is identified and so on. I have some sympathy with the points he makes on Amendment 9, but I find it entirely arguable whether the definition of safe in the present legislation and the definition in this Bill are very close to one another. I slightly rest my argument for the Minister, and perhaps his officials, to think about: would it not therefore be helpful to include a provision in Clause 1 saying that products should be safe, meaning that there is no risk or a risk that is reduced to a minimum or mitigated, since that is what the Government intend to do? They are intending that people should be able to say that products are safe; they have just chosen to take the word out of statute. I think it would be rather helpful to put it back in. I rest my case there and will not press it further.

On Amendment 28, the Minister very helpfully said more than he said in Committee, although it was not inconsistent with what he said then. In particular, he gave us a timetable, which, of course, is immensely helpful. It is quite a long one and goes to the end of 2026, but I know how these things grind through the machines. He will find that there is a pressing need for a review of the product liability directive, especially in relation to online marketplaces, not least because the Law Commission identified this as an area for reform of the law in its 14th work programme—and that was something like three years ago. We are not only well out of date but well beyond the point at which a need for action on product liability had been identified. I hope we might keep pressing, alongside the Minister, for the progress that needs to be made in the consultation and subsequent legislation.

I have one more point. On Amendment 26 and the question of period products, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I was wondering about this. I have checked, but if I understand the position correctly, period products are not regarded as medical devices; they are regarded as consumer products. Incontinence pants—disposable body-worn pads—are treated as medical devices by the MHRA. That is a distinction without a difference, one that I do not understand. I think that period products are regarded as medical devices by the Food and Drug Administration in America. Of course, we follow where the European Union’s general product safety regulation has been and the definitions it has put into its own regulations. One area that Ministers might think about is whether it would be more appropriate for these products to be regarded as medical devices and brought under the scope of the regulations.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I have a very minor and technical point, but I referred to products and not just pants, because the whole line of products has changed. I do not believe that either period or incontinence pants are covered. That is my concern but I thank the noble Lord for his point.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I will not argue but there is probably a good basis for thinking about whether—rather than including them in the Bill, I say with great respect to the proposers of Amendment 26—it would be more appropriate to revisit the question of having them covered under the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. I will leave it there.

On the basis of the point that we have reached with Amendment 3, and that the Minister will have heard, at the very least, the argument for the consumer and communications benefit of saying that we are aiming to make products safe, I will leave it in his capable hands and not seek to press this. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 3.

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Amendment) (Provision of Information) Order 2025

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee has considered the order, which amends the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 in order to give the Disclosure and Barring Service, the DBS, an express power to share its barred list information with UK non-territorial police forces and the Crown dependency police forces of Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man. I hope this will be a relatively straightforward Motion for the Committee because, as well as issuing criminal record certificates, commonly known as DBS checks, the DBS also maintains two lists—one of people that the DBS has barred from working in regulated activity with children, and one of those it has barred from working in regulated activity with adults. Regulated activity for the purposes of this includes sensitive roles such as work in schools, health and social care.

The DBS bars people from such work if their criminal history or other information held by the police, or their behaviour in the workplace, indicates that they pose a high risk to either or both of those groups. The DBS itself updates the police national database, PND, on a weekly basis with the names of individuals who have been barred. If the police then look up a named individual on the police national database—for example, for the purposes of criminal investigation or police officer vetting—the police will be able to see if that person is on one or other of the DBS barred lists.

An express power to share such information with the police is provided to the DBS by Section 50A of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. This gives the DBS the power to provide any information it has to a chief officer of police for the purposes specified in the Act, and it confirms that a chief officer of police includes the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Police Scotland. However—and this is the nub of the order before the Committee—it does not make express reference to the non-territorial police forces or the Crown dependency police forces. Following an extensive review, which includes arrangements for accessing the police national database, the DBS has decided on a precautionary basis that there should be express statutory ground for sharing its barred list data with these forces. It therefore took steps in March 2024 to prevent them accessing the barred status of individuals, pending resolution of the legislative position. This means that, at the moment, non-territorial forces and the Crown dependency police forces cannot currently access an individual’s barred list status.

We therefore intend, through this order, to make it clear that the definition of “chief officer of police” in Section 50A also includes the chief officers of the UK, non-territorial and Crown dependency police forces. Those non-territorial forces are the British Transport Police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Ministry of Defence Police, the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Air Force Police, the Royal Military Police, the National Crime Agency and the tri-service serious crime unit. The Crown dependency forces, for the purposes of this order, are the States of Jersey police force, the salaried police force of the Isle of Guernsey and the Isle of Man Constabulary. This order effectively gives the Disclosure and Barring Service the certainty it seeks to provide all forces with access to information that indicates that someone is considered to pose a risk to children and vulnerable adults.

In conclusion, the DBS’s barred list exists to help protect the most vulnerable in our society from those who pose a high risk of harm to them. That information is important to decisions made by police forces, whether related to police officer vetting or related to the prevention and investigation of crime.

This order’s purpose is to give the DBS the statutory power, beyond any doubt, to share this information with all forces, including the non-territorial and Crown dependency forces. I commend it to the Committee.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, just before I contribute, are we not doing both SIs together?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

That is not what my brief indicates, but of course, if the noble Lord wishes to do that, he can propose it.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I apologise.

The first reading of this brief regulation and the Explanatory Memorandum is misleading. It appears to be a minor correction to ensure that access to DBS barred list details will now include non-territorial and specialist police officers. Nothing to see here—or is that the case?

Once again, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its 14th report of this Session, in which it set out the real background to this SI and the previous history of errors in law by this department being corrected by regulations—but with Explanatory Memorandums lacking in information to inform those parliamentarians wishing to scrutinise regulations. It points out at least 10 SIs for this period since July 2024 that have been unsatisfactorily presented to your Lordships’ House—referenced by the committee in its third, fourth, eighth and 10th reports. This SI now needs to be added to that list.

The reality of this SI is that highly confidential information under the DBS legislation had been passed on to police bodies even though they were not permitted to receive it. The original Act, passed in 2006 under the previous Labour Government—nearly 20 years ago now—has clearly not been reviewed in detail since then. One must commend the new Government for dealing with not just this issue but the other ones as well. However, it is a real shame that the somewhat underhand tactics of the Explanatory Memorandum, designed to elicit confidence in the reader, are misleading as to be against the spirit of the relationship between a Government and the Parliament that is there to ensure that it can hold that Government to account. Can the Minister say whether the systems have been changed in the Home Office to ensure that this type of obfuscatory approach is now ended and that all such legislation that needs to be updated has been updated?

On the SI itself, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raises the issue that the implication of the draft order is that unlawful sharing of data may have happened, even if it did not concern very many people. Individuals on the list may have been affected by being denied a job or made the subject of a protection order. So can the Minister tell the Grand Committee how many individuals—even if the number is small—may have been affected by the unlawful activity, and, perhaps even more importantly, whether those individuals have been told?

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that I have answered the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, because on capability, guidelines and protocol, that was all happening before March 2024. The DBS, the police national computer and the agencies receiving that information were content, but the DBS itself said, “We think we potentially don’t have the legal cover to do that”, so this order is to ensure that that legal cover is there. The jurisdiction in Guernsey, Jersey and other places is a matter for them but we are now sharing that information on the same basis that we were pre-March 2024, subject to this order, but given that legal certainty on top. With those comments, I hope that I have answered the points—

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I thank the Minister very much for his very helpful answer. I was asking about individuals because if this tiny group do not know that they are on the barred list but are having jobs denied them, we are going back to the system that used to operate 30 years ago when I was chair of education in a county council. It was essentially a secret list then. The point about those who have criminal records is that the individuals concerned know. It may be only a small number but I am very concerned about that group.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think I said—but I will check Hansard again—that all individuals will know that they are barred. Having reflected on this matter, I can confirm that all individuals will know that they are barred. Again, this is, in a sense, a process matter to ensure that there is legal certainty for the agencies that share that information.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

What about the individuals?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The individuals know that they are barred because of the reasons they have. So there is legal certainty about that. I hope I have answered the noble Baroness, but, if she wishes to intervene again, I am obviously happy to reply. If she does not, I commend this instrument to the Grand Committee.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2025

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

It is a brave Minister who continues without his Whip.

I was trying to explain why fees such as the ETA fee must be looked at in the context of the possible impact on tourism. The example I was giving to illustrate it relates to the system that we had until recently, whereby an ETA fee was charged for people who were travelling from a third country through the UK in transit to somewhere else, using Heathrow and Manchester in particular. We as a committee were concerned about that and thought that it would have an impact on tourism; that was backed up when the ETA was introduced initially for a few Gulf countries. As a result of that introduction, Heathrow Airport alone recorded a reduction of 122,000 people transiting through Heathrow from those relatively small countries. That was when the fee was at £10; if it is to go to £16, you can see the impact that it will have on people—not for transit but for people thinking of coming here. There is real, clear evidence that this fee increase being proposed, from £10 to £16, could have a huge impact on tourism.

Of course, our committee expressed a particular concern in relation to these fees in terms of tourism in Northern Ireland and issues in relation to the common travel area between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. This issue was picked up in the 16th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which said:

“We asked the Home Office for any assessments it has made about ETAs to date, especially in relation to Northern Ireland (NI). The Home Office stated that as a result of its monitoring … it was working with a range of government and tourist bodies to ensure that ‘ETAs are not seen as a barrier to cross-border tourism on the island of Ireland’”.


I ask the Minister the very question that the committee suggested, which is

“whether (or when) firmer evidence can be made available on the practical impact of the ETA on”

Northern Ireland tourism. If the Minister has any information, clearly, that would be very helpful. More generally, given that the Minister said that this SI has been introduced following a review of all these fees, can he tell us whether the issue of tourism was taken into account? In particular, can he give a categorical assurance that, when the new SI comes forward—the one that will actually make the increase to the new maximum—the impact assessment will take account of tourism?

I said that Robert Jenrick, when he announced the whole scheme, made two points. His second point was that the £10 charge

“will ensure that the Department’s costs in delivering the scheme are effectively covered across a range of volume scenarios”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/6/23; col. 44WS.]

Can the Minister, whose department has conducted this review, tell us whether the increase that is being proposed is as a result of evidence that the £10 is insufficient to cover the costs of the operation of ETA; or whether this is in fact just a way of making additional money for the Exchequer? I am sure that he will be able to answer that and will have the figures to back it up.

I just say to the Minister that, given that we see in the notes for this particular SI that the longer-term effect is to bring £260 million-odd into the Exchequer, I suspect that the fee increase for ETA is about adding to that. However, I also warn him that, if tourism is seriously affected in the way I have suggested, the Government will not be able to make that amount of money.

My final point is about the ease of operating the ETA system. If it is difficult to operate, that will put people off bothering and it will stop people even thinking of coming to this country as tourists and perhaps also for business sessions, and so on. When we looked at the ETA introduction, we were concerned about the lack of different languages in which the information about ETA was being provided. The then Government actually agreed with us and accepted that official information relating to ETA should be made available in a wider number of languages “as soon as possible”, including French, German and Spanish. So can the noble Lord tell us whether this has happened?

I should tell him that, prior to this meeting, I sought to find out for myself whether I could get details of how ETA operates in other languages. I could not. So I asked our good friends in the Library whether they could find out, and they told me that they too could not find any evidence that information is provided in any language other than English. They pointed out to me that, of course, some platforms have a translate option—that might be the clever way out—but, when we checked some of the platforms, we could not get the ETA to translate into different languages. So the evidence I have shows that what was promised has not been done. Of course, it may have an impact on people choosing to come to this country if they find it hard to get this information. So perhaps the Minister can address this.

There are many other issues with the ETA operation which are not relevant to the SI, so I will not raise them now, but the Committee and the Justice and Home Affairs Committee are very keen to have an opportunity to discuss those issues with the Minister. However, in the meantime, on this SI and the proposed future SI, I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Foster, who raised serious questions about the ETA and whether there will be an impact. He provided evidence to show that having an ETA at the current level, before any increases, is already having an impact. One of the general themes I will cover is what the impact assessment does not say about the impact on businesses, including tourism in this case, and other areas that I will come to. This is yet another charge that has gone up, adding to overheads, and it is becoming a problem in certain sectors.

It is also a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, who outlined many of the problems that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has been reporting on over the years. I look forward to the Minister’s response to his questions.

I will start on an optimistic note, given our debate on the previous SI. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee does not often hand out commendations in its reports, but it has commended the Minister and his officials on the Explanatory Memorandum, which was very helpful. With my calculator out, I did a lot of calculations and, although Minister may be irritated by some of the questions he gets, it is actually because we understand what is happening. That needs to be to be credited because we have not necessarily been able to give that credit in the past. The impact assessment was helpful, but I am not sure that it asked the right people about the impact. I will come back to that in a second.

Paragraph 29 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 16th report says that

“the net benefit of the changes is relatively small. Further, we note that in some scenarios set out in”

the impact assessment,

“the costs of the changes outweigh the benefits. This possibility arises because … it is ‘highly uncertain’ what goods and services visitors and visa-holders consume, and how many of those are provided”

by British businesses. Can the Minister comment further on this, or is the impact assessment just guesswork? That is the perhaps slightly unfair approach to trying to translate what the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said.

I say that because the maxima level set here is, pretty broadly, a 7% increase. I very much echo the comments made by my noble friend; the Government have made it very plain that when they do introduce fee rises—as opposed to setting a new maxima—most of them will go up to the new maxima. As the impact assessment says, the Government are trying to ensure that they can cover the costs of migration and the staffing for that, but I am concerned because 7% seems high.

For example, the pension triple lock is increasing by 4% this year. Many felt that was too high in the current financial circumstances. I am not going to comment on that but am trying to weigh it up as 7% seems to be a general increase, if not for the next year. I know the Minister will say it is only a maxima, but we heard elsewhere that there is an intention in most cases to go to that.

It is true that in paragraph 5.2, the EM says:

“The department is seeking to implement changes to fees to generate additional income from end users to support the funding of the migration and borders system and reduce reliance on funding from the taxpayer”.


However, the increases that are not 7% are the ones that really worry me. They seem bizarre and, in one particular case, ill thought through. For example, the skilled worker and temporary worker fees have both been increased by over 100%: from £239 to a £525 maxima for the skilled worker fee and from £25 to £55 for the temporary worker maxima. The reality is that in just over seven months, this Government have increased other costs to businesses—not Home Office costs, I grant you—but it is difficult and tedious for employers to recruit staff from overseas at the moment. I am not commenting on whether it was right or wrong, but the previous Government really tightened down on who could come to work here. Part of that was to start increasing substantially the costs that businesses and individuals coming here had to pay.

One of the costs I am particularly concerned about—we have just had a vote on this and there will be more before the evening is done—is on the increase to employers’ national insurance contributions. Not only are these increasing, but the floor for payment is lowered to include many lower-paid workers. Migrant workers filling gaps in our economy, such as in social care, hospices, agriculture and hospitality, are much more likely to be in those sectors where the margins for businesses are extremely low.

Our social care sector is already in complete crisis. Only today, there are reports of care at home being removed and clients being told they will have to leave their home and move into care homes, solely because of the economics of the increased national insurance contributions and the high costs associated with care delivered in a home setting. To have extra fees for migrant workers—often paid for by the businesses because the migrant workers just do not have their own resources—is going to add further to those sectoral problems. I wonder why the impact assessment says there are no financial implications from a 100% increase in these fees.

If these increases are as set out in paragraph 5.2 of the EM, did the Home Office actually seek advice from some of the sectors most reliant on overseas workers, whether skilled or temporary? I am slightly less worried about the very high-value skilled workers, where an employer will not only take on somebody at a high salary but be prepared to manage an oncost. It is those who are given temporary leave to work here, or in the health sector, where we know they have been granted.

Finally, paragraph 5.10 sets out the increase for the review of a decision related to immigration and nationality. The main fee maxima is increased by 7% and I have already commented on that. Hidden a few lines further down is a really shocking increase from £80 to £480 for an administrative review of a decision. This is nothing to do with the relevance of costs and I wonder if it is a financial punishment. An administrative review is very different to a review by a panel or senior officer, as referred to earlier in that section. Can the Minister explain why this particular administrative review has now hit the same maxima level as the much more complex and personnel-intensive level required under the main type of panel review?

By the way, it is interesting to note that, at paragraph 11.1, that particular increase has not been highlighted, whereas others have. I wonder why that might happen. The reason why the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, my noble friend Lord Foster and I are raising these issues is to try to understand the strategy behind these increases, as opposed to just a reason to raise money. We are concerned that at least some of them may backfire and stop the increase in growth that this Government are keen to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There will be an impact assessment. I still say to the noble Lord that people want to come to London: they want to see this building and Buckingham Palace; they want to see Downing Street and Trafalgar Square. In my home city of Liverpool, people want to see Beatles-related material or they go for football matches. People will go to York because of its history. People go to Scotland—the noble Lord’s home base—because they like Edinburgh and Scottish culture. That is not going to change because we have gone from £10 to £16. There might be other factors that stop people coming but I am not convinced that that figure will be looked at. I reassure the noble Lord that if the figure goes at a future date from £10 up to the maximum of £16 on that proposal, there will be an impact assessment and he can test it. He can vote for or against it in due course.

The noble Lord made another important point on the ETA form and I am grateful to him for raising it. I want to get the bottom of the source of his knowledge about potential translations—I will do this, if I may, outside the Grand Committee. I will look at it and write back to him in due course. At the moment, the form is available only in English. It has been launched in the Gulf countries. We have had no significant feedback, but I will take that point away. If there were assurances given previously by Ministers or officials, I want to get to the bottom of them. I am not aware of them from the discussions that we had today or from my discussions with officials in the Home Office. We will look at that in due course.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, talked about the logic for all of this. The logic is that we have to fund the cost of the migration system. The logic is that if there are fee-level increases—which are not yet on the table, but could come—with impact assessments, these will be to ensure that we maximise the income to cover the cost of administration and of border systems generally. There may also be some businesses that ask, “Can I recruit home-grown employment?”. That is an important consequence as well.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I am mindful that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said that some of the increases in the maxima might not cover the administrative costs of introducing them. That then starts to be a burden on the Home Office’s budget, so is analysis being done to look at that? It will otherwise become counter- productive.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The driver for some of these issues is to ensure that we have self-sufficiency on costs for this area. Obviously, I am talking today about the potential for maximas. We are not talking about what those fees are going to be. They may be the maximas and they may not. The Home Office will take that decision and it will lie predominantly with Ministers who are Members of the House of Commons, rather than of the House of Lords—such as myself. We will discuss those fee increases. That is a decision taken by the Minister for Migration and Borders, who is a Member of the House of Commons in the Home Office team. We will look at that and these orders will come forward to both Houses in due course. I will take feedback and discussion, as I am doing now with colleagues in this House.

The general principle of this is that we ensure that we raise that resource and potentially look at challenging behaviour so that we give opportunities for people to say, “If it costs X to bring someone from Y country, are those skills available locally to boost the economy locally?” That is a perfectly legitimate policy objective that I think was shared by the last Government and which is not difficult for Members to accept and understand.

I hope that I am covering all the points. The final point that I want to make is on Northern Ireland. Citizens of the UK, including citizens who live in Northern Ireland—whether they identify as Irish or British—will not have an ETA to go to Ireland, and, vice-versa, Irish citizens will not need an ETA to go to Northern Ireland. There will be tourist movement from other countries into Ireland and Northern Ireland, and potentially into the United Kingdom as a whole through that route. I am cognisant of that and we are aware of it. We will make an assessment on that. Again, I repeat my record that says that we have not yet made the decisions on the figures. We have not brought those forward or made the impact assessment but when we do, I will be ensuring with colleagues that that impact on Northern Ireland tourism is assessed, as will be the impact of the collectability of that ETA in relation to the island of Ireland and the common travel area.

I am grateful to noble Lords who have raised that issue but it is something on which we have worked closely with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government since the inception of the ETA policy. We will continue to work with those partners to understand the impact of ETAs in Northern Ireland. By requiring an ETA on crossing the land border, we will also have a better understanding of those who are seeking to come to the United Kingdom. However, as noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Foster, will know, the land border issue in Northern Ireland is sensitive and not one that we wish to see imposed—as it was, even in the times when I was a Northern Ireland Minister 20 years ago.

With that, I hope that I have answered the points made. I commend this order to the Grand Committee.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the horrific crimes of child sexual exploitation and abuse laid bare in the Home Office Statement are a particularly dark moment for our nation.

Let us not mince words: local authorities run by Labour have failed to act with the urgency that these crimes demand. Last week, the Prime Minister referred to those calling for a national inquiry into the scandal as “far-right”. Let us be clear: there is nothing far-right about wanting justice.

It seems that the general public agree. Two-thirds of Labour voters are at odds with Sir Keir Starmer and would support a new statutory public inquiry into the grooming-gangs scandal. New YouGov polling suggests that 76% of the British public— including 65% of Labour voters—would support a new statutory inquiry, compared with just 13% who would oppose a new national investigation. This is a moment where the Government could have truly united the nation by listening to His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, but they have failed to do so.

While I welcome the recognition of grooming gangs as a persistent and insidious threat, the Government’s measures fall short of what is needed. The ethnicity data expansion and rapid audits do not go far enough. Prominent voices have long called for robust data collection and enforcement to identify and dismantle these criminal networks.

Under Labour’s watch in council areas such as Rotherham and Oldham, local authorities and police forces have been complicit in a culture of excuses and cover-ups. Instead of demanding transparency and accountability, this Government are tiptoeing around hard truths, putting political correctness above child protection. We must confront the uncomfortable realities of this crisis, including the cultural and societal factors that enable abuse.

Local inquiries, while helpful, are no substitute for national leadership. The £5 million funding for local initiatives is a drop in the ocean compared to the scale of the problem. What Labour fails to grasp is that piecemeal solutions cannot address systemic failures. What is required is a unified, national strategy that holds all institutions accountable and ensures no child slips through the cracks.

This Government need to understand that this issue is a national emergency. I repeat that the Government need to launch a comprehensive national statutory inquiry, holding those responsible to account. Most importantly, we need to deliver justice for survivors through action. It is not enough to audit failures; we must correct them.

The safety of our children is not a partisan issue; it is a moral obligation. Yet, the Government’s record on this crisis has been one of hesitation, inaction and misplaced priorities. We as an Opposition will not stand by as these failures persist. We owe it to the victims, the survivors and the generations to come to build a society that will no longer look the other way. This is the leadership our nation deserves: firm, unapologetic and unwavering in its commitment to protecting the innocent.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I pay tribute to the victims of child sexual exploitation who, for too long, have been treated as miscreants themselves, including by police and social workers, thus repeating their victimisation. Their bravery in continuing their fight over many years of not being listened to is quite extraordinary.

My first question is about them. What support and recompense will the Government provide for these victims? While it is good that the Government have accepted all the IICSA recommendations, the Statement says that the Government will lay out a timetable for taking forward these recommendations before Easter. A timetable is welcome, but does the Minister actually have any idea of timescales for the possible start and finish for the discussion, consultation and implementation of these recommendations? I ask this with experience of speaking on many of the other inquiries and recommendations, and know how easily things can get bogged down in paperwork, to put it politely.

The Home Secretary said that there will be

“new action to help victims get more investigations and prosecutions”.

However, I cannot get the answer to my question of why the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which incorporates an enormous amount of legislation to support victims, has not yet been commenced, other than for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.

The HMICFRS inspection on police and law enforcement bodies’ response to group-based child sexual exploitation in England and Wales, published in December 2023, made nine recommendations. Can the Minister say how many have now been fully implemented by government? It is not clear whether the previous Government had accepted them in full, let alone implemented them. I realise that three have not quite reached the deadline by which that should have been done—only one of those goes beyond March this year—but that leaves six where the deadline has now passed. If the Minister cannot answer that question now, I would be grateful if he could write to me.

It is encouraging that the Government want to do a rapid audit of the current scale and nature of gang-based exploitation, but can he say what “rapid” means, not least as the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has other roles to fulfil? Will her taking up this role slow down the other important work that she is doing?

It is also encouraging that the Government will start collecting better data and evidence. One of the problems here is that a lot of the evidence has never been collected. Can the Minister say whether they will review the various local inquiries—Oldham, Rotherham, Telford and other towns? I have raised this with him before, and I got a positive response, but it would be useful if the Government could lay out all the various inquiries that have happened so that it is possible for their information to be included; otherwise, we may miss some important things.

It is good news that Tom Crowther KC has been appointed to develop a new framework for victim-centred locally led inquiries. The Statement mentions the drawing up of a duty of candour. We on these Benches have stood alongside Labour when it has raised this is the past. Can the Minister give your Lordships’ House some idea about when this might be published? There is clearly an urgent need for it.

I end by expressing my disappointment at the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He talked about the national emergency, but his Government did not accept all the recommendations made by Alexis Jay, it is not clear whether they have implemented the recommendations from HMI, and, more importantly, his Government did nothing to start to implement those that his party now says should have been implemented.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for both Front-Bench contributions. I say at the outset that I am disappointed by the tone of the first few words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He seems to imply that this problem occurs only in authorities that have Labour control. If he thinks that is the case, he is sadly misguided. When he reads back what he has said today, I think the tone of his contribution is one that he will think about, reflect upon and regret.

I am trying to look at a programme of activity to ensure that we stop the vile crime of child abuse, that we respond to the reports that have been published already, and that we put a detailed programme in place to affect change. I am disappointed by the way that the noble Lord has approached this. If he wants to politicise things, let us politicise the Alexis Jay report, rightly commissioned by the noble Baroness, Lady May, when she was in the House of Commons. It took seven years to achieve its objectives and produce recommendations, which were given to the previous Government in May 2023. By 4 July 2024, not one single action in the recommendations had been started, never mind completed. So if the noble Lord wants to politicise this matter, I will certainly politicise it, but I appeal to all Members of this House to focus on the real issue: child abuse and prevention of that child abuse.

That is why I will focus on the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I can tell her that there will be a clear timetable. There will be a clear programme of activity. We have said that, unlike the previous Government, we will respond to all 20 IICSA recommendations by Easter of this year. We have already put in place three recommendations announced recently by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the House of Commons. Those three steps include: mandatory reporting, which we debated in depth on Friday; making grooming an aggravated factor, which I know the noble Baroness will welcome; and introducing police performance frameworks, which again I know the noble Baroness will welcome.

The noble Baroness asked about the Victims and Prisoners Act. I have consulted my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, the Justice Minister, and we are working on that; we will bring forward proposals to implement that in due course.

The noble Baroness asked about deadlines, the Casey report and our response. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has been commissioned to do a short report for three months to take us up to April. She does not commence the longer-term work on other departments’ activities until April this year. The three-month audit is about looking at the issues, which are important in all local authorities, of the ethnicity of people who are committing child abuse, what preparation is available and what support is on hand.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about all inquiries. She knows that I have given a commitment before that we need to look at the lessons from all inquiries, but I say to all Members of this House that we have laid out a clear timetable for implementing the IICSA recommendations; we have appointed the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to improve the understanding of the scale and nature; we have extended the remit of the IICSA report to look at other areas now; we have given support to the National Police Chiefs’ Council to look at further action that could be taken on historic child sex abuse reviews; we have put finance in of £5 million, not just with Tom Crowther but with others, to look at local inquiries; we have put an undercover online help and support line in place; we have included the three mandatory duties; and we will be taking measures on the Online Safety Act, which will come into effect next year, to make sure that we tackle child sexual abuse, which very often is now on the dark web and online.

I offer the noble Lord the hand of friendship and ask him not to politicise this in the way that he has and to look at the positives that have been done.

Regulated and Other Activities (Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse) Bill [HL]

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and note that when I was president of the Liberal Democrats I gave evidence to IICSA about historic abuse and how we tackle complaints these days. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who addressed healthcare settings and the shocking data that 40% of other healthcare professionals knew what was going on; I also thank her for her frankness in describing her experience as a GP for children’s homes. That also reflects the right reverend Prelate’s saying that it is time for a reset; we must admit when we ourselves have got things wrong.

I want to start by commending the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on laying this Private Member’s Bill, which would make reporting and associated activities mandatory in order to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation; and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who has championed mandatory reporting for many years, and who spoke with such authority today.

In addition, I want to pay tribute to Mandate Now for its campaigning over many years, particularly Tom Perry, who retired as director last year, and Jonathan West, who has picked up the mantle. Both they and others have been fighting for years to ensure that there is a clear and formal route to reporting to the authorities, that staff and volunteers responsible for safeguarding understand their roles, and that they and their colleagues are trained to recognise concerns and what they must then do. Only with all these elements in place can we avoid cases where people have known what was going on but have done nothing to report it to a designated person. Only with all these elements in place will we have a well-designed mandatory reporting system.

In 1993, when I was a very new joint chair of education in Cambridgeshire, we received a complaint from a parent about a caretaker in a primary school. Upon investigation, it emerged that there had been sporadic complaints over the years but the head just did not believe them. Had those first suspicions been reported via mandatory reporting, many young girls would not have been abused over subsequent decades.

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, led by Alexis Jay, catalogued the appalling consequences of this type of abuse, especially when perpetrated by those in a position of trust or power over the child and others. The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, was right to point out how many inquiries and reports into child physical and sexual abuse we have had over 50 years, and yet still things happen. What is the gap? There is clearly still a problem.

The 13th recommendation of the IICSA inquiry was for mandatory reporting, which would bring us nearer to the vast majority of other nations. A survey three years ago of 62 nations found that 80% of those participating had some form of mandatory reporting. With no statutory offence of failing to report suspicions, it is not clear who will have the power to investigate or even talk to the Disclosure and Barring Service. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, told us that on average, it takes someone abused as a child 26 years to disclose. This means that other adults who interact with the child must be able to report suspicions, which can then be investigated by an outside professional, whether it is the LADO in the local authority or the police. I say to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that this means that false reporting, too, can be examined by professionals, who might recognise earlier that it is false reporting, rare though that is.

Unfortunately, the current proposals offered by IICSA in its recommendation 13 are weak and unlikely to affect reporting rates. I ask the Minister why the Government are not going to follow the examples of Australia, Canada and others, where adults in schools and other settings report that they are now much more confident in raising suspicions to ensure investigation because of the mandatory reporting frameworks. Mandatory reporting helps professional adults responsible for children by giving them a clear framework for taking such action.

By the way, as others have mentioned, this is not just a schools issue. It should cover, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said, regulated activities such as sports, ballet, drama, Scouts and Guides, and faith groups’ youth activities. We are seeing far too many scandals outside schools. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was right to point out that elite sports have a very particular problem.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin and Lady Featherstone, were right to talk about resources being critical. Local government funds for children’s services are inadequate at present, perhaps contributing to delays in uncovering and dealing with cases.

The right reverend Prelate talked movingly about the Church of England having to have a complete reset in its approach to safeguarding, and that is very welcome. I believe this needs to happen in many other settings too, in particular in sports and children’s and youth activities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blower, spoke of ensuring that staff are aware of child sexual activity and have proper training for that. She is right to mention a need for a new dialogue with children and young people. For too many years, it has focused on stranger danger, and we know that the vast bulk of child sexual abuse is committed by somebody known to children and young people.

Teachers in Western Australia who were unhappy with the principle of mandatory reporting prior to its introduction now say that it has given them more confidence to report suspicions and that they would not be ignored by the school or, worse, punished for reporting difficult evidence. Professor Ben Matthews from Queensland University of Technology, who is a world expert in mandatory reporting and how it works in practice, gave detailed evidence in 2019 to IICSA and provided it with his model Bill, which has now been used successfully in many countries around the world. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for using her time today to use Ben Matthews’s checklist against this Bill; it is an excellent base to use.

IICSA focused on historic abuse, and we delude ourselves if we think that it is not happening except in group settings. The vast majority of abuse is not outside the home; it is inside the home, by someone very close to the child. That is why the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, was right to focus on signs of behaviour noticed by teachers at school, nursery or in other settings. Suspicions must always be reported to designated people who are experts in investigating what has happened. If there is any chance of someone not reporting suspected abuse to a designated person, we will continue to have appalling cases where abusers are not caught and then repeat and repeat their foul abuse on other children.

The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, helpfully pointed out that online groups and forums may now be a place where abuse is disclosed or alluded to. We need to plan how to cover that in legislation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, with her Select Committee experience, was right to say that reporting is the first step for victims to ensure that their communities know what has happened. One message that we keep hearing in all the cases emerging at the moment is how the victims feel re-victimised when it continues to happen and the processes for getting the information out just do not work.

I hope that the Government will look very carefully at the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, taking on board her concerns and those of others about the weaknesses of the IICSA model, and either support this Bill or produce their own. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, is right, and the Government are moving quickly to do this. I welcome that, but hope that they will use Professor Matthews’s checklist. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, outlined what has happened, and indeed what has not happened, since the general election last year.

Children cannot stop abuse; adults can. That is why we need mandatory reporting for abuse. That is why we need this Bill.

Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry: Recommendations

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will certainly answer the noble Lord on those points. First and foremost, the report that was managed by Alexis Jay, and set up by the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, in 2015, has produced a large number of recommendations to government, which were published in 2022. The then Government, of which he was a supporter, responded to those recommendations in May 2023 and took no real action between May 2023 and when we took office in July at the general election.

We intend to take forward those recommendations, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on Monday three specific measures: first, a mandatory reporting recommendation, as in the report; secondly, a report to ensure that we have an aggravated offence for people involved in grooming; thirdly, that we will take action on child sexual abuse online. Those are three important issues. A further inquiry would not necessarily add anything to what Alexis Jay has done. There are independent local inquiries, which we have supported and allowed to continue, and that is fine. But what we are really interested in is putting in place the action on the recommendations made to date, which is what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said she would do and what the focus of this Government is going to be.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, one of the IICSA recommendations was on providing a mandatory aggravating factor in sentencing where a child was exploited—that is, controlled, coerced, manipulated or deceived into sexual activity—by two or more people. Does the Minister agree with the last Conservative Government’s response that this was unnecessary, or with the current Conservative spokespeople, who seem to have changed their minds?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. To be honest, what the previous Government and their current Front Bench say on those matters is for them. What this Government are about is implementing action. On the issue of an aggravated offence, on Monday this week, in the House of Commons, my right honourable friend said that there would be an aggravated offence for people who were involved in grooming, child sex and organising child sex gangs. That will be brought forward in the police and crime Bill later in this Session. It will do the job—and whatever the current Opposition do is a matter for them.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for answering on the Statement. We on these Benches, like many in this country, are shocked and appalled by the grooming gang scandal—there is no other word for it. The abuse and exploitation of children by these predatory gangs represent some of the most heinous crimes imaginable, and the trauma inflicted on victims and survivors, many of whom were children at the time, is immeasurable. Let it be absolutely clear that we stand with the victims and survivors of these abhorrent crimes, and we call for the strongest possible action to bring perpetrators to justice and ensure that such atrocities are prevented in the future.

However, I must express our profound disappointment on these Benches that His Majesty’s Government have not commissioned a national statutory public inquiry into this matter. Only through a thorough, independent examination of the facts can we hold all responsible parties to account, learn the lessons required and ensure that justice is delivered. So I repeat the point I made to the Minister during Questions: will he agree that a national statutory public inquiry is crucial, not only to deliver justice for the victims but to rebuild public confidence in the ability of our institutions to protect vulnerable children? Further, will he clarify why the Government have chosen not to pursue this route despite the scale and severity of these crimes—and, above all, to provide justice for the victims?

The Minister outlined measures that the Government intend to take. Although these are welcome steps, they must go further. Can the Minister provide more specific details on how these measures will, first, ensure that the systemic failures within institutions such as police forces, social services and local authorities are identified and rectified; secondly, prevent the abuse and exploitation of children in the future; and, thirdly, offer meaningful and sustained support to victims and survivors, many of whom continue to suffer lifelong trauma?

The survivors of these horrific crimes deserve to be heard, believed and supported at every stage. This includes access to specialised mental health services, legal support and protection from further harm or intimidation. What additional resources will the Government provide to ensure that all survivors, regardless of where they live, can access the help they so desperately need?

Finally, we urge the Government to recognise the importance of transparency and accountability in addressing this issue. A piecemeal approach risks further undermining public trust. A further statutory public inquiry would not only bring clarity and justice but signal a resolute commitment to ensuring that no child in this country is ever subjected to such horrors again.

Let us be clear that these crimes are a disgrace to British society, and every effort must be made to ensure that they are never repeated. We owe it to the victims and survivors to act decisively, comprehensively and with the utmost compassion and resolve. I look forward very much to the Minister’s response to these specific points.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I thank the Minister for the Statement. From these Benches I also thank the Government for the progress that is finally being made on the acceptance of the recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. The victims—not just victims of criminal exploitation and grooming in gangs but all the victims covered in IICSA—were ignored at every level for far too many years, except by a small number of people, including women and including Jess Phillips, now a Minister, whose work has been absolutely outstanding in this area. Even so, it has taken us many years to get to this point where we can actually formally move forward. We can move forward, but many of the victims’ lives are still affected—not just then but now—and many are feeling victimised again because of the debate currently going on in the wider world.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, asked again for a new inquiry—I recognise that he and his colleagues are doing that. I sat in this Chamber on 24 October 2022 when the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, was the Minister responding to the publication of the report. The words the Government said at that point led one to believe that things would move ahead with speed and that most, if not all, of the recommendations would be accepted and implemented at speed. That has not been the case. It may be only two years on, but it has been very slow. The only recommendation that I think has been implemented is on the toolkit, which is a helpful practical tool—but none the less it is not enough.

From these Benches I wonder whether, given the tone of the debate at the moment, it would be helpful for the Government to publish a list of all the inquiries that have happened, not just IICSA but also in relation to children being groomed in towns and cities around the country, as well as the inquiries that the inspectorate of policing has held—at least two—along with links to them so that we, the public, can check them, in addition to the recommendations and action plans. Some of those were published some years ago—Telford in particular—and it might be helpful if the Government could have a brief look at the reviews of those action plans, ask people involved in them to mark progress, and re-energise those issues that require more work. Are the Government planning such a move? It might be salutary, not just for the Government but for everyone.

During Questions earlier today I spoke about one of the issues I was utterly confused about: the IICSA recommendation on providing mandatory aggravating factor sentencing when a child was exploited—that is, controlled, coerced, manipulated or pushed into sexual activity by two or more people. That is exactly the territory of the gangs that we have been hearing about in the past few days. I am concerned that the written response from the previous Government was very clear that it absolutely did not need to happen—they absolutely refused to do it. Yet now they are saying that it must be done. In fact, Robert Jenrick MP has gone further and said there should be a mandatory life sentence, which is a bit of a jump from an aggravating factor in sentencing. I hope the Government move speedily ahead with the aggravating factor in sentencing, because that will send a very clear message about the unacceptability of this sort of crime by the communities. The focus that many of us have also had is not on the perpetrators but on the failure of the public services, which is why I am particularly keen to see whether there is any further information from the inspectorate of policing on the recommendations it has made to see whether they have been picked up in further inspections.

Many noble Lords will know that I have a particular interest, as does my noble friend Lady Walmsley, in mandatory reporting. Recommendation 13 in IICSA on mandatory reporting was not the standard mandatory reporting style that has been accepted by scores of countries, including some states in America, Canada and Australia, where it has worked extremely well.

The most important thing about this model of mandatory reporting that has been adopted abroad is that it entirely changes the culture in every organisation working with children to think safeguarding because it is safe to report it, and it is only ever used as a criminal response where there has been deliberate negligence by somebody not to report. Interestingly, it has also changed the methods of training on safeguarding for people who need it. I hope that the Government will consider the Private Member’s Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, which has its Second Reading a week on Friday, because it reflects the international model of mandatory reporting. I highly commend that to the Government.

In summary, I hope that the Government will be able to give us a timetable on which of the recommendations might take slightly longer to implement than others. The Minister may be able to give us an indication today. He made a reference in the Question earlier today about concerns expressed by another noble Lord on the lack of recompense. Can he outline the current thoughts on the timescale for that recompense to be available to victims?

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the two contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I start by simply echoing what the noble Lord and, by implication, the noble Baroness, said: child sexual abuse and exploitation are the most vile and horrific crimes and include rape, violence, coercive control, intimidation, manipulation and deep, long-term harm. It is our duty in this House and Parliament as a whole, and as a Government, to make sure that we take steps to eradicate that abuse and ensure that those who commit it face the full force of the law.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked why the Government have not commissioned a national inquiry. I understand where he is coming from and the reasons why he is asking for that. I simply say that I hope he can recognise that, in one way, we have had a national inquiry already. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, who, as Home Secretary, established in 2015 the inquiry that has produced recommendations under Alexis Jay, to whom I also pay tribute. It has set a framework for action in this Parliament and beyond to deal with this issue of child sexual abuse as a whole.

The noble Baroness, Lady May, commissioned the inquiry in 2015; it took seven years and an extraordinary amount of witness presentation and examination of issues, looking also at all the wider inquiries that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned. It produced a series of recommendations, which were delivered to the noble Lord’s Government in 2022. His Government responded to those in early 2023, and he will know that the general election took place in July 2024. When we entered office, progress and delivery on the recommendations were very scant. I say that not as a point of political argy-bargy but in recognition of the fact that we are now trying to lift those recommendations and put them into practice to meet the objectives set by the original commission by the noble Baroness, Lady May.

As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said earlier this week in the House of Commons, we will, as a starting point, undertake the first three major items. The first is a mandatory reporting mechanism, which means that any individual who has child abuse reported to them, either by a child or indeed a perpetrator, has a statutory duty to report that for investigation by the police and criminal justice agencies. That is an important first step to commit to. The second important step is on legislating to provide an aggravating factor in sentencing. That means that if a leader of a gang and an accomplice is doing this, they know that they will face not just a charge on the criminal offence that they have undertaken but an aggravated offence of the sexual grooming of a child. The third element that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary brought forward is the question of cracking down online, because child sexual abuse has evolved and will evolve, there is a large online presence and we need to look at the mechanisms for that, including artificial intelligence and grooming online. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said that those three issues—mandating, aggravating factors and online abuse—are serious issues.

Again, we could have a national inquiry. It might well take four or five years and might well cover the same ground as the inquiry commissioned by the noble Baroness, Lady May. What we are interested in is action on the issues that are brought forward, and we will look at the remainder of the recommendations over time to see whether we can bring some energy and action to them, including many of the issues that have been mentioned. That includes the issue of compensation for victims, because victims deserve compensation, but, again, that is a complex, difficult issue to work through.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has helpfully supported the Government’s approach to date and raised a number of key issues which I hope I can address. First, I say to her that I really welcome her support for my colleague Jess Phillips, the Minister responsible for safeguarding of children. She has had a lifelong commitment to tackling child abuse and a lifelong commitment to supporting victims of domestic violence, and she now has the ability, as a Minister, to put some of those lifelong convictions into real government action. She is doing that, and therefore the criticisms that have come her way in the last few days are unfair. She has already been working with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on the issues that we brought forward on Monday to ensure that we put in the public domain this Government’s commitment to tackling those issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made some very helpful suggestions about potentially collecting the elements of the reporting mechanisms and inquiries that have taken place. Telford has taken place; the Mayor of Manchester is undertaking inquiries; there are police inquiries; there is the inquiry I mentioned that has been commissioned. Hers is a helpful suggestion, and I will take it back and discuss it with my colleagues accordingly.

The noble Baroness also mentioned the Second Reading of the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson, a week on Friday, to which I will be responding. I will be meeting the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and Jess Phillips next week to discuss the contents of the Bill. I have to say that my initial assessment is that the Bill is similar to what the Government will bring forward and therefore it may well be better to ensure that we have a Government-tested Bill downstream, but the principle of the Bill is one that we accept, and it is an important issue.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also mentioned the issue of wider government action. One reason that we announced the three particular policy issues is because some of the other 16 or 17 policy issues require a wider government consideration and response, and it is important that we get that right over time. That is one of the reasons we will consider the recommendations in due course.

The noble Baroness asked about timetables. I would love to be able to give them to her, but it is important that we do this right and I do not want to hoist ourselves by our own petard by setting a timescale that does not meet the objective of doing this right and responding in the right way. We have a commitment to secure compensation, and we will commit to review all the recommendations over and above the ones we have made. Again, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will report back to the House of Commons, and I will report back to this House, in due course on those matters.

I hope that those issues are ones on which we can have some co-operation and agreement. We have a disagreement on a national inquiry; that will pass this week. That political discussion and cloud will blow over. What will be left, however, are serious recommendations from a serious report that took seven years in the making and that demands responses with the consideration of time. That is the Government’s main focus: we will bring back proposals in legislation in this Session and will report back on other proposals in due course. I hope I will have the co-operation and support of both Front Bench spokespeople when those moments arrive.

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will certainly do that and take that back to pass on to my Cabinet Office colleagues. One of the reasons why the new Government introduced the single named caseworker was in direct response to the type of criticism that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, has brought forward. We hope that it will streamline the process, improve consistency, increase transparency and remove the duplication, because those are the factors that have led to delay. If there is good practice from the Post Office and infected blood compensation schemes, and/or vice versa from this, the Government should self-evidently adopt it and make sure that victims get the justice they deserve at the time they deserve it.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful that the Minister just referred to the two other schemes that are ongoing at the moment, but victims of those schemes are saying that it is not just about the speed but about the very intrusive and traumatic questions they are being asked, and delay is coming in. Can the Minister ensure that, following the Home Secretary’s reintroduction of the Windrush unit in the Home Office, we will not again see cases like that of Dijoun Jhagroo-Bryan? He is the son of a Windrush victim and submitted paperwork, but the Home Office unit demanded that he also supply a DNA test to prove that he was his father’s son. Some months later, that has now been rescinded, but will the Minister guarantee that this sort of behaviour will never happen again?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If the individual mentioned has had that level of distress, I will apologise from the Dispatch Box for the intrusion into their private life and for the justification for a scheme for which there should have been automatic qualification. The purpose of the Windrush unit—it was disbanded but has been re-established by this new Government—is to tackle the very issues that the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin, Lady Brinton and Lady Berridge, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton mentioned. I will take those factors back and we will resolve them. I hope that this House can accept that this Government are committed to putting energy into the scheme, which we will deliver as quickly as possible, and that we will announce a Windrush commissioner shortly. That is a solid manifesto commitment, not just a whim from the Dispatch Box.

Domestic Abuse: Victims and Survivors

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, on securing this important debate and all the other speakers who have so movingly talked about the scourge of domestic abuse and why it must be eliminated. She was right to say that it can affect anyone, but much of it remains invisible. And the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, was right to say that there is still much to be done. It was good to hear from our own Victims’ Commissioner, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who talked about the experience of women and girls who are at the forefront of our minds today as we have this debate. I thank the many organisations who have sent us briefings and all the amazing work that they do with women struggling to flee from domestic abuse.

One in four women experiences domestic abuse. Women’s Aid is right to describe this as an epidemic. Women also experience higher rates of repeated victimisation and are much more likely to be seriously hurt or killed than male victims of DA. At least one woman a week is killed by a current or former partner. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, said, this is a public emergency, yet four in five British people do not believe that the scale of domestic abuse is greater than car accidents or house fires. That is to do with the way that we as society, and our press and media, handle it. So, can the Minister say what plans the Government have to help society to listen and understand that DA is just not acceptable, and to teach people, all of us, to help intervene if we have concerns? On a practical level, can the Minister guarantee that the police and crime commissioners’ budget for victim support will be protected?

It was good that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, outlined some of the positive changes that we have seen in the family court system and the effect on children. The support is vital for victims, as my noble friend Lady Doocey outlined. Too many are persuaded or bullied into withdrawing their criminal cases. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has outlined three-planet model of types of victims. There is the domestic violence planet, where domestic abuse is considered a crime. There is the child protection planet, where victims and survivors are expected to remove themselves and the children from the perpetrator. And then there is the child contact planet, where there are lots of negotiations between all three. She says that most of the rest of the systems in society do not understand how all of those conflict to make life for victims very difficult.

The excellent Ministry of Justice report some years ago on assessing the risk of harm to children and parents in private law children cases, the Harm Panel report, has really started to make some changes, and it is good that that has finally been recognised. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Hazarika, also said, Sara Sharif’s death was shocking, not just for the violence that was inflicted on her but once again for the continued failures of all those in important roles to keep our children safe. “Lessons learned” is no longer good enough; we really need to make sure that things change. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, I want to pay great credit to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, who has really begun to change the tone of the debate that we have.

Other speakers have spoken about the effect on young people aged 16 and under. We definitely need a law change. The law ignores the fact that Holly Newton and other teens do have relationships. The Children’s Commissioner noted that only 1% of under-18s access advocacy services because they are not targeted at that age group. It is not the young people’s fault; they are just not seeing it. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, outlined the shocking effect on older people of abuse, and I absolutely agree with him as well. When you add dementia into it, it becomes a very difficult issue to manage. The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, spoke movingly about the special problems of migrant women who are victims of domestic abuse, and she is right. We have to make sure that services for the particularly vulnerable in our society who are also victims of domestic abuse are supported.

The noble Baroness, Lady May, talked about the impact on the economy, but there are other financial impacts too. The Price of Safety report found that it could cost a woman up to £50,000 to leave her abuser. That is just the direct cost of fleeing and rebuilding a new life. Even women who have state support and benefits can find themselves facing a deficit of up to £10,000 and nearly 1 million women in the UK cannot escape dangerous partners because of economic abuse. The noble Baroness, Lady Laing, was right to say it is even less visible than DA. And the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, rightly outlined spiritual abuse, which is a particularly unpalatable form of coercive control. The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, talked about honour-based abuse. That is such an appalling misnomer that almost gives credibility to the perpetrators. We need to find another way of discussing it.

The elimination of domestic abuse needs a whole-system response. As the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, outlined, health and domestic abuse are inextricably linked. Others have talked about pregnancy, but there are other health issues as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, spoke about the sobriety tag scheme started by Kit Malthouse and her success in getting this into legislation. There is another reason why it is important. LSE research shows that domestic abuse rises after football matches when people have more opportunity to drink alcohol. Perhaps for repeat offenders in that area there might be short-term tag wearing that would help.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans talked about the important role of civic society. He specifically mentioned the Mothers’ Union, but there are many other groups as well. There is a lot of work going on behind the scenes. We need to make it much more visible, so that everyone recognises that there is strong and good work continuing. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, talked about the importance of initiatives and pilots, and oh my goodness, she is right. How can these initiatives be scaled up and turned into something that will work and be financially supported at the right level across the country?

Above all, we absolutely must have a complete change in society. Will the Government ensure that there are changes and perhaps even a bigger campaign to make us in society understand that?

I have one last question for the Minister. Hardly any of the Victims and Prisoners Act has been commenced. Can he tell us when every part that relates to victims will be fully commenced, including the revised victims’ code?

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Grand Committee

I am aware that the Government’s intention with the Bill is to set an overall picture, but I really hope to hear from the Minister about the Government’s intention to take action in all these areas, and to do so particularly quickly in the area of period products. These are probing amendments, but I need to hear some very positive news about action; otherwise, I may well return to them on Report. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling these three amendments. I have a question about Amendment 59.

Paragraph 9 of the Schedule says that:

“Medicines and medical devices as defined in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, other than devices designed for weighing or measuring for medical purposes”


are excluded from the Bill. I say that because the guidance on what is and is not covered by that Act is somewhat contradictory. It says that sanitary towels and tampons are

“not normally considered to be medical devices”,

yet incontinence pads, which are not internalised in the body, are. In America, tampons are deemed medical devices because they are used inside the body.

I appreciate that I am putting the Minister on the spot. I do not expect an answer, but I wonder whether the very good speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, might point to a problem with the Government’s guidance under that Act that needs to be amended.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I was not planning to say very much about this, but I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I do not feel remotely battered; I feel significantly better informed, and I am grateful for that.

It struck me that Amendment 57 is somewhat pertinent to the discussion we have just had about supply chains. I wonder, for example, whether the habitual buyers of fast fashion would be quite so enthusiastic if they understood how it was made and the environmental despoilation it entails. Of course, a lot of fast fashion is single use.

I am also intrigued to know—I have just been thinking about this—what makes a non-iron shirt non-iron. I imagine it is some sort of chemical. As a fan of said shirts, I would rather like to know, not least because the noble Baroness’s description of the destination for microplastics made me wince slightly, to be honest.

Of course, a lot of single-use plastic ends up in the ocean. Frankly, as a keen scuba-diver who has found single-use plastics below depths of 30 metres, I think that societies across the world need to address that.

I do not have much to say apart from that, but I will be very interested in the Government’s answers. I would also be keen to pursue these issues later.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, that was a very interesting debate, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her amendments. She spoke tellingly about the impacts the products to which she referred are having on the world, on disadvantaged communities and on human health more generally. She gave a lot of information and I will try to respond to the general principles, but I will also take away her speech and ask my noble friend to write to her with a more considered response, as I would like our officials to have a look at some of the details of the concerns she raised.

Amendment 58 is about single-use plastics. The Government recognise the concerns the noble Baroness raised about plastic products, plastic waste and plastic pollution. We think we already have the right powers and, to an extent, with what comes in this legislation. The question she is really challenging us on, I think, is whether the Government’s action is sufficient. I will try to persuade her that we are very much on this, that we have the legislation and we are pursuing the issues she has raised.

For instance, there are powers under the Environment Act 2021 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that allow us to regulate certain matters relating to products, including single-use plastics and plastic packaging, that show evidence of harm to the environment and/or human health. This includes powers for bans on manufacture, product design and labelling requirements, charges and targets. UK REACH also contains powers to address harmful additives that might be added to plastics to ensure the safety of consumer products. We know about, and I pay tribute to, the carrier bag charge. It has been very successful and has had a great impact on the United Kingdom. We have also seen other product bans and restrictions, such as those relating to microbeads, and plastic straws, cotton buds and stirrers.

Additionally, the forthcoming extended producer responsibility for packaging uses the powers in the Environment Act 2021 to make producers responsible for the costs of managing packaging once it becomes waste, and encompasses packaging of all materials, not only plastic. The improved packaging design—and I think the noble Baroness made a very important point about this in the previous debate—will be incentivised through the modulation of the fee the producer must pay based on its environmental sustainability. There is, of course, a risk in focusing just on plastic that we encourage companies to use some other material that might be equally damaging. Therefore, it has to be considered in the round.

Also, the noble Baroness may have seen the Statement made by my colleague Emma Hardy, the Minister for Water and Flooding, in the other place about the final negotiations that we are involved in to develop an international treaty on plastic pollution. The Minister said:

“Plastic pollution is one of the greatest environmental challenges that the planet faces. The world produces 400 million tonnes of plastic waste each year. Scientists predict that there will be a threefold increase in the amount of plastic entering the ocean between 2016 and 2040. A global agreement on plastic pollution is urgently needed”.


She then goes on to say,

“The Government have an ambition to catalyse the transition to a circular economy”—


which we have debated in previous days in Committee—

“and the treaty is one of the key levers available to us to achieve the systems-wide changes needed to make that a reality”.

She went on to say:

“Plastic waste has for too long littered our streets, polluted Britain’s waterways and threatened our wildlife. This Government are committed to cleaning up Britain and cracking down on plastic waste. We will roll out extended producer responsibility to incentivise businesses to cut plastic packaging and the deposit return scheme to incentivise consumers to recycle”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/24; col. 31WS.]


So we are taking this seriously and we think we have the legislation that we require. It is worth noting that, as part of this work, the Defra Secretary of State has convened a small ministerial group on the circular economy and asked his department to work with experts from industry, academia, civil society and the Civil Service to develop a circular economy strategy.

We will come on to the issue of clothing. In the meantime, the Government continue to fund action on clothing through Textiles 2030. This is a voluntary initiative that supports businesses and organisations within the fashion and textiles industry to transition to more sustainable and circular practices. I also assure noble Lords that Defra will keep the House updated with work in this area and we are happy to ensure that the noble Baroness can speak with relevant Ministers to discuss this matter further.

Amendments 57 and 59 seek to ensure that regulations are made to reduce the risk posed by clothing and period products. Again, the noble Baroness made a powerful speech. I must admit, a frisson of fear shook me when she mentioned London Fashion Week because it recalls the time when I was Minister for Sustainability in Defra, quite a long time ago. We were involved in starting developments in sustainable clothing, and I was invited to make a speech on sustainability on the first day of London Fashion Week. I thought it went well until I saw the review in the Daily Telegraph, which ignored my speech but referred to my suit being rather crumpled, which was a trauma I have never recovered from.

I come to the substance of what the noble Baroness said and the legislation. The General Product Safety Regulations do not make specific provisions for reducing the risk to consumers from harmful chemicals among some products, potentially including those that the noble Baroness raised, including period products. Although the legislation requires that the product placed on the market must be safe, it is not tailored to mitigating these risks. What it does is enable the introduction of new regulations to ensure that the Government can continue to reduce and mitigate the risk to health and safety posed by products, which could potentially include those listed in Amendments 57, 58 and 59.

The Bill can ensure that we are able to regulate the use of chemicals in consumer products, as we currently do for cosmetics and toys, as well as in other consumer products with similar chemical exposure risks. I reassure the noble Baroness that we will use the powers to identify product sectors and hazard types that require action, including period products where regulations may need to be strengthened or updated. This will be done on a risk-led basis. It will be evidence led, proportionate and follow appropriate stakeholder engagement. It goes back some time but, as an example, the Nightwear (Safety) Regulations 1985 set flammability and labelling requirements for children’s and adults’ nightwear. They are an example of risk-based regulations where a particular hazard was identified, and that can be done again.

To conclude, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made a powerful speech. I want us to have a look at some of the details. We think we have the legislation. The debate is really about what the Government should do and we are active in this area.

I am afraid that I shall have to duck the interesting question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and write to her. We will have a look at the details of that.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

The Minister worked on the medical devices Act, as indeed I did. That Act is mentioned here, and I hope we might be able to table an amendment to this Bill to amend that Act because of the inconsistency. Will he look at that before he writes to me?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 68 and 90, which are in my name. These amendments address the serious concerns raised by the provisions in Clause 3 and Clause 6, which give the Government sweeping powers to create or widen criminal offences and impose civil sanctions.

I have to revisit some old ground here but, given the gravity of this issue, I feel we have no choice. As was pointed out by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee, these clauses are skeletal legislation, meaning that they lack detail, leaving critical decisions about enforcement and prosecution to be made at a later stage via secondary legislation. We feel that the approach of using skeletal legislation for such crucial issues is problematic. These clauses give broad powers to create and enforce criminal offences without providing clear primary legislative guidance on who will have the authority to impose sanctions. This is particularly concerning because it leaves us very little clarity on which bodies will hold the responsibility to prosecute criminal offences.

The DPRRC and the Constitution Committee have highlighted these concerns, noting the lack of detail in the Bill and its potential to bypass parliamentary oversight. The Government’s decision to leave critical decisions about enforcement powers to be determined later by regulation, rather than in the Bill, undermines the transparency that businesses and consumers need. The Bill as written provides no information about the exact scope of the criminal offences that could be created or widened. This is not just a technical issue. It raises serious questions about the accountability of the bodies that will enforce these sanctions. The Minister may not be happy that these issues continue to be addressed but, until we receive clarity, we have a duty to bring these issues up, as I hope the Committee would agree.

The most concerning aspect of the clause is the provision allowing the creation or widening of criminal offences by regulation. The powers given to the Secretary of State or any other body of a public nature in this regard are overly broad, with little or no clear guidance or justification on what these offences will be. The Bill should, at the very minimum, provide some specification of the type of offences that may be created, rather than leaving this to broad, undefined powers that will most likely lead to overreach. The question has to be asked: why is it necessary to give the Government the power to create new criminal offences by regulation in the first place? Given the gravity of criminal sanctions, the Bill should be more transparent and specific about what offences will be created and who will be responsible for enforcing them—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, made in his reference to the CPTPP, incidentally.

Criminal sanctions carry serious consequences and it is fundamental that Parliament has a say in the creation of such offences, rather than allowing the Government to define them through secondary legislation. We understand that the Government have argued for flexibility in enforcement and that the regulatory framework must be adaptable, but that flexibility should not come at the cost of clarity or proper oversight.

We have heard serious concerns from businesses and industry stakeholders about the skeleton clauses in this Bill. Specifically, there is real uncertainty about which public bodies the Government intend to designate as having the authority to impose criminal sanctions. Again, the question has to be asked: what additional public bodies are the Government planning to empower to prosecute businesses for currently barely defined criminal offences under the Bill?

As my noble friend Lord Lansley pointed out on the previous Committee day, currently enforcement responsibilities for consumer protection laws are set out clearly in Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which names very specific enforcement authorities, but the Bill removes that clarity and instead gives the Government the power to designate by secondary legislation which public bodies can impose criminal sanctions. This creates a situation where businesses may have to deal with a wide array of bodies, many of which may not have the expertise or experience needed to understand the complexities of product and metrology regulations.

This broad power to assign enforcement duties to any body that is deemed appropriate opens the door to a wide range of unknown authorities, so the question here is: why are the Government attempting to create this uncertainty? Why not retain the existing list of enforcement bodies in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and allow changes to be made to that list through normal, well-defined procedures, rather than using secondary legislation to grant powers to an unknown set of authorities? Businesses deserve to know exactly who will be responsible for enforcing the regulations and imposing sanctions. The Bill’s current drafting creates a legal vacuum where there is no certainty about the powers of various public authorities, which could have serious consequences for businesses’ legal security.

The ambiguity surrounding criminal sanctions is deeply troubling for business, especially when these powers can be used by a range of authorities that may not be clearly identified at this stage. It raises serious concerns about due process and the fairness of enforcement actions. If a business is unsure whether it is complying with regulations and there is uncertainty about which body will be enforcing them, the risk of facing criminal sanctions obviously becomes much higher and that creates an environment of fear and uncertainty for business, which is already facing difficult economic conditions.

This situation is further complicated by the fact that secondary legislation will define the details of how these sanctions are imposed, potentially without proper scrutiny by Parliament. Criminal penalties should never be determined by regulation alone; they must be clearly laid out in primary legislation with full parliamentary oversight.

The balance of probabilities standard in civil cases can create significant challenges for businesses as well, especially in the context of the provisions outlined in the Bill regarding enforcement and sanctions. The balance of probabilities standard makes businesses more vulnerable to claims from enforcement authorities or competitors. In the absence of clear regulations and objective criteria, businesses may find it difficult to mount a defence as the mere likelihood of non-compliance could be enough to trigger sanctions. This could result in a climate of fear and uncertainty whereby businesses are hesitant to innovate or engage in new activities, due to the potential for legal action based on speculative or incomplete evidence.

The Government have claimed that this Bill will support economic growth and innovation, yet its skeletal nature and the conversations that we have had with leading industry experts suggest that they are concerned. Moreover, the Bill already includes an emergency clause—we will come on to this in our debate on the next group, I think, and we will address it later—that allows for swift regulatory action if necessary. So there is no reason why criminal sanctions cannot be made clear at the outset. There is simply no need to leave the scope of criminal offences and enforcement powers so broad and undefined.

To clarify, we absolutely recognise the importance of product safety and the need both to protect consumers and for necessary regulations. We oppose the various skeletal clauses in the Bill, as we have made clear over the course of these Committee sessions, because of the lack of clarity and the potentially authoritarian powers given to unnamed, undefined public bodies in some of these regulations. I hope that the Minister will address the many concerns the amendments in this group address and will commit to clarity for business. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, my amendments in this group—Amendments 69, 91 and 107—cover a somewhat wider area than those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I shall return to his amendments and the speech he has just made later, to comment on them—but I start by saying that Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, is helpful. One of my concerns at Second Reading was how Parliament can be made fully aware by more than just the laying of regulations, when a Minister or another body decides to create or widen the scope of criminal offences, that they must lay an Explanatory Memorandum in the Libraries of both Houses. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord speak later; his amendment is part of a possible solution.

At Second Reading, the Minister said:

“We have minimised the use of the powers in the Bill as much as possible and we have worked closely with the Attorney-General—who, quite rightly, is a stickler for these kinds of things—to find the best approach. So we look forward to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which we will carefully consider”.—[Official Report, 8/10/24; cols. 1940-41.]


In my speech later on in that debate, I raised my concerns about a Minister who was not based in the Justice Department being able to create or extend criminal offences by regulation, with no ability to amend and much less detailed debate in both Houses of Parliament.

At Second Reading, we had not seen the second report of the Delegated Powers Committee, because that was published on 15 October—a week afterwards. Its summary about this part of the Bill is blunt. It says:

“We consider that … the Government have failed to provide a convincing justification for the inclusion of skeleton clauses in the Bill”


and suggests that

“the delegations of power in clauses 1, 2, 3 and 9 are inappropriate and should be removed”.

There is some detail about why it thinks that, in particular, there is a problem with the creation of, or the widening of the scope of, criminal offences. I mention this because I absolutely appreciate everything that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has said about the skeletal nature of the Bill earlier on—indeed, my noble friends have also made those comments—but I want to focus on the impact of having new criminal offences on the criminal justice system. I shall come to that in a minute.

My first two amendments tackle the creation of criminal offences—in the first part of the Bill on product regulation and in the second part on metrology. I have also laid Amendment 107, which seeks to ensure that new criminal offences are not created through the clauses on information-sharing regulations. Clause 7(3)(d) talks about

“sanctions for non-compliance … including … creating, or widening the scope of, criminal offences”.

That is exactly one of the points that the Delegated Powers Committee is making: the Bill is so skeletal in nature, it appears that information sharing is a route by which criminal offences could be made. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that.

--- Later in debate ---

I understand the good intentions and concerns—of all noble Lords—behind these amendments. I have highlighted, I hope, that we are following precedent. With that in mind, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments in this group.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has been very helpful in explaining about the affirmative process, and he has talked about the Explanatory Memorandum, but he has not responded to my questions about the consultation with the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the relevant agencies. If that happens, will it form part of the Explanatory Memorandum? My concern is that this is all still led very much by the Department for Business and Trade and does not take account of the concerns and pressures faced by the Home Office, the justice system and their respective arm’s-length bodies.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for the question. I will need to come back to her on it because I want to be absolutely clear that I am giving her the correct information, rather than me saying something now on the fly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for his question because it reminded me that when all the primary and secondary legislation on Covid was going through, most of the references to “emergency” were the definition in the Civil Contingencies Act. That Act is not defined in this Bill, and “emergency” is used loosely on its own. I wonder whether there is a bear trap there. If the department means to use “emergency” in the sense of the Civil Contingencies Act, it may be better and more helpful to name it. If not, will the Minister explain why the use of the definitions in the Civil Contingencies Act are inappropriate?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I really do not know the answer to that. Obviously I will find out and write to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I thank the Minister—I am grateful.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am told that we were advised by counsel that this word is more flexible to use. I do not know whether that is sufficient but perhaps we can explore that further.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

82: Clause 5, page 6, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under this section must have regard for the impact of metrology regulations on small and medium sized enterprises.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment ensures that new metrology regulations under the act have regard for impacts on small and medium sized enterprises.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is unable to be in his place at this stage of the day because today’s Committee date was confirmed only after he had made an appointment that cannot be changed. On his behalf, I will speak to Amendment 82, which would ensure that new metrology regulations under the Bill have regard for impacts on small and medium-sized enterprises.

It is self-evident that the capacity of small and medium-sized businesses to process and understand regulation is many orders of magnitude different from that of large companies. That is why the Bill should explicitly consider this difference in capacity every single time a new regulation is to be tabled. How will a two-person organisation cope? What is the appropriate level of regulation? This Government say that they are about growth. SMEs are largely the engine of growth, and misplaced overregulation is a key brake on those size of companies. I hope the Minister can answer these questions. In the light of these concerns, this simple amendment calls on regulators to keep this at the front of their minds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their contributions in the debate on this grouping of amendments; in particular, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Sharpe, for their amendments. This Government are committed to supporting businesses as we get the UK economy growing.

I begin with Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. He specifies that regulations made under Clause 5 of the Bill

“must have regard for the impact of metrology regulations on small and medium sized enterprises”.

The noble Lord has also proposed the publishing of impact assessments of affirmative regulations, to be laid every six months after the Bill’s implementation.

Similarly, Amendments 103 and 104 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, propose publishing a report assessing the Bill’s impact on consumer choice 12 months after the Bill is passed, as well as another report every two years on the economic impacts of the Bill. The noble Lord’s Amendment 104B would further require the Secretary of State to present a report to Parliament detailing the impact of regulations made under the Bill’s powers on SMEs.

I am happy to confirm that the impact of any new regulations will be fully considered through the development of proportionate impact analysis. As I said before, the Better Regulation Framework is the system that government uses to manage the flow of regulation and understand its impacts, including on SMEs and micro-businesses. On 7 December, the Government launched their new Business Growth Service to ensure that it is easier for SMEs to find government advice and support, giving them more time and money.

In line with the Better Regulation Framework, for regulations where significant impacts—above £10 million per year—are anticipated, full impact assessments will be published. For regulations with lower anticipated impacts, a proportionate assessment impact analysis will be completed. These assessments will, as a matter of course, consider the impacts of regulations on SMEs. Furthermore, officials currently routinely engage with SMEs and stakeholders to shape policy, including in the light of emerging technological and industry developments, and to identify and address any disproportionate burdens. The OPSS regularly engages with a small business panel as part of policy development.

I hope that this confirmation provides reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on this important area, and I am grateful to them for raising it today. The Government remain committed to supporting SMEs and recognise the vital role they play in the UK economy. As such, the Bill will allow the Government to update product and metrology regulation to avoid extra cost to business and provide continued regulatory stability. It will also allow the Government to end recognition of EU requirements where this is in the interests of businesses and consumers. The Bill will enable the Government to introduce proportionate product safety requirements that protect consumers and create a fairer playing field for law-abiding businesses.

As some noble Lords will know, before I came to this place I was a serial entrepreneur all my working life. I understand how micro-businesses and SMEs work. SMEs spend most of their time creating and growing the business. They do not want additional costs or regulations impacting their business. Having said that, all that businesses want is a level playing field where they know the rules of the game and what regulations are in place. Imposing additional regulation is not the intention of this Government. We are constantly consulting SMEs to ensure that, whatever regulation is in place, it does not impact SMEs and micro-businesses.

As I said, growth is the Government’s number one priority. On 14 October, we published a Green Paper, Invest 2035, setting out a credible 10-year plan to deliver the certainty and stability that businesses need to invest in the high-growth sectors that will drive our growth mission. This industrial strategy will create a pro-business environment and support high-potential sectors and clusters across the country. By giving the UK the flexibility to adapt its own regulatory framework to keep pace with international regulatory developments and respond to global trends, the Bill supports economic growth and innovation.

This flexibility ensures that the Bill supports economic growth—as I mentioned—reduces unnecessary regulatory burdens and ultimately benefits businesses, including micro-businesses and SMEs. However, introducing a statutory reporting obligation would risk duplicating existing processes, diverting resources and delaying the implementation of timely and effective regulations that provide businesses and consumers with the certainty they need.

I am sure that many noble Lords know that the EU’s general product safety regulation comes into force this Friday 13 December. Under the terms of the Windsor Framework between the UK and the EU, we have to apply it in Northern Ireland, so we will publish on the Government’s website clear guidance to SMEs that want to export to Northern Ireland and the EU. We will prepare a statutory instrument to implement a new enforcement regime in Northern Ireland to allow this GPSR to be enforced. This is a requirement of the Windsor Framework.

I mention this to show that there are regulations that SMEs have to abide by—this is one of them—that will impose a certain amount of burden on SMEs, especially in the run-up to Christmas. Many small businesses will now find it very difficult to export to Northern Ireland and Europe if they do not have a legal representative in the country to verify their goods.

As I have outlined, I believe that the very laudable sentiment behind these amendments is already covered by existing practice, so I ask noble Lords not to press them.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am grateful to the speakers in this debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his Amendments 103, 104 and 104B. They aim, I think, to achieve the same objective as Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, but in more detail.

I am with the Minister—I thank him for his response —in saying that more paperwork and more regulation is not what we on these Benches wanted to achieve in Amendment 82, which is why it says that any regulations “must have regard for”. I hope that the Minister will take that on board. I want to ask him something; perhaps he might write to me, if he intends to write anyway. He kindly talked about the different types of impact assessment, including whether they would be full or proportionate. We completely understand that those would happen, but will those impact assessments specifically highlight SMEs? In other words, will an untutored eye flicking through see “effect on SMEs” in bold, and then something underneath it? I am seeing nods from the Minister, and I look forward to his letter.

I am glad that the Minister raised the extra burdens on firms either selling into Northern Ireland or the reverse. It is not just about that: over the last few years, we have seen very small businesses having sometimes to double the number of their administrative staff to cope with, for example, things such as music groups touring across Europe. The objective has to be keep that paperwork down as much as possible. Obviously, I will confer with my noble friend Lord Fox, and I look forward to the Minister’s letter. We may return with this later.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Before the noble Baroness withdraws, I can confirm that, when we do the impact assessment, we take SMEs into consideration as well.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 82 withdrawn.