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 Some months later, that has now been rescinded, but will the Minister guarantee that this sort of behaviour will never happen again?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.

Tackling Stalking

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to your Lordships’ House. On this side, we welcome the Government’s announcement on stalking. I am sure that all noble Lords will wish to do everything that we possibly can to tackle violence against women and girls. There have been many tributes paid to Nicola Thorp for sharing her experiences, and I wish to echo those. It takes courage to speak up, and I cannot thank her enough for raising this situation.

The previous Conservative Government made real progress on this issue. I can put it no better than the shadow Minister in the House of Commons, who said:

“We launched our tackling violence against women and girls strategy to increase support for victims. We elevated violence against women and girls to a crime type that police leaders must treat as a national threat. We ensured that victims can always access professional support. We doubled the maximum sentence for stalkers from five to 10 years, keeping behind bars for longer those who devastate their victims’ lives. We also made stalking a specific offence, to ensure that women and girls are protected and to show beyond doubt that stalking is a crime”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/24; col. 184.]


The number of people who have been stalked dropped 0.5% from 2010 to 2024, according to the Office for National Statistics. We on this side of the House very much welcome the Government’s actions on stalking, and we want to work with them to eradicate this crime once and for all. I wish to ask the Minister just a couple questions around this. Can he confirm that, in continuing the excellent work of the previous Government, conversations are happening with relevant Ministers in the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that there is a truly cross-departmental focus on eradicating stalking? Also has the Minister had conversations with officials in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to ensure that cyberstalking is being clamped down on? What resources is the Minister providing to police forces to ensure that this heinous crime is being tackled in all cases?

In closing, let me say that the Government can be assured that we on this side of the House will continue to fully support efforts to combat this abhorrent behaviour.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, it is a very old declaration of interest, but I was a member of the independent parliamentary inquiry on stalking, led by Elfyn Llwyd MP, which published its results in 2012 and led to the first change of legislation that identified stalking as a separate criminal offence, as opposed to it just being gathered in under harassment, as had happened before. I was also a victim of sustained stalking before the days of online stalking, over a period of two and a half years. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Thornhill was also in receipt of some of the very unpleasant attentions of this person.

The independent inquiry found that victims of stalking, whether domestic or not, had little confidence in the criminal justice system, from the way that police handled cases and helped victims and how the CPS frequently plea-bargained with perpetrators, resulting in a distinct lack of justice for egregious cases of stalking. I wish that I could say that this was history, but it is not. Nothing has changed in the cultural way that the entire criminal justice system deals with stalking. The law may have changed, but far too many stalking victims are still told that they should welcome the attention. Far too many find that their cases are plea-bargained away to harassment or some other minor offence and, as a result, that gives encouragement to the perpetrators. The reason that I mention this is that one of the things that was recognised was that many stalking cases involve perpetrators with fixated threats; they are manipulative people who have coercive-control behaviour, very deceitful behaviour and—most worryingly—with some perpetrators, a ratcheting-up of their illegal behaviour. Not enough is done to support victims of stalking.

In my particular case, it did not start with violence at all, but the reason why the police moved quickly at the end of a two and a half year period was because the perpetrator was using kitchen knives to slash tyres and their adviser said that, having done this to houses and damaged houses of the people he wanted to target, the next thing he would do after using these knives on inanimate objects would be to move to people. He was then swiftly arrested. Helpfully, he pleaded guilty and there has been nothing else since, but it was a pretty awful two and a half years.

This Statement focuses on the police response, where the Minister talks about those who have not been listened to or have even been told that they should have been flattered by the stalking actions. I welcome the fact that the Government recognise this, but the three issues that the Government are responding on—multi-agency statutory guidance on stalking, again; a review of stalking legislation, again; and publishing more data, again—are all welcome, but will not change things.

I pay particular tribute to Nicola Thorp. She is a brave woman, and we salute her, but she is one of many women who repeatedly have to tell their stories. Why, therefore, are false claims to families, friends and workplace victims able to be ignored when it comes to plea bargaining? I ask that, because these really manipulative stalkers do that. London’s victims’ commissioner, Claire Waxman, is herself a victim of stalking. Her perpetrator, whom she did not know, has been jailed seven times, and the behaviour continues. Once known, police can advise victims on how to protect themselves—for example, by installing alarms in their homes. If the individual who is being stalked recognises them, they can go to the police and say, “I’ve seen them in the vicinity of my house”. If they do not know who they are, how can they report when they are in danger?

I briefly mention one particular case where an ex-partner, who had continuously stalked his ex and her son, was given her new secret address by the children’s social worker, because he said he was so distraught at not being able to see his son. As a result of that action a handful of years ago, he broke into her new flat, threw his son against the wall and then raped the mother in front of the child. That is because the agencies did not know. It is fine to have victims informed, but can the Minister say whether other agencies involved in these cases will also know, so that that sort of mistake cannot be repeated?

Can the Minister also confirm, as has already been mentioned, that he will commit to requiring social media companies to publish reports setting out the actions that they have taken to address online abuse and stalking against women and girls? Will they be informed about these perpetrators who are repeat offenders? Social media companies will not pick it up on their own but, once they have a name and an IP address, which the police will have, it would be easy to do so.

I end by saying that I broadly welcome this Statement, as I think all victims of stalking do, but the biggest issue is how we can change the culture in the police and the criminal justice system. It is apparent that, 12 years since the new laws were introduced, it is the culture on the front line of the criminal justice system that needs to be changed.

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

I am grateful to His Majesty’s Opposition for their support for the measures and for the work that was done by the previous Government in highlighting and putting in place legislation that had Opposition support at the time to at least start to address this problem. I say to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I think the Government’s pledge, our manifesto commitment, to halve the level of violence against women and girls over a 10-year period will send a clear signal to both central government and external agencies that relate to government on this issue and many others that this is a really important issue that has to be addressed by the state and by other bodies involved in dealing with the state. I hope that will assure the noble Baroness that this issue is being raised in importance. With a target being set of halving of violence against women and girls, of which stalking forms part, that is a measurable impact that agencies, the police and others will need to respond to government on, and I hope that raises it as a whole.

I particularly welcome the mention by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, of Nicola Thorp and her work. It takes a great deal of bravery to come forward, and she has done that. He mentioned the co-operation between government departments. Certainly, the Ministry of Justice, the department of the Home Office that I represent, and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology have a stake in improving the performance of the Government and agencies in this area.

One thing that came out of this Statement, which both noble Lords mentioned, is the multiagency guidance and the guidance to various agencies dealing with this, including government agencies that are responsible as arm’s-length bodies or agencies delivering for central government departments. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said “again”, but I say to her that there has not been any guidance given to date by government on a multiagency basis that is effective. This is the first time this has happened and, in the Statement, we have agreed to do that.

Cyberstalking is important and will be part of the assessment of the government response downstream. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned resources. We are in a very strange time, as the House will recognise, when we have not yet announced the police settlement for next year until December, we have not yet allocated resources for 2025-26 and we have not yet determined, with the Treasury, resources for 2026-29. These matters will come in due course, but we have not done that yet.

The issue of culture change, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is extremely important, as is putting victims at the heart of the response, which is why we refer not just to Nicola Thorp but to the work of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and the way it has responded. The noble Baroness raised a number of issues relating to social media. That is equally important, but I say to all Members of this House that if they look at the Statement, the work on multiagency guidance will be brand-new and important. The review of legislation to see how we can improve many of the areas which both Front Bench spokespeople mentioned is important. The collection and publishing of data for the first time is important. The victim’s right to know, which the noble Baroness focused on, is extremely important, because once the victim knows, then steps can be taken and action monitored and individuals can respond to the agencies that I mentioned. That is in this proposed legislation the first time. The management of behaviour to tackle some of the long-term issues of low-level offenders, initially, who may raise the level of their game is equally important and is in for the first time. The stalking protection orders that we will put in place when parliamentary time allows are extremely important and will help prevent further engagement by stalkers when those are legislated. The national standards for examining how we can deal with individuals will raise the level of this issue and improve the performance of our agencies, which are all equally important.

Many of these matters that were announced in another place this week and are being repeated here today will require legislation in this or a later Session of Parliament, but I hope the Government’s intention is clear: we will not stand for stalking; we want to give victims protection; we want to improve the performance of the Government and their agencies in this area; and we want to ensure that there is a legal basis to give the type of protection that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, both suggested. This will be an ongoing discussion as legislation comes before the House, and I look forward to both noble Lords contributing to helping improve the performance for victims and the prevention of this activity in the first place.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 25th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am very grateful for the explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, of his amendments on AI and digital products, which are particularly appropriate, given the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on the first group when we were discussing sandboxes, because of his experience during the passage of the digital medicines Act three or four years ago. A number of noble Lords in this Grand Committee worked on that—I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in particular.

I raise this because one area that concerns me about new products, especially those using AI, is that we do not have the same mechanisms that we have, full of fault though they are, for being able to allow our personal information to be used and to give our consent. I have mentioned before the issue of my dentist. Before you go to see your dentist, you have to go online to fill in a consent form, and at some point mid last year I noticed that there was something about the IT suppliers and it said, “It is assumed you give your consent”—and 10 layers further down they had a completely different set of consents that breached UK GDPR law. Had I not been working on another Bill about digital consent, I would not have looked much further. I have to say that the moment my dental surgery was aware of this, that firm was not just told to change it but was sacked. My problem with AI is that none of that work is visible; it is completely invisible.

My question to the Minister is, in the discussion about sandboxes but also about products that will come under this Bill: will he ensure that our current GDPR laws—and indeed our copyright laws in relation to music—are complied with at all times, so that there would not be any freedom for somebody using AI to develop a product to breach those? I say that in light of the final remark the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, made about consultation. Two sets of Government Ministers have had a very bitter time about patient data and care.data—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is smiling at me—when the public were not fully informed about what was going on, and in both cases the proposals had to be abandoned.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, the first amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, Amendment 14, seeks to ensure that the production reliance on software and artificial intelligence are included in the scope of the Bill. Clearly, all our remarks are somewhat irrelevant if the Minister gets up and says, “No, they are not”. However, on the assumption that the Minister is going to say, “Yes, they are”, I draw particular attention, if I may, in supporting all the noble Lord’s amendments, to Amendments 75 to 78, on the issue of labelling. This seems to me to be an opportunity for real joined-up government thinking.

The Minister will be well aware that the Communications and Digital Committee, on which I had the opportunity to serve at the time of this, produced a very detailed report on the development of LLMs, large language models, and AI. In so doing, we particularly raised concern about the way in which these large language models were being trained by scraping tons of data from a variety of sources, then creating products over which they were then able to get intellectual property coverage. In so doing, they had scraped a great deal of data.

Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in respect of the labelling and so on, requires the Secretary of State to lay

“regulations to ensure no product or content … uses an individual’s image, likeness or personality rights without that individual’s express consent”.

Had I been drafting the amendment, I would have gone much further, because it seems to me that a large amount of other data is scraped—for instance, novels written by authors without their permission. I could go on; it is well worth looking at the Select Committee report.

Does the Minister accept that this is a real opportunity to have joined-up thinking, when the Government finally decide what their position is in relation to the training of LLMs and people being required to get the permission of all data owners before they can bring their product to market? Does he agree that the labelling of such products, when developed, should include specific reference to them having gained the appropriate permission, paid the appropriate fee or got the appropriate licence to make use of the data that was made use of in the training of those AI products?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

16: Clause 1, page 2, line 13, at end insert—
“(c) EU REACH regulation restrictions that are applied to the manufacture, placing on the market, and use of certain chemicals to mitigate unacceptable risks to human health or the environment;”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment ensures that EU REACH regulations covering certain chemicals are included in the Bill.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, REACH regulations cover the safety of chemicals. We simply ask: how can the Bill regulate cosmetics without considering the safety of the chemicals used to manufacture them? I do not buy the idea that Defra is in charge of chemical regulations—in the same way that the DWP is in charge of the chemicals database, other than via its responsibilities in managing the Health and Safety Executive. I will come back to a regulation that the DWP presented to the Grand Committee last year. So, should the Bill ignore chemicals or not? We need an explicit reference in the Bill to cover it. We have talked a lot about AI but the use of chemicals is equally important, particularly in online marketplaces.

I am sure that the selection of EU REACH rather than British REACH will raise certain hackles. I would grab any REACH in a storm, but the EU one is a system that functions, unlike its British cousin, which has proved expensive to business and is failing to react to new challenges.

Over a year ago, I was substituting for my noble friend Lord Fox when the biocidal products regulations 2022 were being discussed in Grand Committee. I think that none of us, including the then Minister, if she were honest, knew very much of what we were talking about. However, it was the most illuminating regulation that I have ever taken part in. We discovered that this was, in essence, a time extension for the use of the EU chemicals database, because Whitehall had not understood that the day we left the EU, we would lose access to the chemicals database. As a result, the Health and Safety Executive had to take on a very large number of staff. Its chemicals sections had increased by 30% to try to rewrite the chemicals database while also consulting with users, whether they were manufacturers importing, exporting or creating in this country. We know that there are systems out there that work but because of our bizarre structures, we tend to have government departments that are not focused on chemicals.

The cosmetics industry imports many of its ingredients from the EU, and often in very small quantities. These would certainly be covered by EU REACH, because these sales represent such a tiny proportion of total production. If there were a substantive difference between EU REACH and British REACH, it is unlikely that the manufacturer would invest in accrediting its products in the UK, causing the UK cosmetic manufacturer either to stop making its product or to move manufacture to the EU—hence my noble friend Lord Fox’s proposal about REACH in this amendment.

Can the Minister confirm whether, under the terms of the Bill as it stands, if a product contains a chemical that was allowed by EU REACH but blocked by British REACH, and yet it conformed to QC standards, it would be legal in Britain? That is what this amendment seeks to clarify. Given the interconnected nature of the UK and EU chemicals industries, it offers a route for aligning the UK chemical regulation with that of the EU. But perhaps the Minister thinks that the current wording of Clause 1(1) means that it could be used to amend and update UK REACH to align with EU REACH. I beg to move.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to both amendments in this group, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her introduction of them.

When examining the purport of these amendments and considering whether to include provisions that require us to adopt regulations that correspond with the EU’s REACH provisions, I suggest that the metric by which we should judge that is simple. Would doing so make the people of this country safer? Every other consideration should be secondary to that.

As I said both at Second Reading and in Committee last week—I apologise to those who have heard this before, but it is worth repeating—the past few years have seen a significant divergence between the UK’s approach to chemical regulation and that of the EU. The previous Government decided to leave REACH—the EU’s body responsible for the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals and their regulations—and to set up a parallel organisation.

Since then, we have not adopted a single registered restriction on a harmful substance, compared with 10 new protections offered by EU regulation, including on harmful microplastics deliberately added to products. While REACH has regulated PFAS in the EU, not a single river or water body in England is in good chemical health. Since we left REACH, the EU has initiated 23 risk assessments related to harmful substances, while we have initiated three.

In considering why that is the case, I point to two contextual factors. This is not a function of the legislative constraints. The Government have the power under the EU withdrawal Act and Schedule 21 to the Environment Act to adopt new restrictions and controls where necessary. However, reviews undertaken by the NAO and the Public Accounts Committee in 2022 pointed to a lack of operational capacity and insufficient data as factors that have hampered the ability of the UK’s chemical regulator properly to do its job. For instance, brominated flame retardants were identified as a risk to health and globally significant exposure rates were identified in this country. Indeed, they were identified as a regulatory priority over two years ago and a review was promised. So far, no review has been published and it is difficult to discern how this apparent priority has been acted upon, if at all.

However, while the EU has added eight flame-retardant chemicals to its list of substances of very high concern, no substances in this category have been added to the parallel UK list. The EU restrictions road map has proposed a ban on brominated flame retardants while no equivalent step has been proposed, let alone planned. This is not because we have data which diverges from that upon which the EU has based its conclusions but because we are working more slowly. I vividly remember the promises of greater regulatory agility and speed which would inevitably result once we were free of the sclerotic influence of the EU. This example is but one of many—including lead in PVC, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in synthetic football pitches and formaldehyde in wood furniture—which suggest that far from being more agile and responsive, our current system of chemical regulation is slower, less efficient and consequently less safe than its predecessor.

In April this year, Hazards magazine published a parallel analysis of the 25 new standards that have been introduced across the EU since our departure in 2020 and the UK’s response. Of the 25 standards, 12 were identical. There were 10 in which the UK’s standard was weaker, sometimes significantly. Only in one case has the UK adopted more protective measures than the European standard. Again, this is suggestive of regulatory incapacity as much as a deliberate exercise of our power independently to regulate.

Fiscal stringency creates significant challenges in remedying this situation, but both these amendments obviate the need for the otherwise necessary significant increase in investment in our chemical regulator. Ensuring that our domestic regulations correspond with those of REACH not only offers greater safety but removes a barrier to trade and promises to ease the burden on our chemical regulator which, as I said earlier, the NAO and Public Accounts Committee suggested has compromised its ability to work with appropriate speed.

At Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister said, in response to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that the Government are currently considering the best approach to chemical regulation in the UK separately to this Bill. In deciding our approach to these amendments, it would be extremely useful if my noble friend who is responding to this debate could at least give us an idea of the direction of travel on this. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, made the point also at Second Reading that the absence of such a Bill from the King’s Speech makes it unlikely that we will see it in this Session. That being so, what plans do the Government have, in the absence of adopting the amendments that are the subject of this discussion, to exercise the powers in Clause 2(7) to ensure that we catch up and keep pace with the EU chemical regulation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the quick answer is that these matters are being considered by Ministers at the moment, but I will feed back to them what noble Lords have raised today.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I would be glad to give way to the noble Baroness, but as we will come back to her in any case—

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I have a question. I am very grateful for the Minister’s response, but he has not yet responded to my final question and, following his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, I need to repeat it to check. I said that this was a probing amendment to clarify the interconnected nature of, and differences between, the UK and EU chemicals industries. Under its current wording, Clause 1(1) says:

“The Secretary of State may … make provision, in relation to”.


Could that be used to amend and update UK REACH to align with EU REACH? I ask this in light of the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Leong, wrote to colleagues on 17 October:

“Though the Bill is not intended to cover REACH specifically, chemicals have not been excluded from its scope … We are currently considering the best approach to chemicals regulation in the UK and will set out priorities”.


That is the fundamental bit of this amendment. We can debate EU REACH and UK REACH, but it is about the influence on this Bill.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the quick response is that we do not envisage it being used in that way because we already have separate legislation to deal with that. I will follow up with a more detailed response, but I do not believe that the provisions would allow that to happen. However, I will double-check and clarify that.

On my noble friend’s point, I have listened to the debate and understand the concerns. I know that Ministers are considering this, and I will ensure that the strong points raised here are put to them as they consider how to take forward this work.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the short debate on this group. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for covering the 10 restrictions adopted in the EU but not in the UK, since it left the EU. I was debating whether to raise them or not; I am glad that I left them to him. He pointed out the cost-benefits of using REACH. Manufacturers have made it very clear that they want things as simple as possible and, usually, would prefer one form of REACH—the one to which they are likely to export or from which they will have products coming in. I recognise that other Members of the Committee will disagree with that. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor; lemon and lavender sound like a lovely, simple way of looking at it, but cosmetics are much more complicated. We need to be very careful about that. I look forward to hearing from the Minister but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I will also speak to Amendment 22. Amendment 21 is fairly self-explanatory. It asks that people be made aware of where the goods they are buying come from and, therefore, what confidence they can place in their quality. Secondly, it explores whether we might place liability on marketplaces for the quality of the products they allow to be listed there, which is clearly not the case at the moment.

My view is that Amazon makes a great deal of money out of selling what are, essentially, counterfeit products. This is not a satisfactory state of affairs. Amazon is quite well enough off to do a bit of investigation, which does not take long with these products, to make sure that they are what they say they are. This would result in greater stability and higher quality of companies doing business through Amazon. I do not think it would lose Amazon any business, but I am prepared to be shocked to find that the Government disagree with me. For now, I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 45 in this group is in my name. I also support my noble friend Lord Foster’s Amendments 117 and 122.

I come back to an issue debated at some length on the first day of Committee. I am particularly pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, in his place because my amendment relates directly to his Amendment 33, which questions whether Clause 2(3)(h) should stand part of the Bill; my amendment also looks at paragraph (h). He spoke about it in the context of parliamentary scrutiny and consultation, but my focus is a different one: I am trying to look at how it will work in practice. During our debate last week, my noble friend Lord Fox said that

“the wording of Clause 2(3)(h) is ‘any other person carrying out activities’. All the other items refer to the activity of the sale and marketing of that product. This does not refer to it but any person carrying out activities unspecified”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; col. GC 40.]

We are moving from products to people in this debate.

At Second Reading, I asked the Minister who is caught by this very wide, catch-all paragraph. In his letter of 17 October, in which he responded to issues that he did not have time to cover at Second Reading—I thank him for it—he said:

“These supply chain roles may be undertaken by individuals as well as by businesses. The Bill will enable the responsibilities of supply chain actors to be rationalised and modernised, including to reflect the development of new business models that were not anticipated by current legislation, such as online marketplaces”.


I read his reply carefully, but it did not answer my question. That is partly because “actors” could mean anybody; it does not necessarily mean somebody mentioned in one of the clause’s previous paragraphs. I remain concerned about that in the context of Clause 2(3), which identifies the

“persons on whom product regulations may impose product requirements”.

It appears that paragraph (h) can include absolutely anyone involved in selling a relevant product, without limitation. This matters because a private individual selling an item with a lithium-ion battery, for example, on eBay or Vinted may be an actor at the very end of a long supply chain, but that does not mean they are a professional in the business. The wording is important.

Where does the responsibility for satisfactory compliance lie? In our Second Reading debate, there was some discussion about online marketplace platforms having responsibility for ensuring compliance but, frankly, eBay and Vinted cannot check the detail of a regulated item—in the case I gave, a lithium-ion battery in a bicycle—or how it meets the regulations. Also, the individual at the end of the supply chain has no obvious way of finding out whether they are responsible for ensuring that the item they wish to sell meets the regulations. Of course, there is a future actor in all of this: the person who buys it.

Which?, in its very helpful briefing prior to Second Reading, pointed out that the Bill needs strengthening in a number of areas, including clearer definitions of key terms, so that existing and future online marketplaces cannot take advantage of gaps to avoid responsibility. Clause 2(3)(h) is one such area. Will the Minister help by making it clear who is covered? Can he also explain exactly how the online marketplaces can manage the extension of liabilities for defective products sold by individuals, which those online marketplaces have not seen themselves? Alternatively, if individuals selling items are covered by Clause 2(3)(h), how do those individuals become aware of their responsibilities under the Bill for ensuring that the goods they sell meet the requirements and are not defective? Frankly, eBay sending them an email saying, “You are entirely responsible” is not good enough for compliance. If this is not clarified, we have a gaping hole in the Bill.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 48, 71, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123 and 124 in this group, on the topic of online marketplaces, which are in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay.

Turning first to Amendment 48, I recall that, in the King’s Speech, the Government made a commitment to ensure that the responsibilities of those involved in the supply of products, such as online marketplaces, are clear. That commitment is to be welcomed, but the clarity and detail will be in the secondary regulations after the Bill is passed and not in the Bill itself. As set out in the explanatory statement, the proposed new clause in the amendment

“provides a non-exclusive list of duties that must be imposed upon online marketplaces by regulations made by the Secretary of State … to be made to Parliament within 3 months of Royal Assent regarding the exercise of the duties conferred by this section”.

These duties include an explicit provision to place a duty on online marketplaces to take the necessary measures to ensure the safety of products offered on their platforms and a commitment to publish any draft secondary legislation on how this duty and related provisions will work in practice in good time before the measures are due to come into force. Finally, there is a duty to consult with key stakeholders on the design of these regulations.

I make it clear to my noble friend the Minister that the duties in this amendment are about the transparent process by which the Government will ensure a safer online marketplace, rather than a long list of possible actions taken to bring this about. The Office for Product Safety and Standards, in its 2021 research, found that 81% of the products it found online failed safety tests. I am sure that the figure would probably be far higher if they were tested today. Which? tells us that around 23.4 million consumers in the UK make monthly transactions on these marketplaces, yet they are unwittingly putting themselves at risk because, at present, they do not have the same protections as they have come to expect when buying from traditional high-street retailers. This evidence should encourage us to reform online marketplace regulations as urgently as possible.

Amendment 71 allows for regulations to provide liability of online marketplaces for defective and unsafe products and to ensure redress for those harmed by these unsafe and defective products, including civil litigation. It is important that the law on product liability can be updated to take account of the responsibilities of online marketplaces and others in the supply chain, and to provide effective redress for consumers who suffer harm from these dangerous products. We know that online marketplaces have become a mainstream method for people to shop, particularly when they are looking for value for money in these difficult economic times. This amendment seeks to ensure that there is redress for those online shoppers if they buy unsafe or faulty goods.

From the briefing sent to us by the London Fire Brigade we know that e-bikes and e-scooters are one of the capital’s fastest-growing fire risks. On average, there was a fire every two days in 2023. Sadly, deaths and injuries have resulted. Many of these fires are caused by incompatible chargers and faulty products that are purchased online. The London Fire Brigade believes, as many of us do, that product innovation has gone far ahead of proper safety standards and that there is inadequate regulation, especially for conversion kits, batteries and chargers. A strengthened version of the Bill would go a long way to answering these safety gaps online.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I thank the Minister very much for the detail he has gone into in his answer, but there are two types of regulation. The one he has described is the one that you would expect the Government, trading standards and other bodies to take. But, in litigation terms, if somebody bought an electric bike in good faith, who would they sue? Paragraph (h) does not make it clear. This is not purely about the parameters of the products and the Bill; it is about the consequences of having something that is very general. I think platforms will say, “It’s nothing to do with us”, and the individuals will say, “But I’m not part of the chain, as described”. I am genuinely struggling to understand and I wonder whether the Minister can help me.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that; I will come to it. We are talking about product liability to some extent; I have a paragraph on it in my brief, if she will bear with me for a moment.

Amendments 32 and 45 highlight some of the different actors in online supply chains that may need to be captured appropriately in these new requirements. The Bill gives powers to introduce requirements on online marketplaces to improve the safety of products sold online. These requirements can be tailored and updated appropriately to reflect the wide range of online marketplace models, and other relevant supply chain actors and their activities, now and in the future. Clause 2(3) is therefore sufficiently broad to enable requirements to be introduced on any persons carrying out activities in relation to a product. This could include, where appropriate, private individuals selling products via online marketplaces, whether in return for payment or free of charge.

I will now focus on Amendments 117 to 124, which seek to broaden the definition of online marketplaces. The definition of online marketplaces in the Bill has been created in a way that is broad enough to capture the full range of online marketplace business models, including social media platforms such as TikTok Shop, which was mentioned earlier. I assure the Committee that all the changes proposed in the amendments are captured within the existing definition. For example—and of relevance to Amendment 123—the expansion of the term “marketing” within the definition of an online marketplace is not required due to the definition of “marketing” within the Bill, meaning the “making available” of products. This in turn is defined as goods

“supplied or advertised for distribution or use on the market, whether in return for payment or free of charge”.

Amendments 117 and 122 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, seek to change the definition of an online marketplace, replacing “internet” with “internet service”, as defined in the Online Safety Act 2023. The definition we have used in the Bill includes a service on any other platform by means of which information is made available over the internet. We are therefore confident that the issue the noble Lord raises in his amendments is covered by the Bill as drafted.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his clarification about data and GDPR being captured by the Data (Use and Access) Bill. I shall read Hansard and confirm accordingly. I totally agree with him that all unsafe products should never be allowed to be offered for sale on any online marketplaces, whether original or second-hand. We have to address his point about accountability. Who is accountable to be held responsible for some of these unsafe products?

The Bill also includes a power in Clause 10(2) that allows for the definition to be amended later by regulations, if this were necessary to capture any future models not captured by the current definition. I will come back to the issue of product liability.

Amendment 71, tabled by my noble friend Lady Crawley and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, would allow the Secretary of State to make provisions to ensure that online marketplaces can be held liable for products purchased via their platforms. The primary route to seek damages for harm caused by defective products is through the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Depending on the specific facts, an online marketplace may have responsibility under this legislation. The Government are currently reviewing this legislation and we will consider the UK’s product liability regime holistically, including the question of how it should apply to online marketplaces. This is not a change that we would seek to make without considering all the evidence, so we do not want to pre-empt this important work by adding to the scope of the Bill.

Product liability also covers products that extend beyond the scope of the Bill, including, for example, food and medical devices. A considered review of this area would be the most appropriate way to ensure that our product liability laws are up to date and fit for the future and to take account of the broad-ranging interests in this body of law. I will keep the Grand Committee updated on the Government’s progress with this review and plans for wider engagement.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and other noble Lords: we have listened to the debate and reflected on all the points made. We are aware of the Grand Committee’s strength of feeling on a number of points, including the scrutiny of secondary legislation. With that, I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords that these amendments are therefore not required to achieve their laudable aims. Consequently, I would ask for the amendments in this group not to be pressed.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

Clause 1(5) says that

“‘marketing’ means making available on the market”,

which is a much shorter definition than the one that the Minister just read out at the Dispatch Box. Is he telling me that I am not correct in saying that I market a product on eBay when I put it up on eBay?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Sorry, can you repeat that?

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

This is very important, because this is partly about liability and partly about the clarity in the Bill about who has responsibility. Whether it is a buyer or, as I think the Minister argued, an individual seller, someone has to tell them that they have to follow the regulations, and they need to know how to do that. When he read out the definition of marketing in his speech, he gave a whole sentence more than is included in the definition in the Bill, which very simply says,

“‘marketing’ means making available on the market”.

It goes on to discuss “related terms”, but they are not relevant to my problem. While he ponders between Committee and Report, can he look at that? More than one of us is likely to come back with amendments on Report on this issue.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. We are trying not to be too prescriptive because it is constantly changing. I am sorry about this, but the Bill defines “marketing” as

“making available on the market”.

Clause 10, line 8, states,

“a product or goods … supplied or advertised for distribution or use on the market”—

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

That is exactly what happens with a private individual. They will advertise an item on eBay. The language the Minister is using is what I would describe as the old-style manufacturing and business model. It does not take into account all the comments that people have made about where online marketing is in the 21st century. Therein lies the problem, and I would be very grateful if the noble Lord would look at that.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that as well. Online marketplaces are changing overnight. I have just learned over the weekend of dropshipping. Dropshipping means that if someone orders a product on eBay, the person supplying it is not eBay or whoever claims to be on eBay. It is dropshipped by AliExpress straight to that buyer’s home. How are we going to control that? How are we going to capture that? That is why we cannot be too prescriptive. We need to have the flexibility to address ever-changing marketplaces. That is what this Bill is trying to do. If the noble Baroness is still unclear or unsure about this, perhaps we can have another follow-up meeting so we can discuss this in depth.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I think a number of noble Lords who have participated in this debate might be interested in a meeting, if that is okay. I shall very briefly respond to the Minister to say that flexibility is fine, until the point at which there is nobody to hold accountable. That is the problem.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The Bill is drafted in this way to address who is going to be accountable. My invitation to all noble Lords to a meeting stands, and I welcome each and every one of them. I hope this amendment can be withdrawn.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2024

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, this order has been laid to introduce a power to charge a fee for UK visa qualification equivalency and English language proficiency assessment services, and to set the maximum fee that can be charged. For noble Lords’ benefit, I will provide some background to the fee structure we currently have in place. For the Home Office to charge for immigration and nationality functions, the Immigration Act 2014 requires that fees must be set in secondary legislation. The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016, an amendment to which we are discussing, sets out the functions for which a fee can be charged and sets the maximum fee that can be charged. Fee levels are subsequently set in separate secondary legislation—the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018—which is subject to parliamentary agreement through the negative procedure.

The fees for the services we are seeking to regulate are for assessments used on certain visa and nationality routes, including family, skilled worker, settlement, and student routes, where that route requires an applicant to demonstrate proficiency in the English language at a specified level or that they have gained a qualification that is equivalent to one obtained in the UK. There are a number of ways in which the English language proficiency test can be taken, using an academic qualification obtained in English and awarded by an educational establishment outside the United Kingdom.

Where an applicant is seeking to demonstrate that they have gained a qualification equivalent to one obtained in the UK, or their proficiency in the English language by using an academic qualification obtained outside the UK, these must be provided by Ecctis Ltd. Ecctis Ltd provides these services through a concession contract with the Home Office and has done so for over a decade.

It is important to be clear at this point that we are not introducing a new cost for applicants seeking to enter or remain in the UK: the requirement for applicants to use these services has existed for a number of years. Where a visa or nationality applicant uses the services provided by Ecctis, they apply through the website and pay an appropriate fee. The outcome of the assessment can take in the region of 10 working days for the English language assessment and around 30 working days for a qualification equivalency assessment. The maximum fee in this order for the qualification and English language proficiency assessment is set at £400. This will allow the Home Office to set fee levels later this year at the current levels, which are £140 for English language and £210 for the qualification equivalency assessment. By setting the maximum above this level, we have a reasonable degree of headroom to adjust fees if, for example, there is an increase in the cost of providing these services.

The Home Office is bringing this order forward today and legislation to regulate these fees now where they have already been charged and where the nature of the service itself, or the requirement in the Immigration Rules, have changed. This is due, again, to the department identifying, in the course of preparing for a reprocurement of the existing service earlier this year, that these fees should already have been regulated, due to the requirement to use the service in respect of applications on certain routes. Having identified this oversight, action was taken immediately to legislate at this earliest opportunity to ensure that the fees have an appropriate statutory footing, although this process was delayed, as indeed was the instrument we dealt with earlier, because of the general election in mid-2024.

Noble Lords will be aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee drew special attention to the Explanatory Memorandum that was published alongside this order, and produced a report on 10 October raising concerns that the Explanatory Memorandum did not provide a clear and open statement about why this instrument was brought forward. I fully appreciate the need for transparency. I recognise the committee’s view that further explanation of the context of this legislation was required, and my colleague the Minister for Migration and Citizenship sent a letter to the committee chair, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, on 15 October explaining in more detail why the order was brought forward now and the exploration of the possibility of pursuing retrospective legislation that would put fees paid to date on a statutory footing.

I am not yet able to confirm the specific approach to be taken on how we regulate those fees downstream and, given the uncertainty, it is not appropriate or helpful to go into further detail now. However, I emphasise that this department takes its responsibilities on parliamentary transparency seriously. I assure noble Lords that we are taking forward considerations in respect of previously charged fees as a priority and the intention of this order, subject to the approval of this House, is to lay an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations in early December to set the fee levels that we have considered in the order today. I hope noble Lords will accept that we are trying to rectify an oversight that has crossed over from before the general election. We are regulating to close that loophole and I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I cannot sit at the right desk, so I apologise for being in the wrong place.

I thank the Minister for explaining the reason for the order, although I think his description of “an oversight” for fees that have actually been charged illegally, because they were not approved by Parliament, is a bit of an understatement. I am also concerned that we still have no opportunity to see a new Explanatory Memorandum that sets out the record, but I will come back to that. I particularly thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful and thoughtful third report of Session 2024-25.

However, before I come on to that, I want to note that this is the second Home Office SI on immigration matters that has come to Grand Committee since the Summer Recess which has not just been problematic. The other one—the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (Amendment) Regulations 2024—corrected policy matters in the Act that meant it could not be enacted because they were wrong, so it was also illegal. Therefore the amendments that the Grand Committee saw—I was going to say last month but it might have been a little before that—were to remove retrospective elements of the Illegal Migration Act that were themselves illegal.

Unaccompanied Migrant Children

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I hear what my noble friend says. I wish to find the 90 children who are still missing. I wish to ensure that we give support to local authorities and the police to do that, and it has to be the primary focus of the Home Office. I can reflect in due course on what both she and my noble friend Lord Touhig said, but ultimately our focus has to be to find those people who went missing because of the performance of the previous Government’s management of this issue.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to Kent County Council. Earlier this year, questions were asked in your Lordships’ House about whether Kent was getting extra reimbursement for the phenomenal responsibility of being the first point of call for these children. Has that happened? It is wonderful that Kent is doing all that it can, but if it cannot do it without resources then children in Kent will also suffer in the longer term.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There was an enhanced incentivised funding programme in operation for Kent County Council, which gave support of £15,000 for transfers within two working days and £6,000 for transfers within five working days. Those schemes are coming to an end because the pressure is not there as it was, but that support was put in place to help Kent to deal with the initial challenges.

Operation Conifer

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that the College of Policing has looked at investigating allegations and calls for allegations made against individuals both living and dead and is currently potentially issuing guidelines to police forces around these matters. Again, this is a complex area. I want to reflect on the points raised today, and I am open to further scrutiny from this House in due course.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, both noble Lords can get in; we have plenty of time. Shall we take the noble Baroness’s question first?

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, following the publication of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in October 2022 and the government response a year later, the Government issued a consultation on mandatory reporting by professionals working with children when they suspect possible abuse. The result of that consultation has still not been published a year on. One of the best ways of ensuring that there are no malicious allegations against senior politicians is to see that result and for a government response. When do this Government plan to implement the recommendations of the IICSA report?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If I may, I will look into the issues that the noble Baroness has raised and write to her with the detail very shortly in response.

Modern Slavery National Referral Mechanism: Waiting Times

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid that is the first I have heard of it, so I have no opinion on it.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre’s paper on the 2023 national referral mechanism statistics notes with some concern that the data raises

“significant questions over the decision-making process”

as a result of changes to the statutory guidance that came in in January 2023 and not changes in the number of likely victims of modern slavery. Can the Minister say that the systems do not put victims of modern slavery at further risk?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I go back to an earlier answer I gave, that these are extraordinarily complex cases and, therefore, the guidance has to be refined in light of those cases periodically. I do not know to what specifically the noble Baroness is referring but, as far as I am aware, it does not make it any more complicated.

Asylum Claims

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I cannot answer that question in its entirety, but I can say that the number of complex legacy cases that remain has declined from about 4,500 to 3,900. Some of those are still in the country, but I do not know precisely how many.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the Oxford criminology department’s report, The Criminalisation of People Arriving to the UK on “Small Boats”, has said:

“There is no evidence that these prosecutions will have the ‘deterrent’ effect … Rather than minimising harm to people crossing the Channel, this report has highlighted the significant human impact of the current prosecution strategy”.


Will the Government review this report in light of what is happening at the moment?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Well, I will certainly commit to read it, but I wonder how on earth it can arrive at a conclusion that they will have no deterrent effect. The Bill has not been operationalised or indeed passed yet.