Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a delight to have heard from my noble friend Lady O’Grady, and I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Bray.

The Bill has already achieved a great deal: it has brought together the UK business sector, trade unions, environmental organisations, Justice, the consumer protection world and Chester Zoo in one almighty cry of, “No, no, no.” As we have heard from many noble Lords, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee have also not pulled their punches in their withering verdict on the Bill.

Let us get this right. At a time of unprecedented economic woe in our country, with food banks doing a roaring trade and exporters on their knees, the Government think it is a good idea automatically to revoke or sunset most retained EU law at the end of the year, law which underpins so much of the daily life of the country. It is law which underpins the common framework, the process by which the new UK internal market is being built post Brexit; consumer laws which protect consumers from scams and rogue traders—as a vice-president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, I see that the Bill as it stands could make convictions for consumer rights offences unsafe—as well as laws on food safety, product safety, animal health, intellectual property and weights and measures regulations. If I remember rightly, it was a row over weights and measures in a market square in Tunisia that led to the Arab spring. Goodness only knows what this reckless legislation will lead to.

We have no idea, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, what the final law count will be. It is 3,745 and counting. Goodness knows what it will be by the end of this debate. The retained EU law dashboard on GOV.UK talks about an “authoritative” catalogue of law up for review. It fails to say that it is a “comprehensive” catalogue, however, because new laws are being found almost all the time. The hapless Minister in charge of this sunsetting exercise in each department may well be pushed to leaving their clothes in a neat pile on a beach in Florida, John Stonehouse-style, through the sheer pressure of it all.

My opposition to the Bill is based on the harm it will do to our country and this Parliament. The TUC is, of course, worried about the potential loss of worker’s rights, including the loss of protection for pregnant women and rights to maternity and parental leave. Thirty years ago this year, the EU maternity leave directive became law against the ludicrous obstruction of the then Conservative British Government first opposing it, then watering it down, and then delaying it as much as possible. As chair of the European Parliament’s women’s rights committee at the time, I played a small part in getting it through, and millions of British women have subsequently benefited. So when Ministers say, “Your rights at work are safe with us in this Bill”, I know from experience that they have form and that we have every right to be concerned about the Bill.

Deregulation in order to compete—the famous Singapore-on-Thames—is at the heart of the Bill. Call me old-fashioned, but I will oppose the Bill on the basis that to be a leading force in the world in 2023 we need to be the best: the best in standards and rights for the British people, and the best for our accountability to our Parliament.

Cost of Living

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, I applaud the timing and the work of my noble friend Lord Whitty in his chairing of the Commission for Customers in Vulnerable Circumstances and much more. We have also worked together as vice-presidents of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute.

April can be a cruel month, as TS Eliot might have put it, and it is certainly looking that way for millions of British households. Emerging from the biggest health crisis in a century, many UK families will be facing a painful cost of living crisis this spring, with energy price increases, rising inflation, more taxation promised and the burden of Brexit becoming more evident every day. Many British household budgets will be stretched to the limit and, in the poorest households, where fuel poverty is already a fact of life, there will be the realisation that there is nothing left to stretch.

According to the ONS’s latest stats, growth in income of the poorest fifth of people has not kept up with inflation, which has led to the median income of the poorest fifth falling by an average of 3.8% between 2017 and 2020. Meanwhile, income for the richest fifth continued to steadily grow between 2017 and 2020. This means that income inequality increased substantially over this period—before Covid, the soaring cost of energy or the increase in inflation. We know that households on low incomes spend proportionately more than richer households on essentials such as housing costs, food and transport, as noble Lords have said. According again to the ONS, households in the lowest decile spent 54% of their total weekly expenditure on these things, compared with 42% in the highest-income decile.

It is against this architecture of inequality that we have to view the alarming energy situation post April. Households in Britain could soon be spending more of their money on energy than any previous generation, including those who lived through the oil shocks of the 1970s and 1980s—some of us are old enough to remember those. Of course, these aggregate numbers do not represent the experience of specific households, particularly those in very low income and low expenditure households. They may see their energy burden rise to 13% of total spend or above.

As we know, this crisis in living costs comes on the back of the loss of the £20 a week Covid welfare boost, as my noble friend Lord Monks said, which finished in September. Some people are already not putting on their heating through this winter, and the 14% of people on absolute low income in this country are finding it very difficult to keep themselves and their children warm right now. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, eat or heat is the dilemma. At the start of the pandemic, the Government rightly launched a project called Everyone In, which took all the homeless off the streets and into accommodation. This cost-of-living crisis needs the same urgent focus for those on low incomes: “Get Everyone Warm”.

The mitigating measures announced by the Chancellor today may take the edge off some bills, and we should recognise that, but they are ill thought out, too little and too late. The Labour Party has called for VAT on energy to be cut, and that should have happened. A one-off windfall tax, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has called for, also should have happened. Paul Johnson of the IFS has suggested a one-off uprating in benefit payments this year—quite right too. While I understand that the warm home discount will finally be increased, and that is welcome, I ask the Minister: what is happening to the household support fund available to local government beyond 2022?

My noble friend Lord Whitty knows better than most that the underlying problems of a badly regulated energy market need fixing urgently, and he has set out a way forward today. There is no real resilience of suppliers, and customer protection by Ofgem’s own standards is often completely ignored by companies. The market is a shambles; meanwhile, many British children and pensioners shiver in their cold homes. It is shameful, and the Government’s response falls short of what is needed in the medium and long term.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 19th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, and commend their excellent contributions today.

This Bill comes to us with a reputation rather like that of the Vikings: dangerous, unloved, little respect for the law and disrespect for the kingdoms of Great Britain—it obviously leaves out pillaging, for which much thanks.

First, I add my voice to the rising chorus against Part 5 of the Bill, which as we know allows parts of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol to be disapplied. The protocol, being part of the withdrawal agreement, is an international treaty and trumps—if noble Lords will excuse the expression—domestic law. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is right: Part 5 must go. But, reply the Government, the EU is acting in bad faith. However, there is no evidence. Show us the evidence. There is no evidence at all for that, states the House of Lords European Union Committee. Are we really no longer a member of the international rules-based order—because I did not get the memo? Perhaps the Bill is the memo.

The Bill allows Ministers to make regulations that are inconsistent with the UK’s obligations under Article 4 of the withdrawal agreement. But, say the Government, we may never use these powers. We will just threaten to break the glass and pull the emergency cord, meanwhile not actually being in breach of the state aid and customs provisions of the Northern Ireland protocol.

Ireland, our nearest and most important trading partner, does not agree. On the Government’s claims that these disapplying provisions are needed as a safety net against the possibility of a no-deal Brexit, the Irish Government have been very clear that the protocol is designed and empowered to operate in all circumstances, including the absence of an agreement on the future relationship between the EU and the UK. The UK Government may disregard the views of the Irish Government, but they may wish to take notice of the House of Lords Constitution and European Union Committees. Their recommendations on this sorry Bill are damning—to say nothing of the views of the Anglican Church.

I make my second and final point as a member of the new House of Lords Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee. My noble friend Lady Andrews and many other noble Lords made strong arguments that common frameworks are better instruments for creating the new internal market than is the Bill. Indeed, the Government themselves said that common frameworks, and the programme that they imply, would in fact map out the area of the UK internal market. These frameworks, whether on food safety, emissions trading, company law or whatever, have been worked up in partnership with the devolved Administrations. Although they are based on regulatory consistency, they respect the flexibility of the devolved settlements, as did the EU. Could the Minister say why the Government are not putting their energy into these consensual frameworks, rather than this divisive Bill?

Competition and Markets Authority

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

The regulation of digital e-commerce is extremely important. As I have said, the CMA has set up the digital markets taskforce to study these matters, but they are complicated. This country has one of the best competitive markets in the world and digital markets are an increasingly important part of that. We will look at what further measures need to be taken.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, given the unprecedented pressures on consumers from both Covid-19 and the prospect of leaving EU markets at the end of the transition period, will the Government prioritise the CMA’s reforms as set out under its very effective chair, the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie? When will a date be announced for a new competition and consumer protection Bill, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Berkeley?

[Lord Callanan]

I will correct the noble Baroness: we will not leave EU markets at the end of the transition period. We seek in the negotiations to ensure continued access to those markets and for EU companies to have access to UK markets. That is the whole point of the negotiation. We keep all these matters under constant review. We will build on the powers of the CMA if that is required for what consumers need.

Competition and Markets Authority: Legislative and Institutional Reforms

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, especially in her enthusiasm for trading standards. As a past president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, I am pleased to be taking part in this timely QSD and delighted to be supporting my noble friend Lady Hayter, whose expertise in this area is highly respected across the House.

The publication of the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, chairman of the CMA, to the Secretary of State for BEIS on 21 February was greeted, if not with the champagne-popping excitement seen in Royal Windsor this week, then at least with extremely positive and encouraging responses from the competition and consumer protection community in the UK, including trading standards. I repeat my noble friend’s Question: what is the Government’s response to the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie?

These proposals for reform of the competition and consumer protection regimes of the CMA are far-reaching and considerable, significantly seeking to place an overriding statutory duty to treat the interests of consumers as paramount. So say all of us. In particular, the proposals wish to align powers and penalties in consumer cases with those of competition law, such that the CMA itself can order the cessation of activities without the need for court action and, in tandem, give the CMA the ability to administratively fine firms up to 10% of turnover where required.

The proposals also give the CMA the power to order the cessation of practices that harm consumers, on an interim basis, subject to legal review. As the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, says in his letter:

“The central challenge is that, despite relatively recent legislative changes, the UK has an analogue system of competition and consumer law in a digital age”.


The letter goes on to seek statutorily to enshrine the post-2012 landscape arrangements for the division of responsibilities for consumer law enforcement between the CMA and trading standards. I was involved in that division of responsibilities as chair of the Consumer Codes Approval Scheme, which took over those responsibilities from the OFT; it certainly seemed to make sense at the time to use that process to alleviate consumer detriment.

Having spoken to colleagues at the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, I know that they strongly support the proposals in front of us from the CMA to have, as a statutory duty, the interests of consumers as paramount in its decision-making. They also support the statutory enshrinement of the distinction of current roles in the national enforcement framework between the CMA and trading standards. However, the tricky bit for the Chartered Trading Standards Institute comes with the proposal for aligning the CMA’s current powers on competition issues with its consumer enforcement role—in particular, the powers to fine and seek cessation of practices on an administrative basis.

I believe that the CTSI’s concerns arise from the fact that there are distinct differences between the CMA’s competition and consumer roles, especially as, on the consumer side, there currently exists a system of local and national enforcement through trading standards. This is not the case for competition law, and the Tyrie letter does not make clear what the impact of CMA administrative actions and decisions for consumer enforcement would be on trading standards’ decision-making and enforcement choices. Perhaps the Minister could write to me on how the Government see this working out, especially in the light of the highly overstretched and underfinanced workforce within local authority trading standards departments.

While welcoming these proposals, I cannot help but think that, in drawing up the CMA’s future architecture, the one issue that will impact it more than anything else is hardly mentioned. This is the dog that does not bark at the elephant in the room—which is, of course, Brexit. Page 1 of the letter states that:

“The UK is widely held to be an excellent place to do business”.


I would add, “Yes, of course, certainly until Brexit”. On page 2, the letter exhorts business not to engage in anti-competitive or unfair trading practices. I would add that it will be much more difficult to clamp down on that bad practice—an example is given in the letter of “gaming the system”—when businesses in the post-Brexit world, if we come to that, will be obliged to do everything in their power to attract new trade opportunities to make up for leaving the EU.

On page 3 of the letter Brexit is again only a footnote, as it reminds us:

“Brexit, too, poses challenges for the CMA, not least from a greater workload of large, complex cases previously reserved to the European Commission, and the assumption of responsibility for monitoring and enforcing State aid rules”.


To say that Brexit is a “challenge” for the CMA is rather like saying that climbing Everest in stilettos is a challenge. As Carl Mortished said in his piece on 6 March in the Evening Standard,

“the EU competition commissioner … was able to resist powerful politicians”—

I presume he means national politicians.

“However, standing alone and outside the EU, Tyrie may not find it easy to attack monopolists when our Brexited government is desperate to persuade foreign mega-bucks to invest more in Britain”.


And of course we live in “Trump trade” times, which does not help these reforms either.

The CMA, in another understated footnote on page 8, suggests:

“The CMA’s capacity to give priority to this”,


reforming,

“work would be impeded by a ‘no deal’ Brexit”.

Well, so say all of us. Do the Government agree with the CMA in this regard?

In conclusion, these are excellent proposals, launched at a uniquely uncertain time for the country and its place in the world. While I wish the CMA well in its necessary future planning, I am sure that none of us, especially the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, underestimates the scale of the economic and trade duress that UK business and consumers will face in the near future if we are outside the European Union.

Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Henley]

I make no comment.

I assure the Committee that this approach has been designed to increase understanding and reduce the number of similar instruments that would otherwise be needed. Many cross-cutting issues are the same for different products. These have similar definitions, obligations and requirements. As a result they require similar amendments, which it makes sense to group together into one instrument rather than to separate out into many different instruments. Another reason for the size of this instrument is the lengthy technical schedules. These are used widely by industry, and incorporating them here from retained EU law makes it easier for businesses to see and understand the legislation as a whole.

During development of this instrument, we have been mindful of the impact on business of changes to processes as a result of the UK’s exit from the EU. Where possible, we have given businesses time to adjust, including an 18-month transition period for importers for any labelling changes and a 90-day transition period for companies notifying key safety information for cosmetic products already on the market. We have also engaged with businesses on the drafting. Drafts of the schedules were shared with stakeholders and feedback obtained. Stakeholders, including trade associations, industry experts and enforcement agencies, took part and welcomed this approach. As a result we have a better understanding of the main requirements and concerns of stakeholders, including businesses, and have been able to reflect these in the legislation that is before us today. In addition, and given the importance of this area of law, we have completed and published a full impact assessment to ensure complete transparency—despite the impact being below the threshold at which an impact assessment is required.

On the detail of the instrument, it is important to repeat that it will not change the UK’s approach to product safety. It keeps important elements; for example, it retains the requirement for conformity assessment to ensure that products meet the essential requirements set out in the legislation, including the need for assessment by third-party organisations where that is currently required. It retains the use of standards that give rise to presumptions of conformity with the legislative requirements, making it easier for businesses to ensure that their products are safe by following a designated standard.

Taking action to protect consumers from unsafe products remains vital, and this legislation ensures that the UK’s market surveillance system will continue to work to limit the number of unsafe and non-compliant goods available to UK consumers and businesses. It also gives ongoing recognition of existing authorised representatives in the European Economic Area for any appointed before exit, while those after exit will need to be in the UK.

For cosmetic products, due to the risk they pose to human health, responsible persons—who play a key role in ensuring the safety of cosmetic products—will be required to be based in the UK from the point of exit. By addressing these issues we are able to give business certainty and—crucially—we will retain our ability to remove unsafe or non-compliant products from the market.

To conclude, I hope that the Committee will agree that maintaining a functioning product safety framework in the event of no deal is essential both for consumer safety and business confidence. Without this legislation in place, there would be major risks to the safety of consumers—the safety of the toys our children play with, the cosmetics we all use every day, and the electrical items which are found in abundance in our homes. Maintaining these protections is vital to people across the country. I beg to move.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for setting out the Government’s position on this SI. When I first lifted the SI, which I understand weighs 4.5 kilograms, my first thought—

[Lord Henley]

The figure that I have is 2.54 kilograms, but I am quite happy to be corrected.

[Baroness Crawley]

Oh, 2.54. I was told that it was 4.5 kilograms, so the figure has doubled. My first thought was: thank goodness for the Explanatory Memorandum. I tried reading the instrument without the Explanatory Memorandum just to torture myself, but I did not get very far without a stiff drink.

When I read the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s acknowledgement that the SI had to be corrected and relaid because of legal drafting errors in an earlier version, it did not fill me with great confidence. The scrutiny sub-committee voiced concern at the department’s decision to combine so many different legislative measures in a single statutory instrument, and I certainly agree with that concern. I come to this as a vice-president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute and as a guardian of hallmarking in the Birmingham Assay Office.

It is virtually impossible to scrutinise this instrument effectively with the crazily reduced time limit of 29 March. The scrutiny sub-committee expressed concern about uncertainty and the impact that leaving the EU’s produce safety regime in a no-deal scenario could have on UK consumers and businesses. In that context, I should like to put some questions to the Minister.

On the category of cosmetics, for instance, paragraph 7.19 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that,

“this instrument will make further amendments to ensure the continued protection of UK consumers after exit. In a ‘no deal’ scenario it is likely that the UK will no longer have access to the EU Cosmetics Products Notification Portal which provides essential information to National Poison Centres to protect public health. Work has already begun on a UK replacement database”.

Can the Minister guarantee that no British consumer of cosmetic products will be put at risk of being poisoned? The Explanatory Memorandum uses the phrase “Work has already begun”. Will that really reassure British women—the principal consumers of cosmetics—that all cosmetics made at home and abroad will be safe? What will a functioning statute book actually look like in the cosmetics sector, and could rogue cosmetics firms set themselves up with the precise purpose of circumnavigating loose consumer protection in this area and making fast bucks from an overly trusting shopping sector, especially online? Is this the kind of no-deal consequence that we are facing in this sector? Also, what is the timescale for the completion of the UK’s replacement cosmetics product portal?

Perhaps I may also ask the Minister a few questions about consultation. Paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“The Department did not undertake a public consultation”.


At least that has the virtue of honesty and brevity. But further down the page we read, at paragraph 10.3:

“Informal consultation has taken place with a good cross-representation of stakeholders, including trade associations and other industry representative bodies across the product areas covered by this instrument”.


Can the Minister give us his definition of “informal” and “good”, as in,

“good cross-representation of stakeholders”?

How many meetings took place with the stakeholders? Did the cross-representation of stakeholders have the Explanatory Memorandum available when they looked at this SI? If they did not, I admire their superpowers. Did the informal consultation involve, say, trading standards, the Scottish Government or the CBI in all its regional forums, and were the meetings in situ or just a set of emails and phone calls? If we leave the EU without a deal, is this a good time to be “informal” about commercial regulation?

I have a few final questions. On the impact of this SI, paragraph 12.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“The impact on business has been looked at in an Impact Assessment … for this instrument”,


and has been assessed as de minimis. That is all right, then. However, later in the Explanatory Memorandum there is a reference to how much this whole procedure will cost businesses, and it does not seem like small beer. Paragraph 12.3 informs us that some of the 241,000 businesses that are to be affected will try to familiarise themselves with the new inventory of regulations. The cost estimate is put at £19.6 million, which is a substantial sum in itself, on the assumption that the average business leader will need only three hours to build total operational familiarity with these new rules. That is ludicrously optimistic. To take the example of a managing director of a company in Birmingham—a city I know well—which trades across Europe and indeed the world, she can get to work on a Monday morning and will have absorbed the consequences for her business of a no-deal Brexit by lunchtime that day. Is that the Government’s professional opinion? I would be grateful for the Minister’s response.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, because we overlapped for at least five years as Members of the European Parliament. The noble Baroness referred to cosmetics; I think we will both remember the fevered exchange we had with constituents on animal testing. I echo her remarks.

I am sure my noble friend will be only too aware of the criticism that has been levelled at his department, and I feel for him most deeply, because this epic package is the surest cure for insomnia that any Minister could wish for. Could he put our minds at rest, and those of the members of the sub-committee? I am mindful of the problems we have already heard: this instrument had to be reissued because there were minor drafting errors in the original script, plus the fact that the impact assessment was published subsequently, which meant that the scrutiny committee was not able to perform its function because it did not have that document in front of it.

I do not detract from the fact that this is a very necessary piece of legislation, but I hope that this will not be the way forward. There will be instances where regulations fall naturally together, but the very number of pages here, and the fact that this has had to be repeated and that the impact assessment could not be packaged together with it, must surely be a cause of concern for the department. I do not want to go down this path again.

I have a number of questions. The sub-committee noted that there is considerable uncertainty, for reasons that have been well rehearsed, about the possible impact on UK consumers and businesses of leaving the EU’s product safety regime. Does the Minister share the concern of the scrutiny committee’s Sub-Committee B about the impact that the loss of access to EU product safety databases could have on UK consumers? Even at this late date, might the department be able to provide that information in writing to the committee before the SI transfers from here to the Chamber? That concerns me, given that it relates to offshore installations, other major industries and explosives as well.

I want to share one anecdote with my noble friend. In a previous ministry—it was the Department of Trade and Industry, under a Conservative Government, I think—it was decreed that second-hand toys could no longer be sold in charity shops because of the danger that the eyes and other pieces might be displaced and be a great safety risk to small children. What I was not prepared for was the amount of correspondence—in those days, they were hard-copy letters; people printed out a standard letter and we received multiples of it because we had thousands of constituents. That was an unintended consequence of the toy safety directive as it was implemented in UK law at that time. One might say that it was gold-plating, so it would be nice to know that nothing is being gold-plated here and that we are just transferring what is already in UK law. If my understanding is correct and we lose access to EU product safety databases, it must surely set alarm bells ringing.

With so many regulations or schedules to regulations bundled together here—and following on from what was itemised by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley—is my noble friend convinced that we are not missing a matter of public policy here? This is our one opportunity to discuss it before we pass the regulations in the Committee and subsequently in the House.

--- Later in debate ---

We have continued to keep in touch with stakeholders and have updated them via email or in one-to-one meetings. We have attended a number of industry events to discuss the implications of no deal, including an event with the cosmetics association, the British Toy & Hobby Association and the British Retail Consortium, and there will be upcoming events with techUK. Therefore, we have had contact with as many organisations as possible and I hope that that regular contact has been of use to them. Certainly, we have not had any complaints from the various bodies involved.

[Baroness Crawley]

Will the Minister be kind enough to send me the list of organisations, businesses, market surveillance authorisations and consumer organisations involved in the consultation?

[Lord Henley]

I will certainly write to the noble Baroness on that and I hope that we can give further and better particulars, as they say in the law. She will then know exactly whom we have spoken to and I hope that she will feel content that we have gone out largely to the right people.

The impact on business was raised by a number of noble Lords. I explained what was behind the impact assessment, which was published on GOV.UK. We found the impacts as being de minimis; they are largely costs of familiarisation. I dare say that, because we are trying to replicate what already exists, familiarisation should not be too much of a problem. As is always right and proper, the impact assessment was shared with the Regulatory Policy Committee. I hope that the smooth arrangements we have put in place will help businesses in understanding that some of the new administrative requirements will make life easier and ease the impact of exiting the EU.

The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, asked about the cosmetics database and whether I could guarantee that no consumer would be put at risk. She is right to emphasise the importance of this, because cosmetics can have a detrimental effect if not properly policed and supervised in the right way. The SI includes a requirement that all cosmetic products must be safe for human health. Each cosmetic product has a responsible person to ensure that it is safe before it is placed on the market. I assure her that preparations for the UK database are well advanced and trading standards has the power to take action against unsafe products.

Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2018

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my various interests in the register to do with trade unions. I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Monks, a distinguished former general-secretary of both the TUC and the European TUC. Many of us in this House forget that the European TUC is a very powerful body that represents workers from all over Europe and has had a decisive impact on much legislation that has covered workers.

I have also been extremely pleased recently to see that the Government, on the road to Damascus, are now again talking to the unions. It must be two and a half years since union leaders last met a Prime Minister. When I was working as trade union adviser to David Cameron, one of my jobs was to ensure that that scenario never existed. I hope that the present Prime Minister will realise that a regular dialogue with the trade union movement is for the good of Britain, because it enables trade union leaders, who have a very good bird’s eye view of what is going on in Britain, to contribute to the national wealth.

We have spent most of today talking about things which we really hope will never matter—in other words, that we will not leave the EU without a deal and that therefore none of what we have dealt with today will come into force. I noticed that both of the main SIs state that they can be,

“deferred, revoked or amended”.

My first question is whether consideration has been given as to which one of those three is likely to come into force. I would like them never brought into action and revoked straightaway, but the word that worries me the most is “amended”. In other words, they would no longer be SIs if we leave without a deal but would be amended in some way to accommodate a deal.

My next point is on the enshrinement in law of workers’ rights in the side agreement that we had with the EU. When I met Gavin Barwell, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, I specifically asked: “How strong is this agreement and how enforceable is it?”. He confirmed to me that it was not enforceable. When legislation comes to this House to deal with post Brexit when there is a deal on the table, a number of Members will be looking to write those agreements on workers’ rights into Bills, to make them fully enforceable.

I want to make one or two points on the documents in front of us. I will try not to copy what the noble Lord, Lord Monks, has said. However, there is concern about workers’ councils. They play a valuable role and we will be looking to the British industry part of workers’ councils to maintain a commitment to them—in other words, not to use the absence of Britain from the EU as a way of weakening the ability of workers from the British side of workers’ councils to continue to participate in them. We will be looking for the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations to be kept fully in force.

What will happen if an external request is made for a new European workers’ council from a European country? I notice that companies that operate in Switzerland often include Switzerland within their scope and include Swiss worker representatives as EWC members. Switzerland is not in the EEA—that is one reason why I use this example—and the provisions do not appear to make provision for workers’ councils continuing to include the UK within their scope on a voluntary basis. I would like to know what the Minister sees as the future in that area.

On the updating rights, the Minister can enact legislation to keep UK law in line with EU law. I would like to think that we will do our best to do that. Has he had any thoughts on that?

I turn briefly to the other regulations. I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Monks, that we need a much clearer definition of what “TUPE-like” means. This looks like something, but is not quite the same. I would like to see an agreement that TUPE-like means that TUPE, as practised at the moment, will be the standard to which Ministers will try to hold any future statutory instrument or legislative developments.

I thank the Minister for bringing this to the House tonight. I look forward to his responses and promise him that when labour relations matters come up, I will continue to represent the 30% of paid-up trade union members who vote for the Conservative Party.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out these draft regulations. Like other noble Lords, I am concerned about any potential loss of updating rights.

Does the Minister agree that, both on the European works councils and on TUPE, these regulations remove powers currently enshrined in primary legislation, under which Ministers can enact legislation to keep UK law in line with EU law? Will removing those powers mean that it will be harder to keep workers’ rights up to the same standard as EU workers’ rights, as EU law develops?

May I underline the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and my noble friend Lord Monks on the “TUPE-like” reference? TUPE has been a boon, particularly for women workers moving between jobs, especially when we see how women’s pensions are often a lot less than men’s pensions.

Brexit: Consumer Rights

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that that question is completely wide of that on the Order Paper and I do not intend to answer it.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, I declare an interest as a former president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. It is clear to all of us in the sector that consumer rights and protections have been continually strengthened through our membership of the European Union. Why do the Government not value the cross-border enforcement work that the UK European Consumer Centre promotes? Why will they not guarantee beyond one year’s financing—as the Minister has just said—the work of that centre in advising UK consumers at this time of enormous anxiety to them and businesses? Is there any chance of the Government funding beyond one year this very important centre for consumers?

[Lord Henley]

The noble Baroness, who has great experience in this field, is right to draw the House’s attention to the high levels of consumer protection that we have in this country. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for stressing from the Liberal Democrat Benches only yesterday that they are higher in this country than in most other countries in the EU. Obviously, as the noble Baroness will be aware, we want those protections to be maintained—that is what we have made clear—and we do not think that consumers should see any immediate differences in protection between UK law and that of the member states immediately after exit. It is quite right and proper that UK enforcers should continue to co-operate with their colleagues in other EU states wherever possible. That was also something I was keen to stress in yesterday’s debate.

Patents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Adonis]

Not content.

[Baroness Crawley]

Not content.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, I must remind the Grand Committee that a single call of “Not content” has the effect of negativing the Motion. With that in mind, I put the Question again. The Question is that this Motion be agreed to.

[Lord Adonis]

Not content.

[Baroness Crawley]

Not content.

Motion negatived.

Trade Marks (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, again, I was going to deal with that at the end. There will in fact be no costs to business associated with our creation of new UK rights. However, because the UK comparable right will be independent of the EU trademark, there will be a charge for businesses in relation to future renewal. Businesses that wish to maintain their protection in the UK will need to renew their UK-comparable trademark at an average cost of some £300 for a registration period of 10 years. Applications for EU trademarks that are pending but not yet registered at exit day will need to be examined under UK law. The normal UK fee, whatever that is, will therefore apply to those applications. We have committed to respect the relevant filing dates for those applications under this instrument.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, on future renewal fees, what are we talking about when we refer to the future? Is it beyond the transition period or within it? How are we defining “the future”?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, if the noble Baroness will be patient, the trademark is renewed every 10 years. When it is renewed, a fee will be paid. That does not change.

The instrument provides that these new UK rights will be fully independent UK trademarks which can be challenged, assigned, licensed or renewed separately from the original EU trademark. Such new UK trademarks will, however, retain their original EU filing date and therefore any other relevant dates that were filed as part of the original application.

Finally, there are miscellaneous amendments to the Trade Marks Act 1994 and the Trade Marks Rules 2008 to reflect the fact that the UK will no longer be a member state or a member of the European Economic Area.

In conclusion, these regulations are a small but vital part of ensuring that this part of the intellectual property system continues to function if the no-deal outcome arises. I hope that on this occasion, noble Lords will support the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Adonis]

Not content.

[Baroness Crawley]

Not content.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, I must remind the Grand Committee that a single call of “Not content” has the effect of negativing the Motion. With that in mind, I put the Question again.

[Lord Adonis]

Not content.

[Baroness Crawley]

Not content.

Motion negatived.