Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lawlor]

21: Clause 2, page 3, line 37, at end insert—
“(7A) Any regulations under subsection (7) which specify a relevant foreign law must specify that the foreign law referred to is that which is in application on a particular date, which must be specified.”Member's explanatory statement
This prevents the Bill enabling ambulatory references or dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws, but only to laws as they stand on a particular and defined date.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Lawlor]

43A: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
“Report: scientific evidence(1) When making regulations under this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report indicating whether the regulation is supported by any scientific evidence.(2) The Secretary of State must lay the report published under subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament.”

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, in moving my Amendment 43A, I of course support the amendments from my noble friends Lord Sharpe and Lord Frost in this group, to one of which I have added my name. My amendment would require the Government to place before Parliament a report on whether scientific—which includes technical—evidence supports a regulation covered by the Bill, because assessment of risk and for safety should be based on objective evidence, technical and scientific.

The regulations for sanitary and phytosanitary, SPS, explicitly mention scientific evidence, whereas reference to science is not typically found in regulations on technical barriers to trade, or in the chapters in FTAs. They are often implied by wording: for example, a requirement that regulations on risk are based on documented and objective evidence. For international trade agreements, such evidence is assumed. Either our goods conform with internationally agreed standards or, if they derogate, they should draw on scientific and technical evidence to show that they conform to an agreed standard. There are good reasons for this.

Such objective evidence and assessment is not only needed to assess risk objectively but is implied in the WTO framework, on which many trade agreements are based. They have to be WTO-compliant. The WTO’s own Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, TBT, requires that, where appropriate, parties

“specify technical regulations based on product requirements in terms of performance rather than design or descriptive characteristics”,

one aim being to ensure that regulations, standards, testing and certification procedures followed by WTO members do not create “unnecessary obstacles” to trade. That is certainly one of this country’s enduring free trade objects.

My amendment would promote a number of benefits and aims. It would help to focus attention on real risk, on the basis of provable evidence and that alone. It would make for transparency: those who produce, market or buy a product could know where they stand and trust the measures assessing risk. It would avoid saddling producers and consumers with costs for unnecessary, overburdensome obligations that result from the political attempt to tie the UK to unproven regulations, which may flout WTO international trade law, to protect their own products against competition from another trading partner.

In products, the contents of which may include some agricultural content, it will help the UK to keep its eye on the evidence and purpose. I commend my noble friend Lord Sharpe’s amendment, which would specifically require that a statement on the need and purpose for such regulations be made. I have already mentioned one example in Committee, which is the difference between UK REACH and EU REACH regulations. The stated purpose is vital to the difference in how one is more burdensome than the other.

My amendment would also reflect the way the UK has moved to make the most of international trade opportunities in our trade treaties, with, for example, the CPTPP. The UK can help shape these, as a leader of the oldest rules-based international trade order, while trading globally as one of the world’s oldest and most successful free-trade economies. Above all, it would avoid obliging businesses to follow the EU’s code-based precautionary principle. That may be unrelated to evidence and often driven by officials, while being costly to producers and raising prices sky-high for consumers, making some countries uncompetitive in world markets and the product not safer but, in many instances, less safe. I therefore beg to move.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 56 stands in my name. As it is, I guess, the last time that I will speak on this Bill, perhaps I may use the opportunity to join others in saying thank you to the Ministers for the willingness they have shown to meet us and to show flexibility on parts of the Bill, even if that flexibility has possibly been more evident on its more marginal and peripheral aspects than on the core provisions, which matter so much to us. I thank them anyway for it.

One of those core provisions, which we have debated at length, is of course Clause 2(7), which creates the power to align UK legislation with EU law. My Amendment 56 would ensure that the affirmative parliamentary procedure applied to such secondary legislation under that provision. This is important, as the procedure of legislating by cross-reference to the laws of another entity is certainly, to borrow terminology from another sphere, novel and contentious. Therefore, if it happens—I am sure it is going to happen and probably quite a lot, I fear—it really ought to do so only consciously and according to a procedure that gives both of this Parliament’s Houses the maximum powers to be aware that it is happening and to influence it to the maximum possible. Of course, that is what the affirmative procedure is about. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Ministers might look favourably on this amendment in the interests of respecting the rights and powers of this Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, like I say, I really do not want to repeat what we debated last week, but the whole purpose of where we are today is to give us the freedom either to diverge from or to mirror any regulation, particularly product regulation, as most of it comes from the European Union. Either we follow it, or we do not—that is the freedom that we have.

As I said, I am aware that we have Third Reading still to come but, as we approach the end of Report, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. It will probably come as no surprise that, for the reasons that I outlined earlier, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 43A.

Amendment 43A withdrawn.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Thank you. There is not much more, your Lordships will be pleased to know. We will be focusing on the key issues. When we come to further groups, your Lordships will see that the work we on these Benches have done has been to try to prioritise proper scrutiny of the issues that I have talked about—safety, the environmental impact and the consumer, as well as legal issues—and to make sure that that can be done and this Bill changed in a way that survives contact with a huge government majority in the House of Commons. That is what we will be doing, and that is why we will not be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on his amendment.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I am awfully sorry: I was not quick enough on my feet before the noble Lord, Lord Fox, spoke. I should like to speak for a few minutes in support of my noble friend Lord Sharpe—if that is all right with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.

I support my noble friend’s amendment because I think it sets out the framework and purpose clearly, and that is very important when we are making laws by statutory instrument. Besides, I think it is important to retain regulatory autonomy, and I will discuss that point with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in a later group, but I do not think this is the time to have that discussion. It is regulatory autonomy that allows us to do all kinds of things to protect our consumers and ensure that we make the right sorts of laws for our products and our economy. That regulatory autonomy also allows us to align with any laws we like from any jurisdiction and, of course, the Government have a point in that.

My concern about not having an explicit regulatory autonomy aim in the purpose clause is that it would make us out of step with our existing arrangements with other trading partners, where we have agreed outcomes, conformity assessment procedures and other arrangements to recognise. We should not militate against that, which we may be in danger of doing if our purpose does not state these things explicitly.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have given up so many hours to meet me and my officials to go through this Bill. I really appreciate those meetings. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his amendment seeking to introduce a new clause about the purpose of the Bill. Likewise, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon.

We have had many hours of debate on the Bill and I think that we all support the intent of this amendment—the importance of improving product regulation. On that, I hope that there is consensus. As the Secretary of State for Business and Trade pointed out when giving evidence to the Lords International Agreements Committee, the powers that the Bill would provide give the UK regulatory autonomy. If the previous Government had continued in office, they would have needed the same Bill.

We require this Bill, as powers in other legislation are inadequate for updating our extensive product metrology and regulatory regime and responding to new risks and threats. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, about secondary legislation. This is about 2,000 pages of highly technical regulations. It is not a good use of parliamentary time to use primary legislation every time these are updated. There are, however, differences in how we go about improving regulation. That often requires a balance to be struck, such as where obligations sit, or regarding requirements that businesses must meet. That nuanced debate, which we heard during the Bill’s passage, may not be best served by introducing a broad “purpose to improve” in the Bill.

The Bill is about strengthening the UK’s regulatory autonomy. It will make sure that there are appropriate powers to regulate products to suit the UK’s needs and interests. Parliament will have ultimate control, with oversight of the regulations made under the Bill. The Bill is about providing powers to enable the UK to change regulation to suit the UK’s needs and interests, ensuring consumer safety and certainty for businesses. The Bill is necessary because we do not currently have those powers as a nation state. As I said earlier, all changes will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

I hope that I have been able to outline why this amendment is not necessary and ask that it be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of my Amendments 21 and 59, and to support the amendments, to which I have added my name, from the noble Lord, Lord Frost.

Amendment 21 is designed to prohibit ambulatory provisions and dynamic alignment with any foreign law, including that of the EU, which is specifically mentioned in the Bill. Amendment 59 would introduce a sunset clause for regulations under subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 1 for using foreign laws under subsection (7), so that they expire after four years. As explained throughout all the proceedings on this Bill, this is an open-ended measure; it gives sweeping powers to the Minister to make law by decree, including to import and mirror EU laws. That is a very different matter from updating and making safe our own laws. I would like to thank the Minister for his constant courtesy and willingness to discuss these issues, and for making it a pleasure to work on this Bill, though the subject is not to my liking.

The Government justify this approach by referring to the highly technical nature of the Bill and the sheer number of regulations. They seek to reassure us by saying that they will use these powers only when in the best interests of the country. There are good reasons for prohibiting dynamic alignment with any foreign laws, as well as for not allowing ambulatory provisions. I will speak about those first. Not only should we do so to temper the use of the open-ended power proposed for the Executive, which is the subject of constant discussions and of my noble friend Lord Hunt’s eloquent and persuasive amendment today; there are also good economic and trade reasons to prohibit dynamic alignment with foreign laws, including those of the EU, which the Bill specifically mentions.

I would like to mention a few of those reasons. UK law is well tested and brings certainty to businesses in developing goods for market and competing overseas. Here, the Minister is on very strong territory in saying that many of us would be happy with such laws having gone through such a process, without having to go through parliamentary process every time. Our processes operate under a legal system that is celebrated for its expertise, experience and independence. It follows well-understood process systems: evidence-based testing, some scientific assessment, and consultation with consumers and producers alike. So, by the time the goods get to market and are approved, everyone understands what is at stake. They know the laws and they have been consulted on them; they trust the science and the evidence base.

However, laws and regulations made elsewhere under a code-based system—I refer particularly to the EU’s—are often based on input from officials who are remote from the area of law they are making. With the EU, there is the danger that we are importing anticompetitive laws because, as has been pointed out—including by one of the current President’s economic advisers—EU laws are protectionist. The EU has a different economic system, which was designed by the French to lock in, for very good reasons, the German economic growth that was expected after the Second World War. I can understand the French’s reasoning. They have a centralised command-system economy, which may work for France. So there are very good reasons not to import, on a dynamic basis, laws which are protectionist.

In Committee, I gave examples of where these laws add cost, drawn up by EU economists. They would also mitigate—some economic law lawyers will corroborate this—against our free trade treaties with other trading partners, such as the CPTPP. These are reached on the basis of mutual agreement over standards, which are subject to conformity assessment and independent dispute arbitration and regulation. If we are going to mirror—and mirror dynamically—one set of laws, particularly those of the EU, we may be increasing costs and changing standards, and be in breach of our agreement with the CPTPP.

I turn briefly to why we want a sunset clause. There are very good reasons for having sunset clauses. They bring benefits to legislation, and they give Parliament the chance to consider its merits after a fixed period, which is especially needed for a law imported by statutory instrument. They involve the user in the regulatory plan: for instance, they know that the law in question is going to be introduced on condition that it will be assessed, and that involvement can institute behavioural changes. A sunset clause helps to safeguard democracy and bring legal certainty. It makes clear in legislation what is subject to expiry, when, and under what conditions. Professor Helen Xanthaki, at UCL, has pointed out that sunset clauses improve the quality of legislation and they

“serve as tools of clarity, precision and unambiguity; and as tools for efficacy”.

For these reasons, I ask the Minister to consider my amendments and the others in this group. They open up this measure, and require any Government to be more open, broadly, to foreign laws, ensuring that any laws we do import are subject to a sunset clause and that there will not be dynamic alignment, which goes very much against the transparency and clarity that are the hallmarks of good legislation.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I was going to give a long analysis of the economics that demonstrate how poorly manufacturing businesses have performed since the implementation of the trade and co-operation agreement, but that would have been a Second Reading speech, so I decided not to give it. Instead, I will speak to the amendments we have before us. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for tabling his amendment and for allowing me to sign up to it.

Members on the Conservative Benches seem to find terror wherever they go. There is danger; there are plots, schemes and Trojan horses all over place. I would not like to live in their world; it must be very frightening. This Bill does what it says it does, and this amendment does what it says it does. It makes simple a process that has been put forward very carefully and in a measured way by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.

There are all sorts of things that the Liberal Democrats would like to do that are far more extreme than the noble Lord’s amendment, but we recognise the limitations of this legislation and the nature of what we are debating. That is why I have supported the noble Lord, Lord Russell. It is a simple and modest measure that has the practical benefit of helping out businesses.

To close, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said that it would not be sensible to close off options—quite. Closer alignment with EU regulations within the government negotiated red lines would yield a boost to the UK economy of between 1% and 2%. That sounds like an option to me.

Citizenship Applications

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The guidance applies to individuals from 10 February of this year. The noble Baroness made a number of points about what is happening to asylum status. None of the proposals in the guidance mean that individuals cannot apply for asylum status. None of the proposals mean that individuals cannot have asylum status approved. None of the proposals mean that individuals cannot apply for citizenship. The basic test is that there is a presumption that those who enter the UK illegally will not have citizenship approved unless there are specific criteria in the guidance to make a case for their particular circumstances. The designed effect of that is to ensure that we reduce the amount of illegal migration and ensure that people enter the United Kingdom, or apply for asylum, through legal, strict routes and means.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, what proportion of people who have come into the country illegally since the Government took office have applied for asylum status?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I can give some figures, but not off the top of my head. I will certainly write to her about that.

The key question is illegal migration. The guidance we are talking about is on revising procedures for those who have entered the United Kingdom illegally and currently could apply for British citizenship after a period of 10 years. We have lifted that 10-year procedure, so no one can have British citizenship approved, as a presumption, if they have entered the country illegally. They can still apply for British citizenship and have mitigating circumstances brought forward, should they so wish. A range of measures has been issued in the guidance published this week.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendments in my name in this group, and to support generally the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Jackson, who have already spoken on theirs.

My amendments are Amendments 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 25. Amendment 4 is designed to increase the time to a year. Amendment 7 would ensure that costs, numbers and funds were all understood by each of the bodies concerned—authorities and taxpayers—that fund the asylum system, and that they were itemised and publicly announced. Amendments 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17 and 19 are designed to tighten and clarify the provisions governing age and to tighten the provisions governing status, about which my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lord Murray have already spoken. Amendment 25 is designed to make entitlement transparent, by bringing the identity documents needed in line with existing immigration arrangements.

Amendment 4 would require one year to pass before the Secretary of State was required to provide for family reunion. Amendment 7 would ensure that costs and numbers in the arrangements for funding and accommodating family members under the Bill were fully understood and that we knew who was funding the Bill, whether already hard-pressed councils, the Exchequer or both were paying, and whether people and families covered by the Bill would have priority over other applicants for local authority housing and public services.

The other amendments aim to ensure that those covered are eligible to entitlement on clear grounds. We need a Bill to be clear about the grounds of age and status, and in accord with UK law.

My final amendment in this group, Amendment 25, aims to underpin the security arrangements for entitlement by way of specific requirements for identity under the Identity Documents Act 2010.

All amendments therefore aim to ensure that, given the very large and growing number of applicants each year, such a significant transfer of population—the entire family for each applicant, which has serious consequences, including financial and practical—is limited strictly to the immediate family, children under 18 at the time the Bill passes and parents of such children covered under the Bill. Even then, the potential cost will be significant, and it will add to the costs and demands on the already overstretched asylum system, the first focus of which must be on asylum seekers themselves. The priority must be to ensure that applications are processed quickly and efficiently. I am very glad the present Government are continuing their work to hurry up the processing.

Resources should therefore be spent on those seeking asylum. We should seek to introduce the necessary rules to supervise, limit and identify those strictly covered under the Bill and those who believe that they have an entitlement. There are complex arrangements here and they need to be clarified.

Local communities and organisations should be consulted, because we do not want to see unpleasantness and objections from local communities unprepared for housing groups of asylum seekers in small villages or towns across the country.

We have no certain idea of the numbers, and I would be grateful—I am waiting with interest—to hear the noble Baroness let us know what they are. However, we know how many people made asylum applications in the year ending September 2024—77,066 over the 12-month period, relating to 99,700 people. If the Bill proceeds and the numbers expand, we will have no idea of how many family members will be covered by the Bill in addition to those already covered in law.

We know that the costs are high. The asylum system itself costs £5 billion. It is the highest level of spending on record, and it is up by a third on the previous year. The costs of the UK asylum system were £5.38 billion in November 2024—the highest, as I have said, and 12 times higher than when these statistics were kept in this format in 2013-14.

The Home Office figure for asylum costs covers direct cash support and accommodation, wider staffing and other related migration and border activity, but not the operation of channel-crossing interceptions to the UK. We need to take account of the additional costs this measure would put on the system, in terms of both compliance and money, and whether this will take away from the rapid processing of existing asylum claims, which should be and rightly is one of the priorities this Government are focusing on. Adding family members could increase the number by a factor of anything from three upwards.

To conclude, there is no appetite in this country for further immigration of that magnitude. Our housing, education and health services are creaking at the seams, with continued pressures adding to the burden they and taxpayers face. We have already seen that the Government intend to raise tax even further, to the tune of £25 billion a year. Total immigration was in the region of 700,000 last year. Voters want it brought down.

For this reason, I urge the Government to accept my amendments and the other amendments in this group if they strengthen what I am proposing. It is in line with the Government’s promise to bring immigration down. For those for whom a statement is made that family reunion can take place, the amendments I propose will curtail it to immediate family. They require clarity and tighten up the arrangements for identifying those covered. They are in line with current UK arrangements. They would ensure that public authorities and voters are aware of the cost and that there is more time for authorities, local communities and the Government to ensure that nothing is rushed, because it will end up being a mess.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly on Amendment 19. Like my noble friend Lord Jackson, I apologise that I was not able to be here at Second Reading. I simply echo his earlier comments without going into any detail. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lawlor for tabling Amendment 19 because I have a question and I would be grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, were able to address the drafting.

Earlier today, I made the familiar comment in a Second Reading that, however good a Bill is, the devil is in the detail. I would like to address just one part of the detail to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Amendment 19 seeks to

“Clause 1, page 2, line 9, leave out paragraph (b)”.

That paragraph refers to

“such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—”

and it gives some exemptions. Rightly, of course, it talks about the best interests of a child. That is the crucial issue underpinning, I am sure, what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, wishes to do in bringing forward the Bill.

However, I am concerned about the drafting of Clause 1(5)(b)(iii). It applies to

“the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted protection status and another person”.

This is a hugely wide lack of definition about who we are talking about. I am assuming we are talking in the first terms about a child. The person might be the child, but who is the other person?

It goes far wider than just a family connection: there is financial dependency. I feel that that particular part of this clause requires further investigation. I do not propose to extend the time today on that—I have some ideas myself about how the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, might be able to better present that part of this clause—but as it stands, I certainly would not be able to support that part of the Bill.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and I have added our names. They would ensure that in the Bill we have a statutory procedure for assessing the impact on the economy in general on consumers and the choices they have to make, and on the producers.

The Bill poses potential costs for producers, which are likely to have an impact on the economy of which they form part. Even though the general scope, as set out in Clause 1, seems sensible and reasonable and appears to reflect consumer protection arrangements which have proven their worth over decades, there is in this very slim Bill less clarity as to what the precise requirement may be, or where precisely liability for transgression lies. It is something of a leap in the dark. Lawyers will be needed to work out who exactly may be covered by the provisions, sanctions and punishments, given that the Bill will touch on many features of production and marketing, and many sorts of person will be involved in the process.

The question really is, if I am an entrepreneur or a small business innovator, do I risk my small pot of savings and those chipped in by my family to get the idea from the drawing board—possibly in the garage—off the ground, into the retail outlet and into use? Sir Hermann Hauser, the technologist and entrepreneur who set up Acorn in Cambridge, did that in the 1970s. He once told me that when you start a business like his—and most start in the garage—they do not have any money, and with what they have, they want reasonable certainty that the law will stay the same, that it will do what it says on the tin, that they can buy the stock they need for the component parts, they can use their judgment within reason about whether a product is safe, and they can take a risk. They have good arrangements for risk assessment, and our law also has pretty good arrangements, as well as for consumer protection. But if—and this is the danger of the Bill—there are open-ended powers, and there is the possibility for a regulation-mad Government to make constant changes, and if, as I have spoken about before, so I will not come back to it, EU law, which is based on the precautionary principle, is mirrored or otherwise imposed, we will be causing greater uncertainty and there will be a greater possibility of costs and of lost stock, because it goes out of date. Such people will also not have time to develop their product properly, bring it to market and make a profit. They may go bankrupt, thanks to a raft of new provisions and new uncertainties.

These three amendments—Amendment 103, on consumer choice and an impact assessment; Amendment 104, on an impact assessment on the whole economy; and Amendment 104B, on an impact assessment on SMEs to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within six months—will help us find out exactly what the impact of these rules are, even if we do not know what they will be when we set out on this road. Successful businesses—small, medium and big—and the consumers who buy their products and services, both in this country and overseas, are the beating heart of our economic life. If businesses are to flourish, the rules need to be clear from the start. Compliance needs to be affordable and the rules must encourage innovation, entrepreneurship and risk-taking.

Most businesses in this country are small—there are 5.51 million of them, as we have heard—with zero to 49 employees. There are only 40,000 businesses that count as medium-sized, with 50 to 250 employees. These small and medium-sized businesses provide most of the employment of people, but the vast majority of them—3.1 million—are sole traders. November’s House of Commons analysis, which is the most up-to-date analysis that I have found, gives the figures, with SMEs accounting for 99% of the business population, providing 60% of UK employment and 48% of business turnover. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointed out, they are far less able to bear the costs of the regulatory steamroller that may face us. This is one of the big problems that we hear about all the time from small producers and entrepreneurs: the costs of compliance and of dealing with the uncertainties this brings in. Even the bigger businesses, which provide 40% of the jobs and almost half the turnover, also have to pay—I was told by an NHS trust—almost 18% of their overheads.

Whether or not this Bill directly affects the product market—it does—or the service market, we are a service economy. This is a product regulation Bill, but most services use products. Let us take the hospitality trade: it needs to buy products to ply its trade and make money. Cabbies need to buy cars. Every single service—except financial services, perhaps, which is indirectly affected—will be affected by this Bill. It will have a very big impact on the whole economy. If we price risk-taking and innovation out of the product market, on top of the costs of employment—including through higher tax and higher employees’ NICs—UK small businesses will shrink or close. Jobs will be lost. We shall go the way the French went, with their high- tax protectionist model and a centralised structure in which the small challenger is driven out of the game—and with it, the hope of keeping a competitive economy open to new entrants. That is what has happened in France in the post-war years and is now cast in stone by the EU model, with ever bigger national, transnational or multinational corporations having a monopoly and driving up prices for the consumer while driving choices down.

I fear that this is an alien model to our market economy of competitive small businesses that can have a go without fear or favour under the protection of good law. We cannot afford to lose jobs or businesses and raise prices. Our productivity in GDP per hour is already lower than that of our most similar G7 neighbours, France and Germany. I am sorry that this figure is in dollars, although I am sure that noble Lords are very dollar literate: they earn $92 and $95 respectively per hour, while we earn only $79 per hour. If the Government want higher productivity and higher growth, they need simpler and clearer rule books; I must add that that will not happen by mimicking Brussels’ notorious system, whether it is an imported version or a home-based mirror image of what goes on over there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 110, 111 and 112, standing in my name. Clause 9 is a skeleton clause, as has been pointed out by the DPRRC, which recommended its removal—a point that may have been made a few times over the course of this Committee, often by me. In giving this degree of power to repeal existing legislation around consumer protection and metrology regulations by negative procedure, the Government have argued that aspects of the regulatory regime may need to be updated swiftly and frequently. However, they have failed to explain why they should be done with little scrutiny. In their response to the DPRRC, they suggested that it is because existing legislation has proven ineffective at times. The most recent consultation on the Bill suggested that 87% of respondents supported reviewing inspection powers, but it is one thing to review powers and another to have the power to completely repeal existing legislation and replace it with whatever an undefined—that word again—relevant authority feels is necessary.

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his thoughts on Amendment 110. He is not in his place but I wish him a happy birthday, as I am sure most Members of the Committee do too. I am very grateful for his opinions, some of which I am incorporating in my next remarks. On Amendment 110, he pointed out that the Government are proposing to take the power to repeal Part 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. If they were to do so, we would lose Section 2, which sets out primarily that the Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of securing goods that are safe. We would also lose Section 19, which defines “safe”. Section 19(1)(c) includes that “safe” means,

“there is no risk, or no risk apart from one reduced to a minimum, that … the keeping, use or consumption of the goods”

will

“cause the death of, or any personal injury to, any person”,

and that “unsafe” should be “construed accordingly”. The Bill does not make the equivalent provision: “reducing or mitigating risks” in Clause 1 is lesser than “safe” as defined, and the 1987 legislation has a long history of implementation, interpretation and enforcement.

At this late stage of the Bill, the question is: is it His Majesty’s Government’s intention to repeal Sections 2 and 19 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987? If it is not, we can assess the overall legislative framework which will result. If it is, we will need to revisit this issue when looking again at the purpose of the Bill. If His Majesty’s Government say they will decide later and seek to avoid overlap, we should again look at how this Bill and how the Consumer Protection Act 1987 may overlap, and consider whether the continuation of a defined requirement for safe products should be included in the Bill.

The other two amendments follow a very similar vein. I think I have said enough, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, briefly, I support this. It is important that we do not give the Minister powers to repeal one of the best-known Acts, which many consumers in this country have had experience of. We all know it is a flagship Act, and it has been proven in the decades since 1987.

I strongly support my noble friend’s proposals to remove the concern about giving the Government the power to do away with these protections which are in those sections of the Act. The meaning of “safety” is particularly relevant and needs to be very clear for businesses and consumers alike. Were we to go along this route, heaven knows what a Government could do. It is wrong for this House to allow that to happen; it is constitutionally out of order that such a well-known piece of legislation—which is so important to our economy and those who make our economy—can be done away with using sleight of hand and without any proper scrutiny or discussion.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, but I disagree with her. From the debates we have already had, there is a recognition that what businesses need is certainty and for government to move quickly when it is clear that action needs to be taken to protect the consumer and the other aims of the Bill.

I accept that there has been criticism by your Lordships’ Select Committees and by noble Lords here about the skeletal nature of the Bill, but the point is that we need flexibility to keep pace with fast movement in this consumer area. That is the reason why the Bill is constructed the way it is. I will come on to the Consumer Protection Act, but I hope I can reassure noble Lords on that.

The Government are of course looking very carefully at the reports of both the Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee and we are reflecting on them. Clearly, as I have said, we are trying to get the right balance between proper parliamentary accountability and the need for flexibility and clarity for all the people affected by the legislation. For instance, in Clause 9 itself, subsection (4) enables us to make minor technical adjustments to ensure coherence across the legislative framework without the need to introduce separate primary legislation for every amendment. I have to say that a general consequential power is typical and required to keep the law functional. If you remove that power, it would mean new primary legislation for adjustments that are primarily procedural or corrective in nature.

Also, the Bill includes safeguards to ensure that the use of the Clause 9 powers is proportionate and justified, with changes to primary legislation subject to the affirmative procedure. Of course, this means debates in both Houses.

As far as the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is concerned, I of course accept the importance of that legislation. As noble Lords will know, Part II of that Act grants powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure the safety of products, but the powers in Clauses 1 and 2 are intended to replace those powers. So, when product regulations are made under this Bill, it may be appropriate to repeal any or all of Part II of that Act in order to avoid duplication.

Likewise, Part IV of that Act sets out provision for the enforcement of regulations made under Part II. So, because the Bill includes provision in Clause 3 relating to the enforcement of product regulations made under this Bill, it may be appropriate to repeal any or all of Part IV of that Act when new product regulations are made. Included here are the powers for enforcement authorities to investigate and seize goods that have not yet reached the market and the power for customs officers to detain goods.

Part V of the Consumer Protection Act contains miscellaneous and supplemental provisions that may also require amendment when new regulations are introduced. There is no attempt here, nor any desire on the part of the Government, to undermine the Act fundamentally. We simply have to make adjustments in the light of this legislation.

I have listened to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. As I say, we are considering very carefully the reports of those two Select Committees; clearly, we will reflect on them between now and Report.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 25th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 11, I shall speak also to Amendments 104A and 124A in my name.

As highlighted by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, Clause 1 in its current form should be removed—a theme that we have explored already and to which we will no doubt return. This amendment, however, directly addresses a critical gap in the current Bill by ensuring that regulations do not focus merely on product safety, environmental concerns and operational efficiency but actively promote investment and foster innovation.

The news coming from today’s CBI conference makes sobering reading. The chief executive of the CBI has said that employers have been forced into “damage control mode”. The head of the company that makes McVitie’s digestive biscuits said that

“it’s becoming harder to understand what the case for investment is … to make a difference in the growth rate of the economy”.

Again, the chief exec has said that CFOs are asking, “Can we afford to invest?”

I have no wish to talk down the economy or try to score cheap party-political points, but the fact is that life has got harder for big business recently. No doubt noble Lords opposite will say, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?” But they are also committed to providing an environment that fosters growth and I know them to be sincere in that ambition, so we should all take these comments seriously.

It is not just big business. Last week, analysis by the Altus Group said that the planned reduction in business rates relief would lead to a more than doubling of rates for shops, pubs and restaurants next year. Coupled with rises in national insurance contributions and other operational pressures, SMEs are facing difficult times. But they represent the heartbeat of our economy and some of them will hopefully go on to become big businesses.

In today’s competitive global economy, economic growth cannot be secondary. The Bill should prioritise creating an environment where businesses can thrive, develop new technologies and compete internationally. It is vital that our regulations should be aligned with the strategic aim of positioning the United Kingdom as a global leader in innovation. In the post-Brexit world, the UK’s economic success is intrinsically tied to its ability to lead in innovation, which is why my Amendment 11 is critical. It ensures that product regulation supports the creation of an environment conducive to technological advancement and cutting-edge industrial leadership. It strengthens the Bill by ensuring that it is not about just managing risks or regulating product use but about creating a dynamic, forward-thinking market where businesses have the tools, resources and incentives to innovate and expand. Without these provisions, there is a risk that the UK could fall behind in the global race for innovation and business growth. If we do not explicitly ensure that our regulations align with our growth objectives, we could inadvertently stifle entrepreneurship and technological progress.

So how are we to become a global leader? The answer surely lies in aligning ourselves with the strongest global partners in the world today. If we are to maintain and enhance our position as a leading economy, we must look beyond a single trading bloc, particularly one whose economic influence is shrinking on the global stage—a theme we explored in debate last Wednesday. For example, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP, represents some of the fastest-growing economies in the world. Countries such as Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, as well as emerging markets in Asia, are showing much more significant economic growth potential than others.

To lead the world, the UK must be flexible in its approach to trade and regulation. We need to reduce barriers and align ourselves with the economies that will drive future growth and innovation, rather than being tethered to a bloc that is not growing as fast as others. Amendment 11 in my name will enable us to do just that: focus on fostering global partnerships with the most dynamic economies.

Regarding Amendment 104A, a regulatory sandbox means an environment that allows businesses to explore and experiment with new, innovative products under regulatory supervision. This amendment is important for the development of innovative products affected by the Bill. It is an important step forward in fostering a regulatory environment that encourages creativity and innovation while ensuring safety and compliance. Regulatory sandboxes are an effective and proven model used to support businesses in testing innovative ideas. By introducing the importance of regulatory sandboxes in the Bill, we are not just helping businesses to navigate regulatory hurdles but promoting innovation by giving businesses the space to trial and refine their ideas.

Regulatory sandboxes will create a framework in which businesses can develop and test new products, contributing to the growth of the economy and the success of British businesses in the global marketplace. I urge noble Lords to support this amendment to pave the way for more innovation, more competitive businesses and, ultimately, a stronger economy.

I thank my noble friend Lady Lawlor for bringing forward Amendment 11A. The amendment is a clear and strong signal that we are committed to ensuring that our regulations actively foster economic growth, innovation and the global competitiveness of UK businesses. By encouraging the marketing and use of products in domestic and foreign markets, we are helping to open doors for UK businesses to grow their customer base, create jobs and increase exports. I commend my noble friend for this amendment. I look forward to a positive reception for all these amendments from the Government. I particularly look forward to the positive impact that they will have on businesses across the United Kingdom. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 11A, which would insert a new subsection to the effect that regulations

“must promote growth and effective production, foster innovation and encourage the use and marketing of products in the UK’s domestic and foreign markets”.

I declare an interest in that I have commissioned a number of studies and analyses at Politeia, the think tank where I am research director, which aim to examine and promote UK international trade and the UK economy. I support the aims of safety, containing costs and compliance with safety regulations, but I urge that we think about products having to operate efficiently and effectively. The problem we face is how best to do this consistent with promoting the entrepreneurial and innovative instincts of those bringing new products to the market, who my noble friend Lord Sharpe mentioned, and the growth this allows. I support my noble friend’s amendment to put growth at the heart of this measure.

During the consultation process for a product regulatory framework since 2021, of which this Bill is the outcome, producers and their representatives stressed their priorities for regulation. I am grateful to the Government for their response to this long consultation process. Producers stressed that it should be outcomes-focused and risk-based, should have greater simplicity, proportionality and consistency across legislation and powers and should deal with the serious challenges and opportunities that this country now faces. A further consultation to develop the product safety regime took place in August 2023, with businesspeople and business representatives that are listed in the Government’s helpful response. It found broad agreement on the need for a regulatory approach that promotes a regime ready to respond to hazards but that allows temporary derogation during emergencies for supplying essential products—in other words, it is dynamic—and makes for safer online shopping and promotes digital labelling and an enhanced national regime.

The Minister said at Second Reading and has reiterated to this Committee that the Government have listened to business. Their priorities are summarised in the Government’s consultation document. They are designed to allow for effective operations and to promote growth as a priority, which I and my noble friend Lord Sharpe are urging we need. The rules should be demand-led and reflect the capacity of our businesses to innovate, be entrepreneurial and grow their workforces and their range of products along with the high standards and competitive costs that consumers want.

Nowhere in the Government’s response document do we find businesses wanting a regulatory regime that brings greater rigidity in process rather than being outcomes-led, one that is risk-averse rather than equipped to deal with the real level of risk posed by products or processes, one that treats every product as bearing the same risk or being under a one-size-fits-all rule, or a regime that is disproportionate, untargeted and unduly complex. Yet that scenario, rejected by business, is inherent in the EU legal arrangements that the Government wish to be able to adopt for our businesses under Clause 1(2), to which my amendment is addressed. That can only stymie growth, contrary to the express wishes of the Government. For those reasons, I propose that growth should take priority over the arbitrary exercise of power to introduce the rigidity and complexity of an EU system which is not outcomes-focused or risk-based; nor is it proportionate or known for simplicity.

I will give your Lordships an illustration, for which I owe thanks to Professor David Collins, who holds the chair of international economic and trade law at City, University of London. He draws attention to the unnecessarily burdensome EU REACH regulation—on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. Collins explains that it has extensive requirements for registering very low-risk substances. For example, certain food-grade natural substances that have been used safely for centuries will require expensive registration. Under the EU’s REACH, if a company uses more than one tonne per year of natural fruit extracts or oils, and products such as soaps or cosmetics, it needs full registration, including extensive safety data packages, even when these substances have been safely used in food for ages. This can cost tens of thousands of euros per substance. The relevant EU legislation is Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 REACH, and the key sections on registration requirements are primarily in Title II, Articles 5/24.

The EU’s post-Brexit UK REACH maintains similar core principles but has proposed a more proportionate approach for these well-established natural substances, with simplified registration requirements planned for ingredients with long histories of safe use. Although the overall goal of chemical safety is vital, requiring extensive registration for substances such as olive oil or lemon extract when used in non-food products adds to cost without proportionate safety benefit, and it is not needed. The safety of these materials could be adequately assured through simpler mechanisms. The UK REACH regulation, created through the REACH etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, Statutory Instrument 2019/758, aims to do this and does it very effectively.

Moreover—I refer to my noble friend Lord Sharpe urging that we align the UK economy with the strongest, most dynamic economies in the world—by relying on our own laws it will not only help our businesses but will allow us to do exactly that. My noble friend Lord Sharpe mentioned the CPTPP agreement; as Professor Collins says, it

“does not mandate blanket mutual recognition of conformity assessments for food safety among its members”

but it does

“include provisions that encourage members to accept other members’ conformity assessment results. It also facilitates acceptance of conformity assessment results through mechanisms like technical discussions and explanations of requirements. It also allows for sector-specific mutual recognition arrangements to be negotiated between members”—

which are very important. Professor Collins continues:

“So the CPTPP promotes regulatory cooperation and transparency but preserves each member’s right to maintain their own food safety standards and assessment procedures. Members must ensure their requirements are based on science and international standards where they exist, but aren’t required to automatically accept other members’ assessments. This is similar to what the WTO TBT Agreement does, but it goes further in terms of cooperation”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I will make a very brief intervention because I want to repeat my illustration from the first group about the REACH regulations. I have concerns about including this amendment to Clause 1 at line 13 of page 2 of the Bill as I do not agree that the EU REACH regulations are necessarily better equipped to target sectors and individual products than UK regulations. I will not go through the reasons I gave earlier. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whose introduction I learned a great deal from and am very grateful for, mentioned cosmetics. In my earlier intervention I pointed to the use of olive oil and lemon in some soaps and said that UK REACH regulations recognise that these products can be eaten safely and, indeed, have been used for a long time. Requiring, as EU REACH does, that they go through stringent chemical REACH processes and labelling is a bit over the top and would put expense on our producers. I urge us to think of the wider implications of unsensitive or disproportion regulation where we can.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will speak to Amendment 16 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

Regarding the EU’s REACH scheme, I shall refer to a specific example which relates to my time at the Home Office in the previous Government. It relates to cosmetics, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lady Lawlor. In 2019, the Home Office aligned UK policy with two decisions by the European Chemicals Agency board of appeal which related to the testing on animals for the registration of cosmetics-only substances—specifically homosalate and 2-ethylhexyl salicylate. The marketing of cosmetics tested on animals is banned in the EU under cosmetics products regulation, but the ECHA—the European Chemicals Agency—confirmed that under REACH substances used solely in cosmetics may sometimes be tested on animals, as a last resort, to prove their safety for workers or the environment.

An NGO called Cruelty Free International, quite rightly, in my view, took the Government to court arguing that the UK’s alignment in effect led to the weakening of the long-standing—I think it was a 25-year—ban on animal testing of cosmetics and cosmetic ingredients. The UK court found in the Government’s favour but as the then Minister for Animals in Science, which somewhat surprisingly sits with the Home Office, the Home Secretary and I were firmly of the opinion that this was unjustified, so as of May 2023 we decided that no new licences should be issued to carry out this function. A small number of licences had been issued between 2019 and 2022.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, made persuasive arguments about why it might be in this country’s interest to align with the EU but, equally, it might not be, and this is a very nuanced subject. Failings of the domestic chemicals regulator—real or imagined—are an entirely separate subject. Alignment with, or invention of, our own rules that suit our national and public interest most definitely is in our interest. When I say public interest, in this case 76% of the public are against animal testing according to the RSPCA. So can I ask the Minister to guarantee that this ban on new licences in these cases will be maintained? I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is not here because I was going to ask him if, in the spirit of nominative determinism, he would withdraw his Amendment 16. However, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that it certainly raised hackles, not necessarily human ones.

On the subject of dynamic alignment, I have two questions for the Minister about an apparent contradiction in our debates last Wednesday. I pored over Hansard, and I found that he said:

“If the UK makes a sovereign decision to mirror EU provisions, the Bill provides the mechanism and flexibility, on a case-by-case basis, to do so. This would avoid primary legislation each time technical changes are needed and would increase the certainty that businesses are crying out for”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; col. GC 74.]


However, he went on to say:

“The powers in the Bill do not allow regulations to make automatic or ambulatory references to changing EU law. I reassure noble Lords that the Government will return to Parliament to make any changes to references to EU law within our regulations”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; cols. GC 74-5.]


On careful reading, these statements seem a bit contradictory. So, although I am totally willing to be persuaded otherwise, perhaps the Minister could write to explain to the Committee exactly what is proposed and what was meant. If I am being particularly thick, I would be very happy for him to explain why.

Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2024

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Grand Committee

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for enabling us to have this debate. I was, as usual, in church yesterday and as usual had a cup of tea with some of the people in that parish afterwards. I was introduced to a young man, probably in his thirties—I will not name him as I did not have a chance to seek his permission. We exchanged a few words and he moved on, and then the ladies I was talking to explained that he had first come to them three or four years ago as an asylum seeker. He had become a member of that church, had grown in his faith and had become much loved in that community, and then he disappeared for several months. When he came back, it turned out that that was because he had been held in detention. The good news is that just a few weeks ago he received his right to remain in the UK and is now back in his church and being a stalwart member of that community. That is just one Sunday. It is not unusual in a city such as Manchester.

Also in Manchester, we have Pennine House, an immigration detention centre close to Manchester Airport. A few years ago, there was an absolutely damning inspection report into that facility. When the then Government made their response, it was “We’re going to ignore all the recommendations in this report”. What is the point of having a debate about regulations about how we are going to care for people in these places if, when it is not being done properly and when independent inspectors go in and say, “This is wrong. This is not what is supposed to be happening”, the Government just turn around and ignore them? I would be grateful if, in his response at the end of the debate, the Minister could give us some assurance that where those kinds of inspections take place and it is found that an immigration detention centre is not doing what it is supposed to do, there will be a requirement for those recommendations to be implemented in a timely fashion.

One of my priests has just come back from several months on sabbatical in east Africa. He is a gay man and he asked me whether he could spend three months working with people living in fear in countries where homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality, is a criminal offence. He sent me weekly emails, sometimes harrowing, sometimes encouraging, about what he was meeting there.

I know that a sizeable number of those who come to Manchester seeking asylum are from the LGBT community—I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for raising this earlier. They are at particular risk, not least because, when they are housed in a detention centre alongside other people, you might think, “Oh, they’re from the same country; they’ll get on together”. But, actually, the homophobia in some of these places is so severe that they are not safe. I do not see how anybody who is LGBT can be considered not vulnerable or considered safe in a detention centre.

The noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, mentioned children a few moments ago. It would be nice to hear from the Minister whether we have now moved on from painting over cartoon characters in centres. How we care for the most vulnerable in our society really matters.

Above all, I am trying to get a sense of whether these regulations and the changes we are talking about today will create a regime that will promote and prioritise safety and well-being, as referred to earlier. I echo what my right reverend friend said: yes, everybody is vulnerable—these are people who have fled the most horrific circumstances, and they are all vulnerable and traumatised when they get here—but, to misquote George Orwell, all are vulnerable but some are more vulnerable than others. Today, we are thinking about the most vulnerable.

I end with Douglas Adams who, in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, famously got a computer to come up with the answer to the ultimate question. The answer was 42. The trouble was, they had not worked out what the question was. I am left thinking: if these sorts of detention centres and regulations are the answer, what is the question? Is it genuinely a real risk that significant numbers of people will take flight? If so, where is the evidence base for that? Is it in order just to make the UK look a really unwelcoming and unfriendly place? If so, what is the evidence that that makes a difference to the numbers of people who come here and seek asylum? We might have the answer, but what is the question?

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for his Select Committee’s report and for highlighting some of the questions that the statutory instruments raise. I also thank the noble Lords and right reverend Prelates who have spoken.

I comment first on the context of the wider debate, which these statutory instruments seek to address part of. As we know, there has been an increase in illegal immigration, including by small boats. This is greatly to be regretted, from the point of view of the people themselves, as has been pointed out time and again in your Lordships’ House. These people cross the channel in small and unseaworthy vessels, endangering their lives and damaging every aspect of their medical and physical health.

The reduction of current levels of migration, legal and illegal, was—this is the political context, not the human context—a core aim of the previous Government and is indeed the stated aim of the present Government, in response to the democratic wish of the people. To meet the political aim, the Government use detention centres and have published both guidance and an impact assessment for the statutory instrument’s update for 2024. The core changes include guidance on removing references to the reduction of places, which was in the 2016 statutory instrument. The Secretary of State has greater powers to decide, and there will be an expansion of detention places.

We see, therefore, that there are two separate tensions in this debate. It is perfectly clear from the Home Office’s published guidance and statements that it seeks to balance the vulnerability risk for people who are detained against immigration factors, one of which is the likelihood to abscond and another is the potential danger to the public.

I share your Lordships’ concerns about the conditions of the detention centres, which certainly should be addressed. However, I do not oppose the use of detention centres to manage migration factors. Managing migration is in the interests of those who are victims of traffickers, and I applaud the new Government for doing their utmost to tackle the problem there. I know that they are continuing the work of the previous Government, but anything on that front is very welcome. That will help.

However, having detention centres will serve as a deterrent. It is harder to sell your wares to unfortunate asylum seekers and encourage them to cross the channel on small boats if there is a likelihood that they will be detained at the other end, unlikely to be able to abscond. It is as much in the interests of victims of traffickers as it is in the interests of a constitutional democracy, with Governments of both colours—blue and red—seeking to address the real concerns of the voters in this country and to manage both legal and illegal migration.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord very much indeed for his support and the support of his party. We have covered some ground here and I will do my very best to answer the questions.

Why have we decided to proscribe the Terrogram collective now? I think I explained much of this in my opening remarks but to proscribe an organisation the Home Secretary must believe that it is concerned in terrorism and it is right that any decision to proscribe must be proportionate and necessary. As the House has heard, Terrorgram involves itself in preparing for terrorism through instruction material. It also promotes and encourages terrorism through its publications which contain violent narratives. As proscription is such a powerful counterterrorism tool, cases are scrutinised carefully to ensure that the decisions we take are lawful, consistent and proportionate. Proscription sends such a strong message of the UK’s commitment to tackling terrorism globally and calling out this activity wherever it is committed, but the evidence has to be very carefully scrutinised and that is, in essence, the reason why it has taken a while to get to this point.

The noble Lord also asked me about what is happening with the counter-extremism strategy and what has replaced the old one. The Government remain very much focused on disrupting the activities and influence of extremists, supporting those who stand up to extremism and stopping people from being drawn into terrorism. We keep our response to extremism under constant review, for the reasons the noble Lord laid out, in particular things such as the CREST research that he referred to. We have to make sure that it is best placed to tackle evolving threats. The Government’s current focus is to use existing mechanisms to analyse, prevent and disrupt the spread of high-harm extremist ideologies that can lead from community division and radicalisation into terrorism, particularly those that radicalise others but deliberately operate below counterterrorism thresholds. Where there is evidence of purposeful actions that are potentially radicalising others into terrorism or violence, proportionate disruptive action will be considered.

The noble Lord made comments on incel and misogyny. We will not tolerate the spread of the harmful ideologies that can lead to these sorts of activities. There is a wide range of offences and powers that can be used to counter the threat from these areas and we are working to maximise their use. Of course, we know, as the noble Lord said, that the extremism landscape is constantly evolving and therefore that we have to continually seek to build and refresh our knowledge of the threat it poses. From 1 April 2023, the Government instructed all police forces in England and Wales to identify any violence against the person, including stalking and harassment, or sexual offences where the crime is deemed to be motivated by a hostility towards the victim’s sex. The implementation of sex-based hostility recording illustrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring that we have a better understanding of these abhorrent crimes, and that will obviously assist us in future policy development.

I conclude by again offering my thanks for the House’s consideration of and support for this very important measure. As I have outlined, it is proportionate and necessary in our ongoing effort to tackle terrorism to protect the public and to defend our values. There is no place whatever for the vile ideology espoused by the Terrorgram collective, and we will not stand for it. We will never relent in showing up terrorism for what it is: a poisonous, corrosive force that will always fail. With that, I commend the order to the House.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the statutory order. I support the addition of the Terrorgram collective to follow the recent addition of Hizb ut-Tahrir to the proscribed organisation list under this order. This online terror collective, as has been said, supported acts of terrorism in Norway and Slovakia, and incitement in the Baltimore case of attacks on power substations. In common with its immediate predecessor on the list, it seeks to incite violence against Jewish people in the State of Israel, including by supporting Hamas’s attack of 7 October.

Such a proscription therefore has my support, but it prompts a wider question about the Terrorism Act 2000, under which the proscriptions are made. That Act defines terrorism in Section 1, which includes

“the use or threat of action where … the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and … the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious … or ideological cause”.

In subsection (2)(d), it refers to creating

“a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public”

and so on.

Therefore, I have a question for my noble friend the Minister. While proscription outlaws an organisation, it does not address the blatant advocacy on our streets during the pro-Palestine marches—actions of intimidation against the Jewish community in Israel or at home. These, in the words of the 2000 Act, create

“a serious risk to the … safety of the public or a section of the public”,

and are

“designed to influence the government … or to intimidate”.

I urge my noble friend, in the same spirit of this addition to the proscribed list, to reconsider the arrangements for these marches in this context. Surely it is time for His Majesty’s Government to go beyond the standard reply that policing of marches is an operational matter for the police. Does the intimidation and threat to a section of our people—the Jewish minority here and overseas—not require a more direct address by the law, given that policing to date has proved inadequate, in addition to this proscription, which I welcome?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I appreciate the sentiments behind my noble friend’s questions. I am not sure they are entirely appropriate for this format, but I will just rehash the powers conferred on the Government under the Public Order Act 1986. The Home Secretary does not have the direct power to prohibit a public procession; the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has the power to prohibit public processions under Section 13 of the Act. Before this power can be used, they must reasonably believe that the power to impose conditions under Section 12 of the Act would not be sufficient to prevent serious public disorder, and must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State. I am afraid that those are questions that would be better addressed to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lawlor]

17: Clause 2, page 3, line 13, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) This Act and the Illegal Migration Act 2023 will have effect in relation to removals to Rwanda notwithstanding—(a) any provision made by or under the Immigration Acts,(b) the Human Rights Act 1998,(c) EU derived law and case law retained under sections 2 to 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018,(d) any other provision or rule of domestic law (including any common law), and(e) international law, including any interpretation of international law by the court or tribunal.(6) Nothing identified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (5) may prevent or delay the removal to Rwanda of an individual under this Act or the Illegal Migration Act 2023, or affect the interpretation or application of any provision of this Act or the Illegal Migration Act 2023, including the actions or policies of public authorities, in relation to the removal of a person to Rwanda. (7) To the extent that any provision or requirement included in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (5) has been given effect to in legislation (including the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004), that legislation does not apply in relation to provision made by or by virtue of this Act or the Illegal Migration Act 2023 in relation to the removal of an individual to Rwanda, and shall not prevent or delay the removal to Rwanda of an individual under this Act or the Illegal Migration Act 2023.(8) A person or body to which subsection (9) applies may not have regard to international law, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (11).(9) This subsection applies to —(a) the Secretary of State or an immigration officer when exercising any function related to removing, or considering for removal a person to Rwanda under this Act or the Illegal Migration Act 2023;(b) a court or tribunal when considering any application or appeal which relates to a decision or purported decision to remove, or to consider the removal of a person to Rwanda under this Act or the Illegal Migration Act 2023.(10) No inference is to be drawn from this section as to whether or not a person or body mentioned in subsection (9) would otherwise have been required to have regard to international law.(11) The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 is amended as follows. (12) In section 2, at end insert “except in relation to the removal of a person to Rwanda under the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the Illegal Migration Act 2023”.”

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the aims of the Bill and I hope that it—and they—will succeed, that it will not be challenged and that there will be no further obstacles put in the way of removing people who come to this country illegally and by these dangerous routes.

My Amendment 17 would leave out Clause 2(5) and substitute the text on the Marshalled List. The aim is to tighten the Bill on what may

“prevent or delay the removal to Rwanda of an individual”

under any of the Immigration Acts, the Human Rights Act 1998,

“EU derived law and case law … under sections 2 to 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”

and

“any … provision … of domestic law (including … common law), and … international law”

relevant to the aim, so as to limit legal challenges to the Bill. I do not share the views of those who say that the Bill contravenes the rule of law. Their view rests on assumptions about the role of international law, its place within our own system, the creative approach of the Strasbourg court in applying the convention and the tendency now to accord something of a primacy to courts over Parliament.

These assumptions are contested within the legal profession itself. I will refer to one KC, Anthony Speaight, whose paper was published at the weekend by Politeia, of which I am research director. I therefore declare a special interest in the matter. Speaight explains the comparative novelty of the view, which he dates from Lord Bingham’s 2010 book, that the rule of law requires adherence to international law.

I am not a lawyer. I approach the question as a historian of British political and constitutional history. It is a history, by and large—and certainly in the era since the franchise was extended in the 19th century—of the interplay between Executive and Parliament, with the Government accountable through Parliament to the will of the people, even before the extension of the franchise. At the moment, both the Government and Parliament are intent on being accountable on the matter of curbing illegal immigration. But they are prevented by laws and the judiciary that operates them or, as in the case of the Strasbourg court, interprets them in a manner that takes from and does not protect their liberty, on which good law is based—the freely expressed will of the people who are governed.

On immigration, legal and illegal, the people have spoken loud and clear. They want Britain’s borders controlled and the flow of immigration curbed. Parliament has passed the laws to bring such control, but each Bill it brings forward meets a challenge in the courts. Is removal to Rwanda to be stopped not by a recalcitrant authoritarian monarch or an oligarchic, aristocratic, landowning Parliament, as in the past, but by a judiciary acting—I do not doubt in good faith—to give effect to a cocktail of legislation binding this country from an era whose laws are not our own and from times that are not our own?

There are practical limits to what a good Government can achieve. It is recognised, perhaps more clearly by voters than by rulers, that uncontrolled immigration facilitated by the obstacles now put by the courts, often—as in the case of illegal immigration through asylum claims—has consequences for the economy in terms of the budgetary costs. It puts demands that cannot be satisfied on Britain’s domestic arrangements—not just for processing claims but on every manner of the support that the UK’s people have over the centuries shown to those who, for whatever reason, come to make their lives in this country.

If our constitution is to survive the onslaught of legal challenge, the will of Parliament, reflecting the mandate of the voters, must triumph and, with it, the stability, transparency and accountability it has brought to Britain and its people, rather than be challenged on account of international or our own laws.

This country is no outlier. Across the channel, the political systems of western European neighbours are buckling under the political immediacy of uncontrolled immigration, each seeking to exploit or avoid the system to which in law they are bound under EU law, convention law and the mass of internal legislation to which these have given rise. They also have to take account of Schengen.

Take the case of France. Its political system was practically frozen for two years, haggling over an immigration Bill that many see as promising too little, too late. The problems with which it grapples are immense. Constitutional arrangements and stability are under threat at different levels. Departments are pitted against national powers, as in the recent stand-off with some mayors, who refuse to accept and look after unaccompanied minors because they have no ability to do so. At government level, against the ruling of the Strasbourg court, it is voters against the traditional systems of the political parties, the republicans and the socialists.

In this country, we are free to make our own laws. Other noble Lords will speak to their amendments on the same theme. My amendment aims to tighten the Bill and to pre-empt further challenge. As the Minister mentioned earlier, a core principle and aim of the Bill is to prevent further challenge to the workings of ordered, representative and accountable democracy. It aims to promote the aims of the Bill to delay illegal and unsafe crossings and deter the horrid loss of life, such as the death of a little girl of seven in freezing waters in the channel on Sunday night. I therefore beg to move.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak in favour of Amendment 17, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, to which I have added my name. As I said at Second Reading, I support the Bill. I am afraid that the Rwanda policy is a bit of a Heath Robinson arrangement. It shies away from some of the tough decisions needed to solve the problems. But I support the Bill because it is the plan we have, and we must hope it makes a difference.

It can certainly be improved. Most of the amendments discussed today would make it worse rather than better, and less effective rather than more effective. Amendment 17 is one of the few exceptions to that. It aims to provide a more clearly drawn Bill—one that can withstand challenges and fulfil its purpose more effectively, by making clear that no other legal provisions of any kind, whether in domestic or international law, can be used to frustrate the policy.

I do not want to repeat issues that have already been raised in Committee and discussed again at length today, but I will briefly explain why I support this amendment and then make one comment based on my involvement in recent years in the intersection between international and domestic law.

First, it is absolutely clear that this Parliament may legislate against international law, and indeed the Government may act in contravention of international law. As we have already heard, Clause 1(4) makes that clear and nobody is seeking to amend that. It is a long-standing, fundamental element of our constitution. It is not some sort of weird, UK-specific provision; there is good reason for the dualism in our system. First, otherwise Governments could act to create domestic law merely by signing an international treaty and thereby sidestep normal democratic processes. Secondly, it reflects the reality that international treaties are in practice very difficult to adapt to changing conditions because all the parties must agree to changes. It has been suggested by some noble Lords today and in previous debates that that is what should happen and that we should seek to renegotiate the international framework. The refugee convention, for example, has 149 state parties, including such well-known supporters of international law as China, Russia and Iran. Are we going to wait for them all to agree to amend this framework? We are clearly not, but if national Governments accept that they can deal with pressing national challenges only by renegotiating these treaties, they are in effect abandoning their duty to govern their own countries on matters of huge importance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 18, and Amendment 20 which I share with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich. I support the starred Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German.

Amendments 20 and 21 both restore Human Rights Act protection in full for those subject to the Bill pending removal to Rwanda. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord German, does this in even clearer language by not referring internally to last year’s immigration Bill but clearly stating for the lay reader that Human Rights Act protection is restored.

However, Amendment 18 is a revision of the amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. It is a modest revision to address the concerns of some of his noble friends. He is not able to be here this evening. I begin with that one because it is so mild and in keeping with the thrust of the Bill, and it cannot be described as wrecking or disturbing the framework—even of a Bill I object to—in any way.

Noble Lords will know that, in Clause 3, most Human Rights Act protection is removed for these vulnerable people. The one thing that is left is the possibility of a declaration of incompatibility. Contrary, I fear, to some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, and others, there is no possibility in our arrangements for the Supreme Court to strike down the Bill, were it to become an Act, because that is not the arrangement that we have in the elegant British constitutional compromise of the Human Rights Act and the balance it strikes between the rule of law, which is the bedrock of any democracy, and parliamentary sovereignty.

If an Act is declared incompatible, that declaration has merely moral and persuasive effect, and the Act continues in operation. That is why, with the greatest of respect to him, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, was optimistic to the point of being wrong about that. What the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, came up with last time was just the suggestion that, if there were to be a declaration of incompatibility made by a higher court in relation to this legislation, there should be accelerated consideration in Parliament. That is it. I am flabbergasted by the Government’s response, that they would not even have a look at that most modest amendment from their noble friend—a former Immigration Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate.

In the noble Lord’s absence, I have retabled the amendment, and it has been tweaked slightly to address some of the points made by his noble friends last time—and I really look forward to hearing what the objection is to that modest suggestion that he made, that, if is there is a declaration, Parliament should have an accelerated timetable, and Ministers should put their arguments to Parliament, not to a court, and Parliament should be given the opportunity to consider what to do next.

As for our amendments to restore Human Rights Act protection, that is another way of trying to restore the protection of the domestic courts. I say to the Government—and here the noble Lord, Lord Frost, has a point—that where they have left us with this Bill, if it passes unamended, is in a situation whereby the only court that will really be seized of these matters and have full jurisdiction over the safety of Rwanda and individual removals, from this country to that country, will be the European Court of Human Rights. Of course, interim measures will be ignorable by a Minister of State, but final orders of the European court will still be an international legal obligation, which is not removed by the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, is the one who is telling the truth about the logic of where this Government are heading—really, for walking out of the European Court of Human Rights and walking out of the Council of Europe. We can follow Russia and be the next one out. At least the noble Lord is honest about that position, whereas the Government are trying to have it both ways. They have defenestrated domestic courts and gaslit the Supreme Court, but the only court that will be left for redress in any real terms will be the Strasbourg court. Then the Prime Minister can say, “I told you what I said about foreign courts”, because foreign courts will be all that is left, if that is what we now say about international courts. Goodness me, what terrible politics.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, has had enough of international law, really—that is where he is coming from—but how on earth are we going to address in a unilateral way the pressing challenges of the 21st century, facing not just the United Kingdom but the world today, whether it is climate change, war and peace or the challenge of the ungoverned continent that is the internet, AI or robotics? It is just nonsense.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, does not seem to like law, whether it is domestic or international, I hope that she never has need of it and that she is never subject to the kind of abuse of power that sometimes people are subject to, and they need the protection of the courts.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I ask the noble Baroness to be clear about what I proposed and to what I was referring. I was referring to the laws of this country, made by the people of this country, with the support of the people of this country—good laws. Yes, they support international treaty law, when that is in the interests of this country, and other wider interests that arise, whether they are trade treaties or international agreements over other matters. It is wrong to suggest that I am not in favour of law; I am in favour of good law, but not politicised law, as it very often is, by the interpretations of the Strasbourg court of the convention.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her clarification. As I pointed out, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Frost, was nodding, the Strasbourg court is unaffected in its final jurisdiction by the Bill—it is our domestic courts that are defenestrated by this government policy.

I look to the noble Baroness’s amendment, which abrogates domestic laws. It refers to

“any provision made by … the Immigration Acts … the Human Rights Act”

and other domestic statute, as well as

“any other provision or rule of domestic law (including any common law)”—

in case Magna Carta still got a shout-out there—and, of course, international law. The noble Baroness has been pretty comprehensive in her approach to law in the amendment, whether domestic or international.

Of course, the noble Baroness says that it is only bad law that she does not like—but of course we all have our own views about good and bad law. Some of us believe that there should be referees in a democracy that is built on the rule of law, and the rule of law was invoked by the Prime Minister, even in his slightly odd Downing Street declaration on Friday.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

May I clarify that my amendment is designed to promote the aims of the Bill to remove people who come to this country illegally to Rwanda and stop obstructions on that matter?

[Baroness D’Souza (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I might add a few words to this debate on the Human Rights Act. I point out that this is the first time that I have spoken in this group. This amendment seeks to return the responsibility of interpreting the law to the courts and specifically underlines the unacceptability of a law on the statute book that is incompatible with domestic law, which of course includes the UK Human Rights Act. Unless and until the courts affirm that the Act conforms with the strictures of the Human Rights Act, it must not have any effect; to do otherwise would be to reject the rule of law, which is one of the pillars of the UK constitution.

--- Later in debate ---

As I say, the provisions in the Bill, while novel, are not without precedent. We are satisfied that the Bill can be implemented in line with the convention rights. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister; I am very grateful to him for his courteous and thoughtful reply on my amendment. I also thank all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. As others have commented, we have had a very refreshing debate, and it has been very spirited too. We all share a commitment to and a respect for the rule of law, but we differ over the interpretation we give to that, and the weight we give to the different parts of our constitutional powers: government, the judiciary and Parliament.

I especially thank my noble friend Lord Frost for reflecting on the continuing tension between laws made in this Parliament on the express wish of the people of this country, which command popular support, and laws made elsewhere, very often originating from different times to apply to different circumstances. I understand that my noble friend the Minister is keen to reject this amendment, but I hope he will reflect further on the aims of this measure: to prevent legal challenge to removing to Rwanda people who come to this country illegally, and to ensure that we operate a deterrence to stop the ghastly tragedies that we see too often in the channel. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

Security of Elected Representatives

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord makes some good points. I would say that the other House is not the vox populi; it is elected to represent its constituents’ concerns, whatever those concerns might be. I take his points about the Whip system. I noticed that that system was enacted speedily and swiftly in circumstances that I suspect he was referring to earlier this week.

With regard to the general election, the ultimate decider of whether or not the messages being delivered on the doorstep are acceptable or appropriate is the electors in those constituencies. It is clear that parties—I would extend this to all parties—have clear rules about what is and is not acceptable, and I am sure they will be enforcing those rules as ruthlessly as necessary.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement, but I want to ask for some clarification. The Statement explains the support that the police are giving to ensure that the marchers and demonstrations do not have the appearance, to people going about their daily business, of being intimidatory. Could my noble friend explain more precisely what powers the police have to curtail marches in public places or where people are going about elected office, whether in town halls or in these Houses of Parliament, and whether they will use such powers to stop the very aggressive flag-waving and surrounding of buildings by marchers, which has the appearance to many people of being intimidatory? I note here that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police did not think that flashing or having banners saying “From the river to the sea” was anti-Semitic or intimidatory when the subject was first raised with him some months ago. Do the police have any powers to stop such inflammatory and, to my mind, anti-Semitic slogans being posted publicly or advertised, which are taken as intimidatory? To clarify, I am asking about the very aggressive flag-waving on some occasions of Palestinian flags and the flashing or use of that slogan on public marches.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My noble friend asks some interesting and, if I may say so, slightly difficult questions, because there is an invitation in there to comment on operational policing matters, as she describes, around Parliament and indeed on protests in general. I think the police have sufficient powers. Obviously, those coalesce around intimidation, harassment and intent, but it is a matter for context-specific decisions to be made by the police at the time. They are accountable for those decisions after the facts, but at the time it is difficult to second-guess why or how they did what they did.

With regard to projecting things on buildings, the legality of slogans and so on, I am sure that is one of those matters where we all have our own opinions. The act of projecting light on to a building is not itself illegal in the UK and it is not obviously likely to engage public order offences, but it is possible in principle to do certain things about it. This is a debate that will continue, and I do not think I should go any further on it.