Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Lawlor and Lord Fox

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.

--- 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.

EU Programmes

Debate between Baroness Lawlor and Lord Fox

Thursday 7th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

This should be a question, not a speech.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I say to the Minister that there are strings attached. Will he reassure the House and ask the Government not to allow the pressure from the Windsor Framework to inhibit our freedom to pursue scientific research, and get a cast-iron guarantee that it will not be used politically against us?

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Baroness Lawlor and Lord Fox

Report stage
Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 64 and the other amendments in this group. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the amendment, which, as far as I can count, includes around 120 pieces of subordinate legislation. I welcome it on the grounds of principle and practice.

In practice, it is important to end the limbo between two legal systems for cost, compliance and otherwise. Moreover, there are other good reasons for doing so. The uncertainty of the EU’s codified arrangements, adopted or absorbed into our own laws, results in two overlapping systems that add cost and compliance burdens to all concerned and, I am afraid, often lack clarity. I hesitate to mention such arrangements in your Lordships’ House, given the presence of so many eminent members of the judiciary, but perhaps I might do so as an ordinary person who has had to have recourse to both systems of law.

In my experience, our law is clear; it gives people the power to seek a remedy where another party breaks the law to our disadvantage. Under the European system, of which I have also had experience, despite its code-based arrangements and its precautionary principle, which seeks to cover every eventuality, not only does it sometimes fail to do so but there is often no remedy available to people or small businesses if a wrong is done to them. There are just more codes, more compliance, more directives and more consultations with the lawyers to be paid for, and little in the end to be done other than put up with it and hope it will be righted in due course.

For this reason, I welcome the sentiment behind the noble Baronesses’ proposals in their carve-out amendments on the National Emission Ceilings Regulations and the Water Resources (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations. I am very sympathetic to their aims and have spoken on that in earlier debates. However, I am sceptical as to whether this is the best way of achieving such aims. I believe it is important to respect our own laws and have greater confidence that the principles on which they rest will reflect the interests of the people in whose name they are made. This country is second to none generally in its commitment to caring for its environment and, having heard noble Lords talk about chairing the Woodland Trust and so on, it is clear that there is huge voluntary support for protecting our environment. I believe our own laws will reflect that interest and we really must get on with giving them a chance.

In the Environment Act 2021 and its impact assessment of December 2019, the principle is clear that the polluter pays. Yes, precautions must be taken and problems righted at source, but the polluter pays principle means that instead of victims, others are having to suffer the consequences. Rather than the polluter being penalised, other people would have to suffer the consequences and pay the price, and I think that our system will be clear and fairer.

I am not sure, either, that the EU regulations covering emissions are necessarily effective. I draw on the historic case of the Volkswagen emissions scandal, when there were clear directives from 2008—updated in 2012—covering the emissions from cars. These were neglected or not enforced, and the knowledge that that was happening went right up to the Government. I am confident in our own system of law, and I think it does work.

I hate to disagree with such a distinguished civil servant as the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, but I am not going to take sides on the question of who is to blame for non-rapidity. I worked with the head of the German hospital division in the decade after the unification of Germany. The country was unified at the stroke of a pen, so it can be done. I only know about the health system there, not all the other areas such as the economy, where historic problems were inherited.

I welcome the commitment to revoke the legislation listed. I hope the noble Baronesses will put their trust in our own laws and give their energies to an aim which I share. It is important for a more effective system and for clarity and efficiency, so that people, businesses, charities and government departments know where they stand.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I dare say that the Conservative Party could use the experience the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, has in unifying Germany to perhaps unify itself.

This has been a rancorous debate and before I join in, I have a bit of housekeeping to do with the Minister. When he was still trying to push 5,000 laws over a cliff edge at the end of last year, on a number of occasions he used examples to illustrate the intrinsically trivial nature of all 5,000. One of the examples he used was legislation referring to reindeers and another was legislation referring to olive trees. I have studied the list, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and I find no mention of reindeers or olive trees. Can I assume that those laws will remain on the statute book—or did they not in fact exist in the first place?

As we heard from my noble friends Lady Bakewell and Lady Brinton, we on these Benches really welcome the Government’s 180 degree U-turn. However, the breathless nature of that U-turn brought with it problems. We are debating those problems now because, in choosing not to eliminate 5,000 anonymous regulations—in essence, regulations that we did not need to know about—and in having to choose the regulations that will be revoked, the Government have had to publish this schedule very late and, even later, give us guidance on the decision-making process that went into putting those regulations on that list.

My noble friend Lady Brinton’s experience in trying to track a legacy of statutory instruments and regulations that did not get properly documented, in a way that was easy to follow, completely illustrates what the Civil Service was seeking to do 5,000 times—and many of those cases were even more complex, I dare say, than the case my noble friend Lady Brinton dealt with. In order to do that, the first thing the Civil Service had to do was to find those regulations and laws.

When the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, talked about it being the Civil Service’s role to dig up these regulations, he was not far from the truth. Many of these regulations were located at the bottom of a salt mine in an archive—I am not joking—in the north-west of this country. They had to don their safety gear and go underground to seek out these regulations. That is the level of digging-out that had to happen in order to do this.

That is why it is extraordinarily unfair to then put the blame on people who do not have a voice and are not able to answer back. They are lucky to have the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, to stand up for them, but it is bullying behaviour to bully people who do not have a voice. To my namesake, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and others, I say that “the blob” is an entirely derogatory term. These are people who do a job, and to roll them up and call them a blob is deeply offensive and against those people’s welfare.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, set up exactly the problem we have here. I have hope in “Hope’s amendments”—that we can at least regain some control. I remind noble Lords that we also passed a non-regression amendment that should deal with some of these issues. It is, as the noble and learned Lord said, not an ideal situation.

I look forward to the Minister’s response on the specifics, but deep in the heart of this whole process is a problem. The problem is that the Government set out to do something in too short a time, when they did not even know how big the job was in the first place. When they found out, they drew back. Now, they are trying to blame other people. The Government have no one but themselves to blame for the mess over which they are now officiating.