Market Surveillance (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I too am grateful to the Minister for carefully explaining the regulations and offer particular thanks to my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara for his forensic examination of the detail.

There is an irony to this discussion, is there not? As my noble friend said, the Northern Ireland protocol is the subject of hot and contentious discussion, and yet, listening to the Minister one would sense that this is all agreed and straightforward and a regular instance of legislative implementation without any back story, but of course, that is far from the case. My friends in Northern Ireland tell me that they would quite like there to be a bit more market surveillance, in the sense that they would like to see some more goods on the shelves in the shops they use. But sadly, things that we take for granted they can no longer do.

However, as the memorandum says, these regulations do provide for an effective and proportionate penalty regime for breaches of the regulations, and the EU’s new market surveillance regulation, which comes into effect on 16 July, is designed to provide greater protection for consumers in the face of the challenges posed by e-commerce, to which my noble friend referred. As I understand it, the intention is that, through the extension of compliance checks for products sold online, consumers can be assured that products they order online meet EU harmonised standards for both health and safety. However, how and where will these checks be carried out, and by whom?

By virtue of the Northern Ireland protocol and the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement, the market surveillance regulation is directly applicable to Northern Ireland, although further provisions of the regulations require implementation in our domestic legislation, which is what the regulations are designed to do. It is clear that the regulations are designed to protect consumers and are required to meet our legal commitments under the trade and co-operation agreement and the protocol, so for that reason, we obviously would not want to oppose them.

However, I do have a few more questions for the Minister. First, the implementation of the market surveillance regulation in Northern Ireland will of course have an impact on British businesses, particularly those that sell their products online from Great Britain directly to consumers in Northern Ireland—hence my earlier question. As the Minister said, GB businesses will need an economic operator to be established in Northern Ireland for compliance activities if they want to sell goods there. Given the additional obligations on British businesses that want to continue to sell their goods across the United Kingdom, will the Minister assure us that the Government will continue to provide the advice and guidance necessary to ensure that British businesses are prepared and geared up for this?

Secondly, the Government suggest in guidance that the enforcement of the market surveillance regulation in Northern Ireland will be proportionate, risk-based and intelligence led, minimising disruption to businesses. How will that be guaranteed? Have there not been lots of complaints that it is none of those things and that it is an overweening burden that speaks to the whole issue of division down the Irish Sea? The regulations before us suggest that regulatory checks on goods entering Northern Ireland will continue to take place by exception and only where there is a high level of risk. How is that judgment made and by whom? BEIS has said that goods going into Northern Ireland from Great Britain have a low-risk profile and therefore will not be routinely subject to inspection. Given the current tensions over the Northern Ireland protocol and uncertainty about its implementation, will the Minister clarify the extent to which that approach has been agreed with the EU and at what level that agreement has been reached? Is there an agreement that goods arriving into Great Britain will not be routinely subject to regulatory checks?

The Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Authorities will now carry out market surveillance activity and enforce product safety and compliance through the powers conferred under this SI.”


What training will authorities receive to use these powers effectively, and how will we know or be assured that such training means that the powers are used in a proportionate way?

The Explanatory Memorandum further states:

“The Government is currently undertaking a wider review of the UK product safety system, including approaches to securing compliance and the role of criminal sanctions in product safety regulation, and the scope for greater use of civil sanctions.”


I echo the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Stevenson. What is the consultation process for that review? When will it be published? When will the outcome of the review be made known to us? Those issues are important and play into the wider debate about the protocol, the need for it, how it operates and works, and its impact on businesses both in Northern Ireland and more widely across the UK.

I am sorry to appear to be nitpicking, but these are important issues and they come at a difficult time in relations in Northern Ireland. We look forward to some clarity from the Minister, because both businesses and consumers certainly require it, and across the UK at large.

Office of the Whistleblower Bill [HL]

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 25th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I start, as others have, by heartily congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, not only on bringing the Bill forward but on her years of tireless campaigning on the issue, which I hope will come to fruition.

Like others, I have done a bit of whistleblowing, so I understand from personal experience just how perilous an activity it can become, not least for people’s employment status. As we have heard, we need whistleblowers across our country to keep businesses, public activities, government and corporations clean and straight, and to avert the tragedies that may result from internal cultures of denial when things go wrong.

When people come forward they do not do so for money or fame; it is often in spite of the impact on their career or family. They do so because they believe that they are doing the right thing and that the public have a right to know. There are many examples where whistleblowing could have made a real difference: Grenfell, Carillion and Boeing 737 MAX, just to name a few. In some cases, one person’s actions could save hundreds of lives.

We know that our current legislation, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, is not adequate, but it was good at the time to ensure that whistleblowers got the protection and support that they needed. It dissolves down into employment tribunals, where individuals must face their employer, with relevant individuals, such as trustees, trainees and volunteers, being excluded from the law and regulators being unaccountable for the way they treat whistleblowers, who do not even get legal aid and must personally pay their legal fees.

Ultimately, there are no official standards for whistleblowing that employers must meet or recognised procedures for them to follow. This can have a serious impact on how quickly whistleblower reports are accessed. For example, only this month it was revealed that the FCA was still assessing 316 reports from 2019 and 630 from 2020. Does the Minister think that this is right and acceptable? How timely should companies and regulators be when reviewing whistleblower reports? Clearly, things need to change, as we have heard today from speakers right across the House.

However, sadly, it seems to me and others that the Government do not take this as a priority. As others have said, the most recently introduced change was back in 2017: a new legislative requirement for most prescribed persons to produce an annual report on whistleblowing disclosures made to them by workers and employees. Earlier this year, the Government said that they

“recognise how valuable it is that whistleblowers are prepared to shine a light on wrongdoing and believe that they should be able to do so without fear of recriminations.”—[Official Report, Commons, 8/6/21; col. 846.]

They are quite right. Ministers say that they remain committed to

“reviewing the UK whistleblowing framework and will carry this out once sufficient time has passed for there to be the necessary evidence available to assess the impact of the most recent reforms.”

They say that

“The scope and timing of such a review will be confirmed in due course.”


However, we are no further forward in hearing more about when the review will start, how long it will last and what will become of any recommendations. What does “sufficient time” mean, and what evidence are the Government seeking to collect? How much evidence do they need before they can “assess the impact”? I hope that the Minister can fill in these blanks.

I turn to the Bill. The idea of the office of the whistleblower is certainly interesting, and we welcome the opportunity to debate it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, clearly explained, it requires the Government to establish an office of the whistleblower, which would be responsible for the administration arrangements to facilitate whistleblowing. It would have several powers, including giving direction to the monitoring of activities of relevant bodies on issues such as confidentiality and the use of disclosed information; consulting on amending or replacing UK whistleblowing legislation; being a point of contact for individuals who wish to disclose information about wrongdoing; and maintaining a fund to support whistleblowers—all things that are clearly essential. It seeks also to offer the protection and support for whistleblowers that is currently missing.

It would be helpful to hear the following from the Minister. What concerns does he have about a dedicated office? How can this protection and support be offered without a specific office? If his concerns are financial, how much does he expect the office to cost? The Labour Party has also suggested giving protected status to whistleblowers and imposing a statutory duty on employers to prevent victimisation. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, made a really powerful argument for that, and the importance of having a statutory code of practice. Does the Minister support such proposals, so that we can prevent discrimination against victimisation?

In conclusion, whistleblowers play an important role in protecting the public and consumers, and they could do much more with protection. They can ensure that businesses and services operate more effectively and efficiently and stop serious incidents from occurring. We need to ensure that they receive the right and proper support. To do that, action is needed, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister proposes in his response. This is too important to be left for long, and I should like to see legislation brought forward as a matter of urgency, if the Government are not prepared to support the Bill proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, which has so much going for it and many merits.

Industrial Strategy: Local Growth

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord is right that skills are one of our key priorities for investment, along with infrastructure and innovation. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary have asked Sir Michael Barber to conduct a rapid review of government delivery, including in the skills system, to ensure that it remains focused, effective and efficient and to suggest how it could be strengthened.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Industrial Strategy Council’s most recent annual report suggested that, for levelling up to succeed, it needed to include consideration of devolution. How much thought have the Government given to further devolution in their industrial strategy? Will the Minister tell the House what progress has been made in convening the build back better business council and who will lead its work? Is it always the case that pivotal councils, such as the Industrial Strategy Council, get abolished?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Of course it is not always the case. Many councils do good work. We think that the local Industrial Strategy Council did some good work, but we are building on that, extending and taking it forward. The Build Back Better Council, to which the noble Lord refers, will take forward that work.

Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port and Battery Manufacturing Strategy

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Ellesmere Port plant is a major employer, and letting it wind down would have devastating consequences, with 1,000 highly skilled jobs lost in the local community. The Government must do all they can to secure the future of the plant, and it is worth reminding ourselves that the automotive sector has had no sectoral support during the pandemic.

To achieve net zero and sustain our automotive industry, we need a plan and action and investment. As such, will the Government bring forward ambitious investment in electric vehicle technology, including the electric battery supply chain, in tomorrow’s Budget—so that manufacturers have the long-term confidence that they need to build new electric models in the UK and so that we can move forward and secure the future of Ellesmere Port as a major automotive producer?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

I assure the noble Lord that we are doing all that we can to ensure that Ellesmere Port has a bright future. The automotive industry in general is an essential part of the Government’s plans for green growth, levelling up across our country and driving emissions to net zero. As the noble Lord will be aware, as part of the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, the Government brought forward the phase-out date for new petrol and diesel cars and vans to 2030, and, by 2035, all new cars and vans must be fully zero-emission at the tailpipe.

Hospitality Sector Minister

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We are keeping matters closely under review and if there are any extensions, the Government will want to announce them as quickly as possible. We are dealing with a fast-moving situation, but we recognise that the past few months have been very challenging for businesses in a wide variety of sectors and hospitality businesses in particular. We have provided an unprecedented package of support for businesses during this time of crisis.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I think the Minister might acknowledge it has been rather more than challenging, because UKHospitality found that sales in the sector fell by 54% in 2020 and now 650,000 businesses fear collapse over the next three months. Will the Government bring forward a comprehensive national plan for the hospitality sector as a matter of urgency, so that the recovery is not choked off? Are the Government actively considering an extension of the VAT cut to 5% for a further month? If a recovery plan is generated by the Government, can they please consult extensively across all sectors and ensure that nations and regions are considered?

Trade Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak only to Amendment 27 in this group. I do not support it, mainly because I believe it is not necessary to tell a public body how to do its job. The TRA will be set up with a chief executive, staff and a board which will have a majority of non-executive directors and a chairman. It is being set up in a perfectly conventional way, which should allow it to ensure that it operates effectively.

A public body—or indeed any kind of body—does not need to be told to draw up a stakeholder engagement strategy. I also find it slightly bizarre that the amendment focuses on an engagement strategy. There will be far more important aspects of the TRA’s work—for example, on the kinds of information it seeks and the kind of analysis it carries out—but no strategy seems to be required for those. I also find no merit in the requirement to publish a strategy; I fail to see how that would add to the effectiveness of the TRA in providing advice.

Even if we need to specify that there must be an engagement strategy, it is quite unnecessary to specify a list of stakeholders with whom engagement must take place. I must say that the relevance of some in the list in this amendment is not entirely obvious. It seems to me that those proposing this amendment have forgotten that the TRA will focus on the kinds of things set out in Clause 6(3). It is a body focused on trade and traders, not on solving the problems of the world which are of interest to lobby groups.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, now that the Brexit transition period has ended, the creation of the Trade Remedies Authority is obviously both necessary and very welcome. It should allow the UK to protect domestic industries, investigate allegations of unfair practices by overseas competitors and seek their resolution via the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism. We must have a Trade Remedies Authority that has a broad membership from sectors and regions across the UK, conducts meaningful stakeholder engagement and, of course, is independent from the Government.

I do not buy the argument from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that it is not the business of Parliament to give some guidance or ideas as to who those meaningful stakeholders might be in ensuring that we get this right. Only then, I argue, will it be transparent and fair when investigating and challenging practices that distort competition against UK producers. But the Bill appears not to secure this, as reflected by my Amendment 47 and the other amendments in this group, which are in their own way entirely benign. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Lords Constitution Committee said that it was not clear why the functions and powers of the Trade Remedies Authority could not be set out in more detail in this Bill. We cannot have an unbalanced TRA that simply supports the priorities and approach of this Government, or indeed any Government. We need a functioning TRA and a functioning trade remedies system, but its functioning will be undermined if there is no independence.

Amendment 47 is simple. It allows the Secretary of State to ensure that members of the TRA should have the

“skills, knowledge or experience relating to producers, trade unions, consumers and devolved administrations in different parts of the United Kingdom.”

The amendment clearly seeks to guarantee an appropriate balance of views at the TRA, not in favour of any party or sector but for the benefit of all regions, nations and businesses. In particular, I argue that we need trade union representation in the TRA. The TUC has said that, without it, there will be

“no guarantee provided that the non-executive members will represent the interests of workers in manufacturing sectors who will be severely affected by the dumping of cheap goods such as steel, tyres and ceramics.”

I hope that the Minister can explain in some detail how this balance can be achieved without the necessity of this and other amendments being in the Bill.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, there have been some succinct speeches in this debate and I shall keep my remarks relatively brief, but bearing in mind that there are six amendments to address.

Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, seeks to require the TRA to publish a strategy of its engagement with certain stakeholders within six months of its establishment. I am afraid that I agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes that we do not see merit in this, and I shall briefly explain why. The TRA’s processes are set out in legislation and limited by the scope of WTO agreements, including much of the basis of how it will engage with stakeholders in its investigations. UK producers will be able to bring complaints directly to the TRA through an innovative digital service which will underpin the process and make it easier for businesses to engage. I hope that I can provide further reassurance to the noble Baroness by outlining that we have engaged extensively with various stakeholders on establishing the TRA and encouraged them to build constructive relationships with the TRA itself, once established. I shall say more, particularly in relation to questions raised by my noble friend Lord Lansley, about progress on setting up the TRA in a moment.

I will move swiftly on to Amendments 28 and 29, in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, in relation to the TRA. These amendments would seek to narrow the limits of a request that the Secretary of State may make to the TRA for advice, support or assistance. We are committed to creating a world-class organisation staffed by a team of highly skilled international trade experts. The Secretary of State may require assistance from the TRA’s knowledgeable experts in certain circumstances to assist work carried out by government departments. There are some situations where the Secretary of State may need to request assistance from the TRA outside of trade remedy disputes arising under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, including assistance in respect of provisions relating to trade remedies in regional trade agreements. In seeking assistance, however, the Secretary of State must have regard to the TRA’s independence, impartiality and expertise.

Covid-19: Impact of No-deal Brexit on Vaccine Supplies

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on supplies of COVID-19 vaccines to the United Kingdom in the event of the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union without a deal.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is extremely concerning that the Government should contemplate no deal in two weeks’ time, in the middle of a pandemic, with the serious impact this could have on medical supplies and supplies of Covid-19 vaccines. How many Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines will be in the UK by 31 December? How many government ferries and RAF planes are on standby to bring Covid-19 vaccines into the UK in the event of no deal, and at what cost?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

I think the noble Lord forgot to ask the main Question: I shall give him the Answer to that first and then go on to his supplementary. The UK has put in place a number of measures to facilitate trade with the EU beyond the end of the transition period and to avoid impact on vaccine supplies beyond 1 January. The Government have worked with Covid-19 vaccine suppliers to support them with robust contingency plans. If necessary, we will use alternative supply routes and Government-procured freight capacity in line with current government advice.

On his supplementary question, the noble Lord will understand that unfortunately I cannot set out details of commercial arrangements relating to vaccines at the present time, but I can reassure him that part of the commercial arrangements with vaccine developers is a requirement to ensure that vaccines are transported safely and securely to minimise the cost of damage.

Prohibition on Quantitative Restrictions (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I ought to make it clear from the outset that we do not oppose the statutory instrument because we recognise that it is a natural consequence of leaving the EU at the end of the transition period. The instrument was debated some two weeks ago in the House of Commons, when the shadow Minister said that businesses were being left “completely blind” about how to prepare for the end of the transition and that:

“We are no further down the road with a deal, and they have no idea of the terms under which they are going to be trading in a few weeks’ time.”—[Official Report, Commons, 24/11/20; col. 735.]


Two of those weeks have now passed, yet what is so worrying is that those words still bear repeating. Perhaps with the exception of the Northern Ireland protocol issue, which appears to have been resolved today, we are still very much in the dark about what comes next.

The issue with this instrument, as with so much that we in both Houses are being asked to consider, is that it leaves as many questions as answers, as we still do not know what will replace the aspects of the current EU framework that we are disapplying. The Government’s argument for getting these instruments on to the statute book without certainty as to what will replace them appears to be that time is running out to pass all the necessary legislation before the end of the transition. We of course appreciate those circumstances, but do the Government not understand that the same pressures apply to businesses in every corner of the country? They also need time to prepare before the Christmas period arrives. This intense uncertainty comes after a year of hardship, closure and uncertainty due to the Covid panic. It is up to the Government not to continue to add to that burden.

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, but the statutory instrument will end the application in England, Wales and Scotland of the rights derived from Articles 34 to 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The removal of these provisions is to ensure that there is no barrier to divergence from EU rules should the Government choose to diverge from them. What update can the Minister give us on what rights and protections will be in place for EU-UK trade before the end of the transition period? When will businesses have those details?

The statutory instrument does not in itself create divergence, but it is part of paving the way for it. Is the Minister therefore able to update the Committee on where he believes we might seek to diverge from the EU’s standards and requirements? What work is being done to ensure that any divergence is beneficial to British and Northern Irish businesses, and does not create new costs and barriers to trade?

What is crucial is that this issue relates not just to UK-EU trade but to the requirements for a new framework for UK-wide trade, because current treaty provisions also govern trade in goods across the UK. We have shown our commitment, not only on the Labour Benches but across the whole House, on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to ensuring that there is a strong internal market for the UK, working with the devolved Administrations through common frameworks on a statutory footing. However, yesterday the Government saw fit to overturn all the amendments to strengthen the role of the devolved Administrations that this House sent back to the Commons. In our way of thinking, that does not show a Government who are working to respect the devolved settlements and build a strong internal market for the future.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, as ever, asked a number of important questions on Northern Ireland. This SI implicates goods moving between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We support unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to the rest of the UK market. However, the Minister knows that there are concerns over the temporary definition of qualifying goods. Is he in a position to give us any further update on this issue?

Finally, we should always remind ourselves that at the last election the voters were promised an oven-ready deal with

“no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors”,

and protections for the environment, our workers’ rights, our customers’ rights and our security. However, we are a matter of days away and people in every region of the UK are still waiting to know how their livelihoods will be affected. I particularly want to mention the Government’s so-called levelling-up agenda. If the Government do not get this deal right, it will be the sectors and areas of the UK that can least afford it that will bear the brunt of that fallout.

This statutory instrument might look like a narrow change, but it raises many vital questions about what comes next. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Export Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I always know I am in good company when I am on the same speakers’ list as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Their eye for detail and content is almost a legend in the House.

These regulations make amendments to legislation relating to the export and transfer—including other trade controls—of military and, more importantly for the purposes of this debate, dual-use goods. The Government have estimated that, on a rolling 10-year basis, the UK is the second-largest global defence exporter and a major exporter of arms, so it is extremely important that the UK must have a robust export control regime now and after the transition period ends. Any steps taken to guarantee its robustness are obviously welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made the point well: we must not have gaps and holes in this regulatory system. That is extremely important.

This instrument will make changes at the end of the transition period, when export control regulations will be domestic law in Britain while export control regulations in Northern Ireland will, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed out, continue to follow EU law. Although the changes are mainly technical, I have some broader questions for the Minister on the specifics of the regulations.

The Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Regulation 7(4) provides for an exception to certain prohibitions to continue in relation to a certified person who is a part of the armed forces, a police force, or a public authority … who is a hunter or sport shooter, or who holds a Manx firearms certificate.”


How many people is this in total? How many people will it affect?

The Explanatory Memorandum also states that Regulation 9 amends the Secretary of State’s

“regulation-making powers in the Export Control Act 2002”.

I want to find out from the Minister whether these regulations are made under the affirmative or negative procedure. Also, who will the Secretary of State consult before using the powers?

The Explanatory Memorandum also states:

“Regulation 15 provides for certain authorisations granted by the Secretary of State under the Torture Regulation that have effect before the end of the transition period to continue to have effect after”


the end of the year. How many authorisations does the Minister expect to be granted between now and 31 December?

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has already gone through the report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and raised serious concerns about the SI. As she said, the committee says in its report that the regulations are defectively drafted. The noble Baroness also pointed to Regulation 7(9), which has the effect of inserting new Part 6A into the Export Control Order 2008. That part includes new Article 42N(2), concerning the transfer by non-electronic means of software or technology intended for weapons of mass destruction purposes, which, the committee says, has been too narrowly drafted. The Government say that they recognise this mistake, so, along with the noble Baroness, I have to ask: why have these draft regulations not be withdrawn and relaid if they are defective? Surely this cannot be right.

The committee also said that the Government must

“not make legislation which it knows will have an effect which is significantly different from what is intended, unless doing so cannot reasonably be avoided.”

I appreciate that we are coming to the end of the transition period, but what is the urgency with these regulations? Why can they not be corrected in time? I must ask when these errors will be put right. When will they be corrected in amending legislation? If we are told “early in 2021”, frankly, that is not good enough as an answer. We must have a more specific date because we need certainty in the process. Certainty and clarity are what people in the export markets want at the forefront.

The committee also highlighted that Part 5 of the draft regulations amends the trade in torture regulations. These regulations have not yet been made, as far as I am aware. Perhaps the Minister can explain why. As I understand it, they are currently approved in draft only and do not yet take account of the Northern Ireland protocol. That seems a significant failing and gap. Again, the committee said this was “defective” and reported that Part 5 of the regulations makes an

“unusual or unexpected use of enabling powers”.

We need an explanation for that. Why are Ministers using powers in this way and when will the trade in torture regulations be published, so that they can be considered by both Houses?

We recognise that we have left the EU and have a domestic export control regime in Great Britain, but these regulations, especially in how they relate to Northern Ireland, are interesting in the context of developments with our European friends. In November, the German presidency of the EU Council and Parliament agreed to new rules for the trade of dual-use items. This could lead to stricter export controls, including in Northern Ireland, on cyber surveillance technology and items, and cryptographic items. Such items could include facial recognition and spyware. This could introduce greater safeguards to minimise the risk of human rights violations. Do the Government want to expand controls to cover new and emerging technologies, as part of the UK’s export control regime? Will they hold a consultation on this?

We also have to put our export control regime in the context of the Government’s actions concerning arms sales to Saudi Arabia, where the true robustness of the UK’s regime has often been called into question. Last year, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Government had acted unlawfully by approving arms sales to Saudi Arabia without any assessment of whether the coalition had breached international law. The ruling was dismissed by the Government in July, when the International Trade Secretary said that more than 500 alleged incidents of war crimes by the coalition in Yemen were “isolated” and showed no pattern or trend.

I know that noble Lords are aware that the UN has described the war in Yemen as the largest humanitarian crisis in the world, with more than 100,000 people being killed. The Campaign Against the Arms Trade said that

“the government has provided very little information on how it reached the conclusions it did, including how it decided there was no ‘pattern’ of violations.”

Will the Government now provide detailed information relating to their decision-making process? The public need answers on this and we, as Members of the Lords, do too. It was also reported recently that the Government approved a backlog of hundreds of applications to export arms to Saudi Arabia. How many has the DIT approved since July?

As the transition period ends, we need to make sure our export control regime is fit for purpose in recognising human rights violations and new technology. These technical changes do little to reassure on these points. That the Joint Committee has described the SI as “defective” in several regards worries me more. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to these questions.

Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (UK (NI) Indication) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Friday 27th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I join others in thanking the Minister for his explanatory notes, memoranda and letter, trying to bring some clarity to a very complicated situation. I am also grateful to all my colleagues in the House who have spoken because they have all drawn out important issues: my noble friend Lord Foulkes was particularly forceful on consultation. I also understand the feelings of our colleagues in Northern Ireland. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, for the force of their argument, and to the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bennett, for their points, which looked at some of the complexities that small businesses will face. We all found the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, extremely entertaining, with his digression on fonts and typefaces.

The Government have said that this instrument has two main purposes: first, to amend earlier product safety and metrology instruments to ensure that the Northern Ireland protocol is implemented; and, secondly, to correct

“deficiencies arising out of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.”

We all remember the related instrument from last year, which was described at the time as a “beast of an SI” in the press. It was 636 pages long and weighed in at 2.5 kilograms. We are grateful that this SI is not as long, though it provides businesses with more of an understanding of what will happen after the transition period ends in just over a month’s time. That the “oven-ready” deal is not yet to be seen makes things more difficult.

In the UK, we need a meaningful regulatory framework for product safety and legal metrology, including the ability to amend our own regulations in the future in the interests of UK businesses and consumers. Therefore, these changes provide some clarity, which is welcome, but it is important to ensure that unsafe and non-compliant products can continue to be removed from the market. That will provide businesses and consumers with reassurance about the safety and accuracy of products.

Following our departure from the EU, the UK will no longer be able to use the CE mark to identify safe products. As has been explained, that has been replaced in the UK by the new conformity assessed marking, the UKCA. These regulations will end the automatic acceptance of products that comply with the EU product safety and metrology legislation at the end of 2021, except in Northern Ireland. How was the period of 12 months decided on, and how will this be communicated effectively to businesses?

In terms of Northern Ireland, the regulations introduce a new UK(NI) indication. The Government have explained that, under the new arrangements, if a business wants to place a product on the NI market it will need to manufacture that product to EU requirements and apply a CE or other relevant conformity marking. If that product requires a third-party conformity assessment under the relevant EU legislation, and if a UK notified body is used to do that, both the UK(NI) indication and the CE marking, or any other relevant conformity marking, will need to be applied. That does not sound simpler to me. How many products does the Minister expect will need a UK(NI) indication and a CE marking? Does he think that this will cause more additional costs for Northern Ireland businesses in comparison to Great Britain businesses?

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has been very concerned about the Government’s transparency on the cost to businesses. It said:

“Given the significant number of businesses that will be affected by the changes … We are disappointed that the”


impact

“Assessment was not ready when the instrument was laid before Parliament.”

That has to be of concern. The Government now estimate that between 10,000 and 17,000 UK manufacturers, and up to 135,000 UK wholesalers and retailers, will be impacted by the instrument’s implementation. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, gave some useful figures about the costs of conformity. Without wishing to repeat them, they underline how businesses will be impacted, not least by the familiarisation process. The assessment warns that those costs will be passed on to UK consumers and businesses through increased prices or reduced product availability, and I wonder what specific impact that will have on Northern Ireland businesses.

The big question is: how will the Government support business with these costs? This has been a terrible year for businesses with Covid-19, and we need to make sure that they have all the necessary support to power the recovery next year. Surprise product marking costs will add only extra pressure and burdens. We support these regulations but questions of cost and the way in which the conformity regime will work out need to be answered.