Guns Manufactured by 3D Printers

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will take that as a representation to the Government about their proposals for next year. The Government are exploring all legislative options to criminalise the possession and supply of 3D-printed firearms templates. We are looking at that now; I hope the noble Lord will have patience in this matter.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, as well as 3D-printed firearms, there has been a significant increase in 3D-printed components used to convert blank firing guns into operable firearms—so much so that the head of the NCA has called for legislation to deal with this issue. Is my noble friend in a position to commit to ensuring that any legislation deals with the illicit manufacture of the components that can turn innocuous blank-firing pistols—which are available for purchase without any licence—into lethal weapons, and not just 3D-printed firearms?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The question of hybrid weapons, again, is covered by existing legislation, in the sense that it is an offence carrying a penalty of life imprisonment to distribute them, and an offence carrying a penalty of between five and 10 years’ imprisonment to hold and own them. If the hybrid nature of firearms is being developed, that again is an issue that we are currently looking at, currently examining. There is a Private Member’s Bill in the House of Commons for consideration in January. The Government will respond to that Private Member’s Bill and will reflect on the points made in both this House and the House of Commons.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 25th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

If I have understood my noble friend’s response to this debate, do the Government accept the NAO and Public Accounts Committee’s assessment that UK REACH lacked capacity to do its job? If so, has Defra allocated sufficient funding to bring it up at least to the productivity of EU REACH in the quantity of assessments, recommendations and decisions that it makes? The statistics show that it is not doing anything much in this space.

Hezbollah: Threat to the United Kingdom

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Godson, for affording us the opportunity to examine this Question today. It is a debate that is timely and of significance, and the forensic nature of his opening remarks is wholly concordant with the significance of the issues we are discussing. Mindful of severe time constraints, I wish to ask my noble friend the Minister three questions. Before I do, though, I think it is worth examining one of the premises of the Question before your Lordships’ House, and that is the efficacy of proscription.

In examining that, I do not resile from the basis on which Hezbollah was proscribed in its entirety in 2019. I concur with the judgment of the then Home Secretary that a distinction between the political and military elements of Hezbollah had become academic, if not meaningless. Equally, I concur with all those who have highlighted the appalling anti-Semitism that is not an adjunct to Hezbollah’s world view but central to it.

But we must be clear that such proscription largely is a symbolic gesture, offering British police the ability to prevent open displays of support domestically, but little more. Our proscription of Hezbollah does not degrade its operational capacity nor its ability to foment violence and conflict in the Middle East. In this context, proscription puts me in mind of Douglas MacArthur’s somewhat jaded observation:

“Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword … never encountered automatic weapons”.


I seldom quote that observation, save with disapproval, but it finds an unfortunate echo in this context.

Hezbollah and those who range themselves under its banner care nothing for our moral disapproval. In the longer term, the only answer to Hezbollah is to degrade its capacity, cut off its avenues of funding and vigorously contest those who seek to give it endorsement or legitimacy. Given the limited ability of proscription, it is surely important that the few provisions it does offer are enforced.

Could I ask my noble friend the Minister about the recent comments of a Metropolitan Police officer who, in the face of open support for Hezbollah evinced at a recent march in London, responded with the somewhat circular statement “Your opinion is your opinion”. It is, of course, contrary to the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 to display or incite support for a proscribed organisation. Proscription is not merely a gesture but an empty gesture unless the police are briefed adequately in advance of such events.

On a related matter, I should be grateful if my noble friend could update your Lordships’ House on the Government’s current thinking around the possibility of proscribing the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. I ask that not because I am hoping to elicit a specific answer but because I am conscious of the possible cost of so doing in relation to our diplomatic channels with Iran.

In my last few seconds, I would like to ask for the views of my noble friend on the first speech given by Sheikh Naim Qassem, the successor to Hassan Nasrallah. In the same address, he claimed that he “doesn’t want war” and is only aiming to “respond” to aggression while also threatening to strike the Israeli Prime Minister’s residence and expressing his contentment for the current conflict to last many more months. Given this, to put it generously, somewhat opaque set of remarks, I close by asking my noble friend to share any assessment the Government have made of any changes to Hezbollah’s operational approach, consequent on the change of leadership.

Violent Disorder

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There is freedom of speech, and I made it very clear in the wake of the riots that people are entitled to criticise the UK Government’s asylum policy, immigration policy or any aspect of UK government policy. What they are not entitled to do is to incite racial hatred, to incite criminal activity, to incite attacks on mosques or to incite burnings or other criminal, riotous behaviour. That is the threshold. The threshold is not me saying, “I do not like what they have said”—there are lots of things that I do not like that people have said; the threshold is determined by criminal law, is examined by the police and is referred to the CPS. The CPS examines whether there is a criminal charge to account for, which is then either made through a guilty plea and a sentence, which happened with the majority of people who now face time in prison, or put in front of a court for a jury of 12 peers to determine whether an offence has been committed. There is no moratorium on criticism of political policy in the United Kingdom. There is free speech in this United Kingdom, but free speech also has responsibilities, and one responsibility is not to incite people to burn down their neighbour’s property.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will be aware of the analysis by the European Consortium for Political Research, which was published only two weeks ago and substantially reinforces the question that my noble friend Lord Reid asked. The correlation between the location of violence and the incidence of child poverty in any area was significantly greater than the correlation between rioting and the presence of any of the other, many factors that people have attributed the violence to. Does my noble friend agree that any response to the riots must go beyond punishment and look to restore the essentials of economic equity, viable public services and greater equality, the absence of which appears to make violent disorder significantly more likely?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend makes extremely valid points about the examination of the causes. As I have said to this noble House, the Home Office, via the Deputy Prime Minister and her department, wishes to look at some of the wider issues of social deprivation that may or may not have contributed to these riots. However—if I can again draw both Front Benches opposite back in—we still have to focus on the points that were made in this debate: irrespective of social conditions in a particular area, scapegoating and attacking citizens or individuals who have in many cases no relationship to those causes is simply not acceptable, so they have to face the law. However, those are certainly important issues that need to be examined as part of the long-term mix on preventing further activity such as happened over this summer.

International Law Enforcement Alerts Platform

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, in the accounting officer assessment of the current I-LEAP programme, which was updated in May of this year, phase 2 was described as “a longer-term objective” which remains

“at a very early stage”.

What assessment has my noble friend the Minister made of the progress achieved by the last Government in reaching a data-sharing agreement? If, as those words imply, progress was halting or minimal, what changes can we make to our approach to hasten progress, given how important it is, as my noble friend said?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. The House will understand that we are where we are. SIS II finished in 19-20 and—

King’s Speech

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I await with some expectation, as he does, the answers to the relevant questions he asked.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Timpson on an excellent maiden speech and, before that, an excellent maiden Statement. I can pay him no higher a compliment than to say that he clearly has the ear of your Lordships’ House. Mind you, from my conversations and reading since his appointment was announced, it seems that he has the ear of quite a large proportion of the population in this country as well.

Attempting to describe even a small percentage of the challenges bequeathed to this Government would more than exhaust my allotted time. Among them, I suggest that nowhere, perhaps, have the new Government been saddled with a more unenviable inheritance than in the sphere of justice and, more specifically, prisons. Of course, I acknowledge that it is common practice for Governments to take office bemoaning the parlous state to which their opponents have reduced the country. Indeed, your Lordships will recall the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, and his Sancho Panza, George Osborne, carrying around and flourishing copies of Liam Byrne’s valedictory note for years afterwards.

What the last election and the public mood demonstrate is that not only is Labour in step with the country, but there is no need for such spurious props today. The electorate has grown tired of living in a country in which so many critical services simply do not work. The failure of the last 14 years is as observable as it is evident. Our prisons are in crisis. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, that there is no ticking time-bomb. The ticking stopped before the election took place and we are in a much worse situation than that. Ten prisons are operating at over 140% capacity; Leeds, designed safely to accommodate 641 inmates, currently houses over 1,100; Durham, designed to accommodate 573, currently houses 970. This means that prisons are more unsanitary, violence is more common and disease can spread more easily.

Equally, when hard-pressed staff are seeking to achieve safety and order, the things that are sacrificed or neglected are those elements of incarceration that are most conducive to rehabilitation. The prison library and opportunities for prisoners to learn skills or simply to pursue knowledge for its own sake are the first casualties in a system that has been asked to do far too much with far too little.

Wandsworth is the subject of an urgent notification from the Chief Inspector of Prisons. Only a couple of months ago, many of its inmates began to be locked in their cells 24 hours a day and 80% of inmates were sharing cells designed for one. The inspectors found vermin, failing security, drugs and rising rates of self-harm. It is just one prison, but that description shames the entire country.

A quarter of prisoners across the prison estate are held in Victorian facilities with no in-cell sanitation, forced to use bins as makeshift toilets. More than half report feeling unsafe. More than a quarter have received threats or intimidation, 13% of which have escalated into physical assaults. This is the inheritance of my noble friend the Minister, the Secretary of State and the wider ministerial team, and it is against that context that their future performance should be judged.

My strong belief is that, while prisons remove people from society, the welfare of prisoners and their successful rehabilitation should be a matter of universal interest. I believe it is equally true that an improvement in the prison education system is a necessary precondition for any substantial fall in recidivism. Over 50% of the prison population have a literacy level below that of the average 11 year-old. This fact, perhaps more than any other, allows us to understand the cycle of poverty and alienation that too often ends in jail.

Churchill, in his Edwardian incarnation, was a reforming Liberal Home Secretary. In his autobiography My Early Life, he describes his approach to prison reform by saying that

“when I was Home Secretary … I did my utmost consistent with public policy to introduce some sort of variety and indulgence into the life of their inmates, to give to educated minds books to feed on … and to mitigate as far as is reasonable the hard lot which, if they have deserved, they must none the less endure”.

This strikes me as a pretty useful starting point for any determined programme of prison reform.

I know I am not alone in your Lordships’ House in greeting the appointment of my noble friend Lord Timpson with great enthusiasm and optimism. I have confidence in him and the wider ministerial team effecting a real and lasting change to our prison system, as well as widening access to justice. This will have my full support in this House and outside as they engage with these challenges.