Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

With those remarks about Amendment 28, I beg to move Amendment 3.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, before turning to my Amendment 7, I pick up the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in relation to his Amendment 28. Perhaps to his surprise, I accept that this is a case where there may be dynamic alignment between us. As he rightly pointed out, in Committee I tabled amendments in relation to the need for a liability approach and a redress mechanism. In fact, I went further and suggested that we need to do things such as remove the anonymity of sellers on online platforms so that such a redress mechanism would be possible. Like the noble Lord, I certainly hope that the Minister—who, as he says, has been enormously helpful—will be able to explain how the Government intend to handle this issue. It is my understanding that it may not be possible to do it through this legislation but that alternative routes will be found. I very much hope that is the case.

I similarly hope there will be a positive response to Amendment 7 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Fox and the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. In your Lordships’ House I have frequently raised my concern about the safety of lithium-ion batteries and the urgent need for tighter reform. In doing so, I have pointed to significant support for such action from a wide range of bodies including Electrical Safety First, local fire brigades, many local councils, insurance companies and many others. They have all pointed to the need for tighter regulation in this area.

One of the sponsors of the amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, is the president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, which is equally concerned about this issue. Its concerns, like mine, have arisen from the tragic loss of life we have seen and the huge amount of damage to property from fires caused by, for example, poorly manufactured lithium-ion batteries or faulty charging systems. It is worth reminding ourselves, I hope for the last time, that the London Fire Brigade has to respond to such a fire every two days. It is now the fastest-rising cause of fires throughout the city. More than 180 parliamentary constituencies have had fires caused by lithium-ion batteries in the last two or three years. Work needs to be done.

I am delighted that Electrical Safety First, in its very good report Battery Breakdown, has provided a great deal of technical information about not only the fires but their causes, and has provided some sensible solutions and ways forward. I am therefore delighted that in the debate on the previous group of amendments, the Minister made absolutely clear that there is now a commitment to detailed consultation before new statutory instruments are brought forward on this matter and lots of others that will come forward. It is right that the technical expertise that Electrical Safety First, for example, has demonstrated is made use of.

Lithium-ion batteries are clearly not the only high-risk products that need to be identified and regulated appropriately. Fireworks are a good example. But many are not covered by existing product safety regulations or covered adequately by the General Product Safety Regulations. I am also concerned that we need not only to cover a wide range of products but to have future-proofing for the legislation to be flexible enough to take into account new products that come on to the market in future.

Sadly, at the moment there is no systematic approach to the identification and regulation of such high-risk products. Hence my amendment relates to

“the marketing or use of certain products, or categories or groups of product, that present a high risk (known or emerging) to consumer health and safety”.

I am particularly grateful to the Minister and his officials for meeting with me, Electrical Safety First and the London Fire Brigade to discuss establishing such a proactive system for assessing and regulating high-risk products and emerging technologies. I am the first to accept that there are more ways than one of skinning the cat and that there may be alternative ways, other than my amendment, of achieving what I wish to achieve.

My noble friend Lord Fox’s Amendment 9 would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement, before SIs are laid, outlining how product risks will be identified and assessed, including those posing a high hazard, such as lithium-ion batteries. I am willing to accept that, if his amendment is accepted by the Government, and is backed by the appropriate statement and a code of practice in relation to the identification and regulation of higher-risk products, it may well provide a way forward and ensure the flexibility and transparency that my amendment has sought.

I will listen with great interest to my noble friend Lord Fox, and in particular to the response from the Minister. I very much hope that today’s outcome will mean that, at last, action will be taken to tackle the very real dangers to public health and safety caused by inadequately regulated high-risk products, including lithium-ion batteries.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am looking forward to the novelty of my noble friend Lord Foster listening to me.

I will explain how Amendment 9, in my name, supports Amendment 7, in the names of my noble friend Lord Foster, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and me. At the heart of both amendments is the desire to ensure that there has been sufficient scrutiny of the regulations that are designed to make products safe; I use that word advisedly, in support of the noble Lord Lansley, because “safe” is a good word to find in there somewhere, and I hope that through these discussions we will find a way. In my experience, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is relatively tenacious, so I suspect that something may emerge.

We need a process that takes into consideration all high-risk and higher-risk products. Lithium-ion batteries are a stark and horrific example when they go wrong, as set out eloquently by my noble friend, but there are other products, some of which we do not yet know about. Legislation has to be broad enough to be able to take those into consideration.

Amendment 9 also addresses the important elements of parliamentary scrutiny that we discussed in the last group. We have heard the concerns. If applied properly, this will go a long way towards ameliorating many of them. If we get it working properly, it will provide greater genuine scrutiny than the affirmative process tends to do, because it will edit secondary legislation before it is laid—in other words, it will have gone through a process.

Amendment 61, tabled by the Minister and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, undertakes that the Secretary of State will consult when the Secretary of State thinks it is appropriate. My Amendment 9 seeks to move this on to a more structured footing. It causes the Secretary of State to issue a statement that sets out the consultation process that the Secretary of State must undertake before tabling secondary legislation.

In some trivial cases, that will not be much consultation, but in other cases a great deal of work could be required, such as for an entirely new product, an entirely new use of an old product, or the reregulation of something that has proved problematic. All these would need to be addressed and assessed, to decide what level of risk we are dealing with. Higher-risk products would need a greater scrutiny process in order to reduce and mitigate risk, and make them as safe as possible.

As a result of this amendment, the Secretary of State would have to notify Parliament of the process for the identification and assessment of risks in products. I thank the Minister and his team again for the discussions we have had on this. We have had a number of meetings and each time we have moved forward in this process; together, we have been able to get to something that can work. I am happy that, rather than enshrining a particular technology in primary legislation, we are putting in place a process, and one that can evolve, if it needs to, going forward.

I hope that the Minister will set out further details of how this process will work and what the statement will include. I hope that he will take into consideration the concerns that have been demonstrated by my noble friends Lady Brinton and Lord Foster, as well as many other noble Lords during Committee. I should say, as an aside, that I was pleased to see the code of conduct, which is another brick in the wall, but this is the process by which that puts people’s noses to the grindstone and starts to apply it.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2025

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I am fascinated to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, with the information that he has provided to us today; I very much look forward to the Minister’s response to the points that he made. I shall concentrate on only one very small bit of the statutory instrument before us: the bit that relates to the electronic travel authorisation, or ETA.

I serve as the chair of your Lordships’ Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee. We have on a number of occasions looked in a great deal of detail at the planned introduction, and now the actual introduction, of the ETA. It is an authorisation requirement for anybody who does not have a visa and who wants to come here for a short stay from non-visa countries. We welcome the pushing out of the boundaries and the borders that this measure involves, giving us the opportunity to collect information about visitors to our country before they have even arrived, but we have expressed a number of concerns and made a number of recommendations to the Government about it. That is why I am focusing on this one particular issue.

What is proposed here is an increase in the maximum fee from £15 to £16, which of course seems incredibly limited; it is a very small increase. However, as the Minister rightly pointed out, the Government have made it absolutely clear that it is their firm intention that, as soon as time allows, another statutory instrument will come along; this one will increase the current fee from £10, as it is now, to a new maximum of £16. Obviously, that is a very significant 160% increase that we are going to see.

Bear in mind that, when this measure was introduced, we heard a number of things from the previous Government, who, in fairness, introduced it. In a Written Ministerial Statement of 6 June 2023, the then Minister of State for Immigration, Robert Jenrick, said:

“This fee level is competitive with that of equivalent systems run by other countries”,—[Official Report, Commons, 6/6/23; col. 821WS.]


so the £10 is a competitively charged amount. Of course, he was absolutely right. Currently, in Israel, it is £5.61; in South Korea, it is £5.53; in New Zealand, it is £7.68; and in the Seychelles, it is £8.33. In Australia, it is free unless you pay roughly £10 to use the smartphone application. All the EU countries are about to introduce their own similar scheme, and they have already announced that that will cost €7. So, clearly, £10 is of an order of magnitude but is actually slightly higher. By the time we get to £16, it is going to be significantly higher.

I acknowledge there is one aberration in that: the United States. However, if we look back at its history, it had a very much lower figure for a very long time during the measure’s introduction and it has only just recently increased that. So we will be out of line, when the original plan was to be in line and be competitive with other countries. The question is: will that have an impact? The answer is that the committee is concerned that it will have a significant impact on tourism.

To those who think, “Well, what’s the evidence for that?”, I say that we already have some evidence. One of the other things we were concerned about was the original intention for transit passengers to Heathrow and Manchester to have to apply for, and pay for, an ETA; we thought that that would be a disadvantage to Manchester and Heathrow Airports in particular. The current Government have looked at that, and we are pleased that they have decided not to go ahead with it and, temporarily at least, it is not happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

It is a brave Minister who continues without his Whip.

I was trying to explain why fees such as the ETA fee must be looked at in the context of the possible impact on tourism. The example I was giving to illustrate it relates to the system that we had until recently, whereby an ETA fee was charged for people who were travelling from a third country through the UK in transit to somewhere else, using Heathrow and Manchester in particular. We as a committee were concerned about that and thought that it would have an impact on tourism; that was backed up when the ETA was introduced initially for a few Gulf countries. As a result of that introduction, Heathrow Airport alone recorded a reduction of 122,000 people transiting through Heathrow from those relatively small countries. That was when the fee was at £10; if it is to go to £16, you can see the impact that it will have on people—not for transit but for people thinking of coming here. There is real, clear evidence that this fee increase being proposed, from £10 to £16, could have a huge impact on tourism.

Of course, our committee expressed a particular concern in relation to these fees in terms of tourism in Northern Ireland and issues in relation to the common travel area between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. This issue was picked up in the 16th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which said:

“We asked the Home Office for any assessments it has made about ETAs to date, especially in relation to Northern Ireland (NI). The Home Office stated that as a result of its monitoring … it was working with a range of government and tourist bodies to ensure that ‘ETAs are not seen as a barrier to cross-border tourism on the island of Ireland’”.


I ask the Minister the very question that the committee suggested, which is

“whether (or when) firmer evidence can be made available on the practical impact of the ETA on”

Northern Ireland tourism. If the Minister has any information, clearly, that would be very helpful. More generally, given that the Minister said that this SI has been introduced following a review of all these fees, can he tell us whether the issue of tourism was taken into account? In particular, can he give a categorical assurance that, when the new SI comes forward—the one that will actually make the increase to the new maximum—the impact assessment will take account of tourism?

I said that Robert Jenrick, when he announced the whole scheme, made two points. His second point was that the £10 charge

“will ensure that the Department’s costs in delivering the scheme are effectively covered across a range of volume scenarios”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/6/23; col. 44WS.]

Can the Minister, whose department has conducted this review, tell us whether the increase that is being proposed is as a result of evidence that the £10 is insufficient to cover the costs of the operation of ETA; or whether this is in fact just a way of making additional money for the Exchequer? I am sure that he will be able to answer that and will have the figures to back it up.

I just say to the Minister that, given that we see in the notes for this particular SI that the longer-term effect is to bring £260 million-odd into the Exchequer, I suspect that the fee increase for ETA is about adding to that. However, I also warn him that, if tourism is seriously affected in the way I have suggested, the Government will not be able to make that amount of money.

My final point is about the ease of operating the ETA system. If it is difficult to operate, that will put people off bothering and it will stop people even thinking of coming to this country as tourists and perhaps also for business sessions, and so on. When we looked at the ETA introduction, we were concerned about the lack of different languages in which the information about ETA was being provided. The then Government actually agreed with us and accepted that official information relating to ETA should be made available in a wider number of languages “as soon as possible”, including French, German and Spanish. So can the noble Lord tell us whether this has happened?

I should tell him that, prior to this meeting, I sought to find out for myself whether I could get details of how ETA operates in other languages. I could not. So I asked our good friends in the Library whether they could find out, and they told me that they too could not find any evidence that information is provided in any language other than English. They pointed out to me that, of course, some platforms have a translate option—that might be the clever way out—but, when we checked some of the platforms, we could not get the ETA to translate into different languages. So the evidence I have shows that what was promised has not been done. Of course, it may have an impact on people choosing to come to this country if they find it hard to get this information. So perhaps the Minister can address this.

There are many other issues with the ETA operation which are not relevant to the SI, so I will not raise them now, but the Committee and the Justice and Home Affairs Committee are very keen to have an opportunity to discuss those issues with the Minister. However, in the meantime, on this SI and the proposed future SI, I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Foster, who raised serious questions about the ETA and whether there will be an impact. He provided evidence to show that having an ETA at the current level, before any increases, is already having an impact. One of the general themes I will cover is what the impact assessment does not say about the impact on businesses, including tourism in this case, and other areas that I will come to. This is yet another charge that has gone up, adding to overheads, and it is becoming a problem in certain sectors.

It is also a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, who outlined many of the problems that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has been reporting on over the years. I look forward to the Minister’s response to his questions.

I will start on an optimistic note, given our debate on the previous SI. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee does not often hand out commendations in its reports, but it has commended the Minister and his officials on the Explanatory Memorandum, which was very helpful. With my calculator out, I did a lot of calculations and, although Minister may be irritated by some of the questions he gets, it is actually because we understand what is happening. That needs to be to be credited because we have not necessarily been able to give that credit in the past. The impact assessment was helpful, but I am not sure that it asked the right people about the impact. I will come back to that in a second.

Paragraph 29 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 16th report says that

“the net benefit of the changes is relatively small. Further, we note that in some scenarios set out in”

the impact assessment,

“the costs of the changes outweigh the benefits. This possibility arises because … it is ‘highly uncertain’ what goods and services visitors and visa-holders consume, and how many of those are provided”

by British businesses. Can the Minister comment further on this, or is the impact assessment just guesswork? That is the perhaps slightly unfair approach to trying to translate what the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said.

I say that because the maxima level set here is, pretty broadly, a 7% increase. I very much echo the comments made by my noble friend; the Government have made it very plain that when they do introduce fee rises—as opposed to setting a new maxima—most of them will go up to the new maxima. As the impact assessment says, the Government are trying to ensure that they can cover the costs of migration and the staffing for that, but I am concerned because 7% seems high.

For example, the pension triple lock is increasing by 4% this year. Many felt that was too high in the current financial circumstances. I am not going to comment on that but am trying to weigh it up as 7% seems to be a general increase, if not for the next year. I know the Minister will say it is only a maxima, but we heard elsewhere that there is an intention in most cases to go to that.

It is true that in paragraph 5.2, the EM says:

“The department is seeking to implement changes to fees to generate additional income from end users to support the funding of the migration and borders system and reduce reliance on funding from the taxpayer”.


However, the increases that are not 7% are the ones that really worry me. They seem bizarre and, in one particular case, ill thought through. For example, the skilled worker and temporary worker fees have both been increased by over 100%: from £239 to a £525 maxima for the skilled worker fee and from £25 to £55 for the temporary worker maxima. The reality is that in just over seven months, this Government have increased other costs to businesses—not Home Office costs, I grant you—but it is difficult and tedious for employers to recruit staff from overseas at the moment. I am not commenting on whether it was right or wrong, but the previous Government really tightened down on who could come to work here. Part of that was to start increasing substantially the costs that businesses and individuals coming here had to pay.

One of the costs I am particularly concerned about—we have just had a vote on this and there will be more before the evening is done—is on the increase to employers’ national insurance contributions. Not only are these increasing, but the floor for payment is lowered to include many lower-paid workers. Migrant workers filling gaps in our economy, such as in social care, hospices, agriculture and hospitality, are much more likely to be in those sectors where the margins for businesses are extremely low.

Our social care sector is already in complete crisis. Only today, there are reports of care at home being removed and clients being told they will have to leave their home and move into care homes, solely because of the economics of the increased national insurance contributions and the high costs associated with care delivered in a home setting. To have extra fees for migrant workers—often paid for by the businesses because the migrant workers just do not have their own resources—is going to add further to those sectoral problems. I wonder why the impact assessment says there are no financial implications from a 100% increase in these fees.

If these increases are as set out in paragraph 5.2 of the EM, did the Home Office actually seek advice from some of the sectors most reliant on overseas workers, whether skilled or temporary? I am slightly less worried about the very high-value skilled workers, where an employer will not only take on somebody at a high salary but be prepared to manage an oncost. It is those who are given temporary leave to work here, or in the health sector, where we know they have been granted.

Finally, paragraph 5.10 sets out the increase for the review of a decision related to immigration and nationality. The main fee maxima is increased by 7% and I have already commented on that. Hidden a few lines further down is a really shocking increase from £80 to £480 for an administrative review of a decision. This is nothing to do with the relevance of costs and I wonder if it is a financial punishment. An administrative review is very different to a review by a panel or senior officer, as referred to earlier in that section. Can the Minister explain why this particular administrative review has now hit the same maxima level as the much more complex and personnel-intensive level required under the main type of panel review?

By the way, it is interesting to note that, at paragraph 11.1, that particular increase has not been highlighted, whereas others have. I wonder why that might happen. The reason why the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, my noble friend Lord Foster and I are raising these issues is to try to understand the strategy behind these increases, as opposed to just a reason to raise money. We are concerned that at least some of them may backfire and stop the increase in growth that this Government are keen to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will give my noble friend what I would say is a guarded response: I hope so. It is my intention that that will not happen again. I cannot verbally legislate today to say that mistakes will not be made by Ministers and/or officials downstream, but I hope that lessons have been learned. The moment it was drawn to this Government’s attention, we introduced legislation to regulate the current level of fees that were being proposed and, through the proposed Bill, cover legislatively the backdated gap that was in place. I hope I can give my noble friend that assurance. Certainly, it is something that current Ministers are aware of and do not wish to have—but, as ever, it is a human system, as my noble friend knows.

I turn to the meat of other points that were made noble Lords. I welcome the support of His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench. The noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised the impact on tourism, on jobs and on a range of other things. Let me put this into context again. The Government have to cover the costs of the immigration border control system. This is potentially helping with any future decisions taken—not the increase today, but any future decisions—to meet the costs of that system and to put in place measures to ensure that we have border control for tourism and employment, as well as the measures we are taking separately in the immigration Bill to look at illegal migration. It is important that we regulate that and that the taxpayer gets resource back from it. We have taken decisions, which may not be popular with the noble Baroness, to look at how we can potentially raise money from that. As I said, we will bring forward further impact assessments and proposals on the actual figures for each of the sectors that she mentioned, but we have made a judgment that we have to cover those costs and we must ensure we can do that.

The Government have a growth agenda. We do not want to hinder growth in jobs or in tourism; we want people to come to the United Kingdom. The question I throw back to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, is: would a fee of £16 deter somebody from coming to the United Kingdom on a tourist visit? I think he said yes from a sedentary position. That is a judgment we will have to examine and look at. The impact assessment shows a marginal impact. It is something we will have to look at. When and if we bring forward proposals on the rise from £10 to a potential maximum in the future, we will look at those issues. I do not know—do I not go to America because it costs me £35 or whatever it is for an ESTA? Do I not go to France, in due course, when I am charged a fee for its equivalent of an ESTA? Do I not go to Spain, to Greece or to other countries? Alternatively, do I absorb that as part of my tourism package?

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

There is a great deal of research evidence on this very point. Going to America turns out to be very different from going to a country within the European Union. Going to a Schengen area country turns out to be very different now from going to the UK, because of course you can get one document to get into all the different countries. There is a great deal of evidence already about this, and when we bear in mind that this country has higher VAT on, for instance, accommodation, tourist attractions and so on than most other countries, we are already at a disadvantage. All I am grateful for is that the Minister has assured me that we are going to have full consultation and a full impact assessment when he brings the next stage forward.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Foster of Bath]

106: Clause 7, page 8, line 15, at end insert—
“(d) coroners, medical examiners or procurators fiscal investigating the causes of deaths in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland,(e) the Office for National Statistics, National Records of Scotland or the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency,(f) bodies designated to make super-complaints on behalf of consumers pursuant to section 11 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (super-complaints to OFT),(g) NHS England,(h) the Royal College of Emergency Medicine,(i) other bodies specified by the Secretary of State which play a role in representing the public interest in relation to reducing the risks presented by products,(j) persons conducting academic research into the extent, causes or reduction of harm arising from or potentially associated with the use of products, or(k) bodies or persons performing roles comparable to those in paragraphs (a) to (h) in this subsection in the European Union, OECD or individual member states of either of those organisations.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment ensures that the information sharing provisions of the Act apply to more bodies responsible for investigating harms and deaths caused by products.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I am extremely conscious that I will not excite your Lordships as much as our earlier debate on pints did. Nevertheless, I rise to move Amendment 106 on my noble friend Lord Fox’s behalf, and I will also speak to my Amendment 108. Both relate to issues arising out of Clause 7, which is about information sharing. Clause 7(1) enables the making of product regulations or metrology regulations permitting the sharing of information between persons who are specified later on in Clause 7(2). Those persons who can share information are described in, frankly, incredibly general terms:

“another relevant authority … the emergency services, or … a person specified, or of a description specified, in product regulations or metrology regulations”.

My noble friend’s amendment provides a list of additional persons and bodies that should be specified in relevant subsequent regulations, not least those persons or bodies responsible for investigating harms and deaths caused by products. The list of proposed additions is not, of course, exhaustive. After all, the Bill permits others to be added—but by adding the basic cadre of persons or organisations, we can ensure a healthy flow of information between relevant bodies to help develop future regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I am enormously grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, rather surprised me in seeming more excited by these amendments, in view of my earlier comments about beer, than I had expected. I am grateful for that, but I am particularly grateful for the very thoughtful response of the Minister. I am pleased that he thought I had made important and interesting points and by his promise to reflect on them. Just like the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, it looks like I may be getting a letter or a Christmas card—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I can assure him of that.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

I am not sure which it was: the letter or the Christmas card.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

It will only be the letter, I am afraid.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

Time is not on our side—but it would be very helpful if, in his response, he could look at the issue of the definition of, for example, emergency services, and pick up my point about others. Could he also look very carefully at what he said, when he chose the example of coroners? Because of the work I do in relation to gambling, I am conscious that I very often say in speeches about it that there is well over one gambling-related suicide every day. The latest estimate is that over 400 a year take place. Our difficulty is that, unless we have information from coroners about causes of death, it is very difficult to build up the pattern. That is why coroners were included. Finally, he talked about GDPR, and the Bill itself refers to data protection legislation, as it puts it, but he did not make any specific comments about my concern about Part 9 of the Enterprise Act 2002.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I think I did say that we wanted to have a look at that and will come to him on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

I am grateful for that, and hope that, too, will therefore be included in the letter. With those remarks, particularly to say thank you to the Minister for his very thoughtful response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 106 withdrawn.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, much of this Bill, as we know, is underpinned by secondary legislation, which has yet to be set out. That, of course, includes online marketplaces. To support the development of effective regulation, the Government, I hope, will set out their timetable for developing such secondary legislation as soon as possible. They should also provide clarification on who those referred to in the Bill as the “relevant authorities” are, particularly in relation to online marketplaces, which have to co-operate with others in Clause 2.

The UK’s fire and rescue services provide front-line response when dangerous products are sold in an online marketplace and catch fire or set fire to other properties and cause terrible burns to anyone who happens to be nearby. The London Fire Brigade, to which I am most grateful for the information it has given me, has seen a stark rise in e-bike and e-scooter fires in recent years. It responds to an incident about every 48 hours now. In this year alone, there were 131 fires from January to September. Given the role of the fire and rescue services, it would be helpful to set it out and recognise it in regulations. That is the reason for my Amendment 23, which is the lead amendment in this group, and Amendment 105, which goes with it.

Amendment 23 would ensure that regulated marketplaces co-operate with emergency services where appropriate to protect consumers from unsafe products and allow fire and rescue services to respond to fire safety concerns about known products. Some online marketplaces already co-operate with fire and rescue services. One of those—which I will not name because I do not think it appropriate to provide advertising—is a major online supplier that does include safety advice from the London Fire Brigade, but unfortunately, not all sites do.

The Bill is a welcome step to protect consumers from harmful products. It has very wide scope, but it needs to cover the online marketplaces that facilitate the sale or giving away of products through private individuals from one to another, as well as those sold as new. That includes the likes of some of the trading websites—again, I will not name them because I do not want to advertise them. From investigations by the London Fire Brigade, we know that products sought from second-hand online marketplaces include e-bikes, chargers and batteries, which have the potential to cause great harm. It has seen examples of incidents such as the Sutton railway station fire in March, when fire crews were called to the station during rush hour as commuters were on their way home. A bike owner had bought an e-bike from an online marketplace four months beforehand and had had no issues with the purchase. The station commander has confirmed that the fire was ferocious, happened extremely quickly and would have been devastating if things had worked out differently. He said that he hates to think of the tragic consequences that could have occurred. It was, in a way, just fortunate that it happened where it did and that no one was injured, but it serves to highlight the dangers when products are purchased or given away for free from one individual to another.

I know that Amendment 32 has already been debated, and I apologise to the Committee that I was unable to be here; I was on an aeroplane, because the railway lines were flooded. But I read Hansard, and the comments there are all relevant to the stark rise in e-bike fires in the capital.

Turning to Amendment 105 and Clause 7, the proposals would give the regulator the power to require companies subject to the regulation to provide information on the products being sold. As drafted, this clause would give the regulator only the power to require the provision of information and does not give them a responsibility to share this with bodies that have a statutory duty or responsibility for public safety, including fire and rescue services. The role of the data from the London Fire Brigade has been really important and has shown us the scale of the problem. Ensuring that emergency services have access to all the data will be welcome going forward in monitoring safety and spotting things—perhaps products that we currently cannot even imagine, which may come on to the marketplace and subsequently prove to be unsafe.

The change to Clause 7 in my Amendment 105 would ensure that regulations make provision for sharing information about unsafe products with the emergency services, including fire and rescue services, and that they have the information they need to respond to these emerging risks. They also run prevention campaigns and can provide accurate safety messaging, which can all be supportive of public safety, so that the Bill can meet its overall and much-needed aims. I beg to move.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

I rise briefly to support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness. I also draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that when I moved Amendments 2 and 27 in an earlier group, on the issue of installation, I pointed out that in respect of the potentially very dangerous lithium-ion batteries used in EV charging-point systems, for example, and solar panel array storage batteries, there is currently no requirement on the competent person scheme individual who is installing those systems to notify relevant authorities of the installing of those batteries.

I pointed out at the time that lithium-ion batteries, about which we will no doubt speak a great deal when we come to group 5, can create huge fires at high temperatures and very toxic gases; I also pointed out that, crucially, they cannot be put out by the use of water. That is why it is so important that the relevant authorities, particularly the emergency services, are aware of the current location of such devices. The current arrangements require the individual house owner to make such a notification. My amendment argued that it should be the responsibility of the installer not only to check on the safety of the entire system but to make that notification. For that reason, I am particularly supportive of the noble Baroness’s amendment.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, had I been a little shrewder on the grouping, I would have included in this group Amendment 106, which we will debate in the antepenultimate group of the Bill, as it also addresses Clause 7 and goes after the same objective of information sharing. Whether it is lithium-ion batteries or some other danger, it is important that we learn from the problems that are established and that the right people can get that information, so that learning process can start.

I suggest that, whether it is the process set down by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which we support, or something like my Amendment 106, or something that the drafters sitting behind the Minister can do much better than we can, there needs to be a point in this Bill about a process of information sharing, whether it is set out in detail, as in my amendment, which talks about who or what those bodies are, or whether it is a more general duty, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has set out. We support these proposals, and I hope that we can have a debate next time. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the need to understand dangers, learn from them and move to be able to prevent them.

--- Later in debate ---

Reliance on penalties alone will not solve the funding shortage being felt at local level, but it would ensure direct support for enforcement. It would bring about enhanced consumer safety and level the competitive field, benefiting high street retailers by ensuring that online and overseas sellers faced equivalent compliance standards, so creating fairer competition across sales channels. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s response to the amendments.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments deal with a range of issues concerning enforcement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, said, I have signed and fully support the numerous amendments she has tabled, and I do not intend, other than very briefly, to touch on those at all.

I said at Second Reading that improved safety will come about through this legislation only if there is effective enforcement of the various regulations that are going to be laid. As I understand it, the thrust of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, which he will describe in more detail later on, is that they seek clarification on who is going to be responsible for enforcement and what their responsibilities will be.

My noble friend Lady Brinton, who is unable to be with us today, has an amendment that in part suggests that trading standards officers should be the ones responsible since, frankly, they have the expertise and skills and are best placed to take on the role. Indeed, I am pretty sure—although obviously, we will have to wait until we hear the Minister’s response—that trading standards officers are going to play a crucial role in enforcing the Bill and, much more significantly, the as yet unknown contents of regulations arising from it.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which I fully support, assumes that trading standards will be the ones who will have the key responsibility, but my noble friend’s amendments and my own Amendment 64 seek to ensure that whoever does the enforcement also has the necessary resources, including financial, to carry out the work.

When I raised this issue at Second Reading, the Minister talked about improved enforcement capability, which he said would come through the more efficient use of time, better notices, better data-sharing opportunities and the support that will be offered, such as support on technical queries from the OPSS—but not a whiff of a promise of additional funding.

At the very helpful meeting then organised by the Minister, I asked how the new burdens principle fitted into all this, whereby the Government will be expected to fund costs arising from new burdens placed on other bodies. The Minister promised to write to us, and indeed he did. He stated:

“No new burdens are being imposed”


by the Bill. He went on:

“The principal enforcement activities currently undertaken by local authorities and delivered by trading standards are not changing”.


Clearly, that is not the case, if we take into account all the regulations that will flow from this skeleton Bill. In fairness, to some extent the Minister acknowledged that. He said that there is a “potential”—an odd choice of word since we know it will happen—for the regulations to bring new burdens. He promised to continue dialogue with a new burdens team, and he pointed to the cost- recovery powers in Clause 8, clarification of which has rightly been sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, in her Amendment 109.

However, we should surely be acutely aware of the current position faced by trading standards officers around the country. Frankly, they do an excellent job. Over the last year, 2023-24, trading standards prevented more than £905 million of consumer detriment in England and Wales, equating to £8.39 saved for every £1 spent. But despite that really good value for money, over the last decade, spending on trading standards has been cut by more than 50%. Over the same period, staffing levels in local authorities have fallen by between 30% and 50%. Frankly, many local authorities no longer have sufficient resources to enforce all the consumer protection legislation for which they are responsible. Therefore, without additional resources, they certainly will not have the capability to cope with more, which might—or rather, will—come as a result of this Bill.

Whoever takes on the enforcement responsibility will need additional resources to do the job, and that will not be achieved by things such as better data sharing and support on technical queries by the OPSS. I hope the Minister can give us far more assurances than he has so far that the Government are alert to this issue. I hope that he will provide us with assurances that extra resources will be made available, as proposed by my noble friend’s amendments and my own.

I have a couple of other amendments to touch on briefly. In a sense, my Amendment 70 builds on Amendment 98, which I have signed, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. When buying a product online, the buyer is often aware who the seller is. Amendment 98 would place a duty on the fulfilment houses that store all this stuff before it goes out to the consumer to ensure that appropriate safety legislation has been taken into account. Other amendments suggest that there should be a responsibility on online market- places to ensure that appropriate safety regulations have been met by all the products available on their platform. My Amendment 70 goes a little further and suggests that we should therefore give the consumer the right to bring a claim against the online marketplace, regardless of who the original provider of the product was, if this has not happened and they suffer as a result of the product not having met the appropriate standards.

Finally, Amendments 63 and 87 seek to expand enforcement powers by giving the relevant authority or an inspector the power to require a person to attend an interview to answer questions, a power usually known as an interview notice. In similar legislation, authorities including regulators have that power. In the Data (Use and Access) Bill that is currently before your Lordships’ House, the Government seek to give the Information Commissioner that power to give interview notices. The Government are also seeking to give the Security Industry Authority that power in the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, and the new independent football regulator, in the Football Governance Bill currently before your Lordships’ House, will be given the same power. Yet it is omitted, bizarrely, from this Bill. That means that, on the one hand, the relevant authority would have the power to enter and search premises and seize items but, on the other hand, it would not have the power to question persons about the related entry, search and seizure of those products. I find that particularly bizarre. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge this point and either accept the amendment or offer his own way forward.

I began by saying that the Bill and the regulations that flow from it will, frankly, be pretty meaningless without proper enforcement, so we need clarity about who will be responsible for that enforcement, we need to be assured of what those responsibilities will be and we need assurances that they will be properly resourced to carry out those responsibilities. On all counts, we are at present unaware of any answers to those questions, so we hope that the Minister will shed some light on this when he winds up.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Foster of Bath]

44: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Regulations relating to lithium-ion batteries(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statutory instrument containing regulations relating to lithium-ion batteries within six months of the passing of this Act.(2) Before laying the statutory instrument referred to in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with the relevant statutory consultees including the fire services, and with relevant consumer, industry, manufacturing and trade bodies.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment seeks to clarify the issues relating to the regulation of lithium-ion batteries, including the increasing numbers of fires, deaths and injuries as a result of lithium-ion batteries.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

Amendment 41 was tabled by my noble friend Lady Brinton but, as I have explained, she is unable to be with us today. Her amendment and others in this group, including my own and those of my noble friend Lord Redesdale, seek to address an issue that I have frequently raised in your Lordships’ House: safety issues in connection with lithium-ion batteries. Indeed, I have already done so on a number of occasions in earlier groups, particularly in the previous group, where I used lithium-ion batteries as an example of why we need specific regulations regarding high-risk products.

Whenever I have discussed these issues, I have always recognised the vital importance of lithium-ion batteries. They currently provide a crucial role in our drive towards low carbon or zero carbon. After all, they can store more energy than any other commercially available battery at present. However, they have their dangers.

If incorrectly constructed—an issue that is picked up by Amendment 46 from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, which I support—or if they are damaged or misused, not least through incorrect charging, there can be a thermal runaway, reaching enormously high temperatures of many hundreds of degrees. These fires give off toxic and dangerous gases and, as I pointed out in an earlier discussion, they cannot be put out by using water.

Amendment 44 recognises that this is a framework Bill and new regulations are going to come at a later stage, but it argues that the particular urgency relating to the dangers, especially of fire and explosion, of unregulated lithium batteries, which are often purchased from abroad, requires urgent action from the Government. It therefore proposes that the Secretary of State must lay regulations relating to lithium-ion batteries within six months of the passing of this Act, and that in the period prior to doing so the Secretary of State will have consulted all the statutory consultees, including the fire service and relevant consumer industry bodies and manufacturing and trade bodies. My Amendment 49 seeks to place a duty on online marketplaces to take all reasonable steps to ensure that products containing lithium-ion batteries sold on their platforms comply with the UK safety standards that will be developed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for speaking on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The issue of lithium-ion battery safety is rightly getting a lot of attention and I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss it. I also mention the work of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who has tabled a Private Member’s Bill on this same topic and with whom I have had valuable discussions during the passage of this legislation.

The Government have already taken significant steps to protect people from the dangers posed by products containing lithium-ion batteries. The Office for Product Safety and Standards has been working with colleagues across government and industry to identify the root causes of safety issues associated with lithium-ion batteries and to ensure that steps are taken to protect consumers and remove dangerous products from the market. We are also working with UK businesses to ensure that they comply with regulations. In addition, we have collaborated with fire and rescue services to identify products involved in incidents and have taken the appropriate action when unsafe products are identified.

Since 2022, efforts have resulted in 20 separate product recalls and 22 other enforcement actions for unsafe or non-compliant e-bikes or e-scooters. The OPSS has issued 26 withdrawal notices to eight online marketplaces, two manufacturers and 16 separate sellers to halt the sale of two dangerous e-bike battery models manufactured overseas by Unit Pack Power—UPP—that were discovered during fire and rescue investigations.

In terms of regulatory change, we need to ensure that any regulation is effective at stopping harmful products reaching the market. We also need to make sure that good businesses, which are in the majority, are not undercut by these unscrupulous traders.

The Bill is designed to provide powers across a broad range of products, including lithium-ion batteries. It does not highlight particular sectors that are in need of regulation. Noble Lords will appreciate that a very large range of products are covered by the Bill; therefore I would be hesitant to draw out lithium-ion batteries or specific measures in it. That would also limit our flexibility to work with all interested groups to identify the most effective way to tackle this issue. Today it may be lithium-ion batteries, while tomorrow it may be magnesium batteries, sodium batteries, salt or seawater—all of which may pose some safety features. So we need the flexibility to identify those new products on the marketplace.

Indeed, during Second Reading of the Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, a number of Peers highlighted that battery technology is changing. That is part of the reason why the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill works in this flexible way, as I stated earlier. It is to ensure that future regulations are able to take account of developing technologies.

We are, none the less, considering what change will make a meaningful difference to lithium-ion battery safety. My department has commissioned extensive research from the Warwick Manufacturing Group to better understand battery safety, including compatibility issues. This research is being finalised and we expect to publish it in due course. This will help us identify the root causes of battery risks and options to better protect consumers.

We want to take action about these unsafe products. We cannot commit to a timescale as we want to take the right action—but we do want to take action. One area where we have been very clear about the need for action is products sold via online marketplaces. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his Amendment 49—and his well-informed advocacy in this area—that would require online marketplaces to take reasonable steps to ensure that products containing lithium-ion batteries sold on their platform are compliant.

In addition to the action I just mentioned, the OPSS wrote to major online marketplaces earlier this year, expressing concerns about the availability of unsafe products online. The OPSS has issued online marketplaces with legal notices that prohibit the supply of unsafe products. However, while much has already been done to keep people safe, our product safety regulations could go further.

As mentioned at Second Reading, we will use the Bill to clarify and modernise the responsibilities of online marketplaces in secondary legislation. These requirements will build on best practice to create a proportionate regulatory framework where online marketplaces take steps to prevent unsafe products from being made available to consumers. This will help prevent unsafe goods, including unsafe lithium-ion batteries, from reaching UK consumers.

The enforcement provisions in Clause 3 enable the introduction of enforcement powers for the purposes of monitoring and investigating, and securing compliance with product regulations. A requirement for the production of safety certificates that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, seeks as part of Amendment 49 could be implemented using the Bill’s powers as drafted. As I said, we are keen to continue working with noble Lords and others to identify the regulatory work that would be most effective.

Specifically on Amendments 55 and 56 on bikes, e-bikes and lithium-ion battery products sold on online marketplaces, we agree that online marketplaces should take steps to provide relevant information to consumers so that they can make well-informed purchasing decisions. This is also important to bridge the gap between the information consumers see before a purchase online, compared to the high street, where they can see the product and packaging.

In general terms, the Bill would enable us to introduce requirements on online marketplaces, including the provision of specific information, for the purpose of reducing or mitigating risks presented by products or ensuring that products operate effectively.

I thank the noble Lord for raising another important issue where consumer information can be beneficial to provide product traceability. As he discussed with me previously, this might help to deter the sale and assist the recovery of stolen bikes. The Home Office works closely with policing and academic leads to examine what more can be done to tackle the disposal market for stolen goods. We will therefore engage with the Home Office on this topic to explore whether product regulations could contribute to crime prevention. I will ask my officials to organise a meeting with the noble Lord and officials from the Home Office and other relevant authorities.

I also thank the noble Lord for his Amendment 56, which seeks to require online marketplaces to put in place a return policy for products containing lithium-ion batteries for the purpose of appropriate battery disposal. The Environment Act 2021 provides powers for the Government to introduce new requirements on online marketplaces with respect to the take-back of lithium-ion batteries and products containing lithium-ion batteries. Under the existing producer responsibility legislation, producers of industrial batteries, which include e-bike and e-scooter batteries, must take back waste products free of charge on request. Ministers are currently reviewing proposals to consult on reforms to UK batteries regulation before setting out next steps on battery disposal.

At this point, I wish to mention that I have spoken to my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at Defra. It is clear to me that noble Lords will discuss the issue of disposal of lithium-ion batteries.

I hope this assures noble Lords that the Government take the issue of lithium-ion battery safety extremely seriously. We have already taken enforcement action and are keen to work with all interested groups to ensure that further regulatory change is effective. Consequently, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Foster, to withdraw his amendment.

Before I sit down, I wish to say that my private office has sent an invitation to noble Lords who have expressed an interest in visiting the OPSS. I very much hope they will take up that offer.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Redesdale, I thank the Minister for his kind offer to him. I am sure the Minister will understand that I will want to go and put a wet towel over my head and read very carefully what he has just said in response to this group of amendments. However, I say to him that reading a list of successful examples of unsafe products coming into the UK by the OPSS is something I did myself in a previous debate. It does not indicate that we have got it right. The figures on the number of fires from lithium-ion batteries, for instance, are going up dramatically, so something is not quite right.

The problem, which the Minister touched on both in this answer and the answer he gave to a previous group when I raised the issue of high-risk products, is that the current arrangements are somewhat discretionary, and not at all clear so that we know what they are. For animal products, there is a very clear procedure: everything has to be checked for whether it is low risk, medium risk or high risk. Earlier, I proposed that we do exactly the same for all products. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet me and other people about that.

In the light of that and the discussions we will have, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. However, I assure the Minister that we will come back to these issues at a future stage.

Amendment 44 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

This is an opportunity for the Minister to explain explicitly where the Government see the role of frameworks going forward. Will this be properly used, as was envisaged at the outset of where we find ourselves now? If frameworks are still in the frame—if your Lordships will excuse the phrase—they need to be explicitly applied to this Bill. If they are not, the Minister needs to explain how these difficult problems will be negotiated in future. It seems that a mechanism is already available, and it would be very helpful if the Minister could explain whether and how frameworks will be used. With that, I look forward very much to the Minister’s response to this going forward.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, it is an enormous pleasure to follow my noble friend and the two noble and learned Lords, and I am certain that I will not be anywhere near as eloquent in speaking to Amendment 102 as any of them were. Their amendments all deal with the operation of the Bill in the context of the different Administrations that make up the United Kingdom. My probing amendment—it is just that—aims to seek to understand how the Bill will operate in terms of its applicability and its jurisdiction beyond the borders of the United Kingdom. I thought that it might be helpful to noble Lords if I gave an example not of a product but of the issue that particularly drew me to consider this problem, as I see it.

I am the chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform and I have done a lot of work on the issue of gambling. Some time ago, my attention was drawn to an online image which was very clearly identified as coming from Paddy Power. When I looked at this image, I came to the conclusion that it was in breach of our code of conduct in relation to advertising, set by the so-called CAP. I therefore drew it to the attention of the Advertising Standards Authority and asked it to investigate whether this particular image was in breach of the CAP code. It took very many months and several follow-up letters from me before it eventually came back to me and told me that it was somewhat uncertain as to whether it had the jurisdiction to act in respect of that particular image. In the end, it came to the conclusion that it did not have the ability to act—it was something beyond the territorial powers that it had.

When it comes to this Bill, I have to ask myself the question: if somebody acts outside the United Kingdom, what powers do we have for the appropriate body to be able to investigate the activities of that individual or organisation? Will we be able to call for documents or evidence or require it to come for interviews so that an investigation can take place? I appreciate that in many cases we have a situation where we have an internet provider providing this service, and internet service is at the basis of all this. When I look at the Online Safety Act, I notice that that Act defines the internet service in such a way that it has extraterritorial application. Given that an online marketplace is making use of an internet service, one has to ask whether this Bill has extraterritorial powers. In the case of the Paddy Power image, a solution was found because it turns out that we have reciprocal arrangements with the equivalent ASA body in Ireland and it is now going to look into that case—even though the image used pound signs rather than euros, so it was quite clearly intended for a UK audience.

I have suggested an amendment to ensure that there are extraterritorial powers for the various measures in the Bill. I have no idea whether that is the Government’s intention, but I hope it is because so many of the products come from abroad and so many of the services that enable us to purchase those products are based abroad, even though the firms concerned may well have offices within the United Kingdom. It is a probing amendment and I hope that when the Minister replies to the important issues that have been raised by the three preceding speakers, he will also help me understand more clearly what the Bill has in respect of these issues outside our borders.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all four noble Lords for their remarks, which I found absolutely fascinating. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, deals with parliamentary matters with considerable skill, diligence and persistence. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord. I am very grateful for the reference to the Constitution Committee, a subject I have laboured on at some length. It is important that we continue to return to the fact that the Government need to heed the comments of both the committees that opined on this Bill.

Before I go on, I say that I perhaps take a slightly different view of the previous Government’s interactions with the devolved Administrations than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and gently remind him, colloquially, that it takes two to tango. When there is a hard-left Government in Wales and a nationalist Government in Scotland they are perhaps not warmly disposed to being enthusiastic interlocutors with a Conservative and Unionist Government.

The first three amendments in this group have a similar theme, so I shall speak mostly to Amendment 96 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which would require the Secretary of State to have regard to Part 1 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. We are very proud of our record in helping businesses by reducing barriers for them through that Act, and I pay due tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his work on it. The Internal Market Act guarantees that goods, services and qualifications recognised in one part of the UK are automatically recognised across all parts. For businesses, this means certainty, simplicity and reduced administrative burdens, themes that we have explored all evening, and enables them to sell goods and provide services without encountering unnecessary barriers or conflicting regulations. It also allows qualifying Northern Ireland goods to be sold in Great Britain in reliance on the market access principles.

This amendment does not seek to rewrite the principles of the Bill. Rather, it seeks to ensure that its implementation is compatible with the vital provisions of the UK Internal Market Act. The market access principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination are central to the UK Internal Market Act, as it stops protectionist measures that might favour goods or services originating from one part of the UK over another and safeguards fair competition, fostering a level playing field across all regions.

Our views on prioritising growth and investment and adhering to the provisions of the UK Internal Market Act 2020 are well known; we believe that this measure is necessary to achieve that. I am relatively agnostic as to which of the amendments the Government would wish to look at but some amalgam would clearly be a welcome step forward, so I support the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

With his interesting amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, has raised an important and quite difficult subject. The Bill is intended to protect consumers from unsafe products regardless of the product’s origin or where a business is based. The powers in the Bill can be used to introduce requirements on online marketplaces based overseas where they are marketing products to UK consumers, but the problem is enforcement. That is a challenge and, standing here today, I just do not have an easy answer. Essentially, we think that the Bill—again, this is the advantage of flexibility—allows us to explore options for taking action against businesses operating from overseas. While we cannot readily enforce in other territories, we will seek to ensure that businesses selling non-compliant and dangerous goods cannot continue to do so in the UK market. The reality is that this is work in progress, and discussions about it are taking place in government. I thank the noble Lord for his input, and we are giving great consideration to this issue.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

Does it not therefore draw attention to the vital importance of very effective enforcement taking place at our borders? That requires us to look very carefully at the funding and resources of whatever body, or bodies, will be responsible for that enforcement. Does it not also mean that we need to have much clearer arrangements for the specification of the level of risk of different products that come in, so that that enforcement can be done relatively smoothly and openly to our total satisfaction?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord always poses his questions wishing me to say “yes”. I am sympathetic to the points he raised but I cannot commit, and I cannot go further than what I said this afternoon except to say that this is a very important area and clearly something that we as a Government need to strongly reflect upon.

Having said that, I hope that I have indicated to noble Lords that I understand the important issues raised. I have given an absolute assurance from the Dispatch Box that we want to make our relationships with the devolved Governments as effective as possible. It is true that four can play but we hope that we will be able to deliver this and that we will get consent. Again, I would like to reflect some more on some of the tricky legal issues that both the noble and learned Lords raised.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 25th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, this is an important group of amendments. No doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will shortly set out his amendments but, as I understand them, by deleting bits of the Bill they provide an opportunity for us to have a debate on what is meant by a “product” and by the “use of products”. The other two amendments are in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and my noble friend Lord Fox and have a similar purpose. My noble friend cannot be with us today because he is abroad on parliamentary business in connection with NATO. These amendments will help us to get more clarity on what is covered by a “product” and its use and will help to future-proof the legislation, in the case of Amendment 12 by ensuring that all digital and non-digital products are within scope and in the case of Amendment 13 by ensuring that all operating systems and internet-connected products are within scope.

The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, very clearly set out the arguments for why this is needed, and I fully support her, but my noble friend Lord Fox’s amendment, which is also a probing amendment, seeks to find out whether the Government’s intention is that operating systems and interconnected products will be covered by the provisions of the Bill. Some may recall that in an earlier grouping I expressed concern about what appears to be the limited way in which the Government consider products as just things. I sought to explain that we cannot always consider a product in isolation as some products are installed as part of a system, and I argued that we should take the whole system into account.

My noble friend’s amendment expresses a similar point. It seeks to ensure that the Bill recognises that the operational characteristics of many products are, effectively, changeable. For instance, household products are increasing controlled by operating systems that can be and are controlled by the vendor remotely. The legislation needs to take this into account in two separate ways. The first, and most simple, is that there should be a clear obligation on the vendor to demonstrate good faith in ensuring its products’ operating systems are up to date and are protected, for example, from external malign attack. Secondly, there needs to be a process whereby material changes in the characteristics of a product continue to meet regulations that they met before the changes.

Many noble Lords will already have heard my noble friend Lord Fox’s particular concern about references to the health and safety of domestic animals in the Bill. He has picked it up on several occasions. He sought to explain his amendment to me in relation to those references. He pointed out that, for example, a remote vacuum cleaner may be programmed to behave in a way that ensures that family pets are not in danger of being harmed by it. He went on to point out that a remote change might disregard this safeguard and so endanger the health and safety of domestic animals. My noble friend argues that without his amendment, or something similar, it would appear that there is no way in which the measures in the Bill could enable the policing of such remote revisions to product properties.

More generally, these amendments in this group seek to probe the Government further on what they believe are covered by “products” and which uses of products are covered by the proposed legislation. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on those issues and to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, explain his amendments more effectively than I have sought to do.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for her remarks. Obviously, defining “products” is a key consideration in much of what we have to discuss in this Bill. It is a subject to which we will return later today. I thank the noble Lords for introducing their amendments. It was very eloquently done. They certainly deserve consideration and comprehensive answers from the Government.

I will speak to Amendments 18 and 19 standing in my name. The Bill as it stands—and I am afraid this is going to be rather labouring a point that we discussed a lot last week—has been widely criticised for being skeleton legislation with much of the substance being delegated to Ministers through statutory instruments. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has rightly pointed out that this leaves “almost no substance” or perhaps, as the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, described it, no clear markers in the Bill, giving Ministers excessive and unaccountable discretion to regulate in important areas, such as product marketing and safety, without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny or oversight.

Clause 2 is a prime example of this, because it grants wide powers to Ministers to make regulations on a wide range of product characteristics—but without any clear or substantive detail. By keeping paragraph (a), the Bill opens the door to the possibility of Ministers creating regulations that lack transparency or specificity. I find the wording concerning and unnecessarily vague. For example, the phrase “other characteristics of products”—or, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, described it, “just things”—is far too broad and could allow the Government to regulate anything under this clause, with little or no clear limit or definition.

The lack of clarity here is a significant issue, not least because businesses and producers rely on clear, specific regulations to know what is expected of them and to ensure that they remain compliant. Under this clause, they are left in the dark. What exactly are we talking about when we refer to “other characteristics”? Are we talking about the design of products, marketing methods or even the raw materials that are used in manufacturing? Small businesses and start-ups are especially vulnerable to such unclear regulations, as they may struggle to interpret or comply with such an open-ended provision.

This provision, in effect, gives Ministers the power to define and change the scope of regulations without sufficient clarity or transparency. Ministers could, under this clause, make regulations to cover an incredibly wide range of product characteristics, creating significant uncertainty for the market. We believe that this is an unacceptable level of ministerial discretion. With such a clause, the Government could, in effect, regulate anything and everything related to products. We do not think that we can afford to pass a Bill that leaves businesses and consumers in the dark and subject to the whims of ministerial power. This clause should be completely rewritten or removed. If the Government cannot provide a more specific targeted framework for these regulations, we must consider removing it entirely on Report.

With Amendment 19, there are the same issues. At present, there is no clear definition of what constitutes the “use of products”, nor any explanation as to how the Government intend to regulate it. This lack of clarity presents a significant issue, as it allows Ministers broad and undefined discretion to determine how products should be used and how they are to be regulated. This could easily lead to overreach, and, given how the Government have argued so far in some areas, regulations could be imposed with little or no accountability or scrutiny, leaving businesses uncertain about the future of their operations.

I am very pleased that the Minister has talked repeatedly about giving businesses certainty, particularly in aligning with EU regulations. However, we need more in the Bill to suggest certainty in the areas that I have just described, and I hope that he will be able to provide some reassurance.

--- Later in debate ---

The list in Clause 2 is non-exhaustive and demonstrates the range of matters that our existing product regulations cover to help businesses to deliver a high level of product safety. I hope that I have been able to provide reassurance on all these matters and I would ask that all the amendments in this group not be pressed.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

I am grateful, because this takes this back in a sense to an earlier group. The Minister has again referred to the issue of installation. Can he say categorically, on the issue of use, whether use will always include installation—or is it that it “may” include installation, as he said? Is it “will” or “may”?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I can give the noble Lord the assurance that it is “will”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am very grateful for the explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, of his amendments on AI and digital products, which are particularly appropriate, given the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on the first group when we were discussing sandboxes, because of his experience during the passage of the digital medicines Act three or four years ago. A number of noble Lords in this Grand Committee worked on that—I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in particular.

I raise this because one area that concerns me about new products, especially those using AI, is that we do not have the same mechanisms that we have, full of fault though they are, for being able to allow our personal information to be used and to give our consent. I have mentioned before the issue of my dentist. Before you go to see your dentist, you have to go online to fill in a consent form, and at some point mid last year I noticed that there was something about the IT suppliers and it said, “It is assumed you give your consent”—and 10 layers further down they had a completely different set of consents that breached UK GDPR law. Had I not been working on another Bill about digital consent, I would not have looked much further. I have to say that the moment my dental surgery was aware of this, that firm was not just told to change it but was sacked. My problem with AI is that none of that work is visible; it is completely invisible.

My question to the Minister is, in the discussion about sandboxes but also about products that will come under this Bill: will he ensure that our current GDPR laws—and indeed our copyright laws in relation to music—are complied with at all times, so that there would not be any freedom for somebody using AI to develop a product to breach those? I say that in light of the final remark the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, made about consultation. Two sets of Government Ministers have had a very bitter time about patient data and care.data—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is smiling at me—when the public were not fully informed about what was going on, and in both cases the proposals had to be abandoned.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, the first amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, Amendment 14, seeks to ensure that the production reliance on software and artificial intelligence are included in the scope of the Bill. Clearly, all our remarks are somewhat irrelevant if the Minister gets up and says, “No, they are not”. However, on the assumption that the Minister is going to say, “Yes, they are”, I draw particular attention, if I may, in supporting all the noble Lord’s amendments, to Amendments 75 to 78, on the issue of labelling. This seems to me to be an opportunity for real joined-up government thinking.

The Minister will be well aware that the Communications and Digital Committee, on which I had the opportunity to serve at the time of this, produced a very detailed report on the development of LLMs, large language models, and AI. In so doing, we particularly raised concern about the way in which these large language models were being trained by scraping tons of data from a variety of sources, then creating products over which they were then able to get intellectual property coverage. In so doing, they had scraped a great deal of data.

Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in respect of the labelling and so on, requires the Secretary of State to lay

“regulations to ensure no product or content … uses an individual’s image, likeness or personality rights without that individual’s express consent”.

Had I been drafting the amendment, I would have gone much further, because it seems to me that a large amount of other data is scraped—for instance, novels written by authors without their permission. I could go on; it is well worth looking at the Select Committee report.

Does the Minister accept that this is a real opportunity to have joined-up thinking, when the Government finally decide what their position is in relation to the training of LLMs and people being required to get the permission of all data owners before they can bring their product to market? Does he agree that the labelling of such products, when developed, should include specific reference to them having gained the appropriate permission, paid the appropriate fee or got the appropriate licence to make use of the data that was made use of in the training of those AI products?

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 75, which was very eloquently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. My academic background is in the research of communication and how people make decisions based on information that they are given. That touches quite a lot on how people assess the reliability and trustworthiness of data.

Amendment 75, on the labelling of AI-based products, includes a proposal about communicating the data used in the training of the AI. I think it is really important that people who have products that provide information on which they might be making decisions, or the product might be acting, are able to know the reliability and trustworthiness of that information. The cues that people use for assessing that reliability are such things as the size of the dataset, how recently that data was gathered and the source of that data—because they want to know if that data, to use the example of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is on American cheeses, British cheeses or Italian cheeses, all of which might need a different temperature in your fridge. I urge the Minister to look at this, because the over-trust or the under-trust in the outputs of data make such a difference to how people respond to products. I think this is very important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the probing Amendment 45 from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as she referenced my earlier Amendment 33. She expressed in a more erudite and articulate way what I should have said last week on Amendment 33. However, I think we have both alighted on the fundamental problem in that subsection, which is that despite its opacity and the fact that it is drawn very widely, it does not achieve what we all hope it will achieve—in other words, to point out the obligations on buyers and sellers. The noble Baroness quite rightly pointed out the lacuna inherent in that.

My very brief question to the Minister is whether it might be possible—this is not a criticism but merely an observation in respect of the drafting—for this subsection to be redrafted before Report so that that confusion that we see now, which could potentially give rise to substantial amounts of litigation, is ameliorated and we could have tighter wording to address some of the issues that the noble Baroness and I have pointed out.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, so many of our deliberations in our various sittings have been seeking to put some flesh on to the skeleton nature of the Bill before us; I have done that on a number of occasions, as have many other noble Lords. For instance, in our last-but-one grouping, I proposed that we seek to use the Bill to address concerns about data scraping for the development of new AI products. I gently point out to the Minister that he told me that this would be covered by the Data (Use and Access) Bill. I have double-checked Hansard and can tell him that at the end of the debate on that Bill, when this was raised with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the Minister responsible, she replied that this issue was not covered by that Bill and that DCMS and DSIT Ministers are jointly working and looking forward to bringing forward proposals in due course. She ended by saying:

“We will announce more details in due course”.—[Official Report, 19/11/24; col. 197.]


So it is not covered, and this is a good opportunity to do it.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and other noble Lords who have spoken have pointed out, this is an area, in terms of online marketplaces, where there is an urgent need to put flesh on the bones and to have a clearer understanding of the definition of an online marketplace and of what regulations should apply to them. I have frequently raised in your Lordships’ House my concerns that consumers have far less protection from faulty products bought online than they have when they purchase them on the high street.

It simply cannot be right, as we have seen from all the evidence that we have all received from various organisations, such as the British Toy & Hobby Association, Which? and Electrical Safety First, as well as others, that so many unsafe products are available for sale online. In an earlier contribution, the noble Baroness referred to the fact that 86% of toys sold online do not comply with UK safety requirements. I have referred to the sad fact that many electrical appliances purchased online do not meet appropriate safety requirements and, sadly, have led to loss of life and damage of a great deal of property.

It certainly cannot be right that products that have been withdrawn by a manufacturer, often because of concerns about safety, can still be purchased online, and it certainly cannot be right that consumers have not only less protection but fewer opportunities for redress when purchasing products online compared to what they have when purchasing them on the high street. I support all the amendments addressing those concerns because collectively they would improve consumer protection by ensuring accountability by imposing a clear and enforceable duty on online marketplaces to ensure the safety of products sold on their platforms, especially those coming from third-party sellers overseas. Incidentally, I shall later propose an amendment that would strengthen the extraterritoriality covered by the Bill.

The amendments that we have before us further protect consumers by removing anonymity so that third-party sellers can no longer hide behind platforms to evade product safety regulations and by making it easier for them to seek any form of redress. It establishes direct liability on platforms for unsafe products sold throughout them, which leads to the opportunity for much greater fairness in terms of redress because, at the moment, consumers dealing with faulty high street products expect and receive a full refund or replacement, but when problems arise with online purchases, particularly from overseas sellers, consumers often seem to have no recourse. Amendments in this group deal with that issue. Finally, the amendments would clarify something that is lacking in the Bill at the moment: the issue of accountability. Who is actually accountable in the multinational marketplace structures that we have to deal with now?

Given that these platforms are evolving at an incredibly rapid rate, with people almost daily finding new ways to market their products, we need amendments that ensure that there is no room for manoeuvre to get around the regulations by online marketplaces now and, crucially, in future. We need a clearer definition of what we mean and what is covered by an online marketplace, and I welcome and support the amendments in the group that do just that.

I add one additional point. In Clause 10, the definition of an online marketplace includes,

“any other platform by means of which information is made available over the internet”.

Clause 10 does not define “the internet”, despite quite a point being made of doing so in other legislation. Indeed, other pieces of legislation prefer the phrase “internet service”, not just “internet”. To avoid further ambiguity, I have proposed in Amendments 117 and 122 that the Bill uses “internet service” instead of “internet” and that the definition of “internet service” is exactly as set out in the Online Safety Act 2023.

Given, for instance, that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill has this definition simply copied and pasted into it, I see no reason why this Bill could not do the same. Failing to do so would unhelpfully leave the definition to common law. We should be aiming to ensure that levels of protection and redress are as powerful online as they are on the high street. Amendments in this group will achieve this and will also ensure that we have a future-proofed definition of “online marketplace” and that clear duties and responsibility towards consumer protection are imposed on all relevant bodies. On these Benches, we certainly support them.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for introducing their amendments in this group. I shall briefly speak in favour of Amendments 48 and 71. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for bringing attention to the critical issue that addresses the responsibilities of online marketplaces and also, if I may, pay tribute to her wider work in this area as well as that of my noble friend Lord Lindsay, who is not in this place but whose exemplary work as president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute deserves a mention.

This sector has grown exponentially in recent years and plays a dominant role in modern commerce. This amendment, therefore, highlights essential duties for online marketplaces. For example, a 2023 TSB study found that Facebook Marketplace accounted for 73% of purchase fraud cases. If you think about fraud and its growth in terms of the British crime statistics, that is a significant percentage of British crime, not just online crime. Over one-third of adverts on Facebook Marketplace are scams, we are told, so this amendment would help to level the playing field by ensuring that online marketplaces meet the same safety standards as physical retailers. This would foster fair competition and ensure that businesses prioritising consumer safety are not undermined by unscrupulous practices.

It is vital that we ensure online marketplaces, which facilitate the sale of billions of products, do not become conduits for unsafe goods or fraudulent activity, as all noble Lords have rightly highlighted. Without robust regulations, consumer trust and market integrity are at significant risk. We ask noble Lords to take seriously this amendment to uphold consumer protection, market fairness and safety standards, and think that the Government ought to recognise the urgency of addressing these concerns and act decisively.

On Amendment 71, I support it as a necessary step to protect consumers in the rapidly growing online marketplace sector. The extension of liability to online marketplaces and others under Section 2(3) ensures that those who facilitate the sale of unsafe or defective products are held responsible. Such measures are crucial to maintaining consumer confidence, especially as online shopping becomes so dominant.

We think it is essential that the Government protect consumer rights in all the marketplaces, especially online. We urge the Government to listen to those two amendments in particular but, frankly, there is merit in all the amendments we are debating in this group, and I hope to hear some positive news from the Minister.

Rural Crime: NFU Mutual Report

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, given—as we have already heard from the Minister—the very special challenges and additional costs faced by councils and police forces in rural areas, does the Minister believe that it is fair that, currently, they get less funding per head than urban areas? What plans do the Government have to introduce a funding formula that is fair to rural communities.

Licensing Act 2003 (Liaison Committee Report)

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I suspect that very few of us would doubt the merit of the decision that was made to introduce special Select Committees and ensure that some carry out post-legislative scrutiny. It is equally welcome that, from time to time, the Liaison Committee conducts a follow-up inquiry. I had the opportunity to serve on both the 2017 special committee that reviewed the 2003 Licensing Act and the Liaison Committee in its follow-up work, which reported last year. Both were extremely ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

As we have already heard, the committee concluded that a radical, comprehensive overhaul of the Act was needed, with the work of licensing committees being taken over by planning committees and appeals going to the Planning Inspectorate rather than to magistrates. The committee made a large number of recommendations, which included: better training of councillors engaged in licensing activities; increased safeguards in relation to the extra powers given to the police; the use of taxation and pricing measures to control excessive consumption; a reconsideration of measures such as early morning restriction orders and late night levies; and bringing the sale of alcohol airside within the ambit of licensing legislation. I want to concentrate my remarks on just two of the other recommendations that we made: greater co-ordination between the planning and licensing functions of local authorities; and measures to embed the agent of change principle into planning legislation, guidance and practice more effectively.

In terms of co-ordination between planning and licensing, the Select Committee recommended:

“Sections 6–10 of the Licensing Act 2003 should be amended to transfer the functions of local authority licensing committees and sub-committees to the planning committees”,


and we suggested that there should be trials of this in pilot areas. When the new regime was being designed at the turn of the century, local authority planning committees were in full control of nearly all aspects of land use other than licensing. The committee concluded that it was—and, frankly, remains—a mystery why, when control of land use for the sale of alcohol was being considered, it was thought necessary to set up committees with different constitutions and powers. The result is absurdities like applications for new pubs receiving planning permission but not alcohol licences, or vice versa, sometimes on the grounds that the noise anticipated would be excessive in a residential area for planning purposes but not for licensing purposes.

The committee’s proposal would have resolved those absurdities. Responding to the Select Committee’s report, the Government acknowledged that there was a problem, saying that they

“recognise that coordination between systems is inconsistent and could be improved in many areas”.

However, as we have sadly heard, the Government have ruled out even trials of our proposals. I will suggest to the Minister two other reasons why the Government should reconsider.

The first is quite simple. As the noble Baroness has already said, planning policies compete with each other but also with licensing policies. Decision-makers must weigh up competing policies—both planning and licensing—on a case-by-case basis. Surely the Minister agrees that managing that balance is best done by a single decision-making body.

The second argument relates to current problems within planning decision-making. The planning process is frequently blamed for a shortfall in the provision of new housing. It is taking longer and longer to approve even planning permission for home extensions. Last year, for example, more than 100,000 such applications took more than eight weeks to reach a decision. It would be easy to blame local planning authorities but LGA research shows that, faced with reductions in funding, 305 of the 343 planning departments are operating at a deficit. As a result, they have significant staff shortages. A quarter of planning authorities do not even have a head of planning reporting directly to a council chief executive. England’s chief planning officer, Joanna Averley, acknowledged this recently, saying that there are

“not enough planners coming into local government”.

She added that the Government do not have the funds to pay for more.

It is plain that a major amendment to the planning process will have to come sooner rather than later. The amalgamation of planning and licensing through economies of scale would go some way towards helping the problems I have described. Does the Minister accept that this would be the time to include reform of the licensing process so that the task is given to planning committees, as the Select Committee first recommended six years ago?

Another example illustrating the potential confusion between planning and licensing is in respect of the agent of change principle; I hope that my comments here will complement those of the noble Baroness. Put simply, the agent of change principle ensures that a new development must shoulder responsibility for compliance when situated near, for example, an existing music venue. Similarly, if a music venue opens in an existing residential area, the new venue would be responsible for complying with residential requirements such as enhanced sound-proofing.

Members of the Select Committee were pleased that the Government agreed with our recommendation that the agent of change principle should be reflected in both the National Planning Policy Framework and Section 182 guidance. This has now happened. However, the Liaison Committee heard that the principle is inadequate as it stands and does not sufficiently explain the duties of all parties involved. It needs to go further to protect licensed premises and local residents in our changing high streets. Indeed, coupled with the lack of consistency between the planning and licensing systems, the current arrangements are still not guaranteeing the protection of live venues.

In a recent debate on the levelling up Bill, I cited two examples—the Night & Day Café in Manchester and the Jago in Dalston—both of which have both been served with noise abatement notices as a result of complaints from residents of newly developed properties in their vicinities. Fortunately, the Jago prevailed at appeal and the noise abatement notice was withdrawn by the council. For Night & Day, however, the appeal has still not been resolved after lengthy delays.

Under the present arrangements, the agent of change principle is not covered by legislation; it is only in policy, with language that has proved vague. How do decision-makers interpret words such as “effectively”, “unreasonable” or “suitable”? How do they balance the agent of change principle against, for example, the urgent need for more housing? How do existing businesses know well enough in advance about new developments that may have an impact on them?

To resolve such issues, the Liaison Committee recommended that:

“The Government should review the ‘Agent of Change’ principle, strengthen it, and consider incorporating it into current planning reforms in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill”.


The Government did not disagree; and they also pointed to the then upcoming Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill as a vehicle to address these concerns.

As we have heard, in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, moved an amendment, which I strongly supported, which would have incorporated the agent of change principle into law for licensing and other purposes. The amendment would have helped the Government achieve what they agreed was needed: greater clarity about what was expected of councils and businesses. However, the Minister responding, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, claimed that the amendment was not needed and gave the reasons we have already heard. She said that

“we will make sure that our policy results in better protections for these businesses and delivers on the agent of change principle in practice”.—[Official Report, 24/4/23; col. 995.]

But there are currently no such relevant changes proposed in the Bill. So I repeat the question asked by the noble Baroness: can the Minister explain exactly how the Government intend to achieve both the recommendations of the Liaison Committee and, more importantly, their own promise?

I began by welcoming special Select Committee and Liaison Committee follow-up reports. Frankly, it would be even more welcome if the Government paid greater attention to their work and proposals.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, the responsibilities of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport have an impact on all our lives in both our leisure activities, from sport to theatre, and our working lives, with the crucial reliance on communications and data. The creative industries boost our economy and the BBC boosts our standing overseas. However, despite all this and much more, it is an undervalued and under-resourced department. As a result, opportunities are missed, such as the role that the creative industries could play in rural areas to help the levelling-up agenda.

Of course I accept that the department is doing things, including reforms in areas such as data, media, digital competition and online safety. However, even in some of these areas, it is simply not going fast enough. For example, I am pleased that the Government recognise the need to tackle tech giants’ anti-competitive practices and say that action is urgent but, instead of enacting the proposals for the Digital Markets Unit, we are offered a draft Bill—hardly urgent action.

I have spoken many times in your Lordships’ House about the need for urgent action to reform gambling; I declare my interest as the chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform. This is yet another area where we have seen dither and delay—sadly, that delay is costing lives—while gambling companies make multi-billion-pound profits. We have well over a third of a million problem gamblers; amazingly, 60,000 of them are children. Some 2 million people are impacted by it all and, sadly, more than one gambling-related suicide occurs every single day. We cannot continue as we are, with outdated legislation designed before the advent of the smartphone. Can the Minister at least tell us exactly when the much-delayed White Paper will be published?

There are many gaps: there are no measures to improve the protection for our world-beating creative, design and brand industry, the success of which is continually threatened by digital piracy and counterfeiting. It is now 18 months since the Government’s Digital Markets Taskforce recommended solutions, so can the Minister tell us whether the Government plan to progress these recommendations and, if so, when?

Our world-leading sports industries rely on income underpinned by intellectual property rights, yet their digital rights are poorly protected and their TV rights are now under threat, as we increasingly see drones feeding TV pictures to the betting community without the permission of the organisers. Bizarrely, this is entirely legal at present. Sporting bodies have developed sensible proposals to rectify the situation, so will the Minister at least agree to meet them?

The Government claim they are prioritising improvement in intellectual property protection in those countries with which we are negotiating trade agreements, yet industries that rely on IP are not convinced. They point to the CPTPP, from which it is clear that, rather than a rule-maker, we will be a rule-taker and there will be little deviation from the existing agreement with its poor IP protection. That is hardly prioritising intellectual property in trade negotiations.

Even over Brexit, because the DCMS lacks any clout in Whitehall, it was ignored when the deal was being negotiated. As a result, BEIS failed to protect our second-largest sector, the creative arts, which covers one in eight businesses. The perfectly sensible cultural visa waiver scheme offered by the EU was rejected for mistaken ideological reasons. The consequent increase in complexity and red tape for touring musicians and other performance artists will not be fixed, as the Government try to claim, by what my noble friend describes as the “quagmire” of differing bilateral deals with individual EU countries.

Finally, given that so much needs to be done, can the Minister explain why vital legislative time is to be used to provide a solution where there is no problem and no public support? The Secretary of State claims that the privatisation of Channel 4 is necessary because the current ownership model has “serious challenges”, yet your Lordships’ Select Committee, like many others, stated:

“We are not convinced … by those who claim that privatisation is an urgent necessity”.


I will not repeat the many eloquent arguments made by other noble Lords, but will ask just one question. The remit of Channel 4 includes several quotas, such as the percentage of production that should be made outside London. But Channel 4 committed to exceeding them and Ofcom confirms that it has. The broadcasting White Paper specifically says:

“The government will require this new owner to adhere to ongoing commitments, similar to those Channel 4 has today”.


Can the Minister explain whether this means that a new owner must maintain the quotas Channel 4 has achieved or the lower ones set out in the remit? Surely, if it is the lower ones, this totally contradicts the Government’s promise that they expect the new owner to continue to

“deliver outcomes in line with those we see today”.

With so much else that needs fixing, I fail to understand why an underresourced and undervalued department is wasting time on an unnecessary and unpopular project.

Metropolitan Police: Live Facial Recognition

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strasburger]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Metropolitan Police about the use of Live Facial Recognition deployments; whether the watchlists for such deployments are composed exclusively of serious criminals; and what is the definition of serious criminals for this purpose.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

On behalf of my noble friend Lord Strasburger, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Home Office has regular discussions with the Metropolitan Police Service about a wide range of issues, including facial recognition. It has published detailed information about its approach to the deployments, including on the composition of watchlists.

[Lord Foster of Bath]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As this dangerously invasive technology develops, taking us ever closer to a surveillance society, the Government continue to claim that it is for use in the catching of only serious criminals, not people with overdue parking fines. However, the Metropolitan Police’s operating procedures make no mention whatever of limiting its use to serious criminals. How does the Minister explain this discrepancy? When will the Government end their wilful blindness and halt the uncontrolled use of facial recognition until Parliament has had an opportunity to legislate to manage it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there were several points in that question. First, the High Court has said that the police are operating within the legal framework. Secondly, this technology would not be used in relation to overdue parking tickets. To quote the Metropolitan Police, its use of this technology targets

“those wanted for imprisonable offences, with a focus on serious crime, with a particular regard to knife and gun crime, child sexual exploitation and terrorism”.

Licensing Act 2003: Post-Legislative Scrutiny (Licensing Act 2003 Report)

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Wednesday 20th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I too served on the Select Committee and wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for both chairing the committee and securing this debate. I also thank the excellent staff and advisers who served us so well and the other members of the committee, from whom I learned a great deal.

Our task was a difficult one, which was made more complicated by the large number of amendments that have been made to the legislation since it came into force. Indeed, further amendments were being debated as the committee was sitting. We also had to consider many other changes such as the one raised by the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins—namely the changes to the way that alcohol is now consumed, with the closure of thousands of pubs and the significant growth of off-trade and online purchasing. All this made it difficult to assess the impact of the legislation.

This difficulty is illustrated by the statistics. Alcohol-related violent crime has decreased but—as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, so powerfully described—alcohol-related illness has increased. Nevertheless, the committee made some powerful suggestions for future action. The Government’s much-delayed response was somewhat disappointing—it was certainly a mixture of disappointing and defensive, as the noble Lord, Lord Blair, put it. I hope that, as a result of today’s debate, the Government will at least be prepared to reconsider their response to some of our recommendations. Nobody can claim that all is well and no further action is needed. The worrying health statistics alone should give us cause for concern.

We should also be concerned by many other issues, including the failure of current legislation to apply airside and port side, the consequences of which were described by the noble Lord, Lord Blair, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh; and the inadequacy of resources to police and enforce existing legislation. Surely if our proposal to localise licence fee-setting is not to be accepted, the Minister should at least accept the well argued for need for a flat-rate increase. We should also be concerned about the absence of a useful national database of, for example, personal licence holders.

We should be especially concerned by the significant dissatisfaction we found with the licensing application and appeals processes. The licensing application procedures were variously described to us as “a lottery” and “a pantomime”. We heard of “standards falling far short”; “meek and mild” legal advisers; responsible bodies not engaging effectively, and often not at all; a lack of transparency, with decisions being made “behind closed doors”; and inadequate councillor training. We heard all too frequently of the lack of co-ordination between licensing and planning. We concluded that there would be considerable merit in the licensing application procedures mirroring those for planning applications, which, as we heard, include professionally qualified officers; a requirement for officials to proactively gather and analyse the views of interested people; and the preparation of a wide-ranging pre-meeting report offering detailed analysis, professional judgment and legal advice. We argue that, combined with improved training, that should all be part of the licensing procedures. Better still, as so eloquently argued by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, planning and licensing should be combined.

Although the Government have rejected that proposal, I welcome their recognition of the need for improved training, for greater synergies between planning and licensing, and for stronger guidance on how licensing hearings should be conducted. I hope that in her winding-up speech the Minister will provide details of the action to be taken and the timescales involved. Will she also do the same for licensing appeals, given the Government’s acceptance of the committee’s concerns about those procedures?

Of course, what emerges will lead to changes not to legislation but to guidance. So it is particularly disappointing that the Government have so easily dismissed the committee’s call for a return to consultation on and parliamentary scrutiny of draft guidance. The Government argue:

“The guidance is updated to reflect legislative changes; as these are factual changes it is not necessary to carry out a formal consultation”.


But this argument simply does not bear scrutiny. In their response to the committee’s report, the Government said that,

“there are a significant number of recommendations”—

at least 12 by my count—

“that the Government agrees will help improve the operation of the Act, for example clarifying points of practice for licensing committees by amending the statutory guidance”.

These are not simply “factual” or resulting from “legislative changes”, but rather—because, after all, this is what guidance is for—they will reflect and interpret legislation, improving, as the Government put it, the operation of the Act.

My noble friend Lady Grender, for instance, will wish to scrutinise the changes to guidance in respect of simultaneous temporary event notices given for adjacent plots of land. Like the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, I was deeply disappointed by the Government’s rejection of our pragmatic proposals on disabled access, and I know that my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester, who is keen to see more licensed premises engage with the problems of access for people with disabilities, will wish to scrutinise any changes that arise following the now promised further consultation. Where the Government offer new interpretations of legislation, there should be consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that the Minister will agree to look again at this decision.

In passing, since some of our recommendations are to be affected by changes to the LGA handbook, I ask for details of this mysterious publication and the status it has or will have.

The committee’s report covered numerous other issues, but I finish by touching on just one. Despite the undoubted benefits of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones’s Live Music Act, in which I played a small part in the other place, live music venues and other licensed premises still face significant challenges with, for example, 35% of music venues closing in the last decade. The committee considered one measure that could help: the introduction of a full “agent of change” principle into planning and licensing law. It has already been introduced for permitted developments, such as the change of an empty office building to residential use. But with music venues facing closure as a result of planning decisions, the committee proposed the introduction of the agent of change principle for all new developments. Since the Government’s consultation on such an approach ended over eight months ago, will the Minister update the House on progress? Will she tell us whether she supports the Bill from John Spellar MP—it has cross-party support—which seeks to put a full agent of change principle on a statutory footing?

Members of the committee and other noble Lords have raised important points and posed numerous questions for the Minister. Like them, I look forward to her response. I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for chairing the committee and securing today’s debate. I end by echoing the Christmas greetings of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, to one and all.