Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Grand Committee

[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.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Grand Committee

[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]

Debate between Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Committee stage
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

Just for absolute clarity, I did not say that the Bill was too discretionary; I said that the current arrangements were too discretionary and I want a change from that situation.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am sorry if I misinterpreted what the noble Lord said, but I get his drift. We believe that the operation of our current product regulation framework already recognises the point that he made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

I apologise but I am not quite sure what the Minister’s concern about my amendment therefore is. It specifically suggests that we put into the Bill a power for the Secretary of State to choose to bring forward regulations that will enable the classification of high-risk products in the way that he has just described. They are all included, including the recently developed framework, as possible ways of doing that within the amendment. I genuinely do not understand the Minister’s argument. I am giving an opportunity for clarity—so that in all circumstances there is an opportunity to use that framework.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

We do not think it is necessary.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

Why?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

If the noble Lord will let me explain, Clauses 1 and 11 grant powers to make regulations relating to product safety for a range of purposes, general or specific. The Government have set out in their response to the product safety review our intention in the months ahead to begin a process of sector reviews. They will consider whether any changes are needed to our existing regulation of higher-risk products to reflect modern challenges, such as those that the noble Lord has pointed out in two speeches this afternoon. We will also consider whether updates to the GPSR are necessary to ensure that cross-cutting and emerging risks are properly addressed, particularly where products fall outside current sector-specific rules.

Furthermore, in December 2022, the Office for Product Safety & Standards developed a product safety risk assessment methodology for GB regulators to use with non-compliant products. The methodology requires consideration of the tolerability of the risk identified. Where a risk is intolerable, a regulator can act robustly in relation to risks that may have a low possibility of occurring, but where, if they did, the outcome would be disastrous. A noteworthy example is the effort made by the Office for Product Safety & Standards to protect young people from the dangers of ingesting small, powerful magnets.

In Amendment 95 the noble Lord, Lord Fox, makes the sensible point that safe disposal can be a key part of protecting consumers and businesses. Clause 1(5) makes clear that regulations can cover safe disposal of products. We will consider whether particular products need specific regulation in this area on a case-by-case basis.

On the disposal of batteries specifically, the Government are committed to cracking down on waste as we move toward a circular economy. We shall have a discussion on the circular economy—I was going to say “in a few minutes”, but that might be a little hopeful. We are reviewing and propose to consult on reforms to UK batteries regulation before setting out our next steps.

Finally, regarding the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, on the Schedule to the Bill, the things mentioned in the exclusions are covered by separate legislation. It is as simple as that.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s indulgence; I have a straightforward question regarding Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. The Minister has answered it thoroughly but I still do not understand. What else would the Government be doing, in looking at the efficacy of product safety, that is not already in the amendment? Surely the noble Lord’s amendment merely formalises actions with regard to product safety that the Government themselves would do in analysing what they need to do to protect consumers. I cannot understand the Minister’s resistance to at least being a bit more emollient towards what seems to me quite a sensible amendment.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I think that is surprising support from the noble Lord, Lord Foster. This is an iterative process in Committee, and we are certainly always prepared to look at suggestions put forward. My response is simply that we think the Bill as it stands, and the reviews that will take place, cover the points he raises. The Attorney-General’s advice also suggests that we should not unnecessarily add to legislation, but we will give it some consideration.

Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 25th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath]

I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord. The entire House is looking forward to a later debate on future signage arrangements around Birmingham New Street station, which he is the world’s expert on. I hope that, before our Committee deliberations are finished, he will offer to lead a team of Games volunteers at the station to guide people, since he knows his way around there better than most.

However, the noble Lord’s suggestion is wrong: at no point have I been a clear enthusiast for a hotel tax. He will note that in many debates in the other place, I expressed on the record grave reservations about such an approach until the issue of VAT had been addressed. There is commonality of agreement with my noble friend on the Front Bench on this issue, but there are a range of views, which we will have an opportunity to hear when his noble friend introduces his amendment.

My final two amendments, 19 and 20, look at the wider reporting mechanism. Amendment 20 calls for an earlier report than the Bill currently provides for. I hope the Minister agrees that on financial and other vital issues, we need early reporting. Amendment 19, from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, calls for not only earlier reports but far more frequent reports than is currently proposed. That way, your Lordships and the other House can keep abreast of what is happening and hold people to account. The more reports that we have as the Games develop, the better, and it is important that we use them to keep a tight grip on expenditure.

Let me give an example of why there are continuing concerns, and why there is a need to keep a grip and to understand what is meant by the Government’s plans for underwriting the Games. We know from newspaper reports that removing the National Express bus depot in order to create the Games village and subsequently providing 1,400 much-needed homes in the area was initially estimated to cost £2 million. Reports now suggest that the cost will be a staggering eight times higher, at £15.5 million. Will the money that has to be found be additional to the £185 million that Birmingham City Council must find, or will it be covered by the Government’s underwriting agreement with the council? It is important that we find out such details now. We need early and regular financial reports on what is taking place, and that is why I have tabled my amendment. I support nearly all the other amendments, albeit that one needs a slight tweak. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 3 and respond to the noble Lord, Lord Foster. He is right about the need for transparency in the underwriting agreement between the Government and Birmingham City Council. It is not at all clear to noble Lords. The key issue is: who is the provider of funds of last resort if the Games run into financial difficulty? We are entitled to be told at some point during the passage of the legislation. Whether we get that is another matter entirely.

It needs to be repeated that these Games are a fantastic opportunity for the country, Birmingham and the West Midlands. Many characteristics of the Games are very exciting. Now that we have resolved imaginatively the issue of the two sports originally to be excluded, all is set fair for a brilliant competition. However, the problem of finances for a city that is already under some financial challenge is formidable. As we have heard, there is a 75:25% budget split between central government and Birmingham City Council. Birmingham has to find £184 million and it will of course look for commercial opportunities to help with that; but it also has other plans such as the post-Games housing development in Perry Barr. All that means that sources of private funding will have to be found. We must recognise that the city council’s finances are under pressure, which is why this is such an important issue.

I have been interested in a tourism levy because the city council has been. The Core Cities group believes that a levy would be a sensible and fair way in which to raise funding revenue. Scotland is close to implementing such a levy for Edinburgh, and the consultation of the city council there showed high levels of support for it—85% of respondents to the consultation backed a levy of either 2% or £2 per room per night. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, rather unkindly took me to task for the wording of my amendment. We should not take the wording of amendments in Committee too literally. The point that I am trying to make and is clear in my amendment is that we want the Government to look at this matter sympathetically and produce a report. The issue that the noble Lord is right to raise is the length of time for which a levy would operate. I fully accept that important point and it surely would be discussed after review by the Government and the city council.

[Lord Foster of Bath]

I entirely accept the noble Lord’s point and that a drafting change can be made, but does he not think it more sensible to adopt the approach proposed in the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Addington, which talks about the Government looking at ways they can help Birmingham City Council raise funds through, for example, a local tax more generally or even a local lottery? There are quite imaginative solutions and to tie it down to one specific mechanism is probably an error.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

We already know from what the Minister said at Second Reading that she will say that the decision on a new tax rests with Her Majesty’s Treasury and it thinks that local authorities already have ample means to raise funding. I am sure she will say that again. The noble Lord raises some fundamental points about local government finance, and I am very sympathetic to them. I have been trying to put forward a very simple suggestion: as a tourism levy has been floated by a number of local authorities and we are seeing one implemented soon in Edinburgh, why not use the Commonwealth Games as a way to pilot it—without commitment to any other city or area of the country or that it will be a long-term tax—to see whether it could work?

I understood that, post-election, Her Majesty’s Treasury was looking at changing all the rules of engagement as part of the Government’s new strategy towards local government and to help in some of the more deprived parts of the country. This is a very straightforward way to try something out to see whether it would work, whether it would impact on the hotel economy—a downturn is clearly one risk—and whether it would be a very straightforward way to enable local authorities to raise more resources for sports, leisure and culture in the future. I do not see the problem with having a pilot scheme to allow that to happen.