Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I emphatically support the excellent Amendment 203J, to insert a new clause after Clause 48, moved so ably by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth.

It is important at this juncture to put this into some context, because there is a fast-moving debate on our involvement with the 1951 refugee convention and our obligations therein, and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Minister knows that these issues have been debated recently by his noble friends, including the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, Jack Straw, the former Home Secretary, and even other esteemed Members of this House, such as the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. However, we are not here necessarily to talk about the disapplication of or derogation from the ECHR, although I may press the Minister to update your Lordships’ House on progress made on the review of Article 8 of the convention, which has been a government undertaking for several months.

The fact of the matter is that we have a small boat crossings crisis, which is the kernel of the rationale of this amendment. Small boat crossings are costing us £5.6 million a day in hotel accommodation for asylum seekers—the equivalent of 73,000 visits to accident and emergency by British citizens and others every day. The National Audit Office tells us that by the end of this Parliament, this is likely to cost the country £15 billion. We have had 180,000 individual crossings since 2018, and this year alone, as of yesterday, 28,000 individual arrivals.

The point is that this is an existential emergency for the protection of our borders, so we need to look at different ways of approaching the situation. On that basis, the Minister should look very carefully at this amendment. It is not about withdrawing from the convention, but a very robust interpretation of our legal obligations under Section 31 of the convention. I will not try the patience of the House by repeating the specific wording of that convention, which is often being misinterpreted by some members of the judiciary and others, including, of course, some charity groups with a vested interest in this area.

My noble friend is right to talk about accretion and the reach of the concept that has developed since the 1970s: the living instrument doctrine, which has informed decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in this area. I accept that the Government are in a difficult position at the moment. We were, of course, party to the Dublin III convention— Regulation 604/2013—and we are now waiting for the European Union’s decision on how to implement the asylum and migration management regulation 2024, which will come into full effect in June 2026.

This is a question of fairness. If you go the right route and seek asylum, naturalisation as a British citizen or indefinite leave to remain, you are, as we know from the Home Secretary’s remarks earlier this week, subject to some pretty significant restrictions on who you can bring in, what your salary or pay should be and your access to public funds. That is perhaps as it should be, but if you arrive by small boat, you have no such restrictions. You are put up in a hotel, subject to limited security checks and are perhaps eventually to be reunited with family members, who will access NHS services, school services and local authority and housing association housing. There is an issue of disproportionality and unfairness between those two groups, and the important thing we need to remember is that my noble friend Lord Murray’s proposal addresses this issue in a way that will not cause—how can I put it?—legal chaos. Most importantly, it will act as a clear and demonstrable deterrent to the people traffickers and to those seeking to arrive by illegal and irregular means, by small boat across the channel. The Government have a good opportunity, as my noble friend says, to seize this issue with both hands.

I finish on the second issue: the UK/European Applicant Transfer Scheme, which was sealed by means of a treaty between the United Kingdom and France in May. Interestingly, the Home Secretary wrote to my committee, the European Affairs Committee, on 6 August to indicate that Section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 was being disapplied, and that the Government had invoked Section 22(1) of CRaG to prevent proper scrutiny and oversight of the treaty, as per the legislation—in other words, 21 days of proper scrutiny. That may be an operational issue which was necessary at the time, but it goes to the inability of the other place and this House to properly scrutinise that one-in, one-out treaty and its efficacy. I would value the Minister’s comments on that. When will we have a chance to look properly at how that treaty and its effects are working, both in the interests of the UK and of our partners in France?

With that point in mind, the Minister has an opportunity to properly consider the amendment. The Government are in a pickle; they are flailing around for some gimmicks to convince the public that they have got a grip on small boat crossings, which they do not. This is a real opportunity for them to seize this issue and to reduce the pull factor of small boat crossings. On that basis, I strongly support the amendment, and hope the Minister at least responds in kind in an attempt to ameliorate what is a national emergency.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 104 and 203J, and to join the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in inviting the Minister to consider carefully the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray. I was a member of the court in the decision to which the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, referred. It provides a good example of the problem we face in looking at these amendments.

The problem with the courts is that individual cases come to us and you have to consider them one by one. But as legislators, we can take a broader view, cover the whole ground and intercept problems that, if not intercepted, would come back to the courts one by one to be dealt with. The Georgian case is a good example: if it came before the Supreme Court now, the protection the court offered in the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, referred, would be made available as well. To allow that person to be extradited to Georgia, in the light of such conduct, would be quite contrary to their human rights. For these reasons, there is a lot of force in those two amendments, on the ground that they intercept a problem that will recur and is best dealt with by legislation now.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, referred to a case in the Supreme Court. I have no recollection of that case, and he will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that I was party to the decision and therefore was not in the majority. However, if the minority had included Lord Rodger, that would carry great weight for me.

I confess that, for quite some time, I have felt that the point that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is making had a lot of force behind it. I would need to look again more carefully at the wording of the convention to determine what my final decision would be, but he said enough to justify the invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, to the Government to look at it very carefully, because the advantages of giving effect to that reading are obvious. I do not think that it would damage our reputation, because it would depend on an interpretation of the wording of the convention—not defying or withdrawing from the convention but giving effect to it. That, I think, is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is making, and there is a lot of force behind it.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I am also tempted to speak to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, but I will restrict myself to that from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, which seeks to include a reference to Section 59 in the clause.

Most of the asylum seekers who want to end up in Britain come from countries which we may at first see as safe countries but which soon go into chaos, confusion and great difficulty. So, to define a “safe country” in the rather difficult world that we happen to inhabit at the moment is precarious, because we will never know how safe it is. For a country that we thought was safe, we may suddenly discover that there has been a coup, or that people want a different Government, or that there is a lot of organised theft—and that is not simply a question of corruption, because, for me, the concept of corruption, at the heart of it, is a bit illusory. Because of the vicissitudes that exist for the majority of the people who come to this country illegally, let us not assure ourselves that the countries that we think are safe now will be safe in the next two months. Things change pretty quickly.

If we are to repeal parts of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 in Clause 38 of this Bill, it is best to include the repeal of Section 59 and not stop at Section 58, because of the difficulty we find in defining what we thought was a safe country. To put it in legislation would be a very unwise decision. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, has been wise to invite us to go up to Section 59 and not to stop at Section 58, because we would cover this uncertainty that still exists.

I am also attracted to this idea because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has supported Amendment 104 —and with good reason. I do not want to repeat the arguments that were carefully crafted by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, but simply to say that, because I come from Uganda, I know that while we may think that the country is stable today, it may easily find itself in great difficulty tomorrow. As legislators, let us not assume that the countries where we want to send these people are safe, because we do not know how quickly that temperature may change, and we may find that we have legislated for something that we really should not have done. Let us not be prophets; let us be legislators.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

31: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“Product regulations: devolved administrations(1) Product regulations under section 1 may not be made unless and until the Secretary of State has consulted the devolved administrations as to their impact and effect on the marketing and use of products in the areas within the United Kingdom over which they have legislative competence. (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations exclude the application of this Act to products to be marketed or used in areas within the United Kingdom over which the devolved administrations have legislative competence to enable effect to be given to an agreement that forms part of a common framework agreement.(3) A “common framework agreement” is a consensus between a Minister of the Crown and one or more devolved administrations as to how devolved or transferred matters previously governed by EU law are to be regulated.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that devolved administrations are consulted before regulations are made under this Part of the Act, and that common framework agreements receive the same protection to enable them to receive effect as they have under section 10 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for adding their names to this amendment, which is in my name. The amendment seeks to insert into Part 1 a new clause, which has two objectives. The first is to ensure that, before any regulations are made under this part, the devolved Administrations are consulted on the impact and effect of the marketing and use of products in the areas over which they have legislative competence. The second is to prevent agreements that have been made under the common framework system being nullified by any of these regulations.

As far as the first objective is concerned, this Bill extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Product and consumer safety standards are reserved matters in relation to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That has been acknowledged by the Government, as noted in paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Notes. While the Bill makes provision as to what is to happen in each of the jurisdictions within the United Kingdom, it does not contain any provisions which require the consent of—or at least consultation with—the devolved Administrations before the wide-ranging powers to make regulations under Clauses 1 and 4 are exercised.

The problem which comes up time and again as Bills pass through this House is that the Sewel convention does not extend to delegated legislation, so it cannot be said that UK Ministers are required by convention to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations before exercising these powers. That is why the Constitution Committee, which always keeps a close eye on these matters, has recommended on numerous occasions that engagement with the devolved Administrations should be a formal requirement.

As far as this Bill is concerned, there is at least a risk that, unless something is said about it in the Bill, product regulations made under Clause 1 will engage matters which are not reserved to the UK Ministers in ways that would impinge significantly on devolved competence, without the devolved Administrations being involved at all. That is why, in paragraph 34 of its report on the Bill, the Constitution Committee suggested that clarification is needed from the Government

“as to the processes of consultation and consent it intends to apply”

if the powers in the Bill are used

“to make regulations in areas of devolved competence”.

I suggest that my amendment offers a sensible solution to a point that is of very real concern to the devolved Administrations. It does not require their consent. There is no need to go that far, because “close and timely” consultation—to use the Constitution Committee’s own phrase—would be enough to sort out things in a way that satisfies both sides. Consultation, not consent, is what this proposed new clause would require.

I am very grateful to the Minister and the Bill team for the way in which they engaged with me when we discussed this issue a few days ago. I hope very much that he will feel able to assure me that the Government will take this point seriously, and that they will bring forward an amendment that deals with it in their own words in due course. I look forward to his reply, but I would also welcome any guidance he can give as to the extent of the legislative process with both Wales and Scotland—that would be very helpful.

The second objective relates to the common frameworks. They were created to ensure that a common approach was taken so that some measure of consistency was achieved across policy areas returned from the EU which intersect with devolved competence. Their engagement with devolved competence matters, because one of the features of the way these matters were handled within the EU was that it enabled a devolved Administration to diverge from other parts of the United Kingdom as to how matters that were within its devolved competence should be dealt with. The way the system works is that there is a process of consultation that enables a proposal for divergence to be discussed to enable its effect—if any—on the other parts of the United Kingdom to be identified and assessed. It is only if and when agreement has been reached that it would not disadvantage the other parts of the UK that the proposal can proceed to enactment.

That system was already up and running when what became the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 was introduced. The market access principles which that Act contains are designed to ensure that there is a single market across all parts of the UK. Central to its provisions is the principle that whatever is done by way of marketing or the use of products that is compatible with the legislative framework in one part of the UK can be done everywhere else, irrespective of what the legislative framework elsewhere may provide. A provision which is now Section 10 of the Act was inserted into the Bill to enable the Secretary of State by regulations to exclude the application of those principles to enable effect to be given to a common framework agreement.

Subsections (2) and (3) of my proposed new clause are designed to give a common framework agreement the same protection against what product regulations under this Bill may provide for. Without that protection, agreements of that kind run the risk of being rendered unenforceable. As with Section 10 of the internal market Act, I am proposing that whether or not to exercise the power should be at the discretion of the Secretary of State. It is a very light touch to what could be a very real problem.

I appreciate that the system that this Bill seeks to introduce is not the same as that provided for by the internal market Act. It may also be said that the common frameworks are now so well established that they do not need this protection, but we must remember that this is a system that looks to the future as well as the present, as indeed this Bill does too. So we have to allow for what frameworks may do in the future in a way that we cannot foresee. I hope that the Government will feel able to provide the same protection here as was agreed to in the case of the internal market Act by the previous Government. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for Amendment 31, which concerns consultation with the devolved Governments, and common frameworks. I know I speak for the whole House when I say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, brings to the fore his knowledge and passion on the subject of devolution and illustrates the very best aspects of the scrutiny function of this House. I certainly valued his insight when we met to discuss his amendment on 30 January.

As mentioned at that meeting, and before I address the substance of Amendment 31, I reiterate that the Government are committed to working collaboratively with devolved Governments. I have met with my ministerial colleagues in all three devolved Governments and my officials are continuing to have discussions at official level with their counterparts. Those discussions have been extremely constructive, and I thank the Ministers and officials from the devolved Governments for the constructive and positive way they have engaged with the Government on this important piece of legislation.

Noble Lords will appreciate that the Bill deals with complex areas of product regulation. Consequently, the Government are not in a position to bring forward devolution amendments at this time, while discussions are ongoing. This is not unprecedented or novel. Indeed, many devolution amendments are brought forward in the second House, and the Government expect that this will be the case with this legislation.

This amendment would ensure that the devolved Governments are consulted on matters in devolved competence under the Bill and that the Secretary of State has the power to exclude the application of this requirement for matters covered by a common framework where a relevant agreement is reached. I reassure the House that the UK Government will continue to ensure that the devolved Governments are properly consulted when discussing product matters that are devolved or that impact within devolved areas. For example, in Committee, we set out some of the ways we engage with devolved Governments already, including the goods regulation group, run by the Department for Business and Trade, which met recently on 9 January, when this Bill was discussed.

Amendment 31 also touches on common frameworks. It is unlikely that products affected by regulations made under the Bill would fall under any extant common framework. That is because of the tight scope of the common frameworks. Therefore, the specific subject matters currently covered by common frameworks are unlikely to intersect with the subject matter of this Bill. However, the UK Government are actively considering their broader approach to common frameworks and will keep this under review. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, so eloquently set out in Committee, the purpose of common frameworks is to facilitate a joint approach with devolved Governments where policy is GB-wide.

I reassure all noble Lords that working closely with the devolved Governments is a priority and will take place on regulations made under the Bill, whether the products in question fall under a common framework or not. Consequently, while ministerial and official-level discussions are ongoing, I ask that the House does not pre-empt the outcome of those discussions by agreeing this amendment. I remain confident that, through our continued positive engagement with devolved Governments, we can reach a mutually beneficial solution, and I am happy to keep the House abreast of developments. In that light, I respectfully ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this short debate, and especially to the Minister for his very helpful reply.

On the first part of my amendment, which concerns consultation with the devolved Administrations, I absolutely accept this Government’s commitment to close co-operation. I am sure that those in the devolved Administrations are equally grateful for the way in which this Government are engaging with them, which is a considerable improvement from what it was not so long ago. However, one must remember that Governments change, and undertakings that are genuinely given on behalf of this Government by the Minister may not last for ever. That is why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, emphasised that putting something into the legislation is so important. I am sure that that matter will require careful consideration in the other House, when the Bill goes there. On that basis, I am happy to accept the assurances the Minister has given me.

On the common frameworks, I was encouraged to learn in our discussion that they are now being overseen by the Cabinet, which was not the case at an earlier stage. The fact they are being overseen there is itself an assurance that the matter is being properly looked after. I hope that the Government will keep an open mind as they more carefully think through this. They must bear in mind the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that we are looking into the future as well as at the position now; that is an important factor. With grateful thanks to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 31 withdrawn.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

We now have whole new ranges of products, which often include biocides that change the bacterial composition of the vaginal microbiome and cause infection risks. There are even experiments with products containing coagulants that could be used to clot blood. Many of these are undoubtedly great, but we need to ensure that they are properly regulated—at least as regulated as cosmetics, but probably not as tightly regulated as medical devices. It is shocking to me, and anyone I speak to, that blusher is more regulated than tampons. I ask the Government to consider this amendment, or something similar, very carefully. It would allow us to ensure the safety and the clear labelling of these products, so that we do not see any repeat of the toxic shock tragedy.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to say a quick word about Amendment 3 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. It has the attraction of introducing the word “safe” into the Bill, which does not appear anywhere else. The Bill uses the word “safety” and talks about minimising risk and so on. It recognises that products may involve some element of risk, whereas the amendment suggested by the noble Lord talks about eliminating risk. It is a desirable aim in itself, but I am not quite sure how that can be achieved. The noble Lord asked the Minister to say that the Bill is saying the same thing as he is, so he will not have to press his amendment. It seems to me that there is a real difference, and it is a very interesting difference, so I think that may be stretching the matter too far.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, I apologise for not being involved in earlier discussions on the Bill. I rise in support of Amendment 26, which attracted me to contribute to today’s discussion. As a young woman and a user of these products, I was very shocked and surprised to hear about the different chemicals in them. A lot of young women would also be surprised and shocked to know about these chemicals, that they are not advertised, and that this information is not shared with the products’ users. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on bringing forward this very important amendment, and I urge the House to support it.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendment 24B to Clause 11, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. Clause 11 requires determinations by a tribunal to be made on a perfectly reasonable list of subjects; I hope and expect that the tribunals would respond proportionately to the urgency of the questions asked. However, Clause 11 raises the responsibilities of the Security Industry Authority—SIA.

As those of us who are interested in the Bill know, it gives the SIA very new functions to which it is not yet accustomed—unlike anything it has done before. With that in mind, I have met and corresponded with Heather Baily QPM, who is the chair of the SIA. Although she has been very helpful, I remain unsatisfied at this stage with what we know about what the SIA is going to be doing. We know it is being given two years to learn the skills and measures it has to comply with and deal with, but we need something more than that before the Bill reaches Report.

I wrote to the SIA and suggested a list of issues it should inform your Lordships’ House about before we debated these amendments. At the very least, I urge the Minister to ensure, by Report, that the SIA—which I know has done a lot of work on the Bill already—sets out a proposed, not definitive, timetable for what it is going to do over the next two years to ensure that it carries out its responsibilities under the Bill. That would include giving information about the sorts of issues and how they would be raised by the SIA under Clause 11.

We are not going to have a complete picture of what will happen under the Bill, unless the SIA informs us in some detail. We need to know, as soon as possible, about what affected organisations and we, as the public and Parliament, are expected to accept from it as its responsibility under the Bill.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I will say a word about Amendment 24B. It is quite unusual for a tribunal or a court to be required by statute to deliver its judgment within a “reasonable time”. I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, realises that a proposition of that kind—which is so general—requires definition.

That brings me to the second point, which is the power given to the Secretary of State to define the length of a “reasonable time”. The problem the Secretary of State faces is that if he gives a definition, it will have to last, presumably, until some further exercise of the power is resorted to. Looking ahead, it is very difficult to know what exactly the reasonable time would be. At the very least, I would expect that if the Minister were attracted by that amendment, it would be qualified by “after consultation with the tribunal”. To do this without consultation with a tribunal would be really dangerous because it might set out a time which, realistically, given its resources, the tribunal cannot meet.

I see what the noble Lord is trying to achieve, but it has difficulties. To try to define “reasonable time”, even with the assistance of a tribunal, is a task that would not be easily achieved.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 24, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and to Amendments 24A and 24B in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. Amendment 24 seeks to remove subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 8, probing the implications of this clause for commercial agreements, as highlighted by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s note on the Bill.

The amendment rightly seeks to probe how these provisions will affect contractual relationships between private sector actors. There is a genuine concern that the current wording could place undue financial and legal burdens on businesses by interfering with existing agreements. This could lead to significant commercial disputes and unnecessary litigation, ultimately hindering the smooth operation of commercial partnerships.

While public safety is undoubtedly a priority, we must ensure that our approach to security does not inadvertently create a minefield of legal uncertainty for businesses. Subsections (5) and (6) appear to grant broad and potentially disruptive powers that may override established contractual terms. In doing so, they risk undermining commercial stability and discouraging investment in venues and events that play an important role in our social and economic life.

Furthermore, these provisions may disproportionately impact small and medium-sized enterprises that lack the legal and financial resources to navigate complex contractual adjustments. Removing subsections (5) and (6) would encourage a more co-operative and practical approach, allowing businesses to work with public authorities to achieve security objectives without unnecessary interference in their commercial arrangements.

The independent reviewer’s concerns highlight the need for clarity and a balanced approach. Instead of imposing rigid requirements that disrupt commercial agreements, we should be looking to develop guidance that promotes collaboration between duty holders and security authorities. With this amendment, this House can signal our intention to maintain security measures that are both effective and commercially workable.

Amendment 24A in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst is a simple amendment which seeks to establish the Government’s reasons for requiring one senior individual to be responsible for the duties under the Bill for those premises and events with an enhanced duty. This should be something that the Minister can resolve with a clear answer today, and I hope he will be able to give that answer today.

Amendment 24B, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, seeks to establish the timeframe in which decisions by the tribunal have to be made. Clearly, events will need swift decisions from the tribunal if the decisions are to be made before the events themselves are held, and it is surely right that all organisations deserve timely determinations from the tribunal. Can the Minister tell us what his expectations are in this regard? Can he confirm that the Government have assessed the impact of this new duty on the tribunal on waiting times for determinations?

I urge the Government to reconsider the necessity of these subsections and to work toward a more proportionate and practical solution.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 3, which is in my name. Like the amendment which has just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, my amendment addresses the definition of qualifying premises in Clause 2. My amendment proposes that the definition in Section 30 in the Building Safety Act 2022 is the more appropriate place to look for guidance, given the nature of this Bill.

The definition in Section 121 of the Building Act 1984 was designed for a measure which laid the basis for a wide-ranging system of building regulations relating to the construction of the buildings themselves, whereas the focus of this Bill is rather different. As the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said, it is concerned as much with the people as it is with the buildings. That suggests that it is better to look for a shorter definition in the Bill itself, rather than borrowing from the 1984 Act, so that we know exactly what we are dealing with.

It seems to me that a definition is necessary here to make it clear—if that is what the Government wish—that the protection of the Bill should extend to temporary buildings. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has done quite a lot in introducing the purpose of this amendment for me in his introduction. Like him, I have in mind the horrifying episode in Magdeburg in December, when a lorry drove into a crowded market and caused appalling injuries to people. When that happened, we had a market in Edinburgh, which was set up as temporary buildings in a fairly crowded space; it was full of people. If you are a terrorist, you look for a soft target and it struck me that that was another extremely vulnerable target, because people would be in considerable difficulty unless arrangements were made for evacuation in a hurry and so forth, and unless there were other measures to avoid the perpetration of acts of that kind.

To an extent, my amendment is a probing amendment. On the one hand, I am seeking an assurance that the Government have considered this problem, given the paramount purpose of the Bill. It must be beyond argument that the purpose extends to securing the safety of members of the public who gather together to visit markets of that kind, where what is on offer is displayed in hastily erected facilities that are here today and will be gone tomorrow. As I said, those who are planning acts of terrorism may see these as soft targets and exactly the places they would want to go. If the protection of the Bill is to extend to these places, it is better that the Bill should make this plain.

There is another reason I suggest that it would be helpful to include the words in my amendment. The public protection measures provided in this Bill need to be enforceable if they are to be effective or, to put it another way, they must be capable of being enforced. It would be unfortunate if attempts to extend these measures to temporary buildings of the kind that I have in mind were to be frustrated because it was open to argument in a court that they did not fall within the meaning of a building for the purposes of this Bill. One wants to avoid uncertainty of that kind, which is why it is better to spell it out in this Bill in the very few words I suggest.

I also have in mind the point the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, mentioned when discussing Amendment 1. One has to be very careful not to overload the people who are trying to provide entertainment services to the public with measures that make these enterprises either too difficult or too expensive to operate. There is a real question for the Government to consider on whether temporary situations of this kind are to be protected in the way the Bill is designed for.

My amendment is probing because I suggest that this issue is one that needs to be carefully thought about. I look forward to the Minister’s reply. It may well be that he will return on Report with an amendment, if he thinks that is right. It might be my amendment, or—the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, might be fond of this—it might be that it does not extend to temporary buildings, which is another way of looking at the problem he has raised.

--- Later in debate ---

As ever, I hope I have answered the three amendments in this group. I sense that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, wishes to intervene, so let me see if I can satisfy him still further.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I am grateful. Will the Minister undertake to think again on the point I made about certainty when you meet resistance from people with a temporary facility wondering whether they have to go through all the trouble and expense of complying with the measures in the Bill. The problem is that it is quite easy for a lawyer to construct an argument to point to the Building Safety Act, which says that “building” means any “permanent or temporary” building. It does not say that here, so it raises a question as to whether temporary things are covered at all. The way to cut out that argument completely is to include those few words, which I am not sure would do any harm at all to the Bill.

I am not asking for an answer now, but I would be grateful if the Minister would consider very carefully whether there is an advantage in certainty, given that it is important that these measures are capable of being enforced, to avoid arguments going round in circles as to what “building” really means.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I have tried to impress on the Committee that we think that the type of circumstance that the noble and learned Lord has suggested is covered by the Bill. I will obviously examine Hansard and the contributions again in the light of the discussion, but I remain convinced that the Bill meets the needs that the noble and learned Lord is concerned about. However, reflection is always a good thing and I will certainly examine his comments in detail.

I had a sense of a looming intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, before I sit down, but I am obviously just generally nervous of his potential interventions coming my way.

I hope I have satisfied noble Lords and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Suttie. With that, I hope that the amendments are not pressed. I will look at Hansard and at the comments made.

Southport Attack

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We have to do two things. First, we have to look at where there is material online that breaches criminal thresholds and then work with the hosts of that material to take it down. That is what the Government are trying to do with the Online Safety Act. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the DSIT Secretary, Peter Kyle, will be looking in the longer term at that type of illegal material which fosters, for example, ideas of using ricin, promoting potential attacks or encouraging violent behaviour. That has to cross a criminal threshold.

There is also a wider point about promoting a decent society and the values of tolerance, understanding, respecting differences and allowing people to live their lives with tolerance. My parents’ generation saw great loss fighting fascism in the Second World War—members of my family died. I grew up in the knowledge that my family and their generation had fought fascism in the Second World War. The Holocaust memorial services today remind us of where fascist ideology leads. We need, in my view, to gain an open, tolerant society. That is the second half of what I hope all of us can do to make sure that we respect and celebrate our differences.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

Does the Minister agree with me that, leaving aside our obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it would be unwise of us to use an incident as extreme and horrifying as this as a ground for changing the law to enable a judge to impose a whole-life sentence on an individual aged under 18? The problem is that if the law is changed, it is changed generally, applying over a wide range of cases. It would not capture, without a very difficult definition, a case as extreme as this. It would be wiser to leave the matter as it is and of course go along with what the convention tells us.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord speaks wise words. He will also note that Justice Goose indicated in his sentencing that it was likely to be a whole-life term, even though he could give only a 52-year sentence. The perpetrator will not be considered for any form of parole, at any stage, until he is 70; he is currently 18. That is a severe sentence, for which I am grateful for the work of Justice Goose and the judiciary in dealing with this difficult case in a sensitive way.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

47: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Product regulations: devolved administrations(1) Product regulations may not be made until the Secretary of State has consulted the devolved administrations as to their impact and effect on the marketing and use of products in the areas within the United Kingdom over which they have legislative competence.(2) The Secretary of State may by Regulations exclude the application of this Act to products to be marketed or used in areas within the United Kingdom over which the devolved administrations have legislative competence to enable effect to be given to an agreement that forms part of a common framework agreement.(3) A “common framework agreement” is a consensus between a Minister of the Crown and one or more devolved administrations as to how devolved or transferred matters previously governed by EU law are to be regulated.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that devolved administrations are consulted before regulations are made under this Part of the Bill, and that common framework agreements receive the same protection to enable them to receive effect as they have under section 10 of the UK Internal Market Act 2020.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for adding their names to this amendment in my name.

The amendment seeks to insert a new clause into the Bill with two objectives. The first is to ensure that the devolved Administrations are consulted before any regulations are made under this part of the Bill

“as to their impact and effect on the marketing and use of products in the areas … over which they have legislative competence”.

The second is to preserve agreements made under the common frameworks from being nullified by these regulations.

The first part requires very little introduction. The Bill extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and consumer safety standards, which is what the Bill is all about, are devolved matters in relation to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That has been acknowledged by the Government as is noted in paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Notes. Legislative consent is being sought, as one would expect, and indeed is still being sought, for the provisions that engage the legislative consent process.

That may be difficult to achieve because, while the Bill makes provision about what is to happen in each of the jurisdictions within the United Kingdom, it does not contain any provisions that require the consent of, or at least consultation with, the devolved Administrations before the wide-ranging powers to make regulations under Clauses 1 and 4 are exercised.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my amendments and for his assurances on the way forward that he sees on these matters.

I would like to make two points. First, I appreciate entirely that consulting on every single regulation would be a very time-consuming process, and I have seen the extent of to-and-fro engagement that goes on behind the scenes with good will between civil servants on both sides of the border. It is obviously a matter that deserves reflection and I absolutely understand why the Minister would like to take more time to look closely at it.

Secondly, as far as common frameworks are concerned, it always struck me in dealing with this subject that it is a great misfortune that the language chosen to identify them was not as readily identifiable as “internal market”. When you talk about the internal market everybody knows at once what it means but when you talk about common frameworks nobody knows what it means.

The Minister has obviously done some homework and has reassured me he understands the point, but the particular point about common frameworks is that it is a living process. It is perfectly true that there is a list of the frameworks—some 32 of them—but the prospect of having new ones is there all the time. One of the examples is that, in Wales, they are considering diverging from elsewhere on single-use plastics. I may be wrong but our products are developing all the time and each part of the UK might have an idea that it suits them to have a particular regime that they would like to discuss and introduce.

I ask the Minister to bear in mind that it is a living process and we have to make provision for the future. That is what my amendment seeks to do. I chose the words that were indeed the Government’s words in the internal market Act, so it is a system that they were prepared to accept. I am quite prepared to discuss this with the Minister further if he would like to and welcome his promise of future engagement before Report.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, of course, I very much welcome that. It is worth just referring to Section 10 of the 2020 Act, which defines a “common framework agreement” as

“a consensus between a Minister of the Crown and one or more devolved administrations”.

I take the noble and learned Lord’s point that “common framework agreement” does not readily come off the tongue but the wording very much sets the tone of the relationship that we want to see developed.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

The Minister is right. Consensus lies at the heart of the common framework system. There will not be agreement across the various Administrations without consensus but, where consensus exists, it is a signal that they should be protected against any misfortune on legislation that is across the entire United Kingdom.

Having said all that and with gratitude to the Minister for what he said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 47 withdrawn.