Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, once again I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Government for their response in Committee, and for confirming that the Office for Product Safety and Standards will be publishing a framework outlining the conditions and procedures for using emergency powers under Clause 4.

However, we feel that it is vital that such a framework is discussed in Parliament. The use of emergency powers must be subject to scrutiny, transparency and democratic accountability. Parliament must have the opportunity to assess the scope, necessity and potential consequences of these powers before they are enacted, otherwise we will risk allowing significant regulatory changes to be made without sufficient oversight, which again potentially impacts business, consumers and public confidence in the regulatory system.

Just like the rest of the clauses in this Bill, there is a level of vagueness in Clause 4. Once again, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has stated, that represents an unacceptable shift in power to the Executive. Emergency powers should not be granted on broad and undefined terms without proper safeguards and clear limitations.

I am also revisiting Amendment 30, which seeks to limit emergency modifications to an initial period of three months. Not only do we need a clear understanding of what may or could constitute an emergency but, even though we acknowledge that emergencies can be by their very nature unpredictable, there is undeniable value in debating this in Parliament. We saw this during Covid-19, where initial emergency measures had to be quickly defined but, over time, continued justification and scrutiny became essential. Three months is more than enough time to assess an emergency, determine whether modifications are still needed, and, if so, bring forward a proper review process with stakeholder consultation. Furthermore, Clause 4 States:

“The disapplication or modification may be made subject to conditions”.


That raises the question: what conditions?

I urge the Government to accept these amendments to enhance transparency, ensure accountability and reaffirm the role of Parliament in overseeing emergency decision-making. I beg to move.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 29 and 30, in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I think these amendments are very helpful to the Government.

I put on record that I believe that both Ministers have engaged. Whatever you say about them—we do not necessarily agree all the time—they engage with the argument, and they respond properly and respectfully. That speaks well of them, their Front Bench and their party on this Bill, even though we may disagree.

I support this amendment because it speaks to a need for flexibility. We know that there will be occasions where there are emergencies which we cannot foresee in any reasonable timescale. My noble friend referenced Covid, which is the most obvious example of recent years.

One of the other issues running through this Bill has been business certainty—businesses having the opportunity to understand the legislation and take measures necessary to ameliorate any impact of it on their businesses. These two very sensible amendments would do that, because they would give business a proper framework and reference point for the sort of emergency secondary legislation that may occur as a result of unforeseen circumstances. They address the imperative—this has been a major theme of this Bill, given the reservations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—for proper scrutiny and oversight because we have so many enabling powers, and give flexibility.

The amendments are not prescriptive. Seeking a proper outline of conditions and procedures for the use of emergency powers does not directly enforce a fear upon Ministers. It does not direct Ministers, and it does not fetter their discretion in acting appropriately in the national interest in the case of emergencies. It nevertheless is a way for Parliament to have an understanding of the actions the Government are taking. As your Lordships’ House knows, we are looking at rationale and definition in Amendment 29, and clarity and certainty in Amendment 30.

My final point is that this will, no doubt, be litigated in the future, as all legislation is. The more certainty and clarity that we put in the Bill, the less chance there is for vexatious litigation arising from any use or discharge of those regulatory powers in unforeseen emergencies.

For those reasons, and because I know the Government are committed to having a proper debate and discussion on the regulations that they intend to use, particularly in emergency circumstances, Ministers should look favourably on these two amendments. They are seeking to be helpful. I do not think, as I have said before, they fundamentally alter the raison d'être of the Bill. I am pleased to support my noble friend’s Amendments 29 and 30.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as we have heard, the amendments in this group concern the use of emergency powers under the legislation. Amendment 29 would require the Secretary of State to present a framework to Parliament outlining their use, and Amendment 30 would limit the use of emergency modifications to three months and would require a review of any extension to those modifications.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Frost, and I will speak very briefly. I am concerned about the Government’s likely resistance to this amendment being moved, because this goes to the very heart of what the Bill is about: proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight.

We have had many debates about the Delegated Legislation Committee and its significant reservations about the enabling powers and Henry VIII powers which will potentially be discharged by Ministers. The kernel of the debate is: why should we of necessity default to just one regulatory regime? People like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will say that it is our closest economic partner and, of course, it is absolutely logical.

I hesitate, because I know I will be accused of relitigating the Brexit battles, from which I have many scars on my back. However, the fact of the matter, is that, rightly or wrongly, we no longer have direct input into the design and execution of those regulations. So to put in primary legislation, with the background of the Delegated Legislation Committee expressing those significant reservations, a sub-clause which defaults to the position that any regulation, because it comes from the EU, is of necessity the right regulation for our country—in the context, as we have previously debated in Committee and on Report, of an expanding global economy where we will be trading with many different countries and different regulatory regimes outside the European Union—seems to me to be a mistake. On that basis, it is eminently reasonable and sensible for Parliament to have the opportunity to look in detail at these regulations via the affirmative procedure.

For that reason—I know the hour is late and there is other pressing business in the House—I ask Ministers to at least look at supporting this very important amendment on Third Reading. On that basis, I am delighted to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Frost.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, to echo what my noble friend Lord Lansley has just said, we are reflecting at the moment on how this country is governed and the extent to which the Executive can be held to account.

In many ways we take pride in our committees. I know from what he has said in the past about government legislation that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has many times criticised what we describe as skeleton Bills. In effect, the Government are saying, “Please allow us to do whatever we eventually decide we would like to do, but give us that power now and we will then do it by secondary legislation”. Speaking as the immediate past Chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I always worked very closely with my colleagues in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Although my noble friend Lord Lansley said a few moments ago that the Government had introduced a number of amendments, they came back before the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which said, “That’s not enough”. So, in a way, we are now deciding whether or not the Government are right to ignore the unanimous report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

I turn to Amendments 48, 57 and 58 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe. I commend my noble friend Lady Lawlor, and my noble friends Lord Frost, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Lansley, for all that they have said. But, to summarise, this is our last real opportunity to deal with what is in effect a skeleton Bill that allows an unacceptable transfer of power from an elected legislature to the Executive.

We welcome the amendments the Government have put forward, but let me quote from paragraph 8 of the unanimous report of 20 February from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, from which I have quoted before. Having considered all the issues, it said,

“these are limited changes that do not address the fundamental concern we have about the skeletal nature of this Bill”.

There is of course provision for consultation, which is warmly to be welcomed, but the committee said,

“consultation is not a substitute for Parliamentary scrutiny”.

Surely, we as a House must agree with that.

It is not enough simply to engage stakeholders behind closed doors while sidelining proper legislative oversight. The Bill in its current form creates a dangerous precedent. This Parliament is asked to cede control over critical regulatory decisions in favour of unchecked Executive power. That is surely not how this democracy should function. If the Government are serious about ensuring transparency, accountability and proper legislative oversight, they must surely go beyond mere consultation and commit to meaningful parliamentary scrutiny at every stage of the regulatory process.

In a moment we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Leong. Will he allow me to quote him? In Committee on 20 November, he said this:

“Some regulations will relate to very minor technical changes, so it really would be taking up too much parliamentary time for that, whereas other regulations may need a full scrutiny, and we will have avenues for that”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; col. 39.]


What I ask is—and I hope the Minister will reply in a moment—what are those avenues exactly? The Government are yet to provide any clarity at all on how they will distinguish between so-called minor technical changes and more significant regulatory shifts. They have yet to explain why the negative procedure will apply to all subsequent provisions. If some regulations will require full scrutiny, as the Minister acknowledged, why do his Government, in this Bill, predetermine that every future provision beyond the first use of the power will require the negative procedure?

The Government cannot state for a fact that all future provisions will be technical. Markets change, technology advances and legal interpretations, as all lawyers in this House know only too well, will shift. This is precisely why proper parliamentary scrutiny must remain in place for all product and metrology regulations, as recommended by a committee of this House. If the Government concede that some regulations may need full scrutiny then it follows that the affirmative procedure should apply in all cases. Anything less simply hands Ministers a blank cheque to determine the level of scrutiny after the fact, with Parliament left powerless to insist on proper oversight.

I said that I would refer to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, because I remember what he said. I looked it up when I heard he was going to be here. He said about the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, admittedly in 2021:

“We are increasingly seeing the use of skeleton Bills and Henry VIII clauses. We really must come to a point where we say to the Government”—


I would add any subsequent Governments—

“that we will not put up with this any longer”.—[Official Report, 12/1/21; col. 657.]

As he reflects on his words, I hope he will offer some wise advice to his good colleague.

I urge the Government to reconsider their position and accept the DPRRC’s recommendation that powers should be constrained so that product regulations and metrology regulations are, in all cases, subject to affirmative procedure scrutiny. Surely that is the very least that is required to ensure proper democratic accountability.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Sharpe. We discussed what the point of the Bill is on many occasions in Committee, but I am afraid we are none the wiser and certainly no better informed on that subject as a result. That is why it is necessary to have a clearer purpose clause written into the Bill. The nearest we have is in the Explanatory Notes from a few months back; I will not read the full text, but they say:

“The Bill intends to ensure the UK is better placed to address modern day safety issues”


and high modern standards

“by allowing the UK Parliament the power to update relevant laws”.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the UK Parliament already has the power to update any law that it wishes, so I do not see how that can be the purpose of this Bill; there must be something else to it. Of course, one could speculate about it. Perhaps it is just to relieve the Government of the burden of having to go through the effort of legislating for the full range of manufactured goods that we still produce in this country, to delegate that power to the European Union and to recreate the situation that existed before we left that organisation. Perhaps it is to help with the woeful arrangements of the Windsor Framework and to make it a little easier to move goods across the internal border from Great Britain to Northern Ireland—I do not know.

What the purpose of the Bill cannot be is to reduce trade barriers—or it can be so only on one condition—because aligning with EU law does not reduce trade barriers. The EU itself is very clear about that; the process remains because it is a different legal system. The one condition on which that could be true would be if the UK and the EU reached an agreement that the aligned legislation under this Bill was to be considered as EU law and would be enforced by the Commission and the court—in other words, a Swiss-style arrangement. We have heard chat that that might be what the Government are aiming for in their reset.

In so far as I can see a purpose to the Bill, without the proposed new purpose clause in Amendment 1, it is maybe to prepare the ground for a Swiss-style agreement. Can the Minister, when commenting on this group, confirm or deny whether that is the intention of the Government and the purpose of this legislation? If it is not, it is very hard to see why the Government would not accept the proposed new purpose clause in Amendment 1.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I hope that over the course of my remarks I can illuminate the rationale for the amendment, for the benefit of my noble friend Lord Deben. This amendment is not about relitigating the Brexit battles. It is about holding the Government’s feet to the fire in a Bill that is deeply flawed. It is found to be deeply flawed by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee and delegated legislation committee—more of that later.

The two reasons that Ministers should look benignly on this amendment are that it is not substantially at odds with the Bill’s raison d’être and it is not only a noble aspiration of the Government. The Government were concerned—indeed, the previous Government were also concerned—that they did not have sufficient powers to respond to the EU’s regulatory initiatives efficaciously and that this would have negative trade consequences. It is perfectly proper that the Government seek to address that issue.

The fundamental problem of the Bill is that it does not articulate how far the Government intend to exercise the wide-scale, sweeping enabling powers in favour of alignment with the European Union only, and not other jurisdictions. For that reason this amendment should receive the support of your Lordships’ House. It is a purpose clause and a fundamental issue. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I stray into the remit of Amendment 2. They are very similar and both look at Clause 1.

Before I go any further, I thank the Minister for how congenial and open he has been in engaging with all sides of the House—including our friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches—in seeking to improve the Bill and have a proper debate. Although there is no specific mention of dynamic alignment in the Bill, my noble friend Lord Frost makes a very astute point on whether the Government are moving towards a Swiss-style agreement—multiple bilateral agreements—which would potentially not be in the best interests of the UK as a much larger and more substantial economy than Switzerland.

The Minister should accept that our amendment seeks clarity, certainty and an explicit purpose, without undermining the concept of improving the regulation of products and metrology. This is not one giant statutory instrument. It is a piece of primary legislation. It is quite sensible to have the purpose of that legislation explicitly set out. It has an impact in terms of protecting the autonomy of the UK as an independent trading nation. As my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere made clear in Parliamentary Questions earlier, adopting a regulatory regime over which we have no effective influence, input or sanction is not a sensible way to proceed. It would certainly circumscribe our capacity to make new, advantageous trade arrangements with countries—not just those outside the EU but others that will come into the EU as new members subsequently.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, chunters that “It would be in our interest” from a sedentary position. That is a value judgment.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

I said that what we do is totally in our own hands. The Bill gives us the right to adopt if we want to—to change, if we want to. This is about the UK having control. I thought that is what the party opposite wanted.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

That would be the case if the Bill was not an egregious offence in respect of huge Henry VIII powers and enabling powers.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am sorry to intervene on the noble Lord again but I cannot resist it. Surely the whole point about the Bill is to give us flexibility to do what the noble Lord is asking us to do.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Then the noble Lord would support a purpose clause, which—one might make the case—is much clearer and more explicit. Incidentally, I agree with every word said by my noble friend Lord Lansley and will be supporting his amendment later.

But, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, rises to the Dispatch Box, I would just like to conclude my remarks with the words of his noble friend the Attorney-General. This has been mentioned before, because it is very important within the context of the Bill. It is not just that this is primary legislation; it is unclear. It gives ministerial fiat—wide-ranging ministerial powers—and there are not explicit protections. Indeed, the Delegated Legislation Committee specifically says there are not proper procedures for even consultation with key stakeholders. But the noble Lord will know that on 14 October, the Attorney-General—who is not as high-profile in this House as he used to be—said in his Bingham lecture on 14 October that

“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law values … but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty. In my view, the new Government offers an opportunity for a reset in the way that Government thinks about these issues. This means, in particular, a much sharper focus on whether taking delegated powers is justified in a given case, and more careful consideration of appropriate safeguards”.

I could not have put it better myself. On that basis, I hope that Ministers may be minded to support my noble friend Lord Sharpe’s amendment.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Report debate and to speak to this amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for reminding us that we are not relitigating the Brexit debate, because sometimes in Committee it was very hard to understand that point, given the speeches that came from his Benches. We are not relitigating the Brexit debate; we are trying to put in place a regulatory regime and the ability to deliver regulation that benefits the people of this country.

I was minded to consider that if I was using an electric lawn-mower and I started either to be electrocuted by it or have my toes removed by it, the last thing I would worry about was whether the regulation for that was autonomous. I would be worrying: why was it not safe? Why was the product not preserving my rights as a consumer not to be electrocuted or amputated? There is a serious point to this. If the noble Lord wanted to put a purpose to the Bill, its purpose is not to deliver some mystical autonomy—if we look at Amendment 8, we see that the Minister, far from delivering autonomy, is going to tie us to a whole bunch of other regulatory regimes. It is about delivering a regime that protects people and the environment, and gives consumers right of recompense if they are sold faulty products—all those sorts of things that we see before us. If we look in the draft code of conduct, that is what is set out in the introduction to it.

Sometimes we use before Clause 1 purpose amendments to make sure that we are the first speaker up. I do not think in this case that was in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. His amendment is designed—

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Will the noble Lord give way?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

If I can finish my sentence, please. The noble Lord’s amendment is designed to completely change the purpose of the Bill. I think he has admitted that, and that is right. I suggest that in all the discussion we have had, all the amendments that we have talked about through Committee have been about the consumer, safety and the other issues that actually matter. If we want a purpose, I am very happy to sit down with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the Minister and we can draw up a purpose that encompasses that if it makes people feel happier, but the key issue is not the autonomy, it is the effectiveness of that regulation. I give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Our focus will be—

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Will the noble Lord give way?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

No, as the noble Lord just said—

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

The noble Lord agreed to give way.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I give way to the Whips to suggest what to do.

--- Later in debate ---

I remind people that we believed, or were told, that we were taking back control. I think we in fact did not take back control at all; we made ourselves less powerful in controlling our futures. But the one thing that we did not say we would do was to give Ministers the unfettered control which some had objected to in the European Union, so it is necessary for the Government to go further. I usually find the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, very persuasive, but I fear that he has given way too early. We ought to ask for further concessions before we can safely pass this Bill.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 39, tabled in my name, which has ended up in this particular group almost by accident. It relates to a specific issue about the making of regulations as they relate to criminal offences arising from non-compliance in respect of metrology. This amendment is quite important because it requires that, at least 30 days before the making of a provision in respect of regulations as described in Clause 6(9), those regulations be placed in the Libraries of both Houses in the form of an Explanatory Memorandum.

This is important because the creation in secondary legislation of any criminal offence is a serious matter, and one that needs proper scrutiny and oversight. On that basis, it is a reasonable request for the Government to look benignly on this amendment, because they have previously committed to transparency and openness in many respects in the Bill. This would give parliamentarians an opportunity to raise some questions about the likelihood of a criminal offence arising from metrology regulations. For that reason, I may press this amendment.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, following the theme of benign attention from government to amendments that have washed up in this group, I shall speak to my Amendment 41. In doing so, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register, not least as it applies to Socially Recruited, an AI business.

There are many things that are not in the Bill, data centres being one of them; yet these are the factories and foundries that are going to fuel our fourth industrial revolution, which is already well under way. We might think back to all that Victorian factories legislation, all quite appropriate and proper, whereas all I am seeking here is not even a whole statute—which we could have on data centres alone—but merely one amendment, which I hope the Government can look benignly upon. It simply asks the Government to undertake a consultation to look at a new standard for the measurement of the power usage of data centres.

We are going to rely increasingly on data centres for almost everything that we do in this country. How we power them, where we site them, the inputs, the outputs, where the technology comes from—all of these are key features currently utterly unconsidered in any legislation or regulations. All that my Amendment 41 seeks to do is suggest that the Government launch a consultation, following the passage of the Bill, to look at the effectiveness of a,

“metrology standard for the power usage of data centres”,

and, not least, to reconsider the current power usage effectiveness—PUE—standard and whether it is up to the job in hand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 13, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Fox. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Deben, whose common sense I often agree with. I am happy to echo his request that we treat and judge these amendments in the world we live in, rather than the world we would like to live in.

My name was attached to a predecessor of this amendment when the Bill came before your Lordships’ Committee. Its absence at this stage does not reflect any diminution of my belief that its provisions would both enhance the effectiveness of this legislation and strengthen Parliament’s scrutinising role. The fact is, I just left it too late to add my name.

The moving spirit behind this amendment is a desire for the greatest possible transparency and, leading from that, the greatest role possible for your Lordships’ House and the other place in examining regulatory decisions and subjecting them to scrutiny. The coverage surrounding this legislation has frequently described it as an enabling Bill, but I see this amendment as one that enables Parliament to have access to the thinking of relevant Ministers when they choose to align with or diverge from EU or other law. These decisions should and will be made according to a calculus of national self-interest, rather than—as I suspect some on the Opposition Benches are determined to believe—a desire unthinkingly to ape EU regulations, whether such alignment is in the interest of British business and industry or not.

In that respect, this amendment is rather more narrowly drawn than its predecessor, to which I put my name. It does not represent dynamic alignment but offers a greater measure of regulatory certainty for business, while ensuring that decisions that prove not to be in our interest are regularly reviewed. As I have said, I am aware of the fears of some on the Opposition Benches, and the suggestion that the Bill encompasses the extinction of British regulatory independence. I do not agree with them but suggest that if this is indeed their belief, the greater transparency and reviewing requirements of this amendment should offer a vehicle for more effective scrutiny.

This amendment has been drafted carefully and is consonant with the aims of the Bill as a whole. It does not suggest or conform to any preconceived determination that alignment with EU standards is inherently desirable. As we have heard, it simply imposes on Ministers a duty to report to Parliament when a decision has been made against or in favour of regulatory alignment. In a further departure from this amendment’s predecessor, the yardstick against which that decision has been taken will be a simple one: whether the decision is to the benefit of British businesses.

Recent weeks have made it abundantly clear that we now live in a more transactional world. Although I might regret that fact, I recognise it and accept that this is the world that we live in, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, would say. Even judged by that metric, this amendment’s value is clear. Its starting point is what is good for our national economy and businesses; it ensures that Parliament is to be apprised of the basis on which Ministers make their regulatory determinations; and it ensures that if these have proved mistaken, they can be scrutinised and, where necessary, reversed. For those reasons, it should be part of the Bill. Whether through proceedings in your Lordships’ House or the other place—which, I am sure, will have an opportunity to consider it—I hope that this amendment, or something very like it, will make its way on to the statute book.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Frost’s amendments in this group, tabled in his and other noble Lords’ names.

I begin by focusing on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and others. It would be churlish and unreasonable not to concede that it is slightly different from the amendment tabled in Committee and that it is slightly better, although I am surprised by the noble Lord’s comments, echoed by my noble friend Lord Lansley, about the basis on which we seek to legislate with primary legislation. We do not do it for businesses; we do it for the good of the greater population of this country and not necessarily a small group, however estimable it is in the case of the British Chambers of Commerce. This is not a bad amendment but it is potentially a Trojan horse amendment, in that it closes out options other than the regulatory and legal regime of the European Union.

That brings me to Amendment 11, tabled by my noble friend Lord Frost. The key issue here is that we are considering a Bill that we hope will improve the productivity and competitiveness of British business and commerce and reduce trade frictions. It is not sensible to close off the possibility of different opportunities for the United Kingdom to prosper outside the European Union. The ideas are not mutually exclusive. Being open and transparent, and putting in legislation the means to improve trade globally, does not necessarily mean that we are resiling from our friends in the European Union and our trade with them. However, by dollar denomination, global trade with the EU has reduced from, I think, 32% 30 years ago; it is likely within the next 10 years to drop to about 14%.

Therefore, we have a duty and a responsibility. It is imperative for us as legislators to put in place legislation that recognises those economic realities—that we will be trading more with Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, South Africa and other countries. Of course, we are not taking the view that Europe cannot prosper. It is in our best interests that the European Union prospers. But to put in the Bill only the legal and regulatory regime of one part of the global trade possibilities closes off options that Ministers would be sensible not to close off.

My final remarks are on my noble friend’s Amendment 25, which affects Clause 2, on page 3 of the Bill, concerning the legal jurisdiction of potential supranational legal entities and the impact they will have on the regulatory regime of the United Kingdom. Again, I press the Minister to answer my noble friend’s question: as a result of this Bill passing, are we going to have a situation in the near future analogous to that of Switzerland—a fractious and difficult relationship as a result of many bilateral agreements with the European Union, and is that in the best interests of the United Kingdom? That is the rationale behind this very sensible amendment. For those reasons, I support my noble friend Lord Frost’s amendment, and I would resist the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.

Prevent: Learning Review

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for both his previous work on helping to support to development of the counterterrorism strategy and his comments. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, there have been around 5,000 successful Prevent referrals since 2015, and there are people now living productive, constructive lives who may have gone down the radicalisation route had Prevent intervention not taken place.

I add that I was in the Home Office from 2009 to 2010, and in the Ministry of Justice from 2007 to 2009, and when we dealt with Prevent then it was an entirely different world. There was no Twitter or Facebook; the internet was relatively in its infancy. In the 14 to 15 years between then and my return to the Home Office, there has been the dark web, radicalisation, fake news—a whole range of things. One of the key issues for the future is asking the tech companies to step up to the plate on what they need to do to help support the Prevent strategy and deradicalisation. That is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has written to tech companies, following both the Southport and Sir David Amess reviews, to ensure that we can examine, with them, their responsibilities once the Online Safety Act comes into effect on 17 March.

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support. He is right that Prevent can be a success and we should not throw it out on the basis of failings that are self-evident but which are not the full story of how the Prevent strategy has worked.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s typically generous remarks about my former colleague Sir David Amess, who was a personal friend and a fine and decent public servant. The city status of Southend-on-Sea and the Children’s Parliament, which he helped to found, are fitting tributes to a good life and one well spent.

Having represented a constituency which was 16% Muslim, I know the difference between those who follow the Muslim faith and those who follow the pernicious poison of Islamism. On the latter, can the Minister reassure the House that the Islamist proselytising that we have often seen across the prison estate, in madrassas and in some mosques in this country will be part of the review, and that the Government will take those issues seriously? If Prevent is in a position to intervene early with some individuals in those settings it may head off some of the much more serious criminal activity.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments. The loss of Sir David was felt keenly across the House, but particularly by those who shared his political party or were close to his region. He will be forever remembered for the Adjournment debate, now named the Sir David Amess Adjournment Debate, in the House of Commons. For those who do not know, Sir David was always first up in every Adjournment debate to raise about 46 issues to do with Southend. Of those, 42 or 43 ended up in some positive outcome for his constituents. I should mention that, before Southend, he was the Member of Parliament for Basildon.

The noble Lord raises extremely important points. There is a criminal threshold for individuals who promote Islamist or neo-Nazi terrorism, or terrorism related to any other form of hate, such as misogyny. It is extremely important, if evidence is brought forward and the threshold is crossed, that the police take action via the CPS. The Prevent strategy is particularly about younger people being radicalised by those who have criminal intent and have provided criminal material, or individuals who have crossed that threshold and are having their own grievances or immaturities exploited by individuals for the purpose of terrorist activity. The Prevent strategy is about helping people who are going down that route. I think the noble Lord is referring to the criminal threshold, which is for the police and the CPS to determine. They have my full support to prosecute anybody who encourages terrorist activity.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendments in group 1 and to support my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. I extend my apologies at the outset to your Lordships’ House for the fact that I was not able to be here on 18 October for Second Reading due to a long-standing family engagement.

Given that I have tabled a significant number of amendments, I think it would be helpful to explain why my noble friends and I are seeking to amend the Bill. First, I put on record my appreciation of the commitment and tenacity of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in seeking to get this measure on to the statute book on a number of occasions. Notwithstanding that, this is a very poorly drafted and ill thought through Bill, which is why 32 amendments have been tabled to it in Committee. It gives rise to wide-ranging ramifications in terms of public finances, the delivery of public services and community cohesion. It is a de facto legislative open door to unlimited immigration—let us be honest about that. If noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches wish to reject that analysis, I am more than happy to give way.

It is also inherently unfair on those seeking regular routes to indefinitely remain and to citizenship. Finally, more generally, I believe it is predicated on a mischaracterisation and a misunderstanding of whether the UK has indeed discharged its historic and current proper humanitarian and compassionate international duties to refugees. I think there is significant evidence that it has.

So, it is a bad Bill, but even now, at this late stage, I believe it can be improved. It is as well to say that the UK has a long and proud record of providing refuge to those fleeing persecution, including Jewish refugees in the 1930s and Ugandan Asians in the 1970s, some of whom came to my former constituency, Peterborough. Via bespoke humanitarian routes the UK actually resettled 31,000 refugees between 2012 and 2022, excluding the Afghan resettlement scheme and the Ukraine and Hong Kong programmes.

Indeed, in 2023, 62,000 grants of application for asylum were made, against 84,000 in-country applications, the second highest in the European league table. It equates to 76%: significantly higher than, for instance, Italy, Spain or France, and up from 33% in 2018. I accept that it has since dropped to around 67% but, with these numbers, the provision of basic accommodation, a weekly allowance, free healthcare and education for children is nevertheless a very significant drain on public resources, however laudable the aims are.

It would be appropriate to move to specifically consider the amendments that I have tabled in group 1. I draw your Lordships’ attention to my Amendments 3, 13, 18, 23, 26 and 27, which would all add sensible and reasonable safeguards to the Bill to ensure the integrity of our immigration system. Amendment 3 seeks to replace the proposed 21-day implementation period for changes to the Immigration Rules with a more measured timeframe of three months. Such a change reflects a pragmatic approach to policy-making, ensuring that any new rules governing refugee family reunion are implemented effectively and require sufficient time for consultation, preparation and operational adjustments, as well as for proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight in this House and the other place.

A rushed 21-day period risks overwhelming local authorities, housing providers and other stakeholders, potentially undermining the system’s integrity. In my own home area of Peterborough, we have seen significant strains on the delivery of public services, particularly things such as GP surgeries, the provision of local authority and housing association housing, and primary school places. Three months provides a balanced compromise, enabling thorough preparation while allowing the Government to move forward in a timely manner. This measured approach ensures that the new policies will be robust and sustainable.

Amendment 13 seeks to remove “unmarried partner” from the scope of family reunion eligibility. This amendment aligns family reunion provisions with the established principles of the Immigration Rules, which prioritise formal marital or civil partnerships over less formal relationships. Quite frankly, in the real world, it would be almost impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an unmarried partner is a bona fide claimant under these rules, and that is one of the many holes in the Bill as drafted.

So this is a matter of both consistency and clarity. Recognising only spouses and civil partners provides clear criteria for eligibility, reducing the potential for fraudulent claims. It also upholds traditional values that recognise marriage and civil partnership as the cornerstone of a stable family unit as it goes forward towards citizenship and playing a meaningful and useful role in UK society. This amendment ensures that the UK’s immigration policies remain fair, transparent and in line with public expectations. In fact, if your Lordships consider comparative regimes across Europe and other jurisdictions, they will see that this is very much in line with the practices adopted in other countries.

Amendment 18 proposes reducing the age limit for siblings eligible for family reunion from 25 to 21 years old. There is of course significant scientific data that says that a human being is not fully developed—certainly, their brain is not fully developed—perhaps until their mid-20s, but that is contested. It is generally accepted across the world that you are an adult either at 18 or, in the case of some legislation, at 21. Such a change reflects the practical realities of adulthood and independence. At 21, individuals are generally expected to be self-sufficient and capable of making their own rational decisions and establishing their own lifestyle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Time.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

It is an advisory time limit. I thank the noble Lord for that.

It would also be impossible to ascertain the veracity of a claim in foreign jurisdictions.

This amendment would ensure that family reunion rights were extended only to those whose adoptive status had been legally verified. Such a change would protect vulnerable children while ensuring that the system was not exploited; in fact, it would specifically protect children and young people from being trafficked for sexual or other exploitation.

Amendment 27 would introduce a requirement for medical health assessments for all applicants before their family reunion status was approved. This is a common-sense measure that ensures the health and well-being of those entering the UK. Early health assessments can identify any medical issues requiring treatment, ensuring that appropriate support is provided, and additionally, these assessments protect public health by identifying and addressing any communicable diseases. This policy is pursued by many countries across the world and is sensible and responsible. Such a policy is not only practical but humane, reflecting the UK’s commitment to safeguarding both incoming refugees and the wider community.

In conclusion, these amendments demonstrate a commitment to ensuring that the Bill is both compassionate and practical. They would uphold public confidence, protect national security, and promote fairness and transparency in the immigration system. I urge the Committee to support these thoughtful and necessary provisions.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, the speakers’ list for today states:

“Other speakers within each group are expected to keep within 10 minutes”.


If noble Lords could respect that, your Lordships’ House would probably appreciate it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I oppose the amendments in this group introduced by their three proposers. I do so for five reasons.

The first is that I believe in putting the traffickers out of business, and studies show that about half of those in the camps in Calais are family reunion cases: they are people wishing to join members of their family here.

The second is that the principal virtue, in my book, of the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is that it deals with the anomaly where we, with the Swiss and Liechtenstein, are the only countries in Europe that do not allow a resident refugee child granted asylum status to sponsor family members to come into the country. Our position is an anomaly, which, in my view, is quite unworthy of us and quite unfitting with our pride in being a sanctuary country.

Thirdly, I oppose the amendments because they are unworkable. I think the intention is probably to make them unworkable, but in practice, they would be unworkable. A good example is Amendment 7, from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, which would require the Secretary of State to publish in the initial statement and every six months how many people would be expected to come in under the Act and the approximate cost per person. We know the answer, actually. The Refugee Council study established that the numbers would be somewhere in the range of 240 to 750 a year, if we, as every other European country, except Liechtenstein and Switzerland, does, allowed a resident child granted asylum status to bring in family members. The range would be no more than 750—it might be as little as 240—and the cost would be about £1,000 a head.

So we are talking de minimis here on money but constructing extremely elaborate bureaucracy and laying requirements on local government—and central government, because we are talking about the accommodation requirements—to do an immense amount of reporting. This, for Members of this House who oppose overregulation and bureaucracy, is a rather surprising structure. I, of course, was a bureaucrat—a proud bureaucrat. I should be delighted to see many more bureaucrats given entertainment and occupation, but actually I think it is a very bad idea.

My fourth reason is that overspecifying, going into all the detail that this does, is itself a bad thing. I think it is correct that the Immigration Rules lay down the details and primary legislation should not. That is the right way of doing it, and all this heavy detail in here is making this a very peculiar piece of primary legislation and is overlapping with the existing Immigration Rules.

My fifth and last point, which relates to that one, is to ask the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth—because he is a distinguished lawyer and I am neither distinguished nor a lawyer—to think hard a contrario. If we set out such extraordinarily detailed specifications in primary legislation, what about the other Immigration Rules that do not simply copy primary legislation? Will it not be open to individuals to argue in the courts, against the authorities, that, because the specification in the Immigration Rules was not set out in primary legislation, it is in some way defective? I think it is very dangerous to get into a contrario territory, but I bow to the lawyers in this Committee who know more about it than I do.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for his kindness in giving way. Do I understand his main point to be that real-time, empirical data is inimical to the formulation of good public policy? Is he actually saying that we should not collect data in order to make policy, for the future of our country, in respect of the provision of health services, housing and all the rest? That is a very odd argument to make, if I am perfectly honest.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Of course not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Is it? I do not think it is.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Yes. All this—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The noble Lord has had his say.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray, knows very well that when I say “safe and legal routes”, I mean for any and every nationality—not just the few that the previous Government thought were acceptable to come to Britain.

Also, if noble Lords are rude enough to go over the advisory time limit and show disrespect to the Committee, perhaps their microphones should be turned off.

On the other Bills I mentioned, the Conservatives have been filibustering. They have been making some of these Bills quite unpleasant to sit through when one cares about the issue at hand. Personally, I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, even though he did not give way to me. He is absolutely right that this is petty bickering; I really cannot stand it. We need safe and legal routes. The previous Government did not give us those routes for all nationalities, which means—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest in that I am supported by the RAMP organisation. At the outset, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, if I caught him correctly, said that it was difficult to explain why the amendments in this group were laid. That is what I heard—I apologise if it is not what he said. It seems to me, from the conversation we have had on this group of amendments, that it is primarily about making further restrictions on what is already in the rules of our system and, secondly, about creating differences in timings. Those would then make it more difficult to put forward the principles that lie behind this Bill, which of course is about filling some of the eligibility gaps that currently exist for family reunion.

On timings, it strikes me as strange that we have two sets of amendments pulling in opposite directions. In one set we have amendments from noble Lords on the Conservative Benches saying that they want to restrict the amount of time that the Home Office and the Government have to make the new arrangements, while in the other set they are trying to expand them so that they have longer to do it. I do not know whether we can make a judgment on that, but it seems to me that what is common practice in the timings for dealing with changes that the Government have to make—the current procedure in this Bill of six months for the Government to prepare, and 21 days before Parliament—

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I fear that he is wrong on this, in that we are seeking to open a larger window for parliamentary oversight, in terms of a statement laid by the Secretary of State under the conditions laid down in the Bill, but to give more time for those people more acutely affected at local level, such as local authorities, police and other agencies. That is why he may see a slight difference there, but they are not mutually exclusive ideas in respect of our amendments.

[Lord German (LD)]

I understand the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, but I do not understand how they can be put alongside those of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, which seek to increase the time overall. Anyway, I am sure that noble Lords in this Committee will be able to make their minds up, having heard that interjection just then.

Beyond timing, of course, there are a number of issues relating to restrictions. The issue fundamental to this is that, on the family reunion potential, those who come with family reunion protection are largely women and children. We must not forget that this is the group of people we are talking about. Family reunion costs less to the British purse than it does if you have to manage things through the state. Looking after young people by local authorities does not come cheap, and having people within their own family background certainly helps to support every aspect of family life—but particularly for young people it makes sure they have a good start in life and can proceed.

I will not repeat the numbers because I accept everything that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, but they are small. There are other numbers that might give an indication of the future—the ones that I think the noble Lord, Lord Murray, was asking about. In the past 12 months, 3,201 unaccompanied children were given protection in this country up to the year ending September 2024. Those 3,201 may have family; it is true that they may have parents somewhere, but you have to make a judgment as to how many would seek to bring their families here. We are one of only three countries on the European continent that do not operate on that potential.

--- Later in debate ---

So I find myself in the strange position that I cannot fully agree with the noble Baroness and I certainly cannot agree with His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Let us see what happens today. Let us see whether Members withdraw their amendments or push them to a Division—

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will give way in a moment. Let us see whether the noble Baroness wishes to accept any of their amendments.

I think the Government are in broadly the right place. We understand the pressures. We have a good set of rules in place. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, before he intervenes, that we are committed to publishing a migration White Paper very shortly that will look at a range of other issues debated in this House and in the House of Commons that government policy considers. The impact of asylum and refugee status, although not migration, is still an important issue because additional individuals coming in on family reunion is a form of migration. All these matters have to be considered. As I said at Second Reading and say again now, these are matters the Government need to reflect upon in slower time. But I will certainly hear what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, wishes to say.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I am worried about his reputation as a bruiser from the other place because he sounds dangerously consensual and collaborative this afternoon, which is always worrying coming from him. The Minister has been speaking for 10 minutes and has not alighted on the challenge thrown down by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth concerning the overall generic numbers—the universal numbers—that are likely to come as a result of the Bill as unamended. Surely that is something the Government will take an interest in, if he makes a judgment on, for instance, the provision of public services in future.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Bruiser? Moi? Surely not. I will at some point potentially bruise the noble Lord once again, but today I am trying to find the sensible middle way.

Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, that I have already recognised that there are issues with the numbers. When he intervened at Second Reading and asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the numbers, there was a potential vacuum for an assessment of what those numbers would be. Again, any sensible Government would have to take those matters into account, which, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is why I indicated at Second Reading that we had concerns about the additional numbers, the assessments of those numbers and the criteria for granting them. As I said then and reiterate today, there are legal reasonable routes for other family members to join after a proper assessment. Without repeating it all today, I referenced that very strongly in the debate at Second Reading.

The government response today is that I wish the amendments to be withdrawn. But that is a matter for noble Lords. As we progress, in Committee, on Report, at Third Reading and when the Bill goes to the House of Commons, we as a Government will, in between, reflect on these matters.

I hope that is clear, even if it is slightly in the middle. Maybe in the middle is not such a bad place to be. That is my view on the amendments and on the Bill. I can add nothing more than that today than to allow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to respond to amendments that were designed—as appears to be the condition of current Opposition Members—not to help clarity, were perhaps for a little further discussion or perhaps a little obfuscation. Ultimately, the House will determine these matters in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 2, leave out “6 months” and insert “one month”

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief. It is very gracious of the noble Baroness to apologise—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

I think we need to look at the time and bring the Committee to a conclusion fairly quickly. If the noble Lord would help us by not speaking to his amendment, then we can get on with that.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

On the basis of being as collegiate and collaborative as the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment—before I have even spoken to it.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Grand Committee

If only subsection (9) were removed from Clauses 3 and 6, it would still be possible to appeal and to have the terms of triability for an offence and the levels of the fines and imprisonment in place, but with no power for the Minister to create or widen the scope of criminal offences. I may have misunderstood the objective of the noble Lord’s amendments, but I am concerned that they create even more power for a Minister, which I am trying to rationalise, certainly to hold them to account. I hope that, when the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, responds to the debate after the Minister has spoken, he could perhaps explain this a little more. I also look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to my amendments. I am very grateful for the meetings with the Ministers, but I have seen nothing in writing about this issue with criminal offences.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute to your Lordships’ Committee. I apologise for not having been here throughout all the deliberations on the Bill. I was called away by the excitement of the Football Governance Bill, but I am back to speak to my Amendment 92.

This is pretty straightforward. That the Bill will be unamended is a big assumption, because I sincerely hope that the Government will see fit to bring forward their own amendments or accept opposition amendments on Report—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her kind words. However, my amendment seeks to fill the gap in appropriate scrutiny and oversight of a very wide-ranging and pervasive Bill, particularly in this respect of potentially creating criminal offences arising from non-compliance.

It is vital that, if new offences are created or if other powers are exercised by Ministers in this clause, it should be subject to some form of rudimentary scrutiny by Parliament. That is why I have tabled this amendment, which says that at least 30 days before making such provisions the Secretary of State must put that rationale into the Library of both Houses in the form of an Explanatory Memorandum.

Let us just remember what this clause on enforcement of product regulations does. It allows, by regulations, the Government to appoint inspectors to

“enter, inspect and search … seize and retain products or evidence of non-compliance … require a person to retain or provide a document or information … dispose of a product or require a person to dispose of a product”.

Those are pretty draconian powers, and they have significant ramifications for civil liberties, the unwarranted interference into the lawful operation of markets, and the potential undermining of due process and norms in the criminal justice system. Most importantly, there is a lack of accountability.

It goes without saying, of course, that I strongly support the amendments from my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. In fact, I agree with all the amendments in this group, including those from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I do so because—it bears repetition—this is an egregious example of skeleton legislation, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee found. I also had an opportunity to look at paragraph 12 of the Guidance for Departments on the Role and Requirements of the Committee—the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I give Ministers half points rather than nil points, because they have actually done half of what the memorandum asks them to do under the heading “Criminal offences”. It says:

“Where a bill creates a criminal offence with provision for the penalty to be set by delegated legislation, the Committee would expect, save in exceptional circumstances, the maximum penalty on conviction to be included on the face of the bill”.


We have seen that, so that is great. But it also says in that same paragraph—and the Government have not met this requirement—that

“where the ingredients of a criminal offence are to be set by delegated legislation, the Committee would expect a compelling justification”.

I am afraid, as with virtually all of the Bill but particularly and specifically on this issue of the creation of criminal offences, that skeleton legislation gives rise to significant risks of the creation of offences, with punishment meted out to businesspeople and others associated with commerce without proper scrutiny and oversight.

For those reasons I strongly support all the amendments in this group, and I look forward to the Minister addressing the particular issue of what are the compelling reasons that necessitate that wording in the Bill and why the Government have chosen to go in that direction. I hope he will think again on Report about perhaps amending the wording in the Bill, as we have argued for today.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group related to criminal offences. This is an important area, and I am grateful for the knowledgeable and informed contributions in this debate, demonstrating the significant expertise in this House. My response sets out the general principles relating to criminal offences, but I will try to answer many of the various questions that noble Lords asked.

As I mentioned previously, I am very aware of the concerns that noble Lords have raised on delegated powers and the importance of consultation and scrutiny more generally. In particular, I am grateful for the thoughtful and comprehensive reports of the Delegated Powers and Constitution Committees. I have mentioned this before: noble Lords will be aware that we have provided responses to both committees, and my colleague, Minister Madders, and I gave evidence to the DPRRC. I was very grateful for the opportunity to explain the Government’s approach to these issues.

I begin by stating a central point. The severity of the harm caused by breaches of regulations across different product sectors varies. To proportionately reflect harm, offences and penalties must be tailored to individual sectors and duties.

I hope noble Lords would agree that, with regard to criminal offences, the rule of law is best served by precision. Only by having criminal enforcement provisions alongside product requirements can proportionality be ensured. Take, for example, a penalty for failure to properly mark a product: the harm will be very different for a highly sensitive product within a nuclear energy installation versus a lower-risk product.

As well as creating issues of proportionality, codifying criminal offences and penalties in the Bill would likely lead to enforcement gaps later. Offences would not correspond directly to new duties created for existing supply chain actors or responsibilities placed on new actors who enter the supply chain over time.

Lord Bingham’s principles require that the law be accessible and, so far as is possible, intelligible, clear and predictable. Setting out the details of offences and penalties in the Bill would undermine those principles. It would necessitate drafting speculative penalties to fit duties yet to be created. That would leave ambiguity over to whom offences may apply in future and create statutory maximum penalties that would be disproportionate for some actors.

Lord Bingham’s principles go further to support the approach of tailoring clear, proportionate offences and penalties that correspond to supply chain actors’ duties as they arise over time. If we instead place the detail in primary legislation, we risk undermining those crucial principles by locking in terms that become ambiguous over time as business models and products evolve, and with penalties that can cater to only the most serious version of the offence. Setting the maximum penalty in primary legislation means that the penalty can be calibrated to only the most serious version of the offence, leaving a broad discretion to judges to determine the appropriate sentence for less serious cases. Legal certainty and predictability of applicable penalties are better served by specific, tailored provision being set out in secondary legislation.

Noble Lords have highlighted that the DPRRC, in its report on the Bill, recommended that elements of criminal offences are set out within primary legislation. The Government value the work of the DPRRC and the incredibly important role it plays. We have considered its recommendations carefully within the department. However, the approach taken to setting out criminal offences within regulations is not novel. Other Acts that underpin broad regulatory regimes allow for the creation of criminal offences in regulations, including the Building Safety Act 2022, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I also highlight some examples of existing product regulations that set out criminal offences and penalties, such as the Nagoya Protocol (Compliance) Regulations 2015 or the Simple Pressure Vessels (Safety) Regulations 2016.

Noble Lords may also be interested to note that, to ensure proportionality, the maximum criminal penalties that may be implemented by regulations are set out in the Bill and follow existing precedent, as seen in sector-specific regulations such as the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016. This is a key point. Our approach provides this strong safeguard that enables discretion to set lower and more proportionate penalties in secondary legislation, which will also have parliamentary oversight. We submit that secondary legislation ensures parliamentary oversight but also the flexibility required to ensure that we can implement proportionate criminal offences that comply with the vital principles underpinning the rule of law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, once again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his amendment. I begin by reaffirming that this Government take their responsibility to parliamentary scrutiny very seriously. We have listened carefully to the views expressed and we will reflect on them as we move forward. It is always our aim to strike the right balance between thorough oversight and addressing the technical and practical demands of product regulation.

Amendments 72 and 73 seek to ensure that the use of emergency powers is transparent and proportionate. I fully appreciate the intentions behind these amendments, and I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that we believe that the Bill already provides robust mechanisms for oversight.

Clause 4 is intended to be used in rare emergency situations. It is introduced in this Bill following the recent example of the Covid-19 pandemic, when there was a shortage of personal protective equipment. To be clear, this clause is not about quickly implementing regulations on new products; it is about emergency situations where there could be a need to temporarily disapply or modify existing regulations to allow current products to be brought to market much more quickly. Any regulations made under Clause 4 are subject to the draft affirmative legislative procedure, ensuring that both Houses can scrutinise and approve them. We believe this process provides a balanced and proportionate mechanism for oversight and accountability, ensuring thorough scrutiny.

The Government are also committed to developing a clear framework of how the policy will work in practice, and this will be done in consultation with stakeholders. However, we do not believe it will be necessary to formally lay this framework before Parliament, as the oversight arrangements provided by the draft affirmative procedure for any secondary legislation under Clause 4 are believed to be sufficient.

The Office for Product Safety & Standards will take the lead in developing the framework and will publish guidance on the conditions and procedures for using these emergency powers. The guidance will then be made publicly available to Members of this House and relevant committees on the GOV.UK website which, if needed, can be used to supplement any future scrutiny on emergency measures. In addition, Clause 4 is intended to provide a proportionate response to emergencies, and conditions can be applied which will be context specific. Therefore, any disapplication or modification of regulations will be targeted, with safeguards in place to ensure public safety remains paramount.

As the House can appreciate, emergencies can be unpredictable and cannot always be anticipated in advance. Imposing an initial fixed three-month sunset period and review process for extensions risks reducing the Government’s ability to respond effectively to emergencies that may evolve over time. Instead of applying a fixed three-month sunset period to all regulations, we believe that each regulation in response to an emergency should be targeted and tailored to its unique circumstances. This approach ensures that the measures remain both proportionate and effective, addressing the specific challenges of the emergency and the product or situation involved while avoiding unnecessary constraints.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

The Minister is making a powerful argument, but he raised the issue of Covid. He is aware, of course, that it is quite possibly the case that you can expedite fast-track legislation in extremis. He will no doubt know that between 1989 and 2009, 15 Northern Ireland Bills that were terrorism and security-related were fast-tracked through both Houses. So, in a fundamentally very serious emergency situation, you can expedite fast-track primary legislation. I offer that as a suggestion to the Minister.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that, and I am sure the officials will have taken notice as well.

I must also highlight that, in line with the Government’s commitment to transparency and informed decision-making, proportionate impact analysis will accompany future secondary legislation. This will be prepared in accordance with the Better Regulation Framework, ensuring that Parliament has access to evidence-based assessments that support effective scrutiny.

I hope that I have been able to provide reassurance on all these matters and assure the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that the Government have carefully considered the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and sought to strike a careful balance in relation to emergencies. I am happy, as always, to meet the noble Lord or, for that matter, any other noble Lords to discuss with them further our approach in this area. On that basis, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn and for the other amendments in this group not to be moved.

Illegal Migrant Returns Agreements

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. It is really important that we have voluntary returns where people have no right of abode in the United Kingdom. Of the 9,400 returns since we have had custody of this post on 5 July 2024, 2,590 were enforced returns but the other 7,000-ish were voluntary returns. We need to encourage that, because if people have been through a range of mechanisms to ensure they have no right of abode in the United Kingdom, then, quite frankly, they have no right of abode.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, on 26 November I tabled a Written Question to the Minister asking why the Government do not routinely collect data on foreign national offenders who have been in prison for than more 12 months at the end of their sentence, whether they are deported and, if not, why not. Unfortunately, he did not provide me with an adequate Written Answer. Is he able to say now whether the Government intend to collect that data and, if not, why not?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will be aware that the Government intend to look at a whole range of data. One of the reasons we have deported more than 2,500 people forcibly, including 1,500-plus people who are foreign national offenders, is that we recognise that when people have completed their sentence, there is the right to remove them if the Government wish to remove them. We get notification when foreign national offenders complete their sentences, and we will certainly examine that issue. Perhaps the noble Lord could ask his own Front Bench why there were 100,000 such foreign offences last year alone.

Asylum Seekers: Wethersfield

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an extremely valid point: one that is on the Government’s agenda. He will know that, since July 5, the Prime Minister has made considerable efforts, meeting with European partners in particular to look at the flow across the Mediterranean and to take action on some of the long-term issues, which are linked war, climate change, hunger and poverty, as well as a small proportion who are involved in criminal activity and/or irregular migration for economic purposes. A number of the drivers can be solved by international action and it is on this Government’s agenda to do so.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, two weeks ago, 146 asylum seekers were moved into the Dragonfly Hotel in the west of Peterborough, without the knowledge of the Labour-led Peterborough City Council or the two Labour MPs for Peterborough and North West Cambridgeshire. Irrespective of whether one agrees with the policy, can the Minister please take on board the necessity to improve protocols around communication, because the movement of asylum seekers at that level has an impact on wider public services? To impose that situation on an urban area such as Peterborough, which already has issues, is not fair or appropriate and, frankly, the Home Office needs to do better.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say to the noble Lord that it is right and proper that consultation takes place. It should take place and I will ensure I take that message back to the Home Office.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 25th November 2024 Grand Committee

These amendments aim to reflect and build upon the definition of “online interface” that is already set down in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. What we do not want to see is an emerging online marketplace, such as TikTok Shop, avoiding new regulations by arguing that it is simply acting as a third-party link to other services and not providing that service itself. I look forward to the Minister’s response to these and to Amendments 48 and 71.

[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.

Police Accountability

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that policing is undertaken by consent. To have that consent, policing needs both to reflect and to understand the community. I have no problem with police officers stopping and searching individuals—that is part of the prevention of criminal activity—but they need to do so in a way that is conducive to consent and to community relations, while having full accountability and explaining why and how those activities have taken place. The noble Lord’s point about the disregard between members of the black community and the police is a source of deep sadness. Many of the people who were involved in, and have been killed by, some of this concerning behaviour were innocent people from the black community. Therefore, trust is a long-term measure. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is trying to build a stronger mechanism of community policing, but I will certainly take on board the points the noble Lord mentioned, and we will reflect on how we can build that confidence in the community to ensure effective, proper policing.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I welcome the Minister’s typically sensible and pragmatic approach to this issue. Does he agree that we have to strike a balance in the bulwark of our system, which is judicial independence, notwithstanding the sui generis nature of the Kaba case, but that part of the review should also include the not quite unprecedented but unusual decision by the judge to release the name of Sergeant Blake, which had massive ramifications? That should be part of the review, because there has to be a robust evidential basis for a decision to plunge that officer potentially into a very difficult situation by removing anonymity.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My response to the noble Lord will not be critical of the judge. I simply say that, having seen the implications of that decision, my right honourable friend and I have taken the view that anonymity is the best way to protect the safety of anybody charged with these offences who is a police officer. I hope that Members of this House who have a judicial background will not take that as a criticism. It is a way in which we can review what has happened in this case, and the consequences of what happened after naming the individual, and try to put in a framework that in due course will potentially have legal backing from this House and the House of Commons.

King’s Speech

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the new Ministers to the Front Bench—the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, for his pragmatism and common sense and the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, for his business acumen and philanthropic endeavours. I wish them well and congratulate the Minister on his fine maiden speech; similarly, my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe made an excellent and erudite maiden speech.

I want to talk about two issues today: very briefly, the small boats saga and illegal immigration; and, more substantially, the prison estate. I read with great care on Monday the Home Secretary’s Statement on immigration and the possible fast-tracking of 70,000 asylum seekers, a policy which is ill thought-out, uncosted and a short-term fix—and it was not in the Labour manifesto. What consideration has been given to public safety, national security, community cohesion, the public good and the financial burdens placed on central and local government by that policy? Administrative reorganisations and press releases about smashing the gangs are unlikely to act as a realistic deterrent to the people smugglers’ business model. Securing bilateral and multilateral agreements and new legislation is both time-consuming and expensive. Nevertheless, we await with interest the border security, asylum and immigration Bill later this year.

We know the prisons estate is a mess, with too few new prisons built, overcrowding and unsanitary conditions, too many drugs, extremism, poor leadership and mismanagement, and not enough education, training and rehabilitation. I wish Ministers well if they seriously dealing with the issue of foreign national offenders. There are 11,000 of them in the estate, costing more than £40,000 each per annum. I urge Ministers to look at the excellent Question for Short Debate we had on 25 April, when we focused on the poor record-keeping and lack of proper data collection when developing policies for removing foreign national offenders.

Labour’s mantra is “change”, so I was very disappointed not to see in the King’s Speech bespoke legislation envisaged on recidivism, citizenship, support for families, literacy and numeracy and meaningful work—all meat and drink to the new Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. Of course, I am realistic enough to suggest, too, that we need proper funding for new prisons and new staff. Ministers will have to take that up with the Treasury.

By contrast, the Lord Chancellor said on Monday that there would be the early release of 5,500 prisoners later this year—again, an emergency measure. Again, this is without a proper budget or timescale, and important details such as licence conditions, curfew arrangements, electronic tags and so on are also absent from the policy. Again, that was not in the Labour manifesto.

Emptying prisons is not the answer, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, says. It will drive up crime and disorder and damage society, alienating the law-abiding majority. It is quite permissible to think that the most egregious criminals should go to prison for longer, but that those who are in prison have a meaningful path to a better life. I do not see any discordant thinking in that.

The liberal mantra is that there are too many people in prison; it is a liberal shibboleth and demonstrably untrue. Prisons protect the public and keep crime down. Only one in 10 prisoners are first offenders, and half the prison population are there for violent or sexual offences. Some 53% of criminals have 11 or more previous convictions or cautions, and only one-third of career criminals with 15 or more convictions or cautions received other than a caution or non-custodial sentence.

In conclusion, Ministers need to focus on sentencing and management of hyper- and ultra-prolific offenders, a realistic capital building programme, education, training and rehabilitation, and, of course, on the removal of foreign national offenders. I note that, nine years ago, the UK Government did a deal with the Jamaican Government to build a new prison in Kingston in order to repatriate Jamaican nationals to that country. It has still not been expedited after nine years. I blame the previous Government for that, but I do not think that a Labour Government would have been any different.

If Ministers take up this challenge, they will have strong bipartisan support. In any event, the public are watching; blaming the Tories will only go so far, and this Government will of course be judged on their results and not their rhetoric.