Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Grand Committee

Any further specification would limit our ability to ensure that enforcement authorities can be equipped with necessary powers to enforce their areas of responsibility. Relevant authority and inspectors’ functions are outlined within Clause 3(3), 6(3), 3(4) and 6(4).

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but Amendment 60 asks who the relevant authorities are. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 tell us in statute, as things stand, who the domestic enforcement authorities are. That is not in subordinate legislation—it is in primary legislation. The Minister appears to be taking a list that is in primary legislation, which is amendable by regulation, and turning it into something that is a power to specify by subordinate legislation. What was wrong with retaining the enforcement authority list in Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act and adding to or subtracting from it as necessary?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that point. As I said earlier, as it stands the relevant authorities are exercising public functions—that is, the Secretary of State or the Health and Safety Executive, in the examples that I gave earlier. However, because of the evolving and changing nature of the new products on the market, we may need more people with specific technical knowledge. We do not want this Bill to straitjacket us so that, every time we need to appoint somebody, we have to come back with new primary legislation.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

But can the Minister tell us why the list in primary legislation under Schedule 5 of that Act, which has been amended from time to time since 2015 by regulation, is not a suitable basis for proceeding in future? What is wrong with using that list?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Personally, I do not see why there is anything wrong with it—but in this Bill itself, I am trying to say that we need the flexibility. I just have to continue.

Further clarification of powers and functions would restrict the ability for enforcement regulations to provide powers needed to enforce new product and metrology regulations. We must enable flexibility so that we do not create gaps in enforcement powers now or in the future. We intend to plug the gap in enforcement by making regulation applicable at the border, so that enforcement can take place before unsafe or non-compliant products are sold.

I understand the good intentions behind these amendments but, equally, I hope that I have resolved the concerns that led to them. The Bill provides simple, flexible powers that will help enforcement authorities to fulfil their roles. I submit that we have balanced parliamentary scrutiny with the necessary flexibility in a way that best serves the rule of law. It is for these reasons that I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I also support Amendment 35 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. As opposed to the last group, which focused on a large number of slightly different issues, these two amendments focus on one area and, given that they are only in the names of the noble Lord and myself, you can be sure that they will be technical in content.

I am sure the Minister has often wondered why his mobile phone can operate on Bluetooth in any country of the world, and why the automated vacuum cleaner that my noble friend Lord Foster so ably described in the last session can pick up wireless instructions no matter where it is working. The answer is that sitting underneath all of those are things called standard essential patents, or SEPs. They are patents that are necessary to the implementation of a collectively-agreed technical standard—5G, wifi, Bluetooth and so on. Standardisation across communications technologies makes it possible for devices to work with one another wherever they are.

Connectivity is increasingly a part of the products that the Bill seeks to regulate, as we have heard. UK industry is at the forefront of developing connected products that aim to address some of the biggest issues that we face, including healthcare and climate change. The Bill is about ensuring product compliance with technical standards. Compliance or conformance with the technical standard can often be premised on the implementation of a particular technology; as I have said, wifi is an example. For a product to use the wifi logo and technology, its technical performance with the chip set has to be tested and certified. Bluetooth and other wireless technologies used for power management in the context of electric vehicle chargers and smart metering are all examples of where the technical standards of operation are underpinned by these SEPs.

I realise that the Bill is not about intellectual property, but it is about regulating the properties of things. Unless the situation of SEPs is fixed, those properties can be in a state of flux. SEPs should be treated differently from other patents, which is why we are introducing them into this debate.

Of necessity, as a result of a dominant market position, the SEP holders have to voluntarily commit to license their technologies on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. The licensing of SEPs is important in ensuring that UK businesses are able to use the most modern and effective versions of these technical standards. In practice, SEP holders often evade their voluntary commitments to license their patents fairly because of a lack of clarity over what constitutes fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory, caused by weaknesses in the UK’s legal framework. SEP holders can abuse their position as gatekeepers of these technical standards by using the threat of costly court action and injunctions to force potential licensees to accept excessive royalty demands or quit the market. That can effectively prevent smaller companies from entering into, and being able to operate in, a market. In the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked whether the Bill was pro-innovation or anti-innovation. Unless we round up this issue on SEPs, I have to say that it is absolutely stifling innovation.

In most cases, SEP holders are well resourced and aggressive, while many licensees, especially SMEs, lack the knowledge and resources to defend their rightful position in court or push back against the mere threat of litigation. Increasingly, there is a third sector of people who buy up the rights to these patents and treat them as a revenue stream, whereby they go after and literally squeeze the people who have to use these SEPs. In essence, it becomes a secondary market for these things, without the necessary protections.

There are two issues. First, the availability of injunctions to the UK’s current SEP framework means that both small and large technical innovators who operate downstream of the primarily foreign SEP holders can be forced to accept excessive SEP licensing fees because they want to use this technology. The second problem is the lack of transparency: they quite simply do not know who holds these patents until they get an injunction through the mail. That is the problem. With the threat of injunctions and lack of transparency, UK manufacturers are frequently faced with a no-win situation. They have to either pay these fees or get out of the market, because they cannot afford to defend them at an injunction. This is in spite of the SEP holders making a voluntary commitment to license the SEPs on fair terms as part of the standard-setting process. So there is a problem.

The situation creates significant cost and uncertainty for some of the most innovative UK firms, it stifles innovation and, importantly, in the context of this Bill, it challenges the efficiency and effectiveness of products that rely on SEPs and are regulated by this legislation. That is why it is appropriate to have this discussion here today. The UK IPO is aware of issues concerning the licensing of such technology but to date has done nothing, or has insufficiently acted, to protect UK businesses that must use these technologies. This amendment is an opportunity for the Minister to commit to legislative action on SEPs to address the critical issues of products being threatened with exclusion from the people who need them, the imposition of unfair royalties and SEP licences being refused to companies that need them. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for explaining so expertly what standard essential patents—SEPs—are and how important they are to the use of legislation in specifying product requirements, which of course are directly linked to the standards that we will go on to talk about. We have previously talked about the importance of standard-setting, but there is no point in setting standards if they cannot be fulfilled, turned into product requirements and brought to the market—that is what we are talking about. In particular, the noble Lord was absolutely right to stress that we should be thinking in this legislation about how we can promote innovation. Addressing this issue is one of the central ways in which we can do that.

Our two amendments serve the same purpose. The only distinction is that I was trying to suggest, in this particular instance, the importance of taking a power and not attempting in the primary legislation at this point to specify precisely how that power should be structured, because it is necessary for there to be a full consultation about the changes that would need to be made—not least, probably, to the Patents Act itself. When we come back on Report, if we go down this path there may be a need to have a power to amend the Patents Act as well.

The point here is that, as the Intellectual Property Office itself said, SEPs will be

“of growing importance to the UK economy”.

This is not a small matter, and it is becoming more important because of connectivity, the internet of things and the multiple range of SEPs associated with many of these standards. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, is absolutely right about the problems that can emerge for companies, particularly SMEs, in understanding the visibility of SEPs and who holds them—and, for that matter, in being absolutely clear about which ones are essential and which are asserted to be so, but which are not in fact essential to the standard.

I shall not delay the Committee now, but I want to focus on the question of why we need a power. First, the Intellectual Property Office is trying to do its best within the powers available to it. In July, Ministers announced the establishment of the resource hub, which gives guidance in relation to SEPs and enables companies to understand the SEP ecosystem. However, that does not change some of the fundamental issues to which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred. There are licence holders who are delaying access to their patents, and who are using that as a mechanism to get terms that are not fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. SMEs are finding it very difficult to know what FRAND terms look like in relation to many of these products.

There is another issue: not only the individual royalties that must be paid in relation to these licences, but the global royalties that need to be available. Although there is case law that can be looked at, it is very difficult for SMEs in particular to understand how that may be applied to them. Of course, there are global royalties being established through large cases, which delay access to this intellectual property for some of those who need to use it; they are therefore unable to know how viable their product may be.

These issues have been addressed in the European Union. At present, there is a regulation agreed between the European Commission’s proposal and the European Parliament, and it is awaiting the conclusions of the Council of Ministers. Let us just focus on that for two seconds. What does it do? It sets out that there needs to be transparency, a mandatory register, and the ability for an official body to undertake a reality check asking, in essence, whether something is actually essential to a standard. It facilitates fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. It also delays for nine months the point at which any licence holder could go to court to secure an injunction for these purposes while there is a requirement for a negotiated process; indeed, it entertains the possibility that, under the regulation, this may relate not only to individual royalties for licences but to the aggregate of those royalties for licences. So there is a legal structure in the European Union for these purposes, in order to overcome what is otherwise, for SMEs in particular, an extremely difficult set of circumstances arising from case law for them to understand and interpret.

This is not a small problem for some SMEs. For example, I have been talking to Tunstall Healthcare, which I know well from its role in providing connectivity, particularly for people who require care at home; it looks after more than 100,000 of them. In order to access licences for 4G and wifi connectivity, it needs to negotiate many licences and to identify where they exist. A company called Bullet was trying to develop and market highly resilient smartphones, but it ceased trading, owing millions of pounds to SEP holders, which contributed to its inability to continue trading. So I think we need to act.

The IPO has said that it will respond to the consultation at the end of 2024—so any minute now. I am told, however, that that will not now happen in 2024. What I really want to hear from the Minister is, first, that this is a suitable Bill and a suitable opportunity to take a power—without specifying all the details of that power—to make provision in relation to SEPs. Secondly, I want to hear that the IPO and Ministers will undertake to respond to the consultation in the early part of next year, putting forward proposals for how the new power is to be used and inviting responses.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

38: Clause 2, page 3, line 37, at end insert—
“(7A) Provision made in reliance on subsection (1) may (among other things) identify product requirements by reference to international agreements or standards relating to the marketing or use of products, including agreements or standards as they have effect from time to time.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would enable product requirements to by met by reference to international standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, there was a substantial debate on a previous day and earlier group on whether product requirements should, from time to time, be set by reference to the European Union standards to which they should be aligned dynamically or, as my noble friends Lord Frost, Lady Lawlor and Lord Jackson of Peterborough argued, set by reference to standards in other jurisdictions. “Relevant foreign law” was the term that they used.

I think that we should lift our eyes beyond that debate and say that we want not simply to arrive at a point where we set our standards by reference to those determined in other jurisdictions, but that we should maximise the opportunity for international standards to be the basis on which standards and product requirements are set in all these jurisdictions. I say this not least because in June, before the election, when regulations were going through for the temporary effect to which this Bill gives a permanent basis, there was some legitimate concern about whether the competencies inside our standards-making organisations would be retained in this country if the UK conformity assessment is little used relative to other conformity assessment processes.

I have two amendments in this group by which I want to do two things. First, I want to be clear in the Bill that product requirements may refer directly to international standards. Secondly, I want to promote through a new clause a strategy, which I am asking the Office for Product Safety and Standards to lead, for the United Kingdom to lead in the further establishment of international standards.

I mentioned in some detail at Second Reading how I do not think we are doing this in any way contrary to the thrust of thinking in other jurisdictions. The European Union strategy for standardisation in 2022 pointed directly towards the importance of the greater use of international standards:

“Traditionally, the EU has been a strong leader in international standardisation activities but needs to take account of a changed geopolitical situation, as other countries start to approach international standardisation more strategically”.


So, the European Union is working in that direction. Mario Draghi’s report to the European Commission emphasised the importance of international standards as a means of promoting regulatory harmonisation and reducing trade friction and said that the European Union should lead in framing international standards. We are not alone in this process.

On Monday, my noble friend Lady Lawlor referred to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Article 8.5 states:

“The Parties recognise the important role that international standards, guides, and recommendations can play in supporting greater regulatory alignment, good regulatory practice, and reducing unnecessary barriers to trade”.


I hope that with the Ministers and the Government I am pushing at an open door and that international standards are at the heart of how we want to proceed. I have been given an estimate that something like 80% of standards in some form or to some extent derive from international standards. That would be the case, not least if one includes many that are part of a process in which they are incorporated into existing European Union standards. It is not that this is something we do not presently do; it is something we do at present, but we want to do more and to make it a clear priority.

Why do we need it in this legislation? One expert to whom I talked said that the Secretary of State has the power to designate standards and that it is frequently used in relation to international standards. That is fine, but let us remember what this Bill does. Later on, the Bill contains the power to repeal Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act. Unless I am missing something, it is Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that gives the Secretary of State the power to designate standards in that way, so we do not know how the Government intend to use the powers that the Minister has explained are going to be taken and used flexibly in relation to Section 11. How is that power going to be used in future? If it is to be effectively recreated under this legislation, it is important for this legislation to state that the power should reference international standards wherever appropriate and effective.

I am supported in that view in that, in 2021, Ministers—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, was a participant in those Committee and Report debates—took medical devices out of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act and put them into the Medicines and Medical Devices Act and created a power to regulate medical devices in the same way as this Bill creates a power to regulate many other products. In the Medicines and Medical Devices Act particular language was used, which is the language that is reproduced for the purposes of this Bill in Amendment 38:

“Provision … may (among other things) identify product requirements by reference to international agreements or standards relating to the marketing or use of products, including agreements or standards as they have effect from time to time”.


I have not invented that language. It is the same as is in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. If we do not include that language in the Bill, people will wonder why, when making similar new legislation, we did not use the language in relation to other products and standards setting that was used in 2021 in relation to medical devices. I think it is best that we use the same language.

Secondly, for the reasons I have just explained, I do not know whether the power to designate standards by reference to international standards might be diminished in some way by the future repeal of the Consumer Protection Act. I want to make sure that, in so far as new powers are used, they are used to deliver a strategy of using international standards wherever appropriate and effective. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for tabling Amendments 38 and 43. I know from when I was on the Opposition Benches that he brings great expertise to this House, debating legislation as varied as the Trade Act 2021, the Procurement Act 2023 and the Bill before us today. His amendments raise important points about the role that international standards can play in domestic product regulation and in ensuring a strategic approach to their delivery and implementation.

Regarding Amendment 38, I reassure the noble Lord that Clause 2(6) enables product regulations to continue to reference international standards to support regulatory compliance, as is the case for medical devices. Provision is already made in current product regulations for the ability to designate a standard adopted by an international standardising body.

We work closely with all departments, including the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and will continue to work with them to ensure the supply of safe and compliant products. However, each responsible department must individually consider the best approach for its own area.

Before the Secretary of State designates the standard for products regulated under the Bill it is assessed by government. The standard may be designated fully, with restrictions or not at all, depending on how far the standard ensures the relevant product requirements. Therefore Clause 2(6) sufficiently addresses the noble Lord’s concern. There is also no need to specifically reference the ability to designate international standards because that provision is already covered in product safety sector-specific legislation already on the statute book.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Which legislation is the Minister referring to? Is it not Part 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, which is able to be repealed by this legislation?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I have been told by officials that it is a specific product regulation.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Where is the power? Is it in the Consumer Protection Act?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I will write to the noble Lord on that.

On Amendment 43, the Government published a memorandum of understanding with the British Standards Institution on 16 September, of which there are copies here available to noble Lords. This sets out in respect of its activities as the UK’s national standards body its role in supporting government policy and acting in the UK’s national interest in the international standards-setting arena. This includes supporting UK policy to strengthen the global approach to standardisation and maximise UK influence.

Within the international standards system the UK already occupies a strong leadership position through the BSI’s membership of international and non-EU private sector European regional standards organisations. The BSI also manages a significant number of important committees in those organisations. In its role, the BSI systematically adopts international and European standards that representatives of UK stakeholders have influenced and withdraws standards that are no longer relevant. This includes internationally agreed standards designed to support regulatory compliance to UK product legislation.

In Articles 2 and 3 of the memorandum of understanding, the Government and BSI agree on the primacy of international consensus and that the two parties will co-operate with each other on international standards policy, while Article 4 ensures that the BSI provides the necessary standards the Government require for UK regulations. The Government are in the process of finalising a document entitled “The UK Government’s Public Policy Interest in Standardisation”, which is referenced in the MoU with the BSI, that explains why standards are a key factor in support of a number of government policies. It also reinforces the policy of influencing international standards and the importance of maintaining a constructive relationship with the BSI.

Given the close collaboration and the mechanisms in place, I believe that the objectives of Amendment 43 are already being met on the points I have just outlined. I hope that I have been able to provide sufficient reassurance to the noble Lord that what he seeks to achieve is not only already possible through the Bill, but also common practice across a range of sectors. If helpful, I will ask my officials, following Committee, to provide further information on the important role that international standards play in the UK system. With that in mind, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment .

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He has obviously taken some trouble to think about it quite carefully.

First, I do not dispute that current powers enable international standards to occupy a central role in our standards-setting process, and I share the Minister’s admiration of the British Standards Institution as our national standards body in doing that, although I note that many of its experts are now in Amsterdam. Let us leave that on one side as noble Lords know which side I was on in that argument and that it was not the same side as my noble friend Lord Frost.

However, not least with the way the European Union is moving and the commitments we are entering into with the new ratification of the CPTPP, would it not be useful to take language such as where Article 8.9 of the CPTPP says the parties should seek

“greater alignment of national standards with relevant international standards, except where inappropriate or ineffective”?

There is language of that kind to which we are party, which in my view it is suitable to incorporate into legislation where we are setting out new legislation that is intended to say how powers should be used in future. That is the point I make. I am not arguing in any sense in a way that is at odds with the intentions of the Government, but I think they have to look and say, “Well, legislation sometimes must be very clear about how people should think and act in the future”. I hope Ministers might think more about this before Report. However, on the basis of the discussion we have had, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 38 withdrawn.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 25th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I came here full of hope and expectation this afternoon; indeed, I even indicated to my noble friend Lord Sharpe that, on this occasion, I was here to support his Amendment 11 and Amendment 11A in the name of my noble friend Lady Lawlor, because, as one reads them on the page, they seem to have a lot of merit. However, I regret that, as my noble friends have spoken, they have in their speeches used these amendments to diminish the importance of our major market in Europe and our relationship with the European Union. Noble Lords will be delighted to know that I am not, therefore, going to concentrate any further on those matters but shall instead turn immediately—to my own relief and that of those parties—to Amendments 104A and 124A.

I want to refer in particular to sandboxes, a very interesting area that most members of the public probably do not have a clue about, other than from their visits to coastal regions during the summer holidays. Of course, sandboxes are terribly important in the context of this Bill. My noble friend Lord Sharpe was right to allude to them and to say how important they are; indeed, there are already in place regulations referring to their use, to how IP can be protected, as has been mentioned to me, and so on. However, I want to broaden this issue out a tiny bit. In winding up on this group, can the Minister clarify the way in which sandboxes are protected and how, from the point of view of UK plc, we can make use of them without danger either to the thinking that goes into innovation in them or to the overall position of this country apropos markets, wherever they may be in the world?

I am particularly interested—I know that other noble Lords present this afternoon may well speak on this—in sandbox use in the development of technology and AI. This is an area in which this country has every opportunity to lead the world. Certainly, sandboxes are one way that one can experiment and bring in new ideas without the risk or danger of them being exploited by others, against the interests of this country. I merely say that I support Amendments 104A and 124A, in the principles that they debate, but I would like the Minister to clarify how we can bring together sandboxes, in whichever field they may be deployed, to the benefit of the country.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise that I was not able to be with the Committee on its first day, nor will I for much of this afternoon, but I look forward to returning for my amendments on Wednesday. I support my noble friend Lord Sharpe’s amendment.

When we debated the regulation of medical devices in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, we established that safety and safeguarding public health was its overriding objective. However, we went on to say in what is now Section 15(3) of that Act that in considering whether regulations should be made, and whether they would contribute to the objective of safeguarding public health,

“the Secretary of State must have regard to”—

I commend that language to my noble friend, rather than “must support”, which I think takes it a bit far and creates conflicting duties—

“the safety of medical devices … the availability of medical devices … the likelihood of the United Kingdom being seen as a favourable place in which to … carry out research relating to medical devices … develop medical devices, or … manufacture or supply medical devices”.

I draw attention to the third of those. The structure of the existing legislation on the product requirements for medical devices already incorporates an expectation that we consider economic activity, economic growth and our comparative position in the manufacture or supply of such products. I say to my noble friend that that is an alternative formulation which thoroughly supports, through the precedent of a very closely related area of regulation, the idea that economic activity of that form should be part of the consideration of whether and how regulations should be made.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for their contributions on Amendments 11 and 11A, which specify that regulations made under the Bill should promote investment, foster innovation and encourage economic growth and investment. This Government are committed to attracting investment, as illustrated by the £63 billion pledged at the recent international investment summit. Britain is open for business.

I assure noble Lords that growth is the number one mission of this Government and our new industrial strategy, to be published in the spring, is central to it. The strategy will focus on tackling sector-specific and cross-cutting barriers to growth for our highest-potential growth-driving sectors and places, creating the right conditions for increased investment and high-quality jobs and ensuring a tangible impact in communities right across this country.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his Amendments 104A and 124A, which seek to create regulatory sandboxes where new products could be trialled under regulatory supervision, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. I recognise and welcome the intention behind the amendments, which seek to encourage innovation. The Office for Product Safety and Standards within my department already works to provide businesses with guidance and support as they develop and market products. We also support local authorities in their work as primary authorities. This allows businesses to receive assured and tailored advice on meeting environmental health, trading standards or fire safety regulations from a single local authority, then applying this advice nationally. The underpinnings of our product safety regime are based on extensive engagement with businesses. Whether it is on regulatory change, the development of standards or the work of the OPSS as a regulator, the relevant bodies consult extensively across industry.

I am always open to new ideas on how to support businesses to innovate. I understand that in 2022 the Office for Product Safety and Standards supported the Home Office in a regulatory sandbox trialling electronic ID for alcohol sales. However, I am concerned about mandating regulatory sandboxes in the Bill. Product safety is, after all, about avoiding potentially serious risks to people and their property, and anything that would relax regulations in this way, even as a trial, would need careful consideration. It could also commit local responsible authorities to run trials in their areas without sufficient consultation or preparation. This could place an undue burden on local authorities, diverting resources and capacity from their primary responsibilities.

This Government are committed to ensuring that any regulations made under this Bill will support the interests of UK businesses and consumers, providing regulatory certainty and creating the conditions for investment, innovation and economic growth. The Government are always open to debate to ensure that we can support businesses to deliver safe and effective products. I hope I have demonstrated to the noble Lord the extent to which regulators already work closely with businesses to achieve this.

In response to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about SMEs, I was an SME once; we do not want to burden SMEs with additional regulatory or financial cost, if possible. This Government are pro-business and pro-worker and have provided certainty, consistency and confidence—for which investors have been looking for a very long time. Massive tax reliefs are available to investors through the EIS, the SEIS, VCTs and all kinds of grants, including patent grants for any new industries. The Government have shown that we are committed to investment and growth.

I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to fostering growth through all our policies. This will be set out in more detail in the forthcoming industrial strategy, which we will publish in the spring. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Rwanda: Asylum Arrangements Treaty

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My noble friend asked me a very similar question yesterday and I will give a very similar answer, which is that I am unable to predict what is likely to be in the legislation that is yet to be presented to Parliament.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that, if a committee of this House—the International Agreements Committee or indeed the relevant committee in the other place—under CRaG, were to make a report for debate, the Government would not proceed to ratification of the treaty unless and until that debate had taken place?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Again, the noble Lord is asking me to speculate on something that has not yet happened, and I am afraid I do not see the point of that.

Rwanda: Memorandum of Understanding

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on securing this debate and, indeed, on her persistence in doing so. I think the committee, of which I was then a member, was absolutely right to conduct an inquiry and to challenge, as we did, the Government’s decision to use a memorandum of understanding as the basis for this arrangement with Rwanda. By deliberately making the arrangement—of course it is not an agreement, according to the Government—not binding in international law, the Government deliberately put it outside the scrutiny of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. So there is a very simple principle at stake in this debate: should significant international agreements be scrutinised by Parliament?

This agreement is in fact both significant and controversial. The cost is high. The risk of non-delivery is also high. There was insufficient evidence of potential effectiveness, such that the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office at the time had to seek a ministerial direction on value-for-money grounds before proceeding. The High Court has determined that domestic legislation gives the Government the necessary powers, but this does not preclude the possibility that removals to Rwanda of some individuals may conflict with the provisions of the refugee convention. This and the lack of any enforcement powers in the arrangement further strengthen the case for scrutiny.

The Government should recognise that their use of the prerogative power subsists by virtue of the Government’s control of Parliament. The sovereignty they enjoy is that of the sovereign in Parliament. When they fail to recognise this, or abuse the privilege, they hasten the day when we will need to legislate to specify when and how the Government can enter into such agreements and in what circumstances Parliament must assent. I think that in this case the Government got the procedure wrong. I hope that today the Government, whether or not they persist in the policy, will accept that they got it wrong and undertake not to repeat that error.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for those two questions. On the first point, no, to amend a treaty would be a more cumbersome process than the flexibility afforded by a memorandum of understanding. On the second point, it is clear that Parliament had considerable opportunities for scrutiny, as I have set out, and there was no want of scrutiny from the method adopted.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Can I press my noble friend on one point? Does he agree that the Government could have chosen to lay a memorandum of understanding under CRaG even if not required to do so, and that, as a result, it could have been debated in the House of Commons, which would have had a choice on whether to support the agreement or otherwise?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I appreciate the hypothetical question that my noble friend asks. As I say, the issue was one for the Statements that were provided to the House of Commons, and it seems that there was no want of scrutiny. Therefore, I am afraid that I do not accept that contention.

Asylum Seekers: Removal to Rwanda

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

We have been very clear that each case will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. No one will be sent anywhere where they might be persecuted or where their human rights might be undermined.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Will my noble friend commit the Government to providing substantive evidence to the inquiry launched by the International Agreements Committee, of which I am a member, and in doing so, will the Government explain on what basis they chose not to lay this agreement before Parliament? The Ponsonby rule suggests that any such agreement of significant public importance should be laid before Parliament.

UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership Arrangement

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think that anyone would accuse me of trying to stifle debate or of not trying to answer noble Lords’ questions. I do try to answer them and, if I cannot, I will get back to them. As I said earlier, we are abiding by our international obligations. The EU and the UNHCR work with Rwanda to relocate refugees there.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, further to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I do not think that my noble friend has responded to that point. A memorandum of understanding can be defined as a treaty under CRaG if it is a written agreement between states and it is binding in international law. Why does the Minister not say that the Government will lay this memorandum of understanding before Parliament under CRaG?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think I said to the noble Earl that I would clarify the point.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 15th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the National Housing Federation. I will not repeat what I said in Committee on this issue. Suffice it to say that migrant women are particularly vulnerable in an abusive situation because their insecure immigration status can be used as a tool against them. They often cannot access refuges or other safe accommodation because they have no recourse to public funds.

Women’s Aid, whose excellent briefing I acknowledge, considers that the Government may be in breach of several articles of the European Convention on Human Rights and in breach of the Istanbul convention obligations because they have failed to ensure that survivors with insecure immigration status can access equal support for and protection from domestic abuse. Assurances by the Minister in Committee that

“the Secretary of State is taking steps to ensure effective protection and support for all victims of domestic abuse”—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 99.]

have not convinced anybody. Amendment 70 provides a way through by regularising survivors’ immigration status irrespective of whether or not they are on a spousal visa, and by extending the destitute domestic violence concession from three months to six months to underpin that.

In Committee, the Minister was reluctant to extend the rules in this way because it would undermine their original purpose. That rather begs the question of whether the original purpose was sufficient, and the trenchant points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and all the evidence from migrant survivors suggest that it is not. It also begs the question: how do the Government otherwise propose to assure the International Agreements Committee that they are fulfilling their obligations under the Istanbul convention, when all those most closely involved can show quite clearly that they are not? I would appreciate it if the Minister would address both these points directly in her response.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to have this opportunity to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, who referred to the International Agreements Committee, on which I have the privilege to serve. We considered the question of the ratification of the Istanbul convention. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, the chairman of that committee, will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate in a few moments, so I will not pre-empt what he has to say by way of an authoritative description of the committee’s views.

I want to add just three points. First, the Istanbul convention was signed by the coalition Government in 2012, a Government of which I was then a member. We would not have anticipated then that it would have taken so long for it to be ratified or that there would have been any difficulty in respect of non-discrimination in achieving that. I am glad the Government are bringing forward Clauses 66 to 68 to enable the extraterritorial jurisdiction measures to be dealt with. Surely now is the time and this is the Bill to take ourselves to the point where we can ratify.

Secondly, a number of us in your Lordships’ House served in the other place and realise what it takes to get as many as 135 Members of Parliament to turn up on a Friday morning to support a Private Member’s Bill, but that is what happened on 24 February 2017 to support what is now the Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Act 2017. There is a tendency in government to say, “Well, that was just a Private Member’s Bill.” No, it is an Act of Parliament that requires Ministers to set out in a Statement to the House when they have a timetable for ratification and, in the absence of such a timetable, to report annually on the situation. Back in 2017, the 135 Members who turned up on a Friday morning to support that Bill and turn it into an Act would not have expected that there would have been four annual reports, with no resolution yet in sight and no timetable published by the Government. The evidence from this House and, indeed, the other House, is that Parliament expects that to happen.

Covid-19: UK Border Health Measures

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I totally concur with the points that the noble Viscount makes. Central to the Government’s strategy all along has been reducing the R rate, saving lives, protecting the NHS and, ultimately, getting rid of this virus.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the rationale for the decision, which is that we should seek to constrain the transmission of the virus from areas with community transmission to places where it might otherwise be brought where community transmission has been controlled and constrained. The problem at the moment is that we have significant elements of community transmission, and there are a significant number of European countries where there is now no evidence of such transmission. It is the wrong way round. Will my noble friend at least tell the House that the Government will consider whether there is a case for some specific exemptions for those countries—principally, at the moment, our neighbours in Europe—where there is no continuing evidence of community transmission of the virus?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

We will, of course, be taking such matters into consideration. I do not know if my noble friend heard my right honourable friend the Home Secretary say yesterday that bilateral conversations were going on with countries across the world to see what kind of innovations we could bring forward in order to make movement easier.

Child Abuse Inquiry

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree. What has been shocking in the Rotherham case and in the hon. Lady’s report into Greater Manchester—and we have also seen this in the historical cases—is the fact that those who were being abused often raised their voices but were not heard because they were not believed, or because, and I think this is truly shocking, people felt that those young people were in a circumstance such that they should not be listened to. As the hon. Lady said, in some sense this was seen as just the sort of thing that happened to those sorts of young people. This is an appalling attitude. We have seen it, and, sadly, we see it still today, in the work that is being done out there, as the hon. Lady has revealed. We see police officers, people in social services and others almost casting to one side certain individuals and not being willing to take up their cases. It is time that people looked not at the credibility of the individual, but at the credibility of the allegation.

[Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I welcome what the Home Secretary said about the panel proceeding with its work, but it does depend in part on the results of other inquiries into institutions, including those by Kate Lampard on the NHS and Dame Janet Smith on the BBC. Can the Home Secretary tell the House any more about the progress being made in the production of those reports? Clearly the panel will be able to access disclosure of documents, but I think we should assume that it will wish to go beyond that to independent investigations. Will she tell the House what kind of investigative resources would be available to the panel, should it seek them?

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend is right. I am not able to give him an absolute timeline on the other reports he referred to, but I am very happy to write to him, or for the Secretaries of State responsible for the Departments affected by those inquiries to write to him, to indicate where they are at the moment. It is important that all the evidence that is brought before this panel inquiry is available to it and it will obviously be looking at both historical cases and, as the reviews become available, looking into those reviews.

As for investigations taking place, it is not the task of the inquiry to determine criminal or civil liability for any individual. Where it is the case that allegations are made against an individual as a perpetrator, those allegations will be passed to the police. There will be an ability, through setting up various processes, to ensure allegations go to the police and are properly dealt with. So the investigation into specific allegations will be a matter for the police.

Child Sex Abuse (Rotherham)

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

It is absolutely clear that there are serious questions to be asked of all those involved who failed to take the action that they should have. The right hon. Gentleman talks about individuals in the police force and others being brought to account. I believe that the current chief constable of South Yorkshire is appearing in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee this afternoon, and I am sure that questions will be asked about the processes that the police force is following, including the independent investigation, which could of course lead to action being taken against individuals. I decided last week that I needed to meet Professor Alexis Jay to talk to her about her report, precisely so that we can ensure that her findings can be taken into the work of the panel inquiry. The original focus was on historical allegations, but we need to ensure that action is taken now, alongside any work that the inquiry is doing.

[Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Among the many shocking aspects of this case, one of the most shocking was to hear a victim of the abuse saying that she could still see her abusers walking free on the streets of Rotherham. In my right hon. Friend’s discussions with the chief constable, did she make it clear how important it was that the investigations of these crimes should be undertaken actively, successfully and rapidly? In that context, we have to ask whether South Yorkshire police carry the capability and the confidence to undertake all those investigations in the given time frame to achieve the success that they should achieve. Did she make it clear in her discussions that it might be preferable for additional resources to be given to South Yorkshire police to enable them to undertake those investigations?

[Mrs May]

In my discussions with the chief constable, we discussed the investigations that are currently in hand in South Yorkshire, as well as the resource requirements involved. We also discussed the need to ensure that the work that the police are now doing with the council involved better cohesion to ensure that the victims are being properly supported. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to suggest that it is terrible enough to be subjected to these kinds of abuse, but that to see the abusers walking free and no one taking any action is absolutely appalling. I believe that South Yorkshire police are now working on investigations to ensure that the perpetrators can be brought to justice.