Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Leong Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, as noble Lords will know, this Bill affects the whole of the United Kingdom. We have been engaging constructively with the devolved Governments throughout its passage. Although their consent has not yet been provided, we are hopeful of securing legislative consent from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is not unusual for issues related to legislative consent to be resolved in the second House, and we hope to be able to have more to say in the other place—we will of course keep noble Lords updated on this.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill will preserve the UK’s status as a global leader in product regulation. It creates a level playing field between the high street and online marketplaces, supporting businesses and protecting consumers. It grants necessary powers to adapt to modern-day safety issues and technological innovation, and to safeguard businesses and consumers from emerging risks.

This Bill is not the same one that entered this House. We have listened carefully to the concerns of all Peers and have proactively made changes in relation to consultation and the use of the affirmative procedure and Henry VIII powers. We have also provided further clarity on definitions in the Bill. Furthermore, the Government have published a code of conduct that sets out the statutory and non-statutory controls in place to ensure that regulation made under this legislation is proportionate and evidence based.

It is fair to say that the Bill has given rise to some interesting debates, passionately and expertly argued by noble Lords across the House. Particularly, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, whose support during these debates has been invaluable; the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his forthright scrutiny of the Bill, made with his customary charm and good humour; and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his extensive engagement on the Bill. He, along with the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, have been crucial in getting the Bill to where it is today. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his engagement on the Bill, particularly on standard essential patents. I am glad I have been able to reassure him.

I thank the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, past and present, for their reporting on the Bill, as well as the thorough grilling they gave me and Minister Justin Madders in October last year. I extend my gratitude to the Bill team and the officials supporting the passage of the Bill, as well as the parliamentary staff and those in my private office, who are instrumental in the continued smooth running of this House.

As we send the Bill to the other place, I believe we do so having fulfilled our role as a scrutinising Chamber with diligence and care. I beg to move.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Hunt, Lord Sandhurst, Lord Frost, Lady Lawlor, Lord Jackson and Lord Lansley for all their contributions and for raising very important issues throughout the discussions on the Bill. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Leong and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for their openness, collaborative approach and humour—it was very much appreciated.

On these Benches, we take pride in having pushed not only the Government but even the Liberal Democrats —yes, even them—to acknowledge the importance of protecting the pint. Although they were initially resistant, they eventually recognised its value, and we have ensured that the pint will remain untouched.

As the noble Lord, Lord Leong, noted, the Government made some welcome concessions on this Bill, such as the introduction of a requirement for consultation—a very welcome step. However, as highlighted by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee, this remains a skeleton Bill. We think it grants excessive power to the Executive with insufficient parliamentary scrutiny. Whether it is the affirmative procedure or, as once proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the super-affirmative procedure, we will still advocate for greater parliamentary oversight.

The question of dynamic alignment with the EU remains unanswered yet ever more topical. When my noble friend Lord Frost raised the issue, the Government could not rule out as a fact that the Bill could lead to dynamic alignment with the EU.

We still do not think this is a good Bill, but it is much improved. It not only allows for alignment with the EU but risks overregulation, and we confidently suspect that the lawyers will be busy for a while. But it would be churlish to finish on that note, so I once again thank noble Lords opposite for their incredible work on the Bill. I also thank their officials, who often go unremarked in these matters, and our research team led by Henry Mitson, and in particular the indefatigable Abid Hussain, for their enthusiastic and extensive help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have just contributed, and I thank my noble friend for his friendly advice. We have taken the Bill from its early state to where it is today, and obviously it will now go to the other place. I am sure that the noble Lord is right: there will be further deliberation on the Bill, and hopefully we will get it to a better place.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons with amendments.

India and Southeast Asia: Free Trade Agreements

Lord Leong Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this QSD. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on securing this debate and thank all noble Lords who have contributed this afternoon. I will aim to respond to as many points raised as I can and, if I do not, I promise to write to noble Lords on their unanswered questions.

First, I want to briefly touch on the close relationship between the UK and India. The UK and India have a deep and vibrant relationship, building on the living bridge between our two countries. Some 1.7 million people with Indian heritage call the UK their home, including many of our colleagues in this House and my wife. Our two countries are deeply interwoven through our shared values as democracies committed to the rules-based international order, our cultural ties and—it would be remiss of me not to mention—our shared love of curry and cricket. Our relationship also includes the millions in India who follow the Premier League and the huge market for Bollywood movies in the UK, which I and my wife enjoy most weekends and whose music we occasionally dance to.

Of course, these ties are also visible in our mutual championing of trade—free and fair trade, and investment —which is what we are here to discuss today. This Government’s core mission is to deliver economic growth. Boosting trade abroad is essential to delivering growth at home. That is why this Government are committed to negotiating a comprehensive free trade agreement and bilateral investment treaty with India—one of the fastest-growing economies in the world.

Securing a deal with India is a top priority for this Government and it is easy to see why. India is expected to be the third-largest economy in 2028, with 60 million middle-class consumers by 2030. But UK exporters currently face substantial tariffs, including a 150% tariff on whisky, as one noble Lord mentioned earlier.

Our trading relationship with India was worth £41 billion last year. Our investment relationship already supports close to 600,000 jobs across both economies, with Indian FDI projects in the UK creating more than 7,500 jobs in 2023-24. But there is more that we can do. That is why, on 24 February, my right honourable friend the Business and Trade Secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, travelled to India to relaunch negotiations towards a free trade agreement. The bilateral investment treaty that liberalises the trade of goods and services between our countries upholds the UK’s high food safety and environmental standards and protections, and facilitates easier temporary movement of businesspeople to provide their expertise. I am pleased to say that good progress was made and negotiations continue to move forward at pace towards a deal that delivers on our mutual ambitions of economic growth.

I will touch on a couple of points raised by noble Lords before I move on to the issue of trade with south-east Asia. We are aware of India’s ongoing talks with the EU and their stated ambition on a timeline. Although our focus is on delivering a quality agreement rather than any agreement that may be achieved at pace, securing a deal is a top priority for this Government, as it is for India, so we are pleased that progress was achieved in the Secretary of State’s recent visit towards our shared commitment to progress these negotiations at pace.

I hope Members of this House will appreciate that, in order to secure the best deal, I cannot compromise the UK’s negotiating position by getting into the specifics of a live negotiation. In any trade agreement, one of the main ambitions is to reduce the tariffs that UK exporters face. This is particularly important when Indian tariffs can exceed 100% on goods such as whisky, as I mentioned.

On visas, which several noble Lords mentioned, our negotiations consider only business mobility, so they cover only relevant business visas, which are, by their nature, limited, temporary and for specific purposes. This is also beneficial to UK exporters delivering services abroad. Student visas are not part of the trade deals.

The Government have made clear that we are willing to negotiate at pace towards a deal in the best interests of the UK. Although I recognise and agree that we would all like this deal to be speedily signed, the Government can sign only once we have secured the right deal for the UK, so we will prioritise the quality of the deal rather than the haste with which we can secure it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked whether there are any red lines and, if so, what they are. To achieve the best possible deal for the UK, we need to protect our negotiating positions. That is why we cannot go into details of live negotiations. What I can say is that this Government will seek a deal that drives economic growth for the UK as a whole while respecting key UK sensitivities, such as those in the NHS, our food, and health and safety agreements, which will not change under this or any UK free trade agreement. Any free trade agreement will not undermine the UK’s high sanitary standards, which are not and will not be decided in any trade agreements. The Government are firmly committed to upholding these high standards.

On post-study work visas, which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Loomba, mentioned, I remind all noble Lords that this Government’s position on net migration has not changed, and I make a plea for them to wait for the government White Paper on migration. I am not going to be drawn on this at this stage.

We remain committed to the protection of universal human rights. When we have concerns, they are raised directly with partner Governments, including at ministerial level. This engagement is undertaken separately from negotiations of any free trade agreements, although they are part of building on open and trusting relationships with important partners.

On the issue of CBAM, we will not compromise our high food standards, as I said earlier. We will also not undermine the effectiveness of our CBAM when we are implementing any trade deals.

The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, asked about trade envoys to India. The UK-India trade relationship is a top priority, as I mentioned. The Government will consider the noble Lord’s suggestion. I put on record that we currently have an excellent UK trade commissioner to India, and he is doing a fantastic job.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked about ISDS. The Government consider ISDS on a case-by-case basis, and I am not going to pre-empt the outcome of any further negotiations. The noble Baroness also asked about the environment and labour. We cannot use an FTA to change a partner’s domestic legislation, but an FTA builds on a closer relationship to have honest conversations. On intellectual property, I will have to write to the noble Baroness, as that touches on some very complex areas.

I turn to the issue of trade with south-east Asia. I was born and grew up in Malaysia, in the ASEAN region, which has 10 member states with something close to 670 million people and a combined GDP of some £3.6 trillion, and is growing at a rate of 5% annually. It is a big market and we should consider it. The UK recognises the importance of south-east Asian markets to UK businesses and to the global economy. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is right: more Ministers should visit the region, and I encourage my ministerial colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade to consider visiting Malaysia, Singapore and the wider region. I am really pleased that the Minister, Catherine West, is visiting Malaysia this week.

Total trade between the UK and south-east Asian markets is worth about £50 billion, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. I want to place on record my thanks for all the work he has done as chair of the UK-ASEAN Business Council. He has done a fantastic job.

South-east Asia can be a valuable source of investment and growth for the UK. As we have seen recently, the Malaysian company YTL announced £4 billion-worth of investment in the UK over the next five years, including transforming the Greater Bristol area and delivering something like 30,000 jobs across the UK. The UK has secured bilateral free trade agreements with Singapore and Vietnam through the CPTPP, as mentioned, and it secured an agreement with Brunei and Malaysia for the first time. In February 2022, the UK and Singapore signed a digital economy agreement.

Outside of the formal free trade agreements, the UK has strong trading relationships with south-east Asian countries. The Department for Business and Trade has regular trade and economic dialogues with Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia. The UK and Thailand recently signed a UK-Thailand enhanced trade partnership. The UK engages regularly with ASEAN as a dialogue partner, and I think we are the first European dialogue partner to ASEAN. The UK and Indonesia will work towards a new Indonesian-UK economic growth partnership, which is normally the precursor to any formal conversations on a free trade agreement.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about trade diversion. The Government carefully consider the impact on the wider region when negotiating a free trade agreement, and will do so as part of any deal.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about Indonesia and the potential for economic growth. Recognising the importance of Indonesia to the global economy, the Prime Minister and President Prabowo agreed to work towards a new Indonesian-UK economic growth partnership, as I mentioned earlier. The UK values projects such as those that the noble Baroness mentioned, and transnational education is one of the fastest growing sectors for this country.

The noble Lords, Lord Vaizey and Lord Sharpe, asked about future trade agreements. While we cannot currently commit to seeking new FTAs with partners in south-east Asia, it is important that we find ways to enhance our bilateral co-operation and economic ties, and to maintain our trade relationships into the future. That is what we have been doing with enhanced partnerships.

In conclusion, the Indo-Pacific region remains a key and ongoing area of interest for the UK. Its dynamic and developing economies represent opportunities for the UK. I am pleased to see strong progress in our discussions with key partners in this region, ensuring that our future relationships remain mutually beneficial, forward-looking, and supportive of prosperity and economic security.

House adjourned at 5.44 pm.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Leong Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

17: Clause 2, page 3, line 7, at end insert—
“(ca) a person who installs a product in the United Kingdom;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that product requirements may be imposed on installers of products.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

23: Clause 2, page 3, line 40, at end insert—
“(9) In this section, a reference to “intangible” components includes software.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that intangible components of products include software.

--- Later in debate ---

We on these Benches recognise the intent behind these amendments, but we believe that the issue was thoroughly debated in Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, himself acknowledged, there was some movement and a response to the concerns, which we demonstrated as well. We therefore think that the Government have adequately addressed these matters and do not feel the need to support the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, if he seeks to press these amendments.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for returning to these amendments on Report. I also place on the record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for his kind words about me and my colleague.

As discussed in Committee, this is an important debate on how emergency powers are used and scrutinised to ensure appropriate parliamentary oversight, while maintaining the ability to respond quickly in emergency situations. Clause 4 provides the Government with the ability to modify or disapply product regulations in an emergency to ensure the supply of critical products. This could include streamlining conformity assessments or temporarily adjusting certain regulatory requirements to allow essential products to reach the market more quickly, while ensuring public safety remains paramount.

This clause is not about removing oversight but ensuring that, in genuinely urgent situations, we can act swiftly to prevent product shortages, while making sure that parliamentary scrutiny remains central to this approach. Peers will also be aware that Clause 4 is subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that any regulations made under this power must be laid before Parliament and approved before coming into force. This ensures that both Houses have full oversight and provides for full scrutiny of emergency measures.

Amendment 29, which we discussed in Committee, seeks to require the Government to lay a comprehensive framework before Parliament outlining how Clause 4 powers will be used. As I stated in Committee, the Government are already committed to developing a clear framework on how this policy will operate in practice, in consultation with stakeholders. Indeed, as noble Lords will know, the Government have published a code of conduct on product safety that sets out how our product regulation system currently works, and to support the use of the powers under the Bill.

The code sets out the Government’s proposals on how we expect the emergency powers to work. To summarise a few key points, first, a derogation would be made available only if there were a serious risk of harm to people, businesses or the environment, and would be in compliance with the UK’s international obligations. Secondly, it would be granted only for products deemed critical for an emergency response, where demand exceeds supply. Thirdly, in times of emergency, the Government may temporarily reduce or modify requirements for the product to meet essential health and safety requirements for use in certain settings, provided the market surveillance authority is satisfied with the product’s safety and traceability.

The code of conduct, alongside the Government’s planned framework document, provides just the sort of structure the noble Lord appears to be seeking. In addition, the Government will commit to notifying Members when the framework document is available and place a copy in the Libraries of both Houses. Given these points, and coupled with use of the affirmative procedure, we believe the existing oversight mechanisms are sufficient without the need formally to lay the framework document before Parliament.

Amendment 30 proposes a fixed three-month sunset period, including a review prior to extension; this too was debated at length in Committee. As I set out then, while we understand the importance of ensuring that emergency measures do not remain in place indefinitely, a strict three-month limit is not appropriate for all emergencies. The nature and duration of emergencies can vary significantly: some may require short-term interventions while others may necessitate longer regulatory adjustments. As a result, we believe that the right approach is to tailor the use of time limits to the unique circumstances of the emergency, within the associated secondary legislation. We believe that this approach, supplemented by the use of the affirmative procedure, provides proportionate safeguards and ensures the right level of parliamentary oversight.

It is also important to emphasise that product regulations will form only one part of a broader national emergency response. Clause 4 is not a general power for deregulation, but an exceptional provision strictly limited to emergency situations. These measures will always be taken with appropriate safeguards in place, including time limits where appropriate, ensuring that derogation does not compromise public safety or consumer protections. For these reasons, I must resist these amendments once again and I humbly ask the noble Lord not to press them.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, once again I thank the noble Lord for his very detailed response. I also thank the other two noble Lords who spoke in this brief debate, particularly my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. The points he made—that these amendments still afford the Government plenty of flexibility, and of course the litigation point—were extremely good ones and I urge the Government to consider them in future deliberations on these amendments and the subject under discussion. Of course, I understand where the noble Lord is coming from, and I am reassured. On Amendment 29, I accept that the clear framework is going to be fairly and comprehensive, and I appreciate the offer of making sure that it is available for other noble Lords to study. We will of course study it in some detail, but I accept the point he was making, and I think he has given me sufficient reassurance.

On the three-month limit, I of course accept that the nature and duration of an emergency may vary. I still do not, if I am honest, see how that precludes explanation and parliamentary scrutiny, but because I am reassured by the noble Lord’s other remarks and his overall willingness to engage on this subject and others, I am more than happy to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, when I saw the manuscript amendment some time mid-morning, I was disappointed. I thought we were not going to get a reprise of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, which very few of your Lordships will have appreciated, because it was in Grand Committee, but I am relieved that he was able to give another rendition of it before speaking to the amendment. I understand he may take it on tour to provincial theatres—if he can get the backing.

The noble Lord having tabled this amendment, we then find a manuscript amendment, on which I have to say I congratulate the noble Lord. I have not participated in a manuscript amendment process before, so it was quite good to see it in action. As he noted, last week the Opposition chose to use some of their time in the Commons to debate the noble Lord’s then amendment. He mentioned the speech of my colleague, Daisy Cooper. I commend it to your Lordships, because it was both engaging and very thorough, setting out all the things the Conservative Government did to make the job of a publican much, much harder.

On a serious note, I join the noble Lord in saying, “Minister, please don’t repeat those errors. Many of Britain’s pubs are teetering on the brink; please don’t be the Government who make the final push.” But that is a debate for another day and another Bill, which we will see soon. The issue described by this amendment is not that fatal push for those publicans. For some inexplicable reason, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, chose to split his amendment from my Amendments 38A and 38B. I will be giving the speech I would have given, had they been in the same group, but I assure your Lordships that I will not then repeat that speech when we get to the next group.

I do not believe that the Minister or his Government have ever had any intention of banning the pint glass, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, does not believe that either. However, what we are talking about now is some form of reassurance. So while my honourable friend Daisy Cooper talked about this being unnecessary, she and I agree that this is an opportunity for the Government to reassure people that they have no intention of doing it, and that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned in a different context, a future Government would not have that option either.

I ask myself, if the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is so passionate about the pint, why does he not also care about the pinta? The iconic pint milk bottle is so redolent of the UK, and it deserves the same reassuring protection as the pint glass. I have to say that my father milked cows: milk flows through my veins. So I tabled Amendment 38A, which ensures that both the pint and the pinta enjoy the reassurance of this Bill. It was the tabling of this new amendment, Amendment 38A, that caused the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to remember that, as well as bars, there are doorsteps. Perhaps the two should not be mixed—certainly not sequentially.

It caused him to realise that he was in danger of proposing an amendment that forgets the milkmen and women on their pre-dawn delivery rounds in so many of our streets—the whir of the float, the clink of the crates. A manuscript amendment was tabled this morning. I did not know that manuscript amendments could be used to completely change an amendment; I thought they were for spelling errors and suchlike. If my mother were still alive, she would have deemed it too clever by half. Sadly, she is not.

The purpose of this debate is to assure the public of the continuation of the use of this iconic imperial measure for the purposes we have discussed. I am not entirely sure that the manuscript amendment, Amendment 38ZA, buttons things down in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asserts, but I do know that Amendment 38A does this, in plain sight and with no cross-referencing.

I think that the Minister and I see eye to eye on this. That is why I am hopeful that he will indicate support for my Amendments 38A and 38B, and that the Government will accept both. It is clear that, in the event of that acceptance, the hastily amended effort from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would be unnecessary. Amendment 38A covers both alcohol and milk. By persuading the Government to accept it, we will have ensured clear and overt reassurance of the preservation of the pint and the pinta. This assurance, and the knowledge that this measure will endure and not be reversed by a Commons majority, are important. We will not support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, safe in the knowledge that we have rewritten the Bill effectively and avoided any reverse or any ping-pong.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for tabling Amendment 38—and manuscript Amendment 38ZA, tabled this morning—and for reminding the House of the importance of the pint measure for certain alcoholic beverages. Although the noble Lord degrouped Amendment 38, the Government’s view is that this amendment and the two similar amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, should be debated together. I will therefore make my substantive contribution on the entire subject now.

I reiterate that the Government have absolutely no plans to change the rules around the use of the pint measurement. With the weather finally improving, it is very much my hope that pubs up and down the country will be full of customers enjoying pints of refreshing beer or cider. While it remains our view that an amendment to the Bill is not strictly necessary, because of the advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, the Government have reflected and agree that a provision in this area would offer reassurance to this important sector.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this amendment back and recognise his efforts to improve on it through today’s manuscript amendment. However, doing so at such a late stage is not the way to develop effective legislation, particularly in a complex area such as metrology. We have always been clear that we are committed to the continued use of the British pint and that regulations made using powers in this Bill would continue to preserve it.

Although the noble Lord’s amendments are well intentioned, they are lacking in a few key areas. First, the effect of the amendment is not sufficient in scope to truly protect the pint. It is focused on preventing powers under the Bill being used to amend the Weights and Measures Act 1985 to remove the pint as a measurement, but it does not prevent the powers in the Bill being used more generally to make that change. While the Government are clear that there will be no change to the measurement of a pint, to truly protect it, the Government believe that a more expansive view should be taken, as in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

On the difference in terminology, with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, referring to sale and marketing but the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioning marketing alone, the Government’s view is that Amendment 38 would in practice have a narrow application and therefore be less helpful in achieving the very aim of the noble Lord by safeguarding the pint.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is right that his amendment is consistent with the language used in the Weights and Measures Act 1985. However, the Bill makes a number of changes to that legislation, which I will come to shortly, and uses the term “marketing” throughout. It is a defined term that means making available on the market, which is more expansive than sale or trade, and may include, for example, making available without charge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Obviously, we do not have a huge amount to say at this precise moment, but I point out for the record that manuscript Amendment 38ZA included reference to Part IV of Schedule 1 to the Weights and Measures Act 1985, which also specifies 0.56826125 cubic decimetres. Once again, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on his masterclass in semantics. Had he accepted mine, this amendment would have been entirely unnecessary. With that, I have nothing left to say.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his amendments on preserving the pint in relation both to draft beer and cider and to milk in returnable containers. As I outlined on the last group, the Government propose to accept these amendments. They will bring greater clarity and certainty to protect the use of the pint, delivering the intent of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for bringing these alternative amendments forward. I hope that the House will accept Amendments 38A and 38B. Having these workable provisions in the Bill will send an important message that the pint is here to stay. I look forward to raising a pint with both the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Fox, in due course. Cheers.

Amendment 38A agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

42: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
“Application to existing product and metrology provision(1) The power to make product regulations includes power to make— (a) in connection with existing product requirements, any provision described in section 2(4), (6) or (7) that could be made if the existing product requirements were product requirements in product regulations;(b) in connection with existing product provision, any provision described in sections 3, 4, 7 and 8 that could be made if the existing product provision were provision in product regulations.(2) The power to make metrology regulations includes power to make, in connection with existing metrology provision, any provision described in sections 6 to 8 that could be made if the existing metrology provision were provision in metrology regulations.(3) In this section—“existing metrology provision” means provision in—(a) subordinate legislation made before the passing of this Act, or(b) assimilated direct legislation,as amended from time to time, that could be made under section 5;“existing product provision” means provision in—(a) subordinate legislation made before the passing of this Act, or(b) assimilated direct legislation,as amended from time to time, that could be made under section 1;“existing product requirements” means requirements contained in existing product provision that could be product requirements in product regulations;“subordinate legislation” has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978 (see section 21 of that Act).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables the Secretary of State to use the powers in clauses 1 and 5 to amend or supplement provision in existing legislation about products and metrology, where that provision could have been made under the powers in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will speak to the government amendment and respond to the debate. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the development of the government amendment for raising in Committee the important matter of ensuring that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of regulations made under the Bill.

I will touch first on the affirmative procedure. In the light of concerns from Peers, the DPRRC and the House of Lords Constitution Committee, Amendment 55 increases the number of provisions that will be subject to the affirmative procedure to include certain types of new or novel provisions. These provisions are product regulations made in relation to online marketplaces and where requirements are imposed for the first time on any new category of actors in the market. The amendment will ensure that appropriate parliamentary scrutiny is applied to new regulatory approaches for online marketplaces, and for regulations that place duties and product requirements on new supply chain actors for the first time, while maintaining the flexibility to make timely, uncontentious technical updates to existing regulations.

However, the Government accept that making regulations for new or novel matters makes the higher level of parliamentary scrutiny more appropriate. Therefore, when product regulations made under the Bill seek to impose a requirement on a new type of supply chain actor that is not otherwise listed in Clause 2(3), the affirmative procedure will apply the first time such requirements are laid.

I turn to Amendments 48, 56, 57 and 58. I thank all noble Lords for their concerns regarding the affirmative procedure. On Amendment 48, we discussed the importance of consultation last week, particularly in relation to the Government’s statutory consultation amendment. I do not really want to repeat these arguments, apart from saying that regulations brought forward under this Bill will have been informed by consultation with key stakeholders. Specifically, on Amendment 43A, our recently published code of conduct sets out that regulations under this Bill will be subject to assessment and engagement with an appropriate range of stakeholders, including scientific evidence where appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am not sure that the noble Lord has explained why the regulations that allow UK product requirements to be set by reference to European Union law are uncontentious and highly technical. They seem to me to be neither of those things.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, like I say, I really do not want to repeat what we debated last week, but the whole purpose of where we are today is to give us the freedom either to diverge from or to mirror any regulation, particularly product regulation, as most of it comes from the European Union. Either we follow it, or we do not—that is the freedom that we have.

As I said, I am aware that we have Third Reading still to come but, as we approach the end of Report, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. It will probably come as no surprise that, for the reasons that I outlined earlier, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 43A.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

44: Clause 9, page 9, line 19, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) In the Consumer Protection Act 1987 omit Parts 2 and 4.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment repeals Parts 2 and 4 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

50: Clause 10, page 10, line 19, after “service” insert “or feature of a service”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment includes a feature of a service in the definition of “online marketplace”.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

55: Clause 11, page 11, line 10, at end insert—
“(za) the first provision described insection 2(2)(d)contained in product regulations;(zb) the first provision described insection 2(3)(d)contained in product regulations;(zc) provision described insection 2(3)(h)that imposes the first product requirements on the category of person specified in that provision;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment applies the affirmative resolution procedure to additional provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

61: Clause 11, page 11, line 18, at end insert—
“(6) Before making regulations under this Act, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult such persons as they consider appropriate before making regulations under this Act.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

63: Clause 13, page 11, line 21, at end insert—
“(A1) Section 9(1) and (3) comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint, and the Secretary of State may appoint different days for different purposes.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the commencement clause to provide for new subsections (1) and (3) of section 9 to be brought into force by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

65: Clause 13, page 11, line 22, at beginning insert “The rest of”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the commencement clause to provide for new subsections (1) and (3) of section 9 to be brought into force by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

67: Schedule, page 12, line 17, leave out paragraph 7 and insert—
“7 Aircraft and components of aircraft.This paragraph does not include—(a) unmanned aircraft designed or intended (whether or not exclusively) for use in play by children under 14 years old, and(b) radio equipment which is a component of unmanned aircraft.In this paragraph—(a) “aircraft” and “unmanned aircraft” have the meanings given by Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency;(b) “radio equipment” has the meaning given by regulation 2 of the Radio Equipment Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1206).7A Products used or specifically designed for the purpose of operating or controlling aircraft, training persons in the operation or control of aircraft or ensuring the safe operation or control of aircraft.This paragraph does not include radio equipment used or specifically designed for the purpose of operating or controlling unmanned aircraft, training persons in the operation or control of unmanned aircraft or ensuring the safe operation or control of unmanned aircraft.In this paragraph “aircraft”, “unmanned aircraft” and “radio equipment” have the same meanings as in paragraph 7.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add certain products used or specifically designed for the purpose of operating or controlling aircraft, training persons in the operation or control of aircraft or ensuring the safe operation or control of aircraft into the Schedule of excluded products.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Leong Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I am awfully sorry: I was not quick enough on my feet before the noble Lord, Lord Fox, spoke. I should like to speak for a few minutes in support of my noble friend Lord Sharpe—if that is all right with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.

I support my noble friend’s amendment because I think it sets out the framework and purpose clearly, and that is very important when we are making laws by statutory instrument. Besides, I think it is important to retain regulatory autonomy, and I will discuss that point with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in a later group, but I do not think this is the time to have that discussion. It is regulatory autonomy that allows us to do all kinds of things to protect our consumers and ensure that we make the right sorts of laws for our products and our economy. That regulatory autonomy also allows us to align with any laws we like from any jurisdiction and, of course, the Government have a point in that.

My concern about not having an explicit regulatory autonomy aim in the purpose clause is that it would make us out of step with our existing arrangements with other trading partners, where we have agreed outcomes, conformity assessment procedures and other arrangements to recognise. We should not militate against that, which we may be in danger of doing if our purpose does not state these things explicitly.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have given up so many hours to meet me and my officials to go through this Bill. I really appreciate those meetings. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his amendment seeking to introduce a new clause about the purpose of the Bill. Likewise, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon.

We have had many hours of debate on the Bill and I think that we all support the intent of this amendment—the importance of improving product regulation. On that, I hope that there is consensus. As the Secretary of State for Business and Trade pointed out when giving evidence to the Lords International Agreements Committee, the powers that the Bill would provide give the UK regulatory autonomy. If the previous Government had continued in office, they would have needed the same Bill.

We require this Bill, as powers in other legislation are inadequate for updating our extensive product metrology and regulatory regime and responding to new risks and threats. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, about secondary legislation. This is about 2,000 pages of highly technical regulations. It is not a good use of parliamentary time to use primary legislation every time these are updated. There are, however, differences in how we go about improving regulation. That often requires a balance to be struck, such as where obligations sit, or regarding requirements that businesses must meet. That nuanced debate, which we heard during the Bill’s passage, may not be best served by introducing a broad “purpose to improve” in the Bill.

The Bill is about strengthening the UK’s regulatory autonomy. It will make sure that there are appropriate powers to regulate products to suit the UK’s needs and interests. Parliament will have ultimate control, with oversight of the regulations made under the Bill. The Bill is about providing powers to enable the UK to change regulation to suit the UK’s needs and interests, ensuring consumer safety and certainty for businesses. The Bill is necessary because we do not currently have those powers as a nation state. As I said earlier, all changes will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

I hope that I have been able to outline why this amendment is not necessary and ask that it be withdrawn.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly my noble friends Lord Lansley, Lord Frost, Lord Jackson and Lady Lawlor for their support of this amendment. I also thank my noble friend Lord Deben for his intervention, which gives me an opportunity to agree with my noble friend Lord Jackson that this is absolutely not about relitigating Brexit. Regulatory autonomy guarantees the freedom to pursue the best-quality regulation, as is made clear in the amendment. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause states:

“The purpose of this Act is to improve the regulation of products and metrology”.


There is no disagreement about that, and it more than takes care of the lawnmower that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to. Precisely as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, it allows the Government to retain control.

The Minister asserts that the previous Government would have delivered this Bill in its current form. They would not have done so; it would not have come in this form. As my noble friend Lord Jackson pointed out, this amendment is straightforward. There does not seem to be much disagreement about the purpose of the Bill. Therefore, I am at a bit of a loss as to why the Government will not just accept the amendment. As my noble friend Lord Jackson pointed out, it provides clarity, certainty and explicit purpose. I am afraid that I am not satisfied with the Minister’s response and would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a really interesting debate. It is a shame that we cannot have this debate on group 3, where we could set out some of the issues that I am going to explain very briefly—without repeating the speech that I am going to make in group 3 —on how scrutiny can be enhanced for secondary legislation. I share the concern of your Lordships’ House that insufficient and inadequate scrutiny happens even when we have statutory instruments. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, pointed out, we need something better than the way in which we deal with statutory instruments at the moment. Very rarely, if ever, are they turned away; we have regret Motions that, in sum, make no difference at all.

To some extent, we are protecting a paper tiger here. What we should be talking about is whether there is a way we can make sure that these future regulations go through a process that is properly scrutinised. The proper debate on that will happen in group 3, and we will take it through. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that the issue of criminal sanctions is a concern and that we need to have a way of scrutinising it. That will be included when I speak to group 3, as will be the environmental measures raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in this group, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in the next group.

We do have a way of having greater transparency, but it is not by statutory instrument to be nodded through over and over again. We have to be honest with ourselves about what we actually do when we are dealing with secondary legislation. That is why I have been working very hard, and why I welcome the conversations I have had with the Minister and his team, to try to open up something that will not only give us better scrutiny—I would say nearly proper scrutiny—but also something that will survive contact with the government majority at the other end. That is the opening point which, to some extent, is a speech for a different group.

With respect to this group, Amendment 61 mandates additional consultation, and Amendment 55—which has strangely been put in group 12—strengthens the affirmative process. I was very pleased to see the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, added to those amendments; I very much appreciated his speech today, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Those amendments add further resilience and help to meet some of the issues that were raised by your Lordships’ committee.

Once we have discussed the changes in group 3, hopefully with the response of the Minister, they will also contain some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. Again, the fundamental question is: how do we properly review legislation? I am hoping that we have come up with a way that will do this. That is why we are keeping our powder dry on these Benches. We have put a lot of work and a lot of hope in what we are going to be doing in the next group, and I think we can give your Lordships’ House, and indeed parliamentarians as well as all the external bodies, a way of participating in the proper pre-scrutiny of statutory instruments before they ever reach your Lordships’ House, whether it is by affirmative or negative process when they get here.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, to his place; I look forward to working with him constructively in the months ahead. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for giving us a little peek into what to expect in the next group.

I have listened carefully to the concerns around the scrutiny of such regulations from Peers, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and the Constitution Committee. I have also read my noble friend the Attorney-General’s lecture, which we have taken on board. That is why the Government propose to introduce a mandatory consultation requirement on the Secretary of State to consult such persons as they consider appropriate. This was welcomed in the DPRRC’s latest report; I particularly appreciate the committee’s constructive engagement. Consultation is a crucial part of the Government’s commitment to continued stakeholder engagement.

I refer to Amendment 4, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Basically, we are amending the Bill to require consultation. The Government will need to consider how to ensure that the UK is a good place to manufacture, develop and supply products. I am sure that businesses will let us know their strong views.

Amendment 61 has been drafted in such a way to ensure that consultation is appropriate to the circumstances, reflecting the potential risks posed and those with an interest. This is well precedented in existing legislation and allows for a variety of approaches, including: calls for evidence on specific areas, such as the recent common charger and outdoor noise calls for evidence; full consultations, such as that undertaken as part of the product safety review; and technical discussions to consider sector-specific actions—for example, on cosmetics—where a specialist scientific committee has been commissioned to form an opinion.

We have set out more details in an accompanying statement within our new code of conduct on how, when and with whom the Government currently engage on regulatory matters associated with product safety and metrology. This code of conduct is available in the Library of the House, and I hope Peers will find it a useful document.

Amendment 60 seeks to introduce a mandatory six-week minimum period for consultations. We believe that this will not always be necessary or appropriate because changes to product and metrology requirements can range from minor technical amendments to more substantial changes. It is important that the consultation requirement gives flexibility to the Secretary of State to consult as needed, and as appropriate, on a case-by-case basis. However, we have not stopped at a consultation requirement.

We have thought hard about an overall package of amendments. I now refer to Henry VIII powers. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his insightful contribution, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, a member of the Constitution Committee, for his contribution.

We have heard the concerns expressed about Henry VIII powers and are amending the Bill to eliminate most of them. Amendments 44 to 47, 62, 63 and 65 therefore restrict the number of Henry VIII powers to the absolute minimum necessary. We are removing entirely the power to amend or repeal provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. We are putting in the Bill repeal of the absolute minimum necessary for provisions in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Weights and Measures Act 1985. Commencement regulations will be used to bring those repeals into force at the right time, once regulations are made under this Bill to remove duplication in the statute book or to provide for regulatory continuity. We are pleased to see the DPRRC welcome these amendments.

Alongside these changes, the Government have introduced two small changes through Amendment 42, which is a necessary technical fix to the Bill, and Amendment 52, which is consequential.

I understand that noble Lords have concerns about the creation of criminal offences, which is the subject of Amendment 39, from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I reassure the House that regulations that introduce or widen the scope of criminal offences will be subject to the affirmative procedure. This is right and proper. To inform this debate, an Explanatory Memorandum will justify the proposed changes and be drafted after the justice impact tests and impact assessments have been completed. Additionally, the Government have brought forward an amendment to remove the criminal offence in the Weights and Measures Act 1985 applying to the sale of goods in non-permitted quantities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments in this instructive and interesting debate. I am a little wary about speaking after finding out how much plastic is in our brains, because that is obviously potentially to invite unfavourable comment.

I shall speak sympathetically to my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendments 3 and 12. One of the many problems that we have already discussed at some length, now and in Committee, is the vagueness of the Bill as drafted. That lack of clarity creates significant uncertainty for both businesses and consumers, so I thank my noble friend for his contributions. His amendments offer important suggestions that could help to address some of these issues, particularly by expanding the definition of safety and, indeed, providing a definition of safety.

As technology continues to develop, it is critical that we recognise that our understanding of what constitutes safety must also evolve. My noble friend’s amendments reflect that forward-thinking approach, acknowledge that new technologies and innovations may require updates to safety standards over time and, by expanding the definition, would ensure that the legislation remained flexible and adaptable, allowing for future growth and innovation without sacrificing safety. As my noble friend pointed out, different language suggests different outcomes, so I hope the Minister will be able to address that in answering my noble friend’s questions. We believe that these amendments provide much-needed clarity in areas where the Bill could have been more precise, and we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for bringing this issue into sharper focus.

Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Lindsay—who, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, pointed out, is president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute—has significant merit. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, made a persuasive case, with some alarming statistics and illustrations. Consumers should have confidence that the products they buy, whether from a high street store or an online platform, are safe and, if things go wrong, that there is a clear route to accountability. By allowing regulations to extend liability to online marketplaces and ensuring the proper disclosure of evidence in claims for compensation, this amendment would strengthen consumer rights and help to create a fairer system. We will return at a later stage to the definitions of online marketplaces.

Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would also help to do things better. I should remind the noble Lord that, in effect, it would mean more consultation. I am reluctant to remind the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, of this, but the DPRRC, on which she sits, said in its most recent report on 21 February that

“consultation is not a substitute for Parliamentary scrutiny”.

However, I recognise that, in pointing that out, I am probably flogging something of a dead horse.

I turn to Amendment 26 and the other amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which were spoken to—again, very persuasively—by the noble Baronesses, Lady Freeman and Lady Smith. These amendments address an important issue: ensuring that period products meet high safety standards while also considering their environmental impact. Given that these products are used by millions of women and girls, often over a lifetime, it is only right that their safety, composition and labelling are subject to clear and effective regulation; the list of organisations quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is illustrative of the interest in this particular area.

The safety and regulation of period products is a matter of both public health and consumer protection, so ensuring that individuals can make informed choices about the products they use is obviously essential. Amendment 26 seeks to introduce clear and necessary provisions for testing, marking and risk information, reflecting the need for greater transparency and oversight in this area. By addressing both single-use and reusable products, it acknowledges the evolving nature of the market while prioritising safety and well-being. We ask the Government to take further consideration and to carry out additional study on this important area—and, indeed, to expand it to some of the other areas that the noble Baroness mentioned, such as the formaldehyde that is present in non-iron shirts. Of course, one of the other uses of formaldehyde is to preserve dead bodies; I am not sure what that tells us about our sartorial choices, but there we are.

As the market for period products continues to evolve—particularly with increasing interest in reusable products—it is obviously essential that any regulation stays relevant and up to date, so we expect to return to this issue in future health-related Bills. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made some very good points about the fact that these products should be treated as medical devices; those deserve to be explored further. It is crucial that we continue to monitor and adapt the regulation of these products in order to ensure that public health and consumer protection are maintained.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. May I put on the record that I do not buy any non-iron shirts? I am pretty old-fashioned: I buy 100% cotton shirts.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for Amendments 3 and 12. Both in Committee and on Report, he has illustrated his thoughtful scrutiny of this legislation. A major element of our product regulations, and a focal point of this Bill, is consumer safety. Safety is at the very heart of this Bill, but products exist on a spectrum of risk, which can be mitigated to different levels and in different ways. That is why the Bill refers to risk rather than to safety.

Turning to Amendment 7, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his consistent and thoughtful engagement on this issue; I also thank him for his relentless campaigning on both this issue and areas such as lithium-ion batteries and various other fire risks. In many ways, he has got to the nub of our system of product regulation with his amendment and his remarks: how do we consider risks from products? I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his constructive discussions and for tabling Amendment 9.

As I set out in Committee, our current system of product regulation quantifies risk in a number of ways. At the most basic level, all consumer products must meet the baseline general safety requirements unless specific, additional or unusual risks are identified and they therefore need additional bespoke requirements; cosmetics or pressure equipment may be an example of that. Identifying and assessing risk are already at the very heart of Clause 1; indeed, it is inherent in passing product regulations that a risk must be identified in the first place. The powers in this Bill already enable regulations to consider product risks and the response to them in such cross-cutting ways.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, can I ask just briefly whether he can confirm that the consultation process which we have discussed, and he very carefully laid out, will include parliamentarians and the devolved Governments?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I can confirm that. In fact, the Secretary of State will publish a Written Statement when the consultation happens and this will extend invitations to civil society groups, any stakeholders, parliamentarians and interested parties.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I know that we are all most grateful to the Minister for what I thought was an extremely helpful response to these important and interesting issues that we have debated in this group.

For my part, in relation to Amendment 3 and the use of “safe”, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, that the use of “safe” in a Bill that is intended to ensure that products are safe would be most helpful. He will note that Amendment 12 defines “safe” in a similar way—not precisely the same as the Consumer Protection Act does at present—as meaning

“that there is no risk, or no risk apart from one reduced to a minimum”,

so it is not to say that a product has no risk.

The Minister is right that this is about product safety—I completely agree—and identification of risk. I think where the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is coming from is on understanding how risk is identified and so on. I have some sympathy with the points he makes on Amendment 9, but I find it entirely arguable whether the definition of safe in the present legislation and the definition in this Bill are very close to one another. I slightly rest my argument for the Minister, and perhaps his officials, to think about: would it not therefore be helpful to include a provision in Clause 1 saying that products should be safe, meaning that there is no risk or a risk that is reduced to a minimum or mitigated, since that is what the Government intend to do? They are intending that people should be able to say that products are safe; they have just chosen to take the word out of statute. I think it would be rather helpful to put it back in. I rest my case there and will not press it further.

On Amendment 28, the Minister very helpfully said more than he said in Committee, although it was not inconsistent with what he said then. In particular, he gave us a timetable, which, of course, is immensely helpful. It is quite a long one and goes to the end of 2026, but I know how these things grind through the machines. He will find that there is a pressing need for a review of the product liability directive, especially in relation to online marketplaces, not least because the Law Commission identified this as an area for reform of the law in its 14th work programme—and that was something like three years ago. We are not only well out of date but well beyond the point at which a need for action on product liability had been identified. I hope we might keep pressing, alongside the Minister, for the progress that needs to be made in the consultation and subsequent legislation.

I have one more point. On Amendment 26 and the question of period products, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I was wondering about this. I have checked, but if I understand the position correctly, period products are not regarded as medical devices; they are regarded as consumer products. Incontinence pants—disposable body-worn pads—are treated as medical devices by the MHRA. That is a distinction without a difference, one that I do not understand. I think that period products are regarded as medical devices by the Food and Drug Administration in America. Of course, we follow where the European Union’s general product safety regulation has been and the definitions it has put into its own regulations. One area that Ministers might think about is whether it would be more appropriate for these products to be regarded as medical devices and brought under the scope of the regulations.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Leong Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 8 and 64 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. We are playing on a similar set of variations that we have already played on in several groups. These two amendments are intended to impose additional restrictions on the implementation of this Act.

As we have heard, Amendment 8 prevents the Secretary of State making regulations that could be seen as disadvantaging the UK, or conflicting with its trade agreements. The amendment goes on to list a range of trade agreements, which assumes that if you agree with one of them, you are going to agree with all of them. There is a nature where you have to choose; there are puts and takes. All those trade agreements have varying conditions, and the Government’s job is to try to choose the best option, in a sort of 3D chess game, to make sure that they do the best for this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, pointed out. But there is a sort of “cake and eat it” idea, that if we do not do the EU, then we can somehow do all those in the list set out by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. His example then illustrates exactly that we cannot, because there are issues in all of these that we will agree and disagree with. The Government’s role is to have a sufficient tool that enables them to move in the right direction.

I am surprised that the noble Lord chose an agri-food example because, as far as I am aware, that is not in the scope of the Bill, but I may be wrong. Perhaps there are other examples but, using his example, I do not see the banning of the hormone boosting of beef as being something the Europeans imposed on me. I am very pleased we have it, and if I am not in the European Union, I still expect the United Kingdom to uphold those kinds of standards for rearing meat in this country. If the Minister is proposing a wholesale change in the United Kingdom’s animal husbandry processes, techniques and security, then perhaps he should tell your Lordships what other things he expects to change about our food, because they are there to protect consumers from the effects of hormones and antibiotics leaking into our system. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, will probably have lots of statistics, but I hope she does not use them at this time of night.

Neither of these amendments is helpful to the process, and in both cases—particularly the second— I question how an impact assessment of what I think the Minister is proposing can be done. The impact will happen through the regulations that the Act is used to implement. Until we know what the regulations are, we do not know what the impact will be. It is perfectly reasonable for the Minister to say that when the Government are tabling a new regulation, we want to know what the impact of that regulation will be on the economy, the environment and other things. We cannot do a holistic analysis of the impact of the Bill without taking into consideration all the regulations that the Bill will cause to happen. I hope he understands what I am saying. With that in view, it seems to me to be deliberately slowing up the implementation of the Act, and we do not see that the nation benefits from that.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. The UK Government remain firmly committed to maintaining and enhancing our international trade relationships, ensuring that the UK remains an attractive and competitive trading partner and creating opportunities for UK businesses.

This is an enabling Bill; it does not override or contradict any of our trade agreements. Instead, the Bill provides the flexibility needed to ensure that our regulatory framework can keep pace with international developments, supporting both businesses and economic growth. This will support our current and future trade agreements.

Regarding Clause 1(2), the UK Government would not use this power, or indeed any Bill powers, in a way that would disadvantage the UK or its trade agreements, including those, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, set out in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—CPTPP—or, for that matter, any other trade deals the UK has signed since our exit from the EU. Any use of Clause 1(2) would also be subject to the usual process relating to secondary legislation, such as impact assessments and relevant parliamentary scrutiny.

In developing our trade strategy, we are clear that free trade agreements, while not the only tool, are an important lever for driving growth. The Government have announced their intention to publish an ambitious trade strategy that will consider the range of trade tools to drive economic growth, in addition to announcing their intention to deliver a UK free trade agreement programme.

The Government are committed to meeting their obligations under the free trade agreements and nothing in the Bill contradicts that. The powers will be used to make changes to legislation where that is in the UK’s best interests.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned agri-food. Food is excluded from the scope of the Bill, under the Schedule. Agri-food is in our FTAs. This Government will not sign deals which undermine UK standards.

The Government have consistently stated that all changes to UK product regulation will be made in a way that upholds our international obligations, including our commitments in FTAs, as well as supporting UK businesses. This amendment seeks to solve a problem that does not exist. To be absolutely clear, the Bill is compatible not only with our existing FTAs but with our ambition to sign further agreements. Nothing in the Bill will prevent us signing ambitious agreements in our ongoing negotiations with partners, including India and the GCC; nor would it prevent us pursuing agreements with other partners, such as the United States of America, should the Government decide to launch additional FTA negotiations in the future.

I turn to Amendment 64. The Bill as drafted allows the Government to update domestic legislation, keep pace with global changes and ensure that UK product regulations keep pace with evolving technologies and emerging risks. These powers will support the interests of UK businesses and consumers, providing regulatory certainty and creating the conditions for investment, innovation and economic growth.

Regarding the economic impacts of the Bill, it has already undergone a comprehensive impact assessment, which considers economic and business impacts. It is available to noble Lords via the Bill page on the UK Parliament website. The impact assessment will also be updated and republished when the Bill moves to the other place to reflect any changes made to the Bill since it was introduced to this House.

All secondary legislation made under the Bill will be subject to the statutory and non-statutory assessments set out in our code of conduct. The code of conduct sets out the current framework, as well as how the Government intend to use the Bill to provide that product safety measures brought forward are proportionate and effective. Product regulation that is proportionate will protect consumers, support responsible businesses and drive growth across the economy.

I hope that I have been able to provide reassurance on this matter and the Government’s wider commitment to supporting economic growth. I therefore respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

14: Clause 2, page 2, line 28, at end insert—
“(aa) the installation of products;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that product regulations may include requirements relating to the installation of products.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I will try to be brief on this set of government amendments, as outlined in the Marshalled List. They are largely intended to ensure absolute clarity and that the Bill covers a number of matters raised by noble Lords in Committee. Amendments 14 and 17 make clear that the Bill’s powers are able to set requirements on how products are installed in wider systems and on the people who carry out that installation. Many products do not operate in isolation and their safety can be significantly affected by how they are installed in the wider systems. As I explained in Committee, the Bill already enables requirements to be set on the installation of products. However, I accept that absolute clarity on this matter in the Bill is helpful.

Amendment 23 covers a similar matter. The Bill covers tangible products and the risks they present. Software is now a fundamental component of many physical products and can significantly affect their risk profile. Amendment 23 makes clear that software as a component of the physical product is included.

Amendments 50 and 51 relate to the definition of online marketplaces. These amendments reflect the points raised by noble Lords in Committee and aim to ensure that marketplaces that are part of a wider platform —such as Facebook Marketplace as part of Facebook—are captured. Our use of a broad and clear definition of online marketplaces in the Bill enables new requirements to be introduced in a flexible and proportionate way via secondary legislation by using the powers provided in the Bill—for instance, by tailoring specific requirements to particular online marketplace activities or business models.

On Amendment 67, which addresses aviation, in Committee my noble friend Lord Liddle raised the question of wider products used in aviation. The Department for Transport oversees a comprehensive body of legislation that extends beyond the finished aircraft to the whole system of components that make it up. The Government have no plans to create any kind of parallel regulatory framework. This amendment therefore clarifies that, alongside the exclusion of aircraft, the Bill does not apply to component products and parts in so far as they are used or designed for use in aircraft. As an exception to this, the amendment would allow for the Bill’s powers to be used in relation to unmanned aircraft that are toys, or for radio equipment used to operate or control unmanned aircraft.

It is useful to clarify that aviation safety products are exempted from the Bill, but we are aware of questions from industry about several other areas. We will always work closely with all sectors before bringing regulations, but it is not our intention to use the powers under the Bill to regulate where there are existing comprehensive product regulatory regimes—for example, in relation to transportable pressure equipment and ships and their equipment.

I hope I have been able to provide assurance to noble Lords and I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, while the Minister recovers his breath, we will all carefully reflect on every word that he has just said but, given the speed with which he delivered that speech, I hope he will forgive me if I do not respond in detail. I shall just deal with what we believe is the overly broad current definition of an “online marketplace”, as the scope could be inadvertent. I speak to Amendments 49 and 53 on behalf of my noble friend.

The current definition of an online marketplace would inadvertently capture a number of online services not thought of as marketplaces, such as search engines, online advertisements and price comparison websites. Potentially, even further removed services, such as app stores, could be captured by this proposed definition. This risks placing disproportionate requirements on services whose functionality is not what the Bill is intended to regulate and will require careful drafting of the necessary secondary legislation to avoid confusion and potential challenges. That is not guaranteed, however, due to the extensive delegation of powers and limited oversight provided by the Bill.

This broad scope will create unnecessary regulatory burdens on businesses that were never intended to be covered by the legislation. It could also discourage innovation and investment in digital services if companies fear that they will be subject to complex and costly compliance requirements. Our amended definition would therefore capture services that are not meant to be dealt with under the Bill but is more appropriate in its scope when it comes to goods and products, giving greater context and identifying the subjects of the sellers being provided, namely consumers and third-party sellers. I hope that gives an indication to the Minister of why we feel these amendments are required.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for their comments. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in the amendments that he is putting forward, really puts his finger on the problem and the challenge of defining an online marketplace. What was not an online marketplace yesterday can be one tomorrow. You can be looking at what starts off as a chat site where people exchange photographs, which suddenly becomes somewhere you can sell things. The problem that we therefore have, in being very specific in the definition, is that we create the loopholes for other people to use.

I am sympathetic to the problem that the noble Lord sets out, which is the inadvertent inclusion of other things, but the more we try to nail it down with a framework, the less likely we are to legislate for what is coming round the corner. I am very happy to have that discussion with the noble Lord. Perhaps there is a way of having something that can flexibly move, but we have all seen the changing world of online selling—it is absolutely changing every day. I am sympathetic, but sceptical that the amendment would do what we need it to do.

I co-signed government Amendments 23 and 51, which took on board issues that I brought forward in Committee. I thank the Minister for his reaction to that. Overall, with the exception of that key issue—marketplaces are where this is happening and we need a process whereby liability can be properly attributed, but I am convinced that primary legislation will not be the place to do that because of the changing world that we live in—and with those provisos, I think we need a way of moving forward that gives us that flexibility.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, before I turn to the substance of the debate and the government amendments, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Fox, for their contributions. The engagement that I have had has been very constructive; I hope that is reflected in the amendments the Government have brought forward.

On Amendment 49, I agree about the need for a clear definition of “online marketplace” in the Bill. One way in which we seek to achieve this is by setting out a straightforward definition that is broad enough to clearly capture the vast range of online marketplace models, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said so eloquently. This is important to avoid loopholes where an online marketplace could seek to define itself outside the scope of this regulation. For example, the definition should be clear that online marketplaces include those such as Amazon, which sell their own products alongside those sold by third-party sellers. We therefore believe that specifying in the definition that an online marketplace

“typically does not own the inventory sold”

could cause confusion. We would also like the definition to be clear that it captures not only online marketplaces that sell to consumers but those that may sell to businesses, such as B&Q Marketplace.

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Lord Leong Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, these draft regulations will be made under powers provided by the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022. The PSTI regulatory regime is comprised of Part 1 of the 2022 Act together with the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) Regulations 2023, which I will refer to as the 2023 regulations.

This world-leading regulatory regime came into force on 29 April 2024. It better protects consumers, businesses and the wider economy from the harms associated with cyberattacks on consumer connectable products. The law now requires these products that are made available to customers in the UK to meet baseline cybersecurity requirements. This is a world first, and a world-leading regulatory regime, with many other countries now mandating similar requirements based on the world-leading European Telecommunications Standards Institute standard which the UK helped create.

For instance, manufacturers cannot use universal default or easily guessable default passwords, such as “admin123”; this reduces one of the most commonly exploited vulnerabilities in connectable products. Manufacturers must also ensure that they are transparent about the minimum length of time for which they will provide much-needed security updates that patch these vulnerabilities. They must also publish information on how to report security vulnerabilities directly to them and provide status updates about the reported issues. Importers also have important duties they must comply with, as they play an important role in ensuring that more vulnerable products are not imported into the country. The same applies for distributors, as they are often the last line of defence against non-compliant products making their way to consumers.

Subject to the approval of this Committee, this draft instrument will add three new categories of products to the list of excepted products at Schedule 3 to the 2023 regulations, as well as making a correction to those regulations. In their 2020 call for views for this regime, the Government indicated that products would be excepted from the product security regime if it is deemed inappropriate to include them prior to further investigation, they are already covered by robust legislation or they will be covered by future legislation that is particularly relevant to that product category.

DSIT committed to except certain categories of automotive vehicles on 29 April 2023. The Department for Transport has been working at an international level to agree regulations setting cybersecurity requirements for vehicles. This would allow the cybersecurity of these products to be addressed by requirements that are specific to the sector and their functionality. The Department for Transport intends to mandate UN Regulation 155 on cybersecurity and cybersecurity management systems in Great Britain for all new cars, vans, buses, trucks and motorbikes. Its requirements are more appropriate, as it was created in response to the expanding capability and connectivity of vehicle systems.

A consultation is expected to be published with a proposal to lay, via a negative SI, Article 57 GB approval of assimilated EU Regulation 2018/858 in the first half of this year, with the requirements beginning to take effect from February 2026. Additionally, the automotive industry and its supply chain are already beginning to comply with UN Regulation 155, as it has been mandatory for new types of passenger and goods vehicles in the European Union from July 2022. To avoid dual regulation and unintentionally placing undue burden on the automotive industry and trade, the Government are seeking to except specific vehicle categories from the scope of this regime.

First, through the amendment made by Regulation 4, this draft instrument seeks to except consumer-connectable products that fall in scope of Regulation (EU) 2018/858, Regulation (EU) 168/2013 and Regulation (EU) 167/2013 from the scope of the PSTI product security regulatory regime in Great Britain. The consumer connectable products in scope of these regulations include cars, vans, buses, motorcycles, mopeds, quadbikes and tractors. These products are already excepted from the PSTI product security regulatory regime when they are made available for supply in Northern Ireland, as a result of the Windsor Framework.

Secondly, the amendment made by Regulation 3 will correct a minor error in the current language. Adding “period” ensures that the original intent of the paragraph is preserved.

The UK’s product security regulatory regime is world-leading. It cements our position as a world leader in consumer internet-of-things security. This measure will ensure that the regime works as intended and that the security of vehicles can be addressed through appropriate sector-specific regulations, and it will remove unnecessary burdens from the vehicles sector.

I hope the Committee will recognise the importance of excepting these additional products from the scope of the PSTI product security regulatory regime. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that something did happen, and that was the general election, which we, unfortunately, lost. That no doubt explains something of the delay.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has asked some pertinent questions. I will keep mine a little more general, because this SI amends the original regulations and broadens the exceptions under Schedule 3. The most notable change concerns the automotive sector, as has been noted, where vehicles were previously exempt from certain cybersecurity provisions.

The new regulations align the UK’s approach with international standards. They recognise the unique nature of vehicle systems and the need for specialised cybersecurity measures. UN Regulation No. 155 on cyber security and cybersecurity management systems, which governs the security of vehicles, is now set to be the primary framework for automotive security. As far as it goes, that would obviously seem eminently sensible, but the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has highlighted that there are a number of broader, perhaps more philosophical, questions about the direction of travel—that is not a pun—with regard to EVs, self-driving vehicles and vehicle autonomy, which we will have to grapple with at some point in the future. I imagine that this is a subject to which we will return.

My questions are a little more general. The regulations are undoubtedly important for protecting consumers and securing digital infrastructure, but we must consider the broader implications. The automotive sector is rapidly evolving, as has been noted, and the development of automated vehicles holds significant economic and societal potential. However, with innovation comes the risk of regulatory frameworks that struggle to keep pace; that is self-evident. How do we ensure that these cybersecurity measures do not inadvertently stifle technological advancement in areas and sectors such as the automotive sector? How do we end up striking the right balance between securing the technologies and enabling them to flourish?

There is also a question here around consumer awareness; again, this was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. How long would an individual’s data be attached to a particular vehicle, for example, even after it is sold? These regulations require manufacturers to disclose the duration of product security support, but how well are consumers equipped to understand and act on this information? Are we confident that the public are sufficiently informed about the critical nature of cybersecurity? Will the Government commit to taking the necessary steps to help customers and consumers protect their devices and data? It seems to us that this is an area where the education of the public must go beyond the bare minimum. We need to ensure that consumers are not left in the dark about the sorts of security risks that they may face.

We must also consider enforcement. With the proliferation of smart products entering the market at such an unprecedented rate, how will we ensure consistent and effective compliance across such a diverse range of industries, from household appliances to vehicles? As new technologies emerge and evolve, the enforcement mechanisms that are in place today may not be enough. Are we allocating the necessary resources to monitor and enforce these standards effectively? Are the Government allocating additional resources to help those things along? Does the current enforcement mechanism system adequately address the rising complexity and scale of the challenges ahead?

As I said, these are broader, more philosophical questions—I do not expect the Minister to be in a position to answer them and there is no need to write—but these are the sorts of things that we all need to consider as a society. Obviously, that will have political, economic and societal ramifications that we all need to consider, but the Opposition have no objection to these regulations; they make perfect sense for now. I suspect, however, that this is a subject to which we will return.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Sharpe, for their contributions.

I will first address the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones: why the delay? As the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned, it was a result of the general election. At the same time, we were waiting for the Department for Transport to progress UN regulation No. 155, until such time as we knew that we must take this exception out of the current regulations. That is the reason for the delay, basically; it was also about finding parliamentary time to table these regulations. That is that on the delay.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but, frankly, this is the same instrument as the one that was debated last May. Nothing has changed apart from the lack of parliamentary time. We could have done this in September, October or whenever. I forget quite when we had the King’s Speech—in July? We could have done this at any time in the past few months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

This is beyond my pay grade, I am afraid. I will need to ask my leader, the Chief Whip, why we could not allocate any parliamentary time for this legislation.

As far as personal data is concerned, the GDPR is still the lead legislation. I respectfully say to the noble Lord that, for the purposes of today’s regulations, the whole issue of such data is outside the scope of this instrument for now. However, I am sure that we will be talking about personal data in the months and, probably, years to come in other forms of legislation, or even about it being regulated itself.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

Out of scope? On the basis that we are being asked to exempt automated vehicles, is it not proper that we ask for reassurance about automated vehicles and the implications for safety, data or whatever else? We are exempting them from these connected product regulations, so we need to be reassured that there are other ways of regulating them other than through these regulations. So this is not out of scope; the debate is about whether we should be exempting them.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I take the point, but the instrument is about the two amendments to the regulations. I take the noble Lord’s point about data. Yes, it is important, and we must preserve the data, but this instrument is not within that scope.

Moving on to cybersecurity within autonomous vehicles, cybersecurity is at the heart of the Government’s priorities for the rollout of all self-driving vehicles. The Automated Vehicles Act 2024 enables an obligation to be placed on those responsible for self-driving vehicles to maintain a vehicle’s software and ensure that appropriate cybersecurity measures are in place throughout its service life.

In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about innovation, the Government are committed to supporting the development and deployment of self-driving vehicles in the UK. Our permissive trialling regime means that self-driving cars, buses and freight vehicles are already on UK roads with safety drivers. The Automated Vehicles Act will pave the way to scale deployments beyond trials. The Act delivers one of the most comprehensive legal frameworks of its kind anywhere in the world for self-driving vehicles, with safety at its core. It sets out clear legal responsibilities, establishes a safety framework and creates the necessary powers to regulate this new industry.

On the point about cybersecurity from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the Government take national security extremely seriously and are actively monitoring threats to the UK. The Department for Transport works closely with the transport sector, the National Cyber Security Centre and other government departments to understand and respond to cybersecurity issues associated with connected vehicles. UN regulation No. 155 more comprehensively addresses cybersecurity risks with automotive vehicles and has adequate provisions to deal with the prospect of self-driving vehicles. The PSTI regime is designed for consumer contactable devices or products and is not fully equipped to address the specific needs and complexities of vehicle cybersecurity. UN regulation No. 155, which was developed through international collaboration, provides a more suitable and rigorous framework for ensuring the security of vehicles.

More everyday products than ever are now connected to the internet. The Government have taken action to ensure that UK consumers and businesses purchasing consumer connectable products are better protected from the risks of cyberattack, fraud, or even, in the most serious cases, physical danger. The PSTI product security regulatory regime builds on the ETSI international standard and is the first of its kind in the world to come into force.

The cybersecurity regulatory landscape will continue to evolve. The Government need to be agile to ensure that there is synergy between existing and new laws. Through this draft instrument, the Government are delivering on the commitment in 2021 to except certain categories of automotive vehicles from the scope of the PSTI products security regulatory regime. This is because the Government, via the Department for Transport, are in the process of introducing sector-specific regulations that have been developed at an international level to address the cybersecurity of these products. These requirements, which are specifically tailored to these vehicles and their functionality, will create a more precise regime for the sector. This draft instrument therefore ensures that the automotive industry, which contributed £13.3 billion to the economy in 2022, will not be placed under undue burdens from dual regulations.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has not mentioned the point raised in the Explanatory Memorandum, which was designed, I think, to give us comfort about cybersecurity and data: the Government’s Connected and Automated Vehicles: Process for Assuring Safety and Security—CAVPASS—which I mentioned. I did not hear him give us an assurance that that will be developed during 2025 to ensure the safety and cybersecurity of self-driving vehicles. As well as reiterating that the GDPR is an absolutely splendid way of regulating these automated vehicles, I hope that he will reiterate that this will be produced, because I have had a look at what CAVPASS currently says in the area of data, and it is not very much. After all, these connected regulations from which we are exempting automated vehicles are about safety, data and everything else.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point. Rather than waiting for my officials to give me a briefing note, I will ensure that I write to him on all the points that he has just mentioned.

Motion agreed.

UK/US Free Trade Agreement

Lord Leong Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in securing a free trade agreement with the United States.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, on securing this timely Question on this very important date in the US. We on these Benches offer our warm congratulations to President Trump on his inauguration. We have a special relationship with our transatlantic partners and strengthening UK-US trading ties is a priority for this Government. I will not get into any policy discussions, but we look forward to working with President Trump and his Administration.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Can the Minister confirm the reports in the paper today that the Government will be anxious to secure a trade deal with the US as quickly as possible? Can he further confirm that that would not be possible if we were still members of the EU? What will happen with the talks that have been pushed on with the European Union? Is there not a danger that one will conflict with the other and that it will not be possible to have a trade deal with the US and the EU at the same time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for making that important point. In Kyiv last Friday, and at the G20 summit, the Prime Minister said:

“I have been clear that we would like to have discussions about a trade deal with the US, that we don’t accept the argument that there’s a binary choice between a reset with the EU and a deal with the U.S. and obviously the time for those decisions will be in the weeks and months to come”.


The priority of the Prime Minister and the Government is economic growth. Free and open trade with our most economically important partners will be key to achieving that.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the Question and the Answer illustrate the weakness of our current position. I have also been reading the papers, and we seem to be relying on the sentimental feelings that President Trump may have towards this country, which is a weak position for us. Does the Minister agree with the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Ed Davey, that the best way to negotiate is from a position of strength rather than weakness, and that the best way of bolstering that strength is by establishing a customs union with the European Union?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. We are in a position of strength when dealing with the US and with the EU. There is no question of a binary divide, but we should not take that for granted. We have to work with our partners, and two of our partners are among the biggest trading partners in the world.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Does my noble friend agree that any potential benefits of a trade deal with the US are but a fraction of what we have lost by leaving the European Union? Does he agree that when, under President Biden, we attempted to have a comprehensive free trade agreement, it foundered on two main obstacles—the high food standards which we enjoy and the problem of Northern Ireland—both of which appear still to persist?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. The US is our single largest trading partner, amounting to well over £300 billion last year. We have invested close to £1.2 trillion in both our economies, and employ almost 1 million people. The US is a country that we have to deal with, and our businesses ask us to work with the US.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, clearly President Trump will link his economic relations to wider policy objectives. One of the policy objectives that he will be looking for in this country, as well as in others within Europe, will be for European nations to take a much greater share of the burden for their own security. At present, this country and other European partners are doing that far too little and far too slowly.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble and gallant Lord for that question. I do not think we should get ahead of ourselves. The President is being sworn in at this very moment. We will be looking towards working with his Administration. Any discussions about defence or trade will have to wait until his Government get in.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, are the British Government going to take any extra security precautions when they are dealing with the President of the United States, who is a convicted felon?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for the question, but I do not agree with her. We have to respect President Trump. He won an enormous victory and he has a massive mandate from the American people. That is democracy. We will work with President Trump and his Administration.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

I wish the Government well in their attempts to get a free trade deal with the United States, but is it not time for a little joined-up thinking? While the Prime Minister says this is what he wants, over the weekend the Labour Mayor of London insisted on calling President Trump, essentially, a fascist, and said that we are on the road to the 1930s. This is not a special relationship—they are turning it into a sack of ferrets. Do the Government agree with the Labour Mayor of London, or will they repudiate the comments that he made over the weekend?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point. I disagree with the Mayor of London. President Trump won the election; he has an enormous mandate, and we have to work with him. Sometimes, a period of silence would be most welcome.

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

My Lords, would the Minister join me in congratulating our ambassador, Karen Pierce, on her persistence and leadership in trying to get a free trade agreement over a period of some years? She worked with the team in the American embassy, with consuls around America and everywhere that she could influence Americans to gain us support. We hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, our new ambassador, with his skills from his time as a trade commissioner in Europe and his other contacts, will be able to continue giving such leadership to the team in Washington and here.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. The appointment of my noble friend Lord Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the US shows how seriously we take our relationship with the US and the incoming President’s team. My noble friend Lord Mandelson has extensive foreign and economic policy expertise, particularly in the crucial issue of trade, with strong business links and experience at the highest level of government.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Can the Minister say who from this House or the other place is representing His Majesty’s Government at President Trump’s inauguration, and whether they will be having high-level conversations about trade and other matters with the new Administration?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that point. Our ambassador in the US will be representing the Government.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I spent 60 years closely involved with defence and intelligence with the United States. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the strength of the relationship is so immense that we should never forget that, even when it comes to these other issues?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that point—it is absolutely true. As I said, our relationship with the US has to be strong. We have so many partnership agreements, whether it is on defence, trade co-operation and so on, so we have to work with the incoming Administration, come what may.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, the US is not just our single biggest market; it is bigger than our second, third and fourth markets put together, and nearly as big as our second, third, fourth and fifth put together. A million Brits turn up every day to work for US-owned companies, and a million Americans turn up every day to work for British-owned companies. Will the Minister confirm that, if we followed the suggestion of the Lib Dem Front Bench and joined the EU customs union, not only would we not be able to negotiate a trade deal, either with the US or with anyone else in the world, but we would be subjected to all the tariffs that Trump is likely to impose on the EU in return for no benefit whatever?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. We have taken back control. We work with the US, the EU and every other country. We are an open trading economy, and that benefits both our businesses and consumers.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, even though the United States is a great constitutional democracy, could my noble friend the Minister reflect on the previous Question about ISDS arrangements and make sure that any trade deal between our two great democracies does not privilege international corporations over citizens or workers, and respects both democracy and the rule of law?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. No two trade agreements are the same, and ISDS is only one chapter in any trade negotiation. We have to negotiate for what is best for our country and for business.

Registrar (Identity Verification and Authorised Corporate Service Providers) Regulations 2024

Lord Leong Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Registrar (Identity Verification and Authorised Corporate Service Providers) Regulations 2024.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 22 May 2024. I shall speak also to the Unique Identifiers (Application of Company Law) Regulations 2024, which were laid before the House on 31 October 2024. These regulations form part of a programme to implement the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which I will refer to as the 2023 Act. The 2023 Act is a landmark piece of legislation which delivers the most significant reforms to Companies House in more than 180 years to protect the public from fraud and deliver real benefits to the business community.

There has already been much progress since the 2023 Act was passed, including the introduction of stricter rules and checks to help Companies House cleanse the register. The two sets of regulations we are debating today will help to implement perhaps the most important change to the UK’s company registration framework in the 2023 Act: requiring identity verification for those setting up, running and controlling companies. Through amendments to the Companies Act 2006, the 2023 Act establishes two ways in which an individual can verify their identity, either directly with Companies House or via an authorised corporate service provider—ACSP. These providers must be supervised for anti-money laundering purposes and be registered with Companies House.

I will set out specifically what the two instruments will do. The Registrar (Identity Verification and Authorised Corporate Service Providers) Regulations 2024 set up the legal framework that underpins identity verification. The identity-verification procedure involves an individual delivering specific information to the registrar or to an ACSP. This must include their name and date of birth and any other further information specified in the registrar’s rules, which are a form of tertiary legislation. Given the technical and increasingly evolving mechanisms for identity verification, it would be inappropriate to list in these regulations every single identity document that must be provided to the registrar or ACSP or every single step an individual must take. Instead, the registrar is enabled to specify the requirements in a more suitable format and to adapt or tweak the detail quickly where necessary. Companies House has published a draft version of the registrar’s rules, which have been shared with Members today. I hope they provide a useful example of what evidence and steps might be required from applicants. When the registrar or ACSP receives all the correct information from an applicant, they will grant the identify verification application if they are satisfied that the information provided is true.

That is the broad legal process for identity verification. In practice, Companies House will use the GOV.UK One Login platform to deliver the identity-verification service. One Login is a cross-departmental verification platform, enabling users to have a single login and verified identity for multiple government services. An individual will create an account and can verify their identity using a range of evidence, such as a passport or driving licence, or through knowledge-based verification questions based on their credit record or banking information. The process also includes checks to make sure that the individual matches the picture on their photo ID. For most people completing the purely digital route, the process will take a matter of minutes. Individuals can also complete the process in person at a post office.

If an individual decides to verify via an ACSP, the ACSP must follow the legal procedure established in these regulations and in the registrar’s rules. Companies House will issue guidance to ACSPs to explain how the procedure should be applied in practice and what checks they must perform on the information received. This will ensure that both routes achieve the same level of assurance in identity verification. Once an ACSP verifies an applicant’s identity, they will deliver a verification statement to Companies House to confirm that they have followed the correct procedure. The verification statement will be published alongside the applicant’s appointments on the register to maximise transparency. Alongside the verification statement, ACSPs must give the registrar information about the evidence they relied on to verify an individual’s identity. This means that Companies House will not lose access to crucial identity data if someone uses an ACSP, and will provide them with assurance that identity checks have been completed correctly.

The regulations add other checks and balances to the ACSP regime. ACSPs will be required to maintain records relating to identity verification for seven years from the date when they determined the identity-verification request. The registrar can suspend and deauthorise an ACSP if they consider that they are not fit and proper to carry out the functions of an ACSP. The registrar can perform spot checks on ACSPs and ask them to provide information about their identity-verification obligations. All those provisions combined ensure that Companies House has the tools at its disposal to ensure that the ACSP regime is as effective and robust as possible.

The second set of regulations, the Unique Identifiers (Application of Company Law) Regulations 2024, are technical and apply provisions on unique identifiers contained in the Registrar (Identity Verification and Authorised Corporate Service Providers) Regulations 2024 to other entities. A key mechanism underpinning the operation of identity verification is the use of unique identifiers, or personal codes, that are used to identify individuals who have had their identity verified, as well as registered ACSPs. The first set of regulations will enable the allocation of unique identifiers to individuals associated with companies. These regulations give the registrar powers to allocate unique identifiers to ACSPs and individuals associated with other entities—namely, limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, companies authorised to register, unregistered companies and Scottish qualifying partnerships. Identity-verification requirements will eventually apply to other entities registered at Companies House, so it is necessary that we make these regulations to ensure that the requirements can operate in practice.

I want to provide an update on the timings of identity verification. Companies House published its outline transition plan in October 2024, which confirmed that it aims to start requiring identity verification from autumn 2025. In a few weeks, ACSPs will be able to register, and individuals will be able to voluntarily verify their identity with Companies House, giving people lots of time to complete the process before legal requirements start. I beg to move.

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise on the principle that the Executive should be accountable. I shall be brief. I thank the Minister for shedding some light on these dense and complicated regulations. They are obviously of help to the department, to Ministers and to business, but I dare say the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not reading them on her recent outward journey to the People’s Republic of China.

I found the factsheet helpful, and I acknowledge the strong statements therein. It states that the requirements will

“make it challenging for individuals to create a fictitious identity, or fraudulently use another person’s identity, to set up or run a company”,

and talks about being

“registered with a UK supervisory body for anti-money-laundering purposes”.

As the Minister implied, economic crime is debilitating to the nation and, without a doubt, we have problems with it in Britain.

Who is the registrar and when was she or he appointed, for what term and at what salary? Is Companies House running smoothly, so as to cope with requests and approaches from directors and people with significant control? Are there bottlenecks or significant hold-ups, perhaps even labour disputes? Are there impediments to those who file? How many money laundering cases did the registrar take to court in 2023 and 2024? These questions are designed to be helpful. If they are not answered immediately, perhaps there might be a letter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

With the Committee’s permission, I have just one question that I had meant to ask the Minister. It is around the obligation to retain identity information over seven years, which the noble Lord just mentioned. In the event of the ACSP going out of business, what is the expectation of how that information, which would not otherwise be retained, would be retained for the potential use of Companies House?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for their valuable contributions to the debate. I will respond to some of the points raised but, if I do not cover some, I will ensure that I write.

As to my noble friend Lord Jones’s question about the registrar, the current Registrar of Companies in England and Wales is Louise Smyth. I will write specifically on his other, quite technical questions.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised a few questions, so I ask noble Lords to bear with me while I go through them. His first question was on the timeline. Identity verification will be required from approximately 7 million people in year 1. Since the Act received Royal Assent, Companies House has been busy cleaning the register. From March to November 2024, Companies House removed around 50,400 registered office addresses, 39,600 office addresses and 36,700 addresses of persons with significant control. It redacted around 37,100 incorporation documents to remove personal data used without consent and removed around 7,800 documents from the register, including 800 false mortgage satisfaction filings, which have previously required court orders.

Companies House has been really busy since the Act received Royal Assent, putting this in place. It has also employed more people to do this work, increasing its workforce from 1,400 to 1,700, with another 100 due to be in place before the end of the year. We need people to do this and Companies House is getting those people.

In answer to the question about funding from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, Companies House has been investing in new capabilities to prepare for the implementation of these reforms, as part of its wider transformation programme. This includes £108 million of funding for transformation across previous spending reviews and increased fees to fund a course of measures. As noble Lords know, incorporation fees have now gone up to £50 and any filing fees for confirmation statements have gone up from £15 to £34—so that is extra funding coming in.

In addition, funding of £20 million has been awarded via the economic crime levy for new intelligence cells in Companies House and the Insolvency Service, allowing both agencies to plan to step up their anti-money laundering work. A significant amount of preparation has been undertaken to reach this point, including system development, recruitment and training.

I shall move on to the couple of other questions that were asked. On the statistics, I mentioned earlier that something like 7 million unique officers or directors will need to be identified by spring 2025. The annual cost to a UK business of verifying this identity is estimated to be close to £19.50 in ongoing operational expenses.

Companies House is very experienced in dealing with a high volume of transactions. For example, in 2023-24, it processed something like 14.2 million filings. Companies House has been preparing customers, and there is a lot happening in the education and engagement process; in fact, the Companies House website shows a timeline when this is done, thus informing stakeholders about the introduction of these identity-verification requirements.

Various questions were asked about ACSPs. Let me go through them. A firm will not be able to register as an ACSP unless it is supervised under the UK’s anti-money laundering regulations, and the registrar will not accept applications if the applicant is not fit and proper. From then on, the ACSP must be supervised under the UK’s anti-money laundering regulations at all times. Companies House and the supervisors will regularly share intelligence and changes to an ACSP’s supervisory status; Companies House can suspend or deauthorise any ACSP if it thinks that it is no longer fit and proper to perform these functions.

In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about what happens to an ACSP if it goes bust or closes, the ACSP must keep records of all of these IDVs for at least seven years. So records will be kept. I assume—I am looking at my officials now—that these records will eventually be passed over to the Registrar of Companies, but I will confirm that point in writing.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

On Companies House’s right to suspend an ACSP, what right of appeal does the ACSP have in those circumstances? Does it go to judicial review? What happens?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I do not want to go down that legal route. Based on normal administrative law, I assume that judicial review would apply, but I will come back with a more definitive answer in writing, if I may.

As I mentioned earlier, ACSPs will be required to keep records relating to the identity-verification checks they complete and to respond to Companies House’s spot checks. Failure to comply will be a criminal offence.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked how many more SIs we will see. All I can say is that a mix of SIs will be laid in spring this year—before the summer, I assume—including ones applying reforms to limited liability partnerships. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.

In respect of the question from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about enforcement, currently, if an individual officer does not comply to have their identity verified, sanctions are applied. It can be either a financial sanction or a criminal offence; that applies also to ACSPs.

I hope that I have answered all noble Lords’ questions. If not, I will definitely write to noble Lords.

Motion agreed.

Information Sharing (Disclosure by the Registrar) Regulations 2024

Lord Leong Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Information Sharing (Disclosure by the Registrar) Regulations 2024.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking to the information-sharing regulations, I shall also speak to the Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (Protection and Disclosure of Information and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2024. These regulations are part of a series of statutory instruments designed to implement the reforms introduced by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which I will refer to as the 2023 Act.

This Government are committed to holding accountable those who exploit our open economy. For instance, in the past few weeks, we have outlined our new anti-corruption agenda and our goal to make the UK a hostile environment for all forms of corruption. Corporate transparency is vital in tackling such corruption and economic crime. The 2023 Act enhances corporate transparency in the UK by reforming Companies House, granting it greater powers to verify information, tackle economic crime and improve the reliability of the companies register. At the same time, the Act introduces reforms to Companies House processes and increases protections for individuals at risk of fraud and other harms.

Work to implement the changes at Companies House is well under way. Since March, stronger checks on company information have allowed the organisation to cleanse the register of false and suspicious information. In parallel, Companies House is undergoing a significant organisational transformation to support the delivery of these reforms. Although considerable progress has been made, there is still much to do. We are here today to consider the next set of regulations to the Companies House reform programme. I will start with the Information Sharing (Disclosure by the Registrar) Regulations 2024.

The 2023 Act enhanced the registrar’s ability to share non-public information with enforcement agencies and other public authorities to support their functions. Additionally, the 2023 Act empowered the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling the registrar to share information with designated persons for specified purposes. For example, there may be situations where it would be advantageous for the registrar to share information with certain officeholders tasked with managing insolvency proceedings. These officeholders are typically insolvency practitioners but could also include the official receiver or, in Scotland, the Accountant in Bankruptcy.

While the Companies Act 2006 permits the registrar to share information with agencies when carrying out a public function, the work of these officeholders generally pertains to private matters. These include identifying and recovering assets during insolvency proceedings. Therefore, the registrar currently lacks the power to share information with officeholders for such purposes.

These responsibilities often extend beyond asset sales to legal actions. They could involve applying to the court to reverse transactions made before the insolvency took place that disadvantaged creditors. Where a director has allowed a company to continue trading while insolvent, this could also involve seeking an order making that director liable for the additional losses incurred by creditors. The information-sharing regulations will enable the registrar to share crucial information with insolvency officeholders, enhancing insolvency processes and helping to maximise returns for creditors.

I turn to the Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (Protection and Disclosure of Information and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2024. It is key that individuals running companies and other entities register their details so that they can be held accountable for the entity’s affairs. However, having one’s personal information publicly displayed can increase the risk of harm, such as fraud, identity theft or cases of domestic abuse.

Currently, an individual can already apply to protect their residential address from the public register in certain cases. Protection means that the address is not publicly visible. However, the law does not allow protection of a residential address that was previously used as a company’s registered office address. Companies House regularly receives requests for protection of these residential addresses from many individuals. These include those at risk of harm because of the public availability of their residential address as a registered office address—for example, those in witness protection, judges and parliamentarians. These regulations are the first of several reforms to enhance the protection of personal information. They will allow applications to protect a residential address where it was previously used as a company’s registered office address.

The regulations also make specific provisions for the scenario of dissolved companies. There are a number of reasons why a party would want to apply to court to restore a dissolved company to the register: for instance, to claim assets or pursue legal claims. To do this, the applicant requires the company’s former registered office address. To support this, these regulations ensure that an application to protect a residential address that was a dissolved company’s last registered office address can be made only from six months after the company’s dissolution. The registrar will also be able to disclose a protected residential address to certain persons who require the dissolved company’s registered office address to make a restoration application.

Lastly, the instrument amends legislation that applies company law to limited liability partnerships, following changes to company law made by the 2023 Act and this instrument.

In conclusion, these regulations strike the right balance between privacy and transparency. Individuals will benefit from greater protection of their personal information, while protected information will be available for law enforcement, public authorities and others with a legitimate reason to access it. Together, these instruments build on the 2023 Act, strengthening our commitment to support legitimate business and tackle economic crime. I hope the regulations will be supported, and I beg to move.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, we will support both of these instruments, and I will be brief. The first instrument is a straightforward and necessary increase in the disclosure powers of Companies House and, as the Minister has made clear, the SI extends disclosure powers to cover non-public organisations and specifies to whom information may be disclosed and under what circumstances. All this seems clear and with obvious benefits, although I confess that I am not at all clear what a “judicial factor”, mentioned in Regulation 3(g), is or does. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us.

We are generally happy with measures that improve the utility or performance of Companies House. Appropriately increased and targeted disclosure powers are definitely a good thing, but arguably more important is the ID-checking regime at Companies House. In that context, it was good to see Companies House quoted in last Wednesday’s Times, saying:

“We take fraud seriously and all allegations are fully investigated. We are preparing to introduce compulsory identity verification checks. This will provide greater assurance about who is setting up, running, owning, and controlling companies”.


That is welcome news, if a little overdue. Can the Minister say when Parliament will see these new and obviously vital proposals?

The second SI essentially, as the Minister said, deals with the disclosure of residential addresses on the public companies register. It proposes new circumstances in which these addresses may be protected from exposure via Companies House registration details. Here, I declare a kind of interest: I have, for the past nine years, benefited from a Companies House exemption, under the existing regime, from disclosure of my residential address. The circumstances surrounding my exemption were clear and compelling enough to qualify for non-disclosure, but they would not serve to protect from exposure any address currently or formerly used as a company’s registered office.

This instrument will allow an application to protect a residential address when it was previously the registered address for the company, and this will apply, mutatis mutandis, to LLPs. There are appropriate protections against using this new power to frustrate challenges to the dissolution of a company, as the Minister mentioned. This all seems very sensible, and the EM notes in paragraph 5.8:

“Companies House has for a long time been inundated with requests for this kind of protection, as the previous law prevented many people from protecting publicly available address information that put them at risk, for example in cases of domestic abuse”.


In paragraph 6.5, the EM says:

“Further regulations will be made in due course to introduce additional measures preventing the abuse of personal information on the companies register”.


I encourage the Minister to make rapid progress on these new proposals. Companies House needs all the help it can get.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, I commend this draft legislation. Let me ask: can we allow our businesses and partnerships to remain vulnerable to exploitation, and do we not have a duty to ensure that the UK remains the gold standard for transparency, integrity and fair competition?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for all contributions and I thank especially the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for supporting these regulations. As he knows, the work was undertaken by the previous Government and we have made it a legal entity and brought forward the power to implement the legislation. I am sure there is common ground here. We all want to fight economic crime and ensure that privacy and transparency are balanced.

I will respond to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. On the use of the judicial factor, this basically relates to Scotland. The judicial factor is an officer of the court whose role is to protect the estate itself. This applies only in Scotland. On the issue of identity verification, work is being done and we hope to see proposals at some point next year.

On the wider question of Companies House reform, let me share with noble Lords what has been done so far. From March 2024, the registrar has to be able to query a request for information, remove material from a register of their own volition or on application in a more timely way, analyse information for the purpose of crime prevention or detection, disclose information from anyone for the purpose of the exercise of the registrar’s function, and move the registered office address, service address, and principal office address to default addresses.

Companies now have to comply with the new rules about company and business names. A company must not be registered by a name that is intended to facilitate criminal purposes and Companies House has greater powers to direct a company to change its name or to change the name if the company is not compliant, to declare its lawful purpose, notify and maintain an appropriate registered office address and registered email addresses and confirm new information in annual confirmation statements.

Companies House has commenced a process to remove names and addresses used without consent. This includes the removal of officers and people with significant control, where previously those wishing to have their details removed would have had to apply to the courts. So far, Companies House has removed 50,400 registered office addresses, 39,600 office addresses and 36,700 PSC addresses, redacted 37,100 incorporation documents to remove personal data used without consent and removed 7,800 documents from the register, including 800 false mortgage satisfaction filings that would have previously required a court order. So Companies House has done a lot, but there is further to go. The reform of Companies House is ongoing and more instruments will be brought to the House, I hope, next year.

In summary, today’s debate has highlighted the importance of getting the Companies House reforms in the 2023 Act right. These regulations mark another vital step towards realising these goals and I commend them to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Leong Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, before I start on these amendments, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for the generous letters that he sent the Committee after previous sessions, which answered a number of questions. I generally commend the Government on their spirit of co-operation on these matters.

I am sincerely grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes for introducing this critical amendment and for supplying his PIN. Like my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, it very much appeals to me too, because the principle of being inclusive by design reflects a visionary and much-needed step forward in ensuring that products in the UK are accessible and equitable for all members of society—as my noble friend so eloquently and powerfully set out.

The establishment of an inclusive-by-design standard underscores our collective commitment to creating a society where accessibility and inclusion are the norm and not the exception. Moreover, inclusive design benefits everyone, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out. Features designed for accessibility, such as voice commands or larger interfaces, often enhance usability for all users. For businesses, I would have thought it an opportunity to innovate and differentiate themselves in a very competitive market. For consumers, it is a guarantee that their needs are being respected. So I have no hesitation at all in supporting Amendment 79.

I am also happy to support Amendments 52 and 53. I will not say much about them except to add that Amendment 52 also addresses pertinent and indeed poignant national security or—perhaps this is a better expression—security of supply concerns. A complete national understanding of supply chains makes unarguably good sense.

In conclusion, I wholeheartedly support Amendment 79 and am very sympathetic to Amendments 52 and 53, and I urge the Government to think seriously about them.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and I specifically thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his amendments. During the second day in Committee, the noble Lord illustrated his knowledge of and passion for the subject of AI.

I turn first to Amendment 53 on the review of large language models. We have already discussed the intersection or interaction between this Bill and AI in a previous group, and I will briefly restate some of the key points I made in that debate which are relevant here. Evidently, the use of AI in products is still in its infancy. How exactly this technology will develop remains to be seen, but we have drafted the Bill in such a way that it keeps pace with technological change; Clause 2(2)(a) allows regulations to take account of intangible components of a physical product.

However, the Bill does not and will not regulate digital products or artificial intelligence in and of themselves. Instead—I hope this reassures the noble Lord, Lord Holmes—the Government are developing a wider policy around AI, which I am sure will take into consideration proposals for AI safety legislation as announced in the King’s Speech. I recognise that noble Lords keenly anticipate the detail of these proposals, so I assure your Lordships that my noble friend Lady Jones will update the House in due course.

The Office for Product Safety & Standards is considering the use of AI in products and the regulatory challenges for product safety associated with that. We are just at the start of that process but know that it will become more important as technologies develop. I will ensure that the House is kept up to date with progress on this work.

Amendment 52 addresses product traceability and responsibilities within supply chains, including digital supply chains. I agree with noble Lords that it is essential that those responsible for producing or importing products are identifiable. Existing regulations already require relevant supply chain parties to maintain necessary documentation for tracing product origins and, as we consider updates to product requirements, we will also review these traceability provisions to ensure that they are fit for purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned CPTPP, which in fact comes into force this Sunday when the UK becomes a full member. I suppose we will just have to review the application of this whole supply chain and traceability, and monitor how it goes.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister, but perhaps there is another of his letters here—for which I also thank him. The CPTPP is not like the European Union—there is not a secretariat overseeing what is going on. If you think something wrong is going on, it is up to the Government to raise it. It would be useful to know how the department is now going to police or at least find out what it needs to deal with. Otherwise, it is essentially transparent.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I totally agree with the noble Lord. I will ensure that officials in the department look into this and either write to him or have a meeting on this.

Over the coming year, our priority will be continuing to address the sale of unsafe goods on online marketplaces—an area that noble Lords are right to highlight and on which they have demonstrated extensive knowledge and passion in the best traditions of this House. As outlined in the Government’s response to the product safety review consultation, we will also explore digital solutions, including the use of voluntary digital labelling, to streamline business processes and support authorities in monitoring product safety.

However, it should be noted that issues of traceability are much broader than ensuring the safety or proper functioning of products. This would bring in myriad other policy issues, such as the nature of global supply chains and cross-border jurisdictional arrangements. I believe that noble Lords would agree that these issues warrant careful discussion and debate, but they are distinct from the Bill’s purpose of ensuring the safety and functionality of products.

Amendment 79 relates to the creation of a mandatory inclusive-by-design standard. I am pleased to inform the noble Lord that the British Standards Institution has already developed and published a British Standard that provides guidelines for the adoption of an inclusive approach to the design of products. The standard sets out a strategic framework and processes to enable business executives and design practitioners to understand that inclusive design should be a core organisational driver.

I refer back to the example the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, gave of credit card payments. We have come a long way, but I still remember those zapping machines that zapped your credit card and you had to sign the receipt. That obviously creates a lot of situations where fraud can happen. Then we had the PIN, and nowadays contactless. I have been reading some articles before today’s debate, and some of the financial institutions are looking at mobile wallets, whereby an encrypted account number is embedded within the wallet itself. But these are early days, so we have to keep watching this area and see how it develops.

Furthermore, an updated version of the ground-breaking, government-sponsored, fast-track standard on inclusive data use in standards was published by the BSI in August this year and is free to download. This helps standards makers to work with data with inclusion in mind so that the standards produced are representative and include communities that are traditionally excluded, helping to minimise harm and deliver more robust products. Standards are voluntary in nature and the Bill, as with our current product safety regulations, continues to allow the use of standards to remain voluntary, avoiding potential barriers to trade.

I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with the explanations given today and that the amendment will be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has been very helpful in explaining about the affirmative process, and he has talked about the Explanatory Memorandum, but he has not responded to my questions about the consultation with the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the relevant agencies. If that happens, will it form part of the Explanatory Memorandum? My concern is that this is all still led very much by the Department for Business and Trade and does not take account of the concerns and pressures faced by the Home Office, the justice system and their respective arm’s-length bodies.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for the question. I will need to come back to her on it because I want to be absolutely clear that I am giving her the correct information, rather than me saying something now on the fly.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this brief discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Leong, praised our expertise. Can I just say that any expertise he thought he might have spotted in my remarks belongs not to me but to my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, who was very helpful. He cannot be here, I am afraid, and I am not a lawyer.

Unfortunately, in spite of the detailed explanation of the Government’s intentions supplied by the noble Lord, Lord Leong—I am very appreciative of it—I am only partially reassured. I still have some concerns, so I will go back to Hansard and study his remarks carefully, particularly those related to Bingham.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, on the list of bodies, I have not seen the letter, so I apologise again if I have repeated something that he has already addressed, but it is fair enough that he agrees that the rule of law deserves provision. I totally agree—that is fair enough—but it does not really seem to explain why there should not be a list of specific enforcement authorities, as per Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. That seems to give too much latitude, but perhaps the letter explains that, in which case I will cheerfully withdraw these remarks.

In relation to the question asked of me by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we considered following her example, obviously, but we also felt that leaving out subsection (9) would in effect render subsections (10) and (11) null and void. But I totally accept that the noble Baroness has a point about how that could be interpreted, so I will go back, have a look at it and consider what we do next. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 72 and 73, and I thank my noble friend Lord Trenchard for signing them. Clause 4 is a short clause dealing with emergencies. It allows for product regulations

“to be disapplied, or to apply with modifications, in cases of emergency”.

It also provides:

“The disapplication … may be made subject to conditions”.


That is it. I wonder what happened to the rest of the explanation that a clause of this type surely deserves. Perhaps the parliamentary drafter was using only headlines and forgot to fill in the blanks.

These amendments are designed to introduce some checks and balances. As the clause is currently written, there is no definition of what constitutes an emergency. There is no definition in Clause 10, which deals with interpretation. Who defines an emergency? How long might an emergency last? How will emergency provisions be enforced? The committees that we have talked about so much have been very clear. We have discussed this many times. The Bill is skeletal in nature and introduces a number of Henry VIII powers. I am only surprised that this clause was not added to the list of clauses that they think should be removed from the Bill in its current form.

My Amendment 72 is merely an attempt to seek answers to some of those questions and to apply a minimal level of parliamentary scrutiny. I simply do not think it is right that an undefined individual or body could introduce undefined emergency powers of an unspecified duration without a basic level of scrutiny —frankly, that way despotism lies.

My Amendment 73 expands on this and would introduce an element of ongoing scrutiny. Again, I can see no reason why the Government would disagree with this because, in their response to the Delegated Powers Committee’s report, they said that

“the Department is committed to … engage with stakeholders … including in cases of emergency”.

I have included that exact form of words in my amendment, as well as requirements to justify the continuing need for these powers, to assess their impact and to introduce some time limits. I cannot see any reason at all why the Government would not accept this amendment, given that, in effect, they have already committed to doing pretty much what it says. I beg to move.

[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.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for his question because it reminded me that when all the primary and secondary legislation on Covid was going through, most of the references to “emergency” were the definition in the Civil Contingencies Act. That Act is not defined in this Bill, and “emergency” is used loosely on its own. I wonder whether there is a bear trap there. If the department means to use “emergency” in the sense of the Civil Contingencies Act, it may be better and more helpful to name it. If not, will the Minister explain why the use of the definitions in the Civil Contingencies Act are inappropriate?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I really do not know the answer to that. Obviously I will find out and write to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I thank the Minister—I am grateful.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am told that we were advised by counsel that this word is more flexible to use. I do not know whether that is sufficient but perhaps we can explore that further.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for his detailed explanation. However, the fact is that that explanation and the recent comment about flexibility rather illustrate again, I am afraid, the point about the Bill. Let us go back to the DPRRC report, Democracy Denied. It states:

“Skeleton legislation signifies an exceptional shift in power from Parliament to the executive and entails the Government, in effect, asking Parliament to pass primary legislation which is so insubstantial that it leaves the real operation of the legislation to be decided by ministers”.


I am afraid that in spite of the noble Lord’s reassurances, that is still very much where we are.

I accept that emergencies are unpredictable. Of course they are, by their very nature: they are rare and emerging situations. But I do not accept the three months argument made by the noble Lord, which strikes me as inconsistent. Surely three months is enough to define and decide on the relative importance, scale or urgency of an emergency. I can see no reason at all why any emergency cannot be defined over the course of 12 weeks, and that would have gone for Covid as much as anything else.

There is some inconsistent logic in the Minister’s replies. I am partially reassured, and obviously some considerable thinking has gone into his replies, which I appreciate, but we will reserve the right to revisit this situation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

However, the dangers that this Bill seem to pose to our economy are nothing compared to what will happen if we do not require under law an active regular assessment of the impact on the wider economy, businesses and the SMEs that make up most of the UK’s business sector—as well as our customers, without whom businesses cease to exist. For these reasons, I hope that the Government will accept the amendments.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their contributions in the debate on this grouping of amendments; in particular, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Sharpe, for their amendments. This Government are committed to supporting businesses as we get the UK economy growing.

I begin with Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. He specifies that regulations made under Clause 5 of the Bill

“must have regard for the impact of metrology regulations on small and medium sized enterprises”.

The noble Lord has also proposed the publishing of impact assessments of affirmative regulations, to be laid every six months after the Bill’s implementation.

Similarly, Amendments 103 and 104 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, propose publishing a report assessing the Bill’s impact on consumer choice 12 months after the Bill is passed, as well as another report every two years on the economic impacts of the Bill. The noble Lord’s Amendment 104B would further require the Secretary of State to present a report to Parliament detailing the impact of regulations made under the Bill’s powers on SMEs.

I am happy to confirm that the impact of any new regulations will be fully considered through the development of proportionate impact analysis. As I said before, the Better Regulation Framework is the system that government uses to manage the flow of regulation and understand its impacts, including on SMEs and micro-businesses. On 7 December, the Government launched their new Business Growth Service to ensure that it is easier for SMEs to find government advice and support, giving them more time and money.

In line with the Better Regulation Framework, for regulations where significant impacts—above £10 million per year—are anticipated, full impact assessments will be published. For regulations with lower anticipated impacts, a proportionate assessment impact analysis will be completed. These assessments will, as a matter of course, consider the impacts of regulations on SMEs. Furthermore, officials currently routinely engage with SMEs and stakeholders to shape policy, including in the light of emerging technological and industry developments, and to identify and address any disproportionate burdens. The OPSS regularly engages with a small business panel as part of policy development.

I hope that this confirmation provides reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on this important area, and I am grateful to them for raising it today. The Government remain committed to supporting SMEs and recognise the vital role they play in the UK economy. As such, the Bill will allow the Government to update product and metrology regulation to avoid extra cost to business and provide continued regulatory stability. It will also allow the Government to end recognition of EU requirements where this is in the interests of businesses and consumers. The Bill will enable the Government to introduce proportionate product safety requirements that protect consumers and create a fairer playing field for law-abiding businesses.

As some noble Lords will know, before I came to this place I was a serial entrepreneur all my working life. I understand how micro-businesses and SMEs work. SMEs spend most of their time creating and growing the business. They do not want additional costs or regulations impacting their business. Having said that, all that businesses want is a level playing field where they know the rules of the game and what regulations are in place. Imposing additional regulation is not the intention of this Government. We are constantly consulting SMEs to ensure that, whatever regulation is in place, it does not impact SMEs and micro-businesses.

As I said, growth is the Government’s number one priority. On 14 October, we published a Green Paper, Invest 2035, setting out a credible 10-year plan to deliver the certainty and stability that businesses need to invest in the high-growth sectors that will drive our growth mission. This industrial strategy will create a pro-business environment and support high-potential sectors and clusters across the country. By giving the UK the flexibility to adapt its own regulatory framework to keep pace with international regulatory developments and respond to global trends, the Bill supports economic growth and innovation.

This flexibility ensures that the Bill supports economic growth—as I mentioned—reduces unnecessary regulatory burdens and ultimately benefits businesses, including micro-businesses and SMEs. However, introducing a statutory reporting obligation would risk duplicating existing processes, diverting resources and delaying the implementation of timely and effective regulations that provide businesses and consumers with the certainty they need.

I am sure that many noble Lords know that the EU’s general product safety regulation comes into force this Friday 13 December. Under the terms of the Windsor Framework between the UK and the EU, we have to apply it in Northern Ireland, so we will publish on the Government’s website clear guidance to SMEs that want to export to Northern Ireland and the EU. We will prepare a statutory instrument to implement a new enforcement regime in Northern Ireland to allow this GPSR to be enforced. This is a requirement of the Windsor Framework.

I mention this to show that there are regulations that SMEs have to abide by—this is one of them—that will impose a certain amount of burden on SMEs, especially in the run-up to Christmas. Many small businesses will now find it very difficult to export to Northern Ireland and Europe if they do not have a legal representative in the country to verify their goods.

As I have outlined, I believe that the very laudable sentiment behind these amendments is already covered by existing practice, so I ask noble Lords not to press them.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am grateful to the speakers in this debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his Amendments 103, 104 and 104B. They aim, I think, to achieve the same objective as Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, but in more detail.

I am with the Minister—I thank him for his response —in saying that more paperwork and more regulation is not what we on these Benches wanted to achieve in Amendment 82, which is why it says that any regulations “must have regard for”. I hope that the Minister will take that on board. I want to ask him something; perhaps he might write to me, if he intends to write anyway. He kindly talked about the different types of impact assessment, including whether they would be full or proportionate. We completely understand that those would happen, but will those impact assessments specifically highlight SMEs? In other words, will an untutored eye flicking through see “effect on SMEs” in bold, and then something underneath it? I am seeing nods from the Minister, and I look forward to his letter.

I am glad that the Minister raised the extra burdens on firms either selling into Northern Ireland or the reverse. It is not just about that: over the last few years, we have seen very small businesses having sometimes to double the number of their administrative staff to cope with, for example, things such as music groups touring across Europe. The objective has to be keep that paperwork down as much as possible. Obviously, I will confer with my noble friend Lord Fox, and I look forward to the Minister’s letter. We may return with this later.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Before the noble Baroness withdraws, I can confirm that, when we do the impact assessment, we take SMEs into consideration as well.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Liddle for his amendment in this final group in the Committee on this Bill. He raises a very interesting point. I will start by briefly explaining the operation of the Schedule of the Bill. Noble Lords will appreciate that the Bill’s definitions have been drafted to capture the range of products covered by existing regulations. This means that the Bill needs to cover products as diverse as toys, cosmetics, fireworks, lifts and pieces of heavy engineering. The Bill therefore defines a product as

“a tangible item that results from a method of production”.

To place some limitation on this scope, the Schedule lists some exclusions. These refer to certain products that do not require coverage by this Bill because, for example, they are regulated by separate legislation. The Schedule includes an exclusion for aircraft. The noble Lord’s amendment would widen this exclusion to include all products and equipment intended for use in civil aviation.

As my noble friend has said, product regulation is not always as clear-cut as that. Many sectors have products feeding into them that span other sectors. Aviation is an important and complicated field when it comes to safety. It is right that there is an extensive suite of existing legislation, overseen by the Department for Transport, that covers that. It is not the Government’s intention to create any confusing parallel structure of regulation.

However, we need to ensure that, by excluding a wider range of products that can be used in aviation, we do not accidentally exclude dual-use products that might also need to be captured by this Bill. It cannot be the case that a manufacturer or other supplier can evade regulation on the grounds that, as well as supplying consumers, they also supply the aviation industry. My noble friend has raised an important and nuanced issue. Aviation safety is a serious matter. The Government will definitely reflect on this matter, and I am happy to have discussions with my noble friend before Report.

As this is the last group in our consideration of the Bill in Committee, I would like to express my thanks to all noble Lords for their thoughtful and constructive contribution during this stage of the scrutiny of the Bill. I would also like to thank my officials and all the staff here in the House, including the clerks, Hansard and the doorkeepers, for ensuring that the Committee has run as seamlessly as possible.

As I have said many times during today’s debate, the Government have valued the debates we have had, and the issues raised by all noble Lords. We have heard, clearly and loudly, the mood of the Committee on a number of areas. I can assure noble Lords that the Government will carefully reflect on all concerns. I give an undertaking that I will come back to noble Lords on these issues.

I look forward to continuing my constructive conversations with noble Lords as we approach Report to ensure that this important Bill is suitable to deliver the policy objectives that many in the debates have outlined their support of. With that said—and to ensure that noble Lords are not totally surprised—I would like to end on a familiar note and ask that Amendment 134 be withdrawn.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I am happy for Amendment 134 to be withdrawn. I am very grateful for the assurances the Minister has given me that this will be a matter subject to further consideration.