Employment Rights Bill

Lord Leong Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Penn for her very thoughtful amendments in this group. I acknowledge the valuable contributions from all noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for introducing her amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for introducing his amendments and, perhaps more importantly, reminding the House of the Conservative-led coalition Government’s work in this area—although I note that he did not heap praise on the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith.

We fully recognise and support the intention behind these proposals, which is to strengthen support for families and in particular to enhance the role of paternity leave in allowing fathers to spend essential early time with their children. This is a laudable aim that clearly finds broad sympathy across the House.

However, while the objective is clear and commendable, we must also consider the practical implications of how such policies are implemented, particularly in relation to the impact on businesses. Many employers, large and small, continue to face significant challenges in the current economic climate, as we have discussed at length this evening. The introduction of new requirements, even when limited to large employers, must be approached with caution and care, and I acknowledge that my noble friend Lady Penn addressed many of those concerns directly in her speech.

As for the reporting obligations set out in Amendment 128, tabled by my noble friend, these would apply to businesses with 250 employees or more. While this threshold helps to focus the requirement on larger organisations, we should still be mindful of the potential administrative and financial burdens such reporting could entail. Even within that category, resources vary significantly, and not all may be equally equipped to take on new reporting functions—a point that was addressed by my noble friends Lord Bailey and Lord Ashcombe. That said, transparency and data collection can play a valuable role in shaping effective policy. If it can be clearly demonstrated that these measures would bring mutual benefits, improving employee well-being and retention, for example, without imposing disproportionate costs or complexity on employers, it is certainly something that we should be prepared to consider further.

Ultimately, we have to strike the right balance, ensuring meaningful support for families while safeguarding the viability and flexibility of the businesses that employ them. That is the lens through which we should view not just this amendment but the broader provisions of the Bill.

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

My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging, informative and very exciting debate. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, on his four month-old son. I begin by recognising the key role that parental leave plays in supporting families—I wish it had been available when I became a father, at a much older age, some 18 years ago. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for sharing his story about the difficult time he had during the birth of his children.

This Government understand that the arrival of a child, whether through birth or adoption, is the most transformative time in a family’s life. We understand that the current parental leave system needs changing so that it better supports working families. We have committed to do this and we are taking action in a number of different ways. Through this Bill, the Government are making paternity leave and parental leave day-one rights, meaning that employees will be eligible to give notice of the intent to take leave from the first day of employment. I hope that many noble Lords will welcome this position. This brings such leave in line with maternity and adoption leave, so simplifying the system.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

The Minister said that this brings paternity leave in line with maternity leave, but for maternity leave, the right to pay is also a day-one right. Does he acknowledge that the Bill does not create alignment between maternity and paternity?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I just said that the leave is the same as maternity leave, not the pay. This brings paternity leave in line with maternity leave and adoption leave, thereby simplifying the system. We are removing the restriction preventing paternity leave and pay being taken after shared parental leave and pay, to further support working parents in assessing the entitlements available to them. Separate from the Bill, planning work is under way for the parental leave review, which will explore how well the current system supports working families and what improvements could be made.

Amendments 127, 80, 138 and 139 seek to make changes to paternity leave and pay. Amendments 127 and 139 are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. Amendment 127 seeks to extend statutory paternity leave and pay from two weeks to six weeks and to increase the rate of pay to the lower of 90% or national median pay—although the drafting relates specifically to pay. Amendment 139 seeks to make statutory paternity pay a day-one right for all employees by removing the current continuity of working requirements. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has laid two similar amendments, Amendments 80 and 138. Amendment 80 would increase the minimum length of paternity leave from two to six weeks and require regulations to introduce the ability to take paternity leave at any time in at least the first year following birth or adoption. Amendment 138 calls for the existing flat rate of statutory parental payments to be increased, by doubling the rate from £184.03 to £368.06.

I hope to reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, in part by highlighting several reforms to paternity leave and pay which took effect in April last year. These changes now allow eligible parents to take their leave and pay in two non-consecutive weeks; to take their leave and pay at any point in the first year after the birth or adoption of their child, rather than only within the first eight weeks, as was previously the case; and to give shorter notice for each period of leave. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, will therefore agree that, while well-intentioned, Amendment 80 is not necessary in relation to when paternity leave is taken, for the reasons I have just explained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

Will the noble Lord clarify whether he just said that there are no day-one rights to parental pay, including for maternity?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I will read it again. Amendment 139 would make statutory paternity pay a day-one right. Currently, no parental pay entitlements are available from day one, including maternity pay.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

Does the noble Lord acknowledge that maternity allowance is available from day one, at the same rate of pay as statutory paternity pay?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right: maternity allowances are available from day one.

Parental pay entitlements require employees to meet an average earnings test. Calculating whether newly employed parents have met this threshold would present a significant challenge to their new employers who administer parental payments.

Amendments 127, 138 and 139 would introduce a cost burden to the Exchequer at a time when public finances are under pressure. When considering calls to increase the level of parental pay generally, any changes will need to take account of the economic situation, the financial impact on employers and the needs of parents, and be made in consultation with businesses and stakeholders. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is required by law to undertake an annual review of benefits and state pensions, including statutory payments. This is based on a review of trends in prices and earnings growth in the preceding year. Generally, as with other benefits, parental payments are increased in line with CPI. For example, statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay will all increase by 1.7% in April 2025, in line with the September 2024 CPI figure.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

Does the noble Lord acknowledge that, in linking the payments to CPI, what is actually happening is that we are seeing a bigger gap between statutory payments and people’s salaries, as the national minimum wage is increasing by a greater degree? The process that the noble Lord has laid out is increasing the problem that we have of payments not coming anywhere close to replacing wages.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. That is the situation as it is now. Until and unless things change, that is what is happening.

Depending on individual circumstances, additional financial support will be available to parents. For example, universal credit, child benefit and the Sure Start maternity grant may be available alongside statutory parental pay.

I turn to the issue of shared parental leave. Where fathers and partners want a longer period of leave and pay, shared parental leave and pay is already available. Shared parental leave and pay offers up to 50 weeks of leave and up to 37 weeks of pay, which can be created for parents to share from maternity entitlements that the mother does not intend to use. Parents can use the scheme to take leave together for nearly six months, or intersperse periods of leave with periods of work.

I turn to Amendment 136, again laid by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, which calls for individuals who are self-employed or contractors to have access to statutory adoption pay within six months of the passage of the Bill. It would also require the terms “self-employed” and “contractors” to be defined in regulations, to set out a clear description of who would qualify for statutory adoption pay under this extended eligibility.

I want to reiterate my appreciation and gratitude towards all adoptive parents, who provide loving and stable homes to children who are unable to live with their birth parents. Currently, parental leave and pay entitlements are generally not available to the self-employed. This focus on providing parental leave and pay to employees is rooted in the understanding that employees often have less flexibility and control over their working conditions than those who are self-employed. There is of course the exception of maternity allowance, which is available to self-employed mothers as an important health and safety provision. It makes sure that mothers can take time away from having to work to recover from childbirth, bond with the child and establish breastfeeding if they wish to do so. For parents who do not qualify for adoption pay—for example, those who are self-employed or contractors—statutory adoption guidance advises local authorities to consider making a payment similar to maternity allowance.

In November 2024, the Government published Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive, in which we allocated £49 million to the adoption and special guardianship support fund for this financial year. This will enable local authorities and regional adoption agencies to offer a wide range of tailored support, including psychotherapy, family therapy and creative therapies, to adoptive families. These services are available following a locally conducted assessment of the adoptive family’s needs.

Amendment 128, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, would commit the Government to introducing regulations requiring organisations which employ more than 250 people to publish information about their parental leave and pay policies. It is true that parental leave and pay policies are not extras. They are essential policies that allow people to manage their professional and personal responsibilities and play a huge role in addressing wider social and economic issues.

The Bill contains a number of measures which will improve the support working families receive, most notably by: putting in place legislation that makes it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women, mothers on maternity leave and mothers who come back to work for a six-month period after they return—except in specific circumstances; making flexible working the default, except where not reasonably feasible; and the requirement that large employers produce equality action plans. We feel that we are already striking the right balance between doing more to help working families and ensuring that these changes are manageable for employers to respond and adapt to. Therefore, we do not believe this is the right time to legislate to require publication of parental policies.

Amendment 76, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lister, would make it a legal requirement for the Secretary of State to begin a review of paid parental leave within six months of Royal Assent and to lay the review before Parliament within 18 months. I share the desire of all the noble Lords and Baronesses who have tabled these amendments today: I too want to see change made to the parental leave system to better support families, and I thank them for their clear dedication to improving the lives of parents and children. I recognise their concerns that the current system reinforces outdated gender roles. The responsibility for childcare remains, for many families, with the mother. For many, this will be through choice, but it is also reflective of a system that grants fathers and partners a short period of time off to be with their partner and child during this first year of life. Shared parental leave is available to qualifying fathers and partners who wish to take a longer period, but take-up remains low.

Family life has changed radically since the 1970s, when the then Labour Government passed the Employment Protection Act, which established the right to maternity leave for working mothers. We all agree that improvement needs to be made, and this Government have already begun that work by making paternity leave and parental leave day-one rights through this Bill. This removes a layer of complexity and makes the system more accessible. More needs to be done, and I recognise the fair point raised by my noble friend Lady Lister in Amendment 76 that a review needs to address the disparities in the current system.

The plan to make work pay—a manifesto commitment —committed to a review of the parental leave system within the first year of a Labour Government to ensure that it best supports working families. Planning is under way, and we hope to provide further detail soon.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

Can the Minister confirm that the Government will meet that manifesto commitment to start the review within the first year, and can he give a timescale not just for when the review will start but for when it will be completed?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I can give the commitment that we will do this within the first year of the Labour Government.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

Is that to start the review?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

We are planning and conducting the review within the first year of the Labour Government.

It would be premature to make further legislation in this space before the parental leave review has taken place. We will, however, take my noble friend’s ideas and concerns into consideration, and I look forward to updating your Lordships’ House on the review.

Before I conclude, we understand the concerns raised by—

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Before the Minister exits the review, it clearly reflects on a number of the issues in the Bill. It would make an awful lot of sense, if the Government are going to do this within the first year—which, by the way, is not very much longer—to be able to present us with the findings of that review so that we can reflect them in what we bring back on Report.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention, and I will speak to my officials and write to all noble Lords accordingly regarding the review.

We understand the concerns raised by micro and small businesses around proposed day-one rights to paternity leave. Those employers often work with very lean teams and tight margins, so any perceived increase in entitlement can raise questions about costs and continuity. Introducing day-one rights is about fairness and consistency. It ensures that all fathers, regardless of tenure, have the opportunity to support their families at a critical time.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again. He has just talked about the importance of a day-one right to paternity leave, giving fathers the ability to take that leave, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said, unless it is paid, swathes of dads will not be able to afford to take it. If the Government recognise the importance of this, why will they not make it paid?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. As I said in my previous paragraph, we are making day-one rights such as this and consulting, and the review will look at all the issues that the noble Baroness has brought forward. Until we get the review done, I really cannot commit to anything at this stage.

For businesses, this kind of support fosters loyalty and improved retention in a competitive hiring environment. Demonstrating a commitment to family-friendly practices helps attract and keep skilled employees. We also encourage proactive workforce planning. Cross-training and flexible staffing arrangements can mitigate disruption during short absences. Many small employers already manage similar situations around holiday leave or illness, so this policy is not about adding burden but about building a workplace culture where staff feel valued from the very start. We are committed to working with small businesses to ensure that the transition is smooth, supported and sustainable.

I hope I have reassured all noble Lords of the Government’s commitment to parental leave and respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can I, first, just make an observation? Having listened to him reading from his brief, I wondered how many members of the team who prepared the brief have themselves ever been able to take paternity leave, because it certainly did not sound like they had. Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said in her intervention, she was very happy with the support from across the House for paternity leave being changed, and quickly. Those of us in the House who are in front of and to the side of the Minister were able to witness the body language of his Back-Benchers. Having seen that, I will say only that I suggest that going and sitting down with them as a group between now and Report might be helpful.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that, and I will probably take up his idea.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Leong Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for introducing this group with his Amendment 21A. I could not agree with him more that flexibility is a key part of an efficient economy. That deserves to be written in stone. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lady Lawlor and Lady Noakes for their support for various amendments in this group and to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his positive comments.

I shall speak to Amendments 22, 24 and 28 in my name. There are many circumstances in which an employer has no choice but to make a request or cancel a shift on short notice—my noble friend Lady Lawlor gave us some very useful examples of that. But to go on a bit, for example, if a colleague calls in sick, which is something that is likely to increase in frequency with changes to statutory sick pay governed in other areas of this Bill, or if events beyond the employer’s control intervene, such as local flooding or public disturbances, payment for unworked cancelled shifts becomes an additional financial burden at precisely the time when a business is already experiencing a downturn. It is not simply about inconvenience; it is actually about viability.

To give another particular example, we have heard from the hospitality industry that the proposed rights around notice and cancellation of shifts could severely undermine existing staffing practices. For instance, in the case of pubs, which as we know are under pressure anyway, those with outdoor garden spaces in particular operate in a highly unpredictable environment. One representative of the sector made it very clear to us when he said:

“The new right to notice of shift allocation and cancellation could undermine a pub’s ability to offer voluntary overtime”.


During the course of the discussion, the examples were magnified to some extent—and to some extent the example that I am about to give is the flipside of the one that my noble friend Lady Coffey highlighted with regard to restaurants in a previous group, and the fact that they are pre-charging for tables. The representative of the industry pointed out to us that in many cases, for example, offering food in a pub Monday to Wednesday is a highly marginal business, and they often let their staff go early, and so on. He is of the opinion that, as a result of the Bill, much of that work will simply disappear; they will not bother to open, because it will be too complicated to administer. Not the least of it is that it is not just the administration but the costs of offering the compensation that is governed by this clause. That would obviously not be very good for consumer choice, plus of course there are implications for tax receipts and a whole host of other areas as well.

In practice, these businesses rely heavily on flexibility, which includes voluntary shift swaps and short-notice availability. As we have discussed on numerous occasions, if the weather turns—and in Britain, let us be honest, that is not a small variable—a pub expecting a busy day may suddenly find itself very overstaffed. Under the Bill, cancelling those shifts could result in mandatory compensation.

I turn to Amendment 24. Another flaw identified in the Bill is that it presumes that, in every instance, a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift entitles the employee to compensation. This rigidity, however, does not account for the unforeseen events which, as noble Lords across the House will know, are a common occurrence throughout the working world. We have heard many examples of those. The assumption that the employer is always somehow at fault does not reflect the realities of working life. Our amendment therefore seeks to clarify and incorporate a degree of flexibility into the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out, we are proposing that the conditions that govern this entitlement to compensation should be subject to regulation in this case. There is a strong case to be made for this exception to our general principled dislike of the amount of regulation on which the Bill relies. As defined by the Secretary of State, this could be nuanced to ensure greater parity in the employer/employee relationship.

It is vital that we remember throughout these debates that we are discussing a piece of legislation that will profoundly affect workers and employers across the country. I am concerned that, in certain elements of this Bill, an ideological assumption is made about the relationship between the worker and the employer, which leads to absolute positions—another point that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised in a previous group. We all have a duty to ensure that the Bill meets the practical demands of the real workplace and does not just speak to such assumptions. This amendment would balance the relationship between the employer and the employee and would make sure that those who provide the work are protected, alongside those who undertake it. There is an essential symbiosis that needs to be maintained in order for us to have a thriving economy, with good jobs available for workers. We cannot fall prey to inflexible, absolute stances that upset this relationship. Our amendment seeks to correct this mistake in the text of the Bill.

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes in particular for her support for Amendment 28, because she raised unarguable points. The reasonable belief test outlined in the Bill raises several concerns. One of the most substantial is that the term “reasonable” is incredibly broad and creates a great deal of uncertainty for both workers and employers. As noble Lords across the House will know, this part of the Bill is designed to make working entitlements clearer and provide greater clarity and certainty to workers about the shifts they are working and the sort of income they can therefore expect to receive. However, the text in its current form is wide open to a massive range of interpretations and fails to provide clarity or protection for either workers or employers. How is either party to know what constitutes a reasonable expectation? Redefining this element of the Bill so that a formal confirmation of a shift is required for entitlement to compensation will provide clarity for both parties and will create a mutual responsibility between the worker and the employer to make expectations and duties clear.

It is my understanding that the Government intend this section of the Bill to place an obligation on the employer to clearly communicate shift assignments to workers in order to avoid misunderstanding. We agree that this should be the case, although the current text of the Bill uses language that is far too vague. If the Government want to promote the clear communication of shift assignments, surely providing for a formal commitment of work, rather than the belief of being needed, is the way to make sure that that obligation is met. Our proposal of a formal confirmation requirement would mean that both employer and employee know where they stand and what is expected of them and would address the shortcoming in the text as it stands.

I will say just a few brief words on Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Forty-eight hours seems to us a perfectly reasonable notice period regarding the time before a shift is due to start. A survey from the Association of Convenience Stores found that 90% of colleagues in the convenience sector report that they have never had a shift cancelled with less than 48 hours’ notice. Unless a reasonable notice period is reflected in the new requirements, it is likely to lead to a cautious approach to staffing by many hospitality and retail businesses. This would mean restricting operating hours and/or staff numbers during periods of uncertain footfall, rather than offering shifts that may ultimately be surplus to operational needs on the day, thus incurring compensation costs for late cancellations.

Moreover, there is a notable asymmetry in the Bill as drafted, because there are no reciprocal requirements for employees to provide notice when they are unable to work at a scheduled shift. That gap will have significant implications. One of the biggest challenges for employers, particularly in retail, is managing last-minute cancellations by employees due to illness, childcare needs or other issues. When employers must find cover at short notice, how are they to meet the same reasonable notice requirements that they themselves are held to?

We need common sense in this legislation, so I urge the Government to accept my and other amendments, or to be honest about why they will not.

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

My Lords, before I address the amendments in this group, I take this opportunity to refer to the letter I wrote regarding the algebraic formula. There are existing formulae in employment rights legislation—for instance, in relation to the calculation of the amount payable to an agency worker as calculated in Section 57ZH of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so this is not something new. We will, however, publish full and comprehensive guidance in due course, which I am sure many noble Lords will find fascinating.

This has been a very useful debate, and I am very grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords. We have covered several areas in this debate related to the amendments tabled. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in his Amendment 21A, is seeking to make changes to the period of notice deemed reasonable for cancellation of or change to a shift for agency workers. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, in Amendment 22, is seeking to make changes to the right to reasonable notice of shifts for directly engaged workers. The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Fox and Lord Goddard of Stockport, are seeking to make changes to the right to payment for short-notice shift cancellations, movements and curtailments in Amendments 24, 27, 28 and 29.

Before I address each of these amendments in turn, let me share some analysis that the Living Wage Foundation did in 2023. It suggested that 59% of workers whose hours vary from week to week, which includes zero-hours and low-hour workers, receive less than a week’s notice of shifts, with 13% receiving less than 24 hours’ notice. The vast majority of respondents—90%—stated that they do not receive full payment when their shifts are cancelled unexpectedly, 74% receive less than half, 51% receive less than a quarter and 26% receive no payment. Further analysis, from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, suggests that approximately 33% of UK employers who use zero-hour contracts compensate workers for shifts that are cancelled with less than 24 hours’ notice, with 48% of employers responding that they do not.

I turn first to Amendment 21A. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, says in his explanatory statement that this amendment

“seeks to define a reasonable maximum period of temporary work for agency workers in primary legislation”,

which

“will help remove any uncertainty for businesses worried about genuine temp work being caught in the new zero-hours regulations”.

The noble Lord seeks to achieve this by providing that the period of what is presumed to be reasonable notice for agency workers must be no greater than 24 hours. This would mean that it would be presumed reasonable if an agency worker receives 24 hours’ notice, but unreasonable if they receive less, so only in those latter situations would the agency or hirer have to prove that the period of notice was still reasonable in the circumstances.

I am not clear how this amendment would achieve this. The amendment would be made to Clause 2, concerning rights to reasonable notice for directly engaged workers, and appears to prevent workers being given more than 24 hours’ notice of cancellation or change to a shift. I reassure the noble Lord that the Bill provides for periods of notice “presumed reasonable” to be set in regulations for directly engaged workers and agency workers, as well as the factors that should be taken into consideration in individual cases.

Following consultation, it may be that the “presumed reasonable” periods of notice and the factors that should be taken into consideration will be different for agency workers and directly engaged workers. We intend to consult on what period is presumed reasonable, because it varies from case to case. Setting a period of reasonable notice in primary legislation would thus pre-empt consultation and not allow us to take into account stakeholders’ views.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

These are probing amendments; they are designed not for us to tell the Government what we think, but for them to tell us what they think. Simply knocking our argument down does not really achieve that objective. Secondly, as I predicted in a sense, the Government have set up a consultation process, but they have already ruled out the offer of 24 hours from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and disparaged 48 hours. What other things have they ruled out before the consultation has been completed?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

To a certain extent, we are not ruling anything in or out. We are basically saying that we will be consulting with all stakeholders. I take the noble Lord’s point—yes, the amendment says that, and I am responding to the amendment by saying that we will be undertaking further consultation and bringing forward regulations in due course.

I believe the noble Lord wishes instead to provide that a right to short-notice payment will arise only where the worker has received formal confirmation that they will work the shift from their employer, or, in the case of agency workers, hirer or work-finding agency. The Government’s view is that it would be overly prescriptive to specify that the right to short-notice payments arises only in cases where formal confirmation has been provided. While in many cases, a reasonable belief will arise only where the worker has received confirmation in writing from the employer that they will work the shift, different businesses have different practices when arranging shifts, and it would not be appropriate to adopt a universal, one-size-fits-all approach.

For example, when a worker agrees to work the shift after being contacted individually to work it, they would likely reasonably believe that their agreement corresponds to them being needed to work the shift, if it is standard practice that they will be needed to work despite additional confirmation not being provided. So, it is fair that the worker in this scenario should receive a payment if the shift is then cancelled, as they expected to work it and may have incurred costs preparing to do so. It would also be overly burdensome for the employers to have to provide confirmation where this would not otherwise be needed in order to be confident that they will have staff for that particular shift.

The Government believe that, in most cases, it will be clear to both the worker and the employer, or the agency worker and the agency or hirer, whether the worker was expected to work a shift. The Government will also publish guidance to help with interpretation. As a last resort, where disputes cannot be settled, employment tribunals will be able to determine whether a worker had a reasonable belief that they were needed to work a shift with a result that is fair. We wish to retain this flexibility to allow for the broad range of circumstances that may arise.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I apologise for intervening again. That is a really helpful response, because it confirms my fears. The less specific the supporting documentation is around what is reasonable, the more likely it is that this is going to go to a tribunal in order to define what is reasonable. We all know that this will take a great deal of time and a lot of money, and it will leave uncertainty probably for years before such time as a case is heard. Do the Government accept that, by being more specific in the first place, they can avoid this greater, costly uncertainty?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am not sure about that. Basically, we do not want to be too prescriptive and define what reasonableness is, because it varies from case to case and company to company. There needs to be that flexibility there.

Amendment 29 is a probing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, which seeks to add a power into the Bill to make regulations setting out factors that determine whether a worker reasonably believed they would be needed to work the shift. The Government tabled an amendment during Commons Report stage to ensure that a worker will not be entitled to a payment for a short-notice cancellation, movement or curtailment of a shift unless at some point prior to that they reasonably believed they would be needed to work the shift. This is considered appropriate because it is only where a person reasonably believes that they will work a shift that it is reasonable for them to prepare to work and incur costs as a result.

This amendment was necessary to eliminate the risk of workers taking cases to tribunals and making claims for shifts they did not reasonably believe they needed to work. This is particularly important in situations where an employer offers a shift out to multiple people, for example if they organise shifts through a large WhatsApp group. In cases like this, we want to be clear that people should receive cancellation payments when they are told they are not needed at short notice only if they reasonably believed they would work the shift in the first place.

For example, as set out in the Explanatory Notes, if there is an established practice of “first come, first served”, and an individual says they will work a shift after they have seen that another individual has already done so, they should probably not expect to work that shift. Even where a shift is offered only to one worker, they should still reasonably believe they will work it in order to be eligible for a short-notice payment. For example, if an employer offered a shift four weeks in advance, and the worker accepted the shift only two hours before the shift, it seems less likely they should expect actually to work that shift.

These are the kind of scenarios the Government considered when making the amendment; however, there are other scenarios where issues about this may arise. The Government wish to avoid being overly prescriptive by setting out factors in regulations, given the range of scenarios where this may be relevant. Instead, the Government consider it more appropriate to leave it to tribunals to determine on a case-by-case basis and we want to ensure that tribunals maintain flexibility to do so as they consider appropriate.

Before I conclude, I will answer the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about reasons outside of employers’ control. With better planning, employers need not cancel as many shifts, but it is not right that, when there is uncertainty, the entire financial risk rests with the workers. We really need to have a fair balance, and the Bill offers exemptions as a possibility for that. We will consult on that; however, any exemptions are likely to be narrow, as we do not believe that workers should take the whole financial hit.

I hope that I have been able to persuade all noble Lords and provide assurances on the Government’s wider commitment to consult with stakeholders and businesses. I therefore respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Is the Minister really saying that the points that we were making are related only to employers’ bad planning? How on earth are they supposed to plan for natural disasters, floods and so on? Secondly, I apologise for using the wrong reference to the Bill, as the Minister helpfully pointed out. He also helpfully pointed out that much of the Bill is being written on the hoof, so I would be very grateful if he would commit to stop producing new iterations of the Bill, which are ever expanding.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble Lord will be happy to hear that I will consult with everybody as widely as possible, including him. We can have further conversations to explain the purpose of the Bill and why we are doing it. We are not doing this in isolation. I believe that the Bill is pro-business and pro-worker, and we need to get that message across to him and other noble Lords.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

On a number of occasions, the Minister set out that the Government are consulting. What is the timetable for that consultation, and when can we expect the results from it?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Although the noble Lord expects me to give him a specific timeframe, I cannot do so now. I will consult with my officials and come back to him.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

On the first day in Committee, we already discussed the implementation plan of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. We then moved on to discuss the draft implementation plan, and the noble Baroness gave us a commitment. Can the the noble Lord, Lord Leong, update that commitment? By when will we see the draft implementation plan?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I give the noble Lord my commitment that it is very much a work in progress.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

I want the Minister to explain something. He has refused to set the definite hours in which this needs to be done. He said that that would be prescriptive and that the tribunal will determine whether the matter is reasonable. Is it not quite odd to rely on the tribunal to execute what noble Lords are trying to suggest in their amendments? Should not the Bill itself include those hours? If you do not want to be prescriptive, you can say, “Up to 24 hours”, or, “Up to 48 hours”, which means that they do not have to go all that way—that is slightly less prescriptive. I am baffled that the Minister wants the tribunals to enter into these matters. He and I know that they take a long time and cost a lot of money. Why is he legislating to open a door in this area to tribunals, which everybody should try to avoid?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his intervention. I can say only that I thought we were all agreed that flexibility is a good thing, and I am sure we do not want anything in the Bill that would restrict either an employee or an employer from making a reasonable judgment on a case-by-case basis. On that, I rest my case.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his analysis of my amendment. I certainly do not intend to press it today, but I very much look forward to taking up the issues when we sit down with the team to discuss lumpiness.

On the noble Lord’s preference for keeping “reasonable” broad, I can see the attractiveness of that. If a business is wiped out by a flood, postponing employees’ work for the next day at zero notice but saying, “We’ll want you in the day afterwards so you can start the clean-up” would presumably be reasonable. At the same time, giving very little notice when it is obvious that more notice could have been given would obviously be unreasonable. But allowing the whole pattern of this to be developed slowly through individual cases in tribunals does not seem to be the right way of going about it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

23: Clause 3, page 22, line 32, after “description” insert “that requires the employer to make some work available to the worker”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is being made to bring the amended provision into line with other provisions in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

25: Clause 3, page 23, line 20, leave out from “given” to end of line 25 and insert “—
(i) less than a specified amount of time before the earlier of when the shift would have started (if the shift had not been moved, or moved and curtailed) and when the shift is due to start (having been moved, or moved and curtailed);(ii) on or after the start of the shift;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 3 that expands the meaning of the movement of a shift.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

30: Clause 3, page 26, leave out lines 19 to 25 and insert—
“(6) The duty in subsection (2) is to be taken not to have applied if—(a) the employer pays to the worker an amount in relation to a number of hours that is at least equal to the amount of the payment that the employer would have been required to make to the worker under section 27BP(1) in relation to the same number of hours but for regulations made under subsection (1)(c), and(b) the payment is made on or before the day on which the payment under section 27BP(1) would have had to be made if the employer had been required to make it.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes the date by which a payment must be made in order for the duty to give a notice under proposed section 27BR(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to be disapplied.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak to this group of amendments, which seek to clarify the framework governing agency workers, and I have some sympathy with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on this matter. It seems to me that a third person looking into this process will see the Labour Party trying to protect employees and give them 100% rights and the Conservatives trying to ensure that small and other businesses have a level playing field to employ, create jobs and grow the economy, which I thought was the Government’s objective. I wonder why, with this employment Bill, we cannot get a little closer to dealing with the mechanics.

The answer that the Minister gave to my probing amendment baffled me. I wanted to get up to ask him to explain what he said to me. Millions of people who listened to it or who read Hansard tomorrow will not have a clue. As my lumpy noble friend has said in previous debates, we seek clarity before the Act comes into power. We need to know these things. I spent four years on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The watchword on that committee was quite clear: do not give Ministers unfettered powers. What is in the tin of a Bill is what it says on the front of the tin of a Bill. I wonder whether this tin will say “tomatoes” but when you open it, you will have carrots—a problem for somebody that does not eat carrots.

Running through this group of amendments, we on these Benches are trying to bring the parties together to understand that it is a two-way thing. I have been a committed trade unionist for 25 years. I have also run a business and employed 20 people. Those two things are compatible, but they are complicated, because you have different pressures from a different standpoint. As with all legislation, we try to move it through by being sensible and finding common ground for what the trade union movement wants, what the Government want and what employers want. I had guests in yesterday who were asking about the Bill. I roughly outlined it, and they could not believe it. They employ 30 people. They said, “We can’t afford HR, we can’t afford lawyers, we can’t afford for people to take us to tribunals. We just want to employ people, make a small profit and grow the business”. I cannot understand how this has become so complicated.

On Amendment 33, concerning the interpretation of “reasonable notice” when shifts are offered to agency workers, the aim appears to be to require agencies to make offers promptly once details are confirmed by the hirer and all the checks have been completed. While this may be an attempt to bring greater clarity, I question whether that proposal and that language fully address the practical realities of agency work. The intention may be sound, but there is a risk of replacing one form of ambiguity with another. That said, for agency workers some degree of predictability and transparency is important and long overdue.

Amendment 36 introduces the idea of joint liability between work-finding agencies and hirers when a shift is cancelled or curtailed at short notice. There is merit in exploring whether a shared responsibility could lead to fairer outcomes, particularly when neither party should be able to shift all risk on to the other. Equally, it is important to consider how such provision would work in practice and whether it risks disincentivising the use of agency labour altogether.

Amendment 37 proposes that compensation should be triggered only when a shift has been formally confirmed, rather than relying on the more subjective “reasonable belief” test. I appreciate the effort to bring objectivity to a murky area, but workers should not be left guessing whether an assurance from an agency amounts to a genuine commitment. We need to understand how this might interact with the fast-moving nature of some temporary staffing such as seasonal work or that connected with the weather. Ambiguity in the current framework serves no one, least of all the workers.

Finally, Amendment 38 provides that the agency would not be liable to pay compensation where the hirer fails to give appropriate cancellation notice. This is arguably a fairer allocation of risk, as agencies should not be penalised for the failure of others. However, it must be clear that such changes would not weaken the overall protections intended for the worker.

While these amendments raise important issues around the treatment of agency workers, I am not yet convinced that they strike the right balance in all aspects. There is a risk that in seeking to impose clearer structures, we introduce new complexities and unintended burdens. I think that this is what the Government are trying to say. Nevertheless, the underlying objectives—clarity, fairness and accountability—are ones that we should continue to pursue. Any changes to the framework must support clearer obligations and deliver fairer outcomes, for the workers and for the agencies and hirers. If these amendments highlight anything, it is the pressing need for the Government to offer clarity and consistency in this area.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Goddard, for their contributions, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling the amendments in this group, covering Amendments 33 and 36 to 38.

Before I speak to these, I reassure all noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that the Government respect and appreciate all the amendments tabled by noble Lords. The whole purpose of this is to address individual amendments and see where the Government are coming from and how we can find a way forward. There are some things in noble Lords’ amendments that may not be required because the Bill already covers them elsewhere. We are trying our very best to address every amendment and we welcome noble Lords’ scrutiny of the Bill. I reassure noble Lords that we are not being flippant about any of these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Fox and Lord Londesborough, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Stowell, for their contributions, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling Amendments 62 and 63. These amendments cover the impact of the Bill’s zero-hour contracts provisions on the employment tribunal system and on specific sectors.

Let me place on record that the Government recognise the vast contribution that the hospitality, retail and health and social care sectors make to the nation’s economy, and that they employ millions of people. I will give some examples. The hospitality sector currently employs 330,000 people on zero-hours contracts, which makes up 28.9% of the workforce. The retail and wholesale sector employs close to 90,000 people, equating to 7.8% of the workforce. The health and social care sector employs 190,000 people, contributing 16.5% of the workforce.

Zero-hours contracts offer flexibility for some workers, but evidence indicates that they have been exploited by certain UK companies, leading to job insecurity and limited work rights. This pro-business, pro-worker Bill aims to address these issues by effective enforcement and by closing the loopholes, to ensure fair treatment for all workers so that we can grow our economy.

Amendment 63 seeks to insert a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of the zero-hours provisions in the Bill on specific sectors of the economy within six months of the passage of the Bill. As the Committee will know, the Government have already published a very comprehensive set of 27 impact assessments, spanning close to 1,000 pages. These are based on the best available evidence of the sectors likely to be affected by these measures. As mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, the RPC’s opinions refer to the evidence and analysis presented in the impact assessment and not to the policy itself. Our impact assessments provide initial analysis of the impacts that could follow. We will therefore be updating and refining them as we further develop the policy and continue consultation and engagement.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Can the noble Lord respond to the red rating which the RPC has given the Government’s impact assessment? Are the Government continuing discussions with the Regulatory Policy Committee to try to reverse that red rating, to meet the necessary requirements that the Regulatory Policy Committee imposes on all Governments? When will we see an end to the red rating and an acceptance that the Government have learned from the experience and judgment of the RPC?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. This impact assessment will continue. I will be mentioning later in my speech that there will be further impact assessments. Regarding his specific point about the RPC’s rating, I will write to him.

We recognise the importance of ensuring that the impacts of these policies on workers, businesses and the economy are considered, and that analysis is published outlining this. We already intend to publish further analysis, both in the form of an enactment impact assessment when the Bill secures Royal Assent and further assessments when we consult on proposed regulations, to meet our Better Regulation requirements. In addition, we are committed to consulting with businesses and workers ahead of setting out secondary legislation, as we have said on previous groups, including those from the sectors listed in the amendment.

Amendment 62 would insert a new clause to require the Secretary of State to undertake and publish a review of the impact on employment tribunals of the zero-hours provisions in the Bill. The detailed package of analysis, to which I referred a moment ago, also includes an illustrative impact assessment of the Bill’s measures on employment tribunal cases. We intend to refine this over time by working closely with the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service, ACAS and wider stakeholders. We recognise the importance of assessing the impact of these policies on the enforcement system and have worked in partnership with these organisations throughout policy development.

We already intend to publish further analysis, both in the form of an enactment impact assessment when the Bill secures Royal Assent and further assessments when we consult on proposed regulations, as I mentioned earlier. In the meantime, the Government are taking various steps to increase capacity within the employment tribunal system. For example, ACAS currently provides information to employees and employers on employment law, and early conciliation for potential employment tribunal claims. It also offers post-claim conciliation. The Government have taken various steps to increase capacity, such as the deployment of legal caseworkers and recruitment of additional judges.

HMCTS continues to invest in improving tribunal productivity through the deployment of legal officers to actively manage cases, the development of modern case management systems and the use of remote hearing technology. We are committed to looking at what more we can do in this area, working with the Ministry of Justice and wider stakeholders such as ACAS, as I just mentioned. We are already helping many employers and workers to reach settlement before they need to go on to a further hearing.

Our work will also include looking at opportunities for the fair work agency to take on enforcement, where that would help both workers and businesses reach resolution more quickly without needing to go to an employment tribunal.

I refer to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about gaps in the Bill. The Bill does not have any gaps. Some elements of the Bill await engagement or future engagement and consultation with stakeholders, so that we can ensure that the policies work for all involved.

I hope I have reassured your Lordships and that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I am delighted that consultations are occurring but, as legislators, we are asked to vote on a Bill without having seen the consultations. The Minister can tell me that there are no gaps because it will all be done for us. I do not know why we do not sack ourselves; what are we doing, sitting here, reading through line by line in Committee and discussing a Bill that we are told not to worry our little heads about? Those are the gaps.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

First, I did not say “little heads”. It is important that we continue to have conversations with stakeholders. Most noble Lords know, and I am sure the noble Baroness knows, that employment law includes a lot of regulations. Previous employment legislation puts further regulations in place. It is important and right that we speak to a wide group of stakeholders, businesses, workers, trade unions and everybody involved in this, so that we get it right.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

One last thing: to be frank, I want the Government to speak to wider groups of stakeholders than the official bodies that represent people. It is simply that it should have been done before the Bill was brought to us. I want it to be noted on the record that wide consultation work should have been done, but the Government should not have brought legislation that could have unintended consequences that damage workers’ rights, while they proclaim that it will save workers’ rights. If they had not done the consultations, they should never have brought it to Parliament to be discussed.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Baroness has said. The Bill has gone through the other House and been scrutinised line by line. We have also taken the point on board here and we will continue with further consultation.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

When I talked about taking the Bill on a holiday, I was not joking; I was serious, and it would be quite nice if the Minister would take it seriously and respond.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I take the noble Lord’s point. At the rate the Bill is going, we may reach recess before we come back again to discuss it further.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, that was a very significant admission by the Minister, for which we thank him. We will need the recess to rethink quite a lot of the Bill.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that this is a gap-filled Bill. I know that the Minister is told in his brief to say there are no gaps, but there are gaps. Wherever you look in the Bill, there is further work to be done before the Government will say what they will do. It takes huge powers—Henry VIII powers—to amend primary legislation through statutory instruments. That is a hugely significant step, and we as a reasonably sensible Chamber cannot possibly allow the Government to get away with that.

You cannot get away with saying to Parliament, “We’re not going to give you the detail of what we’re going to do. Indeed, we’re not going to tell you what we’re going to do, because we’re going to consult and then we will do it by statutory instrument”. That is not the way to legislate. The contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has been very helpful. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for reminding us about the creative industry—the gig industry.

As the noble Baroness reminded us, we have to have a relevant impact assessment so that Parliament can see what effect the Bill will have on a rapidly changing workforce. The workforce has changed dramatically over the last 15 to 20 years and the modern landscape has changed substantially.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I appreciate what he has said. We are all for parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill—we welcome it. We welcome every single amendment and clause being scrutinised. The Government believe that the delegated powers in the Bill are necessary. I am pleased, as the noble Lord will have noted, that the DPRRC found it

“heartening that in a Bill with so many … powers it has only found four on which to raise concerns”.

The Government will respond formally in due course to the DPRRC.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I just happen to have the report of the DPRRC here, and it does raise serious concerns. One of the concerns it has constantly raised about all Governments is that they should not amend primary legislation by secondary legislation. They should be upfront about what they are going to do, and change.

It may well be that the Minister will take great comfort in the fact that there are only 18 black lines of criticism—18. I hope that he will take the advantage that has been given to him on all sides to take the Bill away and try to find a better solution.

We must not forget that the Bill I originally saw at Second Reading in the House of Commons has changed substantially: 160 amendments were tabled on Report in the Commons. They were not scrutinised line by line—they could not be, because they were produced at the last moment.

The Government have to recognise that, as my noble friend Lady Stowell said, it may well be that the Bill is going to disincentivise a whole range of employment situations, which is going to have a massive impact on the whole employment scene. It may well be that my noble friend is right that it is going to create more problems. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already got a major concession concerning the utilisation of the recess, but we need to pause and say to the Government, can we now see the overall impact assessment and, in particular, have an undertaking that they will continue to scrutinise carefully the effect of all this legislation on the employment market before it is too late?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I just want to clarify that we are still sticking to seven days, and the recess I mean is the Whitsun Recess at the end of this month. It will come back.

Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority

Lord Leong Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the legislation establishing the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority will account for the principle of separation of powers regarding its standards-setting and enforcement functions by having independent committees for each area.

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

My Lords, as announced in the King’s Speech, the Government intend to publish the draft audit reform and corporate governance Bill in due course. The Government’s aim is to modernise the Financial Reporting Council’s framework for standard-setting and to uphold the principle of the separation of powers in the establishment of the audit, reporting and governance authority. It would not be appropriate to anticipate the contents of the Bill in advance of its publication. However, the Government agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, that transparency and due process should be at the forefront of standard-setting processes.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I thank the Minister—I think that his answer was yes. The Takeover Panel had to separate itself as a result of the Human Rights Act 1998, and it is long overdue in the field of audit and accounting. Will it be clear in the legislation that the enforcement side should not rely on the same historic legal advice as the standards side on a “true and fair” view? The FRC has relied on controversial legacy legal opinions on a “true and fair” view that were obtained when the big four had significant sway over the FRC and elsewhere. We need to know that ARGA should mean the end of systemic vested interests, including benign vested interests and groupthink, and marking its own homework.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, the Financial Reporting Council has put in place transparent procedures which ensure a separation between decision-making on standards and enforcement. The draft Bill will continue the transition of the FRC into a revamped regulator—ARGA—with powers for the setting of standards, including on accounting, reporting and audit. Decisions to open an investigation under FRC enforcement schemes are taken by the Conduct Committee. Once an investigation has opened, case decisions are taken by the FRC executive council or its deputies based on the recommendation from the independent case examiner, which plays no part in standard-setting.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, it is fundamentally wrong that a body funded and populated by corporate and audit industry interests makes the rules which affect distribution of income and risks. Its cognitive capture means that Whitehall reforms are neglected. To take just one example, the audit partner of PwC spent just two hours on the audit of BHS. There are still no disclosures about the audit time budgets, composition of audit teams or lists of questions asked by auditors. Why is the Minister not willing to seek the immediate disclosure of these facts?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. As we know, the UK has certain accounting standards, such as GAAP and the international financial reporting standards. These standards are non-mandatory. However, the Companies Act is very clear that a true and fair view of the accounts must be stated. That is a very high standard, but it is up to the individual or the committee of the company as to what should be reported in the accounts. This new Bill will set much higher standards for companies to abide by.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, can the Government provide assurances that the powers granted to ARGA will not create an overly burdensome regulatory environment that discourages investment in the UK?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. At the end of the day, we would like any regulator to perform the work but not to overburden SMEs or, for that matter, to stifle growth, which is the Government’s number one priority.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, the creation of a new auditing authority was first mooted in 2018 under the last Government. Despite numerous statements that this is a priority, firm after firm has collapsed, raising new concerns about the adequacy of the UK’s auditing arrangements. While it is of course important that we get this right, can my noble friend reassure your Lordships’ House that we will not have to wait another seven years before we make progress?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend is right to point out the length of time that it has taken to reach this point. Let us not forget that the collapse of BHS and Carillion caused havoc in the country. It was a wake-up call, when 11,000 people lost their jobs in BHS and 30,000 people lost their jobs in Carillion. Improving auditing standards is an important step, not least to better inform lending and investment decisions. I hope my noble friend will take heart from the fact that this was included in our manifesto commitment and in our first King’s Speech. We look forward to the proposals receiving pre-legislative scrutiny in due course.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my declaration of interests. I thank my noble friend for his answers to the questions, but my heart sinks when he talks about presenting the Bill “in due course” and when he will not even tell us what is actually going to be in it. One area that may be covered in the Bill is the regulation of the actuarial profession. At the moment, we have planning blight. Will he please expedite the process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question and for all the work he has done in the actuarial sector itself. Let us not get ahead of ourselves. The Government are committed to publishing a draft Bill in this Session of Parliament. Until such time, it is important that we do not pre-empt the contents of the Bill.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the Chancellor has written to other regulators encouraging them to look at ways to help the economy to grow and be more competitive. What are the plans in this area for encouraging growth and competitiveness?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point. It is important that, whichever regulator we have, it is effective. Currently, the regulator has some weaknesses in its powers; the new regulator will, I hope, address those weaknesses. It is important that, when anyone looks at the accounts, investors have confidence to make investment decisions. That will drive business and growth.

[Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)]

My Lords, late last year, the chief executive of the Financial Reporting Council said of the transition to an audit, reporting and governance authority:

“It’s long overdue. It’s the right thing to do. It may sound a bit boring and bureaucratic, but it’s really important”.


Given the highly technical nature of this area, publishing a draft Bill makes sense. However, can the Minister confirm that this process is being used for genuine scrutiny and not to kick proposals into the long grass?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. It is true that these reforms are long overdue, which is why this Government are working on them at pace. My noble friend will understand that I cannot pre-empt any pre-legislative scrutiny process for either the content of the draft Bill or the timing of its introduction. However, we are fully committed to delivering these changes and doing so in a way that ensures that parliamentarians, businesses and wider stakeholders are part of the journey.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister set out some of the recent scandals that have occurred. Can he tell us how many people have gone to jail over those scandals and whether the proposed legislation will hold these people to account?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very important point. I do not know whether anyone has been sent to jail, but I will find out and write to him. It is important that noble Lords recognise that the current regulator has limited powers. The new regulator will have additional powers to ensure that directors are held responsible for their fiduciary duties. It is important that we get it right and that we consult widely, but, at the same time, we do not want to overburden SMEs and other businesses with the new regulator. We are taking our time to make sure that we get it right.

Overseas Companies: UK-registered Subsidiaries

Lord Leong Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they provide support or advice to companies domiciled overseas who have set up a UK-registered subsidiary through which to bid for public sector work.

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

My Lords, before answering the noble Lord’s Question, I wish everyone celebrating a happy St Valentine’s day—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Wrong day. I wish everyone a happy St Patrick’s day.

The Government provide guidance on GOV.UK to companies seeking to engage in public sector work, including those domiciled overseas which establish a UK-registered company. Additionally, the Government encourage open and fair competition in public procurement, and UK-registered subsidiaries of foreign companies are treated in the same manner as domestic businesses.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer. I agree that it is essential that transparency is key to all of this, especially in the defence and security sectors, where I am sure the Minister would agree that a level playing field is absolutely necessary. However, are the Government aware that some non-UK enterprises with only a token presence in the UK seek defence and security work here, and that some of those firms are domiciled in foreign states which actively exclude British companies from competing for contracts under that state’s control? What assurances can the Minister give that British contractors are not the victims of such unacceptable commercial discrimination?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the question. The UK’s international obligations require us to treat suppliers from other countries on an equal footing with UK suppliers in procurements which are covered by trade agreements with those countries and under WTO arrangements. The requirement for fair and open competition is a two-way street, as it gives UK suppliers access to public procurement opportunities overseas, which is worth close to £1.3 trillion. If the noble Lord has a particular case in mind, perhaps he could speak to me, and I will refer it to officials in the department.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, noble Lords will recall that, when the Covid pandemic broke out, the contract for setting up local testing services was given to two multinational companies, one of which had its headquarters in Miami. Not surprisingly, it put an awful lot of the local testing sites in the wrong places because it had no local knowledge. In awarding public contracts, can the Government be sure that they take issues like that into account? Can they ensure that companies which have most of their work overseas have a proper presence and pay the appropriate level of tax in this country?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. If we have a free trade agreement with a particular country then we have to follow international obligations by allowing foreign companies which have got an office registered in the UK access to public procurement. Obviously, following Covid, the Government are committed to using every means possible to recoup public money lost in pandemic-related fraud and contracts that have not been delivered. The Government are determined to ensure that we go after any contracts that have been committed to under some kind of fraud case. The Government have appointed Tom Hayhoe to be the Covid Counter-Fraud Commissioner, and he will use every lever to go after any such fraudulent contracts.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, following on from the initial Question, what assistance can Ministers give to British-registered SMEs in procuring public sector contracts?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. It is important that SMEs have fair access to public contracts, which drives economic growth and the strength of public supply chain requirements. All central government departments, including executive agencies and departmental bodies, must set a three-year target for direct spend on SMEs from 1 April this year and a two-year target of direct spend for voluntary, community and social enterprises from 1 April 2026, and they have to report this annually. This is good news for SMEs.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, further to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, as the Minister knows, I have raised on a number of occasions the question of what action is being taken by the Covid Counter-Fraud Commissioner to recover money from those people who defrauded the Government during the Covid epidemic by providing equipment and other supplies that were not used, and particularly those who used the VIP lane. Members of Parliament and Members of this House were involved in that. We need action quickly; what action has been taken?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. As I mentioned in my earlier answer, the Government have appointed Tom Hayhoe as the Covid Counter-Fraud Commissioner. He will work across all government departments and will draw on the expertise of the Public Sector Fraud Authority, the Government Commercial Function and the Department for Health and Social Care, and will use every means possible to recoup public money lost in pandemic-related fraud and contracts that have not been delivered.

There is evidence to suggest that our standing within international public procurement has been diminished because of what happened during Covid. I assure my noble friend that the Procurement Act 2023 has improved and strengthened public procurement and will prevent all VIP lanes in the future. Section 42 of the Act will ensure that public contracts awarded via direct award will be for only a limited time.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, on the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about value, for any country that we have an FTA with, regardless of how restrictive its domestic procurement laws are, we have to afford it full access under our liberalised procurement laws. This is a concern. The Minister said he would be very happy to look at this, and I am glad he would. I had an amendment to the then Procurement Bill under the previous Government to try to prevent this, but it was knocked back by the previous Government. If the Minister has an open mind on how to resolve the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, could it include looking again at the amendment I tried to persuade the previous Government to adopt?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

What a question. I am afraid I was not in the House when what is now the Procurement Act was going through. Nevertheless, we will bring the noble Lord’s concern to officials in my department.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, following my noble friend’s Question, does the Minister’s department have a list of countries in which UK companies are not allowed to bid for public procurement projects? What conversations are the Government having with these countries’ Governments?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that point. The Procurement Act 2023 allows, for the first time ever, the Government to have a list of companies that are debarred from submitting bids for any public contracts. That said, there has always been an exclusion list of companies that have committed fraud or anti-competitive practices. This is done by each individual department. Companies bidding for this will be told that they will not be successful because they are excluded from contracts. We have come a long way from exclusion to debarment, and this list is now in the early stages of being compiled.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister satisfied with the criteria deployed in having companies available to tender for public sector work, bearing in mind the failure of a number of leading companies over a number of years that appear to still be available to tender on the Government’s list?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

That was probably before the Procurement Act. Under the Act, companies that have been excluded will not be allowed to bid for any government contracts. Any companies found to be bid rigging will be debarred from bidding for any public contracts. We have come a long way. The Act has just come into force. Let us allow the Act to take its place and ensure that, whoever bids for the contract, they do so with the value for money that the Government are looking for.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, is the issue of companies domiciled overseas which have set up a UK-registered subsidiary likely to feature in the upcoming potential trade talks with the United States of America? If so, what will the UK Government’s position be?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

As I said in my earlier answer, if there is a free trade agreement with a particular country and it is a member of the WTO, we cannot prevent any other companies that are domiciled overseas with a registered company bidding for public contracts. Likewise, we would not want British companies to be debarred from bidding for international contracts, which amount to around £1.3 trillion.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, why is Fujitsu still being allowed to bid for government contracts when it has made no substantial contribution towards the costs and hardship that it caused as a result of the Horizon scandal?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The noble Lord is trying to tempt me to answer a question that is beyond the scope of this Question. The contract that was awarded to Fujitsu is not a new contract but a continuation of a contract. I do not have the details before me, but I am happy to write to the noble Lord.

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.