Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Leong and Lord Fox

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I think the Minister is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, this committee is so long-winded that important and breathless regulation could not be made and, on the other hand, the regulations will be so small and insignificant that this committee does not need to observe them. It is either one thing or the other—and if there are emergency regulations, I am sure that we can put in place a process to necessarily short circuit and get that before your Lordships’ House quickly. So, the idea that somehow this would hold up vital regulation that that the country is waiting for overnight is something of an overstatement of the process of regulatory development.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I said earlier that we will look at this on a case-by-case basis. 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.

On the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, although parliamentary oversight is crucial, requiring the sunsetting and renewal of regulations under Clause 1 would create legislative gaps and undermine regulatory certainty. This is particularly for essential product regulations that protect consumers or for products where their design, production and installation may take over a year. Ensuring consumer safety is a constant, ongoing concern. We also have to ensure that businesses have certainty. Having a sunset clause will not give certainty to businesses.

As I have explained, these are also highly technical regulations, covering matters as detailed as the formulae for measuring outdoor noise, for example, and I am not sure it would be a good use of parliamentary time to re-examine such specific matters on an annual basis.

Similarly, Amendments 40, 41, and 131 from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, ensure that regulations incorporating EU law will be subject to parliamentary debate, with consideration of constitutional impacts. As Members of the House will be aware, a duty to assess the impacts of any new legislation on trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain already exists, and the responsible Minister must make a statement considering any impacts on trade between Northern Ireland and the UK internal market. To provide additional assurances, it is considered that the powers set out in Clause 5(2) provide a proportionate and appropriate parliamentary scrutiny process, where the regulations will often be highly technical and routine in nature.

Noble Lords, including those on the DPRRC, have questioned the Government’s intentions as regards consultation on changes made under the Bill’s powers. Amendment 126, tabled by my noble friend Lady Crawley, for example, proposes to establish a duty for the Secretary of State to publish regulations in draft form, and consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

I fully appreciate the importance of consultation and industry engagement. My department and the Department for Business and Trade have excellent relationships with industry and consumer groups and will continue to engage regularly with any stakeholders before changes are introduced. Indeed, we currently have two calls for evidence in circulation seeking stakeholder input, one on the introduction across the UK of a common charger for all our mobile phones and other portable electrical and electronic devices, and the other on measuring noise from outdoor equipment.

We have not included a statutory consultation requirement to allow for proportionate engagement with industry and consumer groups depending on the significance of the changes. This ensures agility in responding to emerging risks or market developments to protect UK consumers, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. But I give a firm commitment to noble Lords that the Secretary of State will engage and consult with relevant stakeholders before legislating.

Amendment 33, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, refers to supply chains involved in products and the extent we need to regulate them. This can be complex, and it is important that we get it right.

Clause 2(3) sets out examples of the persons on whom product regulations may be imposed. However, this is not always clear. Depending on the nature of the product or its supply chain, product regulations may need to cover a whole variety of other actors involved in a product journey. For example, our regulations on the safety of lifts need to cover the people involved in their installation as well as their manufacture, and regulations on recreational craft cover private importers in addition to the usual supply chain actors.

We also need to ensure that rapidly changing business models cannot be exploited, allowing bad actors to exploit good business by defining themselves out of regulation. For this reason, Clause 2(3) is an inclusive list, not an exhaustive list, of persons on whom regulations can be imposed. Clause 2(3)(h) further clarifies that regulations can apply to anyone carrying out activities in relation to a product.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I beg your Lordships’ leave, and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for taking over his amendment here, but the wording of Clause 2(3)(h) is

“any other person carrying out activities”.

All the other items refer to the activity of the sale and marketing of that product. This does not refer to it but any person carrying out activities unspecified. For example, if I were repairing a product, would I be in the scope of the Bill? I could be, but I do not think that that is the purpose of the Bill. There needs to be some modification of that language—I think the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is shrewd in putting that up—which focuses on the development and marketing of the product. Otherwise, it is any person doing anything to it.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that point. As I see it, it is the whole manufacturing of the product itself. For example, 3D printers are getting cheaper and cheaper on the market, and anyone can make anything from a 3D printer. So we need a regulation that covers someone who sells the printer, someone who supplies the plastic that goes into the printer and whoever makes that. Unless the noble Lord is mistaken, perhaps I and officials could have a private conversation with him and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I think we better had.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

To conclude, I hope that I have been able to provide assurances on all these matters and I assure noble Lords that the Government have carefully considered—

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Leong and Lord Fox

2nd reading
Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. I will ask my officials and come back to the noble Lord on that request.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, asked about lithium-ion batteries. I am pleased to advise that, while we have been in this debate, Minister Madders, my colleague in the other place, is in Paris at the OECD global awareness campaign, which this year focuses on lithium-ion batteries. The UK and the Office for Product Safety and Standards have been leading on this campaign. The noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Fox, raised additional points about disposal. Ministers are referring proposals to consult on reforms to UK battery regulations before setting out next steps.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, asked why the UK wished to be able to continue recognising the CE marking. This Bill will allow the Government to choose to recognise updates to EU product regulation to provide continued regulatory stability and avoid extra costs for business where this is in our interests. It will also allow us to end recognition of EU requirements where it is in the interest of business and consumers. We presently recognise current EU regulations for a range of products. Legislation passed in May 2024 to continue CE recognition for 21 product regulations is estimated to save UK businesses £640 million over a 10-year period, largely from avoiding duplicate compliance and labelling costs. Provisions in the Bill allowing us to continue or end recognition of EU requirements will enable us to provide the certainty that businesses need to plan for the future and innovate, supporting economic growth. The UK and EU share information on trade, including changes to the trade and co-operation agreement.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, and several other noble Lords asked about the disposal of lithium-ion batteries. The Government are committed to cracking down on waste as we move towards a circular economy, where we keep the resources we use for longer and reduce waste. The existing product responsibility scheme for batteries and waste electronics makes producers responsible for the cost of end-of-life treatment. Under existing UK legislation it is already mandatory for all batteries placed on the market in the UK to be clearly marked with the crossed-out wheelie bin.

The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, asked why there have been no changes to legislation on product safety since our exit from the EU. I can reaffirm that this is real, hence bringing forward powers in this Bill to allow us to make changes before divergence happens and we fall further behind.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, asked why we cannot use existing powers. The new Bill powers are required to enable the Government to modernise and future-proof product regulation, ensuring that it is tailored to the needs of the UK. The powers in the retained EU law Act 2023 are limited, in that they can be used only to revoke and replace assimilated law and have other inbuilt restrictions—for example, secondary legislation that is made under REUL must be deregulatory. This means that we would not be able to use the powers to increase safety requirements to respond to new and emerging threats through further amendments and legislation which was not assimilated law before.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, also asked whether the Bill will make the UK a rule-taker or a rule-maker. We are definitely not a rule-taker. We are a rule-maker, and the Bill will provide powers to give the UK greater flexibility in setting and updating its own product-related rules, as well as enabling the UK to choose whether to recognise relevant EU products requirements. Any further changes made using these powers will be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. The noble Lord asked whether the Bill protects internal markets. The Bill will give us flexibility to ensure product regulation and metrology now and in the future. It is tailored to the needs of the UK as a whole. It will enable us to make changes to product regulation and metrology legislation that will benefit businesses and consumers.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, also asked about the Windsor Framework. In updating its regulation, the EU will be seeking to deal with many of the same challenges that the Bill will address: for example, online marketplaces and batteries. The Bill will enable a choice to be made as to whether it is in the interests of UK businesses and consumers for UK regulations to take the same or a similar approach, or indeed a different one.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked whether the Government will commit to a policy of alignment with EU chemical protections. This Government are committed to protecting human health and the environment from the risks posed by chemicals. We are currently considering the best approach to chemicals regulation in the UK separately to this Bill and will set out our priorities and next steps in due course. The noble Baroness also asked how the Bill will help the Government respond to emergencies.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Am I to understand that, if there is to be separate consideration for chemicals regulation, it will not be in this Session because it was not in the King’s Speech? So all those businesses that are currently struggling with where we are now have at least a year, and probably 18 months, to wait before any sense of a Bill—never mind that Bill becoming law.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am coming back to that in the later part of my winding speech.

National emergencies such as Covid-19 highlight the importance of ensuring that our product regulation framework allows for flexibility in times of national emergency. This enabling Bill will allow the Government, in response to an emergency, to temporarily disapply and modify product regulation while maintaining high safety standards, thereby providing a faster process by which critical products are able to reach the market in order to sustain an adequate supply of such products.

Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Debate between Lord Leong and Lord Fox

Monday 20th May 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for this important announcement. I do not think that the Minister was in your Lordships’ House when we discussed the retained EU law Bill. If he was, he was very wise not to be on the Front Bench at the time. As your Lordships will recall, we were marched forcibly three-quarters of the way up the hill only to be marched back down again.

This statutory instrument is very much indicative of the position that we arrived at after we had marched back down the hill and is infinitely more sensible than where we would have been had we enacted the original retained EU law Bill, and for that the Government and Ministers need some credit.

I have a slight concern—I may have misunderstood. My understanding is that the deadline for recognition of CE is pushed to one side and that CE will be recognised indefinitely, except the Government retain the right to impose non-CE regulations if they decide that they want to do so. That leaves an air of uncertainty, so it would be interesting to hear a response to that.

The Minister hinted at the overall future of CA. Industry has been pushing hard not to have a dual standard, and the department has done well to bow to that. However, the point that was not being made—which we were trying to make at the time—was that it would be expensive. It is good to hear that it would have cost half a billion pounds for industry to conform to that and it is glad that it did not have to do so. Why are we retaining CA? How much resource will the Government commit to the process of having a separate standard, even though the market will inevitably drive most of the players into the CE camp for accreditation? I would like some more clarity around the future of CA.

The Minister mentioned the product safety review. I think we would all like to know when it will be published, as it was promised some time ago and is still not among us. It would be really interesting to know when it will be. I have one final question around Northern Ireland. My assumption is that this solves any potential cross-border issues between the Republic and Northern Ireland, but could the Minister confirm that?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this SI and setting out its purpose and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his contribution. I, too, was not in the House when the retained EU law Bill was debated, although I read sections of Hansard in preparation for today’s debate.

It would be churlish of me not to welcome this instrument, which effectively extends indefinitely the looming deadline of 31 December 2024—a deadline already extended twice since it was first legislated for in 2020. Business will welcome this move. It will save it time and money by not having to comply with two different and, in some cases, largely completely overlapping regulatory regimes. Consumers will welcome this move too. It removes the potential double whammy of higher prices and less choice for GB consumers that would have resulted from some manufacturers deciding it was not worth their while or the cost to meet the additional bureaucracy of the UKCA regime.

Of course, the Government have welcomed their own move. It is estimated that this SI will save businesses more than £500 million in the next decade, as the Minister stated. At the risk of being churlish, I must observe that attempts to present this as an example of their being a great friend of business stretch credulity somewhat. One would not herald the captain’s decision to change course at the last minute to avoid sailing into an iceberg that everyone else knew had been looming for a long time as a “titanic success”.

This instrument will mean that businesses can now use either CE or UKCA markers when placing goods on the GB market—although not, of course, in Northern Ireland because of its unique situation. The Venn diagram of the CE regime and the UKCA regime will become concentric circles, with the former completely enclosing the later. Despite this, paragraph 6.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“The UKCA requirements which are not, however, treated as being satisfied by the above steps are the manufacturer’s obligations to … Draw up a UK Declaration of Conformity … and … Apply UKCA product marking”.


Perhaps the Minister can explain why this remains necessary for goods which are sold in the GB market. Is this not a textbook example of meaningless rubber-stamping?

Not unrelated to this, what is the Minister’s response to conformity assessment bodies that have raised concerns with the Department for Business and Trade that demand for their services in respect of the UKCA mark will fall due to this statutory instrument? How does he intend to work with the sector to support a domestic route to market for relevant UKCA marked products?

Finally, as the Minister knows, SMEs are always at the forefront of my concerns. They will have been disproportionately affected by the costs of now unnecessary preparation for conformity to a regime that was due to come into force in less than eight months’ time. While we welcome this SI, can the Minister say if there has been any assessment of the costs that will already have been incurred across different sectors, especially those with longer lead times, and SMEs in particular? There seems little value in trumpeting potential savings if the businesses that may have benefited have already scaled down, or even closed down, their export capacity.

While we welcome this sensible SI, I do hope the Minister can illuminate the Committee with answers to my questions.

Economic Growth (Regulatory Functions) (Amendment) Order 2024

Debate between Lord Leong and Lord Fox

Monday 15th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister is the latest government Minister to wade into the sewage debate, but having previously tried to crack a joke about wading into sewage, I will not do it again.

Having had that interlude, we have had a chance to reflect on some of the comments that the Minister made. Some of the tricks of good government are timing and self-awareness. Those two things are absent from the extremely maladroit introduction of this order. At the centre of it is the conflation of Ofgem, Ofcom and Ofwat. As we heard from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, these are very different markets. The communications market and the energy market are distinctly different from the privatised regional monopoly system which is the water industry. Because of that, the role of the regulator is substantially different. The idea, for example, of causing competition in the water market is irrelevant—there is no competition in the water market. This puts into focus the problem that is central to this order: it is inappropriate in the markets that it is seeking to address. That is at the heart of what your Lordships have said today.

We look forward to the Minister’s White Paper on competition. When the Truss Administration had their brief flurry, a whole bunch of stuff was said about growth and the “anti-growth coalition”. I am sure the Minister is smarter than the people who were using that language then. The role of growth in amongst the role of regulation is an important issue; the Minister is right to have broached it. On its seeking to influence the water market at this time—coming back to timing—this is not the moment to seek to rein back on regulation. This is the moment when we need to target regulation in the places where it is quite clearly breaking down.

The Minister sought to calm us about the effect of growth on environmental enforcement. Again, the noble Duke gave the lie to that issue by very clearly pointing out what I was going to point out in this document: that the two are very much conflated.

I will suggest a hypothetical issue: I am a regulator. I am about to implement an environmental order. This will undoubtedly affect the growth prospects of some companies in the region. Am I now inhibited by this order? The answer is: it seems so. Moreover, can the companies that receive the downside of this environmental order take it to judicial review? I believe they can. The Minister can confirm that or otherwise. So, at the very least, the environmental order is delayed.

We do not have a problem with the water industry restricting growth; we have the opposite. I cite my home river, the River Wye, as evidence of that. The unrestrained growth of the poultry industry has killed part of that river—not polluted it or made it a little bit dirty but killed it biologically. That is the effect of unrestrained growth. We need the opposite of what the Minister is talking about.

With these thoughts, I am very pleased that my noble friend has brought this amendment, and I am pleased to hear the contributions of your Lordships today. I hope the Minister will stand up and say, “We will set this aside”. If he does not say that, I hope he will say that these rules will be rewritten to make sure that the number one priority for the water industry is to solve the environmental crisis that is currently in our midst.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulation and all noble Lords who have spoken. Every day, we hear of sewage dumping. On average, a sewage dumping event now takes place every two and a half minutes. The lack of investment in our water systems over the past 14 years is a scandal that is increasingly hard to ignore. Billions have been extracted in shareholder dividends and millions in bosses’ bonuses, all while delivering a deteriorating system.

During the passage of the Environment Act, Conservative MPs had the opportunity to support a Labour-backed amendment that would have brought an end to sewage dumping. Of course, they did not do so. We should be extracting sewage from water supplies, not extracting value in unjustified dividends and overleveraged debt. Let us imagine the economic growth, the skilled jobs and supply chains that could have been created if, instead, this money had been funnelled into developing creaking infrastructure, repairing and upgrading pipelines, and preparing for the predicted increase in demand and increasing rainfall.

The Labour Party has long been making the case for the increasingly urgent need to invest for the long term and to improve quality in the short and medium term. So on this issue we agree with the Government that bringing these three regulators within scope of the growth duty will help to ensure they consider how best to promote growth in their sectors.

However, making the changes required by this instrument will obviously require dedicated resources within Ofcom, Ofwat and Ofgem. As the amendment to the Motion makes clear, these regulators already have a lot on their plates, so can the Minister indicate how they are expected to juggle this as well? Are the Government confident that the regulators have the capacity to deliver to the full extent that the order demands?

Like the regulators, we want to support businesses and stimulate the vital investment needed to ensure a quality service to current and future consumers. For example, Labour’s plan to establish “GB Energy” would create half a million new skilled jobs in the industries of the future, rebuild the strength of our industrial heartlands and reduce energy costs and carbon pollution. Labour is already thinking ambitiously about the long-term future of this country.

Given that the Government’s order is about long-term growth, could the Minister explain over what timeline they expect to see the benefits of the change, and over what timeline they will be reviewing its impact?

As far as Ofcom is concerned, the growth duty will also not apply to its regulatory functions under Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002, which concern mergers. In particular, it will ensure that Ofcom is not required to consider other factors when providing advice to the Secretary of State on the public interest considerations on media merger cases. Can the Minister explain the reasoning for that very specific exception?

In this regulator’s sector in particular, many noble Lords will know that I am passionately interested in the enormous potential for growth in our telecoms industry, especially in AI, but the world will not wait for us. We risk missing out on exploiting the potential commercial benefits from our world-leading research base if we do not have a clear industrial strategy, if we do not encourage and invest in tech start-ups and scale-ups, and if we do not develop a serious regulatory presence alongside the USA and the EU as global standards are being established.

To conclude, we support bringing the three regulators within the scope of the growth duty, but we regret—who could not?—the failure of the Government to prioritise the sanctioning of polluters and the cleanliness of waterways. Just last month, rowers in the world-famous boat race, some of the fittest people in the nation, fell sick because of their exposure to the water in the Thames. I would be hard pushed to invent a metaphor more apt to sum up why this Government have so comprehensively failed—on regulation, on public health, for young people today and in investing in their tomorrows. Labour stands ready to deliver the decade of national renewal that this country self-evidently needs.

While we support the regulation, we acknowledge the amendment to the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. We must address the sanctions needed against short-term profiteering by the CEOs of utility companies enriching themselves. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Code of Practice on Dismissal and Re-Engagement

Debate between Lord Leong and Lord Fox

Monday 25th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I regret that I did not have the pleasure of being present when the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, received its Second Reading a month or so ago. I clearly understand that the nature of that debate reflects very clearly on what we are debating today.

The Minister was not in your Lordships’ House when we debated the P&O issue. Had he been, he would have experienced outrage and hand-wringing, not just from these Benches but from the Benches behind him and indeed from the Dispatch Box itself. That outrage was felt across the whole of your Lordships’ House. As we have heard, this code was supposed to help embrace that issue and try to make sure that such outrages are not repeated. As we have heard in three well-made speeches from the Opposition Benches, we do not believe that this code comes close to doing that.

The code takes a very optimistic view of human nature: it infers that there are two willing parties with reasonable actions and beliefs. That is not the case that a code of conduct needs to deal with. When reasonable people negotiate with reasonable people, we do not need this code. This code is, essentially, how normal, reasonable people would act, and, as the Minister said, most companies are reasonable companies, and most employees operate with reason. That is why this code, in a sense, merely codifies what normal, civilised behaviour should be.

That is not what a code is for. A code is to deal with the people trying to operate outside normal, reasonable behaviour. On several occasions, the Minister used the word “ensure”. This does not ensure anything, and noble Lords do not have to take my word for it. Paragraph 12 says:

“A failure to follow the code does not, in itself, make a person or organisation liable to proceedings”.


In other words, any teeth it might have had in the first place have been removed by paragraph 12. I share the belief it really had no teeth.

Many other provisions in the code—for example, paragraphs 21 and 22—use the term “reasonable”. How would we test “reasonable” in this circumstance? In Section C, around information, I would be interested to know: what is reasonable? We then move to paragraph 27, which is about commercial sensitivity and confidentiality. In every case of fire and rehire, there will be commercial sensitivity. Therefore, it makes sure that no information ever gets put forward. I am old enough to remember when the United Kingdom was part of the European Union, and we were part of the European Works Council system. That excuse is not allowable within the European Works Council. There is a system within that whereby the works councils are brought into the confidence of the management about their intentions in such circumstances. This does not allow such reasonable behaviour to occur.

Given the genuine and heartfelt comments made opposite during the P&O issue, I am disappointed that this is the result. It is toothless, as the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, said on several occasions; it does not ensure that something such as P&O could never happen again. As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, put it, the 25% uplift is not worth a hill of beans when you look at the financial gain it has made by the actions it has taken.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the code of practice and express my gratitude to all noble Lords who have spoken.

Last week saw the two-year anniversary of the P&O Ferries dismissals, the highest-profile abuse of fire and rehire in recent years—but, sadly, not the only one. The Minister might say that the P&O case is not fire and rehire, but many will not agree with that sentiment. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Today the replaced workers are paid less than half the national wage, as my noble friend Lord Woodley referred to, in conditions that one described as like being in jail. Workers’ pay and conditions horrendously diminished. Meanwhile, the company and its parent, DP World, was awarded £230 million in UK government contracts between March 2022 and July 2023.

This injustice has driven me to extraordinary lengths: it has made me agree with the Member for Welwyn Hatfield, the right honourable Grant Shapps. When he was Secretary of State for Transport, he described the company as

“pirates of the high sea”.

I am even minded to agree with the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, who said that fire and rehire was

“unacceptable as a negotiating tactic”.

The code does nothing to prevent any employer treating workers in a shabby way in the months and years to come.

Noble Lords who have run businesses, as I have, know what it is like to face difficult financial decisions. We understand that, in extreme cases, sometimes the only way to continue operating is to consult with employees on renegotiating contracts. If the company goes bust, nobody wins; everybody loses their job. Only in that situation can fire and rehire possibly be justified. Yet in court, employers do not have to prove that the fire and rehire policy would mean the difference between the life and death of the business. That widely criticised omission acts as a cloak of unaccountability, permitting employers to present unscrupulous decisions as unavoidable. All the well-intentioned recommendations in the code—that the employer “take into account” employee objections; that they engage in “all reasonable steps”; and that they do not raise the spectre of job losses too early in the process—are, in effect, neutered by this loophole.

Furthermore, several noble Lords have referred to the potential sanctions—a 25% uplift in fines at the end of a long David and Goliath legal battle—that could be factored in as a cost of doing business, as the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Hendy, stated. We could see companies rewarding executives who are prepared to brush off a few bad PR headlines while making workers’ lives worse. That is appalling in principle and in practice.

The P&O Ferries example should serve as a warning; even the then Prime Minister Johnson thought so. The code does not prevent a race to the bottom; it could lead to a hollowing out of secure jobs. Roads paved with good intentions—whether labelled promises, pledges or non-binding codes of practice—lead only in one direction. It is the workers, threatened with either losing their jobs or accepting worse conditions, who end up feeling the heat. The code currently makes no reference to a necessary qualifying period of employment before it becomes applicable to an employee. Can the Minister tell the House whether the code is applicable from day one for all employees?

In light of the range of concerns raised from only 50 responses to the consultation, I hope that the Minister and the Government will address the shortcomings of the proposal. To that end, my noble friend Lord Woodley’s amendment sets out clearly why the Government should reconsider.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Debate between Lord Leong and Lord Fox

Report stage
Monday 11th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 60 is in my name. I was expecting to be ploughing a rather lonely furrow on this amendment, so I welcome the enthusiasm of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, particularly as it is based on such relevant experience and came with such authority. I thank her for that.

The Minister has been very open in our discussions on these issues, which focus on two areas: interoperability and standards, which are, of course, inextricably linked. One critical area to be clarified is the importance of vertical and horizontal interoperability and the fact that each requires different responses. Clause 20 covers vertical interoperability; for example, the promotion of the use of platforms as neutral distribution channels to market for all kinds of apps. The Bill does not explicitly include interoperability between an app and a platform that operates as a distributor and, in a network sense, among websites that compete with each other and with the platforms. This is horizontal interoperability.

The department’s view is that Clause 12 is wide enough to catch all of this. The Minister said in Committee that it is the department’s contention that defining interoperability is unnecessary because it considers it to be a “commonly understood technical term”. That is welcome, but it relies on a level of interpretation and inference by the DMU because the department’s interpretation is not clear by the letter of the Bill. As such, it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm the explicit inclusion of horizontal interoperability between websites in promoting competition. Will he please confirm that Clause 20(3)(e) will not limit conduct requirements to promote interoperability with a platform only, and set out how the Bill permits the DMU to consider requirements relating to interoperability in a range of contexts, including web browsers, apps, operating systems and websites?

As far as standards are concerned, I think we agree that there is a need for open and non-discriminatory international standards to support interoperability and promote the competition at which the Bill is so firmly targeted. That this is important is illustrated by the fact that Apple recently publicly threatened to block access to the open web from its devices. For there to be competition, the open web needs to interoperate with Apple and Google browsers. This is quite a serious point. This activity is controlled via W3C standards.

The amendment I have tabled is designed to be helpful. It ensures simply that the DMU understands its role in seeking to ensure that international standards bodies are promoting interoperability, both vertically and horizontally, and hence promoting competition. Given the central importance of standards to competition, my aim is to emphasise that this is not an add-on for the DMU but a core activity. I thought the Minister might be able to accept this amendment, but if he feels unwilling to do so, I feel sure that if he could put on record this important role for the DMU, it will be an important step forward, and I look forward to his response.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been illuminating to listen to the varied and valuable contributions from all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I thank all those who have risen to speak. As may be expected, a broad range of knowledge, differing views and important concerns has been shared and expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to Apple’s dominance and it not being prepared to comply with any digital legislation. This should make us mindful of what big tech is getting up to. One thing is very clear: there is a strong consensus in the House that legislation is needed to catch up with, and indeed anticipate, the rapidly changing digital landscape which even the most technophobic among us can no longer afford to ignore.

I shall speak specifically to Amendments 14, 15, 23 and 24 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Harding and Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for adding their names. The principle behind Amendments 14 and 15 is to ensure that the Competition and Markets Authority can tackle anti-competitive conduct in a non-designated activity, provided that the anti-competitive conduct is related to a designated activity. These amendments do not seek to hamper digital innovation but rather to create a pro-competition market in which consumer interests are safeguarded.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Supplementary and Incidental Provisions) Regulations 2024

Debate between Lord Leong and Lord Fox

Monday 26th February 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Those are laudable aim, Minister. Those of us who laboured long and hard into the night on the then Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill welcome the arrival of this statutory instrument. When we considered the other ones last week, I asked when the commencement statutory instrument was due. I think that this is what I was asking for, so that is good news.

I have nothing to add. As I say, we debated long and hard on the Bill, now the Act. The proof of the pudding will be in Companies House and how it gets motoring on its new mission. I know that the Minister and the department know this; anything that we can do together to help it get there is to the benefit of all of us. We wish this statutory instrument godspeed and we wait hopefully for the other 50-something that will come hard on its heels.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, as stated earlier, I declare my interest as a director of several companies, as set out in the register. I thank the Minister for clearly setting out this set of regulations. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox: we on these Benches are content to support this set of technical regulations and have nothing further to add.

Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Debate between Lord Leong and Lord Fox

Monday 26th February 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, we, too, welcome this statutory instrument in as far as it goes. When I saw that my friend the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was speaking, I knew that my speech would get shorter, because he has already covered much of the ground that I wanted to talk about. Late payment is just about the number one issue facing SMEs. If you listen to the organisations that represent them, it is the issue they always come back to. It will not be solved merely by transparency; we know that is the case. We have some transparency, but we are not getting solutions.

There is a culture in certain sectors. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, just set out, some sectors are worse than others. SMEs rely on a small number of large customers. The Minister said that publishing information would help SMEs to make informed decisions about whom they would work with. However, in many cases SMEs do not have the luxury of a decision about whether to sell their product or service to one company or another. That is the market and those are the businesses that operate; if there is a culture of late payment or retention in that business and, if those SMEs want to continue to trade, they have no choice about with whom they will trade. There is very little jeopardy for those companies that continue to practise late payment. That is the point the noble Lord made about enforcement.

I will make one other point about the building sector. Although it is a somewhat dated example, we can go back to 2018 and the Sandwell hospital project, which was managed and run by a company called Carillion. When that company went bust, it was very clear that its entire cash flow was managed through the late payment and retention of its contractors and subcontractors. The transparency situation has not appreciably changed since then.

A big issue that has to change is the Government’s view to their management of public procurement. The issue of late payment came up a number of times when we considered the public procurement Bill. Can the Minister ask his department what it can do, using the new Procurement Act, to help bolster enforcement on these issues? From our point of view, we would make it compulsory to sign up to a prompt payment code then seek ways to enforce it. Without that, the small improvement of this statutory instrument will continue to leave many of our small and medium-sized businesses in a position where their cash flow is used for the benefit of their customers’ cash flow.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I declare my interests, as set out in the register, as a director of several businesses and companies. I thank the Minister for setting out the regulations and welcome the Government’s campaign, declaring 2024 as the year of the SME.

I have advocated for provisions such as those provided by this instrument since long before I became a Member of your Lordships’ House. As a businessperson, I welcomed the original instrument’s introduction in 2017, and support the extended sunset clause and the expanded reporting requirements contained in this legislation.

As noble Lords have said, for too long and far too often, SMEs that have supplied goods and services to larger companies and public sector organisations have not been properly respected regarding payment terms. A relatively small amount of money for a large organisation can be, for many SMEs, a question of whether wages or rents are paid on time. It is stressful enough running a business, and late payments from large customers, whether through inefficient systems or the deliberate withholding of payments, are an all too common factor. Late payments can lead to additional borrowing costs for SMEs. Further, some SMEs may be reluctant to chase late payments for fear of jeopardising the business relationship. When payments have to be chased, good will, time and energy are unnecessarily wasted on both sides.

In tough economic times, as costs rise and margins are squeezed, SMEs are particularly vulnerable to cash-flow problems. Yet, in 2022, SMEs were owed an average of £22,000 in late payments. This has massive negative impacts on reinvestment, liquidity and market operation.

We know that we have a serious productivity problem in our economy. We can also agree that SMEs are the lifeblood of a healthy economy. So I am unsurprised that a consultation on these regulations last year strongly supported their extension and expansion. The expansion requires companies to publish additional information on both the proportion of disputed invoices resulting in payments exceeding the agreed times and the value of invoices paid late, in addition to the number of such invoices—an important improvement, in my view. It also requires companies to report on the percentage of invoices paid before 30 days, within between 31 and 60 days, and after 61 days or longer.

Registered Office Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024

Debate between Lord Leong and Lord Fox

Monday 19th February 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as someone who has spent a lot of his professional life working on annual reports, I have often had questions about GAAP, but the Minister will be pleased to know that I will not ask them today.

The four SIs before us are to be welcomed. They are steps on the way from our discussions on both the last economic crime Bill and the one before that. We are moving forward, in a sense. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, introduced what I call the Knighton collection of companies that were registered to a terraced house in the Welsh borders, not far from where I live—as I believe does the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. I would like some reassurance that the statutory instrument on registered office addresses would deal with that.

As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, eloquently set out, there are a lot of steps to go through to eliminate falsely registered companies. It comes back to the question of whether Companies House is capable of really handling this, ceasing to be a filing cabinet and starting to be an investigative organisation. To echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, it would be very helpful to have an update on how the huge cultural change that Companies House needs is going. Many of us were impressed by the team that we saw, but also a little frightened by the huge task that it has in front of it to make these SIs and the next 51—or however many there are—come to life.

I have some trepidation on the second of these SIs, on limited liability partnerships, because the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, seated opposite, is our Scottish legal expert. I wondered where Scottish partnerships come in, because the territorial extent of that statutory instrument is the whole UK. Where do Scottish partnerships sit within that?

The service address and principal office address regulations are useful and important too, but expose the central weakness that is still within our system. After all the work we did on the Bill, those with control still have the ability to hide that control. We welcome the Service Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations and the Principal Office Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations, but can the Minister set out, either now or in writing, how we are going to eliminate the cancer within this system of people obscuring the real ownership of assets to the authorities and wider society? With that, we welcome these four statutory instruments.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out these regulations and everyone who has spoken in this short debate. I will take these instruments one at a time.

Under the current system, criminals can—often by using data unwittingly shared or stolen and for sale on the dark web—fraudulently register an individual residential address as a registered office with Companies House, without the knowledge of the actual residents. Since 2011 it has been possible for companies to be incorporated within 24 hours for as little as £12, with Companies House making no checks on the veracity of the address. Once this has been done, the perpetrators can apply for credit, business loans and other financial arrangements. This fraud often does not come to light until the individual wants to apply for credit and finds that they are unable to do so, often resulting in considerable problems.

This instrument relates to where individuals have had their residential address hijacked. It allows the registrar to change the address to a default address and to strike the company from the register of companies if a genuine new address is not provided. It establishes criminal offences for companies and officers where they do not comply. We welcome the streamlining of this process and expansion of the registrar’s powers that this instrument provides, including that, as well as acting on the basis of applications, the registrar can when necessary act unilaterally based on any information in their possession to move swiftly to change a company’s registered office address without giving notice in advance.

However, I would like to know how the Government seek to protect and support victims of these fraudulent practices, as mentioned earlier by the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Fox. Can the Minister say how they will be informed of developments? Will victims be supported if issues continue for them beyond the changing of the registered address—for example, if they have negative notes or ratings on their credit file? If so, how will this be addressed?

Given that this is clearly a widespread practice, does the Minister have any information about provisions to actively check business addresses? There could be existing situations in which fraudulent addresses are in use but currently unchanged or undetected; they may not come to light until the innocent victims have their lives blighted by the discovery of a fraudulent registration of which they were unaware, as in the case in Wales that was mentioned. Does the Minister have accurate figures for how many addresses are registered? Surely it must be in the millions. If, as I suspect, it is on that scale, what analysis has been done on whether this instrument will create an influx of work for the registrar? Has resource been allocated for this?

I move on to LLP. This instrument will ensure that the reforms to company law made by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 also apply to the law governing limited liability partnerships. It will ensure that company law applies without arbitrary differences between companies and LLPs. It pertains to straightforward administrative amendments relating to a company’s name, registered office and email addresses, its directors, annual confirmation of accuracy on the register, information about persons with significant control and so forth. We support this legislation, which seems both reasonable and straightforward, and so on this occasion I do not have any further questions for the Minister.

I move on to the Service Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024. As many noble Lords will know from personal experience, directors and secretaries of companies and persons with significant control over companies are required to notify the companies registrar of their service address—that is, a location where documents may be deemed effectively served on that person.

This instrument empowers the registrar to change the registered service address to a default address nominated by the registrar where the registrar is satisfied that the registered service address does not meet the necessary legal requirements. The registrar may change the address by their own motion or on application and may also, at their discretion, change the address without notice or after a period for objections, the length of which may also be at the registrar’s discretion. Clearly, the situation in which company directors, secretaries and persons of significant interest could attempt to delay or evade being held to their legal responsibilities by providing non-compliant addresses would be unsatisfactory.

Carer’s Leave Regulations 2024

Debate between Lord Leong and Lord Fox

Tuesday 6th February 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, so much of life on these Benches feels a little like pushing water up a hill. If you will excuse me for mixing the medium, this was like pushing an open door; it really has been a delight. I feel very lucky because, as both the previous speakers pointed out, they have been operating in this field for decades whereas I, in a sense, picked this Bill up by luck. My friend, Wendy Chamberlain, in the Commons, won the ballot and chose this Bill to bring forward. As I am representing that particular department, I got the good fortune of sponsoring the Bill. I am very pleased, but also humbled, as I came late to this piece.

This is also, I think, the third Minister we have had during the course of the Bill. This, of course, allows me to repeat all the speeches I made to the previous Ministers as a novelty. The Minister’s explanation of the effects of the Bill were excellent. We all, in our different ways, understand the impact it will have on people’s lives and on employees’ lives.

The point I emphasise, though, is that it creates a conversation that carers can safely have with their employer for the first time on this subject. It means that carers who have been in the workplace can come out as carers in the workplace—because they have previously had to worry about whether it would affect their relationship with their employer. The Bill allows them to have a conversation where they can be safe to have that conversation in the place they are.

The points made about the benefits to the economy and the employer are huge. During the run up to this Bill, we talked to a number of large, medium and small employers that were already doing it voluntarily. They found that the benefits far outweighed the very small expense they had to stump up. Simply having to recruit someone is an extremely expensive exercise. We know there is a shortage of skills anyway, but to lose an employee because they have to stay at home and care for someone is a very expensive loss to a business, if the employee is a long-standing and well-established person.

The point about communication is vital. It is not just about communicating to the carers, who need to know this is available to them; it is also about communicating to the employers that it is now on the statute. I am sure the department has a plan, but it would be interesting to hear something about it, either today or in writing. For example, Make UK, which used to be the EEF, has a strong HR support division. It is one of their businesses and what they do. Part of the service that businesses get from being affiliated to Make UK is HR support, and legal and regulatory support. That organisation should be hit really hard with the information on the Bill—if it has not been already—so that it understands the role of employers in not just allowing it but promoting it across their workforce.

There is still a lot of work to be done in terms of getting the information out there. It should not just be employees demanding it—employers should be fully aware of what is now available. So who is going to be accountable for the communication process? In the end, that is going to be the success, of otherwise, of this measure. If people have to find it out through the ether, there is going to be a very slow take up. I am sure that Carers UK will put it out there, but there is a lot of extra work to do.

Once again, I thank the Government for supporting it. It has been a pleasure to help the Government to meet one of the things in their manifesto, although I doubt I will be making a habit of it. For this one, however, thanks to the Government and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Most of all, I thank the campaigners who got us this far. The reason we were able to do this is because it was unpaid; it cut out all of the small print that would have been in the legislation, but it establishes a point. I take the point made by the noble Baroness and I hope, in future, that we will be able to take that and move it forward to a bigger and better thing—but we should not diminish the significance of this particular provision.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for setting out these regulations and the correction. Correct me if I am wrong, but is it now two weeks instead of one week?