Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

If they find themselves in the same Division Lobby, but that is rather unlikely.

For this reason—the reason that I spoke of some time ago—I am proposing Amendment 113, which seeks to remove Clause 9(4) from the Bill. In the view of the committee and of your Lordships, this is the main offending clause, as it essentially grants Ministers unlimited powers. That is why we are proposing that amendment.

Amendment 133 harks back to an amendment for which many of the Minister’s colleagues and of those on these Benches voted during the passage of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, as it is very similar to an amendment that was tabled then. It is relatively self-explanatory, and it was explained even better by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. I suggest that it imports some sensible consultation into the secondary legislation process without overburdening that process.

That may be the Minister’s response. He may say that this is bureaucratic and a lengthy process, to which I would say, to some extent, “So what?” This legislation does not have to be a breathless process; it is supposed to get it right. Many of your Lordships will have witnessed statutory instruments that come back to correct previous statutory instruments. I know of one case when we got into three or possibly four statutory instruments before we were presented with something that was acceptable. A bit of time, consultation and reflection gives us a chance to make regulation that is better and achieves what is intended.

I do not think this is an overwhelming process; it is about careful, purposeful regulation and proper consultation during that process. To an extent, that goes some way to dealing with some of the issues in the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor—who has now made it from her transport system to her place—in fact in a rather more inclusive way, covering large portions of the Bill.

I will speak briefly to Amendment 132, also in my name, which I do not believe is controversial. Again, it continues the theme of the retained EU law Bill. As memory serves, one of the last things your Lordships did when sending that Bill back in the previous Parliament was to add a reporting requirement, so I suspect that there may not be much argument on either side of this against having a window on what is going on in the regulatory process. Indeed, it should provide a platform for us to have a discussion on a regular basis about the effectiveness and necessity of regulation, which I am sure many noble Lords would welcome.

My noble friend Lord Foster will not speak but has deputed me to speak on his behalf, which is a great honour and responsibility. He also signed Amendment 126 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. Amendment 129 in the name of my noble friend would ensure that an amendment that he will bring to the Committee later would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Like me, I think my noble friend would like to say that we do not think that the affirmative procedure is an adequate scrutiny measure, but it is marginally better than nothing.

Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, makes an interesting point. I would like to hear from the Minister about who and what they are seeking to address in Clause 2(3)(h), because it is very broad. What level of specificity should we expect, or is there none?

To close, there are substantive amendments in this group, and I suggest that Amendments 113 and 133 are two that should find their way forward with the Government’s help.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, we have been here before. When the Schools Bill was in front of us, I was very happily lined up next to Lord Judge in saying that this would not do, and I find myself in the same position today. We have a job to do in the House of Lords; it is the proper scrutiny of legislation. This Bill seeks to avoid that. Either the Bill needs to wait and rewrite itself in rather more detail when the Government know what they want to do, or we need some such provision as has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson and others to allow us a proper view of what will actually happen under this legislation. I very much hope that the Government will rethink, in one direction or the other.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I join noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on his appointment. I look forward to working with him in the years ahead.

I thank all noble Lords for speaking on this group. Noble Lords across the Committee have raised a number of important issues relating to scrutiny. I reassure them, up front, that this Government take very seriously the importance of scrutiny, in particular facilitating parliamentary consideration of government proposals. However, we believe overall that the Bill strikes the right balance on the need for proper consideration of the important issues and the technical nature of many product regulations.

I start with Amendment 132. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has proposed the publishing of impact assessments of affirmative regulations laid every six months after the Bill’s implementation. The impact of any new regulations will be fully considered through the development of proportionate impact analysis. The Better Regulation Framework, as most noble Lords know, is the system that the Government use to manage the flow of regulation and understand its impacts. In line with the Better Regulation Framework, for regulations where significant impacts are anticipated —above £10 million per year—full impact assessments will be published. For regulations with lower anticipated impacts, a proportionate de minimis assessment impact analysis will be completed. These assessments will, as a matter of course, consider the impact of regulations on small and medium-sized enterprises. Therefore, the laudable sentiment behind these amendments is already covered.

A number of the amendments relate to the use of the affirmative procedure. There exists a process for scrutinising secondary legislation that will operate under this Bill, including by scrutinising committees. I recognise the Bill’s delegated powers have raised questions, including from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment Rights, Minister Madders, and I appeared before in October. I remind noble Lords that the DPRRC stated and admitted in that evidence session that it saw the need for powers. The Government take seriously the recommendations of the DPRRC, and I plead mea culpa—we put our hands up that we should have been much clearer and could have done more to explain the reasons for the approach taken in this Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about the Attorney-General’s speech at the Bingham lecture. He is a fine lawyer and is a good friend of mine. I listen to him all the time. But he said in his speech that this Bill does not exceed excessive powers. Product regulation is very technical, and we have ensured the that the Bill allows for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, enabling this House to play the crucial role of scrutinising legislation. Existing secondary legislation runs to over 2,500 pages and covers everything from consumer products, such as toys and cosmetics to heavy industrial products like pressure equipment. We intend to use the Bill’s delegated powers to make targeted changes, on a case-by-case basis, to update and build on the large and well-established existing framework.

I should like to reassure all noble Lords on the specific point around EU law. The appropriate scrutiny procedure is provided by Clause 11, which applies the draft affirmative procedure to various regulations, including those making provision for a power of entry, creating a criminal offence or amending primary legislation, which will need to be debated and approved by Parliament before being implemented.

I turn to Amendment 133, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. This proposes a sifting mechanism whereby all regulations are preconsidered by a joint committee of both Houses. While we understand the need for oversight, a bespoke joint committee approach could cause delays. In addition, there is already a parliamentary process for statutory instruments made under specific Acts of constitutional significance where sifting is applied to ensure appropriate scrutiny. We do not consider that such a process is proportionate or necessary under this Bill, where regulations will often relate to routine minor technical changes—for example, a change in chemical content in cosmetics or toys.

I turn to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor—

EV Strategy: (ECC Committee Report)

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her superb chairing of the committee; it was a real pleasure to be part of it.

I share my noble friend Lord Lilley’s aversion to subsidy. It seems to me that subsidies that are too large and too long stop real solutions emerging, and that we really need to work against them. It was a huge pleasure being on the committee with him. I learned what dissent effectively delivered with great style was, and I learned how one can chair in such circumstances, so it was a great educational experience.

I do not think my noble friend should despair too much about not being on the committee any more: we have my noble friend Lord Frost there. I see that the current inquiry is into methane. When I was a Whip in MAFF, the BSE crisis hit and the first reaction of the scientists was, “We must kill every cow in the country”. I hope, with the fate of the cows being in my noble friend’s hands, that he will mount as good a defence as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, did under those circumstances.

There are some things the Government can do to move things along. First, on regulations, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others, we are faced with a set of regulations, particularly when it comes to flats, on-street charging and similar areas, where we are deliberately slowing things down. We are making it harder to make progress. This is a Government who have said, in Defra, in housing and elsewhere, that they will do something about ineffective and unnecessary regulations. I know how hard that is but I am optimistic; I very much hope that the Government will go down that way.

Another area where regulations have been getting in the way is on the evolution of small, cheap electric vehicles. If I want something that will carry myself and a couple of kids, or maybe the shopping around town, I can go to China and buy it for £1,500. The cheapest alternative here is £15,000. Some of that difference is quality but an awful lot of it is regulation. The question of whether the value that we are getting from that regulation justifies the cost of implementing it really needs examining. We really ought not to be getting in the way of the development of new forms of local mobility in the way that we are.

I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said about information. We ought to publish an overall projection for energy and net zero. I would not call it a plan—it is too uncertain and far away for that—but it should be something that shows us how the Government believe we can get there, including what the steps will be, what the consequences will be and what the experience will be like. It should be open, moving, discursive and, above all, truthful. That would make a good base for good policy. The current darkness, for which the previous Government must accept some responsibility, is not a constructive background.

I would also like to see open information rigorously applied to the availability and state of charging points, so that anyone can find out the state of any charging point and where they might go in the hope of finding it, rather than it being balkanised into little sets of information for people who subscribe to particular networks. I would really like to see people being able to rent out their own home charging spaces to other people. Apart from not having an electric car and the ability to charge it, I cannot see why I should not be able to have someone else’s car on my drive and charge it there. The prices charged for on-street parking are ridiculous. I could make a very nice little turn, as I might do from selling my surplus strawberries, by selling a bit of electricity and thereby keeping everybody’s price down.

Lastly, I would like to see us pay serious attention to resilience—getting ourselves into a position where we can genuinely support a manufacturing industry. The key thing that I would like to see us do is put money into battery research. We cannot continue— it is totally impossible—to rely on the rare materials that find their way into current batteries. We have to do better; there are signs that we can do better. If we find ourselves at the forefront of a really effective sodium battery development, we will have a chance to create that industry or a share of it here, but while we rely on old materials and rare materials, we really must keep here the materials that get here. We must have an effective recycling industry so that what comes here stays here and we can use it to make new batteries.