Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Stewart of Dirleton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to address the Committee on Amendments 60 to 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe; I thank him for his amendments on enforcement regulations in this Bill.

As has already been pointed out, the Bill fails to provide clarity about who will be the relevant authority, how that authority will be appointed and what criteria will be used to determine this. In setting out these points, I merely echo concerns already raised by your Lordships’ Committee. The concern is that a dangerous precedent is created, particularly where such broad powers are granted for enforcing product regulations—including sanctions—and for carrying out investigations.

To illustrate the risks of these broad and as yet undefined powers, we need look only to the Horizon scandal. In that case, as the Committee and indeed the whole House is aware, sub-postmasters were wrongly prosecuted based on flawed evidence and poor decision-making by the responsible authorities—a private prosecutor in England and Wales. The lack of proper scrutiny and oversight in that situation resulted in innocent people facing wrongful charges. Lives were ruined; indeed, lives were lost. The situation was greeted with mounting horror across our House, as it was across the country at large, as details began to emerge.

The Horizon case highlighted the dangers of unchecked power or power in the hands of those lacking the professional cultures to exercise such power responsibly. Our concern is that this could easily be replicated under the Bill if we do not ensure that the powers of the relevant authority are defined carefully and according to strict standards of accountability. We submit that the Government must provide clear criteria for the appointment of a relevant authority and establish rigorous oversight in order to ensure that the powers given under the Bill are used fairly and transparently. The Bill should ensure that those granted authority are highly qualified, possess relevant experience and are subject to ongoing monitoring in order to prevent misuse of power.

These clauses are considered skeleton legislation by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The House has collectively expressed its concern as to the dangers of skeleton legislation in other contexts, where vague provisions allow the Executive to bypass parliamentary scrutiny; indeed, the dangers and undesirability of such skeleton legislation were touched on yesterday in a take-note debate on the rule of law. Bypassing Parliament on such a critical matter—especially with the ability to bring solemn criminal charges on indictment, not just at summary level—creates risk and sets a dangerous precedent. We are by no means claiming that the Government are consciously seeking to set up a situation and a system of abuse of power, and we recognise the importance of effective regulation for consumer protection; our concern is that a lack of clarity in the Bill threatens to create an environment ripe for the misuse of power, at a time when our consciousness, and of the country at large, of those risks has never been sharper.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 60, 61, 62, 66, 67, 83, 84, 86, 88 and 89 standing in my name.

Before I get on to that, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I have not heard very much that I have disagreed with, and in particular I welcome the specialised and clearly considerable expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and my noble friend Lord Lindsay in this area. I also thank my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton, who brought a valuable legal perspective to my Amendments 60, 61 and 62. If I may say so, the Committee should also thank him, because that has relieved me of the duty of mentioning the delegated powers in the Bill.

To probe, starting with my Amendment 60, what is a relevant authority? My amendments as a group seek clarity. There is far too little of it, and I will explain why. There may be a case for a degree of generalisation on product safety laws, which we have discussed in previous Committee days, but when it comes to the enforcement of the law, as my noble and learned friend has just outlined, the Government should not be this vague. The clause that this amendment seeks to remove grants wide discretion in designating one or more persons as the relevant authority, without defining criteria or scope. Businesses need to know who they are engaging with when it comes to compliance and enforcement. The uncertainty in the Bill creates a challenging situation for businesses, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, which may lack the resources to navigate unclear or fragmented enforcement mechanisms.

Without clearly defined enforcement roles, companies face potential delays and additional costs due to duplicative enforcement efforts, all of which could hamper innovation, productivity and growth. This clause effectively hands unchecked power to Ministers, allowing them to designate any person or organisation as a relevant authority without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. But it fails to address critical questions, such as what qualifications or expertise the designated authority will require. How will conflicts of interest be avoided? Will there be oversight mechanisms to ensure that these authorities are held accountable for their enforcement activities?

The Government have repeatedly claimed that one of the goals of the Bill is innovation, and that they wish to be a leader on trade, yet unclear enforcement mechanisms may send the wrong message to trading partners and investors. Inconsistent enforcement practices could harm the perceived reliability of the UK’s regulatory regime, potentially complicating cross-border trade agreements and deterring foreign investment.

The Government’s Explanatory Notes suggest that the relevant authority could include the Secretary of State or

“other bodies exercising public functions”.

But nowhere in the Bill or the Explanatory Notes is there any mention of specialised bodies—including those represented by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and my noble friend Lord Lindsay—which have clear expertise in product enforcement, safety and standards. We think this omission is striking. Will product safety specialists such as trading standards and accredited safety bodies be considered? Will enforcement fall to entities with deep technical knowledge and understanding of the complexities of product regulation?

The Bill uses the phrase

“other bodies exercising public functions”,

a catch-all term that could encompass almost anyone who engages in some form of public work. In practice, this could mean highly skilled and knowledgeable experts, but it could also mean organisations or individuals with no background in product safety. Could a local administrative body or other government-adjacent organisation whose primary function is entirely unrelated end up being designated as a relevant authority? Despite the Government’s claims of promoting clarity and higher standards, the wording here does the exact opposite.

This is not a trivial matter. The enforcement authority will determine how the rules are applied and the standards by which businesses are judged. Without explicit safeguards, this clause risks allowing enforcement to be carried out by ill-equipped individuals or bodies, potentially damaging the entire framework of product safety. I appreciate that I have ranged far and wide here, but unfortunately, the way the Bill is drafted invites all these questions, so I look forward to the Minister’s responses.

Turning to Amendment 61, also in my name, we of course recognise the importance of ensuring compliance with product regulations, but the manner in which these powers are drafted raises serious concerns about vagueness, overreach and potential misuse. This subsection includes functions such as monitoring compliance, investigating suspected non-compliance and even mitigating the effects of non-compliance. While monitoring compliance and addressing breaches are legitimate, the concept of suspected non-compliance is especially problematic. What constitutes suspicion? Will it be based on clearly defined criteria, or could it arise from arbitrary interpretations by an as yet to be defined relevant authority?

King’s Speech

Lord Stewart of Dirleton Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I renew my welcome to the noble Lord on the Front Bench. As has been recognised by noble Lords across the House and by the right reverend Prelate who commented earlier, he will bring to our deliberations great experience in a number of important areas, including the rehabilitation of prisoners and the training and employment of disadvantaged people, in relation to which he was honoured by the award of the OBE. He is distinguished also in the field of business. We have heard of his work with the Prison Reform Trust, and I understand that he has also distinguished himself in the field of academia, acting as Keele University chancellor. He referred to that in replying to the Statement repeat, and noble Lords across the House—beginning with my noble friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham—went on to speak very warmly of him. We welcome the noble Lord among us.

As the noble Lord said, his work in the field of rehabilitation of offenders builds on the work carried out by the Timpson family, including his father and others. I congratulate him on recognising the importance of families, which over generations provide a focus for endeavours in useful public service and public life—as the selfless service embodied in generations of our hereditary Peers amply demonstrates. I look forward to meeting the noble Lord properly and personally, but I know his brother, with whom I served for a time as a law officer in the previous Administration. We have two parliamentary brothers then, one Labour, one Conservative—a useful reminder to all of us that there are men and women of good will to be found inhabiting every shade of political opinion, and that no one party can command a monopoly of either skill or compassion. Indeed, no merely human body can claim to be an unchallengeable source of wisdom—not even the Cross-Benchers of this noble House, however much some of them sometimes contrive to give that impression.

I am sure that the noble Lord’s relations with his brother demonstrate that love transcends political differences. In that regard, they may resemble my relationship with my own brother. We get on famously, in a spirit of brotherly love, in spite of the fact that I am a carnivorous Tory and he is a vegan Marxist. I say of him, “Robin has some extreme ideas but basically he is a Conservative”. He says of me, “Keith has some extreme ideas but fundamentally he is a Marxist”.

A King’s Speech must necessarily be delivered in general terms and it would be wrong to demand that the noble Lord addresses specific matters in specific detail, but he touched on a number of points which I will do no more than touch on equally lightly in return. The establishment of a new border security command delivering enhanced counterterror powers to tackle organised immigration crime is, on a view, a laudable objective. However, as was pointed out several times during debates in this place on Rwanda legislation, Labour’s position was to call loudly, theatrically and repeatedly for steps the Government were already taking to combat organised criminal gangs and ensure co-operation with our continental neighbours.

The Government, in opposition, stopped short of taking the step that we identified as necessary, drawing on an analogy with the highly successful scheme in operation between Australia and Nauru, to genuinely challenge the criminal gangs. By contrast, that has been ditched. Creating a border security command sounds very much like deploying purposeful, urgent-sounding language to foster the illusion of activity. It sounds like a piece of subterfuge to disguise how out of touch and out of step Labour is with the country and its mood in relation to this vital matter. Instead, a treaty entered into with a sovereign, friendly country has been cast to one side without ceremony. We wait to see what the new border security command will accomplish in the face of that.

The noble Lord touched on the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill. These measures will seek to improve the safety and security of public venues to keep the British public safe from terrorism. The noble Lord, necessarily I think, referred to the Manchester Arena atrocity in that regard. I pledge on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition that we will work constructively where we can with the Government. We will do precisely what His Majesty’s Government did when they were in opposition; they subjected our proposals to scrutiny and test, and we will do the same. The House would expect no less of us.

I look forward to working with the noble Lord to make sure that the measures he describes do not impose unduly onerous duties on smaller businesses. In particular—I appreciate the noble Lord was careful to set this out but, as always, the devil is in the detail —we must be careful to make sure that it is not only smaller businesses that are excluded, which cannot afford the expenditure of time, money and expertise to conform to regulation which may not be effective in a way that it might be for larger companies, but also the voluntary sector, which is the very backbone of public civic life in our country. If anything prevents one person offering to take a hand in running a church hall or a village hall, to keep alive community life as best they can, that will be a step too far. We look forward to testing these proposals and making sure that they are not unduly burdensome on those who can least of all afford it.

We also look forward to discovering whether, in the wake of the Manchester Arena atrocity, we will have legislation to address other important matters that emerged from it. These include, for example, the response of the emergency services to the first 999 calls and the concern that the venue’s security staff had quite reasonable concerns about the behaviour of the man responsible which they were frightened to air lest they be accused of racism. We will work with His Majesty’s Government to address such a culture and make sure that people draw attention to emergencies in life in the way that they should.

His Majesty’s gracious Speech set out laudable objectives: strengthening community policing, working to address antisocial behaviour, increasing support for victims, control of our streets and tackling minor levels of crime. We look forward to bringing the necessary scrutiny to these proposals. In relation to the offence of assault on a shopworker, which the Minister mentioned specifically, while we recognise the importance of people being able to go to and carry out work protected from harm and in the knowledge that the courts and police will step forward to protect them, is it an appropriate use of legislative time to set out a specific offence of this nature? In the past, it has always been dealt with by the court’s sentencing considerations and by prosecutors’ decisions as to the level of court in which to indite particular cases. I stress that these are matter of details and I look forward to discussing them with the noble Lord.

The gracious Speech also said, somewhat starkly, that His Majesty’s Government will bring forward plans to halve violence against women. Again, this is a laudable aim but such a stark statement is essentially meaningless. We have to caution against the Government speaking as though they really believed that it is possible to accomplish such a pledge, given that it is a hugely complex area involving social, criminological and legal consideration, and suggesting that such a thing could be accomplished by legislative fiat, having set it out in the course of a single sentence.

I listened with interest to the noble Lord’s points about arbitration. Again, we look forward to working closely with His Majesty’s Government on that important matter.

Finally, going back to the concluding days of the previous Parliament, I think I will speak on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, in expressing my regret that the King’s Speech did not specifically feature the litigation funding Bill, which was in Committee when the procedural wash-up began and we moved and expedited only certain Bills. That important measure, which enjoyed cross-party support among all Benches, fell to the floor.

At the risk of repeating myself, I issue a warm welcome to a Minister who, it seems to everyone who contributed to the discussion on the Statement repeat, is extremely well placed to inform our counsels on the important matters for which he now has responsibility.