Product Safety, Metrology and Mutual Recognition Agreement (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Duncan of Springbank and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride

Monday 7th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank)]

My Lords, the extension to Article 50 requires changes to legislation made earlier this year to ensure continued confidence in our consumer safety system. This statutory instrument will amend three earlier regulations: first, a number of product schedules in the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, made in March 2019; secondly, the Pressure Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016; and, thirdly, the Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) Regulations 2019. I will now take noble Lords through the detail of the changes made to each of these regulations—I can see the excitement building.

The change in exit day has created ambiguity for the personal protective equipment industry, necessitating revision to the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The opportunity has also been taken to refine the instrument based on stakeholder feedback and ongoing developments in the sector, notably clarifying the continued use of data from pre-March 2013 as it affects cosmetics and ensuring that the UK will be able to update the lists of prohibited or restricted substances in all circumstances going forward.

I am concerned that, following publication of the main product safety instrument, stakeholders drew to our attention a number of these issues. I wish to apologise that these errors were identified by stakeholders after our own internal scrutiny processes had been cleared. Once alerted to these issues, we held meetings with the representative bodies from across the product areas to discuss the drafting errors identified and review the relevant product schedule for any other potential points that might require clarification. Eight meetings were held and a number of phone calls and emails were exchanged with relevant stakeholders. We have sought to do all we can in this regard to catch any issues that might not have been caught in the first instance.

Consequently, minor amendments regarding outdoor noise, recreational craft, toys, electromagnetic compatibility, electrical equipment, radio equipment, simple pressure vessels, machinery, measuring instruments and accreditation will be made. We will also correct the error whereby pressure equipment manufacturers would have been deprived of the option of having their manufacturing processes of base materials certified by a competent body.

Details of the technical changes are included in paragraph 7 of the published Explanatory Memorandum. These could ordinarily have been addressed through guidance. However, the extension to exit day meant that we were required to make an instrument to address specific exit-related issues, and we decided that it would be good practice at the same time to bring these minor changes into legislation to give full clarity for business.

We have also taken the opportunity to update the Pressure Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016 to ensure full implementation of the importer labelling requirements to make it clear that an importer must put their information on both pressure equipment and assemblies. Post exit, UK importers in some circumstances will be able to put their details on a document accompanying the equipment or the assembly.

The instrument also implements into domestic law obligations that the UK currently has as an EU member state with regard to certain goods imported from Switzerland. This was originally implemented through a global provision in the Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) Regulations 2019. Following further departmental legal analysis, we considered it more appropriate to make it explicitly clear in the law itself. This instrument will allow UK importers of relevant products from Switzerland to put their details on accompanying documentation rather than on the product for a period of 18 months after exit and extend recognition of Swiss authorised representatives to act on behalf of manufacturers to comply with regulations on noise emissions from outdoor equipment in line with the existing EU/Swiss mutual recognition agreement.

A full impact assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because no provisions trigger changes to in-scope operational costs. The impact is limited to familiarisation costs for business, which were previously assessed in a full impact assessment on the earlier instrument as de minimis. A copy of that full impact assessment is publicly available on legislation.gov.uk.

On consultation, the department has benefited from significant stakeholder feedback following the passage of the original regulations, all of which has been taken into account in the revised instruments. However, clearly, this was the wrong way round. As I said when taking forward regulations last week, my department will reflect carefully on ensuring adequate consultation before bringing forward such complicated legislation. This commitment from the Dispatch Box follows on from issues raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, whose comments we welcome and will take fully on board.

The amendments made by this instrument will ensure that instruments are correct and that our high standards are maintained after our exit from the European Union. I beg to move.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, moving between topics as varied as Hong Kong to product safety is one of the joys of being a Front-Bencher in the House of Lords.

The House is again debating an instrument to rectify problems with previous no-deal regulations, this time on the crucial issues of product safety and metrology. Before I delve into the specifics of the instrument on mutual recognition, I ask the Minister to explain why the House is still debating regulations which will apply only in the event of no deal when the recent European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act will prevent such a scenario. This feels both disrespectful of Parliament and a little bizarre.

Much of the instrument is intended to ensure that previous regulations will be operable for the latest exit date. As he was asked last week, can the Minister confirm that Parliament will be asked again to revisit these issues if the exit date is again changed?

According to the department’s Explanatory Memorandum, the regulation strives to ensure that products placed on the UK market continue to meet,

“substantially the same essential requirements”.

Why is it only “substantially” the same requirements, not exactly the same ones? If there is no difference, will the Minister clarify this? If there is a difference between substantially copying over requirements and completely doing so, which ones are not required to be copied over?

Insolvency (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No 2) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Duncan of Springbank and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride

Monday 30th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations address the consequences of the change in the UK’s departure date from the EU to the insolvency regulations previously approved by Parliament. The purpose of the new regulations, as with the previous regulations, is to ensure that the UK’s insolvency law operates effectively after Brexit, in all circumstances. The regulations laid before your Lordships make two changes that are necessary to address the introduction of the modernised Scottish insolvency rules, which came into force after 31 March, and the coming into force of Article 25 of the original EU regulation, which creates an integrated insolvency register across the EU.

These latest regulations update the Scottish rules by removing references related to the EU regulation to ensure a consistent approach to the UK courts’ jurisdiction to commence insolvency proceedings. The changes are made at the behest of the Scottish Government and with the support of the Scottish Parliament, following consultation.

The changes to UK insolvency necessitated by Article 25, which seeks to integrate member states’ insolvency registers, would carry an immediate cost that would be incurred without certainty of reciprocity after exit day. The current regulations would revoke Article 25 of the EU regulation if we leave the EU without agreement.

I stress that it is not the Government’s preferred outcome for the UK and the EU to cease co-operating on cross-border insolvency issues. We have listened carefully to industry professionals, who have outlined the risks that such an outcome would pose to the efficient management of insolvency cases. None the less, we must ensure that the UK’s approach to insolvency is legally correct irrespective of the nature of our exit.

Our assessment of the impact of losing automatic recognition for UK insolvencies in the EU was carefully made; the cost to business would be in the region of £2.7 million per year. We note also that a similar cost will befall EU insolvency practitioners applying to UK courts. However, both sides can retain the benefit of reciprocity only if there is a deal. In the absence of such an arrangement it is important to provide businesses and individuals with certainty regarding the rules governing insolvency in the UK.

These two changes ensure that the impact of leaving the EU will not be exacerbated by retaining inoperable law, which would lead only to confusion and cost. On that basis, I commend the regulations to the House.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking time before the discussion on the Floor of the House to go through some of the more technical detail of the SI. As he said, the regulations make amendments to the Insolvency (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were agreed by this House in January. Those regulations were mostly welcomed by the industry and, although concerns were raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments at the time, the House ultimately passed them. They dealt with the core policy, which I will not seek to reopen, while the No. 2 instrument debated here today appears to make only minor technical amendments.

I shall move on to the substance of today’s regulations. Despite Parliament making it clear that it does not wish the UK to crash out without a deal, it appears that much of this instrument is necessary only to facilitate such a scenario. As the Minister will be aware, both Houses have repeatedly rejected the UK leaving the EU without a deal. Why spend the time and money, therefore, moving forward with SIs that should play no part in the future of our decision-making? Are there any further SIs yet to be laid that deal specifically with a no-deal scenario?

As noted, another element and purpose of this instrument is to amend the Scotland-only regulations, as insolvency is partly devolved. I note from the EM at the back of the SI paperwork that consultation was carried out with the Administration in Scotland. It would be helpful to get a little more detail about what consultation was carried out between the department here and the Scottish Administration. I am curious too about timing. Why have the regulations been brought forward only now, when the new Scottish insolvency laws came into force in April this year?

With regard to the drafting of these regulations, I mentioned earlier that the previous insolvency regulations were mostly welcomed by industry. As the Minister has pointed out, there is a financial cost. I am curious about whether any further discussion or consultation has taken place with the industry.

We have no intention of opposing these technical regulations, though I would be grateful if the Minister could offer assurances in relation to a number of the issues that I have raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride]

I just want to follow up on that and seek some clarification from the Minister. If, for some unknown reason, we do not exit the EU on 31 October, will we need to be back here changing the dates in the SIs all over again to whatever the next date is?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

That is very easy and straightforward to answer. It is the Government’s policy to leave on 31 October, but the laws have been drafted to ensure that, going forward, we will not have to revisit these regulations. I reiterate that, come Halloween, we will be on the other side.

Gas Tariffs Code (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Duncan of Springbank and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride

Thursday 26th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in welcoming the Minister to the Dispatch Box. I am sure that in preparing for this SI, looking through the paperwork and the impact assessment, which says there is no significant impact, he might have thought this was a nice, easy one, but the noble Lords, Lord Howell, Lord Teverson and Lord Liddle, have rightly asked further far-reaching questions on the wider issues of energy and gas supply as we move forward. I shall take the Minister back to the start.

The regulations before us deal with the establishment of a network code on harmonised transmission tariff structures for gas, arising from the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. This issue was debated at length during the debate on the Gas (Security of Supply and Network Codes) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that today’s instrument is needed because exit day has been pushed back: it therefore amends those regulations. Will the Minister therefore begin by assuring the House that these regulations do not mark any shift in policy towards the regulatory framework relating to gas?

Looking briefly at how these regulations were laid, I need not remind the House that they would not have been debated and passed until next month had the Supreme Court not announced that Prorogation was invalid. In such a situation, can the Minister be certain that they would have completed their passage before exit day? If not, what would the consequences have been? On the drafting of these regulations, the House will be aware that other regulations need to be amended as a result of the change in exit date. Will the Minister explain why these need to be amended? If this instrument is necessary to make such a small change, will he say why the Government chose to pass this through the affirmative procedure?

More widely, the regulatory framework is an important cornerstone of energy policy, and while the subject has been debated at length, I want to return to one core issue. My noble friend Lord Grantchester has been vocal on the transfer of powers relating to energy policy, particularly on the many responsibilities due to be handed to Ofgem, which has faced budgetary constraints under this Government. Can the Minister say whether any further regulations due to be laid before exit day will transfer any energy powers to UK agencies? Going back to a point made by the three noble Lords who spoke earlier, protecting our energy supply is critical to our safety and security in such difficult and troubling times. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that retention of the petroleum reserves is an issue of national security. Although it does not relate directly to the SI, some words about that from the Minister on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government would be appreciated.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I thank all noble Lords for their participation in this short but none the less instructive debate. I will begin where the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, left off, to answer some of the questions specific to the statutory instrument.

The issue to remember is that because we did not leave on 31 March, the legislation that had been passed at that point as retained law had to incorporate the fact that this piece of EU law was passed on 31 May and therefore became part of EU retained law. The reason we have brought this back now is that there are certain elements of that retained law which would need to be adjusted to be functional after Brexit within domestic law. The changes are relatively modest but none the less critical.

The answer to why it was done via the affirmative procedure is simple: because it has elements in relation to fees. As to whether it represents any shift in our policy, at a fundamental level the answer is no. This is simply a tidying-up exercise, which is modest in its implications but none the less critical to make sure that there is a functioning statute book after Brexit. As to the transfer of powers to Ofgem—it was not in my briefing pack but it is now—in the transfer of powers from the EU regulator ACER to Ofgem, no additional powers are created.

Those are the specific answers to the questions on the statutory instrument. I will now turn to the questions raised by noble Lords and begin, in order, with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. One of the important things to stress about the market on the island of Ireland is that it is a single electricity market, not a single gas market. The gas does not cross the borders, only the electricity. The UK Government remain fully committed—as do the Irish Government—to ensuring the single electricity market on the island of Ireland. We believe that will be a priority for both Governments to ensure.

There is an interconnector transferring gas from the United Kingdom into the Republic of Ireland and we do not anticipate that that will be affected by any of these issues. The gas market across the EU is a remarkably—I want to use the term without meaning it as a pun—liquid market, but it is a very significant and successful market.

When it comes to interconnectors with the EU, touching on some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, we secure only 5% of our gas from the EU. It is a modest amount. Will that be affected by some of the geopolitics on the continent of Europe? We do not anticipate so, but have reserves which will allow us to secure continued use of gas during any such period.

My noble friend Lord Howell raised the wider situation on the continent of Europe. It is important to look at some of the real challenges this creates for the continent, the EU and ourselves. The first thing to stress is that we believe the Nord Stream pipeline is a problematic reality, which is why we are supportive of where Ukraine stands. However, there are also serious issues for the states to the east of the European Union. In this country we are moving swiftly towards decarbonisation but Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and others are presently faced by the impossible devil’s dilemma of having to continue with their indigenous coal reserves being utilised or importing from Russia. Noble Lords can appreciate the dilemma that creates for the EU as it seeks to determine a decarbonised agenda. We have been, as a number of noble Lords have noted, a very liberalising influence in trying to secure the movement going forward to help those countries decarbonise, but it is, as my noble friend Lord Howell correctly stresses, one of the greater challenges faced by the continent today.

We will seek to continue to be participants in the energy markets of the EU. Brexit will have an impact on that and it is very difficult for me to anticipate exactly how we shall continue in that area. For example, one of the issues on which we have been a great leader inside the European Union is emissions trading, where we have sought from a leadership position to encourage the decarbonisation through a market-based regime. Exactly how we will continue to do so after Brexit remains to be determined. Part of the difficulty, with which noble Lords will be very familiar, is that we are unable to begin to negotiate the future relationship until we have established the departure. Some of these questions which rightly should not only be answered now but should have been some time ago have not been answered. On that basis, we cannot do it unanimously and must wait until such time as we can move this forward with the EU after Brexit.

Statutory Auditors, Third Country Auditors and International Accounts Standards (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Duncan of Springbank and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride

Thursday 26th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The impact assessment was conducted on a de minimis basis and it established that the cost is £0.93 million—£930,000. I am happy to write further to the noble Lord on this matter to set out exactly how this figure was reached and who is affected by it and will place a copy in the Library.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his introduction to this statutory instrument. Before I come to the substance of the policy in these regulations, I highlight the comments made by the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which said:

“However, the range and magnitude of the changes are significant: the Regulations make changes to 15 items of legislation and include a sub-delegation of powers to UK regulators and extend a ministerial power of direction”.


The committee is right. Despite the utterances in the Explanatory Memorandum that this instrument exists only to continue the framework of the regulatory oversight and professional recognition of statutory auditors and third-country auditors in the UK, concerns have been raised, as we have just heard, that the regulations extend beyond this. The challenges financial services organisations will face in adapting to these changes are numerous, and were also noted by the SLSC. Can the Minister confirm whether any recent support has been offered to such firms to assist them in adapting to the changes?

In the light of such wide-ranging challenges resulting from these regulations, I draw the House’s attention to the fact that one of the core reasons why the other place divided on this instrument was the absence of a full impact assessment. Although I have no intention of similarly dividing this House, I place on record my disappointment that the Government have chosen not to publish an assessment in the period between these regulations being debated in the Commons and today. Parliament needs to be given the full information on the impact that these regulations will have on the financial sector; without such an assessment, that is not the case.

Moving on, I should like to ask the Minister a number of technical questions about the substance of these regulations. I will speak slowly. First, on Regulation 4, which deals with the loss of the EEA subsidiary exemption, can he confirm the timescale for the issues here to take effect? The legislation does not give a specific timeframe for the implementation of this provision, so I can assume only that further regulations may well be necessary. Secondly, in relation to Regulation 6, which focuses on the EEA qualification for auditors and which the Minister touched on, can he guarantee to the House that EEA-qualified auditors recognised up to December 2020 will retain their eligibility? If I missed that in his introductory remarks, my apologies.

To conclude, the way in which this instrument has been progressed, with little assessment and consultation, is deeply disappointing. It is mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum for the SI, under paragraph 10 on “Consultation outcome”, that there has been no consultation on this instrument, which is deeply worrying. There also seems to be a thread of ambiguity through the regulations, which I hope the Minister can cast aside with assurances today. On this side of the House, we have agreed that the Government should make preparation through secondary legislation to ensure continuity after exit, but I hope the Minister can confirm that future regulations aimed at doing this will take a different approach.