Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

I rise briefly to support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness. I also draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that when I moved Amendments 2 and 27 in an earlier group, on the issue of installation, I pointed out that in respect of the potentially very dangerous lithium-ion batteries used in EV charging-point systems, for example, and solar panel array storage batteries, there is currently no requirement on the competent person scheme individual who is installing those systems to notify relevant authorities of the installing of those batteries.

I pointed out at the time that lithium-ion batteries, about which we will no doubt speak a great deal when we come to group 5, can create huge fires at high temperatures and very toxic gases; I also pointed out that, crucially, they cannot be put out by the use of water. That is why it is so important that the relevant authorities, particularly the emergency services, are aware of the current location of such devices. The current arrangements require the individual house owner to make such a notification. My amendment argued that it should be the responsibility of the installer not only to check on the safety of the entire system but to make that notification. For that reason, I am particularly supportive of the noble Baroness’s amendment.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, had I been a little shrewder on the grouping, I would have included in this group Amendment 106, which we will debate in the antepenultimate group of the Bill, as it also addresses Clause 7 and goes after the same objective of information sharing. Whether it is lithium-ion batteries or some other danger, it is important that we learn from the problems that are established and that the right people can get that information, so that learning process can start.

I suggest that, whether it is the process set down by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which we support, or something like my Amendment 106, or something that the drafters sitting behind the Minister can do much better than we can, there needs to be a point in this Bill about a process of information sharing, whether it is set out in detail, as in my amendment, which talks about who or what those bodies are, or whether it is a more general duty, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has set out. We support these proposals, and I hope that we can have a debate next time. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the need to understand dangers, learn from them and move to be able to prevent them.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her important amendments. I, too, am looking forward to exploring the meaning of “relevant authorities” in the next group. If this is really about product safety, of course we have to have regard to unsafe products, and of course that information ought to be shared with the emergency services, so I have absolutely no problem in supporting all those amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

I urge the Government to take the amendments on enforcement very seriously. We realise that the Government’s intentions are good, but unless the clauses are heavily rewritten, we will return to them on Report.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, and complying with time constraints, I warned your Lordships and the Government when speaking to another group that the skeletal nature of the Bill allows everybody to superimpose all their worst suppositions on it. We have just heard a thorough example of that from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe.

I am of course here to help. In considering previous Bills, it helped when the Government published their draft code of practice between Committee and Report, so that we could get an inkling of their thinking. Doing so will not change our need to address the skeletal nature of the Bill, but it might allay some of our worst fears about the intention, and guide us in wording the amendments we could table on Report to help tie things down a little more, along the lines of the fears outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. Can the Minister say whether a code of practice is planned, and undertake to show us a draft of it between now and Report?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their detailed consideration of the Bill, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his thorough exposition of his amendments, based on his experience at the Home Office and previously as an enforcement officer. He obviously knows a lot about the various amendments he has tabled.

I hope to clarify the Government’s position and explain the reasons behind the approach we have taken. First, I will address the use of delegated powers in the Bill, noting the concerns of the Committee.

Product regulation must legislate for innumerable kinds of products, ranging from heavy machinery to children’s toys. This is best done through regulation, due to the amount of very technical and scientific detail required. In some cases, sectors can be covered by general requirements. However, often they require specific tailored regulations that recognise their individual requirements. For example, a penalty for failure to properly mark a product “harm suffered” is likely be different when comparing a highly sensitive product in a nuclear energy installation versus a lower-risk product.

To proportionately reflect the dangers of a sector, requirements, enforcement powers, offences and penalties must be tailored. This is how the regulators operate at the moment, with over 2,500 pages of technical product safety regulation on the statute book. Alongside reviewing this existing legislation, we will need to consider on an ongoing basis whether there are emerging products or hazards that would benefit from specific rules.

Product regulation is a regulatory area that we have seen go through significant disruptive change with the growth of e-commerce, and this looks set to continue with AI and 3D printing. The activities conducted by different kinds of businesses have changed as well. The spine of the existing system was codified in primary legislation based on bricks-and-mortar businesses, and that led to uncertainties and gaps in duties, penalties and enforcement powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Personally, I do not see why there is anything wrong with it—but in this Bill itself, I am trying to say that we need the flexibility. I just have to continue.

Further clarification of powers and functions would restrict the ability for enforcement regulations to provide powers needed to enforce new product and metrology regulations. We must enable flexibility so that we do not create gaps in enforcement powers now or in the future. We intend to plug the gap in enforcement by making regulation applicable at the border, so that enforcement can take place before unsafe or non-compliant products are sold.

I understand the good intentions behind these amendments but, equally, I hope that I have resolved the concerns that led to them. The Bill provides simple, flexible powers that will help enforcement authorities to fulfil their roles. I submit that we have balanced parliamentary scrutiny with the necessary flexibility in a way that best serves the rule of law. It is for these reasons that I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I asked a specific question about publishing the code of practice in advance. Can I have an answer, please?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

34: Clause 2, page 3, line 26, at end insert—
“(d) the licensing of voluntarily committed standard essential patents which protect technology essential for implementing technical standards;(e) limiting the remedies available when a patent mentioned in paragraph (d) is enforced.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that essential software for regulated products which relies on standard-essential patents (SEPs) is shielded from unfair legal abuse.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I also support Amendment 35 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. As opposed to the last group, which focused on a large number of slightly different issues, these two amendments focus on one area and, given that they are only in the names of the noble Lord and myself, you can be sure that they will be technical in content.

I am sure the Minister has often wondered why his mobile phone can operate on Bluetooth in any country of the world, and why the automated vacuum cleaner that my noble friend Lord Foster so ably described in the last session can pick up wireless instructions no matter where it is working. The answer is that sitting underneath all of those are things called standard essential patents, or SEPs. They are patents that are necessary to the implementation of a collectively-agreed technical standard—5G, wifi, Bluetooth and so on. Standardisation across communications technologies makes it possible for devices to work with one another wherever they are.

Connectivity is increasingly a part of the products that the Bill seeks to regulate, as we have heard. UK industry is at the forefront of developing connected products that aim to address some of the biggest issues that we face, including healthcare and climate change. The Bill is about ensuring product compliance with technical standards. Compliance or conformance with the technical standard can often be premised on the implementation of a particular technology; as I have said, wifi is an example. For a product to use the wifi logo and technology, its technical performance with the chip set has to be tested and certified. Bluetooth and other wireless technologies used for power management in the context of electric vehicle chargers and smart metering are all examples of where the technical standards of operation are underpinned by these SEPs.

I realise that the Bill is not about intellectual property, but it is about regulating the properties of things. Unless the situation of SEPs is fixed, those properties can be in a state of flux. SEPs should be treated differently from other patents, which is why we are introducing them into this debate.

Of necessity, as a result of a dominant market position, the SEP holders have to voluntarily commit to license their technologies on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. The licensing of SEPs is important in ensuring that UK businesses are able to use the most modern and effective versions of these technical standards. In practice, SEP holders often evade their voluntary commitments to license their patents fairly because of a lack of clarity over what constitutes fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory, caused by weaknesses in the UK’s legal framework. SEP holders can abuse their position as gatekeepers of these technical standards by using the threat of costly court action and injunctions to force potential licensees to accept excessive royalty demands or quit the market. That can effectively prevent smaller companies from entering into, and being able to operate in, a market. In the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked whether the Bill was pro-innovation or anti-innovation. Unless we round up this issue on SEPs, I have to say that it is absolutely stifling innovation.

In most cases, SEP holders are well resourced and aggressive, while many licensees, especially SMEs, lack the knowledge and resources to defend their rightful position in court or push back against the mere threat of litigation. Increasingly, there is a third sector of people who buy up the rights to these patents and treat them as a revenue stream, whereby they go after and literally squeeze the people who have to use these SEPs. In essence, it becomes a secondary market for these things, without the necessary protections.

There are two issues. First, the availability of injunctions to the UK’s current SEP framework means that both small and large technical innovators who operate downstream of the primarily foreign SEP holders can be forced to accept excessive SEP licensing fees because they want to use this technology. The second problem is the lack of transparency: they quite simply do not know who holds these patents until they get an injunction through the mail. That is the problem. With the threat of injunctions and lack of transparency, UK manufacturers are frequently faced with a no-win situation. They have to either pay these fees or get out of the market, because they cannot afford to defend them at an injunction. This is in spite of the SEP holders making a voluntary commitment to license the SEPs on fair terms as part of the standard-setting process. So there is a problem.

The situation creates significant cost and uncertainty for some of the most innovative UK firms, it stifles innovation and, importantly, in the context of this Bill, it challenges the efficiency and effectiveness of products that rely on SEPs and are regulated by this legislation. That is why it is appropriate to have this discussion here today. The UK IPO is aware of issues concerning the licensing of such technology but to date has done nothing, or has insufficiently acted, to protect UK businesses that must use these technologies. This amendment is an opportunity for the Minister to commit to legislative action on SEPs to address the critical issues of products being threatened with exclusion from the people who need them, the imposition of unfair royalties and SEP licences being refused to companies that need them. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for explaining so expertly what standard essential patents—SEPs—are and how important they are to the use of legislation in specifying product requirements, which of course are directly linked to the standards that we will go on to talk about. We have previously talked about the importance of standard-setting, but there is no point in setting standards if they cannot be fulfilled, turned into product requirements and brought to the market—that is what we are talking about. In particular, the noble Lord was absolutely right to stress that we should be thinking in this legislation about how we can promote innovation. Addressing this issue is one of the central ways in which we can do that.

Our two amendments serve the same purpose. The only distinction is that I was trying to suggest, in this particular instance, the importance of taking a power and not attempting in the primary legislation at this point to specify precisely how that power should be structured, because it is necessary for there to be a full consultation about the changes that would need to be made—not least, probably, to the Patents Act itself. When we come back on Report, if we go down this path there may be a need to have a power to amend the Patents Act as well.

The point here is that, as the Intellectual Property Office itself said, SEPs will be

“of growing importance to the UK economy”.

This is not a small matter, and it is becoming more important because of connectivity, the internet of things and the multiple range of SEPs associated with many of these standards. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, is absolutely right about the problems that can emerge for companies, particularly SMEs, in understanding the visibility of SEPs and who holds them—and, for that matter, in being absolutely clear about which ones are essential and which are asserted to be so, but which are not in fact essential to the standard.

I shall not delay the Committee now, but I want to focus on the question of why we need a power. First, the Intellectual Property Office is trying to do its best within the powers available to it. In July, Ministers announced the establishment of the resource hub, which gives guidance in relation to SEPs and enables companies to understand the SEP ecosystem. However, that does not change some of the fundamental issues to which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred. There are licence holders who are delaying access to their patents, and who are using that as a mechanism to get terms that are not fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. SMEs are finding it very difficult to know what FRAND terms look like in relation to many of these products.

There is another issue: not only the individual royalties that must be paid in relation to these licences, but the global royalties that need to be available. Although there is case law that can be looked at, it is very difficult for SMEs in particular to understand how that may be applied to them. Of course, there are global royalties being established through large cases, which delay access to this intellectual property for some of those who need to use it; they are therefore unable to know how viable their product may be.

These issues have been addressed in the European Union. At present, there is a regulation agreed between the European Commission’s proposal and the European Parliament, and it is awaiting the conclusions of the Council of Ministers. Let us just focus on that for two seconds. What does it do? It sets out that there needs to be transparency, a mandatory register, and the ability for an official body to undertake a reality check asking, in essence, whether something is actually essential to a standard. It facilitates fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. It also delays for nine months the point at which any licence holder could go to court to secure an injunction for these purposes while there is a requirement for a negotiated process; indeed, it entertains the possibility that, under the regulation, this may relate not only to individual royalties for licences but to the aggregate of those royalties for licences. So there is a legal structure in the European Union for these purposes, in order to overcome what is otherwise, for SMEs in particular, an extremely difficult set of circumstances arising from case law for them to understand and interpret.

This is not a small problem for some SMEs. For example, I have been talking to Tunstall Healthcare, which I know well from its role in providing connectivity, particularly for people who require care at home; it looks after more than 100,000 of them. In order to access licences for 4G and wifi connectivity, it needs to negotiate many licences and to identify where they exist. A company called Bullet was trying to develop and market highly resilient smartphones, but it ceased trading, owing millions of pounds to SEP holders, which contributed to its inability to continue trading. So I think we need to act.

The IPO has said that it will respond to the consultation at the end of 2024—so any minute now. I am told, however, that that will not now happen in 2024. What I really want to hear from the Minister is, first, that this is a suitable Bill and a suitable opportunity to take a power—without specifying all the details of that power—to make provision in relation to SEPs. Secondly, I want to hear that the IPO and Ministers will undertake to respond to the consultation in the early part of next year, putting forward proposals for how the new power is to be used and inviting responses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Lansley, for their Amendments 34 and 35. When I saw the first amendment, I had to go and check what SEPs means. Now, after speaking to officials, I think I know a little bit and I welcome the opportunity to address the issues raised regarding software products that rely on standard essential patents, or SEPs.

These amendments go far beyond the intended focus of this legislation by expanding the scope of regulatory powers. Due to their complexity, the regulation of SEPs should not be reduced to a short provision in a Bill that was not drafted with the intention of regulating in this sphere. Any policy measures need to achieve a balance between rights holders being able to appropriately protect and enforce their rights, and users’ ability to access such technologies and innovations through fair and appropriate licensing forms.

However, I agree with the noble Lords that this is an important issue. The Intellectual Property Office has already engaged extensively with industry and business to determine whether any change to the framework for SEPs is necessary in order to ensure that businesses can license SEPs effectively and fairly. This engagement has included a call for evidence and views, and a questionnaire has been sent out to small and medium-sized enterprises. In response, the IPO has already launched a SEPs resource hub—an information resource that helps to address the very problem the noble Lords have identified. The IPO is also considering whether to consult formally next year on measures, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and further to improve transparency in the SEPs ecosystem and enable more efficient dispute resolution. Any such consultation would be subject to ministerial decision, and we are currently working on that. In the meantime, I assure noble Lords that the IPO is continuing informal engagement with industry on both this matter and the SEPs ecosystem more generally. I hope that is reassuring to the Committee.

While I agree that this is an important issue, this Bill is not the right avenue to address the problems that the noble Lords raise. I therefore ask that they withdraw or do not press their amendments.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I sort of thank the Minister for his response, but not much, because I think he could have acknowledged that this is a problem, rather than that SEPs exist, because it is a problem. Whether or not the Bill is the solution to it, the Department for Business and Trade should have an interest in solving that problem, but it did not seem that there was much appetite for that. Perhaps the Minister could disabuse me of that by acceding to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to have a meaningful round table with the right people for us to further this discussion. If this is not the avenue to deal with it, we need something else, because it is a real and present problem that needs a meaningful solution.

While the efforts of the IPO are clear, the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—I should call him my noble friend in this case—is that the IPO needs more power and something needs to be done. If it is not this, it needs to be something else.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I want to be very clear that the Department for Business and Trade wants to support businesses of all types and sizes, but we have to be fair as well, so as not to burden too many SMEs with regulations and financial costs. This area is being led by the IPO but, at the same time, there is a way that the Department for Business and Trade can engage with the IPO. I am than happy to arrange a meeting between the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Lansley, and officials from the IPO and the Department for Business and Trade.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that offer, which I am sure we will take him up on. If the Government wish to unburden small and medium-sized businesses, solving this problem would be a slam dunk. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 34.

Amendment 34 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Briefly, I of course support these four amendments from my noble friends, but I will say a few words on Amendment 56. In a previous group, amendments tabled by me and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the circular economy and disposal, also touched on these issues and it would be worth while looking at those in conjunction with the amendments from my noble friend Lord Redesdale.

To give a bit of advice to my noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made some interesting points about it being fulfilment centres rather than the actual online marketplace. In some cases, the supplier is foreign but the fulfilment centre is local. Perhaps there is some advice to take from the thoughts of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on that, as they seemed a way of bridging the issue of the supplier being a long way away in a different country, whereas the people dispatching the item are most definitely here. With those provisos, I reiterate my support for all four amendments.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I found that a most interesting explanation of lithium-ion batteries and their various aspects. I confess to not being an expert at all, so it is very clear that I—and, I imagine, the general public—need to be better informed on this. I imagine that regulations will form an essential component of becoming better informed.

It was interesting how the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that he was worried about the scope of the Bill. This Bill will take pretty much anything you like—it is enormous—so I would not have too many concerns about that. I ended up, funnily enough, with a couple of questions, which we can perhaps discuss later. I am curious to know how much of the safety of these batteries is contingent on the way that they are stored, used and maintained. That would be an interesting subject to explore further.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, members of the Committee will be aware that there are concerns relating to the suitability and safety of construction products, especially in the light of the Grenfell phase 2 report, and will know my professional interest in this area.

First, I pay tribute to the clerks in the Public Bill Office for their help in drafting this amendment, although its objectives and the rationale behind it are entirely my responsibility. I consider that the amendment speaks for itself in probing the Government’s intentions and resolve in bringing construction products specifically within the Bill’s scope, although they are not excluded, either by the Long Title or by the matters listed in the Schedule. My underlying purpose is to clarify this Bill’s specific focus in the objective regulation of a construction-related product’s inherent characteristics rather the nature of its use, particularly in combination with other products. To put it another way, it is concerned with the regulation, testing, certification and marketing of products for their specific stated use and application—namely, the aims of the Bill.

The British Board of Agrément—the BBA—is one of the main industry certifying bodies for construction products. In virtually all the BBA certificates I have looked at, it is made clear that the approval is for the specific use and application as presented. This is logical because behind every approval is an assessment or test of some kind that will be specific as to the proposed use. However, we know from the Grenfell phase 2 report how things can be misrepresented. Of course, none of this prevents misuse of some sort, or abuse, but it starts to clarify responsibility as applying to those who have true agency in the specification and use of products, especially where fire safety is concerned. I hope this gives the Minister an opportunity to confirm that, so far, I have got this right.

At the meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Leong, and officials, for which I thank him, it was suggested that while the provisions of the Bill cover construction products, in all probability any regulations would be made under a different legislative provision, such as the Building Safety Act 2022—so I looked in that Act for the word “regulation”. I got 650 hits, which sounds a bit like Henry VIII on steroids, I am bound to observe. I alighted on paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 11 to that Act which states:

“For the purposes of this Schedule, “safety-critical products” means construction products which are included in a list contained in construction products regulations”.


It is getting a bit circular, I suspect. Sub-paragraph (2) states:

“A construction product may only be included in a list under sub-paragraph (1) if … in the view of the Secretary of State any failure of the product would risk causing death or serious injury to any person”.


I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that I am right in believing that this is the relevant regulation-making measure that might be used in the Building Safety Act to implement some of the provisions of this Bill, if they are not implemented directly. If so, it has to be noted that the Building Safety Act relates to critical life-safety risks to persons, first and foremost. The Bill does not use that metric, so I consider that the relationship between this Bill and the BSA, for example, needs further clarification.

It has long been my professional assessment that if a building is robust, occupant safety is likely to be assured as well, but focusing on critical fire risk which interests itself only with occupants’ risks consigning them to significant risks of an emotional and financial nature if the building lacks durability and is effectively considered expendable. In terms of human life, that is absolutely the right approach, and I get that, but in terms of mercantile practice and peace of mind, it is a philosophy with gaps, especially if the general Building Safety Act approach is one of proportionality or tolerable risk—although I question by whose objective standards those might be measured, but that is another question.

So if I am correct, even allowing for the point that a building is not “product” as a term of art, why regulate such an important matter as construction products to be used in a residential block via different standards as compared with, say, those for a fridge-freezer or a washing machine? As set out in Clause 1(4)(c), we are concerned with a product that could “reasonably be foreseen” to cause damage to property. How is that, in the case of buildings under the BSA, a proportionate or tolerable risk to life? In the Government’s view, does the latter include the former? If so, I would be delighted to get confirmation of that; it is something that I tried to get hold of right the way through the then Building Safety Bill’s time before us. If not, how does the BSA afford the implementation of product safety in construction products?

Note if you will that the assemblage of products and processes used as someone’s home represents their place of safety. It is often their largest investment; it is also often incomparably more valuable an entity than most consumer products, both to them and in market terms. So standards and regulation matter very much. I invite the Minister to enlighten the Committee on this apparent legislative inconsistency.

Had this amendment been debated earlier in the evening, I might have been tempted at this point to have a little rant about British Standards being set behind a paywall—as well as the invidious nature of that when they are also embedded in regulation; the regulation is open source but the BS is not—but I will leave that matter in part to one side for the moment. I appreciate that some of the points I have mentioned go beyond what I discussed in the meeting with the Minister so, if he is unable to answer them right now, perhaps he could write to me before the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I will briefly respond to the noble Earl. He is right to raise this issue, which is clearly important; we look forward to seeing how the Government respond to it. There are serious issues that need to be addressed somewhere. As has been observed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and others, the open nature of this Bill offers an opportunity for things like this to be properly discussed and to be, if not solved in this way, perhaps solved in another way.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is very good to respond to this debate. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, sees that there is some advantage in the way that we have drafted the Bill.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for raising what is a really important matter. We all recognise that there are failings in the system by which construction products are tested, assured and made available for sale. The noble Earl described his amendment as probing whether the Government are prepared to use the powers in Clauses 1 and 2 to regulate products used in construction. The noble Earl has huge professional expertise. He referred to the BBA and the specific approval given but warned of the risk of misuse; I very much take that point.

The straightforward answer is that we think this issue is very important. We intend to bring forward robust regulatory reforms in order to provide confidence in the construction products regime and to ensure that only safe products are used in buildings and infrastructure. To that end, we also intend to ensure that the testing and assessment of products’ conformity must be undertaken by those who are competent, impartial and effectively held to account. We have committed to working with the sector on system-wide reform, including examining the institutions that play a key role in the construction products regime, so that businesses and, in particular, consumers can have confidence in the products and services they purchase. The proposed new clause to be inserted after Clause 2, through the noble Earl’s Amendment 46, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to use the powers and to make provision for construction products regulations within a year of Royal Assent of the Bill.

I turn now to the Building Safety Act 2022, about which the noble Earl made some interesting points. That Act already includes powers to introduce construction product requirements and regulations. We are exploring how best to use those available powers, including their sufficiency—I take his point on that—as part of considering system-wide reform. He will know that since the Grenfell tragedy in 2017 some action has been taken on construction products, but we know that more needs to be done.

In December 2018, regulations came into force that banned the use of combustible materials in and on the external walls of buildings over 18 metres. The national regulator for construction products was established in 2021 and leads on market surveillance and enforcement of construction product regulation across the UK.

The Government extended the period of recognition of CE marking for construction products in September this year to give the industry sufficient certainty to support supply chains and to allow time to address the inadequacies across the wider construction products regime, but we recognise that this action is piecemeal and does not go far enough. We have confirmed that we will respond to the Grenfell inquiry within six months. We are also committed to bringing forward proposals for system-wide reform of the construction products regulatory regime.

I have listened very carefully to the noble Earl’s analysis of the Building Safety Act and his suggestion that it is not sufficient for our purposes. We are considering this and I will write to him in some detail about the points he has raised. But to be fair to him, I have to say that this Bill does not specifically exclude construction products and that there could be an opportunity to use the Bill powers in the future should we discover that the Building Safety Act 2022 may be insufficient.

I hope that he will accept this as a positive response to the issues he has raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, it is an enormous privilege to have been in a position to add my name to these two amendments and to have listened to the elegant description of the way in which they are meant to work, as explained by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead.

I come to them from a slightly different perspective. The new Government have brought into being a desire to make the union work as a union by co-operation between the Governments in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. Looking particularly to Cardiff, one would have hoped that this is an ambition capable of easy realisation. These clauses give one an opportunity to mark that stated aim in very clear terms. It seems to me that if one looks at what the two clauses have brought about, which my noble and learned friend has so elegantly explained, one sees that they touch on areas of devolved competence, without any doubt at all, and there are legislative consent Motions before the respective devolved legislatures.

There are two areas, as my noble and learned friend has explained. One is consultation. I have never understood why across the board in areas such as this consultation is not mandatory. The previous Government were not very good at that; they did not uphold it properly, I regret to say. I hope they will now see a changed way through, and I very much hope this Government will accept the first amendment on consultation. I can see no argument whatever for not accepting that change.

The second area, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hope, explained, is common frameworks. He has explained how it is necessary to make the amendment, but I hope there is also something to the amendment that will breathe life back to common frameworks. It is fairly useful to go back to what was said in the communique issued after the heads of Government meeting in 2017:

“As the UK leaves the European Union, the Government of the United Kingdom and the devolved administrations agree to work together to establish common approaches in some areas that are currently governed by EU law, but that are otherwise within areas of competence of the devolved administrations or legislatures. A framework will set out a common UK, or GB, approach and how it will be operated and governed. This may consist of common goals, minimum or maximum standards, harmonisation, limits on action, or mutual recognition, depending on the policy area and the objectives being pursued. Frameworks may be implemented by legislation, by executive action, by memorandums of understanding, or by other means depending on the context in which the framework is intended to operate”.


Those were lofty ambitions. Regrettably, and it is not the occasion to go into it now, those ambitions were not properly realised. I pay especial tribute to what my noble and learned friend Lord Hope did when the United Kingdom Internal Market Act was promulgated in obtaining the clauses to which he has referred. It was only by his skill, diligence and considerable persistence—I say with respect—that we got these amendments through. Unfortunately, if there is not the spirit of co-operation—I regret that such spirit was not there for a lot of the past two or three years, although it came back towards the end, particularly under Mr Sunak’s Government—we cannot begin to hope for the lofty ambitions of a union where the Governments work together being realised again.

I hope that, because we have referred to common frameworks in this legislation, we will see them coming back. Much has been said about the need for co-operation and working together, but I think these two amendments are important because it is often said that men are judged not merely by words but by deeds—one could put it in a more colloquial phrase. It seems that these two amendments, drafted in the Government’s words, are and ought to be the deeds by which the Government show that they really mean to go ahead and operate on the basis of a union where, in these areas of devolved competence, there is co-operation but within a framework that permits divergence. Therefore, I very much hope that the principle of these amendments will be accepted, because it is so important to the future of the union.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Foster will speak to his Amendment 102 in a few minutes, but it makes sense to follow the noble and learned Lords with my comments on Amendment 47 and the two amendments in my name, Amendments 93 and 96.

It is an enormous pleasure and something of a responsibility to follow two absolutely fantastic speeches on this subject, and I am afraid that my mind did go back to the long nights of the internal market Bill and the tenacity—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, set out—of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in bringing his amendments forward, because a really important thing was eventually done there.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, referred to the danger of impinging on the devolved authorities. I will give just one practical example and this is not theoretical, because it is already something that the Welsh Government have raised. In their response, the Welsh Government concluded that

“there are relevant provisions in the Bill which, for the purposes of Standing Order 29, are within the legislative competence of the Senedd and therefore a Legislative Consent Memorandum (LCM) is required”.

I do not think that is disputed by the Government.

For example, the power within Clause 1(1)(a) could be used to reduce or mitigate risks presented by products that endanger the health of a person, distinct and separate from any risks to a person’s safety. The use of “health” in Clause 1(4) broadens the scope of how power could be exercised beyond simple product safety, which is a reserved matter, and enables provision to be made for public health purposes, which is an area within the Senedd’s legislative competence. This is just one example.

In their response document, the Welsh Government raise issues covering product regulations, product requirements, emergencies, information sharing, cost recovery, consequential amendment of certain Acts, interpretation, and the Schedule. Happily, the Welsh Government seem okay with Clauses 5 and 6, but the rest of the Bill forms a grey area around competence and responsibility.