Lords Chamber

Wednesday 26th February 2025

(began 8 months, 3 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
None Portrait Oral questions: The role of chiropractors in national musculoskeletal health prevention strategies
-

Third Oral Question. Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick.
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:41
None Portrait Oral questions: Releasing frozen Russian assets to help Ukraine Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour)
-

1/4 oral question, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock.
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:49
15:49
15:50
15:50
15:51
15:52
15:55
15:55
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, this bill has a troubled history. It should not have been introduced in its current form to either house. It is now fallen foul of the delegated powers and reform committee on three occasions and by the Constitutional committee on two occasions. I acknowledge the government's efforts to assuage the concerns and I would like to thank the Minister for engaging so openly with this. Those concessions are welcome and we support them. Regrettably, interview, they do not go far enough.

I rise today to speak on the critical importance of the purpose clause in this bill and its implications for the United Kingdom's regulatory autonomy. This bill in its current form contains no exposed mention of respecting the U.K.'s regulatory autonomy which is the foundation of a prosperous, independent economy. This absence is exactly why we need this purpose clause, to fill that gap and provide clear direction for the Secretary of State under the provisions of this will. After, the reason we left the EU was to regain the ability to make our own decisions, free from external control.

Without this purpose clause, this bill does not sufficiently safeguard the economy that we fought so hard for. This is why we need this purpose clause. It explicitly addresses the need to protect and prioritise U.K.'s regulatory economy -- autonomy. It establishes a guiding principle that the government must always act in a way that protects the UK's sovereignty, free from influence from foreign laws. By explicitly requiring that the Secretary of State ensures regulations are of the highest quality, this clause pushes the government to focus on treating a regulatory environment that stimulates instead of stifling business.

It sends a clear message that the U.K.'s regulatory framework should be one that encourages technological development, support start-ups, protect consumers and ultimately contribute to economic growth. We live in a highly competitive, global market where businesses need certainty and a frame to operate according to clear frame to operate according to clear and fair rules. I appreciate this preamble is a lengthy in the context of a report stage amendment but this makes sense only with some historical context. There are also arguments that will inform many of our other amendments so Noble Lords will be relieved they will need to listen to them too often again.

If the government is determined to force through this unfinished, skeletal legislation in spite of reasonable objections from this house and their own attorney general, than the very least we can do is give the bill an overarching purpose. That is to improve the regulation of products were also prioritising the United Kingdom's regulatory autonomy. Of the government is serious in its growth intentions. Indeed, earlier today, the noble Baroness said that the government will always act in national interest to secure what is best in Britain, British businesses and citizens.

Surely, the government will find nothing to object to an both those aims and therefore accept

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this amendment. About to move. Amendment proposed, before clause 1, insert the new clause as printed
15:58
16:00
16:02
Lord Frost Portrait Lord Frost (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to support the amendment of Lord Sharpe, we have discussed this question of what the point of this bill is, on many occasions, during the committee process. And, I'm afraid we know none the wiser and certainly no better informed of that subject as a result of those discussions. That is why I think it is a necessary to have a clear purpose clause written into the bill. The nearest we have, I guess, is in the Explanatory Memorandum, a few months back, which says, I won't read the full text of the bill insures to ensure modern safety issues, high modern standards, but allowing the UK Parliament the power

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to update laws. Correct me if I'm wrong, the UK Parliament already has that power to Parliament already has that power to update any law that it wishes. I don't really see how that can be the purpose of this particular bill. There must be something else to it. Of course one can speculate about it, perhaps it is just to relieve the government of the burden of having to go through the effort of legislating for the full range of manufactured goods that we still produce in this country, to delegate produce in this country, to delegate that power the European Union and create, recreate the situation that existed before we left that organisation.

Perhaps it is to help with the woeful arrangements of the Windsor Framework and make it a little easier to move goods across the internal border, from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. I don't know. What the purpose of the bill can't be is to reduce trade, or it can only sew on one condition. The purpose can't be to reduce trade barriers, because aligning with the EU law does not reduce trade barriers. The EU is very clear about the process remains, because it is a different legal system.

The one condition on which that could be true, of course, would be if the UK and the EU reached an agreement that aligned legislation, under this bill, was to be considered to be EU law, would be enforced by the commission and the court. In other words a Swiss type arrangement. We have heard chatter that that might be what the Government is aiming for, in this research. As far as I can see, purpose of the bill, without the purpose clause that is in amendment one.

It is a maybe to lay the ground for a Swiss agreement. I would ask the Minister, perhaps, when commenting on this group, to confirm or deny whether that is the intention of the Government. Whether that is the purpose of this legislation. Because if it is not, it is a very hard to see why the Government would not accept the purpose of this amendment. amendment.
16:06
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I hope, in the course of my remarks, over the course of this debate, I can illuminate the rationale for the benefit of my noble friend, Lord Deben. This amendment is not about already litigating in the Brexit battles. It is about holding the government's feet to the fire, in a bill which is a deeply flawed, which is found to be deeply flawed, by both this House is, your Lordship's House, Constitution Committee and the dedicated Legislation committee as well.

More of that later. The two reasons I think that Ministers should look benignly on this amendment is because I do not think it is substantially at odds with the We understand and it is not in noble aspiration of government. The Government was concerned and indeed of the previous government was also concerned that it did not currently have sufficient powers to respond to the EU's regulatory initiatives, efficacious leave. And that that would have a negative trade consequences. It is perfectly proper to seek to address that issue.

The fundamental problem of this bill is that it does not articulate how far the Government intends to exercise the very wide scale sweeping enabling powers, in favour of alignment with the European Union, among other jurisdictions. It is for that reason I think this amendment should receive the support of your Lordships' House. It is, after all, purpose clause. It is a fundamental issue. Lordships will forgive me if perhaps I stray into the remit of Amendment two. They are very Amendment two.

They are very similar. At clause 1. Before I go any further, actually, I also want to put on record my thanks to, to the Minister, to how genial and open he has been in engaging with all sides of the House, including friends on the Liberal Democrat benches. In it seeking to improve the bill and having proper debate. Although there is no mention of a dynamic alignment, in the bill, specifically, my noble friend, Lord Frost makes a very astute point.

Whether the Government is moving towards a Swiss style agreement, so multiple bilateral agreements, which would not potentially be in the best interest of the UK, as a very much larger substantial economy, for instance, Switzerland. I think the Minister should accept that our amendment seeks clarity, certainty and in explicit purpose, with out undermining the concept of improving the regulation of products and metrology. This isn't just A1 joint statutory instrument, it is a piece of primary legislation. I think it is quite a sensible to have the purpose of that legislation explicitly set out.

And of course, it does have an impact being the autonomy of the UK, as an independent trading nation. Because, as my noble friend, King hang of Kings clear made clear, in PM questions earlier. Adopting a regulatory regime, over which we have no effective influence, or input, or indeed sanction is not a sensible way to proceed and would certainly circumscribe our capacity to make new, advantageous trade arrangements, with countries, not just outside the EU, but others that will come into the EU subsequently, as new members.

And it is a matter, the noble Lord hunt chanters from a sedentary position. It is a value

**** Possible New Speaker ****

judgement. In our own hands, what we do, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In our own hands, what we do, the bill gives us the right to adopt, if we want to, to change we want to we want to, to change we want to stop My Lords, this is about the UK having control. I thought that was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what the party opposite wanted. If the bill was not an egregious offence in respect of huge Henry

**** Possible New Speaker ****

VIII powers and enabling powers.... I can't resist this, surely the whole point about this bill is to give us the flexibility, to do what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noble Lord is asking us to do? Then he would support a purpose clause which is much clearer and clause which is much clearer and much more explicit. I make the case. Incidentally I agree with every word Incidentally I agree with every word of my noble friend and I will be supporting his amendment later. As the noble Lord Hunt of Kings Heath rises to the dispatch box, I just would like to conclude my remarks would like to conclude my remarks with the words of his noble friend, the Attorney-General and it has been mentioned before.

Because it is very important within the context of this bill. This is a primary legislation, it is unclear, it gives the ministerial fiat, ministerial powers, wide-ranging powers and there is not the explicit protections. And indeed, the delegated legislation committee specifically says there aren't proper procedures, even consultation, with key stakeholders. You will know on 14 October, the Attorney-General, who is not as high-profile as he used to be, in high-profile as he used to be, in this House, he said, in his Bingham let Jo on 14 October, a quite excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses or powers, Henry VIII clauses or skeleton legislation upset the proper balance between Parliament and the Executive.

This not only strikes at the rule of law values, but also other cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty. In my view, the new Government offers an opportunity for research, in the way that government thinks about these issues. This means in particular much sharper focus on whether taking delegated powers is justified in a given case and a more careful consideration of appropriate safeguards. " I could not have put it better myself. And on that basis, I hope the Minister may be minded to support my noble friend, Lord Sharpe's amendment.

friend, Lord Sharpe's amendment.
16:13
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
It is a pleasure to take part in this report section. Clearly to speak to this amendment. I'm grateful to the noble Lord Jackson for reminding us we are not already litigating at the Brexit debate. Sometimes during the committee stage it can be a very hard to understand at that point, given the speeches that have come from his adventures, my lords. We are not really litigating the Brexit debate. We are trying to put in place a regulatory regime, the ability to deliver regulation that benefits people of this country.

I was minded to consider that if I was on an electric lawnmower and I started either to be electrocuted by it, or had my toes removed by it, the last thing I would worry about was whether the regulation of that was autonomous. I would be worried, why was it not safe? Why was the product and not preserving my rights as a consumer, not to be elective tooted consumer, not to be elective tooted or amputated? Correct electrocuted. If the noble Lord wanted to put the purpose of this bill, the purpose is not to deliver realistic autonomy for stop if we look at amendment eight, we see that the Minister, far from delivering autonomy is going to tie us to a whole bunch of other regulatory issues.

We will come onto that. It is about delivering a regime that protects people, protects the environment, gives consumers right of recompense, if they are sold 40 products. All those sorts of things we see before us, My Lords. If you look in the draft code of conduct, that is what is set out in the introduction. So, My Lords, sometimes we use before clause 1, amendments, to make sure that we are the first. I don't think, in this case that that was in the mind of the noble Lord shop.

His amendment is designed to completely change the purpose of our bill. If I can finish my sentence, please. -- Noble Lord shop. It is designed to completely change the purpose of this bill. I think he has admitted that and that is right. Through the committee stage had been about the consumer and about the safety and the issues that actually matter. If you want a purpose, and very happy to sit down with the noble Lord shop, the Minister and we can draw up the opposite of it makes people feel happier.

The key issue is not about the autonomy, it is about the the autonomy, it is about the And And we And we are And we are not And we are not at And we are not at committee And we are not at committee stage. It is very clear in the standing orders that you can only speak once on report stage unless you are the mover of the group, in which case you can respond to the Minister. It is not within the rules to have the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sort of debate. That is for the committee, not the report. I'm grateful to the Noble Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the Noble Lord. So, our focus will be... I think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he's just said... The Noble Lord agreed to give way. way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I give way to the whips. I apologise. I should not have intervened. Can I suggest that we intervened. Can I suggest that we allow Lord Fox -- Faulks to finish

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his speech. Thank you. We will be focusing on the key issues. When we come to the key issues. When we come to further groups, we will see that the work we have done is to try to work we have done is to try to prioritise proper scrutiny and environmental impact as well as environmental impact as well as consumer issues and legal issues. consumer issues and legal issues. And to make sure that can be done and this bill can be changed in a way that survives contact with a way that survives contact with a huge government majority in the House of Commons.

That is what we were doing and that is why we will not be supporting the Noble Lord with his amendment. with his amendment.
16:18
16:20
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
Firstly, may I thank all Noble Lords who have given up so many hours in meeting up with me and my officials to go through this bill, and I really appreciate the diverse meetings we've had. I thank the Noble Lord Lord Sharpe for his amendment seeking to introduce a new clause about the purpose of this bill. Likewise, I thank all Noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. We have had many hours of debate on this bill and I think we all support the intent of this amendment.

That is the importance of improving product regulation. On that, I hope there is consensus. Is the Secretary of State for trade and business pointed out when giving evidence at the committee, the powers of this bill would provide give the UK regulatory autonomy. If the previous government had continued in office, they would have needed the same bill. My Lords, we require this bill as part of our legislation -- this bill is required for updating our regulatory regime.

I refer to the Jackson's point about secondary legislation. Now, this is about thousands of pages of highly technical regulations. -- I refer to the Jackson's point about secondary legislation. -- Lord Jackson's. There are differences in how we go about improving regulation. That often requires a balance to be struck, such as where obligations set requirements that business must meet. The debate which we heard during the bill's passage may not be best served by introducing abroad purpose to improve on the face of the bill.

This bill is about strengthening the U.K.'s regulatory autonomy. It will make sure there are appropriate powers to regulate products to suit the U.K.'s needs and interests. Then, Parliament will have oversight of the regulations made in this bill. This bill is all about regulatory autonomy. It is about providing powers to enable the UK to change regulation to suit UK's needs and interests and ensure consumer safety, as well as endings -- ending uncertainty for businesses. The bill is necessary. I said earlier that all stages -- changes will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

I hope I have been able to outline why this amendment is not necessary and I therefore beg to move that this amendment be withdrawn. amendment be withdrawn.
16:23
16:24
16:36
16:37
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
end 16 standing in the name of Lord end 16 standing in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom. (Amendment) (No. 2) Sharpe of Epsom. (Amendment) (No. 2) seeks to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State, granted to the Secretary of State, under product regulations. As my noble friend, Lord Sharpe stated in noble friend, Lord Sharpe stated in a committee, I quote, "Clause 1 grants are wide ranging powers, to grants are wide ranging powers, to the Secretary of State, to make regulations through statutory instruments, SIs.

A process with limited Parliamentary oversight, such discretion risks undermining the democratic accountability, as statutory instruments, not subject to the same level of scrutiny, as primary legislation. " Unfortunately, since committee, the Government, despite the valiant efforts of the noble Lord, the Minister, had still failed to address this adequately. Let me please just explain. I'm very grateful for the tremendous amount of work that has been done, by the delegated powers of a regulatory reform committee, on this bill.

In October of last year, the DPRRC published its second report, on this bill. After the evidence section, session, with the noble Lord and his Commons colleague. Committee was not qualified, on 20 October published the following. " In our view, the delegation and to administer lawmaking powers, in this bill, involves a legislating power shifting to an unacceptable extent, from the democratically appointed legislature to the Executive. " Having now had a chance to look at the government's recent concessions, the committee has just published its latest views on 21 February.

They said and it was a unanimous view, and I quote, "These are limited changes which do little to address the significant concerns that we expressed, about this bill, in our report of the 15th and 28th of October. The Government has not taken the opportunity to add flesh to the bones of this skeleton bill. They continued, " We remain of the view that the delegation to Ministers of lawmaking powers, in this bill, involves a legislative power shifting, to an unacceptable extent.

From the democratically appointed, to the Executive. Nothing, therefore, has changed. Meanwhile, our colleagues on the Constitution Committee also published a scathing report, on 18 October. They unpicked the government's arguments that much of the existing law, within these areas was already secondary legislation. By pointing out that the transposition of EU law, into domestic law, by way of secondary legislation was previously constrained, by the European Communities Act 1972, section 2. Which allowed for the use of delegated powers, only to implement EU law.

That invariably this law had been subject to scrutiny, by an EU law making institutions. They were backed up by the House of Commons at European Scrutiny Committee, amongst others. This bill will replace those limited secondary powers, with potentially open-ended secondary powers. Now, I do acknowledge that the House must acknowledge that the Government, in particular the noble Lord the Minister, has moved a long way, in terms of consultation and some use of affirmative powers. But nevertheless, the DPRRC voted on 21 February that, " Even if the House were to agree to these delegations of power, in our view those powers should be constrained, so that Product Regulation and Metrology Bill a is are in all cases subject to a affirmative resolution., Procedure scrutiny.

So, by laws, this is not to oppose, for the sake of opposition. This is a vital issue of principle. We take the view that if two committees, vitally important committees of this House expresses such serious reservations, on more than one occasion. Then those reservations should be taken seriously. We accept, of course, that the Government has the right to disagree. And to make their case. Indeed we did so, in government, on a number of occasions. This bill, quite simply asks us to go too far.

My Lords, it is not just the committees that affect this. I do of course speak, as the immediate past chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. We have dealt so much in the past with the inadequacy of the controls on the Executive, so far as secondary legislation is concerned. I don't know whether the House will remember, I don't want to go too far back in history. But the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, published, on 10 October 22, losing impact, why the government impact assessment system is failing Parliament and the public.

And then on 2 February 2023, " Losing control : the inflammations of a parliament under Retained EU Law Act the and an reform bill. " The report published, as long ago as 24 November 2021. This is a reflection of the previous government. This was titled, " Of it by diktat : a call to return the power to Parliament. " That is what I am now asking. I do have an ally and my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough has a very persuasively already quoted, although he was unconstitutionally interrupted twice, by my fellow Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, which was actually totally contrary to the rule but, as I understand.

I hesitate to criticise, because I am sure I would have probably done the same thing myself. Report stage as the noble Lord Russell pointed out is constrained and we must, here are my asking everyone to pay attention to the select committees. I should also ask everybody to pay attention here. It is quite right and I did see last night, during the course of the vote that took place. I did warn him that we would be quoting, as my noble friend did, from his Birmingham friend did, from his Birmingham lecture.

I thought it was actually a brilliant lecture. Correction group Birmingham lecture. As a Lord Russell of Liverpool will know I circulated it to all of my fellow members on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and I asked the clerk, to make sure all of our select committees were made aware of what was, I felt, a brilliant speech, by the attorney. And he laid down a clear procedure to follow. Which is namely the rule of law. And the rule of law has a range of values.

Which the attorney outlined, They are all to do with the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty. I recognise, and I'm not going to repeat the words of the attorney because they are already on record, but I recognise that governments do tend to prefer a system where they could lay down in primary legislation that they can do what they like. In secondary legislation, even to the extent of repealing primary legislation, but still only by secondary legislation. But in many ways, we just have to say to ourselves, is this the way we want to proceed? And this amendment want to proceed? And this amendment that I'm talking in particular to, gives us the ability to just say enough.

No more. Please, go back and find a better way of proceeding in this vitally important area of law.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move. Amendment proposed. Clause 1, page 1, 93. Leave out subsection 1. page 1, 93. Leave out subsection 1. I must inform the house that if I must inform the house that if amendment to is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendments three and four by reason of pre-emption.
16:47
Lord Anderson of Ipswich Portrait Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

and four by reason of pre-emption. I rise not to support the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise not to support the noble Lord, although it is a pleasure to follow him, but to address follow him, but to address amendments which I have signed. The constitution committee has already been kindly mentioned by the Noble Lords Sharpe and Hunt. I wanted to register my appreciation the government has listened to our concerns but reacted constructively to them. The Henry VIII powers have been greatly reduced in scope and a credible explanation has been given for the small remainder.

Well the bill continues to contain uncomfortably wide ministerial powers to make significant policy decisions, the broad duty of consultation in clause 61, amendment 61, is a welcome mitigation. It might have been possible to go further as the Delegated Powers Committee has said. For my part, I would not go so far as to support the Noble Lord in his amendment. I'm tempted to say his wrecking amendment number two. This is a problem that is not going to go away.

It was raised by this bill in a particularly acute form. The government has grappled with it conscientiously and they deserve credit for that. A final thought, if I may. A rather dry one. But what do you expect from the crossbenchers? I hope that the relevant committees of this house might have on occasion to discuss this with the government, not only bill by bill but in a more structured and strategic way. Such discussions will give proper weight to the constraint on government but could also draw on the guidance provided by our committees and bodies such as the Hansard Society over many years.

Perhaps the Minister will agree that the goal of a more consistent and principled approach on both sides of the fence might at least be both -- worth pursuing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise in this group to speak to my amendment number four which is in my amendment number four which is in this group. And which would be pre- empted if amendment number two was empted if amendment number two was to be passed by reason of deletion
16:50
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
of the relevant provision in clause 1.1, to which it would add an additional subclause. This amendment, if Noble Lords will bear with me for just a second, if one would add to the overarching objective of making regulations which is to secure safe products, that it would add to that but when doing so, the Secretary of State should have regard in considering whether regulation should be made with regard to the United Kingdom been seen as a favourable place in which to develop manufacture or supply products.

Now, of course, many of the debates we may have on the bill will relate to the question of alignment or otherwise. It seems to me that one of the reasons we are considering this legislation is because there are significant issues to do with the manufacture, distribution and supply of products in this country, were we to diverge significantly from the standards that lagged behind the European Union. Rather than continue as we have done with the reliance on EU have done with the reliance on EU To enable that to happen.

Because To enable that to happen. Because we seek to do that by reference to the economic, adverse consequences that may flow from failing to be able to bring products here that may drive some economic activity elsewhere. It seems to me that it is really important from the point of view of ministers making regulations that they should consider whether as a result, the United Kingdom is an attractive place in which to manufacture, distribute or supply products. This is not a new concept.

The Medicines and medical Devices act 2021, Noble Lords will recall that that legislation includes what is effectively the same provision. It does so in relation to medical devices. Medical devices are out of the scope of this bill. This bill is relevant to a very wide range of other industrial products. I do not understand why it should not be an essential part of the way ministers consider making legislation that has such an impact on business that they should not have regard to the positive benefits that can accrue to benefit business from ensuring that we have appropriate products we have appropriate products regulatory framework.

Now, I need to quickly just say that I don't agree with the Noble Lord board Anderson that this is a wrecking amendment. Why? Because if this were to be removed by amendment number two, clearly, the ignition making power would be removed from the bill so the government would have to think again. But later in this group, he will note and the house will note, his government amendment 44 -- is government amendment 44. Government amendment 44 instead of having consequential amendments to part two, four and five of the original formulation in response to the delegating powers committee which was unhappy with this sweeping power to amend the consumer protection act suggested the government instead say we are going to omit part two and five.

Now, part two is the one I'm interested in. This is part of the consumer protection act. The government is simply proposing to remove part two of the consumer protection act. What I would say to the house and indeed to my noble friend on frontbench, if amendment to work to be passed -- amendment number two are to be passed, there would be regulation making power in it but if the house were to resist at the same time government amendment 44, then they would continue to be powers in the consumer protection act 1987 for the purpose of making regulations for product safety.

The house will just maybe be reminded, if I just look at it for a second, the house will be reminded that under section 11 of that act, section 11.1 of the 19 seven act says the Secretary of State may by regulations make such provisions as he considers appropriate for securing goods to which the section applies are safe. More detail follows including the respective ways in which provisions can be determined. The government should, in my view, either tell us how they are going to legislate using the powers in the 19 seven act using the powers in the 19 seven act -- 19 -- 1987 act.

I know we are going to come back to legislation. We will come back to legislation on product liability. The Consumer Protection Act is nearly 40 years old and we know it needs updating but the government is not doing that. The government is sweeping away the consumer protection act and not giving us anything like the detail that was in that bill as to how these powers are to be used. And there is an enormous amount of nearly 40 years worth of scrutiny of the provisions in section 11 on product safety, which will also be swept away.

The language in this bill is not the same as the Consumer Protection Act. I'm slightly anticipating the next group and amendment three. Why? Because if amendment number two is passed, amendment three will not be debated. I just want to make it absolutely clear that while I support my noble friend in his criticisms of the way in which this bill is constructed, I just wanted to be clear that there is a route available to maintain the powers for determining regulations to product safety and that would force the government then to come back and amend the Consumer Protection Act in a way that was more substantive and clear that the present bill offers us.
16:57
16:59
Lord Deben Portrait Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to make clear, having disagreed with the first amendment, I do agree with the Noble Lord Lord Hunt in his discussion here, and I fundamentally disagree with the words of Lord Penning because this is exactly the moment that we give away the basic parliamentary control. We know perfectly well that although it is better than it was, it is still true that in the end, a great deal can be done by ministerial diktat which ought to come to Parliament.

I'm not in any way suggesting that everything should come to Parliament. It is easy to say that you cannot have everything but that doesn't mean to say we should allow this to go through without insisting on having a much clearer definition of where ministerial diktat is proper and where it is not. And until we get that right, I think this is, if I may say this to Lord Penning, a slippery slope. I oppose the previous government, my own government again and again on precisely this problem.

Ministers always want these powers and they are always encouraged by civil servants to have these powers. As a minister for 16 years, I have to say it did me a great deal of good not to have those powers and you have to argue the case across the house. Therefore, I beg to house to support the amendment by the opposition because, not because it doesn't have to be overturned and something else replaced by it but because it will make the government think again about the effects of the wide range And we believed, or we were told, that we were taking back control.

I think we, in fact, did not take back control at all but that we made ourselves less powerful in controlling our futures. But the one thing that we did not say we were going to do was to give Ministers the unfettered control which we had objected to in the European Union. I just have to say I think it necessary for the Government to go further and I fear that the usual way that I find that Noble Lord opposite very persuasive I think he has given way to early for us to ask for further concessions before we can safely pass this bill.

can safely pass this bill.
17:02
17:04
17:06
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
It is a really interesting debate. And it is a shame, in a sense, that we cannot have the debate on group 3 where we would set out some of the issues that I am going to explain very briefly whereby scrutiny is enhanced for the legislation because I share your Lordships house concern that it insufficient scrutiny and indeed adequate scrutiny happens even when we have Statutory Instruments. As the Noble Lord pointed out we need something better than the way in which we deal with statutory instruments.

Verily, if ever, idea turned away. We have a Motions that make note of this at all, so to some extent we are actually protecting a paper tiger here and what we should be talking about, is there a way that we can make sure that these future regulations go through a process that is properly socialised. I am afraid to say that's happening in group 3. And we will take it through, but I will say that I completely agree with Noble Lord Jackson, the issue of criminal sanctions is a concern and we need to have a way of scrutinising it.

When I talked to group 3, that is included. An as our environmental And we do have to have a greater way of transparency but it is not another's transparency that will get through over and over again. And I think that we have to be honest with ourselves about what we actually do when we are dealing with secondary legislation, so that is why I have been with very hard and white I have really welcomed the conversations I have had with the Minister and the Minister's team in order to try to open something up that will actually not only give us proper scrutiny, better scrutiny certainly, I would sit nearly properly scrutiny but also something that will survive contact with the Government majority at the other end.

That is the opening point which is, to some extent, a tool to a different group. With respect to this one, amendment 61 in this group mandates additional consultation and Amendment 55, which has truly been put in group 12, strengthens affirmative process and I was very pleased to see that Noble Lord medicines name to that, the noble and learned Earl Addison's name to that. I very much appreciated his to the Noble Lord panicked speeches today. So, that adds further resilience and helps to meet some of the issues that were raised by your Lordships committee.

What I would say is once we have discussed the changes in group 3, hopefully with the hopeful response of the Minister, I think that will also contain some of the issues that the Noble Lord rest which, again, it is a fundamental thing. How do we properly review legislation. And IM hoping that we come up with a way that will do this. So, that is why we are keeping our do dry on these benches, because we have put a lot of work and a lot of hope into what we are going to be doing in the next group and I think we could genuinely give your Lordships house and indeed parliamentarians as well as all the external bodies a way of participating in the proper pre- scrutiny of statutory arrangements before they ever reach your Lordships house.

Whether it is affirmative or negative process when they get it. they get it.
17:10
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
Firstly, a welcome, the Noble Lord, to his place. And I really look forward to working with him constructively in the months ahead. And I thank the Noble Lord Fox for giving us a peek into what to expect in the next group. I have listened carefully to the concern of scrutiny, the delicate powers of committee and the constitutional committee. And also I have read my Noble Friend the Attorney General's lecture and we have taken it on board.

That is why the Government proposes to introduce the mandatory consultation requirements and the Secretary of State to consult such persons as to consider appropriate. This was welcome in the DPRRC latest report and particularly appreciated their constructive engagement. Consultation is a crucial part of Governments commitment to continue shareholder engagement. I refer to shareholder engagement. I refer to Lord Lansley's amendment on the bill itself. Basically mending the bill to require consultation the Government will need to ensure how to ensure the UK is a good place to manufacture, develop and supply products.

I am sure businesses will let us know their strong views. Amendment six has been drafted in such a way that ensures the consultation is appropriate to the circumstances that reflect the potential risks posed and those with an interest. This is well precedented in existing legislation and allows for a variety of approaches, including those specific areas such as the recent common charge of the recent outdoor noise caused for evidence. Full consultation such as that which is undertaken as part of the safety reveal and technical discussions to consider sector specific actions, for example on cosmetics.

Where a specialist scientific committee has been commissioned to form an opinion. We have set up more details in the opening statement within our new code of conduct on when, how, and with whom the Government currently engages regulatory matters associated with safety and meteorology. This Code of Conduct is available in the library of the House and I hope that peers find it useful. Amendment 60 useful. Amendment 66 to introduce a mandatory period for consultations. We believe that this will not always be necessary for all appropriate because changes to product and meteorology approaches can range from very minor to more substantial changes.

It is important that the consultation requirements give stability to the Secretary of State to consult as needed appropriate on a case-by-case basis. But we have not stopped at a consultation requirement. We have fought Howard -- hard about this package and I now refer to Henry and I thank the Noble Lord for his very insightful contribution. In member of the Lords first committee for its contribution. We have heard the concerns expressed by Henry VIII powers and are amending the bill to eliminate most of them.

Amendment 44, 47, 62, 63 and 65, therefore, restrict the number of Henry VIII powers to an absolute minimum necessary. We are removing entirely the power to amend or repeal for consumer rights in 2015. We are putting on the face of the build repeal of the absolute minimum necessary of provisions in a Consumer Protection Act 1987 and that wasted measures act, 1985. Commencement regulations will be used to bring those appeals back into force at the right time, once the relations are made under this bill to remove duplication or provide for regulatory continuity.

We are pleased to see the DPRRC coming these amendments. Alongside these changes, the Government has introduced two small changes. Amendment 42 per necessary technical fix for the bill, amendment 52 was consequential. I understand that Noble Lord have concerns about the creation of criminal offences, the subject of Amendment 39, table biologics and of Peterborough. I want to reassure the House that regulations and interviews will widen the scope of criminal offences, will be subjected to an affirmative procedure.

This is right and proper. To inform this debate and Explanatory Memorandum would justify the proposed changes and would be drafted after the Justice impact test and impact assessments The government has brought forward an amendment that will remove the criminal offence, applying to the sale of goods in unpermitted quantities. Finally, I should touch on amendment 41 and the name of noble Lord Lord Holmes about the policy in relation to the religion between artificial intelligence. The government cannot support the amendment.

This is not an AI bill. We will consider of course consider, how the growth of AI affects the safety of products. This bill seeks to regulate. And our regulatory responses to that. We will continue to work with businesses and consumer groups to understand the needs and development of AI. And what that means for the risk physical products might resent to cook consumers before we consider any regulation of products containing AI under this bill. While I've heard and listened to the concerns, I have been pleased to see Pearce from across the floor of the House as well as the DPRRC and the Lords constitutional committee in the understanding for the need of some form of legislation.

As technology continues to develop we need new powers to keep up-to-date and to address future threats and hazards. And in the name of noble Lord Lord Sugar, the name of noble Lord Lord Sugar, would remove the core provisions of the bill that will allow us to do this. This will leave a product framework frozen in time and able to respond to other technical updates or substantial new risk. Ours and other legislation are inadequate to updating the framework, for example powers in the Retained EU Law Act are restricted and accept limited circumstances cannot be used to make further changes to provisions are raining amendment using those powers alter impose tighter safety message.

I know there is not any member of any side of the House who wants. Clause 11 is vital to delivering that aim. Our existing regular tree framework covers matters as broad as the use of radio spectrum, economic design to protect equipment, noise emissions from certain products such as Land Rover's and excavators, the powers in clause 1 must be brought enough to cover this matters to. I understand concerns about leaving the details of such important matters to secondary legislation but our regulatory framework has developed over many years.

It covers extremely technical details and I do not believe in using Parliamentary time as mentioned or to give businesses the clarity they need to table primary legislation, every time such detail regulation needs to be updated. We believe the new statutory consultation requirements and changes to the number of Henry VIII powers along with providing for greater use of affirmative procedure across the bill, which we will debate later, provides a good for the use of the powers under the bill. I hope this assures noble Lords that the regulation powers in the school serve the interest of consumers and provide clarity for businesses as indicated by Lord Hunt, by providing a regular tree framework to be responsive.

Consequently I would ask noble Lords to withdraw the amendments.
17:20
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
This has been a fascinating debate and I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his kind tribute to me at the start of his remarks. I think we have had a good tour the horizon. It reminds me of somebody I have was counted on moments like this. And we still miss hugely, Lord Judge. He taught me so much about Henry VIII clauses. In fact, he told me things I didn't know as a practising solicitor.

He was radiant. And we do so much miss him. Can I just say to Lord Fox, because I read his contributions in committee, physically about the delegated. -- Particularly. He was in total agreement. I don't know what's happened. Perhaps we should have a consultation about the consultation. Because what the Attorney-General did, and I'll come back to what the noble Lord the Minister said just a moment, the Attorney-General said, this new government offers an opportunity for a reset in the way the government thinks about these issues.

This means a much sharper focus on whether taking dedicated powers is justified in a given case, and more careful consideration of appropriate safeguards. The one message I take from this short debate, but of great substance, is that we need to give further reflection to Lord Fox's noble friends private bills, secondary (Amendment) Bill, when I made a special journey. I won't go into the detail. The support that into the detail. The support that bill.

And my colleagues on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee 4 to 12 breath of fresh air. But it met with a stone wall from the government. -- They thought it was a fresher. I only government would think again about the way we deal with secondary, so much would be unnecessary but we are discussing. And I would say to the noble Lord of Ipswich, how wounding can you be to describe this important constitutional debate as a wrecking amendment. Because what I was doing is giving the noble Lord the Minister and opportunity, an opportunity to come forward with some new proposals.

He has failed to convince the Delegated Powers convince the Delegated Powers Committee .To can side on that further report of the committee to the rubbish to? -- Are we to consign. I'm not. Continue to return to their theme that the government has got it wrong. It's perfectly possible on third reading, for the government to come forward, if we pass this amendment tonight, amendment two, and I minded, if we pass it, then the government has a real opportunity to listen even more , which they've only just received from that delegate and which was a unanimous report, Crossbow, Liberal Democrat, Conservative, Labour peers, all united in saying the government has got it wrong in producing which is in effect a skeletal bill.

So I'm disappointed the bill, which had the opportunity to get more ground, to go away and consider further, didn't take that opportunity. I'm very grateful to the noble Lord Lord Lansley, who directly contradicted what the Minister said about the effect of this amendment, because it would have that effect, and I think his amendment is such a good amendment. Under the noble Lord Lord Pannick, I'm so surprised that he should come forward and oppose this. Because it flies in the face of many of the speeches he's made before.

Lord Eben, like old times. All times are back again when we work together for those 16 years, in government. Because Lord Demon pointed out that we just need to make the government think again. And Lord Jackson of Peterborough, again with a really good amendment and 39, Lord Holmes of Richmond 41, we have had such a good debate, it's a shame that the government has refused to think again, and that's why, in my view, we should test the opinion of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House. I beg to move. Amendment two and the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom, moved Lord Sharpe of Epsom, moved Lord Sharpe of Epsom, moved formally. My Lords, I must be informed the House but if amendment two is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendment three or four by to call amendment three or four by reason of reaction. The questions that amendment two be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not
17:26
17:37
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
unsuccessfully, I now have the opportunity to move amendment three. And I know we have slightly anticipated some of the arguments in my case in the last group also Lord Fox, we look forward very much to Lord Fox talking to his amendments in this group. I have two amendments in this group that I want to talk to. It is amendment three and 12 that are linked. And then subsequently amendment 28 which is to a separate and different purpose. Amendment three which I rise to move would insert into the regulation making power a requirement that, and I quote, that regulation should have the purpose of securing that product, this section applies, are safe.

Where does this come from? As I think you may recall from the last group it is reinserting into this legislation precisely that same provision which is in section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 which, as we in the last group discovered from the Noble Lord the Minister, the Government are going to remove part two of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Not simply have a consequential power to amend it, but there are going to on the face of the build remove it, so I am not an expert on product safety legislation but we have nearly 40 years to which this provision has been the case and on the basis of which much of our product safety legislation has been based.

Until, broadly speaking, it was augmented or replaced by the general product safety regulations coming out of the European Union. And, of course, now we have those general product safety regulations 2005 through the assimilated legislation on the basis of which much of our subordinate legislation has been created for product safety. Why do I want to do this? I want to do this partly because I am moving it and I freely admit to the Noble Lord the Minister who said so I am trying to find out why the Government believe that the language of the bill which is as the Noble Lord will recall that the Noble Lord that as I quote it correctly that it should be for the purpose of reducing or mitigating risks presented by products, is a better, is certainly different, construction than the proposition that products shall be safe.

The Noble Lord fox in the earlier debate helpfully used a very straightforward analogy, there he is with his lawnmower. He wants it to be safe also I do not think, if I may paraphrase, he does not want to stand there with the lawnmower going across his tour, thinking that I do wish the Government would introduce regulations that mitigated the risk of this happening. He wanted it to be safe. Now, amendment 12, I have included it because, of course, there is no point putting the word safe back into the legislation, unless one defines safe and the Consumer Protection Act 1987 does define the word safe for these purposes I have amended the definition of the Consumer Protection Act to take out the word goods and insert the word products because that is consistent with the structure of this bill that we relate to products.

And, indeed, I think that there has been caselaw that has found difficulty in the limitations or the interpretation of the word goods. So, amendment three is really to say to Ministers of course it is not too late. In this House or another place. Consider whether it might straightforward to maintain the intention that products shall be safe and define safe alongside the reduction in mitigation of risk. Because it seems to me that there is arguably a difference between the two.

What I do know is that in gestation when you use different language you are generally thought to be intending to secure a different objective. And since we are in this bill removing the requirement for products to be safe, and inserting a requirement for products to have their risks reduced and mitigated, I am supposing that there is a difference. And that is more than semantic between these two constructions. But if the Minister can enlighten us that they effectively and in reality will be the same, then I would not press my amendment.

Let me turn to amendment 28. Amendment 28 is a new clause and the purpose is to build on what is in the bill which is about the regulation of online marketplaces. Where of course we have got some rather help for material in clause number two material in clause number 23 material in clause number 23D which brings online marketplaces within the scope of the product collision and product requirements. An amendment 49 which we have yet to reach also hopefully clarifies that definition of online marketplaces which is in clause 10, so that is all good news.

However, none of that would change the fact that limitations remain in relation to the determination of liability for products that are unsafe or defective that are sold through intermediaries online market places. No, I do not need to tell the House of the increasing use of market places. Indeed many of those online marketplaces are not necessarily domiciled in the United Kingdom. So, committee, the minister in response to a halt for amendment said, and I quote from 27 November, he said primary route to seek damages for harm caused by them through the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the parts that are to be deleted by this bill.

The Noble Lord the Minister went on to say my department is currently reviewing this legislation and we will consider the United Kingdom's product liability regime holistically. OK. However, it seems holistically. OK. However, it seems to me that we have here a situation that is very similar to product regulation generally, in relation to product reliability. That the European Union has moved and we have not moved with it. Now, I am not making an document for that but I am suggesting there is an inherent question.

The Noble Lord the Minister laughs. He knows I have never been one for dynamic alignment in these debates. But I can see the merit in our ability to align where it is in our interest to do so. There is clearly a problem. And the liability of course applies under the existing legislation to the producer of the product or somebody who holds themselves to be the producer, for example through trademark, or the importer of a product. So, that does not necessarily apply to online marketplaces who often are, often do not fit within those definitions.

Now, the European Union's new product liability directive which has come into force on 8 December 2024, of course is intended from their point of view to update product liability in relation to The European commission describes that online marketplaces can be when they act as one of the economic operators. I.e., a manufacturer, an importer, unauthorised representative, a fulfilment service provider or distributor. This bill does not create a similar parallel set of obligations in relation to online marketplaces and it does not hold online marketplaces liable for harmful or defective products that harmful or defective products that they supply in the same way as the European Union 's directive does.

The Office for Product Safety and Standards has included these issues within its consultation. The measures consultant on including responsibility for online marketplaces for the identification of potentially harmful or defective products being offered via their systems, so it's about transparency, identification and a takedown kind of provision. But it didn't go so far as to create, which the European Union 's directive does, a liability Union 's directive does, a liability directly for the harm done by products where they are responsible.

And the European Union's directive is essentially about ensuring that in all cases there is a business domiciled within the European Union that is responsible and who may be held liable for harm, for harmful or defective products. We don't have something at that moment and I think we should have something like that. The government has brought forward a product safety bill but they haven't brought forward a duct liability bill. I am hoping that by the means of amendment 28 the government might even now be thinking that there is scope for the insertion of additional potential powers to secure changes to our products secure changes to our products liability regime, likewise, to ensure online marketplaces will be held accountable in the way that Would be held accountable.

If not, if the Minister can as I hope he will, and I join with others in saying, just how helpful the Minister and his officials have been in a number of contacts in the discussions we have, I do appreciate it, but I wonder even at this stage in relation to product liability whether he might say, that as with some other steps, but the government has undertaken, to move on, that they will move on product liability and they will consider some of these wider issues about the responsibility of online marketplaces for harmful or defective products and do so rapidly, and find if necessary, if not this bill, and early legislative opportunity to remedy the deficiencies in the legislation.

So with those remarks about amendment 28, may I just commence this group with moving amendment three.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment post, line 4, at the end insert "securing the products to which this section applies are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

safe". Before I turned to my amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before I turned to my amendment seven can I just pick up the points raised by the noble Lord Lord Lansley in relation to his amendment
17:50
Lord Foster of Bath Portrait Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lansley in relation to his amendment 28, and perhaps his surprise accept that this is a case where there may be dynamic alignment between us. As he rightly pointed out, as earlier stage in committee I moved amendments in relation to the need for a liability approach, and also for a redress mechanism. I went further and in fact suggested that we needed to do things like remove anonymity of sellers on online platforms, so such a redress mechanism would be possible. I certainly hope just as he has done, that the noble Lord the Minister, who he rightly says has been enormously helpful, will be able to explain how the government intends to handle this issue because it is my understanding it may not be possible to do it through this legislation, but this alternative route will be found and I hope very much that that is the case.

I really hope that there will be a positive response to my amendment seven which I moved in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fox and noble Lord Lord Lansley. In your Lordship's House I have frequently raised my concerns about the safety of lithium ion batteries and the need for reform and in doing so I wanted to significant support for such action from a wide-ranging bodies including electrical safety first and local Fire Brigade, from many local councils, from insurance companies, and many others.

All of them have pointed to the need for tighter regulation in this area. And indeed, one of the sponsors of this amendment, the noble Lord the Earl of Lindsay, is the president of the chartered training standards and -- Institute and they are concerned about this issue. And they, like my own concerns, have arisen from the traffic loss of life that we see, -- tragic loss of life, and the damage to property from fires caused by for example the manufacture of lithium ion batteries all faulty charging systems.

It is just worth reminding systems. It is just worth reminding ourselves, hope for the last time, that the London Fire Brigade has to return to such an instance every two days and it is now the course, the fastest cause for rising fires throughout the city. And indeed over 180 parliamentary constituencies have had fires caused by lithium ion batteries in the last two or three years. So workers needed to be done on this and I'm delighted that electrical safety first in their very good old-fashioned breakdown have provided a great deal of have provided a great deal of technical information not only about the fires but the cause of those fires, very importantly providing some very sensible solutions and moves forward.

I'm therefore really delighted that at the early debate of the last group, the noble Lord the Minister made absolutely clear that there is now a commitment to having detailed consultation before you Statutory Instruments are brought forward, on this matter and lots of others that will come forward. It is acidly right that call expertise that for example electrical safety first have demonstrated this made use of. But lithium ion batteries are clearly not the only high risk products which need to be identified and have appropriate regulation, we need some -- indeed some other products already are, like fireworks.

But many are not currently covered by product safety regulation or covered adequately by the General Product Safety Regulations. I'm also concerned, of course not only that we need to cover a wide-ranging of subjects but we also need to have future proofing, for the legislation to be flexible, and to be able to take into account the products which may come onto the market in the future. But sadly, at the moment, there is no systematic approach to the identification and regulation of such high risk products.

Hence my amendment, about the marketing and amendment, about the marketing and use of certain products, that represent high risk, known or emerging to consume health and safety. I particularly am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister and his officials for meeting with me and with electrical first and the and with electrical first and the London Fire Brigade to discuss establishing such a proactive system for assessing and regulating high risk products and emerging technologies. I'm the first to accept there are more ways than one, but there may be authentic, and my own amendment, to achieve what it is I wish to achieve.

Lord Fox's amendment nine which will require the Secretary of State to publish a statement about how before a size are laid product will be identified, assessed, including those posing a high hazard such as lithium ion batteries. So I'm willing to accept that if his amendment is accepted by the government, and is backed by appropriate statement and code of practice in relation to the identification and regulation of high-risk higher risk products, it may well provide a way forward and ensure the flexibility and transparency that my amendment has sought to do.

So I will listen with great interest the might noble friend Lord Fox, and in particular Response from the noble Lord the Minister and I very much hope that today's debate will mean at last action will be taken to tackle the very real dangers of public health and safety caused by inadequately regulating high risk products including lithium ion batteries.
17:56
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I'm looking forward to the novelty of mineable friend Lord Foster listening to me. -- In my noble friend. I rise to speak to noble friend. I rise to speak to amendment nine and explain how this amendment. At the heart of both amendments, is a desire to ensure that there has been sufficient scrutiny of the regulations, the design to make products a. I use the word advisedly and supportive of the noble Lord Lord Lansley because I do think that the word safe is a good word to find in there somewhere and hopefully the discussions will find a way.

In my experience, Lord Lansley is relatively tenacious so I expect something may emerge. What we need is a process that takes into account all high-risk products lithium ion batteries is a very good, very stark and actually horror for example, when they go wrong, asset out eloquently by my noble friend but of course there are other products, some of which we don't know what they are yet. So legislation has to be broad enough to be able to take those into consideration. But amendment nine also addresses some important elements of parliamentary scrutiny that we discussed in the last group.

Have heard concerns and I think that if applied properly, this will go a long way towards regulating many of those concerns. -- Towards ameliorating. If we get it work properly it will provide greater genuine scrutiny towards the affirmative process because it will edit second religion before it's late, in other words, it will have been gone through a process. -- Secondary. Amendment 61 tabled by the Minister undertakes that the Secretary of State can...

When he things as appropriate. The amendment nine moves this to a more structured footing for causes the Secretary of State to issue a statement that sets out the consultation process that the Secretary of State must undertake before tabling secondary lead. In trivial cases that will not be much consultation but in other cases it could be a great deal of work required, in an entirely new product, and entirely new use of an old product, or the reregulation of something that is proved problematic.

All of these would need to be addressed, assessed and decided what level of risk you're dealing with here and higher risk products would need a greater scrutiny process. In order to reduce Them as safe as possible. As a result of this amendment, the Secretary of State would notify Parliament the process for identification and assessment of risks in products. I would like to thank the Minister, again and his team at the discussions we have had on this, we have had a number of meetings and I think each time we move forward in this process.

Together we have been able to get something that can work. And I'm happy that rather enshrining a particular technology in primary legislation, we are putting in place a process and a process that can evolve if indeed it needs to involve going forward. So I'm hoping that the Minister will set out further details of how this process will work. What the statement will include. And I'm hoping it takes into consideration the concerns that have been demonstrated by my noble friends Baroness Brinton and Lord Foster as well as many of your other Lordships at the committee process.

I should say, I was pleased to see the code of conduct which is another brick in the wall but I think this is in a sense the process by which that puts people's nose to the grindstone and actually starts to In addition, I would like to minister to identify how the future statement said that the process of assessing new regulations before secondary legislation is laid. And I hope that includes how some products may be considered to present a higher risk than others and would also consider enforcement and sanctions taking into consideration the marketplaces and the changing issue of liability, which I think would be where amendment 28 could find a home moving forward.

This process should be proportionate and appropriate as well as the level of risk, the consultation should consider environmental issues, supply tune and compliance and penalties, where they should be criminal or civil sanctions. The Noble Lord Jackson mentioned that and my Noble Friend Baroness Brinton has raised this on a number of issues, the issue of sanctions need to be addressed somewhere. This may well be the place I would suggest where they could be addressed. And, of course, the impact of any new regulation on SMEs and businesses in general.

I hope that the Minister will fill in more detail and also will be able to set the organisations and experts that will be included in this consultation, including let's say consumer rights groups, charities, expert product groups, safety organisations. The devolved Governments which I think will also touch some of the issues we will be speaking to later and of course parliamentarians. I am hopeful that they will support amendment nine with the statement process and how it can work and I have also heard from having done that we will have met our strategic aims which are to improve the bill and make it more accountable and more thorough in the way that a number of organisations engage the formulation of these future regulations and I hope also the Noble Lord were also junction that we need to do things better, it may not be perfect, I sure it will not be, but it will be a useful step in the right direction and your logic is a plan to move amendment nine.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. I rise to speak to the four
18:03
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
amendments that appear in this group name, starting at amendment six which is also backed by the nobility Baroness Freeman and Steventon, the noble Baroness Smith. Which is about. Product regulation and sets out a requirement within one year of being past the Secretary of State must create regulations to reduce the health risks of period products. They have circulate it many awards and will be delighted to share with anyone that has missed it briefly from the women's environmental network. The thing is now complete and has a list of NGOs battling the briefing which is backing the amendment.

The environment letter, the pesticide collaboration, the Hazards campaign, CHC, pesticide action network, association, MCS aware, victory menstruation research network, Rivers trust, period positive and the British Society for antimicrobial chemotherapy. There's a lot of backing for this. And I wish to offer my thanks to the Noble Lord the Minister and his officials who very kindly provided their time for a science rich detail debate looking at the policy in this area. But I am afraid they have not convinced me that we do not need this amendment because whilst there are many large scale crossproduct actions that need to be taken there is something here that can be done now directly for health that is perfectly possible under this amendment.

No, these period products are, of course, as the removal in fact recognises that necessity, not a luxury consumer item, used by roughly 15 million people who menstruate each month. Currently, products which come under the general product safety regulations theoretically but there is no specific mention of period products there. No, this shows there are few limitations on the potentially harmful chemicals or additives of period products. This is in sharp contrast to cosmetics. The fact of the reality is that period products are Usenix to or in one of the most absorbent parts of the human body, unlike the other consumer items which come under the GPS are.

Particularly internal products like tampons, menstrual cups and discs, have direct access to the bloodstream. The absorption rate through the vulva is much greater than through the rest of the body. What we have seen in the last 10 years or so is essentially a man. Products and an advertising arms race. Or a number of potentially harmful, goals and metals have been found and often explicitly added to or are found in single-use disposable and reusable. Products. I have not got time and the committee are waiting at some length which is to identify some of the biggest issues.

Bios silver and I tested an additive currently waiting to be assessed for safety by the UK Government is being used in many period pads as an antimicrobial. Now, this affects, there is research showing this affects the microbiota in the Volvo. Their washout half of the first 10 washers 70% of it is very toxic to aquatic life. And also contributes to antimicrobial resistance. And I know today that the office came out to see explicitly that we are not doing anything like enough about antimicrobial resistance.

We also found. Products are in disrupting chemicals such as parabens, all of which will be identified as disrupting the function of our endocrine system linked to cancer, reproductive and development disorders, birth defects, asthma and disorders, birth defects, asthma and allergies. The FAS, a acronym familiar to many noble Lords, they have been found in period products used for waterproofing, widely used elsewhere as I book comeback to. Heavy-metal's. Lead, arsenic, and cadmium, but all found in tampons tested in the UK and internationally.

For lead there is no safe level of exposure. And, of course, we come to micro-plastics. Despite their apparently cotton appearance from both tampons and pads can be up to 90% plastic. And they very likely continually shed micro-plastics. I say very likely, but I can point to research that recently found micro-plastics in period products and outlets from wastewater treatment plants, going through those wastewater treatment plants. The University of Manchester found that tampons can shed 17 billion nano plastic fibres.

An average of 9.4 billion per tampon. That means people being exposed to 86 trillion fibres over a lifetime of use. And I come to synthetic fragrances. Which are being used in period products to address, encouraged by advertising, consumer anxiety, about the social construct of so-called menstrual odours. These add nothing to functionality, but do contribute to stigma. And if a compatible amount of fragrance was found in a cosmetic product, it would have to be blatant, yet there is no such regulation four.

Products. So, you might say there is an amendment that says the Government must act within one year. I can point noble Lords take New York State Catalonia, Wales and Scotland. Where there is already regulations in place first of the European eco-label bits the use of many other chemicals that I referred to, although it is unfortunately only if voluntary probe of excellence. These examples show that it is possible to act. What is needed is political will to protect our population.

That is what I am our population. That is what I am asking for an it is my intention, I have given notice to the House, it is my intention to put this notice to the vote. They want to refer to my other amendments in this group that help amendment 26 on. Products in context because amendment 33 is actually a development from two amendments that are tabled in Committee stage out on this bill which will about the harmful impacts of clothing and a call for a ban on single use plastics.

What I have done is as one is supposed to developed that, bringing this forward to report to see what we might be able to do in the short- term to really understand the scale of the problem we are facing. And I do see this in the context of a study many noble Lords may have seen this month about the amount of tiny fragments of plastic that will be in your brain. These were thought to not be able to cross the blood in barrier, but they very clearly are.

And this study showed the concentration of micro-plastics Prince has increased by 50% from 2016 to 2024. When they examined the brains of 12 patients deceased with dementia, those rains had three to five times as much micro-plastics as people who died without suffering from dementia. Now, this is one study stop but we know that the amount of plastics produced in the world doubles every 10 to 15 years. The figures from these brains reflect what we are doing to the environment.

And of course this is just one of the cocktails, the endocrine disrupting chemicals, the pesticides and the pharmaceutical products, all of which are accumulating in our environment every day. What Governments have failed to do regulators have failed to do is consider how human bodies are being barrage and penetrated by these dangerous materials and how they interact with each other, potentially damaging our health and make us susceptible to the impacts of other challenges, BD these materials or infectious agents.

And when I started the discussion of these issues at Committee stage the Noble Lord acknowledged that it started him wondering about that none I ensured that he was wearing that day and to wonder what had altered the fibres of the cotton to produce such a result and what impact it might be having on the noble Lords health. The answer is almost certainly a resin that releases formaldehyde which is a known carcinogen and mutagen. It might also be a direct immediate problem for anyone that suffers from contact dermatitis.

No, that formaldehyde is a substance that that you has introduced new stricter regulations on starting from next year, noting that people are likely to be exposed for it from a wide major sources from car interiors and electronics to construction materials. Now, when they tackle those issues, Government responses are almost invariably soloed. It is great and wealth leading that the French movement has just banned the manufacture, import, and sale of most PFA is treated products and from all textiles by 2030.

They are just tackling one of the issues of many. And cleaning up the universal contamination of this just cannot be done. I said I would tie this to amendment 26 because if we think about the bodies of people using period products in our society today, like all of us, they are exposed to all of that and they are also getting the extra from the period products. Now, finally and very quickly, I come to amendment 27 a and the link to amendment 66 and this is a probing amendment which relates to the environment act.

It is now 1205 days since the environment act became law. I could have split these amendments out, but I chose not to. Perhaps I could have another minute. As others have had. The act grants Government powers to work towards the ending of the U.K.'s contribution to deforestation. Is the Government directly...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It was quite clear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It was quite clear. I do think previous Noble Lord went for 12 minutes. Already my will of the Noble Lord the Minister one of the Noble Lord the Minister one question. Is the Government planning to bring forward the necessary to bring forward the necessary secretary legislation under schedule 17 of the environment act? And to 17 of the environment act? And to confirm that regulations will take the most ambitious form possible within existing UK law?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very briefly to amendment 26 to which I have in my name, period
18:14
Baroness Freeman of Steventon Portrait Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench)
-
-
products as the Noble Lady Baroness Bennett said, in the UK are currently regulated only under the general product safety regulations whilst in many other countries they come under more stringent regulations. Even being considered as much as medical products. It is fantastic to see innovation in. Products. We have seen improvements to them and a great range of options in the recent decades, but innovations can raise safety risks as well and I want to give one example. In the late 1970s, a super absorbent alternative to cotton tampons was invented.

It could absorb 20 times its own volume and so needed changing much less frequently. And it seemed life changing. Unfortunately, it's super absorbency and longer use created the perfect environment for the bacterium staff aureus to grow. And then the tampon caused scratches because it absorbed too much and left people dry and it was a deadly combination. The bacteria could then get into the bloodstream, causing toxic shock. A syndrome that can Thousands of people died from it before the product was withdrawn.

We have homely ranges of products, often including biocides that we know change the bacterial composition of the joiner micro-and cause infections. There are experiments with products containing coagulant which can be used to clot blood. Many of these are undoubtedly great but we do need to ensure that they are properly regulated, at least as regulated as cosmetics. Properly not as tightly regulated as Medical Devices. It's shocking to me and to anyone I to that blush apparently has more regulation than tampons.

And I do ask the government to consider carefully this clause, or something similar, that allows us to ensure the safety and clear labelling of these products so we don't see any repeat of the toxic shock tragedy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to see a quick word about Lord Lansley's amendment number three because it has the attraction of introducing into this bill the of introducing into this bill the word safe. It's a word which
18:17
18:18
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Portrait Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
However I would like to rise in brief support for this amendment and as it attracted me to contribute to today's discussion. As a young woman and actually a use of these products, I was actually very shocked and surprised to hear about all of the different chemicals that are in these products. And I know that a lot of young women would be quite surprised and shocked to know about these chemicals in the products and that they are not advertised in this information is not shared with those that do use these products.

So I would like to commend the noble Baroness Lady Bennett for bringing forward this very important amendment and I urge very important amendment and I urge

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the House to support this amendment. We are at report stage and I would like to draw attention to the delegated of the regulatory reform committee report. We certainly did put the noble Lord the Minister through his paces and to the unusual step of asking him to give us step of asking him to give us evidence because we felt the bill evidence because we felt the bill was skeletal and had regulatory powers. Which we will come unto in a powers.

Which we will come unto in a later group of amendments. I simply want to use our latest report to address support for amendment nine. Because the importance of consultation has been brought up, and I'm speaking personally not on behalf of the committee, that the noble Lord the Minister met with me and has met with others from the committee, to draw to our attention the consultation phases. I hope that when he comes to sum up back to the house, he will also cover the issue of consultation where you have a mismatch of products potentially.

Because the problem with the lithium battery is that people buy the batteries and the charges separately, put them together, and then the chance of a fire goes up dramatically, not when the right charge bought with the right battery. So we really have a very complex world to be dealing with. And I'm well aware that it's an enormous number of regulations potentially to be made, some of which are very complicated, but the consultation over them will be acidly critical to make sure they are appropriate.

-- Absolutely.
18:21
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I'm a vice chair of the all party Parliamentary... And in that context I want is ABPI support Lord Foster's amendment seven, endorses comments on lithium batteries, given I had amendments at the committee stage and the product is not included and I hope the government will take note of that and help. I support Lord Fox fourth amendment and I was the first person at second reading to raise the issue of criminal issues and I do think that amendment nine helps us get to a solution that provides the scrutiny, early scrutiny by Parliament is much stronger than the affirmative procedure.

I also want to continue my support for Lady Bennett's campaign, encapsulated in her amendment 26. And also support the powerful example given to us by Lady Freeman. I disagree, I think tampons should be as well regulated as blushes and I think personally they should be deemed to be a medical device because of all the biocidal reasons Lady Bennett explains. I do remind your Lordship's House that the schedule at the end of the bill, clause 9, removes anything of medical medicines and medical is defined in medicines and.

And unfortunately I think that these products, period and incontinence products, actually there are health issues, if they are not defined under Medical Devices act 20 there needs to be some way of recognising that they do have an impact on individual health and I think therefore I support amendment 26 and hope the government will 26 and hope the government will listen. There is more on the government website about the correct taxation of period products and incontinence products than there is in the health issues elsewhere.
18:22
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to thank noble Lords for the amendments in what was an instructive and interesting debate. I'm wary of speaking off we found out how much plastic is in our brains because that's potentially to invite unfavourable comments. I would like to speak sympathetically to my noble friend Lord Lansley's amendments three and 12 in particular, because one of the many problems we have already discussed at some length and ring committee was the vagueness of the bill as currently drafted.

This lack of clarity does create significant uncertainty for businesses and consumers so thank my noble friend for his contributions, his amendment offer important suggestions that could help address some of these issues, physically expanding the definition of safety and indeed providing a definition of safety. As technology continues to develop, it's critical that we recognise that our understanding of what constitutes safety must also evolve. My noble friend's amendments reflect this approach, acknowledge new technologies and innovations may require updates to safety standards over time, by expanding the definition we ensure the legislation remains flexible and adaptable, allow for future growth and without sacrificing safety.

As my noble friend pointed out, different language to suggest different outcomes to hope minister will be able to address that in his remarks and his answer to my noble friend's questions. We believe these amendments to provide clarity in areas where the bill could have been more precise and we are grateful to noble friend Lord Lansley for bringing this issue into sharper focus. Amendment seven in the name of Lord Foster of Bath, Lord Fox and The Earl of Lindsay who is president of the chartered trade standing Institute has some significant merit and I think the noble Lord Lord Foster made a persuasive case with alarming statistics and illustrations.

Consumers should have confidence products they buy, whether from High Street store or online platform are safe and if things go wrong there is a clear route to accountability. By allowing regulations to extend liability to online marketplaces and ensuring the proper disclosure of evidence in claims for compensation, these amendments strengthen consumer rights and helps create a fairer system. We will return in an age stage to the definitions of online marketplaces. Lord Fox fourth amendment also does help to do things better.

He did say, I should also remind the noble Lord Lord Fox this is in effect yet more consultation and I'm reluctant to remind the noble Lady Baroness Finlay of Llandaff that the DPR sassy did say in its most recent report that consultation is not a substitute for parliamentary scrutiny to organise in pointing that out and flocking something of a dead horse. On amendment 26, and others in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Bennett, speaking to freight persuasively by Baroness Freeman and Baroness Smith, these amendments address an important issue ensuring period products meet high safety standards while considering the environmental considering the environmental impact.

Given these products are used by millions of women and girls, often over a lifetime, it's right that their safety composition and labelling are subject to clear and effective relation and I think the list of organisations that the noble Lady Baroness Bennett quoted is an initiative of the interest in this particular area. The safety and regulation of period products is a matter of both public health and consumer protection so ensuring individuals can make informed choices about the products they use is essential. The amendment seeks to introduce clear and necessary provisions for testing, marking and risk information, reflecting the risk information, reflecting the need greater transparency and oversight in the area.

By addressing both single-use and reusable products it acknowledges the evolving nature of the market while prioritising safety and well-being. We would ask the government to take further consideration and carry out additional studies on this important area and expand it to some of the other areas the noble Lady mentioned. For example the formaldehyde in online shirts. -- In As the market for period products continues to evolve, it's obviously essential any regulation stays relevant and up-to-date. This will be in issue that will be returned to in future health-related was and I think Baroness Brinton made some good points about the fact they should be treated as Medical Devices which deserve to be explored further.

It's crucial we continue to monitor and adapt the regulation of these products to ensure public health and with consumer protection are maintained.
18:27
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
Let me thank noble Lords for their contributions. May also put on record that I do not by any non- iron shirts. For amendments three and 12, and grateful noble Lord Lord Lansley who during the committee report stages has illustrated his thoughtful scrutiny of this legislation. A major element of our product regulations and a formal point of the bill is consumer safety. Safety is at the very heart of this bill. But products exist on a spectrum of risk.

Which can be mitigated, different levels, and in different ways. That is why the bill refers to risk rather than safety. Turning to amendment seven I would like to start by thanking the noble Lord Lord Foster for his consistent and thoughtful engagement on this issue and also thank him for his relentless campaign in this issue, on areas like lithium ion batteries and various other fire risks. In many ways he has got to the nub of our system and product regulation this amendment and remarks.

That is how we consider risks from products. And I'm also very grateful to Lord Fox for constructive discussions and for laying amendment nine. A set out in committee, our current system of production and qualifies risk in a number of ways. At the most basic level, all consumer products must meet the baseline general safety requirements. Unless specific additional or unusual risks are identified, and therefore need additional bespoke requirements, cosmetics, for example. Identifying and assessing risk is already at the very heart of clause 1.

Indeed, it is inherent in passing product with that a risk must be identified in the first place. The powers in this bill already enable regulations to consider current risks and response to them in such cross practical ways. However we need to ensure that this is sufficiently flexible and capable of encompassing new and changing risks, and the process should be transparent and designed to explicitly take input from experts. What might be a sensible way to organise levels of risk today may not work in five, 10 or 15 years time.

However, I accept there is a need for greater transparency on the part of the government in terms of how such technical decisions are made and I recognise that efforts of the noble Lord Lord Foster in raising this. I'm also grateful for his work bringing government and his work bringing government and Sean, we have a number of helpful meetings with Lord Fox on these issues also. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have published and shared the code of conduct and conduct regulations that set out the statutory and nonstatutory controls in place to ensure that regulation made under this legislation is proportionate and evidence based.

This includes the detail of how risks are currently considered. I would like to thank the Noble Lord for tabling amendment nine. This will demand the bill to require the Secretary of State to publish a specific statement explaining how the Government identifies and assesses product safety risks, secondary legislation is laid. Including how it is determined that some products represent a higher risk than others. I am pleased to confirm that following discussions with the Noble Lord Fox the government's support this amendment and Liz the statement it requires.

In addition to outlining the nature of consultation, they will also consider enforcing sanctions, taking into consideration how market places change. This statement, along with the code of conduct already published will set out how and when and with whom the Government engages with on a regular matters associated with product safety including risks stop the Secretary of State's statement will also set up the key consultation processes necessary before settling legislation is laid before Parliament. Statement will be able to be dated as products and the risks they present evolve.

We believe this amendment increases the transparency of the product regulation system without unnecessarily finding our hands to an inflexible way of determining product risks. Turning finally to amendment 28 table by Lord Lansley who seeks to allow the Secretary of State alone regulations to allow for online basis of effective and unsafe products, and to ensure that those suffering harm from unsafe or defective products can take address. We discussed the amendment at Committee stage when it was first tabled by my Noble Friend who is not here today and we wish her a speedy recovery.

As I said at that time, the primary statutory route to seek damages for harm caused by defective products is true in the Consumer Protection Act 1987, depending on the specific facts the online marketplace may have responsibility under this legislation. I again say to noble Lords that the Government is reviewing this legislation and we will consider that U.K.'s product will consider that U.K.'s product liability regime Hollister clay and the question of how it applies to online marketplaces. We will take the time to consult the relevant parties such as the department, consumer and business groups, and legal experts such as the Law Commission.

We will seek to make changes, any changes needed with legislation necessary to implement the use product liability is from Northern Ireland which we are committed in doing so under the Windsor Framework. We expect this work to be completed by the end of 2026. We know the primary legislation will be needed to reduce any liability regime, therefore the primary legislation with the full review will go beyond the scope of this, for medical devices as need to work with stakeholders to determine the future regime.

We will not be introducing product liability measures through this bill. Now, turning to the noble Baroness Bensons amendment 26 supported by Baroness Freeman and Baroness Smith, 27 833 and 66. In relation to amendment 26 the first baroness made a very compelling and reasonable case, well it is the case that the product must comply with general safety requirements, so the only safe products can be placed in the market. And they have a right to highlight that there are not subject to specific regulations.

Here is product one of a number of products where we attempt to make the existing framework more robust and clearer for consumers and business alike. I agree that it is not just the control of chemicals that is important but also elements of consumer protection such as labelling requirements. It does not feel correct for some products with similar risk exposure pathways, for example like the somatic's, there are stringent rules related to the listing of ingredients, but these rules do not apply to these products.

So, this is an important area that we intend to consult on soon after Royal assent. Ensuring the framework is sufficiently robust to address the issues raised by the noble Baronesses. I would be very happy to work with all noble Baronesses and the environment network in these proposals. No, turning to amendment 27 a of the Government recognises the importance and urgency of ensuring UK consumption of risk commodities is not driving deforestation, and is carefully considering this approach to addressing these that we will set up in due course.

This will include any new legal powers that may be required, in addition to amendment 33 the Government is already taking action to address these products, such as the forthcoming extended producer responsibility packaging which encompasses all materials, including sticks, and will incentivise improved packaging design through modelling fees. No, turning to amendment 66, feedingstuffs fertiliser, plants, food and funky from those products, that is bringing these products in the industry in that scope, I hope the noble Baroness will not mind my saying for the concerns expressed by the committee it is refreshing for someone in expanding the scope of the bills.

The bill lists the products as included on the bills scope. This is largely because such products are not covered by the product recognition framework, but by other legislative schemes. We will of course consider any regulation made under this bill carefully to ensure they fit with other legislation. We now turn to baroness Finlay's point about mismatch of products. I Medrol the noble Baroness attention to Code of Conduct that is published which sets out how we identify the issue, including how products are used and modified as well as the mismatch of products she identifies.

So, I hope this reissue is the House and I would therefore humbly ask for amendment three 712 2627 a and 33 and 66 to be withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I ask just briefly without the consultation process we have the consultation process we have discussed and very carefully laid out if you can confirm it will out if you can confirm it will include parliamentarians and the devolved Governments in that process, we would be grateful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Secretary of State will publish the consultation and this publish the consultation and this will extend the consultation to civil societies and the
18:39
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
stakeholders, parliamentarians and those parties.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know we are most grateful to the Minister which I think forms an the Minister which I think forms an extremely helpful response to these interesting issues that we have debated in this group. For my part, let me just say in relation to amendment three, the use of the word safe I think I agree with the Lord safe I think I agree with the Lord that the use of the word safe in a that the use of the word safe in a bill that is intended to ensure the products are safe with most helpful.

Amendment 12 he will note defines safe in a similar way, not precisely the same, as the consumer objection act does. But it defines it as mainly there is no risk ought not risk apart from one reduced to a minimum, so it is not to say that a product has no risk. So, I completely agree, the Minister is right, it is about product safety and it is about identification of risk which is the Noble Lord Fox coming from how risk is identified.

I have some sympathy with the points he makes on amendment nine. But I find it arguable that the present definition of safe in the present legislation and the definition in this bill are very close to one another. That is entirely arguable. I would rest my argument for the Minister to think about officials to think about would not therefore be helpful in clause 1 to include a vision that says the product should be safe, that there is no risk and the risk that is reduced to a minimum or mitigated because that is what the Government are intending to do.

There intending people should be able to stay safe, they have chosen to take the word out of the statute, so I think it would be rather hopeful to put it back in. I rest my case, amendment 28 I think the Minister did very helpfully see in the committee though not inconsistent with what he said, particularly he gave us a timetable which, of course, is immensely helpful. There has been a lot of money and we know how these things grind through the machines.

People find not least of course that there is a pressing need for this review of the product liability, especially in relation to online marketplaces, not least because the Law Commission identified this as an area for their 14th work program and that was three years ago, something of that order. I think we are not only were out of date, but we are well beyond the point at which it has been identified that there was a need for action on product liability. I hope action on product liability.

I hope we might keep pressing alongside the Minister for probes to be made in the consultation and subsequent legislation and I think that is needed. Can I just say for one more point on amendment 26 the question of period products, Baroness Brinton, I was wondering this, I have checked, but if I understand the position correctly. Products are not regarded as medical devices, there regarded as consumer products. Incontinence and disposable body from pans are treated as medical devices by the NHRA cross of theirs a distinction that I do not, without a difference, as far as I know, there's a distinction that I do not understand.

Customising. Products by the Food and Drug Administration in America regarded as medical devices. Because we follow where the European Union's general product safety regulation has been. And the definitions that they have put into their own regulations. I think one of the areas that the Ministers of the areas that the Ministers think about is the question of whether it would be more appropriate for these products to be regarded as medical devices and brought under the scope of the regulations there. Of course.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The whole line of products has changed. Plans, either. Or incontinence pants, are covered, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

incontinence pants, are covered, but that is my concern. Thank you for your point. I just think that there is probably a good basis for thinking about whether it would be more appropriate, I have to say, with appropriate, I have to say, with great respect of the movers of amendment 26, rather than including them in this bill, revisiting the question of whether it be more appropriate for them to be covered under the distance and medical under the distance and medical devices act 2021, but on the basis of the point we have reached with amendment three, if the Minister will at least I think have heard the argument for the very least the communications benefit saying that we are aiming to make products safe I will leave it in his capable hands and not seek to move and asked leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to withdraw amendment three. Withdrawn, the amendment is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Withdrawn, the amendment is valued withdrawn. Not moved.
18:45
Lord Frost Portrait Lord Frost (Conservative)
-
-
valued withdrawn. Not moved. Amendment five, clause 1, Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Frost. I rise to speak to amendment five and the several other amendments in my name in this group and I thank my my name in this group and I thank my Noble Friends Lord Sharpe, Lord Noble Friends Lord Sharpe, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and indeed the Baroness have joined in support the Baroness have joined in support of these amendments. Now, the provisions that we are now considering our really the core of considering our really the core of this bill, in my view.

The are the core of novel provisions which are the unprecedented powers granted to Ministers by secondary law to align with our laws with those of the European Union. Which is a significant constitutional matter, although it is one that you probably would not have been aware of if you reside only on the title of this Cover different aspects of the problem that is generated by clause 1.2 and clause clause 2.72, seven and eight. The first of amendments, these would remove from the bill the powers in those two losses to align UK law directly with EU law.

The effect of this would not be to deprive the government with the power to do what it wants to do in this bill, it would simply be to remove the ability to take the easy way out, to make a simple cross- reference to EU law and leave it at that. So much for amendments five and 18. Amendments six, 11 and 19 take, if you like, the alternative route. They say if we must have alignment with foreign laws, and there is a case for it in certain areas, why should the European Union be the only source of the law that we seek to align with? EU regulation is not generally regarded as perfect, in every respect.

I think that's true of every countries or territories regulation. What we now have after Brexit is an opportunity to pick and choose if we want to align with regulations of another country, we can choose any high standard country to do so and indeed we can link to more than one set of regulations if we wish to do so. So that is the purpose of amendments six, 11 and 19, they are to allow similar cross-references to align with the laws of a defined list of broadly western territories, countries that have the same standards approach to regulation that we do.

And to allow, if you like, regulatory competition potentially to allow the best regulations to drive out the worst. An appendage to this set of amendments is amendment 24 which is there to make it difficult for ministers to do, to revert back to plan a, if you like, with this bill. It requires them to justify it if, even though they have a choice to align with regulations of more than one country, if they still choose to align with only one they have to justify that.

Route 3, amendment 25, third set of amendments, this goes back to the point I touched on earlier, in group 1. The possibility of this bill opening the way to a style deal which the Minister who is not in his place now carefully sidestepped but a return to now. Just by making a cross-reference to EU law, does not make the UK law formerly the law of the European Union. But it does open the possibility that the UK can reach an agreement with the European Union to consider that law to be EU law and of course if the EU wants to agree with that it would require the court, commission or other panoply that the EU always requires to reference EU law.

And maybe it's in the government intention to go down that road, maybe it is not. I don't know. There are certainly strong rumours that the intention and in particular in the SPS world which obviously is not covered directly by this bill. So I repeat the question that I raised earlier, which is if the government does not intend to go down the new Swiss style route, then it should have no difficulty in accepting amendment 25 because it simply provides for enforcement of laws of this country to be undertaken by the authorities of this country.

Something which in normal circumstances would go unsaid and be unexceptionable but unfortunately perhaps needs to be spelt out. So I would listen with care to anything the Minister says on that point. Finally, amendment 32 is a more straightforward vision for a new panel. This is a novel mechanism. It is a new way of doing things, however, it is introduced. There is a strong case for some sort of provision to decide, consider whether it is working, whether it is improving competitiveness, whether these new conditions are working in the right way, is it helping the economy, helping the regular tree standards.

And that is what stands behind amendment 32. So to conclude, all these amendments, they are really intended to shape, to constrain, to control the environment, the purposes in which the very novel powers in this bill can be used. And to require more justification of those powers when they are used.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, leave out subsection 2, if this amendment is agreed to... By reason of pre-
18:52
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
emption.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I've put my name to 1 of the many amendments in this group, to amendment 30, which is group, to amendment 30, which is essentially a more balanced version essentially a more balanced version of the amendment that was tabled at committee stage. And what this balanced amendment seeks to do is to balanced amendment seeks to do is to try and ensure that it is complete and utter equivalence and transparency, whether the government decides to, for reasons that have to be stated, that have to be clear, transparent, result of consultation, whether they seek to align with EU or whether they happen to align with any other country or group of countries.

And it is simply to try and make sure there is complete equivalence, and transparency, with no hidden agendas, no constitutional crisis, as the noble Lord Lord Frost indicated, in terms of understanding the rationale behind the decisions that are taken. And I think as I stated in second reading and at committee stage, however people may interpret my intentions, they are decidedly crossbench and apolitical. I have no interest in revisiting some of the painful politics and turbulence of the last decayed also, which this country has Wilson itself.

However in relation to a specific amendment what is really driving this is what I think should be paramount obviously the interests of the country but I personally regard in a instance like this the interests of the country are predominantly to do with the views of the businesses who are most directly affected by these relations. And in particular, the organisation which I think a stake in the closest interest in this, and has been talking to its members in great detail about this, the British Chambers of Commerce.

Ritual chips may or may not be aware is, I should declare an interest, is the president of it, is the fellow crossbench, the Baroness Lane-Fox. They did a survey of the Bishop, a very extensive survey which was published just before Christmas. And I should just remind your lordships that the chambers represent about 50,000 businesses across the UK which employ about 6 million people and have an aggregate turnover across all of the companies involved about £600 million per annum.

So not inconsiderable part of the economy. And the views of the membership are already pretty clear. They are in no way ideological about this. But there is a clear view by a majority of businesses that in many instances, alignment with the EU is in the direct interests of the employees. A sickly if they wish to grow their businesses. -- Particulate. Any are involved in exports and imports to the European Union which for many of these businesses continues to be a single largest export market.

And they have the wish to have the ability to grow their businesses to be as easy as possible. And what has happened over the last few years has in many cases made it a great lesson easy than they would wish. -- Less easy. There is a clear stated wish. They have come up with a series of sort of wish lists that they would hope the government would focus on. It is interesting one of the things they said should be a medium-term view, specifically relates to the bill we are discussing.

They say the UK should build a pond the product built to facilitate alignment with UK regression with relevant and only where it's relevant, primary, secondary and tertiary EU decisions in the trading goods sectors. That does not deny the fact that in some areas and in some sectors and instances it will not make sense to align with the EU and the point that the noble Lord Lord Frost, and I'm sure others, will make, about having the ability to align with other countries, or other groups of countries, is entirely open to the government to do.

But I think they would only do that as the result of careful consultation with interested bodies and they would then have to make a judgement call, what is in the best economic interests of the UK in terms of which direction they go in. So that is really quite simply what this amendment is about. It is meant to promote growth, what these businesses are looking for above all is greater predictability. There looking for transparency. There looking for cetacean, feeling they are being listened to.

But above all what they are looking for and sometimes one senses in some of the interventions on this bill is missing, is rebuilding a sense of genuine trust between not only those who have slightly different views, about the direction we should take on issues such as this, but also, a relationship that is more trust- based, transparent, and the dialogue is easier, with some of the bodies, including the EU but also there's other countries that we might align with, but has been the case hitherto.

hitherto.
18:58
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
I just want to speak briefly to amendment 20 in this group which is in my name which is an opportunity to restate an argument which I won't talk about at length. Noble Lords It stage there is an inherent advantage and desirability that when we are determining product requirements and product relations we should wherever possible do so by reference to international standards and agreements. And this is of course something which the government, the last government and this government, committed to, not least under the latest statement of policy in relation, public policy immolation to standardisation which was published this year and it gives very useful examples of how this country and the British Standards Institute and some of the organisations to which we contribute and the innovations that we have led, have been the basis of the establishment of many of those international standards.

So it's not... I convinced it is not absolutely necessary to put it into the legislation in order for this to be the case, and I hope in response to this debate the Minister will again restate the government's intention, of international standards being the basis. But I did want the opportunity to add one further thought. It seems to me that if we were to arrive at a point where there was EU legislation or regulation which in our view diverged from an international standard, or an international agreement, which in our view for example diverged from sound science, the point I have in my mind of course is something like the precision breeding legislation, the statutory instruments which have just been brought forward which of course technically are diverging from where the EU is now.

In declaring an interest in the EU context that they will change EU legislation to bring it closer to us rather than the other way round. But if there were such a divergence we should, there should be a presumption that adherence to international standards would be the priority that we would look that is the basis upon which we set our standards and not treat the decisions made by the European Union as ones to which we should As it happens in relation to Amendment 13, I am familiar with the British Chambers of Commerce.

I was in a different century. The director-general of the chamber of the British commerce and I have no doubt that what members say is an accurate reflection of their interests. It is not the basis of what we write laws. We should be clear the place we want to arrive in my view is that we enter into mutual recognition agreement with as many of like-minded countries as we possibly can, mutual recognition of conformity assessment, because the relevant EU we are talking about is about the principles for conformity assessment.

We should enter into mutual recognition agreement and we should in relation to the European Union, with America, Canada, New Zealand and so on. As a consequence of that we would enter into what would be regarded as positive, third a country relationship and what we will make permanent is what the last government thought was an expedient measure which was to recognise it unilaterally. Our presumption should be that in the future at some point CE marking would be recognised in this country because UKCMA marking is represented in the European Union.

I cannot support my noble friend because I worry what it does does not unilaterally disarm our assessment provisions in relation to the European Union, but unilaterally disarms the processes with a range of potential countries. I do not think that is the part we should go down. We should try and stick in this legislation for now to the principal that we will seek to adhere to international standards, build the UK conformity assessment regime and we will negotiate to secure mutual recognition with other countries on that basis.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Some very important comments that have just been made and my concern is we live in the world which is we live in the world which actually exists rather than a mythical one that we might like to
19:04
Lord Deben Portrait Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
mythical one that we might like to exist. I have to say some of the comments made by Lord Frost seem to me to be trying to make it impossible for people to organise themselves in that world that we live in because of the particular view he takes about the rest of Europe. I do not want that view to be the view that we have. Fundamentally, it should be in accordance with the science. Secondly, obviously, we should take into account where our markets are and where it is important that we have common standards if that is possible and we should not be hidebound by some past view now that it happens to be true that the world we live in includes the fact that the rest of the Europe is pretty close to us.

It is probably true the area we most need to have common views will be there. It is not to reverse decision made by Britain. What that is to face the fact of geography and trade IN my business life advise a large number of big life advise a large number of big . The question is how do we run the business today? How do we make it work today? And the present system does not work very well.

We can leave the past aside, but if we make it work in the future, we must give the government the opportunity to align where alignment seems sensible in the context of the science. And we will have two accept by the nature of life that much of that alignment may be with the country that we do the most business and will continue to do so and we must not insert into this act matters which are actually not about it, but about reasserting a particular view that the world should work.

I think we should be prepared in this House that we are where we are and we should make life easier for the business we want to grow and businesses we want to be able to work with other countries in other continents as well as beyond. Sometimes it will be more sensible to be aligned in a wider sense. Much of the target won't be, but that is for the particular issue, particular moment and particular decision and we shouldn't make it more difficult to make the best decision on every occasion.

occasion.
19:07
Lord Browne of Ladyton Portrait Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour)
-
-
I rise to speak to Amendment 13 in the name of Lord Russell of Liverpool, Lord Kidd Moore and Lord Fox. It is a pleasure to follow Lord Deben whose commonsense I often agree with and I would be happy to echo his treatment of the amendments and judge them in the world we live in rather than the one that we would like to live in. My name was attached to a previous version of this amendment at Committee stage and it does not reflect any menu should -- reduction in my belief, but Parliament scrutinising role and the fact is I left it late.

The moving spirit behind the amendment is a desire for the greatest transparency and the greatest role possible for the House in the other place in examining regulatory decisions and subjecting them to scrutiny. It has been frequently described as enabling Bill and I see this as one that enables Parliament to have access to the thinking of relevant ministers when they choose to align with the EU and other law and it should be made and it will be made according to a calculus of national self interest rather than as I suspect some in the opposition benches determined to believe and desire in looking at EU regulations where alignment with business and industry.

That is more narrowly drawn in this and it does not represent alignment, but offers a greater level of regulatory certainty for businesses while certainty for businesses while ensuring that we regularly refute. The fears of the opposition benches and the suggestion that this bill encompasses the extension of British regulatory independence and I don't agree with them, but I suggest that this being the believe, the greater transparency should offer them a vehicle for more effective scrutiny and has been drafted carefully and it is not to conform with any preconceived determination and highlight of EU standards as is desirable.

As we have heard, there is a duty to report when decisions have been made against or in favour of regulatory alignment and a further alignment in the predecessor. It has been taken in the yardstick and it will be a simple one, and if that is to the benefit of British businesses. It has been made abundantly clear that we live in a transactional world and I recognise and accept the world we live in and even judged by that metric the values are clear that it is good for the national economy and ensures Parliament is a prize of the basic component where they make regulatory determination and assures that if it proves to be mistaken it can be scrutinised when reversed.

It is for those reasons it should stand part of the bill and if proceedings or in the other place will have an opportunity to consider it and I hope that this amendment will have something like it and make its way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on to the statute book. I rise to support Lord Frost in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support Lord Frost in the amendment tabled in his name in the amendment tabled in his name in this group. May I begin by focusing
19:11
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
this group. May I begin by focusing on the amendment put forward by Lord Russell of Liverpool and others and it would be churlish and unreasonable to not conceive it is a slightly different amendment to that which was raised at Committee and is slightly better although I am surprised that noble Lords comments echoed by Lord Lansley about the basis of which we seek to legislate with primary legislation and it is not the businesses that we do that, but for greater good and greater population in this country and not for the smaller group, but they are in the British Chambers of Commerce and I don't think this is a band amendment, but it is a Trojan horse amendment potentially in that it closes out other options other than the regulatory and legal regime of the European Union.

That brings me onto amendment 11 moved by Lord Frost. The key issue is we are considering today a bill which will become an act in due course which we are hoping will improve productivity and competitiveness of British business and commerce and reduce trade frictions. It seems to me not sensible to close off the possibility of different opportunity for the United Kingdom to prosper outside of the European Union. It is not mutually exclusive idea and in being open about which our transparency and the face of the legislation means to improve trade globally that that necessarily means we are resigning from our friends in the European Union and the trade we have with them, but it is a matter of fact that the trade in the EU has reduced from world trade and global reduced from world trade and global trade to 32% 30 years ago and is likely in the next 10 years to drop to about 14%.

We have a duty and responsibility which is imperative as legislators to put in place legislation to recognise economic reality that we will trade more with Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, South Africa and other countries. Of course, we are not taking the view that Europe cannot prosper and it is in our best interest that the European Union prospers, but to put on the face of a bill only the legal and regulatory regime of one part of the trade possibility globally seems to be to close options which ministers would be sensible not so to do.

If I come to my final remarks on amendment 25 with regard to my noble friends amendments which affects clause 2, page 3 of the bill affects clause 2, page 3 of the bill about the legal jurisdiction of potential supranational legal entities and the impact it will have on regulatory regimes in the United Kingdom. I would like to press the Minister to ask... Answer the direct point my noble friend made about whether we are going to have a situation in the near future as a result of this bill passing into an act which is an allergist to Switzerland where we have a fractious and difficult relationship as a result of many multilateral agreements between the United Kingdom, bilateral agreements, twin the United Kingdom and the European Union and if that is in the best interest of the European Union.

-- Between. For those reasons, I support Lord Frost, his amendment, and I resist the amendment put forward by the noble Lord Russell of forward by the noble Lord Russell of
19:16
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak in favour of my moments 51 and 59 and also to support amendments to which I've added my name and the frost. Chris Lord Frost. Prohibit dynamic alignment and provisions with any foreign law, the EU which is specifically mentioned in the bill. My amendment at 59 is for a Sunset clause of four years, for regulations under clause 1.1 or 1.2, for using foreign laws under 2.7, so that they expire after four years.

As explained, throughout the build, throughout all the proceedings on this bill, this is an open-ended measure, it gives sweeping powers to the Minister, to make law by decree, including the input in a mirror, EU laws. I think that is a very different matter to making safe our own laws. The government justifies and has a justified, would like to thank the Minister for his constant courtesy and a willingness to discuss these issues and has made it a pleasure to work on this bill.

The subject is not to my liking. The Government justifies it by referring to the highly technical nature of the bill. The sheer numbers of regulation and it seeks to reassure us, by saying it will only use these powers, when in the best interests of the country. Now there are good reasons to prohibit dynamic alignment, with any foreign laws, as well as not to allow provisions. I speak about those first, to temper the use of the open ended power the bill proposes for the Executive which are the subject of constant discussions and the subject of my noble friend, Lord Hunt's eloquent and persuasive amendment, today.

There are good economic and trade reasons to align with foreign laws, including that of the EU. Which the bill specifically mentions. I would like just to mention, first, UK law is a well tested and brings process every time. Because our operate under a legal system, it is celebrated for his experience and independence. It follows a well understood process systems, evidence-based testing. Some scientific assessments and lots of consultation with consumers and producers alike.

So that by the time producers alike. So that by the time it gets approved, everyone understands what is at stake, they know the laws, they've been consulted on them. They trust the science and the evidence base. However, I am afraid laws have made elsewhere and regulations are made elsewhere. I reference here, particularly the EU's, under a code system, are based on input, often made by officials who are remote from the area of, on which they are making the law.

I am afraid that there is a danger that we are importing anti-competitive laws, because the EU, as has been pointed out, including by the current US President's economic adviser, one of them, it is a protection storm. It has, the EU has a different system. It was designed really, by the French, in order to lock in very good reasons at the German economic growth that was expected after the Second World War. I can understand the French reason. They had a centralised command system economy, which may work for France.

So, there are very good reasons and not to import on a dynamic basis, laws that are protectionist. Examples of committee, where they add cost, drawn up. They would also, to my mind to mitigate some noise, would cooperate this. They could mitigate against our free trade treaties, with other trading partners. I mention here the CPTPP. These are reached on the basis of mutual agreement, which are subject to conformity assessment and independent dispute, arbitration and regulation.

So, if we are going to mirror and a mirror dynamically one mirror and a mirror dynamically one set of laws, we are going to, particularly, we may be increasing costs and changing standards and indeed be in breach of our agreement, with the CPTPP. I now come, if I may, to a Sunset clause. There are very good reasons to have a Sunset clause. First, they bring benefits to legislation. They give the parliament a chance to consider the merits after a fixed period, something that is specifically needed for a law imported by statutory instrument.

It involves the user in the regulatory planning. For instance they know that this law is going to be introduced, on the condition it will be assessed and that involvement can constitute behaviour and changes. It does help to safeguard democracy and bring certainty. It makes clear on the face of the bill what is subject to expiry, when and under what conditions. Professor Helen San ta Keegan, at UCL has pointed out that some set clauses improve the quality of legislation.

They serve as tools for clarity, provision and as tools for efficacy. For these reasons, I would ask the Minister to consider my amendments and the other amendments, in this group, which open up this measure and open up any government to being more open, to foreign laws, broadly and to ensure that any laws which we do import will be subject to a sunset clause and they will not be dynamic alignment, because of that goes very much against the transparency and clarity, which is the hallmark of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

good legislation. My Lords I was going to give a long analysis of the economics that
19:24
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
long analysis of the economics that demonstrate how poorly manufacturing businesses have performed, since at the implementation of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. That would be the second reading speech, so I decided not to give it. Instead I thought I would talk to the amendments we have before us. I am grateful to the noble Lord Russell for tabling this amendment and allowing the sign up with it. The members on the Conservative benches seem to find Tara, wherever they go.

There is a danger, there are plots, there are schemes, there are Trojan horses and I wouldn't like to live in their world, it must be very, very frightening. Because, My Lords, this bill does what it says it does and in this amendment it does what it says it does. It makes a simple process put forward, very carefully, in a very measured way by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. There are all sorts of things that the Liberal Democrats would like to do.

Far more extreme then the noble Lord. We recognise the limitations of this legislation and the nature of what we are debating here. That is why I have supported the noble Lord Russell. It is a simple and modest measure that has the practical benefit of helping our businesses. To close, the noble Lord Jackson said, it wouldn't be sensible to close our options. Quite. Closer alignment with EU regulations, within the government negotiated red lines, it would and boost the UK economy by one and 2%, Like a good thing to me.
19:26
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
In view of the lateness of the hour and the closeness of the dinner break, I will also be very brief. I would like to thank my noble friends, Lord Frost and Jackson and Baroness Lawler for bringing forward these important amendments, in this group. I was happy to sign some of them. They raised a fundamental concern, about the potential alignment with the European Union, specifically through regulations that can be made under the bill. As my noble friend, Lord Frost put it, that is a significant constitutional matter and I might add one that has also been highlighted, by the constitutional committee again we are back to the committees of your Lordship's House.

The issue at hand is that as drafted the bill contains provisions which would allow the U.K.'s regulatory framework to align Or ambulatory manner. This means that as time goes on our regulations can automatically change, in line with the evolving laws of the EU, without any further scrutiny or reviewed by the Houses of Parliament. This is deeply problematic. It would allow the UK to be influenced by regulatory frameworks and standards that are set externally and potentially locking us into a regulatory direction, we do not wish to follow.

That is not the same as saying we should not be able to adapt, or adopt, or negotiate, recognise, or seek neutral recognition of the best regulations, whichever equivalent of regime they come from. I think these amendments address and achieve the aims and set out so eloquently by the noble Lords. If my noble friend is minded to test the opinion of the House, we were supportive stop .
19:28
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
It has been a very interesting debate. Actually, although, more general issues to do with Brexit have emerged, actually it has been very helpful to focus minds on actually what this bill is going to do, rather than the fears that some noble Lords have expressed. In essence, all the bill does is to allow the UK to choose to recognise, or to recognise relevant EU product requirements, where it is in the interest of both consumers and businesses.

So to do. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell. He was certainly right to acknowledge at the contribution of Chambers of commerce. I agree, I well understand the point he is making about a business requires transparency, predictability, stability. I would also say the flexible approach to alignment, within that context. Lord Frost is right, Lord Jackson is right. The ultimate interest is in the public interest. The interest of consumers. That goes to the heart of what we are seeking to do here.

And essentially, My Lords, the power of clause 12 will allow us to update the UK regulations, to address the environmental impact. Where similar provision exists in EU law. We are no updating the product safety regulations, in the changes being made, including provisions to mitigate the products environmental impact. This will allow us to provide regulated entities stability for industry. Let me make it clear. This is not designed to regulate the wider environment, whether to choose to make similar product rules, where we believe it is in the interests of the country so to do.

Clause 27 makes clear we can provide the requirements of our own law being satisfied by making specified EU requirements. We believe, My Lords and that means we can act in the best interests of our businesses and consumers. Let me make it clear, the clause is in no obliges the UK, to recognise, or mirror EU provisions. Let me reassure the House. We have been clear, such decisions will only be taken, on a case, by case basis. Subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.

Turning to amendment six and 11, together, these proposed broadening the powers in clause 1.2, to update the UK regulations, to mirror a wider set of international Let me just explain. The reason for the explicit referencing the EU but not other jurisdictions is that the bulk of UK product regulation is currently derived from EU law. It is listening to the voices of consumer organisations and businesses that we have concluded that this is the most sensible way to go forward.

I would just say again we have two late a Statutory Instrument if we want to update reference to EU law within regulations made under the bill. There will be consultation, the normal consultation you have to go through in relation to regulations. There will be transparency and judging by the interest noble Lords take in these proceedings there will be debates in Parliament. Let me make it clear, I take the point on international standards. Of course, they are good for business, they standardised across many countries throughout the world in terms of the conditions of market access, reducing technical barriers to trade.

I agree with Lord Jackson on the importance of this and assure him by taking this bill through we are not closing up options. To Lord Lansley, on divergences, I take his point, but we will consider this on a case-by-case basis with the bill giving powers to be adaptable. I take his point about speed and flexibility and that is surely what we are trying to do to make the best of our current position in the real world as Lord Deben suggested, where real businesses must operate.

Let me refer noble Lords to the UK general public policy address in standardisation which is very important and was published just a few weeks ago, this underline key policy ambitions supported by UK globally in developing and promoting international standards. The noble Lord mentioned the British and is institution, the UK national standard body that plays a crucial role in shaping global best practice and I pay tribute to that organisation and we believe it supports flexible and procompetitive regulatory model and this bill under clause 6 allows the reference of international standards for products in scope and the specific mention of the EU is not a sinister attempt by the government to align itself on all matters EU in an underhand way.

It is the practicality that so much of our current regulatory law in relation to products stems from the EU. It is a pragmatic approach which we are going to take. On amendment 13 and 32, we published the Code of Conduct drafted with valuable input from noble Lords which sets out the various guardrails that we have placed when the powers of this bill are exercised including an impact assessment. All secondary legislation made under this bill will be subject to the statutory and non-statutory assessment set out in the Code of Conduct.

Let me turn to amendment 59. The bill does not allow dynamic alignment and we do as a government consider the inclusion of sunset clauses where appropriate, but we have to say here in terms of the argument of Lord Russell, in terms of stability and certainty for business, a Sunset clause is not beneficial for businesses because it introduces immediately absolute uncertainty about the future and we want businesses to invest in the long-term. They do need stability and I don't think a Sunset clause would be helpful at all.

As far as 24 and 54 are concerned, we are committed to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and that is why later we will move government amendment 55 which increases the number of British law subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. On amendment 24, we have taken the transparent approach to regulation and it scrutinises the approach when the take the Statutory Instrument. Let's make it clear, only UK authority can take on Forsman action authority can take on Forsman action under the bill and similarly it is only UK courts that will interpret regulations made under the bill and regulations under the bill will constitute UK law and not foreign law as suggested, but only our courts can determine the issue arising out and it would be our regulations passed by our sovereign Parliament, not by some entity that is perceived to be abroad and damaging in the way that some noble Lords suggested.

I hope I reassured noble Lords that this is not a sinister approach to completely align with the EU on all matters to do with these issues. It is pragmatic, business wants it, consumers want it, and I hope the noble Lord will not move his amendment.
19:37
Lord Frost Portrait Lord Frost (Conservative)
-
-
I have listened with care and interest to the eloquent words of the Minister, but I am sorry to say I have not found them particularly reassuring and that probably will not surprise him. I will not well on the reasons now, but there is perhaps a contradiction between his attempt to say that this bill just gives the power to align with the EU rules stop what is the problem with that? And then go on to everyone wants to align, businesses wanted, consumers want it, and we have a government that wanted and I think this power is going to be used extensively however reassuring it seeks to be now.

On one point of detail, the Minister said and it has been said before that this bill does not allow dynamic alignment. I simply cannot see what that statement is based on and it seems capable of allowing dynamic alignment and I cannot see any provision to preclude it and I will leave that hanging. A couple of brief points, I expect to test the opinion of the House on some of these amendments and probably one is amendment 11 and I want to respond to the point made by Lord Lansley on that point.

I cannot say I believe there should be a specific UK only rule for every manufactured goods. I do not think that makes sense and we have the opportunity to look at rules from around the world and align with them and we do just that in pharma regulation. There is splitter provision from the MHRA that allows accelerated recognition of products approved in other jurisdictions, not just the EU, but the US, Japan, Australia, and I hope there is a principle of why it cannot be done more widely.

I do not think we live in a world of the past, but one person's plot is another persons vigilance and we have learned how many people are not particularly confident or comfortable with this countries self-government and want to see it. We are right to be careful and we are right to look at the detail and I don't think on the basis of what I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reassured. Is this amendment by leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is this amendment by leave withdrawn? It is withdrawn. Lord withdrawn? It is withdrawn. Lord Frost, not moved Lord Foster of Frost, not moved Lord Foster of Bath? Not moved. The question is that further consideration of report be adjourned. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The contrary, "not content". The contents have it. Repeat of a statement made in the House of Commons yesterday on defence and security.

The Lord Privy Seal.
19:40
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
I repeat the statement made said by the Prime Minister yesterday on defence and security and I will delay for a moment for those that would like to leave the chamber. It is three years since Russia launched its vile assault on Ukraine and I would like to address the in in -- international situation and British security. I travel to Washington with a simple message, that NATO and our allies can trust this government to fulfil Britain and the Labour Party's historic role of putting our collective security first.

I spoke of my great pride to lead the party as a founding nature of NATO and the as a founding nature of NATO and the legacy of Clement Attlee and Bevan who not only stood by Churchill in wartime but established the great order here and abroad stop a proud legacy but in a world like ours is a heavy one. Historical load we carry to fulfil our duty is not as light as it once was and we must bend our backs across the House because these times demand a united approach and we must deploy all of our resources.

I vividly remember the Berlin Wall coming down and felt as if we were casting off the shekels of history, a continent united by freedom. If you had told me then in my lifetime we would see Russian tanks rolling into European cities again, I would not have believed you, but here we are. In a world where everything has changed because three years ago that is exactly what happened. Britain can be proud of our response, British families opening their doors to the Ukranians and yellow and blue flags fluttering on town halls and churches all over the country.

The party opposite in government was robust in our response. I supported that in opposition and I applaud them for it now. We have built on that, bringing support for Ukraine for a record level and we should not pretend that any of this has been easy. Working people have felt the cost of Russian actions through rising prices and bills, nevertheless one of the great lessons of history is instability in Europe will always wash up on our shores and tyrants like Putin only respond to strength.

Russia is a menace in a -- waters, airspace and our streets and there are cyber attacks on the NHS and only seven years ago a chemical weapons attack on the streets of Salisbury. We must stand with Ukraine. If we don't achieve lasting peace, the economic instability and threats to our security will only grow. And so as the nature of the conflict changes as it has in recent weeks, it brings our response into sharper focus, a new era that we must meet together and with strength.

The fundamentals of the British strategy are unchanged. I know the current moment is volatile and there is no good reason we cannot endure. Let me spell out to the House exactly how we will renew them for these times will stop NATO is the bedrock of our security and will remain so and brought peace to 75 years and it is important today as the day it was founded. Putin thought he would weaken NATO and he achieved the exact opposite.

It remains the organisation for which it receives organisation for which it receives the vast bulk of our defence effort and it must continue. We must reject any force of choice between our allies on one side of the Atlantic or another. It is against our history, country and party. It is against our fundamental national interest. The US is our most important bilateral alliance, with everything. It has survived countless external challenges in the past. We have fought together and we are the closest partners in trade for security and this week when I meet Donald Trump, I will be clear.

I want the relationship to go from strength to strength. Strength in this world also depends on a new alliance with Europe. As I said in Paris last week, our commitment to European defence security is unwavering, and now is the time to deepen it. We will find new ways to work together on our collective interest and threats, texting borders, bringing countries together and seeking out new opportunities for growth. Third, we seek peace, not conflict and we believe in the power of diplomacy to deliver that end and it is most prescient in Ukraine.

Nobody in this House or this country once bloodshed to continue, nobody. I have seen the devastation in Ukraine first hand. What you see in these places never leave you but a piece to ensure in Ukraine and beyond we need to stop this I know that we will in doors the principle of peace through strength and we will stand behind the people of Ukraine and we must ensure they negotiate their own First we must change our national security posture, because a generational challenge requires a generational response.

That will demand some extremely difficult and painful choices. And through those choices, as hard as they are, we must also seek unity, a whole society effort that will reach into the lives, the industries and the homes of the British people. I started this statement by recalling the era of Ackley and Bevan, this year will marked many generations. We must find courage in our history, courage and who we are as a nation, courage is what our own era now demands of others. So starting today, ICANN announced that this government will begin the biggest sustained increase in defence spending, since the end of the Cold War.

We will deliver our commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP, on defence and we will bring it forward, so that we and we will maintain that for the rest of this Parliament. Let me spell that out, that means spending 13.4 billion more on defence, every year, for 2027. We also face enemies, sophisticated cyber And even assassination. So our intelligence and security services are an increasingly vital part of protecting both us and our allies. So, on top of the 2.5% that I have announced, going forward we will recognise that the incredible contribution of our intelligence and security services, to the defence of the nation.

Which means, taken together, we will be spending 2.6% on defence, for 2027. But we must go further, still. I have long argued, in the face of ongoing generational challenges, all European allies step challenges, all European allies step up. And add more to our own defence was not subject to economic and fiscal conditions and aligned with our strategic and operational needs, we also set a clear ambition for defence spending, to rise to 3% of GDP, in the next Parliament. I want to be very clear, the nature of warfare has changed significantly.

That is clear from the battleground in Ukraine. So, we must modernise and improve our capabilities as we invest. I equally want to be clear, that like any investment we make we seek value for money. That is why we are putting in place a defence reform and efficiency plan. Jointly led by Mr. Right honourable friends the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary. This investment means that the UK strengthens its position as a leader of NATO and the collective defence of our continent It It is It is good It is good for It is good for our It is good for our national security, it is also good for the defining mission of this government, to restore growth to our economy.

We should be optimistic of what it can deliver on those terms. Yet, in the short term, it can only be funded through hard choices. And in this case, that means we will cut spending on development assistance, moving from an .5% of GNI today, to not .3% in 2027. Fully funding our not .3% in 2027. Fully funding our not .3% in 2027. Fully funding our I want to be clear to the House, this is not announcement I'm happy to make. I'm proud of our pioneering record in overseas development and we will continue to play a key humanitarian role, in Sudan, Ukraine, Gaza, tackling climate change, supporting multinational efforts on global health and challenges like vaccination.

Also, in recent years, the development budget has been redirected towards this side of the backlog. Paying the hotels. And so as we are clearing the backlog at record pace, there are efficiencies that will reduce to cut the need to spend, on our overseas program. But nonetheless, it remains cut, I will not pretend otherwise. We will do everything we can to return to a world that is not the case and build our capacity on development. At times like this, defence and security of the British people must always come first.

That is the number one priority of this government. But it is not just around spending. Our whole approach to national security must now change. We will have to ask British industry, British universities, British businesses and the British British businesses and the British people to pay a bigger part. Use this to renew the social contract of our nation, the rights and responsibilities that we owe to one another. The first test of our defence policy is of course as to whether it keep the country safe, the second should be if it meets the conditions of the British people.

Does it help provide economic security that working people need. Because ultimately, that revenue is fundamental to national security as well. We will use this investment and opportunity that will translate defence spending British growth, British skills and British innovation. Using the full powers of procurement act to build our industrial base. As a Strategic Defence Review is well underway. Cross government will be conducting a number of other reviews relevant to national security. It is obvious that these must pull together.

So before the NATO summit in June, we will publish a single National Security Strategy and we will bring it to this House. Because as I said earlier, that is how we must meet the threats of the same. Together and with strength. A new approach to defence and our industrial base and our alliances. The instruments of our national power, brought together, creating opportunity, assuring our allies and delivering the security of our country. At moments like this, in our past, Britain has stood up to be counted.

It is come together, it has demonstrated a strength and that is what the security of the country needs now. That is what this government will deliver, I commend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the statement of the House. I very much thank the noble
19:53
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I very much thank the noble Baroness of repeating this eloquent Baroness of repeating this eloquent and important a statement. In the three years since Putin's tanks rolled into Ukraine imagining then rolled into Ukraine imagining then , his brutal war still grinds on, at immense cost to the Russian people, let alone the brave people of Ukraine. And in all this time at this House has been united in its support for those brave people. And this will not change.

The noble Baroness, the Leader of the House was a staunch in her support, when I sat in her place. And I can assure her that we on this side will not be lacking in our support for the Prime Minister, when he does the right thing, as he has in this a very welcome statement. It was at the Conservative government and, yes I will dare to speak his name, the government of Boris Johnson, that led from the front, sending weapons before the invasion. Helping to stop the first of sorts, while others then hesitated.

Then under successive governments, Conservative and Labour together, the UK has taken in many refugees, delivered immense military aid to Ukraine and sanctioned those who have aided Putin's war machine. This House stands united and unfaltering, beside the Ukrainian people today. And we also agree, the Prime Minister in this troubled war must do more to ensure our own security. As my right honourable Leader of the Opposition set out yesterday, we must now accept reality. We must speak the truth. We must acknowledge that the world has changed.

We must be ready to face at the inescapable challenges that lie ahead. The challenges that lie ahead. The primary purpose of a nation is to protect and defend our borders, our values and our people. That is why we welcome the announcement that the defence budget will be increased. In the face of the assertiveness of Russia and China, we can no longer live off a post-Cold War inheritance of Thatcher and Reagan. So we commend the Prime Minister on his decision to boost spending on our armed forces.

And we come on this I do see the necessity of some trade- off of soft power, the hard. Indeed my right honourable friend urged the financial measure the Prime Minister has now adopted, however difficult. While we believe the government has made the right decision in relation to AIDS, the statement does raise some questions which need clarification. The statement says that the increase will be funded by a reduction in aid spending from not .5% of GDP, do not .3. Based on figures in the Autumn Budget, that would free up some 5.3 billion, towards the increase in defence.

That is in line with the clarification, either defence secretary, that the real increase, factoring in inflation is closer to 6 billion. That is very welcome. It is not the 13.4 billion claimed in the statement. So can the noble Baroness explain the disparity in the two figures. The second point, requiring clarification is how this money be allocated? I do not expect the noble Baroness to be able to answer that now. The statement says the strategic defence review is a well underway.

With a single National Security Strategy will be published before the NATO summit in June. Does that mean that the previous commitment to publish a Strategic Defence Review, in the spring, is now delayed because and will the review reflect on the significant implications of British troops, potentially being sent on a wider deployment, in Europe. A key aspect of defence is sending the right signals. Centage points are not the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is people and material. There are urgent procurement decisions and that need to be taken.

Can the noble Baroness assure the House, they are not being delayed? Finally, the Government still seem to be the plan to give over the Chagos Islands and 9 million for the privilege. What is the figure? When the Prime Minister sits down with President Trump and the President asks him that he surely will, what is this a deal costing? Surely, the Prime Minister cannot credibly say to the President, I cannot tell you. If the President can be told, then surely this Parliament can be told.

Will the noble Baroness Putellas, when the Prime Minister was evasive earlier ever told of any of the money the government was to pay to money the government was to pay to Mauritius to lease back a base we currently own it, will come out of the defence budget for supper will only cost be paid from the defence budget, or not? No doubt the President will ask the Prime Minister? Can this House had the answer? The Prime Minister is right, and this is the fundamental matter.

We are facing an ever more dangerous world. He is right about the importance of a NATO, something both these parties, all the parties in this House have always cherished. My Lords, let no one doubt that Britain stand by our allies. As I said in a recent statement, there can be no peace, without Ukraine. The Prime Minister was also right when he said any government's first duty is the defence of their country. We, on this side, will stand with the government, when it does the right thing, as it is now.

And we will always share with them inputting at always share with them inputting at the national interest first.
19:59
Lord Newby Portrait Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
We to welcome this statement. From the outset of the brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine there has been a consensus across Parliament, we must support the Ukrainian people in their struggle across against aggression. We do so, because they deserve our support in their own right, but because a successful Putin in Ukraine would simply be a prelude to further Russian expansionism, whether in the Baltics, caucuses, or elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Nothing, which has happened in Ukraine over the past three years has caused us to question this approach? Quite the opposite.

But what has changed is opposite. But what has changed is the posture of the US. It is now clear that European nations cannot continue to rely on the US to support the defence of the continent, in the same way that we have in the past. From day to day, it is impossible to know quite what the US President will say next. But in one respect President Trump has been consistent. He expects Europe to pay more for its own defence and he will make the continuation of the US is as military commitments in Europe contingent on this.

So, we and other European nations are going to have to spend more, considerably more on defence. And we are going to have to do so, at a time of public sector finances are already under considerable strain. We therefore welcome the government's decision to move to A-level of defence expenditure of 2.5% of GDP, by 2027 and the further aim of getting to 3%, in the next Parliament. We need to considerably increase our capabilities and replenish our equipment stocks. And as the first priority, the Government should reverse of the 10,000 reduction in the number of our troops, over which the previous administration decided.

It is now highly likely that we are going to have to provide boots on the ground in Ukraine and the army is simply too small, at present, to be able to do this, on anything like the scale required. We must also however much greater value for money, on equipment, development and procurement. Then we have in the past. We therefore welcome the government's commitment to any I am surprised and disappointed that the government decided the entire funding of this expenditure should come from further cuts to development assistance.

This seems to be a strategic error as it simply reduces further power and leave space for and China to fill. Given that most aid is preventative of disease, climate change or conflict, it will exacerbate problems that will spill over to ourselves. It is a full economy. Could the government commit to protecting expenditure on Sudan and not just prioritising it given the extraordinarily severe humanitarian crisis facing that country? We have suggested funding increased to 2.5%.

Increasing the digital services tax from two up to 10%. Removing necessary revenue as suggested in the general election manifesto that could be deployed without raiding the aid budget. As for the 3%, we already suggested there should be urgent all-party talks to explore how we can achieve this on a cross-party basis. Can the leader say when they will adopt this approach? Further to the question earlier today in the House in relation to the 20 billion towns £20 billion of Russian assets should they be released to help Ukraine in its continuing activities and help rebuild the country once hostilities and? Frankly, nothing seems to be happening to achieve this.

The Prime Minister could play a leadership role by convening a European conference in London to agree how best this could be achieved. By raising it tomorrow with president Trump. Does the government have a plan to undertake such initiatives? Faced with the changed US posture on European security, all nations must play a greater part in the defence of the continent. This statement demonstrates the UK is willing to make that commitment and we support make that commitment and we support the stance stop let us not do so by further decimating our aid budget and making some of the world's poorest people pay.

poorest people pay.
20:04
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
Could I thank noble Lords for their comments and for the support of the increase in defence spending. It has been important throughout my time as Leader of the Opposition that the House has always been united on this issue, the whole of Parliament has been united and many will recall when President Zelenskyy spoke in the House of Commons and I met him afterwards and he came to Cabinet meeting after the election. At all times, it is not just the government but the entire country and the entirety of Parliament supporting the Ukrainian people.

An important message not just to Ukraine, but an important message to Putin because we stand united in support of self-determination of the Ukrainian people and the security and safety is of the utmost importance. The noble Lord referred to families taking in Ukrainians who have had to flee their homes. Friends of mine did so and the pride in the work they did and they benefited and gained from hosting a family fleeing from terror and violence. To the points the noble Lord made, it is not GDP in terms of the ODA, but GNI.

A different measurement. I had to look it up as well. How it is allocated in terms of additional spending, there will be the treaty defence reform as Stephen Dodd led on that and it will help with money spent. It is not just money spent but how it is spent and used. It is crucial. That will align with the complex Spending Review as well as we take a look at that and get more information on that going forward. He asked about the money.

Having the Defence Minister alongside me, it is £13.5 billion increase in cash terms from the budget now to the budget in 2027 which takes us to 2.5% of GDP in April 27 and we heard the words that we know we have to go further than that. The timescale you need to ramp up that timescale as we get supply chains in place, training, recruitment, and we have heard about the lack of recruitment and retention in our Armed Forces and it is important to planet in the strategic defence review which is important and crucial to that.

I thank the noble Lord for his comments on this. His words again about solidarity to the people in Ukraine was important and we look at how Putin would take advantage in Europe and that strength in Europe is really important. Not just the people in Ukraine, but our own domestic safety and security as well. He asked specifically about funding from the ODA and these choices are not easy, but the defence and security of this country is the primary objective.

We can say to him this is not something that will come into effect until 2027, and the current programs in 2025 and 26 remain in place and protected areas are in Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza. Focus is going to be as we plan ahead for the strategic review on this in the FCDO is the planning that will happen, working with those and partners and we will focus on the impact and outcomes of projects. I can say the legislation remains in place and we are committed to 0.7%.

We want to get back to that. We have We want to get back to that. We have a proud history in this party and we are proud of what we have taken on this and we did not take it lightly, it is a generational shift, a generational change and we must respond in the most positive way possible and that is why it is so important to see this increase in defence spending announced today. defence spending announced today.
20:09
20:09
20:10
20:12
20:13
20:14
20:15
20:16
20:17
20:18
20:18
20:19
20:19
20:19
20:21
20:22
20:23
20:24
20:24
20:25
20:26
20:27
20:27
20:27
20:28
20:28
20:29
None Portrait Legislation: Product Regulation and Metrology Bill - report stage
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Hoping to move the procedure of the bill?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's not here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can someone move the bill? Move that the report be further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

considered. Report of the public resolution

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I am

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am inviting... I am inviting... I'm I am inviting... I'm inviting
20:30
20:31
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
"not content". The contents have it. Amendment 18, clause 1, Lord Sharpe

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Epsom. Amendment eight is a vital safeguard to ensure the regulatory safeguard to ensure the regulatory decisions do not inadvertently disadvantage our trade relationships with some of the world's most economies. The global economic balance is shifting. Others earlier alluded to the statistics in alluded to the statistics in previous debates but these are straightforward and their repeating. straightforward and their repeating. The US economy is growing on the EU share of global GDP is shrinking,. 50 years ago, the US and EU accounted for 22% of global GDP, but the US grew to 26.3% and the EU declined to 17.3.

These are simple statistics and simple facts and not qualitative judgement. The economic future lies with those markets that are expanding and not contracting which is not the same as arguing that it may be in our interest to align with those in certain cases. align with those in certain cases. The CPTPP is one of the fastest- growing trade blocs that will soon be underway creating immense opportunity for British business. As for the US, our largest single trading partner that accounts for 16% of UK exports.

Britain trades under its own Lord and we -- own laws and we reflect that it does not impose unnecessary restraints to capitalise on this agreement. The importance of strengthening economic ties with the US cannot be overstated. The Minister acknowledged that the US is a country that we have to deal with and we agree and recognise and acknowledge the progress that it is slow but it is not fault of the government. More will be said in the months to come.

But, alignment with the EU and president Trump's advisers making it clear that making a free trade deal with the US all but impossible. Stephen Morgan Messinia economic adviser to Donald Trump said that we must decide if we want to follow him, the European socialist model or embrace the free market. If the UK continues to shift with economic policies the United States will be less interested in pursuing an agreement with the United Kingdom. This does not set barriers to future trade deals or diminish the competitive advantage because of Brexit.

We ensure our trade policy aligns with the national interest and supports jobs, investment and economic growth on a global stage. I would like to draw attention to deep regulatory alignment with the UK and that looks at the CPTPP. When the UK exceeded to the CPTPP it underwent regulatory review to ensure domestic regulation complied with CPTPP obligations. This included scrutiny of various sectors including agri-food looking at the hormone treated beef. The UK was allowed to succeed despite this issue but remain significant uncertainty about how the alignment with the UK model would be received by other CPTPP parties.

Regardless of if it is better for the UK to align with the EU or CPTPP, can the Minister confirm this this is a matter for debate in parliament because this is far-reaching and Parliament must have the opportunity to engage in a thorough and informed discussion on this matter. On Amendment 64, after the government put forward a bill that has done nothing but provide uncertainty, this amendment includes the crucial requirement of accountability. If the number one priority is growth and must give security, because all this does is ask the government to conduct an impact assessment on future economic growth and allows room for manoeuvre.

Businesses need stability, consumers confidence and Parliament clarity. Unnecessary ambiguity about the future regulatory framework as we have discussed at some length risk deterring investment, slowing economic progress at a time that we can least afford it. It is not through vague promises or blindly producing sweeping powers without accountability shows every piece of legislation and tributes positively to the economy. That, we believe, is the aim of the government to share

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and for that reason I beg to move. The question is amendment one,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is amendment one, clause 1, line 12, inserted on the
20:36
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaking to amendment eight and 6.4 in the name of Lord Sharpe, I 6.4 in the name of Lord Sharpe, I think we are playing on a simple set of variations on several groups. of variations on several groups. These two amendments impose additional restrictions on the additional restrictions on the ferment a of the act. A restricts trade agreements. We look at a range of trade agreements which assume that if you agree with one of them, you will agree with all of them.

You must choose. All of those trade agreements have varying places and conditions and the government job is to try to choose the best option, a 3D chess game, in order to make sure as Lord Sharpe points out that they do the best for this country, but this have your cake and eat it idea that if we don't do the EU we can do those in that line that the noble Lord sharp set out. His example illustrates what we can't because there are issues in all of these that we will agree with and disagree with and the role of government is to have a sufficient tool to enable them to move in the right direction.

I'm surprised they chose agri-food. That is not inside the scope of the bill, but I may be wrong. Perhaps there are others, but taking up his example, I do not see banning hormone boosted leaf as something the Europeans imposed on me. I am pleased we have got it and if I wasn't in the European Union, I expect the United Kingdom to uphold those standards for rearing meat in this country. If the Minister proposes wholesale change to the United Kingdom animal processes and security, perhaps he should tell us what other things he expects to change about our food.

That is their to protect consumers from the effect of hormones and antibiotics to our system. Baroness Bennett will have a lot of statistics. Neither of these are helpful to the process and particularly the second where I question how an impact assessment of what I think the Minister is proposing can be done because the impact will happen through the regulations that the act is used to implement. Until we know what the regulations are, we don't know what the impact will be.

It is perfectly reasonable for the Minister to say when the government is tabling a new regulation, we want to know the impact of that regulation on the economy, and the environment, and we cannot have a holistic analysis on the impact of the bill without taking into consideration all of the related issues the bill will cause to happen. I hope he understands what were saying. With that in view, it is liberally slowing up the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

implementation of the act. I thank all noble Lords for their
20:40
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank all noble Lords for their contribution. The UK government remains firmly committed to remains firmly committed to maintaining and enhancing our international relationships and ensuring the UK remains an attractive and competitive training partner creating for UK businesses. The bill enables that and it does not overwrite or contradict any trade agreement. Instead, this bill provides flexibility needed to ensure the regulatory framework can keep pace with international development supporting businesses and economic growth which supports current and future trade agreements.

The UK government will not use power or any bill powers in the way that would disadvantage the UK or its trade agreement including those trade agreement including those mentioned by Lord Sharpe set up in a Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP, or for any other trade deal the UK has had since the exit from the EU. Any use of clause 1.2 will be subject to the usual process in relation to secondary legislation such as the impact assessment and relevant parliamentary scrutiny.

We are clear that free trade agreements are an important lever for driving growth and the government announced its intention to publish a strategy which considers a range of trade tools to drive economic growth including announcing its intention to deliver a free trade agreement programme. The government is committed to meeting its obligation and nothing in this bill contradicts that. The powers make changes to legislation in the UK's best legislation in the UK's best interest. Referring to Lord Sharpe mentioning agri-food, it is excluded.

This government will not sign agreements with those that undermine UK standards. The government stated that all changes to the product regulation will be in statutory obligation including the commitment and the FDA and supporting business. This seeks to solve the problem that does not exist. And to be clear, this bill is compatible not only with existing FDA, but the ambition to sign further agreements nothing will prevent us from signing ambitious agreement with organisations and partners including India and GCC, nor indeed will it prevent us from pursuing agreements with other partners such as the USA, until the government decides to announce future negotiations in the future.

Amendment 64, the Bill as drafted allows the government to publish domestic legislation, keep pace with global change and ensure the UK product regulation involves technology and emerging risk. This supports the interest of UK business and consumers providing regulatory scrutiny and creating condition for investment, innovation and economic growth. Regarding the impact of the bill, the bill has a comprehensive impact assessment which considers economic and business impact. This is available to noble Lords by the UK Parliament site.

This impact assessment will also be published to reflect any changes made to the bill since introduced to the House when it moves to the other place. All secondary legislation in the bill will be subject to statutory and nonstatutory assessments set up in our Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct set out the current framework and how the government intends to use the bill with product safety measures brought forward and are proportionate and effective. Regulation is proportioned, protect consumers, support responsible business, and drives growth across the economy.

I hope we have been able to provide reassurance on this matter and the government's wider commitment to supporting economic growth and are respectively asked that the amendment is withdrawn.
20:45
20:46
20:57
Lord Holmes of Richmond Portrait Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to move in them and turn in my name, to speak to 34, 337 and 40 are my name. A bill that is completely absent of AI, silent on technology, how fortunate that we have a group of amendments almost exclusively dedicated to the subject of artificial intelligence. In a measure of the hour, I will only speak in depth to 3 of the amendments. The themes run through all of them. The sense of consumer protection through consumer awareness, clarity for consumer, clarity the investor, clarity of innovator.

The sense of that products are currently on the market, they have been developed using AI. They contain AI. They are controlled by AI. With no ability for consumer or citizen to know that is the case. Have any labelling or any protection. I speak particularly to amendment 34, which we did in any sense cut across any of the governments plans for their AI journey. Their potential AI bill. It simply suggests that it would make sense, where AI is a product.

There is a label on that product to say that that is the case. Further, the QR code-P dip can be deployed to give the consumer more detail on how . The energy and other natural resources are used. Simply a case of labelling a product, so consumers, citizens, all of us can be in the know that AI has been used. To amendment 36 and 37. I reserve the right to test the opinion of the House when we come to these amendments. Next week.

Amendment 36 is absolutely critical and was demonstrated, the reactions of musicians, the end of the government, consultation on copyright. Musicians released a completely silent album, to demonstrate the impact that AI is having and can have on music and all creative products. Track one, complete silence. Track two, complete silence. Making the point that our creatives are currently having their works are taken by AI, with no renumeration, no consent and no respect. This amendment, again it would not affect the government's approach to AI.

It doesn't even suggest anything from this bill, per se. It would just put a very simple change into the Consumer Rights Act 2015. There is a wonderful symmetry. If you are a betting person you would have to say that this is a good sign. I have amendment 36 and this amendment would amend section 36, of that Statuette. Simply to say that those digital products that are created using AI have two be clear that that was the case. Nothing more, nothing less.

Certainly not cutting across anything the government may have in mind for AI. A civil approach, so people can know, if for example music has been created solely using AI. The consumer, the customer, the citizen can know that and they can decide, they can determine how or if they want to interact, or purchase that Amendment 37 goes to a critical question of conclusion. Currently, products can go on the market which exclude small, huge sections of our community. Yes it disabled people, but not just disabled people.

Older people, people from different geographies, backgrounds, languages, currently there is very little redress or ability to see how inclusive or accessible prop -- Product is. It simply asks the government to launch a consultation government to launch a consultation to bring about an inclusive by designer Mark. What a great standard this would be for the UK to have an inclusive by design Mark on every product in the UK market. Physically or electronically, on that product. And if any product that is currently accessible is then made for an upgrade or change, inaccessible, that would trigger immediate action and potential sanctions to be brought about through regulations.

I will give one quick example to make this point. Look at card payment machines. For years, accessible, able to be used independently by all members of the community. Then, flatscreen card payment machines come out. Inaccessible. Unusable for me. Unusable for huge swathes of our community. What redress? Nothing. It would be on us to bring a case under equalities legislation. Why should it be on the person who is on the wrong end of exclusion, to have to suffer that, and also then have to bring the case themselves? What a great thing this government could do to consult a national consultation, to bring about an inclusive by design standard.

I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 1, page 2, line 6, VN, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled list.
21:04
Viscount Camrose Portrait Viscount Camrose (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

as printed on the Marshalled list. My Lords, I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendments 34, 35, 36 and 37, in the name of my noble friend, Lord name of my noble friend, Lord Holmes. And 43, in the name of my noble friend, Lord Sharpe. I should probably draw noble Lords attention to the fact that I am not doing so from the front bench on this occasion. On my noble friend, Lord Holmes' amendment, I will address two things. First, the labelling of AI generated content, including music.

And second, the promotion of inclusive design in AI products. So, on the issue of labelling AI generated content, the government's explanatory notes rightly highlights the need to adapt to new technologies like AI. And this amendment supports that goal in, I think, a sustainable and sensible way. During the passage of the data use and access bill, I spoke about the digital watermarking, in particular, the development of internationally accepted standards to support this. I believe these labelling amendments are an excellent initiative pair of use cases, where such watermarks can, and should, be applied.

The noble Lord, Lord Vallance, at the time expressed his positive views towards such standards. And I hope on the back of the government's consultation, they will pursue this energetically. Consumers have to be able to distinguish between human generated and AI generated content. For their own sanity, among other reasons. This is particularly important in sectors such as music where the line between human creativity and AI involvement may not always be clear. I think my noble friend has proposed a, if I may say so, characteristically sensible way to bring this about.

If the government has an even better idea, I look forward to hearing it. Next, I'd like to address my noble friend's amendment on inclusive by design. This principle is vital in ensuring the products are developed and marketed in the UK, especially those leveraging advanced technologies like AI, are accessible to all, regardless of disability and other factors. Now, this doesn't just improve designs for those who would otherwise be excluded, it actually improves the designs for everyone. My noble friend has rightly emphasised the importance of acknowledging accessibility, inclusivity, at the design stage.

And this amendment will create a framework for that. There is a story, I don't know if it is true, the first seatbelt design teams had no women in them. To the enormous detriment of all their eventual users, in the fact that seat belts not only didn't work for women at all but not men either. By making inclusive design, a key part of the development of AI technologies in particular, we have the opportunity to ensure the benefits of AI are shared more widely.

Before I turned to my noble friend, Lord Sharpe's, excellent amendment, let me make the broader point about AI in this bill. The noble Lord, the Minister, said earlier, it is not an AI bill, that is fine. But where is the AI bill? The party opposite, from opposition, and in government, have told us we would have an AI bill, but we still know, sad to say, next to nothing about it. We don't know its scope, timing, purpose, let alone any of its contents.

And this uncertainty is a real problem for everyone involved in AI in this country. If the plan is to distribute AI laws across different bills, that's fine, but we need to know. Either way, I really urge the government to share its thinking on AI regulation. Because we urgently need to understand at least the direction of travel. I strongly support my noble friend, Lord Sharpe's amendment 43. We need to address the gaps he rightly identified. To ensure we are setting clear expectations for the development and regulation of AI technologies.

Without such clarity, we risk stifling innovation, rather than promoting it. We also risk creating the necessary regulatory burdens for businesses, especially SMEs working in the sector. Finally, as we look at developing technical standards and read Galatians 4 AI, we must also consider the risks posed by foreign actors who may seek to mini plate AI systems or exploit them for their own malicious purposes. When a economic advantage or geopolitical leverage, the security as aridity of our AI systems must be armoured.

The robust framework set out in these amendments should include safeguards to prevent undue foreign influence ensuring that UK businesses and consumers are protected.
21:09
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I thank the noble Lord homes for bringing this up, it is a good idea to have these sections, and clearly, it comes in two different parts. I would say at the start, I was happy to vote for Baroness Kidron's amendment, the issue of what I would call piracy is one we should be very concerned about having a national industrial creativity that we need to protect. And preserve. With respect to these amendments and this bill.

I am going to throw myself at the mercy of the government, because I am not 100% sure that some of the products being mentioned around music fall into this category. Consumer products can be or not. So, to some extent, we may find that the to some extent, we may find that the suggestions of the noble Lord fall into categories that do not necessarily get covered by this bill, so I would be interested to hear from the government, I should know the answer to that, but I do not.

My sense is having looked or heard what the Minister... To hear what the noble Lord had to say from his bill, I wonder a conversation with the Minister around the code of conduct and whether there is quite a lot of work to be done on their pre-scrutiny process and scrutiny process of product, to understand where AI has come in. To single out energy use from AI from any other energy use is a little strange. If you are buying a product and you care about energy use, then it isn't just the AI technology that has consumed energy.

If it is made of steel, then a large proportion of the energy came from somewhere else, but are still important, if energy is important to me. So I do think on things like energy use, there is one set of considerations and in the use of other people's intellectual property, there is another thing. And I think that is where we should have the conversation with the Minister. On the issue around design for accessibility, I do agree with the noble Lord. And again, I think perhaps when we have that conversation, the Minister can suggest where the best route might be for us to take that further forward.

So, on those notes, I think perhaps there is more work to be done, and I am very happy to join the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the Minister there. All right. Minister there. All right. Minister there. All right.
21:12
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
all right. (Laughs) My Lord, that was very interesting, if brief today. Before speaking to my amendment in the group, I would like to thank my noble friend, Lord Holmes, very much for his amendments, as has been pointed out, amendment 37 deals with the concept of inclusive by design. Which is obviously vital for creating products cater to everyone. They ensure accessibility, use ability, in fairness, across all sorts of diverse populations. By designing products with inclusivity in mind from the start, we acknowledge the varied needs of consumers, including those with disabilities and elderly users and someone.

Here is amendment 36. I think my noble friend there has raised a very important issue with this amendment. Labelling AI generated content, including music, is crucial to ensure transparency and consumer protection. This is obviously a subject growing in prominence and importance, and are subject in which I have little doubt subject in which I have little doubt we will return. Because in a world where AI generated works are becoming more prevalent, it is busily essential that consumers can distinguish between content created by humans, and content created by AI.

In addressing Annan 43, my Lords, I would like to begin by referencing the government's own explanatory notes, which is my noble friend, Lord Camrose has mentioned, to consider the need to adapt to new technologies, such as artificial intelligence. With this in mind, we look to introduce this amendment to promote innovation and investment in the AI sector in the UK. Something that will continue to be vital in the coming years. Now, I agree with the noble Lord, this is obviously not a AI bill.

At my Lords, this is not particularly an AI amendment. This is not about what AI is or those and obviously, many of those discussions, as we have heard in this brief debate, are yet to be heard in broader society, never mind in this House. But, we have to acknowledge the UK has a thriving tech sector, one that has consistently been a leader in developing cutting-edge technologies. We want to strengthen this by ensuring we have sensible progrowth AI regulation that fosters innovation whilst also safeguarding consumer interests.

This should include a focus on small and medium-size enterprises that are vital for generating new ideas, and driving technological advancements. International competitiveness is absolute crucial. And especially in emerging technologies like AI. We have already seen how overly burdensome regulations like those proposed in the EU's AI act can have a stifling effect on innovation. When it was in the works, executives of 160 leading countries in the industry came together and drafted an open letter, warning of the potential negative consequences of excessively strict regulations.

They highlighted that such an approach can ultimately harm businesses, slow innovation, put Europe at a competitive disadvantage globally, and therefore, by extension, aid those in other parts of the world whose intentions are perhaps not so benign as we would like to think hours are. We must avoid falling into the same trap here in the UK. It is essential to ensure that AI is developed responsibly and ethically, but we must strike the right balance. Over regulating this vital sector could choke off the growth of our tech ecosystem, discourage investment, and drive the innovation we need here overseas.

This amendment aims to protect this growing and vital industry, it is specifically drafted in such a way as to ensure that British industries have their interests taken into account and that, of course, includes SMEs. I would urge the government to accept.
21:15
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, although a short debate, I think it has been an interesting one which covers areas actually much wider than the bill encompasses. But my Lords, we take very careful note of the points Can I say to Lord Holmes I very much take the point he made about consumer protection, as amendments require a few of AI and product regulations, regulations and the labelling of AI -related products, unmusical content and the role of meteorology in artifical intelligence was a number of noble Lords have really repeated what I'm going to say here, that this bill is not an AI bill, its powers extend to intangible components like software and AI systems only insofar as it is needed to keep our product regulations for physical products updated and responsible to new technologies and new risks was amending the bill we make absolutely clear such intangible components can include software, but it does not cover AI systems in themselves, In response to Viscount Camrose clearly the government launched a consultation on AI and intellectual property on 17 December, this is a wide-ranging consultation, it's clear that we are receiving many views, very strongly expressed, and obviously we are looking at them, taking views on a number of topics, we look at how copyright laws interact with AI.

Of course we will be considering how the growth of AI affect the safety of products in this bill seeks to regulate. I will regularly respond to that as a member of the noble Lord Lord Holmes amendment suggested, throughout our approach to product regulation not just those applicable to AI we of just those applicable to AI we of course are committed to supporting and enabling innovation, we CAI support, for instance we CAI supported machine learning in products such as robots vacuum cleaners and the future where home robots are being developed with AI, which would function as home carers is just one example of how this is being used, and indeed its potential for the future.

It's a fast, fast, fast developing sector as we know, we will obviously continue to work with businesses and consumer groups to understand the needs and development of the AI sector, what that means for the risk that physical products may present to consumers, before we consider any regulation of products containing AI under this bill. I would say in defence of this bill and the way it's been drafted I would argue that the flexibility we have is essential in relation to this particular sector.

Alas Lord Pannick is not with us to lend support to that, the Viscount asked about legislative, very fair question, he knows we set out intent in our manifesto, we are developing legislative proposals which will allow us to safely realise the enormous benefits of the most powerful AI systems, we got the consultation, we are engaging with stakeholders, I can't really give him any more details than that. In terms of Lord Holmes very important amendments and given the lateness of the hour I would really like to offer a meeting with him, perhaps now in between next week if he would find it helpful, Lord Fox very elegantly invited himself to it and if Lord Holmes is willing and I suspect years, there will be very welcome too.

OK, right. I think we can also at that meeting pick up Lord Fox's helpful suggestion raised about the potential use of The Code of Conduct to deal with some of these matters. I will also pick up Viscount Camrose as very important contribution as well. On Lord Sharpe's amendment 43, of course he raises a very important issue indeed. We can't support the specific amendment he has tabled, but I do hope that the government's response here he will know that we consider the need to encourage innovation and growth to be very very important indeed, he will also know that we set out measures to achieve our AI ambitions as part of the AI opportunities action plan, we think it's a bold and forward leaning position that will establish the UK as a global leader in AI, we do have a platform, we are doing, we made considerable progress but clearly we need to go further.

I hope the noble Lord will accept that I do very much accept the principle of his amendment.
21:21
21:22
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Leong. I will try to be very brief with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will try to be very brief with the set of government Mansell stop I will talk to the following will talk to the following government amendments as stated in the marshalled List, these amendments are largely intended to ensure absolute clarity that the bill matters raised by noble Lords during committee members 14 and 17 make clear that the bill's powers are able to set requirements on how products integrate with wider systems and on the people that do that installation products do not operate in isolation and safety can basically affected by how they are installed in a wider system.

As I explained that committee the bell already enables requirements to be set on installation of products, however except that absolute clarity on the bill is helpful. Amendment 23 is a cinematic, the bill covers tangible products in the risk they present. The software is now a fundamental component of many physical products and consequently affect their risk profile. On 23 makes absolutely clear that this include software as a component of a physical product. Moments 50 and 51 relate to the definition of online places, these moments reflect the points made by noble Lords that committee and then to ensure that marketplaces which are part of a wider platform are captured such as Facebook marketplace as part of Facebook.

Our approach is to use a broad definition of online marketplaces within this bill enables new requirements to be introduced in a flexible and proportionate way by a secondary in the powers provided within this bill. For instance by tailoring specific requirements, particularly, to particular online marketplaces activities or business models about me. In six to seven regarding aviation during committee stage my noble friend Lord Liddle raised wider products used in edge aviation put up the top of the transport overseas conference a body of legislation that extends beyond aircraft, the whole system of components that make it up.

The government had no plans to create any kind of parallel regular to reframe full stop this therefore clarifies alongside exclusion of aircraft, the bill does not apply to component product insofar as they are used or designed for use in aircraft. As an exception to this the amendment allows the bill powers to be used in relation to unmanned aircraft which are toys or for radio equipment used in or for operating or controlling unmanned aircraft. We think it's useful to clarify that aviation safety products are exempted from this bill, but we are aware of questions from industry about several other areas.

We will always work closely with all sectors before bringing regulations. But it is not our intention to use the powers under this bill to regulate whether existing comprehensive product regulatory reform is for example in relation to transportable pressure equipment and ships and their equipment. I hope I've been able to provide assurances to noble Lords and I beg to move.
21:25
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed, in clause 2 page 2 line 28 at the end insert the words as printed on the marshalled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

List. Whilst the Minister recovered his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whilst the Minister recovered his breath we will carefully reflect on every word he has just said, the every word he has just said, the speed with which he delivered that speech I hope he will forgive me if speech I hope he will forgive me if I don't respond in detail. Just to deal with what we believe is the deal with what we believe is the overly broad current definition of online marketplace and also that the online marketplace and also that the scope could be inadvertent, so on behalf of my noble friend I am speaking therefore to amendments 49 and 53, just to say that the current definition of a marketplace, an online marketplace would inadvertently capture a number of online services which are not thought of as marketplaces.

E.g. Search engines, online advertisements, price comparison websites and potentially even further removed services like app stores. Could be captured by this proposed definition. This really does risk placing disproportionate requirements on services whose functionality is not what the bill is intended to regulate. Or will require careful drafting of that necessary second legislation to avoid confusion and potential challenges which is not guaranteed due to the extensive delegation of powers unlimited oversight provided by the bill.

So this broad scope will create unnecessary regulatory burdens on businesses that were never intended to be covered by the legislation. It could also discourage innovation and investment in digital services if companies fear that they are going to be subject to complex and costly compliance requirements. Our amended definition capture services which are not meant to be dealt with under the bill but is more appropriate in its scope when it comes to goods, products giving greater context and identifying the subjects of the sellers being provided, namely consumers and third-party sellers.

I hope that gives an indication to the noble Lord the Minister of why we feel these amendments are required. I beg to move.
21:27
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I thank the Minister and the noble Lord Hunt, that one not that one. For their comments. I think Lord Hunt and the amendments he is putting forward really puts his finger on the problem and the challenge of defining an online marketplace, because what was not an online marketplace yesterday can be one tomorrow, so if you are looking at what starts off as a chat site where people exchange photographs suddenly become somewhere where you can sell things.

The problem we have in being very specific in the definition is recreate the Leupolz -- Leupolz for other people to use. I am sympathetic to the problem that the noble Lord sets out which is the inadvertent inclusion of other things, but the more we try to visit, to nail it down with a framework the less likely we are to legislate for what's coming around the corner, so I'm very happy to have that discussion with the noble Lord perhaps there is a way of having something that can flexibly move but we've all seen the changing world of online selling and it's absolutely changing every day.

With that I am sympathetic but I am sceptical that the amendment will do what we need it to do. I co-signed amendment 23 and government 51 which took on board issues that I brought forward during committee so I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his reaction to that, overall I think with the exception of that key issue and it's an important issue, marketplaces is where this is happening we need to have a process whereby liability can be properly attributed, but I'm absolute convinced that that primary legislation will not be the place where we do that because of the changing world we live in, but with those we need to find a way of moving forward, that gives us that Lex ability.
21:30
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
Thank you so much for the contributions by Lord Hunt and Lord Fox. Before turning to the substance of the debate on the government amendments I would like to thank noble Lords for their contributions. Engagement has been very constructive and I hope this is reflected in amendments the government has brought forward in relation to and 49 I agree that the need for clear definition of an online marketplace within the bill, and way in which we seek to achieve this is by setting up straightforward definition that is broad enough to clearly capture the vast range of online marketplaces so vast range of online marketplaces so This is important where loopholes of online marketplaces could seek themselves outside the scope of this.

Should be clear it includes those such as Amazon, that sell their own products, alongside those sold by third-party sellers. Therefore, we believe specifying in the definition that an online marketplace, typically, does not own the inventory sold, could cause confusion we would also like the definition to be clear that not only does it capture online marketplaces, that sell to consumers, but also those that may sell to businesses. Such as B&Q marketplace. The definition of online marketplaces has been a topic of interest to many noble Lords.

The government shares intention to ensure that the definition is able to capture the vast range of different online marketplaces. And business models, now and in the future. This is to avoid the risk of being subject to interpretation and a very restrictive way. That is why the government has brought forward amendments 50 and 51. Turning to amendment 53, which seeks to remove clause 10 at subsection or two, we understand the concern around the use of Henry VIII powers, to keep us up-to-date with the ever-changing nature of e-commerce and close loopholes as they arise.

And must be retained. We have included appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, via the bill, via affirmative procedure. Despite our efforts to create this for current and future market prices, we expect online supply chains will continue to evolve. Even within the last few years, we have seen new entrance and evolving business models on online marketplaces that have emerged. For example, TEMU, emerged in April 2023 and has generated 11 million UK visitors per month. TikTok shop launched in 2021, for businesses to sell products directly from social media videos.

B&Q launched their online marketplace, March 2022, with a focus of selling for fellow Fives errors -- this is the definition able to attract future buyers. This is important clarifications. We have listened to the issues raised during committee, then amending the bill, to ensure the absolute clarity in the law that we all seek. Currently, asking for amendments 49 and 53 to be withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 14B agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 15, Lord contents have it. Amendment 15, Lord contents have it. Amendment 15, Lord My Lords, I beg to move the debate and consideration on report be now adjourned. Sorry. My Lords, I beg to move the further consideration of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the report be adjourned. The question is that further consideration of this bill on report consideration of this bill on report be adjourned. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. We move to next
21:35
Baroness O'Loan Portrait Baroness O'Loan (Crossbench)
-
-
contents have it. We move to next (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023

**** Possible New Speaker ****

(Remedial) Order motion of regret. Will allow members to leave the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will allow members to leave the chamber for a second. My Lords, I would like to express my appreciation for the noble Baroness, the minister, for meeting me to the minister, for meeting me to discuss these matters. And I hope we will be able to continue that dialogue in the future. My Lords, dialogue in the future. My Lords, the passage of the Northern Ireland troubles legacy and reconciliation troubles legacy and reconciliation act 23 was marked, though much of its content was in breach of existing legal obligations.

The High Court and the Court of Appeal in Lee Dillon cases confirmed this. There were some transient comfort in the fact the government declared its intention to repeal the act. That comfort disappeared however when it became clear the government was determined to amend the act rather than to repeal it. And to keep the ICRIR that lies at the heart of the act. So the order addresses only four of the eight specific issues declared to be incompatible with the ECHR after the hearings in the Dylan case.

And of course, a limited number of issues were selected by the judges. There were other problems with the act, which were not affected by the draft remedial order. It is for this reason that I have tabled this regret motion. My Lords, by this act, the Conservative government withdrew from citizens across the UK, whether from Birmingham, Belfast, Brighton, Manchester, Warrenpoint, Warrington. Who have been affected by trouble related crimes between 1966 and 98. Police proceedings, inquests, and complete processes.

People that suffered troubles related to atrocities before and after the relevant period continue to have access to all legal routes which are available in the United Kingdom. My Lords, it is important to say this measure, this regret motion, is not measure, this regret motion, is not about the coroner's reports findings in the case, which was the subject of a recent question in your Lordships house. Equally, it is not about whether Gerry Adams or other IRA members should receive compensation, because they were unlawfully detained in 1976.

The reality... In the 1970s. The reality is many of those in the 70s was scooped up because they lived in particular areas, and prolonged in particular communities, some of them were still children. They were arrested and detained without period, for a period of years in some cases. Although there was no evidence produced against them. Yes, my Lords. The IRA, the real IRA, committed the most atrocities, indiscriminately. acid other paramilitary groups. But this is not about whether Gerry Adams should receive compensation.

The format is repealed under the draft remedial order of section 8, which prohibited the invisibility of evidence gathered by the ICRIR in civil actions in contests -- Inquests, in the Scotland Act 2016, and the exceptional powers confirmed on the Secretary of State, in schedule nine that is good. Secondly, sections 46 and 47, which prevented a person interned under a custody order authorised by Minister of the Crown, rather than the Secretary of State, or anyone whose subsequent conviction was quashed as a consequence of the tension authorised by a Minister of State other than the Secretary of State from bringing civil proceedings for damages.

The proposed remedial order removes all the provisions on the matters relating to granting of amenity from prosecution and associated disputes which were included in the act. That is good. Section 43, which prohibited continuing civil proceedings issued on or after 17th of May 2022, and the prohibition of commencing new civil proceedings after 18 November, 2023, and schedules nine and 10, will be repealed. That is good. However, for matters are not addressed by the draft remedial order. Section 44, terminated inquest started before 1 May, 2024.

Unless they reached final determination verdict et cetera. And prohibited the holding of any new inquest into a troubles related death, after 1 May, 2024. The associated Court of Appeal findings in the Dylan case, that the ICRIR could not conduct investigations which were compatible with the UK's ECHR inquest cases, because of the failure to comply properly for involvement of next-of-kin in such investigations, and because of the power of the Secretary of State to veto the disclosure of material to and held by the ICRIR.

Schedule 11 relating to these matters is also untouched by the proposed remedial order. I acknowledge the government is repealing these matters to the Supreme Court. But why? Why put the families through this when the findings are so clear? My Lords, these issues are a core of how we provide proper process to deal with the past. Previous government proclaimed its wish to bring closure, by providing much more information to the victims that have hitherto not been available. They said the ICRIR will be granted unparalleled access.

They then legislated to ensure the ICRIR would not even have the powers previously held to access information from the police, let alone the security services and the MoD. And brought these appeals to strict disclosure. What is really at stake here, I am afraid, is the control of information held by MI5, the MoD, and the P SMI, the conflict society must be built on the rule of law. People distrust institutions perceived to be bias. Or controlled by the government.

Particularly by individuals from security services. I am afraid I've noticed the security services to be huge amount of good for our country. But in this context for staff if people find out this has been the case, if information has been withheld or distorted, they are not being allowed to know and trust will not grow. A number of cases illustrate the consequences of withholding information. 15-year-old Paul Winters was killed by a plastic bullet in Derry, in 1981. He was throwing stones at a bakery.

93 pages of his file will not be made available until 2084. For 100 years after his death. I have read those files. There is no justification for withholding them. 14-year-old Julie Livingstone was shot in the head by a plastic bullet fired from army Land Rover in 1981, her files are closed until 2054. Why? It may be said that the contents may be distressing for the families. But my Lords, there is nothing more distressing than losing a loved one, especially a child, to a violent death.

Will Her Majesty's government appoint an independent provision to re-examine these log files and determine whether there is any real national-security reason to withhold them from the families. Two cases currently before the courts are most important. Sean Brown, described by the coroner as an entirely innocent man, the subject of a planned institution by government in 1997. That case is now before the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. For a long time, my Lords, the coroner sought disclosure of information which he needed.

Eventually, information relating to 25 individuals linked to the murder was disclosed. Further information was withheld on the grant of national security. Unable to continue the inquest, the coroner called for a public enquiry. The Secretary of State refused a public inquiry and told the Brown family to go to the ICRIR. The Brown family brought proceedings in the High Court, which ordered the Secretary of State to establish a public inquiry. The Secretary of State has repealed this ruling. At the Court of Appeal began hearing the case on 16 January 2025 for the 57th time, Mr Brown's family attended court.

That matter continues. My Lords, this should not be happening, nearly this should not be happening, nearly 28 years on. It should be a public inquiry. In another inquest case, that of Liam Paul Thompson, 25, who died in 1994 after being shot by loyalists in Belfast, the coroner decided in 2024 to disclose a summary or gist of the evidence contained in the sensitive security file. Being prepared by the chief constable, he was satisfied the disclosure of the information would involve no breaches of national- security.

The Secretary of State judicially reviewed the coroner, effectively asking whether it was lawful for her to release adjust of sensitive information, having just conducted a copperhead save PII exercise. The High Court held the coroner's decision, the Secretary of State appealed. The appeal of court held an appeal, it has been appealed again to the court. The chief constable of the PSN I will give evidence in June 2025 after why there is nothing unlawful in the proposed disclosure. Finally, in the Canova cases, the chief constable presented an instream -- Interim report number of years ago, the number of cases, rising into Rayleigh from the activities of the British agent known as Safe -- Stakeknife, Putting Six Bereaved Families Are Due to Receive an Individual Report, on Those Cases.

Those Individuals Reports were sent to MI5 in August last year. Nothing has emerged from MI5, there has been no explanation as to why the families cannot have their reports. Which were very carefully drafted. My Lords, as we look at these cases, there is a very clear picture of determination to control robustly the possibility of the emergence of material damaging to the UK. It is suspected, because it has been proved to be in a case in the past, that this evidence may include warnings not issued, police investigations being constructed -- Obstructed, the murderers, particularly state agents, being permitted to carry on murdering, even when they confessed to their crimes.

My Lords, these cases are over 25 years old. Sean Brown and Liam Paul Thompson were shot dead by loyalists, the victims were murdered by the IRA. The families want to see the information held by the state, in relation to these murders. In each case, the government, through its agencies, is refusing to release the material. So, question for the people of Northern Ireland, my Lords is, why is the government withholding the information, even just in full. The government for lying the protection of national security, protecting the identities of individuals who may be dead, and national-security processes or techniques which may very well now be obsolete and are certainly widely known.

Many people think the government will not allow the release of the information, even in adjust form because it would reveal the involvement of agents of the state of some of these murders, and all the protection of agents being made accountable for murders. The government has said the ICRIR will have unparalleled access to information. However, given the findings in Dylan, Brown, Thompson cases, and the ongoing Supreme Court cases, all of which are focused on protecting information, it is not surprising that people are rejecting the ICRIR as an agency capable of dealing with their cases and actually being able to find out what happened and report on it.

People think the courts have got it right in these cases, not the government. Why would the government release information to the ICRIR which is fighting the Supreme Court to withhold from the coroner. By not repealing section 44, the government is not confirming suspicions of many, by the people of Northern Ireland. No longer permitted to have This pleasant trust which require immediate ring fence money by the government to enable recruitment and the delivery of the service.

I think it is also played into reluctance of young Catholics to apply to join the PSNI despite the best efforts of that organisation. Despite this, the Supreme Court will be asked by the government to overturn the decisions of the koruna, the High Court and the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal about the disclosure of adjusted material. There is also a section 45 of the act which prohibits the police ombudsman and the police from investigating alleged offences involving for example inextricable failures to investigate a murder, unexplained loss of critical forensic evidence, failure to comply to procedures and many similar matters which have been identified during the course of investigations about police conduct which were previously investigated under the police act.

No further prosecutions can be initiated. Fences. These provisions apply to matters such as misconduct in public office, conspiracy to be about the course of justice and other crimes. Which allegedly occurred in the context of troubles related offences. Section 45 isn't covered by the proposed media order and the government hasn't appealed this finding. So, there are a number of areas in which incompatibility with legal obligations has been found which are obligations has been found which are not covered by the draft media order, the government has said it will legislate but it has were negative for its manifesto commitment to repeal the act, there is no obvious formal process of consultation underway, it is a real mess.

I grant you, mess not of the government's making initially. Her Majesty's Government will have to make it good. The remedial orders has some way but for reasons I have described. Can the noble Baroness the Minister tell us when a bill to address the outstanding matters will be tabled and what will be in that bill and whether it will remedy the other fundamental defects of the legacy act? These are people's lives. These cases involve so many deaths, so much pain. Government must have the courage to face the past, acknowledge the terrible failings and wrongdoings of agents of the states as well as the murderous atrocities perpetrated by loyalist and republican terrorists.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this motion has agreed to. The Lord is contributing agreed to. The Lord is contributing remotely. I called Michael Lord Weir
21:50
Lord Weir of Ballyholme Portrait Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Valley home. In dealing with what is a very difficult subject of legacy in difficult subject of legacy in Northern Ireland, there is always the risk of dangerous and lazy myths distorting our thinking on this subject. Which can then be exploited by the men of violence. At the heart of that is, other wrong assumptions. Firstly that in looking back at the Troubles that everyone in Northern Ireland was in some way responsible, that in effect we were all perpetrators.

Second lie is that everyone in Northern Ireland and beyond was a victim. Indeed, worse than that we have seen those two concepts conflated with each other, so that in the worst possible cases sometimes perpetrators are presented as victims, and more latterly the rewriting of history, some of those perpetrators are portrayed as being some form of community defenders, heroes, examples for our young people. Nothing can be further from the truth. Let me try and deal with some of those myths to start off with.

Not everyone in Northern Ireland was the perpetrator of. The vast majority of people opposed violence throughout. Indeed every Northern Irish member of this House is someone who has a proud record of opposing violence. Secondly not everyone in Northern Ireland is a victim. There are members of this House who suffer directly as a result of the Troubles, I think in terms of those who have been targeted with their families have been targeted by terrorist actions, people such as Lord McRae, Ernest Foster and Lord Dodds to name three.

I'm fortunate enough that I'm not a victim of the Troubles. My family went through the Troubles unscathed and indeed I was able as much as possible to grow up with a relatively normal childhood in Northern Ireland. And I was able to do so by way of the protection that was provided to me by the security services, and indeed the security services providing that protection to all the citizens of Northern Ireland. They stood as the great defenders of democracy and peace at a time when people in both republican and loyalist circles were intent on inflicting violence in Northern Ireland.

Not being a victim is one of the reasons why I believe that the legacy act that was put through in the last mandate was the wrong way forward. Because while it is difficult for many of those who have suffered from a long time ago in particular as victims of terrorism to achieve justice, I think there was a concept that in terms of trying to draw the line over what happened in the Troubles we was nothing out the opportunities for any innocent victim, survivors of the Troubles in their families to achieve justice and I think that is something that is fundamentally wrong.

To that extent therefore I think the action the government is taking in providing a remedial orders is at least a partial step in the right direction by moving away from that situation. But for a very different reasons from what has been outlined by Baroness O'Loan I think it doesn't go far enough. I would say however that some of the concerns of Baroness O'Loan has raised, while they are very genuine in their concepts run the risk of taking us in the wrong direction.

We must look first of all at the bigger picture and ensure there is genuine equality in the law for everyone. The stark reality when looking at the legacy of the Troubles is that over 90% of the victims of the Troubles were killed by republican and loyalist terrorists. Around about 10% were caused by members of the security forces. Indeed within that in many occasions the deaths that are as a result of the actions of the security forces were justifiable in preventing further loss of life.

One thing's for example of the intervention of the security forces a lot goal or more recently has been highlighted in the recently has been highlighted in the news at$$JOIN : No. This was not the security services acting beyond their remit but intercepting active terrorist units and preventing them from inflicting further deaths and misery on the civilians of Northern Ireland. 90% of the Troubles deaths were caused by paramilitaries and terrorists yet to an outside observer looking at Northern Ireland today you could be forgiven for not realising that.

Because clearly the concentration in terms of inquest, in terms of court cases has been an overwhelming focus on the role of the state and indeed of individual members of the security services. The extent that there is a feeling that for a lot of people Northern Ireland from both sides of the community there is a concern that in looking at the past we are fearing a very one-sided process. What is the impact of that? It creates first of all sense of false equivalence, that the security services was simply another player in a multifaceted war between different factions.

That is a lie which must be nailed. Security Services did all that they could to protect the community from all sections of the community all the time. We know that there have been occasions in which individual members of the security services overstepped the mark and engaged in criminal behaviour, and I have no hesitation in saying that anyone who was engaged in criminal murder from whatever source deserves to face that, but if we are to try and persecute and indeed try to blame for example the army in relation to events such as can know that I think there is something that we have got fundamentally wrong.

Worse than even that. Equivalence between the forces of Law & Order and those who sought to inflict death and injury throughout the community in Northern Ireland, be they loyalist or republican, there is an even greater and more dangerous method which is now beginning to persist -- myths. There are those in our society would seek to rewrite history, to present not simply the security forces as being on a par with paramilitary organisations, but to try and present them as being the source of the Troubles, that indeed those involved, particularly in Republican organisations were really there simply to defend their community, they were the people who took up the shield on behalf their community.

There is a narrative that has been put about particularly by Republicans that in some way tries to rewrite this history full stop we have seen that in very stark way over the last week or two since the death of the IRA commander Bick McFarland, someone who was directly involved with and committed five murders of innocent civilians, and indeed has been highlighted by the taste shock in the last day or so -- Taoiseach and was also involved in the murders of Garda and state forces within the Republic of Ireland.

This is an individual who is now being eulogised, who indeed the words of I think the leader of Sinn Fein throughout Ireland as being a great patriot. That is the danger that we have with the rewriting of history, if we go down the route which provides that level of imbalance but does not focus on the role of paramilitaries, but instead almost exclusively concentrates on the actions of the security forces and digs deeper and deeper into what it can find out and blame the security forces, I think that we are reinforcing that false narrative.

I think that is damaging both to the perception of the past, it is deeply insulting to innocent victims of the Troubles, the survivors of the Troubles and indeed their families. But not simply an attempt to rewrite the past, I think it has grave dangers for the present and for the future. Because it provides for those on Republican or loyalist side who are still committed and still want to see violence in any shape or form to both excuse what has happened in the past and to act potentially particularly for dissident republicans as a form of recruiter.

I think that is something which is very dangerous, that is why I'm in favour for example of the private members legislation that Baroness Foster is currently talking about making it a criminal offence for the glorification of terrorism, and why I think when we look to remedy or legacy we must be careful not only do we provide the opportunity for everyone to achieve justice, but there has got to be A-level playing field. And to vote simply the security forces I think is taking us in completely the wrong direction while I believe that the regret motion by Baroness O'Loan comes from the best of motivations I think that it does have a danger of taking us in the wrong direction, therefore I in the wrong direction, therefore I
22:01
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Portrait Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I want to commend Baroness alone for bringing forward this regret motion. Both the baroness and myself have had readings with my noble friend, the Minister, with the Secretary of State, and also with the Attorney- General. On the issue of legacy. And on the issue of the remedial order on what is contained in it and what is not contained in it. The previous legislation was brought forward by the noble Lord cian, when he was leading four of them government in the last mandate.

We have not reached human rights place on legacy to address the needs of victims and survivors. And the current layout does not do that, whilst the remedial order has some welcome developments. There is a need to build on this as a matter of urgency. And it is my very clear understanding that that should be, and I hope will be, built on in their appeal, repealing legislation. And I would very much like if my noble friend, the Minister, could, tonight, outline to your Lordships house the exact process that will be involved.

Because as the noble Lady involved. Because as the noble Lady clearly said, the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, and I grew up during that period of the troubles., went to school, went to university, all my contemporaries, none of us were ever involved in violence. From where we came from, and I come as a democratic Irish nationalist, we implored the use of violence for political means. Because nothing could ever be achieved through that. And it was proved that was the case through negotiations, that led to the Good Friday Agreement.

It is only good dialogue and negotiations and peaceful compromise that achieves anything in terms of political development. That has been the case in Northern Ireland. There have been many, many people killed over the years, by those, by paramilitaries, both the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries. And of course, there has been some state violence, and you only have to look at Bloody Sunday in Derry. But raking over those calls doesn't change political progress, and we do have to move on.

I have made reference to the fact there are some welcome developments in the remedial order. Because the relevant provisions relating to immunity from prosecution are ready to be supplied under the Windsor Framework under the High Court, will be repealed by the proposed immediate order. The relevant provisions relating to determination of civil claims will also be repealed, and these are very welcome developments. However, the remedial order does not address the Court of Appeal's declaration of incompatibility, and in respect to section 45 of the act, which precludes complaints of peace conduct from being progressed.

The incompatibilities found relating to the ICRIR role in replacing inquest in respect of victim dissipation and the role of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, a disclosure of sensitive information, are not addressed in their proposed remedial order. At the Secretary of State seeks to repeal these findings in the UK Supreme Court. An issue that has already been addressed by the noble Lady. The incompatible, arising from section 44, the restriction on legacy inquests, is also not addressed in the draft proposed remedial order.

It is a regrettable consequence of the Secretary of State's plan, to repeal, that precludes the use of section 10 of the Human Rights Act to install inquests in response to the declaration of incompatibility, in respect of section 44 of the act. Despite the claimed commitment to this outcome. There is a fear in Northern Ireland that the qualifications and the rough remedial order, to inquest, infers the name to limit their the name to limit their availability.

I suppose tonight I'm looking to hear from my noble friend, the Minister, what is the exact position in this case. It will all of these issues be covered in the proposed repealing legislation. What is the timeframe for such legislation. The noble Lady has already referred to the impact of the existing legislation in relation to legacy that was brought forward by the previous government. And the impact that has hired politically in Northern Ireland. In terms of the rule of law and in terms of policing.

And particularly, in reference to recruitment to the police service of Northern Ireland. And I support the PSNI, I want to see young Catholics, both men and women, join and reach the levels where it was when we had 50-50 recruitment. And I do believe that recruitment. And I do believe that in order to redress that imbalance in recruitment, that we do need to go back to 50-50 recruitment. And I heard last week, the leader of the DUP saying that this was some form wokeism of.

It was not, it was about trying to redress the imbalance to the rule of law and to ensure there is firmness and equality in that. I would like to see that happening. But this lack of, shall we say, young Catholics joining PSNI, can be directly correlated to the provisions within it the legacy act, because the decisions in relation to some of the potential areas for public enquiry, which has been rejected. Particularly in reference to the sad case of Sean Brown from County Derry who was killed in 1997.

So, I would urge my noble friend, the Minister, to ensure that she is able tonight to provide us with a timeframe for the proposed repealing legislation. What will be in that repealing legislation? And I know those areas may be difficult for her at this time. But I want her to provide those insurances or at least tell us there will be a timeline for that, that will lead to the eventual repealing of, shall we say, the iniquitous legacy legislation. Because that is how it is viewed in Northern Ireland.

And it's viewed is not the way forward. I would hope that we can see the issues to do with police recruitment address, and with police recruitment address, and that we could have a police service in Northern Ireland capable of implementing the rule of law in a fair and impartial way. And also one that I want to see young people, particularly young Catholics, join. particularly young Catholics, join.
22:10
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
This motion of regret, asserts the government has failed to take account, in its remedial order, of every aspect of the Belfast court judgements which effectively gutted the legacy act. The legacy act apparently contravened article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as article 2 in the Northern Ireland Protocol, Windsor Framework. And in a way, my lords, this is a needless and premature discussion this evening. Because the remedial order has been led in draft form for consultation and will be re-tabled without without improvements for parliamentary decision in, I think, me.

No doubt we will then have to repeat this debate. -- In me. Hopefully not this late starting. But I want to use this opportunity tonight to spell out exactly what it has brought about. There are items in the judge's findings of ECHR briefings not covered by the remedial order by NIR appeals of the major one for me is the required reintroduction of inquests, which the Secretary of State has indicated may be passed to State has indicated may be passed to the new information recovery body.

ICRIR, and we await the proposals of the forthcoming legacy act replacement, when who knows, in the future, we might actually get that to look at. But there are two other minor aspects I know have been particularly close to the noble Baroness's card, since they relate to her previous work as police ombudsman and member of the advisory panel, and they observe the absence from the ICRIR's remade for misconduct, which I think she referred to, which was also in the Stormont House Agreement bill.

And also, offences like misconduct office and the Court of Justice. Ironically, the 10,000 Troubles bomb Ironically, the 10,000 Troubles bomb attacks are another or omission but that did not seem to concern the judges. So, if the ICRIR were to extend its remit to these other offences, the budget would need a mammoth increase beyond its current 250 million winner from the recent poverty exchange report, from the price of legacy, past or future compensation payments and re- investigations are getting close to £3 billion.

And the government I think needs to produce their statistics to show if they dispute the policy exchange figures. So, I hope the Minister can respond on that specifically. Now, the remedial order was first led in December and it is immensely long. Runs to 24 pages, involves 29 sections, and seven schedules of the legacy act, having to be amended or removed. Such orders are rare and never before has there been one quite so lengthy. Its size proves the point that the action be done by primary legislation, and not by remedial order.

As I understand, the Attorney-General advised in July 2024 and that was when the Northern Ireland office decided not to appeal most of the ECHR compatibilities filed in High Court. So, I would ask the Minister, and I'm very disappointed the Attorney-General is not here listening to this debate tonight, did Lord Hermer do participate, because if it did, whether he knew that at the time, it was a huge conflict-of-interest, because a key part of the Colton judgement was the removal of sections 46 and 47 of the act, which had reversed the bizarre decision, I think we all felt when it was discussed here, in the Supreme Court, that custody orders in the 1970s were signed by the wrong Northern Ireland office minister.

And the second reversal will lead to compensation claims by Gerry Adams being paid and hundreds of other internees who have launched civil suits. So, I would ask the Minister, has found a way yet of getting around this? And can we be sure that any advice happening on this, the Attorney-General is actually not involved. Because of course he represented the same Gerry Adams in a compensation case where he was being sued by victims of the IRA murdered in London bombs.

It Adams, as we all know, was a member of the IRA army council although he rather unconvincingly denies that. He certainly was brought over by His Majesty's government to negotiate with a member of the IRA, in July 1972. So, I think the Attorney- General must explain whether he did advise or not, otherwise the rumours about it will continue to register and is not a very sensible situation. Now, we have two bites, repealing and replacing that with 23 act.

The first one, we are told, is required by the Colton judgement, by Lady Justice Keegan's current judgement at appeal. But that does not actually have to happen. The Belfast courts, I think your lordship should know, are increasingly seeing themselves as an adjunct to the European judicial system. Be it the European Court of human rights in Strasbourg, or the EU court in Luxembourg. So, they have this applied large parts of the legacy act. The government are not obliged to legislate as a consequence of this.

They couldn't leave well alone, even if it means facing down the well funded, very well organised human rights industry that we have in Northern Ireland in particular. Some of it of course paid for and funded by the government. The issue of the Northern Ireland judiciary, sort of seceding from the UK system, is one that is going to be addressed by the Supreme Court in the NIO's appeal, in the judge Colton, relative to national security and Windsor Framework, supposing human rights rule.

Tonight, we can also consider the broad thrust of the government legacy policy and it's working out in practice in the courts. Something which dominates the headlines in the newspapers in Northern Ireland, practically daily. Because Lawford has actually replaced warfare, which of course, is an improvement in one sense, but the cost is very high, in terms of expenditure, and the damage to community relations. I have to tell fellow peers that reconciliation is still a long way off in Northern Ireland. Because RAID levels are rising.

Especially, first of all, among young Nationalist youth who are being fed a relentless diet in the media about the crimes of the security forces and the police, many years ago, after court case after court case involving police and army veterans We saw on Tuesday atop IRA operative and convicted murderers funeral, five Protestant and two Irish servicemen, unity was given by Gerry Kelly whose history of bombings and other terrorist activities, including the Old Bailey bombing is well documented.

Yet he is now a member of the policing Board responsible for our PSNI service, just would not happen in any other part of the United Kingdom. He is never condemned IRA terrorism. Your Lordships will therefore appreciate that feelings also running high amongst the prounion community in Northern Ireland, and the clear no interest is another recent example with the disputed findings of Judge Michael Humphreys the coroner. The rage in this case is mostly felt those long serving decent veterans who did so much to protect people from whichever community they came from.

This was a reopened inquest into the deaths of four IRA men shot by the army in 1992 just after they had attacked a police barracks using the Russian machine-gun mounted on the lorry. I could go into the hole detail of it but I won't, basically soldiers could hear the gunfire from the attack on the police station, see the traces, the intelligence received was that the IRA was going to gather the car park before an attack and in fact they terminated their. Two who were killed had dismounted from the lorry with their rifles, three escaped across the board and were not extradited of course because the Irish government which we never seem to take into account, did their utmost to stop extraditing anyone back to the United Kingdom.

The coroner Judge Humphreys regardless of all of this that went on under cold debris night said -- February. It should have been obvious to soldier a is the ground commander that the Pyro units would have to dismount the machine- gun from the lorry and place it into another vehicle in order to secure it and move it away from the scene. He could therefore have ordered his men to wait until these steps were being taken which would have reflected the intention of the original plan will stop instead he and others stood up and opened fire on the lorry.

His final judgement was in each case the use of lethal fourths -- force was not justified fourths -- force was not justified was the soldiers did not have an honest relief that it was necessary in order to prevent loss of life and the use of force by the soldiers was in the circumstances they believe them to be not reasonable. How dare any judge guess what soldiers were thinking on that cold February night in such a dangerous situation? I ask any of your Lordships would you if you had been a soldier stood up and asked the 10 IRA men to desist from disassembling the machine-gun and then arrested them and I don't expect the coroner Lord Humphreys would either.

The Northern Ireland public prosecution service has now been asked by Judge Humphreys to consider charging the soldiers presumably with murder. 33 years on. Many veterans believe that there is a deliberate strategy by the Republican movement to use the legal system to demonise the security forces stop this I believe and similar judicial decisions separate debate in this House, but I want to endorse Baroness Foster's call for the Ministry of defence you had nine barristers at three weeks of hearings to seek a judicial review of the findings which were again hinged to European Court of human rights ruling.

Doug Beattie the formate lady of the Ulster Unionist Party explained on the BBC military training requires of soldiers when lives are threatened. To eliminate the threat. The judge failed to take any of that into consideration. We have had the same issue of police responses to terrorism in London, the Metropolitan Police had the policy first enunciated by Sir John Stevens now Lord Stevens that armed officers must shoot to kill if they believe that someone is trying to detonate explosives on their body or in a vehicle.

This can lead I know to horrible mistakes as in John Charles to Menzies a Brazilian electrician is taken for a convicted Islamist terrorist who was shot dead by armed police officers of the Tube train in Stockwell station and my former constituency. A very terrible tragedy. Nonetheless there was never a suggestion that the officers concerned or the commanders who included ironically John the Chief Constable of the PSNI should be charged with murder. So I do ask the Minister will she insist on well His Majesty's Government insist as a matter of urgency in a matter of judicial review of this judge shocking decision.

If I could finish there is very sad really that this kind of thing is on memos and social media, there is a memo doing the rounds on social media that could the pics Sir Keir Starmer has -- Starmer speaking to British troops as he bought a Nikon. He says to them, I needed to get on this plane and go to Ukraine to fight. If you live and come back I will make sure you are jailed for war crimes. Just like we do in Northern Ireland we will hunt you down.

Is this really what we want to do, to see our brave soldiers, because that is what is going to happen in all of this new legislative, this is what's going to happen, it's not going to be the IRA killer who took part in the bomb, although many of them have had their get out of jail cards, their royal pardons, they've gone off to America, they would be the ones it will be the soldiers and the police who did their best under incredibly difficult circumstances and that is why, I agree with noble Lord, the history of the Troubles is being rewritten or attempting to be rewritten.

It's almost impossible now for anyone to be convicted of a terrorist,... To be convicted. I would say we really do have to look, what we do not want the next 20 years for inquest after inquest after inquest, furthered by lawyers who are making probably quite a lot of money but doing it for probably the right reasons that they think, just continuing with all of this and we will end up with the situation where all that is going to happen is to reconcile people in Northern Ireland will be further away than ever.

So if the noble Lady does actually push this to a vote tonight I will certainly be opposing it. I will certainly be opposing it.
22:23
Lord Robathan Portrait Lord Robathan (Conservative)
-
-
I'm not going to speak in detail that Baroness Hoey has done or others have done, and I don't have the knowledge of Northern Ireland or the various people round here whether from Republican side or indeed from the nearside have. I would just like to give -- unionist devote few words on behalf of the soldiers who are under threat. And they are under threat, these are people under threat and I'm afraid people under threat and I'm afraid to say I know some of them from past lives, indeed I was talking to one last week or the week before about exactly this because he is under threat of being prosecuted for something that happened nearly 40 years ago.

We have to ask well, is that right? Parliament, this Parliament, every person in this room is responsible for sending troops to war. Be they officers in the Metropolitan Police like I can't remember the name of the poor chap whose shop is to Kaaba in the street, but people that go out armed with weapons are designed to use those weapons, that's why, they're not meant to use them but they use them if they are threatened. That's why they use in. I will defend all officers, including officers from the British Army from PSNI, from Metropolitan Police, if they behaved reasonably, I'm not talking about murder, but if they behaved reasonably they should be given the benefit of the doubt by this Parliament that sent them out to do that work.

The army and the police keep records. Funnily enough the IRA don't, I don't know if anyone has noticed that. The Human Rights Act of course refers to these records but the IRA don't have any record so you can't refer to that. I know far too many dead soldiers, we heard from Baroness O'Loan about she referred to people's lives, I think of Simon Ware, one of my young corporals who was murdered in 1991. Somewhere in south Omagh. I think of Robert Knight who I knew quite well in the 1970s before he was taken away and murdered.

Think of another who was murdered somewhere in the south I can't exactly what I think all the soldiers who killed the Queen's own hounds were killed along the coast in 1978 I think it was. 1979. Of course guess what, there is no evidence. We heard earlier there must be evidence. But where was the evidence come from? It comes from forensic evidence that you get it where it comes from people's witnesses. But guess what, if you are a witness to an IRA killing you don't say anything because you will end up with your throat cut.

Quite straightforward. I would also like to mention Jean McConville because it came up as an issue when I was working in Northern Ireland in the Northern Ireland office and I only spent a year working on the streets of Northern Ireland, quite long enough year walking the streets of Northern Ireland in west Belfast. I spent about a year in the Northern Ireland officers whilst Jean McConville's case came up and for those don't go I will briefly, she those don't go I will briefly, she was married to a Nationalist, he died, she was left with 10 children, she went out and gave a blanket to a soldier who had been shot.

The next day the IRA came knocking on the door. Drag to away from her children and they found her body some years later buried on a page -- beach in the south. Jean McConville was murdered by the IRA, now who was the leader of the IRA at this time? I can't say because I wasn't there but it's absolutely certain that the dogs on the streets of Northern Ireland will tell you that Gerry Adams was most certainly on the army command Council at the time.

If I would say that outside he would probably try and see me but I can get away with it here I hope. He was certainly there are member of the IRA responsible for murder yet he is still living and we are talking should this go through, we are talking he might get financial compensation from the British Government all the harm he did, this is outrageous. Do we want is a Parliament to be able to send our soldiers out as Baroness Holly was just saying, do we want to send the soldiers out to fight back to be want to protect our interests, not just from time to time when interest, our national interest? Do we want to send them out to fight or are we going to say under the Human Rights Act you really need to be very careful what you do, you better take the bullets out of your magazine.

This is nonsense. I think I suggest that everybody in this House when it comes to it would say actually it's more important that we defend our servants. We defend our public servants, if they misbehave yes, let them be prosecuted. But we defend our public servants. I tell you what really upsets me more than anything else, I will say this before I sit down. Do we wish to see the IRA win the Troubles that have taken place over the last 50 years?
22:29
Lord Browne of Belmont Portrait Lord Browne of Belmont (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
The issues tonight need to be addressed collectively, any primary legislation ought to take abroad forward facing approach rather than narrowly focusing on discrete issues raised either in the legacy act by the Court of Appeal. For much of the past 28 years there has been an erosion of justice when it comes to dealing with the troubled in Northern Ireland. Many victims of terror in Northern Ireland there has been a hope of justice, but for many justice has only been a repeated word and the results have not been delivered.

We have witnessed a process whereby terrorists were released from prison, it was then followed by comfort letters that certainly offered no comfort to the innocent victims of terror. Across Northern Ireland many people realistically accept that there is a limited possibility of successful prosecution and meaningful jail terms for those who carry out atrocities against innocent victims. Much of the focus around the reconciliation and information and recovery commission has been on issues of independence and specifically concerns expressed by those who feel that the state holds vital information into the circumstances of their loved ones.

The ICRIR has limited influence to bear when it comes to requiring or disclosing that information to families. Yet the stark reality is that it remains a far more significant inducer of information from the state than from the terrorists. Little in the way of attention has been paid to how the ICRIR can provide answers for those families who are met with a wall of silence by terrorist organisations responsible for murder and responsible for murder and Baroness O'Neill Baroness why should the family of an atrocity be left, and not receive answers.

The premise of the European within statute books and cause is not just for facilitating, but exhilarating this double standard in terms of justice outcomes for victims of the outcomes for victims of the troubles. We welcome a Declan Morgan, in charge of the ICRIR, has declared there is no balance between terrorists and security forces. However, the statistics show the show it is biased towards Law & Order. Any thing that rewrites justice, will make reconciliation justice, will make reconciliation much more difficult.

My Lords, when future primary legislation, the government must recognise the intending interlocking nature of the arrangements of the former legacy act poses problems when immunity is removed. But the ICRIR remains. Additional immunity was horribly repugnant and must be dealt with. I don't think anyone disputes that. However we also recognise that the inducement that was intended to provide for those responsible for wrongdoing to come forward and provide answers is not easily replaced. On the other hand, the intention is to restore civil cases and inquests which will resume the drip feed of reports and findings, focused on evidence presented solely by the state.

Does the government not to see the corrosive impact on how the past is perceived by future generations and indeed history. I believe, my Lords, that it is essential and vital that the Secretary of State consults widely, including veterans, victims, survivors, their families, as well as political parties on a practical way forward that can command the broadest support. Any step changes towards legacy must include a pathway to truth and justice regarding the role of the government during the Troubles, particularly in the context of the heinous IRA atrocities.

The Irish government cannot be a bystander. This government needs to succeed where previous administrations fail. Ensuring there are no double standards and how allegations are investigated on either side of the border. My Lords, time is not on our side. We all have a duty to seek justice for victims, and tonight, I can support are great motion before can support are great motion before the House tonight. -- The regret motion.
22:34
Lord Morrow Portrait Lord Morrow (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
My Lords, Northern Ireland has a unique past. We cannot ignore the importance of this when we seek to provide reconciliation and justice to the bereaved and injured and deceased. We have the DUP have an approach to dealing with the past, which includes our test for future proposals. One, there can be no amnesty for wrongdoing or wrongdoers. Number two, they should never be any equivalence between the victims of terrorism and the perpetrator. And three, the daughter justice must remain over -- The door to justice must remain open, and reflects the fact that polymeric -- Para military were responsible for the vast majority of deaths in the Troubles.

If anyone wants to look at the figures, they will come up with a figure like 90%. But the 90% is seldom talked about. It is always the one or 2%, of the security forces, that seems to get all the attention, for reasons that go right over my head. Every family deserves a fairer and full investigation into the death of their loved one. Equally investigations into former soldiers and members of security forces are unjustified and most stop. It is difficult to consider justice and respect of Northern Ireland when still, it is very day, one of the leading parties that occupy the post of first Minister continue to perpetuate the invalidation of the justice process.

We saw just recently a myriad of tributes, for the Irish Republican. We watched as Gerry Adams and Gerry Kelly gathered in Belfast to remember a man who was said lived his life in pursuit of freedom, peace and equality. If anything was amiss quote, that certainly is it. She ought to bow her head in shame and she needs to be called out on it. Lived his life in pursuit of freedom, peace and equality.

But he didn't give the same right to his didn't give the same right to his victims, not a chance. No noble Lord would be so deceived to believe the murder of five people, including a 17-year-old girl, under -- And a murdering of a great many others was done seeking peace, freedom and equality. Which is why we must always call out the glorification of terrorism as we seek to bring justice to the bereaved. The governments proposals remedial order rightly negates the horrid immunity provisions, legislated for by the last government.

And we wholeheartedly support this. Likewise, we welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is taking this action out of the moral imperative the government has to protect the memory of innocent victims, rather than an acceptance of the Court of Appeal's interpretation of article 2 of the Windsor Framework. My Lords, it is apparent that the courts and statutory rights bodies argue wrongly and have taken an expansive approach of article 2 of the protocol, which deals with no remuneration of rights.

This has constrained the UK government, and legislating for Northern Ireland as the rest of the UK on fundamental issues, such as immigration. To accept the Court of Appeal's specific finding on a face open a door to the further erosion of the principles that underpin our constitutional position within the United Kingdom, and the sovereignty of our national Parliament. Exactly the same reason, we support the government's appeal and respect of the Court of Appeal's finding, with regard to nondisclosure and national-security grants, and the , in inquests or investigations.

The government's remedial order does not seek to abolish the independent provision for reconciliation and information recovery. In fact, the Secretary of State has indicated an intention to bring forward reforms aimed at improving the independence and operation of the body. We will wait and see. This begs the question, if the government believes that the ICRIR remains capable of providing human rights compliant investigations into Troubles deaths, why was it not deemed appropriate for that family. Ultimately, there can be no hierarchy of victims, can be no hierarchy of victims, except in the case of that family.

The baroness has highlighted that the proposed remedial order does not address all issues of incompatibility with the ECHR, as determined by the Court of Appeal. In some respects, that is actually true. However, the government has committed to separately bring forward primary legislation to deal with a number of elements. In addition to appealing, specific findings are disclosure and the Windsor Framework. This is an ongoing process. The question we would poster the noble Lady is why she believes the process should be rushed.

As a party, we are deeply concerned with any legislation ending attempts to restore provision for inquests, particularly beyond those that had already commenced prior to the implementation of the current act. Without a fundamental reappraisal of how the colonial system in Northern Ireland approaches/Troubles related cases and specifically the actions related to memos of the security force. The low inquest findings have reignited an anger among veterans, innocent victims and the wider community in Northern Ireland. There is a disbelief that the actions of the SAS that day could be construed as anything other than a reasonable and justified response to the threat to life posed.

However, seeing the contexts in which the security were operating in that time, as well as prior action to be -- To the deceased man, just moments prior to their deaths, were not given full consideration as part of the inquest process. That, to our mind, demonstrates a fundamental weakness in the process which ought to be addressed substantially prior to being considered, the consideration to restoring inquests. This simply does not add up. When we consider the ruling hand last April, from the coroner, in respect of the emergence coroner, in respect of the emergence of June 1991 -- The murders of June 1991, it said they were justified in the use of legal force -- Lethal the use of legal force -- Lethal force because the force was, in the circumstance, believed to be reasonable.

It was believed these three men, all members of the murderous Brigade of the IRA were en route to murder a member of the security forces, yet, we are seeing a blatant attempt to rewrite the historical narrative. Read traumatising our veterans of security forces who put their lives on the line against a terrorist COBOL. Now they watch in horror as they are being prosecuted for the actions they took to protect their fellow servicemen and their country. Similarly, in respect to police complaints, the apparent chasm is the accountability for the failures of the current police ombudsman in Northern Ireland, who has been found to have overstepped the mark by the courts, in a legit behaviour by officers in recent times.

It must not be ignored by this government is real progress is to be made, in ensuring legacy investigations do not target former police officers or soldiers, or authorise retread the -- Or otherwise retread the events of the past to suit a particular narrative. We must ensure there is never a targeted approach to legacy issues in Northern Ireland, which is discriminatory blames the security forces. Those brave people valiantly gave their lives for the safety of our communities. We must turn our attention to the lips, who was so glorified -- To the lengths, who were so glorified, many families wake up every day without someone who should have been with them today.

Instead, they were murdered by terrorists. Terrorists who still have not embodied justice. In the Dublin government need to stand up and take their responsibility. We have a require re- that the bomb that killed all those people was manufactured, transported from the Irish Republic. And yet, the Irish Republic says they have nothing to answer for. There is not a soul in Northern Ireland, or the whole of Ireland for that matter, believes that, they need to stand up and accept their responsibility.

accept their responsibility.
22:44
Lord Empey Portrait Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
My Lords, there is two points I want to make this evening. The first concerns the fact that in December 2023 the government of Ireland decided to take action against the United Kingdom government over the offer of immunity in Troubles related crimes. That, of course, there was opposition in Northern Ireland from political parties to the immunity side of the legacy act, legacy proposals. Albeit the other parts of the legislation was deemed acceptable by quite a number of people.

And at the time of this action being taken the then Secretary of State said the Irish decision was inconsistent and hard to reconcile with its own record on dealing with legacy matters. And what is that record. There is no other source I can quote from the former Attorney-General of the Republic of Ireland, who made it clear, and I quote what he said at the time, in 2021 he actually said this. " A defect oh moratorium on investigation and prosecution of IRA members, other than those who describe themselves as descendants came into operation." He goes on, " This was demanded by IRA terrorist leaders, the leaders of that time, and it was conceded." So, here we have the former Attorney-General, I believe he was also a justice minister at some stage.

Still a member of the Irish Senate. Who said there was a de facto moratorium on investigation and prosecution. Of certain types of IRA terrorists. Only those deemed to be supporters of Gerry Adams and Mark McGuinness. This de facto moratorium did not apply to those described as dissidents. And that same government as the brass neck to command attempt to take legal action against our own I have to say and I will ask the Minister what steps is she and her colleagues taking to get this ridiculous case taken off the books? ridiculous case taken off the books? It's outrageous.

Hypocrisy of pursuing a moratorium on investigation of prosecution for over 1/4 of a century and then taking United Kingdom to court. I think it's outrageous. It has to be addressed and it's not being addressed. It doesn't stop there because if you look at the history of all of this and my colleagues brought this people's attention last brought this people's attention last week with the fact that by the United Kingdom government to have terrorists extradited from the Republic, there were only eight successful extraditions over the whole period of the Troubles.

In other words they got off because the court said it was political. Well, well, well. If it's political you can go and murder of fellow Irishman or Irishwoman and it's fine? I don't understand why our government gets like a rabbit caught in the headlights, paralysed whenever it gets abuse from the Republic. They are hypocrites on this issue and they should be rigorously pursued. I think if we want honesty about things this is a good place to start.

There are a whole of other things I would like to mention because of the lateness of the hour there is one thing that concerns me very much. It was partly referred to Baroness Hoey and so on and that is the general direction of our legal establishment. The European can has many admirable qualities. When we were negotiating the Belfast agreement a number of the provisions were deemed to be incorporated in it as part of how we would like to see things develop.

However it seems to me, and if we even look at the way the convention is being applied to migration issues in this country, how could we get to a situation, and I know cases are complicated and this is only one snippet, how can it possibly be reasonable or sensible for a person who is opposing a plan to disport that person might deport that person from the United Kingdom. To use The Nuggets in another country as a reason for not deporting someone.

I mean, it's barking mad, have we lost the plot in this country completely? I just think most people are aghast. The problem is there are good things about the convention. But it is being distorted and I would say it's more than that, it's been corrupted by the way things have been developing. I think if we are not careful we going to do the same thing to the convention that we did when Whitehall goldplated regulations that came from Brussels all over the years and turned many people in this country against the European Union.

We going to do the same thing with the European can my view. I think the government has to take seriously -- convention. I would conclude by coming back to the point I made to the Baroness, she cannot, we cannot ignore the fact that the Republic of Ireland and its postal establishment was directly involved -- political establishment, in the operation and formation of the Irish Republican Army in the early days of the Troubles was barracks were used for training, senior Cabinet ministers were involved, if that had happened here involved, if that had happened here can you imagine two but it did happen there and there is not a word about it.

Keep it quiet, don't rock the boat. If people aren't prepared to draw a line and they are prepared to keep stirring and stirring for the next 20 years, then let's stir, let's get back to the very first ingredient that was put in the pot. I think the Irish Republic if, it is in my opinion seriously guilty, involving itself in the formation of that organisation. Which did so much damage, caused so much trauma. If we end up in a situation where 70% of nationalists, young people are told or believe that there was no alternative to killing their fellow Irishman in the cause of the Irish unity and that is something that is perpetuated by the first Minister of Northern Ireland then I think we have to start and realise the extent of the challenge we have.

But I do ask noble Baroness to address those issues when she sums up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The real back of this debate is 58% of all murders were perpetrated 58% of all murders were perpetrated by Republicans. 29.2% we are told
22:52
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Portrait Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
carried out by loyalists. 10% we are told at the hands of security forces. Whenever you drill down into that figure you will find that the real figure is half to one% because the vast number of these attributed to the security forces were cases when terrorists were on their mission to murder but were thankfully intercepted by the security forces. Preserving lives of innocent law-abiding people in Northern Ireland. Also remember thousands were injured and billions of pounds of damage was done to not only property, but to the fabric of our society.

One has to ask the question why did successive governments fail to protect the innocent people of the province and allow the IRA to rein such terror on Northern Ireland for 30 years. The IRA sought to make Northern Ireland ungovernable. And drive it into civil war. The IRA tried hard to turn not only South Armagh but Northern Ireland into bandit country, but even after all the years of murder and mayhem they feel -- failed. Sadly because of decisions recently made by this government the Republican agitators are using legacy to fight old battles, rewrite the narrative of the history of their murderous deeds, sanitise their evil actions and of course keep the pot stirred.

To cause division in which they in the past have gained oxygen and electoral success. There are those in Northern Ireland that are greatly exercised about having enquiries into the actions of the security forces alone. But they really do not have the same urgency when it comes to recalling that most of the IRA victims were gallant members of our security forces, or members of the isolated Protestant communities along the border areas. Let me make it clear, I stand tonight to salute the bravery and the professionalism of our security personnel during the years of Republican terror.

They faced most of us though that usually hid behind the hedges waiting to carry out their acts of murder, whether it was one or young British soldiers or member of the RUC, the UDR. Indeed planting bombs under the Bakers of the Protestant neighbours. I remember when I was in the other house holding wedding photograph of a young castle Derek couple it was the happiest day of their lives. In July 1984 a young 20-year-old UDR woman Heather Kerrigan alongside our colleague Norman McKinley were murdered when an IRA landmine exploded while they were on a UDR foot patrol.

Heather's brother was also injured and left to lie in his sister's blood. Previously in March 1984 Heather's brother-in-law Thomas, the groom, was also murdered while on duty. Let me remind this House of what I'm recalling. That photograph I held that day had four persons in it. The green, a bride, a bridesmaid and a best man. The green, the bridesmaid, the best man were all murdered by the IRA. The only one left was the bride.

Left to journey through life alone. But I wonder how many remember that. And I wonder how many really care. Out of the 29 people from there murdered by the 29 people from there murdered by the IRA 93% remain unresolved. Their families have no closure nor hope of closure. The loss, the hurt, the injustice and grief that they feel to this very day has been carried with great dignity. But in many ways they feel abandoned by successive governments.

Like so many families I understand the hurt, for no one has been brought to justice for the murder of my loved ones, neither is there any hope of them being brought to justice. Nor for the eight workmen murdered along the roadside. Nor for the 10 men who were ordered out of the bus at Kings Mills and massacred. Although at the inquest the families were told that one of the suspects had been linked to almost 50 murders.

Nor for the brutal murder of 11 innocent people gathered at the Enniskillen Remembrance Day service 8 November, 1987. 63 people were injured that day as the bomb ripped through from out of town. And Ronnie Hill spent 13 years in a coma afterwards. Dying in the year 2,000 aged 68. The list goes on. But why do I mention these? Because most of these, the media will not mention. They will forget will not mention.

They will forget and have forgotten. Indeed their names seldom appear in the news headlines. However Republicans, they parade their dead. And the media will readily present the anger and the tears of their families forgetting to remind especially the international world that it was the IRA who commenced and deliberately carried on this campaign of slaughter. The security forces could have stopped this carnage years ago. But their hands were tied by successive governments, appeasing governments that were more concerned about international opinion than they were about the safety and protection of her citizens.

This government also stands condemned because let us remember -- the southern government, as remember it was the hawk aid Parliament first was the hawk aid Parliament first And also their territory was used by the IRA as a safe haven to run to the IRA as a safe haven to run to after carrying out their evil deeds. Over 1,000 members of our security forces have been murdered by those who are happy to declare themselves Irish Republican members, during the Irish Republican members, during the Irish Republican members, during the Troubles.

Then they always try firing when facing the British army. An excuse them by telling us, as the first Minister in Northern Ireland said, they had no alternative. For example, on 13 August 1975, under the cover of darkness, three terrorists set out to murder and maim their Protestant neighbours. They arrived at a packed bar to shoot indiscriminately, plant a bomb at the entrance, just to ensure the maximum casualties of men, women and young people, the youngest vitality being 17 years of age.

Five people were murdered that day. 50 injured. And as the terrorists were escaping from the bar, they machine-gunned a group of women and children who were waiting at a taxi rank. Because, that is the terrorists of the IRA. McFarlane led a prison escape of 38 inmates, in which innocent prisoner -- Prison officer died. Then he went on the run and recently ran out of road and now faces the justice of road and now faces the justice of God.

Yet at his funeral, the leaders eulogised McFarlane without remorse, eulogised McFarlane without remorse, as if he was a hero. At the funeral, Jerry Never in the IRA Adams helps to carry the coffin. And John, who to carry the coffin. And John, who in the past, claimed to have concern for innocent victims of terrorism. His presence at McFarlane's funeral was a strange way of showing his concern. For the innocent victims of terror. But of course, the victims are only Protestant.

In fact, McFarlane was described not as a murderer, but as a giant of Irish republicanism. Then as my noble friend said, she had the audacity to claim he lived his life in pursuit of freedom, unity, peace and equality. But then she said something else. It was a life well lived. I like that shape the legacy. That will inspire generations to That will inspire generations to come. What sickening trash. The premise of Northern Ireland mark the deaths of three men, in my hometown.

Some 53 years ago. The IRA stated they were on active service at the time. But at that night, by their own hand, the active service ended. My Lords, with such glorification of terrorism, how can our community move forward to the peace and prosperity for which our hearts crave. And what messages that give to the young people of which these elected leaders have influence. No wonder young people, and the Celtic supporters unveiled a tribute to McFarlane.

During the Celtic versus Aberdeen match last night. In the Scottish Premier league. In conclusion, the facts are these. The vast majority of IRA murderers have never faced prosecution or justice. And yet there are those who wish to haul elderly former members of the security forces before the courts. All republicanism once is to milk the British state for millions of pounds and have already done so. As they continue to do so. And our government is foolish and gullible enough to pay it.

Even Adams is now permitted to get in on the act. And intends to fill his pockets with British money. My Lords, every penny given to such Republicans is another slap in the face to innocent victims. Let me make it clear. I will not accept any legislation that does not protect those who served our country proudly. In the security forces. Protect them from fixation as investigations or criminal proceedings. And it is for those reasons we as a party will not be supporting the regret motion.
23:07
Lord Godson Portrait Lord Godson (Conservative)
-
-
Once the much maligned Legacy act of the last Parliament so ably taken through this House by my noble friend, Lord Caine, sort of course to draw a line under the troubles and to encourage the people of these islands, all of us in our own ways to go and opt for a different better way in terms of addressing these historical matters of the utmost importance. However, with this remedial order, the government now proposes to return to dealing with legacy questions with tried, and I'm afraid to say, failed methods by seeking prosecutions and convictions that are increasingly unlikely to happen.

There is a factor prosecutions, as we all know, of Troubles era offences conducted by paramilitaries of all parties with all secretarial affiliations are less like it to happen because of lack of admissible evidence. As the noble Lords have pointed out, the government's decision to gut the legacy act of that previous Parliament will result in the disproportionate and unfair prosecutorial focus on the security forces who had to work under infinitely different circumstances, throughout much of the Troubles. What to my mind is worse here is the government proposes to do all of this in response to a High Court judgement that is open to very serious question indeed.

Despite what the honourable lady Chief Justice appeared to say in her press conference last week. And indeed seemed to walk back from in her testimony today before the constitution committee here, I think it is vital here in this House, and on the other house, all sides of the divide, Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition alike, downwards, be able to continue to scrutinise the actions and the judgements of those courts. The 2023 legacy act extends constitutional immunity to those who give information to Independent Commission on Reconciliation and Information Recovery and information recovery.

The High Court, are now treating these provisions as if they were somehow pressing, but as myself and others pointed out during this debate, in the legacy act, during the second reading, immunity provisions have featured extensively in the peace process. Throughout the last 25 years. Immunity has already been widely granted to terrorists through the early release scheme for prisoners, which was a key element, as we all know, of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement of 1998 and was implemented furthermore in the Northern Ireland census act of 1998.

The immunity provisions were also part of the decommissioning process, the long process as we all know, at the search for the location of the victims remains was another aspect of the process. Repealing these conditional immunity provisions means make it much more difficult to establish the truth of many unresolved cases, cases, which I have already said, are increasingly unlikely to result in prosecutions or convictions. My Lords, Parliament is not required simply to agree with the High Court. But policy choices in the legacy act, including using conditional immunity in exchange for information, beyond the pale.

My Lords, recognise conditional immunity provisions are highly controversial, and many in this place will, as I have pointed out, will now welcome their appeal. But the same cannot be so easily set for sections 46 and 47 of the legacy act. Which should not have been included in the remedial order and should not now be repealed at all. My Lords, many of you will remember that the noble Lord, and myself, tabled the amendment with these sections being adopted, in order to reverse the legal effects of the Supreme Court's extreme judgement in the Adams case.

The intervention, with the intention behind the legislation, was twofold. The first of these was to restore the culpable, which was so important to the day-to-day conduct of government business, as was pointed out on several occasions in this House, by the noble Lord Butler. The other purpose was to prevent windfall compensation becoming payable to those who, on a correct understanding of the law, had in fact been unlawfully detained for suspected involvement in terrorism. Any such payment would be unjust and a complete waste of taxpayer money at this time.

It would also be received with understandable horror, by many in the province, and indeed in all of these islands, including Great Britain. And of course, as someone has pointed out, one of the unknown heroes of the Northern Ireland Troubles was of course the great British taxpayer. While the government has now signalled its opposition to Gerry Adams and others receiving compensation, I should like to take the opportunity to remind the House that this government freely chose not to appeal the High Court declaration of sections 46 and 47 were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The reasons set out at length in reason -- Recent policy exchanges, and as director of policy exchange and in a paper written by Richard Ekins and a Stephen Law's, further Parliamentary Council, backed by many noble PSA, the High Court analysis seems to me to be plainly wrong and is inextricable the government has chosen not to appeal it at this time. There is no good reason for the government to repeal the sections and the remedial order. They are clearly separable from the controversy that exists in relation to other provisions of the 2023 legacy act, which the government has consistently opposed.

The Prime Minister himself has told Parliament he will look at any conceivable way to avoid paying conversation in these cases. He is right to do so. At the obvious way to achieve this end is to withdraw the remedial order and maintain sections 46 and 47 in force. sections 46 and 47 in force.
23:14
Lord Bew Portrait Lord Bew (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to thank my noble friend for her important speech this evening. She is one of the victims of the troubles. And I think it is important to pay attention to everything she has said tonight. I actually do think that the outstanding issues in her speech will either have to be resolved either by the government taking actions to prove working in the ICRIR awful subsequent future cases in the courts. And I think that is the likely future, the issue she raised.

The noble Lady is the critic of the ICRIR, essentially in principle, I think I gather that correctly. And I approach this problem from a very different angle. I am not a critic of the ICRIR project. And in the way so Declan Morgan has led it through very difficult times in the last few months. I have a very different angle to that of my noble friend. This week, the Prime Minister said, in his very important speech in defence, that in 1989, he couldn't have envisaged the situation in Europe where there were innovation of boundaries and so on.

And this was something that involved a great outcome in the collapse of communism, he couldn't envisage. I have to say it provoked a thought in me, at the time of the Good Friday Agreement, I could not envisage 1/4 of a century later, we would be sitting in this House debating legacy cases, being carried on, and so on. I could not have envisaged it. Look at the language and the Good Friday Agreement itself, which you can actually reasonably argue is somewhat current, with respect to legacy victims.

They are advised to take pleasure in the fact we are negotiating the piece. You would not gather from the Good Friday Agreement that we would have this long traipsing agony continuing through the courts as we are likely to continue, unless something like the ICRIR works for it is the most important part of the 23 act, which I supported almost in its entirety. But the ICRIR remains, and I am delighted we really look to a future where these cases struggle on and I was asked shortly after the Good Friday Agreement to be one of the advisers on the Bloody Sunday tribunal and I was happy to accept it.

I think you can take the view that this is such an iconic case where it appeared to the British Army had had a very bad day and behaved badly required that enquiry. Indeed, you could also argue that the then pro-minister David Cameron's speech which I think reflected the influence of Lord Caine at the time was a relatively dignified way of bringing closure to a horrible human tragedy. However, when we agreed to have the Bloody Sunday enquiry Parliament passed or voted 11 and half million.

That is what Parliament's vote was. It actually was at the end 191 million, that was the official figure given, there were important newspaper discussions at the time arguing the real figure was 220 million. Now I have to say this historical adviser and I do not want to be seen as taking a Dickensian view of lawyers. I do have to say a lot of the Bloody Sunday enquiry was largely performative to use the word of the present time. For example, the paper sent to me showed beyond any doubt precisely what the role of evidence was.

Absolutely no questions in every way everything that he ever thought or said about the situation in Northern Ireland about the situation in Derry leading up to it and so on, it's perfectly clear what Edward Heath thought about it. There was no need for him to be badgered by famous Northern Ireland QCs in the courts for days, no need for this high drama, entirely performative. I am certain that was not cheap. I'm certain it cost money. There is a real problem with our whole way of carrying out enquiries in general, and of course Baroness O'Loan is right, documents sometimes, and I cannot quite understand it to give certain examples, I agree with her it seems very strange that some of these documents are withheld for this length of time.

It's actually hard to see what could be at stake in these documents which is what I'm glad to see her nodding agreement. I agree with her completely about that, by the way I do not think that any documents were withheld from me and no evidence has been shown in trucks arrived at my house, my garage is still full of these papers. They included intelligence reports, they include documents of what the senior army commanders were thinking, what the Cabinet were thinking, what members of the Northern Ireland government were thinking, what the intelligent reports coming out at the time, the inclusion of former support of long conversations with Martin McGuinness which Martin McGuinness claimed to have a degree of gout my guilt over what happened on Bloody Sunday.

I see no evidence that anything was withheld. One very striking thing, when the British Army senior command received the Widgery report often referred to as a whitewash, they said my gosh we killed eight innocent people on the day. That was the reaction. It wasn't delight at a good ending it was that they had actually killed eight innocent people. The only reason I didn't say 13 is because the forensics they were relying on then were changed again over as a result of further work on Bloody Sunday pointer making by the way, I'm not suggesting will need to do is to that some academics rummage through documents, but what I am saying that there is a role and it is aside from the unnecessary performative and combative style of lawyers with lots of other things have been done on Bloody Sunday, listen to all the velocity of weapons which was British Army, which was maybe not British Army and so on, or things like that which require work which was expensive.

Was it you hundred million pounds worth of extra work at those prices? This is my point. This is the defence of the ICRIR. The Secretary of State has said that he hopes for example inquests, the case has just been talked about tonight, it's a very controversial case. Again, another 10 barristers two 243 weeks? Not cheap. Not cheap. I'm not going to talk about the rights or wrongs I'm going to talk about the cost of it. I'm not surprised he allows and softer talk in public about maybe these things can be folded into the ICRIR.

Because quite frankly if not this is going to go on ad infinitum and we will be having this debate in 2040. The world has changed this week, nobody thought that the overseas budget could be slashed in the day in the way it has been done. Why do we think that we are going to carry on paying our lawyers fees in this way adding item? -- Add in for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Knighton. -- Add in for Knighton. Having said that I agree with
23:22
Lord Faulks Portrait Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Having said that I agree with many of the comments have been made about the role and the great importance they seem to attach to lawyers in this process not always helpful. I want to speak very briefly about sections 46 and 47 for the reasons that the noble Lord Lord Godson has given, namely that I was one of those who put down an amendment which eventually resulted in those provisions finding their way into the Legacy act. I should remind noble Lords that the provisions were not in fact ultimately controversial, the now government did not oppose the amendment and all parties I think had some enthusiasm for them.

My interest in that particular area was that the decision of the Supreme Court in Adams in 2020 seemed to me and to many lawyers to be contrary to the Cortona principal and to essentially ride roughshod over a number of constitutional conventions, and of course produced too many of us undesirable result that Gerry Adams and many others were going to be able to achieve compensation against the British Government for their wrongful detention. I say nothing about the internment policy, the act was in my view perfectly clear that it was an authorised internment signed by the authorised internment signed by the right level of minister.

However we know that there was a first instance judgement in Northern Ireland in the case of Fitzsimons which decided that this and a number of other provisions in the Legacy act contravened European Convention on Human Rights and therefore a declaration of incompatibility was appropriate. The previous government was in the process of appealing that decision when this government came into power they took a different view about the presumably correctness of that decision. It may be that the Minister can enlighten us without breaching any convention as to what the different construction that this government placed on that decision was as opposed to the lawyers who were advising previous government.

Of course the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said this. The remedial orders will I quote, enable all civil proceedings that will -- were prohibited by the Legacy act including future cases to proceed. Whereas the Prime Minister in question time on 15 January said he was anxious to prevent Gerry Adams obtaining compensation, I wonder if the Minister can clarify who is right about this and what the current position is? Because of course the declaration of incompatibility does not require the government to amend legislation.

It gives them a discretion, why do they have to exercise the discretion in the way that they have? Where an Act of Parliament has been passed without controversy to amend it by way of Statutory Instrument, I would suggest is a violation of proper constitutional practice. What I know that has been deprecated by the current Attorney-General in a speech he made recently. May I respectfully ask the Minister to consider very carefully whether it is really appropriate to fly in the face of what Parliament have decided was appropriate and yet to allow these compensation claims to proceed, many pounds we don't know how many, the noble Lady Baroness Hoey has cited the figure given by policy exchange and the Minister is invited to say what her estimation as I don't think the general public or the situation.
23:26
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard Portrait Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
Very briefly a lot has been said here tonight but the one thing that we are absolutely sure of in Northern Ireland is that the vast majority of victims in Northern Ireland of the Troubles will never see an end and will never see a resolution to their issue. That is a sad reality that we live in. The second point is that there will be no agreement as to the blame game. I do have to say what's turning out now to be a one-sided process is not right either.

We are hauling the former security forces before the courts and before inquests whereas the terrorists seem to be getting away without any retribution. Let's not forget that over the last 25 years a number of those in government and Northern Ireland have been former terrorists. Former IRA been former terrorists. Former IRA terrorists. I hear all the stories that the only people that have the information of the security forces. That's not right. Some of those people in government, some of those people that are walking the streets of Northern Ireland that were openly members of the IRA and other terrorist organisations know what happened in many of those cases.

They should be compelled, they should be compelled to come forward and give information and provide that information to the innocent victims of Northern Ireland. But that's not happening. Why? Maybe some people are afraid that it will ruin the process that we have. Maybe there is almost a cowardice approach to it. But you cannot continue to not face up to those realities that those people know what happened. And those people should be bringing that information to give the loved ones of those innocent victims may be some degree of comfort that they don't have at the moment.

I notice also quite recently the court ruled on the issue of collusion. And collusive behaviour the most recent one. Whether former police officers the retired police officers Association had to take cases to stop the police optimism referring to firstly collusion and then collusive behaviour. So I do welcome those judgements as well, but why is it that we continue to talk about the information that government told but not talk about the information those terrorists who we all know who they are, some of them in government many of them walking the streets, hold and could give to help loved ones.

ones.
23:30
Baroness Suttie Portrait Baroness Suttie (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Given the lateness of the hour I shall endeavour to be extremely brief and concentrate primarily on process and indeed the Parliamentary process. I would like to start by thanking Baroness O'Loan for tabling this regret motion and for allowing this I think fairly thought- provoking and wide-ranging debate which is perhaps been more specifically more about legacy issues in general rather than specifically on the order in front of us this evening. She raised a number of extremely important points and indeed spelled-out some of the positives that are contained in this order.

I would like to recall as she did in fact that during the various debates that we had on the Legacy act all political parties of Northern Ireland were absolutely united in opposing the immunity provisions in the previous government's legacy act. For that reason we actually do support from I understand the joint committee on human rights will be publishing its reports into this trap remedial order of -- On Friday this week as I understand, and I hope the government will pay due attention to its findings.

Perhaps the noble Lady, the minister, can say some thing about that in her concluding remarks. I believe this draft order also goes a considerable way for dealing with the ECHR issues that are highlighted by the Northern Ireland High Court, ruling for, as well as one of the ECHR issues highlighted by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in September. As I understand it, the remaining issues including next-of-kin participation in investigations, and disclosure of sensitive information will be dealt with in the forthcoming primary legislation.

Again, I am hoping perhaps the noble Lady, the minister, can confirm in her concluding remarks that this is indeed the case. I hope the noble Lady, the minister, knows press already many times on the finding of the new primary legislation because I am she wish she will agree that having legal certainty on these issues is of everyone's best impress -- Interest, and because of the limbo that we currently face, knowing the legacy act is going to be repealed and not yet knowing what the Labour government is going to actually proposing its step, the results in these important but slightly difficult debates like we are having this evening.

No doubt she will reply, as she usually does, when her parliamentary time allows. But can I encourage the government again to ensure that it will, A, consult widely and B, published as soon as possible and hopefully by Easter recess the draft legislation, Easter recess the draft legislation, so we can all begin to look at it. Like the Baroness, I think this debate we have had this evening, in parliamentary terms, is somewhat premature, because we do not yet know, we have not yet seen the primary legislation and we don't actually yet know what that will look like.

But when we do eventually see it, we will, my Lords, have the opportunity to debate legislation, line by line, again. And for that reason, I'm afraid I do not support that regret motion tabled by Baroness O'Loan but I'm glad we have had this useful and wide-ranging had this useful and wide-ranging debate on legacy issues.
23:33
Lord Caine Portrait Lord Caine (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, a minister, I spent some 28 hours on your Lordships house debating the legislation that is the subject of both the draft remedial order and emotion in the name of the noble Baroness, Baroness O'Loan, I held 80 meetings on the subject in summer 2022 and September 2023. Noble Lords will, I hope, be relieved to hear therefore, I have absolutely no intention of going over the same ground, in respect of what became the Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy and Reconciliation Act this evening, considering the lateness of the hour.

All I will say is the act represented a realistic assessment in our view of what could be delivered for victims and survivors of the Troubles. Over half a century since the troubles began and over 1/4 of a century since the Belfast Agreemen of 1998, effectively brought the Troubles to an end. In the context of the process of prosecutions, and the considerations, being vanishingly rare, as my noble friend, Lord Godson, pointed out. I also fully appreciate that for many people, some aspects of the legislation are extremely challenging and that has been brought out again in the debate this evening.

As indeed they were for me at the second reading in November 2022. Which is why I made so many amendments to the legislation in the amendment, as it passed through your Lordships house in an attempt to improve the strength of it. I still believe that the independent commission has the capacity to deliver better outcomes for victims and survivors of the Troubles. Then establish processes that work for only a small minority for those who suffered, and offering virtually nothing of those who suffered a hand of terrorism.

And I welcome the fact the government intends to committee -- Keith the commission which does have the power to compel witnesses with penalties for non-cooperation. The government set out in its statement on 5 December how it intended to respond in those areas where those courts in Belfast are found the legislation to be incompatible with provisions of the European can. And of course, we set out our views accordingly. While we do not agree with the provisions of the draft remedial order, concerning conditional immunity and similar cases, we respect the rise of the government to bring them forward, given the strength of their opposition to them as the legislation was going through your Lordships house.

But we do fear there is a real danger that the changes they are proposing will return as to a fragmented and incoherent approach to the legacy issues and cases that our legislation sought to address. And will result in a hierarchy of investigations, and lead to the very real prospect of elderly veterans being dragged back once again before the courts and facilitate unwittingly or otherwise those who seek to rewrite history. My Lords, we remain puzzled over the rash decision in July to drop the appeal against the High Court judgement, in respect of sections 46 and 47 of the act that deal with interim custody orders.

Which, the provisions of which I inserted at third reading in your Lordships house, following extensive discussions with the noble Lord, and my noble friend, Lord Godson. Whichever time was supported by the then opposition. And I commend the speeches of both of my noble friend, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and I would also recommend the paper by Sir Stephen laws and Professor Richard Ekins on this subject. As a result of the immediate order, sections 46 and 47 will be removed from the act, reopening the door to significant claims for compensation for those who argue successfully they were unlawfully detained in the 1970s and taken with the reopening of inquests, in some civil cases, the burden on the PSMI and the court surfaced as risk becoming absolutely huge with costs running into tens of millions, if not more.

At the noble Lord, inner customary and elegant speech, reminded us of the costs associated with public inquiries including the Bloody Sunday inquiry which he was so closely associated. So, can I ask the Minister what assessment His Majesty's government have made of the resource implications that they are proposing, and where exactly that money will come from, and will it come from the 250 million pot, from the Stormont House New Decade, New Approach commitments, which is intended to fund legacy issues.

The Prime Minister promised on 15 January, " We will look at every conceivable way to prevent these types of cases from claiming damages," But surely, as my noble friend, Lord Godson argued, the best way to achieve this would be to withdraw sections 46 and 47 from the remedial order, and we hope that by the time the government comes to publishing the final order, they might think again on this particular matter. My Lords, when we do agree with the government is in continuing to appeal the court's rulings in respect of the Windsor Framework, and on the powers of the Secretary of State to preclude the disclosure of sensitive information that could put individuals at risk and make people less secure.

As a result, these form no part of the remedial order, and that is something that the opposition welcomes. It follows, therefore, that the opposition does not support the regret motion in the not support the regret motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Baroness O'Loan, but while I respectfully disagree with her I can understand some of her frustration, given her forthright and principled opposition to the legislation that I took through this House. The current government came to power with a pledge to reform and repeal the legacy legislation yet, it is clear the bulk of it will remain, including the independent commission, to reach the -- To which the noble Baroness objected so strongly, so I understand some of her frustrations.

The government says that it is seeking consensus on legacy proposals which is commendable. And I think tonight's debate might have demonstrated clearly, just how difficult that might be, as it was for all its predecessors since 1998, the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, alluded to that in his comments. On one final point, my Lords, my noble friend, Lord Empey, spoke of the role of the Irish government, in respect of legacy cases. And the comments of the former justice minister and the former Attorney-General, Michael McDowell, who you will not be surprised to hear was one of the 18 meetings I had between 2022 and 2023.

And it is clear the Irish government does have questions to answer in relation to its handling, in its own jurisdiction. Two successive meetings of the British Irish intergovernmental conference in November 2023, and April 2024. I did raise these matters directly with the then Foreign Minister, and raised individual cases with them. And I would seek assurance from the noble Baroness, the Minister, that the current government will continue to raise those issues, these cases, and also the interstate case, which are totally unjustified with the Irish government.

At future meetings of the BIRGC. We have course will return to all these matters in detail when the government does finally repeal -- Reveal its proposals. But given the time of the hour, I look forward to the list as reply. -- Minister's reply.
23:42
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, arrives to respond to the regret motion tabled, regarding the scope of the proposed draft , which addresses various incompatibilities found by the Northern Ireland courts, in respect of the Northern Ireland Troubles At Legacy and Reconciliation Act 2023. I acknowledge and welcome the sincerity of her concerns and the vital importance of ensuring future mechanisms for addressing Northern Ireland's legacy issues, and that we are capable of commanding public confidence. Before I move on to the substance of the debate before us, may I first thank all noble Lords for their contributions.

There is no more a motive or long-standing issues to discuss in your Lordships house than a legacy of the Troubles, a real and tangible impact this has had on too many families. I want to put on record my sincere thanks to everybody present who has wrote tirelessly to try -- Works tirelessly to try and find peace and justice for those affected by the brutal and horrific acts of terror perpetuated during one of the most painful periods of British history. Before I move on, I want to especially thank the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, for his contribution this evening.

Your speech for me demonstrates the sheer scale of the trauma, of the Troubles, and the realities of the evil of paramilitary terrorism. My Lords, I have the honour of spending some time last week in Northern Ireland, meeting some of the groups who work with and support some of those affected by the troubles. I mean all of the people I met and their determination was awe-inspiring and the story is devastating. I would like to thank each and everyone of them, people who were prepared to share their terrible traumas that they experienced during the Troubles, including the line of duty.

I cannot comprehend the scale of the pain they continue to experience. And it is something that I will always remember. The other thing that was clear during my discussions was just how complicated the legacy of the Troubles is. There are no clear lines of agreement between communities, within communities, or even, it seemed to me, within the support groups that I met. My Lords, we must remember that each person has had different experiences, and once their own truth, their own outcome, for something simple as what happened in the final moments of their loved ones lives.

For others, it is justice. And I cannot tell them what they need. This makes the job of finding a way forward extreme challenging. But, my Lords, this government is up to the task, because we have to be. So with that thought, let's turn to the substance before us this evening. The draft remedial order addresses the sufficient deficiencies identified by the High Court, and one deficiency identified by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal, it was possible for a variety of reasons to include all the incompatibilities found by the Court of Appeal in remedial order.

The noble Baroness has mentioned specific concerns about the remedial order, both in her written evidence to the joint committee on human rights, and in this chamber this evening. Other noble Lords have made a point and I will address each in turn, however this has been a long debate of the day has been very long. So if I miss any specifics, I will review and respond in due course. However, to be clear, what is before us this evening as a draft proposed remedial order and I consider our debate this evening as a core part of the process of engagement for what happens next in Thank want to reassure noble Lords that what is -- much of what has been discussed this evening is out of scope of the remedial orders and will need to be addressed in primary legislation which will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows.

Not to disappoint the noble Lady. I think we need to be realistic, even today demonstrates quite how challenging it is to get time during government time. We will bring this forward when government time allows. Moving onto the specifics on inquests raised by both Baroness O'Loan and Baroness Hoey. While the process is not without its challenges as we've seen recently, including in relation to the disclosure and its ability to take account of sensitive information it is clear that it has helped to provide a number of victims and survivors with information and a sense of justice or accountability in some cases they might not otherwise have been able to obtain.

I'm acutely aware that the distress caused to the families due to the cessation on the live in inquests, this government is committed to ensuring that such cases are able to conclude satisfactorily through the system should that be the preference of the families involved. However remedial orders can only be used to remedy legislation when there is no appeal against ECHR findings, in the case of restoring inquests we agree entirely with the sentiment expressed by Baroness O'Loan the Referred to in are such cases which were formerly inquests.

Since the appeal to the Supreme Court includes the aforementioned issues directly related inquests, our assessment was that it was not appropriate to use the remedial orders to restore. However, as noble Baroness raised the JCHR is due to report shortly and we will consider the recommendations in due course. On disclosure and next-of-kin as raised by the noble Lord and Baroness, the Clear that it perhaps the capability to replicate investigations previously with the police and ombudsman and to fulfil human rights obligations in those cases will stop the Court of Appeal also explicitly recognised the wide powers including its unfettered access to all information, documents and materials as it reasonably requires in connection with the review.

Stating that these powers should not be underestimated. The Court of Appeals And And effective And effective next-of-kin participation in cases which would otherwise have been inquests raised issues that could reach far beyond the scope of the legacy act. Including on the state's ability to keep people safe. For that reason the government has sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and that means the remedial orders cannot be used to address these issues. The government will however bring forward a bill when parliamentary time allows that will in disclosure regime that is fair, transparent and crucially allows the greatest possible disclosure of information while ensuring that proportionate safeguards remain in place to protect the security of the state.

That legislation will also ensure that in specific circumstances the independent commission is able to hold public hearings, takes one evidence from individuals and allow families to have effective representation. I hope this provides assurances to the Baroness and others that we are committed to addressing the legacy of the past in a legally compliant way. On police misconduct, I recognise that this is a very sensitive issue and one the noble Baroness has a keen interest and extensive experience in. Section 45 of the legacy act deals with complaints relating to police conduct formerly part of the trouble is, specifically this provision brought an end to the police ombudsman for Northern Ireland investigations and prevented new ones being commenced.

The Court of Appeal found section 45 to be incompatible with article 2 and This issue is not the subject of an appeal from the UK government. On that basis it would have been permissible to repeal or amend article 45 in the draft remedial orders. However this issue requires engagement with the police and police oversight bodies and there was limited time to do this between the final court order being agreed on 18 October and laying of proposed draft remedial orders on 4 December. However I would like to remind this House that the proposed draft remedial orders is exactly that, a draft.

Should the JCHR on the basis of representations made recommend that the government widens the remedial orders to include the repeal of section 45 then we will of course consider that carefully. Let me reiterate that the government is committed to ensuring the legacy mechanisms are fully compliant with ECHR, the remedial orders is just the first step in fulfilling that. 38 of the legacy act which prevents criminals and investigations and any troubles related offence been continued or begun, this provision was not found to be incompatible with ECHR it therefore cannot be removed from the act using this remedial orders.

Section 41 which prohibits criminal enforcement action in relation to a troubles related offence does not fall into the remit of a crow was found to be incompatible with the ECHR. This action has been removed from the act. By article 2 of the draft remedial order. I like to turn to one of the most controversial aspects that we have discussed this evening, I want to take the opportunity to thank everyone else opportunity to thank everyone else To the call for evidence launched by the JCHR and the proposed draft remedial orders.

The government welcomes scrutiny and will carefully consider the written evidence when it's published the JCHR reports before returning with the draft remedial orders to this House and the other place. I know there has been a lot of controversy as highlighted by Lord Godson, Lord Faulks and Lord Caine. Surrounding Faulks and Lord Caine. Surrounding 47 on custody orders from the legacy act reply remedial orders the pie would like to address that issue directly will stop this is an issue that the previous government failed to adequately address following the 2020 Supreme Court judgement in Adams.

The government's belated attempt to do so via a letter amendment to the legacy act in the name of Lord Faulks, 34 years after

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the judgement in Adams is bound by the Northern Ireland Ct to be unlawful. This government... To clarify, the amendments that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To clarify, the amendments that went on into the statute book government amendments made by me at government amendments made by me at third reading of the legacy act, not amendments in the name of Lord Faulks and Lord Godson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Faulks and Lord Godson. I apologise and I stand corrected on the record. Where was I. That's on the record. Where was I. That's fine. The government was found to be unlawful. This government takes its human rights obligations extremely seriously and the provisions therefore need to be repealed. The government is carefully exploring how to lawfully address the complaints issue alongside our clear commitment to appearance legacy that are fully compliant with human rights will stop my Lords for clarity although we do not proceed despite proceed with an appeal to the Court of Appeal, they did comment on the issue saying, it would rarely be permissible in convention terms to make the changes with retrospective effect.

Which fed I will revert to some of the other points associated with this later in my speech. I also recognise that there are a number of submissions from individual organisations would say the draft remedial orders could or should do more under some submissions which it is wrong that, the wrong legislative vehicle, I would reiterate that the JCHR is going to very shortly publish its report on the government will carefully consider any recommendations made as well as the written submissions before coming back to Parliament to lay the remedial orders for a further 60 days.

In response to Baroness O'Loan The steps outlined in the Secretary of State's oral statement making clear the government will respond directly to recent court judgements including by bringing forward measures to create a fairer and more balanced disclosure regime to allow inquests previously halted to proceed, remove the barn civil proceedings. However, the Court of Appeals binding in relation to disclosure and effective next-of-kin participation rages -- raises issues that could reach you under the scope of the legacy act including the state's ability to keep people safe.

Our approach to appealing Article 2 of the Windsor framework grounds is framed by the importance of maintaining a clear human rights framework in Northern Ireland and across the UK. The noble Lady also raised the current legal proceedings she will appreciate given the ongoing nature of the legal proceedings I cannot comment. Many noble Lords rightly raised the current and pervading issue of the rewriting of history. I have been very clear from this despatch box historically and will continue to be that I would like to reassure noble Lords that I am this government do not and will not support the rewriting of history and I thank Lord Weir for being the first peer this evening to raise it will stop with regards to issues pertaining to the Irish government has raised by Lord -- a number of noble Lords, the government will continue did to have discussions with the Irish government on a way forward.

We considered them to be an essential part in this process, it's important that the UK and Irish governments seek to agree a way forward that helps provide victims and families with as much information as possible and to do so in a way that is underpinned by the principles set out in the Stormont House Agreement. The process of discussion however cannot be unending. Time is passing as families get older they must be afforded ways to attain the acknowledgement they have long sought.

This evening the Secretary of State was going to come and join us but he is actually away. They have been discussing issues between the two governments in seeking to address the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland that all communities can have confidence in. With regards to the interstate case of course I hope that one of consequence of our promise legacy reform will be the withdrawal of the interstate case. Though that is a matter for the Irish government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the noble Lady pauses I wonder she would help me clarify one thing, I think I heard her say that the government has come to the clear conclusion that it would be contrary to the European Court of Human Rights to allow someone in Gerry Rights to allow someone in Gerry Adams's position rather not to allow him to proceed with his claim for him to proceed with his claim for damages. Because that would be against the convention. Is that the government's position?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is not the government's position, the government's position is clear, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have also been clear that we will find a lawful way to move forward and we are still consulting with lawyers and what I should be. The noble Lord is a lawyer and will note that is not something that can be done overnight. With regards to the inquest which is where I had got to but had been raised by Baroness Hoey, I very much appreciate the sensitivities and the anger that this inquest and the findings have made, the government will come back in due course as they are currently considering the details of.

Of the inquest. On veterans and immunity provisions we have discussed these issues before, my position has not changed. This government will do everything that we can to support those that served you ran towards the fire and put themselves between terrorists and civilians in order to keep people safe. I want to touch on the speech from Lord Robathan. Unusually I find myself agreeing with the noble Lord. Had to happen with the noble Lord. Had to happen once.

I would -- heard much of what he said including the fact that people in uniform have to operate within the law and the overwhelming majority of those in Northern Ireland did exactly that, we them a debt of service, debt of gratitude. I'm grateful for the service and we will continue to work with them and veterans groups to make sure that as and when any support as required or legal advice as required we are there with them. The policy exchange funding was raised by several noble Lords.

This government does not recognise the basis of the figures for any future costs in this report which I entirely speculative. The figures include estimates based on policies that are yet to be determined. Therefore they are highly speculative. No comments to Lord Godson. With regards to touching on which future costs will be obviously that will form part of the debate that we have when we bring forward future primary legislation. I want to be very clear, there were comments this evening about the role of the Attorney-General.

I would like to remind noble Lords that duty precedent, we know he can comment on the specifics of which cases he advised on and you would not expect me to disciples the -- to do so. I would like to thank Lord Bew as ever for all his work but also tonight for his measured and engaging approach to these challenging and heart-wrenching issues. These are not straightforward, none of this is easy and when we are discussing them we need to do it, we need to be careful of our language and I thank careful of our language and I thank careful of our language and I thank When I was in Belfast last week, I met with the group Remembering met with the group Remembering through Healing, who advised me that there is not a single day in our calendar, including February 29, when a family is not grieving the loss of someone who died in the Troubles on that day.

That fact alone will remind you of the scale of the human tragedy we face when we stand here to discuss the troubles. My Lords, I want to assure all members of your Lordships house the government is not complacent about the concerns raised, either in this chamber this evening, or in submissions to the ECHR and its cold water. We are actively engaging stakeholders, including families and groups, Northern Ireland parties, civil society, veterans community, and the Irish government, to refine and strengthen our approach.

As we have set up, the draft remedial order has tables from 4 December, is a step to repealing and replacing the legacy act. And our approach, which will also include primary legislation, seeks to balance the need for truth, justice and reconciliation, while ensuring legal and operational viability. My Lords, while I respect and understand the tabling of this regret motion, I urge colleagues recognise this government is committed to delivering legacy mechanisms that meet our human rights obligations, re-enabling society in Northern Ireland, which has come on such a long way since 1998, to begin to heal the terrible ruins of the past and look to a better future.

We must take measured, thoughtful and appropriate steps to achieve this goal and I look forward to continuing discussions with all noble Lords as we develop and introduce our legislative proposals. introduce our legislative proposals. I therefore respectfully ask the House acknowledges the progress being made and support the government ongoing efforts in this regard. regard.
00:03
Baroness O'Loan Portrait Baroness O'Loan (Crossbench)
-
-
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate tonight. It has been wide-ranging, going way beyond the scope of the regret motion which I tabled. I knew it would be. My Lords, I would like to correct one issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Caine. For 20 years, I have called for the establishment of an independent body to deal with the past. My objection to the legislation about the ICRIR was the way in which it lacked independence, the way in which it was to be so circumscribed and controlled by government.

My Lords, what we are contemplating now is the future handling of the legacy of the past. Tonight's debate has enabled wide-ranging discussion of the past. The multiple atrocities of the past have been well articulated here tonight, we should never forget. When I do this work, I am always catapulted back to the darkness and the terror and the pain of the bomb explosion, 1977, which took the life of my first baby, as I was pregnant. And the terrible attempted murder of one of my boys almost 20 years ago by loyalists.

The IRA killed my first child, the loyalists tried to kill the child. They left him with life changing injuries. My Lords, there are many tears. Many, many tears. My Lords, for many decades I have worked also with victims. I remember the police widow who told me she sat at her window in her lonely farmhouse for decades, waiting until the police officers, her husband's colleagues, would come back and tell her what happened, what they had found, but they never came, they were moved onto other cases.

I remember the parents of the last soldier to die in Northern Ireland, whose case I dealt with. I remember the children, disappeared in the Troubles, disappeared by the IRA. With whom I have worked extensively. And I was thinking most recently the victims of the Erma bombing whose stories have been so graphically told in the last weeks. My Lords, so much pain, so much grief. My Lords, we must find a way to provide one system, accessible to all, which seeks to provide the needs for all, it will be difficult, but we must find a way.

And in that spirit of positivity, I tabled this regret motion, because it is important to explore together, as much as we can, how we can care for all our people as we journey forward into the future. My Lords, I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave to withdraw the motion. Is at your Lordships pleasure this be withdrawn? It is by leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdrawn. My Lords, I beg to move the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move the House do now adjourn. The House do now House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 26 House of Lords - 26 February House of Lords - 26 February 2025.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page