Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 25th November 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

11: Clause 1, page 1, line 21, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State must also by regulations make provision aimed at promoting investment, fostering innovation, and encouraging economic growth in relation to the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom.(4B) Regulations under subsection (4A) must support—(a) the creation of economic incentives for businesses that contribute to economic growth, and(b) the alignment of product regulations with the strategic aim of positioning the United Kingdom as a global leader in innovation”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the regulations in the Bill prioritise economic growth and the United Kingdom’s role in innovation and economic expansion.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 11, I shall speak also to Amendments 104A and 124A in my name.

As highlighted by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, Clause 1 in its current form should be removed—a theme that we have explored already and to which we will no doubt return. This amendment, however, directly addresses a critical gap in the current Bill by ensuring that regulations do not focus merely on product safety, environmental concerns and operational efficiency but actively promote investment and foster innovation.

The news coming from today’s CBI conference makes sobering reading. The chief executive of the CBI has said that employers have been forced into “damage control mode”. The head of the company that makes McVitie’s digestive biscuits said that

“it’s becoming harder to understand what the case for investment is … to make a difference in the growth rate of the economy”.

Again, the chief exec has said that CFOs are asking, “Can we afford to invest?”

I have no wish to talk down the economy or try to score cheap party-political points, but the fact is that life has got harder for big business recently. No doubt noble Lords opposite will say, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?” But they are also committed to providing an environment that fosters growth and I know them to be sincere in that ambition, so we should all take these comments seriously.

It is not just big business. Last week, analysis by the Altus Group said that the planned reduction in business rates relief would lead to a more than doubling of rates for shops, pubs and restaurants next year. Coupled with rises in national insurance contributions and other operational pressures, SMEs are facing difficult times. But they represent the heartbeat of our economy and some of them will hopefully go on to become big businesses.

In today’s competitive global economy, economic growth cannot be secondary. The Bill should prioritise creating an environment where businesses can thrive, develop new technologies and compete internationally. It is vital that our regulations should be aligned with the strategic aim of positioning the United Kingdom as a global leader in innovation. In the post-Brexit world, the UK’s economic success is intrinsically tied to its ability to lead in innovation, which is why my Amendment 11 is critical. It ensures that product regulation supports the creation of an environment conducive to technological advancement and cutting-edge industrial leadership. It strengthens the Bill by ensuring that it is not about just managing risks or regulating product use but about creating a dynamic, forward-thinking market where businesses have the tools, resources and incentives to innovate and expand. Without these provisions, there is a risk that the UK could fall behind in the global race for innovation and business growth. If we do not explicitly ensure that our regulations align with our growth objectives, we could inadvertently stifle entrepreneurship and technological progress.

So how are we to become a global leader? The answer surely lies in aligning ourselves with the strongest global partners in the world today. If we are to maintain and enhance our position as a leading economy, we must look beyond a single trading bloc, particularly one whose economic influence is shrinking on the global stage—a theme we explored in debate last Wednesday. For example, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP, represents some of the fastest-growing economies in the world. Countries such as Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, as well as emerging markets in Asia, are showing much more significant economic growth potential than others.

To lead the world, the UK must be flexible in its approach to trade and regulation. We need to reduce barriers and align ourselves with the economies that will drive future growth and innovation, rather than being tethered to a bloc that is not growing as fast as others. Amendment 11 in my name will enable us to do just that: focus on fostering global partnerships with the most dynamic economies.

Regarding Amendment 104A, a regulatory sandbox means an environment that allows businesses to explore and experiment with new, innovative products under regulatory supervision. This amendment is important for the development of innovative products affected by the Bill. It is an important step forward in fostering a regulatory environment that encourages creativity and innovation while ensuring safety and compliance. Regulatory sandboxes are an effective and proven model used to support businesses in testing innovative ideas. By introducing the importance of regulatory sandboxes in the Bill, we are not just helping businesses to navigate regulatory hurdles but promoting innovation by giving businesses the space to trial and refine their ideas.

Regulatory sandboxes will create a framework in which businesses can develop and test new products, contributing to the growth of the economy and the success of British businesses in the global marketplace. I urge noble Lords to support this amendment to pave the way for more innovation, more competitive businesses and, ultimately, a stronger economy.

I thank my noble friend Lady Lawlor for bringing forward Amendment 11A. The amendment is a clear and strong signal that we are committed to ensuring that our regulations actively foster economic growth, innovation and the global competitiveness of UK businesses. By encouraging the marketing and use of products in domestic and foreign markets, we are helping to open doors for UK businesses to grow their customer base, create jobs and increase exports. I commend my noble friend for this amendment. I look forward to a positive reception for all these amendments from the Government. I particularly look forward to the positive impact that they will have on businesses across the United Kingdom. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 11A, which would insert a new subsection to the effect that regulations

“must promote growth and effective production, foster innovation and encourage the use and marketing of products in the UK’s domestic and foreign markets”.

I declare an interest in that I have commissioned a number of studies and analyses at Politeia, the think tank where I am research director, which aim to examine and promote UK international trade and the UK economy. I support the aims of safety, containing costs and compliance with safety regulations, but I urge that we think about products having to operate efficiently and effectively. The problem we face is how best to do this consistent with promoting the entrepreneurial and innovative instincts of those bringing new products to the market, who my noble friend Lord Sharpe mentioned, and the growth this allows. I support my noble friend’s amendment to put growth at the heart of this measure.

During the consultation process for a product regulatory framework since 2021, of which this Bill is the outcome, producers and their representatives stressed their priorities for regulation. I am grateful to the Government for their response to this long consultation process. Producers stressed that it should be outcomes-focused and risk-based, should have greater simplicity, proportionality and consistency across legislation and powers and should deal with the serious challenges and opportunities that this country now faces. A further consultation to develop the product safety regime took place in August 2023, with businesspeople and business representatives that are listed in the Government’s helpful response. It found broad agreement on the need for a regulatory approach that promotes a regime ready to respond to hazards but that allows temporary derogation during emergencies for supplying essential products—in other words, it is dynamic—and makes for safer online shopping and promotes digital labelling and an enhanced national regime.

The Minister said at Second Reading and has reiterated to this Committee that the Government have listened to business. Their priorities are summarised in the Government’s consultation document. They are designed to allow for effective operations and to promote growth as a priority, which I and my noble friend Lord Sharpe are urging we need. The rules should be demand-led and reflect the capacity of our businesses to innovate, be entrepreneurial and grow their workforces and their range of products along with the high standards and competitive costs that consumers want.

Nowhere in the Government’s response document do we find businesses wanting a regulatory regime that brings greater rigidity in process rather than being outcomes-led, one that is risk-averse rather than equipped to deal with the real level of risk posed by products or processes, one that treats every product as bearing the same risk or being under a one-size-fits-all rule, or a regime that is disproportionate, untargeted and unduly complex. Yet that scenario, rejected by business, is inherent in the EU legal arrangements that the Government wish to be able to adopt for our businesses under Clause 1(2), to which my amendment is addressed. That can only stymie growth, contrary to the express wishes of the Government. For those reasons, I propose that growth should take priority over the arbitrary exercise of power to introduce the rigidity and complexity of an EU system which is not outcomes-focused or risk-based; nor is it proportionate or known for simplicity.

I will give your Lordships an illustration, for which I owe thanks to Professor David Collins, who holds the chair of international economic and trade law at City, University of London. He draws attention to the unnecessarily burdensome EU REACH regulation—on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. Collins explains that it has extensive requirements for registering very low-risk substances. For example, certain food-grade natural substances that have been used safely for centuries will require expensive registration. Under the EU’s REACH, if a company uses more than one tonne per year of natural fruit extracts or oils, and products such as soaps or cosmetics, it needs full registration, including extensive safety data packages, even when these substances have been safely used in food for ages. This can cost tens of thousands of euros per substance. The relevant EU legislation is Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 REACH, and the key sections on registration requirements are primarily in Title II, Articles 5/24.

The EU’s post-Brexit UK REACH maintains similar core principles but has proposed a more proportionate approach for these well-established natural substances, with simplified registration requirements planned for ingredients with long histories of safe use. Although the overall goal of chemical safety is vital, requiring extensive registration for substances such as olive oil or lemon extract when used in non-food products adds to cost without proportionate safety benefit, and it is not needed. The safety of these materials could be adequately assured through simpler mechanisms. The UK REACH regulation, created through the REACH etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, Statutory Instrument 2019/758, aims to do this and does it very effectively.

Moreover—I refer to my noble friend Lord Sharpe urging that we align the UK economy with the strongest, most dynamic economies in the world—by relying on our own laws it will not only help our businesses but will allow us to do exactly that. My noble friend Lord Sharpe mentioned the CPTPP agreement; as Professor Collins says, it

“does not mandate blanket mutual recognition of conformity assessments for food safety among its members”

but it does

“include provisions that encourage members to accept other members’ conformity assessment results. It also facilitates acceptance of conformity assessment results through mechanisms like technical discussions and explanations of requirements. It also allows for sector-specific mutual recognition arrangements to be negotiated between members”—

which are very important. Professor Collins continues:

“So the CPTPP promotes regulatory cooperation and transparency but preserves each member’s right to maintain their own food safety standards and assessment procedures. Members must ensure their requirements are based on science and international standards where they exist, but aren’t required to automatically accept other members’ assessments. This is similar to what the WTO TBT Agreement does, but it goes further in terms of cooperation”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for their contributions on Amendments 11 and 11A, which specify that regulations made under the Bill should promote investment, foster innovation and encourage economic growth and investment. This Government are committed to attracting investment, as illustrated by the £63 billion pledged at the recent international investment summit. Britain is open for business.

I assure noble Lords that growth is the number one mission of this Government and our new industrial strategy, to be published in the spring, is central to it. The strategy will focus on tackling sector-specific and cross-cutting barriers to growth for our highest-potential growth-driving sectors and places, creating the right conditions for increased investment and high-quality jobs and ensuring a tangible impact in communities right across this country.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his Amendments 104A and 124A, which seek to create regulatory sandboxes where new products could be trialled under regulatory supervision, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. I recognise and welcome the intention behind the amendments, which seek to encourage innovation. The Office for Product Safety and Standards within my department already works to provide businesses with guidance and support as they develop and market products. We also support local authorities in their work as primary authorities. This allows businesses to receive assured and tailored advice on meeting environmental health, trading standards or fire safety regulations from a single local authority, then applying this advice nationally. The underpinnings of our product safety regime are based on extensive engagement with businesses. Whether it is on regulatory change, the development of standards or the work of the OPSS as a regulator, the relevant bodies consult extensively across industry.

I am always open to new ideas on how to support businesses to innovate. I understand that in 2022 the Office for Product Safety and Standards supported the Home Office in a regulatory sandbox trialling electronic ID for alcohol sales. However, I am concerned about mandating regulatory sandboxes in the Bill. Product safety is, after all, about avoiding potentially serious risks to people and their property, and anything that would relax regulations in this way, even as a trial, would need careful consideration. It could also commit local responsible authorities to run trials in their areas without sufficient consultation or preparation. This could place an undue burden on local authorities, diverting resources and capacity from their primary responsibilities.

This Government are committed to ensuring that any regulations made under this Bill will support the interests of UK businesses and consumers, providing regulatory certainty and creating the conditions for investment, innovation and economic growth. The Government are always open to debate to ensure that we can support businesses to deliver safe and effective products. I hope I have demonstrated to the noble Lord the extent to which regulators already work closely with businesses to achieve this.

In response to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about SMEs, I was an SME once; we do not want to burden SMEs with additional regulatory or financial cost, if possible. This Government are pro-business and pro-worker and have provided certainty, consistency and confidence—for which investors have been looking for a very long time. Massive tax reliefs are available to investors through the EIS, the SEIS, VCTs and all kinds of grants, including patent grants for any new industries. The Government have shown that we are committed to investment and growth.

I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to fostering growth through all our policies. This will be set out in more detail in the forthcoming industrial strategy, which we will publish in the spring. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all speakers, in particular my noble friend Lady Lawlor for so eloquently introducing her amendment. I say to my noble friend Lord Kirkhope that my remarks are in no way meant to diminish any of our trading relationships; the point is that these amendments are designed to look after our national interest. It may well be that aligning with the EU is in our national interest, in which case we absolutely should, but if it is not, then we should not, and any reference to relative economic growth is merely factual. I thank my noble friend very much indeed for his supportive remarks on Amendments 104A and 124A.

I also thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his perspective, which will be very helpful when we come to later stages of the Bill. I also thank the Minister for his remarks, which provided helpful clarity. I take comfort from the fact that he remains open to new ideas. We will consider his remarks carefully but are very pleased to hear his reassurances regarding SMEs. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, this is an important group of amendments. No doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will shortly set out his amendments but, as I understand them, by deleting bits of the Bill they provide an opportunity for us to have a debate on what is meant by a “product” and by the “use of products”. The other two amendments are in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and my noble friend Lord Fox and have a similar purpose. My noble friend cannot be with us today because he is abroad on parliamentary business in connection with NATO. These amendments will help us to get more clarity on what is covered by a “product” and its use and will help to future-proof the legislation, in the case of Amendment 12 by ensuring that all digital and non-digital products are within scope and in the case of Amendment 13 by ensuring that all operating systems and internet-connected products are within scope.

The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, very clearly set out the arguments for why this is needed, and I fully support her, but my noble friend Lord Fox’s amendment, which is also a probing amendment, seeks to find out whether the Government’s intention is that operating systems and interconnected products will be covered by the provisions of the Bill. Some may recall that in an earlier grouping I expressed concern about what appears to be the limited way in which the Government consider products as just things. I sought to explain that we cannot always consider a product in isolation as some products are installed as part of a system, and I argued that we should take the whole system into account.

My noble friend’s amendment expresses a similar point. It seeks to ensure that the Bill recognises that the operational characteristics of many products are, effectively, changeable. For instance, household products are increasing controlled by operating systems that can be and are controlled by the vendor remotely. The legislation needs to take this into account in two separate ways. The first, and most simple, is that there should be a clear obligation on the vendor to demonstrate good faith in ensuring its products’ operating systems are up to date and are protected, for example, from external malign attack. Secondly, there needs to be a process whereby material changes in the characteristics of a product continue to meet regulations that they met before the changes.

Many noble Lords will already have heard my noble friend Lord Fox’s particular concern about references to the health and safety of domestic animals in the Bill. He has picked it up on several occasions. He sought to explain his amendment to me in relation to those references. He pointed out that, for example, a remote vacuum cleaner may be programmed to behave in a way that ensures that family pets are not in danger of being harmed by it. He went on to point out that a remote change might disregard this safeguard and so endanger the health and safety of domestic animals. My noble friend argues that without his amendment, or something similar, it would appear that there is no way in which the measures in the Bill could enable the policing of such remote revisions to product properties.

More generally, these amendments in this group seek to probe the Government further on what they believe are covered by “products” and which uses of products are covered by the proposed legislation. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on those issues and to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, explain his amendments more effectively than I have sought to do.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for her remarks. Obviously, defining “products” is a key consideration in much of what we have to discuss in this Bill. It is a subject to which we will return later today. I thank the noble Lords for introducing their amendments. It was very eloquently done. They certainly deserve consideration and comprehensive answers from the Government.

I will speak to Amendments 18 and 19 standing in my name. The Bill as it stands—and I am afraid this is going to be rather labouring a point that we discussed a lot last week—has been widely criticised for being skeleton legislation with much of the substance being delegated to Ministers through statutory instruments. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has rightly pointed out that this leaves “almost no substance” or perhaps, as the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, described it, no clear markers in the Bill, giving Ministers excessive and unaccountable discretion to regulate in important areas, such as product marketing and safety, without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny or oversight.

Clause 2 is a prime example of this, because it grants wide powers to Ministers to make regulations on a wide range of product characteristics—but without any clear or substantive detail. By keeping paragraph (a), the Bill opens the door to the possibility of Ministers creating regulations that lack transparency or specificity. I find the wording concerning and unnecessarily vague. For example, the phrase “other characteristics of products”—or, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, described it, “just things”—is far too broad and could allow the Government to regulate anything under this clause, with little or no clear limit or definition.

The lack of clarity here is a significant issue, not least because businesses and producers rely on clear, specific regulations to know what is expected of them and to ensure that they remain compliant. Under this clause, they are left in the dark. What exactly are we talking about when we refer to “other characteristics”? Are we talking about the design of products, marketing methods or even the raw materials that are used in manufacturing? Small businesses and start-ups are especially vulnerable to such unclear regulations, as they may struggle to interpret or comply with such an open-ended provision.

This provision, in effect, gives Ministers the power to define and change the scope of regulations without sufficient clarity or transparency. Ministers could, under this clause, make regulations to cover an incredibly wide range of product characteristics, creating significant uncertainty for the market. We believe that this is an unacceptable level of ministerial discretion. With such a clause, the Government could, in effect, regulate anything and everything related to products. We do not think that we can afford to pass a Bill that leaves businesses and consumers in the dark and subject to the whims of ministerial power. This clause should be completely rewritten or removed. If the Government cannot provide a more specific targeted framework for these regulations, we must consider removing it entirely on Report.

With Amendment 19, there are the same issues. At present, there is no clear definition of what constitutes the “use of products”, nor any explanation as to how the Government intend to regulate it. This lack of clarity presents a significant issue, as it allows Ministers broad and undefined discretion to determine how products should be used and how they are to be regulated. This could easily lead to overreach, and, given how the Government have argued so far in some areas, regulations could be imposed with little or no accountability or scrutiny, leaving businesses uncertain about the future of their operations.

I am very pleased that the Minister has talked repeatedly about giving businesses certainty, particularly in aligning with EU regulations. However, we need more in the Bill to suggest certainty in the areas that I have just described, and I hope that he will be able to provide some reassurance.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, as technology and regulation continue to develop, we need new powers to address future threats and hazards and to ensure a continued supply of safe, accurate and compliant goods.

I thank my noble friend Lady Crawley and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their Amendments 12 and 13, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, who introduced the latter. I agree that we need a robust product safety framework that can reflect the latest risks and hazards and keep consumers safe and protected. The Government have worked hard to ensure that the powers in the Bill capture the multitude of products that fall within our product safety framework, as well as new products that might be placed on the market and present risks to consumers in future.

For the purposes of the Bill, products are defined as

“tangible items that … result from”

a “method of production”. This definition ensures that we can capture a wide range of manufactured products marketed or used in the UK, from cosmetics to complex machinery. There are a number of instances where our current regulation and product safety work covers software: for example, where certain products are reliant on software, or our work to enforce certain software security requirements under telecommunications legislation. Following my noble friend Lady Crawley’s comments on smart doorbells, I confirm that an app connected to a smart doorbell would be covered by the Bill where it affects the physical safety of the product. The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill would ensure that our general ability to regulate the safety of all products can take account of software, as well as the impact of software on the performance of any particular product.

Let me assure noble Lords that we have carefully considered the scope of products that we seek to cover, and we are future-proofing as much as we can by allowing regulations to also cover intangible components of physical products. This includes things such as software, as I mentioned, where they form part of a tangible product. As such, the Bill will allow us to regulate interconnected products in so far as the safety of the physical product is affected. In this way, we can ensure that we are able to regulate the role of these intangible components in the risk that physical products may present.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, as one of the unfortunate authors of the GDPR, I am very interested to hear the remarks that have been made about possible abuse of the use of data. First, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes very much for his amendments because, obviously, without proper consideration of the effects in technology and the fast-moving developments of AI, no legislation, particularly the sort of legislation, will really pass muster, so I support his amendments very much.

However, as far as GDPR is concerned, we brought into all of that a term that many of our European Union friends were not going to include at the time: proportional. In relation to how we deal with alleged data abuse, whether or not it is simply a question of small areas of data that have been used for good purposes or otherwise, it is important that we remember at all times that the heavy hand must be looked at carefully and that proportionality must always be remembered as being relevant to the way in which we deal with the use of data.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes for his superb introduction to this group. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for confirming my suspicion of dentists.

I shall speak in general terms because I cannot improve on the eloquence with which my noble friend Lord Holmes put his arguments. To return to the point, these amendments illustrate the limitations of Clauses 1 and 2, I am afraid. These amendments have considerable merit on a stand-alone basis but, in aggregate, they—Amendments 75 to 78 in particular—would in effect seek to define artificial intelligence. This is obviously a fast-moving and rapidly evolving subject; frankly, it deserves a national, never mind parliamentary, debate, as my noble friend Lord Holmes eloquently argued. AI will clearly demand definition and regulation, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, rightly pointed out. Philosophically, I am not even sure that it qualifies as a product in the traditional sense; frankly, what is in this Bill suggests that we do not really know.

I cannot help thinking that some of the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Leong, in our debate on the previous group reinforce this point to some extent. AI can be benign, obviously, but the same application might not be. So, how do we define risk in these terms, even if it regards only the temperature of cheese? I therefore question whether this Bill is the right vehicle for these amendments or whether AI deserves a stand-alone debate and argument. The fact that they are in scope again illustrates, as I said earlier, the inherent weaknesses of Clauses 1 and 2. They are too broad and lack definitions. Ideally, they should be removed; at the very least, they should be extensively rewritten and tightened. I hope that the Government will listen but, if they do not, I will certainly have conversations with my noble friend Lord Holmes about what we shall do next.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken. The use of software and AI in physical products covered by our product regulation regime is still in its early days. It is important to take the opportunity of this Bill to ensure that future regulation can keep pace with technological change.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, would require a review of all product regulations in terms of how AI may impact them and a specific labelling requirement for AI. The Bill gives powers to ensure that product regulation can be updated or new regulations can be passed to cover emerging risks. They include measures such as labelling and verification requirements. However, mandating specific measures in the Bill would limit our ability to determine the most effective ways to protect consumers. A more flexible approach will allow us to adapt as this technology evolves and to ensure that protections remain robust and relevant.

To be clear, this Bill does not seek to regulate digital products or artificial intelligence in and of themselves; it is focused on the regulation of physical products and future-proofs our ability to keep product and metrology regulation up to date with emerging technologies. The Government have a wider programme of work on the regulation of artificial intelligence, where, in most cases, the UK’s expert regulators are responsible for enforcing the rules on AI in their domains; we are working with regulators to ensure that they have the resources and expertise to do this effectively.

Additionally, as set out in the King’s Speech, the Government will bring forward separate legislation to ensure the safe development of AI models by introducing targeted requirements on companies developing the most powerful AI systems. We will undertake a full public consultation to hone these proposals before presenting them to Parliament in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, raised the issues of data protection and intellectual property. As we know, UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 form the legal framework for protecting personal data in the UK; this already covers things such as personal data, photographs and voice recordings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I will make a very brief intervention because I want to repeat my illustration from the first group about the REACH regulations. I have concerns about including this amendment to Clause 1 at line 13 of page 2 of the Bill as I do not agree that the EU REACH regulations are necessarily better equipped to target sectors and individual products than UK regulations. I will not go through the reasons I gave earlier. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whose introduction I learned a great deal from and am very grateful for, mentioned cosmetics. In my earlier intervention I pointed to the use of olive oil and lemon in some soaps and said that UK REACH regulations recognise that these products can be eaten safely and, indeed, have been used for a long time. Requiring, as EU REACH does, that they go through stringent chemical REACH processes and labelling is a bit over the top and would put expense on our producers. I urge us to think of the wider implications of unsensitive or disproportion regulation where we can.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will speak to Amendment 16 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

Regarding the EU’s REACH scheme, I shall refer to a specific example which relates to my time at the Home Office in the previous Government. It relates to cosmetics, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lady Lawlor. In 2019, the Home Office aligned UK policy with two decisions by the European Chemicals Agency board of appeal which related to the testing on animals for the registration of cosmetics-only substances—specifically homosalate and 2-ethylhexyl salicylate. The marketing of cosmetics tested on animals is banned in the EU under cosmetics products regulation, but the ECHA—the European Chemicals Agency—confirmed that under REACH substances used solely in cosmetics may sometimes be tested on animals, as a last resort, to prove their safety for workers or the environment.

An NGO called Cruelty Free International, quite rightly, in my view, took the Government to court arguing that the UK’s alignment in effect led to the weakening of the long-standing—I think it was a 25-year—ban on animal testing of cosmetics and cosmetic ingredients. The UK court found in the Government’s favour but as the then Minister for Animals in Science, which somewhat surprisingly sits with the Home Office, the Home Secretary and I were firmly of the opinion that this was unjustified, so as of May 2023 we decided that no new licences should be issued to carry out this function. A small number of licences had been issued between 2019 and 2022.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, made persuasive arguments about why it might be in this country’s interest to align with the EU but, equally, it might not be, and this is a very nuanced subject. Failings of the domestic chemicals regulator—real or imagined—are an entirely separate subject. Alignment with, or invention of, our own rules that suit our national and public interest most definitely is in our interest. When I say public interest, in this case 76% of the public are against animal testing according to the RSPCA. So can I ask the Minister to guarantee that this ban on new licences in these cases will be maintained? I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is not here because I was going to ask him if, in the spirit of nominative determinism, he would withdraw his Amendment 16. However, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that it certainly raised hackles, not necessarily human ones.

On the subject of dynamic alignment, I have two questions for the Minister about an apparent contradiction in our debates last Wednesday. I pored over Hansard, and I found that he said:

“If the UK makes a sovereign decision to mirror EU provisions, the Bill provides the mechanism and flexibility, on a case-by-case basis, to do so. This would avoid primary legislation each time technical changes are needed and would increase the certainty that businesses are crying out for”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; col. GC 74.]


However, he went on to say:

“The powers in the Bill do not allow regulations to make automatic or ambulatory references to changing EU law. I reassure noble Lords that the Government will return to Parliament to make any changes to references to EU law within our regulations”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; cols. GC 74-5.]


On careful reading, these statements seem a bit contradictory. So, although I am totally willing to be persuaded otherwise, perhaps the Minister could write to explain to the Committee exactly what is proposed and what was meant. If I am being particularly thick, I would be very happy for him to explain why.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who spoke to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

From listening to the debate, I suggest that the defects identified are not so much in this Bill or other legislative provisions that we have in place but more, as my noble friend suggested, in the energy with which the previous Government used the provisions at hand., I shall first explain why this is covered in existing legislation, and then I will come on to the energy, if you like, with which this Government will approach these important matters. I shall also set out the distinction between the regulation of chemical substances under REACH and other regulations, and the regulation of consumer products that contain chemicals.

The UK has a comprehensive regulatory framework for the use of chemicals. The REACH—registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—regulation controls the manufacture, import, supply and safe use of chemical substances. The CLP—classification, labelling and packaging—regulation requires companies to classify, label and package their hazardous chemicals before placing them on the market. The REACH model operates in both the UK and the EU, but the systems have been independent since UK REACH entered into force on 31 December 2020, after we left the EU, and the EU REACH regulation was brought into UK law. So the regulation of chemicals must be managed separately under UK REACH and EU REACH.

REACH ensures a high level of protection for human health and the environment from risks imposed by chemicals. This includes minimising harm to workers who may handle chemicals during manufacturing processes, as well as minimising health impacts on our population and environmental damage from chemical substances. Chemical safety is governed by several interacting regimes. For example, certain products regulated by sector-specific regulations, such as cosmetics or toys, may contain chemicals that are also regulated by REACH and CLP. One of the aims when applying these regimes is to avoid putting in place overlapping or conflicting duties, which is the issue that we would have with the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. That amendment risks having overlapping or conflicting duties.

I know that the noble Baroness mentioned Defra, but the Secretary of State for Defra already has powers to amend UK REACH through the Environment Act 2021 and through REACH itself, which sets out a bespoke regime for imposing restrictions and other regulatory controls on chemical substances. The primary statutory purpose of UK REACH is to ensure a high level of protection for human health and the environment from substances that contain chemicals. In some cases, animal studies may be necessary to understand these human health or environmental hazards but, of course, I very much take on board the noble Lord’s point about animal testing, and I know of no plans to change the rules laid down by previous Ministers on that.

The Bill, as we know, relates to consumer products, and the definition of “product” stated in the Bill means that many of the substances regulated under REACH, and the ways they are used, are out of scope of the powers, regardless of these amendments. It should also be noted that the provision in Clause 1(2) is limited to the mitigation of the environmental impact of products. This limitation is reinforced in Amendment 51. As I have already commented, changes to REACH may be prompted by human health and safety, rather than environmental, considerations. The UK REACH work programme, published annually, sets out the work that has been done under UK REACH.

The fact is that the amendment would not provide the Secretary of State with the powers sought by the noble Baroness. We think the powers within UK REACH enable human health and environmental concerns to be considered alongside each other, where necessary. Existing sector regulations, such as those for cosmetics and toys, already include powers for the Secretary of State to regulate the use of chemicals in specific products beyond the overarching restrictions that can be applied under UK REACH. These powers can be, and already have been, used to make provision by regulation in UK law that corresponds, or is similar to, provision in relevant EU law. Such changes to UK regulations have been informed by independent expert scientific advice provided to the Office for Product Safety and Standards by the scientific advisory group on chemical safety for non-food and non-medicinal consumer products.

We have used these powers to make regulatory changes based on advice from that advisory group, following the EU’s introduction of new or amended prohibitions on the chemicals used in cosmetics and toys. My understanding is that, in some circumstances, the Government implemented scientific advice that was different from advice received by the EU. I am sure that the previous Government would have said that this demonstrated regulatory sovereignty to choose what products can be placed on the GB market and also demonstrated our status as a global leader in product regulation, supporting businesses and protecting consumers.

Powers in the Bill, alongside existing sector regulations, will ensure that we are able to regulate the use of chemicals in consumer products, including cosmetics and toys, as well as other consumer products with similar chemical exposure risk, so we will be able to continue to protect consumers from product-related harm. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked whether chemicals blocked in Britain but permitted in the EU would be available for use in this country. If we decided to ban chemicals that the EU continued to permit, those chemicals would not be permitted to be used for the GB market, because we have sovereignty.

I will confirm the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on animal testing. The ban on using animals to test cosmetic products or ingredients has been in place, as he said, since 1998. We do not wish to revise the ban and do not wish to risk any unintended consequences that might result from bringing REACH within scope of the Bill.

On my noble friend Lord Browne’s point on the pace of reform, at the moment the Government are pursuing a programme of work on a wide range of hazardous substances to gather evidence of risk and exposure pathways. Publishing the work programme 2024-25 late in the financial year has not prevented the continuing development of ongoing streams. Obviously, the UK work programme 2024-25 was prepared under the previous Government. Once approved by Ministers, it will be published on the Health and Safety Executive’s website. But let me say that I understand the essential point that has been raised. My point is that there is nothing wrong with the legislative framework. The point of contention is the vigour with which any Government use their sovereign powers in the way that noble Lords want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 20 and speak to the others in this group. Each of these amendments has a role, I hope, in improving or at least elucidating the provisions of the Bill, but they are also put together from the point of view of “Let’s collect the tax”.

This Government have not been shy of hurting people in pursuit of a few hundred million pounds in tax per year. They have threatened the basis of family farms, chucked children out of school in the middle of their exam years and frozen old age pensioners. Why, then, are they leaving a billion pounds a year lying on the floor, uncollected, from scamming Chinese and other—Asian, by and large—traders? It is quite extraordinary. It not only fails to collect the tax but damages the British businesses that would be doing the business if we were not giving a 20% price advantage to the likes of Shein and Temu. Now we see that Amazon has to follow them down this track because it has been so damaged by Shein and Temu that it has to go into the same business. This is economically illiterate and ridiculous.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for arranging a meeting to discuss this. He very kindly invited a Treasury official along. I have had a reply now from the Treasury saying basically, “Don’t ring us, we’ll ring you”. I find this extraordinary, but I do not particularly blame this Government. The last Government was just as bad on it. However, it is extraordinary not to collect tax when the Government are going to such lengths to collect additional tax now.

I will add one more thing: for goodness’ sake, make the marketplaces liable for VAT. Stop trying to make the individual traders liable for VAT. They are here today, gone tomorrow, registering 500 new companies with Companies House, with lots of new VAT numbers. As soon as you put your finger on them, they are gone. Make the marketplaces collect VAT. It would be simpler and easier for them and for us, and much more effective.

Amendment 20 asks that we get a sensible amount of information on the origin, the identity of the local representative, the value and the beneficial ownership of the goods, so that everybody involved can see where the liability for product regulation sits, where the liability for any charges can sit and how things can be enforced. The more difficult you make it to track down who should be collared, the less it will happen. In these regulations, we must make it easier to chase people.

Amendment 24 basically says, “Make sure the representative who is appointed has the financial strength to stand behind what’s going on”. If the Minister cares to browse Amazon when he has the time and looks for, say, a three-terabyte drive—the sort of thing I shall need to pack up my 30 years in this place and carry it away with me—he will find that there are some very reputable products on the market for around a hundred quid. That is astonishing. I remember buying my first serious computer, which had 20 megabytes of hard drive, and thinking that was extraordinary. So—three terabytes for a hundred quid from a good manufacturer.

However, there are also products on the market for fifty quid from weirdly named companies. The game being played there is that the products do not contain three terabytes. They probably contain only 256 megabytes. But it does not show on the outside and by the time that anyone gets around to complaining and putting bad reviews in place, the company has changed; it has gone; it is someone else and there is no one to pursue. With a product such as a hard drive, it takes a while for someone to realise that it has been mis-sold. If you are going to pursue these people properly, you need to know that you can go after them for several months of turnover and succeed, which means that the representatives in the UK have got to be good for the money. Otherwise, you just do not have effective product regulation.

Amendment 25 also relates to “Let’s collect the tax”, since we are creating these structures to look after product quality, which could quite easily be used to help collect tax. Amendment 26 says, “Look, we’ve got a trading standards system that is really short of money, so let’s make it easier for us to extract money from the process we are creating in the Bill and feed it through to trading standards so that we get an effective and efficient system of enforcement”. I beg to move.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his proposed amendments to Clause 2, which, as highlighted by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, has been recommended for removal due to the broad and vague nature of the powers it grants. The liability for regulations and charges related to products is a matter of extreme importance. Without clear guidelines and transparent information, businesses could face significant uncertainty, which in turn undermines their ability to comply effectively.

The Government’s focus on clarity in other areas will ring hollow if they fail to address the critical need for clarity in liabilities—an issue that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to address directly. Regarding Amendment 20, by ensuring that products are marked with clear and comprehensive information, such as origin, local representation and ownership, we can establish clear responsibility for product compliance. This would not only improve regulatory transparency but foster trust with consumers and businesses alike.

I urge the Government to take this opportunity to acknowledge the importance of clear liability and responsibility frameworks. Although these amendments are to Clause 2, and we continue to discuss its broader issues, nevertheless the noble Lord’s proposed changes are a necessary step towards ensuring both accountability and transparency in product regulations.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Sharpe, for their comments in this interesting debate. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was able to meet my noble friend and officials. I am sure they have taken note of his concerns, although he obviously has some reservations about that. I have also noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about the shape of the Bill, which we have already well debated and no doubt will continue to do so.

Despite the noble Lords’ concerns about the Bill, the fact is that we are trying to produce a workable yet robust framework for regulating product safety in what I think we all acknowledge is a rapidly changing and evolving marketplace. We want to ensure that businesses, whether operating through traditional channels or online marketplaces, are held accountable for the safety of the products they distribute. The Bill’s approach is targeted, addressing the need for traceability and enforcement while avoiding excessive regulatory burdens that could stifle innovation and growth. I believe most noble Lords think that is the right balance, although some are somewhat critical of the way in which we have sought to do it in the Bill.

Amendments 20 and 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, propose to allow regulations to make requirements in relation to the marking of products, including their origin, the identity of the local representative, their value and their beneficial ownership, while also allowing regulations to require authorised representatives to accept liability and demonstrate financial strength. The amendments reflect important concerns, particularly around traceability and accountability, especially in the context of online marketplaces: for example, where a product creates a consumer safety concern, or the circumstances which the noble Lord mentioned in his introductory speech. Our view is that Clause 2(2)(e)(ii) and Clause 2(3) already provide the necessary mechanisms to ensure that authorised representatives and other relevant parties carrying out activities in relation to a product can clearly be identified for product safety purposes.

While I can see where the noble Lord is coming from with the proposed additional requirements, such as marking the product’s value or beneficial ownership, they would create an additional administrative burden for businesses without providing significant additional benefits for consumers or enforcement. The Bill as drafted aims to ensure that sufficient information is available for product safety and enforcement and we are not convinced that the extra information would offer clear advantages in those areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, so many of our deliberations in our various sittings have been seeking to put some flesh on to the skeleton nature of the Bill before us; I have done that on a number of occasions, as have many other noble Lords. For instance, in our last-but-one grouping, I proposed that we seek to use the Bill to address concerns about data scraping for the development of new AI products. I gently point out to the Minister that he told me that this would be covered by the Data (Use and Access) Bill. I have double-checked Hansard and can tell him that at the end of the debate on that Bill, when this was raised with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the Minister responsible, she replied that this issue was not covered by that Bill and that DCMS and DSIT Ministers are jointly working and looking forward to bringing forward proposals in due course. She ended by saying:

“We will announce more details in due course”.—[Official Report, 19/11/24; col. 197.]


So it is not covered, and this is a good opportunity to do it.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and other noble Lords who have spoken have pointed out, this is an area, in terms of online marketplaces, where there is an urgent need to put flesh on the bones and to have a clearer understanding of the definition of an online marketplace and of what regulations should apply to them. I have frequently raised in your Lordships’ House my concerns that consumers have far less protection from faulty products bought online than they have when they purchase them on the high street.

It simply cannot be right, as we have seen from all the evidence that we have all received from various organisations, such as the British Toy & Hobby Association, Which? and Electrical Safety First, as well as others, that so many unsafe products are available for sale online. In an earlier contribution, the noble Baroness referred to the fact that 86% of toys sold online do not comply with UK safety requirements. I have referred to the sad fact that many electrical appliances purchased online do not meet appropriate safety requirements and, sadly, have led to loss of life and damage of a great deal of property.

It certainly cannot be right that products that have been withdrawn by a manufacturer, often because of concerns about safety, can still be purchased online, and it certainly cannot be right that consumers have not only less protection but fewer opportunities for redress when purchasing products online compared to what they have when purchasing them on the high street. I support all the amendments addressing those concerns because collectively they would improve consumer protection by ensuring accountability by imposing a clear and enforceable duty on online marketplaces to ensure the safety of products sold on their platforms, especially those coming from third-party sellers overseas. Incidentally, I shall later propose an amendment that would strengthen the extraterritoriality covered by the Bill.

The amendments that we have before us further protect consumers by removing anonymity so that third-party sellers can no longer hide behind platforms to evade product safety regulations and by making it easier for them to seek any form of redress. It establishes direct liability on platforms for unsafe products sold throughout them, which leads to the opportunity for much greater fairness in terms of redress because, at the moment, consumers dealing with faulty high street products expect and receive a full refund or replacement, but when problems arise with online purchases, particularly from overseas sellers, consumers often seem to have no recourse. Amendments in this group deal with that issue. Finally, the amendments would clarify something that is lacking in the Bill at the moment: the issue of accountability. Who is actually accountable in the multinational marketplace structures that we have to deal with now?

Given that these platforms are evolving at an incredibly rapid rate, with people almost daily finding new ways to market their products, we need amendments that ensure that there is no room for manoeuvre to get around the regulations by online marketplaces now and, crucially, in future. We need a clearer definition of what we mean and what is covered by an online marketplace, and I welcome and support the amendments in the group that do just that.

I add one additional point. In Clause 10, the definition of an online marketplace includes,

“any other platform by means of which information is made available over the internet”.

Clause 10 does not define “the internet”, despite quite a point being made of doing so in other legislation. Indeed, other pieces of legislation prefer the phrase “internet service”, not just “internet”. To avoid further ambiguity, I have proposed in Amendments 117 and 122 that the Bill uses “internet service” instead of “internet” and that the definition of “internet service” is exactly as set out in the Online Safety Act 2023.

Given, for instance, that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill has this definition simply copied and pasted into it, I see no reason why this Bill could not do the same. Failing to do so would unhelpfully leave the definition to common law. We should be aiming to ensure that levels of protection and redress are as powerful online as they are on the high street. Amendments in this group will achieve this and will also ensure that we have a future-proofed definition of “online marketplace” and that clear duties and responsibility towards consumer protection are imposed on all relevant bodies. On these Benches, we certainly support them.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for introducing their amendments in this group. I shall briefly speak in favour of Amendments 48 and 71. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for bringing attention to the critical issue that addresses the responsibilities of online marketplaces and also, if I may, pay tribute to her wider work in this area as well as that of my noble friend Lord Lindsay, who is not in this place but whose exemplary work as president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute deserves a mention.

This sector has grown exponentially in recent years and plays a dominant role in modern commerce. This amendment, therefore, highlights essential duties for online marketplaces. For example, a 2023 TSB study found that Facebook Marketplace accounted for 73% of purchase fraud cases. If you think about fraud and its growth in terms of the British crime statistics, that is a significant percentage of British crime, not just online crime. Over one-third of adverts on Facebook Marketplace are scams, we are told, so this amendment would help to level the playing field by ensuring that online marketplaces meet the same safety standards as physical retailers. This would foster fair competition and ensure that businesses prioritising consumer safety are not undermined by unscrupulous practices.

It is vital that we ensure online marketplaces, which facilitate the sale of billions of products, do not become conduits for unsafe goods or fraudulent activity, as all noble Lords have rightly highlighted. Without robust regulations, consumer trust and market integrity are at significant risk. We ask noble Lords to take seriously this amendment to uphold consumer protection, market fairness and safety standards, and think that the Government ought to recognise the urgency of addressing these concerns and act decisively.

On Amendment 71, I support it as a necessary step to protect consumers in the rapidly growing online marketplace sector. The extension of liability to online marketplaces and others under Section 2(3) ensures that those who facilitate the sale of unsafe or defective products are held responsible. Such measures are crucial to maintaining consumer confidence, especially as online shopping becomes so dominant.

We think it is essential that the Government protect consumer rights in all the marketplaces, especially online. We urge the Government to listen to those two amendments in particular but, frankly, there is merit in all the amendments we are debating in this group, and I hope to hear some positive news from the Minister.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, before I respond to this group, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that I will write to him in respect of the points he has raised.

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and for Amendments 21, 22, 32, 45, 48, 71 and 117 to 124. These amendments have raised important points on the scope and application of the Bill’s powers, and I hope to provide clarity and reassurance. Around one-third of UK retail sales are now conducted online, but our product safety legislation has not kept pace with changes in shopping habits, in particular the development of online marketplaces and other platforms.

Online platforms may sell goods themselves and/or provide a platform for third-party sellers—in the UK or aboard—including consumers, to sell goods. The most well-known online marketplaces in the UK are probably Amazon, eBay, ASOS and Etsy, and others are widely used. The online marketplace industry in the UK is booming. In 2023, the UK e-commence market was valued at close to £137 billion and is projected to grow to £152 billion this year. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for setting out the landscape of online fraud and scams on online marketplaces; we really need to take note of that.

Unaccompanied Migrant Children

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Currently, in the event of unaccompanied children arriving at a port of entry in the United Kingdom, the first port of call is to provide support via local authorities, which give proper safeguarding opportunities and responsibilities for those individual under-18s. Again, my objective overall and that of the Government in having the border control system is to ensure that we help to reduce the number of children coming here, exploited by gangmasters and by others, and that we deal with those who come here in a humane and effective way.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, last week a teenager who arrived in the UK on a small boat in July was charged with the murder of a woman working at an asylum hotel. Rhiannon Skye Whyte, who was 27, died after she was stabbed in the neck with a screwdriver. I am sure all noble Lords will agree that this is appalling and send our sincere condolences to Rhiannon’s friends and family. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that all staff at asylum accommodation are kept safe?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I was aware of that incident last week. The noble Lord will know that I do not wish to comment on its details because it is sub judice. There will be a trial and an individual will face charges; I do not wish to prejudice any trial. In light of that incident, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made inquiries of the operator of the hotel in which it occurred and other hotels to ensure that women, in particular, and lone workers have support and a review of their safety. The family of the individual who died as a result of that incident are being kept informed and have our great sympathy.

Police Accountability

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for this Statement and I join my right honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary in welcoming its contents. It is true that, for the British consent-based policing model to work, the trust must be mutual. The people must trust the police and the police must trust the system in order to perform their duties effectively. But too often lately both sides have been let down.

I therefore welcome that this Government are continuing the work of the previous Government on accountability. I particularly welcome the work of Dame Elish Angiolini on police culture; having worked with her, I have no doubt at all that her final report will make very sensible recommendations. I am also pleased that previously agreed measures to ensure that officers convicted of certain criminal offences are automatically found to have committed gross misconduct, and the empowering of chief constables to dismiss them, will be beefed up and taken forward. On these Benches we welcome these moves.

However, we are here because of the acquittal of Sergeant Martyn Blake in his trial for the murder of Chris Kaba. This raises several questions, which I would like to put to the Minister. First, I welcome that in future there will be a presumption of anonymity for accused officers. I can only imagine the struggles that Sergeant Blake and his family have been through, and they are still probably living in fear. It was appalling to read that Mr Kaba’s alleged gang associates had put a bounty on Sergeant Blake’s head. Could the Minister update the House on whether there are police investigations to find those responsible for this threat to Sergeant Blake’s life?

I also welcome that reviews will be held of the thresholds for criminal misconduct and inquest investigations, which, as the Statement notes, add

“complexity, confusion and delay to the system”.

But I would go further. Since 2010, British police have shot dead 30 people, an average of 2.1 per year. In the past decade, there have been only 66 incidents where the police have discharged a weapon at all, even though armed police are deployed to around 18,000 incidents every year. In terms of police killings per 10 million people, the only countries with a lower death rate than the UK are Japan and Iceland. Britain does not have a police brutality problem. The stats prove this and campaigners need to acknowledge it. The armed police show great restraint in the face of danger and should be commended as such. Does the Minister agree?

As my right honourable friend James Cleverly noted, training for these roles should form a legitimate part of the defence when criminal prosecutions are brought forward. This is not to argue that officers are above the law. If there are any doubts, they must of course be investigated, but we owe it to them not to create a situation in which, as James Cleverly stated, they are disincentivised from acting decisively. That puts us all at risk. Does the Minister agree?

This is a difficult and sensitive subject. Community cohesion and tensions will inevitably be mentioned in this and subsequent debates, which is right and proper. We have had a summer in which the fabric of our society has been stretched to breaking point in many cases. We in these Houses must therefore be very careful what we say to avoid stoking tensions and exacerbating problems. So I ask the Minister to condemn the comments of his honourable friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, who said that the media were using racist tropes to justify Chris Kaba’s killing. They are not.

Any death at the hands of the police is a tragedy, but in this case an officer doing his duty has also had his life ruined. Of course, my thoughts are with the relatives of Chris Kaba, but also with Sergeant Blake’s family. I again place on record my thanks to all the police, armed and unarmed, who put themselves in harm’s way. They are heroes who would rather walk towards dangerous criminals than run away from them. As I said in my opening remarks, I welcome this Statement, but we need answers to the more difficult questions if we are truly to learn anything at all from this tragic case.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome the Home Secretary’s emphasis on speeding up proceedings in cases involving police using lethal force. Protracted investigations cause additional trauma to bereaved families, prolong the stress for officers involved and damage wider police morale. We also welcome the equalisation of thresholds for criminal charges to ensure that the police and public are held to the same standards.

These measures are long overdue, because we have now reached a point where police officers feel deeply undervalued, both by the public at large and by many politicians. Low public confidence has led police to believe that the work they do is not always appreciated. Assaults and attacks on police are now a daily occurrence. A recent review found that more than half had been physically attacked in the previous year, with a significant number requiring medical attention.

A police officer’s every move is now captured both on their bodycam and, increasingly, by members of the public, ensuring that their every action and split-second decision is recorded, criticised and documented for posterity on social media. Trial by media raises the real risk that, when things go wrong, the focus is on blaming individual officers, even when the reality points to wider systemic failings. I hope that these measures around the presumption of anonymity and the need to take account of officers’ training and guidance will help alleviate some of these problems.

I admit that I am slightly uneasy about the timing of this announcement, given the danger that it could be taken by some to signal the lowering of police accountability. I am therefore relieved to hear that the Government have made an urgent commitment to toughen up procedures around police misconduct and vetting. By putting national vetting standards on a statutory footing, we can make concrete progress in restoring public confidence. We particularly want to see the rules around officers accused of domestic abuse or sexual offences tightened significantly.

We must remember that the Kaba case is not taking place in a vacuum. Last year, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, highlighted the continuing presence of racism within policing almost 25 years after a similar conclusion was reached by Macpherson. Data from the National Police Chiefs’ Council shows that black people are five times more likely than white people to have force used against them. It is therefore critical that this accountability review strikes the right balance. It must be accompanied by a clear timetable to implement the existing Angiolini and Casey review recommendations. The public need to be assured that bad officers will always be held to account, that guilty officers will always be punished and that this will be done fairly and transparently. But, at the same time, it is imperative that our police are reassured that if they do the right thing and follow their training, the system will protect them and not be stacked against them.

I ask the Minister whether this review will be open to contributions from all sides. We know that the police have already made submissions, but what opportunity will there be for representatives of, for example, the black community, who are of course particularly invested in the outcome, to contribute?

I have two final points. Polls suggest that more than a third of the public lack confidence in the Independent Office for Police Conduct—IOPC—while barely one in five black people think that it is impartial. This is not good enough, nor is the fact that IOPC recommendations are almost always out of date by the time they are published because it can take years for individual case proceedings to conclude. The proposal for a lessons-learned database is extremely welcome in this context. Nevertheless, a recent independent review made 93 recommendations to improve the IOPC. What steps are the Government taking to implement these recommendations?

Finally, reports as far back as Scarman in 1981 point to the need to urgently address the lack of diversity in policing, to better reflect the communities the police serve. The Home Secretary said in her Statement that she wants to introduce neighbourhood policing, so will the Government commit to ensuring that such reform is used as a platform to address this lack of diversity, so that people in all communities believe that the police are on their side?

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2024

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord German (LD)]

On first sight, this would appear to be straightforward legislation and would obviously merit support. But, on closer reading and on listening to the Minister, there are three areas of interest that I would like to question him about. One of them has come about as a result of his introduction, so we can clarify that in a moment.

My first set of questions surround the issue of juxtaposition in Calais. We as a country are going to introduce our own entry system. I hesitate to ask when it is likely to be brought in but, in a similar manner that the one for the Schengen area has been slightly delayed, I suspect that we may not be very far apart in what the two countries are doing. The first question is: is an equal juxtaposition going to occur in Calais and will that be only at the ferry terminal? The other question is: is there anywhere else in the United Kingdom where there is a juxtaposition? There are clear examples of working at both ends of a ferry terminal. I can tell noble Lords of my personal experience of Ouistreham. The French inspected all the vehicles, including my own, and then, when we got to Portsmouth, the British inspected the same vehicles for the same purpose. There was obviously wasted energy there because one inspection would have done on behalf of both within the secure zones. Is the ferry terminal the only place where there is juxtaposition? If there are others, will there be an equivalent need for this legislation? Perhaps in answering that query, the noble Lord may say when the British are going to have their own scheme and whether they are likely to happen fairly close together in time for their introduction? We will need a similar facility at Calais.

My second concern relates to the circulation area. Having read the legislation and the Explanatory Memorandum closely, it would appear to me that the circulation area is a link between the facilities at both ends, the western docks and the eastern docks. Anybody who has been to Dover will know that the connection between those docks is either a road, an esplanade with beautiful gardens and a walking facility and bicycle path alongside, or a beach.

I presume that the intention, although it is not mentioned in the information, is that the PAF officers will move between the two by vehicle. If that is not the case—the Minister indicated that there would be a map—I hesitate to think that we would have armed French officials walking along the beach together with tourists who would be using the same facility. I therefore presume it must be by vehicle, but if it is not, I cannot understand how that connection could take place without some other form of assistance. That question has to be answered, because if we are calling it a circulation area, something must be done about the road, the bike path, the esplanade or the beach to designate it. Perhaps the Minister might tell Sue, who has a seafood operation on that esplanade, which is well used.

My third set of questions relates to the separation between the eastern and western docks. As I understand it, the Minister said that all coach transport will first call at the western docks, where people will be asked to get off and go through the required inspection checks, then people will get back on the coach and it will proceed along the esplanade to the eastern docks. Part of the problem is that, as those of us who have used this route know, if you come via Canterbury, the entrance to the eastern docks is via a dual carriageway which comes down into them. That means that coaches using that route would have to travel along the seafront to the western docks, be processed, turn around and come back again. Even without the entry system, much traffic builds up along that route along the seafront in Dover to the eastern docks, so there must be traffic implications somewhere in this.

Nowhere in the documentation before us does it mention that this is for coaches only, so presumably this legislation can be used for any passenger in any vehicle travelling to France on the Dover/Calais route. Since the legislation does not exclude cars, minibuses or foot passengers, there is nothing to say that that cannot be achieved. It would make more sense to use it just for coach travel, even though that will have some implications for local roads. However, since it is not mentioned in the legislation, this legislation could be used for foot and car passengers, which would be a nightmare. Whatever route you are taking into Dover, having to travel back and forth across the area would create an incredible build-up of traffic and passengers on that stretch of road.

Once people have been through the initial Schengen checks, they will carry with them some form of statement, agreement or whatever, or they can simply turn up at the eastern docks and say, “I have already got the biometric Schengen agreement”. That means that some people will be allowed entry into the eastern docks on their own and some people, perhaps even two of them sharing a car, will have to zigzag back and forward if one has and one has not. The legislation is not clear about precisely what will happen when people have the Schengen documentation available and what happens if they are in a mixed vehicle when one might have it and one might not.

This all predisposes that the legislation does not talk just about coaches. If it is to be coaches, I suggest that it should be amended to be clear that this does not apply to every passenger going through Dover.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome this order. I will be brief. I thank the Minister for his detailed explanation of the regulations, which was helpful. Perhaps I can help him by reassuring the noble Lord, Lord German, that, when I was in the Home Office, the rollout of the ETAs to which he referred was very much on track and was highly efficient—I am sure it still is.

My party does not have quite the same forensic interest in the geography of Dover as the noble Lord, Lord German, and it is content that the regulations will deliver what is expected of them. But I do have a couple of brief questions. According to the Explanatory Notes to the regulations, no impact assessment has been undertaken. Is there a particular reason for that, or a perfectly innocent explanation? As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is in the Room, I should say that I am asking this mostly because he used to ask me for impact assessments regularly when I was standing in his place.

I appreciate the detailed description of the powers of the PAF officers, but I did not hear the circumstances in which the use of firearms would be permitted. What are the restrictions, if any, on those officers? It may be that I just did not hear that.

Are arrangements in place to allow the employees of other foreign agencies to carry firearms when working in the United Kingdom? More generally, is this a reserved or a devolved matter?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for noble Lords’ questions, which I will try to answer to help them understand the legislation and its impact—and hopefully to support it.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord German, that this is being undertaken and framed in this way because Dover carried 68,000 coaches in 2023, and 4,000 in the peak month of July. The noble Lord will know that the Schengen changes have been delayed to a date yet to be determined, and we do not yet know what their impact will be when they come in, but, undoubtedly, unless these measures are put in place, there will be longer delays for coach travel.

The noble Lord asked whether that is an issue for vehicles. He asked about cars. I hope I can reassure him by saying that the Port of Dover is looking at significant work, including reclaiming land in the port specifically for EES registration. Therefore, conversations are ongoing on the potential new area being used for car registrations as well as for coaches. The order does not preclude any particular type of vehicle, but the primary purpose at the moment, to ease any pressure in the event of the regulations being introduced by the EU, would be for the 68,000 coaches travelling through the Port of Dover each year.

The noble Lord mentioned the circulation area, which, as I indicated, is a 1.5 mile-long stretch of the A20 linking the French control zone at the western docks with the existing control zone in Dover. I reassure him—I hope this will help—that it will be for use just by vehicles by the French authorities and it is not envisaged or agreed that it will be undertaken by any means other than vehicles.

The noble Lord asked about juxtaposed controls generally. Dover/Calais is a classic example of where we need those controls in place. I hope I can reassure him by saying that we have juxtaposed controls in France, not just at Calais but at Dunkirk for ferry crossings, at Coquelles for the Eurotunnel, and at Paris Gare du Nord and Lille-Europe for the Eurostar. We also have them in Belgium at Brussels-Midi, and in the Netherlands at Amsterdam and Rotterdam, for train services. That is part of the general relationship that we have to have with the European Union in the post-Brexit era. We were never part of Schengen in the first place, so even under a pre-Brexit solution, that would still be a challenge that the Government would have needed to examine. I hope that reassures the noble Lord on those points.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, we accept the recommendation of the advisory council and support the tightening of these regulations. I shall add a couple of comments. In relation to synthetic opioids, given the continual emergence of new individual nitazenes, we are in favour of introducing a generic control for these substances. They can be much more potent than heroin, leaving users at a particularly high risk of accidental overdose. Nitazenes have already cost lives in the UK, and although there is little local evidence of the impact of the other six synthetic opioids named in the order, the potential harm they could wreak is abundantly clear, given the high risk posed for addiction and fatality, as outlined by the Minister.

The need to keep up with organised crime’s ability to synthetise new varieties of opioid is crucial at a time when the UK and European markets are especially vulnerable to their influx, given the noted drop in the supply of heroin and fentanyl. The market is shifting as people seek alternatives, so it is highly likely that the substances named will become much more prevalent. The advisory council’s report calls the individual controlling of these six named synthetic opioids “a short-term approach”. Will the Government consult on the introduction of a generic definition for these substances similar to that for nitazenes?

I also have real concern about the UK’s ability to detect these new substances in a timely fashion. I note that screening and chemical testing for them is extremely limited, that many laboratories do not have the resources routinely to check for them and that they are often not incorporated into police drug tests. Given the damage that we have seen synthetic opioid addiction wreak on parts of the USA, it is of the utmost importance that we have all the warnings we can get of what is emerging on the UK market and where.

The importance of this is underlined by another of the substances we are dealing with today, xylazine. The first UK death in which it was implicated came to light only thanks to the vigilance of a toxicologist who detected it at postmortem because they decided to investigate what they thought were strange results. Internationally, heroin and synthetic opioids such as fentanyl are increasingly being cut with xylazine, and we know it is increasingly present in fatal overdoses in the US where in some states it is present in more than one-quarter of all drug deaths, yet because xylazine is not included in standard UK drug testing we do not know how widespread its use is here. It is a not a nice drug. It leaves people like zombies and its continued use rots their skin from the inside. Back in 2022, there was also apparently no way of recording it in the UK drug deaths database. Is this still the case? Will the Minister address my wider concerns around testing?

The Liberal Democrats do not believe that criminalising individuals for drug possession is the answer, and we will continue to call for a better public health response to tackling the drugs crisis. Will the Government make any additional funding available to enable the consistent national implementation of pre-arrest and pre-prosecution police drug diversion schemes?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the Conservative Party welcomes this order. It controls six substances, introduces a generic definition for nitazenes as class A drugs and controls 16 substances as class C drugs. These Benches believe deeply in the principles of law and order, personal responsibility and the protection of our communities. This amendment embodies those very principles by addressing the evolving nature of the drugs trade and reinforcing our nation’s commitment to keeping our streets safe.

In May, the previous Conservative Government accepted all five recommendations set out in the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs’ March 2024 report. I welcome the new Government’s continuation of our excellent work. These regulations will build on the previous Government’s work to mitigate the real threat of synthetic opioids across the UK by banning 15 new synthetic opioid drugs.

Police: Firearms Officers

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that it is for the Crown Prosecution Service to determine what charges are processed. In this case, under current regulations, it determined to make those charges at this time. It is also for the jury to consider the evidence put before it, which it did in this case, and reached a verdict of acquittal within a short space of time. It is also for the Home Office to ensure that we support our police officers in doing a dangerous job upholding the law and protecting our society. All those aspects and the outcome of this trial will be assessed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. As I have indicated to the House, and to the noble Lord, I will report back when we make the Home Office Statement in the House of Commons and, in due course, this noble House also.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank all the armed police officers who serve, particularly those who protect us in this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, this is indeed a tragic situation. But yesterday Sergeant Martyn Blake was exonerated fully. As another accused and exonerated officer, Tony Long, writes today in the Telegraph:

“The public is only now finding out the whole truth about Chris Kaba”.


He says of Mr Kaba’s fellow gang members that

“they should have all benefited from anonymity, granted by the courts, while Martyn Blake was denied the same privilege, isn’t just ironic, it’s a national disgrace.

I agree. What steps will the Minister take to reassure current firearms officers so that they have the confidence that they can carry out their duties with the support and backing they deserve?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his contribution. He will know that the jury in this case made its assessment and gave its verdict on the evidence presented before it. Other matters on which he has commented were not presented to the jury and, therefore, the acquittal in this case was determined by the information presented by the prosecution and the defence.

The noble Lord will also know that it is important to thank the officers, who are voluntarily doing the task of being armed officers. This Government are certainly aware that we need to examine the regime and discussions around it in the light of this case and others that he has mentioned. Police officers are accountable to the law for their use of force and it is right that their powers are scrutinised robustly. It is also important that we commit to working with the police to strengthen officers’ confidence that they have the support of the Home Office in undertaking their task.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 18th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who has been a very strong advocate for family reunion over many years and a number of Bills. She will recall that the previous Conservative Government did not support this or other similar Bills, and we still have concerns about the likely impact of this Bill. This is on the grounds that it would potentially jeopardise vulnerable children’s safety, as well as having substantial implications for our already stretched public resources, including legal aid and other budgets.

I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that families belong together, but our view in government was that this Bill is too wide in scope because it gives the Secretary of State enormous discretionary power to grant people leave to remain in this country. The Bill is not limited to granting leave to enter to family members but also to any

“such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine”.

Clause 1(4) says that

“‘protection status’ has the same meaning as in the immigration rules, meaning a person with … permission to stay as a refugee … humanitarian protection … temporary refugee permission, and … temporary humanitarian protection”.

That is potentially a very large—indeed, an almost impossible to predict—number of people. The Library briefing note has published data released by the Home Office on family reunions. It shows that 16,244 people were granted family reunion visas in the year ending June 2024, which suggests that the system is not as dysfunctional as has been painted.

We are clear that significantly expanding our policy to enable children to sponsor family members goes against our safeguarding responsibilities. It is highly likely that, if passed, the Bill would create further incentives for more children to be encouraged, or even forced, to leave their families and risk extremely dangerous journeys to the UK in order to sponsor later relatives. I accept that the committee has said that that is not the case, but it is very interesting that a number of the EU countries that it cited as providing no evidence are, as we speak, busily setting up what they are calling return hubs. Poland has shut its borders, and France, Italy and Germany are all looking at these sorts of things. I suggest that what they are doing and what they are saying are not necessarily entirely the same.

Of course, it is not possible to prove this—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, you cannot prove a negative—but she should be under no illusions that the criminal people smugglers will be watching developments with considerable interest and an eye to profit. I was watching Sky News recently and one Yemeni male said, “The previous Government, they wanted to deport us, but now they are making the process easier”. What happens here is noted and it does change behaviour. As we have seen—including, I believe, overnight—that can have fatal consequences.

As we have seen in a number of EU states, rules such as the one this Bill seeks to implement would open up children to huge exploitation risk. That completely contradicts the hard work and commitment of the previous Conservative Government in protecting children from modern slavery and exploitation. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, illustrated some of the practical difficulties with regard to this work—work that I know the current Government are committed to maintaining and no doubt building upon. We refused to play into the hands of criminal gangs, and therefore we should not extend this policy to allow child refugees to sponsor family members into the UK.

On legal aid, I reassure noble Lords that the Conservative Party fully supports the principle of family unity and shares the concerns for those families who have been separated by conflict or oppression. The Bill proposes reinstating legal aid in family reunion cases, but I remind noble Lords that legal aid for refugee family reunion may already be available under the exceptional case funding scheme. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that that was very difficult to access, but again the statistics surely indicate that it is not that difficult if 16,244 people were able to achieve family reunion visas in the year ending June 2024.

Failure to provide legal aid would mean risking a breach in the individual’s human rights, subject to the means and merits test. In 2019, the previous Government amended the scope of legal aid so that separated migrant children are able to receive civil legal aid for applications by their family members and extended family members. This includes entry clearance and leave to enter or to remain in the UK made under the Immigration Rules or outside the rules on the basis of exceptional, compassionate or compelling circumstances. We must remember that legal aid is paid for by taxpayers and resources are not limitless. It is important that it is provided for those most in need, including those who seek protection.

I shall finish here, but on the subject of scarce resources I will stray a little from the brief, if I may. I was reading yesterday that the Development Minister is on record as saying that the Government intend to reverse the previous Government’s policy of using some development aid to pay for migrant and refugee housing. That is allowed under the rules. Nevertheless, the previous Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, provided a top-up to mitigate some of the effects. Will the Minister shed any light on the Government’s intentions in this area? Will development money be used? If yes, will the Treasury provide a top-up, as has reportedly been requested by the Foreign Secretary? I mention this against the backdrop that I was reading that hotels are being reopened and, no doubt, the daily costs are rising.

This country has a proud record of supporting refugees, from the Kindertransport, as has been mentioned, to the Homes for Ukraine scheme and ACRS, but we must ensure that the rules are not abused. We must also ensure that the safeguarding of children is enabled by our legislation and that taxpayers’ interests are paramount. For the reasons I have set out, we on these Benches will be unable to support the Bill.

Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2024

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, before I begin, I declare my interest: I am supported by the RAMP project. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for raising this important issue, which will set the agenda for the new Government as they move forward. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I say that we support the timely and accurate processing of asylum cases as well as swift and humane removal for those who do not meet the criteria for protection. To do that, we should front-load the asylum application process with decision-making expertise and legal aid provisions so that accurate decisions are made without the need for many appeals.

I will address the issue of legal versus illegal—we have had this discussion in the Chamber already. The thing you have to tell yourself is: you do not know whether people are fleeing persecution, torture or other things in the treaties, whether or not they are legal asylum seekers. That is why any asylum seeker is a legal, not an illegal, person. We do not know how many of the 52 people who have died in the channel in the past year would have made a justifiable claim for protection in this country and, therefore, would have been legal by definition. We must be very careful, when we use these words, that we do not misuse them. Certainly, with the way in which the legislation is being altered, that becomes the case even more.

The key aim of the original 2016 regulations, amendments to which we are discussing today, was to improve protection for particularly vulnerable people in detention. However, the changes that we are debating are of the previous Government. The present Government will make changes to this legislation, I hope, now that they have got control of matters. That is the first and most important thing we need to hear from the Minister today.

This is particularly relevant given that the regulations before us had an inadequate consultation exercise: it lasted only five weeks when, normally, at least 10 would be expected—there was also no equality impact assessment—and this was published before the Government responded to the Brook House inquiry. In the absence of the SLSC’s chair making a contribution, I wonder whether he would mind me quoting one of the conclusions that the committee reached. As I understand it, it said that the Home Office agrees that it will “logically follow” that these changes will mean

“detaining more of those considered vulnerable, despite a ‘presumption against’ such detention”.

The Minister will, I am sure, be able to confirm what the SLSC report states.

The inference from the current regulations is that people who were not really vulnerable were getting released, and that that is the reason why these regulations were put in place. They also bring into force changes to the statutory guidance on adults at risk in immigration detention, which sets out the process for making decisions on immigration detention where an individual may be vulnerable to harm if detained. So, the question to be addressed today is: will the changes weaken the protective purpose of the “adults at risk” policy and risk exposing more vulnerable people to harm in immigration detention? If so, will this Government make the necessary changes in order to decrease the damage being done by these regulations?

The submission that we received from Medical Justice states that the changes weaken:

“the protective purpose of the Adults At Risk policy and risks exposing more vulnerable people to harm in immigration detention”.

It quotes, by way of example, the change in the wording from a

“clear presumption … that detention will not be appropriate if a person is considered to be ‘at risk’”

to a “general presumption of liberty” that

“is strengthened for those considered vulnerable under this guidance”.

Those are two crucial sentences, but clearly one is stronger than the other. The key concern in that submission was whether the overall increase in the number of people detained will also lead to a greater number of vulnerable people being detained, with the possible adverse effects that detention might have on these people.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, both talked about the second opinion issue of getting a second MLR. The Home Office provided data to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It is worth looking at that data: over a period of approximately 19 months, 199 MLRs were received for migrants in detention, of which 47 were referred for a second opinion report. Of those, 30 second opinion reports were received. As a result of those 30 reports, 14 cases were released and 16 remained in detention, although all but two of those 16 were later released following a further review. In total, therefore, 28 of the 30 cases with a second opinion still resulted in a release. Do the Government agree with the SLSC report that this data does not provide compelling evidence, as outlined by the report and by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in her opening? What steps will the Government take to closely monitor its effects, particularly the number of release and detention decisions that are changed because of the second opinion, and the impact on those whose detention is extended to obtain a second opinion? Crucially, will these results be published?

The Brook House inquiry has already been raised by a number of noble Lords in this debate. That substantial report—three volumes—exposed the dehumanising abuse of vulnerable people held in immigration detention by the Home Office. It was not a case of a few bad apples but systemic failure. The inquiry made, as we heard, 33 recommendations, of which only one has been taken up in full. Adopting those recommendations is the only meaningful way of ensuring that the mistreatment and abuse, including the breaches of Article 3 of the ECHR, do not happen again.

Supplemented by that, we now have the report by the independent monitoring board on the Gatwick PDA. It is worth while reading this into the record here today. That report says, in its recommendations to the Minister, that:

“Given the evident suffering and distress for parents involved and the unknown impact of the experience on their children, the PDA should be closed”.


There are, then, plenty of examples of where everything is not in fact happening in a good state. It is important that the fundamental mistake of reducing detention safeguards without properly considering the implications of a public inquiry is acknowledged, and that the public inquiry is considered as a route to making sure that we change more for the future.

I want to address some questions to the Minister because this is our first opportunity to ask the new Government about these matters. I do not necessarily expect an answer to all of them today, but I ask that the Minister writes to me if this becomes too tricky.

If the aim is to facilitate more removals of people with no right to remain in the United Kingdom, which must be the case from the evidence we have just been talking about from the SLSC and the facts provided to us, what assessment has there been to establish what barriers there are to increasing the numbers of people removed from the UK, who after due process do not qualify for leave to remain? What are the barriers that the Government see are still in place?

What impact have the recommendations and learning from the Brook House inquiry had on the proposed government review? Will those things be part of the terms of reference for that inquiry and review? It would be very helpful to know whether a timescale can be provided for that review so that we can judge the speed with which the Government are going to move on this process.

What progress has been made by the cross-governmental working group that was established to monitor progress against the Brook House inquiry recommendations and to drive forward implementation? Can we have more details about this group and its work?

Given the findings of failings of detention, will the Minister commit to re-engaging with the alternatives to detention that were piloted by the Government between 2019 and 2022? Finally, what evaluation and monitoring report is in place for this policy change that we are seeing before us today? If it is not in place now, when will it be in place?

The standards by which we treat people in our society should be constant; whoever they are, human rights are human rights. However, the processes are set out in guidance by the Home Office, and the evidence is that they are not happening. The Brook House inquiry shows that processes by which vulnerabilities are identified and acted upon are not working. Where we are removing someone’s liberty, protections have to be significant. On current evidence, that balance has not been struck, and the treatment and safeguards for everyone in detention, particularly those with additional vulnerabilities, are just not sufficient.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate His Majesty’s Government on proceeding with these regulations, although I of course acknowledge that like all regulations, they should be kept under constant review.

Over the past couple of weeks, we have seen that illegal channel crossings are at their highest level in more than two years. We need to secure our borders, and I once again welcome the Minister’s commitment to ensuring that we protect our national interests on this matter.

I note that during this short debate, there have been some comments about the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I commend my noble friend’s report on this subject. I point out that paragraph 12 of that report states that,

“the Home Office reiterated that ‘the right to liberty remains a fundamental principle which underpins all of our detention policy. In all cases the presumption is against detention’. However, the Home Office went on to say that ‘there may be circumstances where it is necessary to detain an individual in order to maintain effective immigration control’”.

Underpinning this debate, we should bear in mind that key line that the presumption is against detention. My remarks, therefore, will be for the benefit of—I hope—reassuring noble Lords who have expressed certain concerns about the regulations.

Moving on to medical second opinions, this statutory instrument will reinstate the ability to seek second medical opinions in relation to the detention of potentially vulnerable migrants. I welcome this and congratulate the Government on putting clinical best practices first. Medical Justice, the organisation that advocates for the legal rights of people in immigration detention, has opposed this in written evidence to the House. It states that a,

“second opinion on professional evidence risks prolonging the detention of vulnerable people and putting them through a potentially re-traumatising process”.

However, a second medical opinion is an entirely standard and well-established practice in the treatment of vulnerable persons. I refer noble Lords to the Mental Health Act 1983, which states:

“An application for admission”


to a mental health facility must,

“be founded on the written recommendations in the prescribed form of two registered medical practitioners”.

Noble Lords on all sides of the Committee should be reassured that a second medical opinion is a commonplace, uncontroversial and clinically accepted principle in the medical profession, and not to have it as an option would increase the likelihood of vexatious claims. To put a slightly different spin on the statistics cited by the noble Lord, Lord German, this is just an option; it does not have to be followed in all cases, and nor has it been up to now. These regulations also directly address the High Court’s decision of January 2024. That decision was not about the principle of second opinions but the fact that the previous regulations in effect authorised caseworkers to act contrary to the statutory guidance. These regulations correct that. Does the Minister agree that we should strive for medical best practice in the Home Office and reject this submission on second opinions? Does he agree that we should not in effect have a two-tier system that differentiates between vulnerable citizens and illegal migrants or asylum seekers?

Illegal Migrants

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that there are a range of legal migration routes into this country and a range of ways in which individuals can claim asylum in this country. We have a number of schemes to bring to this country people who face terror at home; I note the Ukraine scheme. However, he needs to know that it is the absolute priority of the Government to ensure that we have managed and controlled migration. That involves tackling criminal gangs that exploit vulnerable people who potentially have legal routes and, in some cases, those who do not. We need to look at this in the round with our international partners, and that is what this Government will do.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the newly appointed head of border command, Martin Hewitt—we wish him well—said that deterrence is

“always going to be part of the … picture”.

The Irish Government said that the previous Government’s Rwanda plan was an effective deterrent, which, of course, was an aim stated in the Bill. Given this summer’s ongoing arrivals, the apparent lack of any returns or new agreements, the frequent tragic events in the channel, and the obvious lack of any deterrence at all, will the Minister agree that ripping up the Rwanda Act and the treaty was perhaps a tad rash?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hate to disappoint the noble Lord, but no, I do not think it was a tad rash. The Rwanda scheme cost £700 million, four people went to Rwanda as a result of it—voluntarily—and boat arrivals increased in the period between January and July this year, when the Rwanda scheme was operating. The noble Lord is wrong. It is smoke and mirrors to think that Rwanda was helpful to this situation: it was not. In his job in the Home Office, he should have secured action on criminal gangs, but his Government failed to do so.

Operation Conifer

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. If he reflects on what I said at the beginning of my Answer, I am approaching this with an open mind, and it takes time to reflect on those issues. The points he has made today are important, and I will reflect on those as part of my consideration of the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that, before leaving the Home Office and after exhaustive consultation with very helpful officials, I had managed to draft a letter to the chief constable of Wiltshire Police that encouraged the possibility of another look at this while also scrupulously respecting the force’s operational independence. Can the Minister shed any light on whether this letter was ever sent? If not, will he agree to draft his own?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope that I do not ruin the noble Lord’s reputation when I say that I agree with him, in the sense that it is appropriate, potentially, for the chief constable of Wiltshire Police to examine the issues in the first instance. I am not aware of what happened in the previous Administration, because I am not party to that, but, equally, it could be a course of action for the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, to take forward to write to the new chief constable and ask her for her opinion on the issues that have driven the Question today.