My Lords, my noble friend Lord Foster will speak to his Amendment 102 in a few minutes, but it makes sense to follow the noble and learned Lords with my comments on Amendment 47 and the two amendments in my name, Amendments 93 and 96.
It is an enormous pleasure and something of a responsibility to follow two absolutely fantastic speeches on this subject, and I am afraid that my mind did go back to the long nights of the internal market Bill
and the tenacity—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, set out—of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in bringing his amendments forward, because a really important thing was eventually done there.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, referred to the danger of impinging on the devolved authorities. I will give just one practical example and this is not theoretical, because it is already something that the Welsh Government have raised. In their response, the Welsh Government concluded that
“there are relevant provisions in the Bill which, for the purposes of Standing Order 29, are within the legislative competence of the Senedd and therefore a Legislative Consent Memorandum (LCM) is required”.
I do not think that is disputed by the Government.
For example, the power within Clause 1(1)(a) could be used to reduce or mitigate risks presented by products that endanger the health of a person, distinct and separate from any risks to a person’s safety. The use of “health” in Clause 1(4) broadens the scope of how power could be exercised beyond simple product safety, which is a reserved matter, and enables provision to be made for public health purposes, which is an area within the Senedd’s legislative competence. This is just one example.
In their response document, the Welsh Government raise issues covering product regulations, product requirements, emergencies, information sharing, cost recovery, consequential amendment of certain Acts, interpretation, and the Schedule. Happily, the Welsh Government seem okay with Clauses 5 and 6, but the rest of the Bill forms a grey area around competence and responsibility.
7.30 pm
I hope this debate will give us a chance to start to give an opportunity for the Minister to put on record how the Government currently regard their discussions of the Bill with the three devolved Administrations. Let us be realistic: relations between some of those, particularly between London and Edinburgh, were strained for some considerable time under previous Administrations, and the issues around Northern Ireland will be particularly apposite given some of the issues that the Bill will put forward. The point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, put forward about this being a chance to restart and demonstrate a future relationship with the devolved authorities is absolutely central to these amendments.
It is a pleasure for me to support Amendment 47 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. My Amendment 93 is short and would probably be unnecessary in the event that Amendment 47 was accepted, and Amendment 96 was tabled before I knew that the noble and learned Lord was putting forward his amendment—and, as he puts it, they are in different parts of the Bill as well.
This is an opportunity for the Minister to explain explicitly where the Government see the role of frameworks going forward. Will this be properly used, as was envisaged at the outset of where we find ourselves now? If frameworks are still in the frame—if your Lordships will excuse the phrase—they need to be explicitly applied to this Bill. If they are not, the Minister needs to explain how these difficult problems
will be negotiated in future. It seems that a mechanism is already available, and it would be very helpful if the Minister could explain whether and how frameworks will be used. With that, I look forward very much to the Minister’s response to this going forward.