My Lords, this has been a really interesting group of amendments on which to finish our deliberations tonight. I thank the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Thomas, for their Amendment 47; the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his Amendments 93 and 96; and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his Amendment 102. As noble Lords have suggested, the amendments relate to the application of the Bill’s powers in the United Kingdom, particularly in terms of consultation with the devolved Governments; the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020; and the issue of the frameworks, including how they would relate to this legislation.
I can give reassurance about the general approach of the Government to their relationships with the devolved Governments and the way in which we will conduct this. However, I want to reflect on some of the points raised by both noble and learned Lords; I will perhaps come back to them between Committee and Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned the constitution. I am very cognisant: I know that both noble and learned Lords, in our discussions on a number of Bills in the past few years, have wanted to ensure that, in the words of the Constitution Committee, if we are to make the union work, the key words are “respect” and “co-operation”. I fully accept that. We believe that we have, in our first five months, begun to reset the relationship between ourselves and the devolved Governments. We want to work constructively with them. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned the input from the Welsh Assembly Government. We are considering it very carefully at the moment; my noble friend has also had some fruitful discussions with Scottish Ministers. That is the way we see ourselves going forward in future.
Many of the regulations made under this Bill will concern technical areas in relation to product regulation and metrology. These matters are largely reserved but some touch on devolved areas. I can confirm, and absolutely make clear, that the UK Government will continue to discuss product regulation and metrology matters with the devolved Governments. I am confident that, through this positive engagement, we will be able to reach a position where legislative consent can be gained. We will keep noble Lords updated on progress, obviously, but they will know that these matters sometimes take time. Equally, this is a Lords starter, so we have time over the next few months to ensure that we work in conjunction with the devolved Governments; we want to do that.
On the Sewel convention and secondary legislation, I was a Whip on the Scotland Bill and I remember the discussions involving Lord Sewel. I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, but it would certainly not be our intention that, because of the convention, we could simply put through secondary legislation without seeking the input of the devolved Governments, certainly Scotland. We would not take forward regulations without engagement with the devolved Governments.
7.45 pm
The issue of the common framework is a very interesting discussion. I have just been reading a paper by the Institute for Government on that very subject—how
it interrelates with the 2020 Act. I accept there are some issues about how it works practically. There is no doubt that it has been helpful in ensuring that a common approach is taken with the powers returned from the EU, which then intersect with policy areas of devolved government. There is a series of common frameworks, and it is interesting to look at the extensive list of frameworks that have been agreed by UK government policy departments with their devolved government counterparts, and with parliamentary scrutiny following.
I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that in general we see the frameworks programme as being designed to enable new frameworks to be established, or to make the decision that a framework is no longer required in a particular policy area. We see these decisions being taken by the relevant Minister in each individual department. However, I assure him that this Government remain committed to fully implementing the common frameworks programme.
On the interface between common frameworks and this legislation, I am advised that we think that products affected by regulations made under the Bill would not fall under any extant common frameworks, because the frameworks themselves are relatively tight in scope and, as noble Lords have reflected, the Bill goes rather wider than that. Whether that is an advantage or a disadvantage depends on your point of view.
We will ensure that consultation takes place with the devolved Governments regarding regulations made under the Bill, whether or not the products in question fall under a common framework. Having said that, I shall take away the points made by both noble and learned Lords and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to make sure that we have got this absolutely right. We would be happy to have further discussions about that between Committee and Report.
Amendment 96 seeks to ensure that, in making regulations under the Bill, the Government have regard to the market access principles of Part 1 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. In a sense, we have to, because it is legislation that is on the books. The Bill has been structured and drafted with the principle of the UKIM Act in mind, meaning that products can move freely across the UK. We believe that the powers in the Bill allow us to consider UK-wide market access impacts as regulations are developed. Our established consultation processes with the devolved Governments will enable engagement on regulating matters under the Bill, and we think that will enable us to address any concerns there.
With his interesting amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, has raised an important and quite difficult subject. The Bill is intended to protect consumers from unsafe products regardless of the product’s origin or where a business is based. The powers in the Bill can be used to introduce requirements on online marketplaces based overseas where they are marketing products to UK consumers, but the problem is enforcement. That is a challenge and, standing here today, I just do not have an easy answer. Essentially, we think that the Bill—again, this is the advantage of flexibility—allows us to explore options for taking action against businesses operating from overseas. While we cannot readily enforce
in other territories, we will seek to ensure that businesses selling non-compliant and dangerous goods cannot continue to do so in the UK market. The reality is that this is work in progress, and discussions about it are taking place in government. I thank the noble Lord for his input, and we are giving great consideration to this issue.