Consumer Products (Control of Biocides) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 11th September 2024
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Consumer Products (Control of Biocides) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text
Consumer Products (Control of Biocides) Bill [HL]
Friday 17th January 2025
(4 days, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Consumer Products (Control of Biocides) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I begin by thanking all those who have helped draft this Bill. I specifically highlight the contributions of all the cross-sectoral stakeholders who took part in the round table I hosted last year. I will also single out Jen Mills at the Legislation Office, who was instrumental in shaping the Bill into a deliverable form, alongside Pete Kennedy for his work on the legal grounding. I also thank Dr Paul-Enguerrand Fady at the Centre for Long-Term Resilience, who conceived of this Bill, has been advocating for it since he joined my office in 2021 and continues to support it; and a succession of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy interns who have helped me to this point. It is a great pleasure to see so many noble Lords here; I thank you all.
I will start by explaining the motivation and rationale behind bringing forward the Bill. It aims to curtail the general sale and subsequent spread on to human bodies and into the environment of consumer products intended for human use that contain biocides. Noble Lords will hear me repeat this phrase, “consumer products intended for human use” several times today. It is an important phrase to convey the narrow scope of the targeted and well-evidenced policy interventions contained in the Bill.
For the purpose of the Bill, biocides are chemicals that have an antimicrobial effect—they kill bacteria and other micro-organisms. It may strike members of the public tuning into this debate as strange to want to spare bacteria; after all, the public have been told for many years that “killing 99.9% of bacteria” is a desirable feature of many products. Your Lordships will probably see an advert today saying just that, but this could not be more wrong. It is high time we reclaimed the narrative around bacteria on our bodies, in our bodies and in our environments.
I will be clear about one thing: the Bill does not, in any way, shape or form restrict the ability of qualified medical professionals to provide medicines to patients in need. It also in no way impacts on veterinary treatments or products for animals. It concerns consumer products intended for human use and only those. There are very valid use cases for biocide-containing products, such as mouthwashes with chlorhexidine sold by a qualified pharmacist to patients suffering from mouth ulcers; octenidine-containing soaps prescribed by dermatologists to patients suffering from a range of skin conditions; silver-impregnated dressings for wound care; and more. I reiterate that the passage of the Bill into law would have no effect whatever on the use of these products in medicine. My aim is to protect the ongoing functioning of these products in medicine by curtailing their commercial availability and overuse.
We are behind the times when it comes to regulating biocides in consumer products intended for human use. In 2016, almost a decade ago, the United States Food and Drug Administration banned 19 biocides from hand soaps and handwashes. Why? Very simply, in the words of one FDA official:
“There’s no data demonstrating that these drugs provide additional protection from diseases and infections”.
This official went on to say that
“some data suggests that antibacterial ingredients may do more harm than good over the long-term”.
This is a key point to which I will return.
The FDA has continued its campaign to educate Americans on the non-superiority of biocide-containing consumer products. As recently as last month, it published a press release titled “Skip the Antibacterial Soap; Use Plain Soap and Water”. It did this because a decade later, despite all the follow-up studies commissioned by the industry, the fact remains, as the FDA states,
“there isn’t sufficient evidence to show that over-the-counter … antibacterial soaps are better at preventing illness than washing with plain soap and water”.
The FDA chose to limit the scope of its advice to soaps—I have not. Antibacterial hand sanitisers, mouthwashes and oral products are also in the scope of the Bill. As an article published today in the Daily Mirror, coinciding with this Second Reading, outlines, biocides are found in many consumer products intended for human use, and members of the public are often unwittingly purchasing and using these products, with potentially negative effects.
It is widely recognised that there is no advantage in these biocides being present in soaps. Noble Lords may wonder whether that is the full extent of my grievance— it is not. I have worked closely with the Women’s Environmental Network—often known as WEN—which runs the brilliant Environmenstrual campaign. As a politician, feminism is one of my first politics. I was horrified when WEN highlighted to me that period products are being laced with silver and sold to women on the basis that periods make them smell bad. This is an example of the pernicious kind of advertising that underpins the sale of many biocide-containing products intended for human use. Consumers are shamed and made to feel dirty for having normal, natural microbiomes or carrying out normal bodily functions such as sweating or menstruating.
Swedish government research has shown that up to 90% of the silver in treated articles for reusable menstrual products flows out into waterways after only 10 washes. This is a pointless and dangerous use of biocides that is spreading fast into clothing products often marketed as high-tech, desirable and expensive—a trend that urgently needs to be addressed.
The use of biocides leads to a rise in resistance to biocides—a form of antimicrobial resistance, or AMR. Added to commercial use undermining the medical use of the same biocides is the threat of cross-resistance. That is when exposure to one antimicrobial, such as the biocide in mouthwash, leads to resistance to a different antimicrobial, such as the antibiotic of last resort for a critically ill patient. There is a detailed case study on this, which I prepared with Dr Fady and Dr Katy Stokes, in the briefing paper for the Bill. It is available on the BSAC website if noble Lords would like more information.
In 2022, I was the first to raise the issue of cross-resistance in this place in over a quarter of a century. That such a pernicious issue has been discussed only nine times across both Chambers since its first mention in 1973 shows that we are not taking cross-resistance seriously. But health authorities in this country are aware of the risk, with scientists at the UKHSA describing biocide resistance as
“a new scourge of the infectious disease world”
because of the problem of cross-resistance.
Thanks in large part to the determined, concentrated work of Dame Sally Davies, many Members of your Lordships’ House will have at least heard of antimicrobial resistance. Perhaps noble Lords read the large article in the Observer this month. But the real urgency and scale of this problem has not yet really struck in government, in the corridors or departments of the Civil Service, or among the general public. Every 11 seconds, someone falls ill with a resistant infection. Every three minutes, someone in the world dies from AMR. By the time we finish this Second Reading in about 90 minutes, there will have been 30 deaths from AMR globally. The British charity Nesta said in 2019 that that was the first year in which
“we’ll all know someone with a drug-resistant infection”.
Whether that is an untreatable recurrent urinary tract infection, a recalcitrant diabetic foot ulcer, or simply a chest infection that does not respond to the first round of antibiotics, it is almost certain that Nesta’s analysis was correct.
Beyond undermining our antibiotics, the widespread availability of biocide-containing consumer products for human use poses another threat: microbiotoxicity. That is a fancy way of saying damage to the human microbiome—the community of microorganisms living on and inside us. We are increasingly starting to understand the importance of these microorganisms in health and disease. In the Mental Health Bill, I spoke about the gut-brain axis and our slowly dawning understanding of the importance of the microbiome in mental illness.
Impact on other bodily systems is also becoming clearer. Research has shown, for example, that wiping out the oral microbiome with chlorhexidine mouthwashes risks increasing blood pressure, which has consequences for the risk of heart disease.
Alongside brilliant scientists and clinicians, I recently published a letter to the editor in the Journal of Infection calling for the recognition of the human microbiome as an organ system. I would be happy to circulate this to any noble Lords interested.
I should address the environmental angle. The unimpeded flow of biocides into our waterways is undoubtedly a bad thing. As was confirmed to me this week at a meeting of the Pharma Pollution Hub, a new and exciting initiative engaging with this crucial issue, we have yet to be able to model exactly how all the various chemicals mixing together in our waterways and water are affecting our environment. This is known as the “cocktail effect” and entails complex dynamics and interrelationships that are extremely difficult to quantify. A fundamental truth, however, is that the fewer chemicals and biocides there are in our waterways—I would add microplastics—the less they can interact and exert their effects on our aquatic species, our entire ecosystems and, of course, ultimately, our bodies.
If for no other reason than the precautionary principle, to which the previous Government committed us through the Environment Act, I hope noble Lords can see the sense in the Bill trying to curtail the amount of biocides ending up in our environment. I will postpone to another day comments on the soil microbiomes that are crucial to our food security. I have not run through the clauses and mechanisms of the Bill because the excellent Library briefing does that very clearly and I wanted to take some time to set out what are still not widely familiar scientific principles.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for taking part in this debate at my request. I apologise for possibly messing up his Friday. The Bill seeks to take what I believe is a novel approach to product regulation and I particularly value his thoughts on the approach taken, although it is based on the model from several other Bills.
We have what is known colourfully as a whack-a-mole problem when it comes to chemicals regulation. A novel chemical is produced, tested by the manufacturer in the ways it chooses, then put on to the market. As problems emerge, campaigners speak out, companies resist, and, usually decades later, that single chemical is eventually banned. A new chemical, possibly similar, often worse in its impacts, is then devised, and we go back through the same cycle. We have seen this with PFAS, the forever chemicals that are of such public concern. The Bill seeks to set us on a new path—to modestly and practically start to tackle the exceeding of the planetary boundaries for novel entities that has turned our rivers, seas and environments into such a dangerous cocktail of substances.
I say to the Minister that we are, of course, debating this Bill while the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill is going through your Lordships’ House, so there is an opportunity for the Government to pick this up holus-bolus and incorporate it into that Bill. I live in hope.
Finally, I often say that the first duty of the state is to ensure the health of its citizens. My vision of the Green Party is that we are a party of public health—of one health. Although the Bill embodies many of the principles we in the Green Party uphold, it is absolutely not a partisan Bill. It is in everyone’s best interest to prevent harm to human health and to the health of our environment. I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support this Bill, and to have the opportunity not merely to applaud its intentions and drafting but to pay tribute to its sponsor, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
When I read the Bill, I was reminded of an interview with Bill Frankland, the pioneering immunologist, who recalled his time in 1936 studying under Sir Alexander Fleming at Imperial College. Fleming, who was born and educated at both primary and secondary level in my former constituency, in Ayrshire in the west of Scotland, recounted in a lecture his discovery of penicillin. He ended it with a warning that penicillin would change the face of medicine, but that
“doctors will overuse it … bacteria have to survive—they are very, very clever—they will become resistant to it”.
If the father of antibiotic medicine was making this case at that distance, how much more urgent is it that we act today and as fast as possible? We are, as the noble Baroness made clear in her excellent opening speech, in a perilous situation. Antibiotics are one of the most extraordinary and transformative products of human ingenuity, but their efficacy is being undermined, not merely by the extraordinary adaptive qualities of bacteria but by the failure of humans effectively to regulate their own behaviour.
Despite its less than poetic title, the Bill is about human behaviour where collective and individual rights find themselves in conflict. Peer-reviewed scientific literature has shown us repeatedly that the use of antibacterial soap containing biocides offers no advantage whatever to the average consumer compared with normal soap, but marketing has convinced consumers that it is in some way preferable.
That is why Clause 6 is important. It aims purely to align perception with reality and ensure that implicit but misleading claims that a consumer product containing biocides is more effective than one without should be an offence, unless the biocidal consumer products advisory board, to be created under Clause 3, deems that claim true and verifiable.
It cannot be right that commercial imperatives that mandate the inclusion of unnecessary biocides in commercial products are allowed to trump the interest of everyone on the planet to ensure that antimicrobial resistance is controlled. I do not set myself up as a scientific expert of any sort, but it is precisely because I am not a scientist that I believe we should take precautionary measures in the face of uncertainty, even from scientists whose insight into the impact of biocides dwarfs my own.
Crucially, once antimicrobial resistance is established, it is irreversible. That fact only reinforces my belief that the precautionary principle that animates the Bill should be adhered to. Even the US, which often takes a more buccaneering approach to questions of capitalism than we do in the United Kingdom, has begun banning the use of biocides in washes and soaps, with the FDA having issued guidance not to buy antimicrobial soaps, as we have heard.
In my contribution to the debate on the Private Member’s Bill that preceded this one, I was forced to have recourse to humility, conceding that other noble Lords from all sides of the House had more expertise and direct experience of the matter in question than I did. I may be breaking a personal record in conceding that twice in a row. I therefore look forward to listening to the remainder of the debate and becoming better informed.
I started this short contribution with a reference to Alexander Fleming. I will make a further one. In 2008, on the 80th anniversary of the discovery of penicillin, I invited Professor Hugh Pennington, the emeritus professor of bacteriology at the University of Aberdeen and then the leading bacteriologist in the country, to speak to schoolchildren in my constituency. He told them that life on this planet is a competition between the bugs and us—humans. The bugs have been around for 3.5 billion years; we have been around for only 300,000 years. We are likely to lose if we are not careful.
In short, because this Bill is on the side of Homo sapiens, I support its aims and, whether in this form or the form of future government Bills, I very much look forward to seeing them given legislative expression as soon as possible.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on her success in the ballot for Private Members’ Bills and on bringing forward this Bill this Session. Her Bill gives the House the opportunity to consider the implications of the use of biocides in consumer products and reflect on the crucial importance of controlling and containing antimicrobial resistance—something to which the noble Lord, Lord Browne, just cogently referred.
My noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, when Prime Minister, was determined to tackle the threat to human health posed by AMR. Way back in 2014, he stated:
“Resistance to antibiotics is now a very real and worrying threat, as bacteria mutate to become immune to their effects … If we fail to act, we are looking at an almost unthinkable scenario where antibiotics no longer work and we are cast back into the dark ages of medicine where treatable infections and injuries will kill once again”.
I am therefore pleased that the Labour Government support the previous Conservative Government’s 20-year vision for tackling AMR, which aims to control and contain it by 2040. I hope the Government will work closely at an international level on these matters to continue to press forward with a coherent global response. That should mean working not only with nations and the World Health Organization but with business and the world of science.
The noble Baroness proposes in her Bill to constrain further the use of biocides in some consumer products. She is justifiably concerned about the impact on AMR that could result from biocide resistance. When legislation is brought forward to restrict the manufacture and sale of goods on the basis of perceived public health safety, it is right that one should examine whether measures are already in place that can protect the public. I therefore note that biocidal active substances and biocidal products are already regulated by the Health and Safety Executive under the GB Biocidal Products Regulations. Of course, many consumer products are regulated by the General Product Safety Regulations 2005. Defra, the Environment Agency and the UK Health Security Agency all have a locus in this matter.
It is always difficult to draft legislation that seeks to protect public health by banning something without also having a negative impact on innovation and imposing the requirement on business to comply with new, complex regulatory processes. Sometimes it is right to do so, but the devil is always in the detail.
I note that Clause 3 would create yet another quango: the biocidal consumer products advisory board. We need more information about that in the Bill. I note that the Government, in just over five months, have already established a raft of advisory bodies—quangos galore. I really had hoped not to see more.
It would be helpful to explore in Committee some of the interesting but vague terms used in the Bill. I think of the wording “real-world conditions” in Clause 2—I would love to find out how those can be legally defined. I look forward to the opportunity in Committee to have time to give more and better consideration to what can be an important Bill.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and to hear her concerns about there being too many advisory bodies and quangos. There is always a difficulty in knowing what they do and how they report. However, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on bringing the Bill forward.
Perhaps I might add another quote from Sir Alexander Fleming. When he received the Nobel prize for discovering penicillin, which he did at the medical school that I went to, St Mary’s, he said:
“It is not difficult to make microbes resistant to penicillin in the laboratory by exposing them to concentrations not sufficient to kill them”.
That lesson might apply much more widely because, sadly, it applies to our armamentarium of antibiotics, and we now face a world where multiple resistance is becoming the norm. Professor MacLellan’s recent, fascinating lecture at the Royal Society described the urgent need to develop vaccines against some of the major bacterial killers. In 2022, 7.7 million deaths were attributable to bacterial infections worldwide, of which 80% were linked to antimicrobial resistance.
With rising antibiotic use, resistance is increasing, but biocides are not the solution. Biocides are a diverse group of poisonous substances, including preservatives, insecticides, disinfectants and pesticides, used for the control of organisms that are harmful to human or animal health or that cause damage to natural or manufactured products. The problem is that these chemicals are themselves harmful, both directly and by producing the cross-resistance and co-resistance to antimicrobials already referred to. When bacteria develop cross-resistance, their general defence mechanism is against multiple threats, both the biocides in consumer products and the antibiotics we use to fight infection. Meanwhile, co-resistance takes place when resistant genes are genetically linked. So there are two mechanisms, at least, and exposure to common biocides can inadvertently promote antibiotic resistance.
These manufactured chemicals are subject to little legal constraint, as already outlined, and almost no post-marketing surveillance. Fewer than 20% overall have been tested for toxicity, yet many cross the placenta, and chemical exposure seems even more harmful to children than to adults. Biocides act by damaging the cell wall of an organism, but that is not discriminatory. They also damage the cell wall of our own body’s living cells that they come into contact with. That is often our skin and the delicate cells of our respiratory tract. If the skin is irritated, a contact dermatitis develops; this is an eczema-like response that is itchy and sore, and the skin cracks, breaking the natural barrier function of the skin and allowing bacteria to enter and infect underlying tissues. An allergic response is separate and can also develop, as in allergic dermatitis and in asthma, which can be life-threatening. We all have protective commensal bacteria on our skin and in our gut and mucous membranes, but when they are damaged by biocides, harm results. Many cosmetics and some period products are being marketed as biocidal, but without the appropriate risk-assessment evidence.
The Bill would establish a biocidal consumer products advisory board, which I would welcome, to review scientific and social evidence on the use of biocides in consumer products, with a particular focus on microbiotoxicity. With rising incidence of childhood cancers, neurodevelopmental disorders, autism, allergies and childhood obesity, not to mention the rising infection rate, it is becoming negligent, to ignore the possible role of manufactured chemicals in our daily lives—hence the importance of the precautionary approach outlined in the Bill.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her comprehensive introduction of the Bill, which brings forward issues that the House and the Government should take seriously. The world faces any number of threats to human health, but one of the more long-term threats we face continues to be antimicrobial resistance—AMR—which is the risk that in future bacteria will be resistant to antibiotics.
I thank the Royal Society of Biology for the briefing that it provided for this debate. I should add that I am a fellow and emphasise that the briefing does not represent the formal position of the RSB but is what you might call a rapid reaction summary based on relevant external reports from RSB member organisations and external bodies. Nevertheless, it is a very helpful briefing to have received.
We know a lot more than we used to about what is called the human microbiome, yet perhaps people do not fully understand yet how complex it is and how vital it is to our health. The microbiome is the collection of microbes in our intestines that affect our digestion, immune system, brain health and more. The Royal Society of Biology points out that “perspectives are complex” on the use of biocides. Why is that? It is because the use presents both opportunities and risks. The use case for biocides includes their contribution to the protection of public health through infection control by reducing the spread of harmful pathogens—for example, in health facilities and food production—but among the potential risks is that the use of biocides can contribute to the development of AMR and hence significant global public health risks.
Whatever one’s view on the Bill, the fact remains that biocides are found in consumer products intended for human use. These products range from soaps to mouthwashes to clothes to period products. I add in passing that some biocidal products do not list on the packet ingredients such as products containing nanosilver, about which there is growing concern, especially in relation to feminine hygiene products.
Why does any of this matter? It matters because there is evidence to suggest that the uncontrolled use of biocides may be increasing AMR. I have noticed that in the scientific literature there is great emphasis on the need for a deeper understanding of the interaction with and impact of pesticides, insecticides and biocides on the microbial communities. We do not want to find that the increased use of biocides accidentally damages the highly complex world of microorganisms. On this basis, I think there is a case that the complexity of biocides risks calls for a precautionary approach.
I want to mention one other aspect of the broader debate about AMR. I am a member of your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee, and on Tuesday this week, we had a really interesting presentation about bacteriophages, which are viruses that can control and kill bacteria, including some of the most deadly known to humankind, such as sepsis. It may be stretching the boundaries of today’s debate to refer to phages, but I will be interested in anything that the noble Baroness says in her winding-up remarks about their relevance to the broader impact and objectives of her Bill.
To return to the Bill, I pass on to the House the advice of the Royal Society of Biology:
“There are challenges to ensuring the responsible use of biocides, especially in terms of regulation, adoption, and education, which can limit their effectiveness”.
On this basis, I hope that my noble friend the Minister, even if he is not in a position formally to convey government support for this Bill at this moment, will nevertheless take back to the relevant department some of the questions that arise. I shall briefly mention four.
First, will the Government be prepared to take a detailed look at the use of biocides in consumer products? Secondly, will the Government consider establishing their own biocidal consumer products advisory board or something similar to keep under review the scientific evidence? Thirdly, will the Government at least consent to the proposition that if there are grounds to believe that a biocidal product is deemed to present a danger, steps can be taken to ban its sale or use? Finally, will the Government undertake to report to Parliament regularly on the impact of biocides in consumer products? These seem perfectly sensible questions to ask, and whether or not this Bill makes progress I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for bringing it to the attention of the House.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for introducing this Bill, and I thank those who preceded me for enhancing a little my scientific education. I shall comment not on the science of the Bill but on an important general development, which is making certain that the law keeps pace with our greater knowledge of science and adapts itself. Therefore, I want to speak about Clause 2, not so much about its detailed wording, because I see the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made about particular words, as that is not the purpose of a Second Reading debate. It is important because paragraphs (b) and (c) raise issues that we have to grapple with.
Our criminal law was developed over the centuries in times when punishments were particularly harsh and trials were fast. Steps were gradually taken to try to ameliorate that harshness and make the conviction of someone for a criminal offence fairer and more just. It became an important part of our criminal law that where the resources of the state were vast, it was for the state to establish the elements of the offence and prove them beyond reasonable doubt or making sure.
Parliament has for some time taken a slightly different approach, which I want to mention because it is akin to this provision, and the law generally proceeds by building on what has gone in the past. For some time, it has been the policy of Parliament, accepted by the courts, to transfer certain matters, where they lie particularly within the knowledge of the defendant before the court, to the defendant raising and establishing evidence of that issue. In most cases, because of the provisions of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the burden of disproving the defence and showing that the offence is established is left to the state and the prosecution, the burden on the defence being merely evidential. However, there are certain circumstances where the legal burden rests upon the defendant to establish a particular defence.
I say that this provision is akin to that, and it is on that that we should build. It seems to me that this provision has at least four particularly important advantages. First, it places the responsibility at the outset firmly upon the manufacturer, and that is critical. Secondly, it ought to ensure that the manufacturer keeps what he is doing under review to ensure that it is safe. Thirdly, there is far too much regulation, and industry should think: is this sort of provision of self-responsibility not better placed on the manufacturer? That may be harsh and the consequences down the line may be severe, but is this not a better way forward? Fourthly, it is realistic to realise that the state is not equipped, certainly in the area of criminal justice, with the resources that it once had.
I therefore welcome this type of provision. I hope we shall see more provisions of this kind, because we constantly need to rethink and evaluate the regulatory burden that is placed and what the criminal law can do to reduce that burden.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, from cosmetics and personal care items to treated clothing, biocides are increasingly found in products that we all use regularly. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling this Bill to enable us to consider that in more detail.
While biocides have their place in specific essential applications, their widespread and often unnecessary inclusion in everyday products poses a significant threat to public health, contributing to the growing global crisis of antimicrobial resistance. We have heard today about the current impact on resistant diseases. The World Health Organization has identified AMR as one of the most urgent health crises of our time; unless we take action, it could lead to an estimated 10 million deaths annually by 2050.
Biocides and consumer goods, especially those that are not strictly necessary, contribute to this alarming trend. Many products containing biocides do not deliver any real health benefit and may in fact do more harm than good, undermining their effectiveness in driving antimicrobial resistance. Just one example is the concern around the use of silver, as we heard today, as an antimicrobial agent in period pants, where high levels could have health and environmental implications. In addition to the problems highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in her introduction, the US Food and Drug Administration found that nanosilver can kill lactobacillus, the healthy bacteria in the vagina that helps fight off infection. That can put women more at risk of harmful bacteria, potentially leading to an increased risk of bacterial infections and pregnancy complications. In the UK there are currently no legal limits on how much silver can be added to period pants, and manufacturers do not have to declare the presence of silver on their packaging or website.
We are seeing other countries take measures to ban some biocides from consumer products, and it is right that we are looking at our regulatory system carefully to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Of course we must protect against regulation that would stifle innovation or limit products that genuinely benefit consumer health, and there certainly are legitimate uses for biocides, as we have heard. I am reassured that the Bill provides specific exemptions for proven medical products.
Clause 3 would establish a biocidal consumer products advisory board to advise Ministers on biocides. I share my noble friend Lady Anelay’s aversion to quangos, but I am also a great believer in expert advice, particularly on complex scientific matters such as this. I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this. Does he agree that this expert advice would be beneficial to Ministers when making decisions in this area?
Clause 6 looks to address the issues around the marketing of false or unproved claims. Consumers must have transparency from manufacturers. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that the responsibility for this should be considered to be put at the manufacturers’ door. We regularly see messages about the importance of antibacterial or antimicrobial properties in consumer products, and we have the right to know what ingredients are in the products we buy and if they genuinely offer significant health benefits. We should also have the option to choose products that are free from unnecessary chemicals. While there is existing consumer protection against misleading and deceptive commercial practices, I can certainly see the case for more specific guidance here.
As my noble friend Lady Anelay set out, there are existing protections for consumers and we must be very careful not to overregulate, duplicate or complicate the existing regulation. But we must move towards responsible biocide use, ensuring that they are used only when they are truly necessary and excluding them from products that do not require antimicrobial action. The Bill gives us the opportunity to consider our current framework and whether we should be strengthening regulations around the use of biocides in consumer goods, to ensure that the products marketed for daily use are safe and effective but do not contribute to AMR. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, it is a long time since the only good microbe was considered to be a dead microbe, but, even as I sat here in my office in Parliament, I noticed that we have been issued with an antimicrobial spray that claims that it kills 99.9% of bacteria. I will come back to that spray in a bit.
Our understanding of the microbial world has changed enormously in recent decades, and it is bound to continue to do so. Many people are now aware of the complexities and the importance of our gut microbiome. Far fewer know about our skin microbiome or the vaginal microbiome, yet researchers are uncovering their importance as well. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, just mentioned, research evidence that douching and other practices that affect the vaginal microbiome can increase the risks of infections and potentially affect fertility is coming to light. Our microbiomes are delicate systems, intricately linked with our health. The idea, then, that any product such as wipes, sprays, clothes or, worst of all, sanitary products containing chemicals explicitly to kill microbes should be marketed to consumers at all, let alone without clear labelling of what they contain and what those substances are doing, seems extraordinary to me.
In fact, it seems so extraordinary that I looked at the Health and Safety Executive’s guidance on biocidal products authorisation. I took the spray from my parliamentary office and looked at the ingredients. It has a proud union flag on it and comes from a British manufacturer. It lists the active ingredient, which I checked against the HSE spreadsheet of biocidal chemicals. It was categorised as not approved for any use in the UK. This was literally the first product I checked and, once I started looking, I found that it was far from an isolated case. Many similar antimicrobial sprays and wipes for sale on our high street seem to contain substances on that not approved list. Maybe this is a problem of enforcement, but, as a confused consumer, I continued to investigate. Next, I looked at treated articles, such as odour-reducing socks. The first pair I found advertised claimed to contain real silver fibres. I checked, and silver is labelled as not authorised on the HSE’s biocidal regulation spreadsheet, and apparently cannot be used to treat products.
I asked whether I might be misunderstanding the regulations. It seems not entirely clear whether treated articles come under HSE biocides regulation or under the General Product Safety Regulations, but I would have thought that if the HSE did not authorise the use of the active chemicals then they should not be used in any consumer products. Perhaps this is, again, just a failure of enforcement, but maybe it is a lack of clarity in existing regulations.
Some silver compounds in that long spreadsheet list are still under review by the HSE, so perhaps that is what the socks contained. That led me to find out what effects are considered when a substance is reviewed under these regulations. There is a lot of paperwork, but I cannot see anything showing that the effects on the microbiome or the consequences of those effects are considered, presumably because the microbiome has not been a recognised part of our biology for long enough to make it into legislation. Of course, the HSE is not responsible for assessing environmental effects. Overall, this seems to indicate that the current regulations are inconsistent, out of date and possibly poorly enforced.
My impression as a consumer is that this is an area that needs looking into. Products appear to be on sale in Britain that raise concerns about their effects on individuals and the environment, and there are likely effects on our microbiomes and on the environment that it seems are not even being assessed. I ask the Minister to consider the whole matter of consumer antimicrobial products and what can be done to ensure that they are well regulated. Meanwhile, I am certainly not going to be using that spray in my office.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon. Her experience in explaining science was much in evidence in her contribution today. I thank and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on putting forward the Bill and securing today’s Second Reading. She remains unafraid to raise issues that many would prefer we did not speak about, even if there are threats to our own safety and well-being. The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, reminded us that antimicrobial resistance is growing and a danger to us all.
Other noble Lords have already covered the purpose of the Bill. As the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, noted, it is to limit the wide use of biocide-containing products, including soaps, mouthwashes and clothes. Why is this necessary? As other noble Lords have said, clinical specialists are saying loud and clear that these consumer products pose a threat to public health. This is not melodramatic. Over the last few years, we have had a number of Questions and debates in your Lordships’ House on the risk of AMR. We know that the NHS is very concerned about this, recommending that GPs think very carefully before prescribing antibiotics because of the risk of antimicrobial resistance.
The Bill does not address medicinal uses of antibiotics. It proposes to curtail the use of antimicrobial products that we have in our homes. We are bombarded with marketing and advertising for them every single day. As the briefing from the Centre for Long-Term Resilience says, using an antibacterial soap provides no advantage to the average consumer and use by the general public, who have no special medical need for them, can undermine the effectiveness of antibiotics when they are needed.
The example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, about checking antimicrobial products using unapproved biocides was very helpful. I hope the Minister will ensure that is looked at. I am reminded that, during debates on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill and an SI two years ago, I raised the issue of what has happened after Brexit and the UK Health and Safety Executive’s delays in getting the chemical database for products ready. I wonder whether this issue is being looked at in relation to the UK’s new database.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, spoke of the importance of the UK working internationally on this matter. The World Health Organization has been warning of inappropriate overuse of biocides for over a decade. If we do not reduce our use of unnecessary antimicrobial products, we risk resistant bacteria causing severe disease that cannot be treated. Yesterday it was reported that Klebsiella pneumoniae, a dangerous bacterium responsible for pneumonia, has been discovered in Ukraine. Experts there are particularly alarmed because the bacterium is resistant to drugs. Scientists believe it poses a significant threat to public health.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, with her medical expertise, spoke of research. Our doctors and scientists are warning us but the makers of consumer products are not listening, and they are the first who should listen.
Those living with immunosuppression understand the risks all too well. Those with my condition, who take regular immune suppressing medication, have a real concern about bacterial resistance to drugs. That tends to focus the mind. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred to Bill Frankland. I was treated by him over 50 years ago. He was an excellent immunologist and, very unusually, he recognised my first autoimmune disease long before any of the other medics did. I am eternally grateful to him for that.
The description given by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, of the use of silver in reusable menstrual products is very worrying. There is no general information available for girls and women on this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, told us that other countries are beginning to take action on some of these biocides—so should the UK.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, talked about the medical problems already faced by the general public as biocides enter our bodies and the long-term invisible health issues that we and future generations face. As a society, we appear to be walking blindfolded into a new world of invisible and long-term damage to our bodies.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, reminded us that we need to remember the consequences of any legislation on the law and the role of Parliament. His view is that the Bill is about being clear where responsibility lies—helpfully, with the manufacturers.
I think the Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is the first attempt to limit the use of these antimicrobial products. I think she is starting an important debate that needs to be heard, especially by the companies manufacturing and advertising these products. Will the Minister at the very least have a round table to get the manufacturers together with the Health and Safety Executive to cover the issues raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Freeman? We also need a wider public campaign because we all need to understand that, far from being helpful products, they could make the UK a less safe place.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for bringing her Private Member’s Bill to your Lordships’ House. Consumer product regulation is a key topic in the world we live in, and we share her passion for protecting the environment from unnecessary harm. The noble Baroness set out in clear and concise detail why she feels the Bill is necessary. His Majesty’s Official Opposition do not wish in any way to detract from the noble Baroness’s good intentions, but it is only fair and reasonable that I am also clear on our behalf that we are unable to support the Bill.
As currently drafted, the Bill has an extremely broad application. Although the offence of selling cosmetic and personal care products containing biocides is well defined, Clauses 3 and 4 grant very wide powers over consumer products to the Secretary of State and the proposed biocidal consumer products advisory board. It appears that the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about the use of biocides understandably inform this drafting, but we feel that the broad and wide definition of these powers could lead to unintended overreach.
We are also concerned that the Bill takes too exacting an approach to regulation, and there are two strands to our concerns. First, the Bill sets the fine level for the sale and marketing of a cosmetic product containing biocides at “level 5”. By our understanding, that could result in an unlimited fine. It is conceivable that some reputable and legitimate firms may be discouraged from entering the cosmetic and personal care market with a technically unlimited level of liability. We would welcome the opportunity to hear from the Minister—that is, if the Government are supportive of the Bill—and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in her closing speech, about what risk assessment impacts have been conducted on the impact to SME businesses. These firms are the lifeblood of the UK economy, and we really wish them to succeed for both job creation and tax receipts for the Exchequer. But, realistically, they will not have the same capacity as larger companies to ensure compliance with such an approach.
In addition to the unlimited company liability, the same offences would also apply to officers of a company. To be absolutely clear, we appreciate and understand that this approach is appropriate and right in the case of serious criminal activity and certain regulated sectors of the economy. That is not in doubt. However, we remain to be convinced that it is appropriate here. Should an offence be committed by a company, not only would that company be liable and fined but potentially so would the officers of the company. This is not the correct time to evaluate in detail how and whether those officers would realistically be liable in an industry that is already regulated by the Health and Safety Executive under the GB Biocidal Products Regulations, trading standards services, and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. For good order, no crime should be acceptable. But, notwithstanding what I have referred to on the point of serious criminal activity and heavily regulated sectors, it should merit further discussion as to whether it is in the public interest to prosecute both a business and an individual for the same offence in this situation.
Secondly, and continuing on the theme of overreaching regulation, the Bill proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to establish yet another regulatory board. Perhaps I might quote the Prime Minister:
“We will rip up the bureaucracy that blocks investment. We will march through the institutions and make sure that every regulator in this country—especially our economic and competition regulators—take growth as seriously as this room does”.
That was also referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg.
I refer also to Thomas Brown, one of our excellent authors from the House of Lords Library, who refers in his research briefing on this Bill to
“the independent scientific advisory group on chemical safety … the Health and Safety Executive … under the GB Biocidal Products Regulation … trading standards services … the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency … the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 … the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008”
and
“the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Environment Agency and the UK Health Security Agency joint research programme on AMR”.
With all due respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and with what I have just highlighted as a backdrop, perhaps we should ask ourselves whether we do not already have a deep portfolio of both regulators and regulations in this space, without the need to create yet another regulatory body.
To conclude, while we accept and respect the strength of the views and sentiment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, towards the use of biocides in consumer products, for the reasons I have set out, I am afraid that we will not be supporting this Bill.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, before I was asked to respond to this Private Member’s Bill debate for the Government, I had absolutely no clue about biocides. I must admit that I have been a sucker for the 99.9% claim on every bit of packaging and every product in my flat in London. After hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, speak about the range of biocides that are in some of these products, I think that I shall go back this afternoon and look at every single product and see whether I should keep it in the flat.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for the discussion that her Bill has generated, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed in this debate. I also thank the noble Baroness for the briefing, articles and various reports that she kindly sent to me. I must admit that I read Dr Fady’s briefing note last night.
The Government recognise the intent of the Bill and the importance of ensuring that consumer products, including those containing biocides, remain safe. While the Government have reservations about the Bill, this should not be taken as dismissal of the concerns raised or the intent of the Bill. Rather, government believes that cosmetics regulation and biocidal products regulation, in addition to so many other regulations, provide long-standing regulatory frameworks that ensure that products containing biocides are safe. We believe that the Bill will create duplication in an area that is already well regulated and understood by industry, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
If products have a primary biocidal function, they will fall under the biocidal products regulation. These products must meet consumer safety and environmental protection requirements before being placed on the market in Great Britain. There is a very strict two-stage process that a biocidal product will go through: the active substance must be approved, which costs a lot of money, and the biocidal product in which the substance is used must be authorised.
As mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Sugg, and many other noble Lords, there is existing legislation on biocides. The Biocidal Products Regulations broadly define biocides as substances intended to control harmful organisms. The legislation covers something like 22 product types in four main groups, including preservatives, disinfectants and pest control products. This definition is well understood and has been used by regulators, stakeholders and manufacturers for some time. This Bill introduces a separate and conflicting definition of a biocide, which applies only to substances with antimicrobial effects. This cuts across the established definition, undermining rather than strengthening the existing robust, evidence-based regulatory regime.
Furthermore, the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association, which represents something like 85% of the industry in the UK in this area, does not support the Bill, precisely because the UK Cosmetics Regulation is already robust, evidence-led and fit for purpose. The provisions in the Bill would result in additional complexity for industry seeking to comply with regulations, as well as potential difficulties in enforcement, without any additional safety benefits. The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, is absolutely right that we do not want to impose additional regulation on SMEs, which are really the drivers of growth in the country.
Biocides may also be found within cosmetics, usually as preservatives. The Cosmetics Regulation applies to products with a primary cosmetic purpose, as opposed to the Biocidal Products Regulation. It outlines a robust set of safety requirements for cosmetics. Annexe 5 lists which preservatives, including biocides, may be used in cosmetics, subject to any specified conditions. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, we must keep pace with technology developments and evidence, which is precisely why the Secretary of State has the power to amend the Cosmetics Regulation to restrict or prohibit the use of substances in cosmetics, subject to conditions: for example, where there is sufficient scientific evidence indicating a potential risk to human health.
The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, mentioned the HSE’s spreadsheet of biocides that are unauthorised. I will take that back to the department for clarification and ask why this is not enforced.
The Office for Product Safety and Standards, the OPSS, and Ministers use expert advice from the Scientific Advisory Group on Chemical Safety in Consumer Products to inform policy decisions and amendments to the Cosmetic Regulation, as indicated by the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay, Lady Finlay and Lady Sugg. We do not want a new scientific advisory board. Having said that, the Government will listen to any scientific evidence and act appropriately.
The Government consider that the Biocidal Consumer Products Advisory Board, proposed in the Bill, would duplicate the purpose and work of the well-established SAG-CS. We consider such a board to be unnecessary and think it could, in fact, create significant confusion. Other regulations, such as the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals Regulations, REACH for short, also apply to the use of chemicals to ensure that human health and the environment are protected. I will take back to the department the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the database and whether we have kept it up to date.
The Bill proposes that marketing, including implicit claims relating to the efficacy of a consumer product containing biocidal ingredients, can be made only if proven to the satisfaction of the Biocidal Consumer Products Advisory Board. The Government agree that manufacturers should not be able to make misleading claims. Accordingly, in addition to the Advertising Standards Authority, both the cosmetics regulation and the biocidal products regulation contain provisions that prohibit products from making misleading claims regarding functions or safety.
As mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in addition to the existing regulatory framework, the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which I introduced to the House on 4 September 2024, will ensure that the UK is better placed to address safety issues. The powers in that Bill will allow the Government to make regulations to reduce or mitigate the potential risks presented by products. This may include further regulating the use of chemicals in consumer products. As noble Lords know, the Bill completed Lords Committee stage in December and will, I hope, come back on Report some time in February.
Antimicrobial resistance, or AMR, which this Bill aims to address, is a complex issue that requires action across all sectors, and the UK is fully committed to tackling the threat of AMR. The 2024-29 national action plan, launched by the previous Government, is the second five-year plan within the UK’s 20-year vision to control, contain and mitigate AMR by 2040. Tackling AMR resistance requires a holistic approach across government, not just targeting biocides in one area. The Government’s approach is evidence-led.
The national action plan provides a unified strategic approach. It was informed by consultation with a wide range of stakeholders to identify and prioritise actions needed to tackle AMR. It also supports the co-ordinated action between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and across sectors, that is necessary to tackle AMR.
In summary, I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for initiating the debate. I respect the intent behind the Bill. Antimicrobial resistance is a complex and serious issue requiring work across all sectors. I also agree that we need to be able to address the potential risks that biocides may pose in cosmetics and personal care products. However, we already have in place for these products robust regulatory frameworks that seek to ensure consumer safety and are well understood by industry. Consequently, the Bill may cloud and confuse the existing regime, which is very well established—a concern also voiced by the industry, as I mentioned earlier. The Government therefore do not support the Bill in its current form. However, officials would be happy to meet with the noble Baroness to discuss the safety of these products and any scientific evidence that may warrant consideration of changes to the current requirements, within the current legislative framework. In addition, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I will also ensure that officials organise roundtables with manufacturers.
In conclusion, I encourage the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to support the Government’s Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which will provide the powers needed to ensure we are better placed to address modern-day safety issues in order to protect consumers.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have taken part in this extremely rich debate, both those who have brought their scientific expertise to the Chamber, and those who have concentrated hard while listening to that expertise. I doubt your Lordships’ House has seen a debate with more concentration of scientific evidence, but I posit that we need many more debates containing this level of science.
I am aware of all the people waiting for the next debate, but there are a couple of points really worth drawing out. The key question that has arisen is whether there is currently enough regulation, and here it is useful to triangulate three of the contributions from noble Lords.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Sugg, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, all raised concerns about more regulation. I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, was here, because his contribution indicated that this potentially marks a shift from the Government drawing up lots of detailed rules, which will always be lagging behind, to putting the responsibility on manufacturers to say, “Don’t mess things up”. That surely should be where the responsibility lies, and it would take away a lot of the complexities that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to.
Here, it is useful to triangulate to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, which demonstrated clearly that the regulators are not in any way keeping up. The Minister suggested that there might be duplication and that the existing position is well regulated and understood. The speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, demonstrated otherwise and that the regulations are not fit for purpose. That also was also reflected in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, so triangulating those speeches is very useful.
I will deal briefly with some of the specific points made. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for raising concerns about toxicity to human bodies, which is not adequately covered. I have not gone into that area because it is supposedly already regulated, although it clearly is not, as the noble Baroness indicated. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, will be pleased to know that I will be hosting two events in the next two months, with academics from the University of Exeter, on bacteriophages. Bacteriophages as an alternative to antibiotic use are certainly part of the story of how we are going to tackle the problem of AMR, but I would posit that they are unlikely to be a total solution.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Brinton, and others, raised the issue of period products. The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, pointed out that silver damages the lactobacillus—the healthy bacteria. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. As the noble Baroness said, people cannot know what they are buying now. That cannot be right, and we should be able to tackle that right now through that Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, asked whether the level 5 unlimited fine is the right level. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, said that once we let the AMR genie out of the bottle, we cannot put it back. If a manufacturer that is a giant multinational company is responsible for letting loose a resistance gene that, essentially, gives rise to an AMR pandemic, a level 5 unlimited fine—which a court will of course consider with reference to the size of the company concerned—is the appropriate level.
I am aware of time, so I will offer some final thoughts. I really welcome the noble Lord, Lord Leong, saying that he was not dismissing the concerns that I brought forward today. I very much welcome the offer of further interaction, following up on the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, of a round table, and I look forward to further such discussion in considering the Production Regulation and Metrology Bill.
Finally, I am really glad that the Minister is going to go home and check his cupboards. I would suggest that this provides evidence that future action is needed.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, if I might briefly clarify, the unlimited fine I was referring to is obviously appropriate for large organisations, which have the ability to take that fine, but as was reiterated by the Minister, it is the SMEs we want to help. For them, an unlimited fine could make the difference between entering the market and not, which is why we need to take a measured approach.