Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

2nd reading
Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Legislative Consent sought

17:02

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate. Safety and effective regulation lie at the heart of this legislation. Whether you place an online order for a new toaster or your business is investing in a new piece of machinery, you should have confidence that what you are buying is safe. At least 300,000 UK businesses, with an estimated market turnover of £490 billion, are affected by existing regulations, which are a critical element of the UK’s business and consumer landscape. As we embrace the opportunities of the digital age and exciting new technological advances, it is clear that the products we buy and the way we buy them are changing. It is only right that the rules and regulations that keep people safe and enable businesses to trade effectively are updated too.

This Bill will underpin the UK’s position at the forefront of international trade and enable the recognition of EU product requirements where it is in the UK’s interests to do so. It supports consumers, businesses and economic growth. However, we have to be honest with ourselves in saying that current outdated product and metrology regulations hinder more than help these ambitions. That is why it is now essential to update our framework and future-proof it to meet the challenges ahead.

Historically, the majority of the UK’s product regulation and metrology framework was managed through EU law. From EU exit until the present, the UK Government simply did not have the powers to regulate these areas effectively or efficiently, which is why we are bringing forward legislation now, so we can respond to anticipated changes in the global regulatory landscape next year.

The Bill will preserve the UK’s status as a global leader in product regulation, supporting businesses and protecting consumers. It will ensure that the UK is better placed to address modern-day safety issues, harness economic opportunities and ensure a level playing field between the high street and online marketplaces. It will allow the UK to respond to modern challenges, such as the fire risk associated with such products as e-bikes and lithium-ion batteries. Without these powers, we will not be able effectively to contribute to the regulation of such potentially high-risk products. I take a moment to pay tribute to the family of Sofia Duarte, who have been tirelessly advocating for more legislation to better regulate e-bikes, along with the batteries and chargers associated with them, and generally raise awareness of their risks. Sofia sadly died as a result of an e-bike fire on New Year’s Day 2023. This legislation will allow us to take action to help prevent similar such tragedies.

I would also like to mention the work of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, in this space. He introduced a Lithium-ion Battery Safety Bill in September, which generated a highly interesting debate. I look forward to continued engagement with him on both Bills. I also acknowledge and thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his tireless work on lithium-ion batteries over these years. There are already strict legal requirements in place whereby manufacturers must ensure that such products are safe before they are sold. This includes ensuring they provide instructions for safe use, including safe charging. However, this is a complex issue and our understanding is developing over time. We need to tailor any regulatory intervention in the most effective way. This Bill will allow us to ensure that the responsibilities of those involved in the supply of products, such as online marketplaces, are made clear.

Online marketplaces already have some legal responsibility, but the Bill will enable the Government to modernise and clarify the responsibilities of online supply chain actors, and any new duties will be in addition to responsibilities they may already have as distributors under the current framework. Without these powers, it will remain far too easy for unscrupulous suppliers to place unsafe products on the UK market through online marketplaces, which also sees them undercut good British businesses. The legislation will enable improvements to compliance and enforcement, reflecting the challenges of modern digital borders. It enables the Government and our regulators to tackle non-compliance and target interventions by allowing greater sharing of data between regulators and market surveillance authorities.

Finally, the Bill will allow us to update the legal metrology framework, which governs the accuracy of weights and measures for purchased goods, to give consumers and business greater confidence in what they are buying. This will allow for technological progress, including in support of net-zero aims—for example, ensuring that energy smart meters are accurate in their readings.

The Government have worked closely with businesses, representatives and consumer groups, which is why organisations as diverse as Which?, the London Fire Brigade, the Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Appliances, Electrical Safety First and the Chartered Trading Standards Institute are all supportive of this legislation.

The Government are bringing forward this legislation as there are insufficient powers to update the existing body of law, either to keep pace with technical developments or to deal with new risks and hazards. Existing legislation recognises EU law as it stood from our date of recognition. Recognising the product rules of key trading partners such as the EU—should we wish to do so—will help to support trade and consumer choice, but current legislation only allows us to recognise EU rules as they currently stand. The Bill ensures we have the ability to end recognition of EU laws where they do not work for our businesses and consumers.

I would like to give a brief overview of the contents of the Bill. While it is relatively short, it deals with some technical matters. It has14 clauses and a schedule. First, it creates new regulation-making powers to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations for prescribed purposes:

“Reducing or mitigating risks presented by products … ensuring that products operate efficiently or effectively … ensuring that products”


used for

“weighing or measuring operate accurately”,

or, when making provision that

“corresponds, or is similar, to … EU law”,

making regulations to reduce or mitigate

“the environmental impact of products”.

The Bill limits the scope of the products we seek to cover to tangible products that are manufactured or result from another method of production, with specific excluded products listed in the schedule.

However, while the Bill will not regulate AI on its own, we need powers in the Bill to cover it when it is integrated into, or as a component of, a physical product. With the expected increase in the inclusion of AI and machine learning in new products, it is likely that we will need to make amendments to regulations in the future to adapt to technological advances that could pose specific risks to consumers, particularly where AI is a component of a product’s safety.

It includes provision to continue recognising EU product requirements, where this is in the UK’s interest, or to end this recognition. The legislation confers an emergency derogation power to allow for the disapplication or modification of product regulatory requirements in certain emergency situations. This is subject to the affirmative procedure and builds on our experience of needing to bring products to market more quickly during the pandemic.

It creates new regulation-making powers to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations on the quantities in which certain goods may be made available in the UK market: for example, maintaining an average system of quantity control for the sale of packaged goods, including food and drink, and providing legal definitions of units of measurement and measurement standards. The Bill will also confer powers to allow tailored enforcement provision to be made in both product and metrology regulation, including the creation of criminal offences and new civil sanctions, including fines.

The Bill contains a power to amend, repeal or revoke provisions of specific primary legislation that deal with product safety and metrology, namely the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Weights and Measures Act 1985 and the Gun Barrel Proof Acts of 1868 to 1978. This allows us to address the outdated governance requirements placed on the Birmingham Proof House. These were designed during the Napoleonic Wars, when there was a thriving Birmingham gun trade. This trade no longer exists. Again, this is subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure.

The Bill contains powers to make provisions in future for a charging regime that will allow the relevant authority, such as local trading standards, to recover some of the costs attributable to the operation of enforcing the regulatory regime. Finally, it contains powers to allow the Secretary of State to make provisions in regulations permitting or requiring the sharing of information between relevant bodies, the emergency services and other persons who may be specified. This ensures that we have access to the right information in support of our market-surveillance activities and incident management.

Before finishing, I will touch on two key issues that I am sure will be of interest to noble Lords here today. The first relates to delegated powers. This Bill is what is sometimes called a framework Bill, as the vast majority of its provisions are delegated powers. The Government are fully cognisant of the importance of getting the right balance when it comes to delegated powers and using them as sparingly as possible. For technical policy areas, we believe that it is sensible and proportionate to give powers to Ministers to update and amend legislation, future-proofing the ability to respond quickly and flexibly to new technology and evolving innovation. We have minimised the use of the powers in the Bill as much as possible and we have worked closely with the Attorney-General—who, quite rightly, is a stickler for these kinds of things—to find the best approach. So we look forward to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which we will carefully consider.

The second issue relates to devolution. In line with the Sewel convention, the UK Government are seeking the consent of each of the devolved legislatures for provisions that engage the legislative consent Motion process. Product safety is reserved, and, in the main, metrology is also reserved, but the Bill powers are UK-wide and subsequently touch on some elements of devolved competences. We are actively engaged with the devolved Governments on these provisions and will continue to work with them on any concerns they may have. We want to see that the broad support for the policy in this Bill is translated into legislative consent from the devolved Governments. I will update noble Lords as the Bill continues its passage.

I end by saying that this Bill will protect consumers and support businesses by ensuring that the UK is better placed to address modern-day safety issues. It will let us harness opportunities that deliver economic growth and will create a level playing field between the high street and online marketplaces by putting in place appropriate responsibilities throughout the supply chain. The result is that consumers can buy with confidence and businesses can trade effectively and compete fairly. Ultimately, it allows the UK to decide how best to protect consumers and support businesses on our own terms. To echo an often-used phrase, this legislation allows us to “take back control”. But, crucially, it allows us to do so in a way that supports our twin-track approach to trade: seeking a closer, more mature trading partnership with the EU and forging new trading relationships with countries around the world, too. I beg to move.

17:18

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, this Bill gives the Secretary of State wide powers to make product regulations. The detailed content of these regulations—the what and the how—will affect us all, whether we are manufacturers, importers, retailers or consumers. This Bill provides for yet more criminal offences and gives the power to impose civil sanctions for non-compliance. Yet it contains no detail of how all this will be achieved. What will be the limits on ministerial powers? What oversight will Parliament have in respect to the regulators? These are important questions that are as yet unanswered.

These gaps become more serious when it is appreciated that the previous Government instituted a consultation of all interested parties. That consultation closed a year ago, in October 2023. This Government have yet to publish their response. Why? What is the point of consultation if the Government do not publish a response?

As one who has, on many occasions in the past, answered government consultation papers as an interested party, I know the time and effort that go into responding to such things, often on tight timetables. A year has now passed; the previous Government did not publish a response, but they had not introduced legislation. This Government have now had three months; Ministers have had plenty of time to respond and set out their views before bringing forward this Bill. Sceptic that I am, I none the less believe that the Government would not introduce the Bill if they did not have at least some idea of their direction of travel. Yet we are kept wholly in the dark on important matters: what did the respondents have to say?

The Government have seen fit to introduce this Bill, which lacks particularity on all the issues that really matter to those who will have to live and work with it; that is, business, legislators, consumer groups and environmental groups. We all have different interests in the delivery of this legislation and in its practical impact. We will all have different points of view and things to say, yet we are being asked to legislate completely in the dark as to what the respondents to the consultation said in their submissions, and what it is this Government believe are the right answers to their points—answers have come there none.

This is poor way to begin a new Government’s legislative programme. In discussing this Bill, we should proceed today on the basis that the Government have not yet collated firm conclusions they feel could be put in a published response to that consultation—because, if they had, they would surely have published them. The Government would not be keeping us in the dark on purpose, would they?

So I am afraid that we must proceed, in considering this Bill, on the generous basis that the Government do not yet have their own answers to the responses in the consultation—unless, even worse, which I hope is not the case, they are afraid to let us know what their answers are. Are they proceeding, covertly, to ignore very good points made by respondents in the hope that legislators in Parliament will simply miss the point? Whichever it is, this is a shabby and poor way to proceed on a Bill of great practical importance to industry, consumers and the people of this country. What is the rush? We on these Benches accept the need for reform, but this is ill-informed haste and it is discourteous to us in Parliament.

So my first question is: when will we see the Government’s response to this consultation, which closed 12 months ago? Secondly, does such a response exist, at least in draft? Whatever the basis, why are we being asked to legislate without that information? We need to know what respondents have said and what the Government’s views are. Why is that being kept from us? Is it because they are afraid of the answers? Is it because they have yet to decide their direction of travel: that is, what regulations they propose to introduce and what they will address? Is it because they are afraid that, if they do reveal their plans, everyone will be up in arms? Or is it simply the Government’s view that the man in Whitehall knows best and, we—the consumers, manufacturers and legislators—should not trouble our pretty little heads and just do as we are told?

Have the Government formed a view of the landscape? They say that the regulatory regime needs modernisation: surely they must know where we are headed. This is a Henry VIII Bill par excellence, so now we must be told, in much more detail, what direction the Government think we should be taking on the matters of substance and importance that the Bill addresses.

The lack of a response to the consultation is of particular concern because the Bill grants the Secretary of State such wide-ranging powers without full parliamentary scrutiny. The Opposition would like to seek clarity on a number of areas of the Bill. Where necessary, we will probe these in Committee. I will give some examples. On enforcement, Clauses 3 and 4 grant Ministers the power to designate new relevant authorities to ensure compliance with a new body of regulations and to create new criminal offences by regulation. However, the text of the Bill gives us scant detail on what these new offences will be. Who would bring the prosecutions and gather the evidence? How will these enforcement actions be funded? All these questions are not answered in the Bill.

So, too, Clause 5(3), in the context of metrology—this new word for all of us—includes new requirements for business about units of measure. In practical terms, units of measure and how they are defined will be very important, but there is no clarity on how these rules will be tested and assessed to ensure that they are appropriate, in particular for smaller businesses. It is crucial, as the Government seek to deliver on their stated objective to grow the economy, that regulation does not hinder the growth of small and emerging businesses. Nor, indeed, should we allow a level of regulation that would discourage risk-takers and entrepreneurs from setting businesses up in the first place.

I come back to the issue of consultation. Business and all interested parties, consumers and environmental interest groups must be able to make sensible submissions about regulations before they are laid. Consultation will be critical. So I ask, on this framework Bill, as it has been described—I have described it as a Henry VIII Bill—whether the Government will undertake to publish substantive regulations in draft and consult on them before they are laid. That is really important.

These Benches are also concerned that the lack of clarity in these measures will allow Ministers to align with European Union standards without proper parliamentary scrutiny. It is true that much of our trade is with the EU, but there is a strong case to be made for standards that allow British businesses to trade also around the world. Boosting global trade is vital if we, as the Government intend, are to grow the UK economy. So can the Government confirm that no regulations made under the Bill will prevent or impede United Kingdom businesses from trading globally?

In conclusion, this is a poor way to approach legislation: rushing the Bill without responding to the consultation, without us knowing the Government’s view, is inappropriate and discourteous to the many respondents who have put a great deal of thought into their submissions. This is more worrying in the light of the wide-ranging powers to be granted to Ministers without sufficient clarity on what the Government intend. We need clarity from the Government on their real intentions and I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will engage constructively with these concerns and reassure the House of the Government’s aims as the Bill makes progress.

17:28

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his helpful opening remarks and make it absolutely clear that we on these Benches broadly welcome the Bill and very strongly support its aims. However, the Minister did point out that it is a framework Bill and, echoing the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, we are acutely aware that none of the statutory instruments is before us: the secondary legislation is to follow. As he also pointed out, neither do we have details of the responses to the previous Government’s consultation—so it is somewhat difficult to know whether the Bill will achieve those aims.

In a sense echoing the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, can the Minister give us a categorial assurance that at least the key draft statutory instruments will be available to your Lordships as soon as possible, and certainly before Third Reading? The devil will be in the detail. We need to be assured that no loopholes remain and that the secondary legislation is robust enough to address the wide-ranging risks associated with product safety and online marketplaces. He will be well aware that we are unable to amend statutory instruments, so we clearly need those assurances before we can give the Bill a Third Reading.

My noble friend Lord Fox will also want to probe how the Bill will relate to the changes to product safety that the EU intends to introduce in December, and how the Bill will take into consideration the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. He and, no doubt, many others will also want to probe the impact of the Bill on the devolved Administrations—an issue the Minister touched on—in respect of common frame- works, the internal market and the Windsor Framework, for example. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly have already raised concerns in this regard.

The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, rather suggested that there was no rush for the Bill. I will raise address two issues on which I genuinely disagree with him and believe that urgent action is needed: online marketplaces and lithium-ion batteries.

The Minister has made it clear that the Bill is intended to provide a level playing field between online marketplaces and the high street. This is welcome and long overdue. I have raised the concern in your Lordships’ House on several occasions that, for too long, unsafe products, especially electrical products, have been freely available on online marketplaces. A lack of adequate regulation and poor enforcement has created a “Wild West Web” teeming with rogue traders. We even have the ludicrous situation where items recalled by manufacturers, often because of safety concerns, can still be purchased online.

The charity Electrical Safety First has long campaigned on the dangers associated with unsafe electrical products sold on online marketplaces. One of its investigations found that 93% of sampled electrical products were non-compliant or unsafe. That is not an outlier: the British Toy and Hobby Association found that 86% of sampled toys tested from popular online marketplaces were illegal.

It is really welcome that one of the aims of the Bill is to remedy this critical safety loophole. However, as I said earlier, we need assurances from the Government that any secondary legislation will confront and tackle the full scale of this issue.

I am sure the Minister is well aware that a number of organisations such as the British Toy and Hobby Association, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, Electrical Safety First and Which? have identified three key areas necessary to strengthen the Bill in this regard. There needs, they argue, to be a clear and enforceable duty on online marketplaces, and an extension of liability to the online marketplace for unsafe or defective products sold on their platforms. They argue—and I strongly agree—that the key terms in the Bill must be more clearly defined, and that the definitions of “an online marketplace” and “product” are far too narrowly defined. Thirdly, they argue—again, I strongly agree—that consumer protection should have an underlying primacy in the development of new regulations. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on these three points.

The Bill also intends to address another issue in which I have been involved for some time: the safety of lithium-ion batteries, which was addressed so well in my noble friend Lord Redesdale’s Private Member’s Bill. I thank the Minister for his kind remarks about the work I have been doing on this issue. I hope that, very soon, if we can get this Bill through, it can be taken off my to-do list.

I recognise that lithium-ion batteries are increasingly important for the development of our economy: they store more energy than any other type of battery, allowing for longer use. But, if over-heated through incorrect manufacture, misuse, damage or using sub-standard chargers, they can create fierce fires of over 600 degrees centigrade, which are very difficult to extinguish—for example, you cannot use water on them —and release toxic gases.

I have on many occasions provided details of the number of fires caused by such batteries and the damage to property and the tragic loss of life caused by those fires. For instance, the London Fire Brigade attends a fire involving an e-bike or e-scooter once every two days. It is now London’s fastest-growing fire risk. This trend is being repeated right across the country, to the point where many local transport bodies now ban them. It is interesting that Chiltern Railways, for instance, has posters everywhere stating,

“NO e-scooters allowed on trains or stations”,


and then, in big letters,

“Lithium batteries are a fire risk”.


Incorrectly used, they certainly are. Indeed, even the very small lithium-ion batteries, such as those found in vapes, can cause fire and destruction as they enter the waste stream: 84 million disposable vapes are thrown away every single year. Zurich insurers found that the incorrect disposal of vapes led to nearly 250 fires in the last year, an increase of nearly 120% since 2022.

While the majority of lithium-ion batteries are safe, made by reputable retailers already testing their batteries to the relevant safety standards, the lack of third-party safety certification for e-bike and e-scooter batteries, for example, means there is no way of knowing that all the batteries in these products are safe.

The Bill is clear that a product presents a risk if it could, under foreseeable conditions or intended use, endanger health or safety or damage property. Given the statistics, I was very pleased to hear the Minister say in his opening remarks that he believes that lithium-ion batteries should be classified as high risk. That is the first time that has been placed on the record. I hope he will go further and agree with Electrical Safety First, which has argued that there must be third-party safety certification for every battery used in an e-bike or e-scooter before it is placed on the UK market. I hope he agrees that the same should apply to bicycle conversion kits and battery chargers.

There is huge support for that measure from many bodies, including the National Fire Chiefs Council and over 500 local councils right across the country. But there is one omission from the Bill which my noble friend Lord Redesdale’s Bill has sensibly picked up: the disposal of lithium-ion batteries. The safety of products applies to their entire lifetime, from manufacture to disposal. As evidenced by the vape fires in the refuse stream, which I mentioned earlier, action is needed. Can the Minister explain why the safe disposal of lithium-ion batteries has been omitted from the Bill and tell us what can now be done about it?

Finally, I raise the issue of enforcement. Changing regulations to improve safety will have the desired effect only if there is effective enforcement of them. The Minister knows only too well that trading standards officers will play a key role in this, yet in the 10 years to 2020, the number of trading standards officers in local councils declined by between 30% and 50%. Continuing budget cuts, an ageing workforce and, frankly, increased workloads caused by Brexit mean that the situation is getting worse. Can the Minister explain what plans the Government have to halt and then reverse this decline? Without action on improving enforcement, the good intentions of the Bill will not be realised.

As I said at the beginning, we support the Bill, but we are concerned that, without sight of the draft statutory instruments, we have little opportunity to discuss, scrutinise and, crucially, seek to amend the mechanisms by which the Bill will achieve its ends. I hope therefore that, in his response, the Minister will start the debate that we need by giving detailed answers to the questions, including mine, that will be raised today. I look forward to hearing from him about them.

I also look forward to hearing the maiden speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton.

17:40

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, in thanking the Minister for the way that he introduced the Bill. I welcome the Bill, principally because it gives Parliament an opportunity to mitigate some of the problems—or, if I am being charitable, some of the unforeseen consequences—resulting from our withdrawal from the EU. As I was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, castigating the Government for introducing a skeleton Bill with Henry VIII powers, I ruminated, as a Cross-Bencher, how much the late, much lamented, Lord Judge, would have enjoyed hearing that—pot calling the kettle black comes to mind, or, if Mandy Rice-Davies had been one of Henry VIII’s wives, she probably would have said, “He would say that, wouldn’t he?” I should also mention that, as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I have skin in the game, as they say.

The Bill will guide the future regulation of standards for thousands of products. Consistency of standards across key markets helps give businesses certainty about the quality requirements they must be able to meet to be able to sell their products in target markets. I suggest that one way to provide this certainty might be to consider a formal commitment to dynamic alignment, in the same way that Switzerland, the countries within the European Economic Area and, to a limited extent today, the UK have mechanisms to ensure that regulations with the EU are aligned and continuously updated.

The UK abided by the “CE” European conformity marking system until our exit from the EU. The 2019 EU withdrawal Act created a UK-only system, using the new UK conformity assessment marking “UKCA”, introduced on 1 January 2021, which it required all UK businesses to adopt by 31 December this year—not very far away. The response from businesses has been lukewarm or rather negative. In May this year, after repeatedly extending the UKCA transition deadline, the UK Government acknowledged its impracticality and extended the recognition of many CE goods in GB markets indefinitely; covering 21 regulations across products that are estimated to save UK businesses £640.5 million in net savings from not having to manage two standards regimes.

The powers contained in the Bill allow Ministers to decide whether to recognise or end recognition of EU requirements. In practice, this would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, either aligning them or ending that requirement, without needing any additional primary legislation. This will help with the smoother management of the somewhat contentious Windsor protocol for Northern Ireland. It also requires Ministers to have regard to the social, environmental and economic input before any decision.

In paragraph 4, in the third bullet point, the Explanatory Notes state that:

“The Bill aims to support economic growth, provide regulatory stability and deliver more protection for consumers by … ensuring that the law can be updated to allow a means of recognising new or updated EU product requirements, with the intention of preventing additional costs for businesses and provide regulatory stability”.


As I read this, it is the Government’s intention that the Bill will allow the UK to align itself to EU standards in circumstances where they judge it sensible to do so. Working with others across the House, I will lay amendments in Committee to probe whether there is a case for the Government to commit formally to a policy of dynamic alignment; to clarify how best to measure and assess the costs or benefits of alignment; and to set out a process of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability when a Minister determines that divergence is in the best interests of the UK. The intention is simple: to place the delivery of consistent regulatory standards beyond the reach of short-term thinking and to ensure the restoration of long-term stability in regulation, to the benefit of British consumers and British businesses.

I finish by wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, well. We met on the staircase that we share going to our joint offices. I have already wished her well once, and I now do so for a second time.

17:45

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, it is an honour to make my maiden speech in today’s debate and to follow the detailed, witty and informed contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. First, let me thank noble Lords from all sides of the House for the very warm welcome I have been given since my introduction. I thank also Black Rod, Garter, the clerks, the doorkeepers, the police and staff of the House who made that day so memorable for me, for my family and for my friends.

I am so grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton and my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon for being my supporters. We go back a long way, to when I was head of Lord Prescott’s office when he was deputy leader of the Labour Party, and we all three came into Parliament together in 1997. My supporters have always been good friends, always give good advice and, very importantly, are always good fun.

I was rather nervous about the introductory ceremony, but my supporters calmly assured me that nothing could possibly go wrong. In fact, all seemed to pass without incident, but I have more than a suspicion that if I had tripped over my robe, fallen flat on my face and fluffed my words, your Lordships would have smiled benignly and told me afterwards that never had a ceremony of introduction gone so smoothly.

In preparing for today, I looked back at the maiden speech of the late Lord Walker of Doncaster 24 years ago. As a strong trade unionist, he spoke passionately about industrial relations, and I know that he would have been pleased about the current Government’s focus on workplace rights. It was a tremendous honour to follow Harold and to represent the people of Doncaster for 27 years as their Member of Parliament. I hope that I can be as helpful to my successor, the brilliant Sally Jameson, as Harold was to me.

Doncaster was where I grew up and where my father was headmaster at Armthorpe comprehensive and my mother was the head of the nursery at the Park school. Such is the power and influence of teachers that, when I would visit the miners’ social clubs in Armthorpe, even though my father had ceased to be headmaster 30 years before, they would not say, “That’s Rosie Winterton, our MP”, they would say, “You see that lass, that’s Rosie Winterton, Mr Winterton’s daughter.”

My first ministerial appointment was in the Lord Chancellor’s department, headed by my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg. My last one was in the Business Department, run by my noble friend Lord Mandelson. Both were Secretaries of State from this House and both were formidable operators. They had a clear idea of what they wanted to do, led their Ministers and officials, and persuaded their colleagues.

In between, I served in a number of departments including Health, Transport, DWP and Local Government. A key lesson for me from my time in government, especially as Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber, is that the key to achieving economic growth and closing regional disparities in wealth and economic development is devolving power and decision-making to regional and local levels. I believe the same principles of devolution will be necessary to get the NHS back on its feet.

I went on to become Opposition Chief Whip. The noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, was the Government Chief Whip at the time, and I benefited greatly from his guidance and good humour in our usual channels exchanges—I thank him for that. In fact, there are so many ex-Chief Whips in this House that surely there must be an exclusive club of them. If there is, I am waiting anxiously for an invitation to join the ex-Chiefs club, not least because it might be therapeutic for recovering Chief Whips.

After being Chief Whip I served on the Council of Europe, along with my noble friend Lord Foulkes, and was a Deputy Speaker of the other place from 2017 until the general election in July. During that time, I came to appreciate the high regard in which our Parliament—the mother of parliaments—is held in the world, and how important it is for us to be passionate advocates of our democracy. I am deeply disturbed by the lack of voter participation in local and general elections. I hope a focus of this current Parliament will be on how we can bring home to people the impact on their lives of the decisions taken by politicians at national and local level, and impress on them how important it is to use their vote—so crucial in a world where so many are deprived of their democratic rights.

What has become very apparent to me during the time I have spent listening to the debates in this House is the high level of expertise here, and the detailed and rigorous scrutiny of legislation undertaken. It is with some trepidation, therefore, that I admit that I am not the world’s expert on product regulation and metrology, but I am quietly confident that by the end of this debate, having listened to your Lordships, and with the guidance of my good friend the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, I will be far better acquainted with the finer details of the subject in hand.

What I do know is that this is an important and very necessary Bill that updates the existing body of law. As consumers, the public need to know that the Government will play their part, through legislation, to protect them. Product safety is not something we give enough thought to these days. We take for granted that the things we buy are safe, but as technology develops rapidly and the products we buy are invented and updated with increasing frequency, it is important that we know what we are getting. In a world of ever-increasing online shopping, it is vital that consumers are not hoodwinked by false claims or put in any danger by unsafe products. We certainly need to know, as others have said, that our e-bike, mobile phone or tablet is not going to catch fire, with all the tragic consequences that can follow.

It is the job of government to horizon-scan technological changes and ensure that protections are in place because, as always, it will be the most vulnerable in our society who will become victims if the Government do not act to curb the predators. That is why I welcome the Bill and, in closing, thank your Lordships once again for the warm welcome I have been given.

17:54

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an absolute delight to follow the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Winterton of Doncaster, who has just demonstrated what an astute, feisty, gifted and yet totally grounded parliamentarian she is. I have known my noble friend Rosie for many years, for more years than she and I would wish to recall. She has always stood out as a true champion of the people, an authentic voice in British politics.

My noble friend has held many senior offices in government, and she referred to some of them. It is a long list so brace yourselves, my Lords: from the Lord Chancellor’s Department through Minister of State for Health Services, Minister of State for Transport, Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber, Minister of State for Pensions through to Business and Local Government. She was rightly made a dame in the New Year Honours List in 2016, and we all know that there is nothing like a dame. My noble friend Lady Winterton also spent many years as Labour’s Chief Whip in the Commons. She has indeed been there, done that, got the T-shirt. She was a wonderful Deputy Speaker in the Commons, combining being a stickler for the rules with being the epitome of calm and persuasion, especially with the awkward squad—a talent in anybody’s language—and all this while wearing the highest heels on the planet.

My noble friend chose this Second Reading to make her maiden speech because it is about the everyday concerns and safety of people and businesses up and down the country. That is, and always has been, her politics. I look forward to hearing much more from her in this Chamber, as I am sure we all do.

I welcome this landmark framework Bill, as does the Chartered Trading Standards Institute in coalition with the British Toy & Hobby Association, Electrical Safety First and Which?. As Which? has said, this Government are prioritising legislation that addresses a growing gap in consumer protections. The coalition also has concerns about the Bill, which the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, has referred to, and which will no doubt be addressed in the passage of the Bill.

The online marketplace in particular is not protecting consumers today and leaves them open to illegal, unsafe and, indeed, very harmful products, with few repercussions at present for those perpetrating these violations and finding gaps in the law. It is also so damaging to the very many good businesses that trade online in safe and legal products. There has been no real domestic reform to product safety regulation since our exit from the EU. The previous Government extended recognition of EU requirements, which had been due to fall away at the end of this year, but did not prioritise what comes next, either in general terms or in relation to the specific known issues, such as unsafe batteries in e-bikes and scooters, counterfeit electrical goods on online marketplaces, children’s toys, smoke and carbon monoxide alarms—on and on goes the unsafe products list. Although the powers in this Bill will not solve all these issues, they should allow us to make progress in a number of areas.

Some may see this Bill as EU alignment through the backdoor. I disagree. As I see it, the Bill will allow the UK to align with the EU when it makes sense to do so but also give us flexibility not to if, as a country, we want even stronger safety standards. Given the unique position of Northern Ireland in the post-Brexit trading landscape under the Windsor agreement, perhaps my noble friend the Minister could set out how the Bill’s provisions affect Northern Ireland.

I welcome the provisions on information sharing, which are designed to make it easier for public authorities such as trading standards and the emergency services to alert each other on cases they are working on across the country. The Bill’s enforcement aspects are also welcome but must be looked at in the context of very limited local authority resources—I speak as a vice-president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute.

We have all been lobbied on concerns over the Bill’s metrology regulations, in that they focus on units of measurement and quantities of goods but are limited in scope. For some, the Bill does not grant sufficient authority to test and verify the equipment used for measurements. Perhaps my noble friend could write to me about this, as accuracy is key here.

The coalition of product safety organisations I referred to earlier wants the Bill to safeguard consumers through clear and enforceable duties on online marketplaces, clearly defined definitions of new terms, putting consumer safety on the face of the Bill, and more effective scrutiny processes.

The Regulatory Policy Committee has scrutinised the impact assessment published alongside the Bill and decided that it provides

“sufficient evidence of the problem under consideration and a strong argument for intervention”.

However, it suggests that the Bill’s impact assessment

“could be improved by including further detail of the impacts expected from the related secondary legislation”.

Will my noble friend the Minister comment on that part of the RPC’s opinion?

As I understand it, the Government want the Bill to tackle modern safety issues for consumers, grasp opportunities to deliver much-needed economic growth and offer a much improved level playing field to businesses. I am sure many of us would support those aims, and I wish the Bill well.

18:02

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and a particular pleasure to hear the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton. She has a distinguished career in government and in the service of her party. I am sure we all look forward to hearing her future contributions to your Lordships’ House.

I read the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill with great interest when it was published earlier this summer, and with not a little surprise because it was not foreshadowed in the manifesto of the party opposite. The Minister sought to present the Bill as a technical one, to downplay concerns and to suggest that there is nothing to see here. I agree, of course, that there are technical elements in the Bill, but the technical in this area is often highly political and there is a long history, I am afraid, from those involved in managing the relationship with the EU of obfuscation and lack of clarity about the obligations that are really being undertaken, so it is right that we look under the surface of what the Bill implies.

My basic concern is that the Bill goes further than a purely technical Bill really needs to. It goes further because part of the motivation behind it is indeed to revive a process of alignment of goods with EU single market laws. That is not just my interpretation; it is said in the quite frank briefing prepared for the King’s Speech before the summer break. I will refer to that from time to time. The core of the case for the Bill is that the Government need to be able to regulate new products and continue to give status to the CE marking in the UK. I agree with that in principle, but I do not think that aim requires this Bill in this form. I want to explain why and what my concerns are.

I accept that the Government need a power to regulate in this area. Of course, the Government always have that power. I think the Minister said that the UK simply did not have the powers. With the greatest respect, that is not correct. This Parliament has the powers to do anything it wishes. Of course, it has to do it by primary legislation if there is no other route, and in some areas it will probably be better so done, especially for genuinely new products breaking genuinely new ground. But let us accept that a regulatory power is needed.

The current power to update regulations and recognise the CE marking is the retained EU law Act, which we debated with such pain about a year ago. In fact, that power has been used very recently in the Product Safety and Metrology (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which came into force just a few days ago. Therefore, my first question to the Minister is: can he explain why it is not possible simply to extend the deadlines that do expire for those powers in the retained EU law Act? Why can they simply not be extended, and we proceed as we have done in the last year or so?

I think I know the answer to that: the Government want to do more than that. Specifically, I suspect they want a new set of provisions enabling dynamic alignment with EU law. As the briefing for the King’s Speech said, it will

“enable us to make the sovereign choice to mirror or diverge from updated EU rules”—

that is, to create a power to make sure that our law can automatically follow changes in EU law. Indeed, that is what we find in Clause 2(7):

“Product regulations may provide that a product requirement is to be treated as met if … a requirement of relevant EU law specified in product regulations is met”.


In other words, this is a power to reimport EU law concepts back into our system. It allows UK product standards to be described not in UK law terms but simply by a cross-reference to EU law. When that EU law changes, so ours will change. So my second question to the Minister is: can he confirm or deny that the intention is indeed to make simple cross-references to EU law in that way? Does he agree that such cross-references amount to dynamic alignment with EU law?

Similarly, Clause 1(2) enables the Secretary of State, by regulations, to make provision

“which corresponds, or is similar, to a provision of relevant EU law for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products”.

Again, it is not clear exactly why this separate provision is needed, but EU rules on traceability are certainly increasingly complex and intrusive.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Is it the noble Lord’s case that the Government should be prevented in any case from having the same regulations as the EU?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

I will come on to that. I am trying to get clarity about the purpose of this Bill and why it needs to go further than the powers we already have.

My third question is: can the Minister explain the purpose of the separate provision in Clause 1(2) and the situation it is designed to deal with? I will table amendments to this and other clauses.

Why are any of these provisions necessary beyond simple administrative convenience? The answer is that this Bill is entirely in tune with the lack of clarity that so often surrounded the detail of our relationship with the EU. It is simply the beginning of a path on which, without voters noticing—this is my point: we need clarity—we slip back, closer to single market-like trade arrangements.

Obviously, it is already true that, if a British company wants to export to the EU, its products must comply with EU law. What these provisions would do over time is require producers covered by them to produce in the UK, for the UK, to those EU standards, and make those EU standards the only legal standards on the British market, even when they are not good standards, or are complex or costly. This set-up is a core element of the way the single market works.

Simply mirroring those EU laws does not itself improve trade with the EU. There will still be customs and regulatory paperwork in those circumstances. The only way of eliminating that is to satisfy the EU authorities that our laws are in fact the same as theirs, and I suggest that they are very unlikely to be satisfied without the usual panoply of Commission and court enforcement—subordination once again to the EU authorities. After all, what other way is there for the EU to decide whether our laws genuinely mirror its laws, or to settle any disputes arising?

My further question to the Minister is this. Can he explain how he sees these clauses working in practice? What actual trade frictions does he see being removed as a result of using them? Will he give a commitment that, in conformity with Labour’s policy not to rejoin the single market, the Government will not agree to subordination to EU law or EU-style enforcement?

The Bill also constitutes another step—and this is rather unfortunate—in using the Northern Ireland arrangements to keep this whole country in line with EU rules in certain areas, as we had always feared. Once the previous Government had given up trying to dismantle or override the Northern Ireland protocol and instead agreed to support and enshrine it as the Windsor Framework, something like this Bill became extremely probable. The previous Government were at least discreet in discouraging officials from proposing reforms to goods standards for fear of complicating the Windsor Framework arrangements. The new Government are quite open about it. Their own briefing prepared for the King’s Speech says:

“EU changes to product regulation only apply in Northern Ireland, resulting in divergence within the UK internal market as EU laws are updated. This Bill gives the Government specific powers to make changes to GB legislation to manage divergence and take a UK-wide approach”.


The aim is absolutely explicit. So as we always feared, the Windsor Framework is being used as a tool to inhibit reform and change within GB—not that I think this Government plan to do much of that anyway—and to keep this country in the tractor beam pull of EU laws and rules without having any say in them. Does the Minister agree with his own briefing?

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

Would the noble Lord, Lord Frost, not accept that the Windsor Framework was a necessary instrument to ensure that trade could flow easily on the island of Ireland and to prevent a border being recreated there that would have been an encumbrance to trade, society, the economy and business development?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

The noble Baroness is probably familiar with my view on the subject: I do not agree with that. I think that it would have been much preferable to proceed with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill that was then proceeded with in 2022, but that is really not to the point now. We have the situation that we have, and the effect of the Windsor Framework, whatever view one takes of it, is to create a massive incentive to push for GB rules to be kept in sync with those of the EU and in Northern Ireland. That is one of the effects that I think this Bill will create.

To finish up, I have a couple of technical questions. The internal market Act has already been raised.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Will the noble Lord give way?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

Nobody else has given way, but go on.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The noble Lord led me to believe by the way he answered my question that he would tell us whether he took the view that the Bill should positively prevent alignment in any area. Is he willing to answer the question now?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

I have not finished my remarks yet. Under the internal market Act, goods that are legally on sale in Northern Ireland—those meeting EU standards—may be sold anywhere in the UK already. That is one of the provisions of that Act. One might wonder about the point of this panoply of rules when we already have the internal market Act. It would seem unnecessary, unless perhaps the Government are concerned that the Windsor Framework might require them to bring in elements of Northern Ireland to Great Britain’s border at some point. Again, I wonder whether the Minister could answer that question.

The Government clearly want to go down this road because, whatever they say now, they want to make eventually rejoining the single market and customs union easier. I know from reactions to what I have been saying that many noble Lords regard this direction of travel as a good thing; they doubt this country’s ability to prosper as an independent country with its own rules and laws. I am afraid there is nothing to be done about those who have that opinion. To others who want this country to be a global trader, but without necessarily having our own rules for every single area, I say there is an alternative. It is one more consistent with our global aspirations and membership of the CPTPP, which the Government want to support.

The alternative is to make this country open to the best standards globally—that is my answer to the question that has been raised a couple of times—and to recognise that any goods produced in high-standard, well-regulated economies, such as the US, Canada, Australia, Japan and the EU, would be safe to put on our market. I accept not just the CE standard but similar conformity and standards from other developed economies, and where necessary we can develop our own. This is not just a fantasy; it is what the MHRA is already doing with its new international recognition procedure for medical products. Can the Minister explain why it is not possible to proceed in this way instead?

My speech has been quite long and I will wind up now, but there are important points about the purpose of this Bill that will shape the statutory instruments that will come before us at some point that need to be properly understood. We will put forward amendments in Committee to test the thinking behind some of these provisions and their purpose, and to perhaps reshape some of the more unsatisfactory elements of this Bill. To conclude, I have deep concern about the direction of travel and the direction in which this will take our regulatory framework. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to my questions.

18:17

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, this has proven to be a more engaging debate on the subject of product regulation than I had anticipated, principally due to the pleasure of hearing the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton of Doncaster. We both arrived in the other place in 1997—there were a few of us, and rather more on her Benches. I left before she did, but all through that period it was a very great pleasure to work with the noble Baroness. I look forward to working with her in this place and I much enjoyed her maiden speech.

I am also pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Frost. As I will come on to explain, the purpose of my speech is not necessarily to embrace his argument entirely but rather to embrace his solution. I do not need to ascribe to the Government any ulterior motive about alignment with EU regulation, and I happen not to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that we should aim for dynamic alignment. Much as I would have wished that we were still members of the European Union and all that flows from that, that is not the point. The point is that we are where we are. From my point of view, the worst outcome is if we become essentially rule-takers rather than rule-makers. The risk is that, through dynamic alignment, that is exactly what would happen; that alignment would contribute to the problem.

I know that a number of noble Lords here today took part in the debate on the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations, just before the Dissolution in July. Quite rightly, concerns were expressed about the loss of capability in the standards-making and regulatory processes in this country as a consequence of the continuing extension of the CE marking on the part of the European Union.

This legislation is necessary. Many in industry welcomed the 21 product sectors having the CE marking extended to them, but they said we were getting closer to the point where there will be a divergence between the CE marking and the UKCA marking. At that point, what do we do? Do we allow two different products to be marketed inside the United Kingdom while arguing to consumers that they are equally safe and effective? I do not think that is a tenable long- term solution, so we must have—as I think my noble friend Lord Frost admitted—more powers, which are in this Bill.

I will not talk on some of the many other interesting subjects that I look forward to our discussing in Committee, but I do want to look at the serious question of how we support and maintain the capability in product regulation, in which the noble Lord, Lord Leong, in his admirable opening to our debate, said we are a world leader. We want to remain a world leader in product regulation, so how are we to do that? Many in industry would say, “Let’s carry on with CE markings for ever and, as they change, just accept them”. I am afraid that is not the solution. I add in parentheses that the Bill’s scope does not extend to medical devices, but the same issues arise in relation to them. Although I endorse the solution in relation to medical devices, we still do not yet get the answer we are looking for; we still run the risk that we recognise other people’s product regulation but do not sustain our own.

Where should we go to? We need to escape from this outcome, and now is the time for us to adopt a much-strengthened policy in relation to our work in international standards. If our regulations and those of the European Union, and indeed the regulations of other countries, are based on international standards, we can reduce regulatory compliance costs and remove technical barriers to trade. Now is the time for this country to lead in an accelerated push for the development and adoption of international standards as the basis of product regulation.

As my noble friend referred to earlier, I think we are to accede to the CPTPP by 15 December. Article 8.5 of that treaty says:

“The Parties recognise the important role that international standards, guides and recommendations can play in supporting greater regulatory alignment, good regulatory practice and reducing unnecessary barriers to trade”.


Article 8.9 says that

“greater alignment of national standards with relevant international standards”

should be pursued,

“except where inappropriate or ineffective”.

It calls for the parties to the CPTPP to

“strengthen their exchange and collaboration … to support greater regulatory alignment”,

which is absolutely right. Very interestingly, in its February 2022 strategy on standardisation, the European Union said:

“Traditionally, the EU has been a strong leader in international standardisation activities but”—


this is interesting—

“needs to take account of a changed geopolitical situation, as other countries start to approach international standardisation more strategically and gain influence”

in its committees. This is a relatively recent acknowledgement by the European Union—in this case, the European Commission—that its policy of making standards in Europe and then handing them to the rest of the world is not going to be sustainable indefinitely; I think it is right about that. Indeed, Mario Draghi, in his recent report on the competitiveness of the European Union, identified the value of international standards in promoting regulatory harmonisation and reducing trade friction. He sought European Union action to lead in framing international standards.

Article 92.1 of the trade and co-operation agreement refers to the use of

“international standards as a basis for the standards”

that each of the parties develop, so we do not need to change the mandate or renegotiate the trade and co-operation agreement; we need to use that agreement. That is where the negotiations with the European Commission should be aimed: at maximising the implementation of the trade and co-operation agreement.

We know that we all use international standards, some to a greater extent than others. We all agree that we should use international standards more in the future, but that fact is not stated anywhere in the Bill. Could it be? Like other noble Lords, I participated in the debates on the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. Section 16(2) of that Act, referring to how to meet product regulation requirements, says that provision

“may … identify relevant requirements by reference to international agreements or standards relating to the marketing or supply of medical devices”.

So where medical devices are concerned, we have statutory backing for a process of recognising international standards as the basis for our own product regulation requirements. I want to see this Bill incorporate the potential for international standards to meet the requirements for product regulation across a broader range of products—not just medical devices, but taking them into the scope of this Bill—and the very wide range of industrial products that are covered. I also hope that in the course of the discussion on the Bill we will give statutory backing to a lead by the United Kingdom to accelerate the development of international standards to be the basis of greater regulatory alignment with our leading trading partners, including our existing agreements both in the CPTPP and the trade and co-operation agreement.

18:27

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I am glad he started referring to international products. Given the earlier contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, I am reminded of this House’s scrutiny of the Biocidal Products (Health and Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2022. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, told the Grand Committee that there was a huge backlog in processing chemical standards given that we lost access to the EU chemical standards database. As a result, the Health and Safety Executive’s chemicals division had to have its budget increased by 39%. On those figures alone, any sensible Government would want to be able to use existing standards—in this case, the EU’s standards—not least because any organisation manufacturing products in the UK that sell in the EU will have to conform to them. I have not had time to check what the HSE chemicals division’s budget is now, but over five years from 2018 to 2022 it increased by 39%.

I was also delighted to hear the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton. With her wit and experience, she is already being heard very seriously and with some smiles in this House. I wish her well.

As noble Lords have heard, these Benches support the scope of the Bill and the secondary legislation. Others have already explained how necessary it is, but, along with my colleagues, I have some concerns and I will try not to go over the points they have already made. The Government’s delegated powers memorandum says at paragraph 5:

“We judge it essential to be able to respond quickly to an evolving evidence base on product safety and metrology issues”.


I want to focus on those powers being used in a slightly different way and I hope that the Minister can give your Lordships’ House some reassurance that emergency procedures made available to Ministers will not be used on this Bill, as happened on many others over the previous eight years—not least, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on the issue of leaving the EU.

I also saw it at first hand when I was the Lib Dem health and social care spokeswoman from January 2020. The emergence of the pandemic inevitably meant that there was obviously a need to introduce emergency statutory instruments but, to be frank, using the emergency powers completely negated the importance of Parliament being able to scrutinise affirmative SIs before they are introduced. Between January 2020 and March 2022, the Government laid 118 affirmative Covid SIs, of which 66 were introduced by emergency procedures, meaning that they were implemented before either House had any chance to see them, let alone debate them.

The Hansard Society Covid statutory instrument dashboard website is a brilliant resource for this period—perhaps I am extremely sad, but it really is extremely useful. It also noticed that those SIs implemented using the emergency procedure were more likely to have to be amended or revoked, which was perhaps not surprising because of the speed of response needed and the fact that there had been no time to scrutinise them. I hope the Minister will give the House some reassurance that emergency procedures would be used only in true emergency.

I say that because it has become something of a habit inside Whitehall to use them. I had a call from the Paymaster-General in August, informing me that the SI relating to the redress scheme for the infected blood compensation scheme was laid in the middle of August. We do not debate it until the end of this month. We have a debate on the inquiry and the redress scheme generally next week but we have to wait to the end of the month, which is two months after the SI was implemented. I really am keen to hear from the Minister on that.

I turn to one of the examples that was repeatedly raised in the preparation of the Bill and was the subject of my noble friend Lord Redesdale’s Private Member’s Bill—lithium-ion batteries. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Foster for his many years’ work in this area. I declare my interests as a vice-chair of the APPG on Fire Safety and Rescue and a vice-president of the LGA. The APPG on Fire Safety and Rescue, the National Fire Chiefs Council and almost everybody involved in manufacturing safety equipment for the fire service want urgent regulation of the use of lithium-ion batteries.

E-bikes and e-scooters present one of the fastest-growing fire risks. In London on average there was a fire every two days last year. There were 143 e-bike fires, three deaths and around 60 injuries. This year, up to the end of August, London Fire Brigade has so far recorded 127 e-bike and e-scooter fires. The real problem is the intensity of the lithium-ion fires, both the heat and the length of the flame. It is not even a flame; it is more like a firework. If you have ever seen a video of such a fire, it is never forgotten. Temperatures get up to 1,000 degrees and substantial damage can be done.

We also need regulation for those who use products with lithium-ion batteries that do conform to very strict regulation. I have a travel wheelchair that uses lithium-ion batteries. It complies with IATA regulations but I have been refused permission to go on a plane because the pilot has the final say on whether or not you can take medical devices on board. He said he was not having any lithium batteries on his plane at all and did not care whether they were IATA-certified. Having regulation would enormously help those of us who rely on these things. It cost me €900 to get back from Bucharest that night.

I also think that lithium-ion batteries stand as a proxy for everything that the Bill is trying to achieve. Many of the e-bikes and e-scooters in these fires have had different batteries or converters bought in an online market and added to the machine, so regulation is vital, as is compliance and ensuring that there are enough people to be able to find out where these are. The below-the-radar sales of these batteries, which often look identical to ones which comply with current safety regulations, mean they can be hard to track down.

It also takes us into what I think is a grey area of the Bill and I have not heard anybody else talk about this: at what point do the product regulations apply to individuals as opposed to businesses or people working in businesses? The Bill sets out those people covered by the regulations in Clause 2(3) and, helpfully, paragraphs (a) to (g) explain those with particular responsibilities and roles, but Clause 2(3)(h) refers to

“any other person carrying out activities in relation to a product”.

Does this include individuals who may have bought an e-bike online as an individual, changed the battery to one bought elsewhere online and then after a couple of years decided to sell it on through eBay, which has a mixture of professional sellers and individuals?

I am trying to find the boundaries here because if the answer is that individuals are included, communications to the public about their new responsibilities when they buy and sell will become vital. But if the answer is no, how will the Bill prevent what is happening at the moment, which is individuals buying and adjusting products from a global marketplace, often untraceable, where the UK has no ability to scrutinise or take action? How would this be enforced? If it is helpful, I do not necessarily need an answer now but would appreciate a letter from the Minister before we go into Committee.

I am very interested in who will be the statutory consultees and wonder whether we might have access to lists—again, before we move on to Committee—because there are some professional associations that might be very obvious to include if you are in the fire industry but not necessarily obvious to the Department for Business.

I turn briefly to the creation of criminal offences through affirmative statutory instruments, which has already been referred to. I want to pick up on the earlier comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about medical devices, which are specifically disapplied in the Bill because of the Medicines and Medical Devices Act. Can the Minister explain why this Bill has a maximum imprisonment of up to two years, whereas the Medicines and Medical Devices Act, which covers at least as sensitive and dangerous issues, has provision for conviction and jail sentences of up to 51 weeks only? Why have those different figures been used?

It was good to hear the Minister say that the Attorney-General had been involved. Is there a formal consultation with the Ministry of Justice once these regulations are drafted? I remain concerned that our court system is really congested at the moment and if there were, for example, a particularly large, concerted campaign to bring people to justice, that might involve breaking gangs, frankly, even 30 or 40 extra people in prison over a short period would put real pressure on our prisons. What can the Minister say on that?

Finally, we need this Bill but we must have access to affirmative instruments in plenty of time to be able to scrutinise them.

18:39

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con)]

My Lords, after a first-class maiden speech and with her impressive CV, I warmly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton of Doncaster, to this House. Equally, I welcome the Bill, but before I say why, I should declare two interests: first, as the chair of the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, UKAS, which is the Government-appointed body for the accreditation of organisations providing testing, inspection, certification and similar evaluation services; and, secondly, as the president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, the CTSI, a role in which I was preceded by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley.

The provisions set out in the Bill will help to ensure that the UK’s product safety and metrology regulatory framework is fit for purpose. I therefore agreed with my noble friend Lord Lansley when he said that this legislation is necessary. As the Minister set out, the majority of the United Kingdom’s product safety and metrology framework derives from the European Union, transposed into UK law using powers in the European Communities Act 1972. The repeal of the European Communities Act means that we need new powers to update this body of law and, furthermore, it is timely that we do this. The world is changing, consumer products are changing, and the marketplaces through which consumers access those products are also changing.

The Bill recognises that, as technology continues to develop, new powers will be needed to update our regulations so that they can address both current and future threats and hazards. It recognises that both products and marketplaces are evolving and they will continue to evolve in tandem with new technologies. The United Kingdom needs to be able to keep pace with these technological advances and to be in a position to respond with agility to new product risks and opportunities as they arise.

The increased risk from more complex and often digitally or AI-enabled products may mean that they require additional testing and independent inspection or certification to monitor and assess regulatory compliance. With my UKAS experience, I welcome the fact that the Bill will enable that. UKAS is already a long and well-established part of the product regulation regime. We work closely with the Government to provide trust and assurance that all higher-risk products requiring third-party conformity assessment are subject to assessments that have been conducted by independent, impartial and fully competent organisations, as demonstrated by their conformity with UKAS’s robust and rigorous requirements as the UK’s national accreditation body.

We are likely to see more higher-risk products in the future, as has been evidenced by some of today’s speakers, and the regulatory powers within the Bill—which include the power to place requirements on UKAS and all involved with conformity assessment—will help to mitigate that risk. Importantly, as part of this future- proofing of the regulatory framework, the Bill intends that new and emerging supply-chain business models will also be identified, ensuring that the responsibilities of those involved in the supply of products, such as online marketplaces, are clear. This will enhance compliance and enforcement, and in my CTSI role, I applaud the Bill’s intentions to create both a clearer definition of “online marketplace” and a more level playing field between high-street retailers and online marketplaces.

Also welcome is the focus on entities controlling access to online marketplaces. This aligns with the CTSI’s call for a clearer regulatory framework to cover intermediaries, such as fulfilment service providers, ensuring that they, too, bear responsibility for the compliance and safety of goods where there is no UK-based manufacturer or importer. These expanded definitions are crucial for ensuring that both current and future innovations in online commerce are regulated effectively to protect consumers and legitimate businesses.

I also acknowledge that the coalition of product safety organisations, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, of which the CTSI is a member, wants to see the Bill strengthened to properly safeguard consumer safety, with a clear and enforceable duty placed on online marketplaces. This was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. This would provide confidence for consumers, businesses, and the online marketplaces themselves, together with the extension of liability to online marketplaces for defective products, particularly those sold by third-party sellers. The coalition similarly sees the need for greater clarity regarding the specific obligations placed on fulfilment houses and clearer definitions of key terms to ensure that all existing and future online marketplaces and products cannot take advantage of gaps to avoid responsibility. Of course, these more detailed points will be explored in Committee and on Report.

Also deserving of special scrutiny in Committee and on Report are the nature and extent of the delegated powers being proposed in the Bill, as focused on by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. As a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House, I am aware that the committee will be considering the Bill tomorrow and reporting to the House shortly thereafter, but for the moment I welcome the Bill. It aims to preserve the UK’s status as a global leader in product regulation, supporting both businesses and consumers. It seeks to ensure that the UK can maintain high product standards and be better equipped to address modern-day safety concerns with agility, while also taking advantage of opportunities for economic growth. It strives to create a level playing field between high street retailers and online marketplaces—at long last—and it will update enforcement requirements and the legal metrology framework.

Finally, I welcome that the Bill gives the UK the choice to mirror or diverge from updated EU rules, so that we can maintain high product safety while supporting businesses and economic growth. I also support the specific power to make changes to legislation to manage divergence and take a UK-wide approach where it is in the UK’s interests to do so.

18:47

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I am going to start with history. I used to live on Leather Lane in central London between the City and Westminster, where, despite Victorian urban expansion, a dairy farm continued to operate in the middle of the city. That was no historical accident. With the adulteration of milk rampant, with filthy water and much worse, the only way consumers could be sure that milk would not kill them or their children was if they actually saw it come out of the cow.

A few years ago I was privileged to visit the Rochdale Pioneers Museum in the home of the first successful consumer co-operative in the UK: the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers, founded in 1844. Its aim was to ensure not just affordable products but safe and genuine products, without sawdust in the flour or arsenic in the sugar. But not everyone had a co-operative nearby. It was eventually conceded back in the 19th century that it was the responsibility of the state to protect consumers.

Amid a huge ideological debate about the freedom of traders to sell whatever they liked, the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875 was passed. However, it took time to take effect. In 1877 a quarter of all the milk examined by the local government board was seriously adulterated. However, the law worked. By 1894 adulterated milk accounted for less than 10% of all samples. Campaigning worked to get the law and the law worked for the good of the people. Lives were saved. I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton of Doncaster, noting in her wonderful maiden speech that such protections are particularly important for the most vulnerable in society.

Today, in 2024, however, we are seriously failing to provide protections. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and others referred to the fact that it has been clear for some time that there is a huge problem with lithium-ion batteries and chargers. We have seen this problem, yet there has been no action. I would like to ask the Minister specifically about what timeframe the Government see for taking action on this. Do we have to wait for the Bill to go through the many months it will undoubtedly take? I do not know if that is necessary. Could something not be done sooner? As the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, said in bringing his particular expertise to this debate, in the current age we need a kind of agility in reacting to changing products, circumstances and methods of sale, but we are utterly failing.

Last weekend, I was listening to the London Review of Books podcast. James Butler, who closely followed and reported on the evidence to the Grenfell Tower inquiry, was speaking angrily, and rightly, about the decades of regulatory failure that led to the deaths of 72 people. When you read in Hansard the debates about the 1875 Act, we had people then making the same kind of arguments that are made today: about the need to protect business from extra costs; about the need to allow business to make profits; about the need to allow freedom of trade, even of substandard products. But what could be more central to the role of government than keeping people safe?

It is demonstrably clear that exercising the rhetoric of cutting so-called red tape has killed and continues to kill. Anyone using that language really should take a good hard look at themselves. Taking the US approach of waiting until a product kills and injures, then setting the injured consumer or their relatives against the enormous weight of multinational companies—or in pursuit of some fly-by-night trader who cannot possibly be located—in the hope of financial recompense through the slow lottery of the courts, years or decades later, when of course that will not restore their life or their health, is indefensible and ineffective. It is fit only for a society that does not care for its people.

Product regulation is not just a matter of life and death. It is also about keeping a basic quality of life and well-being, not just for the purchasers of products but for general society and our disastrously battered environment on this planet, where the boundaries for novel entities have already been exceeded, in addition to the now acutely obvious climate emergency and nature crisis. Product regulation is crucial in the quality of our everyday lives and health, in both obvious and more subtle ways. How much energy your TV or computer uses, how much noise your neighbour’s strimmer makes or how much pollution you breathe in as you walk down the pavement affect all of us, every minute of every day. With public health in the UK in such a terrible state, this is even more crucial.

Since Brexit, Europe has demonstrably continued to advance in health, well-being and the safety of its products—even if, as the European green parties regularly point out, still far too slowly—while the UK has been sliding further and further behind. I want to particularly note three briefings that I received before this debate from the Green Alliance, Friends of the Earth and the Institute for European Environmental Policy. Those organisations are, as those names suggest, particularly focused on environmental health. What we need to adopt, of course, is a one-health approach acknowledging that environmental health, animal health and human health are all intimately interrelated. In that context I have to note, as I acknowledge the Minister did in his introduction, that this is an environmental Bill. It therefore contains significant devolved elements which cover areas under the control of the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has been listening closely to our debate and I expect that in later stages of the Bill we may well be working on these issues together.

However, it is probably already clear from my comments that the Bill is welcome from the Green Party perspective, if severely insufficient in its current form and approach. I foresee many a debate about “may” or “must” being in its clauses. Surely, the Labour Party will not be reversing the kinds of positions it took in debating such matters when they were on the Opposition Benches. I hope we are not going to see the kind of 180 degree U-turn that we saw from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, much as I am glad to see that the Conservative Party is now concerned about Henry VIII clauses.

I want to focus briefly on a couple of areas. Chemical regulation is a huge area of concern, with the science fast exposing how disastrously we have poisoned this planet. I am looking forward to a commitment from the Minister, either today or down the track, to either a new chemicals strategy or a new chemicals agency. I note that the Royal Society of Chemistry has been calling for this.

I also want to take a brief look at the advances being made in Europe, particularly the EU’s eco-design for sustainable products regulation, which entered into force on 18 July this year. This is part of a wider circular economy plan, an approach I hope to see the Government taking forward. It is focused not on a particular problem or product; it is a framework law that aims to drive forward improvements across a whole range of products and product categories by encouraging products that use less energy—so saving consumers money—last longer, can be easily repaired or recycled, contain more recycled content and have parts that can easily be disassembled and put to further use. It ensures that each product should have a digital product passport, so that producers have to collect and record the sustainability of their products. This means we can look at how to best use these products in the future. Do the Government plan to take a similar approach?

I am perhaps surprised that this debate has not focused more on another issue. Chemical substances in toys are an obvious area of grave concern to the health of our current and future generations. We need particularly to protect children from exposure to harmful endocrine-disrupting chemicals. I note that public awareness of PFAS and “forever chemicals” is growing fast; the Government are going to find themselves coming under considerable pressure in these areas very soon. At the moment, the Bill’s powers appear primarily to cover products that come under the Department for Business and Trade and the Office for Product Safety and Standards. Are the Government prepared to consider—I would be delighted to discuss this with the Minister—whether the Bill can be extended to cover the EU REACH restrictions and bans on other consumer products not falling into those categories? An obvious example here is formaldehyde in furniture, an area of growing health concern.

I have two final points to make. One is about Clause 11, which lists the regulations to be considered under the affirmative procedure but misses an opportunity to deal with something that, again, the now Government frequently lamented from these Benches: the impossibility in your Lordships’ House of dealing with statutory instruments with regulations that are patently inadequate but which we have no effective opportunity to stop. There is a chance to create further oversight in Clause 11, including perhaps a potential option for the House of Lords to disapprove draft instruments, sending them back for extra homework where significant concerns are raised. This, of course, is crucial, given that in the Bill’s current form there are essentially no real commitments.

Finally, I want to pick up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The noble Lord rightly highlighted how our trading standards enforcement has been absolutely sliced away by austerity. Your Lordships’ House can do wonders with this Bill, but without enforcement—if the Bill is not enforced—that is pointless. I hope that the Government will address the issue of austerity’s impact on local government, particularly trading standards, as a matter of urgency.

19:00

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I declare my interests as set out in the register.

This has been a very interesting debate, not least because of the wonderful maiden contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton of Doncaster. It was a speech of great elegance and humour. I congratulate her and look forward to her future contributions.

I thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for setting out the objectives and purposes of the legislation with commendable clarity. The Government set out their intention to update product safety legislation in the King’s Speech in July 2024. It is important to note, however, that the scope of the legislation is broader than just product safety. It encompasses, for example, environmental legislation, which will have consequences in relation to devolved competencies. I will come to these.

I understand that one of the aims of the legislation is to keep pace with advances such as AI. This is a very sensible move. Dealing with areas such as this will help business and so promote growth. To that extent, it is laudable. Along with other noble Lords, I welcome this legislation. Its general thrust is right, although I have specific concerns that I will come to.

Another aim of the legislation is to clarify the role of online marketplaces in relation to product safety. Their great growth makes this, again, a sensible and welcome development.

The legislation we are considering is, of course, framework legislation. Substantive content will arise only when the Secretary of State exercises the relevant powers. It can scarcely be otherwise. Detailed product safety and other such regulation should not be contained in primary legislation. It is true that, under the legislation, the Secretary of State will be able to make regulations to correspond with relevant EU legislation—or indeed to not correspond if this is the decided and desired course of action. That too seems commendable and sensible. To proceed in that way will help preserve regulatory stability across the UK and the EU.

I hope that this objective—or at least the option to be exercised in many cases—of the alignment of regulations between the UK and the EU will receive a wider welcome in your Lordships’ House, particularly when there is a danger of the deviation from safety laws within the UK. There may be occasions when alignment with the EU is not the correct approach, but that can be debated. It seems entirely reasonable that, as the EU updates its regulations, the UK needs powers to do the same and to follow or diverge, as the case arises.

The impact assessment of the Bill sets out the dangers of not acting. These include business costs, complexity, uncertainty and confusion. Consumer safety risks, businesses choosing not to supply the GB market and, as I have noted, UK internal market divergence are also possibilities and would not be desirable.

I welcome the general thrust of the legislation. There are certain points which I wish to explore and probe a bit further, if I may. The first relates to specific consumer safety issues which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I agree that it would be good to hear a timescale for dealing with the issues of consumer safety in relation to e-scooters and lithium-ion batteries. These are matters of great urgency which need action. The briefing that we received from the London Fire Brigade and others was very helpful in this regard.

I would also welcome comments from the Minister about the approach of the Government in relation to online marketplaces. Is it the intention to deal with this globally—to have consumer safety applying across both online marketplaces and the traditional retail market—or are we going to see two separate approaches to the issues? Will he indicate the Government’s thinking on this? With the great growth of online marketplaces, through institutions such as Temu and so on, action is needed. Once again, the briefings that noble Lords received from Which? magazine, Electrical Safety First and others have been very helpful in this regard.

I have a major concern relating to devolution. The Bill centralises decision-making in the hands of the Westminster Government. I appreciate that the UK Government are seeking legislative consent Motions from the devolved nations. It would be good to hear from the Minister the likely timescale for these legislative consent Motions to come forward. However, the matter does not stop there. This framework legislation represents not just product safety—which I appreciate is a reserved matter and therefore certainly within our competence—but matters such as environmental law, which is very much a devolved matter where the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament, the Senedd, and indeed Northern Ireland will rightly have a role.

Under the legislation, it is not clear what that role is to be or, indeed, if there is to be a role: it is not set out. Is consent from the devolved bodies to be required, as should be the case? There is no mention even of consultation. So I would appreciate it if the Minister could clear up a matter that will certainly be important going forward. The legislation is much wider than the narrow title of the Bill suggests. Indeed, there is considerable power within the scope of the Bill in relation to the marketing and use of products to ensure their efficiency and effectiveness, not just to mitigate safety risks.

With these important caveats, I welcome the general thrust of this legislation, but I would appreciate it if the Minister could clarify these matters.

19:07

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made from the Front Bench by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I do not like a Henry VIII Bill in this form. I was glad that we killed the Schools Bill in the last Parliament. I very much hope that we, on this side of the House, will be able to collaborate to make sure that either we are shown the draft regulations before we get to Committee or that we send the Bill to the other place with a suitably large number of amendments, so that if, when the regulations finally emerge, we find that they pong, we can ping them back.

This Bill sets out to protect consumers from dubious and dangerous goods. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, in welcoming the Bill from that point of view. In Committee, I want to explore how it could be extended to make sure that VAT is paid on those goods. That is both to pick up the £1 billion or £2 billion a year that we are failing to collect at the moment, and because that kind of attention and positive cash flow would really help reinforce the consumer safety purposes of this Bill.

In what follows, I will rely extensively on Richard Allen’s 20 years of battling to get HMRC to collect the VAT due on imports into this country—a battle that has yet to crowned with full success, though there have been some useful victories. Online retail is just mail order. It is the same business as Pryce Pryce-Jones invented in 1861 and the regulations for dealing with it really date in concept from that era. They have not been updated to address current practices. This has led to a series of past and current abuses.

The abuse of de minimis import tax exemptions is now a global concern. Companies like Shein and Temu have legitimately exploited these outdated exemptions and flooded Asia, Europe and America with low-value goods, assisted by generous Chinese export tax rebates and subsidised international postage rates, overseen by a secretive Universal Postal Union treaty. It appears to me that the business models of those two companies and others are entirely based on the tax that does not get paid. I suspect that, if we collected tax properly, those companies would not exist.

In April 2017, the National Audit Office published its report Investigation into Overseas Sellers Failing to Charge VAT on Online Sales. This highlighted abuse by Chinese retailers who ship goods into UK warehouses with misdeclared import values and then sell them on Amazon and eBay, while not accounting for VAT on the sales. HMRC’s response was ineffective. As can easily be seen by placing test purchases, those ignoring the UK’s obligation to register for VAT can sell goods to UK customers at a distance and send them to the UK in the certain knowledge that, if they are below £135 in declared—not necessarily actual—value, no VAT assessment will be made at the border and the goods will be delivered to the UK customer promptly. That effectively means that these goods can be sold VAT free, which hugely undercuts any legitimate UK business trying to compete. All the business that could be being done in the UK, with the VAT and employment taxes that would result, shifts to these large overseas enterprises.

Large shipments of goods have been sent to the UK individually packaged as consignments of less than £135 in value. Under the new bulk import reduced dataset systems, entire container loads of goods can be declared on a spreadsheet. Undervaluation is hard to detect, and bulk shipments of low-value consignments will not attract VAT or duty if each package is addressed to an individual in the UK and valued at less than £135. Large consignments of goods are thus split into hundreds of smaller consignments and addressed to fake individuals or one of the many hundreds of thousands of mysterious Chinese companies that have been set up at Companies House. Once the goods have cleared customs, these bulk consignments are broken down and the goods are sent to warehouses, from where they are sold on eBay, Amazon or elsewhere. Once the goods are in a distribution warehouse, it is virtually impossible for the customs authorities to determine who is the beneficial owner.

I will outline some simple solutions to these problems. First, make online marketplaces collect VAT on all sales, whether the sellers are established in the UK or not. In the case of those using online marketplaces, as opposed to selling direct, this would greatly simplify collection for the seller and tax authorities and remove the need to determine where the seller is established. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, correctly pointed out, in any event, under the Bill, we need to look at how business is conducted in online marketplaces to make sure that the products reaching our consumers are safe. It is not much extra to make sure that the tax has been paid in the correct way. As I said, this would generate a large flow of income that would put a broad smile on the Treasury’s face and make it happy to finance the enforcement effort that, as others have said, will be needed to make the Bill succeed.

Secondly, make any non-resident seller who applies for a UK company or VAT number appoint a VAT representative in the UK who is responsible for paying import tax debts should the seller abscond. Clause 2(2)(k) addresses exactly that for product quality questions: it asks for a UK representative who we can go after if something is wrong with the product, so that it gets put right. In Committee, I will certainly look to make sure that this representative is a person of substance who, faced with substantial fines for exploding batteries— I am glad to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is seated on a wheelchair with what looks like lead acid ones—can pay the substantial damages involved. These representatives need to be real people.

Thirdly, make customs brokers responsible for the correct value declaration of goods that they import for their clients, for the safety of those goods and for the payment of any VAT and duty. These two things run together: if you are in the business of importing goods, you will, under the Bill, have to take responsibility for their safety. We can run the VAT in alongside that.

Fourthly, legislate so that all imported goods held in UK warehouses are clearly marked with the name of the beneficial owner. We are asking for products to be properly marked in the Bill. Who is the beneficial owner? Who is the representative whom we can go after if the products are defective or if the VAT has not been paid? We need that sort of information to be clearly specified.

Fifthly, abolish the subsidy enjoyed by Chinese sellers, enabled by the Universal Postal Union treaty. I suspect that will be outside the scope of the Bill, however much I may smile at the Public Bill Office.

Lastly, increase the cost of unrealistically cheap imports, whether through increased duty, enforced partnership with a UK company, the extension of duty to more classes of goods or the application of fixed fees for clearance. Other countries faced with the same challenges have adopted measures like these. VAT has recently been imposed on all low-value imports by South Africa, and a similar measure is being considered in America. In India, Shein has been forced into partnership with an Indian company, ensuring that value is added, to the benefit of the Indian economy.

If we do this for the sake of tax, we will make it easier to ensure safety too. To come back to what the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, said, we will have a way of affording enforcement. In any event, part of the Bill should be an ability to charge for the certification work we do on product safety. This should not happen entirely at the cost of us and our Government; we ought to be able to put a charge on the products. Again, that would ride nicely alongside VAT.

19:17

[Lord Redesdale (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his extremely kind words, especially about the Private Member’s Bill I have taken forward on lithium-ion safety. In this regard, I thank my noble friend Lord Foster for his years of work. Indeed, if he had been successful in the ballot and I had not, I think it would have been his Bill, which would have been fitting. On that basis, I recognise the work of Electrical Safety First, which has briefed many noble Lords, and its work on lithium-ion batteries.

Before I started, I was going to raise an issue with the noble Lord, Lord Frost—he is not in his place, but I can have a go at him anyway. I find it utterly incredible that, although we have moved to a Labour Government from the Conservative Government, there still seems to be this argument that convergence is a bad idea. In the area of standards, convergence is the best idea—it does not matter whether it is European or more international. The idea that convergence on standards is not excellent seems deranged. That is my personal view, obviously, from the Back Benches.

The great thing about a Private Member’s Bill is that, whether it becomes law or not, you get the areas of grievance talked about and hopefully prompt the Government into action. The Government have moved extremely fast in this area by bringing forward this Bill of their own. Also, the amount of discussion about lithium-ion does give the impression that this is one of the central tenets of the Bill, although it is of course going to be a great deal wider than that.

I focused on lithium-ion, but it is a very safe technology. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is sitting on lead acid batteries. I think her wheelchair would weigh about two tonnes if she were. She is actually sitting on lithium-ion batteries, which are extremely safe. However, there are of course situations in which they can be extremely dangerous—and not just the lithium-ion batteries in our e-bikes and their chargers, but any lithium-ion battery that we have in our homes.

Zurich and the British Metal Recycling Association have said that about 1,200 fires per year are caused by lithium-ion batteries in the waste stream—that is, waste trucks and disposal sites—because those batteries, while safe in people’s homes, tend to catch fire when they are crushed and put in water. While the Bill covers many of the areas covered in my Private Member’s Bill, it does not look at disposal. I say to the Minister that I am happy to shelve my Bill if I can talk to his officials about whether disposal could be added to this Bill.

There is a simple way to stop vast numbers of such fires, which are extremely dangerous, especially to the firefighters: to ensure that the people who sell such products online have a duty to make sure that the deliveries are equipped to take back batteries. Then, the massive numbers of batteries sitting around in people’s drawers would be safely taken back, rather than thrown into a truck in water and crushed, which is extremely unsafe and environmentally unsuitable. If we could encourage online marketplaces to take back batteries, as supermarkets do already, I could then shelve my Private Member’s Bill.

There is a second issue, of course: transport regulations. You can deliver as many batteries as you like, and that is not seen as hazardous, but if you take the same batteries away after they have been used, even a couple of days later, that is seen as hazardous waste. That also needs to be addressed.

The Minister is obviously going to have vast numbers of organisations, and his officials, looking at including as many areas as possible in the Bill. It is a Henry VIII Bill, but I can see why it needs to be so, because there are many areas it will have to look at. I have the opportunity now, in this House, to put forward one of the issues I would like to be covered: the scourge of bike theft, which had not occurred to me until I read in the Economist this week a particularly good article about bike thefts in the UK. Some 200,000 bikes were stolen last year, and that does not even include bikes stolen during burglaries. It is such a low priority that it seems to be almost impossible for the police to catch anybody who steals a bike. There is a solution. The article goes on to talk about work being done on Merseyside to stop people on bikes and find out whether they are stolen. An easy way to find out whether a bike is stolen is to look at its security marking. That would have a real impact on the number of bikes stolen, but also on the number of crimes committed by people on stolen bikes—snatching mobile phones and the like.

A simple solution in this Bill would be to make sure that any online platform has to include in the information given the security marking numbers of a bike. That would be an eminently suitable provision to include in the Bill. I would go further and say that retailers should be encouraged to provide bikes with markings in the first place. The article went on to say that the police have developed an app so that when bikes are recovered—you can do so on the online store—they can be returned to their owners, which is apparently so uncommon that it causes a great deal of surprise.

When I was a student in Newcastle, there was a shop on the Westgate Road called the Westgate Road Bazaar, which was fantastic because you knew you could get anything there and it was almost certainly stolen. Indeed, I know one young man who was done for his crime of passion: taking car alarms. In the days when you had to fit car alarms, he would steal them and sell them back to the garages, to be sold on. I digress, and although that is a humorous aside, the fact that bikes can be sold so easily on online platforms makes a mockery of the law, in a way, and is fuelling a massive trade in theft.

Therefore, I very much hope that I can talk to the Minister’s officials about the two points I have raised: the disposal of batteries, which could solve a lot of the problems caused by lithium-ion battery fires; and whether bikes could be included, because it would have a massive impact on crime in this country.

19:26

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his analysis. It is a pleasure to congratulate him on his appointment and welcome him to the Government Front Bench. I have greatly enjoyed working with him on other enabling Bills, such as the CPTPP Bill, and find myself in agreement with him on many issues. I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton of Doncaster, and congratulate her on her winning maiden speech and her extremely impressive parliamentary career. I look forward to her future contributions to this House.

This Bill can be read in two ways. First, it can be read as an enabling Bill, to enable regulation on product safety and consumer protection to be updated, to keep pace with new products hitting the marketplace and new platforms for the market, especially online retail. The Bill, as we have heard, will update product regulation to keep pace with market developments and new marketplaces, and provide, as we have also heard, a means of recognising new or updated EU product requirements, with the intention of preventing additional costs for business. Noble Lords across the Chamber have commented on this, and we have heard many examples of the scary risks from e-bikes, the safety mechanisms that do not work and the calls on the London Fire Brigade. This is all very illuminating and, where necessary, I would totally support the updating of safety and product regulation.

Secondly, in addition to the first way of reading the Bill, it can be seen, as other noble Lords have pointed out, as a Bill to rationalise the UK’s product regulation across the UK’s internal market and to keep it up to date with EU product regulation, which Northern Ireland has been obliged to accept. The King’s Speech guidance illuminates the second reading of this measure, although I am afraid that the Bill is less than forthright about it. I hope the Minister will forgive me if I have questions about that. Page 38 of the guidance says:

“As most product safety legislation falls within scope of the Windsor Framework, EU changes to product regulation only apply in Northern Ireland, resulting in divergence within the UK internal market as EU laws are updated. This Bill gives the Government specific powers to make changes to GB legislation to manage divergence and take a UK-wide approach, where it is in our interests to do so”.


The House of Lords Library briefing, for which I am most grateful, highlights this provision as follows:

“The Government has stated the Bill would give it specific powers to make changes to … GB … legislation to manage divergence within the UK internal market. … Under the bill’s provisions, the government would be able to amend GB legislation in order to … take a UK-wide approach”,


et cetera.

In the impact assessment for the Bill, section 4 explains that the Government’s preferred option to change the law on product framework will ensure the framework is

“agile in its response to emerging threats, new technologies and changes in EU law … This option will ensure that the Government can fully implement a framework for recognising existing EU requirements for a range of products”

and ensure powers

“to enable the Government to manage divergence pragmatically”.

This suggests that the Government will be empowered, in order to manage divergence, to introduce and impose EU goods and product law as they decide. It implies that the EU goods laws now imposed on Northern Ireland could or will be extended to the whole of the UK. Can the Minister clarify whether this is correct and what precisely the Government intend in order to take a UK-wide approach to the internal market, and under which powers particularly conferred in the Bill?

Are the Government planning to end the dual system either at one stroke or in a piecemeal way? This is a dual system in which we have an EU system for Northern Ireland products and UK arrangements which may diverge from inherited EU regulation. Will that be by imposing EU product laws on the whole UK manufacturing sector in order to promote the integrity of the internal market?

I now turn to specific questions on Clauses 1 and 2. Clause 1(2) gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations for

“marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom, which corresponds, or is similar, to a provision of relevant EU law for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of”

goods. The Henderson Chambers barristers, Prashant Popat KC and Noel Dilworth, in an analysis published on the web, for which I am grateful, say that Clause 1(2)

“empowers the Secretary of State to harmonise UK law with EU law in order to reduce or mitigate the environmental impact of products”.

Can the Minister confirm that he agrees with this analysis and that the UK Government can now decree that our producers must follow such EU legislation as they—the Government—decide, for the purpose, of course, of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products?

If so, can the Minister point me to specific pieces of EU legislation, which, to date, fall in this category—since, of course, 2018—that is, any existing EU regulations, and which UK goods and producers will be affected by and subject to it?

I am sorry for the list of questions, but I hope the Minister will bear with me. Is it supposed to be a dynamic alignment, as other noble Lords have suggested, so allowing the continued keeping up with EU laws on product safety? If so, what is the certainty that producers can have as to whether the rules will change, even when some product is already on the assembly line? Who will judge whether a product falls within the law—in fact, EU law—and who will operate the law?

I now move on to the powers given for product requirements in Clause 2, to require conditions to be met for products in the UK. I refer to Clause 2(7), which allows that

“product regulations may provide that a product requirement is to be treated as met if … a requirement of relevant EU law specified in product regulations is met, or … such a requirement is met and conditions specified in the regulations are also met”,

provided due regard has been taken of

“the social, environmental and economic impact of making the provision”.

Does this mean that, in addition to the assimilated or inherited EU law, the Government intend to allow or impose a replacement of UK product law with EU product regulation, and in practice, the shadowing of the EU’s level playing field laws and EU economic law for goods in a dynamic alignment?

If my reading is correct—I would like some confirmation on this—it suggests that the Government intend, under cover of the Bill, to bring in the Chequers agreement piecemeal by the backdoor, which was rejected by the House of Commons three times. Would the Minister agree with that analysis in general?

To conclude, I urge the Government to embark on their new term of office, for which I wish them very well, by being open and transparent with the people of this country, to rethink the Bill to allow only for standard updating procedure for product regulation and metrology where absolutely necessary, and to drop the enabling powers in the Bill which allow them to impose EU law and regulation alignment by the backdoor.

I conclude by proposing, as other noble Lords on this side have already outlined, that the UK recognises the best international standards, wherever they come from, and that it plays its part in helping to shape these standards for product regulation, as it has done so successfully in so many other areas. I note here international financial services regulation in particular. Indeed, I echo the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in saying that the UK is well-placed to chart its own course and to reflect the best international standards, without looking over its shoulder to enact EU regulation. Much of it, I fear, is unequal to keeping pace with the best—and the worst—new products as they hit the market and the best international standards.

19:37

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Lawlor, with whose speech I find myself in full agreement. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for introducing the Bill today and congratulate him on his appointment. I much enjoyed the interesting and entertaining maiden speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton of Doncaster. Your Lordships’ House will gain much from her well-informed contributions.

I was initially rather confused about the Bill’s Title and kept trying to read “metrology” as “meteorology”. As I now understand it, the Bill’s Explanatory Notes claim two distinct purposes: to ensure that the product safety and metrology regime established after we left the EU is better able to adapt to AI and better reflects the shift in what consumers buy and how they buy it. Your Lordships’ House last debated this subject when it approved the product safety and metrology regulations in May. The effect of those was to extend indefinitely the grace period given for businesses to conform to the new UKCA markings in place of the EU markings, and to permit the use of UKCA markings in cases where products have conformed with EU assessment procedures.

This Bill is completely different from the regulations that were debated at that time. It is sure to have a large impact across the UK consumer market. Products in scope of the Bill are used by every person in the country, covering nearly all manufactured products. The Government’s own estimates suggest that there are 220,000 UK businesses currently affected by product safety legislation, with an estimated market turnover of just under £280 billion. The “Policy background” section of the Explanatory Notes states:

“The Bill is intended to enable the UK to maintain high product standards … by allowing the UK Parliament the power to update relevant laws”.


I cannot see how the Bill achieves that. It is easy to see that it gives very considerable powers to the Secretary of State to do that, but that is not the same thing.

Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that the Bill addresses the growing problem of unsafe products being marketed online. Noble Lords will have noted the briefings produced by Which? and the London Fire Brigade, and good points are made in both. In particular, the dangers of fires from lithium-ion batteries in consumer products, in e-bikes and, although outside the scope of this Bill, in grid-scale projects such as the controversial Sunnica solar farm at Newmarket need to be properly regulated. I support the London Fire Brigade’s wish for the word “safety” to be included in Clause 1(1)(b). I strongly agree with my noble friend Lord Lucas in asking that the draft regulations be made available to your Lordships as soon as possible.

I am as concerned about what is excluded from the Bill as about what is included. Can the Minister explain why the Bill excludes food and SPS-related products? I can understand why it excludes aircraft, military equipment, and medicines and medical devices, but the exclusion of such a wide range of products would appear to tie the Secretary of State’s hand. How could the Government negotiate the SPS changes necessary to enter into trade agreements? Can the Minister tell the House how this would affect the USTR’s negotiating mandate for a trade agreement with the UK?

The Government have set out clearly their intention to negotiate a veterinary and SPS agreement with the EU. Can the Minister explain whether the reason that food products are specifically excluded from the Bill is that the type of agreement that the Government intend to strike with Brussels is one that requires dynamic alignment with EU regulation? As the Minister knows, there are only two types of agreement that the EU will countenance, given that returning to the customs union or the single market have both been ruled out repeatedly since the Government took office. Those two types of agreement are exemplified by the agreements that the EU has with Switzerland and New Zealand. Of these two types, does the Minister agree that our only option is a New Zealand-style agreement, providing for mutual recognition of different regulatory regimes and equivalence of outcomes? Could we not negotiate a similar agreement to that applied to medicines and medical devices, where our regulator, the MHRA, unilaterally recognises approvals given by the EU, the US, the Japanese and certain other counterparts?

Does the Minister acknowledge that to enter into dynamic alignment with the EU on SPS and food products would provide very limited benefits in return for a considerable surrender of authority and sovereignty over our SPS regime? We would not be able to do anything differently from the EU, even where it is in our national interests to do so. However, food importers would still have to deal with the extensive bureaucratic form-filling.

Can the Minister also explain how the Bill will affect existing trade agreements, since after the passage of the Bill the Government will no longer be able to control the UK’s rules? Furthermore, if the EU changes its rules in a more restrictive direction, would the law of unintended consequences apply, in that the Secretary of State would have no powers to follow suit and make similar changes to the UK’s rules?

The Minister will be aware that the UK’s accession to the CPTPP will become effective before the end of the year. My noble friends Lord Frost and Lord Lansley already referred to that. The CPTPP agreement contains good chapters on SPS and on regulatory coherence. Regulatory practice should be based on sound science. This agreement assumes that all partners to the agreement can exercise sovereign powers over their own regimes. Article 2 of Chapter 24 states that the parties affirm the importance of

“each Party’s sovereign right to identify its regulatory priorities and establish and implement regulatory measures to address these priorities”.

If, under the Government’s plans, we are to lose authority over our own rules, does the Minister not agree that we would be open to sanctions brought against us by other CPTPP members and would be required to negotiate under the partnership’s dispute settlement process? Surely we would be at risk of losing the benefits that we would enjoy as a partner to the agreement.

Is this not also a problem for products that are covered by the Bill? Clause 2(7) seems to indicate that a product requirement will be “treated as met” if it conforms to EU law, whether or not the EU law may have diverged from its previous alignment with UK law. My noble friend Lady Lawlor also referred to this.

I hope the Minister will agree that it is essential that the Secretary of State must retain sovereign powers over all UK rules. That would enable him to be able to choose whether a particular EU rule is or is not in the UK’s interests. If the Secretary of State does not have that power, would it not have profoundly damaging effects on the UK’s trade policy? Would it not also damage the UK’s capacity to improve its regulatory system in the SPS area through taking advantage of technological advances in areas such as gene editing?

Clause 11 explains which powers can be exercised by the Secretary of State under regulations subject to the affirmative procedure and which shall be subject to the negative procedure. It seems fair enough that authority to enter premises should be made subject to the affirmative procedure. Authority to seize products is not subject to the affirmative procedure, but it is hard to understand how products can be seized without entry to premises where the products are held.

I look forward to working with other noble Lords in seeking to improve the Bill in its future stages and to hearing the Minister’s winding-up speech.

19:47

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful both for the chance to contribute to today’s consideration of this important legislation and for the opportunity to follow so many well-informed and forensic contributions. As we have heard enumerated extremely well already, this Bill is broad in scope and application—as it needs to be to achieve its objectives. Against that background, and conscious that I am the 17th speaker today, I do not intend to detain your Lordships’ House for longer than it will take for me to focus on one or two specific elements of the Bill.

Before I do that, I commend and thank my noble friend the Minister for his excellent introductory speech to legislation that is complex and difficult to understand. He has taken to the Front Bench of your Lordships’ House as a duck does to water, and I commend him for that too. As other noble Lords have, I also commend, thank and congratulate my noble friend Lady Winterton of Doncaster, who made her maiden speech today. She made what I thought was a speech that can be made only by someone who has a flawless political touch.

For half of my noble friend’s 27 years in Parliament, in the House of Commons representing Doncaster, our careers as parliamentary politicians followed a similar path. We were both elected in 1997 and we were both given ministerial responsibilities in 2001, after our first term on the Back Benches. My noble friend went on to have—I think I have got this right—six additional jobs. In my case it was five, and that took us to 2010. At that point, our careers diverged; I retired from the House of Commons and was introduced to your Lordships’ House. My noble friend went on to hold, entirely appropriately for a parliamentary democracy, senior positions in the Government for a period of time and then senior parliamentary positions. I retired because I had this conviction that three terms in the House of Commons was the appropriate time to spend there and one should then move on. She is, in that respect, the living contradiction of my judgment.

In anticipation of having this opportunity to speak about her, I made some inquiries and did some research in the media that covers the Doncaster area, of which there is quite a lot. I can tell you that, whatever she says about why this is the case, it seems very clear that, in Doncaster, she is deeply respected, greatly admired and loved for who she is—there is no question of that. I can say, from the time we were together in the House of Commons, that she was deeply respected, she was universally admired across the House and she was loved. From the reaction of your Lordships to this one speech from my noble friend, it is clear that she is deeply respected and deeply admired—the love will come.

This Bill makes no mention of the UK single market act. In that sense, it is somewhat like “Hamlet” without the Prince. These two pieces of legislation may turn out to sit awkwardly together on the statute book, both purportedly governing UK internal trade. But, to introduce my first point, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that this Bill does seem to be adopting an approach slightly distinct from that of the UK SMA in respect of the devolved Governments. I do not plan to explore that topic in any great depth today as I am sure this will be examined very thoroughly in Committee; if my former colleagues in the Law Society of Scotland have anything to do with it, they will guarantee that is the case. But I have a couple of questions to ask the Minister.

First, I understand from the Explanatory Notes that a legislative consent Motion is being sought from the Scottish Parliament. Given that the Notes further make clear that this process will apply only to Clauses 1 to 4 and 8 to 11 of the Bill, I ask my noble friend whether the Government plan to detail the discussions they have had with the devolved Administrations in respect of the legislative consent process. If they do not have such intentions, I urge them to get them because, from the point of view of our joint politics, it would be much easier to deal with these matters in the Scottish context if that is done.

Secondly, Clauses 1 to 4 and 8 to 11 empower the Secretary of State to make regulations in areas of devolved competence, but there is no requirement for him to consult with, or obtain consent from, Scottish Ministers before such regulations apply to Scotland. To forestall any possibility of this fact becoming yet another matter of unnecessary controversy during the implementation process, can my noble friend outline the circumstances in which regulations would be made without such consent being sought and granted—and, if it is not possible for him to do that today, will he write about it?

On the question of alignment, in the reaction to those elements of the Bill which concern the EU regulations, there are those who seem to believe that they can glimpse what TS Eliot described as

“the skull beneath the skin”—

that, behind what they regard as a designedly prosaic Bill, the Bill seeks to smuggle measures on to the statute book that would all but reverse Brexit, establish us as little more than a satrap of the European Union and condemn us, unthinkingly, to eight new European regulations as they emerge from the infernal bowels of the European Commission.

In that spirit, the Daily Express greeted this Bill with the typically understated headline “The Great Brexit Betrayal”, while another somewhat fevered headline suggested that this measure reduces Britain to nothing more than an “EU district”. Perhaps they are overstating things a little. This Bill offers nothing so apocalyptic, even for those who would regard greater EU alignment as inherently undesirable. Clause 2(7), for instance, would give the Secretary of State the power to declare UK product regulations met where these fulfil the requirements of the relevant EU law—this has already been referred to by others. This is caveated a little by the succeeding Clause 2(8), which makes it clear that this is subject to prior regard being given to the social, environmental and economic impact of EU alignment.

I know that Clause 2(7) has been particularly controversial, but there are a few points to make. First, this is an enabling power. It does not oblige the Secretary of State to accept EU regulations but gives him or her, an elected British Minister accountable to a sovereign Parliament, the ability so to do where it is believed that this would be in the UK’s national interest. Secondly, as the background briefing notes to the King’s Speech make clear, harmonisation is to be pursued only when

“it is in our interests to do so”.

This legislation also gives the Government the power to end recognition of EU product regulations where it is in

“the interests of UK businesses and consumers”

to do so.

The notion that regulation is inherently undesirable is flawed, to say the least. I will take the specific example of the chemical sector, where the enactment of the powers in this Bill could make a substantial beneficial difference. The last Government decided to leave REACH, the EU’s registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulation, to set up a parallel body. Since then, we have not adopted a single restriction on a harmful substance, compared with 10 new protections offered by EU regulation, including on harmful micro- plastics deliberately added to products. While REACH has regulated PFAs in the EU, not a single river or water body in England is in good chemical health.

As well as damaging wildlife and water bodies, these PFAs—so-called “forever chemicals”—have been found in high concentration in our drinking water, in pollution hotspots across the UK and even in our blood. Since we left REACH, the EU has initiated 23 risk assessments related to harmful substances while we have initiated just three. It may be that this is a function of a more vibrant, freebooting approach, or that we have superior data or a more effective methodology, but I fear it may just be that our duplicate body has simply proven less effective—which, in turn, imperils the safety of people in this country.

I have lost track of the number of Conservative Ministers I have seen in my 27 years in Parliament announcing their determination to kindle a bonfire of regulations, to take an axe to red tape or some similarly strenuous deregulatory measure. But the powers in this Bill that offer the chance for greater regulatory alignment will make trade with the EU easier across a variety of sectors, without any need for duplicate regulations. Indeed, Make UK, the manufacturers association, describes the Bill as “removing the uncertainty” created by the EU retained law Act, and giving Governments

“the ability to assess and implement EU product regulatory requirements into GB law for specific markets and categories”.

If I properly understood the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I agree with him when I say that few things damage trade law more than uncertainty and asymmetry. It is therefore unclear, at least to me, how the British Government being empowered either to adopt or end EU regulations according to a calculus of self-interest represents an irreversible slide into geopolitical irrelevance.

In case your Lordships have not got it, I welcome the legislation before the House today. I look forward to participating in the later stages of its passage and offer the Government my support in ensuring that it reaches the statute book.

20:00

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this important debate on the Bill. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Leong, to his place on the Front Bench and congratulate him on his appointment to the Government. I am sure he will do an excellent job. I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton of Doncaster. We were sparring partners in the other place and I am sure she will make a very strong contribution in this House.

The Bill appears beguilingly straightforward, benign and innocuous, but it contains some clauses that cause me a deal of concern and alarm, both for what is written in the Bill and—as my noble friend Lord Trenchard said—what is not written but omitted. I will concentrate my remarks on product regulation.

Naturally, we all support the imperative of responding to new product risks and opportunities, updating the law in respect of new and emerging business models in the supply chain, enhancing powers for market surveillance, working towards better product safety, including for products sold online, and addressing product recalls and traceability. The previous Government were committed to replacing and updating EU-derived regulations that were part of UK law, aiming to create a more coherent and effective product safety regime.

There is a consensus on the Government’s focus on innovation as a driver for the delivery of economic growth. That includes the safe development and supply of new technologies. As we know, a new modernised product safety regulatory framework has been needed for some time, as the Office for Product Safety and Standards pointed out in its 2018 report. New legislation was, of course, inevitable and probably advisable following the OPSS’s product safety review of March 2021, with the focus on updating the General Product Safety Regulations 2005. The previous Government legislated in secondary legislation that came into effect this month.

However, as noble Lords might expect, I have some reservations, particularly on Clauses 1(2) and 2(7), which contain powers to align UK laws with any EU environmental rules and a general power to provide that the EU standards shall apply respectively.

The language in Clause 2(7) is oddly technocratic but, at the same time, vague. It has significant ramifications in terms of a policy shift towards aligning with EU standards over time—dynamic alignment. Other noble Lords, such as my noble friends Lady Lawlor and Lord Frost, mentioned this. The Bill also does not fully elucidate the details of what types of products are covered by its provisions—it references “nearly all manufactured products”—so will the Minister clarify this for the House? Will alignment with the EU regulatory regime include the EU’s 2023 safety regulations, due to come into force in the EU in December 2024, and the revised EU product liability directive, in the next few years? What steps will Ministers take to both consult with business and allow Parliament appropriate scrutiny and oversight of ministerial decisions? If the latter is not the case, will the Minister tell us whether the Government will bring forward primary legislation on product liability in the near future?

As Which? has rightly stated, this is an enabling Bill, a Henry VIII Bill, which allocates vast powers. The devil will of course be in the detail of the secondary legislation. I had a wry smile when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, reproaching my noble friend Lord Sandhurst for referencing the Henry VIII powers in the Bill. We were tripping over legal experts on the Cross Benches during the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, who pontificated and opined on that Bill’s traducing of parliamentary sovereignty by its Henry VIII powers. But I fear that the noble Lord is alone today and that his Cross-Bench noble friends who share his views are not present. The strange thing is that we now have a Labour Government, which might account for that.

The briefing paper from Which? rightly points out the lack of detail in the Bill on the duties and obligations of those supplying products in online marketplaces, for instance. I therefore invite the Minister seriously to consider the proposals outlined by Which? in the helpful briefing paper: an explicit set of provisions to detail key duties on online marketplaces and a commitment to publish, in good time before the duties come into force, any draft secondary legislation on how these duties will work in practice, and to consult key stakeholders on the design of those regulations.

Which? also made the very important point that a new parliamentary committee should be dedicated to scrutiny and to reviewing any proposed changes to product and metrology regulations, especially where the UK is opting to diverge from existing rules. I do not have a problem with defending the divergence of rules if it is in the long-term interest of UK businesses, looking outwards to global regulatory regimes—if it is defensible, of course.

Which? also proposes a commitment to ensure that, in the future, consumer and industry groups are given consultation rights over any significant rule changes that impact specific products and markets, in good time and before draft secondary legislation is published. I hope the Minister will address that in his speech.

As has been mentioned, in fairness, the Bill also contains provisions that allow the UK to end recognition of EU product regulations. I concede that, but the Minister might explain how such a decision might be triggered, what scrutiny Parliament will be able to exercise on that policy and what evidential basis will be required.

On the specific content of Clause 2(8), can the Minister explain the likely scenarios that would cause him or her to make reference to

“the social, environmental and economic impact”

of the Bill’s provisions and the rationale for this subsection, given that the Bill already complies with human rights provisions and environmental legislation? Dare I say that Clause 2(8) might just invite more litigation and judicial review? On that basis, it is perhaps unwise to place it in the Bill.

The Bill is opaque in many respects. It is a concern that the impact assessment prays in aid the enabling nature of the powers in this primary legislation and is therefore silent on the likely monetary costs of the Bill to business. Page 11 of the impact assessment specifically states:

“Impacts have therefore not been monetised and are discussed qualitatively”.


While the rationale for the Bill appears clear and unambiguous—that, at present, the UK lacks the power to end recognition or to recognise new and updated EU regulations in Great Britain—I am unconvinced of the corollary argument that, ipso facto, the UK will fall behind the EU and other jurisdictions and markets in its innovation, technological advances and competitiveness. I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Foster, but I think it is important to take our time with the considered scrutiny of the Bill, because the devil will be in the detail—notwithstanding what he said about specific product issues, which are of course very important.

At the risk of being labelled deranged by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I refer noble Lords back to recent history and the ill-fated Chequers White Paper of 12 July 2018, the most consequential part of which considered the future economic partnership between post-Brexit UK and the European Union. These proposals were thrice rejected in the other place, and indeed by the EU in September 2018. The May Government proposed a common rulebook—I am sure we all remember that—for all goods, including agri-food, and a treaty commitment to harmonisation to provide frictionless trade. In addition, the PM promised binding commitments on state aid and competition, and non-regression clauses on level playing field issues, and the UK was de facto to remain in the customs union, which was then labelled the combined customs territory. Amazingly, senior civil servants briefed the EU that Chequers would give the UK no competitive advantage in business and commerce in the future, which seemed an odd position for the UK Government to take. There was no mandate, electorally or in Parliament, for what was effectively dynamic alignment —without a vote or a voice, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said. I say in passing that I agreed with the vast bulk of my noble friend’s very well-articulated remarks.

Finally, the Bill potentially undermines His Majesty’s Government’s manifesto commitment to remain outside the single market, opens up disputes over the reach of the European Court of Justice in its interpretation of legacy EU law, and traps entrepreneurs and innovators in the UK into a legal and regulatory framework that is inimical to British competitiveness, global ambitions and economic growth and prosperity. Let the Minister be assured that a number of us noble Lords will watch the progress of the Bill hawk-like and will fully hold him and his Government to account.

20:11

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough— I think it was in Peterborough that I got caught in a ring road and went round and round without ever getting anywhere. It is also a pleasure to wind up this debate, but it was more of a pleasure to hear the excellent maiden speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton of Doncaster. While other colleagues were describing her huge and lengthy parliamentary CV, they failed to observe her last two jobs. The most recent was that of Deputy Speaker, and before that she was buried in the shady depths of the Whips’ Office. Neither of those afforded much opportunity for her to stand up on the green Benches and make speeches. It is good to have her back making speeches, and I am sure she will contribute fully to the work of your Lordships’ House.

Brexit is the present that keeps on giving. I naively hoped that the post-Brexit replumbing of the statute book was done, but no. As the Minister explained, the Bill is another piece of work that we need to do as a result of the Brexit process and, while we have managed thus far, it provides a welcome—from these Benches—and much-needed legislative mechanism to introduce changes to regulations. On these Benches, as I think noble Lords have understood, we will work positively with the Minister. I welcome him to his new role, and we thank him and his team for the engagement that they have already given us and that I am sure we will get in future.

Overall, we will be looking for ways to ensure that the Bill advocates for strong consumer safety and well-being. Consumer safety should be built into the Bill and should ensure that all future secondary legislation must be designed to maintain a high level of consumer protection and well-being and to require that products be safe. Future regulation should also cover product recall and other areas, such as disposal. In these regards, there is tremendous scope to strengthen the Bill.

There is more joy in heaven over a sinner who repents. While it might not be heaven on the Liberal Democrat Benches, there is some ironic joy when we hear the voices of some on the Conservative Benches complaining about Henry VIII legislation. During a debate on one of the many Bills, I warned them to be careful what they wished for; what they wished for is what they are now getting. As the Minister explained, this is a framework Bill so there is no subterfuge, but it is one with few or no guard-rails. As we go through, I think that will be important. I look forward to hearing what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has to say about this, because I suspect we may have to think through some areas around it.

Your Lordships’ House is familiar with, and a number of noble Lords have mentioned, the time-honoured complaint that secondary legislation is unamendable when it comes before us. In the absence of any details in the Bill, it is for this reason that colleagues are starting to raise issues, and many of these issues will come forward. They are anxious to pursue how the regulations will work on really important issues. An important subset has been the issue of lithium-ion batteries. It is not the only priority but is clearly one for some Members of your Lordships’ House.

I believe, as others have said, that the best way for the Minister to draw the sting of this debate is to show us what the proposed regulations will be. I think there will be a number of other areas, particularly around markets, where that strategy will be the best way to satisfy your Lordships’ House. Also, publishing the details of the consultation—which, in our meeting with him, the Minister told us would be coming forward—is very important and will draw some of the sting from the Conservative Front-Bench speech. More generally, there should be a commitment to publish that draft legislation and to give your Lordships an opportunity, once the Bill has passed, maybe in Committee or otherwise, to review that.

A real issue, raised by the noble Lord opposite and by my noble friend, is chemicals regulation. Chemicals regulation is one of the biggest bugbears facing British manufacturing, and one of the biggest hazards facing British consumers across the country. There is a roadblock thanks to the way in which REACH was to be ported across to this country with a new system—I will not bore the Minister on this issue; I have bored Parliament on several occasions on it. It is still a botch—the idea that data could be ported across from EU REACH into the British system was always wrong and there were warnings from the outset. That is why we have the stasis going on now. I would like the Minister to confirm that REACH is within the scope of the Bill, and if it is not we will table amendments to bring it into scope.

Liberal Democrats also believe that we should make future regulations that have regard to the sustainability of products, including the right to repair, reuse and safe disposal, which was mentioned by my noble friend—building in circular economy principles into future regulation. We will table amendments to enshrine that as part of the guardrails that I have talked about.

Next, the accompanying notes and ministerial communications have lauded how the Bill will respond to new and emerging business models. This is important and, as noble Lords heard from my noble friend Lord Foster and others, we will be probing the regulation of online marketplaces. Current product safety laws were developed before the evolution of online marketplaces. The Office for Product Safety and Standards thinks that the responsibilities on these online marketplaces are currently insufficient, and that the rules are unclear. We agree with that and will be seeking that clarity. We will seek an enforceable duty on online marketplaces to provide confidence for consumers. In addition, we will propose the extension of liability to online market- places for defective products, particularly those sold by third-party sellers. This needs to be supported by clearer definitions of the key terms, as some of my colleagues, including the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I think, mentioned.

The crucial issue of enforcement was also raised by my noble friend and it is clear that without an obligation to deliver resources to enforce them, these new regulations are essentially worthless. There can be no level playing field for bricks-and-mortar shops if these new rules are not properly enforced on the digital players in the economy.

Moving on, can the Minister please explain, as a number of your Lordships have asked, how this regulation will mesh with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act and with the Windsor Framework? The noble Lord, Lord Browne, and others pointed out that although product regulation is a reserved issue, the effects of the product being regulated are often not reserved. So can the Minister explain how the Bill will proceed, and how it will proceed if it does not receive legislative consent from one or other of the devolved authorities? Meanwhile, we have cross-border issues in the island of Ireland. This has been mentioned around the scope of the Windsor Framework. In some cases it has been mentioned as a menace, in some cases I think the Bill has the opportunity to solve some of those problems, and it will be good to know the Minister’s and the Government’s philosophy on that.

Part of the post-Brexit issue in dealing with the internal market was to create the common framework process. Nobody has talked about those common frame- works for a very long time. I would like the Minister to update your Lordships’ House, probably by letter, on where those common frameworks are, because this is an ideal topic for one of those frameworks, probably the environmental framework, to deal with. At the moment it is not clear to me whether those are completely moribund or whether there is a channel there to deal with it. If there is not, I think we will have to table something in Committee that has a way of bringing together the nations of the United Kingdom so that they can contribute to the process of the regulation that is going forward, rather than have it done to them all the time. That speaks to the spirit that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, was talking about just now.

I would like to use what remains of this speech to clarify two points. First, what is a product? This is not the start of a philosophical discussion. I was struck by one of the conversations I had with the Bill team—for which I was grateful—that the Bill is aimed at tangible products, such as an alarm clock, a vacuum cleaner, or a car, if it is in the scope of these regulations. Historically, the operationality of such things was self-contained. It had all the features that it had, and they were not mutable. That is no longer the case. Almost every product can be internet-enabled and can have its software updated, remotely, overnight, without me even knowing. So the properties of that product, which might have been legal, decent, honest and truthful at bedtime, can be positively dangerous by the morning unless the process of the software operating system updating is also part of the regulatory process. The Bill does not in any sense capture the spirit of that. We will certainly probe that in Committee.

My final point is distinctly Brexity—noble Lords would not expect otherwise. Interestingly, and unusually, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and I have a shared interest, in that both of us would like some clarity around how the Bill will be used, though we definitely come at it from opposite angles. He and other noble Lords raised the spectre of Clause 2. I will not quote Clause 2(7) again, but a number of my colleagues have said that this is starting to look like a change of tone by the Government. Although some noble Lords on the Conservative Benches might consider this to be a sinister plot, those of us on these Benches would consider it cause for hope, and a sign that some sense is beginning to emerge from the chaos that this Government have been left by their predecessor. Can the Minister tell us whether this is cause for hope? Should I be hopeful? When will hope come riding through the corridors of Parliament?

What most manufacturers want to know is how adhering to future UK regulation will affect their ability to export to probably one of their biggest markets. They do not want two different standards, and the failure of UKCA is a good example of why having two regulatory structures does not work. The previous Government recognised that and kept kicking it into the long grass, while pretending it still existed.

There is a real and present issue—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, who raised it at the last—in that the EU General Product Safety Regulations are coming down the line. This is a new instrument in the EU product safety legal framework which replaces the current general product safety directive and the food imitations product directive, and it comes into effect on 13 December 2024. This Bill will not be in place to deal with it, and there is a good deal of uncertainty and ignorance among our manufacturers about the very existence of the directive.

I know that the DBT has started to do some workshops, but there is a tremendous amount of work that needs to be done to explain to people exporting to the EU at the moment that they will have new regulations. These apply to non-food products and to all sales channels within the EU and exports to the EU; the aim is to ensure safety on their grounds. There will be new responsibilities for UK exporters, and these changes will be particularly impactful on SMEs and on businesses using online sales channels. It really is important that the DBT gives us a gap analysis as to what these new regulations bring that current UK regulations do not bring. Separate to this Bill but within the spirit of it, that would be an important communication for us to have. There are a number of issues around this directive, relating to producer responsibility, precautionary principles, internal risk analysis, product safety and traceability information, to name but a few. I know that Make UK is extremely concerned about the lack of activity around telling UK businesses what is going on.

On a more general basis, it would make a lot of sense for the UK Government to develop and create a monitoring capability so that divergence at EU level is communicated to British businesses. That would be to take the view that this Bill does not bring dynamic alignment and that there will always be changes going on. There is no sense that any alignment can be dynamic; it can be created, in that Governments can make alignment case by case, but there is no automation in this Bill. As far as international standards go, I do not think there is anything in this Bill that stops what the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, wanted to do.

This Bill has a very anodyne title—it perhaps wins the prize for one of the more boring titles. Some have concluded that it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I hope that, with the help of your Lordships during Committee, we can make sure that it is a sensible approach to helping UK consumers get the safety and well-being they require from products, and that UK manufacturers have a fair wind behind them to trade with the EU and help to deliver the growth that everybody in this House craves.

20:29

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fox. He was highly eloquent—although I feel he got slightly stuck on the Peterborough ring road towards the end of his speech when talking about Europe.

There were phenomenal contributions from across the House, including, obviously, from my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, who gave a phenomenal maiden speech, but I was confused as it was filled with compassion, humility and personability. I do not see those as qualities at all relevant to being Chief Whip from my recollection, so I assume she filled her other roles with excellence. I welcome her to this House and look forward to working with her over the coming years.

The Bill is a very important evolution of our product safety processes. It continues much of the work undertaken by the previous Government to ensure that consumers can be safe in the knowledge that what they buy conforms to high standards and that shops on our high street do not have to compete unfairly with online providers through a derogation of standards. I congratulate the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for continuing the excellent work, if I may say so, of previous Ministers in the DBT. To follow on from that, the metrology part of this Bill has its roots in a sensible need, quite rightly, to update the legislation to ensure that we can have control over our measurements and standards following our departure from the European Union.

However, as we heard from a number of noble Lords, we have some significant concerns about how these measures will be implemented, as well as the risks contained within the Bill, which could easily lead to less protection for consumers, less choice and higher costs to businesses, and have the exact opposite effect from our desire to have greater freedoms to be an independent trading nation.

I have a few points. This has been a fascinating debate on what could have appeared to be a Bill with a rather anodyne title. I will add to the list of questions, some of which are overlapping and some of which follow on from the excellent speech given by my noble friend. I have not received very clear responses back on questions following the last few debates I have spoken in, so I would be grateful if we can get those, because these are technical points. We want to create good legislation and I think the whole House is agreed that this is an important Bill, but we have to do it correctly.

It is relevant that we are having a philosophical debate. I think the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned the principles around the philosophy of this legislation. It is important; we are changing significantly the principle of responsibility and where it lies for online marketplaces. That is complicated. At the same time, we do not want to distort the new gig economy. Millions of people trade online. I should declare an interest that my sons spend a great deal of their time trading football shirts on various websites. We have to be very careful to ensure that we are not affecting or limiting the prospective future of the online economy because we are concerned about product standards in some respects. Having said that, we have to ensure that the responsibility is properly delineated and that there is a high degree of product safety. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the philosophy relating to some of the more intellectual concepts around the changes to where responsibility lies, and for him to give us some security that this is about product responsibility rather than necessarily trying to overregulate people’s activities when it comes to online marketplaces.

I would also like some clarity, if the Government can provide more to this House, on the costs of enforcement and how they will ensure that the fees levied will be incidental, or indeed affordable. I have a fear that we will see a whole raft of new regulators. It is clearly important that we have enforcement, but this has to be paid for. This could create an entire new web of regulatory activity, which can often be misguided and expensive.

I am very concerned, as I think are many Members of this House, both noble friends and noble Lords, about the range of criminal offences that will be created, with different tariffs. For some reason we love locking people up in this country and then seemingly releasing them soon after. It would probably be sensible to outline here and now what the real constraints are in this area. I do not think it is good enough, as we have repeated many times in this debate, simply to have that be defined at a later date.

I would like to see the consultation outcomes on product safety. My noble friend Lord Sandhurst mentioned this. It seems absolutely bizarre that we have not seen the outcomes of the consultation that was done a year ago. I am very aware that there was an election, but that should not have stopped officials doing the work to understand the responses. It is impossible for us to legitimately say that we can have a proper debate in this House if we have not seen the feedback from the consultation around product safety and how we need to go forward. I believe, from an informal discussion we had earlier this week, that there is a commitment to produce at least a summary of the findings before Committee, so I call on the Government to do that.

I also press the Government further for more work on battery safety. A number of noble Peers with great expertise have contributed to that part of the debate. It is essential that we deal with this urgently. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, I would not like to confuse some of the comments about battery safety—not that he was confused in any way—with the importance of having proper legislation on consumer safety in general in this Bill.

I want to follow up on the points, well made, by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, about the effect of this legislation on the Windsor Framework. Other noble Lords have raised this issue too, and it is very relevant; we are dealing with complex, sensitive webs of legislative activity and it is essential that we really consider what the impact will be. It is not good enough to say—I fear that I predict this response from the Minister—that there will not be an effect. There clearly will be, because this is a complicated issue. It is very important that we have an open debate about that.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, and other noble Lords rightly raised the issue of the devolved nations. Have they consented? Where are we in the process of gaining legislative consent? How will this affect the internal market of the United Kingdom? Again, this is not straightforward. It is simply not good enough to say that we hope to get it at a later date, or that if we come back in a few months’ time, it will all be fine.

Then, there is disquiet about how these measures may be used—when they are eventually defined—to align our standards ever further with those of the EU. This is especially relevant in areas such as environmental protection. We know well that, in many instances, blindly following the EU will have negative impacts on our economy. Can the Minister please respond to these important questions? I am concerned that this has somehow been negated in the discussions we have had. It is very important to get the philosophical elements of this correct. An element of openness and transparency will be welcome; it will solve problems in the future if we have an open discussion now.

It is true that this is relatively technical legislation designed to play catch-up with a new modern digital economy. Unfortunately, however, the phrasing is very broad and the powers are ill-defined. Trying to ensure that the Government can evolve their regulatory frameworks as technology evolves is fair, but, at the same time, we need more detail. There is also a growing body of opinion that these plans do not go far enough in genuinely ensuring that consumers are protected, and that trust can be properly vested in the online marketplace industry.

Giving such broad powers to a Government who, by their own admission, do not have a clue as to what tomorrow holds is extremely dangerous and goes against the principles of good lawmaking. It is crucial that we have a proper debate now to ensure that we understand what we are doing and have thought clearly enough about how these marketplaces will operate and how consumer product safety can be properly engaged.

I am also extremely concerned that, if we rush this and simply use secondary legislation to bring in criminal offences, fines, costs and other regulatory structures, we will end up with a clunky, heavy-handed set of regulations that do not protect the consumer. They will end up checking boxes and denigrating out business base, reducing consumer choice.

Finally, it is clear that this House, and, indeed, the nation at large, need to be properly reassured that this Bill is not a simple attempt to realign us with every aspect of EU regulation, but that we have thought clearly about the ramifications of how the world has changed and how properly to police that to ensure consumer safety in a growing economy. I very much look forward to a far higher level of detail as we enter Committee, and I look forward to Minister’s response.

20:38

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I would first like to thank all noble Lords for their very kind remarks; they are much appreciated. I also thank noble Lords for taking part in today’s debate, and for the contributions from all sides of the House. Today’s debate has been not only informative and wide-ranging but also illustrated the depth of expertise and experience present in your Lordships’ House.

I was particularly pleased to hear the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Winterton. She brings much experience and wisdom, having served with distinction as Deputy Speaker in the other place and as a Minister in multiple government departments between 2001 and 2010. Freed as she now is from the necessary neutrality of a formal role, we welcome her warmly to the government Benches, where I suspect that, like her former boss, Lord Prescott, she will pull no punches. I look forward to hearing from her many more times in the future.

As we have heard, product safety failures can have devastating consequences. We are determined that our regulatory framework is agile and flexible in its response both to new threats and to complex supply chains. For innovation to flourish and potential for growth to be realised, it is essential that consumers can have confidence in the safety of the products they buy and in the businesses that they buy from.

I will try my very best to address as many of the issues and questions raised today as possible within my timeframe of 20 minutes. If I do not have the time, I will get my office to go through Hansard and provide written answers to noble Lords and have a copy placed in the Library. Finally, let me assure all noble Lords that I want to work constructively and proactively in the passage of this Bill, and I will have many more conversations and share information with noble Lords through Peers drop-in sessions—my office is always open, so feel free to contact me and my private office.

The noble Lords, Lord Frost, Lord Browne and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, raised concerns that this Bill is tantamount to the UK rejoining the EU through the backdoor. Let me be extremely clear: this Bill is not rejoining the EU by the backdoor. This Bill gives us the flexibility to ensure that product regulation, now and in the future, is tailored to the needs of the UK. There will be some instances where we will want to take a similar approach to the EU, and there will be others where it makes sense for the UK to diverge. Those decisions will be based on the best interests of the UK’s businesses and consumers, and any secondary legislation will be subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny. As I said in my opening speech, we are taking back control, seeking closer, more mature trading partnerships with the EU and forging new trading relationships with the global world out there.

The noble Lords, Lord Foster, Lord Browne of Ladyton, Lord Bourne, Lord Fox and Lord Johnson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised questions about devolution. The vast majority of product safety and metrology legislation is reserved, with some specific exceptions. We expect the overwhelming majority of secondary legislation brought forward under the main powers in Clauses 1 and 5 to be reserved. Given the technical nature of product regulation and metrology, it is possible—as many noble Lords have mentioned—that some elements of secondary legislation may touch on devolved aspects, such as regulating the environmental impact of certain products, as we consider safety impacts alongside.

Following meetings with my counterparts, I welcome their broad support for the policy intentions behind the Bill. However, we recognise that the devolved Governments have raised some concerns about the drafting and breadth of delegated power in the Bill. As outlined in our manifesto, this Government are committed to reset the UK Government’s relationship with the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I have had positive meetings with my counterparts in the Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive and will be meeting with the Scottish Government this week. My department is engaging with all devolved Governments in an open and collaborative spirit, and we hope that we will gain legislative consent Motions from the devolved legislatures. I will keep the House informed of those discussions.

On the specific case of Northern Ireland, which has been raised by several noble Lords, in order to ensure dual access to both the UK internal market and the EU single market, Northern Ireland applies certain EU product regulations and metrology rules under the Windsor Framework. The Bill provides the Minister with the ability to make a sovereign choice and effectively manage upcoming regulatory divergence between the UK and EU, and therefore to ensure continuity across the UK internal market, where it is in our domestic interest to do so. As such, we expect that the Bill will have a positive impact on trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

The noble Lords, Lord Foster, Lord Fox and Lord Johnson, raised the importance of ensuring that the enforcement authorities have adequate resources to fulfil their function. With this Bill we intend to improve enforcement capability, leading to more efficient and effective use of time through a better suite of notices and better data-sharing opportunities. The Office for Product Safety and Standards will continue to provide a range of support to enforcement authorities. This will include support on technical queries, access to product testing and an ongoing programme of training and continuous professional development. The Office for Product Safety and Standards will also produce guidelines for the application of any new powers so that enforcement authorities are equipped to use them efficiently.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and several other noble Lords raised an important issue relating to international standards. The Bill will enable us to continue to amend product regulations as well as allow the designation of international standards for products in scope. In line with WTO obligations, the UK recognises the benefits and supports the use of international standards, as well as regional standards, to break down trade barriers with our trading partners. The British Standards Institution regularly reviews UK standards, replacing domestic standards with appropriate international ones. This is also something that the UK pursues in its international agreements.

The noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst, Lord Foster, Lord Lucas, Lord Jackson and Lord Fox, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, asked whether any draft regulations under the Bill would be produced. The Government are working through policy positions on a range of issues following the election, including addressing the sale of unsafe products via online marketplaces. Additionally, we are reviewing changes the EU is proposing to its registration regulations and considering the applications. Throughout, our response will depend on the outcome of our call for evidence and policy discussions with stakeholders.

The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, asked about the poor way we are approaching legislation. The review he referred to was issued by the previous Government. It was clear then that to make fundamental changes to product regulation requires primary legislation because the powers were not available to us, hence bidding for this Bill to ensure that we secure the powers to act in good time to address emerging risks.

The noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Sandhurst, asked about online marketplaces. It was right for us to bring forward this Bill to give us the powers we need to address sales of unsafe products by online marketplaces —an area on which the product safety review consulted. Consumer groups such as Which? have also been calling for us to take action. This Bill will allow us to take action now.

The noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst, Lord Foster and Lord Johnson, asked why we have not published a response to the product review consultation. We have bid for the necessary powers to make changes to our regulations and have introduced this Bill, which will deliver enabling powers to allow us to implement a lot of the policy proposals emanating from the product safety review to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, referred. That review received 126 responses covering regulatory changes. Action on online marketplace enforcement was supported by all respondents. The powers in the Bill are available powers and we have continued conversations with a wide range of stakeholders on the detail.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

I appreciate that, but we have not actually got any detail at all, or even a summary, of what the responses are. We really do require that; it is normal.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. I will ask my officials and come back to the noble Lord on that request.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, asked about lithium-ion batteries. I am pleased to advise that, while we have been in this debate, Minister Madders, my colleague in the other place, is in Paris at the OECD global awareness campaign, which this year focuses on lithium-ion batteries. The UK and the Office for Product Safety and Standards have been leading on this campaign. The noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Fox, raised additional points about disposal. Ministers are referring proposals to consult on reforms to UK battery regulations before setting out next steps.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, asked why the UK wished to be able to continue recognising the CE marking. This Bill will allow the Government to choose to recognise updates to EU product regulation to provide continued regulatory stability and avoid extra costs for business where this is in our interests. It will also allow us to end recognition of EU requirements where it is in the interest of business and consumers. We presently recognise current EU regulations for a range of products. Legislation passed in May 2024 to continue CE recognition for 21 product regulations is estimated to save UK businesses £640 million over a 10-year period, largely from avoiding duplicate compliance and labelling costs. Provisions in the Bill allowing us to continue or end recognition of EU requirements will enable us to provide the certainty that businesses need to plan for the future and innovate, supporting economic growth. The UK and EU share information on trade, including changes to the trade and co-operation agreement.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, and several other noble Lords asked about the disposal of lithium-ion batteries. The Government are committed to cracking down on waste as we move towards a circular economy, where we keep the resources we use for longer and reduce waste. The existing product responsibility scheme for batteries and waste electronics makes producers responsible for the cost of end-of-life treatment. Under existing UK legislation it is already mandatory for all batteries placed on the market in the UK to be clearly marked with the crossed-out wheelie bin.

The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, asked why there have been no changes to legislation on product safety since our exit from the EU. I can reaffirm that this is real, hence bringing forward powers in this Bill to allow us to make changes before divergence happens and we fall further behind.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, asked why we cannot use existing powers. The new Bill powers are required to enable the Government to modernise and future-proof product regulation, ensuring that it is tailored to the needs of the UK. The powers in the retained EU law Act 2023 are limited, in that they can be used only to revoke and replace assimilated law and have other inbuilt restrictions—for example, secondary legislation that is made under REUL must be deregulatory. This means that we would not be able to use the powers to increase safety requirements to respond to new and emerging threats through further amendments and legislation which was not assimilated law before.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, also asked whether the Bill will make the UK a rule-taker or a rule-maker. We are definitely not a rule-taker. We are a rule-maker, and the Bill will provide powers to give the UK greater flexibility in setting and updating its own product-related rules, as well as enabling the UK to choose whether to recognise relevant EU products requirements. Any further changes made using these powers will be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. The noble Lord asked whether the Bill protects internal markets. The Bill will give us flexibility to ensure product regulation and metrology now and in the future. It is tailored to the needs of the UK as a whole. It will enable us to make changes to product regulation and metrology legislation that will benefit businesses and consumers.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, also asked about the Windsor Framework. In updating its regulation, the EU will be seeking to deal with many of the same challenges that the Bill will address: for example, online marketplaces and batteries. The Bill will enable a choice to be made as to whether it is in the interests of UK businesses and consumers for UK regulations to take the same or a similar approach, or indeed a different one.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked whether the Government will commit to a policy of alignment with EU chemical protections. This Government are committed to protecting human health and the environment from the risks posed by chemicals. We are currently considering the best approach to chemicals regulation in the UK separately to this Bill and will set out our priorities and next steps in due course. The noble Baroness also asked how the Bill will help the Government respond to emergencies.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Am I to understand that, if there is to be separate consideration for chemicals regulation, it will not be in this Session because it was not in the King’s Speech? So all those businesses that are currently struggling with where we are now have at least a year, and probably 18 months, to wait before any sense of a Bill—never mind that Bill becoming law.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am coming back to that in the later part of my winding speech.

National emergencies such as Covid-19 highlight the importance of ensuring that our product regulation framework allows for flexibility in times of national emergency. This enabling Bill will allow the Government, in response to an emergency, to temporarily disapply and modify product regulation while maintaining high safety standards, thereby providing a faster process by which critical products are able to reach the market in order to sustain an adequate supply of such products.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I apologise, but that was not my question. My question was: will the Government make sure that, if emergency powers are used, both Houses of Parliament are kept informed prior to that happening?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I will get back to the noble Baroness in writing. I see the time flashing, so I might have to write to other noble Lords in response to their questions. Let me conclude.

I would like to thank everyone across this House for their contributions in today’s debate. I specifically thank my counterparts on the Opposition Benches, the noble Lords, Lord Johnson of Lainston and Lord Fox. This is not the first time that we have sat across from each other in such debates, albeit in different spots. I look back fondly on our debates during the passage of the CPTPP Act last year. I hope and expect that debates on this Bill will be as good-natured and as enlightening as those were.

I should like to stress my willingness to meet noble Lords to discuss further the detail of the Bill. I take the firm view that dialogue is essential to building public and parliamentary support.

To sum up, this Bill allows us to keep pace with new technologies, gives us the tools to stop dodgy suppliers placing dangerous goods on the market and allows us to make sovereign choices as to how we diverge or align with the EU and other trading partners. It gives enforcement bodies the tools they need to tackle modern problems facing the transit of goods coming across our borders, be they land, maritime or digital. Finally, it will allow us to update the legal and technological framework that underpins economy and trade. This Government will never compromise on safety. The Bill is essential to strengthening the rules and regulations needed to protect consumers, businesses and the public.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Grand Committee.

House adjourned at 9.01 pm.