Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, before I start on these amendments, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for the generous letters that he sent the Committee after previous sessions, which answered a number of questions. I generally commend the Government on their spirit of co-operation on these matters.

I am sincerely grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes for introducing this critical amendment and for supplying his PIN. Like my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, it very much appeals to me too, because the principle of being inclusive by design reflects a visionary and much-needed step forward in ensuring that products in the UK are accessible and equitable for all members of society—as my noble friend so eloquently and powerfully set out.

The establishment of an inclusive-by-design standard underscores our collective commitment to creating a society where accessibility and inclusion are the norm and not the exception. Moreover, inclusive design benefits everyone, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out. Features designed for accessibility, such as voice commands or larger interfaces, often enhance usability for all users. For businesses, I would have thought it an opportunity to innovate and differentiate themselves in a very competitive market. For consumers, it is a guarantee that their needs are being respected. So I have no hesitation at all in supporting Amendment 79.

I am also happy to support Amendments 52 and 53. I will not say much about them except to add that Amendment 52 also addresses pertinent and indeed poignant national security or—perhaps this is a better expression—security of supply concerns. A complete national understanding of supply chains makes unarguably good sense.

In conclusion, I wholeheartedly support Amendment 79 and am very sympathetic to Amendments 52 and 53, and I urge the Government to think seriously about them.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and I specifically thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his amendments. During the second day in Committee, the noble Lord illustrated his knowledge of and passion for the subject of AI.

I turn first to Amendment 53 on the review of large language models. We have already discussed the intersection or interaction between this Bill and AI in a previous group, and I will briefly restate some of the key points I made in that debate which are relevant here. Evidently, the use of AI in products is still in its infancy. How exactly this technology will develop remains to be seen, but we have drafted the Bill in such a way that it keeps pace with technological change; Clause 2(2)(a) allows regulations to take account of intangible components of a physical product.

However, the Bill does not and will not regulate digital products or artificial intelligence in and of themselves. Instead—I hope this reassures the noble Lord, Lord Holmes—the Government are developing a wider policy around AI, which I am sure will take into consideration proposals for AI safety legislation as announced in the King’s Speech. I recognise that noble Lords keenly anticipate the detail of these proposals, so I assure your Lordships that my noble friend Lady Jones will update the House in due course.

The Office for Product Safety & Standards is considering the use of AI in products and the regulatory challenges for product safety associated with that. We are just at the start of that process but know that it will become more important as technologies develop. I will ensure that the House is kept up to date with progress on this work.

Amendment 52 addresses product traceability and responsibilities within supply chains, including digital supply chains. I agree with noble Lords that it is essential that those responsible for producing or importing products are identifiable. Existing regulations already require relevant supply chain parties to maintain necessary documentation for tracing product origins and, as we consider updates to product requirements, we will also review these traceability provisions to ensure that they are fit for purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned CPTPP, which in fact comes into force this Sunday when the UK becomes a full member. I suppose we will just have to review the application of this whole supply chain and traceability, and monitor how it goes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling these three amendments. I have a question about Amendment 59.

Paragraph 9 of the Schedule says that:

“Medicines and medical devices as defined in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, other than devices designed for weighing or measuring for medical purposes”


are excluded from the Bill. I say that because the guidance on what is and is not covered by that Act is somewhat contradictory. It says that sanitary towels and tampons are

“not normally considered to be medical devices”,

yet incontinence pads, which are not internalised in the body, are. In America, tampons are deemed medical devices because they are used inside the body.

I appreciate that I am putting the Minister on the spot. I do not expect an answer, but I wonder whether the very good speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, might point to a problem with the Government’s guidance under that Act that needs to be amended.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I was not planning to say very much about this, but I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I do not feel remotely battered; I feel significantly better informed, and I am grateful for that.

It struck me that Amendment 57 is somewhat pertinent to the discussion we have just had about supply chains. I wonder, for example, whether the habitual buyers of fast fashion would be quite so enthusiastic if they understood how it was made and the environmental despoilation it entails. Of course, a lot of fast fashion is single use.

I am also intrigued to know—I have just been thinking about this—what makes a non-iron shirt non-iron. I imagine it is some sort of chemical. As a fan of said shirts, I would rather like to know, not least because the noble Baroness’s description of the destination for microplastics made me wince slightly, to be honest.

Of course, a lot of single-use plastic ends up in the ocean. Frankly, as a keen scuba-diver who has found single-use plastics below depths of 30 metres, I think that societies across the world need to address that.

I do not have much to say apart from that, but I will be very interested in the Government’s answers. I would also be keen to pursue these issues later.

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

My Lords, that was a very interesting debate, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her amendments. She spoke tellingly about the impacts the products to which she referred are having on the world, on disadvantaged communities and on human health more generally. She gave a lot of information and I will try to respond to the general principles, but I will also take away her speech and ask my noble friend to write to her with a more considered response, as I would like our officials to have a look at some of the details of the concerns she raised.

Amendment 58 is about single-use plastics. The Government recognise the concerns the noble Baroness raised about plastic products, plastic waste and plastic pollution. We think we already have the right powers and, to an extent, with what comes in this legislation. The question she is really challenging us on, I think, is whether the Government’s action is sufficient. I will try to persuade her that we are very much on this, that we have the legislation and we are pursuing the issues she has raised.

For instance, there are powers under the Environment Act 2021 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that allow us to regulate certain matters relating to products, including single-use plastics and plastic packaging, that show evidence of harm to the environment and/or human health. This includes powers for bans on manufacture, product design and labelling requirements, charges and targets. UK REACH also contains powers to address harmful additives that might be added to plastics to ensure the safety of consumer products. We know about, and I pay tribute to, the carrier bag charge. It has been very successful and has had a great impact on the United Kingdom. We have also seen other product bans and restrictions, such as those relating to microbeads, and plastic straws, cotton buds and stirrers.

Additionally, the forthcoming extended producer responsibility for packaging uses the powers in the Environment Act 2021 to make producers responsible for the costs of managing packaging once it becomes waste, and encompasses packaging of all materials, not only plastic. The improved packaging design—and I think the noble Baroness made a very important point about this in the previous debate—will be incentivised through the modulation of the fee the producer must pay based on its environmental sustainability. There is, of course, a risk in focusing just on plastic that we encourage companies to use some other material that might be equally damaging. Therefore, it has to be considered in the round.

Also, the noble Baroness may have seen the Statement made by my colleague Emma Hardy, the Minister for Water and Flooding, in the other place about the final negotiations that we are involved in to develop an international treaty on plastic pollution. The Minister said:

“Plastic pollution is one of the greatest environmental challenges that the planet faces. The world produces 400 million tonnes of plastic waste each year. Scientists predict that there will be a threefold increase in the amount of plastic entering the ocean between 2016 and 2040. A global agreement on plastic pollution is urgently needed”.


She then goes on to say,

“The Government have an ambition to catalyse the transition to a circular economy”—


which we have debated in previous days in Committee—

“and the treaty is one of the key levers available to us to achieve the systems-wide changes needed to make that a reality”.

She went on to say:

“Plastic waste has for too long littered our streets, polluted Britain’s waterways and threatened our wildlife. This Government are committed to cleaning up Britain and cracking down on plastic waste. We will roll out extended producer responsibility to incentivise businesses to cut plastic packaging and the deposit return scheme to incentivise consumers to recycle”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/24; col. 31WS.]


So we are taking this seriously and we think we have the legislation that we require. It is worth noting that, as part of this work, the Defra Secretary of State has convened a small ministerial group on the circular economy and asked his department to work with experts from industry, academia, civil society and the Civil Service to develop a circular economy strategy.

We will come on to the issue of clothing. In the meantime, the Government continue to fund action on clothing through Textiles 2030. This is a voluntary initiative that supports businesses and organisations within the fashion and textiles industry to transition to more sustainable and circular practices. I also assure noble Lords that Defra will keep the House updated with work in this area and we are happy to ensure that the noble Baroness can speak with relevant Ministers to discuss this matter further.

Amendments 57 and 59 seek to ensure that regulations are made to reduce the risk posed by clothing and period products. Again, the noble Baroness made a powerful speech. I must admit, a frisson of fear shook me when she mentioned London Fashion Week because it recalls the time when I was Minister for Sustainability in Defra, quite a long time ago. We were involved in starting developments in sustainable clothing, and I was invited to make a speech on sustainability on the first day of London Fashion Week. I thought it went well until I saw the review in the Daily Telegraph, which ignored my speech but referred to my suit being rather crumpled, which was a trauma I have never recovered from.

I come to the substance of what the noble Baroness said and the legislation. The General Product Safety Regulations do not make specific provisions for reducing the risk to consumers from harmful chemicals among some products, potentially including those that the noble Baroness raised, including period products. Although the legislation requires that the product placed on the market must be safe, it is not tailored to mitigating these risks. What it does is enable the introduction of new regulations to ensure that the Government can continue to reduce and mitigate the risk to health and safety posed by products, which could potentially include those listed in Amendments 57, 58 and 59.

The Bill can ensure that we are able to regulate the use of chemicals in consumer products, as we currently do for cosmetics and toys, as well as in other consumer products with similar chemical exposure risks. I reassure the noble Baroness that we will use the powers to identify product sectors and hazard types that require action, including period products where regulations may need to be strengthened or updated. This will be done on a risk-led basis. It will be evidence led, proportionate and follow appropriate stakeholder engagement. It goes back some time but, as an example, the Nightwear (Safety) Regulations 1985 set flammability and labelling requirements for children’s and adults’ nightwear. They are an example of risk-based regulations where a particular hazard was identified, and that can be done again.

To conclude, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made a powerful speech. I want us to have a look at some of the details. We think we have the legislation. The debate is really about what the Government should do and we are active in this area.

I am afraid that I shall have to duck the interesting question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and write to her. We will have a look at the details of that.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

The Minister worked on the medical devices Act, as indeed I did. That Act is mentioned here, and I hope we might be able to table an amendment to this Bill to amend that Act because of the inconsistency. Will he look at that before he writes to me?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I very much remember the debate because we worked closely on it. We will look into this and get back to the noble Baroness with a detailed explanation of the issues so that everyone is clear.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their kind words about my introductory speech. I thank the Minister for his detailed response. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I also worked on the Medicines and Medical Devices Act. Well done for picking up that cross-reference, because my understanding was that tampons, pads and reusable products were not medical devices under that Act. There is a complication there that we need to address.

--- Later in debate ---

I was writing down what the Minister said in his response. I appreciate the intentions and the Government’s concerns here, but the words I kept writing down were “The Government have powers to regulate”, “We have a voluntary agreement in textiles 2030” and “The producer-pays principle is hoped to incentivise companies to improve their behaviour”. What we are talking about here is things that can happen, might happen and that the Government have the power to act on. What we do not have in legislation is a direction to the Government to act.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we are still but just over five months in office. Clearly, we have to think very carefully about the actions we are going to take. What I seek to demonstrate to the noble Baroness is that we have the powers and determination. There are a lot of areas that we have to look at, but I think that the Written Statement I read out in relation to plastics shows where we want to go. We want to see real progress in the areas that she has developed.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I think he perhaps misunderstood where I was going with that. It was not meant to be a criticism of this Government—I fully take the point of five months in power. What I was criticising or questioning was the legal framework, which allows the Government to act, whereas in these amendments each proposed new subsection (1) says that the Secretary of State “must” regulate. This is proposing a different kind of framework. It is asking the Houses of Parliament whether they are prepared to direct, within a certain timeframe, that the Government have to take action. I am questioning not what the Government are doing but whether we as a society and a Parliament want to say, “There is a real problem; the Government must take action and that is what the legal framework should be”. That is what each of these amendments does.

While I fully acknowledge that the Minister expressed some good intentions, I have to pick the noble Lord up on the reference to the straws, cotton buds and stirrers regulations. I am afraid that, when I was responding to that regulation, I was accused of being rude. I pointed out that, in 100 years’ time in a plastic- choked world, the generation then will not say, “Oh but they banned straws, stirrers and plastic cotton buds back then in the UK”. It is a very tiny scale tackling of a very large issue.

None the less, I appreciate everything that has been said. I will note that the phrase “precautionary principle” did not appear anywhere. I think that is very relevant here. We will continue the discussion. I very much appreciate the Minister’s offer of meetings to talk about these issues. I would be delighted to take that up.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting and delaying the Committee, but I did say that we would use our powers to identify products and sectors that require action and that this work would be evidence-led and proportionate.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Proportionate is not precautionary principle. Anyway, I am not going to pick up that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

68: Clause 3, page 5, line 6, leave out subsection (9)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to clarify the offences which could be created or expanded under subsection (9), as well as the civil sanctions which might be imposed.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 68 and 90, which are in my name. These amendments address the serious concerns raised by the provisions in Clause 3 and Clause 6, which give the Government sweeping powers to create or widen criminal offences and impose civil sanctions.

I have to revisit some old ground here but, given the gravity of this issue, I feel we have no choice. As was pointed out by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee, these clauses are skeletal legislation, meaning that they lack detail, leaving critical decisions about enforcement and prosecution to be made at a later stage via secondary legislation. We feel that the approach of using skeletal legislation for such crucial issues is problematic. These clauses give broad powers to create and enforce criminal offences without providing clear primary legislative guidance on who will have the authority to impose sanctions. This is particularly concerning because it leaves us very little clarity on which bodies will hold the responsibility to prosecute criminal offences.

The DPRRC and the Constitution Committee have highlighted these concerns, noting the lack of detail in the Bill and its potential to bypass parliamentary oversight. The Government’s decision to leave critical decisions about enforcement powers to be determined later by regulation, rather than in the Bill, undermines the transparency that businesses and consumers need. The Bill as written provides no information about the exact scope of the criminal offences that could be created or widened. This is not just a technical issue. It raises serious questions about the accountability of the bodies that will enforce these sanctions. The Minister may not be happy that these issues continue to be addressed but, until we receive clarity, we have a duty to bring these issues up, as I hope the Committee would agree.

The most concerning aspect of the clause is the provision allowing the creation or widening of criminal offences by regulation. The powers given to the Secretary of State or any other body of a public nature in this regard are overly broad, with little or no clear guidance or justification on what these offences will be. The Bill should, at the very minimum, provide some specification of the type of offences that may be created, rather than leaving this to broad, undefined powers that will most likely lead to overreach. The question has to be asked: why is it necessary to give the Government the power to create new criminal offences by regulation in the first place? Given the gravity of criminal sanctions, the Bill should be more transparent and specific about what offences will be created and who will be responsible for enforcing them—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, made in his reference to the CPTPP, incidentally.

Criminal sanctions carry serious consequences and it is fundamental that Parliament has a say in the creation of such offences, rather than allowing the Government to define them through secondary legislation. We understand that the Government have argued for flexibility in enforcement and that the regulatory framework must be adaptable, but that flexibility should not come at the cost of clarity or proper oversight.

We have heard serious concerns from businesses and industry stakeholders about the skeleton clauses in this Bill. Specifically, there is real uncertainty about which public bodies the Government intend to designate as having the authority to impose criminal sanctions. Again, the question has to be asked: what additional public bodies are the Government planning to empower to prosecute businesses for currently barely defined criminal offences under the Bill?

As my noble friend Lord Lansley pointed out on the previous Committee day, currently enforcement responsibilities for consumer protection laws are set out clearly in Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which names very specific enforcement authorities, but the Bill removes that clarity and instead gives the Government the power to designate by secondary legislation which public bodies can impose criminal sanctions. This creates a situation where businesses may have to deal with a wide array of bodies, many of which may not have the expertise or experience needed to understand the complexities of product and metrology regulations.

This broad power to assign enforcement duties to any body that is deemed appropriate opens the door to a wide range of unknown authorities, so the question here is: why are the Government attempting to create this uncertainty? Why not retain the existing list of enforcement bodies in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and allow changes to be made to that list through normal, well-defined procedures, rather than using secondary legislation to grant powers to an unknown set of authorities? Businesses deserve to know exactly who will be responsible for enforcing the regulations and imposing sanctions. The Bill’s current drafting creates a legal vacuum where there is no certainty about the powers of various public authorities, which could have serious consequences for businesses’ legal security.

The ambiguity surrounding criminal sanctions is deeply troubling for business, especially when these powers can be used by a range of authorities that may not be clearly identified at this stage. It raises serious concerns about due process and the fairness of enforcement actions. If a business is unsure whether it is complying with regulations and there is uncertainty about which body will be enforcing them, the risk of facing criminal sanctions obviously becomes much higher and that creates an environment of fear and uncertainty for business, which is already facing difficult economic conditions.

This situation is further complicated by the fact that secondary legislation will define the details of how these sanctions are imposed, potentially without proper scrutiny by Parliament. Criminal penalties should never be determined by regulation alone; they must be clearly laid out in primary legislation with full parliamentary oversight.

The balance of probabilities standard in civil cases can create significant challenges for businesses as well, especially in the context of the provisions outlined in the Bill regarding enforcement and sanctions. The balance of probabilities standard makes businesses more vulnerable to claims from enforcement authorities or competitors. In the absence of clear regulations and objective criteria, businesses may find it difficult to mount a defence as the mere likelihood of non-compliance could be enough to trigger sanctions. This could result in a climate of fear and uncertainty whereby businesses are hesitant to innovate or engage in new activities, due to the potential for legal action based on speculative or incomplete evidence.

The Government have claimed that this Bill will support economic growth and innovation, yet its skeletal nature and the conversations that we have had with leading industry experts suggest that they are concerned. Moreover, the Bill already includes an emergency clause—we will come on to this in our debate on the next group, I think, and we will address it later—that allows for swift regulatory action if necessary. So there is no reason why criminal sanctions cannot be made clear at the outset. There is simply no need to leave the scope of criminal offences and enforcement powers so broad and undefined.

To clarify, we absolutely recognise the importance of product safety and the need both to protect consumers and for necessary regulations. We oppose the various skeletal clauses in the Bill, as we have made clear over the course of these Committee sessions, because of the lack of clarity and the potentially authoritarian powers given to unnamed, undefined public bodies in some of these regulations. I hope that the Minister will address the many concerns the amendments in this group address and will commit to clarity for business. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, my amendments in this group—Amendments 69, 91 and 107—cover a somewhat wider area than those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I shall return to his amendments and the speech he has just made later, to comment on them—but I start by saying that Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, is helpful. One of my concerns at Second Reading was how Parliament can be made fully aware by more than just the laying of regulations, when a Minister or another body decides to create or widen the scope of criminal offences, that they must lay an Explanatory Memorandum in the Libraries of both Houses. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord speak later; his amendment is part of a possible solution.

At Second Reading, the Minister said:

“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”.—[Official Report, 8/10/24; cols. 1940-41.]


In my speech later on in that debate, I raised my concerns about a Minister who was not based in the Justice Department being able to create or extend criminal offences by regulation, with no ability to amend and much less detailed debate in both Houses of Parliament.

At Second Reading, we had not seen the second report of the Delegated Powers Committee, because that was published on 15 October—a week afterwards. Its summary about this part of the Bill is blunt. It says:

“We consider that … the Government have failed to provide a convincing justification for the inclusion of skeleton clauses in the Bill”


and suggests that

“the delegations of power in clauses 1, 2, 3 and 9 are inappropriate and should be removed”.

There is some detail about why it thinks that, in particular, there is a problem with the creation of, or the widening of the scope of, criminal offences. I mention this because I absolutely appreciate everything that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has said about the skeletal nature of the Bill earlier on—indeed, my noble friends have also made those comments—but I want to focus on the impact of having new criminal offences on the criminal justice system. I shall come to that in a minute.

My first two amendments tackle the creation of criminal offences—in the first part of the Bill on product regulation and in the second part on metrology. I have also laid Amendment 107, which seeks to ensure that new criminal offences are not created through the clauses on information-sharing regulations. Clause 7(3)(d) talks about

“sanctions for non-compliance … including … creating, or widening the scope of, criminal offences”.

That is exactly one of the points that the Delegated Powers Committee is making: the Bill is so skeletal in nature, it appears that information sharing is a route by which criminal offences could be made. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for the question. I will need to come back to her on it because I want to be absolutely clear that I am giving her the correct information, rather than me saying something now on the fly.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this brief discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Leong, praised our expertise. Can I just say that any expertise he thought he might have spotted in my remarks belongs not to me but to my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, who was very helpful. He cannot be here, I am afraid, and I am not a lawyer.

Unfortunately, in spite of the detailed explanation of the Government’s intentions supplied by the noble Lord, Lord Leong—I am very appreciative of it—I am only partially reassured. I still have some concerns, so I will go back to Hansard and study his remarks carefully, particularly those related to Bingham.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, on the list of bodies, I have not seen the letter, so I apologise again if I have repeated something that he has already addressed, but it is fair enough that he agrees that the rule of law deserves provision. I totally agree—that is fair enough—but it does not really seem to explain why there should not be a list of specific enforcement authorities, as per Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. That seems to give too much latitude, but perhaps the letter explains that, in which case I will cheerfully withdraw these remarks.

In relation to the question asked of me by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we considered following her example, obviously, but we also felt that leaving out subsection (9) would in effect render subsections (10) and (11) null and void. But I totally accept that the noble Baroness has a point about how that could be interpreted, so I will go back, have a look at it and consider what we do next. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

72: Clause 4, page 5, line 30, at end insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a comprehensive framework outlining the conditions and procedures for the use of emergency powers under this section.(4) Product regulations providing for emergency disapplication or modification may not be made until this framework has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of both Houses.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to present a framework to Parliament defining the use of emergency powers.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 72 and 73, and I thank my noble friend Lord Trenchard for signing them. Clause 4 is a short clause dealing with emergencies. It allows for product regulations

“to be disapplied, or to apply with modifications, in cases of emergency”.

It also provides:

“The disapplication … may be made subject to conditions”.


That is it. I wonder what happened to the rest of the explanation that a clause of this type surely deserves. Perhaps the parliamentary drafter was using only headlines and forgot to fill in the blanks.

These amendments are designed to introduce some checks and balances. As the clause is currently written, there is no definition of what constitutes an emergency. There is no definition in Clause 10, which deals with interpretation. Who defines an emergency? How long might an emergency last? How will emergency provisions be enforced? The committees that we have talked about so much have been very clear. We have discussed this many times. The Bill is skeletal in nature and introduces a number of Henry VIII powers. I am only surprised that this clause was not added to the list of clauses that they think should be removed from the Bill in its current form.

My Amendment 72 is merely an attempt to seek answers to some of those questions and to apply a minimal level of parliamentary scrutiny. I simply do not think it is right that an undefined individual or body could introduce undefined emergency powers of an unspecified duration without a basic level of scrutiny —frankly, that way despotism lies.

My Amendment 73 expands on this and would introduce an element of ongoing scrutiny. Again, I can see no reason why the Government would disagree with this because, in their response to the Delegated Powers Committee’s report, they said that

“the Department is committed to … engage with stakeholders … including in cases of emergency”.

I have included that exact form of words in my amendment, as well as requirements to justify the continuing need for these powers, to assess their impact and to introduce some time limits. I cannot see any reason at all why the Government would not accept this amendment, given that, in effect, they have already committed to doing pretty much what it says. I beg to move.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, once again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his amendment. I begin by reaffirming that this Government take their responsibility to parliamentary scrutiny very seriously. We have listened carefully to the views expressed and we will reflect on them as we move forward. It is always our aim to strike the right balance between thorough oversight and addressing the technical and practical demands of product regulation.

Amendments 72 and 73 seek to ensure that the use of emergency powers is transparent and proportionate. I fully appreciate the intentions behind these amendments, and I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that we believe that the Bill already provides robust mechanisms for oversight.

Clause 4 is intended to be used in rare emergency situations. It is introduced in this Bill following the recent example of the Covid-19 pandemic, when there was a shortage of personal protective equipment. To be clear, this clause is not about quickly implementing regulations on new products; it is about emergency situations where there could be a need to temporarily disapply or modify existing regulations to allow current products to be brought to market much more quickly. Any regulations made under Clause 4 are subject to the draft affirmative legislative procedure, ensuring that both Houses can scrutinise and approve them. We believe this process provides a balanced and proportionate mechanism for oversight and accountability, ensuring thorough scrutiny.

The Government are also committed to developing a clear framework of how the policy will work in practice, and this will be done in consultation with stakeholders. However, we do not believe it will be necessary to formally lay this framework before Parliament, as the oversight arrangements provided by the draft affirmative procedure for any secondary legislation under Clause 4 are believed to be sufficient.

The Office for Product Safety & Standards will take the lead in developing the framework and will publish guidance on the conditions and procedures for using these emergency powers. The guidance will then be made publicly available to Members of this House and relevant committees on the GOV.UK website which, if needed, can be used to supplement any future scrutiny on emergency measures. In addition, Clause 4 is intended to provide a proportionate response to emergencies, and conditions can be applied which will be context specific. Therefore, any disapplication or modification of regulations will be targeted, with safeguards in place to ensure public safety remains paramount.

As the House can appreciate, emergencies can be unpredictable and cannot always be anticipated in advance. Imposing an initial fixed three-month sunset period and review process for extensions risks reducing the Government’s ability to respond effectively to emergencies that may evolve over time. Instead of applying a fixed three-month sunset period to all regulations, we believe that each regulation in response to an emergency should be targeted and tailored to its unique circumstances. This approach ensures that the measures remain both proportionate and effective, addressing the specific challenges of the emergency and the product or situation involved while avoiding unnecessary constraints.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am told that we were advised by counsel that this word is more flexible to use. I do not know whether that is sufficient but perhaps we can explore that further.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for his detailed explanation. However, the fact is that that explanation and the recent comment about flexibility rather illustrate again, I am afraid, the point about the Bill. Let us go back to the DPRRC report, Democracy Denied. It states:

“Skeleton legislation signifies an exceptional shift in power from Parliament to the executive and entails the Government, in effect, asking Parliament to pass primary legislation which is so insubstantial that it leaves the real operation of the legislation to be decided by ministers”.


I am afraid that in spite of the noble Lord’s reassurances, that is still very much where we are.

I accept that emergencies are unpredictable. Of course they are, by their very nature: they are rare and emerging situations. But I do not accept the three months argument made by the noble Lord, which strikes me as inconsistent. Surely three months is enough to define and decide on the relative importance, scale or urgency of an emergency. I can see no reason at all why any emergency cannot be defined over the course of 12 weeks, and that would have gone for Covid as much as anything else.

There is some inconsistent logic in the Minister’s replies. I am partially reassured, and obviously some considerable thinking has gone into his replies, which I appreciate, but we will reserve the right to revisit this situation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 72 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

81: Clause 5, page 6, line 2, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State may not use any powers under this Act to remove or disapply the use of the pint as a unit of measurement for alcoholic beverages sold or marketed in the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the pint remains an accepted unit of measurement for alcoholic beverages.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, Clause (5)(1) states the following:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the units of measurement that are used to express quantities (whether of goods or other things), including provision about … (a) how units of measurement must or may be calculated or determined … (b) how units of measurement must or may be referred to”.


Subsection (2) goes on to state:

“The Secretary of State may also by regulations make provision about … (a) the quantities in which goods must or may be marketed in the United Kingdom, and (b) the units of measurement that must or may be used to express such quantities”.


Subsection (4) states:

“‘unit of measurement’ means any unit of measurement, including measurement of length, area, volume, capacity, mass, weight, time, temperature or electrical current ... ‘goods’ means tangible items”,

and

“‘quantity’ means quantity expressed by number or a unit of measurement”.

Yet again we have a set of provisions that, while seemingly innocuous, give a relevant Secretary of State incredibly wide powers to do pretty much anything they like about pretty much anything they like.

Both the noble Lords opposite will shortly argue that the Government have no plans to replace the British pint as a standard measure for beer. They are both honourable and sincere, and I believe them, but this careless drafting confers the power on a Secretary of State to do exactly that. It is not difficult to imagine some point in the future when the office of the Secretary of State is held by a metric maniac or, perhaps worse, an interfering busybody who decides that they know what is better for the health of the nation than those who make up the population of the nation. Perhaps that does not entail a metric replacement for our pint, but something even worse—for example, an Aussie schooner. With apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, this is an abomination of a vessel that is marginally too large for a sensible sherry, but far too small for a sensible beer.

My Amendment 81 seeks to make sure that this can never happen. It will make the pint safe. It will defend a beleaguered and endangered pub industry from more punishment, and it will guarantee a fundamental tenet of our history. A pint of beer is not a bloodless “tangible item”. It is a tangible institution. It is a link to our history and a part of our heritage. It was formally adopted as a measure for beer in 1824, but was probably used well before then—who knows, maybe even by Anglo-Saxon thanes, when they were on a session in their village hall, drinking what they then called beor and no doubt wondering what to do about the dastardly Vikings. I am reliably informed that they may even have had a word used to describe this community and that is—the spelling is tricky and the pronunciation is trickier—ge beorscipe.

I encourage the Government to accept this amendment on the pint’s formal 200th anniversary. It is straightforward and simple. If they do not, we will return to the subject on Report.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will be brief. The main point I wish to make initially is that the next time someone complains about your Lordships’ House not giving enough time to pass important legislation, I will reference this debate. However, given the attack that we have just had on the Australian schooner, I have to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that it evolved organically from the community in 1930s Australia as an unofficial measure. It was a measure of change and of the grass roots making decisions for themselves.

The noble Lord may think that his amendment will save pubs in the UK. I point out to him that, in the first quarter of this year, about 80 pubs closed in England each month. That was a 56% increase on 2023. One of the things that has been suggested might be a saviour of pubs—the noble Lord might choke on his pint at this point—is that we live in a world of change, and sales of low or no alcohol beer have exploded in the past few years. It is very hard to take this amendment seriously.

Despite that, I agree with the noble Lord that there are problems with the Henry VIII nature of the Bill and the way that it allows the Government to do virtually anything. However, picking out one particular small point is not the best way to illustrate that.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it falls to me to respond to this amendment. Unlike the noble Baroness, I think this is a very serious matter. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has a track record in this area. I think the final order he laid as a Minister in the Home Office was to extend the licensing hours during the summer’s Euro 2024 tournament for football fans. I cannot believe it, but I think he said it was to

“get properly on the lash”.—[Official Report, 24/05/24; col. 1281.]

The Government are glad that his devotion to the pint continues in Opposition, despite his seeming about-turn on the appropriate use of executive powers. He may like to know that I prepared myself for this debate by sampling pints of beer in a number of hostelries and restaurants over the past few days. I am happy to confirm that I had no difficulty in ordering a pint of bitter—or, indeed, more than one pint of bitter.

The Government rejoice in the use of pints as a measurement. I am less worried about the loss of the pint than I am about the worrying news of a shortage of Guinness. Noble Lords may have seen reports in the media in the past few days that Guinness is being rationed to make sure there is enough available over the Christmas period.

I have made it quite clear that we value the pint; there will be no change. There is no question of using the Bill’s powers to do anything other than preserve the pint. The specific drafting is to allow for changes to legislation on units of measurement, but the reason is primarily to provide powers to fulfil our international obligations and keep pace with updates to the globally used international system of units.

The argument running through the whole debate is that we want flexibility in order to keep up to date with the sorts of situations that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, outlined earlier, or with changes happening globally. We are not using this—I do not believe any Government would use this—as a draconian effort to get rid of imperial measurements in the way the noble Lord fears. I hope he will take it from me, as the spokes- person for the Government, that the British pint is safe with us.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, rejoices in the pint, as do I. Of course I understand where he is coming from, but there is a serious underlying point, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett: the Bill is drafted so loosely that it could be interpreted in any number of ways. I make no apology for my previous form of being on the side of the British drinker; I shall continue to maintain that. I have to say that the more I read this Bill, the more pints I need, but that is a separate issue—it is my problem, and I am dealing with it carefully.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her contribution. It seems that our brief meeting of minds a few groups ago is already over. I am not quite sure how the schooner evolved but I am not sure it was a community thing. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 81 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 103, 104 and 104B standing in my name. I want to take a moment to emphasise the current environment in which the Bill is being debated. The timing of this amendment is critical. Consumer confidence in the UK is at a particularly low point, especially during the festive season, when retailers are hoping for a boost in their sales. As we know, this is a critical time of year for retailers. Business confidence has also hit a two-year low. That is significant, as it indicates that the very businesses that we are depending on to drive growth—the engine, in the word of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, driving innovation and consumer choice—are also facing significant headwinds.

More troubling is the fact that consumer confidence has dipped sharply. According to a recent survey, consumer confidence in the health of the economy fell in November. The British Retail Consortium’s sentiment monitor showed a concerning dip in consumer confidence, with the index dropping to -19, down two points from October. Consumer confidence is obviously a key driver of spending, and when confidence falls, people tighten their purses, avoid spending and delay purchases. The festive season, which should be a time of consumer optimism, is instead a time of deep uncertainty. This is a problem not just for the retail sector but for the economy as a whole, as it reflects the broader issue of economic pessimism.

At a time when confidence is fragile, we must ensure that we are not inadvertently creating barriers to consumer access, increasing costs or limiting choice. The impact of regulation on consumer choice should not be underestimated. While the intent behind product regulation is to ensure safety, fairness and transparency, we must balance this with the potential burden that such regulations may place on business and, by extension, on consumers. For example, if regulations lead to higher costs for businesses, those costs are often passed down to consumers in the form of higher prices. If businesses face a reduction in profitability, it may lead to a decrease in variety or availability of goods in the market.

Sensible product and metrology regulations are essential to protecting consumers and ensuring fairness in the market. These regulations help create a framework in which businesses can operate with transparency, consumers can have confidence in the safety and reliability of products and the economy can continue to thrive—there is no dispute about all that. However, to illustrate the importance of these regulations, I draw attention to a study from the consumer advocacy group Which? This research found that half of consumers feel that consumer protection regulations enhance their confidence in the safety of goods and services they buy. This confidence is critical in ensuring consumers feel comfortable purchasing products, but it does not just benefit consumers—it also incentivises business. When consumers trust that products are safe, businesses are encouraged to innovate and compete, creating a dynamic, thriving marketplace and, in turn, that increases the production of high-quality goods, stimulates demand and further incentivises businesses to improve products that they already produce. Business and consumer interests are not at odds; in fact, they are complementary. Overly complex regulations or regulations that unintentionally increase the cost of compliance for business could lead to a reduction in the range of products available to consumers. We must avoid creating an environment where smaller businesses cannot afford to comply with the regulations and larger companies dominate the market, reducing choice and competition.

This amendment ensures that the Government will take a careful and considered approach in monitoring the impact of the legislation on consumer choice, and the report will provide important evidence to guide future policymaking and help us to avoid any unintended negative consequences for consumers and businesses alike.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for signing my Amendment 104B. The Government have to recognise that SMEs are the backbone of our economy—I know the noble Lords opposite would agree with that. SMEs face unique challenges in comparison to larger corporations, particularly when it comes to compliance with regulations. This amendment seeks to ensure that the impact of these regulations on SMEs is properly assessed, understood and investigated and, if necessary, mitigated.

Innovation is essential to the growth of our economy, and SMEs are often at the forefront of this innovation. Complex or overbearing regulations can stifle creativity and innovation. This amendment seeks to assess whether the regulations in the Bill will help or hinder SMEs in their ability to compete in the marketplace and develop new ideas. The success of any regulatory framework depends on meaningful consultation with those it affects the most, so this amendment ensures that SMEs have a voice in the process. By engaging with representatives from the SME sector, the Government will gain valuable insights into practical challenges that SMEs face and will be able to tailor policies to better support them. I urge noble Lords to support this amendment, which will help guarantee that the regulations in the Bill are not only effective but fair, ensuring that SMEs are not unduly burdened and can continue to thrive, compete and innovate.

On page 3, paragraph 4 of the Government’s Explanatory Notes, it states:

“The Bill aims to support economic growth”.


Hence, I thought it was perfectly appropriate to introduce an amendment that requires the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact of this Bill on the economy, and I hope that the Ministers opposite will agree. For small and medium-sized enterprises often most affected by regulatory changes, these reviews can identify disproportionate impacts early and prompt remedial actions to mitigate harm. A structured review process provides empirical data to inform future legislative and regulatory decisions, ensuring that measures remain fit for purpose and aligned with market dynamics.

--- Later in debate ---

I appreciate that the guard-rails I am proposing may be intended for inclusion in secondary legislation, but that would risk the relatively easy removal of such protections by any future Government. It would also risk the possibility of proper protection of privileged information not being included, even by this Government, in the product or metrology regulations that they will bring forward after the passage of the Bill. Protecting privileged information in the Bill insures against such possibilities; I hope the Minister agrees. I look forward to his response and beg to move Amendment 106.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for introducing these two amendments. Amendment 106 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. It is vital to ensure that, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, explained, a broader range of organisations, such as coroners, NHS bodies, statistical agencies and researchers, can access and share information to investigate and reduce harms caused by products. By involving expert groups and their international counterparts, we would strengthen our ability to identify risks, protect public health and ensure evidence-based action. It is a forward-thinking addition that ensures we leave no stone unturned in safeguarding public welfare.

Amendment 108 is an important and well-balanced safeguard for preserving essential legal protections. It provides clarity and fairness by ensuring that information requirements under the product and metrology regulations are not overly burdensome or unjustly intrusive. The careful limitations on when information can be disclosed and used as evidence reflect a thoughtful approach to balancing the need for enforcement with respect for due process. That contributes to a more trustworthy and transparent regulatory system, where both the public and those under investigation can have confidence in the fairness and integrity of the process. I look forward to hearing the Government’s answers, but these Benches give a guarded welcome to both amendments.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for introducing the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which seeks, as he said, to introduce a list of bodies that can be subject to information-sharing obligations. I also thank the noble Lord for his comprehensive and detailed Amendment 108 and his consideration of the Bill.

I take both these amendments very seriously; these are clearly important and interesting points on the limits and scope of information sharing. I assure the noble Lord that I will reflect very carefully on what he said. Over the past few years, your Lordships’ House has debated information sharing and risks to personal information, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has taken part in those debates. There is a difficult balance to be drawn between the benefits you can get and the risks, and we are trying to test that all the time in order to get the balance right.

The noble Lord argued that we need to include a wider range of organisations in the Bill. He was very careful not to be exclusive, because he anticipated that I would come in with the list defence. I need to look into the Enterprise Act further, if the noble Lord will let me write to him on that issue.

I certainly agree with the sentiment behind the amendments. With this Bill we are clearly trying to ensure that consumers are protected from any harm caused by unsafe or non-compliant products. In a consumer world that is always evolving—it seems to be evolving faster and faster—and where new products are being traded increasingly easily, regulatory authorities need to be able to marshal relevant data and information that may provide crucial evidence of certain product-related issues. Where such issues come within the terms of the Bill, we want to encourage the sharing of appropriate information.

On the other hand, there must be appropriate safeguards about sharing information. The noble Lord mentioned the word “guard-rails”. He was not running two horses; he was reflecting the tension there is and trying to find a way through, for which I applaud him very much. He mentioned the coroner. One of the coroner’s duties is to issue a prevention of future deaths report to related relevant persons, which may well include government bodies. We know that this data sharing can lead to important interventions.

We think that regulations proposed under the Bill will allow public health agencies such as the NHS to share data recorded in the course of their activities that relates to injuries caused by products. I have taken part in previous debates on the importance of this and of the NHS having the information and the registries that enable it to happen. There is a contrast between, say, supermarkets, which, when a product is found to be defective seem able to identify it very easily, and a service such as the NHS, where sometimes, as we have seen in the past, there are real issues around the ability to trace patients and the product. Clearly, this is a vital area in terms of safety. I refer to the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, First Do No Harm, in relation to pelvic mesh, for instance. She clearly identified the need to grip this issue.

It is very important that health bodies do the right thing here, but we think the Bill enables greater sharing of relevant data between public authorities, including emergency service authorities. That will bring more public agencies, including emergency services, within the scope of data-sharing agreements and schemes. We think that regulators need to take a co-ordinated approach to incidents to prevent future harm. However, we are wary of mandating reporting requirements. Going back to the previous debate—I see the noble Baroness there—clearly, more onerous reporting requirements can increase cost and resource burdens for those submitting information, so we need a targeted and efficient approach in this area.

In the normal course of creating such information-sharing obligations, and in relation to the noble Lord’s proposed new subsections (1) to (5), the regulations will state the general power “to share information between ‘x’ and ‘y’ for ‘z’ purpose”, for example. Clause 7(5)—here is the guard-rail—already provides that it will not override the UK general data protection regulations, and Article 9 of the Bill of Rights will apply to prevent a court from compelling information provided to Parliament.

The regulations will also set out any further safeguards that will apply to the information-sharing provisions, tailored to the circumstances envisaged in the regulations. In the context of a discretionary power to share information, for instance, there would be no need to exclude self-incriminating evidence.

Clearly, the UK GDPR provides stringent data-sharing safeguards that require individual consent to share personal data with third parties—as I have already mentioned, that is in Clause 7(5)—but the GDPR allows data sharing where there is a legal basis to do so. The Bill will not contravene that important legislation. We want data to be shared where it will enhance the intentions in the Bill, but we do not want to undermine the necessary protections in the GDPR legislation for information held about individuals.

We hope that we have the balance right, but we will take away the noble Lord’s comments, because this needs careful consideration. It has been very helpful to have this debate and try to tease these issues out.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I am enormously grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, rather surprised me in seeming more excited by these amendments, in view of my earlier comments about beer, than I had expected. I am grateful for that, but I am particularly grateful for the very thoughtful response of the Minister. I am pleased that he thought I had made important and interesting points and by his promise to reflect on them. Just like the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, it looks like I may be getting a letter or a Christmas card—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I can assure him of that.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

I am not sure which it was: the letter or the Christmas card.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

It will only be the letter, I am afraid.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

Time is not on our side—but it would be very helpful if, in his response, he could look at the issue of the definition of, for example, emergency services, and pick up my point about others. Could he also look very carefully at what he said, when he chose the example of coroners? Because of the work I do in relation to gambling, I am conscious that I very often say in speeches about it that there is well over one gambling-related suicide every day. The latest estimate is that over 400 a year take place. Our difficulty is that, unless we have information from coroners about causes of death, it is very difficult to build up the pattern. That is why coroners were included. Finally, he talked about GDPR, and the Bill itself refers to data protection legislation, as it puts it, but he did not make any specific comments about my concern about Part 9 of the Enterprise Act 2002.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I think I did say that we wanted to have a look at that and will come to him on it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

110: Clause 9, page 9, line 19, leave out subsection (1)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment prevents the repeal of provisions made by Parts 2, 4 and 5 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 110, 111 and 112, standing in my name. Clause 9 is a skeleton clause, as has been pointed out by the DPRRC, which recommended its removal—a point that may have been made a few times over the course of this Committee, often by me. In giving this degree of power to repeal existing legislation around consumer protection and metrology regulations by negative procedure, the Government have argued that aspects of the regulatory regime may need to be updated swiftly and frequently. However, they have failed to explain why they should be done with little scrutiny. In their response to the DPRRC, they suggested that it is because existing legislation has proven ineffective at times. The most recent consultation on the Bill suggested that 87% of respondents supported reviewing inspection powers, but it is one thing to review powers and another to have the power to completely repeal existing legislation and replace it with whatever an undefined—that word again—relevant authority feels is necessary.

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his thoughts on Amendment 110. He is not in his place but I wish him a happy birthday, as I am sure most Members of the Committee do too. I am very grateful for his opinions, some of which I am incorporating in my next remarks. On Amendment 110, he pointed out that the Government are proposing to take the power to repeal Part 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. If they were to do so, we would lose Section 2, which sets out primarily that the Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of securing goods that are safe. We would also lose Section 19, which defines “safe”. Section 19(1)(c) includes that “safe” means,

“there is no risk, or no risk apart from one reduced to a minimum, that … the keeping, use or consumption of the goods”

will

“cause the death of, or any personal injury to, any person”,

and that “unsafe” should be “construed accordingly”. The Bill does not make the equivalent provision: “reducing or mitigating risks” in Clause 1 is lesser than “safe” as defined, and the 1987 legislation has a long history of implementation, interpretation and enforcement.

At this late stage of the Bill, the question is: is it His Majesty’s Government’s intention to repeal Sections 2 and 19 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987? If it is not, we can assess the overall legislative framework which will result. If it is, we will need to revisit this issue when looking again at the purpose of the Bill. If His Majesty’s Government say they will decide later and seek to avoid overlap, we should again look at how this Bill and how the Consumer Protection Act 1987 may overlap, and consider whether the continuation of a defined requirement for safe products should be included in the Bill.

The other two amendments follow a very similar vein. I think I have said enough, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, briefly, I support this. It is important that we do not give the Minister powers to repeal one of the best-known Acts, which many consumers in this country have had experience of. We all know it is a flagship Act, and it has been proven in the decades since 1987.

I strongly support my noble friend’s proposals to remove the concern about giving the Government the power to do away with these protections which are in those sections of the Act. The meaning of “safety” is particularly relevant and needs to be very clear for businesses and consumers alike. Were we to go along this route, heaven knows what a Government could do. It is wrong for this House to allow that to happen; it is constitutionally out of order that such a well-known piece of legislation—which is so important to our economy and those who make our economy—can be done away with using sleight of hand and without any proper scrutiny or discussion.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, but I disagree with her. From the debates we have already had, there is a recognition that what businesses need is certainty and for government to move quickly when it is clear that action needs to be taken to protect the consumer and the other aims of the Bill.

I accept that there has been criticism by your Lordships’ Select Committees and by noble Lords here about the skeletal nature of the Bill, but the point is that we need flexibility to keep pace with fast movement in this consumer area. That is the reason why the Bill is constructed the way it is. I will come on to the Consumer Protection Act, but I hope I can reassure noble Lords on that.

The Government are of course looking very carefully at the reports of both the Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee and we are reflecting on them. Clearly, as I have said, we are trying to get the right balance between proper parliamentary accountability and the need for flexibility and clarity for all the people affected by the legislation. For instance, in Clause 9 itself, subsection (4) enables us to make minor technical adjustments to ensure coherence across the legislative framework without the need to introduce separate primary legislation for every amendment. I have to say that a general consequential power is typical and required to keep the law functional. If you remove that power, it would mean new primary legislation for adjustments that are primarily procedural or corrective in nature.

Also, the Bill includes safeguards to ensure that the use of the Clause 9 powers is proportionate and justified, with changes to primary legislation subject to the affirmative procedure. Of course, this means debates in both Houses.

As far as the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is concerned, I of course accept the importance of that legislation. As noble Lords will know, Part II of that Act grants powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure the safety of products, but the powers in Clauses 1 and 2 are intended to replace those powers. So, when product regulations are made under this Bill, it may be appropriate to repeal any or all of Part II of that Act in order to avoid duplication.

Likewise, Part IV of that Act sets out provision for the enforcement of regulations made under Part II. So, because the Bill includes provision in Clause 3 relating to the enforcement of product regulations made under this Bill, it may be appropriate to repeal any or all of Part IV of that Act when new product regulations are made. Included here are the powers for enforcement authorities to investigate and seize goods that have not yet reached the market and the power for customs officers to detain goods.

Part V of the Consumer Protection Act contains miscellaneous and supplemental provisions that may also require amendment when new regulations are introduced. There is no attempt here, nor any desire on the part of the Government, to undermine the Act fundamentally. We simply have to make adjustments in the light of this legislation.

I have listened to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. As I say, we are considering very carefully the reports of those two Select Committees; clearly, we will reflect on them between now and Report.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am, obviously, grateful to the Minister for that reassurance because, as he acknowledged, the committees’ reports are incredibly powerful and make some extremely good points.

With regard to the specifics, I thank the Minister. We agree on much. Businesses want certainty but they have certainty under the existing legislation, of course, which is the point of the amendments I have laid. I agree on flexibility as well but, unfortunately, “flexibility” is a word that allows a reasonably flexible definition. That is the point we seek to make here: we need to clarify this in a way that affords businesses a much more rigorously defined definition of “flexibility”.

As the Minister pointed out, businesses crave a degree of certainty, but the existing legislation is perfectly functional and has been for a long time. They have that certainty now, so I think that the Government need to justify why, in our view, they seeking to weaken that certainty.

For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. I very much look forward to hearing what the Government have to say when they have considered the reports and, perhaps, to having further conversations ahead of Report.

Amendment 110 withdrawn.