Wednesday 5th March 2025
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberProduct Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 18-R-II(a) Manuscript Amendment for Report (Supplementary tot he Second Marshalled List) - (5 Mar 2025)
16:12 - Division on Amendment 21 - Ayes: 167 / Noes: 228 - Amendment 21 disagreed.
16:28 - Division on Amendment 26 - Ayes: 86 / Noes: 159 - Amendment 26 disagreed.
17:34 - Division on Amendment 38ZA (to Amendment 38) - Ayes: 174 / Noes: 207 - Amendment 38ZA (to Amendment 38) disagreed.
18:21 - Division on Amendment 48 - Ayes: 146 / Noes: 189 - Amendment 48 disagreed.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, this amendment, which is in my name, seeks to leave out Clause 2(2)(k), concerning authorised representatives. The introduction of an authorised representative is a critical concept, but this provision remains too vague and ill defined in the Bill. For businesses, this lack of clarity leads to uncertainty, especially when it comes to the exact role and responsibilities of an authorised representative. Businesses require certainty when it comes to compliance, and this uncertainty may hinder their ability to plan, operate or expand. By removing paragraph (k), we would eliminate potential confusion and ensure that businesses do not face unnecessary administrative burdens or legal risks.
Amendment 22 addresses the issue that these powers could allow Ministers to align UK law with EU regulations entirely or, conversely, to diverge from them in significant ways. Whether Ministers choose to follow EU rules or set our own course, these substantial decisions could have far-reaching implications for the future of UK businesses and consumers. What is particularly troubling, however, is that these decisions could be made through delegating legislation, which , as the DPRRC has stated, would be subject to only a relatively low level of parliamentary scrutiny.
We rehearsed these arguments in previous debates and I will not rehash them at length now. My noble friend Lord Frost addressed this point on the first day of Report and the risk of dynamic alignment with the EU through this Bill, which the Minister stated was not possible. However, he did not explain why, so I beg to move Amendment 15.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as we have heard, the amendments in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would remove specific provisions from Clause 2, including a paragraph on authorised representatives; a subsection defining who product regulations apply to, which I do not think the noble Lord mentioned; and a subsection on environmental considerations before introducing regulations. We strongly oppose these changes, particularly as we emphasised in Committee the importance of environmental considerations for products. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that since the DPRRC’s report, the Government took on board Amendment 9 on the previous day on Report and undertook to issue statements, which have a statutory consultation process, before such regulations are laid. The idea that there is no accountability has been somewhat set aside so, with those provisions, we do not feel it is conducive to support these amendments.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, was pushing for greater clarification, but accepting Amendments 15 and 16 would significantly impact our ability to update regulations protecting consumers from product-related risks. They would remove the parts of the clause that make it clear that we can introduce regulations on the range of different actors involved in supplying a product. Those actors may change from time to time and the whole construct of the Bill is to give us flexibility to reflect on changes that occur. Product regulations will have no impact unless they apply to the range of actors involved in producing, importing and marketing a product to consumers.
I will say again that, because of the extent of the existing product regulations, the breadth of Clause 2 is necessary to ensure that all matters involved in ensuring product safety can be covered adequately, now and in the future. On the noble Lord’s point about certainty for business, the flexibility that the Bill allows us is that we can respond to events as they happen. The obverse of that is further primary legislation would be required, which would introduce more uncertainty for business than the approach that we are taking.
We have always agreed on the need for guard rails in the Bill. Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would remove one of the existing guard rails: the requirement at Clause 2(8) that the Government must have regard to the “social, environmental and economic” impact of making regulations which recognise provisions of EU law. We oppose removing this requirement. We are already amending the Bill to put more guard rails in place, including at Clause 2(3)(h) on the duties that can be imposed on particular actors. We are increasing scrutiny through the affirmative procedure whenever regulations seek to place requirements on new categories of actors in the supply chain for the first time. The affirmative resolution procedure will also apply product requirements are imposed for the first time on online marketplaces. We have also published a code of conduct that will set out the statutory and non-statutory controls in place to ensure that regulations made under this legislation are proportionate and evidence-based.
I take this opportunity to update noble Lords on inclusive by design, on which we had a very good discussion on our previous day on Report last week. We thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for the constructive discussions that we have had, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who elegantly invited himself to the meeting. In Committee, and on Report last week, we discussed the existing inclusive design standard produced by the British Standards Institution. However, as I said last week, having a voluntary standard is one thing; ensuring that producers and manufacturers take account of it is another.
This gets to the heart of product safety. Our existing law sets a baseline safety requirement for products according to their reasonably foreseeable use. If products would be unsafe in their design when they are used by particular communities, those products are self-evidently not compliant with the aims of the product safety regime. As we look to use the powers in the Bill to update our product regulation framework, there is more that we can do to consider how regulations can best ensure safety for all users. Following discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, we have therefore agreed that we will update the code of conduct on product safety to highlight the importance of inclusive by design. We will also ensure that the code reflects, when the Government consider product regulations, the role that regulations can take in ensuring safety for all people.
I hope that this assures noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, that we take very seriously the points that he and other noble Lords raised on the impact that the regulations have on UK businesses. This is not an effort to put a load of additional regulatory burdens on to businesses. We seek to protect consumers from product risks and ensure that the right actors are covered by regulations. When change occurs, issues need to be discussed and considered, and action needs to be taken we will have through this Bill—and Act, I hope—the flexibility to deal with them.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the Minister very much indeed for his remarks. It was remiss of me earlier to not acknowledge again the fact that the Government have gone a long way to addressing what I was going to call the various complaints by the DPRRC, but that might be slightly overstating the case.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that consultation is, by definition, as I said earlier, a relatively low level of not necessarily parliamentary scrutiny, and the DPRRC was still not happy with the levels of scrutiny. But that is an argument we have already had and it has been dealt with in a reasonable way.
I appreciate the points that the Minister made, especially about responding to events as they happen. I am grateful that he has spent time with my noble friend Lord Holmes; that offers me a level of reassurance that the Government are listening on this and are aware of all the concerns that have been laid before them by the DPRRC and others. For that reason, I am content to withdraw my amendment.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, if Amendment 16 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 17 for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Leong
“(ca) a person who installs a product in the United Kingdom;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that product requirements may be imposed on installers of products.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, if Amendment 18 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 19, 21, 22, 24, 32, 56 and 59 for reasons of pre-emption.
Baroness Lawlor
“(7A) Any regulations under subsection (7) which specify a relevant foreign law must specify that the foreign law referred to is that which is in application on a particular date, which must be specified.”Member's explanatory statement
This prevents the Bill enabling ambulatory references or dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws, but only to laws as they stand on a particular and defined date.
Lord Leong
“(9) In this section, a reference to “intangible” components includes software.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that intangible components of products include software.
“Period product safety: regulations and requirements(1) Within one year of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, by regulations under section 1, make provision to reduce risks as defined in section 1(4) presented by period products, including those for single use and for re-use.(2) For the purposes of this section, period products consist of items intended to collect menstrual blood.(3) Within one year of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must also make provision about period products requirements by regulations under section 2.(4) Regulations in accordance with subsection (3) must set out product requirements for the production, use, marking, marketing, testing, approval and provision of information (including information about risk) of period products.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment intends to bring in regulation of period products, given the human and environmental health risks they represent.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I want to put on the record my thanks to the Minister and his team for taking extensive time to speak with me about the safety of period products. I thank the noble Lord for acknowledging, from the Dispatch Box and in meetings, that there is a need for action in this area. But the reality is that, if we leave this to the general, broader consideration of product safety, this will take a considerable period of time, when there are people today—and right now—walking into shops and buying products that will do them, and the environment, harm. This amendment, which we debated a week ago, says that there will be government action within one year. In the interests of public safety and environmental safety, I ask to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(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, once again I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Government for their response in Committee, and for confirming that the Office for Product Safety and Standards will be publishing a framework outlining the conditions and procedures for using emergency powers under Clause 4.
However, we feel that it is vital that such a framework is discussed in Parliament. The use of emergency powers must be subject to scrutiny, transparency and democratic accountability. Parliament must have the opportunity to assess the scope, necessity and potential consequences of these powers before they are enacted, otherwise we will risk allowing significant regulatory changes to be made without sufficient oversight, which again potentially impacts business, consumers and public confidence in the regulatory system.
Just like the rest of the clauses in this Bill, there is a level of vagueness in Clause 4. Once again, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has stated, that represents an unacceptable shift in power to the Executive. Emergency powers should not be granted on broad and undefined terms without proper safeguards and clear limitations.
I am also revisiting Amendment 30, which seeks to limit emergency modifications to an initial period of three months. Not only do we need a clear understanding of what may or could constitute an emergency but, even though we acknowledge that emergencies can be by their very nature unpredictable, there is undeniable value in debating this in Parliament. We saw this during Covid-19, where initial emergency measures had to be quickly defined but, over time, continued justification and scrutiny became essential. Three months is more than enough time to assess an emergency, determine whether modifications are still needed, and, if so, bring forward a proper review process with stakeholder consultation. Furthermore, Clause 4 States:
“The disapplication or modification may be made subject to conditions”.
That raises the question: what conditions?
I urge the Government to accept these amendments to enhance transparency, ensure accountability and reaffirm the role of Parliament in overseeing emergency decision-making. I beg to move.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 29 and 30, in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I think these amendments are very helpful to the Government.
I put on record that I believe that both Ministers have engaged. Whatever you say about them—we do not necessarily agree all the time—they engage with the argument, and they respond properly and respectfully. That speaks well of them, their Front Bench and their party on this Bill, even though we may disagree.
I support this amendment because it speaks to a need for flexibility. We know that there will be occasions where there are emergencies which we cannot foresee in any reasonable timescale. My noble friend referenced Covid, which is the most obvious example of recent years.
One of the other issues running through this Bill has been business certainty—businesses having the opportunity to understand the legislation and take measures necessary to ameliorate any impact of it on their businesses. These two very sensible amendments would do that, because they would give business a proper framework and reference point for the sort of emergency secondary legislation that may occur as a result of unforeseen circumstances. They address the imperative—this has been a major theme of this Bill, given the reservations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—for proper scrutiny and oversight because we have so many enabling powers, and give flexibility.
The amendments are not prescriptive. Seeking a proper outline of conditions and procedures for the use of emergency powers does not directly enforce a fear upon Ministers. It does not direct Ministers, and it does not fetter their discretion in acting appropriately in the national interest in the case of emergencies. It nevertheless is a way for Parliament to have an understanding of the actions the Government are taking. As your Lordships’ House knows, we are looking at rationale and definition in Amendment 29, and clarity and certainty in Amendment 30.
My final point is that this will, no doubt, be litigated in the future, as all legislation is. The more certainty and clarity that we put in the Bill, the less chance there is for vexatious litigation arising from any use or discharge of those regulatory powers in unforeseen emergencies.
For those reasons, and because I know the Government are committed to having a proper debate and discussion on the regulations that they intend to use, particularly in emergency circumstances, Ministers should look favourably on these two amendments. They are seeking to be helpful. I do not think, as I have said before, they fundamentally alter the raison d'être of the Bill. I am pleased to support my noble friend’s Amendments 29 and 30.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as we have heard, the amendments in this group concern the use of emergency powers under the legislation. Amendment 29 would require the Secretary of State to present a framework to Parliament outlining their use, and Amendment 30 would limit the use of emergency modifications to three months and would require a review of any extension to those modifications.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for returning to these amendments on Report. I also place on the record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for his kind words about me and my colleague.
As discussed in Committee, this is an important debate on how emergency powers are used and scrutinised to ensure appropriate parliamentary oversight, while maintaining the ability to respond quickly in emergency situations. Clause 4 provides the Government with the ability to modify or disapply product regulations in an emergency to ensure the supply of critical products. This could include streamlining conformity assessments or temporarily adjusting certain regulatory requirements to allow essential products to reach the market more quickly, while ensuring public safety remains paramount.
This clause is not about removing oversight but ensuring that, in genuinely urgent situations, we can act swiftly to prevent product shortages, while making sure that parliamentary scrutiny remains central to this approach. Peers will also be aware that Clause 4 is subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that any regulations made under this power must be laid before Parliament and approved before coming into force. This ensures that both Houses have full oversight and provides for full scrutiny of emergency measures.
Amendment 29, which we discussed in Committee, seeks to require the Government to lay a comprehensive framework before Parliament outlining how Clause 4 powers will be used. As I stated in Committee, the Government are already committed to developing a clear framework on how this policy will operate in practice, in consultation with stakeholders. Indeed, as noble Lords will know, the Government have published a code of conduct on product safety that sets out how our product regulation system currently works, and to support the use of the powers under the Bill.
The code sets out the Government’s proposals on how we expect the emergency powers to work. To summarise a few key points, first, a derogation would be made available only if there were a serious risk of harm to people, businesses or the environment, and would be in compliance with the UK’s international obligations. Secondly, it would be granted only for products deemed critical for an emergency response, where demand exceeds supply. Thirdly, in times of emergency, the Government may temporarily reduce or modify requirements for the product to meet essential health and safety requirements for use in certain settings, provided the market surveillance authority is satisfied with the product’s safety and traceability.
The code of conduct, alongside the Government’s planned framework document, provides just the sort of structure the noble Lord appears to be seeking. In addition, the Government will commit to notifying Members when the framework document is available and place a copy in the Libraries of both Houses. Given these points, and coupled with use of the affirmative procedure, we believe the existing oversight mechanisms are sufficient without the need formally to lay the framework document before Parliament.
Amendment 30 proposes a fixed three-month sunset period, including a review prior to extension; this too was debated at length in Committee. As I set out then, while we understand the importance of ensuring that emergency measures do not remain in place indefinitely, a strict three-month limit is not appropriate for all emergencies. The nature and duration of emergencies can vary significantly: some may require short-term interventions while others may necessitate longer regulatory adjustments. As a result, we believe that the right approach is to tailor the use of time limits to the unique circumstances of the emergency, within the associated secondary legislation. We believe that this approach, supplemented by the use of the affirmative procedure, provides proportionate safeguards and ensures the right level of parliamentary oversight.
It is also important to emphasise that product regulations will form only one part of a broader national emergency response. Clause 4 is not a general power for deregulation, but an exceptional provision strictly limited to emergency situations. These measures will always be taken with appropriate safeguards in place, including time limits where appropriate, ensuring that derogation does not compromise public safety or consumer protections. For these reasons, I must resist these amendments once again and I humbly ask the noble Lord not to press them.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, once again I thank the noble Lord for his very detailed response. I also thank the other two noble Lords who spoke in this brief debate, particularly my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. The points he made—that these amendments still afford the Government plenty of flexibility, and of course the litigation point—were extremely good ones and I urge the Government to consider them in future deliberations on these amendments and the subject under discussion. Of course, I understand where the noble Lord is coming from, and I am reassured. On Amendment 29, I accept that the clear framework is going to be fairly and comprehensive, and I appreciate the offer of making sure that it is available for other noble Lords to study. We will of course study it in some detail, but I accept the point he was making, and I think he has given me sufficient reassurance.
On the three-month limit, I of course accept that the nature and duration of an emergency may vary. I still do not, if I am honest, see how that precludes explanation and parliamentary scrutiny, but because I am reassured by the noble Lord’s other remarks and his overall willingness to engage on this subject and others, I am more than happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
“Product regulations: devolved administrations(1) Product regulations under section 1 may not be made unless and until the Secretary of State has consulted the devolved administrations as to their impact and effect on the marketing and use of products in the areas within the United Kingdom over which they have legislative competence. (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations exclude the application of this Act to products to be marketed or used in areas within the United Kingdom over which the devolved administrations have legislative competence to enable effect to be given to an agreement that forms part of a common framework agreement.(3) A “common framework agreement” is a consensus between a Minister of the Crown and one or more devolved administrations as to how devolved or transferred matters previously governed by EU law are to be regulated.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that devolved administrations are consulted before regulations are made under this Part of the Act, and that common framework agreements receive the same protection to enable them to receive effect as they have under section 10 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for adding their names to this amendment, which is in my name. The amendment seeks to insert into Part 1 a new clause, which has two objectives. The first is to ensure that, before any regulations are made under this part, the devolved Administrations are consulted on the impact and effect of the marketing and use of products in the areas over which they have legislative competence. The second is to prevent agreements that have been made under the common framework system being nullified by any of these regulations.
As far as the first objective is concerned, this Bill extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Product and consumer safety standards are reserved matters in relation to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That has been acknowledged by the Government, as noted in paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Notes. While the Bill makes provision as to what is to happen in each of the jurisdictions within the United Kingdom, it does not contain any provisions which require the consent of—or at least consultation with—the devolved Administrations before the wide-ranging powers to make regulations under Clauses 1 and 4 are exercised.
The problem which comes up time and again as Bills pass through this House is that the Sewel convention does not extend to delegated legislation, so it cannot be said that UK Ministers are required by convention to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations before exercising these powers. That is why the Constitution Committee, which always keeps a close eye on these matters, has recommended on numerous occasions that engagement with the devolved Administrations should be a formal requirement.
As far as this Bill is concerned, there is at least a risk that, unless something is said about it in the Bill, product regulations made under Clause 1 will engage matters which are not reserved to the UK Ministers in ways that would impinge significantly on devolved competence, without the devolved Administrations being involved at all. That is why, in paragraph 34 of its report on the Bill, the Constitution Committee suggested that clarification is needed from the Government
“as to the processes of consultation and consent it intends to apply”
if the powers in the Bill are used
“to make regulations in areas of devolved competence”.
I suggest that my amendment offers a sensible solution to a point that is of very real concern to the devolved Administrations. It does not require their consent. There is no need to go that far, because “close and timely” consultation—to use the Constitution Committee’s own phrase—would be enough to sort out things in a way that satisfies both sides. Consultation, not consent, is what this proposed new clause would require.
I am very grateful to the Minister and the Bill team for the way in which they engaged with me when we discussed this issue a few days ago. I hope very much that he will feel able to assure me that the Government will take this point seriously, and that they will bring forward an amendment that deals with it in their own words in due course. I look forward to his reply, but I would also welcome any guidance he can give as to the extent of the legislative process with both Wales and Scotland—that would be very helpful.
The second objective relates to the common frameworks. They were created to ensure that a common approach was taken so that some measure of consistency was achieved across policy areas returned from the EU which intersect with devolved competence. Their engagement with devolved competence matters, because one of the features of the way these matters were handled within the EU was that it enabled a devolved Administration to diverge from other parts of the United Kingdom as to how matters that were within its devolved competence should be dealt with. The way the system works is that there is a process of consultation that enables a proposal for divergence to be discussed to enable its effect—if any—on the other parts of the United Kingdom to be identified and assessed. It is only if and when agreement has been reached that it would not disadvantage the other parts of the UK that the proposal can proceed to enactment.
That system was already up and running when what became the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 was introduced. The market access principles which that Act contains are designed to ensure that there is a single market across all parts of the UK. Central to its provisions is the principle that whatever is done by way of marketing or the use of products that is compatible with the legislative framework in one part of the UK can be done everywhere else, irrespective of what the legislative framework elsewhere may provide. A provision which is now Section 10 of the Act was inserted into the Bill to enable the Secretary of State by regulations to exclude the application of those principles to enable effect to be given to a common framework agreement.
Subsections (2) and (3) of my proposed new clause are designed to give a common framework agreement the same protection against what product regulations under this Bill may provide for. Without that protection, agreements of that kind run the risk of being rendered unenforceable. As with Section 10 of the internal market Act, I am proposing that whether or not to exercise the power should be at the discretion of the Secretary of State. It is a very light touch to what could be a very real problem.
I appreciate that the system that this Bill seeks to introduce is not the same as that provided for by the internal market Act. It may also be said that the common frameworks are now so well established that they do not need this protection, but we must remember that this is a system that looks to the future as well as the present, as indeed this Bill does too. So we have to allow for what frameworks may do in the future in a way that we cannot foresee. I hope that the Government will feel able to provide the same protection here as was agreed to in the case of the internal market Act by the previous Government. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I do not wish to add to the profoundly detailed and clear analysis that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has given about the purpose of this proposed new clause; there are just three short points I wish to make.
First, we must look at the context in which this amendment has been put forward. The history of the creation of the internal market was not an altogether happy one, if I might put it mildly. The vision—and it was vision—particularly of the original part of the Conservative Government, to try to create common frameworks which would enable us to work as a co-operative union, has not been properly realised. The machinery to make devolution and the union work has really not been implemented. Finally on this, although this is not, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has explained, the subject of the Sewel convention, let us hope that the spirit of the Sewel convention can be resurrected, both as regards what it should apply to—primary legislation—as well as delegated and secondary legislation.
Secondly, I thank the Government for the very fine words they have spoken in relation to making devolution work, and for the discussions they have obviously been having—with what degree of success one cannot tell from what is available—with the devolved Governments.
Thirdly, however, words are not enough. Men are judged by deeds, and I hope that this Government will show, in the amendments they intend to bring forward, that they really mean what they say about the union and devolution. One cannot underestimate the importance of action by deeds.
We are only just over a year away from important elections in both Scotland and Northern Ireland, and we must be clear when those countries go into those elections that the union is seen to be strong, and that devolution is seen to work. Both are vital for our future. That is what makes what might seem at first sight a technical amendment one of such importance.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I intervene very briefly on this—as noble Lords would perhaps expect on a matter relating to devolution—in support of the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas.
The points that have been made are very relevant. Although it is in a minority of products within the whole economy that there may be derogations, changes or fine tuning needed to the circumstances in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, in those areas—which include food, cultural and literary products—there is a range of products for which the linguistic dimension has in the past raised questions, when all this came under Brussels, as to what names were or were not acceptable on products in Wales.
There is a sensitivity to this. I have no doubt that the issues can be overcome if there is a mechanism for consultation, but if there is a danger of ignoring the possibility of things going wrong then things will go wrong. Now is the time to address these questions, and I am very grateful that this amendment has been put forward.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I was nearly subject to a flashback, when the when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned the internal market Act, to the memory of the long hours, deep into the night, spent debating the shortcomings and problems that Act could create—as, to some extent, it has. We are indebted to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Thomas, that the framework arrangement was brought into that Act to avoid the clashes that were almost certainly going to occur under its original drafting. We owe them a great debt, and on that basis we should listen when they talk to us on these matters. That is why I was happy to sign the amendment.
Happily, I do not have to add much to this, except that it is necessary. This consultation will happen one way or another. The Minister will know that I specifically asked him when we debated Amendment 9 to confirm from the Dispatch Box that the devolved authorities would be part of the consultation process as set out in the Secretary of State’s statement that will arise from this Bill. I hope that the spirit of this amendment can be in that consultation process and in that statement, so that the devolved authorities know that they will get access, which is very important for all the reasons that have been explained by the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lords.
I have one final point on the Government’s attempt, which I think is sincere, to bring the nations of this country back together again. This is really important for lots of reasons, but it also calls into question how the common frameworks will be used in the future. I do not expect the Minister to answer now but he should set out, in either a letter or a meeting, how those common frameworks will develop. Some people may already know but I am certainly not aware of that. As we know, the future is changing and lots of things are happening. How will the common frameworks and central government’s liaison with the DAs adapt to deal with the changing trading environment? With those provisos, I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I could not agree more forcefully with the summation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. It was very well put indeed. In general, I also find that improving on the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, is nigh on impossible, so at this point I will confine myself to saying that I agree. On this occasion, I also join the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in his remarks on the consultation; I hope it achieves the things that he has set out. I have nothing else to add, but I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for Amendment 31, which concerns consultation with the devolved Governments, and common frameworks. I know I speak for the whole House when I say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, brings to the fore his knowledge and passion on the subject of devolution and illustrates the very best aspects of the scrutiny function of this House. I certainly valued his insight when we met to discuss his amendment on 30 January.
As mentioned at that meeting, and before I address the substance of Amendment 31, I reiterate that the Government are committed to working collaboratively with devolved Governments. I have met with my ministerial colleagues in all three devolved Governments and my officials are continuing to have discussions at official level with their counterparts. Those discussions have been extremely constructive, and I thank the Ministers and officials from the devolved Governments for the constructive and positive way they have engaged with the Government on this important piece of legislation.
Noble Lords will appreciate that the Bill deals with complex areas of product regulation. Consequently, the Government are not in a position to bring forward devolution amendments at this time, while discussions are ongoing. This is not unprecedented or novel. Indeed, many devolution amendments are brought forward in the second House, and the Government expect that this will be the case with this legislation.
This amendment would ensure that the devolved Governments are consulted on matters in devolved competence under the Bill and that the Secretary of State has the power to exclude the application of this requirement for matters covered by a common framework where a relevant agreement is reached. I reassure the House that the UK Government will continue to ensure that the devolved Governments are properly consulted when discussing product matters that are devolved or that impact within devolved areas. For example, in Committee, we set out some of the ways we engage with devolved Governments already, including the goods regulation group, run by the Department for Business and Trade, which met recently on 9 January, when this Bill was discussed.
Amendment 31 also touches on common frameworks. It is unlikely that products affected by regulations made under the Bill would fall under any extant common framework. That is because of the tight scope of the common frameworks. Therefore, the specific subject matters currently covered by common frameworks are unlikely to intersect with the subject matter of this Bill. However, the UK Government are actively considering their broader approach to common frameworks and will keep this under review. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, so eloquently set out in Committee, the purpose of common frameworks is to facilitate a joint approach with devolved Governments where policy is GB-wide.
I reassure all noble Lords that working closely with the devolved Governments is a priority and will take place on regulations made under the Bill, whether the products in question fall under a common framework or not. Consequently, while ministerial and official-level discussions are ongoing, I ask that the House does not pre-empt the outcome of those discussions by agreeing this amendment. I remain confident that, through our continued positive engagement with devolved Governments, we can reach a mutually beneficial solution, and I am happy to keep the House abreast of developments. In that light, I respectfully ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this short debate, and especially to the Minister for his very helpful reply.
On the first part of my amendment, which concerns consultation with the devolved Administrations, I absolutely accept this Government’s commitment to close co-operation. I am sure that those in the devolved Administrations are equally grateful for the way in which this Government are engaging with them, which is a considerable improvement from what it was not so long ago. However, one must remember that Governments change, and undertakings that are genuinely given on behalf of this Government by the Minister may not last for ever. That is why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, emphasised that putting something into the legislation is so important. I am sure that that matter will require careful consideration in the other House, when the Bill goes there. On that basis, I am happy to accept the assurances the Minister has given me.
On the common frameworks, I was encouraged to learn in our discussion that they are now being overseen by the Cabinet, which was not the case at an earlier stage. The fact they are being overseen there is itself an assurance that the matter is being properly looked after. I hope that the Government will keep an open mind as they more carefully think through this. They must bear in mind the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that we are looking into the future as well as at the position now; that is an important factor. With grateful thanks to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(3A) 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, I rise to speak to Amendment 38 standing in my name. As I stated in Committee, a pint of beer is not a bloodless, intangible item: it is a tangible institution. It is linked to our history and to a part of our heritage. The pint is a well-established unit of measurement in the UK that is recognised and understood by consumers and businesses alike. Removing or disapplying the use of the pint for alcoholic beverages would create unnecessary confusion, disrupt long-standing practices and sever a cultural and historical connection that has endured for centuries.
While we debate this issue of tradition and measurement, we must not lose sight of the real and immediate crisis facing pubs, brewers and the wider hospitality industry. The Budget announced by the Government has inflicted more damage on an industry that was already under enormous pressure. The UK’s core hospitality trade bodies—UKHospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association, the British Institute of Innkeeping, and Hospitality Ulster—have issued a stark warning. Pubs, brewers and hospitality venues will be forced to make painful decisions to weather these new costs, which will have a damaging impact on businesses, jobs and communities.
However, something else deserves mention here. Just recently, there was significant concern over how the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill could force pub landlords to monitor patrons’ conversations to avoid any potential harassment of staff. In effect, landlords might be asked to become the banter police, forced to scrutinise and restrict what customers say to avoid liability. After all of that, therefore, protecting the British pint is the very least the Government should do. I urge the Government to accept this amendment and protect the pint, and, more importantly, to ensure that our pubs and breweries remain places where our history, culture and heritage continue to flourish without unnecessary interference. I beg to move.
Amendment 38ZA (to Amendment 38)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, this amendment is not just about protecting the pint in the Bill; it would also ensure that the pint remains protected in law. That is why this amendment is rooted in primary legislation—the Weights and Measures Act 1985—rather than being limited to the scope of the Bill. By embedding these protections in the broader legislative framework, we ensure that the pint remains a legally defined unit of measurement, safeguarded from regulatory drift, ministerial discretion or future legislative changes that could weaken its status.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for introducing his own amendment, for two reasons. First, it got me thinking about the broad, and therefore possibly flawed, drafting of my own Amendment 38; secondly, the noble Lord’s amendment is also flawed. It addresses the marketing of the pint, which is important, but it does not mirror the wording of the Weights and Measures Act 1985. If sales are banned, marketing is redundant. A mere definition of the pint within this Bill does not ensure that the existing legally binding protections remain intact.
That is where my amendment is different: we are closing any potential gaps, removing any possible loop- holes and ensuring that the pint remains fully protected in trade, measurement and law, and, most importantly, that there can be no future confusion with regard to existing legislation.
In the other House, Daisy Cooper said that the pint is well and truly safe,
“so this scaremongering is just total nonsense.”—”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/25; col. 814.]
If that were true, why the change in Liberal Democrat hearts? Why introduce their own amendment on this matter? It seems that now, they recognise that explicit legal protection is necessary.
I understand that the Government were sympathetic to the purpose of my Amendment 38 but were concerned about the drafting and various technical details, so I hope this manuscript amendment addresses those concerns in full and will ensure that the pint remains Britain’s favourite. I hope the Government will now accept the amendment, and I look forward to their support, as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the Liberal Democrats.
“Fancy a pint?” remains one of the most pleasing questions in the English language. Let us make sure it stays that way. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, when I saw the manuscript amendment some time mid-morning, I was disappointed. I thought we were not going to get a reprise of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, which very few of your Lordships will have appreciated, because it was in Grand Committee, but I am relieved that he was able to give another rendition of it before speaking to the amendment. I understand he may take it on tour to provincial theatres—if he can get the backing.
The noble Lord having tabled this amendment, we then find a manuscript amendment, on which I have to say I congratulate the noble Lord. I have not participated in a manuscript amendment process before, so it was quite good to see it in action. As he noted, last week the Opposition chose to use some of their time in the Commons to debate the noble Lord’s then amendment. He mentioned the speech of my colleague, Daisy Cooper. I commend it to your Lordships, because it was both engaging and very thorough, setting out all the things the Conservative Government did to make the job of a publican much, much harder.
On a serious note, I join the noble Lord in saying, “Minister, please don’t repeat those errors. Many of Britain’s pubs are teetering on the brink; please don’t be the Government who make the final push.” But that is a debate for another day and another Bill, which we will see soon. The issue described by this amendment is not that fatal push for those publicans. For some inexplicable reason, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, chose to split his amendment from my Amendments 38A and 38B. I will be giving the speech I would have given, had they been in the same group, but I assure your Lordships that I will not then repeat that speech when we get to the next group.
I do not believe that the Minister or his Government have ever had any intention of banning the pint glass, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, does not believe that either. However, what we are talking about now is some form of reassurance. So while my honourable friend Daisy Cooper talked about this being unnecessary, she and I agree that this is an opportunity for the Government to reassure people that they have no intention of doing it, and that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned in a different context, a future Government would not have that option either.
I ask myself, if the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is so passionate about the pint, why does he not also care about the pinta? The iconic pint milk bottle is so redolent of the UK, and it deserves the same reassuring protection as the pint glass. I have to say that my father milked cows: milk flows through my veins. So I tabled Amendment 38A, which ensures that both the pint and the pinta enjoy the reassurance of this Bill. It was the tabling of this new amendment, Amendment 38A, that caused the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to remember that, as well as bars, there are doorsteps. Perhaps the two should not be mixed—certainly not sequentially.
It caused him to realise that he was in danger of proposing an amendment that forgets the milkmen and women on their pre-dawn delivery rounds in so many of our streets—the whir of the float, the clink of the crates. A manuscript amendment was tabled this morning. I did not know that manuscript amendments could be used to completely change an amendment; I thought they were for spelling errors and suchlike. If my mother were still alive, she would have deemed it too clever by half. Sadly, she is not.
The purpose of this debate is to assure the public of the continuation of the use of this iconic imperial measure for the purposes we have discussed. I am not entirely sure that the manuscript amendment, Amendment 38ZA, buttons things down in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asserts, but I do know that Amendment 38A does this, in plain sight and with no cross-referencing.
I think that the Minister and I see eye to eye on this. That is why I am hopeful that he will indicate support for my Amendments 38A and 38B, and that the Government will accept both. It is clear that, in the event of that acceptance, the hastily amended effort from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would be unnecessary. Amendment 38A covers both alcohol and milk. By persuading the Government to accept it, we will have ensured clear and overt reassurance of the preservation of the pint and the pinta. This assurance, and the knowledge that this measure will endure and not be reversed by a Commons majority, are important. We will not support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, safe in the knowledge that we have rewritten the Bill effectively and avoided any reverse or any ping-pong.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for tabling Amendment 38—and manuscript Amendment 38ZA, tabled this morning—and for reminding the House of the importance of the pint measure for certain alcoholic beverages. Although the noble Lord degrouped Amendment 38, the Government’s view is that this amendment and the two similar amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, should be debated together. I will therefore make my substantive contribution on the entire subject now.
I reiterate that the Government have absolutely no plans to change the rules around the use of the pint measurement. With the weather finally improving, it is very much my hope that pubs up and down the country will be full of customers enjoying pints of refreshing beer or cider. While it remains our view that an amendment to the Bill is not strictly necessary, because of the advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, the Government have reflected and agree that a provision in this area would offer reassurance to this important sector.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this amendment back and recognise his efforts to improve on it through today’s manuscript amendment. However, doing so at such a late stage is not the way to develop effective legislation, particularly in a complex area such as metrology. We have always been clear that we are committed to the continued use of the British pint and that regulations made using powers in this Bill would continue to preserve it.
Although the noble Lord’s amendments are well intentioned, they are lacking in a few key areas. First, the effect of the amendment is not sufficient in scope to truly protect the pint. It is focused on preventing powers under the Bill being used to amend the Weights and Measures Act 1985 to remove the pint as a measurement, but it does not prevent the powers in the Bill being used more generally to make that change. While the Government are clear that there will be no change to the measurement of a pint, to truly protect it, the Government believe that a more expansive view should be taken, as in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
On the difference in terminology, with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, referring to sale and marketing but the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioning marketing alone, the Government’s view is that Amendment 38 would in practice have a narrow application and therefore be less helpful in achieving the very aim of the noble Lord by safeguarding the pint.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is right that his amendment is consistent with the language used in the Weights and Measures Act 1985. However, the Bill makes a number of changes to that legislation, which I will come to shortly, and uses the term “marketing” throughout. It is a defined term that means making available on the market, which is more expansive than sale or trade, and may include, for example, making available without charge.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate both noble Lords on what were semantic masterpieces. The simple fact is that the amendment I have tabled transposes the language of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 in a very similar way to that of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. It does include the pint of milk. By the way, when the noble Lord said that milk runs through his veins, I am pretty sure I heard somebody behind me saying that it is certainly not blood.
This is a complex area, and I do not believe that these amendments are sufficient to save the pint. The simple fact of the matter is that sales and marketing are not the same thing. They may often appear in the same job title; that does not give them equal weight, or indeed equal measure. I am not satisfied with the answer. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Fox
“(3A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under this section to prevent or restrict the use of the pint in the marketing of—(a) draught beer or cider, or(b) milk in returnable containers.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that regulations under Clause 5 could not prevent or restrict the use of the pint in the marketing of draught beer or cider or milk in returnable containers.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as noted, I have already spoken to this amendment. I thank the Minister for indicating that the Government will support it and Amendment 38B. It is on the latter that I shall say a few words. If Amendment 38A is there to reassure, Amendment 38B is there to define. There have been a number of statutory instruments that define the units we use. For the avoidance of doubt, Amendment 38B defines the volume of a pint in primary law as 0.56826125 cubic decimetres. For those of your Lordships querying the definition of a decimetre, I recommend the statutory instrument brought to your Lordships’ House during Covid in 2020. I believe that the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and I were among the only Peers physically in Parliament when he brought to Grand Committee his amendment to the Weights and Measures Act 1985. That enshrined an accurate definition of both the metre and the kilogram in law. For metrology fans, it is a debate that I thoroughly recommend. That said, I beg to move Amendment 38A.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Obviously, we do not have a huge amount to say at this precise moment, but I point out for the record that manuscript Amendment 38ZA included reference to Part IV of Schedule 1 to the Weights and Measures Act 1985, which also specifies 0.56826125 cubic decimetres. Once again, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on his masterclass in semantics. Had he accepted mine, this amendment would have been entirely unnecessary. With that, I have nothing left to say.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his amendments on preserving the pint in relation both to draft beer and cider and to milk in returnable containers. As I outlined on the last group, the Government propose to accept these amendments. They will bring greater clarity and certainty to protect the use of the pint, delivering the intent of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for bringing these alternative amendments forward. I hope that the House will accept Amendments 38A and 38B. Having these workable provisions in the Bill will send an important message that the pint is here to stay. I look forward to raising a pint with both the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Fox, in due course. Cheers.
“a“pint” is equal to 0.56826125 cubic decimetres;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide a definition of a pint.
Lord Leong
“Application to existing product and metrology provision(1) The power to make product regulations includes power to make— (a) in connection with existing product requirements, any provision described in section 2(4), (6) or (7) that could be made if the existing product requirements were product requirements in product regulations;(b) in connection with existing product provision, any provision described in sections 3, 4, 7 and 8 that could be made if the existing product provision were provision in product regulations.(2) The power to make metrology regulations includes power to make, in connection with existing metrology provision, any provision described in sections 6 to 8 that could be made if the existing metrology provision were provision in metrology regulations.(3) In this section—“existing metrology provision” means provision in—(a) subordinate legislation made before the passing of this Act, or(b) assimilated direct legislation,as amended from time to time, that could be made under section 5;“existing product provision” means provision in—(a) subordinate legislation made before the passing of this Act, or(b) assimilated direct legislation,as amended from time to time, that could be made under section 1;“existing product requirements” means requirements contained in existing product provision that could be product requirements in product regulations;“subordinate legislation” has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978 (see section 21 of that Act).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables the Secretary of State to use the powers in clauses 1 and 5 to amend or supplement provision in existing legislation about products and metrology, where that provision could have been made under the powers in the Bill.
Baroness Lawlor
“Report: scientific evidence(1) When making regulations under this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report indicating whether the regulation is supported by any scientific evidence.(2) The Secretary of State must lay the report published under subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament.”
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, in moving my Amendment 43A, I of course support the amendments from my noble friends Lord Sharpe and Lord Frost in this group, to one of which I have added my name. My amendment would require the Government to place before Parliament a report on whether scientific—which includes technical—evidence supports a regulation covered by the Bill, because assessment of risk and for safety should be based on objective evidence, technical and scientific.
The regulations for sanitary and phytosanitary, SPS, explicitly mention scientific evidence, whereas reference to science is not typically found in regulations on technical barriers to trade, or in the chapters in FTAs. They are often implied by wording: for example, a requirement that regulations on risk are based on documented and objective evidence. For international trade agreements, such evidence is assumed. Either our goods conform with internationally agreed standards or, if they derogate, they should draw on scientific and technical evidence to show that they conform to an agreed standard. There are good reasons for this.
Such objective evidence and assessment is not only needed to assess risk objectively but is implied in the WTO framework, on which many trade agreements are based. They have to be WTO-compliant. The WTO’s own Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, TBT, requires that, where appropriate, parties
“specify technical regulations based on product requirements in terms of performance rather than design or descriptive characteristics”,
one aim being to ensure that regulations, standards, testing and certification procedures followed by WTO members do not create “unnecessary obstacles” to trade. That is certainly one of this country’s enduring free trade objects.
My amendment would promote a number of benefits and aims. It would help to focus attention on real risk, on the basis of provable evidence and that alone. It would make for transparency: those who produce, market or buy a product could know where they stand and trust the measures assessing risk. It would avoid saddling producers and consumers with costs for unnecessary, overburdensome obligations that result from the political attempt to tie the UK to unproven regulations, which may flout WTO international trade law, to protect their own products against competition from another trading partner.
In products, the contents of which may include some agricultural content, it will help the UK to keep its eye on the evidence and purpose. I commend my noble friend Lord Sharpe’s amendment, which would specifically require that a statement on the need and purpose for such regulations be made. I have already mentioned one example in Committee, which is the difference between UK REACH and EU REACH regulations. The stated purpose is vital to the difference in how one is more burdensome than the other.
My amendment would also reflect the way the UK has moved to make the most of international trade opportunities in our trade treaties, with, for example, the CPTPP. The UK can help shape these, as a leader of the oldest rules-based international trade order, while trading globally as one of the world’s oldest and most successful free-trade economies. Above all, it would avoid obliging businesses to follow the EU’s code-based precautionary principle. That may be unrelated to evidence and often driven by officials, while being costly to producers and raising prices sky-high for consumers, making some countries uncompetitive in world markets and the product not safer but, in many instances, less safe. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 56 stands in my name. As it is, I guess, the last time that I will speak on this Bill, perhaps I may use the opportunity to join others in saying thank you to the Ministers for the willingness they have shown to meet us and to show flexibility on parts of the Bill, even if that flexibility has possibly been more evident on its more marginal and peripheral aspects than on the core provisions, which matter so much to us. I thank them anyway for it.
One of those core provisions, which we have debated at length, is of course Clause 2(7), which creates the power to align UK legislation with EU law. My Amendment 56 would ensure that the affirmative parliamentary procedure applied to such secondary legislation under that provision. This is important, as the procedure of legislating by cross-reference to the laws of another entity is certainly, to borrow terminology from another sphere, novel and contentious. Therefore, if it happens—I am sure it is going to happen and probably quite a lot, I fear—it really ought to do so only consciously and according to a procedure that gives both of this Parliament’s Houses the maximum powers to be aware that it is happening and to influence it to the maximum possible. Of course, that is what the affirmative procedure is about. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Ministers might look favourably on this amendment in the interests of respecting the rights and powers of this Parliament.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, if I may briefly intervene in this group, we had a substantive debate on Monday, in which I participated, where we looked at the recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. As we noted, it welcomed some of the amendments, which we technically have not reached but which were debated then. They are Amendments 44 to 46, which have largely removed the Henry VIII powers. To that extent, therefore, I note that although my noble friend may come on to speak about Amendment 48, in practice that amendment is designed to prevent the use of Henry VIII powers. However, the Government have tabled amendments that have largely removed that risk.
I very much support Amendment 56 in the names of my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Frost. In so far as the Government have not done what the Delegated Powers Committee looked for, which was for all these regulation-making powers to be subject to the affirmative procedure, it seems that we should focus our attention on where there is still the most important deficiency. It also seems that, precisely for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Frost gave, which I will not repeat, at its most extreme, the power in Clause 2(7) would literally be if the Government brought forward a regulation saying that all the product requirements in this country would be met in so far as they corresponded to the General Product Safety Regulation issued by the European Union, which, of course, came out in December 2024. They could easily come forward with such a regulation. That would be sweeping in its effect, and it would be on a negative basis.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Frost, and I will speak very briefly. I am concerned about the Government’s likely resistance to this amendment being moved, because this goes to the very heart of what the Bill is about: proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight.
We have had many debates about the Delegated Legislation Committee and its significant reservations about the enabling powers and Henry VIII powers which will potentially be discharged by Ministers. The kernel of the debate is: why should we of necessity default to just one regulatory regime? People like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will say that it is our closest economic partner and, of course, it is absolutely logical.
I hesitate, because I know I will be accused of relitigating the Brexit battles, from which I have many scars on my back. However, the fact of the matter, is that, rightly or wrongly, we no longer have direct input into the design and execution of those regulations. So to put in primary legislation, with the background of the Delegated Legislation Committee expressing those significant reservations, a sub-clause which defaults to the position that any regulation, because it comes from the EU, is of necessity the right regulation for our country—in the context, as we have previously debated in Committee and on Report, of an expanding global economy where we will be trading with many different countries and different regulatory regimes outside the European Union—seems to me to be a mistake. On that basis, it is eminently reasonable and sensible for Parliament to have the opportunity to look in detail at these regulations via the affirmative procedure.
For that reason—I know the hour is late and there is other pressing business in the House—I ask Ministers to at least look at supporting this very important amendment on Third Reading. On that basis, I am delighted to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Frost.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, to echo what my noble friend Lord Lansley has just said, we are reflecting at the moment on how this country is governed and the extent to which the Executive can be held to account.
In many ways we take pride in our committees. I know from what he has said in the past about government legislation that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has many times criticised what we describe as skeleton Bills. In effect, the Government are saying, “Please allow us to do whatever we eventually decide we would like to do, but give us that power now and we will then do it by secondary legislation”. Speaking as the immediate past Chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I always worked very closely with my colleagues in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Although my noble friend Lord Lansley said a few moments ago that the Government had introduced a number of amendments, they came back before the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which said, “That’s not enough”. So, in a way, we are now deciding whether or not the Government are right to ignore the unanimous report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
I turn to Amendments 48, 57 and 58 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe. I commend my noble friend Lady Lawlor, and my noble friends Lord Frost, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Lansley, for all that they have said. But, to summarise, this is our last real opportunity to deal with what is in effect a skeleton Bill that allows an unacceptable transfer of power from an elected legislature to the Executive.
We welcome the amendments the Government have put forward, but let me quote from paragraph 8 of the unanimous report of 20 February from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, from which I have quoted before. Having considered all the issues, it said,
“these are limited changes that do not address the fundamental concern we have about the skeletal nature of this Bill”.
There is of course provision for consultation, which is warmly to be welcomed, but the committee said,
“consultation is not a substitute for Parliamentary scrutiny”.
Surely, we as a House must agree with that.
It is not enough simply to engage stakeholders behind closed doors while sidelining proper legislative oversight. The Bill in its current form creates a dangerous precedent. This Parliament is asked to cede control over critical regulatory decisions in favour of unchecked Executive power. That is surely not how this democracy should function. If the Government are serious about ensuring transparency, accountability and proper legislative oversight, they must surely go beyond mere consultation and commit to meaningful parliamentary scrutiny at every stage of the regulatory process.
In a moment we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Leong. Will he allow me to quote him? In Committee on 20 November, he said this:
“Some regulations will relate to very minor technical changes, so it really would be taking up too much parliamentary time for that, whereas other regulations may need a full scrutiny, and we will have avenues for that”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; col. 39.]
What I ask is—and I hope the Minister will reply in a moment—what are those avenues exactly? The Government are yet to provide any clarity at all on how they will distinguish between so-called minor technical changes and more significant regulatory shifts. They have yet to explain why the negative procedure will apply to all subsequent provisions. If some regulations will require full scrutiny, as the Minister acknowledged, why do his Government, in this Bill, predetermine that every future provision beyond the first use of the power will require the negative procedure?
The Government cannot state for a fact that all future provisions will be technical. Markets change, technology advances and legal interpretations, as all lawyers in this House know only too well, will shift. This is precisely why proper parliamentary scrutiny must remain in place for all product and metrology regulations, as recommended by a committee of this House. If the Government concede that some regulations may need full scrutiny then it follows that the affirmative procedure should apply in all cases. Anything less simply hands Ministers a blank cheque to determine the level of scrutiny after the fact, with Parliament left powerless to insist on proper oversight.
I said that I would refer to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, because I remember what he said. I looked it up when I heard he was going to be here. He said about the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, admittedly in 2021:
“We are increasingly seeing the use of skeleton Bills and Henry VIII clauses. We really must come to a point where we say to the Government”—
I would add any subsequent Governments—
“that we will not put up with this any longer”.—[Official Report, 12/1/21; col. 657.]
As he reflects on his words, I hope he will offer some wise advice to his good colleague.
I urge the Government to reconsider their position and accept the DPRRC’s recommendation that powers should be constrained so that product regulations and metrology regulations are, in all cases, subject to affirmative procedure scrutiny. Surely that is the very least that is required to ensure proper democratic accountability.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will speak to the government amendment and respond to the debate. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the development of the government amendment for raising in Committee the important matter of ensuring that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of regulations made under the Bill.
I will touch first on the affirmative procedure. In the light of concerns from Peers, the DPRRC and the House of Lords Constitution Committee, Amendment 55 increases the number of provisions that will be subject to the affirmative procedure to include certain types of new or novel provisions. These provisions are product regulations made in relation to online marketplaces and where requirements are imposed for the first time on any new category of actors in the market. The amendment will ensure that appropriate parliamentary scrutiny is applied to new regulatory approaches for online marketplaces, and for regulations that place duties and product requirements on new supply chain actors for the first time, while maintaining the flexibility to make timely, uncontentious technical updates to existing regulations.
However, the Government accept that making regulations for new or novel matters makes the higher level of parliamentary scrutiny more appropriate. Therefore, when product regulations made under the Bill seek to impose a requirement on a new type of supply chain actor that is not otherwise listed in Clause 2(3), the affirmative procedure will apply the first time such requirements are laid.
I turn to Amendments 48, 56, 57 and 58. I thank all noble Lords for their concerns regarding the affirmative procedure. On Amendment 48, we discussed the importance of consultation last week, particularly in relation to the Government’s statutory consultation amendment. I do not really want to repeat these arguments, apart from saying that regulations brought forward under this Bill will have been informed by consultation with key stakeholders. Specifically, on Amendment 43A, our recently published code of conduct sets out that regulations under this Bill will be subject to assessment and engagement with an appropriate range of stakeholders, including scientific evidence where appropriate.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am not sure that the noble Lord has explained why the regulations that allow UK product requirements to be set by reference to European Union law are uncontentious and highly technical. They seem to me to be neither of those things.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, like I say, I really do not want to repeat what we debated last week, but the whole purpose of where we are today is to give us the freedom either to diverge from or to mirror any regulation, particularly product regulation, as most of it comes from the European Union. Either we follow it, or we do not—that is the freedom that we have.
As I said, I am aware that we have Third Reading still to come but, as we approach the end of Report, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. It will probably come as no surprise that, for the reasons that I outlined earlier, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.
Lord Leong
“(1) In the Consumer Protection Act 1987 omit Parts 2 and 4.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment repeals Parts 2 and 4 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment omits the provision that allows consequential amendments of section 77 of and Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
“(3) In the Weights and Measures Act 1985 omit sections 1, 8(1)(a) and 25 and Schedule 1.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment repeals specified provisions of the Weights and Measures Act 1985.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments to repeal certain provisions on the face of the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“(5) Regulations made under this section that amend or replace primary legislation must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.(6) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must—(a) conduct a consultation for a period of no less than six weeks;(b) publish a statement outlining the purpose and necessity of the proposed regulations, the expected impact on businesses, consumers, and enforcement bodies, and the outcome of the consultation.(7) Within six months of any regulations made under this section which amend or repeal primary legislation, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the effect of that regulation and lay it before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires that any regulations made under Clause 9 that amend or replace primary legislation be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that there is any need to detain the House very much longer, except to say one thing. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, was shouting from a sedentary position when I quoted him earlier. I just remind him that he said the only answer is the super-affirmative procedure. Does he remember that? That is what he advocated. All I am asking for this House to agree is that the affirmative procedure is the right approach. I do so, finally, by quoting a committee that I thought we all respected. The Delegated Powers Committee has looked at all the government amendments and, in a unanimous report, agreed by all the parties on the committee, concluded this:
“We would add that, even if the House were to agree to those delegations of power, in our view those powers should be constrained so that product regulations and metrology regulations are in all cases subject to affirmative procedure scrutiny”.
That is why I beg to move Amendment 48 and wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Leong
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment includes a feature of a service in the definition of “online marketplace”.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment includes a service on part of a website in the definition of “online marketplace”.
““product requirements” has the meaning given in section 2(1);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment applies the definition of “product requirements” to the whole Bill and is consequential on the new clause amendment in my name after Clause 8.
Lord Leong
“(za) the first provision described insection 2(2)(d)contained in product regulations;(zb) the first provision described insection 2(3)(d)contained in product regulations;(zc) provision described insection 2(3)(h)that imposes the first product requirements on the category of person specified in that provision;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment applies the affirmative resolution procedure to additional provisions.
Lord Leong
“(6) Before making regulations under this Act, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult such persons as they consider appropriate before making regulations under this Act.
“(6) Subsections (2) to (6) do not apply to regulations under section 13.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to allow new subsections of clause 9 to be brought into force by regulations.
Lord Leong
“(A1) Section 9(1) and (3) comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint, and the Secretary of State may appoint different days for different purposes.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the commencement clause to provide for new subsections (1) and (3) of section 9 to be brought into force by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Lord Leong
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the commencement clause to provide for new subsections (1) and (3) of section 9 to be brought into force by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Lord Leong
“7 Aircraft and components of aircraft.This paragraph does not include—(a) unmanned aircraft designed or intended (whether or not exclusively) for use in play by children under 14 years old, and(b) radio equipment which is a component of unmanned aircraft.In this paragraph—(a) “aircraft” and “unmanned aircraft” have the meanings given by Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency;(b) “radio equipment” has the meaning given by regulation 2 of the Radio Equipment Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1206).7A Products used or specifically designed for the purpose of operating or controlling aircraft, training persons in the operation or control of aircraft or ensuring the safe operation or control of aircraft.This paragraph does not include radio equipment used or specifically designed for the purpose of operating or controlling unmanned aircraft, training persons in the operation or control of unmanned aircraft or ensuring the safe operation or control of unmanned aircraft.In this paragraph “aircraft”, “unmanned aircraft” and “radio equipment” have the same meanings as in paragraph 7.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add certain products used or specifically designed for the purpose of operating or controlling aircraft, training persons in the operation or control of aircraft or ensuring the safe operation or control of aircraft into the Schedule of excluded products.