Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch off electronic devices. Are all devices off? Excellent. I am not sure that mine is, but I will do that in a moment. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings, nor is milk.
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 13 May) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 13 May;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 15 May;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 20 May;
2. the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clause 1; the Schedule; Clauses 2 to 15; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
3. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 20 May.—(Justin Madders.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Justin Madders.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence received by the Committee will be made available on the table in the Committee Room.
I move now to declarations of interests. Members are responsible for declaring any interests, in accordance with the code of conduct, at the start of proceedings and when speaking or tabling amendments. Do any Members want to declare interests at this juncture? No.
We now begin—I am building the excitement, Minister —the line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available at the back of the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and amendments have been grouped together for debate. A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. For debates on clause stand part, the Minister will be called first. Other Members can then speak, and they need to bob if they wish to do so. If there has been sufficient debate on an amendment to obviate the need for a stand part debate, I will make that judgment at the time, as is normal in the circumstances.
At the end of a debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I shall again call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause or seek a Division. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendment in a group, including grouped new clauses, they will need to let me know. If you have signed amendments that you want to press, please let me know and I will take them at the appropriate time. My fellow Chair, Valerie Vaz, and I shall use our discretion to decide whether to allow separate stand part debates, as I have said.
I hope that is all helpful. Are there any questions at this stage? I am conscious that we have a number of Members who may not have served on Bill Committees before. Many of you probably have by now, but we will take it along those lines.
Clause 1
Product regulations
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out subsection (1).
This amendment seeks to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State under product regulations, when defining and regulating risks and determining what constitutes efficient or effective product operation.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 15, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out “also”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 14.
Amendment 16, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out “(1) or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 14.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
What a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir John, and for the duration of this Bill Committee. I am shall start by indulging the Committee with a little bit of background on the reasons behind the amendments in this group.
As colleagues will have noted, the Bill gives sweeping powers to the Secretary of State to change regulations through delegated legislation. It is what everyone would describe as a skeleton Bill—and those are not just my words. In clause 1, which we seek to amend, the sweeping powers given to the Secretary of State are quite extraordinary. It is not just the Opposition who have pointed that out. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place looked closely at the Bill and concluded that the delegated powers in clause 1—we will come to the other clauses later—are inappropriate and should be removed from the Bill. I am sure Members will agree that that is quite a strong statement.
In response to the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Government shifted somewhat. They acknowledged that Committee’s concerns and accepted that more detail could have been included in the delegated powers memorandum. Nevertheless, we heard again from the Committee on 21 February, when it welcomed the amendments the Government had tabled to introduce a requirement for consultation and narrow some of the delegated powers, but stated:
“The Government has not taken the opportunity to add flesh to the bones of this skeleton Bill.”
The Committee in the other place remained of the view that
“the delegation to Ministers of law-making powers in this Bill involves legislative power shifting to an unacceptable extent from the legislature to the Executive”
and that
“the Government has failed to provide a convincing justification for the inclusion of skeleton clauses in this Bill that give Ministers such wide powers to re-write in regulations the substance of the regulatory regimes for products and metrology.”
The Committee added that regulations made under the Bill should “in all cases” be subject to “affirmative procedure scrutiny”, meaning the regulations would require active approval by both Houses.
Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State extraordinary powers. I put on the record that the Secretary of State is a man of benign disposition. We can all see that many dangerous products find their way into the UK and to UK consumers’ homes, either through online marketplaces or through other means, and that a prudent and benign Government would need to introduce regulations to address that. The evidence that has been supplied to the Committee cites alarming cases of lithium-ion batteries, and regulations need take into account how dangerous those products can sometimes be. We are all aware of some of the challenges with online marketplaces where products that are illegal in the UK find their way to the UK market and UK consumers.
At the same time, although it may come as a surprise to some people, there are other countries in the world, and they also put in place product regulations. Some may have higher standards than us, and some may have lower standards. We can all agree that we want product regulation to be not only of the very best quality for the UK consumer, but consistent across our United Kingdom. The evidence to the Committee also highlights the need to look at the issue of fulfilment centres, on which it will be interesting to hear from the Minister.
It is also the case that we have our own accreditation: the UKCA—UK conformity assessed—marking. Many businesses in the UK have taken extensive and expensive steps to apply for that accreditation. The previous Government extended the recognition of the CE—conformité Européenne—marking, with which people are familiar and which shows that a product has met product regulation requirements in the EU. What plans do the Minister and his Department have for extending recognition of the very high standards that apply in the UKCA marking scheme?
What are the Government’s plans for when the operation of clause 1 leads to a difference in standards and labelling for particular products? In the evidence the Committee received, the example of tumble dryers was highlighted. A tumble dryer is likely to be subject to different labelling requirements in different parts of the UK, with the requirements in Northern Ireland being different from those in Great Britain.
In short, we are concerned that the legislation would give enormous powers to a future Secretary of State who might not be as benign as the one we have now. We need only to look across the Atlantic to see how President Trump was able to use Executive powers to move away from paper straws to plastic straws at the sweep of his signature. I am sure that Labour Members are extremely concerned about giving enormous delegated powers to the Executive, so will want to support our amendments to clause 1.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee not only had concerns about clause 1, as we will discuss in due course, but also raised concerns about clauses 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9, which I am sure we will discuss at length. It is extraordinary how much power is being taken by the Executive in this legislation. The Conservatives accept that there is a need to reduce and mitigate the risks presented by products that make their way into the UK marketplace. There is obviously an important role in ensuring that products operate efficiently and effectively, and that products designed for weighing or measuring operate accurately. However, we are startled by the extent of the powers provided to the Secretary State in clause 1, particularly in the subsections that we propose to amend. The Secretary of State’s powers are startling, as will be shown in the Committee’s line-by-line scrutiny of the clause.
To summarise the concerns about delegated powers, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated that:
“A delegated power is needed in order to ensure that the Secretary of State is able to respond swiftly to any new risks and hazards that might arise in this area—”
I am sure we will mention that again when we move on to clause 4—
“as well as ensuring continuity across the United Kingdom internal market. This will include an ability to maintain continuity with relevant EU law where it is deemed appropriate and, in the United Kingdom’s best interests to do so, but also the ability to make different provision to the EU.”
We will talk about that in more detail when we discuss clause 2.
It is worth highlighting to the Committee that the Secretary of State himself is not a fan of delegated powers. When in opposition, he stated clearly that they carry a risk of abuse by the Executive and were not something that the Opposition could ever support. In 2018, the Secretary of State said:
“We must bear in mind that the use of delegated powers carries a risk of abuse by the Executive, which is not something the Opposition could ever support. Rather, it is our duty at this stage to check the powers of the Executive and ensure that we are not giving them carte blanche to change the balance of power permanently in their favour.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2018; c. 305.]
It is not just the Secretary of State who feels strongly about this issue. The Attorney General said in his recent Bingham lecture on the rule of law that Henry VIII powers such as we see in this legislation are a strike at the rule of law—that skeleton legislation or delegated legislation
“not only strikes at the rule of law…but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty.”
I see that you are listening intently, Sir John. I want to re-emphasise why I think the powers are inappropriately drawn. Despite some movement in the other place, the Secretary of State is left with powers that are far too wide-ranging. On Third Reading in the other place, Lord Leong, speaking for the Government, said:
“We have taken the Bill from its early state to where it is today, and obviously it will now go to the other place. I am sure that the noble Lord is right: there will be further deliberation…and hopefully”—
that is the important point—
“we will get it to a better place.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2025; Vol. 844, c. 714.]
That is a green light from the Government spokesman in the other place for this Committee to do its job. I urge the Committee to accept our amendments to clause 1.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire made numerous important points—I reinforce the point that this group of amendments looks to a future with a less benign Secretary of State—and made the case that the current Secretary of State agrees with her.
Amendments 14, 15, and 16 seek to remove the sweeping powers currently granted to the Secretary of State under clause 1(1). As drafted, the clause gives a single Minister an almost unrestricted mandate to define and regulate product standards, ostensibly to reduce risk and ensure efficient and effective operation. The terms are vague and the power to define them is left entirely to the Executive. This is not a technical tweak. It is a fundamental constitutional concern. Clause 1(1) effectively hands Ministers a blank cheque to legislate by decree, bypassing the scrutiny and consent of this House.
The amendments would delete the subsection and make the necessary consequential changes, thereby restoring the proper balance between Executive action and parliamentary oversight. This is not about obstructing Government action. It is about ensuring that when Ministers act, they do so within clearly defined limits and with the approval of Parliament. Regulations that affect businesses, consumers and the public at large should not be made behind closed doors in Whitehall. They should be debated and decided in public, by elected representatives.
By supporting amendments 14 to 16, we reaffirm a vital constitutional principle: that it is Parliament, not Ministers, who should define the scope of regulatory power. The changes would not weaken the Bill; they would strengthen it by embedding accountability and transparency at its core. I urge colleagues to support the amendments.
The Chair
I call the Minister for Employment Rights, Competition and Markets, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Justin Madders.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
Thank you, Sir John—and what a lengthy title. I hope that is not a portent for the rest of the day. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning. I thank all Members and officials for helping us to examine the Bill.
The Bill, as the title suggests, is a little dry—as dry as the weather, possibly—but it is very important in underpinning product safety in this country. I am sure that by the end of the Committee we will all know a little more about product safety, with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash, who is the first metrologist to be elected to this House. I am sure he will give the Committee the benefit of his experience, which we are all looking forward to.
I thank the shadow Minister for her introduction. She has cut to the heart of one of the central arguments that we will no doubt be having over the next few days, on the importance of the powers to keep people safe and to ensure that the right level of scrutiny is applied to regulations made under the Bill. The Lords have made a number of changes to get that balance right.
Our product regulation and metrology framework is extensive and highly technical. It extends to dozens of regulations and thousands of products in a huge range of technical detail. The Bill’s powers will allow us to keep that extensive body of regulation up to date. We need to make sure that regulation can be modified to reflect new evidence of risks, such as new chemical ingredients in cosmetics. We also need to keep it more substantially updated as business models and products change, not least to reflect the growth of online marketplaces, which I am sure we will debate in due course. The shadow Minister’s amendments 14 to 16 would strip out the power to do that in clause 1(1).
Clause 1(1) contains the Bill’s central power to ensure that product risks can be mitigated, to ensure that products operate effectively or efficiently and, of course, to ensure that products operate accurately. It is vital to ensuring that our product regulation framework can adapt, keep consumers safe and give them confidence that what they are buying is safe, which we think is very important. Removing subsection (1) would leave our product regulation framework frozen in time.
Of course, it is important that Parliament has appropriate scrutiny of the powers—no doubt we can all trade quotes on the various things we have said about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. However, it would not be a good use of parliamentary time to require primary legislation or affirmative procedure debates for every single change in the regulations, no matter how small and technical. We have listened to the concerns of the DPRRC and the Lords Constitution Committee and have already amended the Bill to improve parliamentary scrutiny. We have increased the number of areas where the affirmative procedure will operate, such as when we impose product requirements on a new category of supply chain actor, and removed most of the Bill’s Henry VIII powers.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
The Minister refers to the Government’s decision to pursue so many skeleton powers in the Bill, and says the Secretary of State now disagrees with what he said back in 2018. Can the Minister elaborate on what has happened in the real world to cause the Secretary of State to have such a damascene conversion?
Justin Madders
I am not able to read the Secretary of State’s mind, but this debate is about a different area of law from the one the Secretary of State was talking about. I refer the hon. Lady to one of her colleagues, the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who said:
“It is critical that that power operates in that manner to ensure that legislation that sits on the UK’s statute book is able to keep pace with scientific and technological developments, so that we continue to uphold our high standards as well as ensure laws remain tailored to best suit the UK’s needs. Without that power, it would take a significant amount of parliamentary time for the Government to bring forward bespoke proposals and consider each amendment on a sector by sector basis.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 29 November 2022; c. 260.]
That is essentially the argument. I served on that Public Bill Committee, which accepted that there is a need for a degree of delegated power, but we have gone further. We have published a code of conduct setting out statutory and non-statutory controls to ensure that product safety regulation, now and in the future, is proportionate and evidence based, and takes into account the views of relevant stakeholders.
It is not the case, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, that this has all taken place behind closed doors. The code of conduct is a very clear public statement, there has been relevant engagement and consultation with stakeholders, and the affirmative procedure will be applied on a number of occasions. It is about getting that balance right.
I note the shadow Minister’s generous comments about the current Secretary of State being a benign individual; I hope her comments also apply to the Secretary of State’s immediate predecessor. It is worth pointing out that similar product safety powers have existed for almost 40 years in the Consumer Protection Act 1987. I do not believe there has been any occasion on which a Secretary of State, of any political persuasion, has used the powers in a draconian or whimsical way.
The shadow Minister described the powers in the Bill as “extraordinary.” I am afraid they are actually rather ordinary in the sense that, to my reckoning, over the last decade the DPRRC has described some 19 Bills as either wholly or partially skeletal. Of course, the shadow Minister will be aware that all those Bills were introduced when her party was in government.
It is entirely normal for Bills to have a degree of delegated powers, particularly within important areas of technical detail where there is a need to act quickly. It is about getting the balance right. We need to ensure that the product regulation framework is agile, up to date and able to protect consumers and businesses effectively. We have taken great care, and we have listened to get the right balance between delivering that objective and ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny on the exercise of the powers. I therefore invite the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I listened carefully to the Minister. If I heard him correctly, he basically said that these kinds of skeleton Bills exist, and therefore, despite the objections of his Secretary of State in the last Parliament, he will persist in supporting legislation that continues this practice, which has been so soundly described in the other place as unacceptable in our democracy. The Opposition believe the principle is so important that we will press our amendment to a Division.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations about the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom which corresponds, or is similar to, a provision of relevant EU law for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, in clause 2, page 3, line 39, leave out subsections (7) and (8).
This amendment removes the ability for product regulations to provide that product requirements are met if the requirements of relevant EU law are met.
Amendment 21, in clause 2, page 4, line 2, at end insert—
“(7A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (7)(a), a product requirement of relevant EU law must not be treated as met unless regulations are made by the Secretary of State to incorporate them into United Kingdom law.”
Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 4, line 6, at end insert—
“(10) The provision described in subsection (7) may only be made if—
(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a statement explaining the necessity of aligning with relevant EU law, and
(b) the updated provision had been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament when aligning with EU law, and for Parliament to approve that provision before aligning with EU law.
Amendment 7, in clause 2, page 4, line 6, at end insert—
“(10) The final meaning or interpretation of any provision of relevant EU law under this Act must be made exclusively by the Secretary of State or by a court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, as appropriate, and may not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.
(11) The enforcement of any provision of relevant EU law under this Act must be undertaken exclusively by the authorities of the United Kingdom Government and may not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would prevent the interpretation or enforcement of any regulations referring to EU law from being undertaken by any authorities other than those based in the UK (for example the European Commission or CJEU).
New clause 4—Review panel—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish an independent review panel (‘the Panel’) no later than 2 years after the day on which this Act comes into force.
(2) The Panel must—
(a) carry out a review of all regulations under this Act corresponding to, similar to, or making references to, the requirements of relevant EU laws under section 2(7), with a view to establishing—
(i) their effect on economic growth;
(ii) their effect on trade in the product concerned on a global basis; and
(iii) their effect on the relevant industry or industries within the United Kingdom;
(b) prepare a report of the review, and
(c) lay a copy of the report before Parliament, no later than 12 months from the date of the Panel’s creation and then every 24 months.
(3) The Panel must consist of—
(a) at least one person with expertise in economics;
(b) at least one person with expertise in trade policy; and
(c) at least one person with expertise in domestic regulation of business.
(4) If either House of Parliament rejects a motion in the form set out in subsection (5), moved in accordance with subsection (6) by a Minister of the Crown, the Secretary of State must ensure that the regulations reviewed by the Panel cease to have effect not later than the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the rejection takes place.
(5) The form of the motion is—
(6) So far as practicable, the Secretary of State must make arrangements for the motion to be debated and voted on by both Houses of Parliament within a period of 14 sitting days beginning immediately after the report mentioned in subsection (2)(b) is laid before Parliament.”
This new clause would ensure a review and report to Parliament of any regulations aligning the UK with EU laws, and for that review to be approved by both Houses for the relevant regulations to remain in force.
New clause 9—Alignment with EU law—
“(1) Where equivalent or similar EU law exists in relation to relevant product regulations, the Secretary of State must, when making provision under section 1, update Parliament on whether the Government proposes to vary the regulations from alignment with EU law.
(2) If the Secretary of State believes divergence from relevant EU law to be in the interests of the United Kingdom, they must arrange for a statement to be made in Parliament on the benefits to United Kingdom business to be achieved by this divergence, at least fourteen days before the relevant regulations are laid before Parliament.
(3) If the Secretary of State believes alignment with the relevant EU law to be in the interests of the United Kingdom, they must arrange for a statement to be made in Parliament on the benefits to United Kingdom business to be achieved by this alignment, at least fourteen days before the relevant regulations are laid before Parliament.
(4) The statement under subsection (2) or (3) must include the date by which any such regulations will be reviewed, which can be no later than 36 months after implementation.”
This new clause provides greater regulatory certainty for UK businesses by requiring scrutiny of all decisions to diverge or align with EU regulations and a process for Parliamentary scrutiny and review, whether Ministers determine that divergence or alignment from such regulations would be in the best interests of the UK.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
We tabled our amendments to clauses 1 and 2 because we can see both what the Secretary of State intends and the purpose of the huge powers he is taking under clause 1.
Amendment 3 seeks to remove clause 1(2), which states:
“The Secretary of State…in relation to the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom”
can make provision
“which corresponds, or is similar, to a provision of relevant EU law for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products.”
That is an extraordinarily wide power. We seek to delete subsection (2) because it is clear that the Bill is effectively planned to be used as a Trojan horse. It will be a surrender Bill, ahead of the surrender summit next week.
Through this legislation, the Secretary of State will be given the power, for environmental and many other issues, to sign up to the rule of EU law on product regulation in this country without any further primary legislation. We have real concerns that the Bill could effectively be used to facilitate dynamic alignment. That is not even a hunch, as it is spelled out by the Department for Business and Trade in the impact assessment, which states that the Bill will:
“Ensure that the law can be updated to enable recognition of new or updated EU product requirements.”
It is spelled out, which is why we have also tabled amendment 4 to leave out clauses 2(7) and (8), and amendment 21 to add proposed new subsection (7A):
“Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (7)(a), a product requirement of relevant EU law must not be treated as met unless regulations are made by the Secretary of State to incorporate them into United Kingdom law.”
Amendment 5 would insert proposed new subsection (10):
“The provision described in subsection (7) may only be made if—
(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a statement explaining the necessity of aligning with relevant EU law, and
(b) the updated provision had been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
Without those important provisions, we would be handing the Executive the most extraordinary ability to allow a foreign power to legislate this country’s product regulations. I am sure all parliamentarians agree that product regulation ought to be considered at the parliamentary level on a case-by-case basis.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I want to make a few brief points in support of the Opposition amendments. Taken together, they serve a simple but essential purpose: they seek to ensure that the powers granted under the Bill are used transparently, responsibly and with full parliamentary oversight. Let me be clear: this is not about rehashing the debates of the past. It is about making sure that future decisions, especially those that could have profound consequences for British industry, trade and product standards, are subject to democratic scrutiny.
As it stands, the Bill gives sweeping discretion to Ministers to align domestic product regulations with European law. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire said, it enables the potential for dynamic alignment, which the impact assessment essentially spells out as the aim, without any binding requirement for parliamentary approval, debate or even explanation. Amendment 5 would change that by requiring the Secretary of State to explain the rationale for alignment and seek Parliament’s consent before any such decision takes effect. This is not obstructionism; it is good governance.
As has been noted, the Bill also risks undoing the progress made by the previous Government in removing excessive red tape and regaining regulatory autonomy. Through sovereign decision making the UK has created trading opportunities on the world stage. That is why amendments 3 and 4, to remove automatic mechanisms to treat compliance with EU rules as equivalent to UK compliance by default and without justification, are vital. This is not about rejecting co-operation where it is in our interest; it is about avoiding automatic alignment without accountability.
As was raised in the other place, the powers are not just technical; they are significant policy decisions that deserve primary legislation. The democratic will of the British people, expressed in the referendum when we decided to leave the European Union and in elections since, was to restore British sovereignty. It is only right that no authority based outside the UK, whether it be the European Commission or the Court of Justice of the European Union, can unilaterally shape the enforcement or interpretation of our rules.
Amendment 21, in particular, would ensure that any EU-derived product standards must first be brought into UK law by regulation before they can be treated as equivalent. That would both protect sovereignty and provide certainty. Ultimately, there must be proper scrutiny, and if Ministers are confident in their decisions, they should have no concern about being asked to report back to Parliament on any regulations aligning with EU law and to ask Parliament to approve their continuation. That would enable proper oversight while guarding against regulatory drift.
Alison Griffiths
The amendments in this group serve a clear and vital purpose: to prevent the automatic alignment of UK product regulations with EU law and to reaffirm our sovereign right to set our own standards.
As it stands, clause 1(2) would allow Ministers to make UK regulations that correspond
“to a provision of relevant EU law”
in the area of environmental product standards. In plain English, that opens the door to copying and pasting EU rules into UK law via statutory instrument without full parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 3 would remove subsection (2) entirely, closing that back door.
Amendments 4, 5, 7 and 21 target other provisions that risk tethering us to EU frameworks. For example, clause 2(7) would allow compliance with certain EU laws to automatically satisfy UK requirements. That is not sovereignty; it is outsourcing. This is not about rejecting co-operation with Europe. It is about ensuring that any alignment is a result of a deliberate and transparent decision made here in Westminster, not an automatic consequence of vague enabling powers. As my hon. Friends the Members for West Worcestershire and for Chester South and Eddisbury have made clear, the British people voted to leave the European Union to take back control of our laws. That control must not be quietly handed back through ministerial shortcuts.
New clause 4 is especially important. It would introduce a safeguard in the form of an independent review panel to assess any regulation made under the Bill that aligns with EU law. Where a Minister chooses to align, the panel would have to report back, within two years, on the impact on growth, trade and industry. Crucially, Parliament would then vote on whether those EU-aligned rules should remain in force. No regulation should persist by inertia. How can the Minister possibly object to a review after two years?
The amendments would not isolate us; they would empower us. They would ensure that when we choose to align with international standards, we do so on our terms, with full accountability. That is the essence of post-Brexit governance. We assert that UK regulators answer first and foremost to the UK Parliament, not to Brussels and not to Whitehall alone.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. This is only my second Bill Committee, so please accept my apologies if I fail in any of the protocol. I want to make a small point on our new clause 9, which interestingly, being on the subject of the EU, is grouped with amendments tabled by the official Opposition.
I feel that new clause 9 provides a certain compromise between the two positions. It is important to recognise that the EU continues to be one of our biggest trading partners. Currently, a lot of product legislation is aligned, and therefore divergence is a concern for business. A lot of our small enterprises find that exporting to the EU is an important part of their business, so they need clarity and certainty if any legislation or product safety regulations are going to change or diverge. Our new clause would ensure that any such change, whether a continued alignment or a divergence, is scrutinised and made the subject of a statement to the House. I would be grateful if Members supported the new clause, which I feel offers a compromise between the two positions.
Justin Madders
We have had several impassioned speeches from Conservative Members. Unfortunately, they are all wrong about what the Bill does. I will attempt to explain what the position actually is.
The Bill provides powers to make and amend relevant product regulations, so that the UK can act in the best interests of our businesses and consumers, which I think we would all agree is a good thing. That includes choosing to recognise or stop recognising EU product requirements. That is the key: there is absolute ability to recognise or not recognise as we see fit. This is not back-door submission to the EU or having our tummies tickled—I am not sure what the correct legislative term for that is. This is about the Government taking back control to set their own laws, as we determined back in 2016.
Amendment 3 would remove clause 1(2), which gives us a power to update regulations that address the environmental impact of products where similar provisions exist in relevant EU law. Increasingly, product regulations take account of the environmental impact of goods and provisions. The Bill will enable us, where it is in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers, to choose whether to update our laws or not. As I have set out, the Bill is about supporting the UK’s interests. Clause 1(2) means that, where it is in the UK’s interests, product regulation can make the same or similar provision as that contained in relevant EU law, which can simplify the regulatory landscape for UK businesses.
Turning to amendment 4, again, clause 2(7) allows us to act in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers. It enables us to provide that requirements in our law can be satisfied by meeting specified EU requirements, but it does not mean that we are obliged to recognise EU provisions, and it also gives us the power to end such recognition. We have been clear that decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis, which I think is what the shadow Minister was asking for, based on the needs of UK businesses and consumers, with appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 4 would take away that flexibility and would freeze EU law in time at May 2024. I mention May 2024 because that is when the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which effectively introduced the same powers as those in the Bill, were made.
Alison Griffiths
I am genuinely curious. The Minister says that new clause 4 would take away powers. Can he explain why he would possibly object to the introduction of a review panel within two years? Surely there cannot be any objection.
Justin Madders
I have not got on to new clause 4 yet. I will come to it shortly, and there are several reasons why we will resist it, but I was talking about amendment 4. All these numbers are very confusing.
I draw the Committee’s attention to what the then Minister—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who is now a member of the shadow Cabinet—said in May 2024 when introducing the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations:
“Where EU regulations change, we will consider whether to continue recognition of EU rules on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the views of industry and consumer safety.”—[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 13 May 2024; c. 4.]
That is exactly what we seek to do in the Bill. I know that there has been some change in the Conservative party since May 2024, but the current leader of the party was the Secretary of State for Business and Trade at the time. It is therefore curious, to say the least, that the Conservatives are now distancing themselves from their original position and seeking to take away our ability to make decisions on a case-by-case basis in the interests of UK consumers.
Amendment 5 and new clause 9 would require statements to be made to Parliament in relation to aligning with or diverging from EU law. I think them unnecessary. It is very clear that we will be taking decisions on the basis of what is in the best interests of the UK, rather than taking an ideological position in either direction. There may be instances in which the UK’s product regulation interests are different from the EU’s; there may be other instances in which our interests are similar. When making regulations under the Bill, we will provide Parliament with the usual information to make sure that their purpose and effect is well understood. That will provide Parliament with a clear explanation of the Government’s intent, and Parliament will have oversight of regulations made under the Bill. The amendments would add unnecessary extra processes and would not provide Parliament with any new information.
I turn to amendment 7. I remind hon. Members again of the purpose of the Bill, which is to ensure that the UK can deliver an effective domestic regulatory regime across a range of sectors. That is why the Bill will extend only to England and Wales, to Scotland and to Northern Ireland, as clause 13 sets out. There may be instances in which it is in the UK’s best interests to recognise a provision of relevant EU law when making domestic product regulations. In this instance, the recognised EU provision that must be complied with would be stated in UK law and would be enforceable only by UK authorities. If we wanted to update our laws to reflect a decision of the European Court of Justice, we would need to make a statutory instrument. There is no automatic taking of rules from the EU, as has been suggested.
Amendment 21 proposes that the UK should only recognise updated EU law if we incorporate the relevant updates into our domestic regulations, and the Secretary of State makes an explanatory statement if only recognising EU law under the Bill. The Bill is about ensuring that our domestic regulatory framework works for businesses and consumers. The Bill will allow us to make changes to our framework and reflect global best practice when doing so. The reason that it refers explicitly to the EU is that most of our product regulation is inherited from the EU, and we continue to recognise certain EU product requirements, which is the reason why the 2024 regulations were passed last year. This gives us the ability to review decisions on recognising certain EU product requirements. Clause 2(7) will allow us to do so on a case-by-case basis.
New clause 4 proposes a review panel. The Government have published a code of conduct, which has been drafted with valuable input from parliamentarians in the other place. It sets out the various guardrails that will be in place when the powers in the Bill are exercised; they include an impact assessment that analyses the expected effects of changes on businesses, consumers and the UK internal market. All secondary legislation made under the Bill will be subject to the statutory and non-statutory assessments set out in the code of conduct, including the principles of the better regulation framework.
Alison Griffiths
I assume that the code of conduct you mentioned will be voluntary. I would be interested to hear what parliamentary enforcement the code, or indeed the wider constraints referred to in new clause 4, will receive.
The Chair
Order. May I gently remind Members that they should not use the word “you”? “You”, in this context, is me, and I do not know anything about the code of conduct.
Justin Madders
If you wish to read it, Sir John, I can provide you with a copy.
Justin Madders
It is entitled “Product Safety: Checks and balances on developing policy and legislation”. It has been referred to extensively in debates here and in the other place. It is the guardrail by which we will be judged when making further regulation in this policy area. It sets out our commitment to ensure that the wider impact of any changes is properly considered and reported on where appropriate. We are happy to be judged by the standards set out in the code of conduct, which was developed in conjunction with parliamentarians in the other place.
New clause 4 would add unnecessary bureaucracy. The matter is already covered by the code of conduct. The new clause would slow down our efforts to protect consumers and introduce regulation. I invite Opposition Members not to press their amendments.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
We did not hear anything from the Minister to reassure the Committee on the fundamental points that we have been making throughout the debate. The Bill gives unfettered powers to the Secretary of State, and it is openly acknowledged, both in the Bill and in the impact assessment, that the powers could be used to dynamically align us to EU regulation.
We have tried to be constructive by tabling a range of amendments that would give a more prominent role to parliamentary scrutiny and would give the legislature significant oversight of how the Secretary of State uses the powers. The hon. Member for Chippenham also tabled an amendment that would enable the sharing of further information with voters at the next election. I think that the voters of Knowsley, of Birmingham Northfield and of Worsley and Eccles will want to know how their Secretary of State used the powers in this Trojan horse surrender legislation. They will want to know what the impact has been, as judged by experts such as economists and by people who really know their trade.
Justin Madders
I was at pains to explain why the shadow Minister is wrong in her analysis of the effect of the Bill. It has essentially the same powers as in last year’s regulations, which allow us to take decisions on a case-by-case basis. Why does she insist on saying that this is some sort of Trojan horse?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
It is accepted in the impact statement that that is one potential use of the powers, but if the Minister believes that, he will want to support our amendments in this group.
Sir John, I understand that because amendment 14 fell, we were unable to divide on subsequent amendments in the first group. In this group, however, I believe that we can divide the Committee on more of the amendments individually. I seek your guidance on how many amendments in this group we can divide the Committee on.
The Chair
The amendments are not strictly consequential on one another, so it is possible to have separate Divisions. I assume that you wish to divide on amendment 3.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
In the light of your guidance, Sir John, I would like to divide the Committee on all our amendments in this group.
The Chair
We will divide on amendment 3 now, and on the others when we reach them.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
We come to amendment 38, tabled in the name of Clive Jones and Sarah Gibson. I call Sarah Jones.
Sarah Gibson
I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(3A) Further, the Secretary of State may only make regulations under subsections (1) or (2) if satisfied that making the regulations will not result in reducing the necessary levels of consumer protection and regulatory standards in relation to products, with reference where applicable to equivalent product regulations or standards in force at the time.”
This amendment inserts safeguards to help ensure non-regression from existing legal protections to help ensure greater certainty and a level playing field. It addresses the omission on the face of the Bill of the current legal requirement that products placed on the market must in principle be safe.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones) would speak far more eloquently than I can, but I will make a couple of points to relay to the Committee why I think amendment 38 is important.
We are trying to ensure that the Secretary of State can make regulations under clause 1 only if satisfied that doing so will not lead to a reduction in consumer protection or regulatory standards. It is not about regression; it is about preserving the baseline of legal protection that we already have, especially when it comes to product safety and regulatory quality. We are all aware of recent cases of consumer products bought online that arrive in a substandard and dangerous state. I suspect that the Minister will say that no Secretary of State will lower existing legal expectations. That is great, but why not just put it in the Bill?
Amendment 38 would direct the Secretary of State to make reference to equivalent regulations in force at the time, offering clear and objective standards for comparison. It creates greater certainty for business and confidence for consumers. We think that it is important to include in the Bill the explicit legal requirement that products placed in the market must be, in principle, safe. Without that kind of safeguard, there is a risk of regulatory weakening over time, whether intentional or through oversight, which could undermine consumer trust, market fairness and even public safety.
By locking in a non-regression commitment, we would help to maintain a level playing field, especially for businesses in the UK that already meet high standards and do not want to be undercut by those who are cutting corners. It is about ensuring that as regulations evolve, we do not compromise the public interest in the name of flexibility and deregulation. I therefore urge the Committee to support the amendment.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chippenham for moving amendment 38. I reassure her that we take product safety very seriously, which is why we introduced the Bill. It is designed to ensure that only safe products are placed on the UK market, and it builds on a strong track record of protecting consumers, a goal with which we all agree.
The Bill includes robust safeguards to ensure that consumer safety and regulatory standards are not reduced when new regulations are made. The code of conduct, to which I have already referred, sets out our intelligence and engagement-led approach to assessing whether and how to update our product regulations. It means that we do not make changes in isolation; instead, we work closely with industry, consumer groups and regulators to build a clear picture of the risks, benefits and practical implications. This ensures that our regulatory decisions are evidence-based, proportionate and responsive to the evolving needs of businesses and consumers.
Product safety is often about carefully balancing the risks, while also considering consumer needs and expectations. An example that shows why we do not think it would be helpful to agree to the amendment is our current extensive engagement on potential reforms to furniture fire safety regulations. This requires weighing up the critical importance of fire resistance with the growing concerns about the health and environmental impacts of the fire-retardant chemicals used on furniture. No decisions have been made at this stage, but it is an area in which an evidence-based approach that balances those competing interests may lead to a different outcome, and that shows why tying our hands, by accepting the amendment, would not be a good idea.
We are confident that overall the Bill provides a robust and flexible framework to ensure that safety remains central, while enabling innovation and growth across the economy. Safety is the whole point of the Bill—it is central to what we are trying to achieve—but there will be occasions when different considerations come into play. The example that I gave is one very live example that shows why we do not think it helpful to accept the amendment.
Sarah Gibson
I thank the Minister. I have served on a Bill Committee with him before, and he knows how to appeal to the technical side of my expertise. He gave a compelling example, and I thank him for his consideration. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 1, page 1, line 21, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State must also by regulations make provision aimed at promoting investment, fostering innovation, and encouraging economic growth in relation to the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom.
(4B) Regulations under subsection (4A) must support—
(a) the creation of economic incentives for businesses that contribute to economic growth, and
(b) the alignment of product regulations with the strategic aim of positioning the United Kingdom as a global leader in innovation.”
This amendment ensures that the regulations in the Bill prioritise economic growth and the United Kingdom’s role in innovation and economic expansion.
The Committee will see immediately that the purpose of the amendment is to be incredibly helpful to the Government in their growth mission. How different the spirit of the amendment is from the spirit of the Bill! The Bill effectively outsources product regulation to a different Parliament; the amendment would ensure that the regulations made under the Bill prioritise economic growth and the United Kingdom’s role in innovation and economic expansion.
Throughout our history, the UK’s innovative spirit has increased our prosperity and growth as a nation. Key innovations that became accepted around the world led to greater prosperity for our fellow citizens, so what could be more important than for the Committee to agree to the amendment? The Government are very good at saying the word growth, but they have so far signally failed to deliver it. The amendment will ensure that, when exercising the powers in the Bill, economic growth truly is the first priority, as the Government so often claim it is.
Alison Griffiths
Amendment 17 speaks directly to our country’s values of enterprise, innovation and economic freedom. The proposal would insert new subsection (4A) into clause 1, placing a clear duty on Ministers that, whenever they exercise regulatory powers under the Bill, they must do so with the aim of promoting investment, fostering innovation and encouraging economic growth.
In short, the amendment would ensure that regulation is about not just managing risk, but unlocking opportunity. It would put growth at the heart of our regulatory framework—an aspiration that I know the Government will want to support. Regulation and prosperity are not mutually exclusive. As a Conservative and, indeed, a former businessperson, I understand that wealth is not created by Government; it is created by the ingenuity of businesses, entrepreneurs and investors—but Government can either enable that ingenuity or suffocate it. This is a pro-growth Government, so they should be in favour of the amendment, which would ensure that every regulation made under the Bill is shaped with a constant awareness of its economic impact.
The amendment would require Ministers to ask: does this rule support innovation? Could it be more flexible? Will it help British firms to compete globally? Too often, regulations—however well-meaning—have imposed hidden costs, stifled small businesses or driven innovation offshore. The amendment would guard against that by making growth a guiding principle, not an afterthought. It also reflects the unique opportunity we have post Brexit. No longer bound by one-size-fits-all EU frameworks, we can craft smarter, more agile rules that play to Britain’s strengths. Proposed new subsection (4A) would serve as a beacon in the Bill, signalling that when we regulate, we do so to empower, not to encumber.
Take, for example, emerging technologies, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire has already mentioned. If we are setting safety standards for a new sector, the amendment would prompt Ministers to do so in a way that attracts investment, supports start-ups and keeps the UK at the forefront of innovation.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an important speech. Does she agree that we do not only need to grow our economy in new sectors? The UK has been a world leader in some areas historically, which was a driving force behind leaving the European Union in the first place. People wanted to get some innovation and growth back in areas that had been stifled by our European Union membership.
Alison Griffiths
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. The future of successful economic growth is dependent on not just new industries, but ensuring that traditional industries, and both large and small businesses, can thrive and prosper in a post-Brexit scenario.
Amendment 17 would align the Bill with the pro-growth agenda and send a clear message to investors and innovators: Britain is open for business.
Aphra Brandreth
I will speak very briefly on amendment 17. The watchword of this Government has been, supposedly, growth. That is supposed to be the driving force behind legislation and policy, yet they have clearly introduced measures that have done nothing to support growth, and the Bill risks being another stumbling block to continuing the path of recovery—a recovery that the Government actually inherited, with the UK the fastest-growing economy in the G7.
The Opposition have sought to constructively improve the Bill through the amendment, which would ensure that the Government focus on growth. These are sensible and important provisions to promote investment and to foster innovation.
I am sure that Labour Members want to encourage economic growth. Supporting businesses is the way to do that. Empowering them—rather than prohibiting them with regulation and red tape from Brussels—should be central to achieving growth. There are huge opportunities and markets out there for the UK to seize. We must ensure that trade and national policy are as one, supporting job creation, innovation and competition. We need clarity and assurance from the Government that they understand the potential impact of dynamic alignment and the damage that that could do to the economy.
When have legally binding powers achieved growth? When has ambiguity in what businesses should expect and in their operating conditions delivered growth? The truth is that it does not. Businesses need clarity and confidence, and this skeleton Bill does not deliver that. If Labour Members really want—as they say they do—to see growth, I am sure they will want to support the amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire pointed out, the Government’s actions so far have seen GDP per capita shrinking and business confidence plummeting.
Mr Holden
The Bill makes it clear that the Government are keen on dynamic alignment with the European Union wherever possible. That is why the amendment is so important, because it points to what the Government should be doing. Rather than aligning with the European Union and tacking behind it on every issue, the amendment pushes for growth in this country, to deliver jobs for people in my hon. Friend’s constituency and mine. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire mentioned our need to embrace the business of the future, but we must also look to where we can drive forward areas that have been particularly left behind in recent years with traditional industries and sectors.
Aphra Brandreth
I thank my right hon. Friend for that important intervention. Dynamic alignment will see us give away control to the European Union, meaning that we cannot focus on growth in a way that will rightly and importantly improve growth for UK businesses across the whole of the UK. I represent Chester South and Eddisbury, a seat in the north-west of England, and we need to ensure that we see growth across the whole United Kingdom. The amendment, importantly, would ensure that we focus on that. More than ever, we must not stifle growth.
Alison Griffiths
Perhaps my hon. Friend was about to make this point, but does she agree that the amendment would give the Government the opportunity to demonstrate to the world their commitment to and understanding of innovation agility, and the necessity to ensure that not just at Government level, but right across Whitehall, all our legislation considers how we can improve growth, innovation and ingenuity at all times?
Aphra Brandreth
I thank my hon. Friend for that clear and important intervention. She is absolutely right: this is an opportunity to create incentives for growth and to position the UK as a global leader in innovation. We all know that we must continue to innovate. We want the UK to be at the forefront for so many possible emerging markets. We must do everything we can to support that. I urge Members to support the amendment.
Justin Madders
Economic growth is, as we are all aware, the No. 1 mission of the Government. The Bill will support growth by giving the Government the flexibility to ensure that regulations are tailored to the needs of the UK and can respond to global developments. It will ensure that regulations work effectively for businesses and consumers, and will continue to do so in future. We will empower businesses to have the certainty that they can invest and innovate.
I have to take issue with what my Cheshire neighbour, the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, said: the Bill does not mean dynamic alignment and we have been clear on that. Some of the doom and gloom from Opposition Members about the state of the economy fails to recognise that it grew by 0.5% in February, and that we are currently second in the G7 countries in terms of growth predicted for this year. There are some positive aspects on the economy.
In terms of innovation, we of course now have the Regulatory Innovation Office under the auspices of Lord Vallance, who I think is doing some excellent work, particularly in the areas of AI. In terms of the shadow Minister’s references to AI, AI will become relevant in this particular Bill only when it is actually manifested in a tangible product. I understand that fridges are a good example of where AI and tangible consumer products actually come into play. I am not quite sure how that works in practice, as my fridge does not talk to me, but I believe that some do, and are quite smart at working out when someone has run out of products.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Well, Sir John, I do have a very noisy fridge, but I am not sure it is helping me to order the milk. The crucial thing about amendment 17 is that it focuses on innovation. I appreciate that the Government Benches are not necessarily always as heavily weighted with those who have run or developed businesses themselves as ours are, but the Minister should recognise that businesses with a good market share are often able to entrench their version of a product into regulations. That prevents innovators from joining the market, because the regulations were put in place to favour those businesses’ approach. That is why the regulations proposed in clause 1 are so important, but also why it is so worrying that the powers that the Secretary of State is taking through this skeleton Bill are so extensive.
We are trying here to be helpful to the Government and to prevent that kind of behaviour, where the incumbent tries to get the regulations to work in its favour so that its competition cannot come in, compete against it and help the economy to grow through that process of creative destruction that is so often an important part of economic progress. That is why we have tabled this important amendment.
I suggest that the best way for the Government to show their passion for growth—they are clinging to a few recent statistics, but I am afraid that their track record since July is a woeful one, and the forecasts have all been halved by the major forecasters—would be by supporting the amendment. That is why I would seek to divide the Committee on amendment 17.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
We now come to the Question that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. I feel that we have had a full debate on the clause; I do not feel that there should be further consideration. I am happy to put the Question. Are you content, Minister?
Justin Madders
I am always happy to be guided by your wisdom, Sir John.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
It is important to highlight the excluded products in the schedule. The powers that the Committee has just agreed to give to the Secretary of State will not cover food, plants, animal by-products, products of animal origin, aircraft, components of aircraft and radio equipment. Importantly,
“unmanned aircraft designed or intended…for use in play by children under 14 years old”
are not excluded. My eight-year-old grandson was given one of those for his birthday; I am reassured by the fact that, under the schedule, his little radio-controlled aircraft will be something that can be regulated. There are also some exemptions for military equipment and, furthermore, medicines and medical devices.
These exemptions are worth highlighting on the record because, in the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, we should appreciate that questions about food, phytosanitary products, medicines, military equipment and radio spectrum products are incredibly important, particularly in relation to trade agreements. When we discuss some of the clauses as part of the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, those things must be separately considered. It is notable that some of those product lines were ones that were not affected by tariffs when—and I quote —“liberation day” in the United States was announced. It is very important that there is clarity in the legislation. We have not tabled any amendments to the schedule, but it is worth highlighting that what we have been talking about today does not cover those product lines.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister has helpfully read the list of sectors excluded from the schedule, so I will not repeat it. However, it is important, when a Bill has powers of this nature, that we are clear about what they do and do not relate to. As I think Members will appreciate, those excluded sectors will have other regulatory domains, which will refer to them. It is important that we are specific about what the Bill relates to, and that is the purpose of the schedule.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule accordingly agreed to.
Clause 2
Product requirements
Sarah Gibson
I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, at end insert—
“(2A) Product regulations must include requirements in relation to an environmental impact assessment, and provisions related to the right to repair and the circular economy.”
This amendment guarantees that future regulations under the Act will include provisions which relate to the circular economy and granting consumers the right to repair products.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 37, in clause 11, page 10, line 38, at end insert—
“‘circular economy’ means that products are manufactured to minimise waste and maximise the use, reuse, and recyclability of products;”.
This amendment clarifies the meaning of circular economy and is consequential on Amendment 36.
Sarah Gibson
As Liberal Democrats, we are clear that the circular economy is not just a sustainability concept; it is a practical, forward-looking economic model that responds to the urgent challenges of waste, resource scarcity and climate change. At its core, the circular economy is about keeping resources in use for as long as possible, through reuse, repair, remanufacturing and recycling, rather than relying on the traditional “take, make, dispose” model. That shift is essential because the current, linear economy is inherently wasteful. We extract raw materials, use them briefly and discard them, often sending valuable resources to landfill or incineration.
The shift should be a win-win approach. For the environment, it reduces waste, lowers carbon emissions and reduces the pressure on our economy and ecosystems. It creates new business models, and jobs in repair and innovation, and it makes the supply chain more resilient, especially in a world facing geopolitical events and material shortages. It also brings clear benefits for consumers by encouraging the creation of products that are longer lasting, easier to fix and more affordable to maintain, which in the current climate of economic difficulties is always welcomed.
For Government and industry, the circular economy offers a strategic opportunity to modernise production, drive clean growth and lead global sustainability. We need to embed the circular economy principles, not only in waste and resource policy but across our industrial strategy, product design, and procurement and investment decisions. If we are serious about achieving net zero and protecting future generations, the circular economy must be a central pillar to our economic and environmental thinking.
While the circular economy is not necessarily new, it is something that we have lost. It was not many years ago that a faulty washing machine was mended—or even a noisy fridge, such as the one the hon. Member for West Worcestershire was concerned about. I feel that there are skills that we are beginning to lose and skills that we could be taking forward. Now, when something goes wrong, it is cheaper to replace it than to mend it. That is wrong, and this is a good place to start addressing that. I urge the Committee to support these amendments.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chippenham for making a clear argument about the importance of the circular economy. The amendments she spoke to seek to mandate that all product regulations made under the Bill require an environmental impact assessment, as well as provisions related to the right to repair and the circular economy. As Members will be aware, under the duty set out in the Environment Act 2021, Ministers and policymakers must already consider the environmental impact of all new Government policies. That has been reflected on and set out in more detail in the code of conduct, to which I referred Members today and which was in response to suggestions from Members of the other place on the kinds of issues to put forward in that code.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has set moving to a zero-waste economy as one of the top five priorities of the Department. To support that, he has committed to work with a wide range of stakeholders to develop a circular economy strategy and a series of sectoral reform road maps to deliver a circular economy transition. It would therefore be inappropriate to introduce a definition of the circular economy in legislation at this time.
Turning to the right to repair, it is important to note that product regulations made under the Bill will cover many types of products, some of which may be inappropriate to repair, such as cosmetics. The Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information Regulations 2021 introduced measures including requirements for repairability for the first time in Great Britain. Those regulations contribute to our circular economy objectives by increasing the lifespan, maintenance and waste handling of energy-related products. The Government’s aim is to introduce further right to repair measures when regulating individual products under the ecodesign for energy-related products regulations where appropriate. As those powers exist, it is unnecessary to amend the Bill in the manner being suggested.
I thank the hon. Member for Chippenham for her contributions, but hope that I have demonstrated why such amendments would be inappropriate and unnecessary due to existing legislation or work being done elsewhere across Government. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Sarah Gibson
I thank the Minister for his response. Given that work is being done elsewhere on the circular economy, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
Before we come to amendment 34, Minister, although you said that you will make a personal copy of the code of conduct available for me, I assume that it is available at the back of the room.
Justin Madders
I will have to check with the Clerks. We will ensure that it is available this afternoon if it is not there already.
The Chair
Thank you. As it has been referred to several times, it is important that all Committee members are able to reference it.
Sarah Gibson
I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 2, page 3, line 21, at end insert—
“(fa) a person involved on behalf of a person mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f), in product marketing or the use of products, including storage, transportation, packaging, labelling or disposal;”.
This amendment closes a potential loophole in the Secretary of State’s powers to ensure that, whatever their legal status or location, all relevant organisations in the supply chain, including fulfilment houses, can be held accountable by regulations to protect consumers from non-compliant goods.
The amendment is important because it adds a crucial provision that extends regulatory accountability to those involved in the broader handling and marketing of products. Specifically, it covers storage, transportation, packaging, labelling and disposal—all key parts of the product journey from manufacturer to consumer. The aim is to close a potential loophole in the powers of the Secretary of State under the Bill. Without the amendment, there is a risk that certain players in the supply chain, such as fulfilment houses, third-party logistics providers or re-packagers, could escape regulation even if they are handling non-compliant or unsafe products.
We know that consumer harm can arise at any point along the supply chain, not just at the point of manufacture or sale, so it is vital that all relevant organisations, regardless of their legal status or physical location, can be held accountable where necessary, The amendment supports stronger consumer protection, promotes fairness in the marketplace and ensures that everyone involved in putting products on the market plays to the same rules.
Mr Holden
The Government are clearly looking to do trade deals across the world, so will the hon. Lady reflect on the fact that, as we do not know where those fulfilment centres will be located in future, it is particularly important for the Government to look at the issue and consider it in the round?
Sarah Gibson
Very possibly, but the rights of consumers in the UK still need to be protected, regardless of where those fulfilment centres are. I take the right hon. Member’s point, but I feel that the provisions in the amendment still need to be included. The amendment supports stronger protection, promotes fairness in the marketplace and ensures that everyone involved in putting products on the market plays by the same rules. It provides practical, targeted safeguards to ensure that the regulatory responsibilities reflect how modern supply chains operate, so I urge Members to support the amendment.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for Chippenham for tabling the amendment, which seeks to add to the list of persons in clause 2(3)(i) on whom product regulations may impose requirements. I recognise her good intentions behind the amendment to ensure that all relevant actors must be captured by our regulatory framework, including fulfilment houses.
Clause 2(3)(i) strengthens that approach by making it clear that any person engaged in activities related to a product can be brought within scope. That is a critical safeguard against loopholes that could be exploited by those seeking to operate outside the law as new, often complex business models emerge. My eyes have certainly been opened in recent months about some of the new ways in which such operations can deliver products to consumers. The Government have taken care to ensure that the powers in the Bill are robust enough to account for new actors arising from both technological innovation and shifts in supply chain practice.
I hope I can reassure the hon. Member that the Bill as drafted gives us the flexibility and breadth to tackle and cover any new developments in this policy area. Amendment 34 is unnecessary because actors, such as fulfilment houses and others that undertake any activity in relation to products, are already captured by clause 2(3)(i). I therefore ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.
Sarah Gibson
Given that the Government feel that this issue is captured elsewhere, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. However, further work needs to be done to ensure that third parties that are involved are given the protection that they need. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
I am mindful, Dame Harriett, that you wanted to divide the Committee on amendment 4 to clause 2, which we debated with amendment 3. Do you wish to move that amendment formally?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I seek your guidance, Sir John, as there were a number of amendments that pertained to clause 2 in the first few groupings on which the Committee could divide. Should we do that now?
The Chair
We can divide now—I assume that you intend to ask the Committee to divide on further amendments—and I am inclined to do that. Amendment 4 relates to clause 2 and was linked to amendment 3. If you want to move that formally, I am happy to take the Division now.
Amendment proposed: 4, in clause 2, page 3, line 39, leave out subsections (7) and (8).—(Dame Harriett Baldwin.)
This amendment removes the ability for product regulations to provide that product requirements are met if the requirements of relevant EU law are met.
The Chair
It is my intention to allow the Committee to divide on all the occasions that you have requested, Dame Harriett.
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting)
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I welcome everybody to the afternoon sitting. I remind the Committee that it is really important for everyone to be able to hear—I have had a plea for Members to speak as clearly as possible. I also draw attention to the Bill’s code of conduct, which has been published.
Clause 2
Product requirements
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 2, page 3, line 41, leave out “EU” and insert “foreign”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 4, line 2, at end insert—
“(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.”
This amendment prevents the Bill enabling ambulatory references or dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws, and only enables alignment with laws as they stand on a particular defined date.
Amendment 22, in clause 2, page 4, line 5, at end insert—
“(8A) Before making provision described in subsection (7), the Secretary of State must make an explanatory statement if the provision relates to relevant foreign law of only one of the markets listed in the definition of ‘relevant foreign law’ in section 1(5).”
Dame Harriett Baldwin
It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. We start by discussing some of the amendments we have tabled to clause 2. In this morning’s sitting we had a thorough discussion of the issues relating to clause 1, and we also discussed some amendments to clause 2. I hope, Ms Vaz, that you will allow the Committee to consider each measure separately.
Essentially, amendments 20, 6 and 22 would allow for product regulations to be defined by relation to the laws of a wide range of foreign countries rather than just the European Union. Although we have an incredibly important and valuable trading relationship with our friends and neighbours in the European Union, and a very good zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with them, we also have a range of agreements with other countries that facilitate the international trade of products.
Amendment 20 would expand the scope of the powers that the Committee agreed to give to the Secretary of State under clause 1 to cover foreign countries with which we have a close trading relationship. For example, we have a close trading relationship with the United States; indeed, we are each other’s single biggest investor and it is the biggest single country with which we have a trading relationship. We would like to see the Bill enable a discussion whereby we liberalise trade between our countries but also mutually recognise product regulation.
We also have a significant trade agreement, the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, which covers our great trading relationship with friends as far away geographically but as close emotionally as those in Australia and other countries around the Pacific. I am sure that Australia has a system to mutually recognise product safety regimes in important trade agreements, to allow global trade with the confidence that high-quality products are reaching the marketplace.
There is absolutely no reason for the Government to oppose the amendments, unless they truly are uniquely fixated on the EU as a product regulator. Any argument for permitting EU standards should also be one for permitting safe international standards from our other partners. That is unless the actual purpose of the Bill is solely to enable dynamic EU alignment—indeed, EU alignment is mentioned clearly in the impact assessment—while preventing alternatives that could benefit British businesses and, importantly, British consumers, who are our constituents. If the Government do not intend to dynamically align us with the European Union on product regulation, they have every reason to accept amendment 20 and make that clear.
Amendment 6 would add to clause 2 new subsection (7A), which says:
“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.”
That would prevent the Bill from enabling ambulatory references or dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws, and would enable alignment with laws only as they stand on the particular date the Secretary of State decides to use his copious powers under clause 1. That would mean that if regulation changes, Ministers would rightly have to look again and decide whether to maintain alignment.
It is right that we do not give a blank cheque to the EU—or, if amendment 20 is accepted, to foreign countries—by allowing them to diverge on regulations while British businesses and consumers get taken along for the ride. We should be making our own laws that prioritise growth and innovation and that champion businesses here in the UK, thereby giving them the ability to set the standard and the bar and to thrive on the global stage. Only we in this Parliament should be in charge of those decisions; foreign courts should not opine on them. Amendment 6 would allow for flexibility if foreign laws changed, which would allow for a reassessment of their compatibility with the UK market.
Amendment 22 would require the Secretary of State to justify decisions through an explanatory statement, to limit any reference to the laws of one specific territory and prevent the provision of regulations for dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws.
By tabling these helpful amendments, we have given the Government a golden opportunity to show that they are not using this Trojan horse Bill to covertly, and without the express will of Parliament, dynamically align for evermore with EU regulations. They would open up the UK as a global trading nation to mutual recognition around the world. We have our very own certification—UK conformity assessed—which I urge the Government to seek to get recognised in all the trade agreements they sign up to.
Surely we want this Parliament to define the standards by which products around the world are recognised. There should be mutual recognition of the other high-quality jurisdictions—such as Canada, Australia, the United States and the countries in the Pacific—to supplement the recognition that the Secretary of State seems minded to give exclusively to the European Union.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I rise to speak in support of the Opposition amendments, which are not just minor textual tweaks but go to the core of how we manage product regulations now that we have left the European Union.
Amendment 20, which proposes replacing the word “EU” with the word “foreign” in the relevant provision, might seem like a small change on the surface, but it is very important. Focusing only on EU law in this context risks narrowing our horizons at a time when we have been trying to broaden them. Since leaving the EU, the UK has made real efforts to strike up new trade relationships and to move in ways that enable us to take advantage of fast-growing global markets, not just the one on our doorstep.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The context is that, despite its massive expansion since 1990, the EU’s share of global GDP has halved from 30% to just above 15%. That is why the amendments, along with our earlier amendment on growth, are clearly in favour of the UK’s future as a global trading power.
Aphra Brandreth
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course we need to think about the EU, but we also need to think more widely and broadly, and look at the opportunities across the globe. A good example of that is, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire rightly pointed out, our accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. That is a major economic partnership with Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. To join the CPTPP, the UK underwent a comprehensive review to ensure that our domestic regulations were compatible with those of its members. That progress was possible because we were no longer locked into EU rules.
We need to be careful here. If the Bill’s powers allowed us to simply fall back into alignment with EU laws through dynamic alignment, we would end up undoing the very advantages that regulatory independence has given us. That is why amendment 6 is so important: it would make sure that if we chose to align with any foreign law, EU or otherwise, it would be to the version of that law as it exists on a specific date, not as it may evolve in the future. In other words, we keep control: we know exactly what we are aligning with and we do so deliberately. As the Opposition continue to stress, the Bill clearly indicates a move towards dynamic alignment with the EU without oversight. It is clear that the intention is to see our regulations automatically change every time the EU updates its regulations.
Dynamic alignment would bring businesses uncertainty by requiring continuous adjustments, and such changes might require businesses to adapt and potentially bear the costs of the changes. As was pointed out in debates in the other place, EU rules are not always made with our economy in mind. They are sometimes protectionist, or designed to benefit specific interests in the single market. We must be sure that the Bill does not jeopardise any progress we have made with new partners, or tie us to a regulatory environment that is not in our best interests. Dynamic alignment would effectively mean outsourcing decisions about UK product standards to a foreign body. That does not sit well with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and, frankly, does not give British businesses the clarity or stability that they need.
Finally, amendment 22 would add a simple but important safeguard: it would require the Secretary of State to publish an explanatory statement if the Government plan to base regulations on the law of just one foreign market. It is a transparency measure. If we are going to align UK rules with those of another country or bloc, the public and Parliament deserve to know why that is the right course of action. The amendment would help to ensure that decisions are made in the national interest and, importantly, that they are properly scrutinised.
I ask again why Ministers are so unwilling to explain their decisions. Why would they not want transparency? If their decisions are in the public interest, they surely would not have any issue with supporting amendment 22 and agreeing to publish an explanatory statement in relevant cases. The Government have argued that clause 2 provides flexibility and continuity. I understand that perspective, but flexibility should not come at the expense of democratic oversight, and continuity should not mean quietly reverting to rules that we have worked hard to move beyond.
The amendments in this group would not prevent alignment where it is helpful; they would ensure that alignment is clear, accountable and firmly in our control. That is a balanced approach that recognises the opportunities of global trade while respecting the sovereignty of this House. I hope the Committee will support the amendments.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms Vaz.
Opposition amendments 20, 6 and 22 to clause 2 are crucial to safeguarding our sovereignty and global outlook in the Bill. As drafted, clause 2(7) and (8) would allow UK regulations to treat compliance with EU law as sufficient for UK product standards. In effect, the Government are writing a blank cheque for automatic EU alignment into our product rules. The assumption that European Union regulations should be the starting point for our own safety standards is simply extraordinary. Did we vote to take back control only to hand it straight to Brussels by default?
Our amendments demand a global perspective. If the Bill lets EU rules count as meeting UK requirements, high-quality standards from trusted partners around the world must be treated equally. As the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), has pointed out, the Bill features the
“overweighting of references to EU standards versus comparable standards from the United States and Commonwealth friends”. —[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 221.]
Why should a spanner approved in Berlin get a free pass in Britain, but one approved in Boston or Tokyo face extra hurdles? Regulators in the US, Canada, Australia and Japan—allies with rigorous standards—deserve the same respect as EU regulators.
Mr Holden
Is that not particularly the case when it comes to some of our new international trade agreements that have defence implications, such as AUKUS with our Australian and American allies? Why would we want to use a Norway model in which we literally wait for the fax machine to churn out the latest EU regulation?
Alison Griffiths
I thank my right hon. Friend for his wise words. I agree that it makes no sense whatsoever.
A noble Lord in the other place put it well, saying that we should be
“open to the best standards globally”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC56.]
accepting that goods made in high-standard, well-regulated economies like the US, Canada, Australia, Japan and the EU are safe for our markets. In fact, the UK’s own Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency already recognises approvals from such countries to get innovative products to market faster. Why not apply the same principle here, if this is truly about economic liberalism and global free trade from a pro-growth Government?
Why do the Government not support the amendments? By broadening recognition beyond the EU, we would reduce duplication and costs for British businesses that export and import worldwide. We would also bolster our sovereignty by making our own decisions about which international standards serve UK interests, rather than reflexively mirroring Brussels. The Government claim that subsection (7) is merely about “recognition”, not automatic alignment. But recognition should not be exclusive to Europe; it must extend to any standard that meets British safety and quality benchmarks, whether it originates in Brussels, Washington, Canberra or beyond.
Our amendments would ensure equal openness to global standards and end the special status of EU law in the Bill. This is a sensible alternative: a truly global Britain that maintains high standards without tethering itself to EU rules alone. I urge Government colleagues to accept these sensible amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Vaz. I think it is to your advantage that you have not already heard the same arguments on this issue as we heard this morning. I am sorry to say that we are still clearly at cross-purposes about what the Bill does and does not do. There was a ripple of laughter on the Government Benches when the shadow Minister accused us of being fixated with the EU. If we did a word count on how many times it has been mentioned in the debate so far, we would find that the Opposition Members are comfortably ahead.
Justin Madders
I am afraid that is just not correct; that is not how the Bill operates. I can explain again why the EU is referenced: it is because the majority of our product safety regulations derive from the EU. In the debate on the draft Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations last year, it was said:
“Last year, the Government held a series of roundtables to hear views from industry, including representatives from about 200 domestic and 50 international businesses. Industry in the UK and businesses that supply Great Britain from abroad indicated that ending CE recognition and mandating UKCA would cause issues for their businesses. It could increase costs and require duplicative processes, leading to higher prices and less choice for consumers in Great Britain. Some overseas suppliers also reported that they might reduce or stop sales to Great Britain entirely.” —[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 13 May 2024; c. 3.]
Justin Madders
Okay, Ms Vaz. It was also said in that debate:
“We should bear in mind some of the history and the proximity of the UK to EU markets.”—[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 13 May 2024; c. 4.]
Those were not my words, but the words of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who was the Minister at the time. It is clear that we are acting entirely consistently with the previous Government’s position. We recognise that there is a great deal of common history with the EU on product safety regulation, but the Bill gives us the power and the option to do as we see fit on a case-by-case basis. Conservative Members’ obsession with this issue does not reflect the reality of the Bill.
Amendment 20 would broaden the Bill to recognise product requirements in “relevant foreign law”, rather than only EU law. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents us from adopting other jurisdictions’ standards if we so wish, but “relevant foreign law” is very vague drafting. It could mean almost anything, and there is no definition in the Bill, so it is certainly not a provision that we can support. That approach is capable of being taken under the Bill anyway.
Alison Griffiths
The Minister is still not being clear with us about exactly why he objects to broadening the scope of the Bill to include the valuable jurisdictions that I mentioned. Instead, he is constraining the Bill to being about only the EU.
Justin Madders
The answer is that the Bill does not constrain us from doing as the amendment proposes; it is perfectly possible for us to do it anyway. However, the definition of “relevant foreign law” is not set out in the Bill, which would cause us difficulties later on.
Amendment 22 proposes that the UK recognise updated EU law only if we incorporate the updates into our domestic regulations, and that the Secretary of State must make an explanatory statement if recognising EU law under the Bill. As I have mentioned several times, there are a number of opportunities for the Government to set out exactly why we are taking any particular option. The explanation that I quoted from Hansard from last year is a good example of why we might choose to follow the EU, but there will be occasions when we will not. There will be impact assessments and opportunities for debates, and the code of conduct will guide us in that respect. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Alison Griffiths
The Minister talks about impact assessments and so on, but does not the framing of the Bill mean that the current Government and any future Government can ignore any impact assessments and carry on regardless? There is no parliamentary scrutiny and there are no meaningful safeguards.
Justin Madders
That is not correct. There are a number of opportunities for debate under the affirmative procedure, and we have set out in the Bill the triggers that would allow that, so there will be plenty of parliamentary scrutiny. The amendments do not reflect what the Bill actually does and seek to paint it as a project, which it simply is not in reality. I therefore ask that they be withdrawn.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I would like to respond before I divide the Committee on this amendment. I seek your advice, Ms Vaz. The previous group contained amendments 21, 5 and 7, which relate to clause 2, and we may also want to get the Committee’s point of view on them.
The Minister’s reluctance to make this innocuous change to the Bill speaks volumes. I am not the only one who thinks that: the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said in paragraph 4 of its 15th report that it is “deeply concerned” that
“the delegated powers in the Bill give Ministers maximum flexibility to choose the direction that the law in this area will take, including making potentially politically contentious choices about the degree to which our domestic laws on product regulation should be aligned with EU laws”.
By not accepting the amendments, I am afraid the Minister compels me to test the will of the Committee not only on these amendments but on amendments 21, 5 and 7, which we discussed in the previous group.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
Clause 2 clarifies the power given under clause 1, specifically what types of requirement the product regulations may cover. It enables regulations to specify the requirements that products to be marketed or used in the UK must meet. That will ensure that the UK can maintain high levels of product safety and compliance, support economic growth, and remove unsafe or non-compliant goods from the market.
The requirements may cover a range of activities related to products, and the list in clause 2 is not exhaustive. It includes, for example, how a product is marketed, how it is assessed, how it is installed and how it is manufactured and packaged. It also allows regulations to set requirements on the components of products, whether tangible or intangible. In that way, although the Bill relates to physical products, regulations may address the effects of intangible components, such as artificial intelligence software, on the risks that a physical product may present.
In terms of who it affects, the clause allows the regulations to set obligations on manufacturers, persons who market or import the products, online marketplace operators and other actors involved in the product journey. Thus, all actors involved in the product’s lifecycle, and therefore the product’s safety, may be covered by the regulations. Members will be aware of the breadth of product safety regulations already on the statute book. The breadth of clause 2 is necessary to ensure that all aspects of ensuring product safety are adequately covered now and in the future by regulations passed under the Bill.
While the growth of e-commerce models has provided consumers with greater choice and convenience, that cannot be at the expense of consumer protection or undermine compliant businesses. The rapid expansion of e-commerce has also brought significant challenges to regulatory frameworks, which were not designed with increasingly complex online and globalised supply chains in mind. Today, the sale of unsafe products to UK consumers via online marketplaces is a significant problem that has led to serious harm and fatalities. The clause will allow the Government to respond to those modern challenges by explicitly recognising the role of online marketplaces in ensuring that products sold via their sites are safe, while enabling businesses to innovate and grow.
We intend to use the powers in the Bill to clarify the responsibilities of online marketplaces. We will build on best practice to create a proportionate regulatory framework for online marketplaces to prevent non-compliant and unsafe products being made available on their sites, to ensure that sellers operating on their platform comply with product safety obligations, to provide consumers with appropriate information, and to co-operate with regulators, such as by establishing processes to remove unsafe products from the market quickly.
The Government will develop the details of the requirements with consideration of the practical implications and through stakeholder engagement and consultation before they are implemented via secondary legislation. The affirmative procedure will also apply when imposing product requirements for the first time on online marketplaces. This will ensure that the first regulations imposing new obligations on providers and platforms are subject to debate and appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.
As Members will be aware, currently we recognise certain EU product requirements, such as conformité Européenne marking, to support the interests of UK businesses and consumers. The clause will ensure that where the EU makes changes to product requirements, including those we recognise, we are able to recognise those changes where it is in our interest to do so. This would offer businesses the choice to use either the CE or UKCA marking to place a range of products on the GB market, helping them to avoid duplication of costs without compromising on consumer safety. The clause also enables the UK to end recognition of EU requirements where that is in our interests. The UK being able to respond to changes made by the EU to product requirements that we recognise will allow us to give businesses the regulatory clarity they need.
Aphra Brandreth
I thank the Minister for his remarks. If he says that these things will be done if they are in the country’s interest, what is the problem with bringing that back to the House to be debated and agreed? The problem we have, Ms Vaz, is that Ministers are to have discretion to decide what is in the country’s interest, when we think that should be for Parliament to decide.
Justin Madders
I understand the point being made. We have already made it clear that there will be a number of occasions when we bring regulations under the affirmative procedure—for example, when a new power of entry is created; when regulations are disapplied in the case of an emergency; when a criminal offence is created or widened; when information sharing provisions are introduced; when cost recovery procedures are established; where changes are made to primary legislation; when the definition of an online marketplace is amended; when requirements relating to the marking of products and online marketplaces are introduced for the first time; when requirements on persons who control online marketplaces are introduced for the first time, and so on. I suggest that there will be ample opportunity for Parliament to have its say and scrutinise regulations made under the Bill.
Finally, I turn to the technical standards that will be developed or updated. Technical standards set out practical ways in which a requirement may be met, to help manufacturers in meeting their obligations. Currently, they can be used to demonstrate compliance with a particular product requirement, and are often prepared and adopted by recognised bodies such as the British Standards Institution. The reference to standards in clause 2 makes clear that regulations will maintain this practice, and that will therefore help to provide clarity to manufacturers and traders on how to comply with regulatory requirements through the use of these standards.
Alison Griffiths
I ask the Minister to speak slightly slower; I am partially deaf and am really struggling to hear him. I am grateful for his forbearance.
Justin Madders
I apologise—I had not realised. I will try to slow down.
Clause 2 is a vital part of the Bill: it will ensure that the UK has a comprehensive framework for regulating products sold on its markets and provides the flexibility to recognise global standards and maintain the highest safety and quality requirements for consumers and businesses.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
It will not surprise the Committee to hear that, because our very sensible amendments to clause 2 have been rejected, we continue to have significant concerns about it and the extraordinary powers it confers on the Minister. In particular, subsection (7), which we tried to amend, will allow product regulations to provide that a
“product requirement is to be treated as met if—
(a) a requirement of relevant EU law specified in product regulations is met, or
(b) such a requirement is met and conditions specified in the regulations are also met.”
Because of our concerns about those provisions, and because the Committee took the view that it did not want to accept our sensible amendments, I will divide the Committee on clause 2 stand part.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Given that addressing the changes in retail, especially the rise of online marketing, is an important part of the Bill, I feel that the clause is vital, and I will support it. It is slightly sad that colleagues on the Opposition Benches allow their ideology regarding the EU to get in the way of supporting British businesses, which, as we know, want clarity and continuity.
Alison Griffiths
We share the hon. Member’s view that we should all be ambitious for the United Kingdom. There is no ideology on our side. We are simply seeking a global perspective rather than a constrained perspective.
Sarah Gibson
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but I think we all have to recognise the reality of our starting position, which is that an awful lot of our product regulation is currently aligned. We cannot throw that out and start talking about “foreign law”, as if any country that we happen to have a trade deal with will have similar levels of scrutiny of its products.
Aphra Brandreth
The point is that we want to be forward-looking, and our concern is that this provision is very much backward-looking. My hon. Friends have talked about future trading partners and things like the CPTPP—things we might miss out on by being backward-looking. Does the hon. Member agree?
Sarah Gibson
Although I am extremely excited about any future and new trade deals the UK might have across the globe, I am a little worried that we are back to Brexit benefits, which we did not quite see. We have to be realistic: our businesses need continuity and clarity, and I believe that the Bill provides them. It would have been much more useful if we had been able to concentrate on the valid points that Opposition Members made about parliamentary scrutiny, which we could quite clearly support. I will be supporting the clause.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 3, page 4, line 8, leave out subsection (1).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 24, in clause 3, page 4, line 11, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 25, in clause 3, page 4, line 17, leave out subsection (4).
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Clause 3 deals with the enforcement provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 grants sweeping powers to the Secretary of State, and clause 2 defines the types of requirement there may be on products. Clearly, the regulations that the Secretary of State has so much freedom to enact will need to be enforced, but the wording of clause 3 is such that any lawyer—or anyone who believes in our freedom and democracy under the rule of law—would be concerned about it.
Alison Griffiths
I rise to speak to clause 3 and Opposition amendments 23 to 25. Clause 3 deals with the enforcement of product regulations, but as it stands, it embodies a vast Executive overreach that undermines accountability and business confidence. The Opposition believe in clear and limited rules, not vague powers that spook entrepreneurs. Our amendments would inject much-needed clarity and proportionality into clause 3.
First, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire set out, amendment 23 presses for a definition of the so-called “relevant authority”. The Bill hands out new regulatory powers without even specifying who will wield them. Is it to be the Secretary of State, local trading standards officers, a new quango or devolved Administrations? Nobody knows. Businesses deserve to know who might come knocking at their door to enforce these rules. We need clarity about which authority is in charge, so that there is accountability instead of a free-for-all.
Secondly, amendment 24 highlights the Bill’s vague enforcement functions. Clause 3 would empower unnamed authorities to monitor, investigate and secure compliance with wide-ranging product regulations, but it sets no clear limits or guidance. That open-ended mandate could invite over-zealous enforcement. We all support product safety, but regulators must not have a blank cheque to harass businesses. The functions and scope of enforcement need to be defined with precision and targeted at genuinely dangerous non-compliance, not wielded arbitrarily. Trustworthy business owners should not lie awake at night worrying that some inspector will suddenly decide to make an example of them for a minor technical breach.
Thirdly, amendment 25 addresses the sweeping powers of inspectors. As drafted, the Bill will even allow inspectors to enter homes and seize products on the say-so of a Minister’s regulation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) warned in a previous debate that a future Minister, on a whim, could create legions of inspectors with the rights to barge into people’s homes or businesses and to confiscate property. We must ensure that enforcement powers are proportionate to actual risks, and that innocent consumers and traders are protected from unreasonable intrusion.
Aphra Brandreth
I rise to speak in support of amendments 23 to 25 on the enforcement of product regulations. Let me be clear: no one here is arguing against the need for robust enforcement of product safety or regulatory compliance. However, we must consider the broader context.
Clause 3—indeed much of the Bill—is a classic example of what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place has rightly criticised as “skeleton legislation”. The Bill delegates sweeping powers to Ministers to create regulatory frameworks entirely through secondary legislation, with little to no detail included in the Bill itself, yet here in clause 3, we are being asked to give authorities that have not yet been named real and potentially intrusive enforcement powers for regulations that have not yet been written. That should give us all pause for thought.
Subsection (1) allows Ministers to designate anyone as a “relevant authority”, and subsection (3) gives those authorities the power to investigate, monitor and even mitigate non-compliance. We then come to subsection (4), which grants those authorities the ability to appoint inspectors armed with powers to enter premises, seize goods, demand information and even order the destruction of products. These are serious powers. They may well be appropriate in specific, proportionate contexts but the point is that we do not know what those contexts will be because the Bill does not tell us.
How can we, in good conscience, grant enforcement powers for rules that have not been set to people we have not identified in a system that Parliament will have very limited opportunity to scrutinise? This is not a narrow, technical concern; this is a constitutional one. As the DPRRC in the other place said in its report:
“Skeleton legislation signifies an exceptional shift in power from Parliament to the executive”.
This is not something that this House should hand over lightly.
Our amendments do not reject the need for enforcement powers in principle, but as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire said, the wording of clause 3 needs to be clarified. Who are these authorities and what are their functions? In our amendments, we seek clear information, which is vital. There will be significant costs to businesses, so the powers must be clear. We all support product safety, but I urge the Committee to support the amendments and, in doing so, uphold the role of the House in setting the law, not just rubber-stamping it once the details have been decided behind closed doors.
Justin Madders
Amendment 23 would prevent the naming in regulations of “relevant authorities”. That would render enforcement of the Bill impossible, so clearly it is not an amendment that we will accept. Local authority enforcement officers conduct the majority of product safety and metrology enforcement activities, and the Office for Product Safety and Standards is the national regulator. Other regulators are also responsible for enforcement, including the Health and Safety Executive, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the Office of Communications and the Office of Rail and Road. There is an indicative list in the explanatory notes to the Bill and the code of conduct.
We need to be clear in clause 3 because it is important that the authorities are able to enforce in a targeted way when regulations are created. The Bill places sensible and important restrictions on those who may be named as a “relevant authority”. Only those who are fulfilling a public function will be given powers under the Bill. That is set out in subsections (2) and (3).
Dame Harriett Baldwin
If I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that “relevant authority” is strictly limited to the organisations that he has already mentioned.
Justin Madders
If we were to limit ourselves to naming organisations in the Bill, we might not have sufficient flexibility in the future. I am trying to indicate the types of body that we would expect to enforce product safety regulations, as they do already.
Amendment 24 would prevent regulations made under the Bill from creating product regulations and metrology enforcement powers and functions. At present, product legislation provides a patchwork of enforcement powers across numerous pieces of legislation, but that has caused complexities and inconsistencies to emerge over decades. The Bill will enable the Government to introduce powers vital to the enforcement of product regulations and will ensure that enforcement powers can meet changing demands, without the continuous process of layering that caused confusion and complexity in the current framework. There is considerable precedent for the inclusion of enforcement powers in regulations, including the Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011 and the Personal Protective Equipment (Enforcement) Regulations 2018.
Amendment 25 would remove powers relating to investigations, which would prevent relevant authorities from effectively monitoring product compliance. Powers to inspect, investigate and dispose of goods are an essential part of effective enforcement. The purpose of clause 3 is to protect the public and ensure a level playing field for businesses. A crucial element of that is ensuring that it can future-proof enforcement against gaps that may emerge following changes in technology, some of which we have already discussed. Technologies such as 3D printing and AI are likely to have meaningful impacts on the supply chain and business requirements, so removing the ability to make targeted provision for investigatory powers in the Bill would undermine the ability appropriately to regulate products involving new supply chain actors and technologies.
There are provisions in subsection (5) on the requirements for warrants to be issued in certain circumstances, and the Bill also limits the criminal penalties that may be implemented for contraventions of product regulations. The criminal penalties imposed under the Bill may not exceed the existing maxima. This is not a massive expansion of powers; it is simply a consolidation of existing laws that gives us additional flexibility to adjust when new products and marketplaces develop, as we expect them to.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I am not sure that I have heard enough to reassure the Opposition on the subject of who will be a relevant authority, which specific functions will be conferred on that relevant authority and the powers that might be granted to it, so I would like to press the amendments to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 3, page 5, line 16, leave out subsections (9) to (11).
Clause 3 continues to become even more dystopian. In the debate on clause 1, we acknowledged that we have an extremely benign Minister and Secretary of State, and we all acknowledge that products reach the UK marketplace that should not reach our consumers and constituents. However, that does not mean that we should give the Secretary of State with sweeping powers in law to come up with regulations and to have them enforced by some random “relevant authority”. We have heard a list of those authorities, but we know that it is not exhaustive.
Some poor, innocent business might not notice that the product regulations have been changed suddenly, because there was very little overt scrutiny of that change, and they might be left with a warehouse full of some good that was perfectly saleable on the UK market yesterday but is not today. As a result of the provisions in subsections (9) to (11), the relevant authority can send somebody into that business with sweeping powers to enter a premises, to levy fines, to create criminal offences and to send an individual to prison for up to three months. The provisions under subsection (9) to (11) could also go through with minimal legislative scrutiny—it really is not good enough. This is another of the skeleton clauses about which they despaired in the other place.
Subsection (9) specifies that product regulations can create or widen the scope of criminal offences, with prosecution by the relevant authorities—we do not know who they are—subject to the affirmative procedure, and they can confer powers on that same relevant authority to impose civil sanctions, including fines. The poor business that I am describing—one with a warehouse full of goods that suddenly, unbeknownst to that business, can no longer be sold legally in the UK, because a Parliament in Brussels has changed the rules—can find itself subject to confiscation and fines.
Under subsection (11), criminal offences must be
“triable summarily only, or…triable summarily or on indictment”.
The subsection provides for statutory limits on offences, but frankly, they are pretty harsh for someone who has potentially been caught inadvertently with products that no longer meet the standards for the UK market. Of all the shocking things in the Bill, these provisions are the most shocking.
Amendment 26 seeks to ensure that new criminal offences, which would have consequences for our already overburdened Ministry of Justice and criminal justice system, are not created through new product regulations under the Bill. The ability to create new criminal offences is an incredibly significant power; it really should not be passed through secondary legislation, and Government Members should think about what they are doing by supporting clause 3.
The creation of new criminal offences needs to be brought to both Houses and debated through proper parliamentary procedure, so that we can explore who these relevant authorities are as well as the potential inadvertent breaches of product regulation and metrology. Frankly, I think that this is the most shocking part of the legislation that we have seen. It shocked the other place, it has shocked the Opposition, and I think the constituents of Government Members will be shocked that they might agree to these sweeping powers.
Alison Griffiths
Amendment 26 relates to the alarming creation of new criminal offences in clause 3, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire has already set out. Clause 3(9) to (11) would let Ministers create or widen criminal offences and penalties by regulation, bypassing full parliamentary scrutiny. As my hon. Friend has set out, this is an absolute travesty, and it is extraordinary to believe that Government Members will support it.
The clause is an affront to the principle that criminal law is made by the people’s elected representatives in primary legislation, not by Ministers slipping provisions through the regulatory back door. Even the House of Lords Constitution Committee has fiercely criticised the approach, reiterating that using delegated powers to create crimes is “constitutionally unacceptable”. It urges that these subsections should be removed from the Bill entirely. We simply cannot allow a situation where business owners wake up one morning and find that a new statutory instrument has turned some technical regulatory breach into a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment. I urge Government Members to think about the provision.
Mr Holden
Does my hon. Friend agree that Government Members really should think about what they are doing? We remember that decades ago there was a lot of upset among the British public after people started to be prosecuted for selling things by pounds and ounces, rather than kilograms and grams. It is crazy that people could do be prosecuted by regulation and without proper scrutiny from this House, and Government Members will have to explain that to their constituents down the line. This is such a clear thing, and we should really think about it properly.
Alison Griffiths
I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a very serious moment. It might appear to be just a line in a Bill, but it could have far-reaching consequences that are far greater than Government Members are considering at the moment. Parliament must debate and decide such grave matters, not rubber-stamp them after the fact.
Taken together, our amendments champion a pro-business climate. Effective regulation should not mean endless state interference. We can secure compliance in smarter, targeted ways by information sharing and using civil sanctions for minor breaches, rather than unleashing these unbridled powers. I urge Ministers to accept amendment 26 or, at least, to provide iron-clad assurances for the record.
Justin Madders
I am beginning to wonder whether Opposition Members think that “Capricorn One” was a documentary rather than a work of fiction. We are really entering some quite interesting territory about what evil plots this Government have, which of course is not the case at all.
Amendment 26 seeks to remove the ability to create or widen criminal offences, or to implement civil sanctions, through regulations. The harm caused by breaches of regulations can vary considerably depending on the product sector. Consequently, offences and penalties must be tailored to the specific requirements of a given sector and the seriousness of the breach. The consequences of failing to provide the necessary instructions for a product could be entirely different for a highly sensitive component within a nuclear energy installation than for a lower-risk product. Reducing enforcement flexibility to a series of broad, rigid offences would negatively impact relevant authorities’ ability to enforce proportionately. Attempting to draft very broad offences and penalties in the Bill, to capture requirements in a less targeted way, would actually undermine legal clarity and the principles of the rule of law.
There was talk from Opposition Members about how this would all be done through the back door. The affirmative procedure will apply where new offences are created or widened, so there will be no rubber-stamping after the event. There will be parliamentary scrutiny, as one would expect. We have considered the views of the DPRRC, but we have taken this approach in the Bill because it is not, in fact, unique to it. The shadow Minister said that she was shocked when she saw these subsections. I wonder whether she was equally shocked when criminal offences were created in regulations by the Building Safety Act 2022, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 or the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Those all included similar powers to the ones that we are talking about now, but I do not recall Opposition Members expressing shock and dismay at what was happening. Existing product regulations, such as the Cosmetic Products Enforcement Regulations 2013, also contained offences and penalties, further demonstrating that this is not a departure from existing practice.
The Bill has also placed limits on the maximum criminal penalties that may be implemented for contraventions of product regulations. Product regulations made under the Bill will not be able to exceed maximum criminal penalties that reflect the existing maxima. I believe that Opposition Members are making this a far more dramatic issue that it needs to be, and I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Sadly, I have not seen “Capricorn One”. I have already said clearly, on the record, that I have great confidence in the good intentions of the Minister himself and his Secretary of State. However, that is not to say that we should put powers on the statue book that would allow future occupiers of the position to send someone to prison for three months, or to fine them a substantial amount. For those very reasons, I wish to press amendment 26 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
Clause 3 reflects an ambition to streamline and modernise our approach to the enforcement of product regulations to ensure that it is proportionate and effective. We will ensure that the tools available for enforcement are effective so that we may further level the playing field for businesses and provide UK consumers with deepened confidence in their purchasing. Many of the powers contained within existing legislation overlap with one another, which has created a proliferated system that is undermined by its complexity.
The clause will enable the introduction of regulations that consolidate existing enforcement powers. New regulations will implement a set of flexible, proportionate and effective enforcement tools. The new toolkit will continue to cover activities relating to the monitoring, investigation, sanctioning and remediation of non-compliance with product safety regulations. By delivering these changes through regulations, we will be able to flex and adapt to the marketplace quickly. We will be able to ensure that duties can always be enforced, and it is imperative that duties can be enforced without ambiguity.
Through regulations enabled by this clause, we will simplify powers to ensure that they are applicable inland and at the border. We will also ensure that powers are available to enforce duties on all those holding responsibility in the supply chain. Powers should be applicable without unnecessary complexity wherever product regulations require enforcement. Additionally, we intend to augment existing powers carefully with precedented powers such as improvement notices and undertakings, which will provide proportionate routes for resolving non-compliance.
Another power under the clause is one to widen or create criminal offences, as well as introduce civil sanctions for the first time. We have committed to following the affirmative procedure when introducing regulations that seek to use the power to widen or create criminal offences. The power will allow offences to meet the requirements imposed by product regulations. Offences and penalties are already often set out in regulations, so this approach follows precedent.
Finally, the clause will allow the Secretary of State to designate relevant authorities responsible for product regulation enforcement to both ensure flexibility and provide additional clarity. We have included a non-exhaustive list of those relevant authorities in the Bill’s explanatory notes. As I have mentioned, relevant authorities will include those currently enforcing product regulation, such as local authority enforcement teams, the Office for Product Safety and Standards and the Health and Safety Executive. Relevant authorities will have access to the new, consolidated toolkit of enforcement powers that I have described. The clause is necessary for the proper enforcement of the UK’s product safety regime, and I commend it to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Ms Vaz, you will not be surprised to hear that this dystopian picture of unnamed relevant authorities sweeping the land with their powers of seizure, fining and imprisonment is not something that we support, and we therefore oppose clause 3.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Members on this side of the Committee always enjoy our clause 4 moments.
Clause 4 is an essential part of the Bill, and it is informed by the lessons of the covid-19 pandemic. The then Government had to act quickly during that emergency to ensure the supply of critical products such as personal protective equipment. However, the regulatory easement was made under sections 45C, 45F and 45P of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 as no alternative powers were available through the product safety framework.
Clause 4 therefore fills the gap by providing a mechanism to disapply or modify product regulations in a controlled manner for future emergencies, including emergencies that go beyond public health. In practice, the clause will allow the supply and fair distribution of critical goods in short supply during a national emergency, while ensuring greater co-ordination of market surveillance and enforcement activities during these periods.
The Government have also produced a code of conduct on product safety to support the use of powers under the Bill. The code outlines the Government’s proposals for how the emergency powers will work. To summarise a few key points, the code outlines that a derogation will be made available only if there is a serious risk of harm to people, businesses or the environment, and if it is in compliance with the UK’s international obligations. A derogation will be granted only for products deemed critical for the emergency response where demand exceeds supply.
In times of emergency, the Government may temporarily reduce or modify requirements for a 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. For example, in the hypothetical scenario of a national power outage, demand for essential consumer products such as gas stoves, torches or batteries could surge rapidly. If compliant products are in short supply, the Government could use clause 4 to allow UK manufacturers or importers to supply these products, where they meet essential safety standards or other internationally recognised standards, while awaiting UKCA certification.
In such circumstances, the market surveillance authority must also be satisfied that the product still meets acceptable safety standards and can be effectively traced through distribution. This may involve reviewing safety data, in-house test reports or batch numbers and distribution records for traceability.
To be clear, and as Members will expect me to say, the Government will use clause 4 only in emergency situations. Depending on the nature of the emergency, the Government will decide how products can best be fast-tracked on to the market and, where appropriate, implement conditions through secondary legislation for pre-market assessments, consumer protections and time limits. We have also committed to developing a clear framework for how clause 4 will operate in practice, in consultation with stakeholders. This will be developed and delivered through the Office for Product Safety and Standards, and it will be published in due course.
It is also important to highlight that the power is not a carte blanche for bypassing product safety regulation, but rather a targeted response to emergencies. The clause will ensure that, while we speed up the process, essential safety standards are maintained through proportionate measures. Crucially, the exercise of clause 4 will be subject to the draft affirmative legislative procedure, ensuring that any regulatory changes made under the clause are subject to scrutiny by both Houses before coming into force.
In conclusion, clause 4 is a necessary response to ensure that, in future emergencies, the Government can react swiftly to guarantee the supply of critical products while maintaining safety standards. I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
As the Committee reaches its clause 4 moment, Members might be pleased to hear that I will not propose voting against it—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I know: a political conversion. I accept that in exceptional times, and unfortunately we have seen a few of those in recent years, the Government need these emergency powers.
I welcome that, in the other place, Lord Leong published the code of conduct on product safety setting out how the Office for Product Safety and Standards expects the emergency powers to work. Will the Minister clarify whether that will include time limiting the period of emergency? How will we know when the emergency has ended? I believe that some products approved during the pandemic are on the market but still have not had their status clarified since the pandemic ended, as anyone would define it. Will the Minister elaborate a little on the time limits for emergency periods?
While the Minister looks at his officials for inspiration, I acknowledge that the pandemic was clearly an emergency, and we have seen a number of situations that could constitute an emergency. We will be able to tell when an emergency has started because of the steps that the Minister set out, but it would be helpful if he could clarify for the record how he would define the end of an emergency, when the powers will effectively end.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s support. As a shadow Health Minister during the pandemic, I had more than my fair share of emergency legislation, and I think it is fair to say that we have all learned lessons from how that process played out. However, I am afraid that her valiant efforts to play for time have not led to my getting the answer I was seeking. My understanding is that there will be some sort of time limit, but it is safer to say that I will write to her. It is important that we are clear.
The Chair
Thank you, Minister. This is one of the shorter clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Metrology regulations
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 5, page 6, line 8, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment removes the powers granted to the Secretary of State under metrology regulations regarding quantities and units of measurement in marketing goods.
We now come to the metrology part of the Bill. You will be glad to know, Ms Vaz, that as we have Parliament’s first elected metrologist in the hon. Member for Erewash on the Labour Benches, I will constrain myself to making legislative points rather than metrological points.
Subsection (2) is another example of the Bill’s Henry VIII powers. It grants the office of the Secretary of State—although I acknowledge that the current Secretary of State is benign—the power to make provisions on the quantities and units of measurement in marketing goods. People really care about the quantities and units of measurement of the goods they purchase. They are of great importance to consumers. I appreciate that food is not in scope, but when people do their shopping, they look at the units and quantities on the side of the packaging of the goods they buy.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. It is also a great pleasure to serve on this Committee. It is rare that a Member has the opportunity to influence legislation that affects their specific area of professional expertise. As the first elected metrologist, I feel deeply honoured to be debating amendments to this Bill.
Amendment 27 seeks to remove the powers granted to the Secretary of State under metrology regulations regarding quantities and units of measurement in marketing goods, as we have just heard from the hon. Member for West Worcestershire. However, there are many reasons why it is not a good amendment.
During my speech on Second Reading, I discussed both what metrology is—the science of measurement and its application—and its history. I highlight that definition again because the decisions we make today will affect not only our trade relationships, as we have been discussing, but how fundamental science is conducted in both research and practice.
I discussed the history of the Egyptian royal cubit, which was the first unit of measurement, but today I will highlight how metrology is a fundamentally British science, with metrology regulations having formed a notable part of our legislative history. Magna Carta, the document that in many ways represents the birth of our nation—a copy of which sits in the other place—contains the first example of metrological regulation in Britain.
Magna Carta specified, for the first time, rules for the measurement of various commodities, such as wine, ale, corn and cloth, and represented a notable step forward in early British science, placing us very much at the forefront of the international curve of progress. The focus on alcoholic beverages in that document perhaps states something telling about the nature of early Britishness, but metrology’s inclusion in our great charter demonstrates Britain’s early standing as a nation of progress and science.
Britain has always remained at the front of that curve of progress, through the greats of the Victorian era, from Lord Kelvin to Darwin, and right up until today. A little over a century ago, we, the British people, formed the Engineering Standards Committee, later the British Standards Institution. The BSI was formed in 1901 and now operates in 195 countries, with 90 offices across 31 of those countries. The international nature of the BSI is essential to its success. By operating on the global stage, we have maintained our global soft power in the creation of standards and regulations that allow British industry to maintain dominance in fields from life science to advanced manufacturing.
I have had the privilege of serving on several BSI committees, most notably spending eight years of my former career on the technical product realisation committee 1/11, which is responsible for standards verifying X-ray computed tomography systems. That committee feeds into the work of the International Organisation for Standardisation, and specifically of technical committee 213, working group 10—the taskforce for X-ray computed tomography. While standards development is often slow and laborious, the great joy for me of sitting on that committee, and the various others that I contributed to over the years that preceded my election to this House, was the opportunity to work alongside technical experts from across my field representing industry, instrument manufacturers and academia.
I stress the importance of technical experts in these spaces. Standards frameworks work only because of the input of unpaid experts who come together to create a mutually acceptable national and international standards system that allows everything to function. Metrology and standards frameworks should be designed not by politicians and Governments but by technical experts. Indeed, I have spent many hours working on standards designed by non-experts that were often cumbersome, non-functional and, crucially, destined to be forgotten as the useless wastes of paper that they were. There is nothing worse than a bad standard. We need standards to be decided and honed by true experts and to have the broadest possible reach so that we can be as productive and effective as possible in our work.
The Bill, as currently drafted, allows the Secretary of State powers to maintain pace with the decisions of those experts. Amendments such as this one serve only to detach us from the perpetual motion of progress. Opposition Members have argued, wholly falsely, that the Bill defers powers to foreign nations or that it gives too much power to the Secretary of State of the day. The Bill is not about giving powers to foreign nations; it is about ensuring that the UK remains at the bleeding edge of science and regulation.
Alison Griffiths
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s point about expert witnesses. Like the relevant authorities we spoke about earlier, and which also come into clause 6, there is no clear definition of who those experts will be. The hon. Member is taking it on trust that they will indeed be experts.
Adam Thompson
It is important that I describe how standards bodies work. They come together through relationships between experts within an industry, and through mutual recognition of peer-to-peer expertise. That is how standards bodies are formed here and across the world. Inherently, the system that creates those standards bodies forms a trustworthy circle around them. Standards are ultimately optional. If a standard does not work, people can just ignore it. Standards are essentially meritocratic. If they are not good, they do not continue.
Alison Griffiths
I defer to the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of metrology organisations around the world and recognise his expertise. However, from a legislative perspective, the Bill does not rely on metrology experts being the relevant authorities. If metrology experts had been defined as the relevant authorities, I think we would be significantly less concerned. The hon. Gentleman lays out the exact expertise that we would all love to hear. My issue is with the lack of clarity in the Bill.
Adam Thompson
I disagree with the hon. Lady’s point. It is clear that, with this Bill, we are designing frameworks that allow the current system to thrive. I cannot accept the amendment which, like many of the Opposition amendments we have discussed today, serves no purpose.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to hear part 2 of the speech that my hon. Friend made on Second Reading. Does he agree that, contrary to what we have just heard, the clause broadly represents continuity with how legislation has worked in this area? One of the final acts of the last Government was to make the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024 under powers that have now expired. The Health and Safety Executive enforces standards based on regulations introduced relating to metrification between 1981 and 1992. For all the claims of change, what we are looking at here, broadly, is continuity.
Adam Thompson
My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge on this subject, and I completely agree with everything he says.
Sarah Gibson
I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the very complex Fire Safety Act 2021 was brought about following a serious fire caused by people who were supposed to be in charge of scrutinising product safety, but actually lied about it, presenting different products that were not part of the original product and were put together slightly differently. The reliance on experts we do not know about is quite a concern. The points made by my Opposition colleagues are extremely important: who are these experts and what scrutiny are they held to?
Adam Thompson
The hon. Lady makes a good point; it is very important that, in situations such as the one she describes, we maintain the utmost scrutiny. In that situation, however, it was not necessarily a failure of the standards bodies, but of the individual companies that had put forward—
Sarah Gibson
It is indeed the case that the standards bodies failed to check that the products they were being presented with were actually the ones on the certificates they were being asked to approve. So it was a failure of our system.
Adam Thompson
I appreciate that. I take the hon. Lady’s point and will continue, as I am nearly done.
The last point I wished to make was that this amendment, and many of those we have heard today, has no purpose other than to demonstrate that their proposers have broadly failed to maintain the softest grasp of what metrology is, what standard frameworks are for or even why they exist. I hope that the right hon. and hon. Members opposite will consider withdrawing their amendment; otherwise, I implore colleagues to vote against it.
Alison Griffiths
Thank you, Ms Vaz. It has been fascinating to understand more about the science and history of measurement from the hon. Member for Erewash.
I will speak on clause 5, and specifically in support of Opposition amendment 27, which implements a crucial safeguard to prevent regulatory overreach in the sensitive and highly impactful area of metrology. Clause 5 grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers to make regulations about units of measurement and the way that goods must be marketed, weighed or labelled.
Let us be clear: we all agree that accuracy in measurement is important. However, we must also be clear-eyed about the extent of the powers being handed to Ministers under this clause—powers that go far beyond maintaining standards and veer dangerously into heavy-handed interference in markets and consumer choice. The Government want us to believe this is just housekeeping, but let us remember that these powers enable the Secretary of State to change what units are permitted, how goods are packaged and what must be printed on labels, without primary legislation and with minimal scrutiny.
Amendment 27 offers a clear, reasonable boundary by seeking to ensure that any use of those powers is necessary, proportionate and accountable to Parliament. What is the threshold for intervention? Are we comfortable with the idea that, under the current drafting, a future Minister could outlaw certain traditional measurements or enforce rigid labelling regimes with sweeping economic consequences? What is more, businesses are already under pressure. Small producers, corner shops and importers are the people who will be forced to re-label products, change packaging and absorb costs if metrology regulations shift unpredictably.
Without clear safeguards, clause 5 becomes a weapon against small business certainty and economic growth. Amendment 27 would ensure that changes made under the clause are transparent, justified and time-bound, where necessary. We are not anti-regulation; we are pro-accountability. We believe in making rules that support competition, protect consumers and foster innovation, not in granting sweeping authority without oversight.
The Chair
This debate is about amendment 27. There would have been a later opportunity to discuss clause stand part, but I feel that that debate has already taken place, so I will call the Minister to respond now.
Justin Madders
As my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash most elegantly put it, metrology is a long-standing part of our progress as a species and as a country, and it will no doubt play an important part in the future. He talked about the importance of experts. Other Members in the past have said that we have had enough of experts, but this is clearly an area where expert opinion will be very important. Metrology is critical to ensuring the accuracy of measuring instruments and the quantities in which goods are sold. In turn, that will boost consumer confidence and ensure that we have a level playing field. We require the powers in clause 5 to make changes to our metrology regime to protect consumers, ensure accuracy and, critically, support innovation and technological progress.
Amendment 27 would remove subsection (2) from the clause, which would prevent us from updating requirements in the metrology framework to reflect changing consumer behaviour and business markets. For example, UK consumers and businesses spend many billions of pounds each year on goods sold by weight or measure, such as packaged food and drink. Subsection (2) sets out powers to make legislation that ensures the accuracy of quantity marking on such packaged goods.
As one would expect, the weights and measures legislation where those elements are currently prescribed is very technical, setting out the detailed methods of ensuring that quantities are within the permitted margins of error. Without subsection (2), we would be unable to incorporate in legislation any technical advances in quantity measurement, meaning that consumers and businesses could potentially lose out on more accurate ways of measurement in the future. Additionally, the removal of subsection (2) on its own would reduce the overall clarity of the clause, because a redundant reference to subsection (2) would remain in the rest of the clause.
Again, the alarm has been raised about what we are going to do with the Bill. We had the discussion in the other place about how this was somehow a secret plot to abolish the pint. We responded by ensuring that there was very clear protection for the pint in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash stated, making sure that consumers have confidence by ensuring that measures are accurate and up to date is an essential component of us continuing to progress scientifically. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
The Chair
Before I call Dame Harriett, I will ask her to address her remarks to clause 5 more widely.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
With your guidance, Ms Vaz, I will try to combine my remarks on clause 5 and amendment 27.
Again, the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee felt that the power in this clause was too sweeping. The Minister has mentioned that the pint is safe, but the sweeping powers cover pretty much any measurement of
“length, area, volume, capacity, mass, weight, time, temperature or electrical current”,
which the Secretary of State will miraculously be able to make regulations on. Going to the market and buying a quarter of sweets or a pound of flour would fall within the scope of the Secretary of State’s wide and sweeping powers. That is why we have tabled amendment 27 to leave out subsection (2) and why we oppose clause 5 itself, and we would like to probe the Committee’s views on both those elements.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 6, page 6, line 36, leave out subsection (1).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 29, in clause 6, page 7, line 24, leave out subsection (6).
Dame Harriett Baldwin
We now move on to the enforcement powers in terms of the metrology regulations. I draw the Committee’s attention to the point I made on the enforcement regulations to do with the product regulations, because many of the same concerns exist here. In the case of clause 6(6), there is something that I personally think is the most egregious and extraordinary provision in any legislation I have ever seen. I would call it the “something” provision. Clause 6(6) says:
“Provision described in subsection (3)(c) or (d) may include provision conferring power on a relevant authority by notice to require a person to do or cease to do something.”.
Has this House, or this Committee, ever seen something so broadly defined? I am interested to hear whether the Minister is able to define “something”. It astonishes me that we are sitting here looking at legislation that includes provision
“conferring a power on a relevant authority”,
which as we have already heard is not narrowly defined,
“by notice to require a person to do or cease to do something”.
How are we supposed to know what this particular provision is meant to refer to? Amendment 29 would require the Minister to be very clear as to what he means by “something” regarding the powers of the relevant authority in enforcing metrology regulations. That is far too broadly drawn. It is absolutely incomprehensible to the layperson.
Amendment 28 goes back to the points I made in the debate on clause 3 about how we are defining a “relevant authority”. We have heard about the importance of the relevant authority from the hon. Member for Erewash, who spoke extremely well about the range of bodies that could be the relevant authority here—but we do not know, because the legislation is not clearly defined enough. Because we do not know, and because the legislation simply refers to “something”, I am afraid we are nowhere near able to support clause 6, or to withdraw our amendments 28 and 29 to it. The public deserve to know what they might be required
“to do or cease to do.”
The wording is far too broad, I am keen to hear what the Minister thinks.
Justin Madders
I am glad that the shadow Minister is keen to hear from me. I can, I think, explain the power in subsection (6); it refers to subsection (3)(c) and (d), which cover compliance with metrology regulations and mitigating the effect of non-compliance with metrology regulations. This provision is about making sure that those delivering and producing those products are doing so accurately and in compliance with the law. By its nature, subsection (6) has to be broad, but it has to be seen in the context of subsection (3)(c) and (d), which explain the context in which that power would operate.
As the shadow Minister said, the argument here is similar—it is possibly identical—to the one we had earlier about the powers. As I said earlier, enforcement authorities include the Office for Product Safety and Standards, local authority enforcement officers, the Health and Safety Executive, and the Office for Nuclear Regulation. We need to ensure that these bodies can enforce in a targeted way, with the relevant requirements created by these regulations, which set out clearly what those powers do, and they must do so while fulfilling a public function, as set out in clause 6(2) and clause 3(2), which we debated earlier.
Aphra Brandreth
It is still not entirely clear from subsection (3)(c) and (d) what that “something” is. Rather than just referring to those provisions, will the Minister clarify what “something” means, instead of referring it back to the relevant authorities, when we still do not know exactly what they will be required to enforce?
Justin Madders
I refer the hon. Member to clause 5(5), which talks about quantities, goods and units of measurement, which is the broad ambit of the areas where these powers will apply.
Amendment 29 seeks to prevent regulations made under the Bill from creating product regulation and metrology enforcement powers and functions. At present, product legislation provides a patchwork of enforcement powers across numerous pieces of legislation. That has caused complexity over the decades, so we are seeking to introduce new enforcement powers that are able to meet changing demands without the continuous process of layering that we have seen in recent decades, which has caused confusion and added complexity to the current framework.
As I mentioned earlier, there is precedent for including enforcement powers within regulations, including in the Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011 and the Personal Protective Equipment (Enforcement) Regulations 2018. I believe that the issues in this debate are the same as those that we discussed earlier; therefore, I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I will not withdraw my amendment, because I am not sure that I heard reassuring words from the Minister that trading standards officers are not going to sweep through the marketplaces of this land and require people to cease doing something that they would not know, from the Bill as it stands, not to do. I will press amendments 28 and 29 to a Division, and then we will debate other amendments before we debate clause 6 stand part.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 6, page 7, line 27, leave out subsection (7).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 31, in clause 6, page 7, line 42, leave out subsection (9).
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Amendment 30 continues some of the themes around the enforcement powers on product regulation. It leaves out subsection (7), which is on sanctions for non-compliance with metrology regulations. Here again is the amorphous concept of a relevant authority that is empowered by metrology regulations. Subsection (7) talks about the
“obstruction of, or failure to assist or co-operate with, a relevant authority or an inspector;”
and about providing
“false or misleading information to a relevant authority or an inspector.”
With amendment 30, we are seeking clarification on what constitutes non-compliance. Is it if a pub landlord manages to serve someone more than “0.56826125 cubic decimetres”? Any reasonable person would think not, but it appears that with the provisions as they are currently set out under the metrology regulations, that could be considered a case of non-compliance.
By tabling amendment 30, I seek a definition from the Minister of how serious he sees those kinds of infractions as being. Given how busy trading standards can be, how serious an infraction of the metrology regulations would a failure to assist be, as an individual would presumably have exactly the right measuring equipment? I want the Minister to put on record how the extremely severe and onerous provisions in the Bill are to be implemented.
Amendment 31 also seeks to remove subsection (9) from the Bill, which again introduces the idea of criminal offences for underselling or overselling measurements, or for potentially not co-operating with this so-called and widely defined relevant authority. Our concerns about that, as well as about the Henry VIII powers involved, are firmly on the record now, but we want to clarify through amendment 31 the specific offences that might be created or expanded, as well as the civil sanctions that might be imposed.
We want to get the Minister’s sense of how bad it would be if an individual were to slightly overpour a pint. The civil sanctions are very broad and allow the Secretary of State significant powers over our criminal justice system. When new offences are created, it is proper that both Houses have the chance to consider and debate them. We had the same debate on the earlier clause regarding product regulations, and there seem to be the same failures of drafting with the metrology regulations, which is why we have tabled amendments 30 and 31.
Justin Madders
As the shadow Minister said, this debate has a similar theme to earlier ones. It is the case that the harm caused by a breach of regulations will vary tremendously, which is why it is important to have different levels of intervention. This clause actually creates a much broader suite of powers at a lower level for intervention. There will be an ability to require undertakings or civil monetary penalties, and an improvement notice could also be served. At the moment, I do not believe that any of those powers are available in metrology regulations, and it is important that we have many tools at our disposal to ensure that measurements are done accurately.
It would not be helpful or proportionate to spell out every single circumstance in the Bill. We can give an assurance that, where new offences are created or expanded on as a result of the Bill, we have already committed to using the affirmative procedure to ensure that there is parliamentary scrutiny. Of course, many measures in the Bill already exist in various legislative guises, so it is not, in the main, a massive extension of power as is being suggested. I think this is a proportionate and reasonable way to deliver on the Bill’s intentions, and therefore I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I seek the Committee’s decision on the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
Clause 6 reflects an ambition to streamline and modernise our approach to the enforcement of metrology regulations, in the same way that clause 3 seeks to do for the enforcement of product regulations. We will ensure that the tools available for enforcement are effective and proportionate so that we may further level the playing field for businesses and provide UK consumers with deepened confidence in their purchasing. Many of the metrology enforcement powers in existing legislation overlap with one another, which has created a proliferated system that is undermined by its complexity.
As for product regulations, clause 6 will enable the introduction of metrology regulations that consolidate the existing metrology enforcement powers. New regulations will implement a set of flexible, distinct and efficient enforcement tools. That toolkit will continue to cover activities relating to the monitoring, investigation, sanctioning and remediation of non-compliance with metrology regulations. By delivering these changes through regulations, we will be able to flex and adapt to the marketplace—for example, ensuring that duties can always be enforced even when changes are made by regulations. It is imperative to ensure that all duties imposed may be enforced without ambiguity.
We intend to carefully augment existing enforcement powers with precedented powers, such as improvement notices and undertakings, which will provide proportionate routes for resolving non-compliance. Another power under this clause will widen or create criminal offences, as well as civil sanctions. As clause 3 does for product regulations, so the power in clause 6 will allow offences to fit the requirements imposed by metrology regulations. The clause also provides that metrology regulations may provide for the use of civil sanctions, including fines for certain offences. That power will allow offences to proportionately meet the requirements imposed by metrology regulations. Offences and penalties are already often set out in regulations, so the approach follows precedent.
The clause will allow the Secretary of State to designate “relevant authorities” responsible for metrology regulation enforcement. To ensure flexibility but provide additional clarity, we have included a non-exhaustive list of those relevant authorities in the Bill’s explanatory notes. Relevant authorities will have access to the new, consolidated toolkit of enforcement powers that I have described. The clause is necessary for the modernisation and enforcement of the UK’s metrology regime.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
For the same reasons that we opposed clause 3 on enforcement, we would like to divide the Committee on clause 6.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
This clause relates to the collection of data and information that relevant authorities would undertake as part of their usual activities in support of ensuring that products are compliant with product and metrology regulations. Data collection may be instructive or informative for product safety and compliance, or in support of activities in respect of metrology.
The clause seeks for information to be shared with those with a legitimate need for access. That will support the identification of potential product risk and the prevention of serious accidents. Targeted action may then be taken in a more consistent way to prevent the same or similar incidents from recurring.
For example, a relevant authority may collate data and information in relation to electrical products that cause fire or where electric shock has been reported. That relevant authority may be able to provide information or data to another authority as to the frequency of fire incidents or about the use, time or some other relevant circumstance to do with the incident, such as where it has occurred and why.
In that way, a relevant authority, such as the Health and Safety Executive or the Office for Product Safety and Standards, may be able to discern some hitherto unknown physical characteristic or hidden issue that is relevant to a product’s safety or compliance, and recommend a specific course of action. In those circumstances, there is great benefit in the sharing of such information in support of delivering a consistent approach to such products and incidents.
I confirm that personal data is protected specifically by subsection (5), which provides that no metrology or product regulations may be made that require the processing of personal data in a way that would breach data protection legislation. Any information caught by the regulations that identifies an individual is therefore subject to all the same protections it would have in any other context.
I hope that Members can see why it is important that we are able to share data in that way. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
We have not tabled any amendments to clause 7. My earlier point about the vague wording of “relevant authority” also applies to this clause, but the Minister has set out why information sharing under these provisions is necessary. We can see the rationale for that, so we do not intend to oppose or seek to amend the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Cost recovery
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clause 8 will allow enforcement authorities to recover compliance and enforcement costs. As we know, enforcement can come with significant costs, which are currently borne by the relevant authority taking the action unless costs are awarded by the courts.
The clause will enable regulations to be made to provide for the recovery of costs incurred by a relevant authority’s enforcement activities. The regulations may set out a wide range of provisions, including who will be liable for costs, under which circumstances they will be liable, the amount of the fee, how and to whom it is payable, and the possibility of appeal.
The Consumer Protection Act 1987 makes it clear that the court may award costs to an enforcement authority on conviction for an offence in relation to the contravention of any safety requirements or under a forfeiture order. The clause will allow regulations to replicate that, but it also allows regulations to provide relevant authorities with the power to impose costs themselves.
As we know, cost recovery powers are not new and are used by other regulators, such as the Health and Safety Executive, that employ a fee-for-intervention approach. However, we recognise that Parliament may be particularly interested in the impact of the proposed new powers, and we have therefore ensured that any new regulations made under the clause will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Again, I think we are in relevant authority territory here. We are talking about imposing fees in respect of any costs, and there are certainly some issues to note for the record. On the collection and recovery of payments, I spoke strongly earlier about fines and the interest payable on outstanding payments and so on. Those are material issues that could result in some very serious situations. Nevertheless, we have not chosen to table any amendments to the clause, mainly because the point about relevant authorities was covered earlier in the Committee’s proceedings, and we do not intend to oppose it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Application to existing product and metrology provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clause 9 is necessary to give full effect to the intent of the Bill. As Members will know, one of the central needs for the powers in the Bill is to keep our huge range of product regulations updated. That can extend from small changes to regulations to reflect new ingredients or components in a product, to more substantial changes to respond to new threats. The clause ensures that the powers in the Bill can be used to amend existing product regulations, if those regulations could have been made under the powers in clauses 1 and 5. Such regulations will be subject to the usual statutory instrument procedures, either affirmative or negative depending on which provisions of the Bill are invoked. Some of the regulations extend to many pages, covering a whole host of a factors that go into a product and the risk that it presents.
Without the clause, key parts of the powers—such as those to do with enforcement, standards, information sharing and cost recovery—could be used only on a revoke and replace basis. I do not think it would be a good use of parliamentary time to have to revoke and replace entire sets of regulations simply to make one change to a particular provision—not to mention the uncertainty that it may cause business. The clause is therefore technical, but it is a key provision in the Bill. It helps to deliver one of the Bill’s central aims: to allow us to keep our product regulations updated. I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Clause 9 is one of the clauses that their lordships were particularly concerned about, because of its sweeping Henry VIII powers. Although I have not tabled any amendments to it, I reiterate the point that I made about relevant authorities, and I think it is only right that we test the Committee’s opinion on the clause.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 10, page 10, line 24, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment would prevent regulations under this Act from amending provisions made by primary legislation.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 11, in clause 10, page 10, line 29, leave out subsection (4).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 10.
Amendment 8, in clause 12, page 12, line 6, leave out from “Act” to “may” in line 7.
This amendment would make all regulations under this act subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
Amendment 9, in clause 12, page 12, line 10, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 8.
Amendment 12, clause 12, page 12, line 26, at end insert—
“(6A) Regulations under this Act may not amend or repeal provision made by or under an Act passed—
(a) before this Act, or
(b) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 10.
Amendment 13, in clause 12, page 12, line 26, at end insert—
“(6A) Regulations that amend or replace primary legislation must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
(6B) 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.
(6C) 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.”
This amendment requires that any regulations made under the Act that amend or replace primary legislation be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Once again, the amendments would remove Henry VIII powers and make regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 10 relates to the amendment or repealing, in consequence of the Bill, of provisions made by the Gun Barrel Proof Acts 1868 to 1978. We want to prevent regulations made under the Bill from amending provisions made by primary legislation.
Amendment 11 would leave out subsection (4), which provides:
“Regulations under this Act may, in consequence of any amendment or repeal made by or under subsections (1), (2) or (3), amend or repeal provision made by or under an Act passed—
(a) before this Act, or
(b) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act.”
It is incredibly wide-ranging, as I am sure you can see, Ms Vaz. Again, the amendment would prevent regulations from amending provisions made by primary legislation.
Amendment 8 would amend clause 12 on regulations to remove a swathe of additional information in subsection (3), and amendment 9 would leave out subsections (4) and (5) of the same clause, again for the reason that the Bill will provide sweeping powers to widen the scope of criminal offences and all those other things that we have made the case are unsatisfactory under our constitution. Amendment 12 would also prevent regulations made under the Bill from amending provisions made by primary legislation. We think that amendment 13, which would insert various provisions into clause 12, is also extremely reasonable.
What we have tried to do with the amendments is come up with a range of sensible limitations to the Henry VIII powers that so concerned the other place, and that would concern any reasonable person—I think of the power to create the scope of a criminal offence and so on. Through the amendments, we seek genuinely to amend the scope of clauses 10 and 12.
Sarah Gibson
The Liberal Democrats are supportive of the amendments, specifically amendments 8 and 9, which would take the remaining regulations subject to the negative procedure and make them subject to the affirmative procedure. These powers raise serious constitutional concerns. They risk undermining Parliament’s role and shifting too much authority to the Executive. Such powers should be tightly constrained and used only when genuinely essential and accompanied by robust safeguards, including clear limits on the scope of the mandatory scrutiny procedure. We must be vigilant: laws passed by Parliament should not be easily rewritten by Ministers behind closed doors without full debate or democratic accountability. We are therefore supportive of the amendments, and I urge the Government to realise them.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the hon. Members for West Worcestershire and for Chippenham for the measured way in which they have put forward their concerns, which take us back to where we started this morning. One of the central debates about the Bill concerns the level and balance of the powers in it, and ensuring that the right level of scrutiny is applied to regulations made under it. I believe that we have demonstrated through our actions in the other place that that balance has changed, and that we have struck the right note.
Amendments 8 and 9 would make all regulations made under the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure. As introduced, the Bill required new regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure in a range of important areas, such as emergency powers and the creation of a criminal offence. However, having heard some of the concerns mentioned in the other place, we went further and amended the Bill so that the affirmative procedure would be applied to more areas, including when we impose product requirements on a new category of economic actor for the first time. We believe that that strikes the right balance between the need for scrutiny, appropriate use of parliamentary time, and the flexibility needed to keep our product and metrology regulations up to date. I will not remind Members of the quotes I gave from Ministers in the previous Administration who made similar points.
Amendments 10 to 13 are concerned with how the Bill may amend or repeal existing primary or secondary legislation. I understand the concerns about Henry VIII powers, but we heard the concerns and points expressed by peers and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and have removed almost all the Henry VIII powers from the Bill.
Alison Griffiths
Does the Minister not agree, though, that amendments 10 and 11 are morally necessary to uphold the role of Parliament as the supreme legislative authority in the United Kingdom?
Justin Madders
I am not sure whether I would say they are morally necessary. It is quite normal for there to be some Henry VIII powers in most legislation, and I will now explain why that is not something that we need to trouble ourselves with too much in relation to the Gun Barrel Proof Act 1868, which I am sure all Members have familiarised themselves with. That is, as I have already demonstrated by reading its title, a very old and highly technical piece of legislation. It covers the parameters of the process of approving a firearm, including the archaic governance elements of the Birmingham proof house. It was passed in 1868, when there was a thriving Birmingham gun trade, which I presume no longer exists. To give Members some indication of—
Justin Madders
Do we have a guardian of the Birmingham proof house in our midst?
Laurence Turner
I rise merely to confirm that the trade does indeed continue, and that one of the two remaining proof houses is in the Digbeth area of Birmingham.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. Indeed, I understand that that is now the premier proof house in the country, but some of the provisions in the 1868 Act show why we think these Henry VIII powers are appropriate. For example, sections 56, 65 and 66 set out that the Birmingham proof house must meet on Thursdays and that its annual general meeting must be held on the last Tuesday of April. I really do not think that parliamentary time needs to be expended on updating those particular rules.
The last Gun Barrel Proof Act was passed in 1978, when I believe some members of the Committee were not even born. That shows that this is not something that is at the cutting edge of our thoughts, although it does need modernising. It will be subject to the affirmative procedure and will also be subject to consultation with relevant stakeholders.
Amendment 11 would remove the power in the Bill to make amendments to legislation in consequence of the amending or repealing of the Acts specified in clause 10. That is a limited power that enables us to tidy up the statute book by ensuring that any cross-references to those Acts are updated as needed.
Amendment 12 would prevent any regulations made under the Bill from amending any primary or secondary legislation passed under other Acts. That goes to the core purpose of the Bill: to enable us to keep our product and metrology legal framework up to date and effectively protect consumers and support businesses. The power to make consequential amendments is a standard approach to legislation. We need to ensure that new regulations do not duplicate or overlap with existing legislation in a confusing way. That is vital for providing consumers and businesses with clarity.
Amendment 13 would make all regulations under the Bill that amend primary legislation subject to the affirmative procedure. It would also impose a mandatory six-week consultation period and require the Secretary of State to publish a detailed statement in advance of regulating. As I have stated, the Bill already requires the affirmative procedure for regulations amending primary legislation, as set out in clause 12(4)(g). In any such debate, the Government would of course set out why they are regulating, and in the other place we introduced an appropriate consultation requirement and additional triggers for the affirmative procedure.
Some of the provisions currently in primary legislation, such as the detailed requirements relating to gun-barrel proofing or the margin tolerances for packaged goods, are very technical. Our approach has therefore been to apply the affirmative procedure to regulations likely to be of particular interest to Parliament, such as the creation or widening of criminal offences or new powers of entry.
The powers in the Bill are crucial to ensuring that our product regulation framework is agile, up to date and able to effectively protect consumers and businesses. We have taken great care and have listened to concerns, and we now have the right balance between taking powers to enabling us to meet the objectives of the Bill and ensuring parliamentary scrutiny for the exercise of those powers. I appreciate that Opposition Members may not agree, but that is the nature of debate. I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
What a welcome moment, Ms Vaz—my colleague from the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Chippenham, supports the rationale behind the amendments. The swelling in support for our amendments gives me a welcome opportunity to test the opinion of the Committee on each of them.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
On a point of order, Ms Vaz. I seek clarification: are not the remaining amendments in the group to clause 12?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
So we will not be taking decisions on them now, but I would like to reserve the right to ask the Committee’s opinion later.
The Chair
Absolutely. We will do that.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
We have already had a substantial debate on clause 10 as a result of the shadow Minister’s amendments, so I will be brief. The clause repeals specified provisions within the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Weights and Measures Act 1985 that may be rendered unnecessary or duplicative by regulations made under the Bill. It also allows regulations to amend the repeal of the Gun Barrel Proof Acts, which we have debated extensively.
The Bill, as introduced, sought Henry VIII powers for the repeal of the Consumer Protection Act and the Weights and Measures Act, as well as for the Consumer Rights Act 2015, but we listened to concerns expressed about those powers and have amended the Bill to eliminate most of them. Instead, we are repealing only the necessary specific provisions in existing measures that are no longer needed on the face of legislation. Commencement orders will be used to repeal those provisions at the right time, through regulations made under the Bill, to remove duplication in the statute book or to provide for regulatory continuity.
The single Henry VIII power that remains in the clause allows us to update the Gun Barrel Proof Acts 1868 and 1978. As I have explained, it is a very focused power to deal with the highly technical Gun Barrel Proof Acts. Subsections (3) and (4) of clause 12 ensure that any regulations that amend or repeal the Gun Barrel Proof Acts will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so the House will have the opportunity to express its opinion. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield will make himself available for any such debates. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Given that the Minister just admitted that the Government had to amend the clause in the other place because of its extensive Henry VIII powers, and that some remain in the clause, we would like to divide the Committee.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clause 11 sets out the interpretation of key terms used throughout the Bill. Although many terms within the clause are commonplace, the definitions are set out so that the legislation is interpreted as intended, which is critical to the effectiveness of the Bill’s powers, as many of the terms are referenced throughout. It includes a definition of an “online marketplace”, which captures the range of different marketplace business models. We have already debated how that may well change in the future. Online marketplace sales are rapidly growing as a proportion of retail sales, reaching £29.3 billion in 2022, with an estimated growth of 70% between 2019 and 2024. It is therefore vital that product safety legislation captures online marketplaces as key supply chain actors.
We expect supply chains and e-commerce to continue to evolve, with the way in which UK consumers purchase products continually changing in ways that we may not be fully able to predict. Even within the past few years, we have seen new entrants and evolving business models of online marketplaces emerge. For example, since Temu launched in the UK in April 2023, it has amassed more than 11 million UK visitors per month. TikTok Shop launched in the UK in 2021 for businesses to sell products directly from social media videos. B&Q launched its online marketplace in March 2022, with a focus on selling via verified sellers. The proliferation of models is increasing.
It is vital that product safety regulation can keep pace with future changes. Clause 11 provides the power to amend the definition of an online marketplace, which enables the provision to be updated to include any future business models and types of online marketplace that might not be captured within the current definition. The use of the power will be subject to the affirmative procedure because amending the definition of an online marketplace in the Bill through secondary legislation is an important delegated power.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
On the surface, clause 11 looks like just an interpretation clause, but there is one provision about which I would like a little elaboration from the Minister. An online marketplace is defined as
“a service or feature of a service on…a website or part of a website…a mobile application, or…any other platform by means of which information is made available over the internet, which facilitates the marketing of products in the United Kingdom”.
That seems entirely reasonable. The Minister set out some of the new ways in which consumers in the UK are able to buy products here.
Under subsection (2), however, suddenly the Secretary of State
“may by regulations amend this section for the purposes of altering the definition of ‘online marketplace’”.
That strikes me as very strange. Exactly why is subsection (2) in the clause? Suddenly changing the definition of an online marketplace seems like a very wide, Henry VIII-type power. I see that the Minister is receiving inspiration for the answer to my question. I ask him to reply, and then we will decide whether we will press the clause to a Division.
Justin Madders
Inspiration comes in many forms. This is a rapidly evolving way of retailing, so we have discussed it with officials quite extensively. We are seeking to ensure that we are future-proofed for new business models. As I said, there are ways of selling items that I did not know existed until very recently. We want to make sure that, through subsection (2), we have the ability to update regulations when those new models emerge and do not tie ourselves in too much. I agree that definition (c) could cover everything, but we simply cannot predict how things will evolve in the future. It is important to clarify that any extensions to the definition of “online marketplace” will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which I hope gives the shadow Minister assurance that there will be an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Will the Minister be kind enough to point out where that use of the affirmative procedure is set out in legislation?
Justin Madders
I will write to the hon. Lady, but that is definitely my understanding. It is certainly in the code of conduct, but we will make sure that we get that clarified for her.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Ms Vaz, you heard it. For the record, I think I heard the Minister say that it is set out in the code of conduct, which I think means that extensions to the definition would be subject to the affirmative procedure and a consultation. I am hesitant to allow the clause to become legislation without those assurances.
Justin Madders
We will seek to give the shadow Minister assurances. If she is not assured, she can table an amendment on Report.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Regulations
Amendment proposed: 8, in clause 12, page 12, line 6, leave out from “Act” to “may” in line 7.—(Dame Harriett Baldwin.)
This amendment would make all regulations under this act subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 12, page 12, line 20, leave out “7 to 10” and insert “7, 8 and 10”.
This amendment corrects a cross-referencing error.
Government amendment 1 is a technical amendment to the drafting of the Bill, so I will not take up much of the Committee’s time speaking to it, but simply explain why it is needed. It makes a drafting change to clause 12(4), which lists the regulation-making clauses in the Bill that are subject to the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments. The current drafting includes clause 9 in that list. That is an unintended consequence of a previous amendment inserting clause 9 into the Bill. Unlike the other types of provision specified in clause 12, clause 9 does not confer a power to make a particular type of substantive provision. It specifies that regulations can amend existing provisions, as distinct from making fresh regulations. Government amendment 1 removes that unintended impact by removing the references to clause 9.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Forgive me, Ms Vaz; it is getting quite late in the afternoon. The Minister’s amendment to line 20 of clause 12 leaves out “7 to 10” and inserts “7, 8 and 10”. Could I clarify what the “9” is a reference to? In which clause is the “9” referenced? I am not following it, because clause 12 seems to have seven subsections.
Justin Madders
I do not have an answer to that at the moment. My understanding is that this is effectively a change in the numbering rather than anything more substantive. It is an erroneous reference, which we tried to bottom out in discussions, but there is nothing dodgy going on here.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I am grateful that the Minister is as confused as I am by this; I thought it was just the lateness in the day. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to write to me to point out where the erroneous “9” exists.
Justin Madders
I am happy to do that, and I am sure that we will all be enlightened as a result.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 12, page 12, line 21, at end insert—
“(i) provision described in section [Product recall].”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 12—Product recall—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make regulations on product recall processes.
(2) The regulations must include provision to ensure—
(a) the creation and maintenance of a publicly accessible, government-hosted online database of all active product recalls affecting the UK market;
(b) clear obligations on manufacturers, importers, and distributors to notify the appropriate enforcement authority and upload recall notices to the database promptly upon identification of a safety risk;
(c) that recall notices include details of the affected product, risks identified, corrective action to be taken, and information on how consumers can claim a refund, replacement, or repair; and
(d) minimum standards for direct communication to affected consumers, including by email, SMS, or postal notice where reasonably practicable.
(3) The regulations must establish consumer rights entitling individuals to—
(a) a full refund, suitable replacement, or repair of a recalled product within a reasonable timeframe;
(b) access to support and guidance through the recall process, including where a product is no longer in production.
(4) The Secretary of State must consult with consumer protection organisations, trading standards bodies, manufacturers, and other relevant stakeholders before making regulations under this section.”
This new clause would ensure that a centralised Product Recall Mechanism is established to protect consumers.
Sarah Gibson
Amendment 35 is a technical amendment that introduces a provision for product recall, which is set out in new clause 12. The new clause would establish a robust and centralised product recall system that truly protects consumers when safety risks arise. The current product recall landscape is fragmented, inconsistent and difficult to navigate, and the new clause is an attempt to fix that.
The new clause requires the Secretary of State to introduce regulations within six months of passing the Bill to strengthen and standardise product recall processes across the UK market. The product regulations must include several key elements, including the creation of a publicly accessible, Government-hosted online database listing all active product recalls in the UK. This is about visibility—people need a single, reliable source to check whether a product that they have bought is affected. The proposal sets out clear duties on manufacturers, importers and distributors to promptly notify the relevant authorities and to upload recall information as soon as the safety risk is identified.
The new clause also includes details of mandatory content for recall notices, including details of the affected product, identified risks, corrective actions and how consumers can access a refund, repair or replacement. It would also establish minimum standards for direct communication with affected consumers, which may be by email, SMS or post. The importance is that people are actively alerted and not left to find out on their own.
Importantly, the new clause also guarantees consumer rights during a recall, including a right to a refund, replacement or repair within a reasonable timeframe, as well as access to support and guidance, even in cases when the product is no longer being manufactured. Finally, the clause requires consultation with key stakeholders, consumer groups, trading standards and industry before the regulations are made. This ensures that the system is practicable, enforceable and effective.
New clause 12 is about building a centralised and transparent recall mechanism, which is long overdue. Unsafe products must be removed from circulation swiftly, and consumers must be able to take action easily and confidently. The existing system is not working and it is not always easy for people to know which products have been recalled. The new clause seeks to address that issue. I urge the Committee to support it.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Lady puts some extremely important and valuable questions to the Committee. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chippenham, for raising this important issue. The amendment is consequential on new clause 12, on product recalls. It is important to state first that the Government are reviewing product recalls, as well as the full range of existing enforcement powers available for product safety and metrology, as part of our work on developing new enforcement regulations under the Bill, so the hon. Lady’s concerns are certainly ones we are aware of. Elements of the developing proposals will be included in the broader consultation document that the Government have agreed to publish on Royal Assent.
Furthermore, consumers are already able to make a claim for a refund, repair or replacement under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and other routes for redress include the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. Supply chain actors are already under an obligation to report products that pose a risk to the relevant enforcement authority, as identified in legislation under the General Product Safety Regulation 2005 and sector-specific product regulations. Additionally, a publicly accessible, Government-hosted online database of product recalls—the “Product Safety Alerts, Reports and Recalls” database—is on gov.uk.
The exact requirements and capabilities of recall notices will be considered within the wider review of enforcement powers under the Bill. Part of that review will consist of extensive engagement with stakeholders. Placing a six-month time restriction on that—as suggested by the amendment—would therefore only restrict the amount of engagement possible. We do not believe that new clause 12 is needed, so the amendment that seeks to apply the affirmative procedure to regulations made under the new clause is also unnecessary. I hope that the hon. Member for Chippenham is assured that we take the matter seriously and will act on it when the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Sarah Gibson
With that in mind, I will be happy to withdraw the amendment and therefore new clause 12, but as soon as Royal Assent is received, I will remind the Minister of exactly what he has said today. I will bring the subject up again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 13, in clause 12, page 12, line 26, at end insert—
“(6A) Regulations that amend or replace primary legislation must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
(6B) 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.
(6C) 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.” —(Dame Harriett Baldwin.)
This amendment requires that any regulations made under the Act that amend or replace primary legislation be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
Clause 12 is a standard clause that may be familiar to Members. It has two main functions: first, it sets out some general areas that regulations made under the Bill’s delegated powers may provide for—I note, importantly, that that is a “may”, not a “must”; and secondly, it sets out which parliamentary procedure the regulations made under the Bill must follow.
On the clause’s first role, the preceding clauses contain important delegated powers—which we have already debated—and each of those clauses includes some further detail on what can be achieved by regulations made under the relevant powers. It is therefore beneficial to have a general provision in clause 12 to provide some legal certainty over the implications of the regulations made under those powers.
Paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (2) are standard provisions that broadly make it clear that the powers can be used to differentiate for different scenarios and to provide detail about how or when things may or must be done. On paragraph (f), I note that legislation does not bind the Crown unless express provision is made in this respect. The Bill does not itself do that; however, it does allow scope for such consideration to be made in future regulations, should that need to be done.
Paragraph (g) enables the powers to be used to make transitional, consequential and saving provisions, which may be used to mitigate unfairness or provide legal certainty—for example, to deal with manufacturing or conformity-assessment processes that started before a change in the law, or where there are remaining overlaps or inconsistencies with existing provisions that need to be amended.
On the clause’s second function, we have sought to ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny over the use of the Bill’s delegated powers. Since the Bill was introduced in the other place, it has been improved to address concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and by peers during debate. In particular, we have broadened the use of the affirmative procedure for future regulations made under the Bill’s powers, to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny.
Subsection (4) expressly specifies a list of certain types of provision that may be made under the Bill. Regulations made under the Bill that include any of these types of provision will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. That means the draft affirmative procedure will be required for any regulations made under the Bill that provide for the power to enter, inspect and search premises in connection with enforcement of both product and metrology regulations, as provided for by clauses 3 and 6; for arrangements for emergencies, as provided for by clause 4; for the creation of, or widening the scope of, a criminal offence, as provided for by clauses 3 and 6; for any provision made in relation to clauses 7, 8 and 10, which concern information sharing, cost recovery and the amendment of specific items of primary legislation; and for changes connected with amending the Bill’s definition of an online marketplace.
Let me address concerns raised in the other place. The Bill now requires statutory instruments to be laid using the affirmative procedure in additional areas: where requirements relating to the marketing of products on online marketplaces are introduced for the first time; where requirements on persons who control online marketplaces, or on persons who act as their intermediaries, are introduced for the first time; and where requirements on new categories of person under clause 2(3)(e) are introduced for the first time. I confirm that the clause provides that anything not specified as subject to the draft affirmative procedure will be subject to the made negative procedure.
Alongside those changes to parliamentary procedure, the clause has also been amended to include a consultation requirement, thereby reaffirming our commitment to working constructively with interested parties before making any future regulations. I know we have discussed these issues at length, but I hope I have shown that we have taken a proportionate approach, striking the right balance to enable us to deliver the aims of the Bill while providing appropriate parliamentary oversight. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
It is appropriate for me to put on the record how grateful we are for the scrutiny that the Bill received in the other place. We have just heard from the Minister how many changes had to be made because of the concerns raised by the Committee in the other place, which I have quoted extensively in today’s debates. We have covered a lot of ground in terms of concerns about individual clauses, and the Minister has helpfully set out the specific items that are subject to the affirmative as opposed to the negative procedure. Given that we have gone over this ground extensively during the debates on the other clauses, I shall leave it there.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Extent
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 14 stand part.
Government amendment 2.
Clause 15 stand part.
Justin Madders
Government amendment 2 is a necessary technical amendment to correct an amendment that was inserted in the other place on Third Reading, to ensure that the powers in the Bill can be used effectively, such as by introducing cost-recovery provisions in accordance with clause 8. Without getting too technical, I understand that this is something to do with financial privilege.
Clause 13 details the territorial extent of the Bill. As we know, the Bill’s provisions extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Bill’s extent means we can introduce regulations that reflect the realities of the UK market—that is, businesses and consumers can buy and trade most products in all parts of the UK. Having regulations that help to protect consumers and provide clarity and certainty for businesses about their obligations is an important part of maintaining a well-functioning UK market.
The Government have been clear in their intention to ensure that the devolution settlements are respected in both principle and practice. Indeed, we have tabled a new clause that will place a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the devolved Governments where regulations contain provision within their devolved competence. We will probably debate that on another day.
Clause 14 is, I hope, a non-controversial clause. It details that the Bill will come into force with immediate effect on the day on which the Bill is passed, with the exception of section 10(1) and (3), which will be commenced by regulations at a later date. This is typical for Bills that contain delegated powers. For this Bill, it will allow the UK to start making proactive choices about product regulation through laying statutory instruments soon after Royal Assent.
The Government intend to take action to modernise and clarify requirements for online marketplaces. That will improve the safety of products sold on their platforms to UK consumers. The Bill’s immediate entry into force will also allow the UK to proactively choose how to respond to the upcoming changes to EU laws that we currently recognise—it has been a while since we mentioned the EU, but I am glad we got another reference in. This will provide industry with regulatory stability and certainty, and support economic growth.
Finally, clause 15 is a non-controversial clause that sets out the Bill’s short title. It provides a more convenient name for the Bill. This is in addition to, and does not replace, the long title. I therefore commend amendment 2 and clauses 13 to 15 to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I think the Committee may well return to some of these themes at a later stage of our deliberations. Clause 13 concerns the UK internal market, which is an important topic that deserves considerable further scrutiny and debate. Clauses 14 and 15 essentially clarify when the commencement will be for the various clauses. It would be more sensible if I were to devote my time to a discussion of some of the new clauses that we have tabled, which will come later in the Committee’s deliberations.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Short title
Amendment made: 2, in clause 15, page 12, line 37, leave out subsection (2).—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment would remove the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.
Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting)
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
We were discussing clause 36 and I was attempting to reassure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, that his concerns were unfounded. We were discussing fees charged by particular public bodies for providing services associated with Transport and Works Act 1992 orders.
As I made clear, the power is subject to delegated procedures, ensuring that it is flexible enough to account for any changes in the provision of services in the future. I reassure the shadow Minister that the power allows for the charging of fees for services only on a cost-recovery basis. The regulations will set out any required safeguards, just as there are safeguards in place in regulations that relate to the charging of fees by authorities on nationally significant infrastructure project cases, for example. Subsection (4) makes it clear that applicants will be required to have regard to guidance that will provide detail.
The shadow Minister asked me about two specific points. On appeals, there is no set appeals process for the fees charging system, other than the ultimate recourse to judicial review on the basis that the fees charged to do not comply with the forthcoming regulations or are irrational. On small businesses, I recognise that there is potential constraint as some applicants for Transport and Works Act orders may be smaller businesses, such as heritage railway operators, and it may be harder for them to absorb costs, but I reiterate my previous point that the delays in the system that we currently experience are not cost free. We feel strongly that the benefits of the change proposed by clause 36 outweigh the disadvantages of extra costs, even for smaller applicants. On that basis, I hope the shadow Minister is reassured and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Disapplication of heritage regimes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
The purpose of clause 37 is to remove the need for Transport and Works Act order applicants to apply to multiple consenting authorities for separate authorisation requirements under relevant heritage regimes in England and Wales, such as listed buildings and scheduled monument consents. Instead, the clause provides for the consolidation of the application process for certain heritage authorisations, so that they can be obtained through the Transport and Works Act itself. I must make clear that it is for applicants to determine whether they want to proceed on the basis of existing arrangements, namely consulting multiple consenting authorities, or whether they want to obtain those consents through the Transport and Works Act itself, in which instance the Secretary of State for Transport would need to confirm that that could be undertaken via that route. The consents would be obtained as part of the TWA order process and the decision-making process that pertains to it.
In making this change, as with other changes that we have made in this part of the Bill, we would bring the Transport and Works Act order process in line with the Planning Act 2008, which provides a one-stop shop development consent order process for major infrastructure. To ensure proper oversight is maintained throughout the amended process, applicants will still need to consult the relevant consenting authorities before applying. I commend this clause to the Committee.
Schedule 2 amends the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 and the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as a result of the changes made by clause 37 of the Bill. As I have just set out, clause 37 enables an order under the Transport and Works Act to obtain certain consents through the Act itself, rather than requiring separate applications to each relevant consenting authority. Schedule 2 disapplies offences that would otherwise arise from proceeding without those consents or authorisations. The inclusion of this power is a prudent, practical and reasonable step to take to ensure the most efficient legal framework moving forward. I commend the schedule to the Committee.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. The Opposition broadly understand the direction of travel that the Minister has set out and the principles underlying it are clearly quite sensible.
Will the Minister give us a degree of assurance, particularly about the process for determining the circumstances in which the authorities that are listed and the circumstances that are listed may be set aside? That is significant because significant infrastructure developments are often close to heritage railway buildings and historic sites where there will be a legitimate expectation from both local authorities and residents that a proper consultation will be undertaken.
We know that, in the past, the effect of that regime has been that in many cases developers, in places such as Royal Quay in my own constituency in Harefield, have chosen to put historic buildings back into use for a new purpose. For example, formerly industrial buildings connected with Victorian transport networks could be used for residential development, rather than simply demolishing and clearing the sites and losing that heritage asset in the process.
It would be helpful to understand how we will ensure, through the regime as set out, that those considerations are fully taken into account. I appreciate that we will debate the green belt later on, but there is significant interaction in the Bill between the different types of regime that apply, and we have already had much debate about the green belt and the grey belt.
I am aware that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government yesterday issued a decision with respect to a site just north of London, and the effect of her determination is that any land on a transport corridor located between, for example, a motorway and a village, even if it is currently in the green belt, will be considered to be grey belt for the purposes of developability. That will clearly have a significant impact in similar situations in locations with a significant heritage element that are close to railways, motorways and other such transport networks that would potentially, from a developer point of view, benefit from swifter development without a consultation being undertaken. However, from the perspective of local residents and the wider community concerned about heritage and land use, they are losing the opportunity to have this.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I rise to speak either against the clause or in favour of amendment 7, which is in my name. I am not sure which, but I am sure you can advise me, Ms Jardine. We have significant concerns about the clause, and I will spend a few minutes on them as it is, perhaps, more serious than it first appears. The clause would disapply the need for listed building consent, conservation area consent, scheduled ancient monument consent and notices for works on land of archaeological importance from Transport and Works Act projects.
Our heritage has benefitted from protection under criminal law since Lord Avebury in the Liberal Government brought in the Ancient Monuments Protection Act in 1882. The Act provides that anyone who damages a monument commits an offence punishable by imprisonment
“with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding one month”.
That protection, and much of the wording in that Act, has survived, and the relevant wording remains in the main and principle Acts for listed buildings: the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. My suggestion is that this is not the time to remove such strong statutory protection and criminal sanction from measures to protect ancient monuments and listed buildings.
I appreciate that the Government, in their memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, say that the approach is similar, but not as wide as the Planning Act 2008 approach, which the Minister has mentioned, and I fully understand the single consenting regime objective. It would be narrower in some ways because, in the proposed Transport and Works Act approach, it could be possible to be more selective about which measures are disapplied. However, the Planning Act 2008 approach is very different, because regulations made under it enshrine those same legal tests that go back decades—and, in some cases, centuries—so that they remain on the statute book and applicants under that Act still must comply with them.
If our country’s heritage is worthy of protection under criminal law, as the Liberal Democrats believe that it is, the same tests should surely be applied under the Transport and Works Act as under other legislation. Those are long-standing tests. In relation to listed buildings, the wording that many in the sector will know is that we must have
“special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest”.
Those words ring down the years. For scheduled ancient monuments, the requirement was to have regard to the “desirability of preserving” the scheduled monument or its setting and, in conservation areas,
“to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.”
Those are familiar words that, as I say, ring through legislation over many years. They should not be removed from the Transport and Works Act process altogether, which this clause would do. These are central principles of heritage protection that have lasted decades, if not centuries. The Government may point out that, as they say in the explanatory notes, section 12(3A) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 remains in place, which provides:
“An application for listed building consent shall, without any direction by the Secretary of State, be referred to the Secretary of State instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority in any case where the consent is required”.
Although that section is referred to, it does not apply here, because consent is not required. All the requirements for consent are disapplied by the clause in this Bill, so there would be no recourse to consent under that route.
Our recommendation is that the important statutory tests be repeated in the legislation for Transport and Works Act projects, just as they are for all other projects, including in regulations made under the Planning Act 2008.
Many heritage organisations share our concerns. The National Trust says:
“We have serious concerns regarding the scope of Clause 37 of the Bill which seeks to disapply existing heritage regimes. This clause enables Transport and Works Act 1992 orders to disapply authorisation”
for listed buildings, and so on. It continues,
“we have strong concerns about the possible disapplication of heritage regimes for transport infrastructure developments. There is a risk that this could enable harm to heritage assets without proper scrutiny and go further than the stated ambition of the Bill.”
The Heritage Alliance has stated:
“Until greater clarity and detail is forthcoming from government, we continue to have significant concerns regarding its potential to cause…unintended harm to heritage assets.”
Even the Government’s own agency, Historic England has said:
“Whilst the clause provides discretionary powers for the Secretary of State on whether to disapply the legislative provisions relating to heritage, as drafted there is a lack of clarity as to how and when this discretion would be applied. This risks resulting in uncertainty and inconsistency, which would undermine the policy intention…In addition, the disapplication of the legislative provisions for heritage does not provide any equivalent safeguards for the protection of heritage in relation to the authorisation and enforcement provisions for listed buildings and scheduled monuments, as exists at present”
in legislation. It goes on:
“The clause, as currently proposed, would therefore result in a weakening of heritage protection.”
It concludes that
“the current wording of Clause 37 may not actually deliver the policy intention of streamlining planning decisions, whilst having the unintended consequence of reducing heritage protection.”
In short, we are very concerned about the removal of such long-standing legal protections for our heritage. In our view, they must be put back on the statute book in one way or another.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate the comments from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Let me go over some of the points I have made to reinforce them, but also to respond directly to the challenges raised.
I think the principle of the one-stop-shop DCO process for major infrastructure is accepted as a beneficial aspect of the NSIP regime. We think allowing Transport and Works Act orders to take that holistic approach to all the consents required has merit. It would provide more certainty for applicants and ensure that some timelines and requirements were reduced, therefore benefiting the speed of the process. I very much recognise the concerns raised about heritage protections. The shadow Minister will forgive me for not commenting on a decision made by the Secretary of State, not least in the period when it is potentially still challengeable, but I note his concerns.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I urge him to consider regulations. That is the approach under the Planning Act 2008, which has worked and ensures that the Secretary of State for Transport will have to apply the same tests that local planning authorities’ inspectors and the Secretary of State have to apply under the 2008 Act. They have to apply their central and historical tests—ironically they are historical tests for historic parts of our heritage and should be retained. We strongly urge the Government to consider regulation in that regard. I am grateful that he has indicated he will consider that, no doubt among other options. We believe it should be statutory. On the basis of the assurance given, we will not press the matter to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. We will certainly go away and reflect, because it is broadly our intention to ensure that the Transport and Works Act is brought into line with other consenting regimes, not least the Planning Act regime and how that operates in respect of some of these protections. I commit to give him an answer by Report stage, either in terms of changes we think are necessary or reassurance that we do not think changes are necessary. One way or another, I will get him a clear answer on his, as I said, fair and reasonable challenge.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 38
Deemed consent under marine licence
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 38 allows Transport and Works Act orders to include a deemed marine licence for projects in UK waters, where a separate authorisation is currently required. That removes the need for a separate application to the Marine Management Organisation, or MMO. It allows for a single process, again similar to the Planning Act 2008, which already allows deemed marine licences. Applicants will still need to consult the MMO before applying, ensuring that proper oversight remains in place.
The MMO will continue to enforce marine licence conditions under existing powers. This is another change that we believe creates efficiencies and removes duplication. As I have said, it aligns the Transport and Works Act with the Planning Act 2008 process, making it simpler and quicker for transport projects that involve marine areas. A streamlined approval process will save time and costs for applicants while maintaining important environmental safeguards. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. The Opposition wholly understand the intention behind clause 38, but I want to ask the Minister a quick question. How will enforcement responsibilities be co-ordinated to prevent confusion between the MMO and other authorities involved in Transport and Works Act orders? I accept that the core of the Bill, for good or bad, is to streamline and ensure the Government deliver their objectives quicker than at present, but can the Minister reaffirm that he is wholly assured, in line with his officials’ advice, that streamlining the process will not compromise environmental protections?
Matthew Pennycook
I can provide the hon. Gentleman with that assurance. In terms of enforcement, I assure the hon. Gentleman that if consent is granted under the Transport and Works Act, any breaches of marine licence will continue to be dealt with by the Marine Management Organisation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
Authorisation of applications by local authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 39 removes the requirement that exists at present for a second local authority resolution after submitting a Transport and Works Act application, making the process faster and simpler. Currently, local authorities must achieve a majority vote from their local authority members both before and after submission of an application. Key stakeholders told us during the development of the Bill that the second resolution is unnecessarily bureaucratic and causes delays. Removing it will cut red tape and speed up transport projects. This is a simple and, I hope, uncontroversial clause, and I commend it to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We agree with the Government on clause 39. However, if local authority members need to give a majority vote on the first round, it makes the Minister’s claim that the measure will reduce bureaucracy seem a tad overstretched. We will not press the clause to a Division, but circumstances do change between the first and the second resolution. With great respect to the Minister, it is a bit of a stretch to say that simply not putting the second resolution on the agenda of a full council meeting or committee will overwhelmingly reduce bureaucracy. On that point, as well as on the slight undermining of transparency, we seek reassurance from the Minister.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that point. In no way am I implying that in a committee meeting, the process of putting hands up on another vote is itself onerous. What are onerous are the delays that can be caused by the need simply to reaffirm a vote that has already taken place. The Government think this is a simple and proportionate change to ensure that the Transport and Works Act is modernised appropriately.
As I hope the Committee saw this morning, the Transport and Works Act, which is over 30 years old, needs to be brought up to date and into line with other consenting regimes. Clause 39 deals with just another example of an element of that Act that requires addressing. All interested parties in a Transport and Works Act project will be able to make representations as they do now—the process will continue as it does now, but without the need for the second resolution.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Extension to Scotland of certain amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
This is another example of the way in which the Transport and Works Act needs to be tidied up, because there are currently unnecessary legal duplications. We want to address those, and that is what clauses 40 and 41 do. Previous regulations under the Act applied only to England and Wales. That created dual versions of certain Transport and Works Act provisions —one for England and Wales, and another for Scotland. Clause 40 removes the duplication by extending provision to Scotland so that there is only one consistent version of the text. This is a simple procedural fix. Scotland does not use the Transport and Works Act, so the change has no practical impact there. It simply ensures clearer legislation with no unnecessary duplication.
Reducing duplication makes the law clearer and easier to apply, and simpler to understand for all applicants. It also reduces complexity for legal and policy teams, making future updates faster and more efficient. This supports the Bill’s aim of simplifying and streamlining transport laws.
Clause 41 provides a power to make amendments to primary and secondary legislation that are necessary to maintain the effect of that legislation in consequence of clauses 30 to 40. The power cannot be used to implement changes in policy or make amendments for reasons unrelated to clauses 30 to 40; its purpose is simply to ensure consistency. If any changes are needed to primary legislation that already exists or is made in this parliamentary Session, the relevant regulations will need approval from both Houses. If any changes are needed to secondary legislation, the negative procedure will apply. The inclusion of this power is a prudent, practical and reasonable step to take to ensure the most efficient legal framework moving forward. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42
Fees for applications for harbour orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 42 amends the Harbours Act 1964 to enable fees for processing harbour empowerment and revision orders to be levied on the basis of hours of time deployed on any particular application, rather than on the basis of average costs. This is part of a package of measures that Government are taking to strengthen performance in the handling of harbour order applications, especially in England, after a backlog built up over recent years.
Relevant Departments, along with the Marine Management Organisation itself, are further addressing these challenges through various administrative initiatives alongside this provision. The clause applies to England, Scotland and Wales, consistent with the territorial extent and application of the original Harbours Act. The Bill does not determine the overall level of fees; there will be full consultation of ports before fees are altered by regulations.
Provisions for the new system of setting fees will come into effect two months from Royal Assent. To ensure that fees can still accompany harbour orders before regulations are made, the provision repealing the current power to determine fees will be commenced by regulations. The new fees system will take precedence over the current system upon the commencement of this clause, meaning that there is no practical need for the previous regime to be switched off for the new fees regulations to be made.
However, following discussion with the devolved Governments, a decision on the desired timing for this repeal in Scotland will be necessary. The Secretary of State would, as a routine matter, make the commencement order at a date chosen by Ministers in the devolved Government.
The clause further supports the Government’s growth and clean energy missions by improving the efficiency of harbour order processing, which will support our wider objective of improving transport consenting processes. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Installation of electric vehicle charge points
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 43 will remove the need for a section 50 street works licence when installing electric vehicle charge points on a public road, and instead allow applicants to apply for street works permits. Applying for a street works licence is costly, and it can take a long time for an application to be approved. The lengthy process of having to apply for a street works licence to install charge points on a public road is delaying the roll-out of this essential infrastructure.
The licence application process has previously been identified by installers as a significant barrier to installation. The application process and associated costs for those licences also vary greatly between highway authorities. On average, each street works licence can cost between £500 and £1,000 and take 12 weeks or longer to obtain. As a result, installing apparatus can be a lengthy and costly process, hindering the efficient roll-out of electric vehicle charge point infrastructure.
Paul Holmes
We welcome the Minister’s comments on clause 43. As we enter the world of net zero and increasing green travel, we need to have the infrastructure in place, so we support the Government’s attempts to make that easier. Whether I think electric cars are the future is not within the scope of clause 43—I declare an interest, in that I do not. I think we need to invest in other areas and that, eventually, we will see that the infrastructure simply cannot be delivered in the way that it needs to be, but that is for another day. [Interruption.] The Minister for Energy, who is doing his work in secret at the back of the Chamber, is shaking his head at me. We will have a chat in the Tea Room afterwards about how we should be investing in hydrogen instead of electric cars—but, as I say, that is outside the precepts of this clause. I will get back to the clause.
What safeguards are in place to ensure that EVCPOs meet their responsibilities, particularly when it comes to road reinstatement? I do not mean to dumb down this argument, but we have all had emails coming to our office about this: when road repair and utility companies do works, they are not often joined up. They are not often communicated to local people properly, and, when a local authority gives permission for works to be done by different utility companies, they are not often done in conjunction. An area of the road is dug up, then another organisation comes along and digs it up, and they do not put the roads back properly. Can the Minister outline whether, under current legislation, he is satisfied about that?
Companies being allowed to make these changes with reduced bureaucracy and at increased speed is welcome, but we need to make sure that local authorities use their responsibilities properly so that the consumer and the public are not put in the frustrating situation, which we have all seen before, of disruption and a lack of co-ordinated effort when utilities and other companies do works in local areas.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the Minister for speaking to this clause, and I am pleased to say that the Liberal Democrat Benches are keen to support it. I am also pleased to agree with the Conservative spokesperson on this, although I was disappointed to hear that his preferred method of transport involves hydrogen, rather than joining me on my bicycle, which I very much enjoyed riding in his constituency a couple of months ago.
It is important that we do everything we can to support the roll-out of electric vehicles, which is essential to our goals on air quality and climate change. The United Kingdom has a long way to go, with just 20% of vehicle sales last year being electric, compared with 90% in Norway. Hopefully, these measures will help us to close the gap.
I also welcome the Minister’s assurance that this will not undermine the requirements to make sure that street works are done professionally and repaired with full competence. For any Members with an interest in the subject, the Transport Committee is doing a detailed inquiry into it. Hon. Members are right to point out that that is often a major source of frustration for our constituents. I am very pleased to support this clause.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Jardine. I strongly support the clause and was really glad to see that the Electric Vehicle Association England welcomes the change. It will make it easier, cheaper and faster to install public chargers for EVs.
There is a battery assembly plant run by JLR in my constituency. We are making more components for electric vehicles, but my constituents find it really difficult to make the jump to invest in an electric vehicle, because there are just not enough electric vehicle charging points in the town centres around my constituency. Anything that makes it easier and removes the blockages will be extremely helpful.
I echo some of the points made by the Opposition spokespeople. We must make sure that the charging points are installed carefully and thoughtfully, which means taking into account the pavement requirements of pedestrians, particularly those with pushchairs or using wheelchairs. Will the Minister explain how that will be taken into account?
I definitely welcome this change, and it is a huge step forward. Particularly in more rural constituencies like mine, people need to be able to drive their electric vehicles in and out of town centres for work, and to be able to charge them.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I support giving consumers choice and making it easier to install electric car charging points. This will be a massive help for people in flats—if they want to make the switch to an EV and cannot charge their vehicle at home, the more public charging points there are, the better—but we need to think about it carefully.
My constituents are fed up with multiple utility companies digging up the roads willy-nilly—sometimes, the same stretch of road. There does not seem to be any logic behind where roadworks will be, and multiple roadworks happen at the same time.
We need to issue guidance. If utility companies, councils and other authorities are going to install loads of charging points, it needs to be done in a logical way. What work are the Government doing with all the different companies and operators in this space? We do not want to see consumers turning up to different charge points that all have different connectors. We need to make this as easy as possible for the consumer, no matter what car they drive.
I reiterate that we cannot just dig up roads willy-nilly. What discussions are the Government having with the companies in this space to make it as easy as possible for consumers to access charge points?
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
It is a delight to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I welcome these proposals. This is a major reform that will allow the Government to speed up the delivery of vital electric vehicle infrastructure, to deliver on our climate targets and ensure that we can meet the growing demand for electric vehicles.
I share the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington in the words of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, on the future of electric vehicles. The Conservative party’s position is anti-business and anti-investment. Electric vehicles are the future, and they are going to create jobs.
Paul Holmes
I resist the temptation to say that the hon. Gentleman is picking me up on every point in this Committee. At no point did I say that I do not think we should have cleaner energy or better, cleaner and greener vehicles. I happen to think that the investment that is needed to bring the infrastructure up to scratch, alongside the emissions caused by the technology that is used in the creation of these electric cars, means that we need to diversify and find other ways to have cleaner cars.
In no way should the hon. Gentleman interpret my words as being anti-business. In fact, other areas, particularly the hydrogen sector, will deliver much more business investment in my constituency of Hamble Valley, and in his constituency of Basingstoke, through the proposals coming forward with the energy companies in the Solent.
Luke Murphy
I thank the shadow Minister for his intervention. I do not disagree. Instavolt, one of the largest public electric vehicle rapid charging network providers in my constituency of Basingstoke, fully supports these proposals.
The reason why I think the Conservative party’s position is anti-business and anti-jobs is that businesses are crying out for certainty—they want certainty about the transition, not big question marks about the future. I support the removal of the need for a street works licence under section 50, which will cut down on paperwork and costs. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth on accessibility, but I support this proposal, which will allow us to speed ahead and build a world-leading charging network.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I echo the points made by other colleagues: I absolutely support the roll-out of electric vehicles, which is more likely due to this change. To be clear, I think local authorities will welcome it. They have long been frustrated by the current framework, which means that as they seek to roll out electrical vehicle charging points they are met with a planning system that prevents them from doing so at the necessary scale. Clause 43 removes the burden from local authorities and also from individuals, who often want to purchase an electric vehicle but think twice because being able to get a charging point in the convenience of their individual home is too difficult.
Finally, the point about cost is important. When we speak to companies that manufacture vehicle charging points, they are clear that the number of installations helps them to reduce the cost per head. This measure will mean that it becomes easier to install at a faster pace, with the hope that the overall cost will be reduced. I support the measure and think it will be a crucial step in this Labour Government’s important mission to reach net zero.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the broad support on both sides of the Committee for the intended purpose of the Bill, which will mean that companies installing EV charge points can do so, as I have argued, using permits available online across England, and will no longer have to apply for costly licences, which can take several months to obtain, via a range of different local authority processes. That will speed up the installation of on-street EV charge points and help local authorities to co-ordinate works with other roadworks. I think the use of that digital platform will help local authorities to have an overview of all the installations taking place in their areas.
A number of points have been made. The hon. Member for Broxbourne raised the issue of street works and digging up roads. While I take his point, there is a difference between the installation of EV charging networks and general utilities works, and there is more that can be done to manage that process. If he will allow me, because it is a slightly separate issue, I am more than happy to set out for him in writing what the Government are doing on that particular point.
In general, however, the concerns I have heard relate to safeguards. There is a separate point about whether members of the Committee believe that the existing statutory requirements are fit for purpose or need to be reformed, but I want to make clear that this clause will ensure that the statutory requirements that are in place continue to apply to EV charge point installers. We are not losing any of the existing safeguards, including guidance and safety codes, so the inspections and reinstatements will continue to apply and installers will be obligated to keep their apparatus in working order. In addition, existing regulations already require installers to provide annual reports to the Secretary of State on the reliability of their network, and investigatory powers and sanctions are available to deal with non-compliance.
In relation specifically to pavement access, EV charge point operators will still need to comply with the safety code of practice, which sets out the requirements to ensure access while works are taking place. I can give hon. Members assurance on that point. I hope I have set out that existing statutory requirements will continue to apply, so no safeguards are lost; in moving from a street works licence to a permit, we are just ensuring that we can make it far easier for charge point operators to roll out vital infrastructure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44
Fees for planning applications etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 39—Surcharge on planning fees.
Matthew Pennycook
We turn to part 2 on planning, chapter 1 of which relates to local planning decisions. Clause 44 seeks to introduce, through regulations, the sub-delegation of planning fees to local planning authorities. It is an important change, and we feel it needs to be made. We know that a lack of capacity and resources in local planning authorities and among statutory consultees leads to delays in decision making and in the delivery of housing and economic growth.
I hope the Committee is aware of the changes that the Government are making, outside the scope of the Bill, to enhance local authority capacity and capability. The Chancellor has announced a £46 million package of investment into the planning system as a one-year settlement for 2025-26. On 27 February, the Government announced funding to support salaries and complying graduate bursaries to help with our commitment to appoint 300 new planning officers in local planning authorities. We have made changes, through regulations, to increase planning fees for householder and other applications, with a view to providing much needed additional resources for hard-pressed local planning authorities. More broadly, the Department’s established planning capacity and capability programme is delivering a wider package of support.
For local planning authorities, fees are an important contributor to resourcing requirements. Planning application fees are set nationally, and they are intended to cover the cost to a local planning authority of processing and determining a planning application. However, as things stand, the fees do not fully cover the costs of providing the service. Based on the most recent local government spending data for 2023-24, that has led to an estimated funding shortfall of £362 million per year. It means that local authorities are not adequately equipped to deliver an efficient planning service to developers and investors.
Clause 44 will tackle the problem by enabling local planning authorities to set their own planning fees and charges to cover their costs. It will do that by allowing the Secretary of State, through regulations, to sub-delegate the setting of planning fees and charges to local planning authorities. Allowing local planning authorities to set their own planning fees is the most effective way to increase resources in a manner that responds to the individual circumstances of each local authority. It will help to address capacity issues in the planning system by ensuring that planning authorities are adequately funded to deliver vital services.
We are also introducing safeguards to ensure that the fees are reasonable and directly invested in improving planning performance, and that they are not used to fund other council services. Planning fee charges will not be able to exceed the cost to local planning authorities in determining a planning application. That will prevent disproportionate or unjustifiably high fees being set. That is an important point, because one of the concerns we have had is about the ability, without the provision being in place, of local authorities that do not want to see development to set extremely high fees to deter applications. To ensure transparency, local planning authorities will also be required to consult on any fee increases and publish evidence to justify the fees that they charge. Finally, and most importantly, income received from planning fees will be ringfenced, as I have said, so that it can only be used in the determination of planning applications.
Clause 44 is another crucial step towards a more responsive and efficient planning system. I hope we can all support it. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Government new clause 39 seeks to introduce a new sustainable funding model for the statutory consultee system. Alongside local planning authorities, statutory consultees play an important role in the planning system, providing expert advice and information on significant environmental, transport, safety and heritage issues to ensure good decision making.
However, it is a concern that the statutory consultee system is not currently working effectively. The concerns expressed by local planning authorities and developers about the operation of the system are wide-ranging. They include statutory consultees failing to engage proactively, taking too long to provide advice, re-opening issues that have already been dealt with at a plan-making stage, submitting automatic holding objections that are all too often withdrawn at a late stage in the process, and frequently issuing holding responses that allow statutory deadlines to be met while seeking over-specific levels of information from developers over long timeframes. All of those concerns can cause substantial delay and uncertainty for applicants.
The Government are determined to return the statutory consultee system to meeting its goal of supporting high-quality development through the swift provision of expert relevant advice to inform decision making. In March, I set out a number of steps that we are taking to achieve this in England, including ensuring that the statutory consultee system works to support development and economic growth, limiting the instances in which statutory consultees should be consulted, changing the performance management of statutory consultees and, finally, developing a model to support sustainable funding.
The new clause will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to apply a surcharge to planning application fees. This would apply to development that is permitted by local planning authorities, and to other bodies that are able to charge planning fees under the Bill. It will be used to fund bodies, such as statutory consultees, that provide advice and ancillary support that enables good decision making.
Through regulations, we will develop detailed proposals that will establish the level at which any surcharge would be set, and the types of planning application it should be applied to. In doing so, we will be highly conscious of the need to balance the burdens that we are placing on developers with the benefits that will accrue to them through a more effective and efficient planning application system. We will consult on such proposals before any regulations are introduced.
I note that statutory consultees can already generally secure payment for voluntary pre-application work, and that will continue to be the case. A new funding mechanism for statutory consultees, alongside the sub-delegation of planning fees, as per clause 44, will allow us to address capacity and resourcing issues, and support a faster and better quality decision making process. On that basis, I urge the Committee to support the clause and the new clause.
David Simmonds
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley wants to raise some points, but I want to ask a couple of slightly technical questions.
The first relates to clause 44(6), on directions in relation to planning fees. The publication of a schedule of planning fees is part of the statutory council tax-fixing process, which every local authority is required to undertake. As we hear from our residents, that generally takes place in February and comes into effect at the start of the following financial year. If a local authority publishes its proposals, as the Minister described in respect of cost recovery, it needs to be confident that any change—in the form of a direction from the Secretary of State—will come in a timely manner that enables further consultation so that the lawful council tax fixing can occur. What provisions will be in place to ensure that any objection from the Secretary of State will come in a timely manner?
My second slightly technical question is this. My experience of planning authorities is that there is huge variation in their cost bases. That partly reflects a shortage of staff, but it also reflects different local arrangements. An authority with large numbers of householder applications may use an outsourced service to process them at a relatively low cost. However, if senior, experienced, in-house planning officers are responsible for managing all planning applications, that will significantly increase the cost. Neither of those things is illegitimate; each is a manifestation of the democratic decision making of elected politicians about what is appropriate for their community.
It would be helpful to understand what process the Secretary of State will go through in determining what a reasonable level of planning fees is. For example, will she consider the requirement for specialist input at a technical level because there is a significant amount of radon gas, which is found in certain challenging sites because of their topographical nature? Whether there is a requirement for remediation and specialist consultancy will be critical to a proper assessment of that planning application. Other local authorities may have development opportunities of a different nature. Will the Minister set out his thinking on that? That would be enormously helpful.
Rachel Taylor
When the Committee met the witnesses a week or so ago, we touched on section 106 agreements and the role of planning authority lawyers in that process. I think that the fees for processing and determining applications include the process for agreeing a section 106 agreement. Is it the Government’s intention to include costs arising from the legal department’s time and efforts in determining those applications in the ringfenced planning application fees? I am aware that there is a severe shortage of qualified and experienced property lawyers in both local authorities in my constituency, as well as a shortage of planning officers.
Gideon Amos
I rise to support the thrust of clause 44. For a very long time, we Liberal Democrats have called for local authorities to be free to set their own fees for planning applications, so we welcome the approach.
I seek a couple of clarifications from the Minister. Does clause 44 refer to planning applications and not to listed building consent? I think we all share a desire to keep listed building applications free of charge, so will the Minister let us know about that in due course? Local authorities are struggling for funding. In my own Somerset council, £2 out of every £3 of council funding is spent on care for adults and children, leaving £1 out of every £3 provided by council tax for everything else, including planning, housing, enforcement and environment, so funding is crucially needed.
Somerset council has asked for the freedom and flexibility to set its own planning fees. One challenge it faces, in common with other planning authorities and planning departments, is the market rate paid to professional town planners, who frequently find that the level of remuneration in councils is worse. Will the Minister confirm that local authorities will be free to set salaries above the market rate to attract planning officers in circumstances when the market conditions make that necessary? The Minister may not wish to answer all my questions now, but I hope that he can address them at some point.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I fully support what the Government intend to do in this clause. Those of us who have worked in local authorities or have supported the development industry over many years will know that there are many occasions when statutory deadlines are not hit, reports do not go to committee at the right time to enable consent within an agreed timescale, and reports have to be deferred because they have not been written well enough by an overstretched planning department.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister about the arrangements that will be introduced through this legislation. Will there be a backstop for local authorities that do not put a regime in place? Will he consider allowing local planning authorities and developers to agree bespoke fees for applications to be determined on a shorter timescale? Is the use of planning performance agreements, which are currently in common use, affected by the new legislation? What performance management arrangements do the Government want local authorities to put in place to justify the fee changes?
Paul Holmes
I welcome what the Minister has to say about this clause. In common with other hon. Members who have spoken, we welcome the general gist of permitting regional variation to planning fees as a general principle. In theory, that will create opportunities for local planning authorities to set their rates at a level that works best for them. How will the Government ensure consistency and fairness in planning fees across different local planning authorities, particularly for developers operating in multiple regions? Does the Minister have any thoughts on that?
In considering the need to support local planning authorities, what support will be provided to them to accurately calculate cost recovery levels and comply with consultation and reporting requirements? Given the ever-changing and growing costs to local planning authorities, which we all recognise, how frequently will they be allowed or required to review and update their planning fees?
Luke Murphy
I, too, rise to support the measures. The Committee heard evidence from developers that they do not at all mind paying higher fees as long as they get a fast, quality service that delivers quicker and better outcomes for everyone involved.
We know that planners are absolutely vital to planning the future of our communities, the places where we will live for years to come, and they cannot do that on a shoestring. For too long, we have seen many local planning authorities unable to cover their costs, which causes delays and cuts and has led to a doom loop in the planning system. It is great that the Government plan to give control to local planning authorities, with the safeguards that the Minister has set out, to set their own fees and ensure that we can have the proactive, effective and fast planning system that we all want.
Matthew Pennycook
I will set out a couple of points in response to questions raised by hon. Members. If I miss anything, I am more than happy to follow up in writing on the technical detail, including on some issues that sit outside the scope of the clause but are pertinent.
For example, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, raised the issue of salaries that could be paid to local planning department staff. That will be a consideration for local planning authorities attracting talent. He is right that over recent years we have seen, for a variety of reasons, a bleeding out of talent, particularly to the private sector. There is a challenge in attracting the requisite skills into the public sector to ensure that we can take our planning reforms forward.
The purpose of clause 44 is to allow the Secretary of State, through regulations, to delegate the power to set planning fees and charges to local planning authorities. It will be up to local planning authorities whether to set their own fees or remain on what will essentially become a default national fee rate. We will carry out a national benchmarking exercise, including engagement with local authorities, to ensure that the default rate is at an appropriate level.
For the process by which local authorities can set their own fees, if that is the route they want to take, the Bill has a number of safeguards to ensure that fees are not set too high. In the first instance, local planning authorities will be required to undertake public consultations and publish information to justify any local fees prior to their introduction. To respond to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, that is in the process in which local planning authorities would be able to evidence particular challenges in their area that require them to have a skillset and resource base slightly different from those of other local planning authorities, but that would have to be properly justified.
For objections, there will be a process by which the Secretary of State can intervene and direct local planning authorities to amend their fees or charges when those have been set at an inappropriate level. I note the point, well made by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, that such directions—that intervention—would have to come at a point that allowed a local authority to ensure that the changes were made in a timely manner relative to its other financial responsibilities.
Any hon. Member is free to intervene if I have missed a point, but I hope that I have broadly reassured the Committee that the clause will provide for those who want to set their own fees—although I stress that an authority can remain on the national default rate if it wants—so that the fees can more fully reflect the cost of processing applications and thus ensure that we are providing a timely service. It is a beneficial change.
Gideon Amos
The Minister is generous in inviting interventions; I rise to make a small one. I technically ought to declare that I live in a listed building—a fairly shabby one—but that is not the only reason why I wanted to listed building consents to be free.
Matthew Pennycook
On that point I should say, although I hope this was implied, that we will set out detailed processes in the regulations. We will absolutely take into account points that have been made today. I give the hon. Gentleman my undertaking that the specific issue that he raises will be fully considered as part of that process.
Lewis Cocking
I have a question to gain clarity for local authorities. Will the Minister request local authorities to submit how much they spend on planning currently? If the increase in fees is to go into additional planning service, I would not want to see local authorities moving money out of their planning services now, and then charging additional fees so that the services still had the same budget. I hope I have explained that point sufficiently. Will he ask local authorities to submit how much they spend on planning now, to ensure that the additional fees that they will be able to charge go into additional service?
Matthew Pennycook
That is an interesting point. That would be a fairly extreme measure for a local authority to undertake but, if I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, it could drain its planning department budget, foreseeing that it would be able to set a fee at an appropriate rate to make up for that, and therefore in a sense evading the clear stipulation that we have here to ringfence planning fee charges to the provision of planning services. I will say a couple of things on that basis.
As I said, local planning authorities will have to consult publicly and test their fee level. As part of that, they will have to consider the benchmarking exercise that we will undertake for the default national rate—so we will have a sense of what different local authorities are charging. However, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall go away to reflect more fully on how—as I hope is clear we have been thinking today—local authorities without the best intentions might seek to game the system.
Matthew Pennycook
The final point I will make before giving way is that, were a local authority to seek to evade that ringfencing provision by reducing the amount of resource going into its planning department—a not particularly sensible route to take—and then, potentially, it were not able or allowed to charge a fair and proportionate fee set in that regard, it would come under the usual planning performance dashboard, where the Department can look at the local authority for not providing a timely service or performing appropriately. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a set of intervention powers would be available to national Government, were that the case.
It is far more likely, however, as we have heard from local authorities, that they would use the power to set local fees that reflect the cost of services, using it to bring more resource in and—generally, this is what they want to do—to start processing applications in a more timely manner than they can now.
David Simmonds
The Minister’s response has been excellent. Clearly, there will be a number of different arrangements at a local level. That should encourage us, as a Committee considering the legislation, to reflect a little further.
In the example that the Minister talked about—the behaviour of local authorities—it may not be about those who have ill intentions. Some local authorities may have a planning and building control department—although the two regimes are separate, there is great commonality of skills—while others may have outsourced one or both those functions, or have them in-house but entirely separate.
As part of the published council tax fixing, there is a requirement to set out a schedule of fees for building control. Some local authorities may choose to bundle that together, so when people put in a planning application, they pay for both; but others may do that separately. Some developers, including householders, may choose to purchase the building control privately, even though they could purchase it from the local authority. A lot of factors will determine what a reasonable cost base is. It would help if the Minister shared with the Committee some further thinking on how the Government might seek to establish a baseline, in particular in the light of potential challenges in the future by developers who feel that the level of cost at a particular spot is other than reasonable.
I press the Minister a little on how that interacts with two further points that he made. Government new clause 39 refers to the power of the Secretary of State to implement a surcharge as a percentage of a planning fee that has been set. From what I understand of what the Minister said in his commentary, that will principally be to fund the work of the statutory consultees. Clearly, the imposition of a surcharge will then form part of the planning fees that have to be part of the statutory consultation on the legislatively fixed timetable that the local authority has to follow. How will the Government ensure that that timetable is respected, so that they themselves are not subject to the challenge?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for pressing those two points. I am more than happy to come back to the issue in more detail, but as a general point, a lot of further detail is yet to come post consultation and the regulations’ being laid. We will provide further detail then on some of the technical questions as to how the power will be implemented.
The surcharge introduced by Government new clause 39 will provide the ability to fund the statutory consultees and other bodies that provide assistance and advice in relation to the planning application process. For example, we may wish to fund training and guidance for local planning authorities so that they can better engage with statutory consultees. However, the surcharge, which, as he rightly says, comes as an additional amount on top of the fees for processing applications, is very much intended to address the particular challenges that we are facing in terms of how statutory consultees are able to engage with the process in a timely manner, so that we get that advice up front.
David Simmonds
May I press the Minister a little further? That is a really helpful answer in illuminating the Government’s thinking, but could he explain to the Committee how that will interact with the existing arrangements for planning performance agreements, which are very common in respect of larger-scale planning applications? Clearly, if a developer required to engage with all this wider statutory-consultee process is already entering into a voluntary agreement with the local authority to fund the process, there is a risk that that will have an impact. It risks either reducing the ability of the local authority, because that surcharge is effectively being taken by the Secretary of State, or increasing the cost base and therefore opening up the question whether the planning fees are reasonable in the first place.
Matthew Pennycook
I would say two things in response to that, and then perhaps, Ms Jardine, in the interests of making progress on the Bill, I will happily write to the Committee to set out further details of the operation of the surcharge.
First, on how the surcharge will be processed and distributed, it will, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, be paid by the person collecting the fee to the Secretary of State in a manner and at a time prescribed by regulations, which are forthcoming. Outside the regulations, the proceeds will then be earmarked for distribution to bodies that provide advice and assistance in the planning process, including by way of consultation responses.
Secondly, the question has been asked several times whether the Government have properly considered the cumulative impact of fees and charges—are we getting the fees right? We are very aware that the surcharge will increase the fees that are already out there—it is an additional levy in that sense—and that other measures in the Bill may already result in fee increases. I repeat that we are committed to consulting on the proposed rates and the type of application that this should apply to—not least to allow the development sector to fully engage with those proposals.
On that basis, I think it would help the Committee if I set out later—chapter and verse—how we think both the clause and the surcharge will operate, on a very practical basis, and how local authorities can understand the Government’s intent in bringing them forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Training for local planning authorities in England
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 152, in clause 45, page 58, line 3, at end insert—
“(c) require that any training accredited under this section includes content on—
(i) inclusive design principles in the built environment;
(ii) the requirements and intent of Approved Document M, Volume 1: Dwellings of the Building Regulations 2010, with particular emphasis on the M4(2) accessible and adaptable standard and the M4(3) wheelchair user standard;
(iii) the requirements and intent of Approved Document B of the Building Regulations 2010;
(d) require that all members, elected members, and officers of a relevant local planning authority who carry out any function relevant to planning undertake mandatory training comprising the content set out in paragraph (c).”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 49, in clause 45, page 58, line 15, at end insert—
“(7A) This section applies in relation to a relevant planning function conferred on a mineral planning authority as if references to a local planning authority were to a mineral planning authority in England.”
This amendment has the effect that (if regulations under inserted section 319ZZA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are made) members of a mineral planning authority in England who have not completed any training required by the regulations will be prohibited from exercising certain mineral planning functions on behalf of the authority.
Clause stand part.
Ellie Chowns
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I did not prepare anything in advance—apologies—but I do think it is important for the Committee to consider amendment 152, tabled by an hon. Member from another party. The amendment asks the Government to consider using the opportunity offered by the Bill to ensure that the training provided—which is essential for those involved in planning decisions, whether elected members or officers—includes a specific focus on accessibility.
This is a really important issue. If we are to be an inclusive and equitable society, it is vital that planning decisions are made in a way that takes into account the importance of accessibility. It is also an increasing issue. We are an ageing society: in 2022, 19% of our population was over the age of 65, but in 50 years’ time that will be 27%—half as many people again. We know that disability is associated with age; we know that 45% of people over the age of 65 report a disability, and half of those disabilities are mobility-related. So, accessibility of buildings—accessibility of all the areas that come within the remit of planning decisions—is a crucial aspect.
I ask the Minister to comment on the suggestion made in amendment 152. Does he recognise the importance of these issues? Would he consider taking this away and exploring whether the clause could be amended to make this minor but important additional change, to ensure that all planning decisions going forward recognise the importance of accessibility?
Jim Dickson
Just before I speak to the amendment, I will say that I fully support what the Government are doing here. As a former member of a local authority, I have seen good training, but in other contexts I have also seen very poor training for planning committee members. I know that most local authorities have a scheme in place, which is obviously welcome, but it is variable. Having some national guidance and trialling it in legislation is extremely important.
My point on the amendment is that accessibility is vital. I hope it will appear in guidance that the Department produces further to the legislation. We might wish to see a whole range of other considerations in that guidance, too, but I hope this one will be in there. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us that these important issues will be included in guidance. He might make the case that it is much better to have them in guidance because it can be changed regularly, rather than in primary legislation, which is changed via a much more torturous process. It would be interesting to have the Minister’s insights on the full range of the guidance.
Lewis Cocking
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine.
I have a few questions for the Minister. I am pleased to see this clause. When I was leader of Broxbourne council, we changed the council constitution to do exactly what the Government are trying to do here. I want to know how many local authorities will be affected, because I know that many of them already have mandatory training for planning committees in their constitution.
What I have not seen in the Bill is how often council officers will be required to carry out the training—will it be once per term of office, which means once every four years, or annually? I cannot seem to find any detail on when elected councillors will be required to do the training. I would like the Minister to comment on what he envisages as a workable interval. Obviously the training has to be timely, because there are always changes to the national planning policy framework and local plans, but not too exhaustive, so that councils can still make planning decisions.
The Minister speaks about speeding up planning decisions. I would not want councils to fall into the trap of not having enough people with the right certificate, and the right training at the right time, to carry on their quasi-judicial function of planning. I should be grateful for the Minister’s comments.
Rachel Taylor
Amendment 152 is well intentioned and sets out a number of matters that planning authorities should take into account when organising training. There are also other aspects of the planning process to consider, including how we make better provision for electric vehicles. The last major piece of planning legislation from 1990—it has endured for 35 years—is very prescriptive about the content of training for members and officers, but it will be extremely difficult to encapsulate everything that is needed.
I certainly think that the requirements for people with disabilities and for climate and nature are sometimes conflicting. I have seen a number of planning schemes where trees are put in the middle of the road or pavement. Although those environments look nice, they do not accommodate people with disabilities, such as sight or mobility problems.
We have to adapt as things move on, and this is exactly the sort of thing that I would ask the Minister to consider in guidance that could be regularly updated, as opposed to it forming part of the Bill. I certainly support the amendment’s intention, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for tabling it.
Gideon Amos
I rise to support amendment 152. The Liberal Democrats have a similar measure on the amendment paper, new clause 11, which also refers to the accessibility of housing. We are pleased to support this amendment, and we support training for planning authorities in general. In the Minister’s summing up, can he address the concern of some organisations that, as well as accessibility, the training needs to include conservation and heritage?
Paul Holmes
Clause 45 relates to mandatory planning training, which is long overdue. It could be a huge benefit to local planning authorities to have trained planning committee members.
When many members of the public—and many Members of Parliament—saw the mandatory training element of the Bill, they probably shouted, “Oh good God, thank you!” There is a massive variation in the outcomes of planning committees, as we will come to in debates on other clauses where we disagree with the Government on planning committees. To strengthen planning committees and ensure that they all perform—and that members of planning committees perform to the best of their ability and are trained to make the complicated decisions that local planning authorities and committees have to make—is a good thing.
I declare an interest that, as a former chair of a planning committee at Southampton city council for two and a half years, I really enjoyed the training. The planning training at the time, when the council was under Conservative control—I will say that it does it now under Labour too—was automatically given to newly elected councillors on the committee. It was exemplary.
Councillors could not pick and choose whether to go. Instead, the council very clearly said from an early stage, “If you do not attend this training, we will not defend any decision that you make, and we will not put you on the planning committee, despite the best wishes of group leaders from all parties.” That is a commendable approach, and one that I know other local authorities also take.
Planning decisions are sometimes the most user-friendly decisions that are made; although they are not necessarily the most important, they are where a local resident will have the most interaction with their local authority. Apart from when a bin is not collected—or, in a unitary or county council, when someone is going through problems with education or an education, health and care plan—planning decisions are the bread and butter of the public facing element for locally elected politicians.
Later in Committee, we will talk about how the Opposition feel that the Government are trying to take some of those responsibilities away, but the precept of this provision to allow locally elected councillors to have the best training that could possibly be provided, so that they make decisions that they are proud to stand by and are legally defensible on appeal, is long overdue and is of huge benefit to local authorities. We welcome clause 45.
On Government amendment 49, the Minister may forgive me a slight rant. I absolutely agree with this amendment on mineral planning authorities. I suggest that officers and managers of highways authorities, particularly those in Hampshire, should also undergo some training, given how woefully Hampshire county council officers have dealt with a mineral extraction facility in Hamble in my constituency. I know that the Minister cannot comment on that in his semi-judicial capacity, but I can because I do not have those responsibilities.
Locally elected councillors, who should make the decision and have had the proper training, refused Cemex’s application. When it came to appeal, local planning officers removed the rug from under people’s feet by refusing to defend that decision, so the local community has had to find £75,000 to try to defend it—thank God for the constituents of Hamble who are defending it. I know that the Minister cannot comment on that case, and I am being slightly facetious, but perhaps we need an audit of the way that officers engage their responsibilities as mineral and waste planning authorities. Other Committee members are aware of the case in Hamble, and, although I will not ask them to speak on it, I know they will be sympathetic to my call.
I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for moving amendment 152 on behalf of the hon. Member for Shipley. It is well intentioned, but it would create a burden that is already met by national equality and planning legislation, as well as local authority planning guidance and locally set planning regulations. This is a slight role reversal, but I hope that the Minister will agree—I am not writing his lines for him—that accepting the amendment would create more bureaucracy for councillors on planning committees.
There is already provision, through national guidance, national legislation and local guidance, to ensure that developments are accessible and that accessibility is at the forefront of any proposed development. The Opposition do not support the amendment, because we believe that we have made great advances over recent decades in ensuring that developments are accessible and that local authority members and planning officers take very seriously their responsibilities when it comes to accessibility in the planning system.
I wholly welcome clause 45, which is a great thing for the empowerment of local authority councillors. It will bring councillors, their constituents and their residents closer together. Some of the most difficult decisions that I had to defend in my time as a councillor were those I took on planning applications as chair of the planning committee, particularly on the big blue IKEA in Southampton, which other hon. Members might have been to. Yes, I did that—I am looking to other Hampshire Members, who may have been there.
That decision was controversial, but I was able to defend it because I had had the training. When some of my or my committee’s decisions were challenged, I had a detailed knowledge from that planning training, which officers provided, so I could be questioned at appeal and make sure that the decisions were sound. We lost a few, but we defended a few; that is the nature of local democracy. I say to the Minister that I am deeply encouraged by clause 45, which we wholeheartedly support. We do not accept amendment 152. We wholly agree with Government amendment 49.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the considered and thoughtful contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I will set out the purpose and effect of the clause, address amendment 152 and speak about Government amendment 49.
As we heard in the contribution of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, planning is principally a local activity, because decisions about what to build and where—although not decisions about whether to build at all—should be shaped by local people. That is why we believe that planning committees have an integral role to play in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. As I have said, I have been a local councillor and sat on planning committees, as have many Committee members—the hon. Gentleman just set out his experience. Planning committees are comprised of dedicated elected members, and in most instances the decisions are well informed and robust.
It is, however, vital that in exercising their democratic oversight, planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on those applications that require member input and not revisiting the same decisions. One of the ways we want to achieve those outcomes is by ensuring that all planning committee members receive adequate training to support their important work, which can be extremely complex when it comes to certain challenging applications.
The hon. Member for Broxbourne rightly made the point that lots of local planning authorities already have some form of mandatory training in place. Data from the Planning Advisory Service suggests that more than 80% of councils do, but a percentage do not, and approaches to training vary quite widely across the country. That leads to inconsistencies in knowledge relating to planning law and in practice among planning committee members, which obviously has an impact on their ability to apply the relevant laws and policies when making planning decisions.
David Simmonds
I am struck by the Minister’s point about the need for consistency. We will all be conscious of the level of inconsistency in delegated planning decisions, which make up around 95% of decisions on planning applications. Does he have a programme in mind to achieve the level of consistency for those decisions that this measure will bring to decisions made by democratically elected members?
Matthew Pennycook
If I could probe the hon. Gentleman in turn, does he mean consistency in the decisions made by expert planning officers rather than on individual planning applications?
David Simmonds
Actually, the answer is both. We will all know of people’s experience with local authorities: they meet a planning officer to discuss a delegated planning decision and they receive advice, but when it is submitted, it is considered by a different planning officer who takes a completely different view. Given that that is how the vast bulk of planning applications are dealt with, if the Government’s aim is to bring consistency and certainty to the process—it is a laudable aim—it will be necessary to focus on the more than 90% of decisions that are already made under delegated powers, as well as this measure, which is for that small number considered by the planning committee.
Matthew Pennycook
That is a fair and reasonable point. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will write to him to set out the Government’s thinking on that issue. If it is available—I fully expect that it will be— I will give him some sense of the level of refusals on appeal for decisions made by committees versus decisions made by expert planning officers, which I think would be relevant. In general terms, in many instances, we think that expert planning officers have the relevant expertise to make good decisions on the basis of planning law. We are trying to ensure through this clause that elected members also have that experience in place through mandatory training.
As has been rightly said, the clause is about building on existing good practice—there is very good practice out there—and ensuring that it is implemented consistently across the country. It is worth noting that mandatory training for committees was strongly supported by the sector as a whole in the responses to the planning reform working paper where we set out ideas in this space, lots of which we are taking forward.
We will introduce regulations to specify which planning functions are covered by this measure, what the training looks like—its nature and content, and how it will be delivered—and details about the certification process. Those regulations will be subject to further engagement with the sector and I will reflect on all the points that have been made today.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is being very kind; he just mentioned a point that I forgot to mention. I do not expect certainty, and he has said that he is bringing forward regulations, but what work has the Department already done with organisations that may have the capacity and the desire to provide that training to local authorities?
There may be situations where a planning officer within a local authority may be confident that they can provide that training, as was provided to me, but we also had the Local Government Association and other private KCs—QCs at the time—who could be paid to provide training. How does the Minister anticipate the training will be provided and by whom? Has his Department started the work to see what parties might be interested in providing the training?
Matthew Pennycook
We have had a huge amount of engagement with the sector, both in working up the proposals and in the feedback that we have received to the planning reform working paper. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the Planning Advisory Service that already provides local authorities with support, and there are other organisations in this space that have a direct interest in planning and training. I am happy to provide him with further details if he wishes but, as I say, through the introduction of regulations, further detail will be forthcoming.
I should mention—Opposition Members will particularly enjoy this one, I think—that the Mayor of London can act as a local planning authority in respect of applications of potential strategic importance, so the training requirement will apply to him too.
Paul Holmes
I might as well pack up and go home— I did not hear any “hear, hears” in response to that—because the Minister has given us the best news that the Mayor of London requires planning training, after the failure of his authority to deliver the housing numbers that it wants and now the announcement that he thinks that he has carte blanche to build over the green belt with his blessing and that of the Secretary of State. I am delighted that under a Labour Government’s proposals, the Labour Mayor of London might actually learn something about planning in his authority.
Matthew Pennycook
What is there to say to that? In no way did I imply that the Mayor of London requires planning training—I think he has had extensive planning training—but the training requirement set out in this clause will apply to him, because he acts as a local planning authority in respect of applications of potential strategic importance.
Likewise, it will apply to mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities where they have functions corresponding to the Mayor of London conferred on them. The requirement will also apply to any persons authorised to act on their behalf, including, for example, deputy Mayors in London and other such figures. A mandatory requirement for training in planning matters will improve the overall decision-making process and decrease delays in delivery of much-needed homes and other crucial developments.
Before I turn to amendment 152, I will address a very well made point raised by the hon. Member for Broxbourne. Through regulations, we will set out the timing of when training is required, but he asked an important question about what happens if training is not in place when a decision is required and whether that would stall the process. As he will know, local authorities have their own codes of conduct. We trust local authorities to ensure that committees are carried out in accordance with the rules and regulations set out by the clause. We are aware of the need to ensure that undue delays are not caused, so for that reason any decision reached by members who are in breach of the measure will not be invalidated, but the requirement will still apply to local authorities. We are reliant on their code of conduct to enforce it.
Amendment 152 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and spoken to by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. As other hon. Members have said, it raises the excellent point that development must form an inclusive and safe environment for everyone. We wholeheartedly agree that that is of paramount importance.
The national planning policy framework makes it clear that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible. We want to ensure that our mandatory training supports members of local planning authorities to make decisions properly, in accordance with the relevant planning policies, including those I have just mentioned, and other material considerations. That is why we will work closely with the sector to design the mandatory training.
We do not think it is necessary to specify details of all the matters covered by mandatory training in the Bill, as to do so would be exhaustive and would pre-empt the forthcoming regulations and the further detail that I have referred to. I assure the hon. Member for North Herefordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, who tabled the amendment, that we will consult on the content of the training to ensure that councillors are appropriately supported in making decisions in this area.
Gideon Amos
I invite the Minister to go slightly further. Will he say today that the regulations will include the requirement for both accessibility and heritage training?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Member understandably tempts me to start to specify what will be in the training, but I will not do that. Further details will be brought forward in due course, but I have certainly heard the case made by Committee members about what the training should include in respect of accessibility and other issues.
Finally, Government amendment 49 is a minor and technical amendment that clarifies that members of mineral planning authorities should also undergo training in planning matters. Mineral sites deal with complex planning issues, so it is only right that members of mineral planning committees, acting on behalf of mineral planning authorities, should be included in the requirement to undergo relevant training.
Along with amendments 50 and 51—which we will come to shortly—this amendment clarifies the position of mineral planning authorities for the purposes of the Bill. To be clear, we want to remove any doubt as to the requirements of the Bill with respect to the training of members of mineral planning committees, and that is what this amendment achieves. For those reasons, I humbly invite the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to withdraw amendment 152.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 49, in clause 45, page 58, line 15, at end insert—
“(7A) This section applies in relation to a relevant planning function conferred on a mineral planning authority as if references to a local planning authority were to a mineral planning authority in England.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment has the effect that (if regulations under inserted section 319ZZA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are made) members of a mineral planning authority in England who have not completed any training required by the regulations will be prohibited from exercising certain mineral planning functions on behalf of the authority.
Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Delegation of planning decisions in England
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 46, page 61, line 39, at end insert—
“(7) Sections 319ZZC and 319ZZD and this section apply in relation to a relevant planning function conferred on a relevant mineral planning authority as if references to a relevant local planning authority were to a relevant mineral planning authority.”
This amendment has the effect that the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring certain planning functions conferred on mineral planning authorities in England to be discharged by certain persons or by committees of a certain size and composition.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 51
Clause stand part.
Matthew Pennycook
As I have set out, the Government recognise the vital role that planning committees play in ensuring that decisions about what to build and where are shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. Under local government law, local authority planning decisions must be a committee function, not an executive one, and presently every council has its own scheme of delegation to identify the circumstances in which planning decisions are taken by the planning committee rather than delegated to officers.
While the vast majority of planning decisions for local planning authorities are made by committees— around 96%— there is some inconsistency, which can create risk and uncertainty in the system. Clause 46 therefore seeks to build on the existing approach by giving the Secretary of State the power to introduce a national scheme of delegation. I reassure the Committee, as I have at other stages, that these measures are not about taking away democratic oversight but about spreading good practice, and there is good practice out there already.
A national delegation scheme will set out which planning functions across the country should be decided by officers and which by planning committees. It will also give the Secretary of State the power to set requirements around the size and composition of planning committees, so that we can have a uniform arrangement across the country as to what is effective in that regard. That will help to address some of the issues that we have identified around the operation of planning committees, which include a lack of consistency and clarity on which applications will be determined by committee; too much time spent considering applications that are compliant with the local development plan, or considering niche technical details including post-permission matters; and a lack of transparency on committee decisions and their consequences.
There is lots of good practice out there, and we know that in almost all instances, committees make good decisions on the basis of planning law and relevant material considerations. However, we are all familiar—in particular those of us who have served in local government and on these committees—with examples of where a development proposal was on a site allocated in the local plan, and in line with all policy expectations, but the committee refused the application against officer advice, and the subsequent appeal was upheld, unnecessarily costing the local authority significant sums of money and creating delay.
Paul Holmes
Does the Minister not understand that local plans are usually formed by an administration and executive of the council, and that it is up to local ward members who may be affected by appointed or adopted sites within that local plan, and who feel that they want to have a say, to request that that is called in? If a planning committee decides that it should not go ahead, that is their decision. Does he not see that there is a separation between the power of the executive to meet the guidelines that the last Government and his Government have set out, and the willingness and ability to allow the planning committee to make decisions, even if it is on sites that an executive has already approved in the council’s local plan?
Matthew Pennycook
A number of points here are worth pulling out. We have just discussed on mandatory training the need to ensure that all elected members across the country who serve on committees are cognisant of planning law and other considerations to which they must adhere.
I would gently press back. We know there are instances where committees take a decision on allocated sites against officer recommendation, out of line with planning law and those considerations, because it is easy to do so in certain instances—they might be responding to pressure from the gallery. I have had direct experience of that. It is deemed a cost-free decision to refuse an application on that basis, but it is not cost-free to the local authority and it introduces unnecessary cost and delay, and all the burdens that come with appeals.
Lewis Cocking
Does the Minister recognise the other side of that coin? There are examples, and I can give him some from my local authority, of where officers recommend a planning application for approval, the committee turns it down, it goes to appeal and the planning inspector has agreed with the committee. It is not one size fits all; there are two sides to the argument and there will be examples of both. This measure puts a lot of trust in, and gives even more power to, planning officers.
Matthew Pennycook
It does, and we think that is right. We think we should trust and empower expert planning officers. The appeals process will remain in force. I recognise the scenario the hon. Gentleman outlines. Local planning officers do not get every decision right. To gently challenge him, he is making the case for no scheme of delegation at all. Schemes of delegation are in place across the country. We are not saying that we do not trust expert planning officers to make the decisions on any applications. We trust them in lots of local authorities to make lots of decisions. As I said, 96% of applications go through planning officers.
There are two issues at play here, which we will perhaps draw out in the debate. We should be honest about them. Members may reasonably take the view that there should simply be no national scheme of delegation—that providing that consistency on the basis of a uniform national arrangement is wrong in principle. If that is the case, I respect that decision. That is not the position of the Government. We think there is a case for a national scheme of delegation.
Then there is the detail of what should go into that national scheme of delegation. Have we got the balance right in terms of the applications that should come before planning committees and should go to planning officers? We already trust expert planning officers to make decisions on a host of delegated applications across the country. The problem is there is huge variation in how those local schemes of delegation apply.
Lewis Cocking
In the current scenario, local planning authorities can go through their own scheme of delegation, and if there are lots of objections or a significant public interest, they can determine that instead of doing it through the scheme of delegation, they can bring it to the planning committee, which they will not be able to do under the national scheme of delegation.
Matthew Pennycook
I refer back to my point: the hon. Gentleman may take the view, which is a perfectly coherent and respectable view, that a national scheme of delegation is wrong in principle. That is not the Government’s view, because we think there are significant advantages to be had from introducing greater consistency and certainty about what decisions go to a committee, so we can have a uniform approach across the country.
Rachel Taylor
Does the Minister agree that very often the controversial decisions that go to planning committees and are declined by them, leading to an appeal, result in higher council tax for residents, because of the huge cost of appeals, reviews and so on? A national scheme of delegation, where it is clear which decisions can be made under delegated authorities and which cannot, will therefore simplify the process for developers, remove the delays and costs for them, and keep costs down for local residents.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is not a cost-free decision to refuse an application where a committee does so on grounds that are not robust. That does not apply in the vast majority of instances. As I say, most committees are comprised of elected members who are diligent, considerate and aware of the risks. Through the mandatory training that we have just discussed, we are trying to get to a situation where elected members are trained and are more cognisant of planning law and the considerations they have to take forward. We want to ensure that there is consistency across the country.
As I say, there are two issues at play here. Some Members may take the view that a national scheme of delegation is wrong in principle. If Members do not take that view, which is not the Government’s view, the debate that we should be having, and will have—as I said on Second Reading, we will bring forward details, so that we can consider them alongside the Bill—is what the most appropriate national scheme of delegation would be, to achieve the right balance between making sure that the most controversial, major applications come before committees and entrusting expert planning officers to make other decisions.
Paul Holmes
I wonder whether the Minister has given any thought to political proportionality when it comes to any future national scheme of delegation. I will give him an example. Forgive me if this is slightly out there; if so, I can write to him, or we can have a conversation in the Lobbies later.
Say a local authority was 87% made up of one party, and there was one councillor from one party and another councillor from another party. In my constituency, we have a local authority that is overwhelmingly dominated by one party. For many residents, the planning system feels like it is out of touch, because the leader creates a different committee that allows just his party to make a decision—or, in the usual planning committees, local residents do not feel like the administration’s wishes are being taken into account, because the planning committee is overwhelmingly dominated by one party.
Will the Minister please assure us that any national scheme of delegation will not exacerbate that situation where local authorities have very strong political control one way, and political decisions within the planning system are taken by an overwhelming political administration? Will he assure us that we can have future discussions about that, so that such a situation in any local authority would not be made worse by a national scheme of delegation? I hope I explained that right.
Matthew Pennycook
The shadow Minister did explain that correctly, and I recognise the challenge. I would say two things: first, I assure him that party political considerations have not factored in any way into the development of the clause. The measure that we are proposing will improve the situation in the sense that, if there are very clear rules about which applications can come before a committee and which should go to national expert planning officers, as per a national scheme of delegation, some of the potential to use specific applications that might not be the most major, controversial applications that should come before a committee, in a political way, will be removed. As I said, the detail regarding what the national scheme of delegation will entail will come forward in due course.
As I mentioned, the clause also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the size and composition of planning committees. Best practice suggests that having smaller planning committees can lead to more effective debates and decision making. We have seen some extremely large and unwieldy planning committees across the country. We want to ensure that there are, within reasonable parameters, some prescriptive views on what the most effective size is.
Our views have been tested with the sector. In response to our working paper, there was broad support for the principle of the proposals from the local government sector, and we will continue to take on feedback as we refine our detailed proposals. That will, as I said, include a formal consultation on the regulations through which the new powers will be exercised. That is a requirement imposed on the Secretary of State by the clause and must happen prior to the regulations being made.
As I said, local democratic oversight of planning decisions remains essential, but it is vital that planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on those applications that require member input and not revisiting the same decisions. Clause 46 is about ensuring that skilled planning officers in local authorities are trusted and empowered in their roles, while retaining important democratic oversight on those sites that local people care about most. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Government amendments 50 and 51 are both minor and technical amendments clarifying that the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring relevant planning functions to be discharged by committee, sub-committee or an officer, and regulating the size and composition of a planning committee, also apply to mineral planning authorities. As the Committee will be aware, a local planning authority is not necessarily also a mineral planning authority; it depends on if and where there is a minerals site.
Mineral planning authorities are a special type of planning authority, and it is only right and proper to include them within these provisions to ensure greater consistency and certainty within the planning system. We must be clear about which local authorities are to be caught by this clause. The amendment clarifies that mineral planning authorities, where they exist, are to be subject to the provision in the clause.
Paul Holmes
We will oppose the clause. Our reason for doing so is that this chapter of the legislation is a massive power grab and piece of centralisation. The whole Bill—in particular its planning reform elements and this clause—reeks of this Government’s centralising zeal, as I said on the Floor of the House on Second Reading.
I tried to explain our point of view in my interventions on the Minister. He rightly challenged people to say whether there should be a national scheme of delegation, and Conservative Members wholly say that there should not be. I am grateful that he recognises that that is a not an opportunistic viewpoint; it is one that we sincerely believe.
Local authorities should have the power to do what they wish to do, because they are elected by their constituents and their residents. They, too, have a democratic right to exist and to undertake the responsibilities placed on them by the residents of their wards. They have a democratic right and duty to undertake those responsibilities and to participate in their accountability structures as local councillors, delegated to make decisions on behalf of their residents, and of their towns, cities and villages all over the UK.
As I said, we are concerned that the clause is just another attempt to centralise and to give the Minister and the Secretary of State the ability to build 1.5 million homes without necessarily allowing democratic checks and balances to be in place. In further amendments later in the Bill, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State actively try to take power away from local authorities and locally elected people.
Has anyone on the Labour Benches who was in a local authority—I asked this on Second Reading—been approached by their local councillors saying that they are not happy? Former council leaders and former councillors sit on this Committee, and I ask them whether councillors have told them that their own party is taking away councillors’ power and ability to speak for their residents. Members of Parliament in Committee are actively allowing that to happen if they vote for this clause to stand part.
Many local authorities are allowed to choose the way in which they do their business. That is why we do not believe that there should be a national scheme of delegation. In my own regional structures, the county council has a regulatory committee and two planning committees, and the borough council—although I have vast disagreements with how Eastleigh is managed—has local area committees that are accountable to the local wards in their localities. Such committees are actually more democratic, because different parties might represent the ward on them. When I was a councillor in Southampton, we had one planning committee that looked after everything within the authority boundary. All of that is because local authorities, through their own delegated schemes and democratic structures, pick how they wish to conduct their business. The clause will simply stop those local authorities being able to do that.
I am not talking to the Minister only about the size of the committee and the principles behind that. All the way through this clause are regulations for the Minister to lay, not only about the size and composition of committees discharging such functions, but requiring which functions are to be discharged. Local authorities already have that. We believe that local authorities should be able to decide that.
I challenged the Minister on one of his examples about local plans that are drawn up by an executive but can now be challenged by locally elected members of a planning committee. We do not see anything wrong with that. Local council members represent wards affected by local plans delivered by an executive. Whether that is an executive of the same political persuasion as the councillors who have concerns or of a different political persuasion, councillors have their rights under a local scheme of delegation.
That planning application should be able to go to a planning committee and be called in by a member under the rights that they have as a councillor. If, after its members have been trained through the excellent provision proposed by the Minister, the planning committee still decides to reject the application, that is the power and right of the locally elected councillor, and this Government are taking that right away.
Nesil Caliskan
Does the hon. Member not recognise that a local plan has to be approved by full council? That already gives every single councillor the ability to have their say at a full council meeting. Democratic oversight sits not just with local planning committees, but with different local authority functions. Democratic oversight is at its best at full council, and local plans are approved at full council, with a vote for every member.
Paul Holmes
I accept what the hon. Lady says, but I do not agree that a local ward member who may disagree with the local plan should not then have it considered in planning committee later on. Of course, a full council does meet to approve the local plan, but I go back to my original point: that is an executive decision.
Paul Holmes
It is an executive decision. An executive is required by legislation to put five-year housing land supply forward under a local plan, and a local plan is approved by full council. That work is undertaken by officers, signed off by a lead member for environment or planning under their responsibilities, and put forward to full council. The hon. Lady is absolutely right about that, but why does she then say that if a ward member wants to call in a planning application that affects the constituents who elected them in the village they represent, that should not be allowed to go to a planning committee and be decided on by that committee, whether or not it is against the executive’s local plan?
Nesil Caliskan
Does the hon. Member not recognise that once a local plan is approved at full council, it is a regulatory framework that has legal standing? That is the framework on which a planning committee bases its decision. I take the point that members may want to voice a view, but in the context of a regulatory framework, all we are doing is setting people up for failure and costing taxpayers money for decisions that will be overturned on appeal.
Paul Holmes
Again, I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from, but it is still within the rights of the appointed planning committee to say yes or no to the detailed development proposals. Local plans talk about numbers and locations. Planning applications that go before officers but are then called in by the committee are discussed in detail: what the developments look like, how many affordable houses there are, and what roads and community infrastructure there will be. That is the right of local planning committees, and under these measures this Government will take that away.
Why does the Minister feel that he and the political leadership of his Department should say what functions should be discharged by a committee, sub-committee or officer, and what conditions local authorities should abide by? I say that that is the right of the local authority, and that a scheme of delegation drawn up through consultation by local members in a full council or a committee role should perfectly satisfy the democratic checks and accountability that local people expect.
We said earlier that one of the only ways in which people engage with their local authorities is through the decisions that their councillors make on planning applications. This Minister and this Government are potentially taking that away from a huge number of people across the country, just because they want to get their 1.5 million houses through. They are doing so based on what they think is acceptable, despite the fact that local councillors may not find it acceptable to them. That is a disgrace. This is the way in which this Government have decided to go forward on delivering their 1.5 million homes—through mandatory targets in urban versus rural areas, a national scheme of delegation, and taking power away from local planning authorities, local councillors and lead members.
The Opposition say that that is a disgrace. That is something that local members should be doing. At every sitting of this Committee and at the later stages of the Bill, we will always say that locally elected councillors should have the power and right—they have the democratic responsibility and the democratic mandate—to make local decisions for local people. This Government are taking that away. We will oppose this clause and push it to a Division, because it is simply not right for the people in this country, who elect their councillors to speak for them. Every hon. Member on the Government side of the Committee whose councillors and constituents are affected by planning decisions is effectively saying to those councillors that they are not good enough to make decisions on behalf of their ward members, and that those ward members should not be making decisions on behalf of their councils. I look forward to them explaining that at their AGMs.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I would like to speak on amendments 50 and 51.
Portsmouth is a part of a minerals partnership and collaborates with Hampshire county council, Southampton city council, New Forest national park authority and the South Downs national park authority. Together, they have developed and adapted Hampshire’s minerals and waste plan. Does the Minister agree that amendments 50 and 51 will support administrative efficiency, particularly for those fully urbanised authorities such as mine in Portsmouth, where we have no or very few mineral resources to extract? Releasing such authorities from having full mineral plans and duties could reduce future duplication and free up much-needed planning resources, allowing us to work on plans that are relevant and specific to our area.
Gideon Amos
We support the delivery of 1.5 million homes, but a confrontational approach, whereby elected representatives are longer allowed to take decisions on behalf of local people, will alienate people from the planning system, create more conflict and make it harder to deliver the homes that we need. Taking powers away from local elected representatives is taking powers away from local people. So much of planning is already predetermined by national guidance and policy.
Only last Friday, I had two parish councillors at my surgery. They came to ask why Government guidance on highway planning overrides everything that they, local people and their own transport planning expert know about highway safety in their village. Those objectors wanted to support the housing scheme in Cheddon Fitzpaine, but they were asking for a previous commitment to secondary access to be honoured. The councillors were told that there would be costs of £400,000 if they did not follow Government transport planning guidance, and they had no choice but to accept the application without the road. Not for the first time, after that meeting some of my councillors came to me and said, “What is the point of being a councillor if local resources are so constrained that there is no money to provide local services?” Even on planning committee, the Government are taking away decision-making powers from local people. It is totally unacceptable.
Matthew Pennycook
This is an important point to try to tease out. The decision the hon. Gentleman has just referred to took place in an instance where, if I have understood him correctly, local residents took issue with the application of national policy and guidance on a planning decision. I do not think it is the position of either the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrats that national policy and guidance should not exist, and that it should all be completely localised. We may have disagreements on the spectrum, but we all recognise that national frameworks should be in place in some instances. The NPPF is a good example, as are other policies and guidance.
That is why I think we should have a more rational and proportionate debate—we may disagree at the end of it—about the pros and cons of a national scheme of delegation, and, if one is in favour of it, as the Government are, what it should include. There is this idea that, at present, local authorities and local elected members can do whatever they want—that they are completely free, and their mandate gives them scope—but, no, that is not true. They are constrained in several respects. In fact, we have debated that at length in this Committee. The NSIP regime was introduced in recognition of the fact that certain applications should be determined on a national basis, not by local committees.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect and expand on why in this area, local discretion should be untrammelled—if I follow his argument—whereas in other areas he would rightly support the idea that national guidance and policy should be in place. He may differ with the content of that guidance, but local planning authorities are subject to frameworks and guidance that I think we all recognise should be in place.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful for the Minister’s intervention, but guidance and policy are guidance and policy. We are talking about giving him and all future Ministers, of whatever party, the power to write the delegation arrangements for each local council in the country and tell them what they may or may not be allowed to decide. The difference is that national infrastructure projects are huge projects that have a national justification and are decided by an elected Secretary of State, but the Bill will forcibly delegate to an employee of a council decisions that will quite often be completely disagreed with by every single member of a council but will stand as a decision of that council. It cannot be logical.
Matthew Pennycook
That is a separate argument, but the hon. Gentleman cannot pray in aid the case that he has just cited, which was made on the basis of a national scheme of delegation not being in operation, and where his local residents just took issue with national policy and guidance, which he thinks should be in place. He has recognised, quite rightly, that elected members of the Government can take views about what national framework should be in place.
We strongly feel that there is a good case for a national scheme of delegation that does not remove, in the apocalyptic terms that the shadow Minister outlined, all decisions and all ability to input into applications from local residents, but simply sets out where appropriately elected members in committees should make decisions and where decisions should be left to expert planning officers.
Gideon Amos
I completely accept that policy and guidance exist, but there is a degree of discretion when it comes to policy and guidance. We are dealing with primary statutory legislation here, and there would be no discretion over its implementation.
I think the Minister should accept that this is not about a fluffy national scheme of delegation that we all agree with; this is about removing the right of councillors to recover decisions to democratically elected members of the council. They may not; they are not allowed to. The clause is very clear that the Local Government Act 1972 will be changed so that councillors may not recover those decisions, and they will be made by employees.
This is not about a national scheme of delegation. We could all agree on a recommended scheme and have a standard scheme of delegation. This is about the law. I am surprised that the Minister is so lightly giving all future Ministers power to deny decision making by local councils.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman is making a very reasonable argument. Does he agree that we could be having a very different debate today if the Minister and the Secretary of State had not been so heavy-handed in legislating on what local councils can do? We could be having a conversation about national guidance for planning committees. This overreach and this democratically reductive approach are the reason why the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington I are so concerned about the Government’s measures.
Gideon Amos
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, the Local Government Act will be changed so that councillors may not have permission to recover such decisions, even if every single member of the council disagrees with a decision. This would be better described not as a national scheme of delegation, but as a forced removal of planning powers from councillors.
In response to a statement in December, a number of Members from across the House challenged the idea of taking these powers away from planning committees. The Minister said that the measure would be in relation to “minor reserved matters” applications—that is from Hansard on 9 December 2024—but the clause we are presented with has no limits at all. The Secretary of State may draft regulations in relation to any relevant function, so there is no such qualification and no limitation on any future Minister or Secretary of State.
Let us look at the history of planning in this country. It began as a local system and has gradually become more and more centralised and nationalised in its approach. Surely to goodness, that is exactly what will happen again with this huge power that is being given to future Secretaries of State.
Breaking the link between elected councillors and decisions made by their councils is so anti-democratic, and it will undermine trust in politics further. Councillors are coming to me and asking me, “What is the point of being a councillor any more?” Imagine their voters’ response if councillors say that they no longer have any ability to affect a whole tranche of decisions, and what decisions they are allowed to make will be determined by Ministers in Whitehall, not by their council.
By dint of this clause, the Government’s message is, “It doesn’t matter how much you engage in the planning system. It doesn’t matter which councillors stand for election, what they stand for, what their manifestos are or who gets elected. All decision making is directed by Whitehall, and local people must keep out. They have no say over what their employees will decide at the council.”
The enforced removal of decision-making powers is completely unnecessary to sustain the granting of the permissions and consents that everyone wants in order to provide the housing that the country needs. The vast majority of planning decisions—some 97%—are already made by council officers. Councillors and committees are not blockers; they approve nine out of 10 of all applications that come before them.
Nesil Caliskan
I have heard comments about the planning system during the debate, but less focus on the fact that we have a housing crisis that has manifested itself in record numbers of people living in temporary accommodation, with young people unable to buy properties and many people priced out of the communities into which they were born and in which they live. A national housing crisis requires a national solution.
I do not believe that the proposed changes in any way hinder or damage democratic oversight from a local perspective. The reality is that with the existing framework, it is not possible to deliver planning approvals at the scale that is required to meet the national housing crisis, and a national delegation will help to speed up delivery. We cannot simply depend on a handful of brave councillors who too frequently find themselves in the firing line of decision making for schemes that it is clear to everybody should already have been approved.
I hear what Members say about local authorities, and what the LGA has said. However, the LGA is also clear about the housing crisis our communities are experiencing. The national scheme of delegation gives clarity not only to local authorities and planning officers, but to the industry that we so depend on to be able to build homes up and down the country. The scheme will also speed up processes. The speed at which planning permissions could be granted means that developers are more likely to put bricks on the ground and build homes. It is about recognising the severity of the housing crisis in this country and its impact on millions of people, and choosing whether one is willing to take action to address that need.
Ellie Chowns
I absolutely recognise that we have a housing crisis in this country, but does the hon. Lady recognise, in turn, that it is not just a question of building our way out of the housing crisis? Does she recognise that we have nearly 1 million empty homes in this country, that we have an incredibly unequal housing system, and that financial mechanisms such as the introduction of buy-to-let mortgages had a huge effect in making our housing system even more unequal and unaffordable for many people? Does she recognise that a key part of resolving the housing crisis has to be for Government to take a more direct role in funding the development of more genuinely affordable social rented housing?
Nesil Caliskan
I recognise a number of those points, but supply of housing is the fundamental reason why we have a housing crisis in this country. The amendments being proposed sit alongside many of the solutions that she is seeking. Without our ability as a country, including local authorities, to see housing delivered at the necessary speed, we will never see the number of affordable homes we need or a buy-to-let market being constrained in the way that it needs to be. Supply is the No. 1 reason why we are experiencing a housing crisis. We cannot deliver the number of homes we need without fundamentally looking at the planning system.
Finally, on councillors having their say, the idea that councillors run for public office only because they want to sit on a planning committee—it sounded as if a number of Members were insinuating that—is, I am afraid, a little out of touch. There are lots of ways in which local authorities and councillors can make a difference. Planning committees are indeed one of the most attractive committees, but there are multiple layers of regulatory policy in a local authority that members not only can have a say on, but get to vote on. Earlier, I referenced a local plan that full councils are required to vote on.
An officer making a decision on an application that will not go to a planning committee does not remove a local authority’s ability to put out for consultation. Members of the public, and indeed councillors, will still have the opportunity to submit their views through what will be a statutory consultation period. Local authorities and planning officers will be obliged to take those views into consideration.
I want to underline the point that if we accept that there is a housing crisis in this country and that the planning system is broken, surely planning has to be an aspect that we look at in recognition that local authorities are sometimes being hindered by the existing framework. The speed at which we can deliver housing through a more streamlined planning system, putting faith in professionals in a local authority alongside councillors, will allow us to deliver the 1.5 million homes that we so desperately need.
David Simmonds
I will start where the hon. Member for Barking finished. We know that the planning system has delivered consents for 1.5 million new homes in England, where the development sector has failed to step up. One of the things much debated among political parties is the fact that that seems to suggest that, although there are undoubtedly issues, the planning system has been good at producing the opportunity for those new homes—the challenge has been the inability of the development sector to step up to the plate. That should be the priority to address.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley mentioned the Mayor of London’s recent decision about going into the green belt. That is in the context of a capital city that already has 300,000 unbuilt planning permissions for new homes. The Opposition’s argument is that the priority should not be increasing the stock of unbuilt planning permissions but delivering the homes that our country needs.
Gideon Amos
As an illustration of the hon. Gentleman’s point about unbuilt planning permissions, in Somerset there are permissions for 11,000 new homes that have not been built, while the new NPPF requires a 41% increase in the allocation of permissions. There is no record of these pressures having led to an increase in the number of houses actually being built.
David Simmonds
If we look at the statistics from the ONS on new household formation and the balance between that and the delivery of new homes, we see that they are reasonably in balance at the moment. We know that many people would like a bigger home or a different type of home, and that is why we have consistently argued that we need to focus on the nature of the homes we are delivering, not just on the units being delivered through the planning system.
Members have consistently made the point about centralisation. The UK is already an exceptionally centralised country: we have fewer democratically elected politicians per head of population than most other developed democracies in the world. Our concern with these measures is that they further reduce the voice of a local resident through their democratic representative about a decision that may be the most significant thing affecting their home or their neighbourhood in their entire life.
By creating a national scheme of delegations, we go beyond a point of saying that all local authorities must ensure, in the delivery of a quasi-judicial process, that they are following the law. We begin to say that this is no longer a delegation: it is compulsory. We are taking away the democratic power of the local authority, under which it delegates those decisions to planning committees and to officers, and we are deciding in Whitehall who will make those decisions.
While I absolutely respect what the Minister is saying about expert planning officers, having served in the last Parliament as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on housing and planning and worked very closely with the RTPI, I think we need to be realistic. In many cases, when the Minister says “expert planning officers”, we are talking about newly minted graduates who do not live in—and have no experience of—the local area. They arrive and undertake a desk-based exercise to make these decisions. They are not highly experienced people with a level of local insight who understand why particular aspects of design, materials, or the nature of a development will have a real impact on a neighbourhood.
There are specific examples; one is applications by elected members themselves. I know from my time as a councillor in Hillingdon that a standard rule to ensure transparency is that any application by an elected councillor must be heard by a committee. If someone wishes to change the windows in their home, or build a loft extension, it has to go through a planning committee, even when those things are covered by permitted development rights. That was to ensure that level of transparency. It is not clear how such issues are dealt with through this proposed scheme of delegation.
Matters of detail can be critical: ensuring the acceptance of a proposed development at a neighbourhood level may often come down to issues like overlooking or how it respects the privacy of neighbours. Does it have tree planting, to screen developments that people are unhappy to see? Will there be mitigations around noise? Those are not trivial matters; they have a huge impact on people’s quality of life. The ability of elected representatives to say, “This decision made, entirely in accordance with planning law, needs to be taken transparently in public so that these representations can be heard” is critical.
Olly Glover
I am conscious that we are reaching that time in the afternoon when we may be feeling a little fatigued, so I shall attempt to keep my remarks concise. First, it is important to bear in mind in this discussion that the Minister’s and the Government’s desire to take action to increase our ability to deliver the housing the country needs is sincere. The debate, of course, is whether the measure is an effective way of doing that.
I say to the hon. Member for Barking that there are many reasons why people decide to become local councillors. However, going by those in my constituency, it is because of a deep passion and care for their community. Major developments, of course, have major impacts on communities—hopefully for good, but sometimes for ill. It is entirely understandable that councillors would wish to have the full opportunity to scrutinise such proposals.
I was encouraged to hear the Minister say that national guidance and context are important for planning officers; I therefore hope that he will be receptive to some of our amendments and proposals in subsequent clauses. We must be clear that we are not attacking planning officers in this debate; they have a difficult role in balancing the national guidance and statutory requirements with strong local sentiments from councillors and residents. But that is why it is so important that councillors do continue to be involved.
One of the challenges is that we make the assumption that more house building automatically leads to more affordability, which sadly is not necessarily the case at all. The issue is all about the type of housing being delivered, and perhaps the current market-dominated approach is not always so effective. For example, in my constituency of Didcot and Wantage, in Oxfordshire, we have seen 35% population growth in 20 years. I have never opposed a housing development—neither in my current role as a Member of Parliament, nor before election. I do not intend to change that, because, yes, we do need more housing.
However, the housing growth has led to the fact that, in the town of Didcot, where I live, the average house price is now 15 times the average annual salary. South Oxfordshire Housing Association highlights a serious shortage of social and affordable housing, particularly for one or two-person households. A fairly small two-bedroom terraced house from the mid-’90s costs nearly £300,000, despite some of the fastest house-building growth rates in the country. So the issue is not just about the volume; it is also about the type.
I will give another example, then conclude my remarks. In Valley Park, to the west of Didcot, an outline permission request for a 4,000-plus home development came before the planning committee in 2021. The planning application was recommended for approval by officers, but the councillors on the committee felt that it did not include any provision for healthcare—something already under pressure in the town—and that cycle and walking provision was also poor. Because elected representatives made speeches during the meeting, outlining the issues, the planning decision was deferred for a couple of months and those things were able to be added in. That is an example of the real value that councillors can add.
Another example is that an application for a Lidl in the town of Wantage was recommended for refusal, but the planning committee and the councillors, having heard from local people, realised that it would be a well-used amenity and granted approval. Those are just two examples of where councillors in my constituency have added huge value.
In this time, when we are seeing a perhaps unprecedented loss of faith in politics—I am certainly thinking of the recent elections and, shall we say, some interesting voting patterns—keeping the local link and making sure that local people are brought into the planning process, and that planning is done with them rather than to them, continues to be very important. Councillors play a key role in that, and that is why they should retain their current positions and influence on planning committees.
Lewis Cocking
I am beginning to get fond of the Minister, but we do disagree about clause 46 specifically. It is an attack on democracy. I have already made the point that, within my local authority of Broxbourne, we have a scheme of delegation that delegates some decisions to officers, but there is an ability to change that: if lots of residents are particularly concerned about a development, or even about a dropped kerb, that can go to committee.
I have served on a planning committee and overturned officers’ recommendations, both for approval and for refusal. On one planning committee, after we overturned an officer’s recommendation for approval, the issue went to the planning inspector, who wrote back, saying, “I uphold every reason that the planning committee has given for refusal. I fully support the decision it has made.”
I am really concerned about the lack of accountability because, at the end of the day, whether council tax goes up because of planning decisions made by the council that it then needs to defend at appeal, or bad planning decisions are made, the electorate can have their say at the May local elections. They can say, “Do you know what? We don’t agree with any of the decisions that this council is making, and we can vote for someone else at the ballot box.”
A national scheme of delegation removes councils’ ability to be flexible. This should not be one size fits all. There is also no accountability. We work with some brilliant planning officers, but we also work with some who are not as good in their opinions on planning applications. I have many examples within my own local authority. Speak to one planning officer, and they will say that something is a brilliant idea that fits the national planning policy framework; speak to another, and they will take a completely different view. There is a lack of accountability in what the Government are doing. Let me make a broader point: I do not know what councils have done to offend the Government. They want to abolish lots of them, create super-councils and take away their planning powers.
When we adopted our local plan in Broxbourne, I think it was the second local plan in history to be adopted virtually; because of the covid regulations, we had to meet online. I gently push back on the arguments that councillors at full council—I know that they have to vote on a local plan at full council—have had their say on a development. A local plan is not that specific. It will set out areas for development. It may set out some principles, such as wanting a school or a community centre on a site, but it will not go into detail on design, or the look and feel of the community.
The idea that councillors have had their say on the local plan and now everything will be approved and can go through is nonsense. I have made the point in the House that we really need to think about the communities we want to make. We can approve as many house building targets or applications as we want, but we have to give some thought to the communities.
Amanda Martin
Does the hon. Member accept that two thirds of local planning authorities in England—around 206 councils—do not have an up-to-date local plan?
Lewis Cocking
Both of mine have a local plan. A number of authorities do not have one; it is a long and arduous process, and I welcome discussions about how we can streamline it. As I said, if a local plan has been approved, a site may have been allocated for development, but the minutiae or detail regarding the design of that development will not have been gone into. I have always maintained that the reason developers struggle to get through the planning system is because they try to build absolute rubbish. If they came forward with lots of really good schemes, councillors would not give them as hard a time as they do.
Lewis Cocking
The hon. Lady shakes her head, but I have sat on a planning committee and seen developers come forward and make planning applications in line with local plan allocation on outline, which means that we are just discussing the principle of development, or potentially the numbers or the access, with all the detailed designs left to the full planning application. It is set out in gold. We get everything we want. We get a good 106 negotiation. There will be a new doctors surgery and a new school. Lo and behold, when that same developer comes back with a full planning application, it is completely different, but because the principle of development has been established it is very difficult to then turn down. Developers are taking some councils for a ride, and we need to be careful of that.
Nesil Caliskan
The hon. Gentleman will recall that he and I worked very closely: we are part of a small percentage of ex-council leaders who actually saw through a local plan.
Nesil Caliskan
We had to work together on a statutory basis to consult each other’s local authority, so I recognise the points that the hon. Gentleman makes around the pressures of the planning system, particularly as we both have scars on our back, having seen local plans through. However, I ask him to reflect on the fact that a number of the issues that he raises can be effectively dealt with through local guidance and design principles—an authority within the administration that has set out clear guidance, not just for the public in their place but for applicants.
Those are very separate issues from what the Government propose around a national delegation scheme, which is about speeding up the process for what will be a national framework to agree to a number of houses to meet a target. His points are really important, but they would not be lost through what is proposed in the amendments.
Lewis Cocking
I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady; we worked closely together as leaders of neighbouring authorities. I would push back slightly. The point has been made before. I do not necessarily think that the hold-up is the planning system. There are lots of unbuilt planning applications out there—I can reference loads of applications in my constituency from when I sat on the planning committee nearly two years ago where a single house is yet to be built. The Government have an ambition to build 1.5 million homes. If they want to achieve that ambition, they should be going after all the planning applications that are yet to be built out.
The hon. Lady makes some valid points on design codes. I would welcome more guidance so that local authorities can use them more effectively—I think lots of local authorities would agree with that—but design is ultimately in the eye of the beholder. Lots of planning officers do not live within the local planning authority in which they work. Local councillors who stand in a local authority area have to, by law, either live or work there. They are part of the community. I am really concerned about removing the power of planning committees and local councillors to determine planning applications in their area.
This works both ways. As I have said, I have voted to overturn where officers have recommended a refusal. Councillors have to be brave sometimes on planning decisions, as the hon. Lady well knows, and as I well know from being on a planning committee. I am really concerned about the attack on democracy and the lack of accountability.
When the Minister sums up, can he comment on how we will hold planning officers to account if they make the wrong or bad decisions? This is not just a policy where someone has stood for election because they want their bins collected on a Monday and not a Tuesday. Once planning permission has been granted and the application has been built out, the result is there for decades. It is very difficult to retrospectively change that if mistakes are made. Ultimately, the public have their say at the ballot box, but with unaccountable officers, they do not. How will the Government hold planning officers to account under this national scheme of delegation?
Matthew Pennycook
Let me first say that, for entirely understandable reasons, this has been a passionate debate. People feel very strongly about the local planning system, the role of elected members in it, and the role of residents in inputting to those decisions. That is because local planning is principally a local activity. It is for that reason that we as a Government are putting so much emphasis on ensuring that up-to-date local plans are in place in every part of the country, because we think that they are the best way to shape development in a particular area, but we want to ensure that planning committees function effectively.
I will make a couple of points in response to the issues raised. The first is on outcomes. I slightly chide the shadow Minister, because it cannot be true on the one hand that this is a measure, as he alleges, that we are introducing to build our 1.5 million homes and then, on the other hand, to say that it will essentially make no difference to the current arrangements.
Outcomes-wise, we think this is an important part of the reforms that we are bringing forward, because it will ensure that decisions are made in a more consistent and more timely manner. That is why I gave the example on Second Reading of reserved matters applications. I do not know what the views of Members are, but I certainly do not think that every reserved matters application should come back to committees. I think that often delays the process.
We can discuss many of the other challenges that we face in the planning system. It is absolutely true that there is more that we can do on empty homes; we are giving that consideration. There is more that we can do on build-out—watch this space. There is more that we can do on all these things, but it is still the case that the planning system is too inconsistent and slow, and that there are things we can do about that.
To come back to the point on build-out, and we do need to take action on build-out, it is this Government’s view that we need to oversupply consents into the planning system to ensure that we are building out at the rate that meets the housing crisis, because whatever anyone thinks about the rights or wrongs of this reform, we are not building homes at the scale that we need in order to meet housing need and housing demand. We have to do things differently. In terms of outcomes, we think this measure is impactful.
Gideon Amos
Another time, I would be interested to discuss what level of oversupply will actually work, because we have huge oversupply permissions already. My point is in relation to reserved matters. The last reserved matters application I dealt with was for a waste site that had 770 objections. I think local residents would have been incredulous to be told that their local planning committee was not allowed to decide that application. There were more objections to that than to any other application in the council area for years. The Bill does not say that this relates to just reserved matters, but even if the Government did bring forward a proposal to say that, does the Minister not see how controversial and significant even reserved matters applications can be?
Matthew Pennycook
I take the point, but let me be clear about what I said: every reserved matters application should come back before a committee. I will come back to the point that the hon. Gentleman rightly raises, but in terms of outcomes we think this measure will be impactful.
My second point is about straw men. Parts of this debate have generated more heat than light, if I am honest, and many allegations have been thrown around. Some said that this measure rides roughshod over local democracy, and the hon. Member for Broxbourne alleged that the Government are saying that once a local plan is in place, every decision will just be shoved through. That is obviously not the case, so let me be very clear about what we are talking about.
Local schemes of delegation are in place across the country. In lots of those, lots of decisions are delegated to planning officers. In principle, we all agree that expert planning officers should be allowed to make decisions on certain applications—I do not think that is contested—so let us put what we are discussing in proportion. We are not changing the consultation rules on planning applications. Representations are and will continue to be considered by the decision maker, whether that is the planning committee or the planning officer. In that sense, I will continue to argue that the proposed change does not remove democratic oversight.
My third point is about what is decided. There are understandably a lot of assumptions about what the national scheme of delegation will suggest. I would wager that in a couple of years’ time, when we look back at this, a lot of the concerns raised will seem to have been unfounded. I hope the Government allay those concerns when we bring forward the precise proposals about what we want the national scheme of delegation to entail. It is not the case that the controversial and significant applications that several hon. Members have raised, which we agree should absolutely come before committees, will be ruled out in the national scheme of delegation. The assumption about the amount that we are removing from the system will prove to be unfounded.
Paul Holmes
I would say to the Minister that significance is in the eye of the beholder, but may I bring him back to something that he said? I do not want to do him a disservice, but I believe he said that planning officers’ decisions, rather than local committee decisions, would not change under a national scheme of delegation; they will still be there. Can he assure us that any ability that currently exists within local schemes to call in a decision made by a planning officer will not be affected by the national scheme of delegation that he proposes?
Matthew Pennycook
I understand why the hon. Gentleman is doing so, but he tempts me to announce the proposals that we will bring forward. I would like to do that as a package so the House can see what the Government are proposing. As I said, at that point I think some of the concerns will have been assuaged.
My fourth and final point, which is the crux of this debate, is that we can have a very sensible discussion about the type of things that should or should not be in a national scheme of delegation. The shadow Minister just inadvertently went down that route, and I am happy to have that conversation. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington gave the game away, in a sense, when he argued that if we were just talking about a scheme of standardisation across the country, that would be fine, but a national scheme of delegation is not. We are, in a sense, talking about a standardised scheme that will ensure consistency in the system about what comes forward.
Matthew Pennycook
I will just make this point, then I will give way for a final time. This debate has revealed a very principled difference of opinion, sincerely held, about whether it is appropriate at all to have a national scheme of delegation. I feel very strongly that, just as the Government set frameworks in other areas, it is right that we have a say on schemes of delegation that apply in local areas. I think that is right, both in terms of the outcomes that will be secured and to reduce uncertainty and risk in the system. I understand that Opposition Members feel differently and think that a national framework should not be applied. That is a perfectly reasonable view, but we disagree.
Matthew Pennycook
But the conversation that we will have to have, because we have the numbers, is what the national scheme of delegation should incorporate, not whether we bring one forward. Three Members want to intervene. We have a few minutes left.
Gideon Amos
My point was about the distinction between a voluntary guideline and putting in statute the removal of powers from councillors. I repeat: does the Minister not have any qualms about giving all future Ministers and Secretaries of State in future Governments the power to make any regulations they want to take these powers away from councillors?
Matthew Pennycook
I think it is perfectly appropriate that we introduce a national scheme of delegation, and that we bring forward, through a regulation-making power, those details in due course. Any future Government would have to consult on changes and take them through via secondary legislation, and it would be up for scrutiny.
I am tempted to comment more widely on regulation-making powers, but I gently say to Opposition Members that some of the placeholder clauses that I saw in legislation in the previous Parliament make this one seem very minor, in relative terms. We can debate that more widely, but I think our approach, both in outcomes and in a reasonable balance between democratic oversight and trusting expert local planning officers, which we all do in certain circumstances, is the right one.
Lewis Cocking
The Minister has been generous with his time. Could he comment on how we will hold planning officers to account? At the moment, we can call in planning applications democratically. How are we going to hold planning officers to account under a national scheme of delegation?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that point. It is a point well made, and it was also made by the shadow Minister on another clause. I will go away and reflect on what more, if anything, needs to be done in that regard. It is rightly put that, just as we want to ensure consistency in decisions by elected Members, we want consistency in the decisions and recommendations made by expert planning officers at a local authority level. I will happily come back to the Committee on that.
David Simmonds
I gently say to the Minister, who I look up to in many ways, that it is a challenge for the Committee to rely upon, on the one hand, an argument that this is not a big deal because it would affect hardly any planning applications, and on the other hand, an argument that it is so important we have to push it through via a national scheme of delegation. The concern that Members have is considering the 4% of applications that go to committee as a major problem, when in fact, by general acceptance in today’s debate, they are not really much of an issue. We lose the important element of local democratic accountability without any corresponding benefit in planning delivery.
Matthew Pennycook
I would say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, we do think there is a corresponding benefit, because we think the change will remove a large element of risk and uncertainty in the system and ensure some very important applications are made in a more timely way. I end by inviting the shadow Minister, at the point we publish our proposals, to come back on whether we have got the balance right. I am more than happy to continue the conversation about what we take forward on the regulations. On the principle of introducing a national scheme of delegation, the Government feel very strongly that it is the right thing to do.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting)
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind Members to send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk and to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. It will probably get very hot, so if you would like to take off some of your layers, that is absolutely fine.
Clause 21
Long duration electricity storage
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse. On that cheery note, it is great to be back in Committee this morning.
The clause is about long-duration electricity storage, or LDES, which is an incredibly important part of an electricity system, allowing us to store cheap renewable energy when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, and to generate electricity when people need it most. It is a crucial part of our clean power mission.
Across Great Britain, we already have 2.8 GW of LDES on the grid. I have had the pleasure of visiting some pumped hydropower stations that have been part of our system for decades. They allow excess electricity to pump water high up to a mountain reservoir, where it can be released when we need it to drive turbines and generate electricity. The most recent of those sites, however, was completed more than 40 years ago. The clean power 2030 action plan suggests that we need another 1.2 GW of LDES in the next five years. The National Energy System Operator suggests that we could need up to 15 GW by 2050, so a significant increase on where we are today.
Despite low operating costs and high system-wide benefits, which in 2024 were estimated at £24 billion, the large up-front capital costs to build such stations in the first place, and the revenue uncertainty over such a long lifespan of an asset, have deterred private investment in LDES over the decades. The clause therefore introduces a cap and floor scheme to develop new long-duration energy storage in Great Britain.
Those wishing to develop an LDES asset will be able to apply to Ofgem for protected revenues, conditional on satisfactory delivery and operation and on sharing excess profits with consumers. That provides the revenue certainty needed for investors, giving the green light for the next generation of those important assets. We expect—we have set out deliberately—that this will be technology-agnostic. We therefore expect that we will have more pumped hydro, as well as more novel technologies such as liquid air energy storage.
The clause imposes a duty on Ofgem to establish and operate a cap and floor scheme to encourage the development of LDES assets across Great Britain. The clause also defines the minimum eligibility requirements for the scheme: assets will need a minimum power output of 50 MW, and to be able to discharge at full power for eight hours without recharge. Simply meeting those requirements, however, will not guarantee success, and Ofgem will only select the projects that are most useful for system-wide benefits and for consumers. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to update that definition by regulation. It also defines in broad terms how Ofgem will set the cap and floor, and how it will fund floor payments.
This is a really important step. As I say, after 40 years of not building long-duration energy storage in this country, we are incredibly excited to be building it once again. It is also crucial to how we deliver the clean power system in the future. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Good morning, Mrs Hobhouse. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to see you again. I welcome both Ministers to their places. As soon as you said that we can start removing layers, Mrs Hobhouse, my button suddenly popped off. I apologise, and I guarantee that I will not remove any more layers, for fear of disrupting the Committee.
The clause amends the Electricity Act 1989, requiring the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to implement a cap and floor scheme for long-duration energy electricity storage or LDES. We are concerned that the clause introduces unnecessary bureaucracy and will distort the market with the introduction of the scheme. I have several questions on this. Can the Minister explain what criteria will determine the initial cap and floor levels? More importantly, how frequently will they be reviewed to stay responsive to market changes?
We know that the scheme aims to provide financial stability to LDES for operators by setting revenue caps and income floors, and to encourage investment in this technology. However, will LDES operators and investors have a role in reviewing or adjusting the scheme to ensure that it reflects real-world conditions? Will there be eligibility criteria for a formal application process for operators to access the scheme, ensuring fair access for all players? Those concerns, we would argue, highlight the need for clarity and effective integration with broader energy policies and to ensure the scheme’s success. I look to the Minister for clarification on those elements of the clause. We do not intend to divide at this stage, but we will provide further scrutiny at further stages of the process.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Good morning, Mrs Hobhouse, it is especially a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. Liberal Democrats are supportive of a scheme to encourage long-duration energy storage and, for that reason, are generally supportive of the clause. Long-duration energy storage is crucially needed, including, of course, battery storage.
There are instances of fires in battery storage facilities, but there is no reason why they should not be built safely—they can and are built safely. We ask the Ministers to consider whether fire brigades should be statutory consultees in applications for battery storage proposals. That is not the case at the moment, which seems perverse, given that there is an acknowledged fire risk that needs to, and can, be dealt with. We should have fire services as statutory consultees to ensure that happens.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I rise simply to support the provision. The first point to note is that this sort of technology has always been critical for the electricity system, which is why we have plants such as Cruachan in Scotland—which I commend to everyone as a great place to visit on their summer holidays—and Dinorwig in Wales. We need more investment in this.
As someone who has been involved in the energy sector for almost 30 years, the simple fact of the matter is that this technology will not be invested in without additional support. The plan for a cap and floor mechanism is well worked through, and has a reasonable pedigree in the electricity industry for supporting investment. Clause 21 seeks to introduce that. Quite properly, it is technology-agnostic, because there is a great deal of innovation in this sector. The provision is important for decarbonisation, energy security and jobs across the British Isles; I therefore support it.
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, I remind Members to please indicate a little bit more clearly to me—preferably at the beginning of a debate—whether you want to speak.
Michael Shanks
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions and their recognition, first and foremost, of the important role that long-duration energy storage plays in our system. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East referred to Cruachan—the hollow mountain —and I think there is barely a person in Scotland who has never been on a school trip to there. I would recommend it to anyone; it is a fantastic example of not just how important this is to our energy system, but the engineering that has lasted a significant number of decades and still runs on our system. It plays an incredibly important role.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, raised a number of important questions. Ofgem has consulted on the process for the first window of the cap and floor scheme. It has published detailed, technical guidance on what we would expect those projects to be able to deliver. We, and Ofgem as the regulator, have very deliberately been technology-agnostic to allow more of these innovative projects to come forward. That first round will run its course, but we absolutely would expect that Ofgem and the Government will look at the results of that review and see if there are areas that we might improve on for a further round if that is deemed necessary. We will keep the scheme constantly under review.
The cap and floor scheme that Ofgem has run for interconnectors has been an incredibly successful way of delivering value for money for consumers and of giving that revenue certainty over the long term. It is a model that works very well. We will review the projects that move forward in the scheme. As I outlined, there are technical requirements that they must meet, but there will also be a process of ensuring that the projects deliver value for money for consumers.
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington rightly recognises the role that LDES plays in the mix. We could see some battery projects coming forward in this round. Traditionally, they have not been part of long-duration energy storage, but that technology is moving forward rapidly and some might be able to bid into this process. There are some really innovative projects in that space.
It is important to take the question of how we deal with safety risks for batteries in a balanced way. There are safety incidents for a whole range of infrastructure in our country; some get a lot more attention than others in the media, and we need to be careful not to draw more attention to one particular technology at the exclusion of others. But the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is right that safety should be paramount in everything we do with every energy system and every part of infrastructure.
We are looking at the wider question of how we might introduce additional safety measures on battery storage sites more generally, not just as part of the LDES scheme. The Health and Safety Executive has a key role in regulating battery designers, installers and operators to ensure that they take the necessary measures to ensure health and safety. It is an important step, and one that we take seriously.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I want to press the Minister on the point raised by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. On a visit to the London Fire Brigade I learnt that there is a particular set of risks associated with batteries—essentially, the difficulty of putting the fires out.
In the grand scheme of things, batteries are not more serious than, for example, oil storage, but they require different equipment and differently trained and equipped crews to respond. Will the Minister say more about how, as batteries become a more significant part of the energy mix, he will ensure that fire brigades are able to take a view at the planning stage and are made aware of the risks—just in case they have to respond?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which we will take onboard. It is already part of what the Health and Safety Executive and the Fire Service are looking at nationally in terms of guidelines, but the Government continue to take an interest. The hon. Gentleman is right that as the schemes expand across the country, more fire brigades that may have not had experience of these incidents in the past will have to gain experience. It is an important point and we take it seriously.
On a general point, I am glad that hon. Members across the Committee recognise the importance of LDES. It is genuinely an exciting moment for the country that we will build some of these important engineering projects to deliver the long-duration energy storage that the country needs.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Benefits for homes near electricity transmission projects
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 83, in clause 22, page 29, line 33, after “benefits” insert
“of £1,000 per year for ten years”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 102—Community benefits from major energy infrastructure projects—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a scheme under which communities with a specified connection to a major energy infrastructure project are entitled to financial benefits.
(2) In subsection (1), ‘major energy infrastructure project’ and ‘specified connection’ have such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify, provided that any such definition includes all newly consented renewable energy projects.
(3) Financial benefits provided for by a scheme under this section must—
(a) be provided by the owner of the relevant major energy infrastructure project, and
(b) amount to 5% of the annual revenue of the relevant project.
(4) Where a major energy infrastructure project is onshore, regulations made under this section must—
(a) provide for two-thirds of the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid to the council of that community, and
(b) provide for one third of the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid into a strategic fund operated by the council.
(5) Where a major energy infrastructure project is offshore, regulations made under this section must provide for the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid into a strategic fund operated by the relevant council.
(6) Regulations made under this section may, among other things—
(a) specify the powers, purposes, responsibilities and constitution of a council strategic fund;
(b) make further provision determining which communities are qualifying under this section, and defining community for this purpose;
(c) confer functions in connection with the scheme;
(d) provide for delegation of functions conferred in connection with the scheme.”
This new clause sets out a scheme for providing financial benefit to communities in areas connected with major energy infrastructure schemes.
Paul Holmes
Amendment 83 was tabled by the shadow Scottish Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). We welcome clause 22, which empowers the Secretary of State to establish a financial benefit scheme for people living near new or upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure. It is vital that people living locally to such works, who will see their life disrupted, should receive fair compensation for their trouble. I said in the last Committee session, as did other Opposition Members, that we support the Government’s move to do that and to involve local communities, following on from some of the provisions that the Conservatives made in government.
Where there is a disagreement, however, is on the level of that compensation. Amendment 83 would require the Secretary of State to establish a scheme under which persons with a specified connection to qualifying premises are entitled to a financial benefit of £1,000 per year for 10 years, provided directly or indirectly by electricity providers. We believe that this would be able to be monitored under the current scope of the legislation, particularly where it says that the Secretary of State may provide funding from Parliament to those administering the scheme.
Provisions would also be made for complaints, procedures, appeals or dispute resolution related to the scheme. The regulations would be subject to an affirmative procedure—we do not see any need to change that. The clause would apply to England, Scotland and Wales and come into force on Royal Assent. We would argue that the level set out in the amendment would not need to change the Bill. The scheme would allow eligible residents, mainly through electricity suppliers, to receive benefits based on the proximity to above-ground transmission projects, including past projects, which are fair and proportionate.
Under our amendment, any scheme established under proposed new section 38A(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 would have to include provision for, for example, homeowners residing within 500 metres of qualifying premises to be entitled to financial benefits of £1,000 a year for 10 years. The Minister and I did not argue—we never argue—but debated last time, and the Opposition accept the nature of what the Minister intends to do, but we feel that there needs to be more clarity for the consumer and for local people. There were stories on Sky News that the consumer benefit for homes near electricity transmission infrastructure would be set at about £250 a year, so I would be grateful if the Minister would state what he expects the level of compensation to be and clarify that for the rest of the Committee.
Whether the Minister chooses to accept our very reasonable offer of £1,000 a year or not, will he answer how errors or instances of fraud will be handled within the administration of the benefit scheme? What rights do residents or other parties have to appeal decisions or penalties related to the benefit scheme? What role will the Secretary of State play in ongoing monitoring and enforcement of the scheme, with particular regard to regulatory powers?
As I said, I do not want to go over the arguments again, but the Opposition believe that we must take communities with us, when it comes to consumers and people affected by large-scale planning decisions through centralisation and an attempt—to be fair to the Minister—to reduce the bureaucracy and deliver the infrastructure that we need. We talked last time about community benefit under other amendments and clauses of the Bill. The Opposition believe that residents and local communities deserve to know that there will be a certain amount for a certain period, and we believe that £1,000 a year for 10 years is something that local people would welcome. I commend amendment 83 to the Committee.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be able to speak briefly on clause 22, which I welcome. This scheme is key to delivering the key Government commitment to ensuring that those who are closest to new electricity infrastructure feel the benefits soonest. Also important is the Government guidance that will be brought forward on how developers will ensure that communities hosting transmission infrastructure can benefit, including through funding for community projects, sports clubs and leisure facilities. I welcome this key commitment.
It is disappointing that the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, is not here to explain further his comments in the newspapers today. He has moved from saying that he opposes electricity pylons to the issue of scientists themselves, suggesting that climate targets are not, in fact, science-based. It is disappointing that he is not here to defend his amendment, but I very much welcome the Government’s proposal.
The Chair
I remind Members that the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine cannot be here because he is not on the Committee, so he is excused.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise in support of amendment 83, in which the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland sets out a fair and reasonable system as to what benefits people living near new energy infrastructure should be able to get. It is important to note that the House of Commons Library says that the Government are minded to set aside £2,500 a year for 10 years. The Government should be able to find it within themselves to support our amendment, considering we do not even go as far as the provision that they suggested, according to the House of Commons Library. This amendment should be an easy step to get to where the Government want to go.
I do have some concerns. It has been raised in Committee before that this provision cannot be a simple solution to not doing any consultation. We still need a belt-and-braces consultation, and I want to hear some clear words from the Minister to say that this will not replace that—residents will still be able to have their say, and there will still be a full and proper consultation when new energy infrastructure comes forward.
I am disappointed to see in the legislation hardly any detail about what the community benefit scheme will be. I have said before that if we leave too much ambiguity, electricity providers and developers will want to get away with paying nothing at all or as little as possible. We should not allow that to happen. We should allow people—our constituents—who live near energy infra-structure projects to get the best deal possible, considering that they will have to put up with a lot of disruption. I have some constituents who live near large housing developments. There is a lot of disruption during the construction phase, so I want more detail about what the Government intend to set out.
As I have said, a House of Commons Library paper said that the Government were minded to go to £2,500 a year. The Government should therefore have no issue supporting the amendment because it does not go as far as that. It sets out reasonable benefits that everyone should expect across the country, leaving less to ambiguity and putting power into the hands of this Parliament scrutinising this legislation rather than developers and electricity providers because, as I said, they will want to get away with paying as little as possible.
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak to new clause 102, which stands in the name of the Liberal Democrats. This would ensure that all communities hosting major energy infrastructure—solar farms, wind farms, major battery storage, gas, nuclear or other power stations, as well as transmission infrastructure, which is already covered by the Bill—would receive a benefit of 5% of the annual revenue of that project.
Safeguarding the future by tackling climate change is vital, but we are only going to achieve that if we bring communities with us and make it affordable for households. We recognise, and of course welcome, the provision in the Bill for community benefits for those near transmission lines, but those living beside nuclear, gas, coal-fired or other power stations are not eligible for any community support. For example, I supported the development of Ham Farm solar park in Taunton, but none the less the community gets no benefit for the significant impact it is having on that community.
It is time that we had a system that gave community benefit for all energy infrastructure if we are to persuade communities and work with communities to host that infrastructure. If we are going to move Britain to a low pollution energy future with more home-grown energy—something the Liberal Democrats strongly support—we must be willing to compensate those expected to live with and host these enormous developments. It is time, in short, that local people benefited from national energy projects.
Liberal Democrats have consistently led the way on community benefit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) brought in the first community benefit system of this kind. In 2013, when he was Secretary of State and making the UK the biggest offshore energy generator in the world, he said:
“Communities hosting renewable energy installations play a key role in meeting the national need for secure, clean energy. It is only right that local people should be recognised and rewarded for that contribution”.
He continued:
“developers already offer community benefit packages on a voluntary basis, we challenged them to do more”. —[Official Report, 6 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 116WS.]
He then announced an increase in the recommended community benefit package in England from £1,000 per megawatt of installed capacity per year to £5,000, which remains the basis of the system today. Now it is time to extend that benefit to all energy, and to make it proportional to the revenue raised by energy projects. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), who is a real champion for his constituency, proposed a scheme such as is set out in new clause 102 to Highland council back in 2021. It is important to recognise that the industry has contributed in this area, and in renewables especially.
In February 2024 the Government, in their document, “Developing Local Partnerships for Onshore Wind in England: Government response”, endorsed the 2013 system of £5,000 per megawatt installed capacity. Our new clause would mean that 5% of revenue from all energy projects goes to local communities. To put some figures on that, Grubb and Garjardo at UCL Bartlett estimate that, in a good year for energy generators such as 2022, UK revenue from renewables was £15.5 billion. Put that across 53,000 megawatts of installed capacity, meaning that £288,00 revenue per megawatt of installed capacity was raised, and 5% of that would be around £14,000 in community benefit per megawatt of installed capacity. In less good years, such as 2021, it might be around £7,000 per megawatt of installed capacity.
With average electricity bills in households being £730 in the UK, it is also important to secure reductions in bills by adopting the Liberal Democrat policy in our manifesto of finally decoupling electricity prices from the wholesale gas price. Based on Energy UK’s figures, that would mean a reduction in electricity costs per household of around £200 per year. The sums yielded to communities through the new clause—around £7,000 in 2021—would be comparable with the volunteered figure of £5,000 from the industry, but with the added benefit that when revenues increase, the community benefit would also increase.
So far the Government have taken only limited steps, which are welcome; but as part of the proposals that we put forward for a similar system in a debate in Westminster Hall in October, we were encouraged by the Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen, who said:
“On community benefits in particular, we are continuing—at pace”—
that key word—
“the work started by the previous Government to review how we can effectively deliver benefits for communities living near this infrastructure.”
He said that they were,
“developing clear guidance on community benefits for both the infrastructure and the transmission networks.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 276WH.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire provides an example from the highlands. It is in the periphery of the UK—the highlands and elsewhere—that many of the biggest energy projects are located. Typically, they are areas where there are high levels of fuel poverty, limited access to affordable housing, lower wages, and high costs for electricity connection and heating. Rural areas, where many major projects are built across the UK, share the characteristics of departing young people, sparse and remote public services, especially after the ending of the rural service delivery grant, and poor infrastructure.
Other countries provide compelling examples of what can be done. Denmark, for example, requires new renewable projects to offer at least 20% ownership to local residents. In Germany, local authorities, or Länder, such as Munich, develop their own offshore wind farms, and community benefit comes from the tax revenue that they provide.
Our new clause would see two thirds of the benefit funds designated for the community, by which we mean to be spent in the council ward affected, where community groups themselves could and should be delegated with the power to manage and distribute those funds, with one third used for community benefit at a more strategic level for the council area decided by elected councillors. Fuel vouchers, affordable housing and investment into health and social care could be among the priority candidates for the spending of these benefits. It is unacceptable that these communities, which provide the backbone of our energy revolution, often see little financial benefit from hosting such infrastructure.
Michael Shanks
I thank all Members for an interesting debate. Amendment 83 was tabled by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. He is ever present in these discussions, but never present—
Luke Murphy
Can I withdraw my criticism about the absence of the shadow Minister for Energy?
Michael Shanks
The Minister for Energy made it on to this Committee; the shadow Minister for Energy could have made it on to this Committee as well, so my hon. Friend should not withdraw his criticism so hastily. Anyway, he is ever present in these discussions and we enjoy his contributions from beyond the Committee room.
Paul Holmes
I will try not to take that personally. The Minister should be grateful for what he has got. If he wanted a shadow Energy Minister on the Committee, he could have made that known through the usual channels.
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. I will turn to the substance of the amendment before I get into trouble, Mrs Hobhouse.
The amendment seeks to set the level of benefit at £1,000 per year over 10 years. First, I should say I welcome the fact that across the Committee today there is support for that principle. That is really important, because the principle that we want to recognise—to be fair, the previous Government did when they launched the consultation—is that if we host nationally important energy infrastructure, particularly transmission infra-structure, which so often has less of a community benefit in the communities that it passes through, there should be some benefit from it. That is a really important point.
The balance that we sought to strike was to find a way to give a benefit to those households affected by the transmission infrastructure, but also make sure that the wider bill payers across the country that will pay for those community benefits are not saddled with a significant bill as a result. So the balance that we struck was £250 per year over 10 years. I would never seek to question the House of Commons Library, but I think perhaps the hon. Member for Broxbourne might not be correct in his interpretation of its figures. It would be £2,500 over the course of the 10 years that the scheme would be in place. I think that is what he was referring to.
In our view, the point here is that this still provides a significant benefit regarding bills for those households for a substantial amount of time—10 years—but at the same time does not result in significant amounts being added to the bills of other people right across the country who will pay for this. We think £1,000—which we looked at carefully as part of this process—is too much.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I thank the Minister, and I absolutely recognise the importance of the principle of community benefit. However, would he not agree with me that it becomes problematic if we put in specific numbers, such as £250 or £1,000 a year? Inflation will change what that means, so is it not more relevant and logical to place a requirement more like the amendment advocated by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, which talks about a community dividend that is in proportion to the revenues generated by the project rather than an absolute number?
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Lady for that point; I will come to the new clause shortly. The difficulty with that approach for transmission infrastructure is that by definition it goes through so many different communities in a linear way that it would be really difficult to divide up that funding among communities. How you define each community is quite challenging, whereas defining households that are within a certain distance of pylons, for example, is very easy, and we want to give a direct benefit to those households.
Ellie Chowns
Logically, we could divide by the number of miles of transmission infrastructure in each community.
Michael Shanks
I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making, but a transmission line goes through a significant number of communities in a linear way. For a wind farm, you could draw a line around it and benefit all those communities; a transmission line does not work that way, so we would be giving to a significant number of communities who have maybe one or two pylons near them. That is why we think what is most important is that the households closest to the infrastructure get the direct community benefit.
To the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, this is not the only part of the Bill—we will also have a community benefits fund for infrastructure like substations, where if there is one particular piece of infrastructure built in a community, with all the disruption that goes with building that, wider community benefits come from that as well. It is not one or the other; we are doing both, but in a legislative sense, we only have to legislate on the Bill discount scheme, which is what we are talking about in this amendment.
The shadow Minister asked for detail on some important points—including that we should set out in secondary legislation the specific level of benefit and the duration over which it will be paid. Of course, the £250 a year is a “minded to” position that we have come to as a result of the consultation that the previous Government did and the evidence that we have seen, but that will be set out in secondary legislation, which—to the hon. Lady’s point—allows us to alter that over time if the scheme is successful. This is, in some ways, a trial to find out whether the intended policy outcomes result. I hope that for those reasons—I will come to some others—the hon. Member for Hamble Valley might withdraw his amendment.
Clause 22 is about creating a financial benefit scheme for eligible households living near certain new or significant increases in network transmission infrastructure, and inserts new sections into the Electricity Act 1989. It empowers the Secretary of State to establish and determine the overall design of the scheme, including qualification criteria, scheme administration, enforcement, and provisions requiring the benefit to be passed on.
The “pass-through provision” is outlined in new section 38B(2), and is essential to ensure that the right consumers benefit and to ensure that when an intermediary sits between the electricity supplier and the end user—as happens in some cases—the intermediary will be required to obtain the full benefit and then pass it on to the end user. If this is not complied with, new section 38B(3) allows regulations to provide for the withdrawal or recovery of benefits made to intermediaries.
To enforce compliance with the scheme, new section 38C details the enforcement provisions that may be made in regulations, and I hope this answers the shadow Minister’s point around potential fraud in the system and the imposition of penalties that we will make through secondary legislation for instances of regulations not being complied with. Finally, new section 38D deals with provisions around data collection for the purposes of administering the scheme. Overall, it is worth remembering the purpose of this clause: it is to improve the public acceptability of network transmission infrastructure.
Lewis Cocking
I appreciate the Minister’s correction of what I said—the Government are less generous than I interpreted, in terms of the £2,500 over 10 years. But can he give us some warm words about this not replacing any consultation and say that it is on top of all of the consultation and residents being allowed to have their say, and that we will not allow electricity companies just to pay some money and then get away without doing any consultation at all? Can he give us some reassurances on that?
Michael Shanks
It is a very important point, and this will come through in the discussions that we will have more generally in this Committee around community consultation, but it will continue to play an important part. I think it is important to separate out any question of compensation from community benefit.
This is not a compensation scheme, and landowners that currently are compensated for infrastructure being built will continue to be compensated through whatever channels that is decided in. This is a community benefit, so it is additional. It is about recognising that it is critical for the future of the country that we build new grid infrastructure, and that if someone hosts that infrastructure they should gain some benefit from doing so. This is our proposal for doing that, alongside the community benefit funds that we have announced.
The Government believe that it is appropriate to set out the full detail on this in regulations, as is the case in many such schemes that have been set up over the years, due to the technical level of detail that will be required, and have drafted this clause to make sure that it applies only to transmission infrastructure, as it is not the intention that it should apply to other technologies. I commend clause 22 to the Committee.
That brings me to new clause 102, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, which seeks to introduce a scheme that would ensure communities are provided with financial benefits from hosting major energy infrastructure projects from a range of technologies. I welcome the intent of this measure. Indeed, I have had a number of conversations with the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues on this very topic over the past nine months in which I have had the privilege of having this job, and spoken fairly recently to his colleague, the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr Angus MacDonald)—I was in his constituency yesterday, seeing the investment that this Government have made in port infrastructure in his constituency.
We therefore agree broadly with the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington’s point about how communities should benefit from all this energy infrastructure, but the new clause is not the right way to do it. We are already considering—he quoted myself to me, and I was delighted to hear I was fairly coherent in that debate—the question of wider community benefits. Clearly, at the moment most such community benefit schemes are voluntary schemes run by developers. It is important to say that some of those are actually hugely successful, and communities welcome the collaborative approach in drawing them up, but others are very unsuccessful, and leave communities without the genuine benefits that they should get. We are therefore looking at this really closely at the moment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke noted, we published guidance in May 2025 on community benefit funds for those who live near electricity transmission infrastructure, and shortly we will publish updated guidance for onshore wind in England, which, of course, follows the 10 years of the previous Government’s ban in England. We are also exploring options for our overall approach to community benefits, to provide consistency across different technologies and to maximise the ambition from that. We have left on the table the option of that being mandatory in every case, but we want to look closely at how that would work, and how the design would work to ensure that we are not setting a scheme that does not suit the flexibilities that individual communities might want to take advantage of.
I reiterate that communities are providing a service to this country when they host clean energy infrastructure and there should be a benefit from it. Towards the end of the hon. Gentleman’s speech, he rather veered off community benefits and into an equally important space on community ownership, which is something that I have also had a number of important conversations about. We see ownership of energy by communities as a really important step as well, and that is a step up from community benefits.
Gideon Amos
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for addressing the serious points in the new clause, and particularly for saying that mandatory schemes will not be taken off the table. He was coherent back in October, except—if I might suggest—for the phrase “at pace”. Could he explain what “at pace” means in this context, in terms of what the timescale might be?
Michael Shanks
That is a question that I have asked myself many times over the past nine months. The problem is that we inherited a number of these things from the previous Government and we are working through them.
I have regular meetings on the subject. It is really important that we get this right, because we need to strike the balance: ultimately, the community benefit funds will, one way or another, be paid for by bill payers, but we want communities to have a real benefit. The balance has to be right because we are trying to bring down bills for everyone across the country. The Conservative amendment would increase people’s bills, but we are determined to try to bring them down. There is a balance to be struck.
We feel that this is an exciting moment to drive community ownership forward. A key aim of Great British Energy will be to drive forward the local power plan, so that communities do not just have benefits from infrastructure, but own some of those benefits. A number of hon. Members across the House have mentioned the real benefits of communities having a stake in projects—they can spend the money on whatever they want to spend it on, rather than on what a scheme might define. The two go hand in hand.
The bill discount scheme is an important step to drive forward community acceptance of new network infrastructure. We will develop proposals at pace for the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and for communities right across the country on the wider aspects of energy infrastructure. I hope that he will not move his new clause 102.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful to the Minister for some of the answers he has given—
Paul Holmes
Well, I am grateful to him for trying to give all the answers, but I only agree with some of them, as he would expect. I wish that he would accept the amendment, but he has stated clearly that he will not. The amendment is ambitious and would give clarity to the consumer and local people about what they should expect.
I understand what the Minister said about the amount of money given to local people being legislated for in secondary legislation, but there is a question about why he will not put that into primary legislation. He could be clear—the £250 a year was clearly leaked to the press a few months ago—but the Government have still not produced any legislation to give certainty to the consumer. That is symptomatic of the Government: in lots of areas of the legislation, they simply have not provided any detail to the people it affects. We will get to those other examples later, when we come to the specific issue of planning reform.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke seems to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of Opposition politicians’ quotes; I suggest that the Whips Office makes more use of him, given his ability to get an Opposition quote quickly, just like that. He might want to get a hobby, I don’t know, but he is good on quotes.
Luke Murphy
I do not need to have encyclopaedic knowledge to read the newspapers this morning, which is where the shadow Secretary of State made those comments.
Paul Holmes
I do not know which newspaper the hon. Gentleman reads, but it is obviously not a very good one, because it takes the comments of my hon. Friend the shadow Scottish Secretary and acting shadow Energy Secretary out of context.
My hon. Friend did say that the target date was not based on evidence, but he was talking about the arbitrary nature of the 2050 target for net zero; he clearly did not say that there was no science behind the concept of climate change. The hon. Member for Basingstoke is a doughty champion and fiery Back Bencher, destined for high ministerial office. He would be a good Minister, but he needs to read out the whole of a quote and give the genuine context of any comments by Opposition politicians.
To come back to the amendment, Mrs Hobhouse—I feel your beady eye upon me—the shadow Scottish Secretary has a clear record. In his earlier comments, he talked about bills going down, but bills are up by £300 a year. There was a manifesto commitment to reduce energy bills for people by £300 a year, and that is simply not happening because of the record of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. At the moment, it is closing down oilfields and relying far too much on renewable energy, without getting to the sustainable level at which energy bills could come down. The Minister keeps saying that he wants to bring them down, but when will they come down?
We understand and support the aims and ambitions of new clause 102, tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. However, we think there is some question about its practical implementation, specifically taking into account
“5% of the annual revenue of the relevant project”
and the provision
“for two-thirds of the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid to the council of that community”.
We do not necessarily think that that is how the money should be distributed. As we discussed in the last sitting, and I agree with the Minister entirely, if a local authority gets money dedicated for a community, that does not necessarily mean that the money will get to the community. That is part of the flaw of the section 106 system and the community infrastructure levy. We all know examples of when money has been given, with the good intentions shown in this honourable new clause, but the community that needed to be helped simply was not. We feel that is not the best way to distribute the money; I believe the Minister feels the same, following our lengthy discussion on whether he can or cannot award money to Scottish Ministers or local authorities. I am sure he will come back to that line another time.
On new clause 102, the point is what the Minister said earlier about lines going through multiple local authorities; the well-intentioned money would not get to the right people at the right time. It would be diluted, and we do not think that that is the right way forward. However, we absolutely support the Liberal Democrats in their ambition to make sure. That is why we put a specific figure into our amendment 83: we absolutely want to make sure that the people desperately affected by some of the infrastructure investment genuinely get some of that money. We also understand and endorse the element of community improvements, which I know we will come on to in other areas of the legislation.
The Minister is a good man. We entirely endorse him and will work together on the need for benefits for the people affected. But he needs to be more ambitious—he should have come the Committee today with a specific figure; he should not have said to the Committee that he is “minded”. He could have put in primary legislation the amount the Government were willing to give. I put down in my notes too soon that the Minister was very tight, with £250 a year—I think that was unfair to him.
But the Minister needs to be more ambitious: he should match our commitment to £1,000 a year and to local people affected by such infrastructure knowing that they would be guaranteed that for 10 years. Most people are responsible when spending their own money; we believe they would put that into the community, which would benefit it and improve its infrastructure. I commend amendment 83 to the Committee, and we will press it to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
Before we move on to the next clause, I remind Members that, although I recognise the importance of the principle and the discussion of community compensation and benefits, we need to press on and get through our agenda of line-by-line scrutiny. It is important to discuss the principles, but please also remember that we have a very long agenda in front of us.
Clause 23
Electricity transmission systems: extension of commissioning period
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Michael Shanks
We come to the most exciting clause in the Bill: the offshore transmission owner, or OFTO, regime. I can see everyone is on the edge of their seats.
This is an incredibly important clause. It provides a competitive market for offshore electricity transmission, which is important because it helps us to achieve cost-effectiveness in the building and operation of offshore wind farm connections on to the national grid. The clause is part of our efforts to ensure the regime supports the UK’s continuing ambition to be a world leader in offshore wind.
The clause extends the time that wind farm developers who build their own transmission assets have to divest those assets to an independent offshore transmission owner. That time is currently 18 months and the clause increases it to 27 months. That period is known as the generator commissioning clause, or the GCC.
The clause addresses the increase in size and complexity of wind farms since the GCC was first introduced. My Department issued a call for evidence on the OFTO regime, which closed in February 2024 under the previous Government. The responses suggested that the GCC period was too short and should be extended due to the increase in the size and complexity of wind farms, which has led to an increased risk of developers experiencing technical faults, and has meant more time is required for more complex commercial negotiations.
Without the clause, we would expect to continue to see many offshore wind farms needing to request individual transmission licence exemptions, which we bring to this House for decision, if they are unable to transfer transmission assets within the current 18-month period. The vast majority of offshore wind farms entering the process since 2016 have needed to apply for one of these exemptions, with each exemption requiring a separate statutory instrument to be considered each time.
The clause is therefore expected to reduce very significantly the number of offshore wind farms requiring an exemption. The requirement for an exemption leaves wind farms at risk of shutting down, taking a source of renewable energy off the grid and endangering the UK’s energy security, which is of course something we all want to avoid. This is a technical but very important clause and I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Use of forestry estate for renewable electricity
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Michael Shanks
The clause enables the generation of electricity from renewable sources within the public forest estate through inserting a new section into the Forestry Act 1967.
Our public forests are a national asset, providing vital environmental, social and economic benefits. They also offer an opportunity to contribute to our clean power by 2030 mission through the development of home-grown renewable electricity proposals. The clause will support this by enabling Forestry England to undertake activity relating to both small and large-scale renewable electricity projects on the public forestry estate.
Developments may take place on both forested and non-forested land within the public forest estate. There will, however, be no reduction in size of the estate and sites will be carefully selected. These powers will see us integrating technologies including solar, hydro and wind energy into our natural landscape, accelerating progress to net zero and helping to tackle climate change.
Principles underpinning renewable energy developments include ensuring that there is no net loss of woodland area, positive habitat restoration and maintaining a sustainable home-grown timber supply. Forestry England has already developed around 40 small-scale renewable energy installations, but under current legislation any excess electricity that Forestry England generates is wasted and cannot be exported to the grid. That includes rooftop solar and biomass heating to generate energy used at their various visitor centres and offices. The new powers will allow Forestry England to export electricity generated from its own projects to the national grid.
Without this change to legislation, there would continue to be an imbalance between English activities in this space and those that take place in Scotland in connection to renewables. Public land being managed by the forestry authorities in Scotland is currently able to be used to generate renewable electricity at commercial scale. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I welcome the clarity in the Minister’s opening remarks on the clause. While the theory of generating renewable energy, and deriving income by selling electricity generated from renewable sources, on public forestry land is positive, several concerns need to be addressed that do not lend support to the Government’s initiative. I issue a word of warning to the Minister from experience: measures that concern public forests can be very divisive. As the previous party in government, we still have the scars on our back when it comes to forests. However, we accept that there are clear precedents in Scotland for what the clause will do.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister on these very well intentioned measures. Again, there is a need for clear consultation with people who live locally. We accept that these forests are run by experts, and we pay tribute to them for the way in which they run our forests across the country, but there will be people who have an absolute passion for our forests. Believe me: we saw them in our inbox when I worked for an MP. We need some clarity on that.
My first question is how the powers will balance commercial activity with conservation duties. The Minister said that there are examples of where we have done that before. It is a genuine question. We must make sure that when there is a drive to allow this to happen, some of the conversation elements are not lost in the management of the forests, and that renewable projects do not undermine biodiversity, recreation or climate resilience.
Secondly, what criteria will determine when ministerial consent is required for projects? As I am sure we agree, clear thresholds are necessary for consistency and community confidence. Within that, there must be consultation of local people. As I said, it can be an incredibly emotive topic when people find out from their local forestry commission that it is engaging in some electricity generation. When it comes to our beautiful forests, such wording can mean that people need to be told about it properly and consulted properly. What is the Minister doing to ensure that that will be at the forefront of these projects? As I said, we have been there before.
Does the Minister have any concept of how income from renewable generation will be managed? Oversight mechanisms will be vital to ensure transparency and accountability in these commercial activities. Are there limits on the scale or type of renewable projects on public land to prevent industrial-scale developments, and how will local communities be engaged in decisions affecting their access to public land?
While the clause offers opportunities, it poses risks that need careful management, so I urge the Government to provide more details to ensure that the powers are used responsibly, and that there is no mission creep at the end of the day from this very well intentioned clause.
Luke Murphy
I rise briefly to welcome the clause, which underlines the Government’s commitment both to tackle climate change and to restore and protect nature. As the Minister said, we have seen how Forestry and Land Scotland has been able to make use of its estate to install more than a gigawatt of generating capacity, which has been a major source of revenue for it to continue its conservation, preservation and reforestation mission. Once again, it underlines the Government’s commitment to protect nature while tackling climate change.
David Simmonds
My great-grandfather spent his entire working life at the pit in Cwmcarn, which is now a forestry commission site. There is evidence of the coal that was dug for centuries on that site, which is now a place that is enjoyed for leisure by all. Broadly, I echo the comments about welcoming the clause.
On page 35, line 20, the excluded types of fuel are listed, to determine what may be considered to be renewable. Waste to energy is not included; nor is the sustainable fuel mandate, which is currently focused on aviation fuel, but ultimately involves producing a gasoline product entirely from waste the purpose of which is to create energy. The fuel may go into aircraft, but it could be used for other purposes. The concept of waste to energy means, essentially, building an incinerator on forestry land to burn waste and generate electricity. By implication, that is something that the Government envisage as a result of that subsection. Could the Minister say more about that?
Michael Shanks
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley has taken the right tone, which is that our forestry land is to be treasured and protected for future generations, but there is a balance to be struck—we strike it every day in relation to how much the public can access and enjoy that land, and use visitor facilities. Stewardship of our forestry land is the responsibility of all of us. I thank him for his remarks.
We expect the footprint from the projects to be incredibly small. In fact, the most successful projects in Scotland are often on the rooftops of visitor centres, alongside toilet blocks, and in those sorts of places, so we are not talking about cutting down huge areas of forest to build ground-mounted solar. However, the point the hon. Gentleman made about consultation is critical. There will be comprehensive public and statutory consultation, and I fully expect Forestry England to carry out an even more detailed engagement process, given its stewardship role for certain pieces of land.
In fact, in Scotland, where some projects have been carried out, groups of people who frequently use the forest have been involved in designing the projects and deciding what the money will be spent on. There are real benefits to that. Although there is sometimes short-term disruption from construction, often the projects have resulted in accessible routes being opened in Scottish forests, including new wheelchair-accessible paths, so previously inaccessible land is being made accessible. However, the hon. Gentleman is right about consultation.
On the subject of revenue stream, we expect the measures to enhance Forestry England’s wider role and its existing objectives, which do not shift as a result of the measures. Of course, those objectives relate to environmental conservation. In fact, the revenue, which is currently being wasted—the critical point is that these projects cannot export to the grid—could actually create a net benefit, and we would expect it to do so. That is an important point, as is the issue of mission creep. We will certainly keep that in mind.
Paul Holmes
The Minister has satisfied me with his answers and is adopting a constructive tone regarding the clause, but I want to press him on the criteria used to determine ministerial consent. He is right to say that we do not want mission creep, and that we would usually expect minimum amounts of development around visitor centres and in the existing infrastructure of forests. Can he outline where the Government might set, not necessarily restrictions, but additional criteria regarding the size and scale of energy projects under the clause?
Michael Shanks
Again, there is a balance to be struck: we do not want to create a fixed set of national guidelines that preclude larger scale projects that would not disrupt existing forestry. I do not want to suggest that every piece of forestry land is the same, and therefore that the guidelines should apply in the same way. None the less, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I will write right to the Committee about it.
I say the same to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. As I think he would expect, schemes such as those he mentioned are not intended to be part of these measures However, I will consider whether we can tighten the guidance. The clause is intended to be about using land that, in some cases, already has some of these projects on it, but they cannot export to the grid. Small-scale solar or hydro—those are the sorts of schemes that we see as fitting alongside the wider mission of Forestry England. The hon. Gentleman raised an important point, and I am happy to write to the Committee about it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Fees for certain services
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse.
Chapter 3 of part 1 of the Bill deals with reform of transport infrastructure. Its various clauses—all of which, I hope, are uncontroversial—are designed to streamline and improve the efficiency of delivering transport infra- structure projects. Clauses 25 to 29 of the chapter make various amendments to the Highways Act 1980.
As hon. Members will be aware, local authorities and statutory consultees provide advice, share information and prepare responses to consultations on proposed highway projects. However, they currently do not have a statutory basis on which to recoup the costs associated with the work they do to review the applications. That can lead to delays in processing applications due to a lack of resources, or information being received late in the process.
Clause 25 inserts a new section 281B into the 1980 Act, providing a new regulation-making power for the Secretary of State in England and for Welsh Ministers in Wales to charge applicants for services in connection with certain schemes and orders on a cost-recovery basis. To be clear, it will not allow them to make a profit; instead, it will support the capacity and capability of local planning authorities and statutory bodies to carry out those processes, which in turn will encourage timely and high-quality inputs into the process.
The charges will apply to parts of the Highways Act associated with approving new roads, making changes to existing ones and making other legal orders necessary for highway projects. Furthermore, we will use a proportionate delegated power to ensure that cost recovery and the provision of services remain flexible and responsive in the light of changing circumstances over time, such as inflation.
The clause will bring the Highways Act into line with cost recovery provisions established under other infrastructure consenting regimes. By resourcing the input from critical stakeholders, this power will contribute to the acceleration of highway infrastructure project delivery, supporting the Government's economic growth mission now and in the future. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We welcome clause 25, and I welcome the Minister to his position. He has a lot to live up to after those clauses, and I will continue to be nice to him. I say well done also to the other Minister for the constructive way he has been working on this Committee. Opposition Members do appreciate that. Because we are not stupid, we realise it is sometimes a challenge to win votes. Although the votes we undertake here are closer than the ones on the Floor of the House of Commons, let that not be an encouragement to us to call more.
As I said, we welcome clause 25, which allows public authorities to charge fees for services related to specific highway schemes. None the less, some clarity is needed on several points. While recovering costs is reasonable, the clause must be carefully implemented with safeguards to ensure fairness, accessibility and consistency across England and Wales.
The Minister has stated that this is a reserved matter for certain statutory bodies and local planning authorities, but will he outline how this goes with his perfectly admirable stance on devolution? Will he look to allow new combined authorities and mayoralties to take on some of the powers, or is he planning for them to be devolved even further, to mayoral authorities coming on stream rapidly from the Department under this Government? We would like some clarity on how he sees the powers being amended once local authorities and some of those statutory bodies no longer exist or are reformed.
Has the Minister considered the impact of the fees on small developers, charities and community groups? Could they create barriers or delays in any process? Will there be provisions allowing fee waivers or reductions for certain applications, such as for community-led or rural projects? How will disputes about fee fairness be resolved, and will there be an appeals process? What guidance will there be to ensure consistency in fee application across regions, to avoid significant variations from one local authority or statutory body to another? Finally, could the fees delay or discourage essential infrastructure development, especially in areas with planning capacity challenges?
Rachel Taylor
I acted for developers before coming into the House, and I know their biggest concern was always delays, not the fees that the local authority charged for doing these things. As a result of the lack of capacity in local authorities, there has been a move to more unadopted roads on small estates, which has its own problems for property owners going forward. I really welcome this provision, because it lays sensible steps toward making it easier for developers to complete their projects sooner, which enables them to make more money.
I think that the offset in costs will be welcomed by small developers. This provision is particularly important in the small authorities that cover large geographical areas, because it will enable them to go out and make visits. To give an example, my client was required to build a pavement but could not do so while there was a vaccination centre up the road. The local authority could not, under the fee structure, find the time to come out and visit the site, which would have enabled it to make a more sensible decision. In general terms, this provision is really welcome and developers, both small and large, will see this as a very positive step forward.
Lewis Cocking
I have a few comments, although I support the principle of this provision. There is not enough capacity in some planning departments, so I agree that fee cost recovery and some of the additional fees, particularly those relating to highways matters, are really important for local authorities, but I have a few questions. When will the money be paid? Will it be paid before the development has started, so there is capacity in the system? People sometimes make planning applications and get planning permissions but do not actually build out the development, so will the fees still need to be paid in those cases?
I have some concerns that I would like the Minister to comment on. Some authorities still have section 106 agreements, and I am concerned that developers will just move money from those section 106 agreements—money that is to be put into education or healthcare, for example—by saying in a viability assessment that they now have to pay these fees to the local authorities, particularly around highways. How can we stop it being the same money, just moved around? These fees should be additional to the money from section 106 agreements that the council was already getting, as they are going directly into capacity issues within planning departments. I am worried that developers will try to play games by just moving the same money around the system or cutting the same pie in a different way, which will not help local authorities. I would like to hear the Minister’s response to those comments, but I wholeheartedly support what the Government are trying to do in this specific case.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome both the broad support for the intent behind the clause and the very reasonable questions that have been put to me by members of the Committee. To be very clear, because we have strayed into pavement applications, section 106 applications and other things, this clause very specifically relates to allowing local authorities and statutory consultees to recover the costs that they incur when providing services on highway-related applications only. We may discuss later some of the other matters and the general position of planning authorities and the challenges they face in capacity and capability. I just wanted to make that point.
All the clause does is bring the Highways Act 1980 into line with the cost recovery provisions established under other infrastructure consenting regimes. It is broadly accepted that we need to support local planning authorities and statutory consultees to process applications in a timely manner. We think that will drive high-quality and timely—
Matthew Pennycook
I will address the hon. Member’s point, if he will wait, and then he is more than welcome to come back in. As I said, it help to drive timely and high-quality inputs into the process, which will speed up the delivery of highway infrastructure projects and avoid extra costs. This is an important point to make: there are costs associated with the fact that applications are not taken through in a timely manner. If they are delayed or time out, that can result in design changes or the process to reach a decision being extended, which brings extra costs. In general terms, we want to ensure, as with many of the provisions in the Bill, a more streamlined, certain and faster consenting process.
It will be for the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to set out in regulations those bodies that are able to charge the fees; they may include bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England. Regulations and guidance will set out in more detail what advice and information will be covered by the cost recovery process, as well as other matters, including how fees are calculated, when fees can and cannot be charged and the point at which fees are charged.
We will get into separate issues relating to build out, but to respond gently to the point made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne, I cannot see how a very specific highways-related application will necessarily bleed over into section 106 negotiations. None the less, I will reflect on that point, as we do not want cost recovery provisions in the clause to allow developers to reduce section 106 contributions on the basis that they are having to pay this charge. As I said, delegated powers will ensure that the cost recovery power is future-proofed by ensuring that it is flexible enough to account for changes, not least in inflation, which we have discussed before.
Lewis Cocking
I completely understand where the Minister is coming from on specific applications just for roads. I suppose my comments were related to new towns or garden villages, where there will be lots of facets to those applications—house building, new roads and what have you. I therefore welcome the Minister’s comments on the fact that he will look at those issues that I have raised.
Matthew Pennycook
I certainly will do so, and, just to stress the point once again, what we are trying to do here and in a number of other clauses in this chapter is broadly about bringing the processes under the Highways Act 1980 and the Transport and Works Act 1992 into line with other consenting regimes. As I said, in this case, it is about ensuring that cost recovery provisions established under those other infrastructure consenting regimes apply in the case of the Highways Act. However, I certainly will be more than happy to reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s point, and on those made by other members of the Committee. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Power of strategic highways company in relation to trunk roads
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 26 will allow National Highways to handle the majority of the administrative actions for creating or changing the status of a trunk road. As I am sure all Committee members are aware a section 10 order under the Highways Act is used to designate or declassify a road as a trunk road.
Trunk roads are major routes in our highways network that are managed by National Highways instead of local authorities. Having the power to make a road a trunk road is an essential step in ensuring that key roads are maintained at the national level. Trunk roads perform an important role in enabling safe, reliable and often long-distance journeys by both people and goods between our major towns and cities, and provide access to our international gateways.
The current system places much of the process for handling requirements of these section 10 orders—namely their preparation and publicity—on the Secretary of State, rather than the highways body itself. Clause 26 will simply transfer the administrative control of the application from the Secretary of State to the strategic highways authority—National Highways. It will also align the handling process with the way in which applications under other parts of the Highways Act are currently managed.
I stress that the Secretary of State will remain the ultimate decision maker on the application. However, by removing the administrative burden from the Secretary of State, clause 26 will create a more efficient process, which we believe will lead to faster decisions on new and upgraded trunk roads. This will help to deliver road improvements more quickly, support economic growth, enhance transport links and reduce congestion.
Paul Holmes
On that point—depending on the Minister’s answer, I may not have to make a speech and detain the Committee—the Minister has outlined that the strategic highways authority is National Highways; does he envisage that for some roads, particularly across England, the county council is the strategic highway authority, and will have to apply the section 10 changes? Is he not worried that, because of the financial implications for some county councils—regardless of politics—there could be a kind of enticement for people to get rid of some of the strategic parts of their local road networks? It may be a complete lack of understanding on my part, but could the Minister outline whether county councils could be included in some of that process?
Matthew Pennycook
I am more than happy to write to the shadow Minister about the role of county authorities in managing the highway network, and how the Highways Act and the consenting regime applies to them. I do not think his point is pertinent in this respect, in the sense that the clause transfers administrative functions related to section 10 orders under the Highways Act from the Secretary of State purely to National Highways. It does not change the legal decision-making authority, which remains the Secretary of State’s, but the administrative burden, in terms of the final preparation, publishing and consultation of the necessary documents, would be done by the applicant—National Highways. But I am more than happy to provide the shadow Minister with further detail about the interaction with county authorities.
Paul Holmes
Please do not write to me on that. I say that not to offend officials but because I do not want them overworked and the Minister has clearly outlined what he means, for which I am grateful. The question was obviously to clarify my understanding of the legislation. I asked it because I just wondered whether strategic highways authority included county councils. My county council controls a large number of roads, and I wondered whether it was enveloped under the proposal—under the meaning of strategic highways authority. The Minister has answered that, and I am perfectly content not to make a speech.
Matthew Pennycook
I very much welcome that intervention, as will my officials, I am sure. It saves them a letter—although letters may be forthcoming in the course of debate if we require further detail on very technical points. I will just stress the point again: I think the confusion lies in the fact that section 10 orders apply only to National Highways, if the shadow Minister needs reassurance in that regard. But broadly, these are procedural changes that just allow, as I have said, the administrative burden to be transferred from the Secretary of State to National Highways.
David Simmonds
Just to pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister—again, at the risk of placing officials in need of writing a letter—we can consider London, where we have Transport for London, Highways England and various other agencies or companies that manage the miles and stretches of those motorways. Very close to my constituency we have the M40/A4 motorway, which is literally the same road but transfers from being a Highways England road to a TfL road at the boundary of Greater London. There could be significant issues where, for example, local authorities that are responsible for neighbouring roads would need to be consulted, so I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify, particularly in respect of where we have TfL, red routes and things like that, all of which I think would be within the scope of the clause, that that has been fully considered so that we can ensure that we do not see unnecessary friction as a result.
Matthew Pennycook
I do not think that in any circumstances we would see friction on elements where the Secretary of State remains the body that takes forward the administrative process. I cannot envisage a way in which that would cause friction. Just to be very clear, a section 10 order under the Highways Act is used to designate or declassify a road as a trunk road. That is action carried out by National Highways, as I have said. We simply want it to take the administrative actions for creating or changing the status of a trunk road. I am more than happy to write to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner—apologies to my officials —on this administrative change as to who takes on those actions, namely National Highways rather than the Secretary of State, and how that interacts, which I think was his point, with the boundary of roads managed by the Greater London Authority, which is not covered by this clause of the Bill.
David Simmonds
I am just reflecting on my experience as a councillor in local government. There are often disputes. For example, the creation or designation of a red route clearway as a trunk road removes all parking along the length of that route and also affects things like bus services along it, so there are situations in which there may be a difference of opinion between a local authority, which is the current manager or administrator of the route, and a trunk road manager, who wishes to designate it as such for the benefit of an infrastructure project but clearly will not be subject to the consequences that that would have for bus routes, parking and other issues under the ambit of the local authority. I am just looking for clarity that there is a process by which those issues will be resolved and that there will be a relevant level of consultation, so that the kind of tensions that we saw around low traffic neighbourhoods with a dispute between Transport for London and a local authority about what was going on in a local area are not replicated.
The Chair
I remind everybody of the tightness of the parameters within which we need to keep this debate. Otherwise the Committee will have to find another day to sit. By no means do I want to stifle debate, but it is also up to the Minister to allow interventions or not.
Matthew Pennycook
I think we will all know where to place the blame if that scenario arises—we will not need to add an extra day.
I gently say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, that he is comparing apples and pears. To be as clear as I possibly can be, all the requirements set down in the legislation in respect of preparing and publishing materials, and the fact that the Secretary of State remains the decision maker, remain in place. The clause purely changes the body overseeing the administrative actions associated with those applications. On that basis, I think this is a fairly uncontroversial procedural change. We have committed to write to the hon. Gentleman about any possible interactions with the Greater London Authority’s management of red routes. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Deadlines for consultation and decisions on certain orders and schemes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 27 will reduce the objection period for applications under the Highways Act 1980 from six weeks to 30 days. Such applications could be for the construction of new roads, changes to existing ones and other necessary legal orders for delivering highway infrastructure. The objection period refers to the timeframe during which interested parties can view application materials and provide comments.
Reducing the objection period will speed up the consenting process without sacrificing the safeguards that are essential for the fair consideration of objections. An objection period of 30 days aligns with the relevant objection periods for other transport consenting regimes, such as the Planning Act 2008. Again, I draw the shadow Ministers’ attention to the fact that, as per the previous clauses, we intend to align the Highways Act provisions with those in other consenting regimes, to provide for a more uniform arrangement across the piece.
Additionally, the clause will introduce a 10-week deadline for the Secretary of State to make decisions on these schemes and orders. Currently, there are no statutory deadlines for the decision-making stage for the relevant processes, unlike in other consenting regimes, such as the Planning Act 2008. Bringing the Highways Act into alignment with other consenting regimes will improve certainty and the efficiency of the process. The power for the Secretary of State to extend the decision deadline, if necessary, ensures flexibility in cases where additional time may be required.
By shortening the objection period and setting a clear decision timeframe, the clause makes the process more predictable for all stakeholders. Faster, more predictable decisions will result in more efficient delivery of transport infrastructure projects, contributing to better transport networks. We think this change strikes the right balance between improving speed and maintaining fairness, ensuring that the process remains transparent and accountable. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
May I say, Mrs Hobhouse, that you are absolutely on fire? We are getting through things very quickly, and I will adhere to your instructions.
The clause updates the objection and decision-making timelines under the Highways Act 1980. Although the goal is to align with other planning regimes, several concerns remain. First, the clause reduces the objection period in England to a minimum of 30 days, but maintains it at six weeks in Wales. What justifies that discrepancy? Should there not be consistency across all authorities?
Furthermore, is it not the case that reducing the objection period may limit the time available for affected parties to prepare responses? I know that this is outside the remit of this very prescriptive clause, but many constituents will say that they did not get the letter or see the things that were posted, or that local people simply were not able to see things. I really think that this 30-day restriction will harm many average Joes—I hate that term, but I do not know how else to put it. People out there, who have busy lives, busy jobs and families, and who are working on their daily lives, will really struggle, in the first place, to see things within 30 days. However, they will also not know that the period is now 30 days and may therefore not be consulted on some of the actions that authorities may take.
I ask the Minister to assess whether 30 days is the right length of time. I am not talking about having an unrestricted length of time for consultation, and we absolutely need to make sure, if we want to deliver on some of these policies, that the timeframe is reasonable. However, I question whether 30 days is far too rapid and will cause more harm than good to the consultation rights of the British public. I would also ask what systems will be in place to notify stakeholders of deadline changes and extensions in individual cases, to ensure clear and accessible communication.
I have a last question. While the intent of the clause is to streamline processes, we must ensure fairness, transparency and quality decision making, allowing stakeholders to engage meaningfully. We absolutely accept that there is currently no statutory deadline. Ten weeks is adequate, but on the 30 days element of the consultation period, when we think about people out there with busy lives, I think could cause a huge problem for democratic accountability and for the transparency of the system in allowing local people to have their say. I ask the Minister to look at that 30 days again, but we will not press the clause to a Division.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for his response and questions. Again, I make the point that with a number of these provisions we are trying to align the Highways Act with other consenting regimes. I do not know whether his position is that the statutory objection period in those other consenting regimes—for example, the Planning Act 2008—should be lengthened. I would argue that such an extension would add time and complexity. We think that should be brought into line with the others.
We think that 30 days is the appropriate period, that the existing arrangements, which set out a period of not less than six weeks, are too long, and that we should bring the Highways Act into line with the other regimes. On that basis, we do not think that the clause sets a precedent for the shortening of objection periods, because objection periods of about four weeks, as I have said, can be found in other infrastructure consenting regimes. That is an adequate period of time in which to submit objections.
The shadow Minister asked another, separate question about the Secretary of State’s ability to extend deadlines from the 10-week period. Again, in any such instances, the Secretary of State would need to send written notice of the extension to the relevant parties in those cases, setting out why an extension is required. I hope that on that basis the shadow Minister is reassured about the use of that particular part of the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Procedure for certain orders and schemes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
The clause seeks to address the fact that under the existing system, a statutory instrument is required to approve applications under sections 16 and 106(3) of the Highways Act, and for orders under section 10, which are made by the Highways Authority in the form of a draft statutory instrument, whereas a simpler confirmation process exists for other applications under that Act.
An SI is currently required for applications to make or unmake a trunk road or special road, to construct a special road, or to build a road bridge over or road tunnel under navigable waters. Those statutory instruments are not subject to any parliamentary procedure, but they take extra time to prepare. That represents an unnecessary and disproportionate burden of bureaucracy in our view.
As I have mentioned, the Highways Act already contains a quicker process for confirming other types of application via a confirmation document issued by the Department for Transport. The clause will simply allow the applications to which I have referred to be confirmed via a confirmation document issued by the Department. In short, that again aligns the handling processes across the relevant parts of the Highways Act. That will support the Government’s goal of speeding up the consenting of transport infrastructure by streamlining the process.
To maintain transparency in the decision-making process, the clause ensures that a confirmation notice must be published in the public domain. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Compulsory acquisition powers to include taking of temporary possession
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
The clause concerns compulsory acquisition powers in relation to projects undertaken under the Highways Act 1980. No clear provision is currently available to allow Highways Act project promoters to temporarily use and possess land, such as for construction purposes, by compulsion. In lieu of such a provision, if a project promoter cannot come to a commercial agreement with the landowner or owners for a licence to access the land required, the project promoter will typically apply for powers of compulsory acquisition to enable it to buy and use the land. That approach is disproportionate when the land is needed only temporarily for construction purposes. Additionally, the current arrangement offers the landowner no legal right to regain their land.
The intention of the clause is to provide clarity that project promoters, under the Highways Act 1980 regime, can temporarily use and possess land by compulsion. It does so by introducing a clear and proportionate legal power to require authorities that have already identified a piece of land as necessary for the planned construction of the proposed highway works to temporarily use land when they cannot reach agreement with the landowner, while also protecting landowner rights to regain their land and support compensation mechanisms.
By reducing legal ambiguity, the power will help to shorten often protracted land negotiations, speeding up the process to submit an application for highways works, ultimately thereby delivering transport projects quicker. In doing so, it will contribute to the Government’s ambition to simplify the consenting of major transport infrastructure projects.
David Simmonds
Broadly speaking, the Opposition support the intention set out in the clause. Improving the efficiency of such works is clearly a very logical step. Could the Minister say a little more about how the power will interact with the powers and duties that apply to statutory undertakers? I am thinking, for example, of where it is necessary to divert a gas main or water main, or other significant infrastructure, where there are already legal rights in place that can be used for that purpose. An issue we are all familiar with is the disruption caused to transport networks when major works are being undertaken. Will there be a process for ensuring a degree of co-ordination? Will there be a requirement or expectation for consultation so that, where a highways body wishes to undertake that work, it can possibly be co-ordinated with the work of other statutory undertakers involved in the same project, to minimise the disruption?
Will there be an assurance that that process will provide for an appropriate level of compensation for the landowner whose land is being taken temporarily, as that often seems to be a source of dispute? This should not become a back-door way by which a highways agency, as the lead body, says, “We are going to take that at no recompense,” rather than going through a process of negotiation to achieve an agreed sum in respect of the loss of amenity to the owner of the land.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that contribution and I recognise the reasonable concern he raises. If he will allow me, because it is a very technical aspect of the Bill, I will write to him with full details of how we see this power working, particularly in respect of compensation measures. I think his remarks recognised that the present arrangements do not provide the necessary certainty for landowners that they can regain their land. They force applicants to use disproportionate powers. We are trying, through the clause, to provide certainty that there is a way to take possession of land temporarily when required.
It is worth saying that there is a temporary possession power in the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017. It is a different mechanism; it has not yet been enacted. We are trying to achieve a fairly simple clarification through the Bill, which will not require us to enact powers that are above and beyond what is required under the simplification to which the clause gives effect. It is an uncontroversial procedural change that will make the process more certain and efficient for both parties and provide them with reassurances.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Replacement of model clauses with guidance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clauses 30 to 41 make various amendments to the Transport and Works Act 1992. I would hope that the Committee has a shared recognition that that Act of Parliament needs to be more efficient for applicants applying for transport infrastructure schemes such as new railways or tramways in England and Wales. This will allow transport infrastructure projects to be delivered as efficiently as possible, providing faster decisions and support economic growth.
Clause 30 allows the Secretary of State in England and Welsh Ministers in Wales the power to move template model clauses from legislation into guidance. The model clauses are intended to streamline the drafting of Transport and Works Act orders, but they can currently only be amended through secondary legislation. Setting them out in more flexible guidance, rather than legislation, will allow them to be updated more regularly via a more efficient and faster process. That supports the Bill’s aim of simplifying and streamlining transport rules, ensuring that we have a more efficient legal framework moving forward. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Removal of special procedure for projects of national significance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I hope that on this clause, at least, we can avoid detailed questioning by the Opposition, because there is nothing with which issue can be taken. It is a simple tidying up of the statute book. The Transport and Works Act requires updating to reflect the wider changes that are to be implemented in the planning sector. It was, as I have mentioned, given Royal Assent in 1992.
The purpose of clause 31 is simply to remove a redundant section of the Transport and Works Act, which refers to schemes considered to be “of national significance”. Since the Planning Act 2008 was introduced as the consenting regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects, with clearly defined thresholds for what is considered “of national significance”, it has effectively rendered that part of the Transport and Works Act entirely redundant.
The effect of the clause is a simple procedural fix. By removing outdated references, the clause will make it easier for developers and public bodies to understand and apply the law, while also reducing administrative burdens. I commend the clause to the Committee.
David Simmonds
Throughout proceedings on the Bill, we have flagged up the important point that is highlighted by subsection (3), namely the lack of retrospective application. I would like the Minister’s response on a point that is of concern to the Opposition. There is always a risk that powers that are due to expire will be used and exploited in advance of new legislation coming in. What measures does the Minister have in mind to ensure that that does not turn into a problem?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. As ever with his points, it was well made. I will go away and reflect on it, but I struggle to see how the use of the clauses we are considering in the Transport and Works Act—as I have said, they have been rendered entirely redundant since they were superseded by provisions in the Planning Act 2008 that clearly define thresholds for what is deemed to be nationally significant infrastructure —give rise to the challenge that he posits.
David Simmonds
The Minister has served on a planning Committee, and he will be aware of the challenges that arise where, for example, a historical permission is secured on which a developer subsequently seeks to rely. It is clear that the intention is, quite rightly, to remove those redundant clauses. The concern I am highlighting is that when permission rights have arisen under the clauses that have been made redundant and a developer later relies on them, we must ensure that the process is effectively managed.
Matthew Pennycook
If I have understood the point correctly—I am more than happy to write to the shadow Minister and set this out in detail, but he can intervene if I have not got this right—the challenge is about applicants who in the past have relied on the provisions of the Transport and Works Act 1992 that we are today arguing are redundant, and how permissions obtained on that basis prior to the Planning Act 2008 interact with the changes in the clause. It is essentially a concern about retrospection in relation to the clause.
David Simmonds
We are zeroing in on the issue that I seek to highlight. The statement in subsection (3) says that the clause does
“not apply in relation to an application in respect of which a notice”
has been made
“before this section comes into force.”
Early on in his remarks, the Minister referred to sections of the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 that have not come into force, eight years after they underwent scrutiny in a Committee like this one and Parliament passed them. This clause may not come into force for some considerable time after we debate it in Committee and the Bill becomes law—indeed, it may never come into force. If the previous legislation remains the relevant legislation for an extended period, or if a developer sees advantage in securing a permission now, under the previous legislation, before the new measures take its place, do we have an appropriate process for dealing with that?
Matthew Pennycook
I understand the point, but I think the shadow Minister is conflating an application under the relevant provisions in the Transport and Works Act and what the clause seeks to clarify, which is when schemes are considered to be of national importance. As I said, with the Planning Act 2008, we have an Act of Parliament that provides very clear thresholds for when schemes are considered of national importance.
I am more than happy to write to the shadow Minister with further detail, but I think he raises a valid point. We think the redundant section 9 should be removed from the Transport and Works Act to give developers and public bodies clarity on how the law should be applied going forward, while also reducing administrative burdens. The easiest way—mindful of your strictures, Mrs Hobhouse—to move the Committee on and ensure that we can debate important clauses later in the Bill is for me to commit to writing to the shadow Minister with exhaustive detail on that point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Duty to hold inquiry or hearing
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clauses 32 and 33 relate to public inquiries under the Transport and Works Act. Clause 32 will amend the circumstances in which an objection is considered to an application under that Act. Currently, if an objection is raised to an application under the Act, a public inquiry or hearing can be required to be held, even if the objection is deemed to lack substance. That can result in costly and lengthy public inquiries taking place, even where objections lack merit.
The length of the inquiry process can range greatly depending on the complexity of what is being examined, from six months to two years. Clause 32 will mean that a public inquiry is held only when an objection is raised that is considered by the determining authority to be serious enough to merit such treatment. A streamlined process for considering objections saves time and cost for applicants. All objections will continue to be decided—I want to stress this point—entirely on the merits of the arguments put forward. This not about removing the voices of individuals or communities; instead, it ensures that the objections process remains proportionate, so serious objections are given due attention.
Clause 33 makes amendments to section 11 of the Transport and Works Act regarding decisions on costs arising from a public inquiry. It will enable an inspector conducting the public inquiry to make decisions on those costs, unless the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers direct that a cost decision is to be determined by them. Currently, the inspector must write a report with recommendations of costs to the Secretary of State based on the conduct of parties taking part in the public inquiry. That approach contrasts with the Planning Act 2008, where cost decisions are made by the examining authority.
By delegating the decision-making capability to the inspector conducting the inquiry, we will ensure that claims are resolved more quickly for all stakeholders. That will reduce administrative burden in determining such cases and save time, helping to deliver transport infrastructure more efficiently. The Secretary of State in England, and Welsh Ministers in Wales, will retain the ability to direct that a cost decision is to be determined by them should they not wish to delegate responsibility on a potentially contentious case. The clauses, as I have argued, will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and administrative burdens, helping to deliver transport infrastructure more efficiently. I commend them to the Committee.
Gideon Amos
I rise to query some of the provisions. We understand that the Government’s proposal would effectively remove the automatic right to call a public inquiry. The Minister knows we are concerned that the Bill seeks to remove people from the process, and to remove the opportunity for objections in the planning process. That is a very serious concern for us. The clause proposes a public inquiry only where the Secretary of State
“considers that the objection is serious enough”.
Matthew Pennycook
Hopefully I can provide the hon. Gentleman with further clarification. I recognise and appreciate the valid concerns he raises. As things stand, it is not the case that any objection to an application of the kind we have described results in a public inquiry or hearing, but it can in many instances give rise to one.
For example, when an objection comes from a landowner whose land would be affected by compulsory purchase; when a local authority for the area concerned receives an objection that they do not consider frivolous or trivial; or when other concerns are raised that need to be considered, a public inquiry or hearing takes place. In many circumstances, that is appropriate. In others, it may be the case that an exchange of correspondence, for example, can achieve the same goal without the need for a lengthy and costly public inquiry. I hope that gives him some reassurance as to the type of circumstances—
Matthew Pennycook
I am pre-empting what the hon. Member is going to intervene on, so I will finish making the point and he can come back to me. I hope he is reassured as to why we consider the change necessary, and the outcome that we are trying to achieve.
The hon. Member raises an entirely valid point about the fact that it will be for the Secretary of State for Transport to decide on a case-by-case basis when objections meet the test that he rightly reiterated. I will reflect on how we might provide further clarity, perhaps through guidance on the circumstances in which that test should be applied, but I recognise there is a fair challenge about what cases will come through this route.
I hope the hon. Member will recognise that the problem we are trying to resolve is that under certain circumstances, as things stand, a public inquiry or hearing can be triggered where it is not necessary, and there may be a far more proportionate way of moving things on and responding to objections—for example, in an exchange of correspondence. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman somewhat. As I have said, I am happy to reflect and come back to the Committee with further thoughts on this point.
Gideon Amos
I simply say that doing away with, effectively, an automatic right to a public inquiry in certain circumstances, as the Minister has clarified, and replacing that with the words “serious enough” is a big leap. I strongly encourage the Minister to put on record guidance on what relevant parties can expect will be considered serious enough to merit a public inquiry.
Matthew Pennycook
I do not have much more to add. There is a genuine problem with the current arrangements that we need to resolve. As I have said, in some circumstances a public inquiry or hearing is not necessary; things can be dealt with in other ways. Under the current arrangements, public inquiries and hearings can be triggered even if an objection is considered to be lacking in substance. That is onerous and disproportionate, but the hon. Gentleman raises a fair point about the basis on which the Secretary of State for Transport will determine whether the objection is of the relevant level of seriousness to require a public inquiry or hearing. I am more than happy to come back to him on that point in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Deadline for decisions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 34 provides a power for the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers to introduce statutory deadlines for the determination of Transport and Works Act order applications. Unlike other infra-structure consenting processes, the Transport and Works Act process does not have statutory timeframes to govern the duration of its decision stage, and that can lead to uncertainty and delays. The clause will bring it into alignment with other planning consenting processes, such as the Planning Act 2008 process, and introduce greater accountability of decision makers.
Clause 35 seeks to modernise the way decisions under the Transport and Works Act are communicated. It enables the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers to issue a notice online when publicising a decision on an application for a Transport and Works Act order and removes the requirement to publish the notice in the London Gazette. Moving to digital advertising will mean that notification of decisions can be done on the same day as decisions are finalised, which will ensure that there are no delays in communication and provide a more efficient service to interested parties. The clause also provides that any legal challenges must be filed within six weeks, starting the day after the notice is published, bringing the timeline in line with other consenting regimes.
By making use of modern technology, we will bring the Transport and Works Act into the 21st century, helping to speed up the process and deliver transport schemes more quickly. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Fees for certain services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
The clause allows the Secretary of State in England and Welsh Ministers in Wales to make provision in regulations for public authorities—limited to certain statutory bodies and local planning authorities —to charge applicants for their services in connection with Transport and Works Act orders. Currently, public authorities cannot recover costs for this work, and that can lead to delays because of a lack of resourcing. The clause will apply to parts of the Act associated with approving the construction or operation of railways and tramways, externally guided buses, monorails and certain other types of guided transport.
Supporting the capacity and capability of local planning authorities and statutory bodies will encourage timely and high-quality inputs into the process, which will speed up the delivery of highways infrastructure projects. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We welcome the clause and the clarification and certainty that the Minister has given, but I want to put some questions, along similar lines to those we have asked before, about transparency and limits or caps on the fees that authorities can charge.
We believe that without clear limits, there is a risk of inconsistent or excessive charges and a disproportionately wide range of fees across authorities. What mechanisms will be in place to allow applicants to challenge or appeal fees that they consider unreasonable? What impact does the Minister think this measure may have on smaller companies in the supply chain, which may be less able to absorb the costs that will be imposed? We do not disagree with the principle of the clause; we just have some questions about the detail.
Finally, how will the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers review or update the regulations? As costs and administrative practices evolve, it is crucial that the regulations are reassessed regularly to ensure that they remain fair, relevant and effective. Will the Minister remark briefly on that and on some of the smaller businesses that may be affected?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for those points. The clause only allows for the charging of fees for services on a cost-recovery basis. I think there is broad agreement across the Committee that cost recovery for applications is a fair and proportionate way to proceed. Organisations will not be—