Commons Chamber
Tuesday 1st April 2025
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 10 months, 1 week ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
13:58
Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
good progress with that work, and I hope will be able to update the House further in the near future. Finally, she asked me about funding and no she will have seen the comments from the Electoral Commission in the last day or two. There is separate electoral law specifically relating to matters of funding, but of course we look very carefully at these issues and we are working across government, not least in terms of the work that I lead on through the defending task force and working with colleagues in a way -- MHC G and with other departments.
13:59
Melanie Ward MP (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy, Labour)
-
-
Melanie Ward MP (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy, Labour)
I thank the Minister for his statement, which is a real significance given the increasing external threats our country faces. And given these threats from hostile state actors, it's more important than ever that we take effective action to protect our critical national infrastructure from cyber attacks and ransom attacks. Can the Minister update us on the plans announced in the Kings Speech for a new bill on cyber resilience and the other action being taken to improve our protections in this area?
13:59
Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
Very grateful. I think she raises a really important point, albeit one that is not necessarily often the source of much debate. This government takes our critical national in first incredibly seriously and we call into cross government, not least in terms of the Cabinet office but with all other government departments. And I can say to her that the government is absolutely committed to using all of its levers to disrupt cyber threats to our critical national in. And we welcome the Department for science innovation and technology, their plan to introduce the cyber security and resilience bill, and security and resilience bill, and that's been announced today.
We work closely with DSIT on these matters, and we know that this important legislation will help the U.K.'s digital economy to be one of the most secure in the world. Giving us the power to protect our services, supply chains and our citizens. The first and most important job of any first and most important job of any first and most important job of any
We work closely with DSIT on these matters, and we know that this important legislation will help the U.K.'s digital economy to be one of the most secure in the world. Giving us the power to protect our services, supply chains and our citizens. The first and most important job of any first and most important job of any first and most important job of any
14:00
Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP (East Hampshire, Conservative)
-
-
Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP (East Hampshire, Conservative)
It was good to hear confirmation that the scheme will be kept under review. Firstly, what counts as being under direction of foreign power? And also, in the political tier, what is the definition of influence? We tend to think of influence over elections, parliamentarians, government decisions, but with the continuing development of technology and new media, we can see the potential for more direct action, direct to the public, which could potentially have a very high impact and effect? Will he keep both of those things under review? review?
14:01
Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
It is good to see the honourable gentleman in his place. There is a relatively small band of former security ministers left in the House and I think he is the only one in the chamber at the moment and I respect the constructive and reasonable contributions he makes. He is absolutely right. Definitions matter. That is why we have taken a matter. That is why we have taken a long time to look carefully at how best to do this, to ensure we define it in the most effective and appropriate way.
As you will recall from the opening remarks, we have published regulations and guidance today which provide substantial detail but I look forward to discussing these matters further when we debate these matters in the procedure and I hope you will contribute to those.
As you will recall from the opening remarks, we have published regulations and guidance today which provide substantial detail but I look forward to discussing these matters further when we debate these matters in the procedure and I hope you will contribute to those.
14:02
14:02
Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
I am grateful to her for the question and she is right that border security is national security. She will know the Border Security Bill is making its passage through Parliament and she will see the Prime Minister and Home Secretary hosted an immigration summit in London attended by summit in London attended by countless partners and was a worthwhile gathering. She will now the work being done by the border security commander who is working closely with international allies and we are making good progress with these matters, which be taken could be seriously, and we will have more to do but I'm pleased with the progress we have made to date.
14:03
Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP (New Forest East, Conservative)
-
-
Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP (New Forest East, Conservative)
Two out of the four totalitarian sisters have been included on the list so far and I trust China and North Korea will both be added to the enhanced tier in time but can they take the message back about the concern of the House about building the biggest Chinese Communist embassy, in fact the biggest embassy in Western Europe, in London? It is not clear why the government called it inland security given the local authority wanted to completely refuse permission.
Will he explain to the House what greater penalty people will face if they are exposed for acting on behalf of a foreign power, if they have registered or they have not? What will the differential be in terms of that? differential be in terms of that?
Will he explain to the House what greater penalty people will face if they are exposed for acting on behalf of a foreign power, if they have registered or they have not? What will the differential be in terms of that? differential be in terms of that?
14:04
Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
On his second question, and I know that he speaks with great experience on these matters, I know that you will agree that the implementation of FIRS provides us with a capability we did not previously have and it provides a very clear choice for those who consider whether they want to engage in this nefarious activity or not and they can declare the activities to government if that is what we want them to do but, if they do not, they face arrest and significant they face arrest and significant imprisonment over a protracted period of time and that will provide a significant deterrent that we don't currently have Van Dijk or very much that that will be welcomed.
In terms of the points he made about the embassy. I know that he will understand I am limited with what I can say and the Shadow Home Secretary is shaking his head but am limited because there is a legal process underway and if I say anything to undermine that, there will be consequences. He makes his point in a constructive way so let me think about whether there is a mechanism by which they can be some kind of briefing where we can discuss these matters in a way that is not subject to the scrutiny the House will bring because I am limited in terms of what I can say but I recognise his concern and will look to see if it can be discussed at the forum.
at the forum.
In terms of the points he made about the embassy. I know that he will understand I am limited with what I can say and the Shadow Home Secretary is shaking his head but am limited because there is a legal process underway and if I say anything to undermine that, there will be consequences. He makes his point in a constructive way so let me think about whether there is a mechanism by which they can be some kind of briefing where we can discuss these matters in a way that is not subject to the scrutiny the House will bring because I am limited in terms of what I can say but I recognise his concern and will look to see if it can be discussed at the forum.
at the forum.
14:06
Cameron Thomas MP (Tewkesbury, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Cameron Thomas MP (Tewkesbury, Liberal Democrat)
I would like to align myself with the concerns of the Shadow Minister. I'm happy to take a minister at his word. In the last decade, the previous government badly misjudged the influence towards the UK and the exploitation and that meant the current government, so they do not make the same mistake with the Communist Party of China, will the Minister commit to releasing a full and unredacted report and order a
14:06
Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
report into activities of Conservative Friends of Russia and us it was latterly known, the Westminster Russia Forum? I think I Westminster Russia Forum? I think I am grateful to the honourable gentleman for the question but I gentleman for the question but I think I have to consider it for a longer to make a judgement as to whether I am grateful or not but I whether I am grateful or not but I think the government position of the publication of the report is clear and I am happy to discuss it with and I am happy to discuss it with him further.
I can give him absolute assurance. I mindful about his comments about previous governments. I can give him absolute assurance of how seriously we take these matters, both in terms of Russia and in terms of other countries as well. I understand why he references China, as I understand other members have referenced it as well and I hope he understands the focus is on Russia today as it was on Iran last month but I am happy to discuss these matters and I will do that with his colleagues on these benches further.
colleagues on these benches further.
I can give him absolute assurance. I mindful about his comments about previous governments. I can give him absolute assurance of how seriously we take these matters, both in terms of Russia and in terms of other countries as well. I understand why he references China, as I understand other members have referenced it as well and I hope he understands the focus is on Russia today as it was on Iran last month but I am happy to discuss these matters and I will do that with his colleagues on these benches further.
colleagues on these benches further.
14:08
Rt Hon Dr Andrew Murrison MP (South West Wiltshire, Conservative)
-
-
Rt Hon Dr Andrew Murrison MP (South West Wiltshire, Conservative)
Under the political tier, can the Minister say how domestic politicians might be impacted, those who have foreign interlocutors who are involved in all-party Parliamentary trips and under the The scope of what he has in mind, and I know he does not want to be drawn on specifics, but it might include a foreign jurisdiction with the stated intention to annex the territory of the European labour and Commonwealth partner?
14:08
Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
I'm always grateful for his questions. With great respect, I will not get into specifics of the second point he made because I am particularly keen not to do so, frankly. I will come back to him on the important point that he made about parliamentarians. Hopefully, he will welcome the fact, and members across the House and any other place will welcome the fact that for the first time, collectively, we will be able to check whether those who are seeking to influence behaviours or activities in this place are doing so at the behest of a foreign state.
We are not able to do that and that represents a significant step forward that they will be able to do that any future and I hope everyone will recognise that. In terms of the point about the political influence tier, let me reiterate what I said previously. This will require registration of activities carried out with the direction of a foreign power which seek to influence members of this House. This will help protect the integrity of Parliament by ensuring we are all informed of any attempt to influence us where a foreign power is driving this influence.
Where a parliamentarian is named as a potential target of influence and the registration is acknowledged, the first point of contact will be the parliamentarian but this is a good and positive step forward for parliamentarians and I hope that will be recognised across the House.
We are not able to do that and that represents a significant step forward that they will be able to do that any future and I hope everyone will recognise that. In terms of the point about the political influence tier, let me reiterate what I said previously. This will require registration of activities carried out with the direction of a foreign power which seek to influence members of this House. This will help protect the integrity of Parliament by ensuring we are all informed of any attempt to influence us where a foreign power is driving this influence.
Where a parliamentarian is named as a potential target of influence and the registration is acknowledged, the first point of contact will be the parliamentarian but this is a good and positive step forward for parliamentarians and I hope that will be recognised across the House.
14:10
Graham Leadbitter MP (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, Scottish National Party)
-
-
Graham Leadbitter MP (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, Scottish National Party)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the statement from the Minister and the government is concerned with national security, what does the Minister make of the statement from the Trump administration that the tariffs will be imposed on judicial decisions of the UK, ordering foreign companies with US contracts to be executive orders from Trump not to promote diversity, equality, inclusion, and will that require registration? will that require registration? will that require registration?
14:10
14:11
Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)
-
-
Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)
Can I first of all there that while I welcome the activation of the FIRS scheme, it is good but they are missing bits, really. The elephant in the room is what my right honourable friend on the front bench is saying, the missing bit about China. China is behind all of this and we know they are involved in supporting Russia in the war and that is named in the report and it is behind the what Iran have done and destabilising Gaza and it is also behind North Korea.
The question is that if it is shown internationally they are a threat to us, internally, we know that a united front with work and there is a direct report to President Xi made up of thousands of organisations set up to disrupt life in the UK and enter into organisations and forms. They have got a bounty of HK$1.2 million on the heads of people here and we know that they are dragging in Hong Kong dissidents and that there is a tax on dissidents and they are being brutally attacked and we know that there are spies inside and outside the House of Commons.
Slave labour exists in the net zero arrays and the windfarms we are putting up. I will say nothing about that. The truth is that we have got a real problem because China is at the epicentre of everything to disrupt democracy and freedom. Why is China not in the statement today?
The question is that if it is shown internationally they are a threat to us, internally, we know that a united front with work and there is a direct report to President Xi made up of thousands of organisations set up to disrupt life in the UK and enter into organisations and forms. They have got a bounty of HK$1.2 million on the heads of people here and we know that they are dragging in Hong Kong dissidents and that there is a tax on dissidents and they are being brutally attacked and we know that there are spies inside and outside the House of Commons.
Slave labour exists in the net zero arrays and the windfarms we are putting up. I will say nothing about that. The truth is that we have got a real problem because China is at the epicentre of everything to disrupt democracy and freedom. Why is China not in the statement today?
14:12
Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
I always appreciate the contributions made by the right honourable gentleman. As I have explained to the House, fundamentally, in addition to announcements around FIRS in a general sense, the focus is on Russia today, the House will have heard the comments he has made and I hope that he will accept that this government takes these matters incredibly seriously. I hope that he has heard the remarks that I have made earlier today and in my previous statement in response to the threat from Iran that we will consider countries on an individual basis.
We will take evidence-based decisions about how best to proceed. I am sorry that I will not be able to speculate on which countries may or may not be specified in the future but I hope that she will accept that the announcement that we have made today will offer real value in three particular areas. There is the point about transparency. He will have the point with regards specifically to the little tier, requiring all countries to register. -- Little tier. He will not be point about transparency and the pointer and disruption and around deterrence and this policy will introduce a difficult choice for those seeking to influence the UK in a way that has not previously been the case.
That is the right way to proceed and we keep these matters under close review and I am always happy to discuss them out with this chamber, should he wish to do so.
We will take evidence-based decisions about how best to proceed. I am sorry that I will not be able to speculate on which countries may or may not be specified in the future but I hope that she will accept that the announcement that we have made today will offer real value in three particular areas. There is the point about transparency. He will have the point with regards specifically to the little tier, requiring all countries to register. -- Little tier. He will not be point about transparency and the pointer and disruption and around deterrence and this policy will introduce a difficult choice for those seeking to influence the UK in a way that has not previously been the case.
That is the right way to proceed and we keep these matters under close review and I am always happy to discuss them out with this chamber, should he wish to do so.
14:14
14:14
Rt Hon Mark Francois MP (Rayleigh and Wickford, Conservative)
-
-
Rt Hon Mark Francois MP (Rayleigh and Wickford, Conservative)
Point of order. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are worrying media reports which have emerged overnight that the Iranian regime may be contemplating a military strike on our base on Diego Garcia. For instance, as the 'Daily Telegraph' reported, "I senior Iranian official said military commanders have been asked to target the joint UK-US base on the Chagos Islands in an attempt to prevent Donald Trump from striking on Iran." In the last hour, with Foreign Office questions conveniently out of the way, there are emerging media reports that the government may have come to a so- called deal with Mauritius over the future of the Chagos Islands themselves.
If that is true, yet again, the UK Parliament has been kept in the dark about the future of what is still today British sovereign territory and a vital strategic installation. Have you indeed Mr Speaker being given any indication that the government intends to come to this House and make a statement tonight or, at the very latest, tomorrow, about an implied military threat to the Chagos Islands or a legal and diplomatic threat to the Chagos Islands which are and should remain
If that is true, yet again, the UK Parliament has been kept in the dark about the future of what is still today British sovereign territory and a vital strategic installation. Have you indeed Mr Speaker being given any indication that the government intends to come to this House and make a statement tonight or, at the very latest, tomorrow, about an implied military threat to the Chagos Islands or a legal and diplomatic threat to the Chagos Islands which are and should remain
14:16
Rt Hon Caroline Nokes MP (Romsey and Southampton North, Conservative)
-
-
Rt Hon Caroline Nokes MP (Romsey and Southampton North, Conservative)
Grateful to the right honourable gentleman having given notice of his point of order. Of course the chamber has just been hearing his statement which was in part about threats posed by Iran to the United Kingdom and its interest. However I can inform him that the chair has not received any notification of a statement on specific matter he raises. He will of course know that the Treasury bench has been listening to his point carefully and also as an experienced member of this House, I know the right honourable gentleman will be considering other ways in which you can make sure that this matter is raised.
Which brings us to presentation of bill, secretary.
Which brings us to presentation of bill, secretary.
14:17
Presentation of Bills
-
Presentation of Bills
Sentencing guidelines, sentence
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reports bill. Second reading what day?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Tomorrow. Tomorrow. Presentation of bill,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Daisy Cooper. Street works, penalties for utility companies bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
utility companies bill. Second reading what day? Friday,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reports bill. Second reading what day?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Tomorrow. Tomorrow. Presentation of bill,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Daisy Cooper. Street works, penalties for utility companies bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
utility companies bill. Second reading what day? Friday,
14:17
Dr Ben Spencer MP (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second reading what day? Friday, 11 July. Which brings us to the ten minute rule motion. Doctor Ben
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Spencer. Thank you. I beg to move that leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a duty on transport authorities and other specified persons to cooperate to reduce transport disruption and to ensure the effective operation of transport networks. To provide for requirements in connection with such a duty, to requite the publication of assessments of expected transport disruption resulting from related works on travel services and connected purposes. As a member of Parliament, my mission is to keep my constituency moving.
We rely on our transport networks to get to work, school or college, doctors appointments or just to see friends and family. Whether by road, rail or even air. We are dependent on our transport networks. Discussions around critical and the structure often focus on big apparently unprecedented events such as the recent power failure at Heathrow. But even the smallest road is critical infrastructure if you can't leave your House because of an engineering diversion route. We all welcome works to improve our roads and transport network, and of course recognise that this may cause some disruption.
I understand there will be need for temporary disruption for unexpected emergency works such as power cut or gas leaks. However, all too often in Runnymede & Weybridge our transport and the structure is brought to a halt due to multiple plant works happening at the same time. Or plant utility works causing time. Or plant utility works causing the current disruption through multiple providers, gas, electricity, water, broadband, digging up the same road over and over again. Disruption should be avoided and minimised by authorities and providers talking to each other and coordinating works.
Ensuring coordination with road and rail works taking place is the purpose of my bill. Sadly, in Runnymede & Weybridge we have loads of examples where coordination hasn't taken place despite repeated assurances that authorities do coordinate and discuss regularly. From full M25 closures coinciding with mainline engineering works, despite reassurance to otherwise, to areas in Chelsea where rates have been repeatedly dug up, often under the guise of urgent works from gas to water to electricity, and then perhaps the most infuriating, when authorities or utilities have inadequately staffed works or have left them unattended.
So in the signals failure, it took hours to resolve as it didn't have the right equipment or staff on site to fix equipment or staff on site to fix the problem. We understand and expect that there will be some disruption. But I believe that test planning and coordination can prevent and avoid much of what we've seen locally. Surrey County Council had been working hard to address issues on our local road network, and I thank them and in particular councillor Jonathan Paddy for his leadership and work on this issue.
Surrey have established a new task force to drive better coordination and communication of works across our road network, and Surrey along with National Highways and six major utility providers have called on the Department for transport to make changes to systems and processes to reduce the negative impact of utility works across the county. They've called for changes to digital services, used to manage highway works in England to enable prior notice of urgent works where possible, improving communication and coordination. And Surrey has also called for amongst other things mandatory on-site signage for emergency works to explain delays and agencies to approve for road users and a requirement for swift completion of works to reduce disruption and support economic productivity.
I fully support these proposals which could resolve many local issues, but these alone cannot achieve the coordination required across networks to address all the issues I've highlighted. And that's why I'm bringing forward this bill, calling for a statutory duty to coordinate. Under this duty, National Highways could not inform me that they were unaware of the impact trains on the church to branch line would have on local road networks on the same weekend as a motorway closure. Because they would have been required to communicate, coordinate and assess the likely impact of their actions.
Under this duty, Network Rail wooden be able to inform you that while they usually do coordinate with other authorities, this occasion, they forgot. And combined with the work undertaken by Surrey County Council under this duty, utility companies would not be able to place repeated and announced works alongside major diversion routes with impunity. And when utilities do dig up the road, they would need to check if anything else needed to be fixed at the same time. Our transport links are the lifeblood of our communities and economy.
In 2021, National Highways estimate that total delays on the network alone cost 3 billion each year. Add to that the cost of delays and local road networks, hours missed from work, goods stuck in transport, the effects are clear, not just the benefit to our communities but the UK economy as a whole. I asked the governor and colleagues across the House to support this bill and the work of colleagues in Surrey to address these issues. To ensure our national transport infrastructure operates effectively and efficiently for all.
Let's keep Runnymede & Weybridge
**** Possible New Speaker ****
moving. The question is that the honourable member have leave to honourable member have leave to bring in the bill. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Who will
**** Possible New Speaker ****
prepare and bring in the bill? Rebecca Paul, Greg Stafford and myself.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Transport Transport duty Transport duty to Transport duty to cooperate Transport duty to cooperate bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Transport duty to cooperate bill. Second reading what day?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second reading what day? Friday 20th of April. -- 25th.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Friday 20th of April. -- 25th. Friday 25th of April. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of the day. Product regulation and to bill,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords second reading. The recent amendment in the name of Andrew Griffith has been selected. Minister to move the second reading?
Dr Ben Spencer MP (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second reading what day? Friday, 11 July. Which brings us to the ten minute rule motion. Doctor Ben
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Spencer. Thank you. I beg to move that leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a duty on transport authorities and other specified persons to cooperate to reduce transport disruption and to ensure the effective operation of transport networks. To provide for requirements in connection with such a duty, to requite the publication of assessments of expected transport disruption resulting from related works on travel services and connected purposes. As a member of Parliament, my mission is to keep my constituency moving.
We rely on our transport networks to get to work, school or college, doctors appointments or just to see friends and family. Whether by road, rail or even air. We are dependent on our transport networks. Discussions around critical and the structure often focus on big apparently unprecedented events such as the recent power failure at Heathrow. But even the smallest road is critical infrastructure if you can't leave your House because of an engineering diversion route. We all welcome works to improve our roads and transport network, and of course recognise that this may cause some disruption.
I understand there will be need for temporary disruption for unexpected emergency works such as power cut or gas leaks. However, all too often in Runnymede & Weybridge our transport and the structure is brought to a halt due to multiple plant works happening at the same time. Or plant utility works causing time. Or plant utility works causing the current disruption through multiple providers, gas, electricity, water, broadband, digging up the same road over and over again. Disruption should be avoided and minimised by authorities and providers talking to each other and coordinating works.
Ensuring coordination with road and rail works taking place is the purpose of my bill. Sadly, in Runnymede & Weybridge we have loads of examples where coordination hasn't taken place despite repeated assurances that authorities do coordinate and discuss regularly. From full M25 closures coinciding with mainline engineering works, despite reassurance to otherwise, to areas in Chelsea where rates have been repeatedly dug up, often under the guise of urgent works from gas to water to electricity, and then perhaps the most infuriating, when authorities or utilities have inadequately staffed works or have left them unattended.
So in the signals failure, it took hours to resolve as it didn't have the right equipment or staff on site to fix equipment or staff on site to fix the problem. We understand and expect that there will be some disruption. But I believe that test planning and coordination can prevent and avoid much of what we've seen locally. Surrey County Council had been working hard to address issues on our local road network, and I thank them and in particular councillor Jonathan Paddy for his leadership and work on this issue.
Surrey have established a new task force to drive better coordination and communication of works across our road network, and Surrey along with National Highways and six major utility providers have called on the Department for transport to make changes to systems and processes to reduce the negative impact of utility works across the county. They've called for changes to digital services, used to manage highway works in England to enable prior notice of urgent works where possible, improving communication and coordination. And Surrey has also called for amongst other things mandatory on-site signage for emergency works to explain delays and agencies to approve for road users and a requirement for swift completion of works to reduce disruption and support economic productivity.
I fully support these proposals which could resolve many local issues, but these alone cannot achieve the coordination required across networks to address all the issues I've highlighted. And that's why I'm bringing forward this bill, calling for a statutory duty to coordinate. Under this duty, National Highways could not inform me that they were unaware of the impact trains on the church to branch line would have on local road networks on the same weekend as a motorway closure. Because they would have been required to communicate, coordinate and assess the likely impact of their actions.
Under this duty, Network Rail wooden be able to inform you that while they usually do coordinate with other authorities, this occasion, they forgot. And combined with the work undertaken by Surrey County Council under this duty, utility companies would not be able to place repeated and announced works alongside major diversion routes with impunity. And when utilities do dig up the road, they would need to check if anything else needed to be fixed at the same time. Our transport links are the lifeblood of our communities and economy.
In 2021, National Highways estimate that total delays on the network alone cost 3 billion each year. Add to that the cost of delays and local road networks, hours missed from work, goods stuck in transport, the effects are clear, not just the benefit to our communities but the UK economy as a whole. I asked the governor and colleagues across the House to support this bill and the work of colleagues in Surrey to address these issues. To ensure our national transport infrastructure operates effectively and efficiently for all.
Let's keep Runnymede & Weybridge
**** Possible New Speaker ****
moving. The question is that the honourable member have leave to honourable member have leave to bring in the bill. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Who will
**** Possible New Speaker ****
prepare and bring in the bill? Rebecca Paul, Greg Stafford and myself.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Transport Transport duty Transport duty to Transport duty to cooperate Transport duty to cooperate bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Transport duty to cooperate bill. Second reading what day?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second reading what day? Friday 20th of April. -- 25th.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Friday 20th of April. -- 25th. Friday 25th of April. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of the day. Product regulation and to bill,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords second reading. The recent amendment in the name of Andrew Griffith has been selected. Minister to move the second reading?
14:25
Legislation: Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]: Second reading
-
Legislation: Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]: Second reading
Thank you. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. Why
**** Possible New Speaker ****
not? Of course. When did weights and measures
**** Possible New Speaker ****
When did weights and measures become metrology? And is this use of become metrology? And is this use of Newspeak deliberately, to use, to Newspeak deliberately, to use, to cover the Orwellian attempt, to cloak this huge grab for power and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
not? Of course. When did weights and measures
**** Possible New Speaker ****
When did weights and measures become metrology? And is this use of become metrology? And is this use of Newspeak deliberately, to use, to Newspeak deliberately, to use, to cover the Orwellian attempt, to cloak this huge grab for power and
14:26
Rt Hon Jonathan Reynolds MP, Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Stalybridge and Hyde, Labour )
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to what end? I am grateful for that intervention. Very early on in intervention. Very early on in proceedings. I cannot provide a definitive answer to the honourable gentleman as to the naming of this bill, but I promise I will find that out and put it to him in writing. But he will know that this bill originally planned I believe by the previous government because of the need to repatriate powers to the United Kingdom as a result of our exit from the European Union is something that we need intensive the toolkit that we can provide, so far from being Orwellian, it's a pragmatic tactical proposal and look forward now to making the case in more detail the -- for it.
The primary mission of our department and the government's strong economic growth. And not just growth that looks good on paper but growth that is seen and felt in our high streets in towns and cities, and in the communities we serve. There reverses the 15 years of stagnation with all the negative consequences that we all felt during that time. And to do that, we need an economy with shops and small businesses competing on a more level playing field with online marketplaces and with the big tech giants.
And we need an economy which promotes investment and innovation but at the same time ensures consumers and businesses have real modern day protections. And that's why the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill is a small but hugely important piece of legislation. And it's one which will further cement the U.K.'s status as a world leader the U.K.'s status as a world leader in product regulation and safety.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank him for giving way. He is making an important introduction to today's bill, but I wonder if you agrees with me about the importance agrees with me about the importance of international alignment in the standards we are discussing today, on scientific matters as being essential for the smooth operation
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of modern advanced manufacturing. Hugely grateful to my honourable friend, and I believe I'm correct in saying he's not only a metrology as saying he's not only a metrology as himself but the first metrology is himself but the first metrology is to elected to Parliament. So I put no heavy expectation management on his speech today that we will all be looking forward to it with some interest. And he is right to say there are areas where we will choose to work with international standards, areas will be choose to divest, but no decisions are made in this bill if it becomes an act of Parliament, just how we will do that, but without that we wouldn't have the toolkit to make these decisions, is of the essence of these proposed laws are taking back control to the House of Commons and Parliament itself to make these
**** Possible New Speaker ****
kinds of decisions. You will be aware from the second
**** Possible New Speaker ****
You will be aware from the second reading debate in the Lords that a number of shower gently say number of shower gently say Eurosceptic peers expressed concern that what this bill was doing was a that what this bill was doing was a form of dynamic alignment with the European Union, which means that far European Union, which means that far from taking back control of standards involved in what the guidelines were necessary, we would be abdicating it to whatever the European Union decided? Can he set our minds at rest about that? I'm sure he wouldn't wish to be diverted
**** Possible New Speaker ****
along such a dead-end route? Extremely grateful to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Extremely grateful to the honourable gentleman who always brings wisdom to these debates, and I can give him that assurance absolutely. This bill provides no decision as to how we should use these powers, but the reason we're putting it forward today is the same reason the previous Conservative government first proposed a bill of government first proposed a bill of this kind, which is the having left the European Union, need the powers to properly regulate these products and without this we will necessarily and without this we will necessarily
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That means then presumably that the government will press for recognition of UK standards where recognition of UK standards where they prevail and where we think we are doing the job better, so there are doing the job better, so there will be a case we have learned from others, and others where they can others, and others where they can learn from us, so with that the government's intention and would he make that clear now?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
make that clear now? We see that in a number of areas. I think that is the case when it I think that is the case when it comes to the whole field of regulation were given how topical AI is right now, I think we have chosen a different path to the European a different path to the European Union. I am very confident in the approach we are taking, and I am sure when I get the provisions of this bill, when it comes to weights and measures, the whole house will be joined that standards are particularly important to us, but again, having the powers to set standards in itself makes no decision as to how they are used.
We can all clearly recognise the need to repatriate our powers to our own statute. I was going to make
**** Possible New Speaker ****
progress but I can't resist the gentleman. When I was doing some work on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
When I was doing some work on this for previous government looking at what we could do on regulations at what we could do on regulations and standards, it became apparent to me that the UK is behind the US and me that the UK is behind the US and China in setting standards for the rest of the world, so I wonder what degree he is planning to enhance that in terms of returning to European standards when we already
**** Possible New Speaker ****
dominate the field. Our intention in this area is to cement the status as a world leader in product regulation and we would all recognise the tremendous business benefit that comes from being a jurisdiction where our consumer process is recognised going to the highest standard possible, but where we see gaps in our provision because of the substantial change that has occurred, surely we would want to see those gaps filled so that we are not in a position to continue our success in this area.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The idea is not to take us back
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The idea is not to take us back into EU laws being imposed on us, yet the business heavily references EU laws. How do you explain that?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Colleagues who have been injured in this full followed the proceedings in the other place of discussions in this area. I put the discussions in this area. I put the case very straightforwardly. We have case very straightforwardly. We have a whole range of areas, and there will be business demands for alignment with other jurisdictions. There will be places where we want to use an effort to divert churches in our economic interest, but we have the ability to recognise key products with the new technology that is available, the opportunities that come from that, and to anyone on the other side who is not quite reassured by that, the previous government was planning an exact similar bill in order to fill this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
gap in the statute book. I am grateful and I would like to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am grateful and I would like to make two points. This house can do make two points. This house can do what it wants. It simply isn't true. On the point of whether this will lead to dynamic realignment with the lead to dynamic realignment with the EU, can we explain then what clause EU, can we explain then what clause 27 a is for because it seems to me that that is a clause that could be regulations.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I will give way to the gentleman.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I will give way to the gentleman. Eos me now. The key thing here is that we mustn't use EU standards that we mustn't use EU standards before. The gentleman is right that we have an authority had to make our own standards and we often do very well, but the risk is where we haven't yet done that, the EU haven't yet done that, the EU standards will be the default standards will be the default position. We have to make crystal-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
clear that that is not the case. I will reply to my honourable
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I will reply to my honourable friends and say that reading clause a may provide with the point, so a may provide with the point, so there will be times when our economic interest is in a close economic interest is in a close relationship with the product relationship with the product standards, but it is our choice to do that, and I think we all recognise the absence of powers without this bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
He makes reference to the ability of this house, but we can look at of this house, but we can look at primary legislation, and there was a parliamentarian who said this, and the use of Delegated Powers Committee risk of abuse by the executive which is not something the opposition would ever support, and he should agree with that because he
**** Possible New Speaker ****
said it. That was part of a wise set of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That was part of a wise set of remarks I gave. There have been remarks I gave. There have been changes the government has made of that feedback. We have removed a consultation requirement, providing for additional procedures and we have said we will publish a code of conduct that sets out the statutory code of control is to make sure it is proportionate and developed through consultation, so because of the process, we have responded to the kind of concerns I was wisely articulating, and perhaps it would be used to house if I say a little bit about that journey and the work of the other place in that regard because I do want to thank my ministerial colleague for his great efforts in ringing the bell through the other place.
I want to thank the committees of the other house for their assistance in creating strong legislation, tens of millions of consumers and all those who enjoy a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
pint or two. He is right to praise the House
**** Possible New Speaker ****
He is right to praise the House of Lords for making sure the great British pint is on the face of this bill. There is an exclusion from the bill. There is an exclusion from the regulation power that this will not regulation power that this will not satisfy metric martyrs. The ability to sell in period measures was a big to sell in period measures was a big issue a few years ago. Why is it that there is an elaborate schedule that there is an elaborate schedule to the product regulations not to metrology, and why in particular is food generically not included in the exemptions for what the Minister
**** Possible New Speaker ****
proposes to do? We would say with confidence that there was never a danger to this, there was never a danger to this, but because of the concerns, there but because of the concerns, there are some changes to make sure everyone present that the paint will everyone present that the paint will be defended and secured on the face of this bill. I received no entreaties from business that they wish to sell in imperial wish to sell in imperial measurements, but if the gentleman believes there is an absence of provisions in the bill, he can write to me, I will write back to M and be able to reassure him, but he may be misplaced in saying that is a significant issue for businesses.
As all honourable members no, the digital age we live in is one that has created significant growth opportunities, and the consumer technology landscapes we have today are almost unrecognisable from 20 or 30 years ago, so the products we buy are also evolving rapidly. That means the relevant rules and regulations must adapt and if we are to protect consumers and businesses from smaller firms, that is from smaller firms, that is essential. Product regulation and metrology has largely been repatriated from the EU following our withdrawal in 2021.
Since then, the UK government has not had the necessary powers to continue regulating these areas and that is why we have bought forward this legislation so we can respond to changes in the global regulatory landscape. That is why am somewhat bemused by the amendments put forward today. This bill will ensure that we can look at safety issues. We better regulate things like sleep project and toys. We can keep up with technological developments by updating the outdoor noise regulations in Great Britain.
This will align testing methods across the UK is overwhelmingly supported by our call for evidence, and it will protect the government from products like lawnmowers and power
**** Possible New Speaker ****
generators. I closely scrutinise the bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I closely scrutinise the bill today, so I am bringing myself up- to-date on this, but it appears to give the Secretary of State the give the Secretary of State the power to ban any product he wishes for whatever reason, and we make law for whatever reason, and we make law in this place not because when we are dealing with a minister of the are dealing with a minister of the calibre and moral calibre of the honourable gentleman, but on the basis that we might have someone who lacks those qualities.
That is who lacks those qualities. That is who we legislate for. Is it true that this bill would have the power to ban any product and all that would have to be done is to notify this house?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am grateful to him for his concern in his regard. I believe that, if we were of the view that a product was a danger to the public, the gentleman would expect me in my the gentleman would expect me in my department to take action. Now, if department to take action. Now, if he is concerned about provisions in this bill, he can look to the changes that have been made through an extensive process in the other place, particularly in relation to the powers and the delegated powers given to the Secretary of State, but given to the Secretary of State, but I think he recognises the case that we are making, both for the safety of the public, and indeed, one member is on that side of the house recognise the need for a bill of this kind.
This bill will also help create a level playing field between the high-street and online marketplaces. Critically, we are able to protect consumers by reducing the number of unsafe goods that are sold online. This could include asking sites to verify third-party sellers before allowing them to list goods or having product safety reporting function for customers on their site. One example of this are east's and E bikes which like many products are reliant on lithium iron battery. These batteries have been treated to a number of fires in recent years, both in households and on public transport.
Now, whilst we know that the vast majority of products are safe, in recent years, we have seen some goods mis-sold by a minority of unscrupulous manufacturers. As a result, low standard high risk products have been able to enter the UK market. Some people have paid for this with their homes, and in some cases, their lives. I think we all recognise that is unconscionable. I want to pay tribute to the family of Sophia Duarte. Sophia tragically died in a bicycle that have been converted into a nearby burst into flames.
The little lithium battery pack caused a fire on New Year's Day 2023. I know the whole House will join me in recognising the courage of Sophia's family in campaigning for change in memory of their daughter. And in fighting for better regulation of E bikes along with the batteries and chargers associated with them. I would also like to thank the London Fire Brigade for campaigning on this issue in recent years. They have been on the frontline seeing the devastation that has been wrought by so many of these products, and this is what this bill is about, keeping the public safe.
The office for product safety and standards have taken action in this area already. They've received 26 withdrawal notices on manufacturers and services. This is removed to dangerous models and I am glad that the legislation will allow
**** Possible New Speaker ****
enforcement. I have been campaigning for greater regulation on bicycles anyway but I want to pick him up on anyway but I want to pick him up on this particular point. I don't disagree with him on the need for disagree with him on the need for regulation. It should have been done some time ago, what I still don't think he is answer the question posed by his honourable friend just posed by his honourable friend just now is why do we need to have a wide sweeping bill like this if we could do it already in the house by vote, so the key thing is, if you have an argument that is powerful enough to say to them this must be done, then both houses will see that through very quickly by the power suasion with the right to vote on it or disagree.
This takes that away and achieve the same result but only with who is in power, and I agree
**** Possible New Speaker ****
when he was in power. I'm sorry because I am convinced that the government needs powers and that the government needs powers and we need to be able to respond to fast-moving changes in technology and regulation and keep the public and regulation and keep the public safe, they would expect me to have these powers, so perhaps we haven't these powers, so perhaps we haven't convinced him at this stage but if he looks at proceedings in the other he looks at proceedings in the other
**** Possible New Speaker ****
he looks at proceedings in the other He says he has failed to persuade us in this place, does except you also failed to persuade the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, chaired by Labour, in the other place, where they said just last month, we remain of the view that delegation to ministers of Roman powers in this bill involves legislative power shifting to an unacceptable extent from the legislature to the executive. Why is it, does he think, that they remain against his view?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I find when parties go into opposition all of a sudden they seem less keen on the government having decisive power to take action in a whole range of areas. I have already whole range of areas. I have already said, we have listened carefully to the criticism from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. There are significant changes to the legislation before us changes to the legislation before us today which I'm happy to take him through but they do relate to the number of Henry VIII powers, the consultation requirement, they do relate to the additional affirmative relate to the additional affirmative regulations procedure so all we are regulations procedure so all we are seeking, we are always seeking feedback.
I will go through some of the other amendments made. The processes we have around this, is it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
going to be good? Forget the delegated relation
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Forget the delegated relation committee, what about Lord Young? He said he didn't think this was right. So what way does it need to be So what way does it need to be improved and is he going to look very carefully at the extent of these powers because it's infamous these powers because it's infamous sure to make it clear how wide- ranging and over-the-top they are.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
ranging and over-the-top they are. I would say to him that the second reading we have a bill which is even stronger than the one which originally started in the other House and I would thank all of our colleagues in the other place for the destructive feedback and their contributions to this debate. I won't go through every change that was made for honourable and might honourable members here but I will just mention some aspects of the bill that have been strengthened.
Firstly, we have amended the bill to ensure there is more parliamentary scrutiny. We have provided for a strategy consultation requirement to ensure regulations are informed by those who would be impacted by them. There will also be an additional use of the affirmative procedure for regulations stemming from the bill. Secondly, the bill now includes a requirement for me as the Secretary of State to publish a statement setting out how my department expects to identify and assess expects to identify and assess high-risk.
And finally, country to previous suggestions from the party opposite -- country -- the great British point will not be affected by this legislation, whether I'll, cider or a pint of milk. We do not believe that the bill in its original form posed threat to the pint. We don't want to run the risk of colleagues thinking that my reassurances are small beer. So we have accepted an amendment, tabled in the other place, which will give the pint strategy protection which means in a few weeks time, when the bill has received from assent, we can raise a point protected under statute to this bill.
And I did enquire was allowed to bring a pint in here with me to illustrate, but apparently only the Chancellor has that ability. Perhaps we will get to that utterly date. To summarise, this legislation will finally enable the government to properly regulate in areas where we have been unable to do so post-Brexit. It also gives us the tools we need to better regulate modern day consumer products. This bill will help create a fairer environment for high-street shops and small businesses, support our growth mission and it will be better protection for millions of consumers.
For all, these reasons, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
commend this bill to the House. The question is that the bill be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the bill be now read a second time. Shadow
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Secretary of State. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Too often when the public think of Parliament, they think of out of Parliament, they think of out of touch power and bad laws. This bill today is the archetype of everything that is wrong with Westminster. There should be an unwritten rule in this postcode, never trust a bill this postcode, never trust a bill with a convoluted name. And this bill is no exception. Whilst professing to simplify our regulatory framework, the reality is this is an EU Trojan horse of a bill which will sabotage our Brexit freedoms, undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom, disrespect Parliament, befuddle British business with uncertainty and take us back to being a Brussels rule taker.
Or from a party who voted 48 times to overturn the will of the British people. Before I give... I won't give way. Before I get into further... I'm going to say something nice about the honourable gentleman. Before I get into detail let me welcome the government was not U-turn on their plan to scrap the great British pint. Let us hope that is the first of many. When I raised this, on 26 the fabric, Labour members described it as a conspiracy theory.
The honourable member forcing Dobbins said it was scaremongering and the government frontbench said an amendment was no more needed than a Lord Hussain that the sun would rise in the morning. The truth is, the government were caught red-handed trying to ditch our British pint in the back door bill. Had we on these benches, not fought back, the power to crush the British pint would have rested on the whim of a minister's pen. And welcome though this U-turn is, let us not ignore the fact that the Labour government wanted to give
**** Possible New Speaker ****
themselves this power in the first place. I will give way. I thank him for giving way and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank him for giving way and hope he gives way also to my right honourable friends on the frontbench. I wonder if he could tell the House what possible motive tell the House what possible motive he thinks a Labour government would have for scrapping the point?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
have for scrapping the point? The Labour motive is all too plain to see because this is a Labour Party that voted 48 times to reject the will of the British people, led by the Prime Minister who sought a second referendum to overturn the will. I accept the honourable wasn't perhaps in this House at the time but he might want to spend some time in the tearoom and hear precisely what happened. I will make some progress. The anti- pub, anti-hospitality agenda goes far beyond this bill the jobs tax, the threshold change, the attack on seasonal and flexible working, business rates more than doubled, the war on are banter, and the garden smoking ban, or from the government.
Our hospitality industry for which the Secretary of State is smacking deserves infinitely better than this from this government. --
Rt Hon Jonathan Reynolds MP, Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Stalybridge and Hyde, Labour )
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to what end? I am grateful for that intervention. Very early on in intervention. Very early on in proceedings. I cannot provide a definitive answer to the honourable gentleman as to the naming of this bill, but I promise I will find that out and put it to him in writing. But he will know that this bill originally planned I believe by the previous government because of the need to repatriate powers to the United Kingdom as a result of our exit from the European Union is something that we need intensive the toolkit that we can provide, so far from being Orwellian, it's a pragmatic tactical proposal and look forward now to making the case in more detail the -- for it.
The primary mission of our department and the government's strong economic growth. And not just growth that looks good on paper but growth that is seen and felt in our high streets in towns and cities, and in the communities we serve. There reverses the 15 years of stagnation with all the negative consequences that we all felt during that time. And to do that, we need an economy with shops and small businesses competing on a more level playing field with online marketplaces and with the big tech giants.
And we need an economy which promotes investment and innovation but at the same time ensures consumers and businesses have real modern day protections. And that's why the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill is a small but hugely important piece of legislation. And it's one which will further cement the U.K.'s status as a world leader the U.K.'s status as a world leader in product regulation and safety.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank him for giving way. He is making an important introduction to today's bill, but I wonder if you agrees with me about the importance agrees with me about the importance of international alignment in the standards we are discussing today, on scientific matters as being essential for the smooth operation
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of modern advanced manufacturing. Hugely grateful to my honourable friend, and I believe I'm correct in saying he's not only a metrology as saying he's not only a metrology as himself but the first metrology is himself but the first metrology is to elected to Parliament. So I put no heavy expectation management on his speech today that we will all be looking forward to it with some interest. And he is right to say there are areas where we will choose to work with international standards, areas will be choose to divest, but no decisions are made in this bill if it becomes an act of Parliament, just how we will do that, but without that we wouldn't have the toolkit to make these decisions, is of the essence of these proposed laws are taking back control to the House of Commons and Parliament itself to make these
**** Possible New Speaker ****
kinds of decisions. You will be aware from the second
**** Possible New Speaker ****
You will be aware from the second reading debate in the Lords that a number of shower gently say number of shower gently say Eurosceptic peers expressed concern that what this bill was doing was a that what this bill was doing was a form of dynamic alignment with the European Union, which means that far European Union, which means that far from taking back control of standards involved in what the guidelines were necessary, we would be abdicating it to whatever the European Union decided? Can he set our minds at rest about that? I'm sure he wouldn't wish to be diverted
**** Possible New Speaker ****
along such a dead-end route? Extremely grateful to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Extremely grateful to the honourable gentleman who always brings wisdom to these debates, and I can give him that assurance absolutely. This bill provides no decision as to how we should use these powers, but the reason we're putting it forward today is the same reason the previous Conservative government first proposed a bill of government first proposed a bill of this kind, which is the having left the European Union, need the powers to properly regulate these products and without this we will necessarily and without this we will necessarily
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That means then presumably that the government will press for recognition of UK standards where recognition of UK standards where they prevail and where we think we are doing the job better, so there are doing the job better, so there will be a case we have learned from others, and others where they can others, and others where they can learn from us, so with that the government's intention and would he make that clear now?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
make that clear now? We see that in a number of areas. I think that is the case when it I think that is the case when it comes to the whole field of regulation were given how topical AI is right now, I think we have chosen a different path to the European a different path to the European Union. I am very confident in the approach we are taking, and I am sure when I get the provisions of this bill, when it comes to weights and measures, the whole house will be joined that standards are particularly important to us, but again, having the powers to set standards in itself makes no decision as to how they are used.
We can all clearly recognise the need to repatriate our powers to our own statute. I was going to make
**** Possible New Speaker ****
progress but I can't resist the gentleman. When I was doing some work on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
When I was doing some work on this for previous government looking at what we could do on regulations at what we could do on regulations and standards, it became apparent to me that the UK is behind the US and me that the UK is behind the US and China in setting standards for the rest of the world, so I wonder what degree he is planning to enhance that in terms of returning to European standards when we already
**** Possible New Speaker ****
dominate the field. Our intention in this area is to cement the status as a world leader in product regulation and we would all recognise the tremendous business benefit that comes from being a jurisdiction where our consumer process is recognised going to the highest standard possible, but where we see gaps in our provision because of the substantial change that has occurred, surely we would want to see those gaps filled so that we are not in a position to continue our success in this area.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The idea is not to take us back
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The idea is not to take us back into EU laws being imposed on us, yet the business heavily references EU laws. How do you explain that?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Colleagues who have been injured in this full followed the proceedings in the other place of discussions in this area. I put the discussions in this area. I put the case very straightforwardly. We have case very straightforwardly. We have a whole range of areas, and there will be business demands for alignment with other jurisdictions. There will be places where we want to use an effort to divert churches in our economic interest, but we have the ability to recognise key products with the new technology that is available, the opportunities that come from that, and to anyone on the other side who is not quite reassured by that, the previous government was planning an exact similar bill in order to fill this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
gap in the statute book. I am grateful and I would like to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am grateful and I would like to make two points. This house can do make two points. This house can do what it wants. It simply isn't true. On the point of whether this will lead to dynamic realignment with the lead to dynamic realignment with the EU, can we explain then what clause EU, can we explain then what clause 27 a is for because it seems to me that that is a clause that could be regulations.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I will give way to the gentleman.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I will give way to the gentleman. Eos me now. The key thing here is that we mustn't use EU standards that we mustn't use EU standards before. The gentleman is right that we have an authority had to make our own standards and we often do very well, but the risk is where we haven't yet done that, the EU haven't yet done that, the EU standards will be the default standards will be the default position. We have to make crystal-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
clear that that is not the case. I will reply to my honourable
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I will reply to my honourable friends and say that reading clause a may provide with the point, so a may provide with the point, so there will be times when our economic interest is in a close economic interest is in a close relationship with the product relationship with the product standards, but it is our choice to do that, and I think we all recognise the absence of powers without this bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
He makes reference to the ability of this house, but we can look at of this house, but we can look at primary legislation, and there was a parliamentarian who said this, and the use of Delegated Powers Committee risk of abuse by the executive which is not something the opposition would ever support, and he should agree with that because he
**** Possible New Speaker ****
said it. That was part of a wise set of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That was part of a wise set of remarks I gave. There have been remarks I gave. There have been changes the government has made of that feedback. We have removed a consultation requirement, providing for additional procedures and we have said we will publish a code of conduct that sets out the statutory code of control is to make sure it is proportionate and developed through consultation, so because of the process, we have responded to the kind of concerns I was wisely articulating, and perhaps it would be used to house if I say a little bit about that journey and the work of the other place in that regard because I do want to thank my ministerial colleague for his great efforts in ringing the bell through the other place.
I want to thank the committees of the other house for their assistance in creating strong legislation, tens of millions of consumers and all those who enjoy a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
pint or two. He is right to praise the House
**** Possible New Speaker ****
He is right to praise the House of Lords for making sure the great British pint is on the face of this bill. There is an exclusion from the bill. There is an exclusion from the regulation power that this will not regulation power that this will not satisfy metric martyrs. The ability to sell in period measures was a big to sell in period measures was a big issue a few years ago. Why is it that there is an elaborate schedule that there is an elaborate schedule to the product regulations not to metrology, and why in particular is food generically not included in the exemptions for what the Minister
**** Possible New Speaker ****
proposes to do? We would say with confidence that there was never a danger to this, there was never a danger to this, but because of the concerns, there but because of the concerns, there are some changes to make sure everyone present that the paint will everyone present that the paint will be defended and secured on the face of this bill. I received no entreaties from business that they wish to sell in imperial wish to sell in imperial measurements, but if the gentleman believes there is an absence of provisions in the bill, he can write to me, I will write back to M and be able to reassure him, but he may be misplaced in saying that is a significant issue for businesses.
As all honourable members no, the digital age we live in is one that has created significant growth opportunities, and the consumer technology landscapes we have today are almost unrecognisable from 20 or 30 years ago, so the products we buy are also evolving rapidly. That means the relevant rules and regulations must adapt and if we are to protect consumers and businesses from smaller firms, that is from smaller firms, that is essential. Product regulation and metrology has largely been repatriated from the EU following our withdrawal in 2021.
Since then, the UK government has not had the necessary powers to continue regulating these areas and that is why we have bought forward this legislation so we can respond to changes in the global regulatory landscape. That is why am somewhat bemused by the amendments put forward today. This bill will ensure that we can look at safety issues. We better regulate things like sleep project and toys. We can keep up with technological developments by updating the outdoor noise regulations in Great Britain.
This will align testing methods across the UK is overwhelmingly supported by our call for evidence, and it will protect the government from products like lawnmowers and power
**** Possible New Speaker ****
generators. I closely scrutinise the bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I closely scrutinise the bill today, so I am bringing myself up- to-date on this, but it appears to give the Secretary of State the give the Secretary of State the power to ban any product he wishes for whatever reason, and we make law for whatever reason, and we make law in this place not because when we are dealing with a minister of the are dealing with a minister of the calibre and moral calibre of the honourable gentleman, but on the basis that we might have someone who lacks those qualities.
That is who lacks those qualities. That is who we legislate for. Is it true that this bill would have the power to ban any product and all that would have to be done is to notify this house?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am grateful to him for his concern in his regard. I believe that, if we were of the view that a product was a danger to the public, the gentleman would expect me in my the gentleman would expect me in my department to take action. Now, if department to take action. Now, if he is concerned about provisions in this bill, he can look to the changes that have been made through an extensive process in the other place, particularly in relation to the powers and the delegated powers given to the Secretary of State, but given to the Secretary of State, but I think he recognises the case that we are making, both for the safety of the public, and indeed, one member is on that side of the house recognise the need for a bill of this kind.
This bill will also help create a level playing field between the high-street and online marketplaces. Critically, we are able to protect consumers by reducing the number of unsafe goods that are sold online. This could include asking sites to verify third-party sellers before allowing them to list goods or having product safety reporting function for customers on their site. One example of this are east's and E bikes which like many products are reliant on lithium iron battery. These batteries have been treated to a number of fires in recent years, both in households and on public transport.
Now, whilst we know that the vast majority of products are safe, in recent years, we have seen some goods mis-sold by a minority of unscrupulous manufacturers. As a result, low standard high risk products have been able to enter the UK market. Some people have paid for this with their homes, and in some cases, their lives. I think we all recognise that is unconscionable. I want to pay tribute to the family of Sophia Duarte. Sophia tragically died in a bicycle that have been converted into a nearby burst into flames.
The little lithium battery pack caused a fire on New Year's Day 2023. I know the whole House will join me in recognising the courage of Sophia's family in campaigning for change in memory of their daughter. And in fighting for better regulation of E bikes along with the batteries and chargers associated with them. I would also like to thank the London Fire Brigade for campaigning on this issue in recent years. They have been on the frontline seeing the devastation that has been wrought by so many of these products, and this is what this bill is about, keeping the public safe.
The office for product safety and standards have taken action in this area already. They've received 26 withdrawal notices on manufacturers and services. This is removed to dangerous models and I am glad that the legislation will allow
**** Possible New Speaker ****
enforcement. I have been campaigning for greater regulation on bicycles anyway but I want to pick him up on anyway but I want to pick him up on this particular point. I don't disagree with him on the need for disagree with him on the need for regulation. It should have been done some time ago, what I still don't think he is answer the question posed by his honourable friend just posed by his honourable friend just now is why do we need to have a wide sweeping bill like this if we could do it already in the house by vote, so the key thing is, if you have an argument that is powerful enough to say to them this must be done, then both houses will see that through very quickly by the power suasion with the right to vote on it or disagree.
This takes that away and achieve the same result but only with who is in power, and I agree
**** Possible New Speaker ****
when he was in power. I'm sorry because I am convinced that the government needs powers and that the government needs powers and we need to be able to respond to fast-moving changes in technology and regulation and keep the public and regulation and keep the public safe, they would expect me to have these powers, so perhaps we haven't these powers, so perhaps we haven't convinced him at this stage but if he looks at proceedings in the other he looks at proceedings in the other
**** Possible New Speaker ****
he looks at proceedings in the other He says he has failed to persuade us in this place, does except you also failed to persuade the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, chaired by Labour, in the other place, where they said just last month, we remain of the view that delegation to ministers of Roman powers in this bill involves legislative power shifting to an unacceptable extent from the legislature to the executive. Why is it, does he think, that they remain against his view?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I find when parties go into opposition all of a sudden they seem less keen on the government having decisive power to take action in a whole range of areas. I have already whole range of areas. I have already said, we have listened carefully to the criticism from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. There are significant changes to the legislation before us changes to the legislation before us today which I'm happy to take him through but they do relate to the number of Henry VIII powers, the consultation requirement, they do relate to the additional affirmative relate to the additional affirmative regulations procedure so all we are regulations procedure so all we are seeking, we are always seeking feedback.
I will go through some of the other amendments made. The processes we have around this, is it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
going to be good? Forget the delegated relation
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Forget the delegated relation committee, what about Lord Young? He said he didn't think this was right. So what way does it need to be So what way does it need to be improved and is he going to look very carefully at the extent of these powers because it's infamous these powers because it's infamous sure to make it clear how wide- ranging and over-the-top they are.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
ranging and over-the-top they are. I would say to him that the second reading we have a bill which is even stronger than the one which originally started in the other House and I would thank all of our colleagues in the other place for the destructive feedback and their contributions to this debate. I won't go through every change that was made for honourable and might honourable members here but I will just mention some aspects of the bill that have been strengthened.
Firstly, we have amended the bill to ensure there is more parliamentary scrutiny. We have provided for a strategy consultation requirement to ensure regulations are informed by those who would be impacted by them. There will also be an additional use of the affirmative procedure for regulations stemming from the bill. Secondly, the bill now includes a requirement for me as the Secretary of State to publish a statement setting out how my department expects to identify and assess expects to identify and assess high-risk.
And finally, country to previous suggestions from the party opposite -- country -- the great British point will not be affected by this legislation, whether I'll, cider or a pint of milk. We do not believe that the bill in its original form posed threat to the pint. We don't want to run the risk of colleagues thinking that my reassurances are small beer. So we have accepted an amendment, tabled in the other place, which will give the pint strategy protection which means in a few weeks time, when the bill has received from assent, we can raise a point protected under statute to this bill.
And I did enquire was allowed to bring a pint in here with me to illustrate, but apparently only the Chancellor has that ability. Perhaps we will get to that utterly date. To summarise, this legislation will finally enable the government to properly regulate in areas where we have been unable to do so post-Brexit. It also gives us the tools we need to better regulate modern day consumer products. This bill will help create a fairer environment for high-street shops and small businesses, support our growth mission and it will be better protection for millions of consumers.
For all, these reasons, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
commend this bill to the House. The question is that the bill be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the bill be now read a second time. Shadow
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Secretary of State. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Too often when the public think of Parliament, they think of out of Parliament, they think of out of touch power and bad laws. This bill today is the archetype of everything that is wrong with Westminster. There should be an unwritten rule in this postcode, never trust a bill this postcode, never trust a bill with a convoluted name. And this bill is no exception. Whilst professing to simplify our regulatory framework, the reality is this is an EU Trojan horse of a bill which will sabotage our Brexit freedoms, undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom, disrespect Parliament, befuddle British business with uncertainty and take us back to being a Brussels rule taker.
Or from a party who voted 48 times to overturn the will of the British people. Before I give... I won't give way. Before I get into further... I'm going to say something nice about the honourable gentleman. Before I get into detail let me welcome the government was not U-turn on their plan to scrap the great British pint. Let us hope that is the first of many. When I raised this, on 26 the fabric, Labour members described it as a conspiracy theory.
The honourable member forcing Dobbins said it was scaremongering and the government frontbench said an amendment was no more needed than a Lord Hussain that the sun would rise in the morning. The truth is, the government were caught red-handed trying to ditch our British pint in the back door bill. Had we on these benches, not fought back, the power to crush the British pint would have rested on the whim of a minister's pen. And welcome though this U-turn is, let us not ignore the fact that the Labour government wanted to give
**** Possible New Speaker ****
themselves this power in the first place. I will give way. I thank him for giving way and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank him for giving way and hope he gives way also to my right honourable friends on the frontbench. I wonder if he could tell the House what possible motive tell the House what possible motive he thinks a Labour government would have for scrapping the point?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
have for scrapping the point? The Labour motive is all too plain to see because this is a Labour Party that voted 48 times to reject the will of the British people, led by the Prime Minister who sought a second referendum to overturn the will. I accept the honourable wasn't perhaps in this House at the time but he might want to spend some time in the tearoom and hear precisely what happened. I will make some progress. The anti- pub, anti-hospitality agenda goes far beyond this bill the jobs tax, the threshold change, the attack on seasonal and flexible working, business rates more than doubled, the war on are banter, and the garden smoking ban, or from the government.
Our hospitality industry for which the Secretary of State is smacking deserves infinitely better than this from this government. --