Consumer Affairs

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition in this interesting debate; I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing it. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) on his appointment. I look forward to potentially confronting him, but sometimes agreeing with him, at the Dispatch Box on numerous occasions.

It has been an interesting debate. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington is right to raise concerns about a range of different challenges with pricing practices. Consumers often find them confusing and frustrating, and sometimes find themselves completely out of pocket, which is a very annoying feeling. I think we can all agree that transparency and fairness need to be at the heart of our consumer markets. My particular pet peeves, quite a few of which were listed by the hon. Member, include subscription traps—they have definitely got me quite a few times—and the meal deal where I think I have the elements right but have not, and end up paying more than I should. Unclear sizes is another issue. There are also the three-for-two offers where we do not buy the right three things but do not realise that until we are in the queue for the checkout. The one thing that I think is probably a good thing, though, is the shrinkflation of the Mars Bar; we probably need to welcome that as a sign of human progress.

We have also heard some really interesting contributions this afternoon from the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). I have the honour of serving on the Treasury Committee, which is chaired by the hon. Lady, and today she outlined many of the different ways in which consumers can encounter challenges in the financial sector. The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) also made a very interesting speech.

The one thing that I want to pick up on in my remarks is flexible or variable pricing, because the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington outlined some of the drawbacks of such pricing, and how we can feel—particularly if we have to use the railway at peak times—how unfair it is. However, I will just caution colleagues against throwing the baby out with the bathwater regarding flexible pricing, because the flipside of it is that it allows businesses to offer much cheaper prices when demand is low. Consequently, it helps consumers to access goods and services at a price they can afford that they might otherwise miss, and it enables venues to fill their seats, airlines to fill their planes and retailers to manage their stocks efficiently. So long as flexible pricing is transparent, there are benefits for consumers and businesses.

Key to consumers getting good prices is creating good competition in markets and keeping inflation down but, frankly, both those things are being exacerbated by the Government’s current economic approach, particularly inflation, because last year’s Halloween Budget included the tax hikes, the increased national insurance contributions and the reduced business rates relief that are pricing a lot of small businesses out of the market. Those are the very businesses that drive competition, and that can keep prices down. Without them, consumers face fewer choices and therefore higher costs.

I will give an example from the night-time economy. According to the Night Time Industries Association, we have seen a worrying decline in venues across the UK. Recent research has revealed that over a quarter of our towns and cities that had a nightclub before the pandemic now have none, and that 16% of our towns and cities across this country have lost all their late-night venues entirely.

We will hear from the Minister about the Government’s plans to cap ticket resales. Those plans risk making things worse. Capping resale profits at 10% might sound like a fair idea, but in practice it risks harming small venues and up-and-coming artists. It places additional costs on already stretched businesses, and opens the door to the black market and scams. We have seen this play out. We can learn from the state of Victoria in Australia, where a 10% profit cap on ticket resellers did not stop tickets from being sold above the price cap; it just resulted in a spike in the number of scammers, and tickets only being available to international buyers. So, the Minister might want to ask his team about that situation.

We have also seen that in Ireland, a 10% tax on ticket resellers caused an increase in scams. And last year, at the wonderful Paris Olympics, viagogo was banned. Because viagogo is a ticket resale company, that meant that there were empty seats at many Olympic events. So, the ban deprived fans of spontaneous access to the Olympics, and athletes of full audiences.

I urge the Minister to be wary of unintended consequences and to look closely at the proposals. The Government’s approach, as we understand it, risks penalising fans, artists and venues alike. This issue is not just about ticket touts; it is about ensuring a vibrant cultural sector, in which people can access live events safely and affordably. Regulation, if it is done badly, risks moving all of this activity underground.

I wholeheartedly endorse what the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington said about keeping consumers informed, making sure that information is clear and ensuring that consumers are not misled. Let us support competition; let us enable a thriving small business sector and not stifle it; and let us back businesses that make our economy dynamic, diverse and responsive to consumer needs.

In summary, I agree that we need to be vigilant about unfair practices, but we must also be pragmatic. The best protection for consumers is thriving, competitive markets, not ones burdened by excessive regulation and shrinking opportunity.

Jaguar Land Rover Cyber-attack

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) on securing this important urgent question. I welcome the Minister to his new role, although I will never be able to rival his literary quotations.

This attack on Jaguar Land Rover is extremely concerning. The impact on that world-leading business, and on its suppliers and workers, has been significant. I hope that the whole House agrees that we must use the full force of the state to crack down on cyber-criminals. I appreciate that the Minister is constrained in what he can say, but when were the Government and the National Cyber Security Centre informed of the attack? What kind of support are the Government and law enforcement agencies able to offer Jaguar Land Rover? How much longer do the Government expect the disruption, which is impacting on the supply of vehicles, to continue?

The attack is just another in a series against British brands and iconic institutions—the Minister says that 40% of our businesses have been affected—including the attack earlier this year on Marks & Spencer. Will he elaborate on what the Government are doing to prevent future attacks? Has he identified who is responsible for the attack? Can he rule out its being a state-sponsored attack? If the group responsible for the attacks on Jaguar Land Rover and Marks & Spencer are linked, what progress have law enforcement agencies made in pursuing them?

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure whether the shadow Minister is in a new role—

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

indicated dissent.

[Chris Bryant]

She is not; I will not welcome her to her new role, then—I welcome her to the Dispatch Box none the less. She asked a series of questions, and I will try to answer those that I can as precisely as possible.

First, the shadow Minister asked when the NCSC was notified and engaged. It has been engaged since last Wednesday. We have an undertaking that when people get in touch with the NCSC, the response will be very immediate.

The shadow Minister asked what engagement there is from the Government. The primary engagement is through the NCSC, which is fully engaged and devoted to the work. It is also in the public domain that the Information Commissioner’s Office was notified. I should clarify that that was not because JLR was certain that there had been a data breach, but it wanted to ensure that it had dotted every i and crossed every t, which is why it notified the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The shadow Minister asked about a timeline for getting this resolved. I wish that I could provide one, but I cannot. I think she will understand why: this is a very live situation that has been ongoing for a week. I note the points that JLR has been making. As I say, there will be an invitation for all local MPs—my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) should already have had one—for a Q&A session on Friday morning, when JLR hopes that it will be able to provide more information.

The shadow Minister asked what else we are doing. This summer, the Home Office undertook a consultation on our policy on ransomware. I am not saying that that relates specifically to this case—we do not know that yet and I am not coming to any foregone conclusions—but that is one of the things that we must address, and it was heartening to see resolute support from the vast majority of companies in the UK for our ransomware policy. Maybe we will come to that later.

The hon. Lady asked whether I can say who is responsible. I am afraid that I cannot. I note what is in the public domain, but I have no idea whether that is accurate and I do not want to impede the investigation. She asked whether the attack was state sponsored. Again, I do not want to jump to conclusions, and I can neither confirm nor deny anything. She also asked whether the case is linked with that of M&S. Again, I cannot answer that as fulsomely as I would wish, simply because I do not know, and I do not think anybody has come to any secure decisions on that. In one sense, all cyber-attacks are linked, in that it is the same problem, which is relatively new. The previous Government were seeking to tackle it, and we are seeking to tackle it in broadly the same way. Some of the techniques used are remarkably old-fashioned, such as ringing up helplines, which are designed to be helpful. That is exactly the same as when News of the World was ringing up mobile companies and trying to get PINs to hack other people’s phones. This is an old technique. The new bit is that sometimes people use AI-generated voices, which are remarkably accurate and can lead to further problems. I am not saying that that is what happened in this case, but some of the patterns are across the whole sector.

Draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Application and Modification of Company Law) Regulations 2025 Draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Incidental and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025 Draft Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 General Committees

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and to discuss these three measures, which implement reforms from the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. It was interesting to hear from the Minister the latest statistics on the impact that the Act has already had at Companies House. These measures will require limited liability partnerships to have increased reporting requirements and to carry out further checks on their staff by barring disqualified directors from roles within LLPs. The instruments also abolish local registers in favour of a central Companies House database and create criminal offences for non-compliance.

Will the Minister elaborate on what he expects the criminal offences for non-compliance to be? What capacity is there in the criminal justice system to add to its activities? The Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025, which he and I spent so many happy hours discussing before the summer recess, has added further criminal penalties, so I am concerned about the pressure that some perhaps inadvertent breaches of these measures will add to our hard-pressed criminal justice system.

Will the Minister update the Committee on the benefits of these measures in terms of reduction of harm? He acknowledges in the explanatory memorandum that this is a further cost burden on a business sector that is already groaning under the additional tax and red tape added by this Government in their first 14 months. It is not just the unprecedented tax hikes on business from the Halloween Budget and the regulatory burden from the Product Regulation and Metrology Act, but the upcoming £5 billion cost of the Employment—or should I say unemployment—Rights Bill, which is looming like a tsunami on the horizon for businesses, jobs and start-ups.

While these measures may seem noble in their aims, they add an additional cost to businesses, including the most precious of businesses: new businesses, start-ups, innovators and investors—the future of our business sector. These measures are just another example of this Government’s increasing red tape on business. According to the Government’s own figures, just a slice of the measures that we are assessing today will cost businesses another £19.5 million every year. That excludes some of the other measures before us this afternoon, which the Government have not itemised in their impact assessment. While £19.5 million may sound small compared with the £5 billion cost of the Employment Rights Bill, I remind the Minister of the risk of incremental regulatory creep—an impact that is focused on partnerships, which are driving up costs on small businesses such as law firms. Will the Minister commit this afternoon to publishing the outcome of these measures in a year’s time? How will he measure how many LLPs have been put off registering here and have gone to other jurisdictions?

The impact of this creep of red tape is something that the Opposition understand, but clearly the Government are at risk of forgetting. Red tape deadens growth. Red tape costs jobs. We will not actively vote against these specific measures, but let me emphasise that the businesses and entrepreneurs of this country cannot take any more regulatory creep, or any more of the taxes that this Government are inflicting on them. I urge the Government not to come back here with more. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will demand some deregulation measures in future before supporting more incremental burdens like these measures.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

It is not just cycle manufacturers that are having to pedal hard to survive under this Government. With business survey after business survey stating that tax is the biggest worry for business, will the Minister take this opportunity to assure businesses that the Chancellor will not be coming back to burden them with more in her Budget this autumn?

[Gareth Thomas]

First, I commend the hon. Lady for the humour in her question. As she will recognise, this is Business and Trade Question Time, not Treasury Question Time, where tax measures are usually dealt with, but I am sure that the Treasury will note her comments. I should perhaps point her to recent surveys of business confidence: the Lloyds Bank business barometer pointed out that business confidence is at a nine-year high. I am sure she will be delighted by that news.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

Well, except for the fact that the whole House will have heard that the Government are not prepared to rule out saddling cycle manufacturers and other businesses with more taxes this autumn. Will the Minister at the very least assure the House that he and his fellow Business Ministers are making representations to the Treasury that businesses really cannot take any more tax rises?

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her suspicion that I have considerable influence with the Treasury. We are always in discussions with Treasury colleagues, and indeed colleagues across Government, about what more we can do to support business. Another indicator of improving business confidence is a survey by the American Express business barometer, which pointed out that almost three quarters of small and medium-sized enterprise bosses are confident about the future—again, up from last year.

Future of the Post Office

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The Post Office really is the Heineken of Government services: it reaches parts of the UK that other arms of government do not. The Post Office is much more than a business; it is a vital part of the UK’s social and economic fabric. It connects communities, supports local economies and ensures access to essential services across the country. From rural villages in constituencies like mine to inner cities, postmasters are trusted figures who provide a lifeline for people who rely on face-to-face services, particularly the elderly, the digitally excluded and small businesses. The network plays an increasingly important role delivering banking services and hubs as the traditional bank network continues to close. While the number of letters sent has declined and more Government services are online or direct to bank accounts, there are areas where the Post Office has seen strong growth: bank deposits to post offices are up by 68%, parcels up by 68% and tracked priority mail has risen by 72%.

The Minister promised that the Government would publish the Green Paper on the Post Office in the first half of 2025, so I will give him that—it was nearly there. The Government clearly want to get this consultation out before recess when there is arguably less parliamentary scrutiny. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage the public to respond to the consultation over the summer.

The Green Paper seeks to reduce the taxpayer subsidy over time, but of course, with 50,000 workers throughout Britain, the Post Office itself faces a £45 million hike in its bill from the national insurance jobs tax. The post offices that are eligible for retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief have seen a 140% increase in their business rates. The Employment Rights Bill will cost the Post Office another £8 million. It is no wonder that Nigel Railton, the Post Office chairman, blamed the autumn Budget for increasing costs and said that it was why the Post Office needs a fresh start.

The Minister told the House on 8 April that

“access criteria have already been published that commit the Government to provide 11,500 post offices.”—[Official Report, 8 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 750.]

He says in the Green Paper that his preference is to maintain the size of the network. Will he commit today to there being 11,500 post office outlets at the end of this Parliament? Did the Government consider reducing the branch requirement in the Green Paper? If so, why did they change their mind? Was he advised by his officials that it would take the closure of one in five post offices to end the network subsidy? If that is not what he was told, what was he told? Where is the cut-off point for that subsidy?

The Minister says that the Government will consult on a change to access requirements as it could be argued that they are too stringent, but for rural areas they are not. Approximately 14% of post office branches are the last shop in the village—there are many such branches in my constituency—so will the Minister confirm that rural branches will not be closed just to be replaced by others in city centres? Does he not realise that for many rural areas, the post office is the only shop for miles around and is therefore the only place one can access free cash?

How much did the Post Office get from the framework agreement with the banks? Should it not get a better and more long-term agreement? How much will the Government ask Fujitsu to pay towards the £2 billion estimated cost of compensating the postmasters who were wrongly accused over the Horizon system? The Minister appears to have kicked Post Office mutualisation into the long grass. I can see why he would not want to do it during the time of the inquiry, but could there be a pilot during this Parliament?

Post offices and the postmasters who run them are the backbone of our local communities, so I urge the public to take this opportunity to champion their local post office and reply to this summer consultation.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for encouraging sub-postmasters and anyone who is interested in the future of the Post Office to contribute their views to the Green Paper.

As the hon. Lady rightly set out, and as I hope I underlined in my statement—the Green Paper is certainly very clear on this—we think that branches up and down the country are a vital part of our country’s economic and social fabric, and we are determined to strengthen the post office network so that they can play a continuing and even more effective role in our economic and social lives.

The hon. Lady rightly underlined the significance of banking services going forward. As an aside, she mentioned the decline of other traditional post offices—letter volumes have halved since 2011. That helps to underline the significance of banking to the future of the Post Office. We are clear that the Post Office could offer more if the banks are willing to work with it. The successful completion of the banking framework negotiations was an encouraging sign in that regard. As I set out in my opening remarks, we are, alongside Treasury colleagues, determined to sit down with the Post Office and the banks to see what more we can do together. There is a commitment to 350 banking hubs over the lifetime of this Parliament, but if we can improve the way in which the banks work with the Post Office, we could see a much more significant role for the Post Office in the provision of banking services on far more high streets up and down the UK.

On national insurance contributions, I gently say to the hon. Lady that difficult decisions had to be made in the Budget because of the financial situation that we inherited, but we have taken a range of decisions to steady the network. I am sure that she is grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the additional finances put aside to invest in the future of the Post Office.

The hon. Lady quite rightly underlined the broader point that Fujitsu has a moral obligation to contribute towards the cost of the scandal. As I have said, we need to wait for the final report by Sir Wyn Williams to understand the full sense of Fujitsu’s culpability.

Lastly, on mutualisation, as the hon. Lady alluded to, we think it right to concentrate in the short term on prioritising the financial and operational stability of the Post Office, given its significant challenges. In the longer term, it may well be possible to make serious and sustained governance changes. I have a genuinely open mind on that question and will look carefully at the views we receive on it in the Green Paper.

Post Office Horizon Inquiry: Volume 1

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. We welcome the release of volume 1 of the Post Office Horizon inquiry final report and I put on record my thanks to Sir Wyn Williams and the inquiry team for all the work that they have done, alongside all those who gave evidence.

This inquiry lays bare one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in modern British history. Volume 1 focuses on redress and the human impact of the Horizon scandal, which has been evolving since 2000. The human impact is particularly devastating, with the report revealing that at least 13 people may have taken their own lives as a result of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal. It also recognises that family members have also suffered from this miscarriage of justice. Even though, as the Minister says, we can never recompense a person properly for this miscarriage, I am sure the whole House will want to ensure that the victims are fully compensated by the schemes, and I would like to put on the record my tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who set up this process of redress.

The report has recommended that the Government and/or the Department, and where appropriate the Post Office and Fujitsu, shall provide a written response to Sir Wyn’s recommendations by 10 October. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will be able to say by 10 October whether they will accept all 19 of the report’s recommendations? The report details that there is still much to be done to ensure justice for the victims, so who and how will those responsible be held answerable for the years of denial and suffering?

This was not simply a technical failure; it was a failure of oversight, governance and accountability. The report finds that the Post Office and Fujitsu knew, or at the very least they should have known, that the Horizon IT system had faults. The sub-postmasters are also described

“as victims of wholly unacceptable behaviour”

by the two companies. Sir Wyn has stated that there are still more than 3,000 claims to resolve and that there have been egregious delays in compensation. Will the Minister therefore update the House on the most recent status of the compensation schemes? What steps is he taking to address these concerns, and how are the Government ensuring that full, fair and fast compensation is delivered without further bureaucracy or delay?

Will the Minister update us on what action is being taken in relation to Fujitsu, which is still being awarded Government contracts? Fujitsu said that it would wait until the inquiry reports to offer compensation, so will the Minister confirm that there is now nothing preventing Fujitsu from paying interim compensation? Will he also confirm that it will be made clear how much he believes Fujitsu should contribute to the redress scheme?

In the spending review, the Government allocated £86 million from its transformation fund for the Post Office, specifically earmarked to support investment plans, including replacing the existing Horizon computer system. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of securing a new computer system for the Post Office and whether that system will replace the Horizon system in its entirety? What assessment has he made of the earlier Capture accounting software and its legacy of problems?

Finally, to move on from this protracted miscarriage, will the Minister confirm when we will see the much anticipated Green Paper on the future of the post office network and how the public can have their say on that consultation? The time for half measures is over. Justice delayed is justice denied, and those affected by this scandal deserve nothing less than the full force of the Government’s commitment to truth, reform and redress. Taxpayers also deserve to know how much Ministers think Fujitsu should pay to resolve these terrible wrongs.

[Gareth Thomas]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and questions. She was right to say in her opening remarks about this being the greatest miscarriage of justice in our country’s history. The responsibility is therefore on us all to do everything we can to make sure the victims receive full and fair compensation, and to ensure that there is never a repeat.

The hon. Lady specifically challenges me on the question of the 10 October deadline that Sir Wyn Williams has put in place. I can confirm that we are determined to meet that deadline. It is particularly important that we do so, as some of his recommendations concern the ongoing delivery of the Horizon compensation schemes and we do not want, inadvertently or not, to delay or hold back any of those claims.

The hon. Lady rightly gives me the opportunity to again pay tribute to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for his work when he was the Post Office Minister. Without question, we would be even further behind without the considerable amount of work and effort that he put in. There are many others in the House who have campaigned long and hard on behalf of the sub-postmasters, including the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who I see in his place, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), who chairs the Business and Trade Committee.

The hon. Lady asked who and how will those responsible be held to account. She knows that Sir Wyn Williams is due to publish the second part of his report, which focuses on those very questions. We will consider carefully what he has to say about that when we receive his report. I suspect that she already knows that the Metropolitan police is leading an investigation into whether criminal responsibility is at play. More than 100 police officers are working on that investigation and they have identified a number of individuals of interest. We will see what they do with regard to those individuals in due course. As the hon. Lady and the House will understand, Ministers are not in any way involved in such decisions.

What further steps have we taken to deliver and speed up compensation? The hon. Lady will be aware that we have issued the opportunity for sub-postmasters who apply to the Horizon shortfall scheme and who want to accept a fixed-sum payment of £75,000 to do so. We have put in place an appeals process to try to give those who feel they have not received a fair offer to date a chance to get full and fair redress.

There are particular challenges in the Horizon shortfall scheme. If I am honest, it is the scheme that I worry about the most, not least because there are 1,700 cases in which there does not appear to be any evidence of shortfalls. That does not mean that there were no shortfalls; it means that, at this stage, we do not have evidence of what those shortfalls were. As the House would expect, I have gone back to the Post Office and made it clear that we want it to reinvestigate, to see whether evidence can be found in as many of those cases as possible. We are looking very carefully at what we can do about the rest.

On Fujitsu, we will need to see Sir Wyn’s final report to understand fully the degree of Fujitsu’s culpability. I have made it clear to Fujitsu that we think it should bring forward an interim compensation payment, and I hope that it will see the report today and recognise the need to do that.

The hon. Lady also asked me about the Green Paper. We hope to publish it very shortly. One of the issues that it will consider is the future of the Post Office’s IT systems, because we certainly need to move on from the past and Horizon. We will set out in a bit more detail at that point what work we are doing in that regard.

Draft Protection and Disclosure of Personal Information (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 General Committees

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Hobhouse.

We are scrutinising the draft Protection and Disclosure of Personal Information (Amendment) Regulations. That may sound dry, but I imagine that every colleague here has come across a case in which someone’s identity has been stolen because of the information about them that is available on the Companies House register. I am pleased that these regulations show this Government building on the good work of the previous Government. I therefore certainly will not object to their passage this afternoon, but I have a few questions for the Minister, in the interests of parliamentary scrutiny.

First, I could not see any mention in the explanatory memorandum of how long it will take for individuals to have their application actioned. Will the Minister shed some light on how quickly Companies House thinks that it will be able to process applications and, from approval, how long it will take to have the information removed from the register? Secondly, what are the Government doing to ensure that the application process at Companies House for removing details is straightforward? Thirdly, what is the administrative cost of these regulations to Companies House, and will those costs be recouped through any planned changes to the fees for registering a company?

Fourthly, how many individuals are expected to make use of these regulations? I note that an impact assessment has not been published, and given the limited financial implications, I can understand why. However, given that the intention of this statutory instrument is to remove information from the register that puts individuals at risk of theft and fraud, will the Minister please inform us how many people are thought to be the victims of crime as a result of the information that is currently publicly available in Companies House? How many cases are estimated to be prevented as a result of the statutory instrument that we are considering today?

Finally, given that the statutory instrument is intended to reduce the risk of theft and fraud by removing personal details from a public register, how does Companies House plan to publicly let people know about this change and its effective date? Has Companies House explored a more proactive approach, and has it thought about using artificial intelligence to remove this information automatically? I look forward to the Minister’s answers to those questions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

The gov.uk website, which has not been updated since 8 May, states that the Prime Minister negotiated the 25% steel tariff down to zero, but that is not right, is it? Steel faces a tariff of 25% today and runs the risk of a 50% tariff being imposed next month. Will the Minister take this opportunity to commit to updating the website, updating this House and updating steelworkers on the state of the negotiations?

[Mr Alexander]

I am very happy to consider the issues that the hon. Lady raises in relation to the website, but I can assure her that, whether it is the Minister for Industry or the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the Government are in constant dialogue with the British steel industry. We will introduce a steel strategy, unlike her predecessors, and we have put serious money behind it. Thanks to the economic prosperity deal with the United States, the UK was the only country to be made exempt from the 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium that other countries around the world now face.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

We have been promised a modern industrial strategy for nearly a year. First, it was going to be with us in the spring; then it was going to be published at the spending review; and now it will be here “shortly”. The industrial strategy seems to be a strategy to clobber industry with higher taxes and higher business rates. Will the modern industrial strategy have greater longevity than the Office for Investment? It was announced in October, and we were not given an update until last Thursday, when it launched. Yesterday, we were told in the spending review that it is now being restructured. What is the future for the Office for Investment?

[Sarah Jones]

I can guarantee the hon. Lady that our industrial strategy will have a longer shelf life than hers did; I think it lasted 18 months—I am not entirely sure. We forget, because it did not have much of an impact. We have worked with all industries across the country to put together a comprehensive package that will make it easier to do business in the UK, and support our city regions and clusters across the country, where we have excellent industry. It will turbocharge the eight growth sectors, and it will make the Government more agile in interacting with business. That is why we are reforming the Office for Investment, as we have always said we will. It is now a significantly more substantial organisation, and will give significantly more support. The hon. Lady should look at—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Postmasters who were hit by the Horizon scandal will be concerned to hear Sir Alan Bates describe the compensation process as a “quasi-kangaroo court”. Can the Minister reassure postmasters about the redress that they are due, and reassure taxpayers about the redress that he is seeking from Fujitsu?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and she is absolutely right to draw attention to the continuing need to speed up compensation to sub-postmasters. Since we came into government, we have increased fourfold the amount of compensation paid to sub-postmasters, but there is an awful lot more to do. On the issues that Sir Alan Bates raised, the hon. Lady will know that under the group litigation order scheme, through which his compensation issues are being addressed, there are various independent points on the journey at which to consider the offer—

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

May I say what an interesting debate this has been? I have a huge amount of sympathy for the case that has been put for new clause 1, which was made in a very coherent way. I also have great sympathy for the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and her proposed new clause 15. I will explain how our amendments would address some of the issues she has spoken about. The Liberal Democrat amendments, and new clause 4 in particular, make a great deal of sense. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) tabled a range of amendments that cover points made in His Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s amendments, which I will come to.

We should ask ourselves why this relatively small and technical Bill has attracted nearly 50 amendments on Report. It is because, as was said, it is a Trojan horse Bill. We tabled our amendments because the Bill does a lot more behind the scenes than appears on the surface. When, in 2016, the voters of Britain—on an 80% turnout—voted to leave the European Union, it created an opportunity for the country to tailor our regulatory regime to best fit British industry, and to set a global standard, so that it is easier to do business. The UK’s product regulation and metrology, as we heard from our resident metrologist, the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), once set the standard for the world, and indeed has the chance to do so again. When in government, the Conservatives started the work of capitalising on that opportunity. We see the Bill as a terrible step back and a Trojan horse, because it will tie us to EU red tape on which we have no say.

The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) spoke about his hopes for businesses in Harlow. Through this Trojan horse Bill, Labour will restrict Britain’s innovators with over-burdensome regulations, meaning that British industry will fall behind international competitors. As we heard the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), say when speaking to her amendments, it is a prime example of a skeleton Bill. There are two major areas of concern for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition: the use of sweeping Henry VIII powers; and the ability to dynamically align by the back door with the European Union. I will speak to the amendments we have tabled to address those concerns.

When the Bill started its passage, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place found that the powers in the Bill, particularly in clause 1, were excessive, and it recommended that they be removed. Many of our amendments address those elements of clause 1. In the other place, the Government watered down the Bill following those criticisms, but afterwards the Bill was still described as a skeleton Bill that shifted powers “to an unacceptable extent”. As recently as 21 February, the Committee in the other place said that the amendments made in the other place were

“limited changes that do not address the fundamental concern we have about the skeletal nature of this Bill…The Government has not taken the opportunity to add flesh to the bones of this skeleton Bill. It remains the case that the Bill provides for almost all of the substance of the regulatory regimes for product safety and metrology to be provided for by Ministers in regulations.”

While we acknowledge that the current Secretary of State may act responsibly, we do not want to put things on the statute book that future Ministers might treat differently.

We all agree that strong, consistent product safety rules are needed, and we acknowledge the risks from online marketplaces and unsafe imports, but we do not think that the Bill is the right way to deal with that. We also think that Parliament must retain proper oversight, so amendments 9, 11 and 12 seek to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State in clause 1.

Clause 3 is of equal concern, because it grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers to create new criminal offences, creating new complexities in our criminal justice system. It also allow Ministers to create civil sanctions for non-compliance with product and metrology regulations through secondary legislation, reducing parliamentary scrutiny of an issue that is incredibly important for our constituents’ freedoms. The clause also allows the Government to introduce new penalties, and even prison sentences; new powers of entry; and new fines on businesses, which will drive up the cost of doing business. Our amendments seek to change those elements. We believe that such serious offences should be subject to considerably more parliamentary scrutiny. That is why amendment 24 seeks to ensure that new criminal offences that could have consequences for the Ministry of Justice and the criminal justice system are not created through new product regulations under the Bill.

[Jim Allister]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is quite astounding that among the criminal offences that are anticipated being made by the Minister without parliamentary scrutiny are indictable offences, which could result in people losing their liberty for whatever period is specified in the offence? Is that not a retrograde departure from the standards of oversight that any citizen would expect Members elected to this House to exercise?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I agree. We all know the types of people being let of prison by this Government. It is a total scandal that suddenly a person can be imprisoned for perhaps inadvertently having products in stock that have not followed a dynamic alignment process that has not been very visible to Parliament. That is why I hope that the whole House will support amendment 24 in the Lobby.

Amendments 21, 22 and 23 seek clarification of the functions that may be conferred on a relevant authority, and the powers that may be granted to inspectors. The phrase “relevant authority” is used throughout the Bill, and it is not entirely clear what all such authorities might be.

In clause 13, we once again see Henry VIII powers being used, despite the concerns raised in the other place. Amendment 18 would therefore add to clause 13(6), and require that any regulations made under the legislation that amend or replace primary legislation be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I am sure all parliamentarians will want to support that amendment.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I am sure the Minister will come back on that point and say, “You can trust us, and you can trust this Government.” Does the shadow Minister agree, however, that this Government may not always be in power, and that the powers they are creating for themselves may be handed down to someone less responsible in future?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I wholeheartedly endorse that. It is the principle; we do not know what Executive we will hand this power to in future. The current Executive is asking for the power, but we are a democracy, and the Executive can change at every single election. It would be wrong for Parliament to give away its powers in the way that is proposed in this legislation. That is why I hope that everyone will support our amendments.

[Dr Hudson]

I remember sitting through many debates on Bills in the last Parliament, in which Members of the Labour party, then in opposition, talked about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendments tabled by His Majesty’s Opposition are all about improving and bolstering parliamentary scrutiny, and that Government Members have nothing to fear by giving more powers to this House?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend is so wise and so insightful. In fact, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade himself said in opposition,

“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 Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2018; c. 305.]

That is exactly what they are asking for in this Bill, and why we urge Members to support our amendment.



It is not just the Secretary of State who says this. Let us listen to what our friend the Attorney General of this great United Kingdom, Lord Hermer, another member of His Majesty’s Government, has said on Henry VIII clauses, skeleton legislation and delegated powers. He says that they strike not only at the rule of law

“but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty.”

And yet we are being asked this evening to allow criminal sanctions and the possibility of imprisonment to go through using those powers.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Third sitting)

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz.

The Government have been clear in our intention to maintain a strong, co-operative relationship with the devolved Governments and to ensure that the devolution settlements are respected in both principle and practice. New clause 1 will place a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to obtain consent from the devolved Governments where regulations contain provisions within their devolved competence. That will provide a decisive role for devolved Ministers and underpin continued collaboration in developing product regulation that best supports businesses and consumers in all parts of the UK.

With that specific context in mind, I hope the devolved Governments will support the new clause and recommend that their respective legislatures give their consent, and I look forward to hearing the outcome of those debates. I thank ministerial colleagues and officials in the devolved Governments for their engagement and collaborative approach to the Bill.

This important new clause demonstrates that by listening carefully, engaging sincerely and acting in good faith, the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Governments can come together to find shared solutions. The legislation provides a new framework for product regulation and metrology that is agile, future-facing and tailored to the needs of the UK, and the new clause will make sure the framework works for all parts of the UK.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz.

I put on record my thanks to the Minister for his rapid reply to the points that were raised on Tuesday. I asked questions on time limits for emergency powers under clause 4, on whether amending the definition of “online marketplace” will be subject to the affirmative procedure, and on Government amendment 1, on which I confessed to being a bit confused. We needed some clarification, which we now have in the shape of a very prompt letter. I thank the Minister and his officials for getting that out so quickly. I believe that copies of the letter are now available in the Libraries of both Houses.

New clause 1 provides much-needed and helpful elaboration on the extraordinary powers taken by the Secretary of State in earlier parts of the Bill. It will be important to clarify exactly which of those powers are reserved competence and which are devolved competence, and this new clause sets out quite clearly the collaborative approach that the Government intend to follow.

I will raise further questions when we come to new clause 5 on how the Windsor framework and the Stormont brake will interact with subsections (3) and (4) of new clause 1, but as far as new clause 1 itself is concerned, the Minister has set out clearly the process for making regulations that contain provisions affecting the whole of the United Kingdom, recognising how important it is that the United Kingdom has a consistent internal market. The new clause provides clarification along those lines.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Purpose

“(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the regulation of products and metrology.

(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under this Act, advance that purpose while prioritising the maintenance of the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy and the United Kingdom’s regulatory competitiveness.

(3) Accordingly, and so far as it is possible to do so, provision made by virtue of this Act must be read and given effect so as to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) to the extent that it is consistent with the maintenance of the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy and regulatory competitiveness.

(4) When taking action to improve regulation under this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to maintaining the highest quality regulatory framework.”—(Dame Harriett Baldwin.)

This new clause sets out that the purpose of this Act is to improve the regulation of products and metrology while maintaining the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 2 is incredibly important. As the Committee heard on Tuesday, it is all too clear how many Henry VIII powers the Secretary of State is taking under this legislation. We do not need to rehearse the concerns raised about those wide-ranging Henry VIII powers by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place.

I am sure the Government will want to agree to new clause 2, with which we are trying to be incredibly helpful. The Minister set out on the record on Tuesday how he thought we were exaggerating, pulling the emergency cord and sounding the alarm about the potential for this legislation to be used to dynamically align the United Kingdom’s product regulation and metrology with that of the European Union. New clause 2 would helpfully allow the Minister, when he agrees to it, to recognise that the legislation has a much narrower purpose.

The purpose of the Bill is to improve product regulation and metrology. Importantly, new clause 2(2) states that the Secretary of State

“must, in taking any actions under this Act, advance that purpose while prioritising the maintenance of the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy and the United Kingdom’s regulatory competitiveness.”

That clarifies the importance of the Bill’s purpose, how competitiveness must be taken into account, and, above all, the idea of regulatory autonomy. That is emphasised again in subsection (3).

As we said at the beginning of the Committee, we all want the UK’s product regulation and metrology to be of the highest quality and have the best possible regulatory framework, but it must also be autonomous. Supporting this new clause would allow the Government to show the substance behind their words by putting them into legislation.

Despite its ostensibly noble intentions, the Bill poses significant risks to the principles of transparency, accountability and fairness that underpin our legal and regulatory systems. In short, new clause 2 does what it says on the tin. It would ensure that the Bill has its intended consequences, rather than the unintended consequences that sometimes slip through our scrutiny.

The Committee has heard that the Bill will enact far wider powers than anyone outside this place would consider to be in scope of product regulation and metrology. At the heart of the Bill lies a troubling delegation of power, and the Opposition voted against clauses on Tuesday because this skeleton legislation is an extraordinary expansion of the Secretary of State’s powers. For example, as we heard on Tuesday, there is the creation or expansion of criminal offences, and the powers conferred upon the Secretary of State and “relevant authorities.” We did not get to the bottom of who those relevant authorities are.

The powers are alarmingly broad, and there is little to no clear guidance on what the offences will entail. The lack of specificity raises serious concerns about the potential for overreach and the erosion of due process, because criminal sanctions carry profound consequences. It is imperative that Parliament retains control over their creation and scope, and ensures that such powers are exercised with the utmost caution and accountability.

The vague language on enforcement bodies, which we have highlighted throughout our scrutiny of the Bill, exacerbates the uncertainty faced by businesses and consumers alike. Without explicit identification of which bodies will have the authority to impose criminal sanctions, businesses will be left in a state of apprehension and confusion. That ambiguity not only hampers compliance efforts but fosters an environment ripe for arbitrary enforcement action.

On Tuesday we also discussed the provisions granting powers to inspect premises, seize products and demand documentation without clear safeguards—I am sure that all members of the Committee will agree that those are deeply concerning. The criteria for suspicion are also undefined, leaving the door open for discretionary and potentially unjustified investigations. If left unchecked, such powers could lead to overbearing Government interventions in business activities, disrupt operations and stifle innovation. The lack of procedural safeguards further compounds these risks, making it imperative that we reassess the provisions to protect the rights and interests of all stakeholders.

The Bill’s reliance on secondary legislation, particularly in areas such as artificial intelligence, the definition of “online marketplace” and environmental impact, raises significant concerns about the adequacy of parliamentary scrutiny. The use of statutory instruments to introduce new regulations allows for rapid implementation, but at the cost of thorough debate and amendment. This approach diminishes the opportunity for comprehensive oversight and increases the likelihood of unintended consequences that could adversely affect businesses and consumers.

Although its objectives may be well intentioned—we have said all along that we do not question the good intentions of the Minister and Secretary of State—the Bill before us poses substantial risks to the principles of democratic governance, legal certainty and economic vitality. It is incumbent on us to ensure that any regulatory framework is crafted with clarity, accountability and respect for the rule of law.

This new clause would set out some examples of the Bill’s purpose to bring home the importance of this. We believe that the Bill gives the Government the power to dynamically align our regulations with those of the European Union. That sounds innocuous, but it means that product regulation in this country would be set by another Parliament. We propose a completely different approach so that, in all the different uses of the Bill, the focus is on the competitiveness of our regulations and ensuring that UK-regulated products set the standard and the benchmark around the world.

We should be proud of our history of product regulation and metrology. The hon. Member for Erewash, who is on this Committee, is the first metrologist ever elected to Parliament. He has spoken eloquently about the UK’s brilliance in defining a standard for metrology, and we should be proud of that brilliance. In all our agreements as an independent nation, we should seek to have other countries recognise our brilliant product regulation and metrology.

Certification for the UK market should be a mark of great pride. In all the trade agreements that the Government are negotiating—as an aside, I note that we have not seen their detail—we should seek recognition of these excellent standards, not only by our friends and neighbours in the European Union but by our biggest single-country trading partner, the United States, by our friends in the Commonwealth countries of Canada and Australia, and by the countries that have signed up to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.

--- Later in debate ---

In summary, the new clause would introduce an unhelpfully blunt purpose to the Bill. Improving regulations is a subjective matter, and often a balance needs to be struck. I gave the example of fire safety, where sometimes there will be competing interests in respect of how to regulate products. The Bill is already all about UK autonomy in such matters, so the new clause is unnecessary and incorrect—the powers are already in the Bill. I ask that the new clause be withdrawn.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

It is no surprise to the Committee that the Liberal Democrats’ position is to go back into the customs union, which would require dynamic alignment. It is clear from yesterday’s vote on the Opposition day motion how Government Members feel about it. I have given the Minister the opportunity to agree to this sensible new clause on the Bill’s purpose, but I got the hint that he is potentially not going to vote in favour.

Should the Government use the powers they have under this legislation to agree to dynamic alignment at the surrender summit next week, the voters at the next general election will be incredibly disappointed. We have got to a point where an independent free trade agreement could be agreed with our friends in the EU, in India and in the United States, and we would not want to give up those opportunities as a result of widening the Bill’s purpose, so I will press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Everyone on this Committee can agree that the UK is a proud global trading nation and, however we voted in the 2016 referendum, that one of the changes that has occurred has been our sovereignty over trade agreements. We agreed a comprehensive trade and co-operation agreement with our friends and neighbours in the European Union, with zero tariffs and zero quotas, and most of our product regulation and metrology is inherited from the time when we were a European Union member.

I put on record my welcome for the way in which the Government have pursued free trade agreements in line with the United Kingdom’s heritage as a free trading nation. I do not think the details of the new trade agreement with India or all the details of the US free trade agreement have been fully shared with the House at this stage, but from what we can tell there is an improvement in market access for UK manufacturers and for those who follow UK product regulation and metrology.

We can all see how important it is that the powers that the Government are taking under this legislation do not accidentally or intentionally cut across any of the international agreements listed in new clause 3. We would not want any of the regulations made under this legislation to disadvantage the United Kingdom under the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership; the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement; the UK-Canada continuity agreement and any improvements to that; the UK-Australia free trade agreement; the free trade agreement with New Zealand; and any other trade treaties, such as the one recently announced with India and the one that is subject to negotiations with the United States of America.

There is an extraordinary change in the UK’s trading opportunities. We have this advantageous new trading position with, in effect, a foot in both camps. We are uniquely placed in respect of European and American trade. It would be utter madness for the Government to do anything with this Bill that would cut across the freedoms we have. It would be much more valuable if the Government would, by agreeing to new clause 3, take this opportunity to show that they want to be completely pragmatic, and to ensure that we continue to have the opportunities to open up markets and that product regulation and metrology is not a barrier to that.

New clause 3 serves to prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations to align the United Kingdom with the European Union in a way that might hinder any future or existing free trade agreements. It is a pragmatic clause and a necessary step towards maintaining the strength of the UK’s trade relationships and protecting the long-term prosperity of our businesses. The hon. Member for Wokingham rightly pointed out how important it is for us to trade with our European friends and neighbours. However, it is also important to note, as we saw in the recently published Santander trade barometer, that for businesses in the UK, there is a gradual but steady pivot away from the EU and towards global partners. Those incredibly useful statistics show that not only have UK businesses been regarding international trade as more important, increasingly over time, but that they are widening the range of trading partners that they do business with.

When the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), made the point in the Chamber that the number of references to the EU in the legislation is far more significant than the number of references to any other country—the United States, our single biggest trading partner, for example—the Secretary of State told him that the Bill will enable regulatory alignment with the EU only

“where it is recognised that we have the interest.”—[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 221.]

On Tuesday, the Minister told this Committee that he thought Conservative Members had mentioned the European Union more than the Government had, and that he did not believe the Bill will be used to tie us to the EU. However, I refer the Minister to the Bill because, in its 13 pages, the EU is mentioned 12 times. The Bill’s impact assessment certainly implies that we will default to a European set of standards, and the Secretary of State has not defined what the aforementioned interests may be. We are therefore moving the amendment to ensure that the interests of the UK in our existing and future trade agreements are not undermined by unnecessary and egregious alignment with the EU on product regulation.

I am not making this up: we have heard, in advance of next week’s surrender summit, that one of the EU’s negotiating objectives is to lock down dynamic alignment with the UK. The EU looks at us and sees the free trade deals that it has not been able to do. The one with India is a prime example, as is the liberalisation of tariffs that was recently announced, which I know is a starting point for the Government in terms of the United States. The EU is pretty worried that we will make the most of these freedoms and show that they are one of the advantages of our not being a member any more, so the EU has this as a negotiating objective. I am sure that behind closed doors in the negotiations, Ministers are pointing to this Bill going through Parliament, to their significant majority, and to the fact that they can therefore turn this on like a switch.

As we stand on the precipice of a new era—one in which we can lean into our country’s global free-trading heritage—it is essential that we continue to forge strong trading relationships with our global partners. These agreements, many of which we negotiated after leaving the European Union, are pivotal to our future economic prosperity, and to the growth that the Government rightly seek for the UK economy.

The new clause explicitly states:

“The Secretary of State may not make regulations under section (1)(2) or section (2)(7) that will disadvantage the United Kingdom or its trade under”—

several key international agreements. These include, but are not limited to, the CPTPP—that opens up new markets in the Asia-Pacific—the Japan economic comprehensive partnership agreement, which strengthens ties with one of the world’s largest economies and biggest inward investors into the United Kingdom, and agreements with our close friends and Commonwealth allies New Zealand, Australia and Canada.

We made progress during our time in Government, and we welcome the progress that this Government are picking up. By urging the Government to agree to the amendment, we want to say that this is not merely a technical adjustment; it is a necessary safeguard to ensure that our regulatory environment—product regulation and metrology—does not inadvertently undermine the progress that we have made in securing those agreements.

Frankly, these treaties represent hundreds of billions of pounds in trade. They are foundational to ensuring that the UK remains competitive in a rapidly changing global economy. The CPTPP is estimated to increase UK GDP by £2 billion, and it could be higher if countries such as South Korea, which has very good product regulation and metrology, join. We should mutually recognise some of these things. Why would we want to tie ourselves purely to a bloc that is a declining share of the global economy?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I think the shadow Minister has sat down.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I would happily take the intervention.

[The Chair]

We want to move on.

--- Later in debate ---

There were repeated references to dynamic alignment and what we might be saying behind closed doors in negotiations with the EU. It would be a rather undermining stance for us to say something completely different behind closed doors when we have said repeatedly on the record, both in this place and the other place, that we will make decisions on a case-by-case basis. The idea that we will somehow pull the wool over the eyes of the EU or the public by saying something different in private is simply not credible. I do not believe that the new clause is necessary.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

Given the importance of this point, I would be grateful if the Minister put on the record his acknowledgment that dynamic alignment is an ask from our European Union partners in the negotiations ahead of next week’s summit.

[Justin Madders]

Regrettably, I am not privy to the negotiations; I can only read the speculation in the newspapers, but clearly the Bill does not mean automatic alignment, dynamic or otherwise. It means the opposite, which is why a number of the arguments put forward by the Opposition are completely incorrect. I know that the 2019 election was the high point for the Conservative party in recent years and that it was all about our relationship with the EU, but we have left. We are in a new world, and the arguments that we are hearing from the Opposition are from a different era. The world has moved on. We are looking outward and working closely with our EU neighbours, as we should do, but unlike Conservative Members we are not obsessed with this issue. I am sorry to say that they have misread the mood of the public and the impact of the Bill. I ask that the new clause be withdrawn.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

The Minister just clarified for the record that, although it is not his or the Government’s intention to use the Bill in the way we have highlighted, those powers exist should they wish to exercise them. Both he and I have read about this in the media, as neither of us is privy to the discussions behind closed doors, but it is clearly a request from our European Union negotiating partners. This week, the Government voted down our Opposition day motion that would have given the Minister the opportunity to rule it out. In the light of that, and given the importance of the issues highlighted in new clause 3, as well as the fact that the Bill simply gives the Minister and his colleagues the chance to legislate in exactly the way they have been speaking about, I will press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 5 is designed to obtain clarification on the record from the Minister about how Government new clause 1, which was agreed to earlier, will interact with the provisions in the Windsor framework to do with the Stormont brake.

As hon. Members will be aware, if Northern Ireland Assembly Members initiate the procedure under regulation 11 of the Windsor Framework (Democratic Scrutiny) Regulations 2024 in relation to an EU law affecting product regulation or metrology, the Secretary of State must not take any steps to implement that law in Great Britain until the Secretary of State has taken a decision under part 3 of those regulations. The new clause would make the position clear.

As colleagues will be aware, dynamic alignment of product regulation effectively already applies in the Northern Ireland economy. An update to the Windsor framework was agreed in Parliament last year, with Government support, regarding the democratic oversight of the 2024 regulations. The Northern Ireland Assembly has the important democratic right to trigger the Stormont brake, with the assurance that no UK regulations are aligned with the European Union following that decision in Stormont. Will the Minister put on the record that, should a piece of regulation be highlighted by the Stormont brake, and we were in a pending period while the UK Government negotiated with the European Union about its application, it would not be imposed in Great Britain during that period?

Great Britain is united with Northern Ireland, and we must ensure that our ties and duties to Northern Ireland are set out clearly in the Bill. Government new clause 1 goes some way to doing that, but new clause 5 would help to clarify the situation further. When the Prime Minister was recently asked in the Chamber whether he is a Unionist, he refused to confirm that he is. When asked after Prime Minister’s questions whether the Prime Minister is a Unionist, his official spokesperson said:

“I think the Prime Minister said before that, of course, he is the Prime Minister for the whole of the UK, including in Northern Ireland.”

If the Prime Minister and the Government want to make that very clear, they should have absolutely no problem with backing our clarifying new clause.

I hope that the Minister will agree with the principles behind new clause 5: that democratic consent must be sought in all parts of the United Kingdom, as set out in Government new clause 1; that we must ensure that the UK’s internal market continues to function effectively; and that, if the Stormont brake is pulled, it should also be pulled in Great Britain. That is the purpose of new clause 5.

[Aphra Brandreth]

I rise to make a few points in support of the new clause, because I strongly believe that the Bill must uphold and not undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom and the strength of our internal market.

First and foremost, we voted as a country—as the United Kingdom—to leave the European Union. Of course, the unique situation of Northern Ireland, sharing a land border with the EU, has added complexities to that process, but through the hard work of the previous Conservative Government, we secured the Windsor framework, an agreement that represents a careful balance. The framework upholds free-flowing trade within the UK while, crucially, protecting Northern Ireland’s position in the Union, safeguarding its sovereignty and upholding the Good Friday agreement, which remains the foundation of peace and stability.

Before addressing the specifics of the new clause, I will briefly reflect on the importance of the UK internal market, which is the economic spine of our Union, supporting the free movement of goods, services, capital and people across all four nations. Intra-UK trade has been worth up to £200 billion a year, which represents nearly 6% of our GDP. For Northern Ireland alone, it is up to £14 billion annually—twice its trade with Ireland and the wider EU combined. That should serve as a reminder of just how critical it is that we preserve and strengthen Northern Ireland’s place in our internal market. The new clause is a small but significant step toward doing just that.

Northern Ireland is an equal member of the Union. It is only right that its representatives have a meaningful say in decisions that affect them, and that we treat their concerns with the same seriousness that we would those of any other part of the UK. The new clause reflects that principle. It would not tie the Government’s hands unnecessarily, but it would ensure that any action taken respects the processes of the Windsor framework and honours the spirit of consent.

We have spent a good deal of time in Committee debating the balance of powers between Parliament and Ministers. In that context, the new clause is not a radical demand. It simply asks the Government to pause and consider the democratic expression of the legislature of Northern Ireland before acting. It may be that the provision need not be used, but if the Government cannot support it, that would be another indication of their willingness to listen to Brussels over Belfast.

I urge Government Members to join the Opposition in supporting this reasonable suggestion. It would make the Bill stronger, more balanced and more in keeping with our shared commitment to the Union. As Conservatives, we have a proud record of championing the Union, and it was a Conservative Government that delivered the Windsor framework. I did think that Labour was supposed to be Unionist party, not a European Unionist party. This is a chance for Labour to make its position clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

As Opposition Members have articulated, the new clause would provide for a delay to the Secretary of State’s implementation of regulatory changes in Great Britain where Northern Ireland Assembly Members provide notification of triggering the Stormont brake on similar regulatory changes in Northern Ireland. That delay would persist until the Government make a determination on that notification.

I am sorry that Opposition Members feel that the Windsor framework is not up to scratch any more, but we take our responsibilities under it extremely seriously. The Bill does not alter or restrict the Windsor framework scrutiny mechanisms given to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The shadow Minister questioned the Prime Minister’s commitment to Northern Ireland, and I would remind her that he was in fact Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland for a number of years before his election to this place.

If the new clause were accepted and the Stormont brake were triggered by the Assembly on a particular EU regulation, it would delay the Government from providing certainty on the regulatory approach that we might take and it would cut across the devolution settlement, none of which is the intention of the Bill. The Stormont brake is about EU regulations, but this new clause would prevent UK Ministers from legislating on our own rules, which I am sure is not the shadow Minister’s intention.

It is also worth saying that the new clause, as drafted, is inoperable. It refers to the incorrect provisions giving effect to the Stormont brake, which are contained in schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Again, we have had an awful lot of talk about the EU. We have had a little ride on the ghost train, and nothing that Opposition Members have said bears any relation to the reality of what is in this Bill. I therefore ask that the new clause be withdrawn.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I think I heard the Minister say that, were the Northern Ireland Assembly to pull the Stormont brake, the Secretary of State would potentially continue to apply EU regulation in GB under the powers in this Bill. If that is what I heard the Minister say—I think it is definitely what he said—it is important that I press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Jones]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

When the Bill was announced in the King’s Speech last summer, it held real promise of an intention to address the growing number of fires caused by lithium-ion batteries in e-bikes and e-scooters. However, there remains no reference in the Bill to lithium-ion batteries, despite the real and growing harm they cause. This is what new clause 10 seeks to address. According to Electrical Safety First, more than 180 parliamentary constituencies have experienced a fire caused by unsafe lithium-ion batteries since 2020. The evidence is clear that these batteries require a more robust regulatory response. This is not just about consumer protection, although that is vital, but about environmental responsibility. Lithium-ion batteries contain hazardous materials, and poor disposal poses real environmental risks.

The Government have so far accepted an amendment to the Bill that implements a system for classifying high-risk products and applying appropriate regulations. I am sure Members agree that lithium-ion batteries can, and should, be classed as high-risk, and I hope that this amendment is protected as the Bill progresses through its remaining stages. If the Government intend to classify these batteries as high-risk, there is no harm in putting that into primary legislation. I would be grateful if the Minister could share what work is ongoing in his Department and the Department for Transport to deal with e-bike and e-scooter batteries.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham for moving the new clause and giving the Committee the opportunity to hear from the Government on this issue.

The matter was raised extensively during proceedings on the Bill in the other place, and in the evidence that the Committee has received from members of the public and important public bodies, including fire services across the UK. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister about the existing scope in UK law to regulate lithium-ion batteries, as well as the power that the Bill gives the Minister to address a product that all too often causes horrendous fires. Many of our constituents will have heard of or have been affected by this issue, so I look forward to hearing from him.

[Justin Madders]

It is right that hon. Members have raised this matter, which is one of the primary drivers behind the Bill. We recognise that the safety of products containing lithium-ion batteries is an increasingly pressing issue, and I welcome the opportunity to speak about what the Government are doing.

We are fully aware of the risks that are posed, particularly by products such as e-bikes and e-scooters, and we have already taken meaningful steps to protect consumers and uphold product safety standards. The Office for Product Safety and Standards has worked closely with colleagues across Government, industry partners and technical experts to identify the root causes of the safety issues that we are seeing. That includes addressing faulty design, poor manufacturing standards and issues with battery compatibility and charging systems.

Alongside regulatory oversight, we have engaged directly with UK businesses to help them to comply with existing safety regulations. We want to ensure that good businesses who act responsibly are not undercut by unscrupulous traders who place unsafe products on the UK market.

We have also built strong relationships with fire and rescue services, which are often the first to see the consequences of battery failures in the home or in public spaces. Their expertise and intelligence-gathering skills have been instrumental in helping us to identify high-risk products and take appropriate enforcement action.

Since 2022, these efforts have resulted in 20 product recalls and 22 enforcement actions targeting unsafe or non-compliant e-bikes and e-scooters. In one notable case, the OPSS issued 26 withdrawal notices relating to two dangerous e-bike battery models manufactured overseas by Unit Pack Power. Those batteries had been linked to incidents investigated by fire and rescue services, and action was taken to halt their sale across eight online marketplaces, as well as against two manufacturers and 16 individual sellers.

However, we recognise that enforcement alone is not enough. Regulatory reform is needed to ensure that harmful products are stopped at the border or prevented from entering the market in the first place. At the same time, we must avoid placing disproportionate burdens on responsible businesses. Regulation must be effective, proportionate and targeted. This will protect the public without stifling innovation or fair competition.

The Bill has been drafted to provide those powers across a wide range of product categories, including lithium-ion battery products. While I fully recognise the concerns raised about batteries, the Bill does not and should not single out individual product types. To do so would risk narrowing its scope and limiting our ability to act effectively across the product landscape, including when new products are introduced. I think we all understand how technologies are evolving and that we need broad powers to keep up to date.

A requirement to report in three months would cause some challenges for timelines. There is normally a 12-week period for Government consultations, and that would obviously not fit into the three months suggested by the new clause.

At this stage, we are actively exploring what regulatory changes might make the greatest difference on lithium-ion batteries. To support that, the Department commissioned research from the Warwick Manufacturing Group to deepen our understanding of the risks posed by these batteries, including issues of compatibility, design and failure patterns. This research has now been published—I am happy to provide a copy to the hon. Member for Wokingham if he wishes to see it—and will help us to identify where interventions are most needed through regulatory standards, clearer compliance pathways or improved consumer guidance.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to tackling the safety challenges associated with lithium-ion batteries. We will continue to work closely with all stakeholders—from industry to fire services, and from standards bodies to consumer groups—to develop solutions that are effective, evidence-based and proportionate.

We understand the urgency of the issue. I have met victims of lithium-ion battery fires, and they understand that we are doing everything we can to get the measures on the statute book so that we can develop regulations to prevent such tragedies from happening again. It is important that we recognise new dangers and act to protect the public. I hope the hon. Gentleman is reassured that we will take action and are doing what we can at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Jones]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause aims to ensure that online marketplaces are subject to clear, enforceable duties to protect consumers against unsafe products. Despite online marketplaces playing a central role in today’s retail environment, they often operate without the same responsibilities as traditional retailers, despite facilitating the sale of millions of pounds of goods to UK consumers.

The new clause would put some common-sense requirements on online marketplaces. For example, it would require platforms to have effective systems in place to monitor and detect unsafe products and block them from being sold, and it includes a clear duty to remove unsafe products quickly once a risk has been flagged. Those basic consumer protection principles are applied to bricks-and-mortar retailers, so why not to online retailers? No platform should be able to profit from unsafe goods while claiming that it has no responsibility for what is sold.

The current system simply is not working: 85% of the toys tested by the British Toy & Hobby Association, across 11 online marketplaces, failed toy safety testing and were delisted from sale. Despite that, it found that 72% of seemingly identical unsafe toys were back on sale, with 41% being sold by the same retailer. On testing a sample of 25 of the toys, all 25—100%—failed toy safety testing.

As we modernise our product safety regime, we must ensure that online marketplaces are held to the same high standards as bricks-and-mortar shops. Bricks-and-mortar toy retailers are expected to deliver much more, with fewer resources. Some 80% of UK toy retailers are SMEs. If they want to supply a manufacturer’s product, they are obliged to ensure that the manufacturer has carried out the relevant compliance regulations. Additionally, importers have certain obligations and have to ensure that others have been carried out. Online marketplaces are not required to do any of this.

Meanwhile, third-party sellers are often able to evade compliance with safety regulations, as online marketplaces have no obligation to verify that those sellers have met their legal responsibilities. Third-party sellers are often difficult or impossible to trace for enforcement. This means the cost of producing their toys is lower, so third-party sellers are able to sell their products more cheaply. The new clause would deliver fairness and essential protections. By embedding baseline requirements directly in primary legislation, the Bill will close regulatory gaps and ensure that secondary legislation can build on a solid foundation.

Before I conclude, another issue that needs to be addressed is counterfeit products. Because of a lack of traceability and enforcement, many products sold in online marketplaces are counterfeit, leaving British consumers at risk of substandard goods that pose a risk to their health and waste their money. What are the Government doing to stop that? What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that there is a level playing field between the high street and online marketplaces? Will he meet me to discuss the matter further, with the British Toy & Hobby Association?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham for raising this incredibly important and wide-ranging issue. He touched on some of its growing importance in the UK, where consumers are buying more and more products online. The hon. Gentleman brings his valuable expertise from the toy and hobby sector to the discussion. Above all, we would be particularly concerned if harmful toys were to find their way to consumers, and indeed they do. Some 80% of the toys purchased from online marketplaces that were tested by the British Toy & Hobby Association were found to be illegal due to missing warning signs.

As this issue has been included in the Bill, I know that the Government intend to use this legislation to deal with it. From the many speeches made on Second Reading, I know that this subject exercises colleagues across the House. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how he will use the powers in the Bill to deal with this important issue.

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham for moving the new clause, which would require the Secretary of State to introduce a list of duties on online marketplaces and to make a statement within three months of Royal Assent.

As Members have recognised throughout the debate, online marketplaces now play a significant role in the supply chain and must be explicitly recognised in the product safety regulatory framework. We all recognise that they provide consumers with greater choice and convenience, but of course that cannot come at the cost of compromised consumer safety and of disadvantaging compliant businesses, so I recognise and share the new clause’s intent.

However, some of the requirements in the new clause are of the type that the Government are developing for consultation and will thereafter introduce using the Bill’s powers. We intend to introduce requirements that build on best practice to create a proportionate regulatory framework where online marketplaces: take steps to prevent unsafe products from being made available to consumers; ensure that sellers operating on their platform comply with product safety obligations; provide relevant information to consumers; and co-operate closely with regulators. The framework will also include, if necessary, powers to deal with stolen or counterfeit products, as the hon. Member for Wokingham mentioned.

The Bill provides the opportunity to develop requirements following consultation—as required by clause 12(6)—stakeholder engagement, impact assessments and consideration of the practical implications, including whether requirements should be tailored to specific business activities to ensure proportionality. The new clause, however, would require the introduction of its specified obligations irrespective of the outcome of any consultation or impact assessment, and of consideration of whether that would be proportionate or effective across the range of online marketplace models.

We expect the diversity and market share of e-commerce to continue to grow, and the ways that UK consumers purchase products to evolve in ways that we are not yet able to predict. It is therefore important that the product safety legal framework remains flexible, so that it can adapt to future changes while remaining proportionate for different business models. I am afraid that the new clause would significantly hinder that flexibility by mandating that online marketplaces’ duties must include requirements relating to those in the new clause.

I assure the hon. Member for Wokingham that our intent is to introduce, at the earliest opportunity, new regulations on online marketplaces that are proportionate and future-proof and that prioritise consumer safety. The regulations will of course be informed by public consultation and subject to the affirmative procedure. I am happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss this issue further, because there is an important role moving forward. I am happy to engage with Members in all parts of the House to ensure that we get it right. In the meantime, I ask him to withdraw his new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

Leading consumer associations such as the BTHA and Which? made it clear to me that they support strong enforcement to uphold the laws that they invest heavily to comply with, and which are critical for ensuring a level playing field. Perhaps the Minister could be especially generous and arrange a meeting for me with a local government Minister to discuss the local authority funding issues that Wokingham borough council faces.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

On Tuesday, on multiple occasions I made the point about how widely the Bill is drawn in terms of the bodies responsible for enforcement. I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Member for Wokingham’s points about a trading standards enforcement review, which we think would be an important part of the ongoing scrutiny of the Bill’s impact, so we are minded to support the new clause.

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham for moving his new clause, although he is pushing his luck asking for another meeting straight off the back of his previous speech. We absolutely recognise the crucialness of the enforcement work done by local authorities. It has become clear that the existing framework of layered, complex legislation is part of the problem—part of the drain on resources—and one of the reasons why the Bill is necessary.

The selective implementation of new tools such as civil monetary penalties should further assist in providing more proportionate routes for enforcement authorities to use their enforcement activities, which the Bill addresses. Clause 8 enables the implementation of cost-recovery powers for relevant authorities, and the Office for Product Safety and Standards, in its role as national regulator, supports local authority enforcement teams with training, access to experts, direct support on cases and ringfenced funding for specific projects.

The regulator has a dedicated function in respect of communication with local authorities and takes its role extremely seriously. It will provide support on nationally significant cases if local authorities are faced with unco-operative businesses, be they existing supply chain actors or new ones. [Interruption.] Was that a request for an intervention? Perhaps it was agreement.

Local authority enforcement is a much broader area of consumer protection than product regulation, which is of course the scope of the Bill. This legislation is not the right vehicle for a review because it is singly focused on product regulation, whereas local consumer protection is a much broader policy area. I invite the hon. Member for Wokingham to withdraw his new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

On a point of order, Ms Vaz. As we are at the end of our deliberations in Committee, I thank you and Sir John for your exemplary chairing. We have finished in good time, but we have had extensive debate on a number of matters pertaining to the Bill. I thank the Clerks and the officials from the Department who have helped proceedings to go smoothly. I thank all Committee members for taking part in deliberations—no doubt we will hear from some of them again on Report.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

On a point of order, Ms Vaz. I am grateful for the opportunity to thank you for chairing, and Sir John for chairing Tuesday’s morning sitting. I thank the Committee members, particularly the Minister and his officials for their engagement on the important issues that have been raised, and I thank my colleagues. In order to get her name into Hansard, I thank Eleanor Munro from my office, who has been heroic in supporting me during the deliberations. I look forward to continuing our discussions on Report. I also thank the Clerks.

[The Chair]

I add my thanks to all right hon. and hon. Members for their assiduous scrutiny of the Bill. I thank all the officials, the Doorkeepers, the Clerks and Hansard.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.