Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Sandhurst

Committee stage
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 10, in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, which seeks to delete Clause 1(4). It is worth looking at that subsection. It says:

“For the purposes of this Act, a product presents a risk if, when used for the purpose for which it is intended or under conditions which can reasonably be foreseen, it could … endanger the health or safety of persons”


or of domestic animals—I paraphrase—

“property (including the operability of other products), or … cause, or be susceptible to, electromagnetic disturbance”.

That is a bit beyond my knowledge grade.

I looked at this provision and it really is very broad. Where does it end? We say that the provision must be removed because it provides excessively broad powers to the Secretary of State to address things we simply know nothing about. It comes, of course, under the skeleton legislation; I have already made my points about the problems with that.

The definition of risk here has the potential to be so expansive that nearly any product, except an aircraft or certain other things which my noble friend has just identified, could be construed as presenting a risk under certain circumstances. A motor car can be perfectly safe and wonderfully designed but, if driven too fast or just badly in some other way, it will of course endanger life. That happens every other day. The same applies to a whole raft of mechanical tools and instruments—anything one wants to think about. If misused, they will cause danger.

If we have at some time in the future a Government who feel very strongly about something which, at the moment, none of us object to, they will be able to address that by secondary legislation, which will not be ultra vires—outside the scope of the legislation. It can do almost anything. We can all think of almost anything that we use at home, such as a power drill or a stepladder. If you misuse and fall off that, you break your skull. It could be motor cars or anything. This is absolutely absurd and far too broad.

If the Government want to legislate to say that motor cars must have a speed restriction, or must have brakes which do this or that, they should do that with specific regulation under specific legislation directed at that target, because Parliament has said, “We’ve had far too many accidents of this sort. We’ve got to address it”. That is the normal process we have as society develops, but a clause of this sort is just extraordinary. It really is Brave New World stuff.

Our complaint is simply that the broad scope of this definition could, in future, empower regulators to impose unnecessary restrictions on products where the risks are minimal or purely hypothetical—and certainly not within the scope of the imaginations of those of us in this Room—because somebody comes along, or a Government come along, in five years’ time and decides that they want to deal with it. Rather than having an embarrassing and difficult debate in Parliament, the Minister just has his way. That is not how we proceed in this country. We are a parliamentary democracy under, as we have been told, the rule of law. We would suggest that the Government have already attacked businesses, high-street retailers and farmers. Will these relentless, unidentified attacks on businesses ever stop? This provision, like others, risks creating legal uncertainty and regulatory overreach. We really must put a stop to it.

I say again that Clauses 1 and 2, as they stand, must be significantly revised or removed entirely, or the promise remains that we will move for them to be removed on Report.

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to respond to this particularly interesting debate. I, too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to his new position. I must say, the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Sandhurst, seem to have undergone a conversion, certainly since the former’s time in the Department for Business. I have not been able yet to count the number of regulations in primary legislation that the noble Lord took through but, given that he was a Home Office Minister and given the Home Office’s—how shall I put it?—productive record in producing legislation in Parliament, I hasten to suggest that it was quite a few.

Clearly, behind that is an important consideration about the shape of the Bill and why we need a regulation-making power. On the other hand, the Government would say to noble Lords that the intention is to use those regulations proportionately on the back of the policy consultation that has just taken place. We see here, in a sense, a tension between those noble Lords who wish to make sure that the legislation covers areas of concern—we have heard about the areas of concern for the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Fox—and those noble Lords who feel that the regulation, or the power given here to Ministers through regulation, goes too wide. Clearly, a balance needs to be drawn.