Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I apologise to the House for not being able to be present at many of the earlier debates, but I have come specifically to hear the explanation of this amendment, and I have to say that I am not convinced. The purpose of regulation is, of its nature, to do the best for growth and for business, and if it is best for growth and business to have a regulation that aligns us with somebody else then that must be sensible. There is no reason to say that the priority is not to be aligned. Indeed, I rather think the opposite: the priority is probably, in most cases, to be aligned.

To tie the arms of a future Government on the basis that somehow or other we are living not in the world that we now live in but in some mysterious world that people would like to live in seems wholly unacceptable, and I must say that I am sad that the Government have been opposed on this basis. It runs through all these out-of-date amendments, all of which seek to reassess and restate the disastrous policy of leaving the European Union, which we all know to be a huge success—everyone, throughout the country, knows how very good it has been, so let us make it even better by making it even more difficult to try to come to terms with the world in which we now live. I very much hope that the House will not agree to this amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I did not intend to support my noble friend on the Front Bench, but I am moved to do so by the speech from my other noble friend. I say to my noble friend Lord Deben that there is a later amendment, which we may or may not pursue, the purpose of which is to make it clear that, when making regulations, Ministers should have regard to the likelihood of the United Kingdom being an attractive place in which to manufacture or supply products. I am sure he agrees that is right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, I rise not to support the noble Lord, although it is a pleasure to follow him, but to address government Amendments 44 and 61 in this group, which I have signed, together with government Amendment 55, which will be for another day.

The Constitution Committee has already been kindly mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt. As a member of that committee, I register my appreciation for the fact that the Government have not only listened to the committee’s concerns and to those developed with impressive persistence by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee but have reacted constructively to them. The Henry VIII powers have been greatly reduced in scope and a credible explanation has been given for the small remainder. While the Bill continues to contain uncomfortably wide ministerial powers to make significant policy decisions, the broad duty of consultation in Amendment 61 is a welcome mitigation. The third part of the package—an extension of the affirmative procedure—is another positive step.

It might have been possible to go further, as the Delegated Powers Committee has rightly said. But, for my part, I would not go so far as to support the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his—I am tempted to say “wrecking” —Amendment 2. How to avoid the unconstrained use of excessively broad delegated powers is a problem that will not go away. It was raised by this Bill in a particularly acute form. The Government have grappled with it conscientiously and they deserve credit for that.

I have one final thought. It is rather a dry one, I am afraid, but what do you expect from the Cross Benches? I hope that, some day, the relevant committees of this House might have occasion to discuss the constitutional issues around framework Bills and delegated powers with the Government, not only Bill by Bill, as we do at present, but in a more structured and strategic way. Such discussions would give proper weight to the constraints on government but could also draw on the guidance provided by our committees and bodies such as the Hansard Society over many years. Perhaps the Minister will agree, after his generous and productive engagement on this issue, that the goal of a more consistent and principled approach on both sides of the fence might at least be worth pursuing.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I shall speak to my Amendment 4 in this group, which, we are advised, would be pre-empted if Amendment 2 were to be passed, by reason of the deletion of the relevant provision in Clause 1(1), to which it would add an additional subsection. It would add to the overarching objective of making regulations, which is to secure safe products:

“In considering whether regulations should be made … the Secretary of State must have regard to the likelihood of the United Kingdom being seen as a favourable place in which to develop, manufacture or supply products”.


Of course, many of the debates that we have on the Bill will relate to the question of alignment, or otherwise. One of the reasons why we are considering this legislation is because there would be significant issues to do with the manufacture, distribution and supply of products in this country were we to diverge significantly from the standards that lie behind the CE marking from the European Union. Rather than continue, as we have done, with reliance on the retained EU law legislation, it is the Government’s intention, through this legislation, to enable us to accept CE marking. That is not necessarily on a dynamic basis—I agree that it is a matter of choice whether we do so—but the Bill’s structure is intended to enable that to happen. Because we seek to do that by reference to the adverse economic consequences that may flow from failing to be able to bring products here, which may drive some economic activity elsewhere, it seems important that Ministers making regulations under this legislation should consider whether, as a result, the UK is an attractive place in which to manufacture, distribute or supply products.

This is not a new concept. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on the Government Front Bench will recall that the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 includes effectively the same provision in relation to medical devices. Medical devices are outside the scope of this Bill but it is relevant to a wide range of other industrial products. I do not understand why it should not be an essential part of the way that Ministers consider making regulations that have such an impact to have regard to the positive benefits that can accrue to business from ensuring that we have the right product regulatory framework for them, so I commend Amendment 4 to the House.

I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, that Amendment 2 is a wrecking amendment. Why not? Because, if the first subsection were to be removed by that amendment, the regulation-making power would be removed from the Bill so the Government would have to think again. However, the noble Lord and the House will note that later in this group is government Amendment 44. The original formulation in the Bill was to have consequential amendments to Parts II, IV and V of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. In response to the suggestion from the Delegated Powers Committee, which was unhappy with the sweeping power to amend that Act, the Government have instead said, “We’re going to omit Parts II and IV now”. Part II is the bit I am interested in; it is the part of the Act that relates to product safety. The Government simply propose to remove Part II of that Act.

I say to the House and to my noble friend on the Front Bench that if Amendment 2 were to be passed the Bill would clearly have no further regulation-making power in it. However, if at the same time the House were to resist government Amendment 44 then there would continue to be powers in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 for the purpose of making regulations for product safety. The House will be reminded that Section 11(1) of the 1987 Act says:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations … make such provision as he considers appropriate for the purpose of securing … that goods to which this section applies are safe”.


More detail follows, including the respective ways in which provisions can be determined.

The Government should tell us either how they are going to legislate using the powers in the 1987 Act or, if they want to get rid of them, how they are going to replace them in detail. They have done neither of those things. I know we are going to come back to talk about legislation on product liability at a later stage. The Consumer Protection Act is nearly 40 years old and we know it needs updating, but the Government are not doing that; they are sweeping it away and not giving us anything like the detail that was in that Act as to how the powers are going to be used. Nearly 40 years’ worth of scrutiny of the Section 11 provisions on product safety will also be swept away, because the language in this Bill is not the same as in that Act.

The House will have to forgive me: I am slightly anticipating the next group and Amendment 3, because if Amendment 2 is passed, Amendment 3 will not be debated; it will have been pre-empted. I want to make it absolutely clear that although I support my noble friend’s criticisms of the way the Bill is constructed, there is a route available to maintain the powers for determining regulations for product safety. That would force the Government to come back and amend the Consumer Protection Act in ways that are more substantive and clearer than what the present Bill offers us.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I recognise and value the constitutional principle that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, eloquently draws to our attention. Ministers should not be given broad delegated powers, but constitutional principles are not absolute; they have to recognise practical reality.

In the context of this Bill, the practical reality is that technical regulations of the breadth and complexity that will be produced cannot sensibly be enacted by primary legislation. We are dealing, in Clause 1(1), with regulations that reduce or mitigate risks presented by products; to ensure that products “operate efficiently and effectively”; and that ensure that products designed for weighing or measuring operate effectively. Are we really to debate each and every such regulation in this House, either on the Floor of the House or in Grand Committee? We would have little, if any, time for anything else.

If the regulations raise issues of principle, Parliament retains control. Parliament does not have to accept the regulations; it can vote against them under the normal principles. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested, quoting someone from one of the committees—I cannot remember which—that this is Government by diktat. I suggest to him, with the greatest of respect, that that is unfair and inappropriate in this context, for the reasons I have given.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 4, at end insert—
“(za) securing that products to which this section applies are safe;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would retain the existing requirement in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 that product requirements must include that they are safe.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, having supported Amendment 2—unsuccessfully—I now have the opportunity to move Amendment 3. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, and I both slightly anticipated some of the arguments in the previous group, but we very much look forward to him speaking to his amendments in this group. I will speak to two sets of amendments: Amendments 3 and 12, which are linked, and then Amendment 28, which is to a separate and different purpose.

Amendment 3 would insert into the regulation-making power a requirement that the regulation should have the purpose of

“securing that products to which this section applies are safe”.

Where does this come from? As noble Lords may recall from the previous group, the amendment seeks to reinsert into this legislation the same provision that is in Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. As we discovered from the Minister in the previous group, the Government are going to remove Part II of the Consumer Protection Act 1987; they will not simply have a consequential power to amend it but, under this Bill, will remove it.

I am not an expert on product safety legislation, but for nearly 40 years this provision has been in place and has been the basis for much of our product safety legislation until, broadly speaking, it was augmented or replaced by the general product safety regulations coming out of the European Union. Those regulations, through the assimilated legislation, are the basis on which much of our subordinate legislation has been created for product safety.

Why do I want to do this? I freely admit why I am moving my amendment and have already told the Minister so. Partly, I am trying to find out why the Government believe that the language of the Bill—which, as noble Lords will recall, is that it should have the purpose of

“reducing or mitigating risks presented by products”—

is a better construction than the proposition that products should be safe; it is certainly different. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, in the debate on the previous group, helpfully used a very straightforward analogy: when he uses his lawn-mower, he wants it to be safe. I do not think, if I may paraphrase him, that he wants to stand there, with the lawn-mower going across his toe, and think, “I do wish that the Government had introduced regulations that mitigated the risk of this happening”; he wants it to be safe.

I have included Amendment 12 because, of course, there is no point in putting the word “safe” back into the legislation unless one defines it. The Consumer Protection Act 1987 defines “safe”; for these purposes, I have amended that definition by taking out “goods” and inserting “products”, because that is consistent with the structure of this Bill, which relates to products. There has been case law that has found difficulty in the limitations of the interpretation of “goods”.

Amendment 3 is there to ask Ministers whether it would not have been better—and it is not too late, in either this House or another place—to consider whether it might be straightforward to maintain the intention that products should be safe, and define “safe”, alongside the reduction and mitigation of risk? There is arguably—only arguably—a difference between the two. I know that when you use different language in legislation you are generally thought to be intending to secure a different objective. Since we are, in this Bill, removing the requirement for products to be safe, and inserting a requirement for products to have their risks reduced or mitigated, I suppose there is a difference that is more than semantic between these two constructions. If the Minister can assure us that they will, in effect and in reality, mean the same thing, then I will not press my amendment.

I turn to Amendment 28, which proposes a new clause. Its purpose is to build on what is in the Bill about the regulation of online marketplaces. There is some rather helpful material in Clause 2(3)(d) which brings online marketplaces within the scope of the product regulation and product requirements. Amendment 49 to Clause 10, which we have not yet reached, also helpfully clarifies the definition of online marketplaces. That is all good news. However, none of that would change the fact that limitations remain in relation to the determination of liability for unsafe or defective products that are sold through intermediary online marketplaces. I do not need to tell the House of the increasing use of online marketplaces, or that many of them are not necessarily domiciled in the United Kingdom.

In Committee, the Minister, in response to a helpful amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, said:

“The primary route to seek damages for harm caused by defective products is through the Consumer Protection Act 1987”—


I should point out this is a different part of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 from those parts which are to be deleted by this Bill. The Minister went on to say:

“My department is currently reviewing this legislation and we will consider the UK’s product liability regime holistically”.—[Official Report, 27/11/24; col. GC 232.]


However, we have here a situation which is very similar to that in relation to product regulation generally, but in relation to product liability: the European Union has moved and we have not moved with it. I am not making an argument for dynamic alignment—the Minister laughs as he knows I have never been one for dynamic alignment in these debates—but I can see the merit in our ability to align where it is in our interests to do so.

There is clearly a problem. Under the existing legislation, the liability applies to the producer of the product, somebody who holds themselves to be the producer —for example, through trademark—or the importer. That does not necessarily apply to online marketplaces, which often do not fit within any of those definitions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I can confirm that. In fact, the Secretary of State will publish a Written Statement when the consultation happens and this will extend invitations to civil society groups, any stakeholders, parliamentarians and interested parties.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I know that we are all most grateful to the Minister for what I thought was an extremely helpful response to these important and interesting issues that we have debated in this group.

For my part, in relation to Amendment 3 and the use of “safe”, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, that the use of “safe” in a Bill that is intended to ensure that products are safe would be most helpful. He will note that Amendment 12 defines “safe” in a similar way—not precisely the same as the Consumer Protection Act does at present—as meaning

“that there is no risk, or no risk apart from one reduced to a minimum”,

so it is not to say that a product has no risk.

The Minister is right that this is about product safety—I completely agree—and identification of risk. I think where the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is coming from is on understanding how risk is identified and so on. I have some sympathy with the points he makes on Amendment 9, but I find it entirely arguable whether the definition of safe in the present legislation and the definition in this Bill are very close to one another. I slightly rest my argument for the Minister, and perhaps his officials, to think about: would it not therefore be helpful to include a provision in Clause 1 saying that products should be safe, meaning that there is no risk or a risk that is reduced to a minimum or mitigated, since that is what the Government intend to do? They are intending that people should be able to say that products are safe; they have just chosen to take the word out of statute. I think it would be rather helpful to put it back in. I rest my case there and will not press it further.

On Amendment 28, the Minister very helpfully said more than he said in Committee, although it was not inconsistent with what he said then. In particular, he gave us a timetable, which, of course, is immensely helpful. It is quite a long one and goes to the end of 2026, but I know how these things grind through the machines. He will find that there is a pressing need for a review of the product liability directive, especially in relation to online marketplaces, not least because the Law Commission identified this as an area for reform of the law in its 14th work programme—and that was something like three years ago. We are not only well out of date but well beyond the point at which a need for action on product liability had been identified. I hope we might keep pressing, alongside the Minister, for the progress that needs to be made in the consultation and subsequent legislation.

I have one more point. On Amendment 26 and the question of period products, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I was wondering about this. I have checked, but if I understand the position correctly, period products are not regarded as medical devices; they are regarded as consumer products. Incontinence pants—disposable body-worn pads—are treated as medical devices by the MHRA. That is a distinction without a difference, one that I do not understand. I think that period products are regarded as medical devices by the Food and Drug Administration in America. Of course, we follow where the European Union’s general product safety regulation has been and the definitions it has put into its own regulations. One area that Ministers might think about is whether it would be more appropriate for these products to be regarded as medical devices and brought under the scope of the regulations.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I have a very minor and technical point, but I referred to products and not just pants, because the whole line of products has changed. I do not believe that either period or incontinence pants are covered. That is my concern but I thank the noble Lord for his point.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I will not argue but there is probably a good basis for thinking about whether—rather than including them in the Bill, I say with great respect to the proposers of Amendment 26—it would be more appropriate to revisit the question of having them covered under the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. I will leave it there.

On the basis of the point that we have reached with Amendment 3, and that the Minister will have heard, at the very least, the argument for the consumer and communications benefit of saying that we are aiming to make products safe, I will leave it in his capable hands and not seek to press this. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 3.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I have put my name to one of the many amendments in this group, Amendment 13, which in essence is perhaps a more balanced version of the amendment tabled in Committee. This more balanced amendment seeks to ensure complete and utter equivalence and transparency, whether the Government decide—for reasons that have to be stated, clear, transparent and the result of consultation—to align with the EU or with any other country or group of countries. It is simply to try to make sure there is complete equivalence and transparency, with no hidden agendas, no constitutional crisis, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, described it, in understanding the rationale behind the decisions that are taken. As I stated at Second Reading and in Committee, however people may interpret my intentions, they are decidedly Cross-Bench and apolitical. I have no interest in revisiting some of the painful politics and turbulence of the last decade or so, which this country has willed on itself.

In relation to the specific amendment, what is really driving this is what I think should be paramount: the interests of the country, obviously. In an instance such as this, I personally regard the interests of the country to be predominantly to do with the views of the businesses most directly affected by these regulations. The organisation that I think has taken the closest interest in this and has been talking to its members in great detail about it is the British Chambers of Commerce. Your Lordships may or may not be aware that I should declare an interest in that its president is a fellow Cross-Bencher, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. It did an extensive survey of its membership, which was published just before Christmas. I remind your Lordships that the chambers represent about 50,000 businesses across the UK, which employ about 6 million people and have an aggregate turnover across all the companies involved of about £600 billion per annum—a not inconsiderable part of the economy.

The views of the membership are pretty clear. They are in no way ideological about this, but there is a clear view on the part of a majority of the businesses that, in many instances, alignment with the EU is in the direct interests of their businesses and employees, particularly if they wish to grow their businesses. Many are involved in exports—and imports—to the European Union, which continues to be their single largest export market. They have an understandable wish for the ability to grow their businesses to be as easy as possible. What has happened over the past few years has, in many cases, made it a great deal less easy than they would wish.

There is, therefore, a very clear stated wish. They have come up with a wish list that they hope the Government will focus on. It is interesting that one thing they said should be a medium-term view relates specifically to the Bill that we are discussing. They say that the UK should build on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill to facilitate alignment of UK regulation with relevant—but only where it is relevant—primary, secondary and tertiary EU decisions in the traded goods sectors. That does not deny the fact that, in some areas and in some sectors and instances, it will not make sense to align with the EU. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, made—and I am sure others will make—about having the ability to align with other countries or groups of countries is entirely open to the Government to do. I think, however, that they will do that only as a result of careful consultation with the interested bodies. They would then have to make a judgment call on what is in the best economic interests of the UK in terms of which direction they go in.

That is quite simply what this amendment is about. It is meant to promote growth. Those businesses are looking for greater predictability, transparency and consultation—the feeling that they have actually been listened to. Above all, what I think they are looking for—and what sometimes one senses, from some of the interventions on this Bill, is missing—is rebuilding a sense of genuine trust between those who may have slightly different views about the direction that we should take on issues such as this, as well as a relationship that is more trust-based and transparent and where dialogue is easier with some of the bodies, including the EU but also those other countries that we might align with, than has been the case hitherto.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I want to speak briefly to Amendment 20 in this group, which is in my name. It is an opportunity to restate an argument, which I will not dwell on at length but which noble Lords may recall from Committee: there is an inherent advantage and desirability that, when we are determining product requirements and regulations, we should, wherever possible, do so by reference to international standards and agreements.

This is of course something that the Government, like the previous Government, are committed to, not least under the latest statement of public policy in relation to standardisation, which was published this year. It gives very useful examples of how this country, the British Standards Institution, some of the organisations to which we contribute and the innovations that we have led have been the basis of the establishment of many of those international standards. I am convinced that it is not absolutely necessary to put it into the legislation in order for this to be the case. I hope that, in response to this debate, the Minister will again restate the Government’s intention that international standards should be the basis.

However, I wanted the opportunity to add one further thought. If we were to arrive at a point where EU legislation or regulations diverged, in our view, from an international standard or agreement or from sound science—for example, the precision breeding legislation and statutory instruments that have just been brought forward, which technically diverge from where the European Union is now; I hope, declaring an interest in the European Union context, that the EU will change its legislation to bring it much closer to us, rather than the other way round—there should be a presumption that adherence to international standards would be the priority. We should look to that as the basis on which we set our standards and not treat the decisions made by the European Union as ones to which we should necessarily incline.