Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Brinton

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will say a few words about Commons Amendment 2—I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing all the amendments and referring to the purpose of that amendment. As he clarified, Commons Amendment 2 takes Clause 9 out of the list of those parts of the Bill which will in due course be subject to an affirmative resolution procedure. From my point of view, that is a substantive change as compared to what we saw previously in the Bill.

As the Minister explained, Clause 9 relates to existing product requirements, but it provides for a power to make regulations relating to existing product requirements as if they were product regulations for product requirements under this new legislation. Clause 9 allows for provisions described in Clauses 2(4), (6) or (7)—I am concerned with Clause 2(7)—that are able to be applied to existing product requirements.

What does Clause 2(7) tell us? It tells us that product regulations may be made by reference to relevant EU law. From my point of view—I will not rehearse all the debates we have had, but they are particularly important debates—this is a provision the use of which is significant. The occasions on which we choose to set our regulations and our product requirements by reference to EU law are important questions. As it happens, my view is that any use of Clause 2(7) should be subject to the affirmative procedure, but the Minister will no doubt remind me that that is not, nor intended to be, the case. I think it ought to be. The purpose of this is, in that sense, in my view, not technical but substantive. It means that existing product requirements can be amended in future by regulations which relate to relevant EU law and apply new product requirements or change product requirements by reference to EU law. I think that is significant, and my simple submission is that this is a significant change. I reiterate the point I made previously in debates: that the affirmative resolution should have been used in relation to any application of EU law in making our own product requirements.

We look forward with some anticipation to learning when and in relation to what this will happen. The noble Baroness, who was talking about chemical regulations, may be interested in this because, who knows, we have just seen reiteration of EU legislation relating to REACH. We do not know to what extent the REACH regulations are going to be reproduced in this country in the form in which we now see them in the European Union. The same may apply to AI. I have seen speculation that regulations relating to the European Union’s AI Act could be introduced and applied as product requirements in this country in product regulation using relevant EU law under AI as a mechanism. I do not know what is the Government’s intention. All I am saying is that I think it is a substantive change, and I wish that the Government, both in the original drafting of the Bill and in this respect, had used the affirmative procedure so that we could examine it when it happens.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Fox, who is improving and I hope will be back with us very soon, and these Liberal Democrat Benches, I thank the Government for the very positive passage of this Bill, and particularly the Minister for the meeting that we had after the Bill’s passage through the Commons and for the other discussions that we have had.

From these Benches, we welcome the first government amendment ensuring better consultation with devolved Governments on relevant regulations. This was an issue that we raised at the Lords stages of the Bill, and it is good to see that progress has been made.

In the Commons, my honourable friend Clive Jones, the MP for Wokingham, had an amendment on a Buy British scheme. I am very sorry that it did not make it past that stage in the Commons, because it included things such as voluntary labelling, consulting with providers, retailers and manufacturers, and how we should have a promotional campaign. Accepting that the detail of that has gone, I am sorry that the Government have chosen not to do it, but I hope that they will take the principle seriously, because what we really need to do now is to help consumers make informed choices about supporting domestic products.

I hear the points that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made, and we had a long debate earlier on in the passage of this Bill about this balance. I will not go into the detail at all, but I am just reminded that we discovered that, when we left the EU, we also left a series of other bits of the EU that provided such serious consequences that the last Government had to make emergency regulations to continue the old regulation rules, so I think it is good that there is some provision that means that if there is carryover, or if it is very similar, that should be done. However, I absolutely hear the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, makes, and I am sure the Government have heard during the passage of this Bill that Parliament would want to be consulted on it.

Finally, in the week of the successful state visit of President Macron, your Lordships will not be surprised to hear us say from the Lib Dem Benches that we call on this Government to move a bit faster and lay the groundwork for a customs union with the EU, which we believe will deliver far greater benefits, not least for product regulations and metrology.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Brinton

Report stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.