Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

15: Clause 2, page 2, line 43, leave out paragraph (k)

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment, which is in my name, seeks to leave out Clause 2(2)(k), concerning authorised representatives. The introduction of an authorised representative is a critical concept, but this provision remains too vague and ill defined in the Bill. For businesses, this lack of clarity leads to uncertainty, especially when it comes to the exact role and responsibilities of an authorised representative. Businesses require certainty when it comes to compliance, and this uncertainty may hinder their ability to plan, operate or expand. By removing paragraph (k), we would eliminate potential confusion and ensure that businesses do not face unnecessary administrative burdens or legal risks.

Amendment 22 addresses the issue that these powers could allow Ministers to align UK law with EU regulations entirely or, conversely, to diverge from them in significant ways. Whether Ministers choose to follow EU rules or set our own course, these substantial decisions could have far-reaching implications for the future of UK businesses and consumers. What is particularly troubling, however, is that these decisions could be made through delegating legislation, which , as the DPRRC has stated, would be subject to only a relatively low level of parliamentary scrutiny.

We rehearsed these arguments in previous debates and I will not rehash them at length now. My noble friend Lord Frost addressed this point on the first day of Report and the risk of dynamic alignment with the EU through this Bill, which the Minister stated was not possible. However, he did not explain why, so I beg to move Amendment 15.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as we have heard, the amendments in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would remove specific provisions from Clause 2, including a paragraph on authorised representatives; a subsection defining who product regulations apply to, which I do not think the noble Lord mentioned; and a subsection on environmental considerations before introducing regulations. We strongly oppose these changes, particularly as we emphasised in Committee the importance of environmental considerations for products. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that since the DPRRC’s report, the Government took on board Amendment 9 on the previous day on Report and undertook to issue statements, which have a statutory consultation process, before such regulations are laid. The idea that there is no accountability has been somewhat set aside so, with those provisions, we do not feel it is conducive to support these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the Minister very much indeed for his remarks. It was remiss of me earlier to not acknowledge again the fact that the Government have gone a long way to addressing what I was going to call the various complaints by the DPRRC, but that might be slightly overstating the case.

I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that consultation is, by definition, as I said earlier, a relatively low level of not necessarily parliamentary scrutiny, and the DPRRC was still not happy with the levels of scrutiny. But that is an argument we have already had and it has been dealt with in a reasonable way.

I appreciate the points that the Minister made, especially about responding to events as they happen. I am grateful that he has spent time with my noble friend Lord Holmes; that offers me a level of reassurance that the Government are listening on this and are aware of all the concerns that have been laid before them by the DPRRC and others. For that reason, I am content to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

29: Clause 4, page 5, line 30, at end insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a comprehensive framework outlining the conditions and procedures for the use of emergency powers under this section.(4) Product regulations providing for emergency disapplication or modification may not be made until this framework has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of both Houses.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to present a framework to Parliament defining the use of emergency powers.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, once again I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Government for their response in Committee, and for confirming that the Office for Product Safety and Standards will be publishing a framework outlining the conditions and procedures for using emergency powers under Clause 4.

However, we feel that it is vital that such a framework is discussed in Parliament. The use of emergency powers must be subject to scrutiny, transparency and democratic accountability. Parliament must have the opportunity to assess the scope, necessity and potential consequences of these powers before they are enacted, otherwise we will risk allowing significant regulatory changes to be made without sufficient oversight, which again potentially impacts business, consumers and public confidence in the regulatory system.

Just like the rest of the clauses in this Bill, there is a level of vagueness in Clause 4. Once again, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has stated, that represents an unacceptable shift in power to the Executive. Emergency powers should not be granted on broad and undefined terms without proper safeguards and clear limitations.

I am also revisiting Amendment 30, which seeks to limit emergency modifications to an initial period of three months. Not only do we need a clear understanding of what may or could constitute an emergency but, even though we acknowledge that emergencies can be by their very nature unpredictable, there is undeniable value in debating this in Parliament. We saw this during Covid-19, where initial emergency measures had to be quickly defined but, over time, continued justification and scrutiny became essential. Three months is more than enough time to assess an emergency, determine whether modifications are still needed, and, if so, bring forward a proper review process with stakeholder consultation. Furthermore, Clause 4 States:

“The disapplication or modification may be made subject to conditions”.


That raises the question: what conditions?

I urge the Government to accept these amendments to enhance transparency, ensure accountability and reaffirm the role of Parliament in overseeing emergency decision-making. I beg to move.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 29 and 30, in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I think these amendments are very helpful to the Government.

I put on record that I believe that both Ministers have engaged. Whatever you say about them—we do not necessarily agree all the time—they engage with the argument, and they respond properly and respectfully. That speaks well of them, their Front Bench and their party on this Bill, even though we may disagree.

I support this amendment because it speaks to a need for flexibility. We know that there will be occasions where there are emergencies which we cannot foresee in any reasonable timescale. My noble friend referenced Covid, which is the most obvious example of recent years.

One of the other issues running through this Bill has been business certainty—businesses having the opportunity to understand the legislation and take measures necessary to ameliorate any impact of it on their businesses. These two very sensible amendments would do that, because they would give business a proper framework and reference point for the sort of emergency secondary legislation that may occur as a result of unforeseen circumstances. They address the imperative—this has been a major theme of this Bill, given the reservations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—for proper scrutiny and oversight because we have so many enabling powers, and give flexibility.

The amendments are not prescriptive. Seeking a proper outline of conditions and procedures for the use of emergency powers does not directly enforce a fear upon Ministers. It does not direct Ministers, and it does not fetter their discretion in acting appropriately in the national interest in the case of emergencies. It nevertheless is a way for Parliament to have an understanding of the actions the Government are taking. As your Lordships’ House knows, we are looking at rationale and definition in Amendment 29, and clarity and certainty in Amendment 30.

My final point is that this will, no doubt, be litigated in the future, as all legislation is. The more certainty and clarity that we put in the Bill, the less chance there is for vexatious litigation arising from any use or discharge of those regulatory powers in unforeseen emergencies.

For those reasons, and because I know the Government are committed to having a proper debate and discussion on the regulations that they intend to use, particularly in emergency circumstances, Ministers should look favourably on these two amendments. They are seeking to be helpful. I do not think, as I have said before, they fundamentally alter the raison d'être of the Bill. I am pleased to support my noble friend’s Amendments 29 and 30.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for returning to these amendments on Report. I also place on the record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for his kind words about me and my colleague.

As discussed in Committee, this is an important debate on how emergency powers are used and scrutinised to ensure appropriate parliamentary oversight, while maintaining the ability to respond quickly in emergency situations. Clause 4 provides the Government with the ability to modify or disapply product regulations in an emergency to ensure the supply of critical products. This could include streamlining conformity assessments or temporarily adjusting certain regulatory requirements to allow essential products to reach the market more quickly, while ensuring public safety remains paramount.

This clause is not about removing oversight but ensuring that, in genuinely urgent situations, we can act swiftly to prevent product shortages, while making sure that parliamentary scrutiny remains central to this approach. Peers will also be aware that Clause 4 is subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that any regulations made under this power must be laid before Parliament and approved before coming into force. This ensures that both Houses have full oversight and provides for full scrutiny of emergency measures.

Amendment 29, which we discussed in Committee, seeks to require the Government to lay a comprehensive framework before Parliament outlining how Clause 4 powers will be used. As I stated in Committee, the Government are already committed to developing a clear framework on how this policy will operate in practice, in consultation with stakeholders. Indeed, as noble Lords will know, the Government have published a code of conduct on product safety that sets out how our product regulation system currently works, and to support the use of the powers under the Bill.

The code sets out the Government’s proposals on how we expect the emergency powers to work. To summarise a few key points, first, a derogation would be made available only if there were a serious risk of harm to people, businesses or the environment, and would be in compliance with the UK’s international obligations. Secondly, it would be granted only for products deemed critical for an emergency response, where demand exceeds supply. Thirdly, in times of emergency, the Government may temporarily reduce or modify requirements for the product to meet essential health and safety requirements for use in certain settings, provided the market surveillance authority is satisfied with the product’s safety and traceability.

The code of conduct, alongside the Government’s planned framework document, provides just the sort of structure the noble Lord appears to be seeking. In addition, the Government will commit to notifying Members when the framework document is available and place a copy in the Libraries of both Houses. Given these points, and coupled with use of the affirmative procedure, we believe the existing oversight mechanisms are sufficient without the need formally to lay the framework document before Parliament.

Amendment 30 proposes a fixed three-month sunset period, including a review prior to extension; this too was debated at length in Committee. As I set out then, while we understand the importance of ensuring that emergency measures do not remain in place indefinitely, a strict three-month limit is not appropriate for all emergencies. The nature and duration of emergencies can vary significantly: some may require short-term interventions while others may necessitate longer regulatory adjustments. As a result, we believe that the right approach is to tailor the use of time limits to the unique circumstances of the emergency, within the associated secondary legislation. We believe that this approach, supplemented by the use of the affirmative procedure, provides proportionate safeguards and ensures the right level of parliamentary oversight.

It is also important to emphasise that product regulations will form only one part of a broader national emergency response. Clause 4 is not a general power for deregulation, but an exceptional provision strictly limited to emergency situations. These measures will always be taken with appropriate safeguards in place, including time limits where appropriate, ensuring that derogation does not compromise public safety or consumer protections. For these reasons, I must resist these amendments once again and I humbly ask the noble Lord not to press them.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, once again I thank the noble Lord for his very detailed response. I also thank the other two noble Lords who spoke in this brief debate, particularly my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. The points he made—that these amendments still afford the Government plenty of flexibility, and of course the litigation point—were extremely good ones and I urge the Government to consider them in future deliberations on these amendments and the subject under discussion. Of course, I understand where the noble Lord is coming from, and I am reassured. On Amendment 29, I accept that the clear framework is going to be fairly and comprehensive, and I appreciate the offer of making sure that it is available for other noble Lords to study. We will of course study it in some detail, but I accept the point he was making, and I think he has given me sufficient reassurance.

On the three-month limit, I of course accept that the nature and duration of an emergency may vary. I still do not, if I am honest, see how that precludes explanation and parliamentary scrutiny, but because I am reassured by the noble Lord’s other remarks and his overall willingness to engage on this subject and others, I am more than happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 29 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I was nearly subject to a flashback, when the when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned the internal market Act, to the memory of the long hours, deep into the night, spent debating the shortcomings and problems that Act could create—as, to some extent, it has. We are indebted to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Thomas, that the framework arrangement was brought into that Act to avoid the clashes that were almost certainly going to occur under its original drafting. We owe them a great debt, and on that basis we should listen when they talk to us on these matters. That is why I was happy to sign the amendment.

Happily, I do not have to add much to this, except that it is necessary. This consultation will happen one way or another. The Minister will know that I specifically asked him when we debated Amendment 9 to confirm from the Dispatch Box that the devolved authorities would be part of the consultation process as set out in the Secretary of State’s statement that will arise from this Bill. I hope that the spirit of this amendment can be in that consultation process and in that statement, so that the devolved authorities know that they will get access, which is very important for all the reasons that have been explained by the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lords.

I have one final point on the Government’s attempt, which I think is sincere, to bring the nations of this country back together again. This is really important for lots of reasons, but it also calls into question how the common frameworks will be used in the future. I do not expect the Minister to answer now but he should set out, in either a letter or a meeting, how those common frameworks will develop. Some people may already know but I am certainly not aware of that. As we know, the future is changing and lots of things are happening. How will the common frameworks and central government’s liaison with the DAs adapt to deal with the changing trading environment? With those provisos, I am happy to support the amendment.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I could not agree more forcefully with the summation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. It was very well put indeed. In general, I also find that improving on the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, is nigh on impossible, so at this point I will confine myself to saying that I agree. On this occasion, I also join the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in his remarks on the consultation; I hope it achieves the things that he has set out. I have nothing else to add, but I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

38: Clause 5, page 6, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may not use any powers under this Act to remove or disapply the use of the pint as a unit of measurement for alcoholic beverages sold or marketed in the United Kingdom.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the pint remains an accepted unit of measurement for alcoholic beverages.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 38 standing in my name. As I stated in Committee, a pint of beer is not a bloodless, intangible item: it is a tangible institution. It is linked to our history and to a part of our heritage. The pint is a well-established unit of measurement in the UK that is recognised and understood by consumers and businesses alike. Removing or disapplying the use of the pint for alcoholic beverages would create unnecessary confusion, disrupt long-standing practices and sever a cultural and historical connection that has endured for centuries.

While we debate this issue of tradition and measurement, we must not lose sight of the real and immediate crisis facing pubs, brewers and the wider hospitality industry. The Budget announced by the Government has inflicted more damage on an industry that was already under enormous pressure. The UK’s core hospitality trade bodies—UKHospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association, the British Institute of Innkeeping, and Hospitality Ulster—have issued a stark warning. Pubs, brewers and hospitality venues will be forced to make painful decisions to weather these new costs, which will have a damaging impact on businesses, jobs and communities.

However, something else deserves mention here. Just recently, there was significant concern over how the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill could force pub landlords to monitor patrons’ conversations to avoid any potential harassment of staff. In effect, landlords might be asked to become the banter police, forced to scrutinise and restrict what customers say to avoid liability. After all of that, therefore, protecting the British pint is the very least the Government should do. I urge the Government to accept this amendment and protect the pint, and, more importantly, to ensure that our pubs and breweries remain places where our history, culture and heritage continue to flourish without unnecessary interference. I beg to move.

Amendment 38ZA (to Amendment 38)

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

38ZA: Leave out from “to” to end and insert “amend or repeal section 8(2)(d) of, or Part IV of Schedule 1 to, the Weights and Measures Act 1985.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment is not just about protecting the pint in the Bill; it would also ensure that the pint remains protected in law. That is why this amendment is rooted in primary legislation—the Weights and Measures Act 1985—rather than being limited to the scope of the Bill. By embedding these protections in the broader legislative framework, we ensure that the pint remains a legally defined unit of measurement, safeguarded from regulatory drift, ministerial discretion or future legislative changes that could weaken its status.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for introducing his own amendment, for two reasons. First, it got me thinking about the broad, and therefore possibly flawed, drafting of my own Amendment 38; secondly, the noble Lord’s amendment is also flawed. It addresses the marketing of the pint, which is important, but it does not mirror the wording of the Weights and Measures Act 1985. If sales are banned, marketing is redundant. A mere definition of the pint within this Bill does not ensure that the existing legally binding protections remain intact.

That is where my amendment is different: we are closing any potential gaps, removing any possible loop- holes and ensuring that the pint remains fully protected in trade, measurement and law, and, most importantly, that there can be no future confusion with regard to existing legislation.

In the other House, Daisy Cooper said that the pint is well and truly safe,

“so this scaremongering is just total nonsense.”—”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/25; col. 814.]

If that were true, why the change in Liberal Democrat hearts? Why introduce their own amendment on this matter? It seems that now, they recognise that explicit legal protection is necessary.

I understand that the Government were sympathetic to the purpose of my Amendment 38 but were concerned about the drafting and various technical details, so I hope this manuscript amendment addresses those concerns in full and will ensure that the pint remains Britain’s favourite. I hope the Government will now accept the amendment, and I look forward to their support, as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the Liberal Democrats.

“Fancy a pint?” remains one of the most pleasing questions in the English language. Let us make sure it stays that way. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, when I saw the manuscript amendment some time mid-morning, I was disappointed. I thought we were not going to get a reprise of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, which very few of your Lordships will have appreciated, because it was in Grand Committee, but I am relieved that he was able to give another rendition of it before speaking to the amendment. I understand he may take it on tour to provincial theatres—if he can get the backing.

The noble Lord having tabled this amendment, we then find a manuscript amendment, on which I have to say I congratulate the noble Lord. I have not participated in a manuscript amendment process before, so it was quite good to see it in action. As he noted, last week the Opposition chose to use some of their time in the Commons to debate the noble Lord’s then amendment. He mentioned the speech of my colleague, Daisy Cooper. I commend it to your Lordships, because it was both engaging and very thorough, setting out all the things the Conservative Government did to make the job of a publican much, much harder.

On a serious note, I join the noble Lord in saying, “Minister, please don’t repeat those errors. Many of Britain’s pubs are teetering on the brink; please don’t be the Government who make the final push.” But that is a debate for another day and another Bill, which we will see soon. The issue described by this amendment is not that fatal push for those publicans. For some inexplicable reason, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, chose to split his amendment from my Amendments 38A and 38B. I will be giving the speech I would have given, had they been in the same group, but I assure your Lordships that I will not then repeat that speech when we get to the next group.

I do not believe that the Minister or his Government have ever had any intention of banning the pint glass, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, does not believe that either. However, what we are talking about now is some form of reassurance. So while my honourable friend Daisy Cooper talked about this being unnecessary, she and I agree that this is an opportunity for the Government to reassure people that they have no intention of doing it, and that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned in a different context, a future Government would not have that option either.

I ask myself, if the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is so passionate about the pint, why does he not also care about the pinta? The iconic pint milk bottle is so redolent of the UK, and it deserves the same reassuring protection as the pint glass. I have to say that my father milked cows: milk flows through my veins. So I tabled Amendment 38A, which ensures that both the pint and the pinta enjoy the reassurance of this Bill. It was the tabling of this new amendment, Amendment 38A, that caused the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to remember that, as well as bars, there are doorsteps. Perhaps the two should not be mixed—certainly not sequentially.

It caused him to realise that he was in danger of proposing an amendment that forgets the milkmen and women on their pre-dawn delivery rounds in so many of our streets—the whir of the float, the clink of the crates. A manuscript amendment was tabled this morning. I did not know that manuscript amendments could be used to completely change an amendment; I thought they were for spelling errors and suchlike. If my mother were still alive, she would have deemed it too clever by half. Sadly, she is not.

The purpose of this debate is to assure the public of the continuation of the use of this iconic imperial measure for the purposes we have discussed. I am not entirely sure that the manuscript amendment, Amendment 38ZA, buttons things down in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asserts, but I do know that Amendment 38A does this, in plain sight and with no cross-referencing.

I think that the Minister and I see eye to eye on this. That is why I am hopeful that he will indicate support for my Amendments 38A and 38B, and that the Government will accept both. It is clear that, in the event of that acceptance, the hastily amended effort from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would be unnecessary. Amendment 38A covers both alcohol and milk. By persuading the Government to accept it, we will have ensured clear and overt reassurance of the preservation of the pint and the pinta. This assurance, and the knowledge that this measure will endure and not be reversed by a Commons majority, are important. We will not support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, safe in the knowledge that we have rewritten the Bill effectively and avoided any reverse or any ping-pong.

--- Later in debate ---

I once again note the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and thank him for raising this issue. Indeed, I may well express my thanks by buying him a pint later, as I will definitely need one myself. With that offer, and in the knowledge that the alternative amendments will provide stronger protections for the pint than those he has proposed, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate both noble Lords on what were semantic masterpieces. The simple fact is that the amendment I have tabled transposes the language of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 in a very similar way to that of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. It does include the pint of milk. By the way, when the noble Lord said that milk runs through his veins, I am pretty sure I heard somebody behind me saying that it is certainly not blood.

This is a complex area, and I do not believe that these amendments are sufficient to save the pint. The simple fact of the matter is that sales and marketing are not the same thing. They may often appear in the same job title; that does not give them equal weight, or indeed equal measure. I am not satisfied with the answer. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 38.

Amendment 38 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as noted, I have already spoken to this amendment. I thank the Minister for indicating that the Government will support it and Amendment 38B. It is on the latter that I shall say a few words. If Amendment 38A is there to reassure, Amendment 38B is there to define. There have been a number of statutory instruments that define the units we use. For the avoidance of doubt, Amendment 38B defines the volume of a pint in primary law as 0.56826125 cubic decimetres. For those of your Lordships querying the definition of a decimetre, I recommend the statutory instrument brought to your Lordships’ House during Covid in 2020. I believe that the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and I were among the only Peers physically in Parliament when he brought to Grand Committee his amendment to the Weights and Measures Act 1985. That enshrined an accurate definition of both the metre and the kilogram in law. For metrology fans, it is a debate that I thoroughly recommend. That said, I beg to move Amendment 38A.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Obviously, we do not have a huge amount to say at this precise moment, but I point out for the record that manuscript Amendment 38ZA included reference to Part IV of Schedule 1 to the Weights and Measures Act 1985, which also specifies 0.56826125 cubic decimetres. Once again, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on his masterclass in semantics. Had he accepted mine, this amendment would have been entirely unnecessary. With that, I have nothing left to say.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his amendments on preserving the pint in relation both to draft beer and cider and to milk in returnable containers. As I outlined on the last group, the Government propose to accept these amendments. They will bring greater clarity and certainty to protect the use of the pint, delivering the intent of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for bringing these alternative amendments forward. I hope that the House will accept Amendments 38A and 38B. Having these workable provisions in the Bill will send an important message that the pint is here to stay. I look forward to raising a pint with both the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Fox, in due course. Cheers.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

8: Clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (2) that will disadvantage the United Kingdom or its trade under—(a) the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership,(b) the Japan Economic Comprehensive Partnership Agreement,(c) the UK-Canada Trade Continuity Agreement,(d) the UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement,(e) the UK-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, or(f) any other trade treaties to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, including any free trade agreement with the United States of America.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 8 is a vital safeguard to ensure that the UK’s regulatory decisions do not inadvertently disadvantage our trade relationships with some of the world’s most dynamic economies. The global economic balance is shifting. Others have alluded to the statistics in previous debates, but they are very straightforward and bear repeating. The US economy is growing while the EU’s share of global GDP is shrinking. Fifteen years ago, the US and the EU each accounted for around 22% of global GDP; today, the US share has grown to 26.3% while the EU’s has declined to 17.3%. These are simple facts, not qualitative judgments.

The economic future lies with markets that are expanding, not contracting; for the record, that is not the same as arguing that it may not still be in our interests to align with some of those in certain cases. Britain’s membership of the CPTPP, for example—one of the fastest-growing trade blocs—will soon be under way, creating immense opportunities for British businesses. With the US, our largest single trading partner, which accounts for about 16% of all UK exports, Britain trades under its own laws. It is essential that our regulatory framework reflects this reality and does not impose unnecessary constraints that hinder our ability to capitalise on these agreements.

The importance of strengthening our economic ties with the US cannot be overstated. On 20 January, the Minister acknowledged that:

“The US is a country that we have to deal with, and our businesses ask us to work with the US”.—[Official Report, 20/1/25; col. 1474.]


We agree. We recognise and acknowledge that the slow progress is no fault of the Government’s, and there will be more to say on that in the months to come; but alignment with the EU, for example, as President Trump’s advisers have made clear, would make a free trade deal with the US all but impossible. Stephen Moore, a senior economic adviser to President Trump, recently stated that Britain must decide whether it wants to follow “the European socialist model” or embrace the US free market. His warning is clear: if the UK continues to shift towards EU-style regulations and economic policies, the United States will be far less inclined to pursue a free trade agreement with it.

This amendment ensures that our regulatory framework does not create barriers to securing future trade deals or diminish the competitive advantages that we have gained because of Brexit. This amendment is about ensuring that our trade policy remains aligned with our national interest and therefore supports jobs, investment and economic growth on the global stage.

I draw attention to a serious concern raised about deep regulatory alignment with the EU, particularly in the context of the UK’s position with the CPTPP. When the UK acceded to the CPTPP, it underwent a regulatory review to ensure that its domestic regulations complied with CPTPP obligations. This included scrutiny of various sectors, including agri-food, where Canada raised concerns about the UK’s precautionary prohibition on hormone-treated beef. The UK was ultimately allowed to accede despite this issue, but significant uncertainty remains about how the UK’s alignment with the EU’s regulatory model in the agri-food sector, among others, would be received by other CPTPP parties. Regardless of whether it is better for the UK to align with the EU or the CPTPP, can the Minister confirm that this should be a matter for debate in Parliament? The potential implications of such a decision are far-reaching, and Parliament must have the opportunity to engage in a thorough and informed discussion on this matter.

As the Government have put forward a Bill that has done nothing but provide uncertainty to this House, my Amendment 64 introduces the basic yet crucial requirement of accountability. If their No. 1 priority is truly growth, they must give serious consideration to this amendment. All it does is ask them to conduct an impact assessment on future economic growth—in other words, it allows room for manoeuvre. Businesses need stability, consumers need confidence and Parliament needs clarity.

As we have discussed at some length, unnecessary ambiguity about the future regulatory framework risks deterring investment and slowing economic progress at a time when we can least afford it. To be clear, growth is not achieved through vague promises or by blindly introducing sweeping powers without accountability. It is achieved by ensuring that every piece of legislation contributes positively to our economy. That is an aim we believe this Government should share, and for that reason I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 8 and 64 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. We are playing on a similar set of variations that we have already played on in several groups. These two amendments are intended to impose additional restrictions on the implementation of this Act.

As we have heard, Amendment 8 prevents the Secretary of State making regulations that could be seen as disadvantaging the UK, or conflicting with its trade agreements. The amendment goes on to list a range of trade agreements, which assumes that if you agree with one of them, you are going to agree with all of them. There is a nature where you have to choose; there are puts and takes. All those trade agreements have varying conditions, and the Government’s job is to try to choose the best option, in a sort of 3D chess game, to make sure that they do the best for this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, pointed out. But there is a sort of “cake and eat it” idea, that if we do not do the EU, then we can somehow do all those in the list set out by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. His example then illustrates exactly that we cannot, because there are issues in all of these that we will agree and disagree with. The Government’s role is to have a sufficient tool that enables them to move in the right direction.

I am surprised that the noble Lord chose an agri-food example because, as far as I am aware, that is not in the scope of the Bill, but I may be wrong. Perhaps there are other examples but, using his example, I do not see the banning of the hormone boosting of beef as being something the Europeans imposed on me. I am very pleased we have it, and if I am not in the European Union, I still expect the United Kingdom to uphold those kinds of standards for rearing meat in this country. If the Minister is proposing a wholesale change in the United Kingdom’s animal husbandry processes, techniques and security, then perhaps he should tell your Lordships what other things he expects to change about our food, because they are there to protect consumers from the effects of hormones and antibiotics leaking into our system. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, will probably have lots of statistics, but I hope she does not use them at this time of night.

Neither of these amendments is helpful to the process, and in both cases—particularly the second— I question how an impact assessment of what I think the Minister is proposing can be done. The impact will happen through the regulations that the Act is used to implement. Until we know what the regulations are, we do not know what the impact will be. It is perfectly reasonable for the Minister to say that when the Government are tabling a new regulation, we want to know what the impact of that regulation will be on the economy, the environment and other things. We cannot do a holistic analysis of the impact of the Bill without taking into consideration all the regulations that the Bill will cause to happen. I hope he understands what I am saying. With that in view, it seems to me to be deliberately slowing up the implementation of the Act, and we do not see that the nation benefits from that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank both noble Lords for their responses. I will answer some of the specific questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. First, I am very grateful for him calling me a Minister on more than one occasion; I would that were the case.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

It is Stockholm syndrome.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Secondly, I point out that the amendment does not prevent; it just says that it should not “disadvantage”. That is not mere semantics but a very substantive point which, I would argue, invalidates the noble Lord’s arguments.

To both noble Lords I would say that the reason I chose the agri-food example—I am well aware that it is not covered in the scope of this Bill—is that it is highly topical and relates to a current trade agreement. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that I did not say that we should not have a ban on hormone-treated beef; I said merely that the merits of such a ban should be debated in Parliament.

I thank the Minister for his response. It was very comprehensive, but it is disappointing that the Government will not accept Amendment 8. We believe this is a proposal that does nothing but strengthen the Bill. It promotes the very growth that Ministers are claiming to prioritise. Given the importance of this issue, I think we have not found agreement and therefore I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for bringing this up. It was a good idea to have these amendments, and clearly the issue comes in two different parts.

I was happy to vote for the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. The issue of what I would call piracy is one that we should all be very concerned about, having as we do a national creative industry that we need to protect and preserve.

I am going to throw myself on the mercy of the Government, because I am not 100% sure that some of the products being mentioned in connection with music fall into this category. Consumer products can do, or not, so to some extent we may find that the noble Lord’s suggestions fall into categories that do not necessarily get covered by the Bill. I will be interested to hear from the Government on that, because I should know the answer, but I do not. My sense, having heard what the noble Lord had to say on his Bill, is that we should have another conversation with the Minister about the code of conduct. There is quite a lot of work to be done on the pre-scrutiny of products process to understand where AI has come in.

To single out the energy use of AI from any other energy use is a little strange. If you are buying a product and you care about energy use, it is not just a question of the energy consumed by AI technology. If it is made of steel, a large proportion of the energy came from somewhere else, and that is still important if energy is important to us. On subjects like energy use, there is one set of considerations, and on the use of other people’s intellectual property there is another. That is where we should have a conversation with the Minister.

On the issue of design for accessibility, I agree with the noble Lord. Again, when we have that conversation, the Minister can suggest what the best route might be to take that forward. Perhaps there is more work to be done, and I am happy to join the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the Minister if they want me there.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

That was an interesting, if brief, debate. Before speaking to my amendment, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes for his important amendments. As has been pointed out, Amendment 37 deals with the concept of “inclusive by design”, which is obviously vital in creating products that cater for everyone. It ensures accessibility, usability and fairness across all sorts of diverse populations. By designing products with inclusivity in mind from the start, we acknowledge the varied needs of consumers, including those with disabilities, elderly users and so on.

Through his Amendment 36, my noble friend has raised an important issue. Labelling AI-generated content, including music, is crucial to ensuring transparency and consumer protection. This subject is growing in prominence and importance, and I have little doubt that we will return to it. In a world where AI-generated works are becoming more prevalent, it is essential that consumers can distinguish between content created by humans and that created by AI.

In addressing my Amendment 43, I begin by referencing the Government’s Explanatory Notes, which, as my noble friend Lord Camrose has mentioned, state that consideration is given to the need to be able to adapt to new technologies such as artificial intelligence. With that in mind, we have tabled this amendment to promote innovation and investment in the UK’s AI sector, which will continue to be vital in the coming years.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Leong, that this not an AI Bill, but this is not particularly an AI amendment. It is not about what AI is or does. Many of those discussions, as we have heard in this brief debate, have yet to be had in broader society, never mind in this House. However, we have to acknowledge that the UK has a thriving tech sector that has consistently been a leader in developing cutting-edge technologies, and we want to strengthen it by ensuring that we have sensible, pro-growth AI regulation that fosters innovation while safeguarding consumer interests. That should include a focus on small and medium-sized enterprises, which are vital for generating new ideas and driving technological advancements.

International competitiveness is crucial, especially in emerging technologies like AI. We have already seen how overly burdensome regulations such as those proposed in the EU’s AI Act can have a stifling effect on innovation. When the EU’s AI Act was in the works, executives from 160 leading companies in the industry came together and drafted an open letter warning of the potential negative consequences of excessively strict regulations. They highlighted that such an approach could ultimately harm businesses, slow innovation, put Europe at a competitive disadvantage globally and therefore, by extension, aid those in other parts of the world whose intentions are perhaps not so benign as we like to think ours are.

We must avoid falling into the same trap here in the UK. It is essential to ensure that AI is developed responsibly and ethically, but we must strike the right balance. Overregulating this vital sector could choke off the growth of our tech ecosystem, discourage investment and drive the innovation that we need here overseas. This amendment aims to protect this growing and vital industry. It is specifically drafted in such a way as to ensure that British industries have their interests taken into account, and that, of course, includes SMEs. I urge the Government to accept.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“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.(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.(4) When taking action to improve regulation under this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to maintaining the highest quality regulatory framework.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, this Bill has a troubled history. It should not have been introduced to either House in its current form. It has now fallen foul of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on three occasions and of the Constitution Committee on two occasions. We acknowledge the Government’s efforts to assuage the DPRRC’s concerns, and we thank the Minister for engaging so fulsomely and openly and driving through a number of government concessions. Those concessions are welcome, and we will support them, but, regrettably, they do not go far enough, in our view.

I speak today about the critical importance of having a purpose clause in the Bill, and its implications for the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy. In its current form, the Bill contains no explicit mention of respecting the UK’s regulatory autonomy, which is the foundation of a prosperous, independent economy. This absence is exactly why we need this purpose clause: to fill that gap and provide clear direction for the actions of the Secretary of State under the provisions of the Bill. After all, the reason we left the European Union was to regain the ability to make our own decisions, free from external control. Yet without this purpose clause, the Bill does not sufficiently safeguard the autonomy we have worked so hard to reclaim. This is precisely why we need this purpose clause. It explicitly addresses the need to protect and prioritise the UK’s regulatory autonomy in any actions taken under the Bill. It would establish a guiding principle that the Government must always act in a way that protects the UK’s sovereignty in regulating products and metrology, free from undue influence by foreign laws or regulations.

By explicitly requiring the Secretary of State to ensure that regulations are of the highest quality, this proposed new clause would push the Government to focus on creating a regulatory environment that stimulates rather than stifles business, and extend a clear message that the UK’s regulatory framework should encourage technological development, support start-ups, protect consumers and ultimately contribute to economic growth. We live in a highly competitive global market, where businesses need certainty and the freedom to operate according to clear and fair rules. A regulatory framework that ties the UK’s hands by aligning with foreign laws could create significant barriers to growth and innovation.

I appreciate that this preamble is lengthy in the context of an amendment on Report, but the proposed addition of this purpose clause makes sense only with some of that historical context. These arguments will inform many of our other amendments, so noble Lords will be relieved that they will not need to listen to them again too often.

If the Government are determined to force through this unfinished skeletal legislation in the teeth of perfectly reasonable objections from the committees of this House, and, indeed, from their own Attorney-General, the least we can do is give the Bill an overarching purpose: to improve the regulation of products and metrology, while prioritising the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy. If the Government are serious in their stated growth intentions—earlier today, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, said, “We will always act in the national interest to secure what is best for Britain, British businesses and citizens”—surely they will find nothing to object to in either of those aims and will therefore accept this amendment. I beg to move.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have given up so many hours to meet me and my officials to go through this Bill. I really appreciate those meetings. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his amendment seeking to introduce a new clause about the purpose of the Bill. Likewise, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon.

We have had many hours of debate on the Bill and I think that we all support the intent of this amendment—the importance of improving product regulation. On that, I hope that there is consensus. As the Secretary of State for Business and Trade pointed out when giving evidence to the Lords International Agreements Committee, the powers that the Bill would provide give the UK regulatory autonomy. If the previous Government had continued in office, they would have needed the same Bill.

We require this Bill, as powers in other legislation are inadequate for updating our extensive product metrology and regulatory regime and responding to new risks and threats. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, about secondary legislation. This is about 2,000 pages of highly technical regulations. It is not a good use of parliamentary time to use primary legislation every time these are updated. There are, however, differences in how we go about improving regulation. That often requires a balance to be struck, such as where obligations sit, or regarding requirements that businesses must meet. That nuanced debate, which we heard during the Bill’s passage, may not be best served by introducing a broad “purpose to improve” in the Bill.

The Bill is about strengthening the UK’s regulatory autonomy. It will make sure that there are appropriate powers to regulate products to suit the UK’s needs and interests. Parliament will have ultimate control, with oversight of the regulations made under the Bill. The Bill is about providing powers to enable the UK to change regulation to suit the UK’s needs and interests, ensuring consumer safety and certainty for businesses. The Bill is necessary because we do not currently have those powers as a nation state. As I said earlier, all changes will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

I hope that I have been able to outline why this amendment is not necessary and ask that it be withdrawn.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly my noble friends Lord Lansley, Lord Frost, Lord Jackson and Lady Lawlor for their support of this amendment. I also thank my noble friend Lord Deben for his intervention, which gives me an opportunity to agree with my noble friend Lord Jackson that this is absolutely not about relitigating Brexit. Regulatory autonomy guarantees the freedom to pursue the best-quality regulation, as is made clear in the amendment. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause states:

“The purpose of this Act is to improve the regulation of products and metrology”.


There is no disagreement about that, and it more than takes care of the lawnmower that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to. Precisely as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, it allows the Government to retain control.

The Minister asserts that the previous Government would have delivered this Bill in its current form. They would not have done so; it would not have come in this form. As my noble friend Lord Jackson pointed out, this amendment is straightforward. There does not seem to be much disagreement about the purpose of the Bill. Therefore, I am at a bit of a loss as to why the Government will not just accept the amendment. As my noble friend Lord Jackson pointed out, it provides clarity, certainty and explicit purpose. I am afraid that I am not satisfied with the Minister’s response and would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fire Safety and Rescue. In that context, I support Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and endorse his comments on lithium batteries, given that I had similar amendments in Committee. Importantly, the product is not included, and I hope the Government will be able to take note of that and help.

I also support Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I think I was the first person at Second Reading to raise the question of criminal issues. The amendment helps us to get to a solution that provides scrutiny. Early scrutiny by Parliament is much stronger than the affirmative procedure.

I continue to support the campaign of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which is encapsulated in her Amendment 26. I also support the powerful example given to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman. However, I disagree, in that, in my view, tampons should be as well-regulated as blusher. They should be deemed to be a medical device, for all the biocidal reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, explained —and I will not rehearse those. I remind your Lordships’ House that paragraph 9 of the schedule at the end of the Bill removes medicines and medical devices as defined in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act. Unfortunately, with period and incontinence products there are health issues. If they are not defined under that Act, there needs to be some way of recognising that they have an impact on individual health. I therefore support Amendment 26 and hope that the Government will listen to that as well.

I should also point out that there is more information on the government website about the correct taxation of period products and incontinence products than there is elsewhere on the health issues.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments in this instructive and interesting debate. I am a little wary about speaking after finding out how much plastic is in our brains, because that is obviously potentially to invite unfavourable comment.

I shall speak sympathetically to my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendments 3 and 12. One of the many problems that we have already discussed at some length, now and in Committee, is the vagueness of the Bill as drafted. That lack of clarity creates significant uncertainty for both businesses and consumers, so I thank my noble friend for his contributions. His amendments offer important suggestions that could help to address some of these issues, particularly by expanding the definition of safety and, indeed, providing a definition of safety.

As technology continues to develop, it is critical that we recognise that our understanding of what constitutes safety must also evolve. My noble friend’s amendments reflect that forward-thinking approach, acknowledge that new technologies and innovations may require updates to safety standards over time and, by expanding the definition, would ensure that the legislation remained flexible and adaptable, allowing for future growth and innovation without sacrificing safety. As my noble friend pointed out, different language suggests different outcomes, so I hope the Minister will be able to address that in answering my noble friend’s questions. We believe that these amendments provide much-needed clarity in areas where the Bill could have been more precise, and we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for bringing this issue into sharper focus.

Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Lindsay—who, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, pointed out, is president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute—has significant merit. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, made a persuasive case, with some alarming statistics and illustrations. Consumers should have confidence that the products they buy, whether from a high street store or an online platform, are safe and, if things go wrong, that there is a clear route to accountability. By allowing regulations to extend liability to online marketplaces and ensuring the proper disclosure of evidence in claims for compensation, this amendment would strengthen consumer rights and help to create a fairer system. We will return at a later stage to the definitions of online marketplaces.

Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would also help to do things better. I should remind the noble Lord that, in effect, it would mean more consultation. I am reluctant to remind the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, of this, but the DPRRC, on which she sits, said in its most recent report on 21 February that

“consultation is not a substitute for Parliamentary scrutiny”.

However, I recognise that, in pointing that out, I am probably flogging something of a dead horse.

I turn to Amendment 26 and the other amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which were spoken to—again, very persuasively—by the noble Baronesses, Lady Freeman and Lady Smith. These amendments address an important issue: ensuring that period products meet high safety standards while also considering their environmental impact. Given that these products are used by millions of women and girls, often over a lifetime, it is only right that their safety, composition and labelling are subject to clear and effective regulation; the list of organisations quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is illustrative of the interest in this particular area.

The safety and regulation of period products is a matter of both public health and consumer protection, so ensuring that individuals can make informed choices about the products they use is obviously essential. Amendment 26 seeks to introduce clear and necessary provisions for testing, marking and risk information, reflecting the need for greater transparency and oversight in this area. By addressing both single-use and reusable products, it acknowledges the evolving nature of the market while prioritising safety and well-being. We ask the Government to take further consideration and to carry out additional study on this important area—and, indeed, to expand it to some of the other areas that the noble Baroness mentioned, such as the formaldehyde that is present in non-iron shirts. Of course, one of the other uses of formaldehyde is to preserve dead bodies; I am not sure what that tells us about our sartorial choices, but there we are.

As the market for period products continues to evolve—particularly with increasing interest in reusable products—it is obviously essential that any regulation stays relevant and up to date, so we expect to return to this issue in future health-related Bills. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made some very good points about the fact that these products should be treated as medical devices; those deserve to be explored further. It is crucial that we continue to monitor and adapt the regulation of these products in order to ensure that public health and consumer protection are maintained.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. May I put on the record that I do not buy any non-iron shirts? I am pretty old-fashioned: I buy 100% cotton shirts.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for Amendments 3 and 12. Both in Committee and on Report, he has illustrated his thoughtful scrutiny of this legislation. A major element of our product regulations, and a focal point of this Bill, is consumer safety. Safety is at the very heart of this Bill, but products exist on a spectrum of risk, which can be mitigated to different levels and in different ways. That is why the Bill refers to risk rather than to safety.

Turning to Amendment 7, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his consistent and thoughtful engagement on this issue; I also thank him for his relentless campaigning on both this issue and areas such as lithium-ion batteries and various other fire risks. In many ways, he has got to the nub of our system of product regulation with his amendment and his remarks: how do we consider risks from products? I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his constructive discussions and for tabling Amendment 9.

As I set out in Committee, our current system of product regulation quantifies risk in a number of ways. At the most basic level, all consumer products must meet the baseline general safety requirements unless specific, additional or unusual risks are identified and they therefore need additional bespoke requirements; cosmetics or pressure equipment may be an example of that. Identifying and assessing risk are already at the very heart of Clause 1; indeed, it is inherent in passing product regulations that a risk must be identified in the first place. The powers in this Bill already enable regulations to consider product risks and the response to them in such cross-cutting ways.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I was going to give a long analysis of the economics that demonstrate how poorly manufacturing businesses have performed since the implementation of the trade and co-operation agreement, but that would have been a Second Reading speech, so I decided not to give it. Instead, I will speak to the amendments we have before us. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for tabling his amendment and for allowing me to sign up to it.

Members on the Conservative Benches seem to find terror wherever they go. There is danger; there are plots, schemes and Trojan horses all over place. I would not like to live in their world; it must be very frightening. This Bill does what it says it does, and this amendment does what it says it does. It makes simple a process that has been put forward very carefully and in a measured way by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.

There are all sorts of things that the Liberal Democrats would like to do that are far more extreme than the noble Lord’s amendment, but we recognise the limitations of this legislation and the nature of what we are debating. That is why I have supported the noble Lord, Lord Russell. It is a simple and modest measure that has the practical benefit of helping out businesses.

To close, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said that it would not be sensible to close off options—quite. Closer alignment with EU regulations within the government negotiated red lines would yield a boost to the UK economy of between 1% and 2%. That sounds like an option to me.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour and the closeness of the dinner break, I will also be very brief. I thank my noble friends Lord Frost, Lord Jackson and Lady Lawlor for bringing forward these important amendments. I was happy to sign some of them. They raise a fundamental concern about the potential alignment with the European Union, specifically through regulations that could be made under the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Frost put it, that is a significant constitutional matter and, I might add, it is one that has been highlighted by the Constitution Committee—again, we are back to the committees of your Lordships’ House.

The issue at hand is that, as currently drafted, the Bill contains provisions which would allow the United Kingdom’s regulatory framework to align with EU laws in—this is key—a dynamic or ambulatory manner. This means that, as time goes on, our regulations could automatically change in line with the evolving laws of the EU without any further scrutiny or review by the Houses of Parliament. This is deeply problematic. It would allow the UK to be influenced by regulatory frameworks and standards that are set externally and potentially lock us into a regulatory direction that we do not wish to follow. That is not the same as saying that we should not be able to adapt, adopt, negotiate, recognise or seek mutual recognition of the best regulations from whichever equivalent regime they come from.

These amendments address and achieve the aims set out so eloquently by my noble friends. If my noble friend is minded to test the opinion of the House later, we will support him.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate. Although more general issues to do with Brexit have emerged, it has been very helpful to focus minds on what this Bill will actually do rather than the fears some noble Lords have expressed. In essence, all the Bill does is to allow the United Kingdom to choose to recognise or to end recognition of relevant EU product requirements where it is in the interests of both consumers and businesses so to do. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell. He was certainly right to acknowledge the contribution of chambers of commerce. I understand the point he made about business requiring transparency, predictability and stability, and I would add a flexible approach to alignment within that context.

Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is right that the ultimate interest is the public interest—the interest of consumers. That goes to the heart of what we are seeking to do. Essentially, the power in Clause 1(2) will allow us to update UK regulations which address the environmental impact of products where a similar provision exists in EU law. We know the EU is updating its product safety regulations. We are seeing an increase in the changes being made, including provisions to mitigate products’ environmental impact. This power will allow us to provide regulatory certainty and stability for industry.

Let me make it clear that this is not designed to regulate the wider environment but to let us choose whether to make similar product rules where we believe it is in the interests of the country so to do. Clause 2(7) makes clear that we can provide that requirements in our own law can be satisfied by meeting specified EU requirements. We believe that this means we can act in the best interest of our businesses and consumers. Let me make it clear that these clauses in no way oblige the UK to recognise or mirror EU provisions. Let me reassure the House that we have been clear that such decisions will be taken only on a case-by-case basis and will be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for his introduction, but I am slightly baffled by this SI. I looked up whether the Commons had had its debate on it and found that it took place on 21 May 2024. Then I looked at the impact assessment, which seems to be dated 2023. I do not quite know why we are dealing with a historic SI almost a year later. What has happened in the intervening period? The Minister did not mention anything to do with that. Is this some oversight by the department? Has something happened? Was somebody ill and could not deal with this in the House of Lords? It is a rather peculiar situation.

The second rather strange aspect of this is that, when the Automated Vehicles Bill was going through, my noble friend the late Baroness Randerson, who was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Smith—it is rather coincidental that this was one of her big issues: automated vehicles and the data relating to them—raised questions about protection of personal privacy and the national security implications of the data being retained by manufacturers of automated vehicles. She also raised the possibility of a cyberattack that could paralyse traffic over a considerable area. Those concerns were also raised by my honourable friend Wera Hobhouse in the Commons at the same time. I think the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, might be interested in this: we were assured at that time by Ministers in the previous Government that GDPR was good enough protection in respect of automated vehicles, despite the concerns expressed by my late noble friend Baroness Randerson. Now it turns out, as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, that special provisions are needed.

Again, this is rather baffling. We seem to be hearing either that we have an administrative problem or that there was a misunderstanding about the intended policy. In some respects, I should be pleased that the Explanatory Memorandum sets out more safeguards, because if we are going to exempt these three areas—in particular, automated vehicles—we need to know that those safeguards will be in place through other mechanisms. I will go through what those might be and put questions to the Minister about them.

How will the collection, storage and use of personal data by automated vehicles be regulated to ensure compliance with data protection laws? What specific criteria must be met for a person or body to be authorised as a self-driving entity, particularly concerning data protection? Do they need to obtain a certificate of compliance with data protection legislation from the ICO, for instance? How can the public be reassured that their personal data will be protected? How will the regulations ensure that personal data is protected, not only during vehicle operation but after the ownership of a vehicle has ended? What are these robust personal data practices that need to be in place for companies to be authorised as self-driving entities?

What information about the data for the authorisation of automated vehicles must be provided and to whom? Will the Secretary of State consult the Information Commissioner’s Office before making regulations relating to the provision of personal data in automated vehicles, and will the ICO be including elements to do with personal data and automated vehicles in its annual report to Parliament? How will the Government protect against potential cyberattacks on automated vehicle systems?

Specifically, how do the regulations for consumer connectable products under the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act interact with those that apply to automated vehicles and their components? Does this exempt the whole of the automated vehicle or, rather, particular connectable items in automated vehicles that would in fact be covered by the PSTI Act? How will the regulations prevent anti-competitive practices by vehicle manufacturers who might use data to restrict competition between them and independent operators?

The Explanatory Memorandum talks about the CAVPASS programme, which provides some information that is relevant. Currently, however, it does not deal directly with these specific questions regarding data handling in automated vehicles. We are promised, I think, that something is coming down the track in 2025. There is mention of a staged approach to regulations, which suggests that future measures will be introduced. When can we expect more information of the kind that I have raised? Is it not long overdue, given the speed of development of these vehicles? They are already in pilot form and we need to know that our data is secure. We are still left with questions, despite all that. I doubt whether CAVPASS is necessarily going to cover how data is collected in relation to cybersecurity and how they will be protected in that respect.

There are quite a lot of questions here, and it is rather peculiar that we were not in a position to ask these questions at the same time as the House of Commons last May. I am therefore looking forward to what the Minister has to say in reply.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that something did happen, and that was the general election, which we, unfortunately, lost. That no doubt explains something of the delay.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has asked some pertinent questions. I will keep mine a little more general, because this SI amends the original regulations and broadens the exceptions under Schedule 3. The most notable change concerns the automotive sector, as has been noted, where vehicles were previously exempt from certain cybersecurity provisions.

The new regulations align the UK’s approach with international standards. They recognise the unique nature of vehicle systems and the need for specialised cybersecurity measures. UN Regulation No. 155 on cyber security and cybersecurity management systems, which governs the security of vehicles, is now set to be the primary framework for automotive security. As far as it goes, that would obviously seem eminently sensible, but the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has highlighted that there are a number of broader, perhaps more philosophical, questions about the direction of travel—that is not a pun—with regard to EVs, self-driving vehicles and vehicle autonomy, which we will have to grapple with at some point in the future. I imagine that this is a subject to which we will return.

My questions are a little more general. The regulations are undoubtedly important for protecting consumers and securing digital infrastructure, but we must consider the broader implications. The automotive sector is rapidly evolving, as has been noted, and the development of automated vehicles holds significant economic and societal potential. However, with innovation comes the risk of regulatory frameworks that struggle to keep pace; that is self-evident. How do we ensure that these cybersecurity measures do not inadvertently stifle technological advancement in areas and sectors such as the automotive sector? How do we end up striking the right balance between securing the technologies and enabling them to flourish?

There is also a question here around consumer awareness; again, this was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. How long would an individual’s data be attached to a particular vehicle, for example, even after it is sold? These regulations require manufacturers to disclose the duration of product security support, but how well are consumers equipped to understand and act on this information? Are we confident that the public are sufficiently informed about the critical nature of cybersecurity? Will the Government commit to taking the necessary steps to help customers and consumers protect their devices and data? It seems to us that this is an area where the education of the public must go beyond the bare minimum. We need to ensure that consumers are not left in the dark about the sorts of security risks that they may face.

We must also consider enforcement. With the proliferation of smart products entering the market at such an unprecedented rate, how will we ensure consistent and effective compliance across such a diverse range of industries, from household appliances to vehicles? As new technologies emerge and evolve, the enforcement mechanisms that are in place today may not be enough. Are we allocating the necessary resources to monitor and enforce these standards effectively? Are the Government allocating additional resources to help those things along? Does the current enforcement mechanism system adequately address the rising complexity and scale of the challenges ahead?

As I said, these are broader, more philosophical questions—I do not expect the Minister to be in a position to answer them and there is no need to write—but these are the sorts of things that we all need to consider as a society. Obviously, that will have political, economic and societal ramifications that we all need to consider, but the Opposition have no objection to these regulations; they make perfect sense for now. I suspect, however, that this is a subject to which we will return.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Sharpe, for their contributions.

I will first address the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones: why the delay? As the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned, it was a result of the general election. At the same time, we were waiting for the Department for Transport to progress UN regulation No. 155, until such time as we knew that we must take this exception out of the current regulations. That is the reason for the delay, basically; it was also about finding parliamentary time to table these regulations. That is that on the delay.

UK/US Free Trade Agreement

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. The appointment of my noble friend Lord Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the US shows how seriously we take our relationship with the US and the incoming President’s team. My noble friend Lord Mandelson has extensive foreign and economic policy expertise, particularly in the crucial issue of trade, with strong business links and experience at the highest level of government.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Can the Minister say who from this House or the other place is representing His Majesty’s Government at President Trump’s inauguration, and whether they will be having high-level conversations about trade and other matters with the new Administration?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that point. Our ambassador in the US will be representing the Government.

Registrar (Identity Verification and Authorised Corporate Service Providers) Regulations 2024

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Grand Committee

I have one question on the second statutory instrument around the use of codes. I sort of understand why they need to be there. Can the Minister say whether they will be used for other purposes in categorising companies or will they be used discretely by Companies House only in this activity? With that, I welcome the spirit of these statutory instruments.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his explanation. These regulations are clearly a crucial step in modernising and strengthening the UK’s corporate governance. Building on the Companies Act 2006, they were laid before Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Leong, noted, by the previous Conservative Government in May 2024 to address the growing concerns about corporate fraud and business registration transparency.

The regulations introduce unique identity verification for individuals involved in setting up and controlling companies and will ensure that the integrity of the business registration process is robust. The initiative aims to combat the use of fraudulent or stolen identities in business dealings and will make it harder for individuals to engage in corporate fraud. The core aim of the regulations is to ensure that only properly verified individuals can establish and control companies. The registrar is granted the authority to impose further requirements on applicants, with the flexibility to adapt as identity-verification technologies evolve.

The regulations also introduce unique identifiers for verified individuals and authorised corporate service providers, streamlining the registration process and ensuring that the Companies House register remains accurate and reliable. I think I was the Minister whom the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to. I sincerely hope that the funding remains robust, as it was a few months ago. I look forward to hearing an answer to that question.

The ACSPs are now subject to stricter oversight, including anti-money laundering regulations, with provisions for suspension or deauthorisation if they fail to meet required standards. I will come back to that in a second. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, also asked why we need ACSPs. They, or their equivalents, are common in many jurisdictions and they provide an incredibly useful service to people who wish to set up a business but have neither the time nor the inclination to get into the weeds of doing so and prefer to subcontract it. I think it is perfectly reasonable that ACSPs exist and they just need to be properly verified.

While the intention behind the regulations is clear—they improve the integrity of company registration and prevent fraud—there are several areas where further clarification is required. Given that the regulations were last discussed under the previous Government, I would like to understand how the current Government intend to address the evolving nature of identity-verification technologies.

In addition, these regulations impose new obligations on ACSPs, particularly in terms of record-keeping and in providing additional information to the registrar. Although these measures are essential for transparency, I ask the Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, also asked, to clarify how these new duties will be enforced. What penalties will be applied to ACSPs that are found to be non-compliant and what measures are in place to ensure that these rules are upheld consistently across all service providers?

I am also concerned about smaller businesses and individuals who may be impacted by these additional verification processes. Will the Government ensure that the new regulations do not create undue burdens on smaller enterprises, which may already be facing significant challenges in meeting regulatory and other requirements?

Finally, while the power to suspend or deauthorise an ACSP is necessary to combat fraud, I would like assurances that proper safeguards will be in place to protect service providers from unjust penalties or removal.

In conclusion, these regulations are important reforms to strengthen the UK’s business environment and combat fraud. As with any regulatory framework, careful consideration is needed on enforcement, monitoring and adaptation, so a review process will be essential to assess the regulations’ impact on businesses of all sizes to ensure that they deliver their intended benefits without imposing unnecessary burdens.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

With the Committee’s permission, I have just one question that I had meant to ask the Minister. It is around the obligation to retain identity information over seven years, which the noble Lord just mentioned. In the event of the ACSP going out of business, what is the expectation of how that information, which would not otherwise be retained, would be retained for the potential use of Companies House?

Information Sharing (Disclosure by the Registrar) Regulations 2024

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, we will support both of these instruments, and I will be brief. The first instrument is a straightforward and necessary increase in the disclosure powers of Companies House and, as the Minister has made clear, the SI extends disclosure powers to cover non-public organisations and specifies to whom information may be disclosed and under what circumstances. All this seems clear and with obvious benefits, although I confess that I am not at all clear what a “judicial factor”, mentioned in Regulation 3(g), is or does. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us.

We are generally happy with measures that improve the utility or performance of Companies House. Appropriately increased and targeted disclosure powers are definitely a good thing, but arguably more important is the ID-checking regime at Companies House. In that context, it was good to see Companies House quoted in last Wednesday’s Times, saying:

“We take fraud seriously and all allegations are fully investigated. We are preparing to introduce compulsory identity verification checks. This will provide greater assurance about who is setting up, running, owning, and controlling companies”.


That is welcome news, if a little overdue. Can the Minister say when Parliament will see these new and obviously vital proposals?

The second SI essentially, as the Minister said, deals with the disclosure of residential addresses on the public companies register. It proposes new circumstances in which these addresses may be protected from exposure via Companies House registration details. Here, I declare a kind of interest: I have, for the past nine years, benefited from a Companies House exemption, under the existing regime, from disclosure of my residential address. The circumstances surrounding my exemption were clear and compelling enough to qualify for non-disclosure, but they would not serve to protect from exposure any address currently or formerly used as a company’s registered office.

This instrument will allow an application to protect a residential address when it was previously the registered address for the company, and this will apply, mutatis mutandis, to LLPs. There are appropriate protections against using this new power to frustrate challenges to the dissolution of a company, as the Minister mentioned. This all seems very sensible, and the EM notes in paragraph 5.8:

“Companies House has for a long time been inundated with requests for this kind of protection, as the previous law prevented many people from protecting publicly available address information that put them at risk, for example in cases of domestic abuse”.


In paragraph 6.5, the EM says:

“Further regulations will be made in due course to introduce additional measures preventing the abuse of personal information on the companies register”.


I encourage the Minister to make rapid progress on these new proposals. Companies House needs all the help it can get.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for missing the first SI. I meant no discourtesy; it was an administrative error entirely of my own making, and I particularly apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Leong. However, I would have welcomed the regulations because, as Conservatives, we believe in good governance, personal responsibility and safeguarding our economy from exploitation. We believe that the measure delivers exactly that.

On information-sharing and companies, we welcome the Information Sharing (Disclosure by the Registrar) Regulations 2024. This legislation is a clear and necessary step in strengthening the integrity, transparency and security of our systems. At its core, these regulations empower the registrar to share critical information with designated bodies. This will enhance co-operation between government departments, regulatory agencies and enforcement authorities, ensuring a more joined-up approach to tackling crime, fraud and misconduct.

For too long, bad actors have exploited the gaps in our information-sharing framework, hiding behind outdated systems and fragmented oversight. The result has been criminal networks, fraudulent companies and rogue entities syphoning off resources, undermining fair competition and eroding public trust. We owe it to law-abiding businesses and citizens to level the playing field and close these loopholes.

Furthermore, these regulations are proportionate and pragmatic. They strike the right balance between enabling necessary disclosures and protecting sensitive data. Conservatives have always championed individual freedom and privacy, and this legislation respects those values while enhancing national security and economic resilience. This is not just a technical reform; it is about ensuring confidence in our institutions, trust in the free market and the rule of law. By empowering the registrar, we are sending a clear message that the UK will not be a haven for those who flout our laws and/or exploit our systems.

I also welcome the draft Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (Protection and Disclosure of Information and Consequential Amendments) Regulations. This legislation marks an important step in safeguarding our economic landscape, while enhancing the transparency and integrity of our corporate structures. These regulations are critical for addressing two fundamental challenges: the protection of sensitive information and the facilitation of responsible disclosure.

By ensuring that data held by companies and limited liability partnerships is appropriately safeguarded, we are protecting businesses, individuals and the integrity of the UK’s economic infrastructure. At the same time, targeted and necessary disclosures will empower regulators, enforcement bodies and government agencies to act decisively in identifying wrongdoing and preventing abuse.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, before I start on these amendments, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for the generous letters that he sent the Committee after previous sessions, which answered a number of questions. I generally commend the Government on their spirit of co-operation on these matters.

I am sincerely grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes for introducing this critical amendment and for supplying his PIN. Like my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, it very much appeals to me too, because the principle of being inclusive by design reflects a visionary and much-needed step forward in ensuring that products in the UK are accessible and equitable for all members of society—as my noble friend so eloquently and powerfully set out.

The establishment of an inclusive-by-design standard underscores our collective commitment to creating a society where accessibility and inclusion are the norm and not the exception. Moreover, inclusive design benefits everyone, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out. Features designed for accessibility, such as voice commands or larger interfaces, often enhance usability for all users. For businesses, I would have thought it an opportunity to innovate and differentiate themselves in a very competitive market. For consumers, it is a guarantee that their needs are being respected. So I have no hesitation at all in supporting Amendment 79.

I am also happy to support Amendments 52 and 53. I will not say much about them except to add that Amendment 52 also addresses pertinent and indeed poignant national security or—perhaps this is a better expression—security of supply concerns. A complete national understanding of supply chains makes unarguably good sense.

In conclusion, I wholeheartedly support Amendment 79 and am very sympathetic to Amendments 52 and 53, and I urge the Government to think seriously about them.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and I specifically thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his amendments. During the second day in Committee, the noble Lord illustrated his knowledge of and passion for the subject of AI.

I turn first to Amendment 53 on the review of large language models. We have already discussed the intersection or interaction between this Bill and AI in a previous group, and I will briefly restate some of the key points I made in that debate which are relevant here. Evidently, the use of AI in products is still in its infancy. How exactly this technology will develop remains to be seen, but we have drafted the Bill in such a way that it keeps pace with technological change; Clause 2(2)(a) allows regulations to take account of intangible components of a physical product.

However, the Bill does not and will not regulate digital products or artificial intelligence in and of themselves. Instead—I hope this reassures the noble Lord, Lord Holmes—the Government are developing a wider policy around AI, which I am sure will take into consideration proposals for AI safety legislation as announced in the King’s Speech. I recognise that noble Lords keenly anticipate the detail of these proposals, so I assure your Lordships that my noble friend Lady Jones will update the House in due course.

The Office for Product Safety & Standards is considering the use of AI in products and the regulatory challenges for product safety associated with that. We are just at the start of that process but know that it will become more important as technologies develop. I will ensure that the House is kept up to date with progress on this work.

Amendment 52 addresses product traceability and responsibilities within supply chains, including digital supply chains. I agree with noble Lords that it is essential that those responsible for producing or importing products are identifiable. Existing regulations already require relevant supply chain parties to maintain necessary documentation for tracing product origins and, as we consider updates to product requirements, we will also review these traceability provisions to ensure that they are fit for purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned CPTPP, which in fact comes into force this Sunday when the UK becomes a full member. I suppose we will just have to review the application of this whole supply chain and traceability, and monitor how it goes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling these three amendments. I have a question about Amendment 59.

Paragraph 9 of the Schedule says that:

“Medicines and medical devices as defined in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, other than devices designed for weighing or measuring for medical purposes”


are excluded from the Bill. I say that because the guidance on what is and is not covered by that Act is somewhat contradictory. It says that sanitary towels and tampons are

“not normally considered to be medical devices”,

yet incontinence pads, which are not internalised in the body, are. In America, tampons are deemed medical devices because they are used inside the body.

I appreciate that I am putting the Minister on the spot. I do not expect an answer, but I wonder whether the very good speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, might point to a problem with the Government’s guidance under that Act that needs to be amended.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I was not planning to say very much about this, but I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I do not feel remotely battered; I feel significantly better informed, and I am grateful for that.

It struck me that Amendment 57 is somewhat pertinent to the discussion we have just had about supply chains. I wonder, for example, whether the habitual buyers of fast fashion would be quite so enthusiastic if they understood how it was made and the environmental despoilation it entails. Of course, a lot of fast fashion is single use.

I am also intrigued to know—I have just been thinking about this—what makes a non-iron shirt non-iron. I imagine it is some sort of chemical. As a fan of said shirts, I would rather like to know, not least because the noble Baroness’s description of the destination for microplastics made me wince slightly, to be honest.

Of course, a lot of single-use plastic ends up in the ocean. Frankly, as a keen scuba-diver who has found single-use plastics below depths of 30 metres, I think that societies across the world need to address that.

I do not have much to say apart from that, but I will be very interested in the Government’s answers. I would also be keen to pursue these issues later.

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

My Lords, that was a very interesting debate, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her amendments. She spoke tellingly about the impacts the products to which she referred are having on the world, on disadvantaged communities and on human health more generally. She gave a lot of information and I will try to respond to the general principles, but I will also take away her speech and ask my noble friend to write to her with a more considered response, as I would like our officials to have a look at some of the details of the concerns she raised.

Amendment 58 is about single-use plastics. The Government recognise the concerns the noble Baroness raised about plastic products, plastic waste and plastic pollution. We think we already have the right powers and, to an extent, with what comes in this legislation. The question she is really challenging us on, I think, is whether the Government’s action is sufficient. I will try to persuade her that we are very much on this, that we have the legislation and we are pursuing the issues she has raised.

For instance, there are powers under the Environment Act 2021 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that allow us to regulate certain matters relating to products, including single-use plastics and plastic packaging, that show evidence of harm to the environment and/or human health. This includes powers for bans on manufacture, product design and labelling requirements, charges and targets. UK REACH also contains powers to address harmful additives that might be added to plastics to ensure the safety of consumer products. We know about, and I pay tribute to, the carrier bag charge. It has been very successful and has had a great impact on the United Kingdom. We have also seen other product bans and restrictions, such as those relating to microbeads, and plastic straws, cotton buds and stirrers.

Additionally, the forthcoming extended producer responsibility for packaging uses the powers in the Environment Act 2021 to make producers responsible for the costs of managing packaging once it becomes waste, and encompasses packaging of all materials, not only plastic. The improved packaging design—and I think the noble Baroness made a very important point about this in the previous debate—will be incentivised through the modulation of the fee the producer must pay based on its environmental sustainability. There is, of course, a risk in focusing just on plastic that we encourage companies to use some other material that might be equally damaging. Therefore, it has to be considered in the round.

Also, the noble Baroness may have seen the Statement made by my colleague Emma Hardy, the Minister for Water and Flooding, in the other place about the final negotiations that we are involved in to develop an international treaty on plastic pollution. The Minister said:

“Plastic pollution is one of the greatest environmental challenges that the planet faces. The world produces 400 million tonnes of plastic waste each year. Scientists predict that there will be a threefold increase in the amount of plastic entering the ocean between 2016 and 2040. A global agreement on plastic pollution is urgently needed”.


She then goes on to say,

“The Government have an ambition to catalyse the transition to a circular economy”—


which we have debated in previous days in Committee—

“and the treaty is one of the key levers available to us to achieve the systems-wide changes needed to make that a reality”.

She went on to say:

“Plastic waste has for too long littered our streets, polluted Britain’s waterways and threatened our wildlife. This Government are committed to cleaning up Britain and cracking down on plastic waste. We will roll out extended producer responsibility to incentivise businesses to cut plastic packaging and the deposit return scheme to incentivise consumers to recycle”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/24; col. 31WS.]


So we are taking this seriously and we think we have the legislation that we require. It is worth noting that, as part of this work, the Defra Secretary of State has convened a small ministerial group on the circular economy and asked his department to work with experts from industry, academia, civil society and the Civil Service to develop a circular economy strategy.

We will come on to the issue of clothing. In the meantime, the Government continue to fund action on clothing through Textiles 2030. This is a voluntary initiative that supports businesses and organisations within the fashion and textiles industry to transition to more sustainable and circular practices. I also assure noble Lords that Defra will keep the House updated with work in this area and we are happy to ensure that the noble Baroness can speak with relevant Ministers to discuss this matter further.

Amendments 57 and 59 seek to ensure that regulations are made to reduce the risk posed by clothing and period products. Again, the noble Baroness made a powerful speech. I must admit, a frisson of fear shook me when she mentioned London Fashion Week because it recalls the time when I was Minister for Sustainability in Defra, quite a long time ago. We were involved in starting developments in sustainable clothing, and I was invited to make a speech on sustainability on the first day of London Fashion Week. I thought it went well until I saw the review in the Daily Telegraph, which ignored my speech but referred to my suit being rather crumpled, which was a trauma I have never recovered from.

I come to the substance of what the noble Baroness said and the legislation. The General Product Safety Regulations do not make specific provisions for reducing the risk to consumers from harmful chemicals among some products, potentially including those that the noble Baroness raised, including period products. Although the legislation requires that the product placed on the market must be safe, it is not tailored to mitigating these risks. What it does is enable the introduction of new regulations to ensure that the Government can continue to reduce and mitigate the risk to health and safety posed by products, which could potentially include those listed in Amendments 57, 58 and 59.

The Bill can ensure that we are able to regulate the use of chemicals in consumer products, as we currently do for cosmetics and toys, as well as in other consumer products with similar chemical exposure risks. I reassure the noble Baroness that we will use the powers to identify product sectors and hazard types that require action, including period products where regulations may need to be strengthened or updated. This will be done on a risk-led basis. It will be evidence led, proportionate and follow appropriate stakeholder engagement. It goes back some time but, as an example, the Nightwear (Safety) Regulations 1985 set flammability and labelling requirements for children’s and adults’ nightwear. They are an example of risk-based regulations where a particular hazard was identified, and that can be done again.

To conclude, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made a powerful speech. I want us to have a look at some of the details. We think we have the legislation. The debate is really about what the Government should do and we are active in this area.

I am afraid that I shall have to duck the interesting question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and write to her. We will have a look at the details of that.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

68: Clause 3, page 5, line 6, leave out subsection (9)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to clarify the offences which could be created or expanded under subsection (9), as well as the civil sanctions which might be imposed.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 68 and 90, which are in my name. These amendments address the serious concerns raised by the provisions in Clause 3 and Clause 6, which give the Government sweeping powers to create or widen criminal offences and impose civil sanctions.

I have to revisit some old ground here but, given the gravity of this issue, I feel we have no choice. As was pointed out by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee, these clauses are skeletal legislation, meaning that they lack detail, leaving critical decisions about enforcement and prosecution to be made at a later stage via secondary legislation. We feel that the approach of using skeletal legislation for such crucial issues is problematic. These clauses give broad powers to create and enforce criminal offences without providing clear primary legislative guidance on who will have the authority to impose sanctions. This is particularly concerning because it leaves us very little clarity on which bodies will hold the responsibility to prosecute criminal offences.

The DPRRC and the Constitution Committee have highlighted these concerns, noting the lack of detail in the Bill and its potential to bypass parliamentary oversight. The Government’s decision to leave critical decisions about enforcement powers to be determined later by regulation, rather than in the Bill, undermines the transparency that businesses and consumers need. The Bill as written provides no information about the exact scope of the criminal offences that could be created or widened. This is not just a technical issue. It raises serious questions about the accountability of the bodies that will enforce these sanctions. The Minister may not be happy that these issues continue to be addressed but, until we receive clarity, we have a duty to bring these issues up, as I hope the Committee would agree.

The most concerning aspect of the clause is the provision allowing the creation or widening of criminal offences by regulation. The powers given to the Secretary of State or any other body of a public nature in this regard are overly broad, with little or no clear guidance or justification on what these offences will be. The Bill should, at the very minimum, provide some specification of the type of offences that may be created, rather than leaving this to broad, undefined powers that will most likely lead to overreach. The question has to be asked: why is it necessary to give the Government the power to create new criminal offences by regulation in the first place? Given the gravity of criminal sanctions, the Bill should be more transparent and specific about what offences will be created and who will be responsible for enforcing them—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, made in his reference to the CPTPP, incidentally.

Criminal sanctions carry serious consequences and it is fundamental that Parliament has a say in the creation of such offences, rather than allowing the Government to define them through secondary legislation. We understand that the Government have argued for flexibility in enforcement and that the regulatory framework must be adaptable, but that flexibility should not come at the cost of clarity or proper oversight.

We have heard serious concerns from businesses and industry stakeholders about the skeleton clauses in this Bill. Specifically, there is real uncertainty about which public bodies the Government intend to designate as having the authority to impose criminal sanctions. Again, the question has to be asked: what additional public bodies are the Government planning to empower to prosecute businesses for currently barely defined criminal offences under the Bill?

As my noble friend Lord Lansley pointed out on the previous Committee day, currently enforcement responsibilities for consumer protection laws are set out clearly in Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which names very specific enforcement authorities, but the Bill removes that clarity and instead gives the Government the power to designate by secondary legislation which public bodies can impose criminal sanctions. This creates a situation where businesses may have to deal with a wide array of bodies, many of which may not have the expertise or experience needed to understand the complexities of product and metrology regulations.

This broad power to assign enforcement duties to any body that is deemed appropriate opens the door to a wide range of unknown authorities, so the question here is: why are the Government attempting to create this uncertainty? Why not retain the existing list of enforcement bodies in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and allow changes to be made to that list through normal, well-defined procedures, rather than using secondary legislation to grant powers to an unknown set of authorities? Businesses deserve to know exactly who will be responsible for enforcing the regulations and imposing sanctions. The Bill’s current drafting creates a legal vacuum where there is no certainty about the powers of various public authorities, which could have serious consequences for businesses’ legal security.

The ambiguity surrounding criminal sanctions is deeply troubling for business, especially when these powers can be used by a range of authorities that may not be clearly identified at this stage. It raises serious concerns about due process and the fairness of enforcement actions. If a business is unsure whether it is complying with regulations and there is uncertainty about which body will be enforcing them, the risk of facing criminal sanctions obviously becomes much higher and that creates an environment of fear and uncertainty for business, which is already facing difficult economic conditions.

This situation is further complicated by the fact that secondary legislation will define the details of how these sanctions are imposed, potentially without proper scrutiny by Parliament. Criminal penalties should never be determined by regulation alone; they must be clearly laid out in primary legislation with full parliamentary oversight.

The balance of probabilities standard in civil cases can create significant challenges for businesses as well, especially in the context of the provisions outlined in the Bill regarding enforcement and sanctions. The balance of probabilities standard makes businesses more vulnerable to claims from enforcement authorities or competitors. In the absence of clear regulations and objective criteria, businesses may find it difficult to mount a defence as the mere likelihood of non-compliance could be enough to trigger sanctions. This could result in a climate of fear and uncertainty whereby businesses are hesitant to innovate or engage in new activities, due to the potential for legal action based on speculative or incomplete evidence.

The Government have claimed that this Bill will support economic growth and innovation, yet its skeletal nature and the conversations that we have had with leading industry experts suggest that they are concerned. Moreover, the Bill already includes an emergency clause—we will come on to this in our debate on the next group, I think, and we will address it later—that allows for swift regulatory action if necessary. So there is no reason why criminal sanctions cannot be made clear at the outset. There is simply no need to leave the scope of criminal offences and enforcement powers so broad and undefined.

To clarify, we absolutely recognise the importance of product safety and the need both to protect consumers and for necessary regulations. We oppose the various skeletal clauses in the Bill, as we have made clear over the course of these Committee sessions, because of the lack of clarity and the potentially authoritarian powers given to unnamed, undefined public bodies in some of these regulations. I hope that the Minister will address the many concerns the amendments in this group address and will commit to clarity for business. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, my amendments in this group—Amendments 69, 91 and 107—cover a somewhat wider area than those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I shall return to his amendments and the speech he has just made later, to comment on them—but I start by saying that Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, is helpful. One of my concerns at Second Reading was how Parliament can be made fully aware by more than just the laying of regulations, when a Minister or another body decides to create or widen the scope of criminal offences, that they must lay an Explanatory Memorandum in the Libraries of both Houses. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord speak later; his amendment is part of a possible solution.

At Second Reading, the Minister said:

“We have minimised the use of the powers in the Bill as much as possible and we have worked closely with the Attorney-General—who, quite rightly, is a stickler for these kinds of things—to find the best approach. So we look forward to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which we will carefully consider”.—[Official Report, 8/10/24; cols. 1940-41.]


In my speech later on in that debate, I raised my concerns about a Minister who was not based in the Justice Department being able to create or extend criminal offences by regulation, with no ability to amend and much less detailed debate in both Houses of Parliament.

At Second Reading, we had not seen the second report of the Delegated Powers Committee, because that was published on 15 October—a week afterwards. Its summary about this part of the Bill is blunt. It says:

“We consider that … the Government have failed to provide a convincing justification for the inclusion of skeleton clauses in the Bill”


and suggests that

“the delegations of power in clauses 1, 2, 3 and 9 are inappropriate and should be removed”.

There is some detail about why it thinks that, in particular, there is a problem with the creation of, or the widening of the scope of, criminal offences. I mention this because I absolutely appreciate everything that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has said about the skeletal nature of the Bill earlier on—indeed, my noble friends have also made those comments—but I want to focus on the impact of having new criminal offences on the criminal justice system. I shall come to that in a minute.

My first two amendments tackle the creation of criminal offences—in the first part of the Bill on product regulation and in the second part on metrology. I have also laid Amendment 107, which seeks to ensure that new criminal offences are not created through the clauses on information-sharing regulations. Clause 7(3)(d) talks about

“sanctions for non-compliance … including … creating, or widening the scope of, criminal offences”.

That is exactly one of the points that the Delegated Powers Committee is making: the Bill is so skeletal in nature, it appears that information sharing is a route by which criminal offences could be made. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for the question. I will need to come back to her on it because I want to be absolutely clear that I am giving her the correct information, rather than me saying something now on the fly.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this brief discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Leong, praised our expertise. Can I just say that any expertise he thought he might have spotted in my remarks belongs not to me but to my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, who was very helpful. He cannot be here, I am afraid, and I am not a lawyer.

Unfortunately, in spite of the detailed explanation of the Government’s intentions supplied by the noble Lord, Lord Leong—I am very appreciative of it—I am only partially reassured. I still have some concerns, so I will go back to Hansard and study his remarks carefully, particularly those related to Bingham.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, on the list of bodies, I have not seen the letter, so I apologise again if I have repeated something that he has already addressed, but it is fair enough that he agrees that the rule of law deserves provision. I totally agree—that is fair enough—but it does not really seem to explain why there should not be a list of specific enforcement authorities, as per Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. That seems to give too much latitude, but perhaps the letter explains that, in which case I will cheerfully withdraw these remarks.

In relation to the question asked of me by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we considered following her example, obviously, but we also felt that leaving out subsection (9) would in effect render subsections (10) and (11) null and void. But I totally accept that the noble Baroness has a point about how that could be interpreted, so I will go back, have a look at it and consider what we do next. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

72: Clause 4, page 5, line 30, at end insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a comprehensive framework outlining the conditions and procedures for the use of emergency powers under this section.(4) Product regulations providing for emergency disapplication or modification may not be made until this framework has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of both Houses.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to present a framework to Parliament defining the use of emergency powers.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 72 and 73, and I thank my noble friend Lord Trenchard for signing them. Clause 4 is a short clause dealing with emergencies. It allows for product regulations

“to be disapplied, or to apply with modifications, in cases of emergency”.

It also provides:

“The disapplication … may be made subject to conditions”.


That is it. I wonder what happened to the rest of the explanation that a clause of this type surely deserves. Perhaps the parliamentary drafter was using only headlines and forgot to fill in the blanks.

These amendments are designed to introduce some checks and balances. As the clause is currently written, there is no definition of what constitutes an emergency. There is no definition in Clause 10, which deals with interpretation. Who defines an emergency? How long might an emergency last? How will emergency provisions be enforced? The committees that we have talked about so much have been very clear. We have discussed this many times. The Bill is skeletal in nature and introduces a number of Henry VIII powers. I am only surprised that this clause was not added to the list of clauses that they think should be removed from the Bill in its current form.

My Amendment 72 is merely an attempt to seek answers to some of those questions and to apply a minimal level of parliamentary scrutiny. I simply do not think it is right that an undefined individual or body could introduce undefined emergency powers of an unspecified duration without a basic level of scrutiny —frankly, that way despotism lies.

My Amendment 73 expands on this and would introduce an element of ongoing scrutiny. Again, I can see no reason why the Government would disagree with this because, in their response to the Delegated Powers Committee’s report, they said that

“the Department is committed to … engage with stakeholders … including in cases of emergency”.

I have included that exact form of words in my amendment, as well as requirements to justify the continuing need for these powers, to assess their impact and to introduce some time limits. I cannot see any reason at all why the Government would not accept this amendment, given that, in effect, they have already committed to doing pretty much what it says. I beg to move.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, once again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his amendment. I begin by reaffirming that this Government take their responsibility to parliamentary scrutiny very seriously. We have listened carefully to the views expressed and we will reflect on them as we move forward. It is always our aim to strike the right balance between thorough oversight and addressing the technical and practical demands of product regulation.

Amendments 72 and 73 seek to ensure that the use of emergency powers is transparent and proportionate. I fully appreciate the intentions behind these amendments, and I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that we believe that the Bill already provides robust mechanisms for oversight.

Clause 4 is intended to be used in rare emergency situations. It is introduced in this Bill following the recent example of the Covid-19 pandemic, when there was a shortage of personal protective equipment. To be clear, this clause is not about quickly implementing regulations on new products; it is about emergency situations where there could be a need to temporarily disapply or modify existing regulations to allow current products to be brought to market much more quickly. Any regulations made under Clause 4 are subject to the draft affirmative legislative procedure, ensuring that both Houses can scrutinise and approve them. We believe this process provides a balanced and proportionate mechanism for oversight and accountability, ensuring thorough scrutiny.

The Government are also committed to developing a clear framework of how the policy will work in practice, and this will be done in consultation with stakeholders. However, we do not believe it will be necessary to formally lay this framework before Parliament, as the oversight arrangements provided by the draft affirmative procedure for any secondary legislation under Clause 4 are believed to be sufficient.

The Office for Product Safety & Standards will take the lead in developing the framework and will publish guidance on the conditions and procedures for using these emergency powers. The guidance will then be made publicly available to Members of this House and relevant committees on the GOV.UK website which, if needed, can be used to supplement any future scrutiny on emergency measures. In addition, Clause 4 is intended to provide a proportionate response to emergencies, and conditions can be applied which will be context specific. Therefore, any disapplication or modification of regulations will be targeted, with safeguards in place to ensure public safety remains paramount.

As the House can appreciate, emergencies can be unpredictable and cannot always be anticipated in advance. Imposing an initial fixed three-month sunset period and review process for extensions risks reducing the Government’s ability to respond effectively to emergencies that may evolve over time. Instead of applying a fixed three-month sunset period to all regulations, we believe that each regulation in response to an emergency should be targeted and tailored to its unique circumstances. This approach ensures that the measures remain both proportionate and effective, addressing the specific challenges of the emergency and the product or situation involved while avoiding unnecessary constraints.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am told that we were advised by counsel that this word is more flexible to use. I do not know whether that is sufficient but perhaps we can explore that further.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for his detailed explanation. However, the fact is that that explanation and the recent comment about flexibility rather illustrate again, I am afraid, the point about the Bill. Let us go back to the DPRRC report, Democracy Denied. It states:

“Skeleton legislation signifies an exceptional shift in power from Parliament to the executive and entails the Government, in effect, asking Parliament to pass primary legislation which is so insubstantial that it leaves the real operation of the legislation to be decided by ministers”.


I am afraid that in spite of the noble Lord’s reassurances, that is still very much where we are.

I accept that emergencies are unpredictable. Of course they are, by their very nature: they are rare and emerging situations. But I do not accept the three months argument made by the noble Lord, which strikes me as inconsistent. Surely three months is enough to define and decide on the relative importance, scale or urgency of an emergency. I can see no reason at all why any emergency cannot be defined over the course of 12 weeks, and that would have gone for Covid as much as anything else.

There is some inconsistent logic in the Minister’s replies. I am partially reassured, and obviously some considerable thinking has gone into his replies, which I appreciate, but we will reserve the right to revisit this situation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 72 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

81: Clause 5, page 6, line 2, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State may not use any powers under this Act to remove or disapply the use of the pint as a unit of measurement for alcoholic beverages sold or marketed in the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the pint remains an accepted unit of measurement for alcoholic beverages.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, Clause (5)(1) states the following:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the units of measurement that are used to express quantities (whether of goods or other things), including provision about … (a) how units of measurement must or may be calculated or determined … (b) how units of measurement must or may be referred to”.


Subsection (2) goes on to state:

“The Secretary of State may also by regulations make provision about … (a) the quantities in which goods must or may be marketed in the United Kingdom, and (b) the units of measurement that must or may be used to express such quantities”.


Subsection (4) states:

“‘unit of measurement’ means any unit of measurement, including measurement of length, area, volume, capacity, mass, weight, time, temperature or electrical current ... ‘goods’ means tangible items”,

and

“‘quantity’ means quantity expressed by number or a unit of measurement”.

Yet again we have a set of provisions that, while seemingly innocuous, give a relevant Secretary of State incredibly wide powers to do pretty much anything they like about pretty much anything they like.

Both the noble Lords opposite will shortly argue that the Government have no plans to replace the British pint as a standard measure for beer. They are both honourable and sincere, and I believe them, but this careless drafting confers the power on a Secretary of State to do exactly that. It is not difficult to imagine some point in the future when the office of the Secretary of State is held by a metric maniac or, perhaps worse, an interfering busybody who decides that they know what is better for the health of the nation than those who make up the population of the nation. Perhaps that does not entail a metric replacement for our pint, but something even worse—for example, an Aussie schooner. With apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, this is an abomination of a vessel that is marginally too large for a sensible sherry, but far too small for a sensible beer.

My Amendment 81 seeks to make sure that this can never happen. It will make the pint safe. It will defend a beleaguered and endangered pub industry from more punishment, and it will guarantee a fundamental tenet of our history. A pint of beer is not a bloodless “tangible item”. It is a tangible institution. It is a link to our history and a part of our heritage. It was formally adopted as a measure for beer in 1824, but was probably used well before then—who knows, maybe even by Anglo-Saxon thanes, when they were on a session in their village hall, drinking what they then called beor and no doubt wondering what to do about the dastardly Vikings. I am reliably informed that they may even have had a word used to describe this community and that is—the spelling is tricky and the pronunciation is trickier—ge beorscipe.

I encourage the Government to accept this amendment on the pint’s formal 200th anniversary. It is straightforward and simple. If they do not, we will return to the subject on Report.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will be brief. The main point I wish to make initially is that the next time someone complains about your Lordships’ House not giving enough time to pass important legislation, I will reference this debate. However, given the attack that we have just had on the Australian schooner, I have to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that it evolved organically from the community in 1930s Australia as an unofficial measure. It was a measure of change and of the grass roots making decisions for themselves.

The noble Lord may think that his amendment will save pubs in the UK. I point out to him that, in the first quarter of this year, about 80 pubs closed in England each month. That was a 56% increase on 2023. One of the things that has been suggested might be a saviour of pubs—the noble Lord might choke on his pint at this point—is that we live in a world of change, and sales of low or no alcohol beer have exploded in the past few years. It is very hard to take this amendment seriously.

Despite that, I agree with the noble Lord that there are problems with the Henry VIII nature of the Bill and the way that it allows the Government to do virtually anything. However, picking out one particular small point is not the best way to illustrate that.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it falls to me to respond to this amendment. Unlike the noble Baroness, I think this is a very serious matter. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has a track record in this area. I think the final order he laid as a Minister in the Home Office was to extend the licensing hours during the summer’s Euro 2024 tournament for football fans. I cannot believe it, but I think he said it was to

“get properly on the lash”.—[Official Report, 24/05/24; col. 1281.]

The Government are glad that his devotion to the pint continues in Opposition, despite his seeming about-turn on the appropriate use of executive powers. He may like to know that I prepared myself for this debate by sampling pints of beer in a number of hostelries and restaurants over the past few days. I am happy to confirm that I had no difficulty in ordering a pint of bitter—or, indeed, more than one pint of bitter.

The Government rejoice in the use of pints as a measurement. I am less worried about the loss of the pint than I am about the worrying news of a shortage of Guinness. Noble Lords may have seen reports in the media in the past few days that Guinness is being rationed to make sure there is enough available over the Christmas period.

I have made it quite clear that we value the pint; there will be no change. There is no question of using the Bill’s powers to do anything other than preserve the pint. The specific drafting is to allow for changes to legislation on units of measurement, but the reason is primarily to provide powers to fulfil our international obligations and keep pace with updates to the globally used international system of units.

The argument running through the whole debate is that we want flexibility in order to keep up to date with the sorts of situations that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, outlined earlier, or with changes happening globally. We are not using this—I do not believe any Government would use this—as a draconian effort to get rid of imperial measurements in the way the noble Lord fears. I hope he will take it from me, as the spokes- person for the Government, that the British pint is safe with us.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, rejoices in the pint, as do I. Of course I understand where he is coming from, but there is a serious underlying point, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett: the Bill is drafted so loosely that it could be interpreted in any number of ways. I make no apology for my previous form of being on the side of the British drinker; I shall continue to maintain that. I have to say that the more I read this Bill, the more pints I need, but that is a separate issue—it is my problem, and I am dealing with it carefully.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her contribution. It seems that our brief meeting of minds a few groups ago is already over. I am not quite sure how the schooner evolved but I am not sure it was a community thing. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 81 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 103, 104 and 104B standing in my name. I want to take a moment to emphasise the current environment in which the Bill is being debated. The timing of this amendment is critical. Consumer confidence in the UK is at a particularly low point, especially during the festive season, when retailers are hoping for a boost in their sales. As we know, this is a critical time of year for retailers. Business confidence has also hit a two-year low. That is significant, as it indicates that the very businesses that we are depending on to drive growth—the engine, in the word of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, driving innovation and consumer choice—are also facing significant headwinds.

More troubling is the fact that consumer confidence has dipped sharply. According to a recent survey, consumer confidence in the health of the economy fell in November. The British Retail Consortium’s sentiment monitor showed a concerning dip in consumer confidence, with the index dropping to -19, down two points from October. Consumer confidence is obviously a key driver of spending, and when confidence falls, people tighten their purses, avoid spending and delay purchases. The festive season, which should be a time of consumer optimism, is instead a time of deep uncertainty. This is a problem not just for the retail sector but for the economy as a whole, as it reflects the broader issue of economic pessimism.

At a time when confidence is fragile, we must ensure that we are not inadvertently creating barriers to consumer access, increasing costs or limiting choice. The impact of regulation on consumer choice should not be underestimated. While the intent behind product regulation is to ensure safety, fairness and transparency, we must balance this with the potential burden that such regulations may place on business and, by extension, on consumers. For example, if regulations lead to higher costs for businesses, those costs are often passed down to consumers in the form of higher prices. If businesses face a reduction in profitability, it may lead to a decrease in variety or availability of goods in the market.

Sensible product and metrology regulations are essential to protecting consumers and ensuring fairness in the market. These regulations help create a framework in which businesses can operate with transparency, consumers can have confidence in the safety and reliability of products and the economy can continue to thrive—there is no dispute about all that. However, to illustrate the importance of these regulations, I draw attention to a study from the consumer advocacy group Which? This research found that half of consumers feel that consumer protection regulations enhance their confidence in the safety of goods and services they buy. This confidence is critical in ensuring consumers feel comfortable purchasing products, but it does not just benefit consumers—it also incentivises business. When consumers trust that products are safe, businesses are encouraged to innovate and compete, creating a dynamic, thriving marketplace and, in turn, that increases the production of high-quality goods, stimulates demand and further incentivises businesses to improve products that they already produce. Business and consumer interests are not at odds; in fact, they are complementary. Overly complex regulations or regulations that unintentionally increase the cost of compliance for business could lead to a reduction in the range of products available to consumers. We must avoid creating an environment where smaller businesses cannot afford to comply with the regulations and larger companies dominate the market, reducing choice and competition.

This amendment ensures that the Government will take a careful and considered approach in monitoring the impact of the legislation on consumer choice, and the report will provide important evidence to guide future policymaking and help us to avoid any unintended negative consequences for consumers and businesses alike.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for signing my Amendment 104B. The Government have to recognise that SMEs are the backbone of our economy—I know the noble Lords opposite would agree with that. SMEs face unique challenges in comparison to larger corporations, particularly when it comes to compliance with regulations. This amendment seeks to ensure that the impact of these regulations on SMEs is properly assessed, understood and investigated and, if necessary, mitigated.

Innovation is essential to the growth of our economy, and SMEs are often at the forefront of this innovation. Complex or overbearing regulations can stifle creativity and innovation. This amendment seeks to assess whether the regulations in the Bill will help or hinder SMEs in their ability to compete in the marketplace and develop new ideas. The success of any regulatory framework depends on meaningful consultation with those it affects the most, so this amendment ensures that SMEs have a voice in the process. By engaging with representatives from the SME sector, the Government will gain valuable insights into practical challenges that SMEs face and will be able to tailor policies to better support them. I urge noble Lords to support this amendment, which will help guarantee that the regulations in the Bill are not only effective but fair, ensuring that SMEs are not unduly burdened and can continue to thrive, compete and innovate.

On page 3, paragraph 4 of the Government’s Explanatory Notes, it states:

“The Bill aims to support economic growth”.


Hence, I thought it was perfectly appropriate to introduce an amendment that requires the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact of this Bill on the economy, and I hope that the Ministers opposite will agree. For small and medium-sized enterprises often most affected by regulatory changes, these reviews can identify disproportionate impacts early and prompt remedial actions to mitigate harm. A structured review process provides empirical data to inform future legislative and regulatory decisions, ensuring that measures remain fit for purpose and aligned with market dynamics.

--- Later in debate ---

I appreciate that the guard-rails I am proposing may be intended for inclusion in secondary legislation, but that would risk the relatively easy removal of such protections by any future Government. It would also risk the possibility of proper protection of privileged information not being included, even by this Government, in the product or metrology regulations that they will bring forward after the passage of the Bill. Protecting privileged information in the Bill insures against such possibilities; I hope the Minister agrees. I look forward to his response and beg to move Amendment 106.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for introducing these two amendments. Amendment 106 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. It is vital to ensure that, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, explained, a broader range of organisations, such as coroners, NHS bodies, statistical agencies and researchers, can access and share information to investigate and reduce harms caused by products. By involving expert groups and their international counterparts, we would strengthen our ability to identify risks, protect public health and ensure evidence-based action. It is a forward-thinking addition that ensures we leave no stone unturned in safeguarding public welfare.

Amendment 108 is an important and well-balanced safeguard for preserving essential legal protections. It provides clarity and fairness by ensuring that information requirements under the product and metrology regulations are not overly burdensome or unjustly intrusive. The careful limitations on when information can be disclosed and used as evidence reflect a thoughtful approach to balancing the need for enforcement with respect for due process. That contributes to a more trustworthy and transparent regulatory system, where both the public and those under investigation can have confidence in the fairness and integrity of the process. I look forward to hearing the Government’s answers, but these Benches give a guarded welcome to both amendments.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for introducing the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which seeks, as he said, to introduce a list of bodies that can be subject to information-sharing obligations. I also thank the noble Lord for his comprehensive and detailed Amendment 108 and his consideration of the Bill.

I take both these amendments very seriously; these are clearly important and interesting points on the limits and scope of information sharing. I assure the noble Lord that I will reflect very carefully on what he said. Over the past few years, your Lordships’ House has debated information sharing and risks to personal information, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has taken part in those debates. There is a difficult balance to be drawn between the benefits you can get and the risks, and we are trying to test that all the time in order to get the balance right.

The noble Lord argued that we need to include a wider range of organisations in the Bill. He was very careful not to be exclusive, because he anticipated that I would come in with the list defence. I need to look into the Enterprise Act further, if the noble Lord will let me write to him on that issue.

I certainly agree with the sentiment behind the amendments. With this Bill we are clearly trying to ensure that consumers are protected from any harm caused by unsafe or non-compliant products. In a consumer world that is always evolving—it seems to be evolving faster and faster—and where new products are being traded increasingly easily, regulatory authorities need to be able to marshal relevant data and information that may provide crucial evidence of certain product-related issues. Where such issues come within the terms of the Bill, we want to encourage the sharing of appropriate information.

On the other hand, there must be appropriate safeguards about sharing information. The noble Lord mentioned the word “guard-rails”. He was not running two horses; he was reflecting the tension there is and trying to find a way through, for which I applaud him very much. He mentioned the coroner. One of the coroner’s duties is to issue a prevention of future deaths report to related relevant persons, which may well include government bodies. We know that this data sharing can lead to important interventions.

We think that regulations proposed under the Bill will allow public health agencies such as the NHS to share data recorded in the course of their activities that relates to injuries caused by products. I have taken part in previous debates on the importance of this and of the NHS having the information and the registries that enable it to happen. There is a contrast between, say, supermarkets, which, when a product is found to be defective seem able to identify it very easily, and a service such as the NHS, where sometimes, as we have seen in the past, there are real issues around the ability to trace patients and the product. Clearly, this is a vital area in terms of safety. I refer to the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, First Do No Harm, in relation to pelvic mesh, for instance. She clearly identified the need to grip this issue.

It is very important that health bodies do the right thing here, but we think the Bill enables greater sharing of relevant data between public authorities, including emergency service authorities. That will bring more public agencies, including emergency services, within the scope of data-sharing agreements and schemes. We think that regulators need to take a co-ordinated approach to incidents to prevent future harm. However, we are wary of mandating reporting requirements. Going back to the previous debate—I see the noble Baroness there—clearly, more onerous reporting requirements can increase cost and resource burdens for those submitting information, so we need a targeted and efficient approach in this area.

In the normal course of creating such information-sharing obligations, and in relation to the noble Lord’s proposed new subsections (1) to (5), the regulations will state the general power “to share information between ‘x’ and ‘y’ for ‘z’ purpose”, for example. Clause 7(5)—here is the guard-rail—already provides that it will not override the UK general data protection regulations, and Article 9 of the Bill of Rights will apply to prevent a court from compelling information provided to Parliament.

The regulations will also set out any further safeguards that will apply to the information-sharing provisions, tailored to the circumstances envisaged in the regulations. In the context of a discretionary power to share information, for instance, there would be no need to exclude self-incriminating evidence.

Clearly, the UK GDPR provides stringent data-sharing safeguards that require individual consent to share personal data with third parties—as I have already mentioned, that is in Clause 7(5)—but the GDPR allows data sharing where there is a legal basis to do so. The Bill will not contravene that important legislation. We want data to be shared where it will enhance the intentions in the Bill, but we do not want to undermine the necessary protections in the GDPR legislation for information held about individuals.

We hope that we have the balance right, but we will take away the noble Lord’s comments, because this needs careful consideration. It has been very helpful to have this debate and try to tease these issues out.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

110: Clause 9, page 9, line 19, leave out subsection (1)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment prevents the repeal of provisions made by Parts 2, 4 and 5 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 110, 111 and 112, standing in my name. Clause 9 is a skeleton clause, as has been pointed out by the DPRRC, which recommended its removal—a point that may have been made a few times over the course of this Committee, often by me. In giving this degree of power to repeal existing legislation around consumer protection and metrology regulations by negative procedure, the Government have argued that aspects of the regulatory regime may need to be updated swiftly and frequently. However, they have failed to explain why they should be done with little scrutiny. In their response to the DPRRC, they suggested that it is because existing legislation has proven ineffective at times. The most recent consultation on the Bill suggested that 87% of respondents supported reviewing inspection powers, but it is one thing to review powers and another to have the power to completely repeal existing legislation and replace it with whatever an undefined—that word again—relevant authority feels is necessary.

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his thoughts on Amendment 110. He is not in his place but I wish him a happy birthday, as I am sure most Members of the Committee do too. I am very grateful for his opinions, some of which I am incorporating in my next remarks. On Amendment 110, he pointed out that the Government are proposing to take the power to repeal Part 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. If they were to do so, we would lose Section 2, which sets out primarily that the Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of securing goods that are safe. We would also lose Section 19, which defines “safe”. Section 19(1)(c) includes that “safe” means,

“there is no risk, or no risk apart from one reduced to a minimum, that … the keeping, use or consumption of the goods”

will

“cause the death of, or any personal injury to, any person”,

and that “unsafe” should be “construed accordingly”. The Bill does not make the equivalent provision: “reducing or mitigating risks” in Clause 1 is lesser than “safe” as defined, and the 1987 legislation has a long history of implementation, interpretation and enforcement.

At this late stage of the Bill, the question is: is it His Majesty’s Government’s intention to repeal Sections 2 and 19 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987? If it is not, we can assess the overall legislative framework which will result. If it is, we will need to revisit this issue when looking again at the purpose of the Bill. If His Majesty’s Government say they will decide later and seek to avoid overlap, we should again look at how this Bill and how the Consumer Protection Act 1987 may overlap, and consider whether the continuation of a defined requirement for safe products should be included in the Bill.

The other two amendments follow a very similar vein. I think I have said enough, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, briefly, I support this. It is important that we do not give the Minister powers to repeal one of the best-known Acts, which many consumers in this country have had experience of. We all know it is a flagship Act, and it has been proven in the decades since 1987.

I strongly support my noble friend’s proposals to remove the concern about giving the Government the power to do away with these protections which are in those sections of the Act. The meaning of “safety” is particularly relevant and needs to be very clear for businesses and consumers alike. Were we to go along this route, heaven knows what a Government could do. It is wrong for this House to allow that to happen; it is constitutionally out of order that such a well-known piece of legislation—which is so important to our economy and those who make our economy—can be done away with using sleight of hand and without any proper scrutiny or discussion.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, but I disagree with her. From the debates we have already had, there is a recognition that what businesses need is certainty and for government to move quickly when it is clear that action needs to be taken to protect the consumer and the other aims of the Bill.

I accept that there has been criticism by your Lordships’ Select Committees and by noble Lords here about the skeletal nature of the Bill, but the point is that we need flexibility to keep pace with fast movement in this consumer area. That is the reason why the Bill is constructed the way it is. I will come on to the Consumer Protection Act, but I hope I can reassure noble Lords on that.

The Government are of course looking very carefully at the reports of both the Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee and we are reflecting on them. Clearly, as I have said, we are trying to get the right balance between proper parliamentary accountability and the need for flexibility and clarity for all the people affected by the legislation. For instance, in Clause 9 itself, subsection (4) enables us to make minor technical adjustments to ensure coherence across the legislative framework without the need to introduce separate primary legislation for every amendment. I have to say that a general consequential power is typical and required to keep the law functional. If you remove that power, it would mean new primary legislation for adjustments that are primarily procedural or corrective in nature.

Also, the Bill includes safeguards to ensure that the use of the Clause 9 powers is proportionate and justified, with changes to primary legislation subject to the affirmative procedure. Of course, this means debates in both Houses.

As far as the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is concerned, I of course accept the importance of that legislation. As noble Lords will know, Part II of that Act grants powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure the safety of products, but the powers in Clauses 1 and 2 are intended to replace those powers. So, when product regulations are made under this Bill, it may be appropriate to repeal any or all of Part II of that Act in order to avoid duplication.

Likewise, Part IV of that Act sets out provision for the enforcement of regulations made under Part II. So, because the Bill includes provision in Clause 3 relating to the enforcement of product regulations made under this Bill, it may be appropriate to repeal any or all of Part IV of that Act when new product regulations are made. Included here are the powers for enforcement authorities to investigate and seize goods that have not yet reached the market and the power for customs officers to detain goods.

Part V of the Consumer Protection Act contains miscellaneous and supplemental provisions that may also require amendment when new regulations are introduced. There is no attempt here, nor any desire on the part of the Government, to undermine the Act fundamentally. We simply have to make adjustments in the light of this legislation.

I have listened to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. As I say, we are considering very carefully the reports of those two Select Committees; clearly, we will reflect on them between now and Report.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am, obviously, grateful to the Minister for that reassurance because, as he acknowledged, the committees’ reports are incredibly powerful and make some extremely good points.

With regard to the specifics, I thank the Minister. We agree on much. Businesses want certainty but they have certainty under the existing legislation, of course, which is the point of the amendments I have laid. I agree on flexibility as well but, unfortunately, “flexibility” is a word that allows a reasonably flexible definition. That is the point we seek to make here: we need to clarify this in a way that affords businesses a much more rigorously defined definition of “flexibility”.

As the Minister pointed out, businesses crave a degree of certainty, but the existing legislation is perfectly functional and has been for a long time. They have that certainty now, so I think that the Government need to justify why, in our view, they seeking to weaken that certainty.

For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. I very much look forward to hearing what the Government have to say when they have considered the reports and, perhaps, to having further conversations ahead of Report.

Amendment 110 withdrawn.

Migration and Border Security

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think there is a different type of deterrent from that which the noble Viscount would wish to exercise, and which I am guessing he supported when the noble Lord, Lord Murray, brought the proposals forward. The Rwandan scheme, in my view, was not a deterrent: it was a costly, £700 million fantasy that would have secured even more resource in due course. We have scrapped that scheme, saved that £700 million, reallocated that resource to Border Force with £150 million as an initial starter, and appointed Martin Hewitt to co-ordinate not just Home Office activity but policing and international efforts. The results of that are the type of thing happening this very day here in London, with agreements being signed by the French, the Belgians, the Dutch and the Germans to secure co-operation on criminal gangs. I hope the noble Viscount will note that the numbers of prosecutions and returns, and the speed of asylum applications, are starting to pick up. That is because the resource we saved from being wasted—it was a legitimate choice for the Government to make, but one I did not support—is now being put to good use.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I go back to the questions asked by my noble friend on the Front Bench and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe about the integration and English fund, which was put in place by the former Government and which the current Government have scrapped. I do not expect the Minister to answer this now because he has already said he will write, but was some assessment made on the likely impact that the scrapping of that fund would have on community cohesion? Will he commit to write to the House on this?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Of course. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his contribution. He held the office that I hold now, and he knows how difficult it is and how slow things can be. I will try to answer him as fairly as I possibly can. A good grasp of English and a good level of integration are critical, even when asylum claims are granted, because they make individuals less open to exploitation and abuse. They help with an individual’s general integration into society post any formal asylum application being approved. I will put the correspondence the noble Lord has requested in the Library of the House, and I look forward to him reading it in due course—perhaps even between Christmas and the new year.

Illegal Migrant Returns Agreements

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards securing additional illegal migrant returns agreements with foreign governments.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

On behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.