Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Baroness Fookes

Committee stage
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 1 and 80 in my name, and to Amendment 133 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. As noble Lords will know, I was not present at Second Reading, having only just assumed this position. I hope that the Committee will indulge me if I range a little more freely than I would normally in my remarks on the amendments.

Amendment 1 is necessary because Clause 1 provides such broad powers for the Secretary of State on product regulations. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee regarded this clause and other clauses in the Bill as “skeleton legislation”. I thank the Minister for his letter dated 24 October detailing the Government’s position in answer to the committee’s original report, which was published on 15 October. But I note that the committee maintained its original position after an evidence session with Ministers on 16 October, which concluded that Clauses 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9

“are inappropriate and should be removed from the Bill”.

His Majesty’s Official Opposition agree with the committee, and we reserve the right to return to this at later stages of the Bill. For now, I have tabled a series of amendments designed to elicit more information.

The committee rightly pointed out that Clause 1 confers considerable discretion to legislate in critical areas, such as product marketing, efficiency and accuracy, via statutory instruments. This amendment aims to address those concerns by ensuring that any regulatory powers in this space are appropriately balanced and subject to full legislative scrutiny. Clause 1 grants wide- ranging powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations through statutory instruments, SIs, a process with limited parliamentary oversight. Such discretion risks undermining democratic accountability, as SIs are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as primary legislation. Again, I think it is worth quoting the committee:

“skeleton legislation should only be used in the most exceptional circumstances and where no other approach would be reasonable to adopt”.

The report goes on to state that the Government are, 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”.

On these Benches we argue that it is all so insubstantial, that the Bill could lead to regulations that significantly impact businesses and consumers without thorough debate or consultation. It is so insubstantial that it does not give businesses the certainty and predictability they need to thrive. It is so insubstantial that granting considerable discretionary powers could lead to frequent unpredictable changes in regulations, creating compliance challenges on a ministerial whim.

Removing this clause would promote stability and confidence, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, which may otherwise struggle to adapt to rapidly changing environments. Clause 1(1)(b) on

“ensuring that products operate efficiently or effectively”

is surely something that can best be left to market forces. Consumers are going to purchase products that work better than others, and this will incentivise producers to provide products that work well. Why is this the business of the state?

On Amendment 80, we see that there are similar issues. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated that Clause 5 is another example of skeleton legislation. Clause 5(2) confers sweeping powers to the Secretary of State to dictate the quantities in which goods may be marketed and the units of measurement used. We will return to this theme in later amendments. Granting such broad discretion risks bypassing parliamentary scrutiny and undermining democratic accountability. Decisions affecting trade, business practices and consumer choice should be subject to thorough debate, not delegated to ministerial regulations. The power to use metrology regulations to replace and repeal primary legislation merits a full explanation and compelling justification, but the memorandum fails to provide this—something that the Government admitted in the sixth report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on 30 October.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his Amendment 133, which requires that regulation must be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses for review. The amendment aims to address a serious flaw in the Government’s approach to regulatory changes under this Bill. Specifically, it would ensure that regulations are subject to proper scrutiny by Parliament through a Joint Committee of both Houses, with further safeguards in place if significant departures from existing law are proposed.

By bypassing established mechanisms for scrutiny and relying heavily on statutory instruments, the Government exhibit a clear lack of respect for the legislative process and, indeed, the opinions of their own Attorney-General. As the Constitution Committee noted in its demolition of the Bill in its report on 18 October:

“We endorse the view of the Attorney General expressed at his recent Bingham Lecture on the rule of law: ‘[E]xcessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at … rule of law values … but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty. In my view, the new Government offers an opportunity for a reset in the way that Government thinks about these issues. This means, in particular, a much sharper focus on whether taking delegated powers is justified in a given case, and more careful consideration of appropriate safeguards’”.


This amendment would restore Parliament’s rightful role in scrutinising significant legislative changes—“proper balance”, in the Attorney-General’s words—reaffirming its sovereignty and its duty to represent the interests of the people. In short, I agree with the Attorney-General. The fact that two committees have slated the Bill suggests that it is not justified, so we support this amendment. We think Clauses 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9 should be junked. Does the Minister agree with his own Attorney-General? I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

If this amendment is agreed, I shall not be able to call Amendments 2 or 3 by reason of pre-emption.

Rwanda: Asylum Arrangements Treaty

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Baroness Fookes

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as I say, I cannot comment on the specifics at the moment. However, I reiterate the Prime Minister’s commitment to stopping the boats and removing barriers if necessary. The detail and implications of doing so will be considered carefully; of course, that will take the GFA into account.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, that concludes Oral Questions for today. We now come to some formal business, so if any noble Lord would like to leave, now is the time to do it.

Police: Employment and Discipline

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Baroness Fookes

Monday 9th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, police officers hold a unique position in society and are therefore protected by a unique set of terms and conditions, which are enshrined in legislation. Regulations are updated regularly following consultation with policing stakeholders, and the Government have no current plans to revise that approach. In October, the Government announced a review into police officer dismissals, ensuring that the system is fair and effective at removing those who are not fit to serve.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, we have a virtual contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, following Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley’s powerful expression of concerns over the handling of police misconduct allegations and the need to sack the worst offenders—as well as similar comments from the formidable noble Baroness, Lady Casey, on the need for early dismissals, and, more recently, the shocking revelations from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, about the six-stage, year-long police officer dismissal process—can the Minister explain why the whole police disciplinary procedure cannot be reviewed in line with those of other professions? With the worst cases, dismissal should come first. More widely, there should be a speedier appeal procedure.