Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Third sitting)
Alison Griffiths ExcerptsThursday 15th May 2025
(4 days, 19 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 May 2025 - (15 May 2025)
Aphra Brandreth
Absolutely. My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. These are real concerns that were raised in the other place, and I will explain why we need to make sure that the new clause is accepted. It would put the principle on the face of the Bill that we should make these decisions transparently and with proper oversight. The new clause says clearly that the Secretary of State must exercise these powers in a way that strengthens, not weakens, our autonomy and competitive standing. Surely we can all agree that is what our constituents understandably want.
The new clause would also set a standard for the quality of regulation. It would make it clear that Ministers must consider how to maintain a high-quality regulatory framework, rather than acting hastily or in a piecemeal way. That would be good not only for consumers but for businesses, which need clarity, certainty and consistency.
The new clause would not block progress or prevent co-operation with our international partners. It would simply ensure that major decisions are guided by the core principles of autonomy, competitiveness and quality, and that they are not taken behind closed doors with minimal oversight, so I am sure that Government Members will want to support it. After all, if they believe in transparency, parliamentary sovereignty and maintaining high standards, why would they not support putting those principles clearly on the face of the Bill? If not, we are left to ask whether there is a deliberate ambiguity. Do they not wish to say where they stand on automatic EU alignment or on Parliament’s proper role in scrutinising decisions?
In a previous sitting, I raised concerns about the ambiguity that runs through the Bill. That ambiguity does little to build trust, whether among businesses, consumers or the wider public. If Government Members support alignment by default, let us have that debate—let us hear the case for it in full view, with the transparency that our constituents expect—but if that is not their intention, and if they share our concerns about decisions being made behind closed doors without clear checks, they should back the new clause. It provides a clear, reasonable and proportionate safeguard.
New clause 2 would not create obstacles; it would create accountability. It sets out guiding principles where—let us be clear—they are needed. That is why I believe it deserves the Committee’s support.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Ms Vaz.
New clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay, is not just a bit of introductory waffle. It is the constitutional backbone that the Bill is sorely missing. What it does is straightforward: it spells out what this legislation is actually for. Yes, it is about improving product regulation and metrology, but, crucially, the new clause makes it clear that that must be done by putting the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy and competitiveness front and centre. Those are the very principles that we fought for during Brexit.
We did not leave the EU just to create Brussels bureaucracy with a new postcode. We left so that decisions about how we regulate, trade and grow could be made here by elected representatives answerable to the British people. Yet what we have in the Bill from this Labour Government is worryingly vague. There is no clear objective and no anchor, just a blank cheque that allows Ministers and officials to drift into copying EU rules or centralising control, all without proper scrutiny. That is not careful lawmaking, but a recipe for regulatory sprawl.
New clause 2 would put a stop to that. It is about setting the right direction from the outset. Regulation should support growth and promote clarity, not stifle it, and rules should work for this country, not be imported to satisfy someone else’s system. The new clause would lock in a proudly Conservative vision in which the state backs enterprise, in which we trust British industry, and in which Parliament, not faceless regulators or quangos, has the final say. I urge colleagues to support the new clause.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. As somebody who has imported and exported products to and from Europe and the rest of the world for much of the last 40 years, and seen the regulations change much over the last 40 years, I believe it is sensible that we are aligned to our major markets. The hon. Member for West Worcestershire talked about that, and she is absolutely right. One of our major markets is right on our doorstep. We need to be aligned to it because it is much better for our businesses if our regulations—
Clive Jones
I will only talk for a moment. I will carry on and the hon. Lady can come in later if she wishes.
In my experience, it is important that regulations are clear for UK manufacturers. They should have one set of product regulations, rather than one set for the UK, one for the USA and another for Europe. If the Bill allows us the possibility to align with Europe, that is extremely good.
Clive Jones
I have not said “purely with Europe” at all. We should align with our major markets. I do not know what industries the right hon. Gentleman is referring to, but in my experience as an exporter to Europe and the rest of the world, it is much easier to have one set of regulations.
Alison Griffiths
My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire talked about international markets. One of the opportunities presented by our leaving the European Union is to be able to sell to other international markets. She gave the fantastic example of the shower trays that many of us used this morning—
Alison Griffiths
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should be exporting internationally?
Alison Griffiths
I rise to speak in strong support of new clause 3, which would introduce a critical safeguard to prevent Ministers from aligning UK product regulations with EU law if such alignment would jeopardise our existing trade agreements. Over the past decade, the United Kingdom has been forging a new path as global Britain, establishing modern, liberal trade agreements with key partners worldwide. Those include nations such as Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Canada and other CPTPP countries. Those agreements are predicated on the UK’s ability to act as a flexible sovereign regulator, not as a subordinate to Brussels.
Let us consider the CPTPP, which the UK joined in December 2024. It is a group of countries united by a common interest, representing 15% of the UK’s global trade and 13.5% of the UK’s global GDP. The UK’s accession is projected to boost our GDP by £1.8 billion annually and eliminate tariffs on 99% of UK exports to member countries.
Alison Griffiths
My right hon. Friend makes a valuable point. This is a flexible, forward-looking agreement with global ramifications.
The UK-India free trade agreement, signed in May 2025, is expected to increase bilateral trade by £25.5 billion by 2040 and enhance the UK’s GDP by £4.8 billion. The agreement will cut levies on 90% of British products sold in India, including whisky, food and electrical devices. The recent UK-US trade deal, announced on 8 May, provides a £5 billion opportunity for new US exports to the UK, particularly benefiting farmers and producers. Although the deal maintains a 10% tariff across the board on most UK exports, it offers relief to certain UK sectors, including through the elimination of US tariffs on UK steel and aluminium exports.
However, the Bill leaves the door ajar for a realignment with EU rules, often through delegated powers and without rigorous economic impact assessments. New clause 3 would establish a clear boundary: if aligning with EU regulations threatened to breach or undermine our global trade agreements, Ministers would have to refrain. The clause champions growth and supports global trade. It would ensure that we do not regress to a scenario in which Brussels dictates our standards, causing complications in our trading relationships with Tokyo or Washington.
If the Labour party is honest about cultivating global partnerships, it should welcome the new clause. It is imperative that we enshrine legal safeguards to prevent any regression into EU dependency. I urge the Committee to support new clause 3 and uphold the integrity of Britain’s proud global trade strategy.
Aphra Brandreth
The UK is a free trading nation. The fact that we are an island has meant that for centuries we have looked to the world for trade, and new clause 3 is an important safeguard that would ensure the Secretary of State does not act in a way that undermines our existing trade agreements, a number of which were negotiated by the previous Conservative Government, as we have heard.
Our trading relationship with Europe remains vital and highly valued, but this is also a moment to embrace the wider world and build on the strong partnerships that we have developed across global markets. Many emerging economies present exciting opportunities, and we are already fostering trade links with some of the world’s fastest-growing global trade blocs. This is about maintaining our commitment to Europe while continuing to be outward looking and globally engaged.
When the UK signed up to the European common market, Europe accounted for one third of global trade. In 2019, it accounted for 16% of global trade. By 2050, according to the OECD, it will account for only 9% of global trade. It is simply good business, forward looking and proactive to seek out the emerging markets on which the future global economy will be built. Progress in doing so was made under the previous Government, and the trade deals listed in new clause 3 are some of the most important.
I will speak to a few of the trade treaties that are listed, to underline their importance and the benefit they bring to the United Kingdom’s economy. The deal that the previous Government agreed with Australia was historic. It eliminated tariffs on UK imports from and exports to Australia, making it cheaper for some of our best-loved and most iconic brands to sell on Australian shelves, and it gave us the opportunity to have better and cheaper access to Australian favourites such as Vegemite and Tim Tams—although for the record I have to stress that I am definitely a Marmite fan.
The Australia trade deal was bespoke. It allowed us to play to our strengths, with a focus on our world-leading service, digital and tech sectors. It put our service industry on an equal footing in Australia and maximised the possibilities and opportunities for digital trade—it was a forward-looking deal. Thanks to that deal, UK businesses are guaranteed access to bid for an additional £10 billion-worth of Australian public sector contracts per year. Inward investment from the UK into Australia no longer needs to be reviewed by the Australian Foreign Investment Review Board, making it easier for British businesses to gain access to the Australian market and, crucially, cutting red tape.
We are market leaders in so many areas, and the world looks to us as the high bar for standards and products. We lead the way in the tech and digital sectors, and that deal delivered for businesses and consumers alike, including high personal data protection standards for British consumers. The UK services industry benefited to the tune of £5.4 billion in 2020 as a result of that free trade agreement. It slashed red tape and removed bureaucratic hurdles for small and medium-sized enterprises and unlocked new opportunities for them to grow and develop in a new market. The UK gained access to procurement contracts worth billions of pounds, which is the most substantial level of access that Australia has granted in a free trade agreement. We benefited from more flexible rules of origin when exporting goods that are better suited to modern supply chains. Importantly, that deal was negotiated on our terms by our Government.
The New Zealand trade deal was also a success and again highlights the importance of new clause 3. Like the Australian deal, all tariffs on UK exports to New Zealand have been eliminated, delivering a boost for British business and increasing its competitiveness. The now Leader of the Opposition, when she was Secretary of State for International Trade, wrote to the International Trade Committee outlining the benefits of that deal and how it was expected to boost trade with New Zealand by almost 60%, benefiting the economy by £800 million.
Finally, I want to mention the UK-Canada continuity agreement and why it is important and right to list in new clause 3. When we left the European Union, we rolled over 65 trade deals immediately and bolstered them with a further seven. For the Canadian continuity agreement, the previous Conservative Government secured continued access for UK products, such as cars, beef, fish and gin. In the previous Government’s strategic outline for an FTA with Canada, published in 2022, it was noted that Canada provided a great opportunity for UK SMEs, building a digital economy and bolstering innovation for the future—exactly the sort of opportunity that the UK should be looking for. The crucial factor of that deal, and the others that I have referred to, is that they were negotiated on our terms.
New clause 3 is important for ensuring that the progress we have made is not lost. It is about maintaining our competitiveness as a trading nation and not regressing to the bureaucratic red tape of the EU that we have moved away from. I hope that Government Members will demonstrate that they are forward looking by supporting the new clause. In doing so, they would reaffirm our shared commitment to a truly global Britain that is ambitious, outward facing and confident in shaping its own future on the world stage.
Alison Griffiths
Those were wise words from my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury. New clause 5 states that Great Britain should not implement EU laws rejected by Northern Ireland under the Stormont brake. Under the Windsor framework, Northern Ireland retains a mechanism to object to the application of new EU law, but under Labour’s Bill, there is nothing to prevent the very same laws being imposed in England, Scotland, or Wales, even after they have been blocked in Belfast. That is illogical, inconsistent, and constitutionally incoherent.
New clause 5 resolves this by saying that if Northern Ireland activates the Stormont brake on an EU provision, the Secretary of State must pause for thought before applying it to Great Britain. It is not an attempt to hand Northern Ireland a veto over GB law; it is a call for parity of esteem. If something is deemed unacceptable for part of the UK, we surely owe the whole country a pause for thought. It will also serve as a practical brake on the quiet reimportation of EU law into our domestic system, by reminding Ministers that we are one United Kingdom, and that alignment by stealth undermines both sovereignty and the Union itself.
Alison Griffiths
I thank my right hon. Friend for putting a vital point on the record. New clause 5 reflects a commitment to coherent governance, to the integrity of the UK, and to a regulatory system that respects the voices of all four nations. I urge Ministers and the Government to back it.
We must consider the broader economic implications of our relationship with the EU single market. Post Brexit, UK goods exports to the EU have declined, with some studies indicating a reduction of up to 30% compared with a scenario where the UK remained within the single market and customs union. The downturn is largely attributed to non-tariff barriers such as increased paperwork and regulatory divergence, which have disproportionately affected small and medium-sized businesses. The Windsor framework, while aiming to address some of these issues, has introduced complexities of its own: notably, the creation of an Irish sea border has led to significant concerns among Unionist communities in Northern Ireland.
The leader of the Traditional Unionist Voice, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), has been vocal in his criticism, describing the new parcel regulations as tightening the noose of the Irish sea border on local businesses. He argues that these measures further entrench a divide between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, undermining the Union and placing additional burdens on commerce. His stance highlights the ongoing tension between regulatory alignment with the EU and the desire to maintain the UK's internal market integrity. The imposition of EU standards on Northern Ireland, without equivalent application in Great Britain, creates a disjointed regulatory environment. This disparity not only affects businesses but fuels political discontent and challenges the coherence of our Union.
New clause 5 serves as a necessary safeguard. It ensures that any EU regulations paused in Northern Ireland due to the Stormont brake are not automatically implemented in Great Britain without due consideration. This approach promotes consistency across the UK and respects the principle that all constituent nations should have a say in the laws that govern them. By adopting new clause 5, Labour would renew their commitment to a united and sovereign United Kingdom, where all regions are treated with equal respect and consideration in the legislative process.
Justin Madders
As Opposition Members have articulated, the new clause would provide for a delay to the Secretary of State’s implementation of regulatory changes in Great Britain where Northern Ireland Assembly Members provide notification of triggering the Stormont brake on similar regulatory changes in Northern Ireland. That delay would persist until the Government make a determination on that notification.
I am sorry that Opposition Members feel that the Windsor framework is not up to scratch any more, but we take our responsibilities under it extremely seriously. The Bill does not alter or restrict the Windsor framework scrutiny mechanisms given to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The shadow Minister questioned the Prime Minister’s commitment to Northern Ireland, and I would remind her that he was in fact Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland for a number of years before his election to this place.
If the new clause were accepted and the Stormont brake were triggered by the Assembly on a particular EU regulation, it would delay the Government from providing certainty on the regulatory approach that we might take and it would cut across the devolution settlement, none of which is the intention of the Bill. The Stormont brake is about EU regulations, but this new clause would prevent UK Ministers from legislating on our own rules, which I am sure is not the shadow Minister’s intention.
It is also worth saying that the new clause, as drafted, is inoperable. It refers to the incorrect provisions giving effect to the Stormont brake, which are contained in schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
Again, we have had an awful lot of talk about the EU. We have had a little ride on the ghost train, and nothing that Opposition Members have said bears any relation to the reality of what is in this Bill. I therefore ask that the new clause be withdrawn.
Mr Holden
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz.
These small but practical new clauses would help small and medium-sized businesses, so I hope the Minister will acquiesce to the Liberal Democrat motion, which will be supported by Conservative Members. New clause 6 would ensure the publication of simple and clear guidance for SMEs on day one of the Bill becoming law, to be updated every time new regulations are made. Such guidance would set out the key provisions of the Act, provide practical advice and list the available support and contact details for further assistance. New clause 7 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the accessibility and affordability of independent product testing and certification for SMEs, helping to consider the costs, availability of providers and market access barriers.
SMEs often lack the compliance resources of larger corporations. The previous Government’s £4.5 billion advanced manufacturing plan and broader support for British innovation demonstrated our commitment to helping small and medium-sized businesses to grow and compete. The current Government say they want to help such businesses grow and compete, and new clauses 6 and 7 would be practical measures to help them do just that.
Small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of our economy and are important drivers of innovation and export growth. New clauses 6 and 7 would give them a fighting chance to innovate without being buried in red tape. I urge colleagues to support both new clauses as sensible and practical improvements.
Alison Griffiths
I have spoken in opposition to the Bill as someone with more than 30 years of business experience in organisations of every size, including SMEs. New clauses 6 and 7 underscore the fundamental flaws and overreach of this Bill.
New clause 6 proposes that the Secretary of State should produce and maintain guidance for small and medium-sized enterprises on how to comply with the Bill’s provisions. New clause 7 similarly calls for a review of access to testing and certification for SMEs.
At first glance, the new clauses may seem helpful, but they raise a fundamental question: why is that level of bureaucratic scaffolding necessary in the first place? The Bill is convoluted, overly centralising and inherently burdensome. It gives the Secretary of State sweeping new powers to regulate, without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny or consideration of local and devolved voices. It introduces layers of compliance that risk choking innovation and enterprise under a mountain of red tape.
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Alison Griffiths ExcerptsTuesday 13th May 2025
(6 days, 19 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 May 2025 - (13 May 2025)
Dame Harriett Baldwin
What a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir John, and for the duration of this Bill Committee. I am shall start by indulging the Committee with a little bit of background on the reasons behind the amendments in this group.
As colleagues will have noted, the Bill gives sweeping powers to the Secretary of State to change regulations through delegated legislation. It is what everyone would describe as a skeleton Bill—and those are not just my words. In clause 1, which we seek to amend, the sweeping powers given to the Secretary of State are quite extraordinary. It is not just the Opposition who have pointed that out. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place looked closely at the Bill and concluded that the delegated powers in clause 1—we will come to the other clauses later—are inappropriate and should be removed from the Bill. I am sure Members will agree that that is quite a strong statement.
In response to the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Government shifted somewhat. They acknowledged that Committee’s concerns and accepted that more detail could have been included in the delegated powers memorandum. Nevertheless, we heard again from the Committee on 21 February, when it welcomed the amendments the Government had tabled to introduce a requirement for consultation and narrow some of the delegated powers, but stated:
“The Government has not taken the opportunity to add flesh to the bones of this skeleton Bill.”
The Committee in the other place remained of the view that
“the delegation to Ministers of law-making powers in this Bill involves legislative power shifting to an unacceptable extent from the legislature to the Executive”
and that
“the Government has failed to provide a convincing justification for the inclusion of skeleton clauses in this Bill that give Ministers such wide powers to re-write in regulations the substance of the regulatory regimes for products and metrology.”
The Committee added that regulations made under the Bill should “in all cases” be subject to “affirmative procedure scrutiny”, meaning the regulations would require active approval by both Houses.
Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State extraordinary powers. I put on the record that the Secretary of State is a man of benign disposition. We can all see that many dangerous products find their way into the UK and to UK consumers’ homes, either through online marketplaces or through other means, and that a prudent and benign Government would need to introduce regulations to address that. The evidence that has been supplied to the Committee cites alarming cases of lithium-ion batteries, and regulations need take into account how dangerous those products can sometimes be. We are all aware of some of the challenges with online marketplaces where products that are illegal in the UK find their way to the UK market and UK consumers.
At the same time, although it may come as a surprise to some people, there are other countries in the world, and they also put in place product regulations. Some may have higher standards than us, and some may have lower standards. We can all agree that we want product regulation to be not only of the very best quality for the UK consumer, but consistent across our United Kingdom. The evidence to the Committee also highlights the need to look at the issue of fulfilment centres, on which it will be interesting to hear from the Minister.
It is also the case that we have our own accreditation: the UKCA—UK conformity assessed—marking. Many businesses in the UK have taken extensive and expensive steps to apply for that accreditation. The previous Government extended the recognition of the CE—conformité Européenne—marking, with which people are familiar and which shows that a product has met product regulation requirements in the EU. What plans do the Minister and his Department have for extending recognition of the very high standards that apply in the UKCA marking scheme?
What are the Government’s plans for when the operation of clause 1 leads to a difference in standards and labelling for particular products? In the evidence the Committee received, the example of tumble dryers was highlighted. A tumble dryer is likely to be subject to different labelling requirements in different parts of the UK, with the requirements in Northern Ireland being different from those in Great Britain.
In short, we are concerned that the legislation would give enormous powers to a future Secretary of State who might not be as benign as the one we have now. We need only to look across the Atlantic to see how President Trump was able to use Executive powers to move away from paper straws to plastic straws at the sweep of his signature. I am sure that Labour Members are extremely concerned about giving enormous delegated powers to the Executive, so will want to support our amendments to clause 1.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee not only had concerns about clause 1, as we will discuss in due course, but also raised concerns about clauses 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9, which I am sure we will discuss at length. It is extraordinary how much power is being taken by the Executive in this legislation. The Conservatives accept that there is a need to reduce and mitigate the risks presented by products that make their way into the UK marketplace. There is obviously an important role in ensuring that products operate efficiently and effectively, and that products designed for weighing or measuring operate accurately. However, we are startled by the extent of the powers provided to the Secretary State in clause 1, particularly in the subsections that we propose to amend. The Secretary of State’s powers are startling, as will be shown in the Committee’s line-by-line scrutiny of the clause.
To summarise the concerns about delegated powers, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated that:
“A delegated power is needed in order to ensure that the Secretary of State is able to respond swiftly to any new risks and hazards that might arise in this area—”
I am sure we will mention that again when we move on to clause 4—
“as well as ensuring continuity across the United Kingdom internal market. This will include an ability to maintain continuity with relevant EU law where it is deemed appropriate and, in the United Kingdom’s best interests to do so, but also the ability to make different provision to the EU.”
We will talk about that in more detail when we discuss clause 2.
It is worth highlighting to the Committee that the Secretary of State himself is not a fan of delegated powers. When in opposition, he stated clearly that they carry a risk of abuse by the Executive and were not something that the Opposition could ever support. In 2018, the Secretary of State said:
“We must bear in mind that the use of delegated powers carries a risk of abuse by the Executive, which is not something the Opposition could ever support. Rather, it is our duty at this stage to check the powers of the Executive and ensure that we are not giving them carte blanche to change the balance of power permanently in their favour.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2018; c. 305.]
It is not just the Secretary of State who feels strongly about this issue. The Attorney General said in his recent Bingham lecture on the rule of law that Henry VIII powers such as we see in this legislation are a strike at the rule of law—that skeleton legislation or delegated legislation
“not only strikes at the rule of law…but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty.”
I see that you are listening intently, Sir John. I want to re-emphasise why I think the powers are inappropriately drawn. Despite some movement in the other place, the Secretary of State is left with powers that are far too wide-ranging. On Third Reading in the other place, Lord Leong, speaking for the Government, said:
“We have taken the Bill from its early state to where it is today, and obviously it will now go to the other place. I am sure that the noble Lord is right: there will be further deliberation…and hopefully”—
that is the important point—
“we will get it to a better place.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2025; Vol. 844, c. 714.]
That is a green light from the Government spokesman in the other place for this Committee to do its job. I urge the Committee to accept our amendments to clause 1.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire made numerous important points—I reinforce the point that this group of amendments looks to a future with a less benign Secretary of State—and made the case that the current Secretary of State agrees with her.
Amendments 14, 15, and 16 seek to remove the sweeping powers currently granted to the Secretary of State under clause 1(1). As drafted, the clause gives a single Minister an almost unrestricted mandate to define and regulate product standards, ostensibly to reduce risk and ensure efficient and effective operation. The terms are vague and the power to define them is left entirely to the Executive. This is not a technical tweak. It is a fundamental constitutional concern. Clause 1(1) effectively hands Ministers a blank cheque to legislate by decree, bypassing the scrutiny and consent of this House.
The amendments would delete the subsection and make the necessary consequential changes, thereby restoring the proper balance between Executive action and parliamentary oversight. This is not about obstructing Government action. It is about ensuring that when Ministers act, they do so within clearly defined limits and with the approval of Parliament. Regulations that affect businesses, consumers and the public at large should not be made behind closed doors in Whitehall. They should be debated and decided in public, by elected representatives.
By supporting amendments 14 to 16, we reaffirm a vital constitutional principle: that it is Parliament, not Ministers, who should define the scope of regulatory power. The changes would not weaken the Bill; they would strengthen it by embedding accountability and transparency at its core. I urge colleagues to support the amendments.
The Chair
I call the Minister for Employment Rights, Competition and Markets, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Justin Madders.
Alison Griffiths
The amendments in this group serve a clear and vital purpose: to prevent the automatic alignment of UK product regulations with EU law and to reaffirm our sovereign right to set our own standards.
As it stands, clause 1(2) would allow Ministers to make UK regulations that correspond
“to a provision of relevant EU law”
in the area of environmental product standards. In plain English, that opens the door to copying and pasting EU rules into UK law via statutory instrument without full parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 3 would remove subsection (2) entirely, closing that back door.
Amendments 4, 5, 7 and 21 target other provisions that risk tethering us to EU frameworks. For example, clause 2(7) would allow compliance with certain EU laws to automatically satisfy UK requirements. That is not sovereignty; it is outsourcing. This is not about rejecting co-operation with Europe. It is about ensuring that any alignment is a result of a deliberate and transparent decision made here in Westminster, not an automatic consequence of vague enabling powers. As my hon. Friends the Members for West Worcestershire and for Chester South and Eddisbury have made clear, the British people voted to leave the European Union to take back control of our laws. That control must not be quietly handed back through ministerial shortcuts.
New clause 4 is especially important. It would introduce a safeguard in the form of an independent review panel to assess any regulation made under the Bill that aligns with EU law. Where a Minister chooses to align, the panel would have to report back, within two years, on the impact on growth, trade and industry. Crucially, Parliament would then vote on whether those EU-aligned rules should remain in force. No regulation should persist by inertia. How can the Minister possibly object to a review after two years?
The amendments would not isolate us; they would empower us. They would ensure that when we choose to align with international standards, we do so on our terms, with full accountability. That is the essence of post-Brexit governance. We assert that UK regulators answer first and foremost to the UK Parliament, not to Brussels and not to Whitehall alone.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. This is only my second Bill Committee, so please accept my apologies if I fail in any of the protocol. I want to make a small point on our new clause 9, which interestingly, being on the subject of the EU, is grouped with amendments tabled by the official Opposition.
I feel that new clause 9 provides a certain compromise between the two positions. It is important to recognise that the EU continues to be one of our biggest trading partners. Currently, a lot of product legislation is aligned, and therefore divergence is a concern for business. A lot of our small enterprises find that exporting to the EU is an important part of their business, so they need clarity and certainty if any legislation or product safety regulations are going to change or diverge. Our new clause would ensure that any such change, whether a continued alignment or a divergence, is scrutinised and made the subject of a statement to the House. I would be grateful if Members supported the new clause, which I feel offers a compromise between the two positions.
Justin Madders
We have had several impassioned speeches from Conservative Members. Unfortunately, they are all wrong about what the Bill does. I will attempt to explain what the position actually is.
The Bill provides powers to make and amend relevant product regulations, so that the UK can act in the best interests of our businesses and consumers, which I think we would all agree is a good thing. That includes choosing to recognise or stop recognising EU product requirements. That is the key: there is absolute ability to recognise or not recognise as we see fit. This is not back-door submission to the EU or having our tummies tickled—I am not sure what the correct legislative term for that is. This is about the Government taking back control to set their own laws, as we determined back in 2016.
Amendment 3 would remove clause 1(2), which gives us a power to update regulations that address the environmental impact of products where similar provisions exist in relevant EU law. Increasingly, product regulations take account of the environmental impact of goods and provisions. The Bill will enable us, where it is in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers, to choose whether to update our laws or not. As I have set out, the Bill is about supporting the UK’s interests. Clause 1(2) means that, where it is in the UK’s interests, product regulation can make the same or similar provision as that contained in relevant EU law, which can simplify the regulatory landscape for UK businesses.
Turning to amendment 4, again, clause 2(7) allows us to act in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers. It enables us to provide that requirements in our law can be satisfied by meeting specified EU requirements, but it does not mean that we are obliged to recognise EU provisions, and it also gives us the power to end such recognition. We have been clear that decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis, which I think is what the shadow Minister was asking for, based on the needs of UK businesses and consumers, with appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 4 would take away that flexibility and would freeze EU law in time at May 2024. I mention May 2024 because that is when the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which effectively introduced the same powers as those in the Bill, were made.
Alison Griffiths
I am genuinely curious. The Minister says that new clause 4 would take away powers. Can he explain why he would possibly object to the introduction of a review panel within two years? Surely there cannot be any objection.
Justin Madders
I have not got on to new clause 4 yet. I will come to it shortly, and there are several reasons why we will resist it, but I was talking about amendment 4. All these numbers are very confusing.
I draw the Committee’s attention to what the then Minister—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who is now a member of the shadow Cabinet—said in May 2024 when introducing the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations:
“Where EU regulations change, we will consider whether to continue recognition of EU rules on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the views of industry and consumer safety.”—[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 13 May 2024; c. 4.]
That is exactly what we seek to do in the Bill. I know that there has been some change in the Conservative party since May 2024, but the current leader of the party was the Secretary of State for Business and Trade at the time. It is therefore curious, to say the least, that the Conservatives are now distancing themselves from their original position and seeking to take away our ability to make decisions on a case-by-case basis in the interests of UK consumers.
Amendment 5 and new clause 9 would require statements to be made to Parliament in relation to aligning with or diverging from EU law. I think them unnecessary. It is very clear that we will be taking decisions on the basis of what is in the best interests of the UK, rather than taking an ideological position in either direction. There may be instances in which the UK’s product regulation interests are different from the EU’s; there may be other instances in which our interests are similar. When making regulations under the Bill, we will provide Parliament with the usual information to make sure that their purpose and effect is well understood. That will provide Parliament with a clear explanation of the Government’s intent, and Parliament will have oversight of regulations made under the Bill. The amendments would add unnecessary extra processes and would not provide Parliament with any new information.
I turn to amendment 7. I remind hon. Members again of the purpose of the Bill, which is to ensure that the UK can deliver an effective domestic regulatory regime across a range of sectors. That is why the Bill will extend only to England and Wales, to Scotland and to Northern Ireland, as clause 13 sets out. There may be instances in which it is in the UK’s best interests to recognise a provision of relevant EU law when making domestic product regulations. In this instance, the recognised EU provision that must be complied with would be stated in UK law and would be enforceable only by UK authorities. If we wanted to update our laws to reflect a decision of the European Court of Justice, we would need to make a statutory instrument. There is no automatic taking of rules from the EU, as has been suggested.
Amendment 21 proposes that the UK should only recognise updated EU law if we incorporate the relevant updates into our domestic regulations, and the Secretary of State makes an explanatory statement if only recognising EU law under the Bill. The Bill is about ensuring that our domestic regulatory framework works for businesses and consumers. The Bill will allow us to make changes to our framework and reflect global best practice when doing so. The reason that it refers explicitly to the EU is that most of our product regulation is inherited from the EU, and we continue to recognise certain EU product requirements, which is the reason why the 2024 regulations were passed last year. This gives us the ability to review decisions on recognising certain EU product requirements. Clause 2(7) will allow us to do so on a case-by-case basis.
New clause 4 proposes a review panel. The Government have published a code of conduct, which has been drafted with valuable input from parliamentarians in the other place. It sets out the various guardrails that will be in place when the powers in the Bill are exercised; they include an impact assessment that analyses the expected effects of changes on businesses, consumers and the UK internal market. All secondary legislation made under the Bill will be subject to the statutory and non-statutory assessments set out in the code of conduct, including the principles of the better regulation framework.
Alison Griffiths
I assume that the code of conduct you mentioned will be voluntary. I would be interested to hear what parliamentary enforcement the code, or indeed the wider constraints referred to in new clause 4, will receive.
The Chair
Order. May I gently remind Members that they should not use the word “you”? “You”, in this context, is me, and I do not know anything about the code of conduct.
Alison Griffiths
Amendment 17 speaks directly to our country’s values of enterprise, innovation and economic freedom. The proposal would insert new subsection (4A) into clause 1, placing a clear duty on Ministers that, whenever they exercise regulatory powers under the Bill, they must do so with the aim of promoting investment, fostering innovation and encouraging economic growth.
In short, the amendment would ensure that regulation is about not just managing risk, but unlocking opportunity. It would put growth at the heart of our regulatory framework—an aspiration that I know the Government will want to support. Regulation and prosperity are not mutually exclusive. As a Conservative and, indeed, a former businessperson, I understand that wealth is not created by Government; it is created by the ingenuity of businesses, entrepreneurs and investors—but Government can either enable that ingenuity or suffocate it. This is a pro-growth Government, so they should be in favour of the amendment, which would ensure that every regulation made under the Bill is shaped with a constant awareness of its economic impact.
The amendment would require Ministers to ask: does this rule support innovation? Could it be more flexible? Will it help British firms to compete globally? Too often, regulations—however well-meaning—have imposed hidden costs, stifled small businesses or driven innovation offshore. The amendment would guard against that by making growth a guiding principle, not an afterthought. It also reflects the unique opportunity we have post Brexit. No longer bound by one-size-fits-all EU frameworks, we can craft smarter, more agile rules that play to Britain’s strengths. Proposed new subsection (4A) would serve as a beacon in the Bill, signalling that when we regulate, we do so to empower, not to encumber.
Take, for example, emerging technologies, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire has already mentioned. If we are setting safety standards for a new sector, the amendment would prompt Ministers to do so in a way that attracts investment, supports start-ups and keeps the UK at the forefront of innovation.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an important speech. Does she agree that we do not only need to grow our economy in new sectors? The UK has been a world leader in some areas historically, which was a driving force behind leaving the European Union in the first place. People wanted to get some innovation and growth back in areas that had been stifled by our European Union membership.
Alison Griffiths
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. The future of successful economic growth is dependent on not just new industries, but ensuring that traditional industries, and both large and small businesses, can thrive and prosper in a post-Brexit scenario.
Amendment 17 would align the Bill with the pro-growth agenda and send a clear message to investors and innovators: Britain is open for business.
Aphra Brandreth
I will speak very briefly on amendment 17. The watchword of this Government has been, supposedly, growth. That is supposed to be the driving force behind legislation and policy, yet they have clearly introduced measures that have done nothing to support growth, and the Bill risks being another stumbling block to continuing the path of recovery—a recovery that the Government actually inherited, with the UK the fastest-growing economy in the G7.
The Opposition have sought to constructively improve the Bill through the amendment, which would ensure that the Government focus on growth. These are sensible and important provisions to promote investment and to foster innovation.
I am sure that Labour Members want to encourage economic growth. Supporting businesses is the way to do that. Empowering them—rather than prohibiting them with regulation and red tape from Brussels—should be central to achieving growth. There are huge opportunities and markets out there for the UK to seize. We must ensure that trade and national policy are as one, supporting job creation, innovation and competition. We need clarity and assurance from the Government that they understand the potential impact of dynamic alignment and the damage that that could do to the economy.
When have legally binding powers achieved growth? When has ambiguity in what businesses should expect and in their operating conditions delivered growth? The truth is that it does not. Businesses need clarity and confidence, and this skeleton Bill does not deliver that. If Labour Members really want—as they say they do—to see growth, I am sure they will want to support the amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire pointed out, the Government’s actions so far have seen GDP per capita shrinking and business confidence plummeting.
Aphra Brandreth
I thank my right hon. Friend for that important intervention. Dynamic alignment will see us give away control to the European Union, meaning that we cannot focus on growth in a way that will rightly and importantly improve growth for UK businesses across the whole of the UK. I represent Chester South and Eddisbury, a seat in the north-west of England, and we need to ensure that we see growth across the whole United Kingdom. The amendment, importantly, would ensure that we focus on that. More than ever, we must not stifle growth.
Alison Griffiths
Perhaps my hon. Friend was about to make this point, but does she agree that the amendment would give the Government the opportunity to demonstrate to the world their commitment to and understanding of innovation agility, and the necessity to ensure that not just at Government level, but right across Whitehall, all our legislation considers how we can improve growth, innovation and ingenuity at all times?
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting)
Alison Griffiths ExcerptsTuesday 13th May 2025
(6 days, 19 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 May 2025 - (13 May 2025)
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms Vaz.
Opposition amendments 20, 6 and 22 to clause 2 are crucial to safeguarding our sovereignty and global outlook in the Bill. As drafted, clause 2(7) and (8) would allow UK regulations to treat compliance with EU law as sufficient for UK product standards. In effect, the Government are writing a blank cheque for automatic EU alignment into our product rules. The assumption that European Union regulations should be the starting point for our own safety standards is simply extraordinary. Did we vote to take back control only to hand it straight to Brussels by default?
Our amendments demand a global perspective. If the Bill lets EU rules count as meeting UK requirements, high-quality standards from trusted partners around the world must be treated equally. As the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), has pointed out, the Bill features the
“overweighting of references to EU standards versus comparable standards from the United States and Commonwealth friends”. —[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 221.]
Why should a spanner approved in Berlin get a free pass in Britain, but one approved in Boston or Tokyo face extra hurdles? Regulators in the US, Canada, Australia and Japan—allies with rigorous standards—deserve the same respect as EU regulators.
Mr Holden
Is that not particularly the case when it comes to some of our new international trade agreements that have defence implications, such as AUKUS with our Australian and American allies? Why would we want to use a Norway model in which we literally wait for the fax machine to churn out the latest EU regulation?
Alison Griffiths
I thank my right hon. Friend for his wise words. I agree that it makes no sense whatsoever.
A noble Lord in the other place put it well, saying that we should be
“open to the best standards globally”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC56.]
accepting that goods made in high-standard, well-regulated economies like the US, Canada, Australia, Japan and the EU are safe for our markets. In fact, the UK’s own Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency already recognises approvals from such countries to get innovative products to market faster. Why not apply the same principle here, if this is truly about economic liberalism and global free trade from a pro-growth Government?
Why do the Government not support the amendments? By broadening recognition beyond the EU, we would reduce duplication and costs for British businesses that export and import worldwide. We would also bolster our sovereignty by making our own decisions about which international standards serve UK interests, rather than reflexively mirroring Brussels. The Government claim that subsection (7) is merely about “recognition”, not automatic alignment. But recognition should not be exclusive to Europe; it must extend to any standard that meets British safety and quality benchmarks, whether it originates in Brussels, Washington, Canberra or beyond.
Our amendments would ensure equal openness to global standards and end the special status of EU law in the Bill. This is a sensible alternative: a truly global Britain that maintains high standards without tethering itself to EU rules alone. I urge Government colleagues to accept these sensible amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Vaz. I think it is to your advantage that you have not already heard the same arguments on this issue as we heard this morning. I am sorry to say that we are still clearly at cross-purposes about what the Bill does and does not do. There was a ripple of laughter on the Government Benches when the shadow Minister accused us of being fixated with the EU. If we did a word count on how many times it has been mentioned in the debate so far, we would find that the Opposition Members are comfortably ahead.
Justin Madders
Okay, Ms Vaz. It was also said in that debate:
“We should bear in mind some of the history and the proximity of the UK to EU markets.”—[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 13 May 2024; c. 4.]
Those were not my words, but the words of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who was the Minister at the time. It is clear that we are acting entirely consistently with the previous Government’s position. We recognise that there is a great deal of common history with the EU on product safety regulation, but the Bill gives us the power and the option to do as we see fit on a case-by-case basis. Conservative Members’ obsession with this issue does not reflect the reality of the Bill.
Amendment 20 would broaden the Bill to recognise product requirements in “relevant foreign law”, rather than only EU law. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents us from adopting other jurisdictions’ standards if we so wish, but “relevant foreign law” is very vague drafting. It could mean almost anything, and there is no definition in the Bill, so it is certainly not a provision that we can support. That approach is capable of being taken under the Bill anyway.
Alison Griffiths
The Minister is still not being clear with us about exactly why he objects to broadening the scope of the Bill to include the valuable jurisdictions that I mentioned. Instead, he is constraining the Bill to being about only the EU.
Justin Madders
The answer is that the Bill does not constrain us from doing as the amendment proposes; it is perfectly possible for us to do it anyway. However, the definition of “relevant foreign law” is not set out in the Bill, which would cause us difficulties later on.
Amendment 22 proposes that the UK recognise updated EU law only if we incorporate the updates into our domestic regulations, and that the Secretary of State must make an explanatory statement if recognising EU law under the Bill. As I have mentioned several times, there are a number of opportunities for the Government to set out exactly why we are taking any particular option. The explanation that I quoted from Hansard from last year is a good example of why we might choose to follow the EU, but there will be occasions when we will not. There will be impact assessments and opportunities for debates, and the code of conduct will guide us in that respect. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Alison Griffiths
The Minister talks about impact assessments and so on, but does not the framing of the Bill mean that the current Government and any future Government can ignore any impact assessments and carry on regardless? There is no parliamentary scrutiny and there are no meaningful safeguards.
Justin Madders
That is not correct. There are a number of opportunities for debate under the affirmative procedure, and we have set out in the Bill the triggers that would allow that, so there will be plenty of parliamentary scrutiny. The amendments do not reflect what the Bill actually does and seek to paint it as a project, which it simply is not in reality. I therefore ask that they be withdrawn.
Justin Madders
I understand the point being made. We have already made it clear that there will be a number of occasions when we bring regulations under the affirmative procedure—for example, when a new power of entry is created; when regulations are disapplied in the case of an emergency; when a criminal offence is created or widened; when information sharing provisions are introduced; when cost recovery procedures are established; where changes are made to primary legislation; when the definition of an online marketplace is amended; when requirements relating to the marking of products and online marketplaces are introduced for the first time; when requirements on persons who control online marketplaces are introduced for the first time, and so on. I suggest that there will be ample opportunity for Parliament to have its say and scrutinise regulations made under the Bill.
Finally, I turn to the technical standards that will be developed or updated. Technical standards set out practical ways in which a requirement may be met, to help manufacturers in meeting their obligations. Currently, they can be used to demonstrate compliance with a particular product requirement, and are often prepared and adopted by recognised bodies such as the British Standards Institution. The reference to standards in clause 2 makes clear that regulations will maintain this practice, and that will therefore help to provide clarity to manufacturers and traders on how to comply with regulatory requirements through the use of these standards.
Alison Griffiths
I ask the Minister to speak slightly slower; I am partially deaf and am really struggling to hear him. I am grateful for his forbearance.
Justin Madders
I apologise—I had not realised. I will try to slow down.
Clause 2 is a vital part of the Bill: it will ensure that the UK has a comprehensive framework for regulating products sold on its markets and provides the flexibility to recognise global standards and maintain the highest safety and quality requirements for consumers and businesses.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Given that addressing the changes in retail, especially the rise of online marketing, is an important part of the Bill, I feel that the clause is vital, and I will support it. It is slightly sad that colleagues on the Opposition Benches allow their ideology regarding the EU to get in the way of supporting British businesses, which, as we know, want clarity and continuity.
Alison Griffiths
We share the hon. Member’s view that we should all be ambitious for the United Kingdom. There is no ideology on our side. We are simply seeking a global perspective rather than a constrained perspective.
Alison Griffiths
I rise to speak to clause 3 and Opposition amendments 23 to 25. Clause 3 deals with the enforcement of product regulations, but as it stands, it embodies a vast Executive overreach that undermines accountability and business confidence. The Opposition believe in clear and limited rules, not vague powers that spook entrepreneurs. Our amendments would inject much-needed clarity and proportionality into clause 3.
First, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire set out, amendment 23 presses for a definition of the so-called “relevant authority”. The Bill hands out new regulatory powers without even specifying who will wield them. Is it to be the Secretary of State, local trading standards officers, a new quango or devolved Administrations? Nobody knows. Businesses deserve to know who might come knocking at their door to enforce these rules. We need clarity about which authority is in charge, so that there is accountability instead of a free-for-all.
Secondly, amendment 24 highlights the Bill’s vague enforcement functions. Clause 3 would empower unnamed authorities to monitor, investigate and secure compliance with wide-ranging product regulations, but it sets no clear limits or guidance. That open-ended mandate could invite over-zealous enforcement. We all support product safety, but regulators must not have a blank cheque to harass businesses. The functions and scope of enforcement need to be defined with precision and targeted at genuinely dangerous non-compliance, not wielded arbitrarily. Trustworthy business owners should not lie awake at night worrying that some inspector will suddenly decide to make an example of them for a minor technical breach.
Thirdly, amendment 25 addresses the sweeping powers of inspectors. As drafted, the Bill will even allow inspectors to enter homes and seize products on the say-so of a Minister’s regulation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) warned in a previous debate that a future Minister, on a whim, could create legions of inspectors with the rights to barge into people’s homes or businesses and to confiscate property. We must ensure that enforcement powers are proportionate to actual risks, and that innocent consumers and traders are protected from unreasonable intrusion.
Aphra Brandreth
I rise to speak in support of amendments 23 to 25 on the enforcement of product regulations. Let me be clear: no one here is arguing against the need for robust enforcement of product safety or regulatory compliance. However, we must consider the broader context.
Clause 3—indeed much of the Bill—is a classic example of what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place has rightly criticised as “skeleton legislation”. The Bill delegates sweeping powers to Ministers to create regulatory frameworks entirely through secondary legislation, with little to no detail included in the Bill itself, yet here in clause 3, we are being asked to give authorities that have not yet been named real and potentially intrusive enforcement powers for regulations that have not yet been written. That should give us all pause for thought.
Subsection (1) allows Ministers to designate anyone as a “relevant authority”, and subsection (3) gives those authorities the power to investigate, monitor and even mitigate non-compliance. We then come to subsection (4), which grants those authorities the ability to appoint inspectors armed with powers to enter premises, seize goods, demand information and even order the destruction of products. These are serious powers. They may well be appropriate in specific, proportionate contexts but the point is that we do not know what those contexts will be because the Bill does not tell us.
How can we, in good conscience, grant enforcement powers for rules that have not been set to people we have not identified in a system that Parliament will have very limited opportunity to scrutinise? This is not a narrow, technical concern; this is a constitutional one. As the DPRRC in the other place said in its report:
“Skeleton legislation signifies an exceptional shift in power from Parliament to the executive”.
This is not something that this House should hand over lightly.
Our amendments do not reject the need for enforcement powers in principle, but as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire said, the wording of clause 3 needs to be clarified. Who are these authorities and what are their functions? In our amendments, we seek clear information, which is vital. There will be significant costs to businesses, so the powers must be clear. We all support product safety, but I urge the Committee to support the amendments and, in doing so, uphold the role of the House in setting the law, not just rubber-stamping it once the details have been decided behind closed doors.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 3, page 5, line 16, leave out subsections (9) to (11).
Clause 3 continues to become even more dystopian. In the debate on clause 1, we acknowledged that we have an extremely benign Minister and Secretary of State, and we all acknowledge that products reach the UK marketplace that should not reach our consumers and constituents. However, that does not mean that we should give the Secretary of State with sweeping powers in law to come up with regulations and to have them enforced by some random “relevant authority”. We have heard a list of those authorities, but we know that it is not exhaustive.
Some poor, innocent business might not notice that the product regulations have been changed suddenly, because there was very little overt scrutiny of that change, and they might be left with a warehouse full of some good that was perfectly saleable on the UK market yesterday but is not today. As a result of the provisions in subsections (9) to (11), the relevant authority can send somebody into that business with sweeping powers to enter a premises, to levy fines, to create criminal offences and to send an individual to prison for up to three months. The provisions under subsection (9) to (11) could also go through with minimal legislative scrutiny—it really is not good enough. This is another of the skeleton clauses about which they despaired in the other place.
Subsection (9) specifies that product regulations can create or widen the scope of criminal offences, with prosecution by the relevant authorities—we do not know who they are—subject to the affirmative procedure, and they can confer powers on that same relevant authority to impose civil sanctions, including fines. The poor business that I am describing—one with a warehouse full of goods that suddenly, unbeknownst to that business, can no longer be sold legally in the UK, because a Parliament in Brussels has changed the rules—can find itself subject to confiscation and fines.
Under subsection (11), criminal offences must be
“triable summarily only, or…triable summarily or on indictment”.
The subsection provides for statutory limits on offences, but frankly, they are pretty harsh for someone who has potentially been caught inadvertently with products that no longer meet the standards for the UK market. Of all the shocking things in the Bill, these provisions are the most shocking.
Amendment 26 seeks to ensure that new criminal offences, which would have consequences for our already overburdened Ministry of Justice and criminal justice system, are not created through new product regulations under the Bill. The ability to create new criminal offences is an incredibly significant power; it really should not be passed through secondary legislation, and Government Members should think about what they are doing by supporting clause 3.
The creation of new criminal offences needs to be brought to both Houses and debated through proper parliamentary procedure, so that we can explore who these relevant authorities are as well as the potential inadvertent breaches of product regulation and metrology. Frankly, I think that this is the most shocking part of the legislation that we have seen. It shocked the other place, it has shocked the Opposition, and I think the constituents of Government Members will be shocked that they might agree to these sweeping powers.
Alison Griffiths
Amendment 26 relates to the alarming creation of new criminal offences in clause 3, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire has already set out. Clause 3(9) to (11) would let Ministers create or widen criminal offences and penalties by regulation, bypassing full parliamentary scrutiny. As my hon. Friend has set out, this is an absolute travesty, and it is extraordinary to believe that Government Members will support it.
The clause is an affront to the principle that criminal law is made by the people’s elected representatives in primary legislation, not by Ministers slipping provisions through the regulatory back door. Even the House of Lords Constitution Committee has fiercely criticised the approach, reiterating that using delegated powers to create crimes is “constitutionally unacceptable”. It urges that these subsections should be removed from the Bill entirely. We simply cannot allow a situation where business owners wake up one morning and find that a new statutory instrument has turned some technical regulatory breach into a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment. I urge Government Members to think about the provision.
Mr Holden
Does my hon. Friend agree that Government Members really should think about what they are doing? We remember that decades ago there was a lot of upset among the British public after people started to be prosecuted for selling things by pounds and ounces, rather than kilograms and grams. It is crazy that people could do be prosecuted by regulation and without proper scrutiny from this House, and Government Members will have to explain that to their constituents down the line. This is such a clear thing, and we should really think about it properly.
Alison Griffiths
I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a very serious moment. It might appear to be just a line in a Bill, but it could have far-reaching consequences that are far greater than Government Members are considering at the moment. Parliament must debate and decide such grave matters, not rubber-stamp them after the fact.
Taken together, our amendments champion a pro-business climate. Effective regulation should not mean endless state interference. We can secure compliance in smarter, targeted ways by information sharing and using civil sanctions for minor breaches, rather than unleashing these unbridled powers. I urge Ministers to accept amendment 26 or, at least, to provide iron-clad assurances for the record.
Justin Madders
I am beginning to wonder whether Opposition Members think that “Capricorn One” was a documentary rather than a work of fiction. We are really entering some quite interesting territory about what evil plots this Government have, which of course is not the case at all.
Amendment 26 seeks to remove the ability to create or widen criminal offences, or to implement civil sanctions, through regulations. The harm caused by breaches of regulations can vary considerably depending on the product sector. Consequently, offences and penalties must be tailored to the specific requirements of a given sector and the seriousness of the breach. The consequences of failing to provide the necessary instructions for a product could be entirely different for a highly sensitive component within a nuclear energy installation than for a lower-risk product. Reducing enforcement flexibility to a series of broad, rigid offences would negatively impact relevant authorities’ ability to enforce proportionately. Attempting to draft very broad offences and penalties in the Bill, to capture requirements in a less targeted way, would actually undermine legal clarity and the principles of the rule of law.
There was talk from Opposition Members about how this would all be done through the back door. The affirmative procedure will apply where new offences are created or widened, so there will be no rubber-stamping after the event. There will be parliamentary scrutiny, as one would expect. We have considered the views of the DPRRC, but we have taken this approach in the Bill because it is not, in fact, unique to it. The shadow Minister said that she was shocked when she saw these subsections. I wonder whether she was equally shocked when criminal offences were created in regulations by the Building Safety Act 2022, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 or the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Those all included similar powers to the ones that we are talking about now, but I do not recall Opposition Members expressing shock and dismay at what was happening. Existing product regulations, such as the Cosmetic Products Enforcement Regulations 2013, also contained offences and penalties, further demonstrating that this is not a departure from existing practice.
The Bill has also placed limits on the maximum criminal penalties that may be implemented for contraventions of product regulations. Product regulations made under the Bill will not be able to exceed maximum criminal penalties that reflect the existing maxima. I believe that Opposition Members are making this a far more dramatic issue that it needs to be, and I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. It is also a great pleasure to serve on this Committee. It is rare that a Member has the opportunity to influence legislation that affects their specific area of professional expertise. As the first elected metrologist, I feel deeply honoured to be debating amendments to this Bill.
Amendment 27 seeks to remove the powers granted to the Secretary of State under metrology regulations regarding quantities and units of measurement in marketing goods, as we have just heard from the hon. Member for West Worcestershire. However, there are many reasons why it is not a good amendment.
During my speech on Second Reading, I discussed both what metrology is—the science of measurement and its application—and its history. I highlight that definition again because the decisions we make today will affect not only our trade relationships, as we have been discussing, but how fundamental science is conducted in both research and practice.
I discussed the history of the Egyptian royal cubit, which was the first unit of measurement, but today I will highlight how metrology is a fundamentally British science, with metrology regulations having formed a notable part of our legislative history. Magna Carta, the document that in many ways represents the birth of our nation—a copy of which sits in the other place—contains the first example of metrological regulation in Britain.
Magna Carta specified, for the first time, rules for the measurement of various commodities, such as wine, ale, corn and cloth, and represented a notable step forward in early British science, placing us very much at the forefront of the international curve of progress. The focus on alcoholic beverages in that document perhaps states something telling about the nature of early Britishness, but metrology’s inclusion in our great charter demonstrates Britain’s early standing as a nation of progress and science.
Britain has always remained at the front of that curve of progress, through the greats of the Victorian era, from Lord Kelvin to Darwin, and right up until today. A little over a century ago, we, the British people, formed the Engineering Standards Committee, later the British Standards Institution. The BSI was formed in 1901 and now operates in 195 countries, with 90 offices across 31 of those countries. The international nature of the BSI is essential to its success. By operating on the global stage, we have maintained our global soft power in the creation of standards and regulations that allow British industry to maintain dominance in fields from life science to advanced manufacturing.
I have had the privilege of serving on several BSI committees, most notably spending eight years of my former career on the technical product realisation committee 1/11, which is responsible for standards verifying X-ray computed tomography systems. That committee feeds into the work of the International Organisation for Standardisation, and specifically of technical committee 213, working group 10—the taskforce for X-ray computed tomography. While standards development is often slow and laborious, the great joy for me of sitting on that committee, and the various others that I contributed to over the years that preceded my election to this House, was the opportunity to work alongside technical experts from across my field representing industry, instrument manufacturers and academia.
I stress the importance of technical experts in these spaces. Standards frameworks work only because of the input of unpaid experts who come together to create a mutually acceptable national and international standards system that allows everything to function. Metrology and standards frameworks should be designed not by politicians and Governments but by technical experts. Indeed, I have spent many hours working on standards designed by non-experts that were often cumbersome, non-functional and, crucially, destined to be forgotten as the useless wastes of paper that they were. There is nothing worse than a bad standard. We need standards to be decided and honed by true experts and to have the broadest possible reach so that we can be as productive and effective as possible in our work.
The Bill, as currently drafted, allows the Secretary of State powers to maintain pace with the decisions of those experts. Amendments such as this one serve only to detach us from the perpetual motion of progress. Opposition Members have argued, wholly falsely, that the Bill defers powers to foreign nations or that it gives too much power to the Secretary of State of the day. The Bill is not about giving powers to foreign nations; it is about ensuring that the UK remains at the bleeding edge of science and regulation.
Alison Griffiths
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s point about expert witnesses. Like the relevant authorities we spoke about earlier, and which also come into clause 6, there is no clear definition of who those experts will be. The hon. Member is taking it on trust that they will indeed be experts.
Adam Thompson
It is important that I describe how standards bodies work. They come together through relationships between experts within an industry, and through mutual recognition of peer-to-peer expertise. That is how standards bodies are formed here and across the world. Inherently, the system that creates those standards bodies forms a trustworthy circle around them. Standards are ultimately optional. If a standard does not work, people can just ignore it. Standards are essentially meritocratic. If they are not good, they do not continue.
Alison Griffiths
I defer to the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of metrology organisations around the world and recognise his expertise. However, from a legislative perspective, the Bill does not rely on metrology experts being the relevant authorities. If metrology experts had been defined as the relevant authorities, I think we would be significantly less concerned. The hon. Gentleman lays out the exact expertise that we would all love to hear. My issue is with the lack of clarity in the Bill.
Alison Griffiths
Thank you, Ms Vaz. It has been fascinating to understand more about the science and history of measurement from the hon. Member for Erewash.
I will speak on clause 5, and specifically in support of Opposition amendment 27, which implements a crucial safeguard to prevent regulatory overreach in the sensitive and highly impactful area of metrology. Clause 5 grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers to make regulations about units of measurement and the way that goods must be marketed, weighed or labelled.
Let us be clear: we all agree that accuracy in measurement is important. However, we must also be clear-eyed about the extent of the powers being handed to Ministers under this clause—powers that go far beyond maintaining standards and veer dangerously into heavy-handed interference in markets and consumer choice. The Government want us to believe this is just housekeeping, but let us remember that these powers enable the Secretary of State to change what units are permitted, how goods are packaged and what must be printed on labels, without primary legislation and with minimal scrutiny.
Amendment 27 offers a clear, reasonable boundary by seeking to ensure that any use of those powers is necessary, proportionate and accountable to Parliament. What is the threshold for intervention? Are we comfortable with the idea that, under the current drafting, a future Minister could outlaw certain traditional measurements or enforce rigid labelling regimes with sweeping economic consequences? What is more, businesses are already under pressure. Small producers, corner shops and importers are the people who will be forced to re-label products, change packaging and absorb costs if metrology regulations shift unpredictably.
Without clear safeguards, clause 5 becomes a weapon against small business certainty and economic growth. Amendment 27 would ensure that changes made under the clause are transparent, justified and time-bound, where necessary. We are not anti-regulation; we are pro-accountability. We believe in making rules that support competition, protect consumers and foster innovation, not in granting sweeping authority without oversight.
The Chair
This debate is about amendment 27. There would have been a later opportunity to discuss clause stand part, but I feel that that debate has already taken place, so I will call the Minister to respond now.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the hon. Members for West Worcestershire and for Chippenham for the measured way in which they have put forward their concerns, which take us back to where we started this morning. One of the central debates about the Bill concerns the level and balance of the powers in it, and ensuring that the right level of scrutiny is applied to regulations made under it. I believe that we have demonstrated through our actions in the other place that that balance has changed, and that we have struck the right note.
Amendments 8 and 9 would make all regulations made under the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure. As introduced, the Bill required new regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure in a range of important areas, such as emergency powers and the creation of a criminal offence. However, having heard some of the concerns mentioned in the other place, we went further and amended the Bill so that the affirmative procedure would be applied to more areas, including when we impose product requirements on a new category of economic actor for the first time. We believe that that strikes the right balance between the need for scrutiny, appropriate use of parliamentary time, and the flexibility needed to keep our product and metrology regulations up to date. I will not remind Members of the quotes I gave from Ministers in the previous Administration who made similar points.
Amendments 10 to 13 are concerned with how the Bill may amend or repeal existing primary or secondary legislation. I understand the concerns about Henry VIII powers, but we heard the concerns and points expressed by peers and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and have removed almost all the Henry VIII powers from the Bill.
Alison Griffiths
Does the Minister not agree, though, that amendments 10 and 11 are morally necessary to uphold the role of Parliament as the supreme legislative authority in the United Kingdom?
Justin Madders
I am not sure whether I would say they are morally necessary. It is quite normal for there to be some Henry VIII powers in most legislation, and I will now explain why that is not something that we need to trouble ourselves with too much in relation to the Gun Barrel Proof Act 1868, which I am sure all Members have familiarised themselves with. That is, as I have already demonstrated by reading its title, a very old and highly technical piece of legislation. It covers the parameters of the process of approving a firearm, including the archaic governance elements of the Birmingham proof house. It was passed in 1868, when there was a thriving Birmingham gun trade, which I presume no longer exists. To give Members some indication of—
UK-US Trade and Tariffs
Alison Griffiths Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. Let me be clear again: no one is celebrating the position that the country found itself in this morning. We recognise the differential for the UK, but all of us in the House—Members from all parties—are disappointed by the announcement from the United States, and are seeking to provide a way through.
I know that my hon. Friend feels very strongly about this matter, but I reiterate to her that we do not have to make a choice between the US and the EU. They are two key, long-term and important trading partners, and security and defence partners as well. The EU summit next month is a key event. Our aspirations remain for an ambitious EU reset on trade, to rectify flaws in the agreement made by the previous Government. Our objectives are clear and were all in the manifesto on which Government Members stood for election and won. They remain a key priority. I assure my hon. Friend that the alignment in Government between the EU reset and the US negotiation is very strong.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Business Secretary delayed and dithered for five months before meeting his US counterparts, and working people and businesses in the UK are paying the price for that dereliction of duty. Does he regret his refusal to meet his US counterparts earlier?
Jonathan Reynolds
The hon. Lady is incorrect, and I must ask her to take a bit more of a serious tone in the questions that she brings to the House. This is really serious stuff. I have met my counterparts on many occasions, and we were in contact even before some of the formal procedures on the US side were confirmed. It was not technically possible to have been in touch with them sooner. Their engagement has been consistent and serious. She is incorrect, and I ask her to please approach these important proceedings with a bit more seriousness.
Employment Rights Bill
Alison Griffiths ExcerptsWednesday 12th March 2025
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 March 2025 - large print - (12 Mar 2025)
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I declare that I am a proud member of Unison, and I refer the House to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I rise to speak in support of this groundbreaking Employment Rights Bill, which will deliver pro-business and pro-worker reforms. It will establish day one rights, such as rights to parental and bereavement leave for millions of workers, and, crucially, will put more money into people’s pockets—people who have had to endure low pay, job insecurity and a cost of living crisis created by 14 years of Tory rule. By strengthening protections for the lowest-paid workers and preventing exploitative employment practices, the Bill will give our working people the solid foundations on which to build a better quality of life.
I will very briefly comment on a couple of topics debated yesterday, which are of personal relevance and relevant to my constituency. [Interruption.] No? I will skip it; I did not think I would get away with that. This Bill will give a voice to working people by tackling the exclusion of independent unions from workplaces. If anyone has experienced a management of change process—I once did, almost three weeks into joining a new job, which was not fun—or workplace bullying, they will know the value of having a union backing them. Unions are fab. I personally thank Unison, including the incredible Trudie, for supporting me in my workplace.
I have seen the impact on those who have experienced issues such as workplace bullying when they have not had the backing of a union, or a union in their workplace, and the stress and pressures on them were immense. Indeed, they ended up with the choice of either putting up with it, leaving—we then have worker turnover—or going off sick. I have known people to go off sick for quite a period of time, which is of course comes at great cost to the company.
When a person joins a union, I have seen the difference that backing and advocacy makes to them, and the voice it gives them. I have experienced that as a normal person who once had a proper job, who was not a union activist but felt the value of unions—I make that comment as an observer. The work that unions do with management for the workers, to provide a workplace that is productive and secure, benefits companies as well. It is not in the interests of unions for businesses to fail; everyone wants a productive working environment.
It would be remiss of me, however, to not acknowledge the concerns that many small business owners have raised with me in recent months. They have been worried about this Bill, and I am grateful to many businesses that have reached out, including 1882 and Crossroads Care. I also want to thank Rachel Laver of the Chamber of Commerce for her excellent engagement, and for giving a voice to local businesses—I have engaged with them regularly. Their concerns are noted, but I also note comments like that from Claire Costello, chief people and inclusion officer at the Co-op:
“It’s our belief that treating employees well—a key objective of this Bill—will promote productivity and generate the economic growth this country needs.”
That comment has been echoed to me by local businesses.
My businesses in Stoke-on-Trent South have my word that I will support them and their workers, and so will this Labour Government, by delivering improved productivity and growth. I am sad that the Conservative party, which has tabled blocking amendments, does not want to support the working people of this country. This Bill’s comprehensive set of impact assessments show that the Bill will have a positive impact on growth, with vital measures such as those on sick pay boosting productivity and growth. Protecting the super-rich and relying on the myth of trickle-down economics have failed. It is time for trickle-up economics, and empowering the working people of this country.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
As has been said many times yesterday and today, this Bill is deeply flawed. The Government have ignored the serious concerns raised by business leaders and independent economists. The Federation of Small Businesses has warned that these rushed changes will lead to job losses and deter employers from hiring. The Institute of Directors found that 57% of business leaders will be less likely to hire because of the additional red tape imposed by the Bill, and incredibly, the Government’s own impact assessments fail to account for the Bill’s real economic consequences, simply dismissing them as too hard to calculate. Our new clause 90 would ensure that any regulations made under part 4 of the Bill must consider economic growth and international competitiveness, yet Labour has refused to accept even that common-sense measure, proving that its approach is anti-growth at its core.
Prioritising the interests of trade unions over economic stability makes it harder for businesses to hire, grow and compete. It is no surprise that trade unions have declared victory, as the Government have effectively handed them a blank cheque at the expense of businesses and workers alike. Our amendments seek to restore fairness and balance. Amendment 292 would require trade unions to notify their members annually of their right to opt out of political fund contributions, ensuring basic transparency and fairness. Labour has hypocritically opposed this measure, despite previously supporting similar provisions—during the passage of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, it called automatic renewals a “subscription trap”. It seems that Labour only cares about consumer choice when it does not impact on its own funding.
The Government claim that removing this requirement is about cutting red tape for unions, while adding lots of other red tape. In reality, the change strips away individual choice and accountability. As several of my hon. Friends have said, trade unions donated over £31 million to the Labour party between 2019 and 2024. Workers should have the right to make an informed choice each year about whether they want to contribute to political causes, rather than being automatically signed up without clear consent. Labour Members’ refusal to support the amendment reveals their true priority: protecting their own financial interests, rather than standing up for transparency and workers’ rights.
Graham Stuart
The impact assessment states that these measures could have a £5 billion impact, in addition to the £25 billion impact of the national insurance contribution changes. Does my hon. Friend agree that what the impact assessment is missing is how much union funding the measures will drive directly to the Labour party as a result? We ought to know how many hundreds of thousands or millions extra will come to the Labour party and to Labour Members to make them support this growth-killing set of measures.
Alison Griffiths
It is a fascinating question, and we wait to hear the answers from Government Members.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak on this vital Bill as it passes its remaining stages. I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud member of the GMB and Community trade unions. I am particularly pleased to speak in today’s debate, because at one of my regular coffee mornings on Saturday, a constituent of mine, Phil, told me that I needed to be doing more to promote the benefits of this legislation. I am not sure that making a speech in the House of Commons meets Phil’s expectation of promotion, but that conversation showed me how important this legislation will be for working people in the Livingston constituency.
The Government have rightly tabled amendments to the Bill to ensure that we deliver reforms that are both pro-business and pro-worker. Although Conservative Members have tried to make much of the number of Government amendments, we remember that they are still the party of “Eff business”. With their opposition to the Bill, they show that they are “Eff workers”, too.
What the amendments in fact demonstrate is the commitment of the Minister and the Government to listening and consulting with a huge range of stakeholders on these issues, delivering the largest upgrade in workers’ rights in many decades, but in a way that does right by businesses and good employers, ensuring that they have the conditions and environment they need to encourage investment and create jobs.
This Bill will support the Government’s critical mission for growth by increasing productivity and putting money back in people’s pockets. It will deliver real-life improvements.
Alison Griffiths
I think the hon. Lady possibly misrepresents the intent of Opposition Members. We are not anti-trade union; we are anti the drafting of this Bill. I think it is important to make a clear distinction between the two.
Mrs Russell
I thank the hon. Lady for her point, but I think it is a very difficult distinction to make: that they are pro-trade union but anti things that make it easier for trade unions to effectively represent workers.
To return to my point, access to trade unions means access to good-quality advice, quicker resolution of disputes and a reduction in unrepresented litigants in person, which, in my experience, can make life genuinely difficult for well-meaning employers. Every single thing in this Bill will be good for workers, but it will also be good for employers, and I will be very pleased to vote for it later today.
“Chapter 4A
Alison Griffiths Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Madders
I refer the right hon. Member to our departmental press release, where at least half a dozen business representatives and businesses have expressed support, and of course, there are many more businesses out there. Indeed, I visited one only recently that supported the Bill.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Would the Minister be kind enough to name one of those businesses on the press release? [Interruption.] He had better look at the press release just to check.
Justin Madders
There is the Co-op—quite a big business—Richer Sounds, Centrica and the British Chambers of Commerce. These are not bit-part players at all, are they?
New clause 38 seeks to ensure that agency workers in the adult social care sector who do not have a “worker’s contract”, within the meaning of employment legislation, would nevertheless be able to bring a claim in the employment tribunals or in civil proceedings where a fair pay agreement has been breached. It does that by deeming a contract to exist for this purpose between the worker and the party that pays them. That will allow such workers to bring an unlawful deduction of wages claim or breach of contract claim for a breach of fair pay agreement terms.
New clause 37 and associated amendments will enable the Scottish and Welsh Ministers to establish their own separate negotiating bodies and associated framework, and to enable their negotiating bodies and the resulting agreements to cover social care workers in both adult and children’s social care. Care policy, funding and commissioning is delivered together in both Wales and Scotland. In England, the two workforces, and therefore the policies and delivery, are distinct. As such, it is right for Scotland and Wales to have the powers to set up negotiating bodies that can provide for their systems and workforces as they are now. These amendments and associated consequential amendments will allow the devolved Ministers to exercise certain powers in this chapter of the Bill with the consent of the Secretary of State, ensuring that the Secretary of State retains oversight of regulations relating to the reserved matters of employment and industrial relations.
Amendment 151 to clause 41 supplements the power to make regulations in relation to record keeping. It will enable those regulations to apply to section 49 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 in order to prevent employers from trying to contract out of their new record keeping obligations.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I give my full support to the measures in the Bill. Without question, they are some of the most progressive in this area of legislation for decades.
My new clause 25 seeks to set up a working time council, comprising businesses, trade unions, Government Departments and experts on the subject, to advise the Secretary of State on how the transition from a five-day week to a four-day week would affect employers and employees, and on how businesses, public bodies and other organisations should approach such a transition. Virtually every progressive change in employment legislation over the decades has been pooh-poohed by the Conservative party. Leopards do not change their spots, as we have seen in spades today.
In the evidence session, the Minister asked some witnesses what the productivity implications of some of the proposals contained in the Bill would be. The answer from Professor Simon Deakin, of Cambridge University, was that
“there is a strong correlation between stronger labour protection and both productivity and innovation.”
He went on to say that research
“shows that, on average, strengthening employment laws in this country in the last 50 years has had pro-employment effects, for various reasons.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 137-138, Q141.]
I know the shadow Minister was there when Professor Deakin said that.
Historically, it is a well-trodden path for some to object to measures that would advance employment rights, even if those rights are of advantage to everyone concerned, be it employers, employees or society more generally. That is especially so in the medium to long term, because legislatures do not just legislate for today; they also legislate for tomorrow.
I thank the Minister—my admiration for him knows no bounds—and other Members for the work that they have put into this Bill. My primary aim in tabling new clause 25 was to try to get the debate about the four-day week out of the blocks. I accept that the notion is challenging, but that is not a reason to put off the debate; the discussion has to be had. It is over 100 years since the introduction of a five-day week in different industries, which was down to the influence of Henry Ford, who was not the most radical of people. In the 1920s, the introduction of the two-day weekend for those working at his car factories was a pivotal moment. He argued that it would boost worker productivity and morale, and it did.
The argument that a shorter week affects business resilience or productivity has been used time and again. The Factories Act 1961 contained requirements to deal with overcrowding, control temperature and introduce ventilation, all of which were opposed at the time on the basis of cost. As colleagues will know, the same argument was put forward about the Equal Pay Act 1970. It was the same when paid holidays were introduced in 1938. People said the minimum wage was going to cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, but we all know that it did not. Paternity and maternity leave was eschewed because it was said to damage industry, but did it do so? No, it did not.
Research from Barclays shows that working hours in the UK have fallen by 5% on average in the past four decades, with British workers now working 27% more hours on average than their German counterparts. Workers in France, Italy and Spain have enjoyed a 10% decline in working hours, but despite people in this country working longer hours than those in our competitor and partner nations, we are one of the least productive countries in the G7, and we have to do something about that. What about the impact on employers?
Alison Griffiths
Maybe I am pre-empting the answer the hon. Member was going to give, but what exactly are the measures in this Bill and the amendments—the magic potion—that will improve productivity?
Peter Dowd
I am pleased the hon. Lady asked me that question, because it is patently obvious that better working conditions lead to less absenteeism, more resilience in the workforce and better productivity. It is not a magic potion, but what is known as enlightened employment. She may like to read about that, and if she wants, I will put her in touch with a few people who can talk to her about it.
In that study I mentioned, 71% reported reduced levels of burnout, 54% said it was easier to balance work with household responsibilities, 60% found they had an increased ability to combine paid work with care responsibilities, and 62% reported that it was easier to combine work with social life, and so on and so on. As I have said, the Bill seeks to put this issue on the agenda, because I believe it is inevitable—history shows it—that changes in patterns of work, working arrangements, the nature of work and other associated issues, such as artificial intelligence, will eventually lead to a four-day week over a period of time. So let us embrace the change and let us plan for the change. If we do want to get the country back to work, get the country working productively and get many millions of people without work back into work, let us do this as progressively as we possibly can.
Finally, if we are lengthening the time we ask people to work by an extra year, two years or maybe three years in the future—if we ask them to have a longer working life—the least we can do is to ask them to have a shorter week. What is wrong with that, and is it really too much to ask? I do not think so, and many employers and employees take the same view, so let us not make an enemy of progress. Why do we not just embrace it?
Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)
I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) on all their incredible work in bringing forward this landmark piece of legislation. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who is co-sponsoring new clause 74 with me today.
This is the first speech I have given as a Back Bencher in nearly 10 years. One of the few benefits of—ahem—elevating oneself to the Back Benches is the ability to speak much more routinely on behalf of my constituents and those without a political voice. The amendment I rise to speak to today is literally about the voiceless: those who have been legally silenced in the name of organisational and personal preservation.
New clause 74 would prohibit employers from entering into non-disclosure agreements with workers in relation to complaints of sexual misconduct, abuse, harassment or discrimination. It very closely mirrors legislation recently passed in Ireland that bans NDAs in those circumstances but allows them at the express consent of the victim, and legislation that has been passed in multiple US states in relation to sexual harassment.
NDAs have a perfectly legitimate use in business to protect commercial confidentiality and trade, but they are frequently misused to bully people into silence when they have already suffered at work. We know of the most high-profile cases, from Harvey Weinstein to Mohamed Al-Fayed, only because their brave survivors risked breaching their NDAs. But these agreements are far from confined to celebrity abusers; they are being misused and exploited on a vast scale. The campaign Can’t Buy My Silence—led by Zelda Perkins, who helped to expose the abuse of Harvey Weinstein—has also uncovered multiple scandals in the higher education sector, which led to action by the former Government to ban the use of NDAs in that sector.
We sadly know that, in our own labour movement, trade unions have been accused of using confidentiality clauses in settlements, which have the same chilling effect as NDAs. I have been told stories—
Alison Griffiths
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would the right hon. Lady be kind enough to declare her union interests from her entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I believe there is a £10,000 donation—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. That is not a matter for the Chair, but a point for the Member.
Alistair Strathern
I could not have put it better myself.
Research is clear about the strong link between good working conditions and good productivity, and the wider economic benefits that they bring. That is why I am grateful to everyone who has played their part, including the Minister and members of the Bill Committee—I have sympathy for those who had to endure some of the tropes that we have heard today—in ensuring that we had such a big and comprehensive package before us today.
We are debating some strong amendments today. I will focus on new clause 32 in particular, as it affects a constituent who came to my surgery recently. The literature on the harms of zero-hours contracts—their impact not just on productivity but on poverty and on workers’ conditions, health and mental health—is compelling, but if we do not acknowledge the human impact, we miss half the story.
At my constituency surgery two weeks ago, I was joined by a gentleman who had been working for four years on a zero-hours contract at Royal Mail. For four years, he had not known what hours he would be working week to week, month to month, year to year. For four years, he had not been able to plan his daily life—his other commitments, and the further education that he was trying to do to build out his skills and better himself. For four years, his life had been narrowed by the precarious reality of the exploitative application of zero-hours contracts by those who should haven know better.
For that reason, I am so glad that the Government committed in our manifesto and in the Bill, which was introduced some time ago now, to taking on zero-hours contracts and giving people the right, where appropriate, to request a fixed-hours contract. However, without new clause 32, my constituent would have been missed out, because although he works at Royal Mail, he is employed through an agency. Without the extension of protections in the new clause he would, like many others across the country, have lost out. I am very glad that we are being complete in our approach and ensuring that we do not miss out from that important protection the very many employees who are currently working for agencies.
There are lots of other important amendments to the Bill. I was glad to hear such warm words from the Minister in his opening remarks about the very important amendment tabled by my Bedfordshire neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). It is impossible to hear her testimony about bereavement or to speak to parents who have gone through bereavement and not recognise the simple reality that to be bereaved is not to be sick, and that our leave system should recognise it as such. I was very glad to hear from the Minister that the Government will work with my hon. Friend and others across the House who have campaigned on this issue for a long time to ensure we recognise that reality.
There are a number of important measures in the Bill. I can do justice to very few of them in three minutes, so I want to focus on just one: clause 14, which is about ensuring we remove some of the barriers to new dads taking up paternity leave early on in their employment. It is a well-recognised fact that we have some of the worst paternity leave entitlements across Europe. Although shared parental leave sounds great as a concept, we do not have to look far to notice that its uptake is shockingly low and shockingly skewed to the highest earners. I am glad that we are taking a small but important step in the Bill to recognise that we need to do more to boost access to paternity leave. The Government will be conducting a review of parental leave later this year, and I know that Members across the House will be keen to engage with the Minister on how we can go further, not just in allowing fathers to have that crucial early time with their child but in breaking down the very gendered nature of parenting, which is currently baked into our statutory provision on parental leave.
There are so many important measures in the Bill and so many important areas where we know we will need to go further. Fundamentally, I am full of pride to see a Government finally, after inaction by the Conservatives for far too long, taking seriously the issues of workplace security, productivity and the wellbeing of people across the country in some of the most vulnerable forms of employment. I am proud that this Government are standing up for my constituent and many people like him across the country, and I am proud to support the Bill today.
Alison Griffiths
In the last 30 years, I have worked in businesses of every size in numerous sectors, from consumer goods to cyber-security and insurance to cloud infrastructure. I may not be a lawyer, but I feel well qualified to comment on this Bill. The Government need not take it from me; if only they had listened to the businesses I have spoken to.
I am vice-chair of the Business and Trade Committee, and my fellow Committee members and I have spent many hours listening to evidence on the Bill from employers, trade unions and industry groups. Our Select Committee toured the country at the end of last year, collating evidence and hearing from a wide range of sectors. In my coastal constituency of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, I have spoken to numerous businesses, many of which are impacted by the vagaries of seasonal trade and inclement British weather. A consistent message emerges, from businesses at least, if not from the trade unions: how can a Government who claim their primary focus is delivering growth be so tin-eared to the views and needs of the very businesses, entrepreneurs and employees who are fundamental to creating that growth?
The Government have boasted of delivering this Bill, which is telephone directory-thick, within their first 100 days. This is not sensible governance—indeed, the telephone directory of amendments is testament to that. One of the most damaging provisions is the abolition of the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal under clause 21, allowing employees to question failing probation or a trial period in their contract. From day one, employees will be able to take their employers to court. Our Conservative amendment 287 seeks to remove this clause entirely because it will disincentivise businesses from hiring, as they will know they cannot let an employee go even if it is not working out.
The Government expect entrepreneurs and businesses to take the risks necessary to drive growth. Indeed, that is what they expect and want to do, but clause 21 adds unnecessary risk and is likely to be to the detriment of jobseekers. It will further marginalise those who would already be considered risky candidates.
Antonia Bance
The hon. Member and I both serve on the Business and Trade Committee. The statistics show that the vast majority of young people do not have two years’ service and therefore have no protection from US-style “fire at will” policies. In hospitality and catering, which are industries that the hon. Member has massive concerns about, vast numbers have no protection from fire at will—overnight firing for no reason and with no process—and the Bill will outlaw that. I know that she supports fair process and fair reasons for firing, so I hope that she will support the Bill today.
Alison Griffiths
The hon. Member knows that I will always support fair process, but the point I was making is that this clause will make it more difficult for employers to take on prison leavers, care leavers, candidates with a non-traditional CV, career changers, and young people who are just looking for that first rung on the jobs ladder. Those people will not be given a fair chance, as employers will see them as too risky, and I hope she will see the risks inherent in the clause.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. I used to be an employer. I was an entrepreneur for about 15 years, and we employed more than 1,000 people. Does she agree that exactly those people who are a bit of a risk because they have something not quite right on their CV and are a high-risk hire, are the people who will not get jobs as a result of the Bill?
Alison Griffiths
I thank my hon. Friend for making that powerful point. Anyone who has ever looked for a job—Members in the Chamber will probably count themselves as being among the better qualified of the population looking for work—will know that most employers, of any kind, do not want to take a risk. If we make it even harder for them to employ people who are a risk at base point, it will not serve their purposes.
The Government’s own impact assessments suggest that the direct effects of the Bill will cost UK businesses an additional £5 billion annually. That estimate most likely understates the true cost, as it accounts only for administrative burdens while ignoring the broader impact on hiring, business costs and strike action. Key factors such as reduced hiring due to zero-hours contract limits, increased strike activity, and greater liability from employment tribunal claims, as outlined in the Bill, are dismissed as “too hard to calculate”, making those assessments highly questionable.
That is why I support new clause 86, which would require an impact assessment to be carried out for the measures in clause 21. We tabled new clause 83 and amendment 283 to ensure that the Bill’s provisions on zero-hours workers would not come into force until a comprehensive review of the Bill’s impact on employment tribunals had been assessed and approved by Parliament. Clause 18 places a new duty on employers to prevent third-party harassment. Protecting employees is unquestionably important, and no one should doubt the sincerity of Conservative Members about that.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree, as I do, that it is right that 1.3 million low earners who find themselves ill should receive statutory sick pay for the first time? Like her, I represent a coastal seat with a tourist sector, and as a consequence my constituency has a significant number of low earners. Does she agree that we need to be backing them?
Alison Griffiths
I refer the hon. Member first to my earlier comments about ensuring that we do not disincentivise employers, and secondly to the flexibility that is needed for both employers and employees.
Amendment 288 seeks to exclude hospitality providers and sports venues from those provisions, recognising the impracticality of holding employers accountable for every interaction in those environments. It is simply not practical to think that every publican, landlord and bar owner—small business owners—would be liable for any harassment that happens towards their employees in a pub, bar, nightclub or festival. Amendment 285 would require an impact assessment to be carried out on clause 18. Of course businesses and business owners should embed good working practices and guidelines to combat this abhorrent behaviour, but it is impractical and undesirable for the Government to legislate nationally for every sector and business.
Mrs Russell
The hon. Lady will appreciate that there is a defence here if an employer has taken all reasonable steps. It is only reasonable steps.
Alison Griffiths
I am sorry; I think we have made enough progress.
I urge the Government to reconsider, to withdraw the Bill and to work with businesses, unions and workers to create a fair and balanced approach that prioritises the political interests—
Employment Rights Bill
Alison Griffiths ExcerptsTuesday 11th March 2025
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 11 March 2025 - large print - (11 Mar 2025)
Ms Billington
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is indeed a very worrying direction of travel from the Conservatives.
We on the Labour Benches think that people should not be allowed to harass any workers. I honestly did not expect this to be a controversial aspect of the Bill for the Conservatives. Perhaps I am being uncharitable, so I would really appreciate it if the shadow Secretary of State, who is now in his place, could answer a few questions. When did it become Conservative party policy to allow staff to be harassed? Why does that apply only to staff working in hospitality and sports venues and not to all workers? Why is it all right to harass bar staff but not office staff?
Alison Griffiths
I know that the hon. Lady has not been in the Chamber for most of the debate, so she will have missed many of the discussions where my hon. Friends have explained the nuance of our position on this, which relates to the law of unintended consequences where publicans and nightclub owners could be responsible for policing the words of their customers. That is clearly not a tenable situation, but I will repeat the words of all of my colleagues on this side of the House: sexual harassment is abhorrent. We do not condone it in any shape or form, and I ask her to withdraw the insinuation that anyone on this side of the House has any truck with such behaviour.
Ms Billington
I would like to emphasise that I listened closely to the opening speeches when the hon. Lady’s colleagues were talking about amendment 289. I heard clearly, for example, some confusion over whether sexual harassment was a crime or a civil offence, so I will not take any lessons from the Conservatives on their understanding of employment law or, indeed, what is considered acceptable at work.
The amendment is utterly disgraceful. I am proud that this Labour Government have brought forward a Bill to stop workers being harassed wherever they work. It is just a shame that the Conservative party does not agree. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), and apparently the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), think that it is wrong that pub landlords will have to be responsible for kicking out customers. He talked about it being a “banter ban”, but pub managers have always known the importance of keeping rowdy behaviour in limits and protecting their staff and customers from being pestered or being made the unwilling butt of so-called jokes. This law—
Ms Billington
No, I will not give way.
This law will strengthen their hand. I say, in the words of the greatest pub manager of all time—Peggy Mitchell—to the proposers of the amendment, “Get outta my pub!”
Department for Business and Trade
Alison Griffiths Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
I will do my very best to reduce the comments I was going to make, Madam Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), for his very thoughtful comments, which reflect the considerations of our Committee.
Business is the lifeblood of our economy. It creates jobs, funds our public services and drives the success of our country, yet under this Government, businesses face an onslaught of damaging policies that threaten growth, confidence and livelihoods. The Government’s £25 billion national insurance jobs tax is making it more expensive to hire workers, their family business tax punishes those who drive local economies and their 1970s-style employment laws are stifling business growth. The result? The fastest rate of job losses since 2008.
Instead of supporting enterprise, this Government are actively making it harder for businesses to thrive. The budget of the Department for Business and Trade is being slashed by 6%, which means less support at a time when firms need it most. The so-called Employment Rights Bill—or, perhaps, the unemployment rights Bill—will cost the Government £1 billion, while its fair work agency could add an astonishing £6.3 billion burden. Those costs will inevitably be passed on to businesses and workers alike.
This is not just about numbers on a spreadsheet: these policies have real consequences—workers losing their jobs, families struggling with rising costs and businesses already being forced to shut their doors. The Government claim to support growth, yet their policies are driving firms into significant financial distress, with more than 632,000 businesses now at risk. That is a 32% increase in just one year.
The irony is that Britain remains an attractive place to invest. The PwC chief executive officer survey ranked us second only to the United States, but, alas, that survey took place before the Budget. A strong economy depends on strong business confidence, yet confidence in this Government’s economic management has been shattered. Businesses no longer trust that the Government have a clear strategy for growth, which the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North has already mentioned.
The numbers speak for themselves. More than 200 leading hospitality and retail firms have warned that Government policies will force them to cut jobs and scale back investment. Businesses face ever-changing regulations, increasing tax burdens and a Government who appear out of touch with their needs.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
My hon. Friend refers to the increase in regulation. The Government’s Employment Rights Bill, which I have in my hand, is 192 pages long. Only this week, Government amendments totalling 216 pages have been tabled for this House to consider in two days next week. Does that not present any business with a vast quantity of new regulation to consider?
Alison Griffiths
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The time that we have next week to consider this number of amendments seems wholly inadequate.
Businesses are facing ever-changing regulations and increasing tax burdens. Many have said that they were misled—duped—into believing that this Government were pro-business when their actions tell a very different story. Analysis by the Nuffield Trust has found that if the fair work agency were to increase social care workers’ wages to match the NHS Agenda for Change band 3, the cost could be as high as £6.3 billion, including an increase to the real living wage costing £2.2 billion. That is another measure in the out-of-touch Employment Rights Bill. It is as if the 32 members of the Cabinet have a very limited understanding of the private sector and of business as a whole.
Business owners, entrepreneurs and workers do not need more red tape and tax hikes. They need a Government who understand that growth does not come from the state dictating terms, but from unleashing the potential of enterprise, and they need policies that encourage investment, not deter it. Businesses in my constituency of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton are already struggling with the global impacts on their business environment, let alone the challenges at home. The day one rights given by the Employment Rights Bill give the presumption of innocence to workers and the presumption of malevolent intent to employers. The reality is that neither is correct.
The Government need to understand that when business thrives, Britain thrives. That is the only way in which we will restore confidence, protect jobs, and secure a growing economy.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I, too, am a member of the Select Committee.
Perhaps no other Department has an impact on the lives of so many Britons. The economy affects each and every one of us, and when the Government’s No. 1 priority is the fastest sustained economic growth in the G7, then—to use football parlance—the Chancellor is the midfield general and the Department for Business and Trade is the big striker in the opposition box. The rest of us—all of us—have a spot on the terraces, but oh dear! We have barely kicked off, and we are pinned in our own half.
Where is business confidence, given that less than a quarter of the businesses that cheered Labour on, signing a letter ahead of the election, are still waving their red scarves? One said that it now feels “duped”. What of the financial back-up? The eye-catching headline figure in the supplementary estimates is that the Department has been allocated a total funding increase of £1.8 billion, yet that money is largely earmarked for Post Office compensation. It is absolutely right and proper that the victims be compensated quickly, but there should be no pretence that the money is a shot in the arm for DBT.
Although the extra £440 million for the British Business Bank is good news, is it enough? This country lacks not for start-ups but for scale-ups, and we hear time and again that a lack of finance from risk-averse banks is the block. Scale matters. The Business and Trade Committee heard only yesterday that although work by the previous Government had created an ideal environment for the emerging technology of quantum computing, Britain has earmarked a few billion pounds for the sector—impressive, until one hears that the United States is injecting over $50 billion. The US’s R&D spend alone is perhaps seven times our total budget in this field.
No Government are ever in full control of events, and the storms of war are howling. Even as this Government’s industrial strategy is being shaped, defence is now the utmost priority. If we as a nation are not secure, we are not a nation. Wars are fought in trenches and on myriad battlefields, but they are won in boardrooms and on the shop floors and shipyards of industry. Economic growth, then, is a key arrow in the British quiver. But do these estimates give us hope for growth? Rather than confidently striking out for new global deals, Britain today looks like a cork in a storm-tossed sea—at the mercy of events, and not their master.
On a Business and Trade Committee visit to Brussels, we explored what the Government might expect of their much-vaunted reset of relations. Troublingly, Britain lacks for any clear definition of its ask beyond warm words about defence and security, yet the EU, being made up of good protectionists, already has an invoice drawn up.
We have acceded to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—that is not easy to say, especially with these teeth. It covers a bloc of over 500 million people and includes countries such as Australia, Canada, Japan and Singapore, and economies that are ripe to bloom, such as Vietnam and Malaysia, in contrast to the sunset economies of Europe, which have sclerotic growth. Yet we are told that trade deals take up British GDP only marginally. We lack ambition.
Alison Griffiths
I want to follow up on my hon. Friend’s comment on international trade. Does he agree that the Government currently lack the capability to support businesses appropriately in international trade?
John Cooper
I completely agree that much more needs to be done on international trade. As I said, we lack ambition in this field, because we base so much of what we expect on previous deals. Frankly, there has never been a deal like CPTPP, the putative deal with India and the dripping roast that is a free trade deal with the US.
The Department for Business and Trade needs to step up, not be beaten before we even start. Growth is the destination that we in this House should all agree on; the path there is where the disputes lie. We are in an economic relegation zone after a dud Budget. Can the Department for Business and Trade help pull off the shock result that we all need? Britain’s got talent, and the Department for Business and Trade can boost it.
Harland & Wolff
Alison Griffiths Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Alison Griffiths, a member of the Select Committee.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will have noticed that the Secretary of State did not answer one question, which was whether he would clarify that the final assembly and systems integration will take place in Belfast, rather than in the Navantia shipyards in Spain.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alison Griffiths Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently announced £20.4 billion in investment for research and development for the next year, which will help to drive even more of the type of technological investment that she rightly champions. We are also working with small businesses to encourage them to adopt more digital technologies through the digital adoption taskforce.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Businesses in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton are at the sharp end of the Bank of England’s business confidence survey. Unlike the Chancellor and the Secretary of State, they know that her Budget and the Employment Rights Bill are a recipe for higher prices, higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment. Is that the growth that the Secretary of State had in mind?
Jonathan Reynolds
We have had seven or eight of the same question from the Opposition Benches, and not a single answer to how they would pay for the promises that they make. We are getting on with fixing the foundations, looking to the future and improving the business environment across the board. That is why businesses in the hon. Lady’s area and mine should look to 2025 with real confidence.