Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Allison Gardner Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I remind Members that they are speaking to the amendments. There are 33 to choose from, so please keep your contributions appropriate.

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I rise today in support of new clause 1, which deals with a country of origin marking for ceramic products and which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) so eloquently introduced. My constituency is home to “The Great Pottery Throw Down”, based in the wonderful Gladstone Pottery Museum in Longton, and I am so proud to have many great pottery firms in my constituency. Those include Wedgwood, which is famed for its iconic blue jasperware, and Duchess China, which has factories in Longton and Newstead that I was honoured to visit recently. There, I met Jason Simms, who is a 100-mph visionary for the future of ceramics in Stoke-on-Trent and the world. It was a really interesting visit.

Duchess, founded in 1888, produces the tableware used in the House of Commons. It is proud of the fact that its products are made in the UK, from clay to table. People buying products produced by Duchess, for example, will see that they say on the bottom, “Fine bone china made in Staffordshire”. The phrasing is deliberate; it clearly informs the purchaser not only of the product’s country of origin, but the precise part of the country that it comes from. Most of our ceramic products contain these backstamps to mark authenticity, and many include a reference to Stoke and Staffordshire. As I have before, I invite all colleagues to join the “turnover club” and check the backstamp on the chinaware here. They will probably find it was made in Stoke.

[Gareth Snell]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Just for the record, some of the tableware in the Members’ Dining Room is in fact German. I hope everyone will get behind a campaign to replace it.

[Dr Gardner]

I thank my hon. Friend for that timely and right intervention. I join him in his campaign.

We do not always have the level of detail needed in this country, and we need to address that nuance so that consumers know exactly what they are buying. That is important, because the pottery industry is at great risk from cheap imports, which are undermining our British-made products and creating unfair competition for our better-quality products made in our own country. This china-dumping of products often falsely pretending to be made by our Staffordshire firms—Dunoon being one example—must be stopped. We must back our British industry and our British workers and do what we can to resist such unfair competition.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Having Stoke tableware in my home, I completely understand the argument that the hon. Member is making, so will she join me in the Lobby in voting for new clause 4, to support UK labelling for manufactured products? That is for not just Stoke tableware, but further afield, too.

[Dr Gardner]

The hon. Member is right to point out that Stoke and Staffordshire are not the only places that produce wonderful ceramic and other products. I understand that new clause 4 is broad in scope. I am speaking today to new clause 1, which relates to ceramics. I hope he will indulge me.

A few months ago, I was proud to meet GMB representatives for the British pottery industries here in Parliament, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). That included the formidable Sharon Yates, who is one of my constituents. They have real pride, real passion and real skill in what they do.

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. She is eloquently outlining the real skills and talents of our people who make world-class ceramics. I echo her support for new clause 1, brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). Recently I met the GMB union and workers who had sadly been made redundant at the iconic Moorcroft pottery in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove. Collectively, the 30 people in that room had more than 800 years of honing skills and expertise. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must do all we can to protect our pots, including backstamping our ceramic products, as outlined in new clause 1?

[Dr Gardner]

I commend my hon. Friend for his outstanding advocacy, in particular for the workers of Moorcroft. I know how hard he has been working for them, and I agree that they are a testament to the great skilled craftsmen and women in British manufacturing.

Stoke-on-Trent, the Potteries and Staffordshire are globally renowned for our chinaware and tableware. We stand tall among the likes of Limoges in France and Delft in the Netherlands, and we must ensure that we protect that status. We are celebrating Stoke-on-Trent’s 100th anniversary this year and working towards UNESCO creative city status. I hence urge Ministers and the Government to demonstrate their pride and support for this globally renowned industry by supporting new clause 1.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow my colleagues from Stoke, who have so powerfully advocated for their local communities. It is also an absolute pleasure to be part of a debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), who I genuinely believe should be knighted for his services to explaining what metrology is to all of us. At the very least, he should have some kind of BBC Four series, possibly with my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) as his sidekick.

I am here because I have tabled new clause 15, which has cross-party support. It is designed to be a probing amendment—I hope the Minister is reassured about that—because these are important parliamentary matters. I agree with Opposition Members that this Bill is an important piece of legislation, although I come at it from a different perspective, because I see it as being at the sharp end of Brexit.

To me, Brexit is paperwork, because there are multiple regulatory regimes. Our constituents, and particularly small businesses, must deal with the reams and reams of paperwork that have come from leaving the European Union in the way we did, and we know that has had an impact on them. We know that over 16,000 small businesses have given up exporting to the European Union because of all the extra paperwork, that one in eight small exporters had temporarily or permanently stopped selling to the EU, and that another 10% were considering doing so, because it had become more complicated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I will address new clause 2 in due course. That is a more a consumer-related issue than a product safety one, but I understand the intent behind it.

We have heard a lot of concerns—many of them misplaced—about the breadth of powers contained within the Bill. In the other place, we did increase the measures that will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We removed several Henry VIII clauses and added a statutory consultation requirement. We also published a code of conduct, available in the Library of the House, which sets out exactly how the powers under the Bill will be used. I now believe the Bill strikes the right balance of appropriate parliamentary scrutiny without clogging up parliamentary time with highly technical product regulations. Gutting the Bill by removing the central power would leave consumers unprotected.

Amendments 10, 14 to 17, 25 to 29 and 32 all relate to EU law. I want to be absolutely clear yet again that the powers in the Bill give the UK the flexibility to manage its own product regulatory framework. Part of that is, of course, ensuring that the UK can respond to relevant developments in EU law. It does not mean that the UK is beholden to EU changes, and all regulations will be subject to Parliament’s oversight. I also wish to reassure the House that the Government remain committed to our obligations under the Windsor framework. The reason the Bill explicitly references the EU rather than other jurisdictions is that most of our product regulation is, of course, inherited from EU law. The UK continues to recognise certain EU product requirements—a policy that was, of course, enacted under the previous Government only 12 months ago.

The Bill’s powers allow us to continue or end such recognition based on the UK’s interests on a case-by-case basis. Decisions on whether to diverge or align will be made as they come along and will only be implemented by laying a statutory instrument in Parliament. Recognition of EU product requirements would be stated in UK law and could only be enforced by UK authorities. The Bill does not grant jurisdiction to foreign courts. I find amendment 15, which would prevent CE recognition, an odd amendment to be pushed by the Conservatives given that they introduced regulations only a year ago that did the absolute opposite.

New clauses 8, 14, 16 and 17 and amendments 13, 31 and 33 deal with themes of EU law, parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. These amendments duplicate the robust safeguards already in the Bill and the statutory and non-statutory controls that we have published in our code of conduct. Those include the statutory requirement for consultation and assessments under the better regulation framework. The Government value Parliament’s role in scrutinising legislation, so we will continue to consult all the devolved Governments as appropriate to ensure that regulations work for the whole of the UK.

Let me turn to amendments 1, 12, 18 and 30, on parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill as introduced already applied the affirmative procedure in key areas, including the creation of criminal offences—contrary to what has been said this afternoon—and amending primary legislation. However, in response to matters raised by the DPRRC, we have added additional areas, which are set out in clause 13(4). For the avoidance of doubt, I can confirm that the affirmative procedure applies to the following: the creation of criminal offences; the first use of regulations covering online marketplaces; the first time duties are imposed on a new supply chain actor; regulations conferring powers of entry, search or inspection; regulations to disapply requirements in response to an emergency; regulations covering the sharing of information between persons; regulations on cost recovery; regulations amending or repealing the Gun Barrel Proof Acts; consequential amendments to primary legislation; and regulations amending the definition of online marketplaces.

[Dr Gardner]

Does the Minister agree that online marketplaces should have a greater responsibility to ensure the safety and authenticity of the products they sell, just like a retailer on our high streets?

[Justin Madders]

I absolutely agree, and that is one reason why the Bill has been introduced. We absolutely need to keep up to date with developments in the online marketplace world, which is why we have introduced this legislation. It is not, as has been suggested, an unbridled use of powers; it sets out a clear set of principles and provides for the use of the affirmative procedure in most cases. There are already a number of regulations that will be transposed as they stand—there are about 2,500 pages of product regulations, including to do with noise levels emitted from certain types of machinery and the ergonomic design of personal protective equipment. Increasing the list of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure to cover such matters risks miring Parliament in a level of technicality that I think only my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash could follow. I do not think that is a good use of parliamentary time, and I believe the Opposition used to think that too, which is why the powers in the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which is similar to what we are dealing with today, remained in place under successive Governments.

I will deal now with new clause 15, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. She raised some important points, and I thank her for setting out the rationale behind her new clause so clearly. First, I reassure the House that we are not looking at the same level of regulatory change that was necessitated when we left the EU. We anticipate no more than half a dozen uses of the powers a year. That is because the fundamentals of the regulatory framework are already in UK law—thousands of pages, as I have referred to, and many of those provisions have been through previous scrutiny processes. The majority of future changes using the power in the Bill will be smaller and technical.

I recognise the concerns raised, though. When we were a member of the EU, directives enacting major regulatory changes were regularly transposed into UK law using the negative procedure. Our Bill contains many more safeguards than were in place before, meaning that the affirmative procedure will be used far more often, as I have set out. Careful consideration was given in the development of the powers to ensure that we struck the right balance between good use of parliamentary time and the processing of highly technical changes. We listened to the concerns raised by members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and went further, broadening the areas requiring scrutiny, as I have set out.

As Lord Pannick said, the practical reality is that technical regulations of the breadth and complexity that will be produced cannot sensibly be enacted by primary legislation. If we used primary legislation every time we wanted to do something on product safety, we would have little time for anything else. However, to provide maximum transparency in this space, we also published a code of conduct setting out the statutory and non-statutory guardrails in place before regulations can be made. That included a statement on how we will engage and consult with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that their views are considered. We will continue to review and update the code of conduct, and of course we will be happy to take suggestions on how we can be clearer about Parliament’s role in the scrutiny of regulations.

Given those assurances, I believe we have struck the right balance between scrutiny, the appropriate use of parliamentary time and the flexibility needed to keep our product and metrology regulations up to date. I hope that gives my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow some reassurances.