Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
Debate between Andrew Griffith and Jonathan ReynoldsTuesday 1st April 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead 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: HL Bill 18-R-II(a) Manuscript Amendment for Report (Supplementary tot he Second Marshalled List) - (5 Mar 2025)
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] because it will provide for regulatory alignment with the European Union, and it has been condemned three times by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee as a skeleton Bill which provides, without justification, inappropriately wide powers for Ministers to re-write the regulatory regimes for product safety and the weights and measures of goods by regulations.”
Too often when the public think of Parliament, they think of out-of-touch power and bad laws. The Bill is the archetype of everything that is wrong with Westminster. There should be an unwritten rule in this postcode: never trust a Bill with a convoluted name. This Bill is no exception.
Although it professes to simplify our regulatory framework, the reality is that this is an EU Trojan horse of a Bill, which will sabotage our Brexit freedoms, undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom, disrespect Parliament, befuddle British business with uncertainty and take us back to being a Brussels rule-taker—all from a party that voted 48 times to overturn the will of the British people.
Andrew Griffith
I will not, but before I get into further—[Interruption.] I will say something nice about the right hon. Gentleman in a minute.
Before I get into detail, let me welcome the Government’s U-turn on their plan to scrap the great British pint. Let us hope that that is the first of many. When I raised that on 26 February, Labour Members described it as “a conspiracy theory”. The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) said it was “scaremongering”, and the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), said that an amendment was no more needed than a
“law to say that the sun must rise in the morning.”—[Official Report, 26 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 812.]
The truth is that the Government were caught red-handed trying to ditch our British pint by this back-door Bill. Had the Opposition not fought back, the power to crush the British pint would have rested on the whim of a Minister’s pen. Welcome though that U-turn is, let us not ignore the fact that the Labour Government wanted to give themselves the power in the first place.
Andrew Griffith
No, I will make some progress.
The anti-pub, anti-hospitality agenda goes far beyond this Bill. The jobs tax, the threshold change, the attack on seasonal and flexible working, the more than doubling of business rates, the war on pub banter and the garden smoking ban are all from this Government. Our hospitality industry—the Secretary of State is smirking—deserves infinitely better than this from this Government.
Andrew Griffith
I am happy to give way if the right hon. Gentleman talks about what he will do to repeal the Employment Rights Bill.
Jonathan Reynolds
The hon. Member was a senior member of the previous Government and played a well-known role in the mini Budget, as well as a number of other things that that Government did. Will he confirm that they were planning exactly the same piece of legislation because of an absence in the statute book?
Andrew Griffith
Once again, the Secretary of State has failed to engage on the key issue, which is that British businesses—[Interruption.] It is not funny. British businesses are bleeding out, business confidence is at a record low, unemployment is rising, and all the Government have to talk about is the past, not what they are currently delivering.
Andrew Griffith
Let me move on. The biggest flaw of many in this Bill is that, as the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) have both identified, it hands over too much power with too little accountability. There is
“a real need to consider the balance between primary and secondary legislation, which in recent years has weighed too heavily in favour of delegated powers…excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation—”
such as this Bill—
“upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive.”
Those are not my words, but those of the Attorney General. They are taken from a speech that he made in October, while in government, about the importance of restoring parliamentary sovereignty. No one who considered that speech could fail to agree.
The Lords’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has slammed the Bill not once, not twice, but three times, including after the Government’s changes were made. To put this into context, the wide powers contained in this 15-page Bill will allow Ministers unilaterally to amend product safety regulation, impose obligations on online marketplaces, meddle with standards for weights and measures or entirely align British regulatory standards with the European Union, posing a threat to the integrity of the UK internal market. It is 15 pages of the most egregious Whitehall overreach.
Andrew Griffith
The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right, and we can contrast the number of references to the European Union throughout the Bill with, for example, our biggest single country trading partner—the United States.
Jonathan Reynolds
I want to directly answer the point made by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and provide clarification that I have just sought. Clause 2(7)(a) is not about alignment; it is about recognition. We already recognise certain EU product requirements on a mutual recognition basis, and where it is of benefit to do so, that is what the clause allows. Rather than take European standards as the basis for our own and align with them, it enables that where it is recognised that we have the interest. I can write to him in detail if he wishes.
Andrew Griffith
On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), I thank the Secretary of State for intervening. It is important that we legislate with full understanding of what the law says, but the point still stands on the overweighting of references to EU standards versus comparable standards from the United States and Commonwealth friends of this great nation.
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Member makes exactly the right point. This is a blank cheque Bill and a Trojan horse Bill. It is simply not clear under this Secretary of State, or any Secretary of State in the future once these powers have been ceded by this place, how they will be implemented. There is a real asymmetry in the constant litany of references to the European Union—a valued trading partners of ours, but only one valued trading partner of ours, as I hope the Secretary of State is about to reveal over the coming days. Tomorrow we understand that tariffs will be imposed by the United States on British exporters. If that is the case, that would be the worst failure of trade policy for a generation. It is businesses, jobs and our economy that will all pay the price. The Chancellor’s emergency Budget will not have lasted a single week because she made no provision for the imposition of tariffs—if that is indeed what is to come.
It is frankly outrageous that the Government have failed to make a statement about where we are, despite the Prime Minister’s official spokesman briefing the Lobby, and the Business and Trade Secretary himself finding time this morning to conduct a round of media interviews. If the Secretary of State would like to comment on the progress of US talks, I will happily give way.
Jonathan Reynolds
This is a little off-topic for a Second Reading, but the hon. Gentleman could have just listened to the “Today” programme this morning. He would have heard me articulate those concerns. We are engaged with our US counterparts, more so than any other country, in those negotiations. He will know that I will not share the content or detail of those talks. The policy originates with the President of the United States and we are responding to and engaging with it. The hon. Gentleman will understand that it comes from the mandate and the agenda of the US Administration.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I remind the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State that we are debating the Second Reading of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, and not necessarily tariffs.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Andrew Griffith and Jonathan Reynolds(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
How have we got to this point? After 35 weeks as Trade Secretary, 18 weeks since the US election, and an entire month since steel and aluminium tariffs were first announced, the Secretary of State is only now going to sit down with the Secretary of Commerce of our closest ally. While he has been correcting his CV, steelworkers and businesses are hurting today. This is a colossal failure of trade policy on his watch. Why has it taken so long, and when can we expect an agreement?
Jonathan Reynolds
The hon. Gentleman may have not seen the news recently, but the UK, led by our Prime Minister, has had the best engagement of any country with the new US Administration. Is it not good to see again a British Prime Minister who is respected on the world stage and delivering for Britain? We have had tremendous engagement with the new US Administration, and I am looking forward to meeting them in person next week.
Andrew Griffith
Once again, no answers come there forth. Over 1 million jobs in this country depend on trade with the United States, including thousands of jobs in our steel industry. The Secretary of State does not know when he is going to get a deal. Will he publish his red lines for that deal, his objectives and what he hopes to achieve from meetings next week?
Jonathan Reynolds
On steel and aluminium tariffs, the US Administration’s position is that there are no exemptions for anybody—that is across the board. I think they recognise the very strong case that we have, but that is their position.
No, I will not publish my negotiating red lines before a negotiation. Frankly, that is the worst advice I have ever heard in the House of Commons. The Conservative party fell out with the EU, would not deal with China and could not do a deal with India. It fell out with the United Arab Emirates and could not do a deal with the Gulf. It got nothing out of the US. It did deals with Australia and New Zealand, then disowned them. We will take no lessons from the Conservatives.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Andrew Griffith and Jonathan Reynolds(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
One of the great British innovations is the gift of free trade, lifting billions out of poverty abroad and increasing prosperity at home. Thanks to the Conservatives, this week the UK proudly joined the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, a bloc that includes some of the world’s fastest-growing economies, as well as major trading partners and investors, such as Japan and Canada. With the Government having precious little else to show on growth so far, will the Secretary of State update the House on when he expects to conclude free trade deals with the Gulf, with India and with the US?
Jonathan Reynolds
At least we have some things we can agree on there, which is a nice start to the Christmas period. I agree that the UK has always been and must be a champion of free trade in a world where trade issues will be politically significant in 2025. We can work together on that future. We believe that we have progressed the Gulf Co-operation Council trade deal significantly. The shadow Secretary of State will know that there were some problems between the previous Government and some countries in the GCC, particularly the UAE, where the relationship had unfortunately got into a difficult place. We have repaired that and the talks are going well. It is always a mistake to put a deadline on those, because it can limit our negotiating potential. When it comes to the US, we will see what happens with the President-elect, but I am looking forward to negotiation and discussion about that.
Andrew Griffith
The Secretary of State can count on our support to bring those deals forward. It pains me to say it, but as we have heard today, business confidence is at an all-time low, bar the pandemic. Hiring is collapsing and companies are fleeing. Labour has talked growth, but it has delivered decline. The one game changer now would be a US trade deal. Will the Secretary of State urge the Prime Minister to stop obsessing about going backwards into the EU and agree with me at this Christmas time that the best gift for British business would be for the Prime Minister to get on a plane to Washington and talk trade with President Trump?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am afraid that the shadow Secretary of State’s analysis is too simplistic. The US is a major trade partner and always will be, but he will know that so is the European Union and another area is our trade with China. The future for the UK is being positioned to get the maximum benefit from all those key markets. The kind of agreement that he puts forward would have major ramifications for British agriculture in particular, and he knows the issues associated with that. We cannot consider one of those trade negotiations without considering the impact on all those key trading relationships. I ask him to consider the issue in a more holistic and complete way.
Stellantis Luton
Debate between Andrew Griffith and Jonathan Reynolds(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. This is a sad day for the 1,100 workers at the Luton Vauxhall factory, and our thoughts are first and foremost with them and their families. They are the most recent custodians in a long history that goes back to 1905, when their factory opened its doors for the first time. Luton-built white vans are icons of British business, representing to many the hard graft and skill of millions of traders, the self-employed and small businesses across this country.
The Opposition stand by those hard-working people. We are on the side of the plant workers, because we know the value of skilled work and the transformative power of British business. The closure of the Luton plant, I fear, is just a down payment on the jobs that will be lost through this Government’s relentless attacks on industry, their neglect of the realities of business, and their failure to meet their promise not to raise taxes. The Government owe it to the plant’s workers to at least be honest. This decision is the direct result of a Government policy that is simply unworkable for industry. Stellantis told us as much when it said that the decision was
“made within the context of the… ZEV mandate”.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said,
“the UK situation is particularly acute with arguably the toughest targets and most accelerated timeline in the world,”
and that
“unsustainable business costs undermine UK industry”.
The Government’s policy on zero emission vehicles is a jobs killer. They say they have been talking since July, so why this panicked U-turn today, when it is already too late? The last Government acknowledged that the previous vehicle mandate was too stringent. We took the decision to push it back, recognising the impact that it would have on industry. We listened to Unite the union on this. The Secretary of State’s party unilaterally reversed those changes and brought the deadline forward to 2030. Instead of listening to Unite, he listened to the Member for climate central, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband).
Even today, the Secretary of State speaks of ending the sale of new purely petrol and diesel cars by 2030. He tried to slip a subtle change in there, the consequences of which are significant. I welcome the fact that, for once, this Government have listened to business, but he appears to be misleading business at the same time. Can he explain exactly what his policy is? As we see today, there are real costs to these targets. Instead of having the courage to recognise that he was wrong, his solution appears to be yet another consultation, which is yet to take place. How many automotive businesses has the Secretary of State spoken to about the targets? In any of his conversations with Stellantis, did it ask him at any point to remove the fines? Has he met the right hon. Member for Doncaster North to entreat him to row back from his ideological pursuit of domestic targets, which ignores the fact British jobs are being exported to more carbon-intensive economies?
Most of all, we must not ignore the elephant in the room: the timing of the decision. It follows a Budget that declared war on business, with a triple whammy of tax rises that remove incentives for growth and investment; a £25 billion jobs tax, which has left boardrooms across the country putting recruitment and pay rises on hold; and an Employment Rights Bill that the Secretary of State wrote while hand in hand with his union paymasters, which is already deterring businesses from hiring in Britain.
Businesses are ringing the alarm bells. The CBI, the British Retail Consortium, UKHospitality and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders have all said that the pressures on business are too much to swallow. In open letter after open letter, statement after statement, they say that Labour is not on their side. It lied about its plans. It is attacking working people, and now it is attacking the vans that they go to work in. The businessmen and women who gave Labour the benefit of the doubt are regretting it. When will the Secretary of State listen? When will his Government abandon their attack on British business? Will he lead the charge to change course? Why will he not suspend the fines and targets that have led to today’s tragedy?
Jonathan Reynolds
That is the single most dishonest statement I have ever heard in my time in this House.
Budget Resolutions
Debate between Andrew Griffith and Jonathan Reynolds(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith
I will happily give way to the Secretary of State if he wants to explain why he no longer deems it important to invest in these crucial parts of the economy.
Jonathan Reynolds
Let us reflect on where we are today—the first day of the constructive Opposition. The new Leader of the Conservative party stood at the Dispatch Box two hours ago and called for both tax cuts and massive public spending on defence. How are you going to pay for projects that you promised but never delivered, and that you knew you could never pay for?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The Secretary of State knows better than to say “you”.