Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and to commend the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for a very clear introduction to three amendments. The Green group is very happy to support all of them. I apologise to the Committee that was I absent for the last two days of Committee. Once I was stuck in the Chamber and the other day I was unavoidably away, so I apologise for missing some of my own amendments, but I really wanted to speak on these amendments. I will start with Amendment 79. We have just heard a very useful argument for it and I will briefly add to it.

Inclusive by design is talking about going beyond accessibility and beyond saying, “We have this thing. What do we do now to make it accessible?”. This starts from the very beginning and takes us back to the social model of disability. Our society and our products are designed to be non-inclusive. That is what we are doing now and that is wrong in terms of allowing so many people to fully participate in our society. It is also always important to make the argument that it is better for all of us, not just those who may have a disability, now or in the future, if products are made to be easy to access so that you are able to do things. There is wrestling with opening a jar or that terrible rigid plastic packaging on toothbrushes and other things that many people struggle with. If you made those things inclusive by design, they would be better for all of us.

Following the technological arguments already made, I thought back to when I helped an elderly man attempt to access his banking. It was certainly not accessible to him and, as a friend, I knew his password and everything else because I had to. The machine he had to press was about the size of a matchbox; the keys were on it and I struggled to press them. There was two-factor authentication, and I could not understand the text message or work out which numbers in the text message you were supposed to put in, and I have been using technology for many decades. This is so important and could be a real advance.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

57: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Clothing safety: regulations and requirements(1) Within three years of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, by regulations under section 1, make provision to reduce risks as defined in section 1(4) presented by clothing.(2) For the purposes of this section, clothing means items of fabric, leather, plastic and similar materials usually worn on the human body.(3) Within three years of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must also make provision about clothing product requirements by regulations under section 2. (4) Regulations in accordance with subsection (3) must set out product requirements for the production, use, marking, marketing, testing, approval and provision of information (including information about risk) of clothing.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment intends to probe whether the Secretary of State will use powers under sections 1 and 2 to regulate clothing products, given the human and environmental health risks they represent from artificial fibres and chemical constituents.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 57, I will also speak to Amendments 58 and 59 in my name.

I feel I must begin by offering credit to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I was looking at the Bill and thinking, “How do we address particularly pressing issues of safety and environmental concern around products, addressing particular types of products?” The noble Earl put down an amendment on building products, and my drafting owes a great deal to his amendments, so I feel I should acknowledge that. I note that my amendments mirror each other in many ways, although noble Lords will notice that there is a difference: the clothing safety amendment suggests a three-year period before action is taken, while the single-use plastics amendment suggests two years and the period products amendment suggests one year. That is a reflection of capability, scientific understanding and the importance of having the ability to take action as quickly as possible. Viable timeframes have been carefully selected in each one.

These three amendments fit together very well because all of them address the way in which we are exceeding the planetary boundary for what are known as “novel entities”, as identified by the Stockholm Resilience Centre. These are substances made by humans and previously unknown in the natural world. Generally speaking, the natural world has no capacity to deal with, process or get rid of them. In talking about the natural world, I am also talking about the bodies of human animals—all of us. These products, chemicals, plastics and other substances are accumulating in our environment day by day, week by week, month by month and year by year. They are not going away. It is the people in the most disadvantaged communities and situations who are most exposed to these products and their increasingly understood health effects.

Amendment 57 concerns clothing safety. I suspect that there was probably puzzlement in some quarters when people saw this: “Unsafe clothing?” I have to pay credit to a new independent feature documentary by the fashion designer Jeff Garner, called “Let Them Be Naked”. I went to a London Fashion Week showing of this documentary, which focuses on the use of toxic chemicals in fabrics and the harmful impacts on human and environmental health. Clothing worn next to our skin for long periods exposes us to chemicals that can cause short-term and long-term health effects, including cancer and fertility issues. Repeated testing of clothing such as socks, school uniforms and work uniforms has found harmful quantities of toxic chemicals well above legal limits and standards. It is worth noting that, whether it is school pupils or workers with a uniform, people have no choice in these matters. Of course, this issue affects not just the people wearing this clothing but the people who make it, where the material is dumped, et cetera.

I will briefly bring in some detailed information. Laboratory research commissioned by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation showed that, out of 38 samples of clothing and accessories, one in five contained high levels of harmful chemicals such as lead, PFAS—known as “forever chemicals”—and phthalates. A North American lab study of stain-resistant school uniforms identified high levels of PFAS—of course, these uniforms are worn by often very small children, so the ratio of the amount of PFAS to body weight is very high. Another chemical of concern is bisphenol A. Research for the Center for Environmental Health found that over 100 popular brands of socks contained up to 31 times California’s legal safety limit for BPA. There is a famous case of Alaska Airlines, which introduced a new uniform. Staff who were forced to wear it reported symptoms of chemical sensitivity, sore throats, coughs, shortness of breath, itchy skin, rashes and hives, itchy eyes, loss of voice and blurred vision.

I will pick up one chemical and cite some interesting British research from just this year, published in the journal Environment International. This was a real break- through piece of research. Previously, it had been said of PFAS, these forever chemicals, “Don’t worry—they don’t cross the skin barrier, so you can be wearing them, but they won’t harm you”. But this research demonstrated that that is simply not true. It is of course already known that PFAS can enter the body through being breathed in or being ingested in food or water, and it is known that, by those routes, it causes a lower immune response to vaccination, impaired liver function and decreased birth weight in babies. In this study from the University of Birmingham, 15 of 17 PFASs tested showed substantial absorption through the skin. Remember that it had been said, “No, no—this does not happen. It’s fine”. But 15 of the 17 tested were being absorbed through the skin and at least 5% of the exposure dose was being absorbed. For PFOA, which is one of the most regulated ones—it is regulated because it is considered dangerous—13.5% was absorbed through the skin. This is on people’s clothing, effectively being injected into their bodies.

There is also the important issue of plastics. It is starting to be understood—but still little understood—that, as the marine conservation organisation Plastic Soup Foundation pointed out recently, 69% of fashion is now synthetic materials. Noble Lords have heard me talking before about how microplastics are being found in human testes, placentas, breast milk and brains. But it is not just the microplastics themselves. At the Future Fabrics Expo in London earlier this year, it was pointed out that nylon in particular is very detrimental to our lungs, especially in terms of repair and growth. It is not the fibre itself that is the primary culprit but the chemicals associated with it. I was looking around this Committee and thinking that I cannot see a lot of artificial fibres, but we are a very privileged group of people; if you looked at a different socioeconomic group, that would not be the case. That is my clothing introduction.

I turn to Amendment 58, which of course is closely related because it is about single-use plastics. We mostly hope that clothing is not a single-use item, but in our environment today there is an enormous amount of single-use plastic that is sometimes used for seconds and then will exist in our environment for hundreds of years.

Here I pay credit to City to Sea, a campaign group that I am sure many noble Lords are aware of. If noble Lords have not seen its briefing, I would be delighted to share it. Some 220 million tonnes of plastic waste were created in 2024. Globally, the average is 28 kilos per person. That is a 10% rise since 2021. Although we have been talking about plastics and having a UN plastics treaty, the amount of plastic being produced and put out into the world is still going up.

As we referred to on the previous group, so many of the products we are talking about have unnecessary single-use plastics wrapped around them. If we are to be serious about making a safe world for people to live in, we need product regulation that drastically slashes this amount of single-use plastic. In the UK alone, households throw away an estimated 90 billion pieces of plastic packaging. That is nearly 70% of our plastic waste. If we are regulating products, we need to think about the packaging as well.

Thinking again about the health impacts, a letter by the Plastic Health Council and signed by a range of doctors, including from the Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Doctors Against Harm, and NHS trusts, calls for action. This was in the UN context, but it also applies to the Bill. The letter recognised that endocrine-disrupting chemicals in plastics can impair sperm quality and fertility, and cause cancers, endometriosis, early puberty, neurological and learning disabilities, abnormalities in sex organs, altered growth and nervous system and immune function, and diverse respiratory, cardiovascular and metabolic diseases. I note that there has been a global decline in sperm counts of more than 60%. Leading scientists have suggested that most couples may have to use assisted reproduction by 2045.

I am aware that noble Lords may feel I am battering them over the head with a whole lot of statistics, but we are talking about people’s lives, health and future. I have talked about things that apply to us all—clothing and single-use plastics—but I turn now to the amendment in which I have suggested that we should see action from the Government within a year on period products. Here, I draw extensively on the work of the Women’s Environmental Network, which has a proposed menstrual health, dignity and sustainability Act containing elements of this and much more besides.

I will start with the biology. The vagina contains a very large number of blood vessels, which means that the skin is very absorbent. What is in period products really matters. Yet, as I learned from Helen Lynn at Wen, there are currently more regulations about what can be in a candle than what can be in a tampon. Earlier this year, lead, arsenic and cadmium were all found in a variety of tampons tested in the UK and internationally. Single-use menstrual products have been shown to contain phthalates, bisphenols and parabens, which I have already talked about in other contexts. Despite their apparently cottony appearance, tampons and pads can be up to 90% plastic, meaning they continually shed microplastics during use and afterwards.

Many of these products contain fragrances, which are of particular concern. These synthetic fragrances are compiled from a cocktail of up to 3,000 different chemicals, none of which, of course, is recorded in the packaging or—to pick up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, about transparency—available to consumers, even if they go hunting to find what they are. They contain chemicals that are carcinogens, allergens, irritants and endocrine-disrupting chemicals, which I have talked about before. Despite changes in bleaching practices to purify wood pulp, chlorine and dioxin—you really do not want to put dioxin in your body—can still be found in menstrual pads and tampons.

Finally, I come to a fast-developing and crucial issue that is a real illustration of how a lack of regulation lets us go horribly wrong. Because of environmental concerns, we have rightly seen a shift towards reusable menstrual products. Broadly, that is obviously a good thing, but there is a stigma around menstrual products and period blood. These products are often advertised as tackling menstrual odour—which is not a thing; it is an advertising construction—and contain silver or nanosilver. This applies not just to menstrual products; see also socks, T-shirts and other clothing. That causes direct toxicity to the human body and negative impacts on the vaginal microbiome—known as microbiotoxicity —which can lead to bacterial infections and even problems with pregnancies.

Of course, noble Lords have heard me talk many times before about antimicrobial resistance. The silver washes out of these reusable products and down our drains to join the cocktail of other antimicrobial-inducing products swilling around in our drains, where there are microbes that will be influenced by them and develop resistance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I very much remember the debate because we worked closely on it. We will look into this and get back to the noble Baroness with a detailed explanation of the issues so that everyone is clear.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their kind words about my introductory speech. I thank the Minister for his detailed response. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I also worked on the Medicines and Medical Devices Act. Well done for picking up that cross-reference, because my understanding was that tampons, pads and reusable products were not medical devices under that Act. There is a complication there that we need to address.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we are still but just over five months in office. Clearly, we have to think very carefully about the actions we are going to take. What I seek to demonstrate to the noble Baroness is that we have the powers and determination. There are a lot of areas that we have to look at, but I think that the Written Statement I read out in relation to plastics shows where we want to go. We want to see real progress in the areas that she has developed.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I think he perhaps misunderstood where I was going with that. It was not meant to be a criticism of this Government—I fully take the point of five months in power. What I was criticising or questioning was the legal framework, which allows the Government to act, whereas in these amendments each proposed new subsection (1) says that the Secretary of State “must” regulate. This is proposing a different kind of framework. It is asking the Houses of Parliament whether they are prepared to direct, within a certain timeframe, that the Government have to take action. I am questioning not what the Government are doing but whether we as a society and a Parliament want to say, “There is a real problem; the Government must take action and that is what the legal framework should be”. That is what each of these amendments does.

While I fully acknowledge that the Minister expressed some good intentions, I have to pick the noble Lord up on the reference to the straws, cotton buds and stirrers regulations. I am afraid that, when I was responding to that regulation, I was accused of being rude. I pointed out that, in 100 years’ time in a plastic- choked world, the generation then will not say, “Oh but they banned straws, stirrers and plastic cotton buds back then in the UK”. It is a very tiny scale tackling of a very large issue.

None the less, I appreciate everything that has been said. I will note that the phrase “precautionary principle” did not appear anywhere. I think that is very relevant here. We will continue the discussion. I very much appreciate the Minister’s offer of meetings to talk about these issues. I would be delighted to take that up.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting and delaying the Committee, but I did say that we would use our powers to identify products and sectors that require action and that this work would be evidence-led and proportionate.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Proportionate is not precautionary principle. Anyway, I am not going to pick up that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 57 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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


Subsection (2) goes on to state:

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


Subsection (4) states:

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

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

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

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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