Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I am glad he started referring to international products. Given the earlier contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, I am reminded of this House’s scrutiny of the Biocidal Products (Health and Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2022. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, told the Grand Committee that there was a huge backlog in processing chemical standards given that we lost access to the EU chemical standards database. As a result, the Health and Safety Executive’s chemicals division had to have its budget increased by 39%. On those figures alone, any sensible Government would want to be able to use existing standards—in this case, the EU’s standards—not least because any organisation manufacturing products in the UK that sell in the EU will have to conform to them. I have not had time to check what the HSE chemicals division’s budget is now, but over five years from 2018 to 2022 it increased by 39%.

I was also delighted to hear the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton. With her wit and experience, she is already being heard very seriously and with some smiles in this House. I wish her well.

As noble Lords have heard, these Benches support the scope of the Bill and the secondary legislation. Others have already explained how necessary it is, but, along with my colleagues, I have some concerns and I will try not to go over the points they have already made. The Government’s delegated powers memorandum says at paragraph 5:

“We judge it essential to be able to respond quickly to an evolving evidence base on product safety and metrology issues”.


I want to focus on those powers being used in a slightly different way and I hope that the Minister can give your Lordships’ House some reassurance that emergency procedures made available to Ministers will not be used on this Bill, as happened on many others over the previous eight years—not least, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on the issue of leaving the EU.

I also saw it at first hand when I was the Lib Dem health and social care spokeswoman from January 2020. The emergence of the pandemic inevitably meant that there was obviously a need to introduce emergency statutory instruments but, to be frank, using the emergency powers completely negated the importance of Parliament being able to scrutinise affirmative SIs before they are introduced. Between January 2020 and March 2022, the Government laid 118 affirmative Covid SIs, of which 66 were introduced by emergency procedures, meaning that they were implemented before either House had any chance to see them, let alone debate them.

The Hansard Society Covid statutory instrument dashboard website is a brilliant resource for this period—perhaps I am extremely sad, but it really is extremely useful. It also noticed that those SIs implemented using the emergency procedure were more likely to have to be amended or revoked, which was perhaps not surprising because of the speed of response needed and the fact that there had been no time to scrutinise them. I hope the Minister will give the House some reassurance that emergency procedures would be used only in true emergency.

I say that because it has become something of a habit inside Whitehall to use them. I had a call from the Paymaster-General in August, informing me that the SI relating to the redress scheme for the infected blood compensation scheme was laid in the middle of August. We do not debate it until the end of this month. We have a debate on the inquiry and the redress scheme generally next week but we have to wait to the end of the month, which is two months after the SI was implemented. I really am keen to hear from the Minister on that.

I turn to one of the examples that was repeatedly raised in the preparation of the Bill and was the subject of my noble friend Lord Redesdale’s Private Member’s Bill—lithium-ion batteries. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Foster for his many years’ work in this area. I declare my interests as a vice-chair of the APPG on Fire Safety and Rescue and a vice-president of the LGA. The APPG on Fire Safety and Rescue, the National Fire Chiefs Council and almost everybody involved in manufacturing safety equipment for the fire service want urgent regulation of the use of lithium-ion batteries.

E-bikes and e-scooters present one of the fastest-growing fire risks. In London on average there was a fire every two days last year. There were 143 e-bike fires, three deaths and around 60 injuries. This year, up to the end of August, London Fire Brigade has so far recorded 127 e-bike and e-scooter fires. The real problem is the intensity of the lithium-ion fires, both the heat and the length of the flame. It is not even a flame; it is more like a firework. If you have ever seen a video of such a fire, it is never forgotten. Temperatures get up to 1,000 degrees and substantial damage can be done.

We also need regulation for those who use products with lithium-ion batteries that do conform to very strict regulation. I have a travel wheelchair that uses lithium-ion batteries. It complies with IATA regulations but I have been refused permission to go on a plane because the pilot has the final say on whether or not you can take medical devices on board. He said he was not having any lithium batteries on his plane at all and did not care whether they were IATA-certified. Having regulation would enormously help those of us who rely on these things. It cost me €900 to get back from Bucharest that night.

I also think that lithium-ion batteries stand as a proxy for everything that the Bill is trying to achieve. Many of the e-bikes and e-scooters in these fires have had different batteries or converters bought in an online market and added to the machine, so regulation is vital, as is compliance and ensuring that there are enough people to be able to find out where these are. The below-the-radar sales of these batteries, which often look identical to ones which comply with current safety regulations, mean they can be hard to track down.

It also takes us into what I think is a grey area of the Bill and I have not heard anybody else talk about this: at what point do the product regulations apply to individuals as opposed to businesses or people working in businesses? The Bill sets out those people covered by the regulations in Clause 2(3) and, helpfully, paragraphs (a) to (g) explain those with particular responsibilities and roles, but Clause 2(3)(h) refers to

“any other person carrying out activities in relation to a product”.

Does this include individuals who may have bought an e-bike online as an individual, changed the battery to one bought elsewhere online and then after a couple of years decided to sell it on through eBay, which has a mixture of professional sellers and individuals?

I am trying to find the boundaries here because if the answer is that individuals are included, communications to the public about their new responsibilities when they buy and sell will become vital. But if the answer is no, how will the Bill prevent what is happening at the moment, which is individuals buying and adjusting products from a global marketplace, often untraceable, where the UK has no ability to scrutinise or take action? How would this be enforced? If it is helpful, I do not necessarily need an answer now but would appreciate a letter from the Minister before we go into Committee.

I am very interested in who will be the statutory consultees and wonder whether we might have access to lists—again, before we move on to Committee—because there are some professional associations that might be very obvious to include if you are in the fire industry but not necessarily obvious to the Department for Business.

I turn briefly to the creation of criminal offences through affirmative statutory instruments, which has already been referred to. I want to pick up on the earlier comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about medical devices, which are specifically disapplied in the Bill because of the Medicines and Medical Devices Act. Can the Minister explain why this Bill has a maximum imprisonment of up to two years, whereas the Medicines and Medical Devices Act, which covers at least as sensitive and dangerous issues, has provision for conviction and jail sentences of up to 51 weeks only? Why have those different figures been used?

It was good to hear the Minister say that the Attorney-General had been involved. Is there a formal consultation with the Ministry of Justice once these regulations are drafted? I remain concerned that our court system is really congested at the moment and if there were, for example, a particularly large, concerted campaign to bring people to justice, that might involve breaking gangs, frankly, even 30 or 40 extra people in prison over a short period would put real pressure on our prisons. What can the Minister say on that?

Finally, we need this Bill but we must have access to affirmative instruments in plenty of time to be able to scrutinise them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am coming back to that in the later part of my winding speech.

National emergencies such as Covid-19 highlight the importance of ensuring that our product regulation framework allows for flexibility in times of national emergency. This enabling Bill will allow the Government, in response to an emergency, to temporarily disapply and modify product regulation while maintaining high safety standards, thereby providing a faster process by which critical products are able to reach the market in order to sustain an adequate supply of such products.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I apologise, but that was not my question. My question was: will the Government make sure that, if emergency powers are used, both Houses of Parliament are kept informed prior to that happening?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I will get back to the noble Baroness in writing. I see the time flashing, so I might have to write to other noble Lords in response to their questions. Let me conclude.

I would like to thank everyone across this House for their contributions in today’s debate. I specifically thank my counterparts on the Opposition Benches, the noble Lords, Lord Johnson of Lainston and Lord Fox. This is not the first time that we have sat across from each other in such debates, albeit in different spots. I look back fondly on our debates during the passage of the CPTPP Act last year. I hope and expect that debates on this Bill will be as good-natured and as enlightening as those were.

I should like to stress my willingness to meet noble Lords to discuss further the detail of the Bill. I take the firm view that dialogue is essential to building public and parliamentary support.

To sum up, this Bill allows us to keep pace with new technologies, gives us the tools to stop dodgy suppliers placing dangerous goods on the market and allows us to make sovereign choices as to how we diverge or align with the EU and other trading partners. It gives enforcement bodies the tools they need to tackle modern problems facing the transit of goods coming across our borders, be they land, maritime or digital. Finally, it will allow us to update the legal and technological framework that underpins economy and trade. This Government will never compromise on safety. The Bill is essential to strengthening the rules and regulations needed to protect consumers, businesses and the public.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 25th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am very grateful for the explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, of his amendments on AI and digital products, which are particularly appropriate, given the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on the first group when we were discussing sandboxes, because of his experience during the passage of the digital medicines Act three or four years ago. A number of noble Lords in this Grand Committee worked on that—I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in particular.

I raise this because one area that concerns me about new products, especially those using AI, is that we do not have the same mechanisms that we have, full of fault though they are, for being able to allow our personal information to be used and to give our consent. I have mentioned before the issue of my dentist. Before you go to see your dentist, you have to go online to fill in a consent form, and at some point mid last year I noticed that there was something about the IT suppliers and it said, “It is assumed you give your consent”—and 10 layers further down they had a completely different set of consents that breached UK GDPR law. Had I not been working on another Bill about digital consent, I would not have looked much further. I have to say that the moment my dental surgery was aware of this, that firm was not just told to change it but was sacked. My problem with AI is that none of that work is visible; it is completely invisible.

My question to the Minister is, in the discussion about sandboxes but also about products that will come under this Bill: will he ensure that our current GDPR laws—and indeed our copyright laws in relation to music—are complied with at all times, so that there would not be any freedom for somebody using AI to develop a product to breach those? I say that in light of the final remark the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, made about consultation. Two sets of Government Ministers have had a very bitter time about patient data and care.data—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is smiling at me—when the public were not fully informed about what was going on, and in both cases the proposals had to be abandoned.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, the first amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, Amendment 14, seeks to ensure that the production reliance on software and artificial intelligence are included in the scope of the Bill. Clearly, all our remarks are somewhat irrelevant if the Minister gets up and says, “No, they are not”. However, on the assumption that the Minister is going to say, “Yes, they are”, I draw particular attention, if I may, in supporting all the noble Lord’s amendments, to Amendments 75 to 78, on the issue of labelling. This seems to me to be an opportunity for real joined-up government thinking.

The Minister will be well aware that the Communications and Digital Committee, on which I had the opportunity to serve at the time of this, produced a very detailed report on the development of LLMs, large language models, and AI. In so doing, we particularly raised concern about the way in which these large language models were being trained by scraping tons of data from a variety of sources, then creating products over which they were then able to get intellectual property coverage. In so doing, they had scraped a great deal of data.

Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in respect of the labelling and so on, requires the Secretary of State to lay

“regulations to ensure no product or content … uses an individual’s image, likeness or personality rights without that individual’s express consent”.

Had I been drafting the amendment, I would have gone much further, because it seems to me that a large amount of other data is scraped—for instance, novels written by authors without their permission. I could go on; it is well worth looking at the Select Committee report.

Does the Minister accept that this is a real opportunity to have joined-up thinking, when the Government finally decide what their position is in relation to the training of LLMs and people being required to get the permission of all data owners before they can bring their product to market? Does he agree that the labelling of such products, when developed, should include specific reference to them having gained the appropriate permission, paid the appropriate fee or got the appropriate licence to make use of the data that was made use of in the training of those AI products?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

16: Clause 1, page 2, line 13, at end insert—
“(c) EU REACH regulation restrictions that are applied to the manufacture, placing on the market, and use of certain chemicals to mitigate unacceptable risks to human health or the environment;”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment ensures that EU REACH regulations covering certain chemicals are included in the Bill.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, REACH regulations cover the safety of chemicals. We simply ask: how can the Bill regulate cosmetics without considering the safety of the chemicals used to manufacture them? I do not buy the idea that Defra is in charge of chemical regulations—in the same way that the DWP is in charge of the chemicals database, other than via its responsibilities in managing the Health and Safety Executive. I will come back to a regulation that the DWP presented to the Grand Committee last year. So, should the Bill ignore chemicals or not? We need an explicit reference in the Bill to cover it. We have talked a lot about AI but the use of chemicals is equally important, particularly in online marketplaces.

I am sure that the selection of EU REACH rather than British REACH will raise certain hackles. I would grab any REACH in a storm, but the EU one is a system that functions, unlike its British cousin, which has proved expensive to business and is failing to react to new challenges.

Over a year ago, I was substituting for my noble friend Lord Fox when the biocidal products regulations 2022 were being discussed in Grand Committee. I think that none of us, including the then Minister, if she were honest, knew very much of what we were talking about. However, it was the most illuminating regulation that I have ever taken part in. We discovered that this was, in essence, a time extension for the use of the EU chemicals database, because Whitehall had not understood that the day we left the EU, we would lose access to the chemicals database. As a result, the Health and Safety Executive had to take on a very large number of staff. Its chemicals sections had increased by 30% to try to rewrite the chemicals database while also consulting with users, whether they were manufacturers importing, exporting or creating in this country. We know that there are systems out there that work but because of our bizarre structures, we tend to have government departments that are not focused on chemicals.

The cosmetics industry imports many of its ingredients from the EU, and often in very small quantities. These would certainly be covered by EU REACH, because these sales represent such a tiny proportion of total production. If there were a substantive difference between EU REACH and British REACH, it is unlikely that the manufacturer would invest in accrediting its products in the UK, causing the UK cosmetic manufacturer either to stop making its product or to move manufacture to the EU—hence my noble friend Lord Fox’s proposal about REACH in this amendment.

Can the Minister confirm whether, under the terms of the Bill as it stands, if a product contains a chemical that was allowed by EU REACH but blocked by British REACH, and yet it conformed to QC standards, it would be legal in Britain? That is what this amendment seeks to clarify. Given the interconnected nature of the UK and EU chemicals industries, it offers a route for aligning the UK chemical regulation with that of the EU. But perhaps the Minister thinks that the current wording of Clause 1(1) means that it could be used to amend and update UK REACH to align with EU REACH. I beg to move.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to both amendments in this group, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her introduction of them.

When examining the purport of these amendments and considering whether to include provisions that require us to adopt regulations that correspond with the EU’s REACH provisions, I suggest that the metric by which we should judge that is simple. Would doing so make the people of this country safer? Every other consideration should be secondary to that.

As I said both at Second Reading and in Committee last week—I apologise to those who have heard this before, but it is worth repeating—the past few years have seen a significant divergence between the UK’s approach to chemical regulation and that of the EU. The previous Government decided to leave REACH—the EU’s body responsible for the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals and their regulations—and to set up a parallel organisation.

Since then, we have not adopted a single registered restriction on a harmful substance, compared with 10 new protections offered by EU regulation, including on harmful microplastics deliberately added to products. While REACH has regulated PFAS in the EU, not a single river or water body in England is in good chemical health. Since we left REACH, the EU has initiated 23 risk assessments related to harmful substances, while we have initiated three.

In considering why that is the case, I point to two contextual factors. This is not a function of the legislative constraints. The Government have the power under the EU withdrawal Act and Schedule 21 to the Environment Act to adopt new restrictions and controls where necessary. However, reviews undertaken by the NAO and the Public Accounts Committee in 2022 pointed to a lack of operational capacity and insufficient data as factors that have hampered the ability of the UK’s chemical regulator properly to do its job. For instance, brominated flame retardants were identified as a risk to health and globally significant exposure rates were identified in this country. Indeed, they were identified as a regulatory priority over two years ago and a review was promised. So far, no review has been published and it is difficult to discern how this apparent priority has been acted upon, if at all.

However, while the EU has added eight flame-retardant chemicals to its list of substances of very high concern, no substances in this category have been added to the parallel UK list. The EU restrictions road map has proposed a ban on brominated flame retardants while no equivalent step has been proposed, let alone planned. This is not because we have data which diverges from that upon which the EU has based its conclusions but because we are working more slowly. I vividly remember the promises of greater regulatory agility and speed which would inevitably result once we were free of the sclerotic influence of the EU. This example is but one of many—including lead in PVC, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in synthetic football pitches and formaldehyde in wood furniture—which suggest that far from being more agile and responsive, our current system of chemical regulation is slower, less efficient and consequently less safe than its predecessor.

In April this year, Hazards magazine published a parallel analysis of the 25 new standards that have been introduced across the EU since our departure in 2020 and the UK’s response. Of the 25 standards, 12 were identical. There were 10 in which the UK’s standard was weaker, sometimes significantly. Only in one case has the UK adopted more protective measures than the European standard. Again, this is suggestive of regulatory incapacity as much as a deliberate exercise of our power independently to regulate.

Fiscal stringency creates significant challenges in remedying this situation, but both these amendments obviate the need for the otherwise necessary significant increase in investment in our chemical regulator. Ensuring that our domestic regulations correspond with those of REACH not only offers greater safety but removes a barrier to trade and promises to ease the burden on our chemical regulator which, as I said earlier, the NAO and Public Accounts Committee suggested has compromised its ability to work with appropriate speed.

At Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister said, in response to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that the Government are currently considering the best approach to chemical regulation in the UK separately to this Bill. In deciding our approach to these amendments, it would be extremely useful if my noble friend who is responding to this debate could at least give us an idea of the direction of travel on this. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, made the point also at Second Reading that the absence of such a Bill from the King’s Speech makes it unlikely that we will see it in this Session. That being so, what plans do the Government have, in the absence of adopting the amendments that are the subject of this discussion, to exercise the powers in Clause 2(7) to ensure that we catch up and keep pace with the EU chemical regulation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the quick answer is that these matters are being considered by Ministers at the moment, but I will feed back to them what noble Lords have raised today.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I would be glad to give way to the noble Baroness, but as we will come back to her in any case—

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I have a question. I am very grateful for the Minister’s response, but he has not yet responded to my final question and, following his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, I need to repeat it to check. I said that this was a probing amendment to clarify the interconnected nature of, and differences between, the UK and EU chemicals industries. Under its current wording, Clause 1(1) says:

“The Secretary of State may … make provision, in relation to”.


Could that be used to amend and update UK REACH to align with EU REACH? I ask this in light of the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Leong, wrote to colleagues on 17 October:

“Though the Bill is not intended to cover REACH specifically, chemicals have not been excluded from its scope … We are currently considering the best approach to chemicals regulation in the UK and will set out priorities”.


That is the fundamental bit of this amendment. We can debate EU REACH and UK REACH, but it is about the influence on this Bill.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the quick response is that we do not envisage it being used in that way because we already have separate legislation to deal with that. I will follow up with a more detailed response, but I do not believe that the provisions would allow that to happen. However, I will double-check and clarify that.

On my noble friend’s point, I have listened to the debate and understand the concerns. I know that Ministers are considering this, and I will ensure that the strong points raised here are put to them as they consider how to take forward this work.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the short debate on this group. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for covering the 10 restrictions adopted in the EU but not in the UK, since it left the EU. I was debating whether to raise them or not; I am glad that I left them to him. He pointed out the cost-benefits of using REACH. Manufacturers have made it very clear that they want things as simple as possible and, usually, would prefer one form of REACH—the one to which they are likely to export or from which they will have products coming in. I recognise that other Members of the Committee will disagree with that. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor; lemon and lavender sound like a lovely, simple way of looking at it, but cosmetics are much more complicated. We need to be very careful about that. I look forward to hearing from the Minister but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I will also speak to Amendment 22. Amendment 21 is fairly self-explanatory. It asks that people be made aware of where the goods they are buying come from and, therefore, what confidence they can place in their quality. Secondly, it explores whether we might place liability on marketplaces for the quality of the products they allow to be listed there, which is clearly not the case at the moment.

My view is that Amazon makes a great deal of money out of selling what are, essentially, counterfeit products. This is not a satisfactory state of affairs. Amazon is quite well enough off to do a bit of investigation, which does not take long with these products, to make sure that they are what they say they are. This would result in greater stability and higher quality of companies doing business through Amazon. I do not think it would lose Amazon any business, but I am prepared to be shocked to find that the Government disagree with me. For now, I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 45 in this group is in my name. I also support my noble friend Lord Foster’s Amendments 117 and 122.

I come back to an issue debated at some length on the first day of Committee. I am particularly pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, in his place because my amendment relates directly to his Amendment 33, which questions whether Clause 2(3)(h) should stand part of the Bill; my amendment also looks at paragraph (h). He spoke about it in the context of parliamentary scrutiny and consultation, but my focus is a different one: I am trying to look at how it will work in practice. During our debate last week, my noble friend Lord Fox said that

“the wording of Clause 2(3)(h) is ‘any other person carrying out activities’. All the other items refer to the activity of the sale and marketing of that product. This does not refer to it but any person carrying out activities unspecified”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; col. GC 40.]

We are moving from products to people in this debate.

At Second Reading, I asked the Minister who is caught by this very wide, catch-all paragraph. In his letter of 17 October, in which he responded to issues that he did not have time to cover at Second Reading—I thank him for it—he said:

“These supply chain roles may be undertaken by individuals as well as by businesses. The Bill will enable the responsibilities of supply chain actors to be rationalised and modernised, including to reflect the development of new business models that were not anticipated by current legislation, such as online marketplaces”.


I read his reply carefully, but it did not answer my question. That is partly because “actors” could mean anybody; it does not necessarily mean somebody mentioned in one of the clause’s previous paragraphs. I remain concerned about that in the context of Clause 2(3), which identifies the

“persons on whom product regulations may impose product requirements”.

It appears that paragraph (h) can include absolutely anyone involved in selling a relevant product, without limitation. This matters because a private individual selling an item with a lithium-ion battery, for example, on eBay or Vinted may be an actor at the very end of a long supply chain, but that does not mean they are a professional in the business. The wording is important.

Where does the responsibility for satisfactory compliance lie? In our Second Reading debate, there was some discussion about online marketplace platforms having responsibility for ensuring compliance but, frankly, eBay and Vinted cannot check the detail of a regulated item—in the case I gave, a lithium-ion battery in a bicycle—or how it meets the regulations. Also, the individual at the end of the supply chain has no obvious way of finding out whether they are responsible for ensuring that the item they wish to sell meets the regulations. Of course, there is a future actor in all of this: the person who buys it.

Which?, in its very helpful briefing prior to Second Reading, pointed out that the Bill needs strengthening in a number of areas, including clearer definitions of key terms, so that existing and future online marketplaces cannot take advantage of gaps to avoid responsibility. Clause 2(3)(h) is one such area. Will the Minister help by making it clear who is covered? Can he also explain exactly how the online marketplaces can manage the extension of liabilities for defective products sold by individuals, which those online marketplaces have not seen themselves? Alternatively, if individuals selling items are covered by Clause 2(3)(h), how do those individuals become aware of their responsibilities under the Bill for ensuring that the goods they sell meet the requirements and are not defective? Frankly, eBay sending them an email saying, “You are entirely responsible” is not good enough for compliance. If this is not clarified, we have a gaping hole in the Bill.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 48, 71, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123 and 124 in this group, on the topic of online marketplaces, which are in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay.

Turning first to Amendment 48, I recall that, in the King’s Speech, the Government made a commitment to ensure that the responsibilities of those involved in the supply of products, such as online marketplaces, are clear. That commitment is to be welcomed, but the clarity and detail will be in the secondary regulations after the Bill is passed and not in the Bill itself. As set out in the explanatory statement, the proposed new clause in the amendment

“provides a non-exclusive list of duties that must be imposed upon online marketplaces by regulations made by the Secretary of State … to be made to Parliament within 3 months of Royal Assent regarding the exercise of the duties conferred by this section”.

These duties include an explicit provision to place a duty on online marketplaces to take the necessary measures to ensure the safety of products offered on their platforms and a commitment to publish any draft secondary legislation on how this duty and related provisions will work in practice in good time before the measures are due to come into force. Finally, there is a duty to consult with key stakeholders on the design of these regulations.

I make it clear to my noble friend the Minister that the duties in this amendment are about the transparent process by which the Government will ensure a safer online marketplace, rather than a long list of possible actions taken to bring this about. The Office for Product Safety and Standards, in its 2021 research, found that 81% of the products it found online failed safety tests. I am sure that the figure would probably be far higher if they were tested today. Which? tells us that around 23.4 million consumers in the UK make monthly transactions on these marketplaces, yet they are unwittingly putting themselves at risk because, at present, they do not have the same protections as they have come to expect when buying from traditional high-street retailers. This evidence should encourage us to reform online marketplace regulations as urgently as possible.

Amendment 71 allows for regulations to provide liability of online marketplaces for defective and unsafe products and to ensure redress for those harmed by these unsafe and defective products, including civil litigation. It is important that the law on product liability can be updated to take account of the responsibilities of online marketplaces and others in the supply chain, and to provide effective redress for consumers who suffer harm from these dangerous products. We know that online marketplaces have become a mainstream method for people to shop, particularly when they are looking for value for money in these difficult economic times. This amendment seeks to ensure that there is redress for those online shoppers if they buy unsafe or faulty goods.

From the briefing sent to us by the London Fire Brigade we know that e-bikes and e-scooters are one of the capital’s fastest-growing fire risks. On average, there was a fire every two days in 2023. Sadly, deaths and injuries have resulted. Many of these fires are caused by incompatible chargers and faulty products that are purchased online. The London Fire Brigade believes, as many of us do, that product innovation has gone far ahead of proper safety standards and that there is inadequate regulation, especially for conversion kits, batteries and chargers. A strengthened version of the Bill would go a long way to answering these safety gaps online.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I thank the Minister very much for the detail he has gone into in his answer, but there are two types of regulation. The one he has described is the one that you would expect the Government, trading standards and other bodies to take. But, in litigation terms, if somebody bought an electric bike in good faith, who would they sue? Paragraph (h) does not make it clear. This is not purely about the parameters of the products and the Bill; it is about the consequences of having something that is very general. I think platforms will say, “It’s nothing to do with us”, and the individuals will say, “But I’m not part of the chain, as described”. I am genuinely struggling to understand and I wonder whether the Minister can help me.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that; I will come to it. We are talking about product liability to some extent; I have a paragraph on it in my brief, if she will bear with me for a moment.

Amendments 32 and 45 highlight some of the different actors in online supply chains that may need to be captured appropriately in these new requirements. The Bill gives powers to introduce requirements on online marketplaces to improve the safety of products sold online. These requirements can be tailored and updated appropriately to reflect the wide range of online marketplace models, and other relevant supply chain actors and their activities, now and in the future. Clause 2(3) is therefore sufficiently broad to enable requirements to be introduced on any persons carrying out activities in relation to a product. This could include, where appropriate, private individuals selling products via online marketplaces, whether in return for payment or free of charge.

I will now focus on Amendments 117 to 124, which seek to broaden the definition of online marketplaces. The definition of online marketplaces in the Bill has been created in a way that is broad enough to capture the full range of online marketplace business models, including social media platforms such as TikTok Shop, which was mentioned earlier. I assure the Committee that all the changes proposed in the amendments are captured within the existing definition. For example—and of relevance to Amendment 123—the expansion of the term “marketing” within the definition of an online marketplace is not required due to the definition of “marketing” within the Bill, meaning the “making available” of products. This in turn is defined as goods

“supplied or advertised for distribution or use on the market, whether in return for payment or free of charge”.

Amendments 117 and 122 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, seek to change the definition of an online marketplace, replacing “internet” with “internet service”, as defined in the Online Safety Act 2023. The definition we have used in the Bill includes a service on any other platform by means of which information is made available over the internet. We are therefore confident that the issue the noble Lord raises in his amendments is covered by the Bill as drafted.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his clarification about data and GDPR being captured by the Data (Use and Access) Bill. I shall read Hansard and confirm accordingly. I totally agree with him that all unsafe products should never be allowed to be offered for sale on any online marketplaces, whether original or second-hand. We have to address his point about accountability. Who is accountable to be held responsible for some of these unsafe products?

The Bill also includes a power in Clause 10(2) that allows for the definition to be amended later by regulations, if this were necessary to capture any future models not captured by the current definition. I will come back to the issue of product liability.

Amendment 71, tabled by my noble friend Lady Crawley and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, would allow the Secretary of State to make provisions to ensure that online marketplaces can be held liable for products purchased via their platforms. The primary route to seek damages for harm caused by defective products is through the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Depending on the specific facts, an online marketplace may have responsibility under this legislation. The Government are currently reviewing this legislation and we will consider the UK’s product liability regime holistically, including the question of how it should apply to online marketplaces. This is not a change that we would seek to make without considering all the evidence, so we do not want to pre-empt this important work by adding to the scope of the Bill.

Product liability also covers products that extend beyond the scope of the Bill, including, for example, food and medical devices. A considered review of this area would be the most appropriate way to ensure that our product liability laws are up to date and fit for the future and to take account of the broad-ranging interests in this body of law. I will keep the Grand Committee updated on the Government’s progress with this review and plans for wider engagement.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and other noble Lords: we have listened to the debate and reflected on all the points made. We are aware of the Grand Committee’s strength of feeling on a number of points, including the scrutiny of secondary legislation. With that, I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords that these amendments are therefore not required to achieve their laudable aims. Consequently, I would ask for the amendments in this group not to be pressed.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

Clause 1(5) says that

“‘marketing’ means making available on the market”,

which is a much shorter definition than the one that the Minister just read out at the Dispatch Box. Is he telling me that I am not correct in saying that I market a product on eBay when I put it up on eBay?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Sorry, can you repeat that?

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

This is very important, because this is partly about liability and partly about the clarity in the Bill about who has responsibility. Whether it is a buyer or, as I think the Minister argued, an individual seller, someone has to tell them that they have to follow the regulations, and they need to know how to do that. When he read out the definition of marketing in his speech, he gave a whole sentence more than is included in the definition in the Bill, which very simply says,

“‘marketing’ means making available on the market”.

It goes on to discuss “related terms”, but they are not relevant to my problem. While he ponders between Committee and Report, can he look at that? More than one of us is likely to come back with amendments on Report on this issue.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. We are trying not to be too prescriptive because it is constantly changing. I am sorry about this, but the Bill defines “marketing” as

“making available on the market”.

Clause 10, line 8, states,

“a product or goods … supplied or advertised for distribution or use on the market”—

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

That is exactly what happens with a private individual. They will advertise an item on eBay. The language the Minister is using is what I would describe as the old-style manufacturing and business model. It does not take into account all the comments that people have made about where online marketing is in the 21st century. Therein lies the problem, and I would be very grateful if the noble Lord would look at that.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that as well. Online marketplaces are changing overnight. I have just learned over the weekend of dropshipping. Dropshipping means that if someone orders a product on eBay, the person supplying it is not eBay or whoever claims to be on eBay. It is dropshipped by AliExpress straight to that buyer’s home. How are we going to control that? How are we going to capture that? That is why we cannot be too prescriptive. We need to have the flexibility to address ever-changing marketplaces. That is what this Bill is trying to do. If the noble Baroness is still unclear or unsure about this, perhaps we can have another follow-up meeting so we can discuss this in depth.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I think a number of noble Lords who have participated in this debate might be interested in a meeting, if that is okay. I shall very briefly respond to the Minister to say that flexibility is fine, until the point at which there is nobody to hold accountable. That is the problem.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The Bill is drafted in this way to address who is going to be accountable. My invitation to all noble Lords to a meeting stands, and I welcome each and every one of them. I hope this amendment can be withdrawn.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Grand Committee

I am aware that the Government’s intention with the Bill is to set an overall picture, but I really hope to hear from the Minister about the Government’s intention to take action in all these areas, and to do so particularly quickly in the area of period products. These are probing amendments, but I need to hear some very positive news about action; otherwise, I may well return to them on Report. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling these three amendments. I have a question about Amendment 59.

Paragraph 9 of the Schedule says that:

“Medicines and medical devices as defined in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, other than devices designed for weighing or measuring for medical purposes”


are excluded from the Bill. I say that because the guidance on what is and is not covered by that Act is somewhat contradictory. It says that sanitary towels and tampons are

“not normally considered to be medical devices”,

yet incontinence pads, which are not internalised in the body, are. In America, tampons are deemed medical devices because they are used inside the body.

I appreciate that I am putting the Minister on the spot. I do not expect an answer, but I wonder whether the very good speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, might point to a problem with the Government’s guidance under that Act that needs to be amended.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I was not planning to say very much about this, but I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I do not feel remotely battered; I feel significantly better informed, and I am grateful for that.

It struck me that Amendment 57 is somewhat pertinent to the discussion we have just had about supply chains. I wonder, for example, whether the habitual buyers of fast fashion would be quite so enthusiastic if they understood how it was made and the environmental despoilation it entails. Of course, a lot of fast fashion is single use.

I am also intrigued to know—I have just been thinking about this—what makes a non-iron shirt non-iron. I imagine it is some sort of chemical. As a fan of said shirts, I would rather like to know, not least because the noble Baroness’s description of the destination for microplastics made me wince slightly, to be honest.

Of course, a lot of single-use plastic ends up in the ocean. Frankly, as a keen scuba-diver who has found single-use plastics below depths of 30 metres, I think that societies across the world need to address that.

I do not have much to say apart from that, but I will be very interested in the Government’s answers. I would also be keen to pursue these issues later.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, that was a very interesting debate, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her amendments. She spoke tellingly about the impacts the products to which she referred are having on the world, on disadvantaged communities and on human health more generally. She gave a lot of information and I will try to respond to the general principles, but I will also take away her speech and ask my noble friend to write to her with a more considered response, as I would like our officials to have a look at some of the details of the concerns she raised.

Amendment 58 is about single-use plastics. The Government recognise the concerns the noble Baroness raised about plastic products, plastic waste and plastic pollution. We think we already have the right powers and, to an extent, with what comes in this legislation. The question she is really challenging us on, I think, is whether the Government’s action is sufficient. I will try to persuade her that we are very much on this, that we have the legislation and we are pursuing the issues she has raised.

For instance, there are powers under the Environment Act 2021 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that allow us to regulate certain matters relating to products, including single-use plastics and plastic packaging, that show evidence of harm to the environment and/or human health. This includes powers for bans on manufacture, product design and labelling requirements, charges and targets. UK REACH also contains powers to address harmful additives that might be added to plastics to ensure the safety of consumer products. We know about, and I pay tribute to, the carrier bag charge. It has been very successful and has had a great impact on the United Kingdom. We have also seen other product bans and restrictions, such as those relating to microbeads, and plastic straws, cotton buds and stirrers.

Additionally, the forthcoming extended producer responsibility for packaging uses the powers in the Environment Act 2021 to make producers responsible for the costs of managing packaging once it becomes waste, and encompasses packaging of all materials, not only plastic. The improved packaging design—and I think the noble Baroness made a very important point about this in the previous debate—will be incentivised through the modulation of the fee the producer must pay based on its environmental sustainability. There is, of course, a risk in focusing just on plastic that we encourage companies to use some other material that might be equally damaging. Therefore, it has to be considered in the round.

Also, the noble Baroness may have seen the Statement made by my colleague Emma Hardy, the Minister for Water and Flooding, in the other place about the final negotiations that we are involved in to develop an international treaty on plastic pollution. The Minister said:

“Plastic pollution is one of the greatest environmental challenges that the planet faces. The world produces 400 million tonnes of plastic waste each year. Scientists predict that there will be a threefold increase in the amount of plastic entering the ocean between 2016 and 2040. A global agreement on plastic pollution is urgently needed”.


She then goes on to say,

“The Government have an ambition to catalyse the transition to a circular economy”—


which we have debated in previous days in Committee—

“and the treaty is one of the key levers available to us to achieve the systems-wide changes needed to make that a reality”.

She went on to say:

“Plastic waste has for too long littered our streets, polluted Britain’s waterways and threatened our wildlife. This Government are committed to cleaning up Britain and cracking down on plastic waste. We will roll out extended producer responsibility to incentivise businesses to cut plastic packaging and the deposit return scheme to incentivise consumers to recycle”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/24; col. 31WS.]


So we are taking this seriously and we think we have the legislation that we require. It is worth noting that, as part of this work, the Defra Secretary of State has convened a small ministerial group on the circular economy and asked his department to work with experts from industry, academia, civil society and the Civil Service to develop a circular economy strategy.

We will come on to the issue of clothing. In the meantime, the Government continue to fund action on clothing through Textiles 2030. This is a voluntary initiative that supports businesses and organisations within the fashion and textiles industry to transition to more sustainable and circular practices. I also assure noble Lords that Defra will keep the House updated with work in this area and we are happy to ensure that the noble Baroness can speak with relevant Ministers to discuss this matter further.

Amendments 57 and 59 seek to ensure that regulations are made to reduce the risk posed by clothing and period products. Again, the noble Baroness made a powerful speech. I must admit, a frisson of fear shook me when she mentioned London Fashion Week because it recalls the time when I was Minister for Sustainability in Defra, quite a long time ago. We were involved in starting developments in sustainable clothing, and I was invited to make a speech on sustainability on the first day of London Fashion Week. I thought it went well until I saw the review in the Daily Telegraph, which ignored my speech but referred to my suit being rather crumpled, which was a trauma I have never recovered from.

I come to the substance of what the noble Baroness said and the legislation. The General Product Safety Regulations do not make specific provisions for reducing the risk to consumers from harmful chemicals among some products, potentially including those that the noble Baroness raised, including period products. Although the legislation requires that the product placed on the market must be safe, it is not tailored to mitigating these risks. What it does is enable the introduction of new regulations to ensure that the Government can continue to reduce and mitigate the risk to health and safety posed by products, which could potentially include those listed in Amendments 57, 58 and 59.

The Bill can ensure that we are able to regulate the use of chemicals in consumer products, as we currently do for cosmetics and toys, as well as in other consumer products with similar chemical exposure risks. I reassure the noble Baroness that we will use the powers to identify product sectors and hazard types that require action, including period products where regulations may need to be strengthened or updated. This will be done on a risk-led basis. It will be evidence led, proportionate and follow appropriate stakeholder engagement. It goes back some time but, as an example, the Nightwear (Safety) Regulations 1985 set flammability and labelling requirements for children’s and adults’ nightwear. They are an example of risk-based regulations where a particular hazard was identified, and that can be done again.

To conclude, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made a powerful speech. I want us to have a look at some of the details. We think we have the legislation. The debate is really about what the Government should do and we are active in this area.

I am afraid that I shall have to duck the interesting question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and write to her. We will have a look at the details of that.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

The Minister worked on the medical devices Act, as indeed I did. That Act is mentioned here, and I hope we might be able to table an amendment to this Bill to amend that Act because of the inconsistency. Will he look at that before he writes to me?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 68 and 90, which are in my name. These amendments address the serious concerns raised by the provisions in Clause 3 and Clause 6, which give the Government sweeping powers to create or widen criminal offences and impose civil sanctions.

I have to revisit some old ground here but, given the gravity of this issue, I feel we have no choice. As was pointed out by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee, these clauses are skeletal legislation, meaning that they lack detail, leaving critical decisions about enforcement and prosecution to be made at a later stage via secondary legislation. We feel that the approach of using skeletal legislation for such crucial issues is problematic. These clauses give broad powers to create and enforce criminal offences without providing clear primary legislative guidance on who will have the authority to impose sanctions. This is particularly concerning because it leaves us very little clarity on which bodies will hold the responsibility to prosecute criminal offences.

The DPRRC and the Constitution Committee have highlighted these concerns, noting the lack of detail in the Bill and its potential to bypass parliamentary oversight. The Government’s decision to leave critical decisions about enforcement powers to be determined later by regulation, rather than in the Bill, undermines the transparency that businesses and consumers need. The Bill as written provides no information about the exact scope of the criminal offences that could be created or widened. This is not just a technical issue. It raises serious questions about the accountability of the bodies that will enforce these sanctions. The Minister may not be happy that these issues continue to be addressed but, until we receive clarity, we have a duty to bring these issues up, as I hope the Committee would agree.

The most concerning aspect of the clause is the provision allowing the creation or widening of criminal offences by regulation. The powers given to the Secretary of State or any other body of a public nature in this regard are overly broad, with little or no clear guidance or justification on what these offences will be. The Bill should, at the very minimum, provide some specification of the type of offences that may be created, rather than leaving this to broad, undefined powers that will most likely lead to overreach. The question has to be asked: why is it necessary to give the Government the power to create new criminal offences by regulation in the first place? Given the gravity of criminal sanctions, the Bill should be more transparent and specific about what offences will be created and who will be responsible for enforcing them—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, made in his reference to the CPTPP, incidentally.

Criminal sanctions carry serious consequences and it is fundamental that Parliament has a say in the creation of such offences, rather than allowing the Government to define them through secondary legislation. We understand that the Government have argued for flexibility in enforcement and that the regulatory framework must be adaptable, but that flexibility should not come at the cost of clarity or proper oversight.

We have heard serious concerns from businesses and industry stakeholders about the skeleton clauses in this Bill. Specifically, there is real uncertainty about which public bodies the Government intend to designate as having the authority to impose criminal sanctions. Again, the question has to be asked: what additional public bodies are the Government planning to empower to prosecute businesses for currently barely defined criminal offences under the Bill?

As my noble friend Lord Lansley pointed out on the previous Committee day, currently enforcement responsibilities for consumer protection laws are set out clearly in Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which names very specific enforcement authorities, but the Bill removes that clarity and instead gives the Government the power to designate by secondary legislation which public bodies can impose criminal sanctions. This creates a situation where businesses may have to deal with a wide array of bodies, many of which may not have the expertise or experience needed to understand the complexities of product and metrology regulations.

This broad power to assign enforcement duties to any body that is deemed appropriate opens the door to a wide range of unknown authorities, so the question here is: why are the Government attempting to create this uncertainty? Why not retain the existing list of enforcement bodies in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and allow changes to be made to that list through normal, well-defined procedures, rather than using secondary legislation to grant powers to an unknown set of authorities? Businesses deserve to know exactly who will be responsible for enforcing the regulations and imposing sanctions. The Bill’s current drafting creates a legal vacuum where there is no certainty about the powers of various public authorities, which could have serious consequences for businesses’ legal security.

The ambiguity surrounding criminal sanctions is deeply troubling for business, especially when these powers can be used by a range of authorities that may not be clearly identified at this stage. It raises serious concerns about due process and the fairness of enforcement actions. If a business is unsure whether it is complying with regulations and there is uncertainty about which body will be enforcing them, the risk of facing criminal sanctions obviously becomes much higher and that creates an environment of fear and uncertainty for business, which is already facing difficult economic conditions.

This situation is further complicated by the fact that secondary legislation will define the details of how these sanctions are imposed, potentially without proper scrutiny by Parliament. Criminal penalties should never be determined by regulation alone; they must be clearly laid out in primary legislation with full parliamentary oversight.

The balance of probabilities standard in civil cases can create significant challenges for businesses as well, especially in the context of the provisions outlined in the Bill regarding enforcement and sanctions. The balance of probabilities standard makes businesses more vulnerable to claims from enforcement authorities or competitors. In the absence of clear regulations and objective criteria, businesses may find it difficult to mount a defence as the mere likelihood of non-compliance could be enough to trigger sanctions. This could result in a climate of fear and uncertainty whereby businesses are hesitant to innovate or engage in new activities, due to the potential for legal action based on speculative or incomplete evidence.

The Government have claimed that this Bill will support economic growth and innovation, yet its skeletal nature and the conversations that we have had with leading industry experts suggest that they are concerned. Moreover, the Bill already includes an emergency clause—we will come on to this in our debate on the next group, I think, and we will address it later—that allows for swift regulatory action if necessary. So there is no reason why criminal sanctions cannot be made clear at the outset. There is simply no need to leave the scope of criminal offences and enforcement powers so broad and undefined.

To clarify, we absolutely recognise the importance of product safety and the need both to protect consumers and for necessary regulations. We oppose the various skeletal clauses in the Bill, as we have made clear over the course of these Committee sessions, because of the lack of clarity and the potentially authoritarian powers given to unnamed, undefined public bodies in some of these regulations. I hope that the Minister will address the many concerns the amendments in this group address and will commit to clarity for business. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, my amendments in this group—Amendments 69, 91 and 107—cover a somewhat wider area than those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I shall return to his amendments and the speech he has just made later, to comment on them—but I start by saying that Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, is helpful. One of my concerns at Second Reading was how Parliament can be made fully aware by more than just the laying of regulations, when a Minister or another body decides to create or widen the scope of criminal offences, that they must lay an Explanatory Memorandum in the Libraries of both Houses. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord speak later; his amendment is part of a possible solution.

At Second Reading, the Minister said:

“We have minimised the use of the powers in the Bill as much as possible and we have worked closely with the Attorney-General—who, quite rightly, is a stickler for these kinds of things—to find the best approach. So we look forward to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which we will carefully consider”.—[Official Report, 8/10/24; cols. 1940-41.]


In my speech later on in that debate, I raised my concerns about a Minister who was not based in the Justice Department being able to create or extend criminal offences by regulation, with no ability to amend and much less detailed debate in both Houses of Parliament.

At Second Reading, we had not seen the second report of the Delegated Powers Committee, because that was published on 15 October—a week afterwards. Its summary about this part of the Bill is blunt. It says:

“We consider that … the Government have failed to provide a convincing justification for the inclusion of skeleton clauses in the Bill”


and suggests that

“the delegations of power in clauses 1, 2, 3 and 9 are inappropriate and should be removed”.

There is some detail about why it thinks that, in particular, there is a problem with the creation of, or the widening of the scope of, criminal offences. I mention this because I absolutely appreciate everything that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has said about the skeletal nature of the Bill earlier on—indeed, my noble friends have also made those comments—but I want to focus on the impact of having new criminal offences on the criminal justice system. I shall come to that in a minute.

My first two amendments tackle the creation of criminal offences—in the first part of the Bill on product regulation and in the second part on metrology. I have also laid Amendment 107, which seeks to ensure that new criminal offences are not created through the clauses on information-sharing regulations. Clause 7(3)(d) talks about

“sanctions for non-compliance … including … creating, or widening the scope of, criminal offences”.

That is exactly one of the points that the Delegated Powers Committee is making: the Bill is so skeletal in nature, it appears that information sharing is a route by which criminal offences could be made. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that.

--- Later in debate ---

I understand the good intentions and concerns—of all noble Lords—behind these amendments. I have highlighted, I hope, that we are following precedent. With that in mind, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments in this group.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has been very helpful in explaining about the affirmative process, and he has talked about the Explanatory Memorandum, but he has not responded to my questions about the consultation with the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the relevant agencies. If that happens, will it form part of the Explanatory Memorandum? My concern is that this is all still led very much by the Department for Business and Trade and does not take account of the concerns and pressures faced by the Home Office, the justice system and their respective arm’s-length bodies.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for the question. I will need to come back to her on it because I want to be absolutely clear that I am giving her the correct information, rather than me saying something now on the fly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for his question because it reminded me that when all the primary and secondary legislation on Covid was going through, most of the references to “emergency” were the definition in the Civil Contingencies Act. That Act is not defined in this Bill, and “emergency” is used loosely on its own. I wonder whether there is a bear trap there. If the department means to use “emergency” in the sense of the Civil Contingencies Act, it may be better and more helpful to name it. If not, will the Minister explain why the use of the definitions in the Civil Contingencies Act are inappropriate?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I really do not know the answer to that. Obviously I will find out and write to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I thank the Minister—I am grateful.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am told that we were advised by counsel that this word is more flexible to use. I do not know whether that is sufficient but perhaps we can explore that further.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

82: Clause 5, page 6, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under this section must have regard for the impact of metrology regulations on small and medium sized enterprises.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment ensures that new metrology regulations under the act have regard for impacts on small and medium sized enterprises.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is unable to be in his place at this stage of the day because today’s Committee date was confirmed only after he had made an appointment that cannot be changed. On his behalf, I will speak to Amendment 82, which would ensure that new metrology regulations under the Bill have regard for impacts on small and medium-sized enterprises.

It is self-evident that the capacity of small and medium-sized businesses to process and understand regulation is many orders of magnitude different from that of large companies. That is why the Bill should explicitly consider this difference in capacity every single time a new regulation is to be tabled. How will a two-person organisation cope? What is the appropriate level of regulation? This Government say that they are about growth. SMEs are largely the engine of growth, and misplaced overregulation is a key brake on those size of companies. I hope the Minister can answer these questions. In the light of these concerns, this simple amendment calls on regulators to keep this at the front of their minds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their contributions in the debate on this grouping of amendments; in particular, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Sharpe, for their amendments. This Government are committed to supporting businesses as we get the UK economy growing.

I begin with Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. He specifies that regulations made under Clause 5 of the Bill

“must have regard for the impact of metrology regulations on small and medium sized enterprises”.

The noble Lord has also proposed the publishing of impact assessments of affirmative regulations, to be laid every six months after the Bill’s implementation.

Similarly, Amendments 103 and 104 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, propose publishing a report assessing the Bill’s impact on consumer choice 12 months after the Bill is passed, as well as another report every two years on the economic impacts of the Bill. The noble Lord’s Amendment 104B would further require the Secretary of State to present a report to Parliament detailing the impact of regulations made under the Bill’s powers on SMEs.

I am happy to confirm that the impact of any new regulations will be fully considered through the development of proportionate impact analysis. As I said before, the Better Regulation Framework is the system that government uses to manage the flow of regulation and understand its impacts, including on SMEs and micro-businesses. On 7 December, the Government launched their new Business Growth Service to ensure that it is easier for SMEs to find government advice and support, giving them more time and money.

In line with the Better Regulation Framework, for regulations where significant impacts—above £10 million per year—are anticipated, full impact assessments will be published. For regulations with lower anticipated impacts, a proportionate assessment impact analysis will be completed. These assessments will, as a matter of course, consider the impacts of regulations on SMEs. Furthermore, officials currently routinely engage with SMEs and stakeholders to shape policy, including in the light of emerging technological and industry developments, and to identify and address any disproportionate burdens. The OPSS regularly engages with a small business panel as part of policy development.

I hope that this confirmation provides reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on this important area, and I am grateful to them for raising it today. The Government remain committed to supporting SMEs and recognise the vital role they play in the UK economy. As such, the Bill will allow the Government to update product and metrology regulation to avoid extra cost to business and provide continued regulatory stability. It will also allow the Government to end recognition of EU requirements where this is in the interests of businesses and consumers. The Bill will enable the Government to introduce proportionate product safety requirements that protect consumers and create a fairer playing field for law-abiding businesses.

As some noble Lords will know, before I came to this place I was a serial entrepreneur all my working life. I understand how micro-businesses and SMEs work. SMEs spend most of their time creating and growing the business. They do not want additional costs or regulations impacting their business. Having said that, all that businesses want is a level playing field where they know the rules of the game and what regulations are in place. Imposing additional regulation is not the intention of this Government. We are constantly consulting SMEs to ensure that, whatever regulation is in place, it does not impact SMEs and micro-businesses.

As I said, growth is the Government’s number one priority. On 14 October, we published a Green Paper, Invest 2035, setting out a credible 10-year plan to deliver the certainty and stability that businesses need to invest in the high-growth sectors that will drive our growth mission. This industrial strategy will create a pro-business environment and support high-potential sectors and clusters across the country. By giving the UK the flexibility to adapt its own regulatory framework to keep pace with international regulatory developments and respond to global trends, the Bill supports economic growth and innovation.

This flexibility ensures that the Bill supports economic growth—as I mentioned—reduces unnecessary regulatory burdens and ultimately benefits businesses, including micro-businesses and SMEs. However, introducing a statutory reporting obligation would risk duplicating existing processes, diverting resources and delaying the implementation of timely and effective regulations that provide businesses and consumers with the certainty they need.

I am sure that many noble Lords know that the EU’s general product safety regulation comes into force this Friday 13 December. Under the terms of the Windsor Framework between the UK and the EU, we have to apply it in Northern Ireland, so we will publish on the Government’s website clear guidance to SMEs that want to export to Northern Ireland and the EU. We will prepare a statutory instrument to implement a new enforcement regime in Northern Ireland to allow this GPSR to be enforced. This is a requirement of the Windsor Framework.

I mention this to show that there are regulations that SMEs have to abide by—this is one of them—that will impose a certain amount of burden on SMEs, especially in the run-up to Christmas. Many small businesses will now find it very difficult to export to Northern Ireland and Europe if they do not have a legal representative in the country to verify their goods.

As I have outlined, I believe that the very laudable sentiment behind these amendments is already covered by existing practice, so I ask noble Lords not to press them.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am grateful to the speakers in this debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his Amendments 103, 104 and 104B. They aim, I think, to achieve the same objective as Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, but in more detail.

I am with the Minister—I thank him for his response —in saying that more paperwork and more regulation is not what we on these Benches wanted to achieve in Amendment 82, which is why it says that any regulations “must have regard for”. I hope that the Minister will take that on board. I want to ask him something; perhaps he might write to me, if he intends to write anyway. He kindly talked about the different types of impact assessment, including whether they would be full or proportionate. We completely understand that those would happen, but will those impact assessments specifically highlight SMEs? In other words, will an untutored eye flicking through see “effect on SMEs” in bold, and then something underneath it? I am seeing nods from the Minister, and I look forward to his letter.

I am glad that the Minister raised the extra burdens on firms either selling into Northern Ireland or the reverse. It is not just about that: over the last few years, we have seen very small businesses having sometimes to double the number of their administrative staff to cope with, for example, things such as music groups touring across Europe. The objective has to be keep that paperwork down as much as possible. Obviously, I will confer with my noble friend Lord Fox, and I look forward to the Minister’s letter. We may return with this later.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Before the noble Baroness withdraws, I can confirm that, when we do the impact assessment, we take SMEs into consideration as well.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 82 withdrawn.