Consumer Products (Control of Biocides) Bill [HL]

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for bringing her Private Member’s Bill to your Lordships’ House. Consumer product regulation is a key topic in the world we live in, and we share her passion for protecting the environment from unnecessary harm. The noble Baroness set out in clear and concise detail why she feels the Bill is necessary. His Majesty’s Official Opposition do not wish in any way to detract from the noble Baroness’s good intentions, but it is only fair and reasonable that I am also clear on our behalf that we are unable to support the Bill.

As currently drafted, the Bill has an extremely broad application. Although the offence of selling cosmetic and personal care products containing biocides is well defined, Clauses 3 and 4 grant very wide powers over consumer products to the Secretary of State and the proposed biocidal consumer products advisory board. It appears that the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about the use of biocides understandably inform this drafting, but we feel that the broad and wide definition of these powers could lead to unintended overreach.

We are also concerned that the Bill takes too exacting an approach to regulation, and there are two strands to our concerns. First, the Bill sets the fine level for the sale and marketing of a cosmetic product containing biocides at “level 5”. By our understanding, that could result in an unlimited fine. It is conceivable that some reputable and legitimate firms may be discouraged from entering the cosmetic and personal care market with a technically unlimited level of liability. We would welcome the opportunity to hear from the Minister—that is, if the Government are supportive of the Bill—and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in her closing speech, about what risk assessment impacts have been conducted on the impact to SME businesses. These firms are the lifeblood of the UK economy, and we really wish them to succeed for both job creation and tax receipts for the Exchequer. But, realistically, they will not have the same capacity as larger companies to ensure compliance with such an approach.

In addition to the unlimited company liability, the same offences would also apply to officers of a company. To be absolutely clear, we appreciate and understand that this approach is appropriate and right in the case of serious criminal activity and certain regulated sectors of the economy. That is not in doubt. However, we remain to be convinced that it is appropriate here. Should an offence be committed by a company, not only would that company be liable and fined but potentially so would the officers of the company. This is not the correct time to evaluate in detail how and whether those officers would realistically be liable in an industry that is already regulated by the Health and Safety Executive under the GB Biocidal Products Regulations, trading standards services, and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. For good order, no crime should be acceptable. But, notwithstanding what I have referred to on the point of serious criminal activity and heavily regulated sectors, it should merit further discussion as to whether it is in the public interest to prosecute both a business and an individual for the same offence in this situation.

Secondly, and continuing on the theme of overreaching regulation, the Bill proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to establish yet another regulatory board. Perhaps I might quote the Prime Minister:

“We will rip up the bureaucracy that blocks investment. We will march through the institutions and make sure that every regulator in this country—especially our economic and competition regulators—take growth as seriously as this room does”.


That was also referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg.

I refer also to Thomas Brown, one of our excellent authors from the House of Lords Library, who refers in his research briefing on this Bill to

“the independent scientific advisory group on chemical safety … the Health and Safety Executive … under the GB Biocidal Products Regulation … trading standards services … the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency … the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 … the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008”

and

“the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Environment Agency and the UK Health Security Agency joint research programme on AMR”.

With all due respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and with what I have just highlighted as a backdrop, perhaps we should ask ourselves whether we do not already have a deep portfolio of both regulators and regulations in this space, without the need to create yet another regulatory body.

To conclude, while we accept and respect the strength of the views and sentiment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, towards the use of biocides in consumer products, for the reasons I have set out, I am afraid that we will not be supporting this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have taken part in this extremely rich debate, both those who have brought their scientific expertise to the Chamber, and those who have concentrated hard while listening to that expertise. I doubt your Lordships’ House has seen a debate with more concentration of scientific evidence, but I posit that we need many more debates containing this level of science.

I am aware of all the people waiting for the next debate, but there are a couple of points really worth drawing out. The key question that has arisen is whether there is currently enough regulation, and here it is useful to triangulate three of the contributions from noble Lords.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Sugg, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, all raised concerns about more regulation. I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, was here, because his contribution indicated that this potentially marks a shift from the Government drawing up lots of detailed rules, which will always be lagging behind, to putting the responsibility on manufacturers to say, “Don’t mess things up”. That surely should be where the responsibility lies, and it would take away a lot of the complexities that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to.

Here, it is useful to triangulate to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, which demonstrated clearly that the regulators are not in any way keeping up. The Minister suggested that there might be duplication and that the existing position is well regulated and understood. The speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, demonstrated otherwise and that the regulations are not fit for purpose. That also was also reflected in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, so triangulating those speeches is very useful.

I will deal briefly with some of the specific points made. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for raising concerns about toxicity to human bodies, which is not adequately covered. I have not gone into that area because it is supposedly already regulated, although it clearly is not, as the noble Baroness indicated. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, will be pleased to know that I will be hosting two events in the next two months, with academics from the University of Exeter, on bacteriophages. Bacteriophages as an alternative to antibiotic use are certainly part of the story of how we are going to tackle the problem of AMR, but I would posit that they are unlikely to be a total solution.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Brinton, and others, raised the issue of period products. The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, pointed out that silver damages the lactobacillus—the healthy bacteria. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. As the noble Baroness said, people cannot know what they are buying now. That cannot be right, and we should be able to tackle that right now through that Bill.

The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, asked whether the level 5 unlimited fine is the right level. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, said that once we let the AMR genie out of the bottle, we cannot put it back. If a manufacturer that is a giant multinational company is responsible for letting loose a resistance gene that, essentially, gives rise to an AMR pandemic, a level 5 unlimited fine—which a court will of course consider with reference to the size of the company concerned—is the appropriate level.

I am aware of time, so I will offer some final thoughts. I really welcome the noble Lord, Lord Leong, saying that he was not dismissing the concerns that I brought forward today. I very much welcome the offer of further interaction, following up on the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, of a round table, and I look forward to further such discussion in considering the Production Regulation and Metrology Bill.

Finally, I am really glad that the Minister is going to go home and check his cupboards. I would suggest that this provides evidence that future action is needed.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, if I might briefly clarify, the unlimited fine I was referring to is obviously appropriate for large organisations, which have the ability to take that fine, but as was reiterated by the Minister, it is the SMEs we want to help. For them, an unlimited fine could make the difference between entering the market and not, which is why we need to take a measured approach.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.