Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Debate between Gareth Snell and Joy Morrissey

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I have deep concerns about this Orwellian Bill because of what it does not explicitly say and its ambiguity regarding EU dynamic realignment. The Henry VIII powers the Bill gives Ministers will have serious consequences for businesses, consumers and our ability to trade, but does so with little detail on how they intend to use such powers.

Let me first turn to regulatory alignment. As you may recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, I spent much time taking the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 through as a Whip, and I believe passionately that that Act was vital to take back control, for parliamentary sovereignty and in freeing businesses to compete by shedding unnecessary EU regulations, directives and red tape. So I will say plainly that this Bill will lead to regulatory alignment with the EU through the back door. I invite the Minister to confirm from the Dispatch Box that this Bill and the powers it gives Ministers will not be used by this Government for dynamic alignment with EU regulations. I doubt that any such categoric reassurance is likely to be forthcoming, but I await with bated breath and a hopeful heart that it be so.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Joy Morrissey]

Let me make some progress, and then I will give way.

The Government have always claimed that they would not return us to the single market and the customs union, and many believed them. I was always a healthy sceptic, but I am willing to be proven wrong. However, my fear is that this Bill will lead to back-door EU regulatory alignment, and whether that is deliberate or unintentional matters not. We had our democratic instructions from the British people, and we must honour them.

I now want to talk about competition—

[Gareth Snell]

Will the hon. Lady give way on regulatory alignment?

[Joy Morrissey]

Let me make some progress.

[Gareth Snell]

It is on the point the hon. Lady is moving away from.

[Joy Morrissey]

Well, I am now on competition. Would the hon. Member like to make a comment about that?

[Gareth Snell]

No, this is on the last point.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. This is turning into a debate in itself. It is very clear that the Member does not want to take an intervention right now, Mr Snell, but she may do so later.

[Joy Morrissey]

I now want to talk about competition—

[Gareth Snell]

Will the hon. Lady give way on a point about competition?

[Joy Morrissey]

I will give way on a point about competition.

[Gareth Snell]

Persistence sometimes pays off, Madam Deputy Speaker. I genuinely want to pick up the point the hon. Lady is making about competition in relation to alignment. In the ceramics sector, the food contact materials regulations set by the European Union are essential to enabling the export of the products we create and make. They are product regulations for safety, but she seems to be suggesting that any regulatory alignment is a bad thing. Is that her party’s message about alignment for the purposes of export that I should take back to the thousands of workers in Stoke-on-Trent?

[Joy Morrissey]

With exports, we can apply any kind of regulation we want to maximise our market advantage from leaving the EU. We could apply a statutory framework for Japan, or any country we want, to ensure we can export our products. The point of leaving the EU was so that we could remain globally competitive, and so that we could choose to adopt any regulatory framework we wanted if that market enabled us to export our products, support our businesses and help to grow our economy. I would support that, but nothing of that is mentioned in the Bill. If it mentioned realignment with market values in relation to Japan, so we could export things to Japan or to other markets, I would be interested in looking at the Bill holistically, but not once is any country or trade grouping mentioned except the EU. That gives me pause, and it makes me wonder whether this is an attempt to achieve a backdoor realignment with EU regulatory frameworks without the scrutiny of Parliament.