Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Third sitting)
Harriett Baldwin ExcerptsThursday 15th May 2025
(2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 May 2025 - (15 May 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz.
The Government have been clear in our intention to maintain a strong, co-operative relationship with the devolved Governments and to ensure that the devolution settlements are respected in both principle and practice. New clause 1 will place a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to obtain consent from the devolved Governments where regulations contain provisions within their devolved competence. That will provide a decisive role for devolved Ministers and underpin continued collaboration in developing product regulation that best supports businesses and consumers in all parts of the UK.
With that specific context in mind, I hope the devolved Governments will support the new clause and recommend that their respective legislatures give their consent, and I look forward to hearing the outcome of those debates. I thank ministerial colleagues and officials in the devolved Governments for their engagement and collaborative approach to the Bill.
This important new clause demonstrates that by listening carefully, engaging sincerely and acting in good faith, the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Governments can come together to find shared solutions. The legislation provides a new framework for product regulation and metrology that is agile, future-facing and tailored to the needs of the UK, and the new clause will make sure the framework works for all parts of the UK.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz.
I put on record my thanks to the Minister for his rapid reply to the points that were raised on Tuesday. I asked questions on time limits for emergency powers under clause 4, on whether amending the definition of “online marketplace” will be subject to the affirmative procedure, and on Government amendment 1, on which I confessed to being a bit confused. We needed some clarification, which we now have in the shape of a very prompt letter. I thank the Minister and his officials for getting that out so quickly. I believe that copies of the letter are now available in the Libraries of both Houses.
New clause 1 provides much-needed and helpful elaboration on the extraordinary powers taken by the Secretary of State in earlier parts of the Bill. It will be important to clarify exactly which of those powers are reserved competence and which are devolved competence, and this new clause sets out quite clearly the collaborative approach that the Government intend to follow.
I will raise further questions when we come to new clause 5 on how the Windsor framework and the Stormont brake will interact with subsections (3) and (4) of new clause 1, but as far as new clause 1 itself is concerned, the Minister has set out clearly the process for making regulations that contain provisions affecting the whole of the United Kingdom, recognising how important it is that the United Kingdom has a consistent internal market. The new clause provides clarification along those lines.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Purpose
“(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the regulation of products and metrology.
(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under this Act, advance that purpose while prioritising the maintenance of the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy and the United Kingdom’s regulatory competitiveness.
(3) Accordingly, and so far as it is possible to do so, provision made by virtue of this Act must be read and given effect so as to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) to the extent that it is consistent with the maintenance of the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy and regulatory competitiveness.
(4) When taking action to improve regulation under this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to maintaining the highest quality regulatory framework.”—(Dame Harriett Baldwin.)
This new clause sets out that the purpose of this Act is to improve the regulation of products and metrology while maintaining the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 2 is incredibly important. As the Committee heard on Tuesday, it is all too clear how many Henry VIII powers the Secretary of State is taking under this legislation. We do not need to rehearse the concerns raised about those wide-ranging Henry VIII powers by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place.
I am sure the Government will want to agree to new clause 2, with which we are trying to be incredibly helpful. The Minister set out on the record on Tuesday how he thought we were exaggerating, pulling the emergency cord and sounding the alarm about the potential for this legislation to be used to dynamically align the United Kingdom’s product regulation and metrology with that of the European Union. New clause 2 would helpfully allow the Minister, when he agrees to it, to recognise that the legislation has a much narrower purpose.
The purpose of the Bill is to improve product regulation and metrology. Importantly, new clause 2(2) states that the Secretary of State
“must, in taking any actions under this Act, advance that purpose while prioritising the maintenance of the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy and the United Kingdom’s regulatory competitiveness.”
That clarifies the importance of the Bill’s purpose, how competitiveness must be taken into account, and, above all, the idea of regulatory autonomy. That is emphasised again in subsection (3).
As we said at the beginning of the Committee, we all want the UK’s product regulation and metrology to be of the highest quality and have the best possible regulatory framework, but it must also be autonomous. Supporting this new clause would allow the Government to show the substance behind their words by putting them into legislation.
Despite its ostensibly noble intentions, the Bill poses significant risks to the principles of transparency, accountability and fairness that underpin our legal and regulatory systems. In short, new clause 2 does what it says on the tin. It would ensure that the Bill has its intended consequences, rather than the unintended consequences that sometimes slip through our scrutiny.
The Committee has heard that the Bill will enact far wider powers than anyone outside this place would consider to be in scope of product regulation and metrology. At the heart of the Bill lies a troubling delegation of power, and the Opposition voted against clauses on Tuesday because this skeleton legislation is an extraordinary expansion of the Secretary of State’s powers. For example, as we heard on Tuesday, there is the creation or expansion of criminal offences, and the powers conferred upon the Secretary of State and “relevant authorities.” We did not get to the bottom of who those relevant authorities are.
The powers are alarmingly broad, and there is little to no clear guidance on what the offences will entail. The lack of specificity raises serious concerns about the potential for overreach and the erosion of due process, because criminal sanctions carry profound consequences. It is imperative that Parliament retains control over their creation and scope, and ensures that such powers are exercised with the utmost caution and accountability.
The vague language on enforcement bodies, which we have highlighted throughout our scrutiny of the Bill, exacerbates the uncertainty faced by businesses and consumers alike. Without explicit identification of which bodies will have the authority to impose criminal sanctions, businesses will be left in a state of apprehension and confusion. That ambiguity not only hampers compliance efforts but fosters an environment ripe for arbitrary enforcement action.
On Tuesday we also discussed the provisions granting powers to inspect premises, seize products and demand documentation without clear safeguards—I am sure that all members of the Committee will agree that those are deeply concerning. The criteria for suspicion are also undefined, leaving the door open for discretionary and potentially unjustified investigations. If left unchecked, such powers could lead to overbearing Government interventions in business activities, disrupt operations and stifle innovation. The lack of procedural safeguards further compounds these risks, making it imperative that we reassess the provisions to protect the rights and interests of all stakeholders.
The Bill’s reliance on secondary legislation, particularly in areas such as artificial intelligence, the definition of “online marketplace” and environmental impact, raises significant concerns about the adequacy of parliamentary scrutiny. The use of statutory instruments to introduce new regulations allows for rapid implementation, but at the cost of thorough debate and amendment. This approach diminishes the opportunity for comprehensive oversight and increases the likelihood of unintended consequences that could adversely affect businesses and consumers.
Although its objectives may be well intentioned—we have said all along that we do not question the good intentions of the Minister and Secretary of State—the Bill before us poses substantial risks to the principles of democratic governance, legal certainty and economic vitality. It is incumbent on us to ensure that any regulatory framework is crafted with clarity, accountability and respect for the rule of law.
This new clause would set out some examples of the Bill’s purpose to bring home the importance of this. We believe that the Bill gives the Government the power to dynamically align our regulations with those of the European Union. That sounds innocuous, but it means that product regulation in this country would be set by another Parliament. We propose a completely different approach so that, in all the different uses of the Bill, the focus is on the competitiveness of our regulations and ensuring that UK-regulated products set the standard and the benchmark around the world.
We should be proud of our history of product regulation and metrology. The hon. Member for Erewash, who is on this Committee, is the first metrologist ever elected to Parliament. He has spoken eloquently about the UK’s brilliance in defining a standard for metrology, and we should be proud of that brilliance. In all our agreements as an independent nation, we should seek to have other countries recognise our brilliant product regulation and metrology.
Certification for the UK market should be a mark of great pride. In all the trade agreements that the Government are negotiating—as an aside, I note that we have not seen their detail—we should seek recognition of these excellent standards, not only by our friends and neighbours in the European Union but by our biggest single-country trading partner, the United States, by our friends in the Commonwealth countries of Canada and Australia, and by the countries that have signed up to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
It is no surprise to the Committee that the Liberal Democrats’ position is to go back into the customs union, which would require dynamic alignment. It is clear from yesterday’s vote on the Opposition day motion how Government Members feel about it. I have given the Minister the opportunity to agree to this sensible new clause on the Bill’s purpose, but I got the hint that he is potentially not going to vote in favour.
Should the Government use the powers they have under this legislation to agree to dynamic alignment at the surrender summit next week, the voters at the next general election will be incredibly disappointed. We have got to a point where an independent free trade agreement could be agreed with our friends in the EU, in India and in the United States, and we would not want to give up those opportunities as a result of widening the Bill’s purpose, so I will press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Everyone on this Committee can agree that the UK is a proud global trading nation and, however we voted in the 2016 referendum, that one of the changes that has occurred has been our sovereignty over trade agreements. We agreed a comprehensive trade and co-operation agreement with our friends and neighbours in the European Union, with zero tariffs and zero quotas, and most of our product regulation and metrology is inherited from the time when we were a European Union member.
I put on record my welcome for the way in which the Government have pursued free trade agreements in line with the United Kingdom’s heritage as a free trading nation. I do not think the details of the new trade agreement with India or all the details of the US free trade agreement have been fully shared with the House at this stage, but from what we can tell there is an improvement in market access for UK manufacturers and for those who follow UK product regulation and metrology.
We can all see how important it is that the powers that the Government are taking under this legislation do not accidentally or intentionally cut across any of the international agreements listed in new clause 3. We would not want any of the regulations made under this legislation to disadvantage the United Kingdom under the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership; the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement; the UK-Canada continuity agreement and any improvements to that; the UK-Australia free trade agreement; the free trade agreement with New Zealand; and any other trade treaties, such as the one recently announced with India and the one that is subject to negotiations with the United States of America.
There is an extraordinary change in the UK’s trading opportunities. We have this advantageous new trading position with, in effect, a foot in both camps. We are uniquely placed in respect of European and American trade. It would be utter madness for the Government to do anything with this Bill that would cut across the freedoms we have. It would be much more valuable if the Government would, by agreeing to new clause 3, take this opportunity to show that they want to be completely pragmatic, and to ensure that we continue to have the opportunities to open up markets and that product regulation and metrology is not a barrier to that.
New clause 3 serves to prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations to align the United Kingdom with the European Union in a way that might hinder any future or existing free trade agreements. It is a pragmatic clause and a necessary step towards maintaining the strength of the UK’s trade relationships and protecting the long-term prosperity of our businesses. The hon. Member for Wokingham rightly pointed out how important it is for us to trade with our European friends and neighbours. However, it is also important to note, as we saw in the recently published Santander trade barometer, that for businesses in the UK, there is a gradual but steady pivot away from the EU and towards global partners. Those incredibly useful statistics show that not only have UK businesses been regarding international trade as more important, increasingly over time, but that they are widening the range of trading partners that they do business with.
When the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), made the point in the Chamber that the number of references to the EU in the legislation is far more significant than the number of references to any other country—the United States, our single biggest trading partner, for example—the Secretary of State told him that the Bill will enable regulatory alignment with the EU only
“where it is recognised that we have the interest.”—[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 221.]
On Tuesday, the Minister told this Committee that he thought Conservative Members had mentioned the European Union more than the Government had, and that he did not believe the Bill will be used to tie us to the EU. However, I refer the Minister to the Bill because, in its 13 pages, the EU is mentioned 12 times. The Bill’s impact assessment certainly implies that we will default to a European set of standards, and the Secretary of State has not defined what the aforementioned interests may be. We are therefore moving the amendment to ensure that the interests of the UK in our existing and future trade agreements are not undermined by unnecessary and egregious alignment with the EU on product regulation.
I am not making this up: we have heard, in advance of next week’s surrender summit, that one of the EU’s negotiating objectives is to lock down dynamic alignment with the UK. The EU looks at us and sees the free trade deals that it has not been able to do. The one with India is a prime example, as is the liberalisation of tariffs that was recently announced, which I know is a starting point for the Government in terms of the United States. The EU is pretty worried that we will make the most of these freedoms and show that they are one of the advantages of our not being a member any more, so the EU has this as a negotiating objective. I am sure that behind closed doors in the negotiations, Ministers are pointing to this Bill going through Parliament, to their significant majority, and to the fact that they can therefore turn this on like a switch.
As we stand on the precipice of a new era—one in which we can lean into our country’s global free-trading heritage—it is essential that we continue to forge strong trading relationships with our global partners. These agreements, many of which we negotiated after leaving the European Union, are pivotal to our future economic prosperity, and to the growth that the Government rightly seek for the UK economy.
The new clause explicitly states:
“The Secretary of State may not make regulations under section (1)(2) or section (2)(7) that will disadvantage the United Kingdom or its trade under”—
several key international agreements. These include, but are not limited to, the CPTPP—that opens up new markets in the Asia-Pacific—the Japan economic comprehensive partnership agreement, which strengthens ties with one of the world’s largest economies and biggest inward investors into the United Kingdom, and agreements with our close friends and Commonwealth allies New Zealand, Australia and Canada.
We made progress during our time in Government, and we welcome the progress that this Government are picking up. By urging the Government to agree to the amendment, we want to say that this is not merely a technical adjustment; it is a necessary safeguard to ensure that our regulatory environment—product regulation and metrology—does not inadvertently undermine the progress that we have made in securing those agreements.
Frankly, these treaties represent hundreds of billions of pounds in trade. They are foundational to ensuring that the UK remains competitive in a rapidly changing global economy. The CPTPP is estimated to increase UK GDP by £2 billion, and it could be higher if countries such as South Korea, which has very good product regulation and metrology, join. We should mutually recognise some of these things. Why would we want to tie ourselves purely to a bloc that is a declining share of the global economy?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Given the importance of this point, I would be grateful if the Minister put on the record his acknowledgment that dynamic alignment is an ask from our European Union partners in the negotiations ahead of next week’s summit.
Justin Madders
Regrettably, I am not privy to the negotiations; I can only read the speculation in the newspapers, but clearly the Bill does not mean automatic alignment, dynamic or otherwise. It means the opposite, which is why a number of the arguments put forward by the Opposition are completely incorrect. I know that the 2019 election was the high point for the Conservative party in recent years and that it was all about our relationship with the EU, but we have left. We are in a new world, and the arguments that we are hearing from the Opposition are from a different era. The world has moved on. We are looking outward and working closely with our EU neighbours, as we should do, but unlike Conservative Members we are not obsessed with this issue. I am sorry to say that they have misread the mood of the public and the impact of the Bill. I ask that the new clause be withdrawn.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
The Minister just clarified for the record that, although it is not his or the Government’s intention to use the Bill in the way we have highlighted, those powers exist should they wish to exercise them. Both he and I have read about this in the media, as neither of us is privy to the discussions behind closed doors, but it is clearly a request from our European Union negotiating partners. This week, the Government voted down our Opposition day motion that would have given the Minister the opportunity to rule it out. In the light of that, and given the importance of the issues highlighted in new clause 3, as well as the fact that the Bill simply gives the Minister and his colleagues the chance to legislate in exactly the way they have been speaking about, I will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 5 is designed to obtain clarification on the record from the Minister about how Government new clause 1, which was agreed to earlier, will interact with the provisions in the Windsor framework to do with the Stormont brake.
As hon. Members will be aware, if Northern Ireland Assembly Members initiate the procedure under regulation 11 of the Windsor Framework (Democratic Scrutiny) Regulations 2024 in relation to an EU law affecting product regulation or metrology, the Secretary of State must not take any steps to implement that law in Great Britain until the Secretary of State has taken a decision under part 3 of those regulations. The new clause would make the position clear.
As colleagues will be aware, dynamic alignment of product regulation effectively already applies in the Northern Ireland economy. An update to the Windsor framework was agreed in Parliament last year, with Government support, regarding the democratic oversight of the 2024 regulations. The Northern Ireland Assembly has the important democratic right to trigger the Stormont brake, with the assurance that no UK regulations are aligned with the European Union following that decision in Stormont. Will the Minister put on the record that, should a piece of regulation be highlighted by the Stormont brake, and we were in a pending period while the UK Government negotiated with the European Union about its application, it would not be imposed in Great Britain during that period?
Great Britain is united with Northern Ireland, and we must ensure that our ties and duties to Northern Ireland are set out clearly in the Bill. Government new clause 1 goes some way to doing that, but new clause 5 would help to clarify the situation further. When the Prime Minister was recently asked in the Chamber whether he is a Unionist, he refused to confirm that he is. When asked after Prime Minister’s questions whether the Prime Minister is a Unionist, his official spokesperson said:
“I think the Prime Minister said before that, of course, he is the Prime Minister for the whole of the UK, including in Northern Ireland.”
If the Prime Minister and the Government want to make that very clear, they should have absolutely no problem with backing our clarifying new clause.
I hope that the Minister will agree with the principles behind new clause 5: that democratic consent must be sought in all parts of the United Kingdom, as set out in Government new clause 1; that we must ensure that the UK’s internal market continues to function effectively; and that, if the Stormont brake is pulled, it should also be pulled in Great Britain. That is the purpose of new clause 5.
Aphra Brandreth
I rise to make a few points in support of the new clause, because I strongly believe that the Bill must uphold and not undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom and the strength of our internal market.
First and foremost, we voted as a country—as the United Kingdom—to leave the European Union. Of course, the unique situation of Northern Ireland, sharing a land border with the EU, has added complexities to that process, but through the hard work of the previous Conservative Government, we secured the Windsor framework, an agreement that represents a careful balance. The framework upholds free-flowing trade within the UK while, crucially, protecting Northern Ireland’s position in the Union, safeguarding its sovereignty and upholding the Good Friday agreement, which remains the foundation of peace and stability.
Before addressing the specifics of the new clause, I will briefly reflect on the importance of the UK internal market, which is the economic spine of our Union, supporting the free movement of goods, services, capital and people across all four nations. Intra-UK trade has been worth up to £200 billion a year, which represents nearly 6% of our GDP. For Northern Ireland alone, it is up to £14 billion annually—twice its trade with Ireland and the wider EU combined. That should serve as a reminder of just how critical it is that we preserve and strengthen Northern Ireland’s place in our internal market. The new clause is a small but significant step toward doing just that.
Northern Ireland is an equal member of the Union. It is only right that its representatives have a meaningful say in decisions that affect them, and that we treat their concerns with the same seriousness that we would those of any other part of the UK. The new clause reflects that principle. It would not tie the Government’s hands unnecessarily, but it would ensure that any action taken respects the processes of the Windsor framework and honours the spirit of consent.
We have spent a good deal of time in Committee debating the balance of powers between Parliament and Ministers. In that context, the new clause is not a radical demand. It simply asks the Government to pause and consider the democratic expression of the legislature of Northern Ireland before acting. It may be that the provision need not be used, but if the Government cannot support it, that would be another indication of their willingness to listen to Brussels over Belfast.
I urge Government Members to join the Opposition in supporting this reasonable suggestion. It would make the Bill stronger, more balanced and more in keeping with our shared commitment to the Union. As Conservatives, we have a proud record of championing the Union, and it was a Conservative Government that delivered the Windsor framework. I did think that Labour was supposed to be Unionist party, not a European Unionist party. This is a chance for Labour to make its position clear.
Justin Madders
As Opposition Members have articulated, the new clause would provide for a delay to the Secretary of State’s implementation of regulatory changes in Great Britain where Northern Ireland Assembly Members provide notification of triggering the Stormont brake on similar regulatory changes in Northern Ireland. That delay would persist until the Government make a determination on that notification.
I am sorry that Opposition Members feel that the Windsor framework is not up to scratch any more, but we take our responsibilities under it extremely seriously. The Bill does not alter or restrict the Windsor framework scrutiny mechanisms given to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The shadow Minister questioned the Prime Minister’s commitment to Northern Ireland, and I would remind her that he was in fact Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland for a number of years before his election to this place.
If the new clause were accepted and the Stormont brake were triggered by the Assembly on a particular EU regulation, it would delay the Government from providing certainty on the regulatory approach that we might take and it would cut across the devolution settlement, none of which is the intention of the Bill. The Stormont brake is about EU regulations, but this new clause would prevent UK Ministers from legislating on our own rules, which I am sure is not the shadow Minister’s intention.
It is also worth saying that the new clause, as drafted, is inoperable. It refers to the incorrect provisions giving effect to the Stormont brake, which are contained in schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
Again, we have had an awful lot of talk about the EU. We have had a little ride on the ghost train, and nothing that Opposition Members have said bears any relation to the reality of what is in this Bill. I therefore ask that the new clause be withdrawn.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I think I heard the Minister say that, were the Northern Ireland Assembly to pull the Stormont brake, the Secretary of State would potentially continue to apply EU regulation in GB under the powers in this Bill. If that is what I heard the Minister say—I think it is definitely what he said—it is important that I press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Clive Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
When the Bill was announced in the King’s Speech last summer, it held real promise of an intention to address the growing number of fires caused by lithium-ion batteries in e-bikes and e-scooters. However, there remains no reference in the Bill to lithium-ion batteries, despite the real and growing harm they cause. This is what new clause 10 seeks to address. According to Electrical Safety First, more than 180 parliamentary constituencies have experienced a fire caused by unsafe lithium-ion batteries since 2020. The evidence is clear that these batteries require a more robust regulatory response. This is not just about consumer protection, although that is vital, but about environmental responsibility. Lithium-ion batteries contain hazardous materials, and poor disposal poses real environmental risks.
The Government have so far accepted an amendment to the Bill that implements a system for classifying high-risk products and applying appropriate regulations. I am sure Members agree that lithium-ion batteries can, and should, be classed as high-risk, and I hope that this amendment is protected as the Bill progresses through its remaining stages. If the Government intend to classify these batteries as high-risk, there is no harm in putting that into primary legislation. I would be grateful if the Minister could share what work is ongoing in his Department and the Department for Transport to deal with e-bike and e-scooter batteries.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham for moving the new clause and giving the Committee the opportunity to hear from the Government on this issue.
The matter was raised extensively during proceedings on the Bill in the other place, and in the evidence that the Committee has received from members of the public and important public bodies, including fire services across the UK. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister about the existing scope in UK law to regulate lithium-ion batteries, as well as the power that the Bill gives the Minister to address a product that all too often causes horrendous fires. Many of our constituents will have heard of or have been affected by this issue, so I look forward to hearing from him.
Justin Madders
It is right that hon. Members have raised this matter, which is one of the primary drivers behind the Bill. We recognise that the safety of products containing lithium-ion batteries is an increasingly pressing issue, and I welcome the opportunity to speak about what the Government are doing.
We are fully aware of the risks that are posed, particularly by products such as e-bikes and e-scooters, and we have already taken meaningful steps to protect consumers and uphold product safety standards. The Office for Product Safety and Standards has worked closely with colleagues across Government, industry partners and technical experts to identify the root causes of the safety issues that we are seeing. That includes addressing faulty design, poor manufacturing standards and issues with battery compatibility and charging systems.
Alongside regulatory oversight, we have engaged directly with UK businesses to help them to comply with existing safety regulations. We want to ensure that good businesses who act responsibly are not undercut by unscrupulous traders who place unsafe products on the UK market.
We have also built strong relationships with fire and rescue services, which are often the first to see the consequences of battery failures in the home or in public spaces. Their expertise and intelligence-gathering skills have been instrumental in helping us to identify high-risk products and take appropriate enforcement action.
Since 2022, these efforts have resulted in 20 product recalls and 22 enforcement actions targeting unsafe or non-compliant e-bikes and e-scooters. In one notable case, the OPSS issued 26 withdrawal notices relating to two dangerous e-bike battery models manufactured overseas by Unit Pack Power. Those batteries had been linked to incidents investigated by fire and rescue services, and action was taken to halt their sale across eight online marketplaces, as well as against two manufacturers and 16 individual sellers.
However, we recognise that enforcement alone is not enough. Regulatory reform is needed to ensure that harmful products are stopped at the border or prevented from entering the market in the first place. At the same time, we must avoid placing disproportionate burdens on responsible businesses. Regulation must be effective, proportionate and targeted. This will protect the public without stifling innovation or fair competition.
The Bill has been drafted to provide those powers across a wide range of product categories, including lithium-ion battery products. While I fully recognise the concerns raised about batteries, the Bill does not and should not single out individual product types. To do so would risk narrowing its scope and limiting our ability to act effectively across the product landscape, including when new products are introduced. I think we all understand how technologies are evolving and that we need broad powers to keep up to date.
A requirement to report in three months would cause some challenges for timelines. There is normally a 12-week period for Government consultations, and that would obviously not fit into the three months suggested by the new clause.
At this stage, we are actively exploring what regulatory changes might make the greatest difference on lithium-ion batteries. To support that, the Department commissioned research from the Warwick Manufacturing Group to deepen our understanding of the risks posed by these batteries, including issues of compatibility, design and failure patterns. This research has now been published—I am happy to provide a copy to the hon. Member for Wokingham if he wishes to see it—and will help us to identify where interventions are most needed through regulatory standards, clearer compliance pathways or improved consumer guidance.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to tackling the safety challenges associated with lithium-ion batteries. We will continue to work closely with all stakeholders—from industry to fire services, and from standards bodies to consumer groups—to develop solutions that are effective, evidence-based and proportionate.
We understand the urgency of the issue. I have met victims of lithium-ion battery fires, and they understand that we are doing everything we can to get the measures on the statute book so that we can develop regulations to prevent such tragedies from happening again. It is important that we recognise new dangers and act to protect the public. I hope the hon. Gentleman is reassured that we will take action and are doing what we can at this stage.
Clive Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause aims to ensure that online marketplaces are subject to clear, enforceable duties to protect consumers against unsafe products. Despite online marketplaces playing a central role in today’s retail environment, they often operate without the same responsibilities as traditional retailers, despite facilitating the sale of millions of pounds of goods to UK consumers.
The new clause would put some common-sense requirements on online marketplaces. For example, it would require platforms to have effective systems in place to monitor and detect unsafe products and block them from being sold, and it includes a clear duty to remove unsafe products quickly once a risk has been flagged. Those basic consumer protection principles are applied to bricks-and-mortar retailers, so why not to online retailers? No platform should be able to profit from unsafe goods while claiming that it has no responsibility for what is sold.
The current system simply is not working: 85% of the toys tested by the British Toy & Hobby Association, across 11 online marketplaces, failed toy safety testing and were delisted from sale. Despite that, it found that 72% of seemingly identical unsafe toys were back on sale, with 41% being sold by the same retailer. On testing a sample of 25 of the toys, all 25—100%—failed toy safety testing.
As we modernise our product safety regime, we must ensure that online marketplaces are held to the same high standards as bricks-and-mortar shops. Bricks-and-mortar toy retailers are expected to deliver much more, with fewer resources. Some 80% of UK toy retailers are SMEs. If they want to supply a manufacturer’s product, they are obliged to ensure that the manufacturer has carried out the relevant compliance regulations. Additionally, importers have certain obligations and have to ensure that others have been carried out. Online marketplaces are not required to do any of this.
Meanwhile, third-party sellers are often able to evade compliance with safety regulations, as online marketplaces have no obligation to verify that those sellers have met their legal responsibilities. Third-party sellers are often difficult or impossible to trace for enforcement. This means the cost of producing their toys is lower, so third-party sellers are able to sell their products more cheaply. The new clause would deliver fairness and essential protections. By embedding baseline requirements directly in primary legislation, the Bill will close regulatory gaps and ensure that secondary legislation can build on a solid foundation.
Before I conclude, another issue that needs to be addressed is counterfeit products. Because of a lack of traceability and enforcement, many products sold in online marketplaces are counterfeit, leaving British consumers at risk of substandard goods that pose a risk to their health and waste their money. What are the Government doing to stop that? What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that there is a level playing field between the high street and online marketplaces? Will he meet me to discuss the matter further, with the British Toy & Hobby Association?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham for raising this incredibly important and wide-ranging issue. He touched on some of its growing importance in the UK, where consumers are buying more and more products online. The hon. Gentleman brings his valuable expertise from the toy and hobby sector to the discussion. Above all, we would be particularly concerned if harmful toys were to find their way to consumers, and indeed they do. Some 80% of the toys purchased from online marketplaces that were tested by the British Toy & Hobby Association were found to be illegal due to missing warning signs.
As this issue has been included in the Bill, I know that the Government intend to use this legislation to deal with it. From the many speeches made on Second Reading, I know that this subject exercises colleagues across the House. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how he will use the powers in the Bill to deal with this important issue.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham for moving the new clause, which would require the Secretary of State to introduce a list of duties on online marketplaces and to make a statement within three months of Royal Assent.
As Members have recognised throughout the debate, online marketplaces now play a significant role in the supply chain and must be explicitly recognised in the product safety regulatory framework. We all recognise that they provide consumers with greater choice and convenience, but of course that cannot come at the cost of compromised consumer safety and of disadvantaging compliant businesses, so I recognise and share the new clause’s intent.
However, some of the requirements in the new clause are of the type that the Government are developing for consultation and will thereafter introduce using the Bill’s powers. We intend to introduce requirements that build on best practice to create a proportionate regulatory framework where online marketplaces: take steps to prevent unsafe products from being made available to consumers; ensure that sellers operating on their platform comply with product safety obligations; provide relevant information to consumers; and co-operate closely with regulators. The framework will also include, if necessary, powers to deal with stolen or counterfeit products, as the hon. Member for Wokingham mentioned.
The Bill provides the opportunity to develop requirements following consultation—as required by clause 12(6)—stakeholder engagement, impact assessments and consideration of the practical implications, including whether requirements should be tailored to specific business activities to ensure proportionality. The new clause, however, would require the introduction of its specified obligations irrespective of the outcome of any consultation or impact assessment, and of consideration of whether that would be proportionate or effective across the range of online marketplace models.
We expect the diversity and market share of e-commerce to continue to grow, and the ways that UK consumers purchase products to evolve in ways that we are not yet able to predict. It is therefore important that the product safety legal framework remains flexible, so that it can adapt to future changes while remaining proportionate for different business models. I am afraid that the new clause would significantly hinder that flexibility by mandating that online marketplaces’ duties must include requirements relating to those in the new clause.
I assure the hon. Member for Wokingham that our intent is to introduce, at the earliest opportunity, new regulations on online marketplaces that are proportionate and future-proof and that prioritise consumer safety. The regulations will of course be informed by public consultation and subject to the affirmative procedure. I am happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss this issue further, because there is an important role moving forward. I am happy to engage with Members in all parts of the House to ensure that we get it right. In the meantime, I ask him to withdraw his new clause.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
On Tuesday, on multiple occasions I made the point about how widely the Bill is drawn in terms of the bodies responsible for enforcement. I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Member for Wokingham’s points about a trading standards enforcement review, which we think would be an important part of the ongoing scrutiny of the Bill’s impact, so we are minded to support the new clause.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham for moving his new clause, although he is pushing his luck asking for another meeting straight off the back of his previous speech. We absolutely recognise the crucialness of the enforcement work done by local authorities. It has become clear that the existing framework of layered, complex legislation is part of the problem—part of the drain on resources—and one of the reasons why the Bill is necessary.
The selective implementation of new tools such as civil monetary penalties should further assist in providing more proportionate routes for enforcement authorities to use their enforcement activities, which the Bill addresses. Clause 8 enables the implementation of cost-recovery powers for relevant authorities, and the Office for Product Safety and Standards, in its role as national regulator, supports local authority enforcement teams with training, access to experts, direct support on cases and ringfenced funding for specific projects.
The regulator has a dedicated function in respect of communication with local authorities and takes its role extremely seriously. It will provide support on nationally significant cases if local authorities are faced with unco-operative businesses, be they existing supply chain actors or new ones. [Interruption.] Was that a request for an intervention? Perhaps it was agreement.
Local authority enforcement is a much broader area of consumer protection than product regulation, which is of course the scope of the Bill. This legislation is not the right vehicle for a review because it is singly focused on product regulation, whereas local consumer protection is a much broader policy area. I invite the hon. Member for Wokingham to withdraw his new clause.
Justin Madders
On a point of order, Ms Vaz. As we are at the end of our deliberations in Committee, I thank you and Sir John for your exemplary chairing. We have finished in good time, but we have had extensive debate on a number of matters pertaining to the Bill. I thank the Clerks and the officials from the Department who have helped proceedings to go smoothly. I thank all Committee members for taking part in deliberations—no doubt we will hear from some of them again on Report.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
On a point of order, Ms Vaz. I am grateful for the opportunity to thank you for chairing, and Sir John for chairing Tuesday’s morning sitting. I thank the Committee members, particularly the Minister and his officials for their engagement on the important issues that have been raised, and I thank my colleagues. In order to get her name into Hansard, I thank Eleanor Munro from my office, who has been heroic in supporting me during the deliberations. I look forward to continuing our discussions on Report. I also thank the Clerks.
The Chair
I add my thanks to all right hon. and hon. Members for their assiduous scrutiny of the Bill. I thank all the officials, the Doorkeepers, the Clerks and Hansard.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting)
Harriett Baldwin ExcerptsTuesday 13th May 2025
(4 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 May 2025 - (13 May 2025)
The Chair
I welcome everybody to the afternoon sitting. I remind the Committee that it is really important for everyone to be able to hear—I have had a plea for Members to speak as clearly as possible. I also draw attention to the Bill’s code of conduct, which has been published.
Clause 2
Product requirements
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 2, page 3, line 41, leave out “EU” and insert “foreign”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 4, line 2, at end insert—
“(7A) Any regulations under subsection (7) which specify a relevant foreign law must specify that the foreign law referred to is that which is in application on a particular date, which must be specified.”
This amendment prevents the Bill enabling ambulatory references or dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws, and only enables alignment with laws as they stand on a particular defined date.
Amendment 22, in clause 2, page 4, line 5, at end insert—
“(8A) Before making provision described in subsection (7), the Secretary of State must make an explanatory statement if the provision relates to relevant foreign law of only one of the markets listed in the definition of ‘relevant foreign law’ in section 1(5).”
Dame Harriett Baldwin
It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. We start by discussing some of the amendments we have tabled to clause 2. In this morning’s sitting we had a thorough discussion of the issues relating to clause 1, and we also discussed some amendments to clause 2. I hope, Ms Vaz, that you will allow the Committee to consider each measure separately.
Essentially, amendments 20, 6 and 22 would allow for product regulations to be defined by relation to the laws of a wide range of foreign countries rather than just the European Union. Although we have an incredibly important and valuable trading relationship with our friends and neighbours in the European Union, and a very good zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with them, we also have a range of agreements with other countries that facilitate the international trade of products.
Amendment 20 would expand the scope of the powers that the Committee agreed to give to the Secretary of State under clause 1 to cover foreign countries with which we have a close trading relationship. For example, we have a close trading relationship with the United States; indeed, we are each other’s single biggest investor and it is the biggest single country with which we have a trading relationship. We would like to see the Bill enable a discussion whereby we liberalise trade between our countries but also mutually recognise product regulation.
We also have a significant trade agreement, the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, which covers our great trading relationship with friends as far away geographically but as close emotionally as those in Australia and other countries around the Pacific. I am sure that Australia has a system to mutually recognise product safety regimes in important trade agreements, to allow global trade with the confidence that high-quality products are reaching the marketplace.
There is absolutely no reason for the Government to oppose the amendments, unless they truly are uniquely fixated on the EU as a product regulator. Any argument for permitting EU standards should also be one for permitting safe international standards from our other partners. That is unless the actual purpose of the Bill is solely to enable dynamic EU alignment—indeed, EU alignment is mentioned clearly in the impact assessment—while preventing alternatives that could benefit British businesses and, importantly, British consumers, who are our constituents. If the Government do not intend to dynamically align us with the European Union on product regulation, they have every reason to accept amendment 20 and make that clear.
Amendment 6 would add to clause 2 new subsection (7A), which says:
“Any regulations under subsection (7) which specify a relevant foreign law must specify that the foreign law referred to is that which is in application on a particular date, which must be specified.”
That would prevent the Bill from enabling ambulatory references or dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws, and would enable alignment with laws only as they stand on the particular date the Secretary of State decides to use his copious powers under clause 1. That would mean that if regulation changes, Ministers would rightly have to look again and decide whether to maintain alignment.
It is right that we do not give a blank cheque to the EU—or, if amendment 20 is accepted, to foreign countries—by allowing them to diverge on regulations while British businesses and consumers get taken along for the ride. We should be making our own laws that prioritise growth and innovation and that champion businesses here in the UK, thereby giving them the ability to set the standard and the bar and to thrive on the global stage. Only we in this Parliament should be in charge of those decisions; foreign courts should not opine on them. Amendment 6 would allow for flexibility if foreign laws changed, which would allow for a reassessment of their compatibility with the UK market.
Amendment 22 would require the Secretary of State to justify decisions through an explanatory statement, to limit any reference to the laws of one specific territory and prevent the provision of regulations for dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws.
By tabling these helpful amendments, we have given the Government a golden opportunity to show that they are not using this Trojan horse Bill to covertly, and without the express will of Parliament, dynamically align for evermore with EU regulations. They would open up the UK as a global trading nation to mutual recognition around the world. We have our very own certification—UK conformity assessed—which I urge the Government to seek to get recognised in all the trade agreements they sign up to.
Surely we want this Parliament to define the standards by which products around the world are recognised. There should be mutual recognition of the other high-quality jurisdictions—such as Canada, Australia, the United States and the countries in the Pacific—to supplement the recognition that the Secretary of State seems minded to give exclusively to the European Union.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I rise to speak in support of the Opposition amendments, which are not just minor textual tweaks but go to the core of how we manage product regulations now that we have left the European Union.
Amendment 20, which proposes replacing the word “EU” with the word “foreign” in the relevant provision, might seem like a small change on the surface, but it is very important. Focusing only on EU law in this context risks narrowing our horizons at a time when we have been trying to broaden them. Since leaving the EU, the UK has made real efforts to strike up new trade relationships and to move in ways that enable us to take advantage of fast-growing global markets, not just the one on our doorstep.
Justin Madders
That is not correct. There are a number of opportunities for debate under the affirmative procedure, and we have set out in the Bill the triggers that would allow that, so there will be plenty of parliamentary scrutiny. The amendments do not reflect what the Bill actually does and seek to paint it as a project, which it simply is not in reality. I therefore ask that they be withdrawn.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I would like to respond before I divide the Committee on this amendment. I seek your advice, Ms Vaz. The previous group contained amendments 21, 5 and 7, which relate to clause 2, and we may also want to get the Committee’s point of view on them.
The Minister’s reluctance to make this innocuous change to the Bill speaks volumes. I am not the only one who thinks that: the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said in paragraph 4 of its 15th report that it is “deeply concerned” that
“the delegated powers in the Bill give Ministers maximum flexibility to choose the direction that the law in this area will take, including making potentially politically contentious choices about the degree to which our domestic laws on product regulation should be aligned with EU laws”.
By not accepting the amendments, I am afraid the Minister compels me to test the will of the Committee not only on these amendments but on amendments 21, 5 and 7, which we discussed in the previous group.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
I apologise—I had not realised. I will try to slow down.
Clause 2 is a vital part of the Bill: it will ensure that the UK has a comprehensive framework for regulating products sold on its markets and provides the flexibility to recognise global standards and maintain the highest safety and quality requirements for consumers and businesses.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
It will not surprise the Committee to hear that, because our very sensible amendments to clause 2 have been rejected, we continue to have significant concerns about it and the extraordinary powers it confers on the Minister. In particular, subsection (7), which we tried to amend, will allow product regulations to provide that a
“product requirement is to be treated as met if—
(a) a requirement of relevant EU law specified in product regulations is met, or
(b) such a requirement is met and conditions specified in the regulations are also met.”
Because of our concerns about those provisions, and because the Committee took the view that it did not want to accept our sensible amendments, I will divide the Committee on clause 2 stand part.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Given that addressing the changes in retail, especially the rise of online marketing, is an important part of the Bill, I feel that the clause is vital, and I will support it. It is slightly sad that colleagues on the Opposition Benches allow their ideology regarding the EU to get in the way of supporting British businesses, which, as we know, want clarity and continuity.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 3, page 4, line 8, leave out subsection (1).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 24, in clause 3, page 4, line 11, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 25, in clause 3, page 4, line 17, leave out subsection (4).
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Clause 3 deals with the enforcement provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 grants sweeping powers to the Secretary of State, and clause 2 defines the types of requirement there may be on products. Clearly, the regulations that the Secretary of State has so much freedom to enact will need to be enforced, but the wording of clause 3 is such that any lawyer—or anyone who believes in our freedom and democracy under the rule of law—would be concerned about it.
Justin Madders
Amendment 23 would prevent the naming in regulations of “relevant authorities”. That would render enforcement of the Bill impossible, so clearly it is not an amendment that we will accept. Local authority enforcement officers conduct the majority of product safety and metrology enforcement activities, and the Office for Product Safety and Standards is the national regulator. Other regulators are also responsible for enforcement, including the Health and Safety Executive, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the Office of Communications and the Office of Rail and Road. There is an indicative list in the explanatory notes to the Bill and the code of conduct.
We need to be clear in clause 3 because it is important that the authorities are able to enforce in a targeted way when regulations are created. The Bill places sensible and important restrictions on those who may be named as a “relevant authority”. Only those who are fulfilling a public function will be given powers under the Bill. That is set out in subsections (2) and (3).
Dame Harriett Baldwin
If I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that “relevant authority” is strictly limited to the organisations that he has already mentioned.
Justin Madders
If we were to limit ourselves to naming organisations in the Bill, we might not have sufficient flexibility in the future. I am trying to indicate the types of body that we would expect to enforce product safety regulations, as they do already.
Amendment 24 would prevent regulations made under the Bill from creating product regulations and metrology enforcement powers and functions. At present, product legislation provides a patchwork of enforcement powers across numerous pieces of legislation, but that has caused complexities and inconsistencies to emerge over decades. The Bill will enable the Government to introduce powers vital to the enforcement of product regulations and will ensure that enforcement powers can meet changing demands, without the continuous process of layering that caused confusion and complexity in the current framework. There is considerable precedent for the inclusion of enforcement powers in regulations, including the Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011 and the Personal Protective Equipment (Enforcement) Regulations 2018.
Amendment 25 would remove powers relating to investigations, which would prevent relevant authorities from effectively monitoring product compliance. Powers to inspect, investigate and dispose of goods are an essential part of effective enforcement. The purpose of clause 3 is to protect the public and ensure a level playing field for businesses. A crucial element of that is ensuring that it can future-proof enforcement against gaps that may emerge following changes in technology, some of which we have already discussed. Technologies such as 3D printing and AI are likely to have meaningful impacts on the supply chain and business requirements, so removing the ability to make targeted provision for investigatory powers in the Bill would undermine the ability appropriately to regulate products involving new supply chain actors and technologies.
There are provisions in subsection (5) on the requirements for warrants to be issued in certain circumstances, and the Bill also limits the criminal penalties that may be implemented for contraventions of product regulations. The criminal penalties imposed under the Bill may not exceed the existing maxima. This is not a massive expansion of powers; it is simply a consolidation of existing laws that gives us additional flexibility to adjust when new products and marketplaces develop, as we expect them to.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I am not sure that I have heard enough to reassure the Opposition on the subject of who will be a relevant authority, which specific functions will be conferred on that relevant authority and the powers that might be granted to it, so I would like to press the amendments to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 3, page 5, line 16, leave out subsections (9) to (11).
Clause 3 continues to become even more dystopian. In the debate on clause 1, we acknowledged that we have an extremely benign Minister and Secretary of State, and we all acknowledge that products reach the UK marketplace that should not reach our consumers and constituents. However, that does not mean that we should give the Secretary of State with sweeping powers in law to come up with regulations and to have them enforced by some random “relevant authority”. We have heard a list of those authorities, but we know that it is not exhaustive.
Some poor, innocent business might not notice that the product regulations have been changed suddenly, because there was very little overt scrutiny of that change, and they might be left with a warehouse full of some good that was perfectly saleable on the UK market yesterday but is not today. As a result of the provisions in subsections (9) to (11), the relevant authority can send somebody into that business with sweeping powers to enter a premises, to levy fines, to create criminal offences and to send an individual to prison for up to three months. The provisions under subsection (9) to (11) could also go through with minimal legislative scrutiny—it really is not good enough. This is another of the skeleton clauses about which they despaired in the other place.
Subsection (9) specifies that product regulations can create or widen the scope of criminal offences, with prosecution by the relevant authorities—we do not know who they are—subject to the affirmative procedure, and they can confer powers on that same relevant authority to impose civil sanctions, including fines. The poor business that I am describing—one with a warehouse full of goods that suddenly, unbeknownst to that business, can no longer be sold legally in the UK, because a Parliament in Brussels has changed the rules—can find itself subject to confiscation and fines.
Under subsection (11), criminal offences must be
“triable summarily only, or…triable summarily or on indictment”.
The subsection provides for statutory limits on offences, but frankly, they are pretty harsh for someone who has potentially been caught inadvertently with products that no longer meet the standards for the UK market. Of all the shocking things in the Bill, these provisions are the most shocking.
Amendment 26 seeks to ensure that new criminal offences, which would have consequences for our already overburdened Ministry of Justice and criminal justice system, are not created through new product regulations under the Bill. The ability to create new criminal offences is an incredibly significant power; it really should not be passed through secondary legislation, and Government Members should think about what they are doing by supporting clause 3.
The creation of new criminal offences needs to be brought to both Houses and debated through proper parliamentary procedure, so that we can explore who these relevant authorities are as well as the potential inadvertent breaches of product regulation and metrology. Frankly, I think that this is the most shocking part of the legislation that we have seen. It shocked the other place, it has shocked the Opposition, and I think the constituents of Government Members will be shocked that they might agree to these sweeping powers.
Alison Griffiths
Amendment 26 relates to the alarming creation of new criminal offences in clause 3, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire has already set out. Clause 3(9) to (11) would let Ministers create or widen criminal offences and penalties by regulation, bypassing full parliamentary scrutiny. As my hon. Friend has set out, this is an absolute travesty, and it is extraordinary to believe that Government Members will support it.
The clause is an affront to the principle that criminal law is made by the people’s elected representatives in primary legislation, not by Ministers slipping provisions through the regulatory back door. Even the House of Lords Constitution Committee has fiercely criticised the approach, reiterating that using delegated powers to create crimes is “constitutionally unacceptable”. It urges that these subsections should be removed from the Bill entirely. We simply cannot allow a situation where business owners wake up one morning and find that a new statutory instrument has turned some technical regulatory breach into a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment. I urge Government Members to think about the provision.
Justin Madders
I am beginning to wonder whether Opposition Members think that “Capricorn One” was a documentary rather than a work of fiction. We are really entering some quite interesting territory about what evil plots this Government have, which of course is not the case at all.
Amendment 26 seeks to remove the ability to create or widen criminal offences, or to implement civil sanctions, through regulations. The harm caused by breaches of regulations can vary considerably depending on the product sector. Consequently, offences and penalties must be tailored to the specific requirements of a given sector and the seriousness of the breach. The consequences of failing to provide the necessary instructions for a product could be entirely different for a highly sensitive component within a nuclear energy installation than for a lower-risk product. Reducing enforcement flexibility to a series of broad, rigid offences would negatively impact relevant authorities’ ability to enforce proportionately. Attempting to draft very broad offences and penalties in the Bill, to capture requirements in a less targeted way, would actually undermine legal clarity and the principles of the rule of law.
There was talk from Opposition Members about how this would all be done through the back door. The affirmative procedure will apply where new offences are created or widened, so there will be no rubber-stamping after the event. There will be parliamentary scrutiny, as one would expect. We have considered the views of the DPRRC, but we have taken this approach in the Bill because it is not, in fact, unique to it. The shadow Minister said that she was shocked when she saw these subsections. I wonder whether she was equally shocked when criminal offences were created in regulations by the Building Safety Act 2022, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 or the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Those all included similar powers to the ones that we are talking about now, but I do not recall Opposition Members expressing shock and dismay at what was happening. Existing product regulations, such as the Cosmetic Products Enforcement Regulations 2013, also contained offences and penalties, further demonstrating that this is not a departure from existing practice.
The Bill has also placed limits on the maximum criminal penalties that may be implemented for contraventions of product regulations. Product regulations made under the Bill will not be able to exceed maximum criminal penalties that reflect the existing maxima. I believe that Opposition Members are making this a far more dramatic issue that it needs to be, and I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Sadly, I have not seen “Capricorn One”. I have already said clearly, on the record, that I have great confidence in the good intentions of the Minister himself and his Secretary of State. However, that is not to say that we should put powers on the statue book that would allow future occupiers of the position to send someone to prison for three months, or to fine them a substantial amount. For those very reasons, I wish to press amendment 26 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
Clause 3 reflects an ambition to streamline and modernise our approach to the enforcement of product regulations to ensure that it is proportionate and effective. We will ensure that the tools available for enforcement are effective so that we may further level the playing field for businesses and provide UK consumers with deepened confidence in their purchasing. Many of the powers contained within existing legislation overlap with one another, which has created a proliferated system that is undermined by its complexity.
The clause will enable the introduction of regulations that consolidate existing enforcement powers. New regulations will implement a set of flexible, proportionate and effective enforcement tools. The new toolkit will continue to cover activities relating to the monitoring, investigation, sanctioning and remediation of non-compliance with product safety regulations. By delivering these changes through regulations, we will be able to flex and adapt to the marketplace quickly. We will be able to ensure that duties can always be enforced, and it is imperative that duties can be enforced without ambiguity.
Through regulations enabled by this clause, we will simplify powers to ensure that they are applicable inland and at the border. We will also ensure that powers are available to enforce duties on all those holding responsibility in the supply chain. Powers should be applicable without unnecessary complexity wherever product regulations require enforcement. Additionally, we intend to augment existing powers carefully with precedented powers such as improvement notices and undertakings, which will provide proportionate routes for resolving non-compliance.
Another power under the clause is one to widen or create criminal offences, as well as introduce civil sanctions for the first time. We have committed to following the affirmative procedure when introducing regulations that seek to use the power to widen or create criminal offences. The power will allow offences to meet the requirements imposed by product regulations. Offences and penalties are already often set out in regulations, so this approach follows precedent.
Finally, the clause will allow the Secretary of State to designate relevant authorities responsible for product regulation enforcement to both ensure flexibility and provide additional clarity. We have included a non-exhaustive list of those relevant authorities in the Bill’s explanatory notes. As I have mentioned, relevant authorities will include those currently enforcing product regulation, such as local authority enforcement teams, the Office for Product Safety and Standards and the Health and Safety Executive. Relevant authorities will have access to the new, consolidated toolkit of enforcement powers that I have described. The clause is necessary for the proper enforcement of the UK’s product safety regime, and I commend it to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Ms Vaz, you will not be surprised to hear that this dystopian picture of unnamed relevant authorities sweeping the land with their powers of seizure, fining and imprisonment is not something that we support, and we therefore oppose clause 3.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Members on this side of the Committee always enjoy our clause 4 moments.
Clause 4 is an essential part of the Bill, and it is informed by the lessons of the covid-19 pandemic. The then Government had to act quickly during that emergency to ensure the supply of critical products such as personal protective equipment. However, the regulatory easement was made under sections 45C, 45F and 45P of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 as no alternative powers were available through the product safety framework.
Clause 4 therefore fills the gap by providing a mechanism to disapply or modify product regulations in a controlled manner for future emergencies, including emergencies that go beyond public health. In practice, the clause will allow the supply and fair distribution of critical goods in short supply during a national emergency, while ensuring greater co-ordination of market surveillance and enforcement activities during these periods.
The Government have also produced a code of conduct on product safety to support the use of powers under the Bill. The code outlines the Government’s proposals for how the emergency powers will work. To summarise a few key points, the code outlines that a derogation will be made available only if there is a serious risk of harm to people, businesses or the environment, and if it is in compliance with the UK’s international obligations. A derogation will be granted only for products deemed critical for the emergency response where demand exceeds supply.
In times of emergency, the Government may temporarily reduce or modify requirements for a product to meet essential health and safety requirements for use in certain settings, provided the market surveillance authority is satisfied with the product’s safety and traceability. For example, in the hypothetical scenario of a national power outage, demand for essential consumer products such as gas stoves, torches or batteries could surge rapidly. If compliant products are in short supply, the Government could use clause 4 to allow UK manufacturers or importers to supply these products, where they meet essential safety standards or other internationally recognised standards, while awaiting UKCA certification.
In such circumstances, the market surveillance authority must also be satisfied that the product still meets acceptable safety standards and can be effectively traced through distribution. This may involve reviewing safety data, in-house test reports or batch numbers and distribution records for traceability.
To be clear, and as Members will expect me to say, the Government will use clause 4 only in emergency situations. Depending on the nature of the emergency, the Government will decide how products can best be fast-tracked on to the market and, where appropriate, implement conditions through secondary legislation for pre-market assessments, consumer protections and time limits. We have also committed to developing a clear framework for how clause 4 will operate in practice, in consultation with stakeholders. This will be developed and delivered through the Office for Product Safety and Standards, and it will be published in due course.
It is also important to highlight that the power is not a carte blanche for bypassing product safety regulation, but rather a targeted response to emergencies. The clause will ensure that, while we speed up the process, essential safety standards are maintained through proportionate measures. Crucially, the exercise of clause 4 will be subject to the draft affirmative legislative procedure, ensuring that any regulatory changes made under the clause are subject to scrutiny by both Houses before coming into force.
In conclusion, clause 4 is a necessary response to ensure that, in future emergencies, the Government can react swiftly to guarantee the supply of critical products while maintaining safety standards. I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
As the Committee reaches its clause 4 moment, Members might be pleased to hear that I will not propose voting against it—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I know: a political conversion. I accept that in exceptional times, and unfortunately we have seen a few of those in recent years, the Government need these emergency powers.
I welcome that, in the other place, Lord Leong published the code of conduct on product safety setting out how the Office for Product Safety and Standards expects the emergency powers to work. Will the Minister clarify whether that will include time limiting the period of emergency? How will we know when the emergency has ended? I believe that some products approved during the pandemic are on the market but still have not had their status clarified since the pandemic ended, as anyone would define it. Will the Minister elaborate a little on the time limits for emergency periods?
While the Minister looks at his officials for inspiration, I acknowledge that the pandemic was clearly an emergency, and we have seen a number of situations that could constitute an emergency. We will be able to tell when an emergency has started because of the steps that the Minister set out, but it would be helpful if he could clarify for the record how he would define the end of an emergency, when the powers will effectively end.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s support. As a shadow Health Minister during the pandemic, I had more than my fair share of emergency legislation, and I think it is fair to say that we have all learned lessons from how that process played out. However, I am afraid that her valiant efforts to play for time have not led to my getting the answer I was seeking. My understanding is that there will be some sort of time limit, but it is safer to say that I will write to her. It is important that we are clear.
The Chair
Thank you, Minister. This is one of the shorter clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Metrology regulations
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 5, page 6, line 8, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment removes the powers granted to the Secretary of State under metrology regulations regarding quantities and units of measurement in marketing goods.
We now come to the metrology part of the Bill. You will be glad to know, Ms Vaz, that as we have Parliament’s first elected metrologist in the hon. Member for Erewash on the Labour Benches, I will constrain myself to making legislative points rather than metrological points.
Subsection (2) is another example of the Bill’s Henry VIII powers. It grants the office of the Secretary of State—although I acknowledge that the current Secretary of State is benign—the power to make provisions on the quantities and units of measurement in marketing goods. People really care about the quantities and units of measurement of the goods they purchase. They are of great importance to consumers. I appreciate that food is not in scope, but when people do their shopping, they look at the units and quantities on the side of the packaging of the goods they buy.
The Chair
Before I call Dame Harriett, I will ask her to address her remarks to clause 5 more widely.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
With your guidance, Ms Vaz, I will try to combine my remarks on clause 5 and amendment 27.
Again, the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee felt that the power in this clause was too sweeping. The Minister has mentioned that the pint is safe, but the sweeping powers cover pretty much any measurement of
“length, area, volume, capacity, mass, weight, time, temperature or electrical current”,
which the Secretary of State will miraculously be able to make regulations on. Going to the market and buying a quarter of sweets or a pound of flour would fall within the scope of the Secretary of State’s wide and sweeping powers. That is why we have tabled amendment 27 to leave out subsection (2) and why we oppose clause 5 itself, and we would like to probe the Committee’s views on both those elements.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 6, page 6, line 36, leave out subsection (1).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 29, in clause 6, page 7, line 24, leave out subsection (6).
Dame Harriett Baldwin
We now move on to the enforcement powers in terms of the metrology regulations. I draw the Committee’s attention to the point I made on the enforcement regulations to do with the product regulations, because many of the same concerns exist here. In the case of clause 6(6), there is something that I personally think is the most egregious and extraordinary provision in any legislation I have ever seen. I would call it the “something” provision. Clause 6(6) says:
“Provision described in subsection (3)(c) or (d) may include provision conferring power on a relevant authority by notice to require a person to do or cease to do something.”.
Has this House, or this Committee, ever seen something so broadly defined? I am interested to hear whether the Minister is able to define “something”. It astonishes me that we are sitting here looking at legislation that includes provision
“conferring a power on a relevant authority”,
which as we have already heard is not narrowly defined,
“by notice to require a person to do or cease to do something”.
How are we supposed to know what this particular provision is meant to refer to? Amendment 29 would require the Minister to be very clear as to what he means by “something” regarding the powers of the relevant authority in enforcing metrology regulations. That is far too broadly drawn. It is absolutely incomprehensible to the layperson.
Amendment 28 goes back to the points I made in the debate on clause 3 about how we are defining a “relevant authority”. We have heard about the importance of the relevant authority from the hon. Member for Erewash, who spoke extremely well about the range of bodies that could be the relevant authority here—but we do not know, because the legislation is not clearly defined enough. Because we do not know, and because the legislation simply refers to “something”, I am afraid we are nowhere near able to support clause 6, or to withdraw our amendments 28 and 29 to it. The public deserve to know what they might be required
“to do or cease to do.”
The wording is far too broad, I am keen to hear what the Minister thinks.
Justin Madders
I am glad that the shadow Minister is keen to hear from me. I can, I think, explain the power in subsection (6); it refers to subsection (3)(c) and (d), which cover compliance with metrology regulations and mitigating the effect of non-compliance with metrology regulations. This provision is about making sure that those delivering and producing those products are doing so accurately and in compliance with the law. By its nature, subsection (6) has to be broad, but it has to be seen in the context of subsection (3)(c) and (d), which explain the context in which that power would operate.
As the shadow Minister said, the argument here is similar—it is possibly identical—to the one we had earlier about the powers. As I said earlier, enforcement authorities include the Office for Product Safety and Standards, local authority enforcement officers, the Health and Safety Executive, and the Office for Nuclear Regulation. We need to ensure that these bodies can enforce in a targeted way, with the relevant requirements created by these regulations, which set out clearly what those powers do, and they must do so while fulfilling a public function, as set out in clause 6(2) and clause 3(2), which we debated earlier.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I will not withdraw my amendment, because I am not sure that I heard reassuring words from the Minister that trading standards officers are not going to sweep through the marketplaces of this land and require people to cease doing something that they would not know, from the Bill as it stands, not to do. I will press amendments 28 and 29 to a Division, and then we will debate other amendments before we debate clause 6 stand part.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 6, page 7, line 27, leave out subsection (7).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 31, in clause 6, page 7, line 42, leave out subsection (9).
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Amendment 30 continues some of the themes around the enforcement powers on product regulation. It leaves out subsection (7), which is on sanctions for non-compliance with metrology regulations. Here again is the amorphous concept of a relevant authority that is empowered by metrology regulations. Subsection (7) talks about the
“obstruction of, or failure to assist or co-operate with, a relevant authority or an inspector;”
and about providing
“false or misleading information to a relevant authority or an inspector.”
With amendment 30, we are seeking clarification on what constitutes non-compliance. Is it if a pub landlord manages to serve someone more than “0.56826125 cubic decimetres”? Any reasonable person would think not, but it appears that with the provisions as they are currently set out under the metrology regulations, that could be considered a case of non-compliance.
By tabling amendment 30, I seek a definition from the Minister of how serious he sees those kinds of infractions as being. Given how busy trading standards can be, how serious an infraction of the metrology regulations would a failure to assist be, as an individual would presumably have exactly the right measuring equipment? I want the Minister to put on record how the extremely severe and onerous provisions in the Bill are to be implemented.
Amendment 31 also seeks to remove subsection (9) from the Bill, which again introduces the idea of criminal offences for underselling or overselling measurements, or for potentially not co-operating with this so-called and widely defined relevant authority. Our concerns about that, as well as about the Henry VIII powers involved, are firmly on the record now, but we want to clarify through amendment 31 the specific offences that might be created or expanded, as well as the civil sanctions that might be imposed.
We want to get the Minister’s sense of how bad it would be if an individual were to slightly overpour a pint. The civil sanctions are very broad and allow the Secretary of State significant powers over our criminal justice system. When new offences are created, it is proper that both Houses have the chance to consider and debate them. We had the same debate on the earlier clause regarding product regulations, and there seem to be the same failures of drafting with the metrology regulations, which is why we have tabled amendments 30 and 31.
Justin Madders
As the shadow Minister said, this debate has a similar theme to earlier ones. It is the case that the harm caused by a breach of regulations will vary tremendously, which is why it is important to have different levels of intervention. This clause actually creates a much broader suite of powers at a lower level for intervention. There will be an ability to require undertakings or civil monetary penalties, and an improvement notice could also be served. At the moment, I do not believe that any of those powers are available in metrology regulations, and it is important that we have many tools at our disposal to ensure that measurements are done accurately.
It would not be helpful or proportionate to spell out every single circumstance in the Bill. We can give an assurance that, where new offences are created or expanded on as a result of the Bill, we have already committed to using the affirmative procedure to ensure that there is parliamentary scrutiny. Of course, many measures in the Bill already exist in various legislative guises, so it is not, in the main, a massive extension of power as is being suggested. I think this is a proportionate and reasonable way to deliver on the Bill’s intentions, and therefore I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I seek the Committee’s decision on the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
Clause 6 reflects an ambition to streamline and modernise our approach to the enforcement of metrology regulations, in the same way that clause 3 seeks to do for the enforcement of product regulations. We will ensure that the tools available for enforcement are effective and proportionate so that we may further level the playing field for businesses and provide UK consumers with deepened confidence in their purchasing. Many of the metrology enforcement powers in existing legislation overlap with one another, which has created a proliferated system that is undermined by its complexity.
As for product regulations, clause 6 will enable the introduction of metrology regulations that consolidate the existing metrology enforcement powers. New regulations will implement a set of flexible, distinct and efficient enforcement tools. That toolkit will continue to cover activities relating to the monitoring, investigation, sanctioning and remediation of non-compliance with metrology regulations. By delivering these changes through regulations, we will be able to flex and adapt to the marketplace—for example, ensuring that duties can always be enforced even when changes are made by regulations. It is imperative to ensure that all duties imposed may be enforced without ambiguity.
We intend to carefully augment existing enforcement powers with precedented powers, such as improvement notices and undertakings, which will provide proportionate routes for resolving non-compliance. Another power under this clause will widen or create criminal offences, as well as civil sanctions. As clause 3 does for product regulations, so the power in clause 6 will allow offences to fit the requirements imposed by metrology regulations. The clause also provides that metrology regulations may provide for the use of civil sanctions, including fines for certain offences. That power will allow offences to proportionately meet the requirements imposed by metrology regulations. Offences and penalties are already often set out in regulations, so the approach follows precedent.
The clause will allow the Secretary of State to designate “relevant authorities” responsible for metrology regulation enforcement. To ensure flexibility but provide additional clarity, we have included a non-exhaustive list of those relevant authorities in the Bill’s explanatory notes. Relevant authorities will have access to the new, consolidated toolkit of enforcement powers that I have described. The clause is necessary for the modernisation and enforcement of the UK’s metrology regime.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
For the same reasons that we opposed clause 3 on enforcement, we would like to divide the Committee on clause 6.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
This clause relates to the collection of data and information that relevant authorities would undertake as part of their usual activities in support of ensuring that products are compliant with product and metrology regulations. Data collection may be instructive or informative for product safety and compliance, or in support of activities in respect of metrology.
The clause seeks for information to be shared with those with a legitimate need for access. That will support the identification of potential product risk and the prevention of serious accidents. Targeted action may then be taken in a more consistent way to prevent the same or similar incidents from recurring.
For example, a relevant authority may collate data and information in relation to electrical products that cause fire or where electric shock has been reported. That relevant authority may be able to provide information or data to another authority as to the frequency of fire incidents or about the use, time or some other relevant circumstance to do with the incident, such as where it has occurred and why.
In that way, a relevant authority, such as the Health and Safety Executive or the Office for Product Safety and Standards, may be able to discern some hitherto unknown physical characteristic or hidden issue that is relevant to a product’s safety or compliance, and recommend a specific course of action. In those circumstances, there is great benefit in the sharing of such information in support of delivering a consistent approach to such products and incidents.
I confirm that personal data is protected specifically by subsection (5), which provides that no metrology or product regulations may be made that require the processing of personal data in a way that would breach data protection legislation. Any information caught by the regulations that identifies an individual is therefore subject to all the same protections it would have in any other context.
I hope that Members can see why it is important that we are able to share data in that way. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
We have not tabled any amendments to clause 7. My earlier point about the vague wording of “relevant authority” also applies to this clause, but the Minister has set out why information sharing under these provisions is necessary. We can see the rationale for that, so we do not intend to oppose or seek to amend the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Cost recovery
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clause 8 will allow enforcement authorities to recover compliance and enforcement costs. As we know, enforcement can come with significant costs, which are currently borne by the relevant authority taking the action unless costs are awarded by the courts.
The clause will enable regulations to be made to provide for the recovery of costs incurred by a relevant authority’s enforcement activities. The regulations may set out a wide range of provisions, including who will be liable for costs, under which circumstances they will be liable, the amount of the fee, how and to whom it is payable, and the possibility of appeal.
The Consumer Protection Act 1987 makes it clear that the court may award costs to an enforcement authority on conviction for an offence in relation to the contravention of any safety requirements or under a forfeiture order. The clause will allow regulations to replicate that, but it also allows regulations to provide relevant authorities with the power to impose costs themselves.
As we know, cost recovery powers are not new and are used by other regulators, such as the Health and Safety Executive, that employ a fee-for-intervention approach. However, we recognise that Parliament may be particularly interested in the impact of the proposed new powers, and we have therefore ensured that any new regulations made under the clause will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Again, I think we are in relevant authority territory here. We are talking about imposing fees in respect of any costs, and there are certainly some issues to note for the record. On the collection and recovery of payments, I spoke strongly earlier about fines and the interest payable on outstanding payments and so on. Those are material issues that could result in some very serious situations. Nevertheless, we have not chosen to table any amendments to the clause, mainly because the point about relevant authorities was covered earlier in the Committee’s proceedings, and we do not intend to oppose it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Application to existing product and metrology provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clause 9 is necessary to give full effect to the intent of the Bill. As Members will know, one of the central needs for the powers in the Bill is to keep our huge range of product regulations updated. That can extend from small changes to regulations to reflect new ingredients or components in a product, to more substantial changes to respond to new threats. The clause ensures that the powers in the Bill can be used to amend existing product regulations, if those regulations could have been made under the powers in clauses 1 and 5. Such regulations will be subject to the usual statutory instrument procedures, either affirmative or negative depending on which provisions of the Bill are invoked. Some of the regulations extend to many pages, covering a whole host of a factors that go into a product and the risk that it presents.
Without the clause, key parts of the powers—such as those to do with enforcement, standards, information sharing and cost recovery—could be used only on a revoke and replace basis. I do not think it would be a good use of parliamentary time to have to revoke and replace entire sets of regulations simply to make one change to a particular provision—not to mention the uncertainty that it may cause business. The clause is therefore technical, but it is a key provision in the Bill. It helps to deliver one of the Bill’s central aims: to allow us to keep our product regulations updated. I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Clause 9 is one of the clauses that their lordships were particularly concerned about, because of its sweeping Henry VIII powers. Although I have not tabled any amendments to it, I reiterate the point that I made about relevant authorities, and I think it is only right that we test the Committee’s opinion on the clause.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 10, page 10, line 24, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment would prevent regulations under this Act from amending provisions made by primary legislation.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 11, in clause 10, page 10, line 29, leave out subsection (4).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 10.
Amendment 8, in clause 12, page 12, line 6, leave out from “Act” to “may” in line 7.
This amendment would make all regulations under this act subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
Amendment 9, in clause 12, page 12, line 10, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 8.
Amendment 12, clause 12, page 12, line 26, at end insert—
“(6A) Regulations under this Act may not amend or repeal provision made by or under an Act passed—
(a) before this Act, or
(b) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 10.
Amendment 13, in clause 12, page 12, line 26, at end insert—
“(6A) Regulations that amend or replace primary legislation must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
(6B) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must—
(a) conduct a consultation for a period of no less than six weeks;
(b) Publish a statement outlining the purpose and necessity of the proposed regulations, the expected impact on businesses, consumers, and enforcement bodies, and the outcome of the consultation.
(6C) Within six months of any regulations made under this section which amend or repeal primary legislation, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the effect of that regulation and lay it before Parliament.”
This amendment requires that any regulations made under the Act that amend or replace primary legislation be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Once again, the amendments would remove Henry VIII powers and make regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 10 relates to the amendment or repealing, in consequence of the Bill, of provisions made by the Gun Barrel Proof Acts 1868 to 1978. We want to prevent regulations made under the Bill from amending provisions made by primary legislation.
Amendment 11 would leave out subsection (4), which provides:
“Regulations under this Act may, in consequence of any amendment or repeal made by or under subsections (1), (2) or (3), amend or repeal provision made by or under an Act passed—
(a) before this Act, or
(b) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act.”
It is incredibly wide-ranging, as I am sure you can see, Ms Vaz. Again, the amendment would prevent regulations from amending provisions made by primary legislation.
Amendment 8 would amend clause 12 on regulations to remove a swathe of additional information in subsection (3), and amendment 9 would leave out subsections (4) and (5) of the same clause, again for the reason that the Bill will provide sweeping powers to widen the scope of criminal offences and all those other things that we have made the case are unsatisfactory under our constitution. Amendment 12 would also prevent regulations made under the Bill from amending provisions made by primary legislation. We think that amendment 13, which would insert various provisions into clause 12, is also extremely reasonable.
What we have tried to do with the amendments is come up with a range of sensible limitations to the Henry VIII powers that so concerned the other place, and that would concern any reasonable person—I think of the power to create the scope of a criminal offence and so on. Through the amendments, we seek genuinely to amend the scope of clauses 10 and 12.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. Indeed, I understand that that is now the premier proof house in the country, but some of the provisions in the 1868 Act show why we think these Henry VIII powers are appropriate. For example, sections 56, 65 and 66 set out that the Birmingham proof house must meet on Thursdays and that its annual general meeting must be held on the last Tuesday of April. I really do not think that parliamentary time needs to be expended on updating those particular rules.
The last Gun Barrel Proof Act was passed in 1978, when I believe some members of the Committee were not even born. That shows that this is not something that is at the cutting edge of our thoughts, although it does need modernising. It will be subject to the affirmative procedure and will also be subject to consultation with relevant stakeholders.
Amendment 11 would remove the power in the Bill to make amendments to legislation in consequence of the amending or repealing of the Acts specified in clause 10. That is a limited power that enables us to tidy up the statute book by ensuring that any cross-references to those Acts are updated as needed.
Amendment 12 would prevent any regulations made under the Bill from amending any primary or secondary legislation passed under other Acts. That goes to the core purpose of the Bill: to enable us to keep our product and metrology legal framework up to date and effectively protect consumers and support businesses. The power to make consequential amendments is a standard approach to legislation. We need to ensure that new regulations do not duplicate or overlap with existing legislation in a confusing way. That is vital for providing consumers and businesses with clarity.
Amendment 13 would make all regulations under the Bill that amend primary legislation subject to the affirmative procedure. It would also impose a mandatory six-week consultation period and require the Secretary of State to publish a detailed statement in advance of regulating. As I have stated, the Bill already requires the affirmative procedure for regulations amending primary legislation, as set out in clause 12(4)(g). In any such debate, the Government would of course set out why they are regulating, and in the other place we introduced an appropriate consultation requirement and additional triggers for the affirmative procedure.
Some of the provisions currently in primary legislation, such as the detailed requirements relating to gun-barrel proofing or the margin tolerances for packaged goods, are very technical. Our approach has therefore been to apply the affirmative procedure to regulations likely to be of particular interest to Parliament, such as the creation or widening of criminal offences or new powers of entry.
The powers in the Bill are crucial to ensuring that our product regulation framework is agile, up to date and able to effectively protect consumers and businesses. We have taken great care and have listened to concerns, and we now have the right balance between taking powers to enabling us to meet the objectives of the Bill and ensuring parliamentary scrutiny for the exercise of those powers. I appreciate that Opposition Members may not agree, but that is the nature of debate. I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
What a welcome moment, Ms Vaz—my colleague from the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Chippenham, supports the rationale behind the amendments. The swelling in support for our amendments gives me a welcome opportunity to test the opinion of the Committee on each of them.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
On a point of order, Ms Vaz. I seek clarification: are not the remaining amendments in the group to clause 12?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
So we will not be taking decisions on them now, but I would like to reserve the right to ask the Committee’s opinion later.
The Chair
Absolutely. We will do that.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
We have already had a substantial debate on clause 10 as a result of the shadow Minister’s amendments, so I will be brief. The clause repeals specified provisions within the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Weights and Measures Act 1985 that may be rendered unnecessary or duplicative by regulations made under the Bill. It also allows regulations to amend the repeal of the Gun Barrel Proof Acts, which we have debated extensively.
The Bill, as introduced, sought Henry VIII powers for the repeal of the Consumer Protection Act and the Weights and Measures Act, as well as for the Consumer Rights Act 2015, but we listened to concerns expressed about those powers and have amended the Bill to eliminate most of them. Instead, we are repealing only the necessary specific provisions in existing measures that are no longer needed on the face of legislation. Commencement orders will be used to repeal those provisions at the right time, through regulations made under the Bill, to remove duplication in the statute book or to provide for regulatory continuity.
The single Henry VIII power that remains in the clause allows us to update the Gun Barrel Proof Acts 1868 and 1978. As I have explained, it is a very focused power to deal with the highly technical Gun Barrel Proof Acts. Subsections (3) and (4) of clause 12 ensure that any regulations that amend or repeal the Gun Barrel Proof Acts will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so the House will have the opportunity to express its opinion. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield will make himself available for any such debates. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Given that the Minister just admitted that the Government had to amend the clause in the other place because of its extensive Henry VIII powers, and that some remain in the clause, we would like to divide the Committee.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clause 11 sets out the interpretation of key terms used throughout the Bill. Although many terms within the clause are commonplace, the definitions are set out so that the legislation is interpreted as intended, which is critical to the effectiveness of the Bill’s powers, as many of the terms are referenced throughout. It includes a definition of an “online marketplace”, which captures the range of different marketplace business models. We have already debated how that may well change in the future. Online marketplace sales are rapidly growing as a proportion of retail sales, reaching £29.3 billion in 2022, with an estimated growth of 70% between 2019 and 2024. It is therefore vital that product safety legislation captures online marketplaces as key supply chain actors.
We expect supply chains and e-commerce to continue to evolve, with the way in which UK consumers purchase products continually changing in ways that we may not be fully able to predict. Even within the past few years, we have seen new entrants and evolving business models of online marketplaces emerge. For example, since Temu launched in the UK in April 2023, it has amassed more than 11 million UK visitors per month. TikTok Shop launched in the UK in 2021 for businesses to sell products directly from social media videos. B&Q launched its online marketplace in March 2022, with a focus on selling via verified sellers. The proliferation of models is increasing.
It is vital that product safety regulation can keep pace with future changes. Clause 11 provides the power to amend the definition of an online marketplace, which enables the provision to be updated to include any future business models and types of online marketplace that might not be captured within the current definition. The use of the power will be subject to the affirmative procedure because amending the definition of an online marketplace in the Bill through secondary legislation is an important delegated power.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
On the surface, clause 11 looks like just an interpretation clause, but there is one provision about which I would like a little elaboration from the Minister. An online marketplace is defined as
“a service or feature of a service on…a website or part of a website…a mobile application, or…any other platform by means of which information is made available over the internet, which facilitates the marketing of products in the United Kingdom”.
That seems entirely reasonable. The Minister set out some of the new ways in which consumers in the UK are able to buy products here.
Under subsection (2), however, suddenly the Secretary of State
“may by regulations amend this section for the purposes of altering the definition of ‘online marketplace’”.
That strikes me as very strange. Exactly why is subsection (2) in the clause? Suddenly changing the definition of an online marketplace seems like a very wide, Henry VIII-type power. I see that the Minister is receiving inspiration for the answer to my question. I ask him to reply, and then we will decide whether we will press the clause to a Division.
Justin Madders
Inspiration comes in many forms. This is a rapidly evolving way of retailing, so we have discussed it with officials quite extensively. We are seeking to ensure that we are future-proofed for new business models. As I said, there are ways of selling items that I did not know existed until very recently. We want to make sure that, through subsection (2), we have the ability to update regulations when those new models emerge and do not tie ourselves in too much. I agree that definition (c) could cover everything, but we simply cannot predict how things will evolve in the future. It is important to clarify that any extensions to the definition of “online marketplace” will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which I hope gives the shadow Minister assurance that there will be an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Will the Minister be kind enough to point out where that use of the affirmative procedure is set out in legislation?
Justin Madders
I will write to the hon. Lady, but that is definitely my understanding. It is certainly in the code of conduct, but we will make sure that we get that clarified for her.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Ms Vaz, you heard it. For the record, I think I heard the Minister say that it is set out in the code of conduct, which I think means that extensions to the definition would be subject to the affirmative procedure and a consultation. I am hesitant to allow the clause to become legislation without those assurances.
Justin Madders
We will seek to give the shadow Minister assurances. If she is not assured, she can table an amendment on Report.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Regulations
Amendment proposed: 8, in clause 12, page 12, line 6, leave out from “Act” to “may” in line 7.—(Dame Harriett Baldwin.)
This amendment would make all regulations under this act subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 12, page 12, line 20, leave out “7 to 10” and insert “7, 8 and 10”.
This amendment corrects a cross-referencing error.
Government amendment 1 is a technical amendment to the drafting of the Bill, so I will not take up much of the Committee’s time speaking to it, but simply explain why it is needed. It makes a drafting change to clause 12(4), which lists the regulation-making clauses in the Bill that are subject to the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments. The current drafting includes clause 9 in that list. That is an unintended consequence of a previous amendment inserting clause 9 into the Bill. Unlike the other types of provision specified in clause 12, clause 9 does not confer a power to make a particular type of substantive provision. It specifies that regulations can amend existing provisions, as distinct from making fresh regulations. Government amendment 1 removes that unintended impact by removing the references to clause 9.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Forgive me, Ms Vaz; it is getting quite late in the afternoon. The Minister’s amendment to line 20 of clause 12 leaves out “7 to 10” and inserts “7, 8 and 10”. Could I clarify what the “9” is a reference to? In which clause is the “9” referenced? I am not following it, because clause 12 seems to have seven subsections.
Justin Madders
I do not have an answer to that at the moment. My understanding is that this is effectively a change in the numbering rather than anything more substantive. It is an erroneous reference, which we tried to bottom out in discussions, but there is nothing dodgy going on here.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I am grateful that the Minister is as confused as I am by this; I thought it was just the lateness in the day. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to write to me to point out where the erroneous “9” exists.
Justin Madders
I am happy to do that, and I am sure that we will all be enlightened as a result.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Lady puts some extremely important and valuable questions to the Committee. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chippenham, for raising this important issue. The amendment is consequential on new clause 12, on product recalls. It is important to state first that the Government are reviewing product recalls, as well as the full range of existing enforcement powers available for product safety and metrology, as part of our work on developing new enforcement regulations under the Bill, so the hon. Lady’s concerns are certainly ones we are aware of. Elements of the developing proposals will be included in the broader consultation document that the Government have agreed to publish on Royal Assent.
Furthermore, consumers are already able to make a claim for a refund, repair or replacement under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and other routes for redress include the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. Supply chain actors are already under an obligation to report products that pose a risk to the relevant enforcement authority, as identified in legislation under the General Product Safety Regulation 2005 and sector-specific product regulations. Additionally, a publicly accessible, Government-hosted online database of product recalls—the “Product Safety Alerts, Reports and Recalls” database—is on gov.uk.
The exact requirements and capabilities of recall notices will be considered within the wider review of enforcement powers under the Bill. Part of that review will consist of extensive engagement with stakeholders. Placing a six-month time restriction on that—as suggested by the amendment—would therefore only restrict the amount of engagement possible. We do not believe that new clause 12 is needed, so the amendment that seeks to apply the affirmative procedure to regulations made under the new clause is also unnecessary. I hope that the hon. Member for Chippenham is assured that we take the matter seriously and will act on it when the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Justin Madders
Clause 12 is a standard clause that may be familiar to Members. It has two main functions: first, it sets out some general areas that regulations made under the Bill’s delegated powers may provide for—I note, importantly, that that is a “may”, not a “must”; and secondly, it sets out which parliamentary procedure the regulations made under the Bill must follow.
On the clause’s first role, the preceding clauses contain important delegated powers—which we have already debated—and each of those clauses includes some further detail on what can be achieved by regulations made under the relevant powers. It is therefore beneficial to have a general provision in clause 12 to provide some legal certainty over the implications of the regulations made under those powers.
Paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (2) are standard provisions that broadly make it clear that the powers can be used to differentiate for different scenarios and to provide detail about how or when things may or must be done. On paragraph (f), I note that legislation does not bind the Crown unless express provision is made in this respect. The Bill does not itself do that; however, it does allow scope for such consideration to be made in future regulations, should that need to be done.
Paragraph (g) enables the powers to be used to make transitional, consequential and saving provisions, which may be used to mitigate unfairness or provide legal certainty—for example, to deal with manufacturing or conformity-assessment processes that started before a change in the law, or where there are remaining overlaps or inconsistencies with existing provisions that need to be amended.
On the clause’s second function, we have sought to ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny over the use of the Bill’s delegated powers. Since the Bill was introduced in the other place, it has been improved to address concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and by peers during debate. In particular, we have broadened the use of the affirmative procedure for future regulations made under the Bill’s powers, to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny.
Subsection (4) expressly specifies a list of certain types of provision that may be made under the Bill. Regulations made under the Bill that include any of these types of provision will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. That means the draft affirmative procedure will be required for any regulations made under the Bill that provide for the power to enter, inspect and search premises in connection with enforcement of both product and metrology regulations, as provided for by clauses 3 and 6; for arrangements for emergencies, as provided for by clause 4; for the creation of, or widening the scope of, a criminal offence, as provided for by clauses 3 and 6; for any provision made in relation to clauses 7, 8 and 10, which concern information sharing, cost recovery and the amendment of specific items of primary legislation; and for changes connected with amending the Bill’s definition of an online marketplace.
Let me address concerns raised in the other place. The Bill now requires statutory instruments to be laid using the affirmative procedure in additional areas: where requirements relating to the marketing of products on online marketplaces are introduced for the first time; where requirements on persons who control online marketplaces, or on persons who act as their intermediaries, are introduced for the first time; and where requirements on new categories of person under clause 2(3)(e) are introduced for the first time. I confirm that the clause provides that anything not specified as subject to the draft affirmative procedure will be subject to the made negative procedure.
Alongside those changes to parliamentary procedure, the clause has also been amended to include a consultation requirement, thereby reaffirming our commitment to working constructively with interested parties before making any future regulations. I know we have discussed these issues at length, but I hope I have shown that we have taken a proportionate approach, striking the right balance to enable us to deliver the aims of the Bill while providing appropriate parliamentary oversight. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
It is appropriate for me to put on the record how grateful we are for the scrutiny that the Bill received in the other place. We have just heard from the Minister how many changes had to be made because of the concerns raised by the Committee in the other place, which I have quoted extensively in today’s debates. We have covered a lot of ground in terms of concerns about individual clauses, and the Minister has helpfully set out the specific items that are subject to the affirmative as opposed to the negative procedure. Given that we have gone over this ground extensively during the debates on the other clauses, I shall leave it there.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Extent
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 14 stand part.
Government amendment 2.
Clause 15 stand part.
Justin Madders
Government amendment 2 is a necessary technical amendment to correct an amendment that was inserted in the other place on Third Reading, to ensure that the powers in the Bill can be used effectively, such as by introducing cost-recovery provisions in accordance with clause 8. Without getting too technical, I understand that this is something to do with financial privilege.
Clause 13 details the territorial extent of the Bill. As we know, the Bill’s provisions extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Bill’s extent means we can introduce regulations that reflect the realities of the UK market—that is, businesses and consumers can buy and trade most products in all parts of the UK. Having regulations that help to protect consumers and provide clarity and certainty for businesses about their obligations is an important part of maintaining a well-functioning UK market.
The Government have been clear in their intention to ensure that the devolution settlements are respected in both principle and practice. Indeed, we have tabled a new clause that will place a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the devolved Governments where regulations contain provision within their devolved competence. We will probably debate that on another day.
Clause 14 is, I hope, a non-controversial clause. It details that the Bill will come into force with immediate effect on the day on which the Bill is passed, with the exception of section 10(1) and (3), which will be commenced by regulations at a later date. This is typical for Bills that contain delegated powers. For this Bill, it will allow the UK to start making proactive choices about product regulation through laying statutory instruments soon after Royal Assent.
The Government intend to take action to modernise and clarify requirements for online marketplaces. That will improve the safety of products sold on their platforms to UK consumers. The Bill’s immediate entry into force will also allow the UK to proactively choose how to respond to the upcoming changes to EU laws that we currently recognise—it has been a while since we mentioned the EU, but I am glad we got another reference in. This will provide industry with regulatory stability and certainty, and support economic growth.
Finally, clause 15 is a non-controversial clause that sets out the Bill’s short title. It provides a more convenient name for the Bill. This is in addition to, and does not replace, the long title. I therefore commend amendment 2 and clauses 13 to 15 to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I think the Committee may well return to some of these themes at a later stage of our deliberations. Clause 13 concerns the UK internal market, which is an important topic that deserves considerable further scrutiny and debate. Clauses 14 and 15 essentially clarify when the commencement will be for the various clauses. It would be more sensible if I were to devote my time to a discussion of some of the new clauses that we have tabled, which will come later in the Committee’s deliberations.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Short title
Amendment made: 2, in clause 15, page 12, line 37, leave out subsection (2).—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment would remove the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.
Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Harriett Baldwin ExcerptsTuesday 13th May 2025
(4 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 May 2025 - (13 May 2025)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence received by the Committee will be made available on the table in the Committee Room.
I move now to declarations of interests. Members are responsible for declaring any interests, in accordance with the code of conduct, at the start of proceedings and when speaking or tabling amendments. Do any Members want to declare interests at this juncture? No.
We now begin—I am building the excitement, Minister —the line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available at the back of the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and amendments have been grouped together for debate. A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. For debates on clause stand part, the Minister will be called first. Other Members can then speak, and they need to bob if they wish to do so. If there has been sufficient debate on an amendment to obviate the need for a stand part debate, I will make that judgment at the time, as is normal in the circumstances.
At the end of a debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I shall again call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause or seek a Division. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendment in a group, including grouped new clauses, they will need to let me know. If you have signed amendments that you want to press, please let me know and I will take them at the appropriate time. My fellow Chair, Valerie Vaz, and I shall use our discretion to decide whether to allow separate stand part debates, as I have said.
I hope that is all helpful. Are there any questions at this stage? I am conscious that we have a number of Members who may not have served on Bill Committees before. Many of you probably have by now, but we will take it along those lines.
Clause 1
Product regulations
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out subsection (1).
This amendment seeks to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State under product regulations, when defining and regulating risks and determining what constitutes efficient or effective product operation.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 15, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out “also”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 14.
Amendment 16, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out “(1) or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 14.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
What a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir John, and for the duration of this Bill Committee. I am shall start by indulging the Committee with a little bit of background on the reasons behind the amendments in this group.
As colleagues will have noted, the Bill gives sweeping powers to the Secretary of State to change regulations through delegated legislation. It is what everyone would describe as a skeleton Bill—and those are not just my words. In clause 1, which we seek to amend, the sweeping powers given to the Secretary of State are quite extraordinary. It is not just the Opposition who have pointed that out. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place looked closely at the Bill and concluded that the delegated powers in clause 1—we will come to the other clauses later—are inappropriate and should be removed from the Bill. I am sure Members will agree that that is quite a strong statement.
In response to the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Government shifted somewhat. They acknowledged that Committee’s concerns and accepted that more detail could have been included in the delegated powers memorandum. Nevertheless, we heard again from the Committee on 21 February, when it welcomed the amendments the Government had tabled to introduce a requirement for consultation and narrow some of the delegated powers, but stated:
“The Government has not taken the opportunity to add flesh to the bones of this skeleton Bill.”
The Committee in the other place remained of the view that
“the delegation to Ministers of law-making powers in this Bill involves legislative power shifting to an unacceptable extent from the legislature to the Executive”
and that
“the Government has failed to provide a convincing justification for the inclusion of skeleton clauses in this Bill that give Ministers such wide powers to re-write in regulations the substance of the regulatory regimes for products and metrology.”
The Committee added that regulations made under the Bill should “in all cases” be subject to “affirmative procedure scrutiny”, meaning the regulations would require active approval by both Houses.
Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State extraordinary powers. I put on the record that the Secretary of State is a man of benign disposition. We can all see that many dangerous products find their way into the UK and to UK consumers’ homes, either through online marketplaces or through other means, and that a prudent and benign Government would need to introduce regulations to address that. The evidence that has been supplied to the Committee cites alarming cases of lithium-ion batteries, and regulations need take into account how dangerous those products can sometimes be. We are all aware of some of the challenges with online marketplaces where products that are illegal in the UK find their way to the UK market and UK consumers.
At the same time, although it may come as a surprise to some people, there are other countries in the world, and they also put in place product regulations. Some may have higher standards than us, and some may have lower standards. We can all agree that we want product regulation to be not only of the very best quality for the UK consumer, but consistent across our United Kingdom. The evidence to the Committee also highlights the need to look at the issue of fulfilment centres, on which it will be interesting to hear from the Minister.
It is also the case that we have our own accreditation: the UKCA—UK conformity assessed—marking. Many businesses in the UK have taken extensive and expensive steps to apply for that accreditation. The previous Government extended the recognition of the CE—conformité Européenne—marking, with which people are familiar and which shows that a product has met product regulation requirements in the EU. What plans do the Minister and his Department have for extending recognition of the very high standards that apply in the UKCA marking scheme?
What are the Government’s plans for when the operation of clause 1 leads to a difference in standards and labelling for particular products? In the evidence the Committee received, the example of tumble dryers was highlighted. A tumble dryer is likely to be subject to different labelling requirements in different parts of the UK, with the requirements in Northern Ireland being different from those in Great Britain.
In short, we are concerned that the legislation would give enormous powers to a future Secretary of State who might not be as benign as the one we have now. We need only to look across the Atlantic to see how President Trump was able to use Executive powers to move away from paper straws to plastic straws at the sweep of his signature. I am sure that Labour Members are extremely concerned about giving enormous delegated powers to the Executive, so will want to support our amendments to clause 1.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee not only had concerns about clause 1, as we will discuss in due course, but also raised concerns about clauses 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9, which I am sure we will discuss at length. It is extraordinary how much power is being taken by the Executive in this legislation. The Conservatives accept that there is a need to reduce and mitigate the risks presented by products that make their way into the UK marketplace. There is obviously an important role in ensuring that products operate efficiently and effectively, and that products designed for weighing or measuring operate accurately. However, we are startled by the extent of the powers provided to the Secretary State in clause 1, particularly in the subsections that we propose to amend. The Secretary of State’s powers are startling, as will be shown in the Committee’s line-by-line scrutiny of the clause.
To summarise the concerns about delegated powers, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated that:
“A delegated power is needed in order to ensure that the Secretary of State is able to respond swiftly to any new risks and hazards that might arise in this area—”
I am sure we will mention that again when we move on to clause 4—
“as well as ensuring continuity across the United Kingdom internal market. This will include an ability to maintain continuity with relevant EU law where it is deemed appropriate and, in the United Kingdom’s best interests to do so, but also the ability to make different provision to the EU.”
We will talk about that in more detail when we discuss clause 2.
It is worth highlighting to the Committee that the Secretary of State himself is not a fan of delegated powers. When in opposition, he stated clearly that they carry a risk of abuse by the Executive and were not something that the Opposition could ever support. In 2018, the Secretary of State said:
“We must bear in mind that the use of delegated powers carries a risk of abuse by the Executive, which is not something the Opposition could ever support. Rather, it is our duty at this stage to check the powers of the Executive and ensure that we are not giving them carte blanche to change the balance of power permanently in their favour.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2018; c. 305.]
It is not just the Secretary of State who feels strongly about this issue. The Attorney General said in his recent Bingham lecture on the rule of law that Henry VIII powers such as we see in this legislation are a strike at the rule of law—that skeleton legislation or delegated legislation
“not only strikes at the rule of law…but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty.”
I see that you are listening intently, Sir John. I want to re-emphasise why I think the powers are inappropriately drawn. Despite some movement in the other place, the Secretary of State is left with powers that are far too wide-ranging. On Third Reading in the other place, Lord Leong, speaking for the Government, said:
“We have taken the Bill from its early state to where it is today, and obviously it will now go to the other place. I am sure that the noble Lord is right: there will be further deliberation…and hopefully”—
that is the important point—
“we will get it to a better place.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2025; Vol. 844, c. 714.]
That is a green light from the Government spokesman in the other place for this Committee to do its job. I urge the Committee to accept our amendments to clause 1.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire made numerous important points—I reinforce the point that this group of amendments looks to a future with a less benign Secretary of State—and made the case that the current Secretary of State agrees with her.
Amendments 14, 15, and 16 seek to remove the sweeping powers currently granted to the Secretary of State under clause 1(1). As drafted, the clause gives a single Minister an almost unrestricted mandate to define and regulate product standards, ostensibly to reduce risk and ensure efficient and effective operation. The terms are vague and the power to define them is left entirely to the Executive. This is not a technical tweak. It is a fundamental constitutional concern. Clause 1(1) effectively hands Ministers a blank cheque to legislate by decree, bypassing the scrutiny and consent of this House.
The amendments would delete the subsection and make the necessary consequential changes, thereby restoring the proper balance between Executive action and parliamentary oversight. This is not about obstructing Government action. It is about ensuring that when Ministers act, they do so within clearly defined limits and with the approval of Parliament. Regulations that affect businesses, consumers and the public at large should not be made behind closed doors in Whitehall. They should be debated and decided in public, by elected representatives.
By supporting amendments 14 to 16, we reaffirm a vital constitutional principle: that it is Parliament, not Ministers, who should define the scope of regulatory power. The changes would not weaken the Bill; they would strengthen it by embedding accountability and transparency at its core. I urge colleagues to support the amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
Thank you, Sir John—and what a lengthy title. I hope that is not a portent for the rest of the day. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning. I thank all Members and officials for helping us to examine the Bill.
The Bill, as the title suggests, is a little dry—as dry as the weather, possibly—but it is very important in underpinning product safety in this country. I am sure that by the end of the Committee we will all know a little more about product safety, with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash, who is the first metrologist to be elected to this House. I am sure he will give the Committee the benefit of his experience, which we are all looking forward to.
I thank the shadow Minister for her introduction. She has cut to the heart of one of the central arguments that we will no doubt be having over the next few days, on the importance of the powers to keep people safe and to ensure that the right level of scrutiny is applied to regulations made under the Bill. The Lords have made a number of changes to get that balance right.
Our product regulation and metrology framework is extensive and highly technical. It extends to dozens of regulations and thousands of products in a huge range of technical detail. The Bill’s powers will allow us to keep that extensive body of regulation up to date. We need to make sure that regulation can be modified to reflect new evidence of risks, such as new chemical ingredients in cosmetics. We also need to keep it more substantially updated as business models and products change, not least to reflect the growth of online marketplaces, which I am sure we will debate in due course. The shadow Minister’s amendments 14 to 16 would strip out the power to do that in clause 1(1).
Clause 1(1) contains the Bill’s central power to ensure that product risks can be mitigated, to ensure that products operate effectively or efficiently and, of course, to ensure that products operate accurately. It is vital to ensuring that our product regulation framework can adapt, keep consumers safe and give them confidence that what they are buying is safe, which we think is very important. Removing subsection (1) would leave our product regulation framework frozen in time.
Of course, it is important that Parliament has appropriate scrutiny of the powers—no doubt we can all trade quotes on the various things we have said about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. However, it would not be a good use of parliamentary time to require primary legislation or affirmative procedure debates for every single change in the regulations, no matter how small and technical. We have listened to the concerns of the DPRRC and the Lords Constitution Committee and have already amended the Bill to improve parliamentary scrutiny. We have increased the number of areas where the affirmative procedure will operate, such as when we impose product requirements on a new category of supply chain actor, and removed most of the Bill’s Henry VIII powers.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
The Minister refers to the Government’s decision to pursue so many skeleton powers in the Bill, and says the Secretary of State now disagrees with what he said back in 2018. Can the Minister elaborate on what has happened in the real world to cause the Secretary of State to have such a damascene conversion?
Justin Madders
I am not able to read the Secretary of State’s mind, but this debate is about a different area of law from the one the Secretary of State was talking about. I refer the hon. Lady to one of her colleagues, the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who said:
“It is critical that that power operates in that manner to ensure that legislation that sits on the UK’s statute book is able to keep pace with scientific and technological developments, so that we continue to uphold our high standards as well as ensure laws remain tailored to best suit the UK’s needs. Without that power, it would take a significant amount of parliamentary time for the Government to bring forward bespoke proposals and consider each amendment on a sector by sector basis.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 29 November 2022; c. 260.]
That is essentially the argument. I served on that Public Bill Committee, which accepted that there is a need for a degree of delegated power, but we have gone further. We have published a code of conduct setting out statutory and non-statutory controls to ensure that product safety regulation, now and in the future, is proportionate and evidence based, and takes into account the views of relevant stakeholders.
It is not the case, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, that this has all taken place behind closed doors. The code of conduct is a very clear public statement, there has been relevant engagement and consultation with stakeholders, and the affirmative procedure will be applied on a number of occasions. It is about getting that balance right.
I note the shadow Minister’s generous comments about the current Secretary of State being a benign individual; I hope her comments also apply to the Secretary of State’s immediate predecessor. It is worth pointing out that similar product safety powers have existed for almost 40 years in the Consumer Protection Act 1987. I do not believe there has been any occasion on which a Secretary of State, of any political persuasion, has used the powers in a draconian or whimsical way.
The shadow Minister described the powers in the Bill as “extraordinary.” I am afraid they are actually rather ordinary in the sense that, to my reckoning, over the last decade the DPRRC has described some 19 Bills as either wholly or partially skeletal. Of course, the shadow Minister will be aware that all those Bills were introduced when her party was in government.
It is entirely normal for Bills to have a degree of delegated powers, particularly within important areas of technical detail where there is a need to act quickly. It is about getting the balance right. We need to ensure that the product regulation framework is agile, up to date and able to protect consumers and businesses effectively. We have taken great care, and we have listened to get the right balance between delivering that objective and ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny on the exercise of the powers. I therefore invite the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I listened carefully to the Minister. If I heard him correctly, he basically said that these kinds of skeleton Bills exist, and therefore, despite the objections of his Secretary of State in the last Parliament, he will persist in supporting legislation that continues this practice, which has been so soundly described in the other place as unacceptable in our democracy. The Opposition believe the principle is so important that we will press our amendment to a Division.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations about the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom which corresponds, or is similar to, a provision of relevant EU law for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, in clause 2, page 3, line 39, leave out subsections (7) and (8).
This amendment removes the ability for product regulations to provide that product requirements are met if the requirements of relevant EU law are met.
Amendment 21, in clause 2, page 4, line 2, at end insert—
“(7A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (7)(a), a product requirement of relevant EU law must not be treated as met unless regulations are made by the Secretary of State to incorporate them into United Kingdom law.”
Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 4, line 6, at end insert—
“(10) The provision described in subsection (7) may only be made if—
(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a statement explaining the necessity of aligning with relevant EU law, and
(b) the updated provision had been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament when aligning with EU law, and for Parliament to approve that provision before aligning with EU law.
Amendment 7, in clause 2, page 4, line 6, at end insert—
“(10) The final meaning or interpretation of any provision of relevant EU law under this Act must be made exclusively by the Secretary of State or by a court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, as appropriate, and may not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.
(11) The enforcement of any provision of relevant EU law under this Act must be undertaken exclusively by the authorities of the United Kingdom Government and may not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would prevent the interpretation or enforcement of any regulations referring to EU law from being undertaken by any authorities other than those based in the UK (for example the European Commission or CJEU).
New clause 4—Review panel—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish an independent review panel (‘the Panel’) no later than 2 years after the day on which this Act comes into force.
(2) The Panel must—
(a) carry out a review of all regulations under this Act corresponding to, similar to, or making references to, the requirements of relevant EU laws under section 2(7), with a view to establishing—
(i) their effect on economic growth;
(ii) their effect on trade in the product concerned on a global basis; and
(iii) their effect on the relevant industry or industries within the United Kingdom;
(b) prepare a report of the review, and
(c) lay a copy of the report before Parliament, no later than 12 months from the date of the Panel’s creation and then every 24 months.
(3) The Panel must consist of—
(a) at least one person with expertise in economics;
(b) at least one person with expertise in trade policy; and
(c) at least one person with expertise in domestic regulation of business.
(4) If either House of Parliament rejects a motion in the form set out in subsection (5), moved in accordance with subsection (6) by a Minister of the Crown, the Secretary of State must ensure that the regulations reviewed by the Panel cease to have effect not later than the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the rejection takes place.
(5) The form of the motion is—
(6) So far as practicable, the Secretary of State must make arrangements for the motion to be debated and voted on by both Houses of Parliament within a period of 14 sitting days beginning immediately after the report mentioned in subsection (2)(b) is laid before Parliament.”
This new clause would ensure a review and report to Parliament of any regulations aligning the UK with EU laws, and for that review to be approved by both Houses for the relevant regulations to remain in force.
New clause 9—Alignment with EU law—
“(1) Where equivalent or similar EU law exists in relation to relevant product regulations, the Secretary of State must, when making provision under section 1, update Parliament on whether the Government proposes to vary the regulations from alignment with EU law.
(2) If the Secretary of State believes divergence from relevant EU law to be in the interests of the United Kingdom, they must arrange for a statement to be made in Parliament on the benefits to United Kingdom business to be achieved by this divergence, at least fourteen days before the relevant regulations are laid before Parliament.
(3) If the Secretary of State believes alignment with the relevant EU law to be in the interests of the United Kingdom, they must arrange for a statement to be made in Parliament on the benefits to United Kingdom business to be achieved by this alignment, at least fourteen days before the relevant regulations are laid before Parliament.
(4) The statement under subsection (2) or (3) must include the date by which any such regulations will be reviewed, which can be no later than 36 months after implementation.”
This new clause provides greater regulatory certainty for UK businesses by requiring scrutiny of all decisions to diverge or align with EU regulations and a process for Parliamentary scrutiny and review, whether Ministers determine that divergence or alignment from such regulations would be in the best interests of the UK.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
We tabled our amendments to clauses 1 and 2 because we can see both what the Secretary of State intends and the purpose of the huge powers he is taking under clause 1.
Amendment 3 seeks to remove clause 1(2), which states:
“The Secretary of State…in relation to the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom”
can make provision
“which corresponds, or is similar, to a provision of relevant EU law for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products.”
That is an extraordinarily wide power. We seek to delete subsection (2) because it is clear that the Bill is effectively planned to be used as a Trojan horse. It will be a surrender Bill, ahead of the surrender summit next week.
Through this legislation, the Secretary of State will be given the power, for environmental and many other issues, to sign up to the rule of EU law on product regulation in this country without any further primary legislation. We have real concerns that the Bill could effectively be used to facilitate dynamic alignment. That is not even a hunch, as it is spelled out by the Department for Business and Trade in the impact assessment, which states that the Bill will:
“Ensure that the law can be updated to enable recognition of new or updated EU product requirements.”
It is spelled out, which is why we have also tabled amendment 4 to leave out clauses 2(7) and (8), and amendment 21 to add proposed new subsection (7A):
“Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (7)(a), a product requirement of relevant EU law must not be treated as met unless regulations are made by the Secretary of State to incorporate them into United Kingdom law.”
Amendment 5 would insert proposed new subsection (10):
“The provision described in subsection (7) may only be made if—
(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a statement explaining the necessity of aligning with relevant EU law, and
(b) the updated provision had been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
Without those important provisions, we would be handing the Executive the most extraordinary ability to allow a foreign power to legislate this country’s product regulations. I am sure all parliamentarians agree that product regulation ought to be considered at the parliamentary level on a case-by-case basis.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
We did not hear anything from the Minister to reassure the Committee on the fundamental points that we have been making throughout the debate. The Bill gives unfettered powers to the Secretary of State, and it is openly acknowledged, both in the Bill and in the impact assessment, that the powers could be used to dynamically align us to EU regulation.
We have tried to be constructive by tabling a range of amendments that would give a more prominent role to parliamentary scrutiny and would give the legislature significant oversight of how the Secretary of State uses the powers. The hon. Member for Chippenham also tabled an amendment that would enable the sharing of further information with voters at the next election. I think that the voters of Knowsley, of Birmingham Northfield and of Worsley and Eccles will want to know how their Secretary of State used the powers in this Trojan horse surrender legislation. They will want to know what the impact has been, as judged by experts such as economists and by people who really know their trade.
Justin Madders
I was at pains to explain why the shadow Minister is wrong in her analysis of the effect of the Bill. It has essentially the same powers as in last year’s regulations, which allow us to take decisions on a case-by-case basis. Why does she insist on saying that this is some sort of Trojan horse?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
It is accepted in the impact statement that that is one potential use of the powers, but if the Minister believes that, he will want to support our amendments in this group.
Sir John, I understand that because amendment 14 fell, we were unable to divide on subsequent amendments in the first group. In this group, however, I believe that we can divide the Committee on more of the amendments individually. I seek your guidance on how many amendments in this group we can divide the Committee on.
The Chair
The amendments are not strictly consequential on one another, so it is possible to have separate Divisions. I assume that you wish to divide on amendment 3.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
In the light of your guidance, Sir John, I would like to divide the Committee on all our amendments in this group.
The Chair
We will divide on amendment 3 now, and on the others when we reach them.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Sarah Gibson
I thank the Minister. I have served on a Bill Committee with him before, and he knows how to appeal to the technical side of my expertise. He gave a compelling example, and I thank him for his consideration. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 1, page 1, line 21, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State must also by regulations make provision aimed at promoting investment, fostering innovation, and encouraging economic growth in relation to the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom.
(4B) Regulations under subsection (4A) must support—
(a) the creation of economic incentives for businesses that contribute to economic growth, and
(b) the alignment of product regulations with the strategic aim of positioning the United Kingdom as a global leader in innovation.”
This amendment ensures that the regulations in the Bill prioritise economic growth and the United Kingdom’s role in innovation and economic expansion.
The Committee will see immediately that the purpose of the amendment is to be incredibly helpful to the Government in their growth mission. How different the spirit of the amendment is from the spirit of the Bill! The Bill effectively outsources product regulation to a different Parliament; the amendment would ensure that the regulations made under the Bill prioritise economic growth and the United Kingdom’s role in innovation and economic expansion.
Throughout our history, the UK’s innovative spirit has increased our prosperity and growth as a nation. Key innovations that became accepted around the world led to greater prosperity for our fellow citizens, so what could be more important than for the Committee to agree to the amendment? The Government are very good at saying the word growth, but they have so far signally failed to deliver it. The amendment will ensure that, when exercising the powers in the Bill, economic growth truly is the first priority, as the Government so often claim it is.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Well, Sir John, I do have a very noisy fridge, but I am not sure it is helping me to order the milk. The crucial thing about amendment 17 is that it focuses on innovation. I appreciate that the Government Benches are not necessarily always as heavily weighted with those who have run or developed businesses themselves as ours are, but the Minister should recognise that businesses with a good market share are often able to entrench their version of a product into regulations. That prevents innovators from joining the market, because the regulations were put in place to favour those businesses’ approach. That is why the regulations proposed in clause 1 are so important, but also why it is so worrying that the powers that the Secretary of State is taking through this skeleton Bill are so extensive.
We are trying here to be helpful to the Government and to prevent that kind of behaviour, where the incumbent tries to get the regulations to work in its favour so that its competition cannot come in, compete against it and help the economy to grow through that process of creative destruction that is so often an important part of economic progress. That is why we have tabled this important amendment.
I suggest that the best way for the Government to show their passion for growth—they are clinging to a few recent statistics, but I am afraid that their track record since July is a woeful one, and the forecasts have all been halved by the major forecasters—would be by supporting the amendment. That is why I would seek to divide the Committee on amendment 17.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
It is important to highlight the excluded products in the schedule. The powers that the Committee has just agreed to give to the Secretary of State will not cover food, plants, animal by-products, products of animal origin, aircraft, components of aircraft and radio equipment. Importantly,
“unmanned aircraft designed or intended…for use in play by children under 14 years old”
are not excluded. My eight-year-old grandson was given one of those for his birthday; I am reassured by the fact that, under the schedule, his little radio-controlled aircraft will be something that can be regulated. There are also some exemptions for military equipment and, furthermore, medicines and medical devices.
These exemptions are worth highlighting on the record because, in the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, we should appreciate that questions about food, phytosanitary products, medicines, military equipment and radio spectrum products are incredibly important, particularly in relation to trade agreements. When we discuss some of the clauses as part of the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, those things must be separately considered. It is notable that some of those product lines were ones that were not affected by tariffs when—and I quote —“liberation day” in the United States was announced. It is very important that there is clarity in the legislation. We have not tabled any amendments to the schedule, but it is worth highlighting that what we have been talking about today does not cover those product lines.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister has helpfully read the list of sectors excluded from the schedule, so I will not repeat it. However, it is important, when a Bill has powers of this nature, that we are clear about what they do and do not relate to. As I think Members will appreciate, those excluded sectors will have other regulatory domains, which will refer to them. It is important that we are specific about what the Bill relates to, and that is the purpose of the schedule.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule accordingly agreed to.
Clause 2
Product requirements
The Chair
I am mindful, Dame Harriett, that you wanted to divide the Committee on amendment 4 to clause 2, which we debated with amendment 3. Do you wish to move that amendment formally?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I seek your guidance, Sir John, as there were a number of amendments that pertained to clause 2 in the first few groupings on which the Committee could divide. Should we do that now?
Oral Answers to Questions
Harriett Baldwin Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Government are far from supporting small businesses to export. Businesses of every size, up and down the country, are failing at a rate not seen since the 2008 financial crash, when Labour was last in power. Confidence is slumping, family businesses are closing, millionaires are fleeing the country—and that is before tariffs hit. What representations is the Minister making to the Chancellor about reversing some of the measures that hit business in her Hallowe’en Budget?
Gareth Thomas
I had thought that one of the first contributions from the Opposition Front Benchers today would be to celebrate the £1 billion investment by IKEA in the UK. It is opening its flagship store on Oxford Street today, and committing to a range of investments in other towns and cities across the UK. When the hon. Lady was on the Treasury Committee, I do not know whether she looked at the cuts the previous Government made to help for small businesses in getting their goods into new markets. We are taking active steps to increase the opportunities for small businesses in overseas markets.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is good to hear that the trade negotiations with India, which began when we were in government, are progressing well. There must surely now be an opportunity to reopen talks with Canada, so it can buy more wonderful cheese from the UK. With the tariff clock ticking, I am sure the Secretary of State recognises that the US deal is the most urgent; many UK jobs are at risk. However, we heard recently from the Chancellor, when she was in the States, that her bigger priority is discussions with the EU, where we already have zero tariffs and zero quotas. Does the Secretary of State share the Chancellor’s priorities, or does he think the US is more urgent?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank the hon. Lady for the earlier part of her comments. She is right that we wanted the previous Government to secure the India FTA, and we were willing to support them fully in doing that, but they were unable to get it across the line. With Canada, there are issues, particularly around agriculture, that are similar to those involving the US, so that may be more of a challenging negotiation.
The entirety of this Government, however, have been clear that we are not seeking to pick between one market and another—both are absolutely fundamental. The Chancellor’s comments specifically relate to the simple truth that there is a much greater quantum of UK-EU trade than UK-US trade. Equally, though, in all these negotiations, we have to focus on not just what can be done quickly, but what can be done right and in the national interest. There is no point securing an agreement that does not deliver on our objectives, no matter whom that agreement is with.
We will welcome any support from the Conservatives for the work we are trying to do. I do believe it is easier politically for this Government to do some trade agreements that are available to the UK; some may not have been politically available to the Conservative Government. We will continue to do that work, and we welcome all support for it, from across the House.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which is about to start its Committee stage in the House, may sound a little dry, but it would give the Secretary of State unfettered power to sign up to dynamic alignment with the European Union at the 19th summit. Given that voters are going to the polls today, will the Minister take the opportunity at the Dispatch Box to rule out the UK becoming an EU rule-taker?
Mr Alexander
I am slightly worried that the question adds two and two and gets about 97. The Bill recognises that we have to find a way forward on standards with the European Union, but to try to overlay what is, as the shadow Minister says, a necessary and somewhat dry technical piece of legislation with the policy agenda that she alludes to is simply wrong.
Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy
Harriett Baldwin Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) for securing this important debate, and for clearly setting out the issues with Government policy for the hair and beauty sector.
It is truly SOS time—save our salons. In the debate, we have heard from across the country—from Ribble Valley, Bromsgrove, Stourbridge, Gosport, Strangford, South Northamptonshire, Solihull and Chippenham—about how important these businesses are to our constituents. They make not only a huge economic contribution but an enormous contribution to our personal wellbeing, to fostering community spirit and to tackling loneliness. We have heard about the economic contribution of over £8 billion, but the impact of salons in giving people an opportunity for a moment of peace in a frantic life should not be underestimated.
It is regretful that the Government’s recent decisions have put such uncertainty into the sector. We all acknowledge that the sector has had a long-standing issue that VAT cannot be reclaimed on its biggest expense: labour. We have also heard that, given about 60% of the sector’s costs are wages, the Government’s decisions in the Hallowe’en Budget, particularly the change in the national insurance threshold, have made things considerably worse for businesses in the sector. Many of the businesses are small or medium-sized, and they add so much to our high streets. They are being gravely affected by the Budget.
The British Beauty Council states that the assumption that these businesses
“can simply absorb the costs is hugely misguided. Instead, it will most likely prevent wage increases and deter people from hiring more staff therefore stifling growth”,
which is the very growth that the Government wish to see. Additional pressure has come from the rise in the national minimum wage, and another impact of the Hallowe’en Budget was that, as we have heard, the Chancellor reduced retail, hospitality and leisure relief from a 75% discount to a 40% discount. That has been another major hammer blow to the sector’s financial wellbeing.
We know that the Budget has had a big impact on the hair and beauty sector because the National Hair & Beauty Federation has just published a report examining it. It says that businesses in the sector are expected to incur an additional £139 million in costs, and that is before making any operational adjustments. Labour expenses alone will rise by £100 million. The report revealed that, as a result, 72% of businesses anticipate having to raise prices; no wonder the IMF is calling out the inflationary impact of this Budget. Furthermore, 45% of the businesses intend to cut their staff hours and another 45% plan to reduce their workforce. On average, each business expects to lay off 2.7 full-time equivalent employees and an apprentice. Overall, the sector’s profits are expected to decrease by 15%, with turnover down by £20 million and corporation tax therefore decreasing from £240 million to £200 million. Indeed, the sector’s total tax contribution is anticipated to fall by £44 million, which is a great example of the Laffer curve in reverse.
Following the Budget, the Hair and Barber Council polled hair professionals across the country. Of the 2,000 respondents, 42% are now considering closing their businesses in the next 12 months, 80% said they are now being forced to consider moving to self-employment, 94% said they are either extremely concerned for the future, or believe that a generation of apprenticeships will be lost, and 98% do not believe that the sector is valued by this Government.
Can the Minister confirm whether the Government commissioned any kind of impact assessment of the potential impact of the changes to national insurance in the Halloween Budget on the number of apprenticeships offered by high street businesses? We already know that the Employment Rights Bill will add a further £5 billion of costs across the whole of UK businesses, so what assessment has he made of the potential impact of the 2024 Halloween Budget on the level of employment of women in the hairdressing and beauty industries?
Another long-standing concern that we heard raised in the debate was about tax avoidance and criminal activity, particularly by illegal barber shops linked to money laundering. I tabled a written question to the Home Office on this subject and received the following response:
“According to a report by the Local Data Company and Green Street, the average number of barber shops per 10,000 people has more than doubled in the last 10 years, from 1.4 per 10,000 people in 2013 to 3.1 per 10,000 in 2023.”
What assessment has the Minister made of criminal activity among barber shops and what steps are the Government taking to tackle it?
We have heard today how important the hair and beauty sector is to our high streets and to everyone in our constituencies who uses it. The Government’s Halloween Budget has delivered a devastating blow to the sector and put its future in jeopardy. Will the Minister commit to reversing these damaging tax increases?
Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill
Harriett Baldwin ExcerptsSaturday 12th April 2025
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2024-26 View all Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 94-I Marshalled list for Committee - (12 Apr 2025)
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I add my thanks to everyone who has enabled us to be here this afternoon, but the fact is that this is a bungled way to do parliamentary legislation, following a bungled set of negotiations, and we are likely to end up with a bungled nationalisation. The Labour Government have landed themselves in a steel crisis entirely of their own making. They have made poor decisions and let the unions dictate their actions. The fact is that the union-led Labour Government have bungled the whole negotiation, insisting on a Scunthorpe-only deal that is not viable.
Frankly, the Government should have seen this coming. In fact, instead of addressing it 16 days ago, when British Steel announced its plans to close the site and Parliament was sitting, their incompetence has led to this last-minute emergency recall. Colleagues including my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), the Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen and Councillor Rob Waltham of North Lincolnshire Council have been warning about the issues at British Steel. But no: Labour Ministers thought they knew better. The British public can now see the Government scrambling for a solution to a problem they created and could have resolved months ago.
Graham Stuart
The Government give themselves powers in the Bill to compensate steel undertakings, yet the Minister has told us nothing about the scale of that or the estimate of it. The Secretary of State tells the House that he has no trust or abiding faith in the company, but he is giving himself powers to give whatever sums he deems appropriate to the company. Do we not need more answers before we pass this legislation?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I wholeheartedly endorse what my right hon. Friend said. All new Government Members should be aware that the explanatory notes to the Bill, which have only just been circulated to colleagues, make it very clear—[Interruption.] I hear cries of “Shame!” from behind me. On the financial implications of the Bill, the explanatory notes say that there has been no impact assessment of the effect on the country’s finances, and nothing has been prepared for this House while we make this decision today.
The Bill is a sticking plaster for a Government who, in opposition, had years to come up with a plan, but they have dithered and delayed. Ultimately, nothing will change for UK steel until the Government understand the damage that unrealistic and impossible “net zero by 2050” targets have done to British business and industry.
We have heard a range of really excellent contributions from my hon. Friends. From the Father of the House, we heard an excellent exposition of the importance of this industry to his constituents in Lincolnshire and the impact of energy costs on the industry. We heard from the great champion of the industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham, who has regularly brought this issue to the forefront of Members’ consideration. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who raised incredibly important issues to do with tariffs and China. We then heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who raised some important legal questions.
If I may in the time available to me, I would like to raise a few further detailed questions for the Minister to respond to when she gets to the Dispatch Box. The Secretary of State has said that he does not want these powers indefinitely, so why will Labour Members not back our amendment to implement a sunset clause for this Bill?
We have heard from a range of voices in the debate about the confusion over the territorial extent of this legislation. It makes it very clear that the territorial extent applies to England and Wales only, yet clause 2 refers clearly just to England. There is another thing I would like the Minister to make clear at the Dispatch Box: if a new provider came into the UK and decided to set up a new steel-making enterprise in England or Wales, would that new enterprise be covered by this legislation?
Can the Minister also tell the House what the Attorney General has advised on compliance with international law, including article 1 of protocol 1 to the European convention on human rights, the World Trade Organisation subsidies agreement, and the trade and co-operation agreement, particularly with reference to state aid?
The Secretary of State was unable to tell the House this morning how much this intervention will cost. We are being asked this afternoon to sign off on a bottomless pit of money. How often will this House be given an update on how much taxpayer money is being sent into this bottomless pit? Families across the country are already being hit in the pocket every day. Can the Minister give the House a ballpark figure from the Dispatch Box? Are we talking about £100 million a year? Are we talking about a billion? Are we talking about more than a billion?
It is a fact that the Government themselves have made the situation worse for the steel industry with their determination to impose higher energy prices, higher taxes and higher business rates. Where is the steel strategy that they have had nine months to develop? What we can say with certainty about today’s legislation is that this is no way to govern the country. Whenever Labour negotiates, Britain loses. We can see for ourselves that this is a Government controlled by events; they are not in control of events. Yet, according to the Secretary of State, it is everyone else’s problem and nothing to do with them. This Government have treated Parliament with disdain. We have had nine months of dither and delay for these workers at Scunthorpe. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. I look forward to hearing the answers to all those questions from the Minister.
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
Harriett Baldwin ExcerptsTuesday 1st April 2025
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 18-R-II(a) Manuscript Amendment for Report (Supplementary tot he Second Marshalled List) - (5 Mar 2025)
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
This has been a genuinely important, interesting and lively debate on product regulation and metrology. It has also been a debate about the balance of power between the Executive and us here in Parliament. The UK product safety and metrology framework is derived from European Union law and it developed while the UK was a member of the EU, when we did not have the opportunity here to address product safety in our changing world as rapidly as we do now.
Following our departure from the European Union, the UK established its independent regulatory system, which must be flexible enough to accommodate emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, and address changes in consumer purchasing behaviours. As the Bill’s explanatory notes state, its purpose is to ensure that the UK is better equipped to tackle modern safety challenges, safeguard consumers, seize opportunities for economic growth and so on.
The Secretary of State said in his introductory remarks that the Bill was introduced in the previous Parliament, and I want to emphasise that it was not. I want to offer the Minister the chance to correct the record in his closing remarks, in case the House has been inadvertently misled.
Upon leaving the European Union, the UK created the UK conformity assessed marking, known as the UKCA, to replace the conformité Européenne marking, known as the CE. These markings are used by manufacturers to demonstrate product conformity. The UK still recognises CE markings; however, the EU does not recognise the UKCA. Will the Minister confirm that discussions are happening with the EU, including the resetting of discussions on trade, to ensure that UKCA markings and any products regulated here in the UK are mutually recognised?
Turning to the points raised in today’s excellent debate, we heard fantastic speeches from my right hon. Friends the Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), and my hon. Friends the Members for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) and for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey). We also heard powerful voices from Northern Ireland on the adjacent Benches, from the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). We also heard the expertise that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) brings from his background in the toy industry.
From the Labour Benches, we heard impassioned speeches often about product safety, including from the hon. Members for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler), for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). She described us as sinners repenting, which I hasten to surmise might mean that she is a repenter beginning to sin. We heard from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who is a passionate advocate for ceramics from his constituency. We had the pleasure of hearing a masterclass from Parliament’s first metrologist, the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), on the ancient history of metrology; it was a very enjoyable speech. We heard speeches from the hon. Members for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley).
Before embarking on the reason why we will oppose the Bill tonight, I welcome the Government’s U-turn in the other place on their plans to rule over the size of the great British pint or, as the hon. Member for Erewash would describe it, 0.56826125 cubic decimetres. Although they were initially resistant, Ministers eventually recognised that our great British pint should remain untouched. I am afraid that that is all I can welcome about this piece of legislation, because the Opposition are deeply concerned with the Government’s overreach and excessive reliance on delegated powers within the Bill.
Henry VIII would be absolutely delighted by this piece of legislation. Labour Members claim that it will simplify our regulatory framework, yet all we see is the undermining of our sovereignty and the powers of Parliament. This 15-page Bill would give the Secretary of State unchecked powers to amend product safety regulations, change the definition of an online marketplace and introduce new penalties, inspection powers and charges on businesses, driving up the already soaring costs of doing business in the UK. As many hon. Friends have said, it would grant the Government sweeping powers to make us a passive recipient of laws made in Brussels. International trade and co-operation are welcome, but this is not what more than 17 million people voted for in 2016, when we took back control—it is a betrayal of Brexit.
The Bill is not purely technical; part of its purpose is to allow the dynamic alignment of goods with EU single market laws, giving the EU the power to rule on standards for manufactured goods produced in the United Kingdom. This EU Trojan horse Bill could see us readopting a regulatory regime over which we have no influence, input or sanction, leaving us as rule takers, not rule makers.
It is fundamentally not good practice or good governance to deliver substantial changes through delegated legislation.
“We must bear in mind that the use of delegated powers carries a risk of abuse by the Executive, which is not something the Opposition could ever support. Rather, it is our duty at this stage to check the powers of the Executive and ensure that we are not giving them carte blanche to change the balance of power permanently in their favour.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2018; c. 305.]
These are not my words but those of the Secretary of State.
Tomorrow, the United States could impose tariffs on us. It is paramount that we secure a mutually beneficial UK-US trade deal as soon as possible, but I cannot see how the Bill, which drags us closer to the European Union, would give the United States any incentive to work with us.
In closing, let me ask the Minister a few questions. Can he confirm what the limits will be on ministerial powers? What oversight will Parliament have of regulatory changes made under the Bill? What consultation will occur with the real-world businesses that are affected by the change? Will he confirm that no regulations made under the Bill will prevent or impede UK businesses from trading internationally?
The Bill undermines Parliament and risks tying British businesses to EU red tape on which we have no say. We cannot allow these excessive powers to create further uncertainty among British businesses of all sizes, which already face the soaring costs of doing business because of the Chancellor’s tax grab. The Bill is a parliamentary sovereignty sell-out. We got Brexit done; let us keep it that way. The Bill gives away control, and that is why I call on the House to back our amendment and stop it.
Terms and Conditions of Employment
Harriett Baldwin Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I rise to say that we will not oppose the increases to the national minimum wage or the national living wage—the national living wage being something that my party introduced to make work pay. We celebrate the fact that progress was made in ending low pay, and the Minister cited that from the Dispatch Box this evening. But it is also our duty, as His Majesty’s official Opposition, to scrutinise the Government on all matters, so I have several questions for the Minister this evening.
In particular, I want to highlight the fact that the work that the Low Pay Commission has done—for which I also thank it—was done before the Hallowe’en Budget of broken promises last October. After the increases to the national living and minimum wages in the Budget—but also measures such as the increase to national insurance—the Unison assistant general secretary Jon Richards welcomed the increase to the pay measures but said that
“as it stands, the new legal minimum is more than the current lowest hourly rate in the NHS, universities and some other public services. This will give employers multiple headaches.”
So my first question is: what will the Government do to address the pay implications of this rise on those working in the public sector in such important roles?
The second question relates to the national minimum wage for workers above school leaving age but not yet 18 going up by nearly 18%. On 1 April this year, the national insurance threshold for employers drops to £5,000 per year. This means that an employer will have to start paying national insurance on any young person if they work for 13 or more hours a week. Because of this, businesses have warned that they are cutting back on hiring younger workers or reducing the hours that they give to them. That risk, of course, is faced not solely by those in work, but by those seeking to get into work. What assessment has the Minister made since the Hallowe’en Budget of the impact of the increase on young people’s ability to access jobs? What will the Government do to ensure that young people or those looking for a job will not be penalised by this increase?
The increase will significantly affect small and medium-sized enterprises. As usual, it looks like they will bear the brunt of the increased labour costs. It looks that way not just to us; according to the Government’s own impact assessment, SMEs will face 56% of the cost of the increase despite representing only 37% of the share of employment. That is another cost increase on smaller businesses, which already have to pay for this Government’s national insurance jobs tax, for the hike in business rates, and for the impact of the measures from the Employment Rights Bill. In particular, businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector are most likely to pay the minimum wage.
I remind the House that the Government’s own impact assessment states that they expect the policies covered within the Bill to impose a direct cost on businesses of up to £5 billion a year. It also notes that, on average, those costs will be greater for those smaller businesses and microbusinesses. Will the Minister provide the House with a figure for the total cost increase of employing someone full time on the previous national living wage because of the other changes introduced by his Government?
The Government have created a challenging business environment. They recognised that themselves when they stated in their impact assessment that
“there is some evidence of challenging business conditions for SMEs”.
Around 42.7% and 36.8% of microbusinesses and small businesses respectively reported having less than three months of cash reserves in September 2024. We support the principle of fair pay for workers and making work pay. However, having listened to businesses, we are concerned that the rises could impact workers and businesses in industries already facing financial challenges through a range of unintended consequences.
It is easy for those in Whitehall to squiggle their pen, but all those measures combined have real-life consequences for businesses across the country. The national insurance jobs tax and the Employment Rights Bill are piling additional costs on to businesses and hammering the private sector, which we rely on to grow the economy.
In summary, have the Government considered the full impact of all these increases on businesses that are happening at the same time? I fear that tomorrow’s emergency Budget will be another wakeup call.
Oral Answers to Questions
Harriett Baldwin Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Business Secretary, the Minister and the Chancellor have all said that they want growth, including in rural areas. I have searched high and low for business growth statistics since the Budget of broken promises, and I find that, in the last quarter, there has been a growth of 50% in the number of businesses that are in critical financial distress. Why does the Minister think that is?
Gareth Thomas
I say gently to the hon. Lady that the difficult decisions that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had to take in the Budget were, interestingly, particularly well explained by her former colleague Kwasi Kwarteng, who made it clear that he thought they had to be taken because of the mistakes that he and the Conservative party had made when they were in government.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Business Secretary met recently in Japan with Fujitsu, which developed the Horizon system and has offered to contribute to the compensation for victims. Can the Minister tell the House how much the Secretary of State has asked it to contribute, so that taxpayers are not on the hook for £1 billion?
Gareth Thomas
The hon. Lady is right to reference the discussions that my right hon. Friend had with the chief executive officer of Fujitsu. That company has agreed to begin talks about its contribution to the costs of compensation. She will understand that we also need to wait for Sir Wyn Williams’ inquiry to conclude, and for his recommendations regarding compensation from Fujitsu to be heard and understood. I am sure she will also understand that I am not going to give a running commentary on the discussions with Fujitsu, but I welcome the fact that it has agreed to begin talks.
Department for Business and Trade
Harriett Baldwin Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I shall try to make my speech short and snappy, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) on securing this afternoon’s debate, which has allowed many Members to articulate the concerns that they are hearing from businesses in their constituencies and enabled them to talk about the great importance of growth.
Growth is essential. We talk about the importance of defence and of increasing spending on it from 2.5% to 2.7% and then up to 3%, but of course we want the economy to grow at the same time. In the estimates before us today, the Secretary of State has laid out his ambitious goals for his Department. First, on the aim of delivering a comprehensive industrial strategy, I simply ask, eight months in, when will businesses see that. Secondly, on a plan to provide small businesses with tools and support, I simply ask, eight months in, when will small businesses see that. Thirdly, on a trade strategy that recognises that high-quality trade deals are necessary to give businesses access to international markets to boost jobs and deliver economic growth here, I simply ask when businesses will see a change on that front. Fourthly, on delivering sweeping changes to employment law, I have to say that, sadly, businesses have seen that. They have seen that the sweeping changes outlined in the Employment Rights Bill, which we will be scrutinising next week, will take us back to 1970s-style employment laws, adding £1 billion in costs just to the Government’s cost base alone. I wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether at the end of the debate you might share a few words on whether it would have been appropriate for those hon. Members who receive contributions from unions to have declared them in the debate. We have had an excellent debate, but I did not hear any declarations of interest.
I heard excellent contributions from those on the Conservative Benches—from my hon. Friends the Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) and for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). They outlined and summarised the challenges that businesses face up and down the country. In contributions from the hon. Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards), for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), for Livingston (Gregor Poynton), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Marton), for Dundee Central (Chris Law), for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones), we heard a range of concerns felt by real businesses that create the wealth of this country.
I turn to trade. I note that, in the supplementary estimates, the Department marks an increase under sub-head A4, the account that includes first and foremost the trade policy implementation and negotiations group. The note explains that the increase is owing to
“An international reorganisation within DBT which has brought our International Strategy and Development teams into this group from Strategy and Investment.”
Strategy and investment, meanwhile, have been cut by almost the same amount that this account has been increased by. I wonder whether there is a little bit of smoke and mirrors going on when it comes to the amount dedicated to increasing trade.
Increasing trade is one of the key routes to economic growth. Businesses in our constituencies would really benefit from further opening up of free trade. I note the welcome news that the Prime Minister talked to the President of America about a free trade agreement last week, but as of the end of January, no official or Minister from the Department had made any attempt to engage with the US Administration on trade. The Department has chosen to abandon the position of chief trade negotiator, which is either deliberate self-harm or wilful incompetence.
There was almost no public recognition by the Department or its Ministers of the UK’s accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, which does indeed trip off the tongue. There is growing evidence that instead of investing in opportunities for trade with the US, Canada and the fast-growing markets of Asia, the Government are reverting to their ideological safeguard, relying on Brussels, and developing a Trojan horse strategy to realign the UK with the European Union.
Is the Department actually being given the tools that it needs to deliver on trade deals? If the Government claim to have set their sights higher, should not the resources reflect that? I worry that we are seeing a classic example of big words, big ambitions and Ministers just saying the word “growth”, but nothing taking place that actually delivers growth. It is eight months to the day since those on the Labour Benches entered Government. How many businesses in this country can say that things have got better for them in the last eight months? How many are more confident? How many can say that they expect the trade situation facing the United Kingdom to improve?