Pubs Code and Pubs Code Adjudicator
Justin Madders Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
As part of the third statutory review of the pubs code and the pubs code adjudicator, the Department for Business and Trade will today publish a 12-week long invitation to stakeholders to provide their views and evidence on the operation of the pubs code and the performance of the PCA.
There are a range of different types of operating models for pubs and, in 2016, legislation came into force in England and Wales to tackle concerns specific to one type of operating model: the tied pub. Under the tied pub model, the tenant agrees to buy beer and other products and services from their landlord in return for lower rent and other benefits. The Pubs Code etc. Regulations 2016, applying to England and Wales, ensure the fair and lawful treatment of tied pub tenants of large pub-owning businesses. The pubs code also provides the tied pub tenant with certain rights, including the right, in certain circumstances, to require the landlord to offer a change to their commercial contract from a tied tenancy to a free-of-tie tenancy.
The role of the PCA is to investigate and enforce compliance with the code, provide advice, consult on and issue guidance, and arbitrate disputes in respect of compliance with the pubs code. The PCA is appointed by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade.
The Secretary of State are required by the legislation to review periodically the operation of the pubs code and the performance of the PCA. This third review covers the three-year period from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2025.
The invitation to submit comments and evidence can be accessed through gov.uk https://gov.uk/government/consultations/statutory-review-of-pubs-code-and-pubs-code-adjudicator-2022-to-2025 and stakeholders have until 14 August 2025 to respond. A report on the findings of the statutory review will be published as soon as practicable and laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State.
The Government announced in March that it would review the performance of the PCA as part of its regulatory action plan. This invitation for comments and evidence, will therefore also seek views to inform a wider post-implementation review of the pubs code. The PIR will consider the code’s impact since it came into force in 2016, including the extent to which the regulation is working, if the policy has achieved its objectives, whether the intervention is the most appropriate approach and if intervention and regulation is still required.
The terms of reference for the third statutory review of the pubs code and the PCA have today been placed in the libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
[HCWS653]
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Third sitting)
Justin Madders ExcerptsThursday 15th May 2025
(2 weeks, 5 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.
Justin Madders
We have had another interesting debate—a slightly repetitious one that I am sure we are all becoming familiar with. The shadow Minister, as always, was helpful in introducing her new clauses. She is slightly optimistic about the prospect of our accepting them, but I understand that it is her role to challenge and scrutinise the Bill by moving amendments and new clauses.
I agree with the shadow Minister about the importance of improving our regulation and metrology framework. That is indeed what the Bill is about. We had some helpful discussions in the other place about how best to do that. For example, a balance needs to be struck to protect consumers while making regulation workable for business. That balance is not best served by having in the Bill a broad and subjective purpose “to improve”.
The new clause also mentions the prioritisation of
“the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy and the United Kingdom’s regulatory competitiveness”.
At the risk of repeating what I said on Tuesday, the Bill is all about regulatory autonomy. It will provide powers to enable the UK to change existing regulations or introduce new ones in support of our needs and interests. The Bill introduces those powers because they are currently lacking.
The shadow Minister said that we will have our product regulations set by the EU, and the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury said that we will be taking up new rules by default. They are, I am afraid, incorrect on both points. The Bill actually does the opposite and allows us to take a considered view on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, that is what the previous Conservative Government did through the regulations introduced last year.
The powers in the Bill will also mean that the UK can maintain regulations that support competitiveness. That requires a balance between a range of objectives, including consumer safety and proportionate regulation for businesses. Any changes that we introduce will be consulted on, and Parliament will have a role in overseeing the regulations, as we discussed at length on Tuesday.
Aphra Brandreth
The UK is a free trading nation. The fact that we are an island has meant that for centuries we have looked to the world for trade, and new clause 3 is an important safeguard that would ensure the Secretary of State does not act in a way that undermines our existing trade agreements, a number of which were negotiated by the previous Conservative Government, as we have heard.
Our trading relationship with Europe remains vital and highly valued, but this is also a moment to embrace the wider world and build on the strong partnerships that we have developed across global markets. Many emerging economies present exciting opportunities, and we are already fostering trade links with some of the world’s fastest-growing global trade blocs. This is about maintaining our commitment to Europe while continuing to be outward looking and globally engaged.
When the UK signed up to the European common market, Europe accounted for one third of global trade. In 2019, it accounted for 16% of global trade. By 2050, according to the OECD, it will account for only 9% of global trade. It is simply good business, forward looking and proactive to seek out the emerging markets on which the future global economy will be built. Progress in doing so was made under the previous Government, and the trade deals listed in new clause 3 are some of the most important.
I will speak to a few of the trade treaties that are listed, to underline their importance and the benefit they bring to the United Kingdom’s economy. The deal that the previous Government agreed with Australia was historic. It eliminated tariffs on UK imports from and exports to Australia, making it cheaper for some of our best-loved and most iconic brands to sell on Australian shelves, and it gave us the opportunity to have better and cheaper access to Australian favourites such as Vegemite and Tim Tams—although for the record I have to stress that I am definitely a Marmite fan.
The Australia trade deal was bespoke. It allowed us to play to our strengths, with a focus on our world-leading service, digital and tech sectors. It put our service industry on an equal footing in Australia and maximised the possibilities and opportunities for digital trade—it was a forward-looking deal. Thanks to that deal, UK businesses are guaranteed access to bid for an additional £10 billion-worth of Australian public sector contracts per year. Inward investment from the UK into Australia no longer needs to be reviewed by the Australian Foreign Investment Review Board, making it easier for British businesses to gain access to the Australian market and, crucially, cutting red tape.
We are market leaders in so many areas, and the world looks to us as the high bar for standards and products. We lead the way in the tech and digital sectors, and that deal delivered for businesses and consumers alike, including high personal data protection standards for British consumers. The UK services industry benefited to the tune of £5.4 billion in 2020 as a result of that free trade agreement. It slashed red tape and removed bureaucratic hurdles for small and medium-sized enterprises and unlocked new opportunities for them to grow and develop in a new market. The UK gained access to procurement contracts worth billions of pounds, which is the most substantial level of access that Australia has granted in a free trade agreement. We benefited from more flexible rules of origin when exporting goods that are better suited to modern supply chains. Importantly, that deal was negotiated on our terms by our Government.
The New Zealand trade deal was also a success and again highlights the importance of new clause 3. Like the Australian deal, all tariffs on UK exports to New Zealand have been eliminated, delivering a boost for British business and increasing its competitiveness. The now Leader of the Opposition, when she was Secretary of State for International Trade, wrote to the International Trade Committee outlining the benefits of that deal and how it was expected to boost trade with New Zealand by almost 60%, benefiting the economy by £800 million.
Finally, I want to mention the UK-Canada continuity agreement and why it is important and right to list in new clause 3. When we left the European Union, we rolled over 65 trade deals immediately and bolstered them with a further seven. For the Canadian continuity agreement, the previous Conservative Government secured continued access for UK products, such as cars, beef, fish and gin. In the previous Government’s strategic outline for an FTA with Canada, published in 2022, it was noted that Canada provided a great opportunity for UK SMEs, building a digital economy and bolstering innovation for the future—exactly the sort of opportunity that the UK should be looking for. The crucial factor of that deal, and the others that I have referred to, is that they were negotiated on our terms.
New clause 3 is important for ensuring that the progress we have made is not lost. It is about maintaining our competitiveness as a trading nation and not regressing to the bureaucratic red tape of the EU that we have moved away from. I hope that Government Members will demonstrate that they are forward looking by supporting the new clause. In doing so, they would reaffirm our shared commitment to a truly global Britain that is ambitious, outward facing and confident in shaping its own future on the world stage.
Justin Madders
First, it is appropriate for me to acknowledge the shadow Minister’s supportive words about the excellent progress that we have made on trade deals in recent weeks. As has been mentioned, the India deal could be worth up to £2 billion a year and will hopefully unlock new opportunities across the whole UK, including for advanced manufacturing in the west midlands, Scotch whisky in Scotland and our world-class life sciences sector in the north-west. There has also been the excellent work with the United States, which shows that we are determined to take our rightful place on the world stage and chimes with the No. 1 mission of this Government: economic growth.
It is also appropriate for me to mention the excellent growth figures for the first quarter of 2025, which came out this morning. The Bill will support growth by giving the Government the flexibility we need to ensure that product regulation is tailored to the needs of the UK, and to respond to global developments. The Bill will help us to ensure that regulations work effectively for both businesses and consumers, and that they continue to do so in the future.
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.
Alison Griffiths
I thank my right hon. Friend for putting a vital point on the record. New clause 5 reflects a commitment to coherent governance, to the integrity of the UK, and to a regulatory system that respects the voices of all four nations. I urge Ministers and the Government to back it.
We must consider the broader economic implications of our relationship with the EU single market. Post Brexit, UK goods exports to the EU have declined, with some studies indicating a reduction of up to 30% compared with a scenario where the UK remained within the single market and customs union. The downturn is largely attributed to non-tariff barriers such as increased paperwork and regulatory divergence, which have disproportionately affected small and medium-sized businesses. The Windsor framework, while aiming to address some of these issues, has introduced complexities of its own: notably, the creation of an Irish sea border has led to significant concerns among Unionist communities in Northern Ireland.
The leader of the Traditional Unionist Voice, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), has been vocal in his criticism, describing the new parcel regulations as tightening the noose of the Irish sea border on local businesses. He argues that these measures further entrench a divide between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, undermining the Union and placing additional burdens on commerce. His stance highlights the ongoing tension between regulatory alignment with the EU and the desire to maintain the UK's internal market integrity. The imposition of EU standards on Northern Ireland, without equivalent application in Great Britain, creates a disjointed regulatory environment. This disparity not only affects businesses but fuels political discontent and challenges the coherence of our Union.
New clause 5 serves as a necessary safeguard. It ensures that any EU regulations paused in Northern Ireland due to the Stormont brake are not automatically implemented in Great Britain without due consideration. This approach promotes consistency across the UK and respects the principle that all constituent nations should have a say in the laws that govern them. By adopting new clause 5, Labour would renew their commitment to a united and sovereign United Kingdom, where all regions are treated with equal respect and consideration in the legislative process.
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.
Justin Madders
I thank Committee members for their contributions on this group of amendments. The Government are committed to supporting businesses and growing the economy.
New clause 6 would specify that the Secretary of State must produce and maintain guidance for small and medium-sized enterprises on how to comply with any provisions made by regulations under the Bill. I say to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham, that I welcome the intent behind the amendment. It is vital that businesses, particularly SMEs, understand and have good notice of any new legal requirements, to allow them to take timely action. In the other place, the Government introduced a statutory duty to consult before making regulations. That will ensure that SMEs and other stakeholders are involved, at an early stage, in helping to shape any regulations.
The Government already provide online guidance to help businesses understand new and existing legal requirements, and any actions that they must take. Ministerial colleagues, my officials and I regularly meet businesses. Hearing from them directly is vital to make sure that our regulations protect consumers and support growth. I have outlined how the intent of new clause 6 is already being met, and we will continue to work closely with SMEs as they are of course a crucial part of the economy. I respectfully suggest that the new clause be withdrawn.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton described the Bill as “convoluted,” yet earlier she described it as “skeletal.” I hope she eventually decides her position on the Bill. She seems to be suggesting that we should not legislate at all in this area. The idea of having no legal structure for product safety and metrology is, I think, very dangerous. It is important to protect consumers and to ensure a level playing field for businesses, both of which we are doing with this Bill.
Justin Madders
Of course, that is exactly what we are doing with the requirement to consult as part of the amendments agreed in the other place.
New clause 7 would require a review of the accessibility and affordability of independent product testing and certification for SMEs under the Bill. As I have outlined, the Government already consider the impact of new regulations on relevant stakeholders, including SMEs. We outlined how we will do that in the recently published code of conduct, to which we have referred on several occasions.
The code of conduct details the requirements that the Secretary of State must undertake to ensure that the impacts of any changes are properly considered and reported, including by developing appropriate impact assessments. The better regulation framework is a system that the Government use to manage the flow of regulation and understand its impacts. These assessments will, of course, include the impact of regulations on SMEs as well as other businesses.
We will continue to engage with stakeholders, including SMEs, on any new regulations made under the Bill. As product development continues to evolve, this ongoing approach is likely to be more impactful than any one-off review, as suggested by new clause 7. I hope that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham, is sufficiently reassured by what I have said to withdraw new clause 6. I also hope he will accept our assurance that we will continue to engage on these important matters as we move forward.
Clive Jones
I thank the Minister for his response, but I am pretty disappointed that the Government are unwilling to take this very modest yet meaningful step to support our small businesses. These new clauses are about removing barriers that prevent small businesses from competing on a level playing field.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Aphra Brandreth
The new clause touches on the important issue of the safety and accountability of products sold through online marketplaces. In today’s consumer environment, the shift towards online purchasing has transformed the landscape. That has brought convenience and choice, but it has also introduced new risks that were not foreseen when our existing consumer protection laws were drafted.
Conservative shadow Ministers and colleagues have met with product safety organisations, and we recognise the real concerns that have been raised. The number of unsafe goods entering the market is deeply troubling. Recent investigations have found that 85% of toys tested from online marketplaces were unsafe, and that nearly 90% of products entering the UK fail basic safety tests. Those are not abstract figures; this is about the health and safety of our constituents. As the hon. Member for Wokingham said, some of the risks to children from unsafe toys are serious and extremely worrying.
Particular concerns have been raised about dangerous incidents involving lithium batteries in e-bikes and e-scooters, which have led to fires, injuries and, tragically, deaths. These are serious and growing risks that demand serious attention. It is therefore right that online marketplaces take greater responsibility in this space. We expect the platforms to remove unsafe products swiftly, co-operate fully with enforcement authorities and ensure that robust safety checks are in place before products are ever listed.
At the same time, we must approach this matter in a proportionate and measured way. The Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to regulate, and it is appropriate that the powers are flexible and future-facing. We must ensure that regulation supports consumer confidence without stifling innovation or imposing undue burdens on small and emerging businesses, particularly those that are trying to compete fairly in a complex marketplace.
A safer marketplace benefits everyone. It is the foundation of consumer trust and business growth: if consumers feel confident that unsafe products are being properly policed, they are more likely to engage in the marketplace, and that in turn supports a vibrant and competitive economy. There is a clear need for ongoing scrutiny in this area, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how these important issues will be addressed as we take the Bill forward.
Justin Madders
I recognise the important points made by hon. Members in this debate. This issue is being actively considered. Liability for damage caused by defective products is an important area of law, and we agree that there is scope for improvements to the legislation—or modernisation, if we want to describe it in that way—but they need to be made in a considered way.
As hon. Members have said, technological advancements and the development of new supply chains since the passage of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 indicate the breadth of change since our liability regime was last updated. We therefore need to carefully consider the range and types of products that should now be in scope of liability claims, as well as who should be liable.
It is important to note that one of the reasons why we cannot accept the new clause is that product liability extends beyond products in scope of the Bill—for example, it covers food and medical devices—so an alternative legislative vehicle may be more appropriate for making updates in this area. I can confirm to the Committee that we have asked the Law Commission to conduct a full and comprehensive review of product liability legislation and make suggestions for reform. We expect the commission to report back next year, and we will legislate if necessary to ensure that product liability laws are up to date and fit for the future.
I hope that reassures hon. Members that we are alive to this issue and actively taking steps to ensure that when we update legislation, we consider the myriad developments in the world.
Clive Jones
I thank the Minister for his response. Consumers deserve real protection, not promises of future legislation. If online marketplaces continue to evade liability, unsafe products will slip through the cracks and consumers will pay the price. I therefore intend to press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
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.
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.
Clive Jones
I thank the Minister for his response and for agreeing to meet me. I hope he will be happy if I bring along the British Toy & Hobby Association, because it will have a wealth of evidence for him.
I reiterate that 85% of tested toys failed toy safety standards, yet those products still reach children through online marketplaces with little or no accountability. How is that defensible? Bricks-and-mortar toy shops face far stricter obligations. There is not a level playing field and it is not safe. I intend to press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
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.
Carer’s Leave
Justin Madders Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 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
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I will do my best, Mr Stringer. No doubt the tension of knowing there might be an interruption will add to the excitement of my comments. It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I declare an interest as a foster carer. We are not specifically talking about foster care, but it is part of the wider ambit of care. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing today’s debate and on her very long-standing and successful advocacy for unpaid carers. We all recognise the key role she played in establishing the unpaid carer’s entitlement through her sponsorship of the Carer’s Leave Act 2023.
It is right that we take time to discuss the support available to unpaid carers who provide care to a family member, partner or friend alongside paid work. I accept the hon. Member’s analysis that her Act, while an important step forward, is not a panacea for all the issues that carers face. A number of hon. Members have emphasised that point.
I start by recognising the dedication and compassion of carers across the country. It is important to recognise their contribution to society, both in their working life and as carers, but we also need to consider the support they need to navigate their dual responsibilities. I join the hon. Member in paying tribute to the support groups available to carers. Their role is often understated, but that wider network has a very important part to play for carers.
As we have heard, carers all too often end up stopping work altogether, or they reduce their hours to manage their caring responsibilities. Just half of adult carers are in work, and a quarter are economically inactive. The hon. Lady mentioned the Centre for Care’s research report, which I will certainly look at.
We have heard about a considerable number of challenges today, which demonstrates why it is essential that we think about how we support carers to balance those responsibilities alongside other aspects of their life, including, of course, work. The hon. Lady recognised that we are improving access to flexible working through our landmark Employment Rights Bill. We believe that will help people to balance their work and other responsibilities, including their family life, such as where an individual is working alongside delivering care to a loved one inside or outside the home.
The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) spoke very movingly about his constituent Sarah. I do not think her experience is unique, and we all recognise that there are people like Sarah in every constituency and every part of this country. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned carer’s allowance, and I will pull up the shadow Minister on what he said about the increase in carer’s allowance, as it actually came into effect on 7 April 2025. This Government increased the earnings limit from £151 a week to £196 a week, so it is equivalent to 16 hours a week at the national living wage. It is the largest ever increase in the earnings limit since carer’s allowance was introduced back in 1976, and the highest increase in percentage terms since 2001.
That means carers can now earn up to £10,000 a year while retaining their carer’s allowance, which can be worth around an additional £2,000 a year. As a result, more than 60,000 additional people will be able to receive carer’s allowance between this year and 2029-30.
Several hon. Members referred to the difficulties their constituents have had after receiving an overpayment, and it is fair to say that issue has been recognised by the Department for Work and Pensions. We understand the anxiety it causes, which is why it is important that we independently review what has happened and find out what went wrong to make sure that things are put right. We urge anyone in receipt of carer’s allowance to inform the Department of any change in their circumstances so that overpayments can be reviewed. It is certainly something that the Department will be advised of following this debate.
Employees caring for someone who is disabled, elderly or living with a long-term health condition are entitled to carer’s leave, which can be taken flexibly in half or whole days, or in one go, over the course of a year. Thanks to the hon. Member for North East Fife, the Carer’s Leave Act has now been in force for just over a year. It is still bedding in, and our plan to make work pay includes a commitment to review its implementation. To deliver that commitment, the post-implementation review of the Act is now under way.
We have also outlined our commitment to explore the potential benefits of further policy development to support unpaid carers in employment, while being mindful of the impact on business. That work will include careful consideration of paid carer’s leave, and again, work is under way. Officials in my Department have spoken to over 70 employers, third sector organisations and charities such as Carers UK. There have been events in Wales, England and Scotland, and that engagement will continue as the review progresses, alongside both qualitative and quantitative research.
Anna Dixon
I thank the Minister for his commitment to review carer’s leave and to consider the opportunity for looking at paid carer’s leave. Does he agree that would particularly benefit low-income workers and women? They make up the bulk of unpaid carers, and they find it particularly difficult to take unpaid carer’s leave because they simply cannot afford it.
Justin Madders
That point has been mentioned a number of times in this debate, and we will certainly look at the research as it is produced.
I have noted that the shadow Minister now supports paid carer’s leave, although he could not bring himself to support it during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill. I am aware that there has been some debate on the issue in the other place, and we will look very carefully at how that debate unfolds.
It is important that we take the time to carefully consider the potential impact of any further policy before taking any decisions. As the hon. Member for North East Fife said, we often receive responses on the 2023 Act’s application from organisations that are engaged on this issue. I pay tribute to those organisations, and some are clearly leading the way. An important point was made that, even in organisations that are very supportive of carer’s leave and have all the policies in place, people sometimes do not get any further if they have the wrong line manager. That applies to a number of similar entitlements, so more work is needed.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) mentioned, we need to ensure that any decisions we make are grounded in evidence. There are several potential approaches to further support, including paid carer’s leave, and we will continue to consider those with external stakeholders. It is important to note that careful design is needed where leave entitlements have a pay entitlement attached. Thought must be given not only to the impact on carers and businesses but to how any such paid entitlement would interact with existing legislation and rights.
The hon. Member for North East Fife asked a number of important questions about the Department’s role in informing employers and carers of their new rights. Obviously, gov.uk is one source, but other organisations and charities that we work with, such as Carers UK and the Carers Trust, are also sources of information. There are also carers’ networks, employers and bodies such as ACAS and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. As part of our stakeholder engagement in business roundtables, we are considering what further work we can do to promote information on carers’ rights. I am a strong believer that rights are only as good as people’s awareness and ability to enforce them.
We are engaging with carers and businesses. We are working with advocacy groups such as Carers UK and the Centre for Care, and we are working across Government to provide a coherent approach. There is now a ministerial working group on unpaid carers, involving the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education, and it is discussing a cross-governmental approach.
Turning to the broader dimensions of the debate, the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) spoke with great sincerity about the issues faced by his constituents. The themes that he picked out in relation to his constituents, and to Wales more broadly, about awareness of those rights and whether people can afford to exercise them, were important and are replicated across the UK.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke with his customary sincerity—I do not say that just because he was pleasant about me—and conveyed the importance of carers in his constituency and across Northern Ireland. I commit to speaking to my counterpart in the Northern Ireland Executive about some of the points he raised.
I am conscious that there may be Divisions shortly and that I need to give the hon. Member for North East Fife an opportunity to respond, so I conclude by saying that we have heard the case that Members have made about the importance of supporting carers and their need to balance paid work against their caring responsibilities. All the issues raised are being considered in the Department’s ongoing work.
I genuinely value the heartfelt and constructive discussion we have had this afternoon. We all agree that unpaid carers deserve our recognition and support, and I am glad to see Members coming together to express that. I once again thank the hon. Member for securing this debate, and I am sure we will continue this discussion.
Groceries Code Adjudicator: Statutory Review
Justin Madders Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
As part of the fourth statutory review of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, the Department for Business and Trade will today publish a consultation seeking the views of stakeholders on the performance of the GCA.
The GCA was established by the Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013. Its role is to monitor and enforce the groceries supply code of practice, which the UK’s designated large grocery retailers must comply with when dealing with their direct suppliers.
Section 15 of the Act requires the Government to review periodically the performance of the GCA. The first review covered the period from the creation of the GCA in June 2013 to 31 March 2016. The second review covered the period from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2019 and the third statutory review covered the period from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2022.
The statutory review is not a review of the code nor of the remit of the GCA. The code is a competition measure owned by the Competition and Markets Authority as the UK’s independent competition authority.
The fourth review will look back over the period 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2025 and seek views and evidence which will allow the Secretary of State to make an assessment of the performance of the GCA against the measures set out in the Act. These measures are explained in the terms of reference.
As part of the consultation, the Government are interested in seeking views on how the GCA is operating following the establishment of the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator and any evidence of unfair contractual practices that may have a negative impact on parts of the supply chain not covered by the code or the fair dealings regulations made under the Agriculture Act 2020.
The Groceries Code Adjudicator Act requires the Government to consult with the following:
the GCA;
the Competition and Markets Authority;
the retailers subject to the code;
one or more persons representing the interests of suppliers;
one or more persons representing the interests of consumers; and
any other appropriate person—the Secretary of State has not identified any specific person or persons here and welcomes contributions from any interested person.
The invitation to submit comments and evidence can be accessed at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/groceries-code-adjudicator-gca-statutory-review-2022-to-2025 and stakeholders have until 5 August 2025 to respond. Following this, the Secretary of State will analyse the responses. A report on the Secretary of State’s findings will then be published and laid before Parliament.
The terms of reference for the GCA review have today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
[HCWS629]
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Justin Madders ExcerptsTuesday 13th May 2025
(3 weeks 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 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.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. This is only my second Bill Committee, so please accept my apologies if I fail in any of the protocol. I want to make a small point on our new clause 9, which interestingly, being on the subject of the EU, is grouped with amendments tabled by the official Opposition.
I feel that new clause 9 provides a certain compromise between the two positions. It is important to recognise that the EU continues to be one of our biggest trading partners. Currently, a lot of product legislation is aligned, and therefore divergence is a concern for business. A lot of our small enterprises find that exporting to the EU is an important part of their business, so they need clarity and certainty if any legislation or product safety regulations are going to change or diverge. Our new clause would ensure that any such change, whether a continued alignment or a divergence, is scrutinised and made the subject of a statement to the House. I would be grateful if Members supported the new clause, which I feel offers a compromise between the two positions.
Justin Madders
We have had several impassioned speeches from Conservative Members. Unfortunately, they are all wrong about what the Bill does. I will attempt to explain what the position actually is.
The Bill provides powers to make and amend relevant product regulations, so that the UK can act in the best interests of our businesses and consumers, which I think we would all agree is a good thing. That includes choosing to recognise or stop recognising EU product requirements. That is the key: there is absolute ability to recognise or not recognise as we see fit. This is not back-door submission to the EU or having our tummies tickled—I am not sure what the correct legislative term for that is. This is about the Government taking back control to set their own laws, as we determined back in 2016.
Amendment 3 would remove clause 1(2), which gives us a power to update regulations that address the environmental impact of products where similar provisions exist in relevant EU law. Increasingly, product regulations take account of the environmental impact of goods and provisions. The Bill will enable us, where it is in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers, to choose whether to update our laws or not. As I have set out, the Bill is about supporting the UK’s interests. Clause 1(2) means that, where it is in the UK’s interests, product regulation can make the same or similar provision as that contained in relevant EU law, which can simplify the regulatory landscape for UK businesses.
Turning to amendment 4, again, clause 2(7) allows us to act in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers. It enables us to provide that requirements in our law can be satisfied by meeting specified EU requirements, but it does not mean that we are obliged to recognise EU provisions, and it also gives us the power to end such recognition. We have been clear that decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis, which I think is what the shadow Minister was asking for, based on the needs of UK businesses and consumers, with appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 4 would take away that flexibility and would freeze EU law in time at May 2024. I mention May 2024 because that is when the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which effectively introduced the same powers as those in the Bill, were made.
Alison Griffiths
I am genuinely curious. The Minister says that new clause 4 would take away powers. Can he explain why he would possibly object to the introduction of a review panel within two years? Surely there cannot be any objection.
Justin Madders
I have not got on to new clause 4 yet. I will come to it shortly, and there are several reasons why we will resist it, but I was talking about amendment 4. All these numbers are very confusing.
I draw the Committee’s attention to what the then Minister—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who is now a member of the shadow Cabinet—said in May 2024 when introducing the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations:
“Where EU regulations change, we will consider whether to continue recognition of EU rules on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the views of industry and consumer safety.”—[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 13 May 2024; c. 4.]
That is exactly what we seek to do in the Bill. I know that there has been some change in the Conservative party since May 2024, but the current leader of the party was the Secretary of State for Business and Trade at the time. It is therefore curious, to say the least, that the Conservatives are now distancing themselves from their original position and seeking to take away our ability to make decisions on a case-by-case basis in the interests of UK consumers.
Amendment 5 and new clause 9 would require statements to be made to Parliament in relation to aligning with or diverging from EU law. I think them unnecessary. It is very clear that we will be taking decisions on the basis of what is in the best interests of the UK, rather than taking an ideological position in either direction. There may be instances in which the UK’s product regulation interests are different from the EU’s; there may be other instances in which our interests are similar. When making regulations under the Bill, we will provide Parliament with the usual information to make sure that their purpose and effect is well understood. That will provide Parliament with a clear explanation of the Government’s intent, and Parliament will have oversight of regulations made under the Bill. The amendments would add unnecessary extra processes and would not provide Parliament with any new information.
I turn to amendment 7. I remind hon. Members again of the purpose of the Bill, which is to ensure that the UK can deliver an effective domestic regulatory regime across a range of sectors. That is why the Bill will extend only to England and Wales, to Scotland and to Northern Ireland, as clause 13 sets out. There may be instances in which it is in the UK’s best interests to recognise a provision of relevant EU law when making domestic product regulations. In this instance, the recognised EU provision that must be complied with would be stated in UK law and would be enforceable only by UK authorities. If we wanted to update our laws to reflect a decision of the European Court of Justice, we would need to make a statutory instrument. There is no automatic taking of rules from the EU, as has been suggested.
Amendment 21 proposes that the UK should only recognise updated EU law if we incorporate the relevant updates into our domestic regulations, and the Secretary of State makes an explanatory statement if only recognising EU law under the Bill. The Bill is about ensuring that our domestic regulatory framework works for businesses and consumers. The Bill will allow us to make changes to our framework and reflect global best practice when doing so. The reason that it refers explicitly to the EU is that most of our product regulation is inherited from the EU, and we continue to recognise certain EU product requirements, which is the reason why the 2024 regulations were passed last year. This gives us the ability to review decisions on recognising certain EU product requirements. Clause 2(7) will allow us to do so on a case-by-case basis.
New clause 4 proposes a review panel. The Government have published a code of conduct, which has been drafted with valuable input from parliamentarians in the other place. It sets out the various guardrails that will be in place when the powers in the Bill are exercised; they include an impact assessment that analyses the expected effects of changes on businesses, consumers and the UK internal market. All secondary legislation made under the Bill will be subject to the statutory and non-statutory assessments set out in the code of conduct, including the principles of the better regulation framework.
Alison Griffiths
I assume that the code of conduct you mentioned will be voluntary. I would be interested to hear what parliamentary enforcement the code, or indeed the wider constraints referred to in new clause 4, will receive.
The Chair
Order. May I gently remind Members that they should not use the word “you”? “You”, in this context, is me, and I do not know anything about the code of conduct.
Justin Madders
It is entitled “Product Safety: Checks and balances on developing policy and legislation”. It has been referred to extensively in debates here and in the other place. It is the guardrail by which we will be judged when making further regulation in this policy area. It sets out our commitment to ensure that the wider impact of any changes is properly considered and reported on where appropriate. We are happy to be judged by the standards set out in the code of conduct, which was developed in conjunction with parliamentarians in the other place.
New clause 4 would add unnecessary bureaucracy. The matter is already covered by the code of conduct. The new clause would slow down our efforts to protect consumers and introduce regulation. I invite Opposition Members not to press their amendments.
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.
Sarah Gibson
I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(3A) Further, the Secretary of State may only make regulations under subsections (1) or (2) if satisfied that making the regulations will not result in reducing the necessary levels of consumer protection and regulatory standards in relation to products, with reference where applicable to equivalent product regulations or standards in force at the time.”
This amendment inserts safeguards to help ensure non-regression from existing legal protections to help ensure greater certainty and a level playing field. It addresses the omission on the face of the Bill of the current legal requirement that products placed on the market must in principle be safe.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones) would speak far more eloquently than I can, but I will make a couple of points to relay to the Committee why I think amendment 38 is important.
We are trying to ensure that the Secretary of State can make regulations under clause 1 only if satisfied that doing so will not lead to a reduction in consumer protection or regulatory standards. It is not about regression; it is about preserving the baseline of legal protection that we already have, especially when it comes to product safety and regulatory quality. We are all aware of recent cases of consumer products bought online that arrive in a substandard and dangerous state. I suspect that the Minister will say that no Secretary of State will lower existing legal expectations. That is great, but why not just put it in the Bill?
Amendment 38 would direct the Secretary of State to make reference to equivalent regulations in force at the time, offering clear and objective standards for comparison. It creates greater certainty for business and confidence for consumers. We think that it is important to include in the Bill the explicit legal requirement that products placed in the market must be, in principle, safe. Without that kind of safeguard, there is a risk of regulatory weakening over time, whether intentional or through oversight, which could undermine consumer trust, market fairness and even public safety.
By locking in a non-regression commitment, we would help to maintain a level playing field, especially for businesses in the UK that already meet high standards and do not want to be undercut by those who are cutting corners. It is about ensuring that as regulations evolve, we do not compromise the public interest in the name of flexibility and deregulation. I therefore urge the Committee to support the amendment.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chippenham for moving amendment 38. I reassure her that we take product safety very seriously, which is why we introduced the Bill. It is designed to ensure that only safe products are placed on the UK market, and it builds on a strong track record of protecting consumers, a goal with which we all agree.
The Bill includes robust safeguards to ensure that consumer safety and regulatory standards are not reduced when new regulations are made. The code of conduct, to which I have already referred, sets out our intelligence and engagement-led approach to assessing whether and how to update our product regulations. It means that we do not make changes in isolation; instead, we work closely with industry, consumer groups and regulators to build a clear picture of the risks, benefits and practical implications. This ensures that our regulatory decisions are evidence-based, proportionate and responsive to the evolving needs of businesses and consumers.
Product safety is often about carefully balancing the risks, while also considering consumer needs and expectations. An example that shows why we do not think it would be helpful to agree to the amendment is our current extensive engagement on potential reforms to furniture fire safety regulations. This requires weighing up the critical importance of fire resistance with the growing concerns about the health and environmental impacts of the fire-retardant chemicals used on furniture. No decisions have been made at this stage, but it is an area in which an evidence-based approach that balances those competing interests may lead to a different outcome, and that shows why tying our hands, by accepting the amendment, would not be a good idea.
We are confident that overall the Bill provides a robust and flexible framework to ensure that safety remains central, while enabling innovation and growth across the economy. Safety is the whole point of the Bill—it is central to what we are trying to achieve—but there will be occasions when different considerations come into play. The example that I gave is one very live example that shows why we do not think it helpful to accept the amendment.
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.
Aphra Brandreth
I thank my hon. Friend for that clear and important intervention. She is absolutely right: this is an opportunity to create incentives for growth and to position the UK as a global leader in innovation. We all know that we must continue to innovate. We want the UK to be at the forefront for so many possible emerging markets. We must do everything we can to support that. I urge Members to support the amendment.
Justin Madders
Economic growth is, as we are all aware, the No. 1 mission of the Government. The Bill will support growth by giving the Government the flexibility to ensure that regulations are tailored to the needs of the UK and can respond to global developments. It will ensure that regulations work effectively for businesses and consumers, and will continue to do so in future. We will empower businesses to have the certainty that they can invest and innovate.
I have to take issue with what my Cheshire neighbour, the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, said: the Bill does not mean dynamic alignment and we have been clear on that. Some of the doom and gloom from Opposition Members about the state of the economy fails to recognise that it grew by 0.5% in February, and that we are currently second in the G7 countries in terms of growth predicted for this year. There are some positive aspects on the economy.
In terms of innovation, we of course now have the Regulatory Innovation Office under the auspices of Lord Vallance, who I think is doing some excellent work, particularly in the areas of AI. In terms of the shadow Minister’s references to AI, AI will become relevant in this particular Bill only when it is actually manifested in a tangible product. I understand that fridges are a good example of where AI and tangible consumer products actually come into play. I am not quite sure how that works in practice, as my fridge does not talk to me, but I believe that some do, and are quite smart at working out when someone has run out of products.
The Chair
We now come to the Question that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. I feel that we have had a full debate on the clause; I do not feel that there should be further consideration. I am happy to put the Question. Are you content, Minister?
Justin Madders
I am always happy to be guided by your wisdom, Sir John.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
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
Sarah Gibson
I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, at end insert—
“(2A) Product regulations must include requirements in relation to an environmental impact assessment, and provisions related to the right to repair and the circular economy.”
This amendment guarantees that future regulations under the Act will include provisions which relate to the circular economy and granting consumers the right to repair products.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chippenham for making a clear argument about the importance of the circular economy. The amendments she spoke to seek to mandate that all product regulations made under the Bill require an environmental impact assessment, as well as provisions related to the right to repair and the circular economy. As Members will be aware, under the duty set out in the Environment Act 2021, Ministers and policymakers must already consider the environmental impact of all new Government policies. That has been reflected on and set out in more detail in the code of conduct, to which I referred Members today and which was in response to suggestions from Members of the other place on the kinds of issues to put forward in that code.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has set moving to a zero-waste economy as one of the top five priorities of the Department. To support that, he has committed to work with a wide range of stakeholders to develop a circular economy strategy and a series of sectoral reform road maps to deliver a circular economy transition. It would therefore be inappropriate to introduce a definition of the circular economy in legislation at this time.
Turning to the right to repair, it is important to note that product regulations made under the Bill will cover many types of products, some of which may be inappropriate to repair, such as cosmetics. The Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information Regulations 2021 introduced measures including requirements for repairability for the first time in Great Britain. Those regulations contribute to our circular economy objectives by increasing the lifespan, maintenance and waste handling of energy-related products. The Government’s aim is to introduce further right to repair measures when regulating individual products under the ecodesign for energy-related products regulations where appropriate. As those powers exist, it is unnecessary to amend the Bill in the manner being suggested.
I thank the hon. Member for Chippenham for her contributions, but hope that I have demonstrated why such amendments would be inappropriate and unnecessary due to existing legislation or work being done elsewhere across Government. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Sarah Gibson
I thank the Minister for his response. Given that work is being done elsewhere on the circular economy, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
Before we come to amendment 34, Minister, although you said that you will make a personal copy of the code of conduct available for me, I assume that it is available at the back of the room.
Justin Madders
I will have to check with the Clerks. We will ensure that it is available this afternoon if it is not there already.
The Chair
Thank you. As it has been referred to several times, it is important that all Committee members are able to reference it.
Sarah Gibson
Very possibly, but the rights of consumers in the UK still need to be protected, regardless of where those fulfilment centres are. I take the right hon. Member’s point, but I feel that the provisions in the amendment still need to be included. The amendment supports stronger protection, promotes fairness in the marketplace and ensures that everyone involved in putting products on the market plays by the same rules. It provides practical, targeted safeguards to ensure that the regulatory responsibilities reflect how modern supply chains operate, so I urge Members to support the amendment.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for Chippenham for tabling the amendment, which seeks to add to the list of persons in clause 2(3)(i) on whom product regulations may impose requirements. I recognise her good intentions behind the amendment to ensure that all relevant actors must be captured by our regulatory framework, including fulfilment houses.
Clause 2(3)(i) strengthens that approach by making it clear that any person engaged in activities related to a product can be brought within scope. That is a critical safeguard against loopholes that could be exploited by those seeking to operate outside the law as new, often complex business models emerge. My eyes have certainly been opened in recent months about some of the new ways in which such operations can deliver products to consumers. The Government have taken care to ensure that the powers in the Bill are robust enough to account for new actors arising from both technological innovation and shifts in supply chain practice.
I hope I can reassure the hon. Member that the Bill as drafted gives us the flexibility and breadth to tackle and cover any new developments in this policy area. Amendment 34 is unnecessary because actors, such as fulfilment houses and others that undertake any activity in relation to products, are already captured by clause 2(3)(i). I therefore ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.
Sarah Gibson
Given that the Government feel that this issue is captured elsewhere, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. However, further work needs to be done to ensure that third parties that are involved are given the protection that they need. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting)
Justin Madders ExcerptsTuesday 13th May 2025
(3 weeks 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)
Alison Griffiths
I thank my right hon. Friend for his wise words. I agree that it makes no sense whatsoever.
A noble Lord in the other place put it well, saying that we should be
“open to the best standards globally”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC56.]
accepting that goods made in high-standard, well-regulated economies like the US, Canada, Australia, Japan and the EU are safe for our markets. In fact, the UK’s own Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency already recognises approvals from such countries to get innovative products to market faster. Why not apply the same principle here, if this is truly about economic liberalism and global free trade from a pro-growth Government?
Why do the Government not support the amendments? By broadening recognition beyond the EU, we would reduce duplication and costs for British businesses that export and import worldwide. We would also bolster our sovereignty by making our own decisions about which international standards serve UK interests, rather than reflexively mirroring Brussels. The Government claim that subsection (7) is merely about “recognition”, not automatic alignment. But recognition should not be exclusive to Europe; it must extend to any standard that meets British safety and quality benchmarks, whether it originates in Brussels, Washington, Canberra or beyond.
Our amendments would ensure equal openness to global standards and end the special status of EU law in the Bill. This is a sensible alternative: a truly global Britain that maintains high standards without tethering itself to EU rules alone. I urge Government colleagues to accept these sensible amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Vaz. I think it is to your advantage that you have not already heard the same arguments on this issue as we heard this morning. I am sorry to say that we are still clearly at cross-purposes about what the Bill does and does not do. There was a ripple of laughter on the Government Benches when the shadow Minister accused us of being fixated with the EU. If we did a word count on how many times it has been mentioned in the debate so far, we would find that the Opposition Members are comfortably ahead.
Justin Madders
I am afraid that is just not correct; that is not how the Bill operates. I can explain again why the EU is referenced: it is because the majority of our product safety regulations derive from the EU. In the debate on the draft Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations last year, it was said:
“Last year, the Government held a series of roundtables to hear views from industry, including representatives from about 200 domestic and 50 international businesses. Industry in the UK and businesses that supply Great Britain from abroad indicated that ending CE recognition and mandating UKCA would cause issues for their businesses. It could increase costs and require duplicative processes, leading to higher prices and less choice for consumers in Great Britain. Some overseas suppliers also reported that they might reduce or stop sales to Great Britain entirely.” —[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 13 May 2024; c. 3.]
Justin Madders
Okay, Ms Vaz. It was also said in that debate:
“We should bear in mind some of the history and the proximity of the UK to EU markets.”—[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 13 May 2024; c. 4.]
Those were not my words, but the words of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who was the Minister at the time. It is clear that we are acting entirely consistently with the previous Government’s position. We recognise that there is a great deal of common history with the EU on product safety regulation, but the Bill gives us the power and the option to do as we see fit on a case-by-case basis. Conservative Members’ obsession with this issue does not reflect the reality of the Bill.
Amendment 20 would broaden the Bill to recognise product requirements in “relevant foreign law”, rather than only EU law. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents us from adopting other jurisdictions’ standards if we so wish, but “relevant foreign law” is very vague drafting. It could mean almost anything, and there is no definition in the Bill, so it is certainly not a provision that we can support. That approach is capable of being taken under the Bill anyway.
Alison Griffiths
The Minister is still not being clear with us about exactly why he objects to broadening the scope of the Bill to include the valuable jurisdictions that I mentioned. Instead, he is constraining the Bill to being about only the EU.
Justin Madders
The answer is that the Bill does not constrain us from doing as the amendment proposes; it is perfectly possible for us to do it anyway. However, the definition of “relevant foreign law” is not set out in the Bill, which would cause us difficulties later on.
Amendment 22 proposes that the UK recognise updated EU law only if we incorporate the updates into our domestic regulations, and that the Secretary of State must make an explanatory statement if recognising EU law under the Bill. As I have mentioned several times, there are a number of opportunities for the Government to set out exactly why we are taking any particular option. The explanation that I quoted from Hansard from last year is a good example of why we might choose to follow the EU, but there will be occasions when we will not. There will be impact assessments and opportunities for debates, and the code of conduct will guide us in that respect. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Alison Griffiths
The Minister talks about impact assessments and so on, but does not the framing of the Bill mean that the current Government and any future Government can ignore any impact assessments and carry on regardless? There is no parliamentary scrutiny and there are no meaningful safeguards.
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
Clause 2 clarifies the power given under clause 1, specifically what types of requirement the product regulations may cover. It enables regulations to specify the requirements that products to be marketed or used in the UK must meet. That will ensure that the UK can maintain high levels of product safety and compliance, support economic growth, and remove unsafe or non-compliant goods from the market.
The requirements may cover a range of activities related to products, and the list in clause 2 is not exhaustive. It includes, for example, how a product is marketed, how it is assessed, how it is installed and how it is manufactured and packaged. It also allows regulations to set requirements on the components of products, whether tangible or intangible. In that way, although the Bill relates to physical products, regulations may address the effects of intangible components, such as artificial intelligence software, on the risks that a physical product may present.
In terms of who it affects, the clause allows the regulations to set obligations on manufacturers, persons who market or import the products, online marketplace operators and other actors involved in the product journey. Thus, all actors involved in the product’s lifecycle, and therefore the product’s safety, may be covered by the regulations. Members will be aware of the breadth of product safety regulations already on the statute book. The breadth of clause 2 is necessary to ensure that all aspects of ensuring product safety are adequately covered now and in the future by regulations passed under the Bill.
While the growth of e-commerce models has provided consumers with greater choice and convenience, that cannot be at the expense of consumer protection or undermine compliant businesses. The rapid expansion of e-commerce has also brought significant challenges to regulatory frameworks, which were not designed with increasingly complex online and globalised supply chains in mind. Today, the sale of unsafe products to UK consumers via online marketplaces is a significant problem that has led to serious harm and fatalities. The clause will allow the Government to respond to those modern challenges by explicitly recognising the role of online marketplaces in ensuring that products sold via their sites are safe, while enabling businesses to innovate and grow.
We intend to use the powers in the Bill to clarify the responsibilities of online marketplaces. We will build on best practice to create a proportionate regulatory framework for online marketplaces to prevent non-compliant and unsafe products being made available on their sites, to ensure that sellers operating on their platform comply with product safety obligations, to provide consumers with appropriate information, and to co-operate with regulators, such as by establishing processes to remove unsafe products from the market quickly.
The Government will develop the details of the requirements with consideration of the practical implications and through stakeholder engagement and consultation before they are implemented via secondary legislation. The affirmative procedure will also apply when imposing product requirements for the first time on online marketplaces. This will ensure that the first regulations imposing new obligations on providers and platforms are subject to debate and appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.
As Members will be aware, currently we recognise certain EU product requirements, such as conformité Européenne marking, to support the interests of UK businesses and consumers. The clause will ensure that where the EU makes changes to product requirements, including those we recognise, we are able to recognise those changes where it is in our interest to do so. This would offer businesses the choice to use either the CE or UKCA marking to place a range of products on the GB market, helping them to avoid duplication of costs without compromising on consumer safety. The clause also enables the UK to end recognition of EU requirements where that is in our interests. The UK being able to respond to changes made by the EU to product requirements that we recognise will allow us to give businesses the regulatory clarity they need.
Aphra Brandreth
I thank the Minister for his remarks. If he says that these things will be done if they are in the country’s interest, what is the problem with bringing that back to the House to be debated and agreed? The problem we have, Ms Vaz, is that Ministers are to have discretion to decide what is in the country’s interest, when we think that should be for Parliament to decide.
Justin Madders
I understand the point being made. We have already made it clear that there will be a number of occasions when we bring regulations under the affirmative procedure—for example, when a new power of entry is created; when regulations are disapplied in the case of an emergency; when a criminal offence is created or widened; when information sharing provisions are introduced; when cost recovery procedures are established; where changes are made to primary legislation; when the definition of an online marketplace is amended; when requirements relating to the marking of products and online marketplaces are introduced for the first time; when requirements on persons who control online marketplaces are introduced for the first time, and so on. I suggest that there will be ample opportunity for Parliament to have its say and scrutinise regulations made under the Bill.
Finally, I turn to the technical standards that will be developed or updated. Technical standards set out practical ways in which a requirement may be met, to help manufacturers in meeting their obligations. Currently, they can be used to demonstrate compliance with a particular product requirement, and are often prepared and adopted by recognised bodies such as the British Standards Institution. The reference to standards in clause 2 makes clear that regulations will maintain this practice, and that will therefore help to provide clarity to manufacturers and traders on how to comply with regulatory requirements through the use of these standards.
Alison Griffiths
I ask the Minister to speak slightly slower; I am partially deaf and am really struggling to hear him. I am grateful for his forbearance.
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.
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.
Alison Griffiths
I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a very serious moment. It might appear to be just a line in a Bill, but it could have far-reaching consequences that are far greater than Government Members are considering at the moment. Parliament must debate and decide such grave matters, not rubber-stamp them after the fact.
Taken together, our amendments champion a pro-business climate. Effective regulation should not mean endless state interference. We can secure compliance in smarter, targeted ways by information sharing and using civil sanctions for minor breaches, rather than unleashing these unbridled powers. I urge Ministers to accept amendment 26 or, at least, to provide iron-clad assurances for the record.
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
Justin Madders
As my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash most elegantly put it, metrology is a long-standing part of our progress as a species and as a country, and it will no doubt play an important part in the future. He talked about the importance of experts. Other Members in the past have said that we have had enough of experts, but this is clearly an area where expert opinion will be very important. Metrology is critical to ensuring the accuracy of measuring instruments and the quantities in which goods are sold. In turn, that will boost consumer confidence and ensure that we have a level playing field. We require the powers in clause 5 to make changes to our metrology regime to protect consumers, ensure accuracy and, critically, support innovation and technological progress.
Amendment 27 would remove subsection (2) from the clause, which would prevent us from updating requirements in the metrology framework to reflect changing consumer behaviour and business markets. For example, UK consumers and businesses spend many billions of pounds each year on goods sold by weight or measure, such as packaged food and drink. Subsection (2) sets out powers to make legislation that ensures the accuracy of quantity marking on such packaged goods.
As one would expect, the weights and measures legislation where those elements are currently prescribed is very technical, setting out the detailed methods of ensuring that quantities are within the permitted margins of error. Without subsection (2), we would be unable to incorporate in legislation any technical advances in quantity measurement, meaning that consumers and businesses could potentially lose out on more accurate ways of measurement in the future. Additionally, the removal of subsection (2) on its own would reduce the overall clarity of the clause, because a redundant reference to subsection (2) would remain in the rest of the clause.
Again, the alarm has been raised about what we are going to do with the Bill. We had the discussion in the other place about how this was somehow a secret plot to abolish the pint. We responded by ensuring that there was very clear protection for the pint in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash stated, making sure that consumers have confidence by ensuring that measures are accurate and up to date is an essential component of us continuing to progress scientifically. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
The Chair
Before I call Dame Harriett, I will ask her to address her remarks to clause 5 more widely.
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.
Aphra Brandreth
It is still not entirely clear from subsection (3)(c) and (d) what that “something” is. Rather than just referring to those provisions, will the Minister clarify what “something” means, instead of referring it back to the relevant authorities, when we still do not know exactly what they will be required to enforce?
Justin Madders
I refer the hon. Member to clause 5(5), which talks about quantities, goods and units of measurement, which is the broad ambit of the areas where these powers will apply.
Amendment 29 seeks to prevent regulations made under the Bill from creating product regulation and metrology enforcement powers and functions. At present, product legislation provides a patchwork of enforcement powers across numerous pieces of legislation. That has caused complexity over the decades, so we are seeking to introduce new enforcement powers that are able to meet changing demands without the continuous process of layering that we have seen in recent decades, which has caused confusion and added complexity to the current framework.
As I mentioned earlier, there is precedent for including enforcement powers within regulations, including in the Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011 and the Personal Protective Equipment (Enforcement) Regulations 2018. I believe that the issues in this debate are the same as those that we discussed earlier; therefore, I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment.
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.
Sarah Gibson
The Liberal Democrats are supportive of the amendments, specifically amendments 8 and 9, which would take the remaining regulations subject to the negative procedure and make them subject to the affirmative procedure. These powers raise serious constitutional concerns. They risk undermining Parliament’s role and shifting too much authority to the Executive. Such powers should be tightly constrained and used only when genuinely essential and accompanied by robust safeguards, including clear limits on the scope of the mandatory scrutiny procedure. We must be vigilant: laws passed by Parliament should not be easily rewritten by Ministers behind closed doors without full debate or democratic accountability. We are therefore supportive of the amendments, and I urge the Government to realise them.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the hon. Members for West Worcestershire and for Chippenham for the measured way in which they have put forward their concerns, which take us back to where we started this morning. One of the central debates about the Bill concerns the level and balance of the powers in it, and ensuring that the right level of scrutiny is applied to regulations made under it. I believe that we have demonstrated through our actions in the other place that that balance has changed, and that we have struck the right note.
Amendments 8 and 9 would make all regulations made under the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure. As introduced, the Bill required new regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure in a range of important areas, such as emergency powers and the creation of a criminal offence. However, having heard some of the concerns mentioned in the other place, we went further and amended the Bill so that the affirmative procedure would be applied to more areas, including when we impose product requirements on a new category of economic actor for the first time. We believe that that strikes the right balance between the need for scrutiny, appropriate use of parliamentary time, and the flexibility needed to keep our product and metrology regulations up to date. I will not remind Members of the quotes I gave from Ministers in the previous Administration who made similar points.
Amendments 10 to 13 are concerned with how the Bill may amend or repeal existing primary or secondary legislation. I understand the concerns about Henry VIII powers, but we heard the concerns and points expressed by peers and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and have removed almost all the Henry VIII powers from the Bill.
Alison Griffiths
Does the Minister not agree, though, that amendments 10 and 11 are morally necessary to uphold the role of Parliament as the supreme legislative authority in the United Kingdom?
Justin Madders
I am not sure whether I would say they are morally necessary. It is quite normal for there to be some Henry VIII powers in most legislation, and I will now explain why that is not something that we need to trouble ourselves with too much in relation to the Gun Barrel Proof Act 1868, which I am sure all Members have familiarised themselves with. That is, as I have already demonstrated by reading its title, a very old and highly technical piece of legislation. It covers the parameters of the process of approving a firearm, including the archaic governance elements of the Birmingham proof house. It was passed in 1868, when there was a thriving Birmingham gun trade, which I presume no longer exists. To give Members some indication of—
Laurence Turner
I rise merely to confirm that the trade does indeed continue, and that one of the two remaining proof houses is in the Digbeth area of Birmingham.
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.
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.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 12, page 12, line 21, at end insert—
“(i) provision described in section [Product recall].”
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.
Sarah Gibson
With that in mind, I will be happy to withdraw the amendment and therefore new clause 12, but as soon as Royal Assent is received, I will remind the Minister of exactly what he has said today. I will bring the subject up again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 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.” —(Dame Harriett Baldwin.)
This amendment requires that any regulations made under the Act that amend or replace primary legislation be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
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.)
Oral Answers to Questions
Justin Madders Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Across my constituency in recent weeks we have experienced severe delays to post in those areas served by the Huntingdon delivery office. That follows a recent restructuring of the workforce and changes to delivery routes. Rural communities and businesses, in particular, have been impacted, with missed hospital appointments and several businesses telling me that it is affecting their ability to receive and therefore pay invoices. Will the Minister urgently investigate those ongoing and worsening delays in Huntingdon, and write to me with the outcome of his findings?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I had to wait 50 minutes for a question, Mr Speaker, but this is an important one and I share the hon. Member’s concerns. We regularly meet Ofcom to discuss the performance of Royal Mail, and I will certainly write to him about the discussions we have in respect of his constituency.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What discussions has the Minister had with his counterpart in Northern Ireland about encouraging young people into casual hospitality employment, to teach them about the benefits of work and the importance of managing money?
Package Travel Regulations: Consultation
Justin Madders Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
The current Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018 set a series of requirements for organisers of package holidays and linked travel arrangements and provide bespoke protections for travellers. As the way we book holidays evolves, it is important that these regulations remain fit for purpose—for both consumers and travel providers.
The Government’s previous 12-week call for evidence (18 September to 13 December 2023) targeted stakeholder engagement, and externally commissioned consumer research highlighted a number of areas within the regulations that may benefit from revision and reform. This is why we are launching this consultation.
We propose to retain the principle behind the regulations—that consumers should be offered protection when purchasing package holidays. However, there is room to improve the framework to achieve economic growth and regulatory simplification. The proposed changes to the regulations aim to facilitate growth, increase consumer choice, and simplify the existing regulations, making them easier for business to comply with and for consumers to understand.
We intend to look at the following areas as part of the consultation:
Reforming the domestic package market to exempt domestic (UK) holidays that do not contain a booked travel element from the regulations. Other existing consumer protections will still apply.
Reform Linked Travel Arrangements by either removing or simplifying the definition of LTAs.
Examine the case for setting a time limit for third parties to provide redress to organisers where the third party has contributed to the event but has not already provided redress directly to the consumer. This is to respond to difficulties some package organisers have in exercising their right to recoup refund moneys from suppliers.
Further technical changes to make clearer what services are within the scope of the regulations, and to reform measures around insolvency protection.
Next steps
To support these objectives, the Department for Business and Trade has published a consultation on the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018, which is available on www.gov.uk. The consultation will be open for 12 weeks. We encourage all interested stakeholders to respond. Subject to the outcome of this consultation, the Government will make a final decision on whether and how to change the regulations. I am placing a copy of the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS577]
Non-disclosure Agreements
Justin Madders Excerpts(2 months 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
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Betts.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) on securing this debate. I remember sitting as the shadow Minister on Report of the Employment Rights Bill, listening to her speak about her amendment to the Bill in that debate. All too often, we sit in the main Chamber and listen to speeches from Members in all parts of the House that are, perhaps loosely, hung off handouts from Whips.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
By you. [Laughter.]
Greg Smith
I can say in response to the Minister’s quip from a sedentary position that I have never spoken with a handout from the Whips.
Sometimes, we sit there in the main Chamber listening to the usual yah-boo of party politics, but every so often there is a speech—it can come from any part of the House—that makes our ears prick up a little bit and think, “They have a point.” The Member is making a genuine case about a real grievance or a real problem out there in our country that needs resolution, almost undoubtedly via primary legislation. I therefore congratulate the right hon. Lady on her passion and dedication to this cause, and on ensuring that we continue to debate it here in Westminster Hall this morning.
The right hon. Member was absolutely right to highlight the two-tier absurdity brought about under the current law. I was particularly struck by her point that 27 states in the United States of America have passed legislation on this issue. The United States is hardly a nation that is looked to for high-end employment rights. It is a country where, for example, most people get only two weeks’ holiday a year, and where maternity and paternity rights are far short of those we have here, so the fact that those 27 states have passed laws on this issue in varying respects is something that we should reflect on.
During the debate the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) spoke powerfully about the creative sector; the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) clearly brought extensive experience of this matter from her time as a solicitor; my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) brought his usual eloquence to supporting this cause; the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) gave powerful examples from his experience working for a trade union—the example he gave about a school setting was particularly powerful—and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) powerfully cited a local case. The hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who is Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, gave a particularly powerful speech, reminding us that of course this issue is not about banning NDAs in their entirety, but about stopping this very particular abuse.
In fact, the hon. Lady’s most powerful point—on top of the one about self-employment, which is a subject that I will always prick my ears up about, having been self-employed myself for 15 years before I entered this House in 2015—was that people are being forced into signing these agreements at the lowest ebb of their lives, at the time when they are at their most vulnerable. We should face that fact and reflect upon it.
I am grateful for this opportunity to continue the debate on non-disclosure agreements, which have become a tool that too often is used to silence victims of harassment, discrimination and abuse in the workplace. This is not just a matter of employment law; it is a fundamental issue of justice, accountability and transparency. At their worst, NDAs allow perpetrators to escape scrutiny, enabling toxic workplace cultures to persist unchecked. Undoubtedly, some victims, facing an imbalance of power, are pressured into signing away their right to speak out in exchange for a financial settlement. This not only denies individuals the justice they deserve, but prevents organisations, and indeed our society at large, from learning from past failure and making necessary change.
Of course, we are not in any way suggesting that every single NDA out there is inherently wrong. There are legitimate reasons for their use in protecting trade secrets or commercially sensitive information. However, when they are used to cover up wrongdoing, they become a shield for bad employers and an obstacle to a fair and open working environment. Like other Members, I believe that the vast majority of employers do act in good faith and are good people, but where it goes wrong and they are acting in bad faith or—let’s say it how it is—criminally, NDAs should not be a shield for that.
The Government have said they are committed to tackling workplace discrimination and harassment. There are elements of the Employment Rights Bill that the Opposition support, but we had a particular debate about the provisions on third-party harassment. I say this in a spirit of wanting to solve this problem: we all want to see harassment stamped out, but those provisions will have the unintended consequence of what we call the “banter ban”, whereby an employee can take their employer to court if they happen to overhear something that politically offends them in a hospitality setting or whatever it might be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Betts.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) on securing this debate. As the shadow Minister said, her contribution on Report of the Employment Rights Bill was particularly powerful and certainly helped to shape some of my thinking about where we need to go on this. I am grateful, too, for all the thoughtful and considered contributions from all parts of the Chamber.
Let me pay my respects to the individuals whose stories we have heard both today and on Report—stories of awful exploitation, harassment and terrible treatment, which have been silent for far too long. As my right hon. Friend said, often we are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in the workplace, and at the most vulnerable time for them. Often, only those who have the means and the confidence to take on their employer escape the clutches of NDAs.
I wish to acknowledge the comments made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, about the work that the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) has done in this area. She has campaigned tirelessly, as have many Members, alongside organisations such as Can’t Buy My Silence to ensure that victims of sexual harassment, discrimination and bullying are able to speak up and get the help that they need.
Many of the issues that we are debating today are not new, but things have been talked about that I was not aware of, such as the classical music sector, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). Clearly, there is widespread concern about the use of non-disclosure agreements. I recognise that this is an important issue. As we know, NDAs or confidentiality clauses are legally binding. Their intention is to keep information confidential but, as many Members have said, they also have a legitimate role in contracts to protect trade secrets, intellectual property and commercially sensitive information.
Josh Babarinde
Does the Minister agree that the purpose of an NDA is, for example, to protect the identity of the 11 spices that KFC uses in its chicken, and not to protect sex pests? If so, what action will he take, as soon as possible, to protect those victims and survivors over the rich and the powerful?
Justin Madders
I shall come on to the action that we are taking a bit later. None the less, that is an important point: there are legitimate uses for NDAs and it is important that we get that balance right, making sure that those commercial and legitimate business interests are protected while, at the same time, not deliberately silencing victims. NDAs should never be used to silence victims of harassment or any other misconduct in the workplace.
There are important legal limits to the use of NDAs in the employment context. Any clauses of an NDA that were to stop a worker from blowing the whistle, for example by making a protected disclosure to a lawyer or a prescribed person, are not enforceable. The use of an NDA by an employer could also amount to a criminal offence if it is an attempt to pervert the course of justice or conceal a criminal offence. A settlement agreement under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and any confidentiality clauses it contains would be void if the worker did not receive independent advice on the terms and effects of that agreement.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service have both published guidance on NDAs to ensure that workers and employers understand those limitations, but we have heard from many hon. Members that the guidance is not being observed in practice as much as we would expect. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley mentioned the guidance from the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which has issued an updated warning notice to remind the legal profession that NDAs should never be used to try to prevent the lawful disclosure of serious misconduct or potential crime. The SRA is also clear that evidence of the use of inappropriate clauses in such agreements may lead to disciplinary action.
Nevertheless, we hear the calls to go further, and the issues raised today highlight some of the key areas that we want to further investigate. It is clear that there are still serious concerns about how employers are using NDAs to silence employees. We have heard today that victims often feel that they are left with little choice but to leave their employer, without any assurance that their employer is addressing the misconduct and dealing with the perpetrator.
Martin Wrigley
Does the Minister agree that we need to change the social contract for companies such that they no longer take all the benefits of limited liability and simply focus on shareholder value? Will he support my better business Bill—the Company Directors (Duties) Bill—which will have its Second Reading on 4 July, and meet me to discuss it? The Bill is backed by some 3,000 businesses, the Institute of Directors and others. As I mentioned, it would balance the responsibility of company directors with the interests of shareholders, employees and the environment; fundamentally change their basic responsibilities in how they run their companies; and therefore turn the purpose of the company to good, including that of the employees. It would prevent many of the circumstances that we are describing today.
Justin Madders
I have not seen the hon. Member’s Bill, and I suspect that its application is rather broader than just to the topic we are debating. We are looking at corporate governance, and in due course we intend to introduce legislation that may pick up on a number of the issues addressed by his Bill.
As we have touched on, a number of recent reports, such as the Women and Equalities Committee’s “Misogyny in music” and the Treasury Committee’s “Sexism in the City”, highlight that NDAs do not stand up in a court of law and are often used to chill victims.
The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) spoke about the good work of the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority. I understand that the Culture Secretary recently met the authority to discuss how they can work together to improve workplace standards and behaviour in the creative industries. We want to support the authority moving forward; that is a matter for the Culture Secretary, and I am sure that she continues to engage with it.
Louise Haigh
The Minister talked about protected disclosures, including in relation to criminal offences. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) said, this area of law is complex, and low-income workers in particular cannot access the kind of legal advice that she provided so authoritatively to her clients. Does the Minister agree that we therefore need to end the blanket use of NDAs so that it is much clearer that victims of abuse, harassment or discrimination cannot be silenced? It is next to impossible for them to navigate this complex area of law without specialist legal support, which they are clearly struggling to access.
Justin Madders
My right hon. Friend makes an important point: this is a complex area for individuals to navigate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) spoke about her experiences in the profession, with which I am familiar. Non-legally qualified consultants often simply apply boilerplate clauses to agreements, which has a practical impact on the victim’s ability to explain how their employment ended. I have seen agreements that prevent people from even confirming that they have reached a settlement, which makes it doubly difficult for them to explain that when seeking future employment prospects. My hon. Friend also talked about the financial contribution that employers provide towards that advice, which does not always cover the cost of taking proper advice, rather than going through a rubber-stamping exercise. Both those issues highlight the inequality of arms in the workplace when disputes arise.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made an excellent contribution, as always. He was absolutely right to highlight that the original intention behind NDAs has been distorted. They were about commercial confidentiality and protecting business interests, but they are being used for wider, less justifiable purposes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) raised the terrible case of Mohammed al-Fayed. He was right to say that we do not know how many victims there are; some will not come forward because the gagging orders still prevent them from speaking out or make them feel that they cannot do so. Of course, we addressed that to some extent in the Employment Rights Bill, in which we now make it clear that a complaint of sexual harassment qualifies as a protected disclosure under the whistleblowing Act. We will never know whether that kind of protection would have prevented the atrocities committed by Mohammed al-Fayed, but it would at least have given people some reassurance that they could speak out and have additional protections.
Mrs Russell
As I understand it, the whistleblowing provisions in the Employment Rights Bill will let people go to the police or a regulator, but they do not automatically mean that they can go to the media, although they might be able to in some circumstances. If the Minister does not mind my saying so, what he has described is possibly not a blanket solution to the problem.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend highlights some of the limitations of the whistleblowing Act, in terms of what qualifies as a protected disclosure. As I have commented previously, that legislation needs to be looked at again.
The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) talked about the widespread use of NDAs in the NHS. That highlights that there is no sector of the economy in which such agreements are not in use.
The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) talked about the use of NDAs in Government Departments. I will make inquiries about that and get back to him, and I will pass on the comments of the hon. Member for Newton Abbot to the Department of Health and Social Care.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North, Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, gave an informative and well researched speech, as always. She was right that this is not just about protecting victims; there is a wider issue relating to the growth agenda. These issues are debilitating and damaging for victims and can have an impact on their ability to return to work. She made the important point that it is nearly always the victim who has to leave their employment and move on. As we have heard, they do not always have a clear explanation to give prospective employers about why they have had to leave. It is usually the man, who is often in a position of greater power, who stays in work, and sometimes advances off the back of the claim. That relates to the culture in organisations: victims are not protected and perpetrators are often supported because they are seen to be in a more powerful position in the workplace. My hon. Friend also made an important point about protecting self-employed people and contractors in particular industries. We will need to consider that further.
On the current legislation being passed, we are pressing ahead with plans to commence the provisions relevant to NDAs in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 and the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, as a number of hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley, mentioned. When commenced, section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act will ensure that clauses in NDAs cannot be legally enforced where they seek to prevent victims of crime from reporting a crime, co-operating with regulators or accessing confidential advice and support. It will provide that clauses in NDAs that seek to prevent disclosures that are necessary to access confidential advice and support needed to cope with and recover from the impact of crime are unenforceable.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Eastbourne, talked about a new mother’s experiences of discrimination and the consequences of that. The Employment Rights Bill will provide a new baseline of protection, enhanced dismissal protections for pregnant women and mothers, extra requirements to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment—something that has been a matter of considerable debate—and protection of workers against third-party harassment. It will also make it clear that the disclosure of information can be a protected disclosure. We think all those things will improve the workplace experience, but I hear the calls to go further.
We know that there are calls to roll out the approach in higher education to the whole economy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley provided a clear example of how the provisions in the Employment Rights Bill will not apply to an outsourced worker working in higher education. The legislation has not yet been enacted, but the Government intend to press on with it shortly. I share concerns that something needs to be done, but the changes that have been proposed through amendments to the Employment Rights Bill would need a significant amount of engagement with workers, employers and stakeholders, as well as an assessment of the impact on sectors and across the economy.
This is a complex area of policy, as we have heard today, and it is important to take a balanced approach to make sure that we reach the right end point. There are different views and opinions. There are organisations and hon. Members calling for a ban on NDAs in specific circumstances. Some advocate for a greater say for victims in when they can be legitimately used. Others warn about unintended consequences for victims who are looking to settle a claim to avoid the stress of litigation.
Louise Haigh
I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous with his time. I completely accept that there are different versions of the amendment that could be successful and I accept the need to consider the impact on businesses. Will the Minister meet me and other interested Members to look at a way in which this amendment could be written that would satisfy him and the Government? We have heard today that there is support from the official Opposition and the Lib Dems. There is every chance that this could receive serious cross-party support in the other place and pass into the Employment Rights Bill. Will he meet me and others to discuss exactly what the amendment could look like?
Justin Madders
I am always happy to meet my right hon. Friend. It would be good to get cross-party support on our Employment Rights Bill—something that has been sadly lacking in the Commons so far. The shadow Minister is grinning knowingly—I am not sure whether that means we shall ever get him on board for the whole package. I am happy to work with individual Members. I would just note that there was a consultation under the shadow Minister’s party’s watch, and a number of proposals were developed that never saw the light of day because the previous Government did not introduce an employment rights Bill. His late conversion to this cause is welcome, but he should recognise that his party perhaps did not do enough in government. Some of the recommendations made under the previous Government did not go as far as is reflected in the general mood of the Chamber today.
There is a range of issues that we need to consider to get this right, such as whether some sectors, such as the creative industries, need particular protection, and the different relationships—we have heard about self-employed people and how this would operate for those in the gig economy. We can have the debate about whether they are self-employed or workers: I am sure that will be returned to on many occasions. We also need to consider the international approach—we have heard some examples from across the pond, and Ireland recently introduced its own legislation—and how the legislation will apply to different groups with protected characteristics.
It is important to ensure that any work we do does not create a new loophole for clever lawyers to exploit, so it should be future-proofed as much as possible. We also need to ensure that any legislation includes an option for a victim to freely choose to have an NDA without pressure, if that is what they want. We need an awful lot of discussion to get that right. Hon. Members have mentioned access to justice and legal advice that is timely, correct and affordable. A cultural shift from employers is also important. Legislation can say what it wants, but unless we get employers to tackle rather than protect the perpetrators of these terrible acts, we will continue to debate these matters.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley said, I am happy to work with hon. Members. I recognise that non-disclosure agreements are important and need looking at. I thank her for securing the debate and am happy to continue working with her and other hon. Members to get this right.
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
Justin Madders ExcerptsTuesday 1st April 2025
(2 months 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)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for what has been an interesting and, at times, informed debate on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in opening, the Government’s primary mission is economic growth to help rejuvenate our high streets and promote innovation, and this legislation is an important element in that drive and will further cement the UK as a world-leader in product regulation and safety. The legislation will have real-world impacts that we can all relate to. As we have heard, product safety failures can have devastating consequences, and we are determined that our regulatory framework be as agile and flexible as possible in its response to new threats and complex modern supply chains but without stifling innovation.
There have been an awful lot of contributions, and I will try to cover as many of them as I can. I think it is appropriate that I start by referencing the excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), which lit up the whole House. He is, of course, the first meteorologist to have spoken in this Chamber—
Justin Madders
Metrologist. He may well be on the Bill Committee, because he has definitely talked his way on to it with his insight into this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) almost matched him in terms of technical specificity, and his historical knowledge was also very important. He has just finished sitting on a Bill Committee with me, but he is talking his way on to this one as well—perhaps I should not say that, because it might encourage colleagues not to speak in future debates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), were among a number of Members who talked about the issue of e-bikes, which is a real concern. I am sure the whole House has been moved by the tragic cases of e-bike fires that we too often hear about. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the tragic death of Sofia Duarte. I met her mother last year to talk about what we can do through this Bill to prevent such tragedies from happening again.
In the wake of the increasing number of fires associated with e-bikes and lithium-ion batteries, there have been calls from businesses, trade associations, consumer groups and parliamentarians to tighten up the law. This legislation will allow us to ensure that the UK’s product safety framework can keep up with technological developments, including on e-bikes. The powers in the Bill will allow us to update regulations to ensure the best protections for consumers and consistency with the majority of reputable retailers.
The Government are currently considering how best to use the powers in the Bill to regulate these products in an efficient and proportionate way, in particular to ensure that products that can pose a greater risk, such as lithium-ion batteries and e-bikes and e-scooters, are safe. That includes bringing forward powers in the Bill to better define online marketplaces and confer additional duties on them to help stop the sale of unsafe products, including converter kits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler) pointed out, this is a fast-moving environment, and the Bill will give us the flexibility to tackle that.
Clive Jones
Does the Minister agree that if a UK manufacturer wants to produce a product for the UK market, it should produce it to UK regulations, and if it wants to export it to Europe, it is sensible to produce that product to EU regulations, which will open up a massive market on our doorstep? Keeping up with EU regulations will generally be good for the British business economy and help economic growth.
Justin Madders
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson tempts me to set out a statement of policy, which the Bill is not intended to do. We want to give ourselves maximum flexibility in our ability to deal with issues as they arise. He talked in his speech about online marketplaces, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) talked about unsafe toys and button batteries, citing the fact that investigations have discovered that up to 90% of products purchased in online marketplaces are unsafe. Because we recognise that online marketplaces are in desperate need of regulation, the Bill will give us powers to clarify and modernise responsibilities for online marketplaces in a flexible and proportionate way, to protect consumers and create a fair playing field for law-abiding businesses. It will enable the Government to modernise the responsibilities of online supply chain actors.
While the growth of e-commerce has provided consumers with greater choice and convenience, it cannot be at the expense of consumer safety. We will continue to engage with consumer groups, businesses and online marketplaces in the development of specific online marketplace requirements to ensure that they are proportionate and to mitigate any costs to consumers. I can also confirm that it is the intention of the Government to consult on the duties for online marketplaces soon after Royal Assent and to bring forward subsequent regulations as soon as is practically possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) spoke with his customary passion about the ceramics industry in the Potteries. I acknowledge his ideas for protecting the industry. I am not sure whether this Bill is the right vehicle for his suggestion, but I will take it away and come back to him.
It is probably worth talking about the issue that seemed to vex Opposition Members rather a lot, which is whether this Bill is in some way a reset to EU laws by the back door. It is about domestic regulation and we are not rejoining the EU by the back door. The Bill is about giving us flexibility to ensure product regulation, now and in the future, that is tailored to the needs of the UK. Of course, there will be some instances when we will want to take a similar approach to the EU, but there will be other times when we will want to take our own approach. Those decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) said, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 gave significant powers to the Executive, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham, quoted me on that Act. It reformed 7,000 regulations, ranging across every function of society. Its regulations were far broader than those proposed in this Bill and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee called it “hyper-skeletal”, which is some way beyond the criticisms it levelled against this Bill.
Turning to the reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition, it is worth restating that the Bill is not about rejoining the EU. David Cameron commented that he wanted the Conservative party to
“stop banging on about Europe”,
but there seems to be some way to go before his words reach fruition, despite the fact that we left five years ago. The Bill gives us the necessary powers to ensure public regulation, now and in the future, meets the interests of the UK. The powers set out in the Bill will be used solely and exclusively in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers.
I recognise that the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee raised concerns about this being a skeleton Bill, but the Government have considered those concerns and other representations made by Members in the other place. Our existing product regulations are necessary to keep consumers safe, and to provide clarity and a level playing field for businesses. They extend to many thousands of pages and cover a huge amount of technical detail. As the noble and learned Lord Pannick said in the other place,
“the practical reality is that technical regulations of the breadth and complexity that will be produced cannot sensibly be enacted by primary legislation.”
He went on to say that if we are required to use primary legislation every time we wanted to make a regulation on product safety, there would be
“little, if any, time for anything else.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 February 2025; Vol. 843, c. 1716.]
Conservative Members seem to have forgotten that since the Consumer Protection Act 1987, Governments of all stripes have recognised the need to make product safety regulations by secondary legislation. Since 1987, the Conservatives have been in power for 24 years, so they had more than enough time to find another way of dealing with product safety, but they did not choose to do that. We are taking a pragmatic approach. We have taken notice of some of the concerns raised about the powers of the Bill: we have removed a number of Henry VIII powers, introduced a consultation requirement, added additional affirmative resolution procedures and published a code of conduct that sets out the controls that we will have to ensure regulations are proportionate and evidence based. I am grateful to Members of the other place for setting out some of their concerns.
As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), pointed out, the Conservatives did not introduce the Bill in the last Parliament; I am happy to confirm that that was the case. That shows that there was a gap in the law that needed filling and the Conservatives failed to act on it.
Some of the important consumer groups in this country, such as Which?, recognised that action was needed. Sue Davies, head of consumer rights, protections and food policy said:
“It’s encouraging that the government is prioritising a Bill that should address the huge gap in consumer protections which allows online marketplaces to facilitate the sale of unsafe and illegal products without facing repercussions.”
If Members vote for the reasoned amendment, we will not be having any of those protections. I do not think any responsible party would move an amendment along those lines.
This Government are never going to compromise on safety. The Bill is essential to strengthening the rules and regulations needed to protect consumers, businesses and the public. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.