Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this important debate on the Bill. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Leong, to his place on the Front Bench and congratulate him on his appointment to the Government. I am sure he will do an excellent job. I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton of Doncaster. We were sparring partners in the other place and I am sure she will make a very strong contribution in this House.

The Bill appears beguilingly straightforward, benign and innocuous, but it contains some clauses that cause me a deal of concern and alarm, both for what is written in the Bill and—as my noble friend Lord Trenchard said—what is not written but omitted. I will concentrate my remarks on product regulation.

Naturally, we all support the imperative of responding to new product risks and opportunities, updating the law in respect of new and emerging business models in the supply chain, enhancing powers for market surveillance, working towards better product safety, including for products sold online, and addressing product recalls and traceability. The previous Government were committed to replacing and updating EU-derived regulations that were part of UK law, aiming to create a more coherent and effective product safety regime.

There is a consensus on the Government’s focus on innovation as a driver for the delivery of economic growth. That includes the safe development and supply of new technologies. As we know, a new modernised product safety regulatory framework has been needed for some time, as the Office for Product Safety and Standards pointed out in its 2018 report. New legislation was, of course, inevitable and probably advisable following the OPSS’s product safety review of March 2021, with the focus on updating the General Product Safety Regulations 2005. The previous Government legislated in secondary legislation that came into effect this month.

However, as noble Lords might expect, I have some reservations, particularly on Clauses 1(2) and 2(7), which contain powers to align UK laws with any EU environmental rules and a general power to provide that the EU standards shall apply respectively.

The language in Clause 2(7) is oddly technocratic but, at the same time, vague. It has significant ramifications in terms of a policy shift towards aligning with EU standards over time—dynamic alignment. Other noble Lords, such as my noble friends Lady Lawlor and Lord Frost, mentioned this. The Bill also does not fully elucidate the details of what types of products are covered by its provisions—it references “nearly all manufactured products”—so will the Minister clarify this for the House? Will alignment with the EU regulatory regime include the EU’s 2023 safety regulations, due to come into force in the EU in December 2024, and the revised EU product liability directive, in the next few years? What steps will Ministers take to both consult with business and allow Parliament appropriate scrutiny and oversight of ministerial decisions? If the latter is not the case, will the Minister tell us whether the Government will bring forward primary legislation on product liability in the near future?

As Which? has rightly stated, this is an enabling Bill, a Henry VIII Bill, which allocates vast powers. The devil will of course be in the detail of the secondary legislation. I had a wry smile when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, reproaching my noble friend Lord Sandhurst for referencing the Henry VIII powers in the Bill. We were tripping over legal experts on the Cross Benches during the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, who pontificated and opined on that Bill’s traducing of parliamentary sovereignty by its Henry VIII powers. But I fear that the noble Lord is alone today and that his Cross-Bench noble friends who share his views are not present. The strange thing is that we now have a Labour Government, which might account for that.

The briefing paper from Which? rightly points out the lack of detail in the Bill on the duties and obligations of those supplying products in online marketplaces, for instance. I therefore invite the Minister seriously to consider the proposals outlined by Which? in the helpful briefing paper: an explicit set of provisions to detail key duties on online marketplaces and a commitment to publish, in good time before the duties come into force, any draft secondary legislation on how these duties will work in practice, and to consult key stakeholders on the design of those regulations.

Which? also made the very important point that a new parliamentary committee should be dedicated to scrutiny and to reviewing any proposed changes to product and metrology regulations, especially where the UK is opting to diverge from existing rules. I do not have a problem with defending the divergence of rules if it is in the long-term interest of UK businesses, looking outwards to global regulatory regimes—if it is defensible, of course.

Which? also proposes a commitment to ensure that, in the future, consumer and industry groups are given consultation rights over any significant rule changes that impact specific products and markets, in good time and before draft secondary legislation is published. I hope the Minister will address that in his speech.

As has been mentioned, in fairness, the Bill also contains provisions that allow the UK to end recognition of EU product regulations. I concede that, but the Minister might explain how such a decision might be triggered, what scrutiny Parliament will be able to exercise on that policy and what evidential basis will be required.

On the specific content of Clause 2(8), can the Minister explain the likely scenarios that would cause him or her to make reference to

“the social, environmental and economic impact”

of the Bill’s provisions and the rationale for this subsection, given that the Bill already complies with human rights provisions and environmental legislation? Dare I say that Clause 2(8) might just invite more litigation and judicial review? On that basis, it is perhaps unwise to place it in the Bill.

The Bill is opaque in many respects. It is a concern that the impact assessment prays in aid the enabling nature of the powers in this primary legislation and is therefore silent on the likely monetary costs of the Bill to business. Page 11 of the impact assessment specifically states:

“Impacts have therefore not been monetised and are discussed qualitatively”.


While the rationale for the Bill appears clear and unambiguous—that, at present, the UK lacks the power to end recognition or to recognise new and updated EU regulations in Great Britain—I am unconvinced of the corollary argument that, ipso facto, the UK will fall behind the EU and other jurisdictions and markets in its innovation, technological advances and competitiveness. I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Foster, but I think it is important to take our time with the considered scrutiny of the Bill, because the devil will be in the detail—notwithstanding what he said about specific product issues, which are of course very important.

At the risk of being labelled deranged by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I refer noble Lords back to recent history and the ill-fated Chequers White Paper of 12 July 2018, the most consequential part of which considered the future economic partnership between post-Brexit UK and the European Union. These proposals were thrice rejected in the other place, and indeed by the EU in September 2018. The May Government proposed a common rulebook—I am sure we all remember that—for all goods, including agri-food, and a treaty commitment to harmonisation to provide frictionless trade. In addition, the PM promised binding commitments on state aid and competition, and non-regression clauses on level playing field issues, and the UK was de facto to remain in the customs union, which was then labelled the combined customs territory. Amazingly, senior civil servants briefed the EU that Chequers would give the UK no competitive advantage in business and commerce in the future, which seemed an odd position for the UK Government to take. There was no mandate, electorally or in Parliament, for what was effectively dynamic alignment —without a vote or a voice, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said. I say in passing that I agreed with the vast bulk of my noble friend’s very well-articulated remarks.

Finally, the Bill potentially undermines His Majesty’s Government’s manifesto commitment to remain outside the single market, opens up disputes over the reach of the European Court of Justice in its interpretation of legacy EU law, and traps entrepreneurs and innovators in the UK into a legal and regulatory framework that is inimical to British competitiveness, global ambitions and economic growth and prosperity. Let the Minister be assured that a number of us noble Lords will watch the progress of the Bill hawk-like and will fully hold him and his Government to account.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Grand Committee

It would give similar consultation rights as there are now in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, so we would be in the same position as we are with that Act, and it would go a long way to answering at least some of the questions posed on scrutiny by committees of this House. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in Committee. I begin by apologising on behalf of my noble friend Lady Lawlor, who is detained on a train. I am somewhat at a disadvantage in reading her notes but, naturally, I support the sentiments contained in what would have been her speech. I also begin by putting on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for being prepared to debate and discuss these issues since Second Reading, his willingness to correspond with noble Lords on key issues, for holding a meeting with his officials, which was much appreciated, and substantially corresponding with my noble friend Lord Frost.

I am going to take the easy part first, which is to speak to my Amendment 33. I think it is apposite to look at the broader context of the Bill, bearing in mind the admonition that we should not repeat Second Reading remarks. All the amendments that I, my noble friend on the Front Bench and other noble Lords are moving today are in the context of the Bill, which is an extremely wide-ranging Bill that gives significant sweeping powers to Ministers. For instance, the UK in a Changing Europe document published just last week, its UK-EU Regulatory Divergence Tracker, makes the very pertinent point that the Bill

“is a very significant legislative change, with the government giving itself a broad power to proactively align with EU regulations … The exact range of regulations in scope is ambiguous, but it is evidently broad, with the bill’s explanatory notes referencing product safety, as well as emerging sectors like online marketplaces”.

With that in mind, and the skeleton nature of the legislation, as deprecated by my noble friend Lord Sharpe, we need to see my amendment in that context. Clause 2(3)(h) is the most egregious example of the potential issue at the heart of the Bill, which is that even existing provision in primary legislation may be replaced by provision in regulations. Many parts of the Bill, particularly in Clauses 1 and 2, are unfettered by any requirement for consultation, for criteria to be met or for meaningful preconditions to be satisfied. Indeed, the Bill clearly cuts across the guidance for departments that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee provided in its report of 15 October. My noble friend referred earlier to skeleton legislation, as well as the excoriating reports of the DPRRC and the Constitution Committee.

I remind noble Lords that this subsection relates to categories of

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

with all the caveats that we must accept that secondary legislation cannot, by convention, be amended. That leads us to a broader problem with the Bill in many clauses, particularly this one, which is that we have a double whammy. In the use of ministerial fiat, there is in effect no proper scrutiny in our Parliament and no proper oversight, because statutory instruments are very unlikely to be amended. Therefore, given that we have no fora in which to look at the details of the regulatory regime and the statutory instruments that will arise from the Bill—we no longer have a European Scrutiny Committee in the other place and we do not have a similar body in this House; we have a European Affairs Committee, which has a much wider remit—not only will we not be able to exercise that proper scrutiny but, having left the European Union, should we decide to shadow or dynamically align with regulations we will have no input on their effect but will effectively be cutting and pasting them into our domestic legislation.

In effect, we will have no mechanisms for scrutiny should we agree these clauses. We do not know the methodology by which a value judgment is made on the efficacy of any of these regulations on alignment. We have no measurement of criteria and no way to monitor or review the regulations at present, because there is no effective consultation process at the front end. For those reasons, I urge the Minister to look carefully at my amendment. It is not far reaching; it would specifically removes paragraph (h).

With that in mind, and for reasons of time, I am not particularly predisposed to go into detail on my noble friend Lady Lawlor’s amendments, other than to say that her Amendment 8 seems extremely sensible. Given the nature of the Bill and the wide-ranging powers that Ministers are seeking to exercise, potentially across vast swathes of our economy, a de facto sunset clause, after a modest period, would test the effects of a government intervention in terms of its environmental and economic impact, and particularly—regarding what I said earlier—its political and constitutional impact. It is an eminently sensible and straightforward amendment, and I would be surprised if such a measure were arbitrarily repudiated by the Minister and the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their forbearance as I was rudely interrupted by democracy.

I was somewhat remiss earlier for not also congratulating my noble friend on his position as Front-Bench spokesman for our party, so I welcome him, and I hope he will forgive me for that.

As I was saying, I believe that the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor should receive the support of all sides of the Committee because it seeks to ensure that there is proper, informed parliamentary scrutiny and approval in respect of Clause 1, which is a very wide-ranging clause; other noble Lords will no doubt wish to enunciate those issues later on. As the clock is against us, I will just finish by observing that I wholly support Amendment 128 in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lord Frost, which I have signed, and Amendments 80 and 81 on metrology and pints, tabled by my noble friend Lord Sharpe.

I will just finish briefly on Amendments 40 and 41 tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor. Again, these go to the heart of the necessity to see the Bill, and particularly Clauses 1 and 2, within the broader context of a quite seismic shift of government policy. Indeed, the think tank UK in a Changing Europe, in its press release last week launching the latest quarter 3 regulatory divergence tracker, makes the quite bold claim, which I think is correct, that this Government are seeking a much closer relationship with the European Union by increased convergence and reducing any capacity for divergence, either deliberately or as a sin of omission. Whether you think that is right or not, that issue has to be looked at in detail by the legislature—both the other place and your Lordships’ House. On that basis, I support my noble friend Lady Lawlor’s amendment, which would insert “constitutional” into the Bill, because of the wider governance and constitutional issues arising from a Bill that some have described as Chequers 2.0 in legislative form—I know that some of my noble friends might not agree with that.

Finally, Amendment 41 would enable a review of the impact and effects of Clause 2 and the powers therein to be laid before Parliament, focusing specifically on how the decisions made by Ministers and the regulations laid have impacted business and commerce in this country and trade across the world, particularly with the European Union.

On that basis, I ask the Minister to look kindly on supporting those amendments. None of them is radical and none of them seeks to undermine the integral nature of what the Bill is hoping to achieve, but they are sensible additions that will hopefully improve the Bill in the course of its passage through this House and the other place.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this landmark Bill, and I welcome my noble friend the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to their Front-Bench positions. I firmly believe that the Bill protects consumer rights. However, I declare an interest as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which scrutinises statutory instruments. In that respect, I refer to the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lady Crawley, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, which would require the Secretary of State to conduct appropriate consultation on draft regulations under the Act.

It is vital that we set out as we mean to go on. One criticism that our committee had of many of the statutory instruments is the lack of proper consultation, as well as inadequate memorandums and impact assessments. This amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Crawley is timely, and I urge my noble friends on the Front Bench to accept it. More effective scrutiny processes are required in legislation to ensure that the policy decisions made with the powers set out in the Bill can be effectively scrutinised as products and marketplaces evolve, particularly those that will evolve online. It is important that consumers are totally protected.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, referred to relationships with the EU. I hope that the Government are successful in resetting that relationship and that there is a closer relationship with the EU, because it is important not only for trade but for society and economic growth—and it is good for wider relations in this part of our global world.

--- Later in debate ---

Having discussed the report, the Minister failed to provide the DPRRC with convincing justification for the inclusion of the skeletal clauses in the Bill. So, despite the no doubt huge team the Minister had and his persuasive powers, I am afraid that the DPRRC was unable to be convinced of his arguments and, if that committee was not convinced, I suggest that this Committee should not be.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Is the noble Lord aware of the letter dated 28 October from the Minister, Justin Madders, of the other place, to the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, the chairman of the DPRRC, on these specific issues? It says:

“We recognise the Committee’s concerns that the powers in the Bill to amend or repeal primary legislation may appear as though we are intending to replace existing primary legislation with secondary legislation and accept that we should have given more provenance to the fact that our intentions are limited and specific and the powers in the Bill are limited accordingly”.


Does the noble Lord not think it unprecedented for a Minister to write about a Bill that is before this House?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I am not a student of parliamentary history, so I do not know if it is an unprecedented letter, but that was a helpful intervention, and I thank the noble Lord for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. If it helps, I have gone through some of our 150-odd existing product safety regulations—not all of them—and their technical nature includes scientific calculation and all kinds of other technical input. Are we saying that we want this in every instance of primary legislation? I think not. If noble Lords think that we should have every technical aspect in all primary legislation, we need to have a different debate entirely, but for this, for technical reasons, we need delegated legislation to ensure that we update the regulations.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I do not want to labour the point, but it is either feast or famine. We are being told by the Government that we cannot legislate everything to the nth degree, so we should just trust them on the secondary legislation—the permissive delegated legislation and statutory instruments. But then, with the paragraph that is the subject of my amendment, we are going to the nth degree of granularity and technical finesse while not actually, as it happens, defining what “activities” mean. Activities could mean looking at a product, by which you would therefore be caught by the regulations.

I gently say to the Minister that the substantive clause is not undermined by the removal of this paragraph, and he should seriously think about that.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I shall take it away and speak to officials about this, but the purpose of the Bill is not to be too prescriptive, so that we cover most of the activities that can be described by various stages of production.

I want to conclude, if I may. I hope that I have been able to provide reassurance on all these matters and have assured noble Lords that the Government have carefully considered the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and sought to strike a careful balance. I therefore respectfully ask that the amendment is withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and my noble friend’s amendment but I want to press the Minister briefly, because one of the key rationales for Clause 1 is to improve safety dynamically. I think we would all agree with that. Obviously, mention is made of the toy safety regime in the United Kingdom and in the European Union, as well as lithium batteries, artificial intelligence et cetera.

May I press the Minister on a genuine question? I have not found a rationale for why the only Schedule to the Bill excludes so many products not covered by the Bill’s potential regulations. It excludes:

“Plants, fruit and fungi … Feeding stuff”,


food generally and animal by-products, aircraft, military equipment and “Medicines and medical devices”. Maybe the Minister could say a little about which value judgments and what empirical data have been used to exclude those products from consideration in the Bill, perhaps seen through the prism of safety.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

If the noble Lord will let me explain, Clauses 1 and 11 grant powers to make regulations relating to product safety for a range of purposes, general or specific. The Government have set out in their response to the product safety review our intention in the months ahead to begin a process of sector reviews. They will consider whether any changes are needed to our existing regulation of higher-risk products to reflect modern challenges, such as those that the noble Lord has pointed out in two speeches this afternoon. We will also consider whether updates to the GPSR are necessary to ensure that cross-cutting and emerging risks are properly addressed, particularly where products fall outside current sector-specific rules.

Furthermore, in December 2022, the Office for Product Safety & Standards developed a product safety risk assessment methodology for GB regulators to use with non-compliant products. The methodology requires consideration of the tolerability of the risk identified. Where a risk is intolerable, a regulator can act robustly in relation to risks that may have a low possibility of occurring, but where, if they did, the outcome would be disastrous. A noteworthy example is the effort made by the Office for Product Safety & Standards to protect young people from the dangers of ingesting small, powerful magnets.

In Amendment 95 the noble Lord, Lord Fox, makes the sensible point that safe disposal can be a key part of protecting consumers and businesses. Clause 1(5) makes clear that regulations can cover safe disposal of products. We will consider whether particular products need specific regulation in this area on a case-by-case basis.

On the disposal of batteries specifically, the Government are committed to cracking down on waste as we move toward a circular economy. We shall have a discussion on the circular economy—I was going to say “in a few minutes”, but that might be a little hopeful. We are reviewing and propose to consult on reforms to UK batteries regulation before setting out our next steps.

Finally, regarding the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, on the Schedule to the Bill, the things mentioned in the exclusions are covered by separate legislation. It is as simple as that.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s indulgence; I have a straightforward question regarding Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. The Minister has answered it thoroughly but I still do not understand. What else would the Government be doing, in looking at the efficacy of product safety, that is not already in the amendment? Surely the noble Lord’s amendment merely formalises actions with regard to product safety that the Government themselves would do in analysing what they need to do to protect consumers. I cannot understand the Minister’s resistance to at least being a bit more emollient towards what seems to me quite a sensible amendment.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

Hear, hear!

--- Later in debate ---

It is because I believe Amendment 17 provides that certainty that I support it today, and hope that a version of it finds its way into the Bill and on to the statute book.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in my name and primarily that of my noble friend Lord Frost, particularly Amendment 4. It would not be fruitful to relitigate the Brexit wars, and certainly, those of us who have tabled these amendments do not wish to do so. We are looking at this Bill and its proposals. It is notable to remember that it is not the Government who are moving Amendment 17 and its consequent later amendment, but other noble Lords.

I shall just specifically talk about the amendment to Clause 1(2). It is actually quite a loose and opaque concept to talk about tabling an amendment to the Bill which talks about mitigating or reducing the “environmental impact of products”, because there is quite a degree of confusion about that specific phrase. There is also a significant question as to why there is a specific carve-out for this in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Frost raised this issue specifically with the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, in his letter of 16 October, and asked why it was necessary to have a separate provision to deal with this. My concern about this clause is that there is the prospect, if it remains in the Bill, not only that we may replicate very narrowly drawn product safety regulations as regards the environment, but that, due to mission creep, it can develop a lot of other particular areas. That may be music to the ears of the noble Baroness who represents the Greens, but it may extend to a supply chain’s due diligence, or to vehicle standards, artificial intelligence or deforestation. Those are all very wide areas where there would be a significant impact from what looks like a pretty innocuous clause. Therefore, I would like the Minister to address that particular issue, because it is very important.

To go back to the clause that is referenced in the amendment from my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, I am not sure that they have been witnessing the same situation with the regulatory regime and this Labour Government since 4 July. We are already seeing de facto alignment. We are seeing alignment on a common charger for electrical devices, the vote to leave the energy charter treaty and rules on organic pet food. We are seeing delayed divergence on Section 6 of the retained EU law Act, which is about paying due regard to European Court of Justice decisions vis-à-vis the UK courts; recognition of CE-marked construction products; the suspension of mandatory recycling labels; changes and delays to the implementation of the Windsor Framework; delays to the border target operating model; regulation on deforestation-free products delayed; and entry and exit schemes delayed.

The idea that this Government are presiding over a mass large-scale divergence is completely not the case. For a speech that was meant to take the political heat out of the debate, I think it was quite a political speech by the noble Lord, partly relitigating the long battles over Brexit we had. I do not think it is an ignoble aim for us, in laying these amendments in Committee, to make a point about the geopolitical changes in the United States with the election of President-elect Trump and the focus on deregulation and fewer and more flexible regulations. There are economic difficulties in the European Union, particularly in Germany, which has had some significant encumbrances in terms of all manner of economic data. To tie our regulatory regime to just one market—the European Union, where we have no control, no say and no voice—in a Bill in which there are huge numbers of Henry VIII and discretionary powers to be exercised by Ministers that are effectively unamendable is a risk. That is the risk, and it is the risk of this amendment.

The fundamental flaw of this amendment is that it is asymmetrical and unbalanced. My noble friend Lord Kirkhope used the word balanced. I do not think it is balanced; it is incongruous because there is an inherent presumption—a requirement in this amendment —for us to accept dynamic alignment. At least the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, was honest that it is dynamic alignment. It is Chequers 2.0. In this amendment, we are being asked to support Chequers enunciated in primary legislation. I believe that is wrong.

The reason I think that there is a flaw and that it is incongruous is that if noble Lords look at Amendment 17, in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause there is a requirement to lay a statement before Parliament within 14 days about why a decision not to replicate EU law under proposed new subsection (2) is necessary. Funnily enough, there is not a similar requirement to lay a statement if it is decided to diverge from European Union regulations. I say to my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that the amendment would have been a lot stronger and a lot more robust to criticism by this side and perhaps even Ministers if that had been in the amendment. It is not, and for that reason it is a regrettable amendment. It seeks to tie us to a shrinking market which, by dollar denomination, will be about 14% of world trade within the next 10 or 12 years. That is not something we can put in the Bill. For that reason, I will not support it.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I shall quickly respond to the noble Lord. One of the reasons why I asked the Minister for some detail about the breadth and depth of the consultation his department has had with business was to find out what business really thinks. I would say, in riposte to the noble Lord, that the key thing that should drive decisions on whether we align with the European Union or any other jurisdiction should primarily be what business is telling the Government. Businesses have a far better idea of the economic state, presently and potentially, of the markets they do business with. In fact, they have a much better idea than either Ministers or civil servants. From my point of view of trying to speak on behalf of business, listening to them on what they think should be the priority would seem the sensible thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

As noble Lords can probably imagine, I have been looking forward to this group for ages, and I thank noble Lords for not disappointing. I put my name to Amendments 17 and 127 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and tabled my own Amendment 94. I think the valedictory remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, about leaving this Bill may have been premature because Amendment 16, which is group 9, explicitly deals with the REACH issue, which I know he is so passionate about. I would like him to join me in probing the REACH elements of this, so I hope he can put off his exit from the Bill.

The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and others have stated that they wish to re-engage with our largest market, which is the EU. Their aim, and our aim on these Benches, is to remove friction to make life easier for British business. Thereby costs will be kept to a minimum, markets will be more accessible and growth, which we all agree is vital for our future, can be more easily achieved. I was delighted today when the Treasury spokesperson, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, endorsed the role of this Bill in helping the Government make those moves to re-engage with the EU. It was reassuring that he sees the importance of this Bill in that process. That is a very good mark to put on what we are doing.

We heard some excellent speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Russell, Lord Browne and Lord Kirkhope, in favour of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell. The UK Government are introducing legislation to guide the future regulation of standards for thousands of products when they are sold in the UK market. It should go without saying that creating different standards for UK businesses hoping to sell in both the UK and the EU works counter to this. Consistent standards that apply across both markets will give business the ability and certainty to sell in both those markets.

Never mind the dolphins. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, brought up the issue of tethered bottle tops. As far as I am aware, there is no regulation in this country to require tethered bottle tops. The reason we have them is because business knows how costly it would be to have two forms of a drink being sold in one market here and one market there. Business understands, even if some noble Lords do not, the true cost of having two different regulations. When it can do without them, it does, and the one it chooses is that of the biggest market, which is very rarely in the United Kingdom.

This legislation is an opportunity for the Government, if they move in the right direction, to reduce the red tape and the bureaucracy that the current version of Brexit has created for British business. We should be under no illusion that Brexit has made it much harder for businesses to export into the European Union.

The wording of this amendment does not bind the hands of Government. As noble Lords have observed, there is absolutely the opportunity to diverge and move away from the regulations in the European Union, if that is to the advantage of the United Kingdom. This is a common-sense amendment that provides regulatory certainty for UK businesses by requiring a default of alignment with EU regulations and a process for parliamentary scrutiny, if or when Ministers determine that divergence from such regulation would be in the best interests of the UK. That is what business tells us it wants—and I hope that the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, asked will continue with that. It also seems to be what the public wants. A poll published today in the i newspaper says that when people were asked where was more important to Britain economically, 57% opted for Europe, with 34% opting for the US, for example. There are lots of good reasons for the Government to support these amendments, because they provide a foundation for economic growth by ensuring that businesses can plan and invest with confidence about where the regulatory regime is going and what kind of regulations are going to apply in the United Kingdom.

Before I come very briefly to Amendment 94, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Browne, I could not help but be lured into addressing some of the comments made by the noble Lords seated just behind me. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, were very interesting. His comments about the environment and how appropriate it is to take into consideration things such as deforestation were interesting, and I shall be interested to see whether the Opposition Front Bench endorse the comments that he made, or whether they will distance themselves from them—because I think that is quite important.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

For someone who is usually very astute, who listens to my views and is very kind in saying that they are interesting, I think that the noble Lord may have got the proverbial wrong end of the stick. I was not making a value judgment on whether it was appropriate to put environmental standards in this Bill. The substantive kernel of my comments was that it was unclear as to what the definition of environmental standards was—it was not saying that they were good or bad for things such as deforestation.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I may have misunderstood—I shall certainly look at Hansard afterwards. But it would be useful for the Opposition Front Bench to explain where they sit in that regard.

I always listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, carefully, but I was confused on a couple of issues that she used as examples. The first example was a very long discussion of digital regulation in the European Union—but digital regulation is not a part of this Bill. The second example was the CPTPP, which we all know is not designed to have mutually enforced standards—standards are not a part of the CPTPP, so I am not sure how this Bill reflects on that at all. This is probably a conversation that we can have outwith this debate, because I am speaking to the point—the point being that we can have trade deals with all sorts of places, multilateral and bilateral, with or without taking into consideration alignment with the EU. However, we cannot have trade in the EU if we do not have the right regulations. That is the point on which I wanted to end, in that regard.

I turn briefly to Amendment 94, which is simply a probing amendment to understand how the Government will monitor and approach the developing international standards. To some extent we have heard about issues around whether we should adopt those standards, but we should certainly understand them—that is my thing—and we should know what standards are governing the products that are coming into our country and how they relate to our standards. Clearly, we are importing a lot of things from a lot of places that are not in the EU, from around the world, and we really need to understand under what level of governance those international standards are maintaining the sorts of things that we care about within product regulation.

To close, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, has done this Committee a great service in tabling his amendments; I am very pleased to be one of their co-signatories.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 25th November 2024 Grand Committee

These amendments aim to reflect and build upon the definition of “online interface” that is already set down in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. What we do not want to see is an emerging online marketplace, such as TikTok Shop, avoiding new regulations by arguing that it is simply acting as a third-party link to other services and not providing that service itself. I look forward to the Minister’s response to these and to Amendments 48 and 71.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the probing Amendment 45 from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as she referenced my earlier Amendment 33. She expressed in a more erudite and articulate way what I should have said last week on Amendment 33. However, I think we have both alighted on the fundamental problem in that subsection, which is that despite its opacity and the fact that it is drawn very widely, it does not achieve what we all hope it will achieve—in other words, to point out the obligations on buyers and sellers. The noble Baroness quite rightly pointed out the lacuna inherent in that.

My very brief question to the Minister is whether it might be possible—this is not a criticism but merely an observation in respect of the drafting—for this subsection to be redrafted before Report so that that confusion that we see now, which could potentially give rise to substantial amounts of litigation, is ameliorated and we could have tighter wording to address some of the issues that the noble Baroness and I have pointed out.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, so many of our deliberations in our various sittings have been seeking to put some flesh on to the skeleton nature of the Bill before us; I have done that on a number of occasions, as have many other noble Lords. For instance, in our last-but-one grouping, I proposed that we seek to use the Bill to address concerns about data scraping for the development of new AI products. I gently point out to the Minister that he told me that this would be covered by the Data (Use and Access) Bill. I have double-checked Hansard and can tell him that at the end of the debate on that Bill, when this was raised with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the Minister responsible, she replied that this issue was not covered by that Bill and that DCMS and DSIT Ministers are jointly working and looking forward to bringing forward proposals in due course. She ended by saying:

“We will announce more details in due course”.—[Official Report, 19/11/24; col. 197.]


So it is not covered, and this is a good opportunity to do it.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and other noble Lords who have spoken have pointed out, this is an area, in terms of online marketplaces, where there is an urgent need to put flesh on the bones and to have a clearer understanding of the definition of an online marketplace and of what regulations should apply to them. I have frequently raised in your Lordships’ House my concerns that consumers have far less protection from faulty products bought online than they have when they purchase them on the high street.

It simply cannot be right, as we have seen from all the evidence that we have all received from various organisations, such as the British Toy & Hobby Association, Which? and Electrical Safety First, as well as others, that so many unsafe products are available for sale online. In an earlier contribution, the noble Baroness referred to the fact that 86% of toys sold online do not comply with UK safety requirements. I have referred to the sad fact that many electrical appliances purchased online do not meet appropriate safety requirements and, sadly, have led to loss of life and damage of a great deal of property.

It certainly cannot be right that products that have been withdrawn by a manufacturer, often because of concerns about safety, can still be purchased online, and it certainly cannot be right that consumers have not only less protection but fewer opportunities for redress when purchasing products online compared to what they have when purchasing them on the high street. I support all the amendments addressing those concerns because collectively they would improve consumer protection by ensuring accountability by imposing a clear and enforceable duty on online marketplaces to ensure the safety of products sold on their platforms, especially those coming from third-party sellers overseas. Incidentally, I shall later propose an amendment that would strengthen the extraterritoriality covered by the Bill.

The amendments that we have before us further protect consumers by removing anonymity so that third-party sellers can no longer hide behind platforms to evade product safety regulations and by making it easier for them to seek any form of redress. It establishes direct liability on platforms for unsafe products sold throughout them, which leads to the opportunity for much greater fairness in terms of redress because, at the moment, consumers dealing with faulty high street products expect and receive a full refund or replacement, but when problems arise with online purchases, particularly from overseas sellers, consumers often seem to have no recourse. Amendments in this group deal with that issue. Finally, the amendments would clarify something that is lacking in the Bill at the moment: the issue of accountability. Who is actually accountable in the multinational marketplace structures that we have to deal with now?

Given that these platforms are evolving at an incredibly rapid rate, with people almost daily finding new ways to market their products, we need amendments that ensure that there is no room for manoeuvre to get around the regulations by online marketplaces now and, crucially, in future. We need a clearer definition of what we mean and what is covered by an online marketplace, and I welcome and support the amendments in the group that do just that.

I add one additional point. In Clause 10, the definition of an online marketplace includes,

“any other platform by means of which information is made available over the internet”.

Clause 10 does not define “the internet”, despite quite a point being made of doing so in other legislation. Indeed, other pieces of legislation prefer the phrase “internet service”, not just “internet”. To avoid further ambiguity, I have proposed in Amendments 117 and 122 that the Bill uses “internet service” instead of “internet” and that the definition of “internet service” is exactly as set out in the Online Safety Act 2023.

Given, for instance, that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill has this definition simply copied and pasted into it, I see no reason why this Bill could not do the same. Failing to do so would unhelpfully leave the definition to common law. We should be aiming to ensure that levels of protection and redress are as powerful online as they are on the high street. Amendments in this group will achieve this and will also ensure that we have a future-proofed definition of “online marketplace” and that clear duties and responsibility towards consumer protection are imposed on all relevant bodies. On these Benches, we certainly support them.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Grand Committee

If only subsection (9) were removed from Clauses 3 and 6, it would still be possible to appeal and to have the terms of triability for an offence and the levels of the fines and imprisonment in place, but with no power for the Minister to create or widen the scope of criminal offences. I may have misunderstood the objective of the noble Lord’s amendments, but I am concerned that they create even more power for a Minister, which I am trying to rationalise, certainly to hold them to account. I hope that, when the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, responds to the debate after the Minister has spoken, he could perhaps explain this a little more. I also look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to my amendments. I am very grateful for the meetings with the Ministers, but I have seen nothing in writing about this issue with criminal offences.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute to your Lordships’ Committee. I apologise for not having been here throughout all the deliberations on the Bill. I was called away by the excitement of the Football Governance Bill, but I am back to speak to my Amendment 92.

This is pretty straightforward. That the Bill will be unamended is a big assumption, because I sincerely hope that the Government will see fit to bring forward their own amendments or accept opposition amendments on Report—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her kind words. However, my amendment seeks to fill the gap in appropriate scrutiny and oversight of a very wide-ranging and pervasive Bill, particularly in this respect of potentially creating criminal offences arising from non-compliance.

It is vital that, if new offences are created or if other powers are exercised by Ministers in this clause, it should be subject to some form of rudimentary scrutiny by Parliament. That is why I have tabled this amendment, which says that at least 30 days before making such provisions the Secretary of State must put that rationale into the Library of both Houses in the form of an Explanatory Memorandum.

Let us just remember what this clause on enforcement of product regulations does. It allows, by regulations, the Government to appoint inspectors to

“enter, inspect and search … seize and retain products or evidence of non-compliance … require a person to retain or provide a document or information … dispose of a product or require a person to dispose of a product”.

Those are pretty draconian powers, and they have significant ramifications for civil liberties, the unwarranted interference into the lawful operation of markets, and the potential undermining of due process and norms in the criminal justice system. Most importantly, there is a lack of accountability.

It goes without saying, of course, that I strongly support the amendments from my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. In fact, I agree with all the amendments in this group, including those from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I do so because—it bears repetition—this is an egregious example of skeleton legislation, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee found. I also had an opportunity to look at paragraph 12 of the Guidance for Departments on the Role and Requirements of the Committee—the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I give Ministers half points rather than nil points, because they have actually done half of what the memorandum asks them to do under the heading “Criminal offences”. It says:

“Where a bill creates a criminal offence with provision for the penalty to be set by delegated legislation, the Committee would expect, save in exceptional circumstances, the maximum penalty on conviction to be included on the face of the bill”.


We have seen that, so that is great. But it also says in that same paragraph—and the Government have not met this requirement—that

“where the ingredients of a criminal offence are to be set by delegated legislation, the Committee would expect a compelling justification”.

I am afraid, as with virtually all of the Bill but particularly and specifically on this issue of the creation of criminal offences, that skeleton legislation gives rise to significant risks of the creation of offences, with punishment meted out to businesspeople and others associated with commerce without proper scrutiny and oversight.

For those reasons I strongly support all the amendments in this group, and I look forward to the Minister addressing the particular issue of what are the compelling reasons that necessitate that wording in the Bill and why the Government have chosen to go in that direction. I hope he will think again on Report about perhaps amending the wording in the Bill, as we have argued for today.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group related to criminal offences. This is an important area, and I am grateful for the knowledgeable and informed contributions in this debate, demonstrating the significant expertise in this House. My response sets out the general principles relating to criminal offences, but I will try to answer many of the various questions that noble Lords asked.

As I mentioned previously, I am very aware of the concerns that noble Lords have raised on delegated powers and the importance of consultation and scrutiny more generally. In particular, I am grateful for the thoughtful and comprehensive reports of the Delegated Powers and Constitution Committees. I have mentioned this before: noble Lords will be aware that we have provided responses to both committees, and my colleague, Minister Madders, and I gave evidence to the DPRRC. I was very grateful for the opportunity to explain the Government’s approach to these issues.

I begin by stating a central point. The severity of the harm caused by breaches of regulations across different product sectors varies. To proportionately reflect harm, offences and penalties must be tailored to individual sectors and duties.

I hope noble Lords would agree that, with regard to criminal offences, the rule of law is best served by precision. Only by having criminal enforcement provisions alongside product requirements can proportionality be ensured. Take, for example, a penalty for failure to properly mark a product: the harm will be very different for a highly sensitive product within a nuclear energy installation versus a lower-risk product.

As well as creating issues of proportionality, codifying criminal offences and penalties in the Bill would likely lead to enforcement gaps later. Offences would not correspond directly to new duties created for existing supply chain actors or responsibilities placed on new actors who enter the supply chain over time.

Lord Bingham’s principles require that the law be accessible and, so far as is possible, intelligible, clear and predictable. Setting out the details of offences and penalties in the Bill would undermine those principles. It would necessitate drafting speculative penalties to fit duties yet to be created. That would leave ambiguity over to whom offences may apply in future and create statutory maximum penalties that would be disproportionate for some actors.

Lord Bingham’s principles go further to support the approach of tailoring clear, proportionate offences and penalties that correspond to supply chain actors’ duties as they arise over time. If we instead place the detail in primary legislation, we risk undermining those crucial principles by locking in terms that become ambiguous over time as business models and products evolve, and with penalties that can cater to only the most serious version of the offence. Setting the maximum penalty in primary legislation means that the penalty can be calibrated to only the most serious version of the offence, leaving a broad discretion to judges to determine the appropriate sentence for less serious cases. Legal certainty and predictability of applicable penalties are better served by specific, tailored provision being set out in secondary legislation.

Noble Lords have highlighted that the DPRRC, in its report on the Bill, recommended that elements of criminal offences are set out within primary legislation. The Government value the work of the DPRRC and the incredibly important role it plays. We have considered its recommendations carefully within the department. However, the approach taken to setting out criminal offences within regulations is not novel. Other Acts that underpin broad regulatory regimes allow for the creation of criminal offences in regulations, including the Building Safety Act 2022, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I also highlight some examples of existing product regulations that set out criminal offences and penalties, such as the Nagoya Protocol (Compliance) Regulations 2015 or the Simple Pressure Vessels (Safety) Regulations 2016.

Noble Lords may also be interested to note that, to ensure proportionality, the maximum criminal penalties that may be implemented by regulations are set out in the Bill and follow existing precedent, as seen in sector-specific regulations such as the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016. This is a key point. Our approach provides this strong safeguard that enables discretion to set lower and more proportionate penalties in secondary legislation, which will also have parliamentary oversight. We submit that secondary legislation ensures parliamentary oversight but also the flexibility required to ensure that we can implement proportionate criminal offences that comply with the vital principles underpinning the rule of law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, once again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his amendment. I begin by reaffirming that this Government take their responsibility to parliamentary scrutiny very seriously. We have listened carefully to the views expressed and we will reflect on them as we move forward. It is always our aim to strike the right balance between thorough oversight and addressing the technical and practical demands of product regulation.

Amendments 72 and 73 seek to ensure that the use of emergency powers is transparent and proportionate. I fully appreciate the intentions behind these amendments, and I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that we believe that the Bill already provides robust mechanisms for oversight.

Clause 4 is intended to be used in rare emergency situations. It is introduced in this Bill following the recent example of the Covid-19 pandemic, when there was a shortage of personal protective equipment. To be clear, this clause is not about quickly implementing regulations on new products; it is about emergency situations where there could be a need to temporarily disapply or modify existing regulations to allow current products to be brought to market much more quickly. Any regulations made under Clause 4 are subject to the draft affirmative legislative procedure, ensuring that both Houses can scrutinise and approve them. We believe this process provides a balanced and proportionate mechanism for oversight and accountability, ensuring thorough scrutiny.

The Government are also committed to developing a clear framework of how the policy will work in practice, and this will be done in consultation with stakeholders. However, we do not believe it will be necessary to formally lay this framework before Parliament, as the oversight arrangements provided by the draft affirmative procedure for any secondary legislation under Clause 4 are believed to be sufficient.

The Office for Product Safety & Standards will take the lead in developing the framework and will publish guidance on the conditions and procedures for using these emergency powers. The guidance will then be made publicly available to Members of this House and relevant committees on the GOV.UK website which, if needed, can be used to supplement any future scrutiny on emergency measures. In addition, Clause 4 is intended to provide a proportionate response to emergencies, and conditions can be applied which will be context specific. Therefore, any disapplication or modification of regulations will be targeted, with safeguards in place to ensure public safety remains paramount.

As the House can appreciate, emergencies can be unpredictable and cannot always be anticipated in advance. Imposing an initial fixed three-month sunset period and review process for extensions risks reducing the Government’s ability to respond effectively to emergencies that may evolve over time. Instead of applying a fixed three-month sunset period to all regulations, we believe that each regulation in response to an emergency should be targeted and tailored to its unique circumstances. This approach ensures that the measures remain both proportionate and effective, addressing the specific challenges of the emergency and the product or situation involved while avoiding unnecessary constraints.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

The Minister is making a powerful argument, but he raised the issue of Covid. He is aware, of course, that it is quite possibly the case that you can expedite fast-track legislation in extremis. He will no doubt know that between 1989 and 2009, 15 Northern Ireland Bills that were terrorism and security-related were fast-tracked through both Houses. So, in a fundamentally very serious emergency situation, you can expedite fast-track primary legislation. I offer that as a suggestion to the Minister.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that, and I am sure the officials will have taken notice as well.

I must also highlight that, in line with the Government’s commitment to transparency and informed decision-making, proportionate impact analysis will accompany future secondary legislation. This will be prepared in accordance with the Better Regulation Framework, ensuring that Parliament has access to evidence-based assessments that support effective scrutiny.

I hope that I have been able to provide reassurance on all these matters and assure the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that the Government have carefully considered the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and sought to strike a careful balance in relation to emergencies. I am happy, as always, to meet the noble Lord or, for that matter, any other noble Lords to discuss with them further our approach in this area. On that basis, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn and for the other amendments in this group not to be moved.