Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by saying that, like others, I am grateful to the Minister for the time he gave to meeting me. However, the fact remains that our concerns about the Bill have not been assuaged. There are fundamental flaws, as others have said. We do not disagree with the aims of the Bill in general terms; the problem is that we just do not know what the specific policies are. We do not know what route will be taken to address the issues that may arise. It is simply too vague. There will be no opportunity for consultation on, or challenge to, the policies or regulations: policies will be produced by the Minister and that will be that. We know that policies should be in the Bill.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his thoughtful amendments and his commitment to addressing the significant issues raised by Clauses 1 and 2. These electronic developments, such as lithium-ion batteries and so on, are serious issues; they certainly need to be addressed. However, these amendments relate to Clauses 1 and 2, which have been identified by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee as fit only for complete removal from the Bill, for the reasons set out in their reports. Those committees have strongly criticised these clauses because they lack substance and give excessive discretion to Ministers; as I said at Second Reading, this is a Henry VIII Bill par excellence.

We must therefore now be told—we are still waiting—in much more detail what direction the Government think we should take on the matters of substance and importance that the Bill addresses. Ministers are to be empowered to legislate by statutory instrument on matters that are really important for businesses on the receiving end and for consumers, also on the receiving end—or not, if nothing is done—such as marketing, product regulation and metrology. Here in Parliament, we have been given no clear framework or policy direction.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s detailed report of 15 October, which of course came after Second Reading and after substantive objections had been raised by me and others, stated that the skeleton clauses, which include but are not limited to Clauses 1 and 2,

“contain almost no substance about the marketing and use of products but instead give Ministers very broad powers which confer considerable discretion to legislate in that area by statutory instrument”.

On 16 October, the same committee held an evidence session at which it discussed these concerns with the noble Lord, Lord Leong; Justin Madders MP, the Minister in the other place; Helen Le Mottee, deputy director legal for products, business and better regulation; and Tony Thomas, deputy director for product safety policy. The committee said:

“In the evidence session, the Ministers and their officials provided helpful additional information about … the existing legislation that could be amended by regulations made under the powers that the Bill confers; and … the need for the Bill to confer regulation-making powers that would allow detailed and technical provision to be tailored for different types of products and would give Ministers the flexibility to respond quickly and effectively to rapid technological changes and product safety concerns … That additional information could helpfully have been included in the Delegated Powers Memorandum provided by the Department for Business and Trade”.


The committee recognised the need for the Bill to delegate some legislative powers—I think we all understand that that is necessary. However, the committee stood by and repeated the essence of its 15 October first report, notwithstanding the improvement of approach. It said that

“skeleton legislation should only be used in the most exceptional circumstances”—

and we are not there; this is not Covid. We are not in another emergency situation—

“and where no other approach would be reasonable to adopt”.

That, it explained—and I make no apology for repeating this—

“signifies an exceptional shift in power from Parliament to the executive and entails the Government, in effect, asking Parliament to pass primary legislation which is so insubstantial that it leaves the real operation of the legislation to be decided by Ministers”.

Frankly, I say, if they do it with this Bill, they will do it with all future legislation. There was enough fuss in the last Parliament about what those on this side were doing, and now we are going straight down that route and extending it into the distance. As the committee said, the Government

“needs to explain why the Bill provides for almost all of the substance of product regulation and metrology to be provided for by Ministers in regulations under the new powers, and little or nothing to be settled under the fuller Parliamentary scrutiny given to Bill provisions”.

Without clear boundaries or principles, these powers could allow Ministers to fundamentally alter product regulation, metrology standards and even consumer protections with little notice or prior consultation. They can just do what they like if a Minister fancies it or a civil servant has a bee in his bonnet—I mean nothing personal about the civil servants sitting there. I think your Lordships all understand what I have in mind. People have idées fixes, their opportunity comes along, off they go and Parliament will be able to do absolutely nothing about it. This risks creating legal uncertainty, regulatory overreach and a chilling effect on business, stakeholders and consumers.

Clauses 1 and 2 as they stand must, we say, be either significantly revised or removed entirely, as recommended by both committees of which we have already heard rather a lot. Failing such improvements, we on this side of the House will move for the offending clauses to be removed on Report. The Government should understand that.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, before I address Amendments 2 and 27 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, I need to make a clarification. The Attorney-General made a general comment about excessive reliance on delegated legislation; he did not comment on this Bill. We certainly do not believe this Bill contains excessive reliance on delegated legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 10, in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, which seeks to delete Clause 1(4). It is worth looking at that subsection. It says:

“For the purposes of this Act, a product presents a risk if, when used for the purpose for which it is intended or under conditions which can reasonably be foreseen, it could … endanger the health or safety of persons”


or of domestic animals—I paraphrase—

“property (including the operability of other products), or … cause, or be susceptible to, electromagnetic disturbance”.

That is a bit beyond my knowledge grade.

I looked at this provision and it really is very broad. Where does it end? We say that the provision must be removed because it provides excessively broad powers to the Secretary of State to address things we simply know nothing about. It comes, of course, under the skeleton legislation; I have already made my points about the problems with that.

The definition of risk here has the potential to be so expansive that nearly any product, except an aircraft or certain other things which my noble friend has just identified, could be construed as presenting a risk under certain circumstances. A motor car can be perfectly safe and wonderfully designed but, if driven too fast or just badly in some other way, it will of course endanger life. That happens every other day. The same applies to a whole raft of mechanical tools and instruments—anything one wants to think about. If misused, they will cause danger.

If we have at some time in the future a Government who feel very strongly about something which, at the moment, none of us object to, they will be able to address that by secondary legislation, which will not be ultra vires—outside the scope of the legislation. It can do almost anything. We can all think of almost anything that we use at home, such as a power drill or a stepladder. If you misuse and fall off that, you break your skull. It could be motor cars or anything. This is absolutely absurd and far too broad.

If the Government want to legislate to say that motor cars must have a speed restriction, or must have brakes which do this or that, they should do that with specific regulation under specific legislation directed at that target, because Parliament has said, “We’ve had far too many accidents of this sort. We’ve got to address it”. That is the normal process we have as society develops, but a clause of this sort is just extraordinary. It really is Brave New World stuff.

Our complaint is simply that the broad scope of this definition could, in future, empower regulators to impose unnecessary restrictions on products where the risks are minimal or purely hypothetical—and certainly not within the scope of the imaginations of those of us in this Room—because somebody comes along, or a Government come along, in five years’ time and decides that they want to deal with it. Rather than having an embarrassing and difficult debate in Parliament, the Minister just has his way. That is not how we proceed in this country. We are a parliamentary democracy under, as we have been told, the rule of law. We would suggest that the Government have already attacked businesses, high-street retailers and farmers. Will these relentless, unidentified attacks on businesses ever stop? This provision, like others, risks creating legal uncertainty and regulatory overreach. We really must put a stop to it.

I say again that Clauses 1 and 2, as they stand, must be significantly revised or removed entirely, or the promise remains that we will move for them to be removed on Report.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to respond to this particularly interesting debate. I, too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to his new position. I must say, the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Sandhurst, seem to have undergone a conversion, certainly since the former’s time in the Department for Business. I have not been able yet to count the number of regulations in primary legislation that the noble Lord took through but, given that he was a Home Office Minister and given the Home Office’s—how shall I put it?—productive record in producing legislation in Parliament, I hasten to suggest that it was quite a few.

Clearly, behind that is an important consideration about the shape of the Bill and why we need a regulation-making power. On the other hand, the Government would say to noble Lords that the intention is to use those regulations proportionately on the back of the policy consultation that has just taken place. We see here, in a sense, a tension between those noble Lords who wish to make sure that the legislation covers areas of concern—we have heard about the areas of concern for the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Fox—and those noble Lords who feel that the regulation, or the power given here to Ministers through regulation, goes too wide. Clearly, a balance needs to be drawn.