Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Debate between Michael Wheeler and Justin Madders

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will be primarily responsible for enforcement at the local level, but the Bill also increases the powers of local trading standards to enforce measures.

The Bill affects the whole of the UK. We have worked closely and constructively with devolved Governments on policy development through regular engagement and throughout the Bill’s passage at both ministerial and official level. I therefore thank the devolved Governments, Ministers and their teams for working so constructively with us.

In Committee, we tabled an amendment that placed a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the devolved Governments where regulations contain provisions within their devolved competence. We believe that provides for the most effective and appropriate role for the devolved Governments in a way that respects the individual devolution settlements. I am pleased to report that the Senedd passed a legislative consent motion for the Bill yesterday. I have also had constructive discussions with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, and both have recommended legislative consent to their respective legislatures. We will continue to work collaboratively with those bodies to develop product regulation that best supports businesses and consumers across the whole of the UK.

I will provide a quick recap of some of the changes made to the Bill by the Government since it was introduced last year, in addition to the devolution amendment, because there has been some misconception about what the Bill does and does not do. We have added a statutory consultation mechanism to ensure that stakeholders can shape product and metrology regulations. We have extended the affirmative procedure to parts of the Bill to further boost parliamentary scrutiny; for the avoidance of doubt, they are detailed in clause 13(4). The affirmative procedure therefore now applies to: the creation of criminal offences; the first use of regulations covering online marketplaces; the first time duties are imposed on a new supply chain actor; regulations conferring powers of entry, search or inspection; regulations to disapply requirements in response to an emergency; regulations covering the sharing of information between persons; regulations on cost recovery, which I have already referred to in my response to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central; regulations amending or repealing the Gun Barrel Proof Acts; regulations on consequential amendments to primary legislation; and regulations amending the definition of online marketplaces. As Members will be aware from the responses on Report, there were a number of reasons that we want flexibility with regard to online marketplaces, which we believe will develop in ways that we cannot predict.

I can confirm that aviation safety products are exempted from the Bill as they are covered in existing legislation.

The Government have published a code of conduct that sets out the statutory and non-statutory guardrails to ensure that regulation made under this legislation is proportionate and well designed. It is also worth addressing the criticism that this is a skeletal Bill and pointing out that the proportion of skeletal Bills tripled in 2016-2023 compared with 1991-2015. Indeed, in the former period, some 19 separate Bills were described as skeletal by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that, far from being a skeletal Bill, this legislation provides an adaptable framework for product regulation and consumer safety?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is right; indeed, this goes well beyond the measures in place when we were in the EU when it comes to parliamentary involvement. I will briefly refer to contributions made by hon. Members during the passage of the Bill.

I thank my counterpart in the other place, Lord Leong, for shepherding the Bill through the Lords, with support from Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I also thank the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, who has been alongside us throughout the passage of this Bill in the Public Bill Committee. The hon. Members for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for Chippenham and for Richmond Park, who represented the Liberal Democrats in Committee and in the Chamber, are a trio that we will never forget. I hope that the short passage of this Bill is not a reflection of the high turnover in Liberal Democrat spokespeople—they have engaged with the Bill in a constructive manner.

I thank hon. Members who engaged in the Bill Committee and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz), who chaired that Committee with great expertise. It is probably worth mentioning my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central again. He has championed the ceramics industry both today and on Second Reading, and we recognise his great contributions.

Finally, I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), who, as the first elected metrologist to this House, has brought a deeply technical and knowledgeable perspective to our debates, which we all appreciate—although I do not think we could ever be asked to take a quiz on the finer details of his work.

Employment Rights Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Debate between Michael Wheeler and Justin Madders

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Michael Wheeler]

It could be dangerous for me to admit that sometimes I might have wished to instruct a member, but I can reassure everyone here that the instructions flow the other way when someone is a trade union official acting at the behest of members at all times.

I was one sentence from the end before the interventions. I have been thoroughly derailed by people in this room, so I will wrap up and say that I do not agree with the amendment. I disagree with a lot of what was raised in the debate and the false analogy around subscription models versus membership of a democratic organisation. I will obviously not support the amendment.

[Justin Madders]

We have had a good debate on the amendment. It is fair to say there is a deep divide in our positions. I will address the amendment and the clause stand part debate.

Amendment 126 would make two changes to clause 48. First, it seeks to retain the requirement on trade unions to provide their members with an annual notice of their right to opt out of contributions to the political fund. Secondly, it seeks to require trade union members to opt in to contributions to the political fund annually. As we have heard, that would place substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic requirements both on trade unions and on their members. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles said, this is one of those rare occasions when the Conservative party seems to be in favour of more red tape, which is clearly something that we want to see reduced.

I will start with the change that would retain the requirement for trade unions to send an annual notice to members reminding them that they can opt out of contributing to a political fund. The amendment targets the wrong section. It would amend section 86 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which relates to ensuring that employers do not deduct contributions through check-off from the member where the union member has opted out of the political fund or where the opt-out notice has been given but is not yet in force.

However, I will respond in terms of the spirit of the amendment tabled by the shadow Minister. The Government have been clear in our intention to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016, which was a clear manifesto commitment. We have a mandate to deliver on that. The amendment seeks to frustrate that clear intention by retaining the substantive effect of section 84A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as amended by the Trade Union Act 2016.

We should be clear that members are, of course, free to opt out of contributing to a political fund whenever they wish. Clause 48, which I will come to, sets out how that is possible. Currently, alongside the requirement to ballot members on the maintenance of a political fund every 10 years, trade unions must also remind their members of their right to opt out of a political fund. The Government are proposing to remove the ballot requirements. We have consulted on whether to retain a requirement for trade union members to be reminded on a 10-year basis that they can opt out of the political fund.

Employment Rights Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Michael Wheeler and Justin Madders

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Michael Wheeler]

I am sure it is not. I worked in a retail establishment that did not benefit from trade union representation and that went through consultation, not on redundancy but on a variation of contracts, so it is relevant to what we were talking about before. It was actually a relatively smooth and easy process for employee representatives to be appointed and elected from among our number, despite the lack of an existing structure, and to engage with the company in those consultation exercises. While I would love there to be a trade union fighting the corner for every worker, when it is absent it is not a burdensome process to have employee engagement in these processes.

[Justin Madders]

I recognise that the shadow Minister welcomed the clarification I provided. No doubt there will be debate to come, as is often the case with legal issues, but the Government are fairly clear and confident that the clause will not have the unintended consequences we heard raised in evidence.

The shadow Minister asked, “Why 20?” He will pleased to know that that was a product of EU regulation. It is in existing law as part of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which has been amended many times, so I could not say exactly when it came into force, but—

Employment Rights Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Michael Wheeler and Justin Madders

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Michael Wheeler]

I would not agree, which will not surprise the hon. Member. I gently suggest that the number of Government amendments will possibly provide the clarity that he asks for—they will be baked in, and will provide that clarity. This is part of the process of getting the provisions right for all involved. I would suggest that it reflects exactly the opposite of what the hon. Member suggests.

I return to the point about stability and instability. If the basis of the provision is to have hours regularly worked included in contracts, having that contractual term would provide not only stability for the employee, but predictability and stability for the employer. I am sure we can agree that stability all round is beneficial.

However, I come on to possible unintended consequences. The term,

“not exceeding a specified number of hours”,

could do with some clarity, in order to provide that stability and to ensure that the measure applies to the widest number of people within our workforce, to fulfil the intended aim. There is also the phrase “regularity”. Will the Minister consider how to clarify that term to provide the clarity that we would all welcome? Finally, I come on to the term, “excluded worker”. As I have said, we want to see as many people as possible covered by the Bill, so that they feel the benefits of it. The provisions are measured, for both workers and employers. I would welcome the Minister’s commitment to consider those points, as well as his roundly rejecting the ridiculous premise on which the amendment is based.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for clarifying that this is a probing amendment, and possibly also that it is a ridiculous amendment, although I am not sure that that is the best way to persuade us to accept it. He will not be surprised to hear that we will not accept it.

An important point has been raised, and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles has asked a number of questions about what the amendment is trying to achieve. As I understand it, the amendment would mean that only workers on zero-hours contracts or arrangements, and those with two hours or fewer guaranteed per week, would be covered by the regulations. It would also remove the power to make regulations setting the maximum number of hours for those low-hours contracts to be in scope of the provisions.

The low-hours concept will be crucial in determining how many workers end up in scope of the right to guaranteed hours. That is partly intended as an anti-avoidance measure, to prevent employers from avoiding the duty to offer guaranteed hours by moving a worker on to a contract guaranteeing a very small number of hours. I think we can all see that, if the shadow Minister’s amendment were accepted, we would soon be talking in the lexicon about two-hours contracts, rather than zero-hours contract, and that would not deal with the questions of stability and security that we are trying to address.

We will consult on what we mean by low hours. We think it is very important to get this point absolutely right, and we understand that pitching it at a level that works for both the business and the worker will be absolutely critical. We are committed to working in partnership.

We are looking to clarify the provision in regulations. We understand that there are arguments about the detail being in the Bill, but the counter-argument is that putting the details in regulations gives us more flexibility to review the provisions as we move along. It is fair to say that we do not expect the number to end up being two hours. I do not think there has been any evidence put forward for that.