Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Richard Holden Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Wheeler]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We are dealing with a regulatory black hole that was left behind, and the absence of a framework is letting down the consumers and people of this country—[Interruption.] I was about to say that I am sure we would all agree on that, but that is potentially a stretch in this debate and in this Chamber.

I hope that we do agree that consumers should be able to buy products online without worrying about their safety, and that product standards should not be bypassed or compromised on any platform, digital or otherwise. However, research by the Office for Product Safety and Standards found that 81%—eight in 10—of products for sale on online marketplaces between 2021 and 2022 failed to meet safety standards, which underlines the need for the Bill. We cannot allow companies to circumvent essential safety standards, presenting a public health risk just because they sell their products online.

However, the Bill is not just about safety, critical though that is; it is also about ensuring fairness. We simply cannot continue with a product safety regime that enables online marketplaces to undercut bricks-and-mortar retailers, or that allows rogue traders to out-compete responsible retailers with unsafe, low-quality products. That is unfair on consumers, reputable manufacturers and the small high street businesses that must compete with the online giants. With online sales already making up over a quarter of total retail sales in 2023, we must level that playing field now, providing our high streets with a long overdue boost to their competitiveness.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about product regulation, but is the issue that he is highlighting not actually about enforcement? I have no issue with legislating for product regulation safety standards, but they already exist. In fact, he says that there are products that do not meet the safety standards, so we know that those standards exist. The issue that he highlights is purely around enforcement, which this Bill does nothing to address.

[Michael Wheeler]

I disagree that the issue is “purely” around enforcement. Obviously, there are elements of enforcement, but separating out one part of a package—a regulatory framework that will future-proof us from other issues—is not a coherent argument.

To conclude, it is vital that we create a product safety, regulatory and metrology framework that protects consumers, encourages fair competition and meets the changing picture internationally. This Bill delivers that framework, and I look forward to supporting it further in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Clive Jones]

Can I just carry on a bit? Thanks.

Online marketplaces are rapidly expanding in number and popularity, competing with high streets across the nation, but unfortunately, there is no level playing field on which those two competitors can battle it out for consumers’ cash. That is what the Bill should be addressing, because our high streets and our small businesses must contend with regulations that online marketplaces are not equally liable to. That is not a level playing field. For example, unsafe products are flooding online marketplaces. A study by Which? revealed that 90% of toys purchased from Amazon, eBay, AliExpress and Temu were illegal due to choking and strangulation hazards. Another study from the British Toy and Hobby Association found that 85% of toys from online marketplaces were unsafe, with 8% also illegal due to missing warnings. Do we want that situation to continue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

Is my hon. Friend aware of any other piece of legislation on which the DPRRC in the other place has reported three times with exactly the same conclusions?

[Joy Morrissey]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I am not aware of any other legislation that has received the same recommendation three times. That represents a substantial warning.

The Bill, either deliberately or unintentionally, will lead to realignment with the EU and once again leave our country beholden to others’ decisions on regulatory standards. It will hamper our businesses in this fast-changing world, making them less agile and less competitive and making us poorer as a nation. It gives Ministers too much power—a fact that in this House should always be pause for thought, no matter who governs. I urge the Government to think again.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I hope to offer a course correction from the Opposition’s attempts to fight many things today, not least the concept of geography and what is in the interests of British businesses. In this debate, we are watching the last gasps of the Brexit delusions that have fallen on hard contact with the paperwork reality. That is what this piece of legislation is about; it is about making it easier for British businesses who have been harmed by the previous Government’s approach to their basic needs. This is not about free trade. What came about as a result of Brexit was not free trade, but mountains and mountains of paperwork.

I want to focus on that in my speech, but I cannot let go of what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) said. She was, as she says, a Whip on the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023—my goodness me, I welcome a sinner that repenteth. In that Act, the Government were going to rip up more than 4,000 pieces of legislation overnight without any parliamentary scrutiny, simply because they had the word “Europe” in them. That included things like airline regulations, because of course what we needed were our own separate regulations so that a plane would have to take a different course in mid-air. That was the Brexit benefit.

Under the previous Government’s watch, more than 2,000 statutory instruments were laid before the House as a direct result of retained EU law. I welcome opposition parties’ commitment to parliamentary scrutiny, but I simply say that some of us on that Bill Committee tried to offer arguments about the importance of parliamentary involvement in such decisions, and they fell on deaf ears. I will come on to that.

Now that Opposition Members have suddenly discovered that statutory instruments might not always be the best way to look at such things, I hope they will be able to focus on what really matters here, because British business needs us to do that. British business needs us to clear up the mess created by the previous Administration and their approach to Brexit. That is what this legislation does. It is common-sense politics.

[Mr Holden]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Creasy]

I will, if the right hon. Gentleman can tell me which of those 2,361 statutory instruments he now regrets forcing through this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Lady is making an interesting point. The key point with that carry-over of EU law is that all the regulations had already been debated and had already gone through Parliament. All we were doing was replacing like with like. With this Bill, the Government are introducing huge Henry VIII powers to create brand-new legislation, perhaps around production regulation, but on who knows what else? Who knows what impact it will have, and on which countries? That is the difference. We are removing parliamentary scrutiny, rather than just carrying over old EU laws into current UK law.

[Ms Creasy]

There are so many things to unpack there, not least the right hon. Gentleman’s recognition that our previous regulations as part of the European Union were perhaps not that bad. With rules on bicycle safety, for example, perhaps it was pretty sensible to say that if something was safe in the UK, our colleagues in Europe might also be looking at it and we could share the burden of working out good regulation. That is not what happened with the retained EU law Act or with divergence, and it does sound like he needs to look at divergence. Thankfully, I have some statistics for him—I know he will be delighted to hear them.

Before we move on, let me just say this. Opposition Members have not spoken for British business today, although I accept that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), did try, and I recognise his expertise in toy manufacturing. He will recognise that we are talking about thousands of British businesses that are affected by regulations. What rules will those businesses have to follow to be able to sell in a market that makes their business sustainable? Some 12% of businesses in this country will be affected by this legislation, not because there are new rules, but because if we start to diverge from existing regulations, they will face a choice. Do they continue to follow European legislation so that they can sell into a larger market, or do they try to follow UK legislation, EU legislation and maybe Japanese legislation as well, with all the paperwork that comes with that?

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Richard Holden Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an important speech. Does she agree that we do not only need to grow our economy in new sectors? The UK has been a world leader in some areas historically, which was a driving force behind leaving the European Union in the first place. People wanted to get some innovation and growth back in areas that had been stifled by our European Union membership.

[Alison Griffiths]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. The future of successful economic growth is dependent on not just new industries, but ensuring that traditional industries, and both large and small businesses, can thrive and prosper in a post-Brexit scenario.

Amendment 17 would align the Bill with the pro-growth agenda and send a clear message to investors and innovators: Britain is open for business.

[Aphra Brandreth]

I will speak very briefly on amendment 17. The watchword of this Government has been, supposedly, growth. That is supposed to be the driving force behind legislation and policy, yet they have clearly introduced measures that have done nothing to support growth, and the Bill risks being another stumbling block to continuing the path of recovery—a recovery that the Government actually inherited, with the UK the fastest-growing economy in the G7.

The Opposition have sought to constructively improve the Bill through the amendment, which would ensure that the Government focus on growth. These are sensible and important provisions to promote investment and to foster innovation.

I am sure that Labour Members want to encourage economic growth. Supporting businesses is the way to do that. Empowering them—rather than prohibiting them with regulation and red tape from Brussels—should be central to achieving growth. There are huge opportunities and markets out there for the UK to seize. We must ensure that trade and national policy are as one, supporting job creation, innovation and competition. We need clarity and assurance from the Government that they understand the potential impact of dynamic alignment and the damage that that could do to the economy.

When have legally binding powers achieved growth? When has ambiguity in what businesses should expect and in their operating conditions delivered growth? The truth is that it does not. Businesses need clarity and confidence, and this skeleton Bill does not deliver that. If Labour Members really want—as they say they do—to see growth, I am sure they will want to support the amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire pointed out, the Government’s actions so far have seen GDP per capita shrinking and business confidence plummeting.

[Mr Holden]

The Bill makes it clear that the Government are keen on dynamic alignment with the European Union wherever possible. That is why the amendment is so important, because it points to what the Government should be doing. Rather than aligning with the European Union and tacking behind it on every issue, the amendment pushes for growth in this country, to deliver jobs for people in my hon. Friend’s constituency and mine. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire mentioned our need to embrace the business of the future, but we must also look to where we can drive forward areas that have been particularly left behind in recent years with traditional industries and sectors.

[The Chair]

Order. Interventions should be pithy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

The Government are clearly looking to do trade deals across the world, so will the hon. Lady reflect on the fact that, as we do not know where those fulfilment centres will be located in future, it is particularly important for the Government to look at the issue and consider it in the round?

[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.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting)

Richard Holden Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I rise to speak in support of the Opposition amendments, which are not just minor textual tweaks but go to the core of how we manage product regulations now that we have left the European Union.

Amendment 20, which proposes replacing the word “EU” with the word “foreign” in the relevant provision, might seem like a small change on the surface, but it is very important. Focusing only on EU law in this context risks narrowing our horizons at a time when we have been trying to broaden them. Since leaving the EU, the UK has made real efforts to strike up new trade relationships and to move in ways that enable us to take advantage of fast-growing global markets, not just the one on our doorstep.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The context is that, despite its massive expansion since 1990, the EU’s share of global GDP has halved from 30% to just above 15%. That is why the amendments, along with our earlier amendment on growth, are clearly in favour of the UK’s future as a global trading power.

[Aphra Brandreth]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course we need to think about the EU, but we also need to think more widely and broadly, and look at the opportunities across the globe. A good example of that is, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire rightly pointed out, our accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. That is a major economic partnership with Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. To join the CPTPP, the UK underwent a comprehensive review to ensure that our domestic regulations were compatible with those of its members. That progress was possible because we were no longer locked into EU rules.

We need to be careful here. If the Bill’s powers allowed us to simply fall back into alignment with EU laws through dynamic alignment, we would end up undoing the very advantages that regulatory independence has given us. That is why amendment 6 is so important: it would make sure that if we chose to align with any foreign law, EU or otherwise, it would be to the version of that law as it exists on a specific date, not as it may evolve in the future. In other words, we keep control: we know exactly what we are aligning with and we do so deliberately. As the Opposition continue to stress, the Bill clearly indicates a move towards dynamic alignment with the EU without oversight. It is clear that the intention is to see our regulations automatically change every time the EU updates its regulations.

Dynamic alignment would bring businesses uncertainty by requiring continuous adjustments, and such changes might require businesses to adapt and potentially bear the costs of the changes. As was pointed out in debates in the other place, EU rules are not always made with our economy in mind. They are sometimes protectionist, or designed to benefit specific interests in the single market. We must be sure that the Bill does not jeopardise any progress we have made with new partners, or tie us to a regulatory environment that is not in our best interests. Dynamic alignment would effectively mean outsourcing decisions about UK product standards to a foreign body. That does not sit well with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and, frankly, does not give British businesses the clarity or stability that they need.

Finally, amendment 22 would add a simple but important safeguard: it would require the Secretary of State to publish an explanatory statement if the Government plan to base regulations on the law of just one foreign market. It is a transparency measure. If we are going to align UK rules with those of another country or bloc, the public and Parliament deserve to know why that is the right course of action. The amendment would help to ensure that decisions are made in the national interest and, importantly, that they are properly scrutinised.

I ask again why Ministers are so unwilling to explain their decisions. Why would they not want transparency? If their decisions are in the public interest, they surely would not have any issue with supporting amendment 22 and agreeing to publish an explanatory statement in relevant cases. The Government have argued that clause 2 provides flexibility and continuity. I understand that perspective, but flexibility should not come at the expense of democratic oversight, and continuity should not mean quietly reverting to rules that we have worked hard to move beyond.

The amendments in this group would not prevent alignment where it is helpful; they would ensure that alignment is clear, accountable and firmly in our control. That is a balanced approach that recognises the opportunities of global trade while respecting the sovereignty of this House. I hope the Committee will support the amendments.

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms Vaz.

Opposition amendments 20, 6 and 22 to clause 2 are crucial to safeguarding our sovereignty and global outlook in the Bill. As drafted, clause 2(7) and (8) would allow UK regulations to treat compliance with EU law as sufficient for UK product standards. In effect, the Government are writing a blank cheque for automatic EU alignment into our product rules. The assumption that European Union regulations should be the starting point for our own safety standards is simply extraordinary. Did we vote to take back control only to hand it straight to Brussels by default?

Our amendments demand a global perspective. If the Bill lets EU rules count as meeting UK requirements, high-quality standards from trusted partners around the world must be treated equally. As the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), has pointed out, the Bill features the

“overweighting of references to EU standards versus comparable standards from the United States and Commonwealth friends”. —[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 221.]

Why should a spanner approved in Berlin get a free pass in Britain, but one approved in Boston or Tokyo face extra hurdles? Regulators in the US, Canada, Australia and Japan—allies with rigorous standards—deserve the same respect as EU regulators.

[Mr Holden]

Is that not particularly the case when it comes to some of our new international trade agreements that have defence implications, such as AUKUS with our Australian and American allies? Why would we want to use a Norway model in which we literally wait for the fax machine to churn out the latest EU regulation?

[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.

[Mr Holden]

I understand why the Minister does not want to mention it, but it is written all the way through the Bill. Is it not the case that there is dynamic alignment with the European Union?

[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.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Griffiths]

Amendment 26 relates to the alarming creation of new criminal offences in clause 3, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire has already set out. Clause 3(9) to (11) would let Ministers create or widen criminal offences and penalties by regulation, bypassing full parliamentary scrutiny. As my hon. Friend has set out, this is an absolute travesty, and it is extraordinary to believe that Government Members will support it.

The clause is an affront to the principle that criminal law is made by the people’s elected representatives in primary legislation, not by Ministers slipping provisions through the regulatory back door. Even the House of Lords Constitution Committee has fiercely criticised the approach, reiterating that using delegated powers to create crimes is “constitutionally unacceptable”. It urges that these subsections should be removed from the Bill entirely. We simply cannot allow a situation where business owners wake up one morning and find that a new statutory instrument has turned some technical regulatory breach into a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment. I urge Government Members to think about the provision.

[Mr Holden]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Government Members really should think about what they are doing? We remember that decades ago there was a lot of upset among the British public after people started to be prosecuted for selling things by pounds and ounces, rather than kilograms and grams. It is crazy that people could do be prosecuted by regulation and without proper scrutiny from this House, and Government Members will have to explain that to their constituents down the line. This is such a clear thing, and we should really think about it properly.

[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.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Third sitting)

Richard Holden Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I rise in support of new clause 2, which would be an essential and constructive addition to the Bill. It sets out a clear, common-sense purpose to ensure that any actions taken under the Bill not only improve product regulation and metrology but ensure that we do so while upholding the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy and competitiveness.

Some members of the Committee may ask why a purpose clause is necessary, but I argue that the new clause would do something quite fundamental. It would place sensible and proportionate boundaries on what is otherwise a very broad piece of legislation. In other words, it would limit the scope of the Bill. Without something like this, Ministers will effectively be handed sweeping discretion to use the powers in any number of ways, possibly including alignment with EU rules without full parliamentary debate or scrutiny. We all want regulation that works in the UK’s interests, but we must also ensure that those decisions are made here, transparently and with proper oversight.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Is the new clause not particularly important because of the unprecedented criticism in multiple reports from the DPRRC in the other place? That criticism calls into question the many issues that my hon. Friend raises, so there is an extra onus on the Government to accept new clause 2.

[Aphra Brandreth]

Absolutely. My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. These are real concerns that were raised in the other place, and I will explain why we need to make sure that the new clause is accepted. It would put the principle on the face of the Bill that we should make these decisions transparently and with proper oversight. The new clause says clearly that the Secretary of State must exercise these powers in a way that strengthens, not weakens, our autonomy and competitive standing. Surely we can all agree that is what our constituents understandably want.

The new clause would also set a standard for the quality of regulation. It would make it clear that Ministers must consider how to maintain a high-quality regulatory framework, rather than acting hastily or in a piecemeal way. That would be good not only for consumers but for businesses, which need clarity, certainty and consistency.

The new clause would not block progress or prevent co-operation with our international partners. It would simply ensure that major decisions are guided by the core principles of autonomy, competitiveness and quality, and that they are not taken behind closed doors with minimal oversight, so I am sure that Government Members will want to support it. After all, if they believe in transparency, parliamentary sovereignty and maintaining high standards, why would they not support putting those principles clearly on the face of the Bill? If not, we are left to ask whether there is a deliberate ambiguity. Do they not wish to say where they stand on automatic EU alignment or on Parliament’s proper role in scrutinising decisions?

In a previous sitting, I raised concerns about the ambiguity that runs through the Bill. That ambiguity does little to build trust, whether among businesses, consumers or the wider public. If Government Members support alignment by default, let us have that debate—let us hear the case for it in full view, with the transparency that our constituents expect—but if that is not their intention, and if they share our concerns about decisions being made behind closed doors without clear checks, they should back the new clause. It provides a clear, reasonable and proportionate safeguard.

New clause 2 would not create obstacles; it would create accountability. It sets out guiding principles where—let us be clear—they are needed. That is why I believe it deserves the Committee’s support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Jones]

I will only talk for a moment. I will carry on and the hon. Lady can come in later if she wishes.

In my experience, it is important that regulations are clear for UK manufacturers. They should have one set of product regulations, rather than one set for the UK, one for the USA and another for Europe. If the Bill allows us the possibility to align with Europe, that is extremely good.

[Mr Holden]

I totally understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. I understand that the Lib Dems desire to get closer to and back into bed with Europe—

[Clive Jones]

It is a business point of view.

[Mr Holden]

There are products in respect of which we have really good relationships with the EU and obviously want to align closely to it, but for some products we surely want to align with our bigger export markets. For example, we export a lot more of certain products to Japan and the USA. Why would the hon. Gentleman want to ensure that our alignment is purely with Europe, rather than with our major markets?

[Clive Jones]

I have not said “purely with Europe” at all. We should align with our major markets. I do not know what industries the right hon. Gentleman is referring to, but in my experience as an exporter to Europe and the rest of the world, it is much easier to have one set of regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Griffiths]

I rise to speak in strong support of new clause 3, which would introduce a critical safeguard to prevent Ministers from aligning UK product regulations with EU law if such alignment would jeopardise our existing trade agreements. Over the past decade, the United Kingdom has been forging a new path as global Britain, establishing modern, liberal trade agreements with key partners worldwide. Those include nations such as Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Canada and other CPTPP countries. Those agreements are predicated on the UK’s ability to act as a flexible sovereign regulator, not as a subordinate to Brussels.

Let us consider the CPTPP, which the UK joined in December 2024. It is a group of countries united by a common interest, representing 15% of the UK’s global trade and 13.5% of the UK’s global GDP. The UK’s accession is projected to boost our GDP by £1.8 billion annually and eliminate tariffs on 99% of UK exports to member countries.

[Mr Holden]

Is one of the nicest things about CPTPP not that it is continuing to expand into those new growing economies? My hon. Friend describes the impact today, but the impact will be even greater in years to come.

[Alison Griffiths]

My right hon. Friend makes a valuable point. This is a flexible, forward-looking agreement with global ramifications.

The UK-India free trade agreement, signed in May 2025, is expected to increase bilateral trade by £25.5 billion by 2040 and enhance the UK’s GDP by £4.8 billion. The agreement will cut levies on 90% of British products sold in India, including whisky, food and electrical devices. The recent UK-US trade deal, announced on 8 May, provides a £5 billion opportunity for new US exports to the UK, particularly benefiting farmers and producers. Although the deal maintains a 10% tariff across the board on most UK exports, it offers relief to certain UK sectors, including through the elimination of US tariffs on UK steel and aluminium exports.

However, the Bill leaves the door ajar for a realignment with EU rules, often through delegated powers and without rigorous economic impact assessments. New clause 3 would establish a clear boundary: if aligning with EU regulations threatened to breach or undermine our global trade agreements, Ministers would have to refrain. The clause champions growth and supports global trade. It would ensure that we do not regress to a scenario in which Brussels dictates our standards, causing complications in our trading relationships with Tokyo or Washington.

If the Labour party is honest about cultivating global partnerships, it should welcome the new clause. It is imperative that we enshrine legal safeguards to prevent any regression into EU dependency. I urge the Committee to support new clause 3 and uphold the integrity of Britain’s proud global trade strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Griffiths]

Those were wise words from my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury. New clause 5 states that Great Britain should not implement EU laws rejected by Northern Ireland under the Stormont brake. Under the Windsor framework, Northern Ireland retains a mechanism to object to the application of new EU law, but under Labour’s Bill, there is nothing to prevent the very same laws being imposed in England, Scotland, or Wales, even after they have been blocked in Belfast. That is illogical, inconsistent, and constitutionally incoherent. 

New clause 5 resolves this by saying that if Northern Ireland activates the Stormont brake on an EU provision, the Secretary of State must pause for thought before applying it to Great Britain. It is not an attempt to hand Northern Ireland a veto over GB law; it is a call for parity of esteem. If something is deemed unacceptable for part of the UK, we surely owe the whole country a pause for thought. It will also serve as a practical brake on the quiet reimportation of EU law into our domestic system, by reminding Ministers that we are one United Kingdom, and that alignment by stealth undermines both sovereignty and the Union itself.

[Mr Holden]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that not only does it undermine the Union, but it undermines some of our other international and domestic political agreements, such as the Belfast/Good Friday agreement?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Jones]

New clause 6 has been grouped with new clause 7, and rightly so. Both are driven by the common goal to deliver meaningful support for our Great British small and medium-sized enterprises.

SMEs are the backbone of our economy—engines of innovation and growth that employ millions of people across the UK. Successive financial and administrative barriers have been allowed to accumulate, holding them back. Under this Government, small business confidence has fallen to its lowest point since the first quarter of 2020. The product safety measures enabled by the Bill have the potential to deliver real improvements for consumers, but the reality is that smaller firms do not have the legal or compliance resources that larger businesses can draw on. That is why, as proposed by new clause 6, it is vital that the Government provide specific and accessible support to help small businesses understand what is expected. Ultimately, the new clause is about making the legislation work for everyone, not just for those with in-house legal teams or significant compliance budgets.

New clause 7 seeks a similar purpose. Testing and certification are essential for ensuring product safety and regulatory compliance, but they can be a significant cost for a small business. To take just one example, the British Toy & Hobby Association informs me that an electrical toy must undergo no fewer than 37 separate tests to achieve compliance. There is no single standard test, and the costs can range from £1,000 to £10,000. A significant cost is attached to these essential tests, which is why a review is important.

The tests are critical, but they also represent a significant financial burden, which is why a review matters. It recognises that SMEs often face disproportionate costs and access barriers when attempting to meet the same regulatory standards as their larger competitors. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that his Department will provide clear and proactive support for small businesses navigating the regulatory changes introduced by the Bill?

[Mr Holden]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz.

These small but practical new clauses would help small and medium-sized businesses, so I hope the Minister will acquiesce to the Liberal Democrat motion, which will be supported by Conservative Members. New clause 6 would ensure the publication of simple and clear guidance for SMEs on day one of the Bill becoming law, to be updated every time new regulations are made. Such guidance would set out the key provisions of the Act, provide practical advice and list the available support and contact details for further assistance. New clause 7 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the accessibility and affordability of independent product testing and certification for SMEs, helping to consider the costs, availability of providers and market access barriers.

SMEs often lack the compliance resources of larger corporations. The previous Government’s £4.5 billion advanced manufacturing plan and broader support for British innovation demonstrated our commitment to helping small and medium-sized businesses to grow and compete. The current Government say they want to help such businesses grow and compete, and new clauses 6 and 7 would be practical measures to help them do just that.

Small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of our economy and are important drivers of innovation and export growth. New clauses 6 and 7 would give them a fighting chance to innovate without being buried in red tape. I urge colleagues to support both new clauses as sensible and practical improvements.

[Alison Griffiths]

I have spoken in opposition to the Bill as someone with more than 30 years of business experience in organisations of every size, including SMEs. New clauses 6 and 7 underscore the fundamental flaws and overreach of this Bill.

New clause 6 proposes that the Secretary of State should produce and maintain guidance for small and medium-sized enterprises on how to comply with the Bill’s provisions. New clause 7 similarly calls for a review of access to testing and certification for SMEs.

At first glance, the new clauses may seem helpful, but they raise a fundamental question: why is that level of bureaucratic scaffolding necessary in the first place? The Bill is convoluted, overly centralising and inherently burdensome. It gives the Secretary of State sweeping new powers to regulate, without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny or consideration of local and devolved voices. It introduces layers of compliance that risk choking innovation and enterprise under a mountain of red tape.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Holden]

Surely one of the best ways to ensure a level playing field for business is to ensure that SMEs, which do not have the heft of large businesses that can lobby directly, get a practical update when changes are made. That is all the new clause would do.

[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.