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

Debate between Richard Holden and Justin Madders

Committee stage
Thursday 15th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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 I respectfully suggest that the new clause be withdrawn.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.

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

Debate between Richard Holden and Justin Madders

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.]

Post Office Horizon Scandal

Debate between Richard Holden and Justin Madders

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

What a surprise to see the hon. Member in his place today. I am sure that this will not be last time that we have an exchange across the Dispatch Box, but he does raise an important point. We absolutely agree that we need to make it as easy as possible for postmasters to raise their concerns and to get the justice that they have so long waited for.

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

I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your return to your place, and the Minister on taking up his appointment.

Compensation is one part of this, but what victims of this scandal, such as Betty whom I met, want to see are truth and accountability. I am referring not just to Ministers, to whom my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) referred, but to those involved in the scandal. What can the Minister say to people in the Post Office and to Betty, who want to see those responsible in the Post Office properly held to account, as well as the compensation for their suffering?

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. He makes an important point. Justice is one side of the coin, but there is also accountability for what has happened. A lot of people want to see that: not just those directly affected, but everyone who has been outraged by the years of inertia and obfuscation that we have seen in this scandal. The purpose of the inquiry is to get to the heart of who knew what, who did what and who did not do what they should have done, and whether individuals should take some responsibility for their actions. I have no doubt that, when those recommendations are released, we will want to see some very swift action on the back of that.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Richard Holden and Justin Madders

Report stage
Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and I apologise to the Minister for not being here at the very start; I was on a train back from a ministerial visit in my constituency. I would just like to pay tribute to some of the campaigners who are in the Public Gallery at the moment, particularly those from Karma Nirvana, the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, the Middle Eastern Women and Society Organisation, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Does the hon. Member agree that it is those campaigners and charities who have worked on this issue for a very long time who have really brought it to the fore—they have just been supported by some Members of this House—and that it is they who deserve the credit?

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think he is being very modest, but he is absolutely right that these things do not happen by accident. It is often the hard work, over many years, of campaigners and campaign groups who being these issues to the fore and do the diligence and the hard work behind the scenes that leads us to the sort of outcome that we will hopefully get today—an end to this abhorrent practice.

On the hon. Member’s other amendment, new clause 22, we also want to see hymenoplasty ended. It has no medical benefit whatsoever. As the Minister said, there is currently an expert panel looking at the issue, and he is waiting on its recommendations. I think the outcome is in little doubt, to be frank. However, I wonder whether the Minister can give us an assurance that, should those recommendations turn out to be as we would expect, he will be able to act on them quickly and get something down in statute as soon as possible so that we do not miss the boat.

Turning to the amendments on the health services safety investigations body, much of the proposed legislation is the same as that proposed in the other place, and there were extensive debates on this matter in Committee. There are, however, issues that remain, which are covered by amendments we will be debating today. I can imagine the other place having quite a lot to say about some of these issues. In general, we support the move to the new body, but over time attention must be applied to some aspects of the way it will function in practice. Our major reservation is, yet again, with the involvement of the Secretary of State. Our amendment 74 would have the effect of leaving out clause 115, which is another clause that gives the Secretary of State extra powers to interfere.

Our general observation would be that there is far too much extra power going to the Secretary of State in the Bill anyway, but we are particularly concerned at the powers set out in clause 115, which give him what we consider to be wholly unnecessary powers to direct. It is pretty much a blank cheque to enable him to step in and interfere any time he likes as long as he considers that there has been a significant failure. Under subsection (2), the Secretary of State can direct the HSSIB in whatever manner he determines, which I would have said is about as far away from independence as we can get—until we get to subsection (4), which means the Secretary of State can also effectively step into the HSSIB’s shoes and undertake the duties himself. I can do no better than refer to the evidence Keith Conradi gave to the Public Bill Committee, when he said:

“Ultimately, we end up making recommendations to the Department of Health and Social Care, and in the future I would like to ensure that we have that complete freedom to be able to make recommendations wherever we think that they most fit.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 60.]

We also support the amendments put forward by the spokesperson for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), which are important in preserving the principle and status of protected spaces. We feel it is important that they cannot be nibbled away at, as the Bill currently allows.

The purpose of amendment 57, which we also tabled in Committee, is simply to delete clause 127, which deals with the role of the Secretary of State in professional regulation. So far, we have had no convincing explanation of why the Secretary of State needs these powers. If there are no professions that he wishes to remove, we do not need the clause. If there are, he should say so, so we can have a debate now on whether it is appropriate to hand over those powers to him.

Finally, on new clause 1, I pay tribute to the all-party parliamentary group on beauty, aesthetics and wellbeing, whose work in this area has been influential in producing it. Many of the group’s members have put their name to it. As we know, cosmetic treatments can include a wide range of procedures aimed at enhancing or altering appearance. Many of those procedures are becoming increasingly popular and new clause 1 speaks to the well-articulated concern that non-medically and medically trained practitioners are performing treatments without being able to provide evidence of appropriate training, and without required standards of oversight and supervision.

I hope the Members moving new clause 1 will have the opportunity to speak to it, as there are far too many stories of people suffering horrific, life-changing injuries. There would undoubtedly be a saving to the NHS in reduced visits to accident and emergency and GPs to correct mistakes made by poorly trained and unregulated practitioners. We therefore think the new clause has value. Some of the impacts on the NHS from the lack of regulation include outbreaks of infection at a skin piercing premises, resulting in individuals being hospitalised; disfiguration and partial removal of an ear; second and third-degree burns from lasers and sunbeds; allergic reactions due to failures to carry out patch tests or medical assessments, which led to hospitalisation; and blindness in one eye caused by the incorrect administration of dermal filler.

New clause 1 seeks to put the protection of the public at the forefront by giving the Secretary of State power to bring into force a national licensing scheme for cosmetic procedures. Clearly, given that this is a departure from the wild west we face at the moment, we recognise that significant research and engagement with stakeholders will be needed to develop a scheme, as well as the provision of a practical and efficient system for people to become regulators and practitioners. If that does not make it on to the face of the Bill today, we hope this is an issue the Government will return to shortly.