Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Gardner]

I commend my hon. Friend for his outstanding advocacy, in particular for the workers of Moorcroft. I know how hard he has been working for them, and I agree that they are a testament to the great skilled craftsmen and women in British manufacturing.

Stoke-on-Trent, the Potteries and Staffordshire are globally renowned for our chinaware and tableware. We stand tall among the likes of Limoges in France and Delft in the Netherlands, and we must ensure that we protect that status. We are celebrating Stoke-on-Trent’s 100th anniversary this year and working towards UNESCO creative city status. I hence urge Ministers and the Government to demonstrate their pride and support for this globally renowned industry by supporting new clause 1.

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

It is a pleasure to follow my colleagues from Stoke, who have so powerfully advocated for their local communities. It is also an absolute pleasure to be part of a debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), who I genuinely believe should be knighted for his services to explaining what metrology is to all of us. At the very least, he should have some kind of BBC Four series, possibly with my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) as his sidekick.

I am here because I have tabled new clause 15, which has cross-party support. It is designed to be a probing amendment—I hope the Minister is reassured about that—because these are important parliamentary matters. I agree with Opposition Members that this Bill is an important piece of legislation, although I come at it from a different perspective, because I see it as being at the sharp end of Brexit.

To me, Brexit is paperwork, because there are multiple regulatory regimes. Our constituents, and particularly small businesses, must deal with the reams and reams of paperwork that have come from leaving the European Union in the way we did, and we know that has had an impact on them. We know that over 16,000 small businesses have given up exporting to the European Union because of all the extra paperwork, that one in eight small exporters had temporarily or permanently stopped selling to the EU, and that another 10% were considering doing so, because it had become more complicated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

As the hon. Lady appreciates, we come at this Bill from different angles. We have tabled some amendments, including amendment 13, which would require the Secretary of State to come to this House and make a statement. As the hon. Lady says, small businesses are seeing regulatory change happen so swiftly that they cannot keep up. One issue with the Bill is the fact that it will be possible for regulations to be changed even more quickly, at the stroke of a Minister’s pen. That could lead to small and medium-sized enterprises being disadvantaged compared with very large businesses, which can align much more quickly.

[Ms Creasy]

The right hon. Member had the luxury and benefit of being on the Public Bill Committee. I did not have the ability to ask the questions that he is asking, but I look at the evidence under the previous Administration. When there was the ability to diverge, what actually happened? The reality is that very little divergence happened, because it is not in our national interest. We can, and do, fight many things in this place —indeed, in British politics—but geography really is not one of the things that it is worth our time arguing about.

Given that we do five times more trade with our European Union neighbours than with America, China and India put together, it obviously makes sense to have a regulatory regime that makes that trade as friction-free as possible, which is where this piece of legislation comes in. Indeed, under the previous Government, there were only five cases of active divergence—the sort of changes that the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) is worried about—that might affect small businesses. That is with good reason, because if we have a sensible regulatory regime, it makes sense to be aligned. The Prime Minister has talked about that, and it is also what businesses want. The Engineering and Machinery Alliance, which represents over 1,600 firms from 11 different trade associations, puts it very simply. It says that our businesses

“are trading in European markets and are part of European value chains. They have European customers and suppliers. For companies operating in highly specialised, high value markets, the UK is unlikely to provide the mass needed to develop and successfully market their products. They need to be international and that means working to international standards—the EU’s being, almost always, the most appropriate.”

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the Tory/Reform Brexit has been a complete disaster for our economy?

[Ms Creasy]

I cannot even look you in the eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know I should not be tempted into quite that level of analysis. Very practically, we are trying to deal with the fallout of Brexit. The hon. Member will have heard me say that we need a salvage operation, because of the consequences seen and the damage done as a result of the way that our leaving the European Union was conducted. I see this Bill as part of that salvage operation. We used to be part of writing such regulations with our colleagues in Europe, which we do not do any more, but we need a process to maintain them because of the reality of the supply chains, of how we do business and of where divergence has hit small businesses—and it is small businesses, in every single constituency, that have paid the price for this version of Brexit.

[Mike Martin]

I’ll take that as a yes.

[Ms Creasy]

The hon. Member can take it as yes, but he will know that I am sticking very closely to the amendments, because I want to come on to how we make such decisions.

First, though, we need to be clear that this legislation will affect the lives of our constituents. Let me give one example. I am a child of the 1980s; I remember the Glo Worm. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for looking surprised—I hope it is a look of surprise, but perhaps you are remembering the Glo Worm yourself. The point is that the Glo Worm turned out to be quite a dangerous toy because of the chemicals it contained. Regulations help to keep us safe, so when we are talking about sharing regulatory regimes and being able to promote markets, there is a good reason why we are seeking high standards. I hope that everyone will hold the Glo Worm as an example—it has now been reissued without those chemicals in it, thank goodness, so that children of the 2020s can enjoy those squidgy toys.

What matters is how we make decisions about such regulations, and the debate on this Bill heralds a bigger conversation that we need to have in Parliament about how we can be involved in those decisions now that we are not part of the European Union. Obviously, agrifood and sanitary and phytosanitary goods are not included in the Bill, but the Government have now committed to dynamic alignment with EU rules for a very common-sense reason. As the Prime Minister has said,

“we are currently aligned in our standards, but we do not get the benefit of that. We want to continue to have high standards; that is what the British public want”.—[Official Report, 20 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 894.]

I hope that is the ethos we take in how we use the powers in this Bill. It is certainly what businesses would like us to do.

[Mr Holden]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Creasy]

I will happily give way, although I promised Madam Deputy Speaker that I was about to turn to new clause 15.

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, but on the broader issue of dynamic alignment, are there not some issues—for example, animal welfare, which is not covered by the Bill—on which, if we want to maintain higher standards, we will want to go further than our EU allies, not dynamically align with them?

[Ms Creasy]

The right hon. Member seems to believe the regulatory regimes we had were a ceiling rather than a floor. There was nothing to prevent us from having higher standards; they were about maintaining standards. He and I are on different sides of the debate about nutrient neutrality, but the concern was about the high standard when it came to protecting our rivers and seas from algae that was at risk under the previous Government.

The right hon. Member is right, though, to raise the question of how we maintain standards, which is where new clause 15 comes in. It is about the concept of how we take back control—which, frankly, was at the heart of all the Brexit debates. I am sure the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) is surprised that I have become the stopped clock for him: this is one point in his political career that I may be right.

There is a challenge here that we need to address, and those of us who came to the Brexit debate from different directions can all agree that it is good and healthy to have such a discussion. I also want to say, as a parliamentarian, that the Government should be directed to do something that has consequences for Parliament as well. That is where new clause 15 is coming from. It is a probing amendment to raise a more general concern about how we make good legislation.

At the beginning of this Parliament, the Government decided not to re-establish the European Scrutiny Committee, which had existed since 1973, to scrutinise European documents that affected UK policy or law. In the debate, the Leader of the House said that

“the principal job of the Committee—to examine the documents produced by the EU institutions that the Government would automatically take on board—is no longer required.”—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1272.]

The challenge for many of us is that this Bill, and indeed the deal we now have with the European Union, means that that test is being set again. There is now a need for some form of dedicated scrutiny mechanism, with specialist expert staff to consider relevant EU laws and rules. That is not confined to the issues arising from this Bill; it is a broader point about what is happening now.

The ESC worked primarily by examining proposals from the European Commission and giving an opinion on their implications and when they would affect

“matters of principle, policy or law in the UK”.

I recognise that since that Committee was abolished, some work on these issues has been done by other Committees, and that is welcome. However, with this Bill and the reset deal, we are moving to a volume of European law and regulation with such technical complexity that we in this place would be best served by having that specialist expertise. Let’s be honest: many of these things are beyond our individual pay grades and we will want some expert assistance.

Put simply, if PRaM is passed in its current form, where the Government choose to recognise EU product regulations there will again be documents produced by EU institutions that the Government would automatically take on board. The Government’s dashboard of assimilated EU law shows that there are 155 items in the area of product safety and standards that derive from European law and could, under PRaM, be influenced by proposals of the European Commission to update EU law. Clearly, 155 documents alone would likely mean we exceed the ability of any one individual departmental Select Committee to devote sufficient time to the required level of scrutiny given their other priorities.

Many of us had run-ins with the previous Member for Stone. For some reason he never quite welcomed my interest in his work, but my interest and concern in scrutiny in this place is genuine and heartfelt, because I do think that at our best we can help Ministers, although I know that some on the Front Bench—maybe on both sides of the Chamber—will be raising an eyebrow at that suggestion. Aside from the democratic merits of parliamentary scrutiny in its own right and the cry to take back control, there are a number of benefits to the Government of ensuring that regulations derived from EU laws are scrutinised closely, not least because if those regulations deriving from EU law were later the subject of judicial review, the quality of parliamentary scrutiny of the relevant secondary legislation would be factored into a court’s thinking on the adequacy of the Government’s decision making. We might also pick up things in the process that have been missed.

It is indeed the question of perfection, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) said, to argue that any Government or any individual scrutiny process through a statutory instrument could ever be perfect. I do not believe we should set that standard. As a psychologist, I believe in competing opinions and views; there is always merit in having a second pair of eyes. That is what this process is getting at—that is how we get closer to perfection, if I have understood my lessons in metrology correctly.

The point also fits within the broader debate about how, as we reset our relationship with Europe, we make sure that we show the British public our homework. That is ultimately what good scrutiny does: it defeats the naysayers who claim that there is a backroom fix; it allows the disinfectant of sunlight to be poured on every single document to its dullest degree.

As the Prime Minister told the House in presenting the European deal, we will be taking co-operation with Europe “further, step by step”, and alignment will be an important part of that. I welcome that because it is in the interests of the British public. We are already committed to dynamic alignment on the SPS deal, to free us from those dire border checks and all the extra paperwork that means that there are trucks stuck at Sevington, food inflation has increased and our constituents have paid the price.

We are also looking at dynamic alignment on emissions trading to allow us to remove energy tariffs in key industries including steel. That means that when those deals are completed, there will be much larger volumes of EU rules that directly affect UK law and policy. That will probably be a good thing but it is right for this place to be able to debate, discuss and scrutinise how that works.

I hope the Minister will recognise that every single political party in this House has supported new clause 15 because they want not to batter the Government but to engage with the Government on these issues, and that he will talk about how we can see the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny in this piece of legislation. I recognise that not many pieces of legislation will be affected by the PRaM proposals directly, but there is that broader point about how we take back control—how we have that conversation about the way in which we, at our best, can assist the Government to get the best out of regulations so that our businesses can keep trading, our consumers can keep buying and our Glo Worms can keep glowing.

[Adam Jogee]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in this debate; I was not sure that I would, depending on timings of the business of the House. I had the pleasure today of welcoming Doreen and Eric Moyse to Parliament. This year they both celebrate their 90th birthdays and I am sure colleagues will join me in sending our best wishes to them.

There are five MPs from north Staffordshire and we are all here, proud members of the Turnover Club and champions of our ceramics industry. We have all contributed to the debate both through making speeches and in interventions, and I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your guidance on the 33 amendments and for reminding us to speak to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I absolutely agree, and that is one reason why the Bill has been introduced. We absolutely need to keep up to date with developments in the online marketplace world, which is why we have introduced this legislation. It is not, as has been suggested, an unbridled use of powers; it sets out a clear set of principles and provides for the use of the affirmative procedure in most cases. There are already a number of regulations that will be transposed as they stand—there are about 2,500 pages of product regulations, including to do with noise levels emitted from certain types of machinery and the ergonomic design of personal protective equipment. Increasing the list of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure to cover such matters risks miring Parliament in a level of technicality that I think only my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash could follow. I do not think that is a good use of parliamentary time, and I believe the Opposition used to think that too, which is why the powers in the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which is similar to what we are dealing with today, remained in place under successive Governments.

I will deal now with new clause 15, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. She raised some important points, and I thank her for setting out the rationale behind her new clause so clearly. First, I reassure the House that we are not looking at the same level of regulatory change that was necessitated when we left the EU. We anticipate no more than half a dozen uses of the powers a year. That is because the fundamentals of the regulatory framework are already in UK law—thousands of pages, as I have referred to, and many of those provisions have been through previous scrutiny processes. The majority of future changes using the power in the Bill will be smaller and technical.

I recognise the concerns raised, though. When we were a member of the EU, directives enacting major regulatory changes were regularly transposed into UK law using the negative procedure. Our Bill contains many more safeguards than were in place before, meaning that the affirmative procedure will be used far more often, as I have set out. Careful consideration was given in the development of the powers to ensure that we struck the right balance between good use of parliamentary time and the processing of highly technical changes. We listened to the concerns raised by members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and went further, broadening the areas requiring scrutiny, as I have set out.

As Lord Pannick said, the practical reality is that technical regulations of the breadth and complexity that will be produced cannot sensibly be enacted by primary legislation. If we used primary legislation every time we wanted to do something on product safety, we would have little time for anything else. However, to provide maximum transparency in this space, we also published a code of conduct setting out the statutory and non-statutory guardrails in place before regulations can be made. That included a statement on how we will engage and consult with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that their views are considered. We will continue to review and update the code of conduct, and of course we will be happy to take suggestions on how we can be clearer about Parliament’s role in the scrutiny of regulations.

Given those assurances, I believe we have struck the right balance between scrutiny, the appropriate use of parliamentary time and the flexibility needed to keep our product and metrology regulations up to date. I hope that gives my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow some reassurances.

[Ms Creasy]

I thank the Minister for setting that out. It is incredibly helpful and reassuring to many of us to hear that in this instance just a handful of regulations would be affected. I hope that Business Ministers have heard the wider call for us to look at the issue across the piece; in fact, I am sure that the Minister will want to feed that in. What he said is very welcome and I am sure that all hon. Members who supported my new clause will be reassured accordingly.

[Justin Madders]

I am sure that Ministers across Government will have heard the important points that my hon. Friend has made today.

Amendment 7 on consumer protection could have unintended consequences as product safety is not one-dimensional; it requires consideration of multiple risks and consumer and business needs. For example, we are undertaking a significant programme of work considering furniture safety and the balance between fire risks and the possible effects of exposure to chemical flame retardants. Were the amendment adopted, we would be open to challenge by any interest groups unhappy with how regulations balance those factors. Indeed, when I gave that example in Committee, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson), said that it was a compelling reason for not accepting the amendment, so I hope the hon. Member for Richmond Park will not move that amendment.