Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 13 May 2025.

(Morning)

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

We are now sitting in public and proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch off electronic devices. Are all devices off? Excellent. I am not sure that mine is, but I will do that in a moment. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings, nor is milk.

We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Copies of written evidence received by the Committee will be made available on the table in the Committee Room.

I move now to declarations of interests. Members are responsible for declaring any interests, in accordance with the code of conduct, at the start of proceedings and when speaking or tabling amendments. Do any Members want to declare interests at this juncture? No.

We now begin—I am building the excitement, Minister —the line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available at the back of the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and amendments have been grouped together for debate. A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. For debates on clause stand part, the Minister will be called first. Other Members can then speak, and they need to bob if they wish to do so. If there has been sufficient debate on an amendment to obviate the need for a stand part debate, I will make that judgment at the time, as is normal in the circumstances.

At the end of a debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I shall again call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause or seek a Division. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendment in a group, including grouped new clauses, they will need to let me know. If you have signed amendments that you want to press, please let me know and I will take them at the appropriate time. My fellow Chair, Valerie Vaz, and I shall use our discretion to decide whether to allow separate stand part debates, as I have said.

I hope that is all helpful. Are there any questions at this stage? I am conscious that we have a number of Members who may not have served on Bill Committees before. Many of you probably have by now, but we will take it along those lines.

Clause 1 - Product regulations

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out subsection (1).

This amendment seeks to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State under product regulations, when defining and regulating risks and determining what constitutes efficient or effective product operation.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 15, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out “also”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 14.

Amendment 16, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out “(1) or”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 14.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

What a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir John, and for the duration of this Bill Committee. I am shall start by indulging the Committee with a little bit of background on the reasons behind the amendments in this group.

As colleagues will have noted, the Bill gives sweeping powers to the Secretary of State to change regulations through delegated legislation. It is what everyone would describe as a skeleton Bill—and those are not just my words. In clause 1, which we seek to amend, the sweeping powers given to the Secretary of State are quite extraordinary. It is not just the Opposition who have pointed that out. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place looked closely at the Bill and concluded that the delegated powers in clause 1—we will come to the other clauses later—are inappropriate and should be removed from the Bill. I am sure Members will agree that that is quite a strong statement.

In response to the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Government shifted somewhat. They acknowledged that Committee’s concerns and accepted that more detail could have been included in the delegated powers memorandum. Nevertheless, we heard again from the Committee on 21 February, when it welcomed the amendments the Government had tabled to introduce a requirement for consultation and narrow some of the delegated powers, but stated:

“The Government has not taken the opportunity to add flesh to the bones of this skeleton Bill.”

The Committee in the other place remained of the view that

“the delegation to Ministers of law-making powers in this Bill involves legislative power shifting to an unacceptable extent from the legislature to the Executive”

and that

“the Government has failed to provide a convincing justification for the inclusion of skeleton clauses in this Bill that give Ministers such wide powers to re-write in regulations the substance of the regulatory regimes for products and metrology.”

The Committee added that regulations made under the Bill should “in all cases” be subject to “affirmative procedure scrutiny”, meaning the regulations would require active approval by both Houses.

Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State extraordinary powers. I put on the record that the Secretary of State is a man of benign disposition. We can all see that many dangerous products find their way into the UK and to UK consumers’ homes, either through online marketplaces or through other means, and that a prudent and benign Government would need to introduce regulations to address that. The evidence that has been supplied to the Committee cites alarming cases of lithium-ion batteries, and regulations need take into account how dangerous those products can sometimes be. We are all aware of some of the challenges with online marketplaces where products that are illegal in the UK find their way to the UK market and UK consumers.

At the same time, although it may come as a surprise to some people, there are other countries in the world, and they also put in place product regulations. Some may have higher standards than us, and some may have lower standards. We can all agree that we want product regulation to be not only of the very best quality for the UK consumer, but consistent across our United Kingdom. The evidence to the Committee also highlights the need to look at the issue of fulfilment centres, on which it will be interesting to hear from the Minister.

It is also the case that we have our own accreditation: the UKCA—UK conformity assessed—marking. Many businesses in the UK have taken extensive and expensive steps to apply for that accreditation. The previous Government extended the recognition of the CE—conformité Européenne—marking, with which people are familiar and which shows that a product has met product regulation requirements in the EU. What plans do the Minister and his Department have for extending recognition of the very high standards that apply in the UKCA marking scheme?

What are the Government’s plans for when the operation of clause 1 leads to a difference in standards and labelling for particular products? In the evidence the Committee received, the example of tumble dryers was highlighted. A tumble dryer is likely to be subject to different labelling requirements in different parts of the UK, with the requirements in Northern Ireland being different from those in Great Britain.

In short, we are concerned that the legislation would give enormous powers to a future Secretary of State who might not be as benign as the one we have now. We need only to look across the Atlantic to see how President Trump was able to use Executive powers to move away from paper straws to plastic straws at the sweep of his signature. I am sure that Labour Members are extremely concerned about giving enormous delegated powers to the Executive, so will want to support our amendments to clause 1.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee not only had concerns about clause 1, as we will discuss in due course, but also raised concerns about clauses 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9, which I am sure we will discuss at length. It is extraordinary how much power is being taken by the Executive in this legislation. The Conservatives accept that there is a need to reduce and mitigate the risks presented by products that make their way into the UK marketplace. There is obviously an important role in ensuring that products operate efficiently and effectively, and that products designed for weighing or measuring operate accurately. However, we are startled by the extent of the powers provided to the Secretary State in clause 1, particularly in the subsections that we propose to amend. The Secretary of State’s powers are startling, as will be shown in the Committee’s line-by-line scrutiny of the clause.

To summarise the concerns about delegated powers, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated that:

“A delegated power is needed in order to ensure that the Secretary of State is able to respond swiftly to any new risks and hazards that might arise in this area—”

I am sure we will mention that again when we move on to clause 4—

“as well as ensuring continuity across the United Kingdom internal market. This will include an ability to maintain continuity with relevant EU law where it is deemed appropriate and, in the United Kingdom’s best interests to do so, but also the ability to make different provision to the EU.”

We will talk about that in more detail when we discuss clause 2.

It is worth highlighting to the Committee that the Secretary of State himself is not a fan of delegated powers. When in opposition, he stated clearly that they carry a risk of abuse by the Executive and were not something that the Opposition could ever support. In 2018, the Secretary of State said:

“We must bear in mind that the use of delegated powers carries a risk of abuse by the Executive, which is not something the Opposition could ever support. Rather, it is our duty at this stage to check the powers of the Executive and ensure that we are not giving them carte blanche to change the balance of power permanently in their favour.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2018; c. 305.]

It is not just the Secretary of State who feels strongly about this issue. The Attorney General said in his recent Bingham lecture on the rule of law that Henry VIII powers such as we see in this legislation are a strike at the rule of law—that skeleton legislation or delegated legislation

“not only strikes at the rule of law…but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty.”

I see that you are listening intently, Sir John. I want to re-emphasise why I think the powers are inappropriately drawn. Despite some movement in the other place, the Secretary of State is left with powers that are far too wide-ranging. On Third Reading in the other place, Lord Leong, speaking for the Government, said:

“We have taken the Bill from its early state to where it is today, and obviously it will now go to the other place. I am sure that the noble Lord is right: there will be further deliberation…and hopefully”—

that is the important point—

“we will get it to a better place.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2025; Vol. 844, c. 714.]

That is a green light from the Government spokesman in the other place for this Committee to do its job. I urge the Committee to accept our amendments to clause 1.

Alison Griffiths (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire made numerous important points—I reinforce the point that this group of amendments looks to a future with a less benign Secretary of State—and made the case that the current Secretary of State agrees with her.

Amendments 14, 15, and 16 seek to remove the sweeping powers currently granted to the Secretary of State under clause 1(1). As drafted, the clause gives a single Minister an almost unrestricted mandate to define and regulate product standards, ostensibly to reduce risk and ensure efficient and effective operation. The terms are vague and the power to define them is left entirely to the Executive. This is not a technical tweak. It is a fundamental constitutional concern. Clause 1(1) effectively hands Ministers a blank cheque to legislate by decree, bypassing the scrutiny and consent of this House.

The amendments would delete the subsection and make the necessary consequential changes, thereby restoring the proper balance between Executive action and parliamentary oversight. This is not about obstructing Government action. It is about ensuring that when Ministers act, they do so within clearly defined limits and with the approval of Parliament. Regulations that affect businesses, consumers and the public at large should not be made behind closed doors in Whitehall. They should be debated and decided in public, by elected representatives.

By supporting amendments 14 to 16, we reaffirm a vital constitutional principle: that it is Parliament, not Ministers, who should define the scope of regulatory power. The changes would not weaken the Bill; they would strengthen it by embedding accountability and transparency at its core. I urge colleagues to support the amendments.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I call the Minister for Employment Rights, Competition and Markets, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Justin Madders.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

Thank you, Sir John—and what a lengthy title. I hope that is not a portent for the rest of the day. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning. I thank all Members and officials for helping us to examine the Bill.

The Bill, as the title suggests, is a little dry—as dry as the weather, possibly—but it is very important in underpinning product safety in this country. I am sure that by the end of the Committee we will all know a little more about product safety, with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash, who is the first metrologist to be elected to this House. I am sure he will give the Committee the benefit of his experience, which we are all looking forward to.

I thank the shadow Minister for her introduction. She has cut to the heart of one of the central arguments that we will no doubt be having over the next few days, on the importance of the powers to keep people safe and to ensure that the right level of scrutiny is applied to regulations made under the Bill. The Lords have made a number of changes to get that balance right.

Our product regulation and metrology framework is extensive and highly technical. It extends to dozens of regulations and thousands of products in a huge range of technical detail. The Bill’s powers will allow us to keep that extensive body of regulation up to date. We need to make sure that regulation can be modified to reflect new evidence of risks, such as new chemical ingredients in cosmetics. We also need to keep it more substantially updated as business models and products change, not least to reflect the growth of online marketplaces, which I am sure we will debate in due course. The shadow Minister’s amendments 14 to 16 would strip out the power to do that in clause 1(1).

Clause 1(1) contains the Bill’s central power to ensure that product risks can be mitigated, to ensure that products operate effectively or efficiently and, of course, to ensure that products operate accurately. It is vital to ensuring that our product regulation framework can adapt, keep consumers safe and give them confidence that what they are buying is safe, which we think is very important. Removing subsection (1) would leave our product regulation framework frozen in time.

Of course, it is important that Parliament has appropriate scrutiny of the powers—no doubt we can all trade quotes on the various things we have said about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. However, it would not be a good use of parliamentary time to require primary legislation or affirmative procedure debates for every single change in the regulations, no matter how small and technical. We have listened to the concerns of the DPRRC and the Lords Constitution Committee and have already amended the Bill to improve parliamentary scrutiny. We have increased the number of areas where the affirmative procedure will operate, such as when we impose product requirements on a new category of supply chain actor, and removed most of the Bill’s Henry VIII powers.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

The Minister refers to the Government’s decision to pursue so many skeleton powers in the Bill, and says the Secretary of State now disagrees with what he said back in 2018. Can the Minister elaborate on what has happened in the real world to cause the Secretary of State to have such a damascene conversion?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I am not able to read the Secretary of State’s mind, but this debate is about a different area of law from the one the Secretary of State was talking about. I refer the hon. Lady to one of her colleagues, the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who said:

“It is critical that that power operates in that manner to ensure that legislation that sits on the UK’s statute book is able to keep pace with scientific and technological developments, so that we continue to uphold our high standards as well as ensure laws remain tailored to best suit the UK’s needs. Without that power, it would take a significant amount of parliamentary time for the Government to bring forward bespoke proposals and consider each amendment on a sector by sector basis.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 29 November 2022; c. 260.]

That is essentially the argument. I served on that Public Bill Committee, which accepted that there is a need for a degree of delegated power, but we have gone further. We have published a code of conduct setting out statutory and non-statutory controls to ensure that product safety regulation, now and in the future, is proportionate and evidence based, and takes into account the views of relevant stakeholders.

It is not the case, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, that this has all taken place behind closed doors. The code of conduct is a very clear public statement, there has been relevant engagement and consultation with stakeholders, and the affirmative procedure will be applied on a number of occasions. It is about getting that balance right.

I note the shadow Minister’s generous comments about the current Secretary of State being a benign individual; I hope her comments also apply to the Secretary of State’s immediate predecessor. It is worth pointing out that similar product safety powers have existed for almost 40 years in the Consumer Protection Act 1987. I do not believe there has been any occasion on which a Secretary of State, of any political persuasion, has used the powers in a draconian or whimsical way.

The shadow Minister described the powers in the Bill as “extraordinary.” I am afraid they are actually rather ordinary in the sense that, to my reckoning, over the last decade the DPRRC has described some 19 Bills as either wholly or partially skeletal. Of course, the shadow Minister will be aware that all those Bills were introduced when her party was in government.

It is entirely normal for Bills to have a degree of delegated powers, particularly within important areas of technical detail where there is a need to act quickly. It is about getting the balance right. We need to ensure that the product regulation framework is agile, up to date and able to protect consumers and businesses effectively. We have taken great care, and we have listened to get the right balance between delivering that objective and ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny on the exercise of the powers. I therefore invite the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

I listened carefully to the Minister. If I heard him correctly, he basically said that these kinds of skeleton Bills exist, and therefore, despite the objections of his Secretary of State in the last Parliament, he will persist in supporting legislation that continues this practice, which has been so soundly described in the other place as unacceptable in our democracy. The Opposition believe the principle is so important that we will press our amendment to a Division.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I sensed that you might.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations about the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom which corresponds, or is similar to, a provision of relevant EU law for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 4, in clause 2, page 3, line 39, leave out subsections (7) and (8).

This amendment removes the ability for product regulations to provide that product requirements are met if the requirements of relevant EU law are met.

Amendment 21, in clause 2, page 4, line 2, at end insert—

“(7A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (7)(a), a product requirement of relevant EU law must not be treated as met unless regulations are made by the Secretary of State to incorporate them into United Kingdom law.”

Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 4, line 6, at end insert—

“(10) The provision described in subsection (7) may only be made if—

(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a statement explaining the necessity of aligning with relevant EU law, and

(b) the updated provision had been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament when aligning with EU law, and for Parliament to approve that provision before aligning with EU law.

Amendment 7, in clause 2, page 4, line 6, at end insert—

“(10) The final meaning or interpretation of any provision of relevant EU law under this Act must be made exclusively by the Secretary of State or by a court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, as appropriate, and may not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.

(11) The enforcement of any provision of relevant EU law under this Act must be undertaken exclusively by the authorities of the United Kingdom Government and may not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.”

This amendment would prevent the interpretation or enforcement of any regulations referring to EU law from being undertaken by any authorities other than those based in the UK (for example the European Commission or CJEU).

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

We tabled our amendments to clauses 1 and 2 because we can see both what the Secretary of State intends and the purpose of the huge powers he is taking under clause 1.

Amendment 3 seeks to remove clause 1(2), which states:

“The Secretary of State…in relation to the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom”

can make provision

“which corresponds, or is similar, to a provision of relevant EU law for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products.”

That is an extraordinarily wide power. We seek to delete subsection (2) because it is clear that the Bill is effectively planned to be used as a Trojan horse. It will be a surrender Bill, ahead of the surrender summit next week.

Through this legislation, the Secretary of State will be given the power, for environmental and many other issues, to sign up to the rule of EU law on product regulation in this country without any further primary legislation. We have real concerns that the Bill could effectively be used to facilitate dynamic alignment. That is not even a hunch, as it is spelled out by the Department for Business and Trade in the impact assessment, which states that the Bill will:

“Ensure that the law can be updated to enable recognition of new or updated EU product requirements.”

It is spelled out, which is why we have also tabled amendment 4 to leave out clauses 2(7) and (8), and amendment 21 to add proposed new subsection (7A):

“Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (7)(a), a product requirement of relevant EU law must not be treated as met unless regulations are made by the Secretary of State to incorporate them into United Kingdom law.”

Amendment 5 would insert proposed new subsection (10):

“The provision described in subsection (7) may only be made if—

(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a statement explaining the necessity of aligning with relevant EU law, and

(b) the updated provision had been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”

Without those important provisions, we would be handing the Executive the most extraordinary ability to allow a foreign power to legislate this country’s product regulations. I am sure all parliamentarians agree that product regulation ought to be considered at the parliamentary level on a case-by-case basis.

Amendment 7 would insert proposed new subsection (10):

“The final meaning or interpretation of any provision of relevant EU law under this Act must be made exclusively by the Secretary of State or by a court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, as appropriate, and may not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.”

If the amendment is not accepted, we will effectively be signing up to the European Court of Justice agreeing and enforcing all the product regulations in this country. Therefore, amendment 7 would also insert proposed new subsection (11):

“The enforcement of any provision of relevant EU law under this Act must be undertaken exclusively by the authorities of the United Kingdom Government and may not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.”

Government Members can surely see that they are giving the Secretary of State extraordinary powers in clause 1, and both the Bill and the impact assessment specifically state that this will mean defaulting to recognition of EU law, but we do a lot of business with many other countries. Only in the last week, we heard of a trade deal with India and of some movements in relation to imports of US ethanol. It is extraordinary for primary legislation to be so specific that the power is to be used in this way.

When we were in government, we scrapped a third of retained EU legislation to make the most of post-Brexit freedoms. We amended, repealed or replaced 2,300 pieces of retained EU legislation, equivalent to about 34% of identified retained EU legislation. We made the most of our post-Brexit freedoms to reduce the regulatory burdens facing British businesses and to allow them to focus on the Government’s stated top mission—growth. After leaving the European Union, we took back the power to make our own decisions on regulation, so we must ensure that we are not beholden to any foreign courts on such decisions and that domestic courts interpret and enforce EU law.

This is not just me fulminating here, as the point was made by the House of Lords Constitution Committee in its second report of the Session:

“The delegated powers in the Bill provide ministerial discretion to make significant policy decisions that should be decided by Parliament, for example, related to product safety, environmental impact, national security or regulatory alignment with the EU.”

As we have heard, the Committee has real concerns about this skeleton legislation and its compatibility with the established principle that the principal aspects of policy should be on the face of a Bill, with only its detailed implementation left to delegated legislation. As their lordships said in their “Democracy Denied?” report:

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

The Bill involves the most extraordinary increase in Henry VIII powers, and it is clear that their purpose is to come up with a dynamic alignment whereby we effectively allow safety decisions about all products and metrology to be subcontracted to another legislature. It is quite extraordinary. I am sure that I am not the only one with real concerns about the extraordinary subcontracting that the Bill will allow Ministers to do. The changes made to the Bill in the other place do not address the fundamental concern of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

Clause 2 would effectively allow the Secretary of State to take the wide-ranging powers in clause 1 and continue to accept EU product regulation in a way that would not allow us here in the UK to express any view as to whether the product requirement is met. The very wordy subsections (7) and (8) of clause 2 will allow product regulations made under the delegated power in clause 1 to specify that a UK product requirement is met when

“a requirement of relevant EU law…is met”.

It is spelled out in the Bill itself: this is about dynamic alignment. Surely, one thing we can say with confidence is that when the British people considered all these issues in the round, dynamic alignment was something that they did not want to see.

I do not recall the Labour party, when it was seeking its mandate from the British people last July, saying in as blatant terms as the Government have in clause 2 how it was preparing to use power if it was entrusted with it by the British people. I think that the British people saw the words “seeking a closer relationship” and did not realise that, effectively, Labour was prepared to sign up as a complete rule-taker on product regulation. The clause effectively allows the Government, at the surrender summit next Monday, just to roll over and have their tummy tickled on product regulation. In short, I am sure that Government Members will not want to go to their electorate and tell them that they were part of the Committee that refused to end this power grab by Ministers.

We will get on to some of the other points made in our amendments, but in new clause 4 in particular we ask: why not have a review of this issue? The new clause would require the Secretary of State to

“establish an independent review panel…no later than 2 years after the day on which this Act comes into force.”

The panel would be required to

“carry out a review of all regulations under this Act corresponding to, similar to, or making references to, the requirements of relevant EU laws”.

The new clause would ensure that a review was carried out, and a report made to Parliament, of any regulations aligning the UK with EU laws, and require that review to be approved by both Houses for the relevant regulations to remain in force.

I am sure that agreeing to the new clause and to a review will enable the hon. Members for Penrith and Solway, for Bangor Aberconwy and for Stirling to go to their electorate at the next election and say, “Yes—look. These are the measures that we have signed up to and agreed to.” I am sure that their electorate will be fascinated to know what impact their decisions this morning have had.

In addition—I am sure the Government will want to support this—the new clause provides that the review should address the

“effect on economic growth;…on trade in the product concerned on a global basis; and…on the relevant industry or industries within the United Kingdom”

of regulations subject to section 2(7). The proposed review panel should have a least one member with expertise in economics, at least one member with expertise in trade policy and at least one member with expertise in domestic regulation of business.

We believe that the new clause is fundamentally important. Without a review, we could end up with a situation where the Secretary of State uses these dynamic alignment powers—these Trojan horse powers; these surrender powers—willy-nilly to agree to a very wide range of changes that apply to consumers in the United Kingdom without the UK Parliament having had a chance to scrutinise them in detail.

I know that Government Members will want to go to their electorate with the report of the review and say, “This is what we did.” I am sure that the Government have proposed these measures because they think they will have a positive impact on economic growth or trade in the product concerned, but let us find out the facts and have some proper experts appointed to a panel so that they can give us their words of wisdom about the impact of this Trojan horse legislation on the United Kingdom, in particular as it uses its trade freedoms to strike deals with countries around the world.

Those are the reasons why we tabled the amendments in this group. I am sure that all Committee members will warmly support them.

Aphra Brandreth (Conservative, Chester South and Eddisbury)

I want to make a few brief points in support of the Opposition amendments. Taken together, they serve a simple but essential purpose: they seek to ensure that the powers granted under the Bill are used transparently, responsibly and with full parliamentary oversight. Let me be clear: this is not about rehashing the debates of the past. It is about making sure that future decisions, especially those that could have profound consequences for British industry, trade and product standards, are subject to democratic scrutiny.

As it stands, the Bill gives sweeping discretion to Ministers to align domestic product regulations with European law. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire said, it enables the potential for dynamic alignment, which the impact assessment essentially spells out as the aim, without any binding requirement for parliamentary approval, debate or even explanation. Amendment 5 would change that by requiring the Secretary of State to explain the rationale for alignment and seek Parliament’s consent before any such decision takes effect. This is not obstructionism; it is good governance.

As has been noted, the Bill also risks undoing the progress made by the previous Government in removing excessive red tape and regaining regulatory autonomy. Through sovereign decision making the UK has created trading opportunities on the world stage. That is why amendments 3 and 4, to remove automatic mechanisms to treat compliance with EU rules as equivalent to UK compliance by default and without justification, are vital. This is not about rejecting co-operation where it is in our interest; it is about avoiding automatic alignment without accountability.

As was raised in the other place, the powers are not just technical; they are significant policy decisions that deserve primary legislation. The democratic will of the British people, expressed in the referendum when we decided to leave the European Union and in elections since, was to restore British sovereignty. It is only right that no authority based outside the UK, whether it be the European Commission or the Court of Justice of the European Union, can unilaterally shape the enforcement or interpretation of our rules.

Amendment 21, in particular, would ensure that any EU-derived product standards must first be brought into UK law by regulation before they can be treated as equivalent. That would both protect sovereignty and provide certainty. Ultimately, there must be proper scrutiny, and if Ministers are confident in their decisions, they should have no concern about being asked to report back to Parliament on any regulations aligning with EU law and to ask Parliament to approve their continuation. That would enable proper oversight while guarding against regulatory drift.

The amendments are targeted and thoughtful. They would not prevent Ministers from acting, but they would ensure that they do so openly and with the consent of the elected representatives of this country. That matters, because however Ministers may choose to use the powers—whether to diverge or align—the current framework allows decisions of major strategic importance to be taken essentially behind closed doors, with no parliamentary say. That is not how we build confidence among businesses or maintain legitimacy with the public. Some have argued that aligning with EU rules could smooth trade, but let us be honest: dynamic alignment in itself will not remove border checks—that is a political decision by the EU—so we risk importing rules without gaining any influence or market access in return.

The Government may have narrowed some of the powers in the Bill during its passage through the other place, but as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made clear, those were limited changes that did little to alter the Bill’s fundamental character. The framework remains far too broad and vague, and it lacks sufficient parliamentary oversight. At a moment when trust in institutions is fragile and regulatory decisions will shape the direction and position of the UK in the global economy, the Bill delivers ambiguity. We need to make the amendments in order to ensure accountability.

Alison Griffiths (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The amendments in this group serve a clear and vital purpose: to prevent the automatic alignment of UK product regulations with EU law and to reaffirm our sovereign right to set our own standards.

As it stands, clause 1(2) would allow Ministers to make UK regulations that correspond

“to a provision of relevant EU law”

in the area of environmental product standards. In plain English, that opens the door to copying and pasting EU rules into UK law via statutory instrument without full parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 3 would remove subsection (2) entirely, closing that back door.

Amendments 4, 5, 7 and 21 target other provisions that risk tethering us to EU frameworks. For example, clause 2(7) would allow compliance with certain EU laws to automatically satisfy UK requirements. That is not sovereignty; it is outsourcing. This is not about rejecting co-operation with Europe. It is about ensuring that any alignment is a result of a deliberate and transparent decision made here in Westminster, not an automatic consequence of vague enabling powers. As my hon. Friends the Members for West Worcestershire and for Chester South and Eddisbury have made clear, the British people voted to leave the European Union to take back control of our laws. That control must not be quietly handed back through ministerial shortcuts.

New clause 4 is especially important. It would introduce a safeguard in the form of an independent review panel to assess any regulation made under the Bill that aligns with EU law. Where a Minister chooses to align, the panel would have to report back, within two years, on the impact on growth, trade and industry. Crucially, Parliament would then vote on whether those EU-aligned rules should remain in force. No regulation should persist by inertia. How can the Minister possibly object to a review after two years?

The amendments would not isolate us; they would empower us. They would ensure that when we choose to align with international standards, we do so on our terms, with full accountability. That is the essence of post-Brexit governance. We assert that UK regulators answer first and foremost to the UK Parliament, not to Brussels and not to Whitehall alone.

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. This is only my second Bill Committee, so please accept my apologies if I fail in any of the protocol. I want to make a small point on our new clause 9, which interestingly, being on the subject of the EU, is grouped with amendments tabled by the official Opposition.

I feel that new clause 9 provides a certain compromise between the two positions. It is important to recognise that the EU continues to be one of our biggest trading partners. Currently, a lot of product legislation is aligned, and therefore divergence is a concern for business. A lot of our small enterprises find that exporting to the EU is an important part of their business, so they need clarity and certainty if any legislation or product safety regulations are going to change or diverge. Our new clause would ensure that any such change, whether a continued alignment or a divergence, is scrutinised and made the subject of a statement to the House. I would be grateful if Members supported the new clause, which I feel offers a compromise between the two positions.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

We have had several impassioned speeches from Conservative Members. Unfortunately, they are all wrong about what the Bill does. I will attempt to explain what the position actually is.

The Bill provides powers to make and amend relevant product regulations, so that the UK can act in the best interests of our businesses and consumers, which I think we would all agree is a good thing. That includes choosing to recognise or stop recognising EU product requirements. That is the key: there is absolute ability to recognise or not recognise as we see fit. This is not back-door submission to the EU or having our tummies tickled—I am not sure what the correct legislative term for that is. This is about the Government taking back control to set their own laws, as we determined back in 2016.

Amendment 3 would remove clause 1(2), which gives us a power to update regulations that address the environmental impact of products where similar provisions exist in relevant EU law. Increasingly, product regulations take account of the environmental impact of goods and provisions. The Bill will enable us, where it is in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers, to choose whether to update our laws or not. As I have set out, the Bill is about supporting the UK’s interests. Clause 1(2) means that, where it is in the UK’s interests, product regulation can make the same or similar provision as that contained in relevant EU law, which can simplify the regulatory landscape for UK businesses.

Turning to amendment 4, again, clause 2(7) allows us to act in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers. It enables us to provide that requirements in our law can be satisfied by meeting specified EU requirements, but it does not mean that we are obliged to recognise EU provisions, and it also gives us the power to end such recognition. We have been clear that decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis, which I think is what the shadow Minister was asking for, based on the needs of UK businesses and consumers, with appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 4 would take away that flexibility and would freeze EU law in time at May 2024. I mention May 2024 because that is when the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which effectively introduced the same powers as those in the Bill, were made.

Alison Griffiths (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am genuinely curious. The Minister says that new clause 4 would take away powers. Can he explain why he would possibly object to the introduction of a review panel within two years? Surely there cannot be any objection.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I have not got on to new clause 4 yet. I will come to it shortly, and there are several reasons why we will resist it, but I was talking about amendment 4. All these numbers are very confusing.

I draw the Committee’s attention to what the then Minister—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who is now a member of the shadow Cabinet—said in May 2024 when introducing the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations:

“Where EU regulations change, we will consider whether to continue recognition of EU rules on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the views of industry and consumer safety.”—[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 13 May 2024; c. 4.]

That is exactly what we seek to do in the Bill. I know that there has been some change in the Conservative party since May 2024, but the current leader of the party was the Secretary of State for Business and Trade at the time. It is therefore curious, to say the least, that the Conservatives are now distancing themselves from their original position and seeking to take away our ability to make decisions on a case-by-case basis in the interests of UK consumers.

Amendment 5 and new clause 9 would require statements to be made to Parliament in relation to aligning with or diverging from EU law. I think them unnecessary. It is very clear that we will be taking decisions on the basis of what is in the best interests of the UK, rather than taking an ideological position in either direction. There may be instances in which the UK’s product regulation interests are different from the EU’s; there may be other instances in which our interests are similar. When making regulations under the Bill, we will provide Parliament with the usual information to make sure that their purpose and effect is well understood. That will provide Parliament with a clear explanation of the Government’s intent, and Parliament will have oversight of regulations made under the Bill. The amendments would add unnecessary extra processes and would not provide Parliament with any new information.

I turn to amendment 7. I remind hon. Members again of the purpose of the Bill, which is to ensure that the UK can deliver an effective domestic regulatory regime across a range of sectors. That is why the Bill will extend only to England and Wales, to Scotland and to Northern Ireland, as clause 13 sets out. There may be instances in which it is in the UK’s best interests to recognise a provision of relevant EU law when making domestic product regulations. In this instance, the recognised EU provision that must be complied with would be stated in UK law and would be enforceable only by UK authorities. If we wanted to update our laws to reflect a decision of the European Court of Justice, we would need to make a statutory instrument. There is no automatic taking of rules from the EU, as has been suggested.

Amendment 21 proposes that the UK should only recognise updated EU law if we incorporate the relevant updates into our domestic regulations, and the Secretary of State makes an explanatory statement if only recognising EU law under the Bill. The Bill is about ensuring that our domestic regulatory framework works for businesses and consumers. The Bill will allow us to make changes to our framework and reflect global best practice when doing so. The reason that it refers explicitly to the EU is that most of our product regulation is inherited from the EU, and we continue to recognise certain EU product requirements, which is the reason why the 2024 regulations were passed last year. This gives us the ability to review decisions on recognising certain EU product requirements. Clause 2(7) will allow us to do so on a case-by-case basis.

New clause 4 proposes a review panel. The Government have published a code of conduct, which has been drafted with valuable input from parliamentarians in the other place. It sets out the various guardrails that will be in place when the powers in the Bill are exercised; they include an impact assessment that analyses the expected effects of changes on businesses, consumers and the UK internal market. All secondary legislation made under the Bill will be subject to the statutory and non-statutory assessments set out in the code of conduct, including the principles of the better regulation framework.

Alison Griffiths (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I assume that the code of conduct you mentioned will be voluntary. I would be interested to hear what parliamentary enforcement the code, or indeed the wider constraints referred to in new clause 4, will receive.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Order. May I gently remind Members that they should not use the word “you”? “You”, in this context, is me, and I do not know anything about the code of conduct.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

If you wish to read it, Sir John, I can provide you with a copy.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I should be delighted.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

It is entitled “Product Safety: Checks and balances on developing policy and legislation”. It has been referred to extensively in debates here and in the other place. It is the guardrail by which we will be judged when making further regulation in this policy area. It sets out our commitment to ensure that the wider impact of any changes is properly considered and reported on where appropriate. We are happy to be judged by the standards set out in the code of conduct, which was developed in conjunction with parliamentarians in the other place.

New clause 4 would add unnecessary bureaucracy. The matter is already covered by the code of conduct. The new clause would slow down our efforts to protect consumers and introduce regulation. I invite Opposition Members not to press their amendments.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

We did not hear anything from the Minister to reassure the Committee on the fundamental points that we have been making throughout the debate. The Bill gives unfettered powers to the Secretary of State, and it is openly acknowledged, both in the Bill and in the impact assessment, that the powers could be used to dynamically align us to EU regulation.

We have tried to be constructive by tabling a range of amendments that would give a more prominent role to parliamentary scrutiny and would give the legislature significant oversight of how the Secretary of State uses the powers. The hon. Member for Chippenham also tabled an amendment that would enable the sharing of further information with voters at the next election. I think that the voters of Knowsley, of Birmingham Northfield and of Worsley and Eccles will want to know how their Secretary of State used the powers in this Trojan horse surrender legislation. They will want to know what the impact has been, as judged by experts such as economists and by people who really know their trade.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I was at pains to explain why the shadow Minister is wrong in her analysis of the effect of the Bill. It has essentially the same powers as in last year’s regulations, which allow us to take decisions on a case-by-case basis. Why does she insist on saying that this is some sort of Trojan horse?

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

It is accepted in the impact statement that that is one potential use of the powers, but if the Minister believes that, he will want to support our amendments in this group.

Sir John, I understand that because amendment 14 fell, we were unable to divide on subsequent amendments in the first group. In this group, however, I believe that we can divide the Committee on more of the amendments individually. I seek your guidance on how many amendments in this group we can divide the Committee on.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The amendments are not strictly consequential on one another, so it is possible to have separate Divisions. I assume that you wish to divide on amendment 3.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

In the light of your guidance, Sir John, I would like to divide the Committee on all our amendments in this group.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

We will divide on amendment 3 now, and on the others when we reach them.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

We come to amendment 38, tabled in the name of Clive Jones and Sarah Gibson. I call Sarah Jones.

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

Thank you, Chair. I am actually Sarah Gibson.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

If only Sarah Jones were here!

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

“(3A) Further, the Secretary of State may only make regulations under subsections (1) or (2) if satisfied that making the regulations will not result in reducing the necessary levels of consumer protection and regulatory standards in relation to products, with reference where applicable to equivalent product regulations or standards in force at the time.”

This amendment inserts safeguards to help ensure non-regression from existing legal protections to help ensure greater certainty and a level playing field. It addresses the omission on the face of the Bill of the current legal requirement that products placed on the market must in principle be safe.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones) would speak far more eloquently than I can, but I will make a couple of points to relay to the Committee why I think amendment 38 is important.

We are trying to ensure that the Secretary of State can make regulations under clause 1 only if satisfied that doing so will not lead to a reduction in consumer protection or regulatory standards. It is not about regression; it is about preserving the baseline of legal protection that we already have, especially when it comes to product safety and regulatory quality. We are all aware of recent cases of consumer products bought online that arrive in a substandard and dangerous state. I suspect that the Minister will say that no Secretary of State will lower existing legal expectations. That is great, but why not just put it in the Bill?

Amendment 38 would direct the Secretary of State to make reference to equivalent regulations in force at the time, offering clear and objective standards for comparison. It creates greater certainty for business and confidence for consumers. We think that it is important to include in the Bill the explicit legal requirement that products placed in the market must be, in principle, safe. Without that kind of safeguard, there is a risk of regulatory weakening over time, whether intentional or through oversight, which could undermine consumer trust, market fairness and even public safety.

By locking in a non-regression commitment, we would help to maintain a level playing field, especially for businesses in the UK that already meet high standards and do not want to be undercut by those who are cutting corners. It is about ensuring that as regulations evolve, we do not compromise the public interest in the name of flexibility and deregulation. I therefore urge the Committee to support the amendment.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chippenham for moving amendment 38. I reassure her that we take product safety very seriously, which is why we introduced the Bill. It is designed to ensure that only safe products are placed on the UK market, and it builds on a strong track record of protecting consumers, a goal with which we all agree.

The Bill includes robust safeguards to ensure that consumer safety and regulatory standards are not reduced when new regulations are made. The code of conduct, to which I have already referred, sets out our intelligence and engagement-led approach to assessing whether and how to update our product regulations. It means that we do not make changes in isolation; instead, we work closely with industry, consumer groups and regulators to build a clear picture of the risks, benefits and practical implications. This ensures that our regulatory decisions are evidence-based, proportionate and responsive to the evolving needs of businesses and consumers.

Product safety is often about carefully balancing the risks, while also considering consumer needs and expectations. An example that shows why we do not think it would be helpful to agree to the amendment is our current extensive engagement on potential reforms to furniture fire safety regulations. This requires weighing up the critical importance of fire resistance with the growing concerns about the health and environmental impacts of the fire-retardant chemicals used on furniture. No decisions have been made at this stage, but it is an area in which an evidence-based approach that balances those competing interests may lead to a different outcome, and that shows why tying our hands, by accepting the amendment, would not be a good idea.

We are confident that overall the Bill provides a robust and flexible framework to ensure that safety remains central, while enabling innovation and growth across the economy. Safety is the whole point of the Bill—it is central to what we are trying to achieve—but there will be occasions when different considerations come into play. The example that I gave is one very live example that shows why we do not think it helpful to accept the amendment.

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

I thank the Minister. I have served on a Bill Committee with him before, and he knows how to appeal to the technical side of my expertise. He gave a compelling example, and I thank him for his consideration. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 1, page 1, line 21, at end insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State must also by regulations make provision aimed at promoting investment, fostering innovation, and encouraging economic growth in relation to the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom.

(4B) Regulations under subsection (4A) must support—

(a) the creation of economic incentives for businesses that contribute to economic growth, and

(b) the alignment of product regulations with the strategic aim of positioning the United Kingdom as a global leader in innovation.”

This amendment ensures that the regulations in the Bill prioritise economic growth and the United Kingdom’s role in innovation and economic expansion.

The Committee will see immediately that the purpose of the amendment is to be incredibly helpful to the Government in their growth mission. How different the spirit of the amendment is from the spirit of the Bill! The Bill effectively outsources product regulation to a different Parliament; the amendment would ensure that the regulations made under the Bill prioritise economic growth and the United Kingdom’s role in innovation and economic expansion.

Throughout our history, the UK’s innovative spirit has increased our prosperity and growth as a nation. Key innovations that became accepted around the world led to greater prosperity for our fellow citizens, so what could be more important than for the Committee to agree to the amendment? The Government are very good at saying the word growth, but they have so far signally failed to deliver it. The amendment will ensure that, when exercising the powers in the Bill, economic growth truly is the first priority, as the Government so often claim it is.

We need only look at the record on growth since July 2024: GDP per capita has shrunk and the economy has flatlined; businesses have been crushed by the effect of the jobs tax announced in the Hallowe’en Budget, by the increase in business rates, by the unemployment rights Bill currently going through the other place, by the family business death tax and so on. I could go on. Lower growth is already set to cost the Government tens of billions of pounds in lost tax revenues. We can see it in the numbers. The Government might not want to hear that, but I am afraid that is very much what is happening out there in the real world following the Chancellor’s two disastrous Budget attacks on the UK economy.

The amendment gives the Government the opportunity to make a real commitment to growth and not merely to say the word. It would also remove uncertainty for businesses, who would know that the purpose of future regulations under this Act, if passed, would be to grow the economy and not merely to align dynamically with the EU or to shackle wealth creators and terrify them out of the country—something that is happening all too frequently at the moment, with a millionaire leaving the UK every 45 minutes.

The amendment requires the Government to focus, in their use of the extraordinary powers they are taking under this legislation, on those important innovative sectors. For example, on Second Reading it was said that one area where the Bill would be used would be the regulation of artificial intelligence. Although the Bill is not the only way in which the Government are considering artificial intelligence, it is an incredibly important area of innovation.

It is important to emphasise in Committee that the way that the EU has gone about regulating artificial intelligence is seen by the wider participants in the sector as being thoroughly inferior to the way the last Government approached artificial intelligence, with the Bletchley Park summit and the accord that came out of that. That would be a particularly damaging area in which the Government could use the extraordinary powers that they are taking under this legislation to suffocate an important area of innovation and important sector of our economy, where the UK has the scope to set the standards that the whole world adopts. Indeed, it took that leadership position at the Bletchley Park summit, with the accord made then, and has shown real leadership in this area. I name that as one area of economic innovation where the UK is taking a leading position.

The amendment enables the Secretary of State, when using these extraordinary powers, to take into account the impact on innovation and economic growth. It would foster the innovation that attracts the investment that drives the growth. I am afraid that that is something the Government show little sign of understanding. The economic data since they took the reins of power has greatly disappointed, and they showed their ability to damage with their Hallowe’en Budget last October.

In proposing amendment 17, we are trying to be extremely helpful to the Government. We think it would focus minds and ensure that the product regulation measures that the Secretary of State takes forward will promote economic growth, innovation and the prosperity of our constituents, rather suffocating innovation and economic growth; so often we have seen regulators not only in the EU, but in other countries put in place measures that have that unfortunate side effect. I think the Government will want to immediately and with alacrity agree to amendment 17.

Alison Griffiths (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Amendment 17 speaks directly to our country’s values of enterprise, innovation and economic freedom. The proposal would insert new subsection (4A) into clause 1, placing a clear duty on Ministers that, whenever they exercise regulatory powers under the Bill, they must do so with the aim of promoting investment, fostering innovation and encouraging economic growth.

In short, the amendment would ensure that regulation is about not just managing risk, but unlocking opportunity. It would put growth at the heart of our regulatory framework—an aspiration that I know the Government will want to support. Regulation and prosperity are not mutually exclusive. As a Conservative and, indeed, a former businessperson, I understand that wealth is not created by Government; it is created by the ingenuity of businesses, entrepreneurs and investors—but Government can either enable that ingenuity or suffocate it. This is a pro-growth Government, so they should be in favour of the amendment, which would ensure that every regulation made under the Bill is shaped with a constant awareness of its economic impact.

The amendment would require Ministers to ask: does this rule support innovation? Could it be more flexible? Will it help British firms to compete globally? Too often, regulations—however well-meaning—have imposed hidden costs, stifled small businesses or driven innovation offshore. The amendment would guard against that by making growth a guiding principle, not an afterthought. It also reflects the unique opportunity we have post Brexit. No longer bound by one-size-fits-all EU frameworks, we can craft smarter, more agile rules that play to Britain’s strengths. Proposed new subsection (4A) would serve as a beacon in the Bill, signalling that when we regulate, we do so to empower, not to encumber.

Take, for example, emerging technologies, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire has already mentioned. If we are setting safety standards for a new sector, the amendment would prompt Ministers to do so in a way that attracts investment, supports start-ups and keeps the UK at the forefront of innovation.

Richard Holden (Conservative, Basildon and Billericay)

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 (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

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 (Conservative, Chester South and Eddisbury)

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.

Richard Holden (Conservative, Basildon and Billericay)

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.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Order. Interventions should be pithy.

Aphra Brandreth (Conservative, Chester South and Eddisbury)

I thank my right hon. Friend for that important intervention. Dynamic alignment will see us give away control to the European Union, meaning that we cannot focus on growth in a way that will rightly and importantly improve growth for UK businesses across the whole of the UK. I represent Chester South and Eddisbury, a seat in the north-west of England, and we need to ensure that we see growth across the whole United Kingdom. The amendment, importantly, would ensure that we focus on that. More than ever, we must not stifle growth.

Alison Griffiths (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Perhaps my hon. Friend was about to make this point, but does she agree that the amendment would give the Government the opportunity to demonstrate to the world their commitment to and understanding of innovation agility, and the necessity to ensure that not just at Government level, but right across Whitehall, all our legislation considers how we can improve growth, innovation and ingenuity at all times?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That was slightly pithier.

Aphra Brandreth (Conservative, Chester South and Eddisbury)

I thank my hon. Friend for that clear and important intervention. She is absolutely right: this is an opportunity to create incentives for growth and to position the UK as a global leader in innovation. We all know that we must continue to innovate. We want the UK to be at the forefront for so many possible emerging markets. We must do everything we can to support that. I urge Members to support the amendment.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

Economic growth is, as we are all aware, the No. 1 mission of the Government. The Bill will support growth by giving the Government the flexibility to ensure that regulations are tailored to the needs of the UK and can respond to global developments. It will ensure that regulations work effectively for businesses and consumers, and will continue to do so in future. We will empower businesses to have the certainty that they can invest and innovate.

I have to take issue with what my Cheshire neighbour, the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, said: the Bill does not mean dynamic alignment and we have been clear on that. Some of the doom and gloom from Opposition Members about the state of the economy fails to recognise that it grew by 0.5% in February, and that we are currently second in the G7 countries in terms of growth predicted for this year. There are some positive aspects on the economy.

In terms of innovation, we of course now have the Regulatory Innovation Office under the auspices of Lord Vallance, who I think is doing some excellent work, particularly in the areas of AI. In terms of the shadow Minister’s references to AI, AI will become relevant in this particular Bill only when it is actually manifested in a tangible product. I understand that fridges are a good example of where AI and tangible consumer products actually come into play. I am not quite sure how that works in practice, as my fridge does not talk to me, but I believe that some do, and are quite smart at working out when someone has run out of products.

Amendment 17 specifies that regulations made under the Bill should encourage innovation and support economic growth, but the Bill is already designed to support both of these aims, providing greater flexibility in setting and updating our product-related rules, which will create regulatory certainty and support trade and consumer choice.

The ability to update regulations is essential for fair market competition and to protect consumers from non-compliant goods. The Government will always work closely with industry when updating regulations or developing product requirements. Indeed, a requirement for statutory consultation, added in the other place, further ensures that regulations will both protect consumers and support growth.

Our new industrial strategy further demonstrates our commitment to economic growth. We published the Green Paper on the industrial strategy in October, setting out a credible 10-year plan to deliver the certainty and stability that businesses need to invest in the high-growth sectors that will drive future growth in this country.

I hope that those points set out that we are committed to driving economic growth across the UK, supporting trade and ensuring that regulation works for both businesses and consumers, and the Bill already supports those aims. The amendment is therefore unnecessary, and I encourage the shadow Minister to withdraw it.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

Well, Sir John, I do have a very noisy fridge, but I am not sure it is helping me to order the milk. The crucial thing about amendment 17 is that it focuses on innovation. I appreciate that the Government Benches are not necessarily always as heavily weighted with those who have run or developed businesses themselves as ours are, but the Minister should recognise that businesses with a good market share are often able to entrench their version of a product into regulations. That prevents innovators from joining the market, because the regulations were put in place to favour those businesses’ approach. That is why the regulations proposed in clause 1 are so important, but also why it is so worrying that the powers that the Secretary of State is taking through this skeleton Bill are so extensive.

We are trying here to be helpful to the Government and to prevent that kind of behaviour, where the incumbent tries to get the regulations to work in its favour so that its competition cannot come in, compete against it and help the economy to grow through that process of creative destruction that is so often an important part of economic progress. That is why we have tabled this important amendment.

I suggest that the best way for the Government to show their passion for growth—they are clinging to a few recent statistics, but I am afraid that their track record since July is a woeful one, and the forecasts have all been halved by the major forecasters—would be by supporting the amendment. That is why I would seek to divide the Committee on amendment 17.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

We now come to the Question that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. I feel that we have had a full debate on the clause; I do not feel that there should be further consideration. I am happy to put the Question. Are you content, Minister?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I am always happy to be guided by your wisdom, Sir John.

Schedule - Excluded products

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

It is important to highlight the excluded products in the schedule. The powers that the Committee has just agreed to give to the Secretary of State will not cover food, plants, animal by-products, products of animal origin, aircraft, components of aircraft and radio equipment. Importantly,

“unmanned aircraft designed or intended…for use in play by children under 14 years old”

are not excluded. My eight-year-old grandson was given one of those for his birthday; I am reassured by the fact that, under the schedule, his little radio-controlled aircraft will be something that can be regulated. There are also some exemptions for military equipment and, furthermore, medicines and medical devices.

These exemptions are worth highlighting on the record because, in the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, we should appreciate that questions about food, phytosanitary products, medicines, military equipment and radio spectrum products are incredibly important, particularly in relation to trade agreements. When we discuss some of the clauses as part of the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, those things must be separately considered. It is notable that some of those product lines were ones that were not affected by tariffs when—and I quote —“liberation day” in the United States was announced. It is very important that there is clarity in the legislation. We have not tabled any amendments to the schedule, but it is worth highlighting that what we have been talking about today does not cover those product lines.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

The shadow Minister has helpfully read the list of sectors excluded from the schedule, so I will not repeat it. However, it is important, when a Bill has powers of this nature, that we are clear about what they do and do not relate to. As I think Members will appreciate, those excluded sectors will have other regulatory domains, which will refer to them. It is important that we are specific about what the Bill relates to, and that is the purpose of the schedule.

Clause 2 - Product requirements

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, at end insert—

“(2A) Product regulations must include requirements in relation to an environmental impact assessment, and provisions related to the right to repair and the circular economy.”

This amendment guarantees that future regulations under the Act will include provisions which relate to the circular economy and granting consumers the right to repair products.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 37, in clause 11, page 10, line 38, at end insert—

“‘circular economy’ means that products are manufactured to minimise waste and maximise the use, reuse, and recyclability of products;”.

This amendment clarifies the meaning of circular economy and is consequential on Amendment 36.

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

As Liberal Democrats, we are clear that the circular economy is not just a sustainability concept; it is a practical, forward-looking economic model that responds to the urgent challenges of waste, resource scarcity and climate change. At its core, the circular economy is about keeping resources in use for as long as possible, through reuse, repair, remanufacturing and recycling, rather than relying on the traditional “take, make, dispose” model. That shift is essential because the current, linear economy is inherently wasteful. We extract raw materials, use them briefly and discard them, often sending valuable resources to landfill or incineration.

The shift should be a win-win approach. For the environment, it reduces waste, lowers carbon emissions and reduces the pressure on our economy and ecosystems. It creates new business models, and jobs in repair and innovation, and it makes the supply chain more resilient, especially in a world facing geopolitical events and material shortages. It also brings clear benefits for consumers by encouraging the creation of products that are longer lasting, easier to fix and more affordable to maintain, which in the current climate of economic difficulties is always welcomed.

For Government and industry, the circular economy offers a strategic opportunity to modernise production, drive clean growth and lead global sustainability. We need to embed the circular economy principles, not only in waste and resource policy but across our industrial strategy, product design, and procurement and investment decisions. If we are serious about achieving net zero and protecting future generations, the circular economy must be a central pillar to our economic and environmental thinking.

While the circular economy is not necessarily new, it is something that we have lost. It was not many years ago that a faulty washing machine was mended—or even a noisy fridge, such as the one the hon. Member for West Worcestershire was concerned about. I feel that there are skills that we are beginning to lose and skills that we could be taking forward. Now, when something goes wrong, it is cheaper to replace it than to mend it. That is wrong, and this is a good place to start addressing that. I urge the Committee to support these amendments.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chippenham for making a clear argument about the importance of the circular economy. The amendments she spoke to seek to mandate that all product regulations made under the Bill require an environmental impact assessment, as well as provisions related to the right to repair and the circular economy. As Members will be aware, under the duty set out in the Environment Act 2021, Ministers and policymakers must already consider the environmental impact of all new Government policies. That has been reflected on and set out in more detail in the code of conduct, to which I referred Members today and which was in response to suggestions from Members of the other place on the kinds of issues to put forward in that code.

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has set moving to a zero-waste economy as one of the top five priorities of the Department. To support that, he has committed to work with a wide range of stakeholders to develop a circular economy strategy and a series of sectoral reform road maps to deliver a circular economy transition. It would therefore be inappropriate to introduce a definition of the circular economy in legislation at this time.

Turning to the right to repair, it is important to note that product regulations made under the Bill will cover many types of products, some of which may be inappropriate to repair, such as cosmetics. The Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information Regulations 2021 introduced measures including requirements for repairability for the first time in Great Britain. Those regulations contribute to our circular economy objectives by increasing the lifespan, maintenance and waste handling of energy-related products. The Government’s aim is to introduce further right to repair measures when regulating individual products under the ecodesign for energy-related products regulations where appropriate. As those powers exist, it is unnecessary to amend the Bill in the manner being suggested.

I thank the hon. Member for Chippenham for her contributions, but hope that I have demonstrated why such amendments would be inappropriate and unnecessary due to existing legislation or work being done elsewhere across Government. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

I thank the Minister for his response. Given that work is being done elsewhere on the circular economy, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Before we come to amendment 34, Minister, although you said that you will make a personal copy of the code of conduct available for me, I assume that it is available at the back of the room.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I will have to check with the Clerks. We will ensure that it is available this afternoon if it is not there already.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Thank you. As it has been referred to several times, it is important that all Committee members are able to reference it.

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 2, page 3, line 21, at end insert—

“(fa) a person involved on behalf of a person mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f), in product marketing or the use of products, including storage, transportation, packaging, labelling or disposal;”.

This amendment closes a potential loophole in the Secretary of State’s powers to ensure that, whatever their legal status or location, all relevant organisations in the supply chain, including fulfilment houses, can be held accountable by regulations to protect consumers from non-compliant goods.

The amendment is important because it adds a crucial provision that extends regulatory accountability to those involved in the broader handling and marketing of products. Specifically, it covers storage, transportation, packaging, labelling and disposal—all key parts of the product journey from manufacturer to consumer. The aim is to close a potential loophole in the powers of the Secretary of State under the Bill. Without the amendment, there is a risk that certain players in the supply chain, such as fulfilment houses, third-party logistics providers or re-packagers, could escape regulation even if they are handling non-compliant or unsafe products.

We know that consumer harm can arise at any point along the supply chain, not just at the point of manufacture or sale, so it is vital that all relevant organisations, regardless of their legal status or physical location, can be held accountable where necessary, The amendment supports stronger consumer protection, promotes fairness in the marketplace and ensures that everyone involved in putting products on the market plays to the same rules.

Richard Holden (Conservative, Basildon and Billericay)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

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.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I thank the hon. Member for Chippenham for tabling the amendment, which seeks to add to the list of persons in clause 2(3)(i) on whom product regulations may impose requirements. I recognise her good intentions behind the amendment to ensure that all relevant actors must be captured by our regulatory framework, including fulfilment houses.

Clause 2(3)(i) strengthens that approach by making it clear that any person engaged in activities related to a product can be brought within scope. That is a critical safeguard against loopholes that could be exploited by those seeking to operate outside the law as new, often complex business models emerge. My eyes have certainly been opened in recent months about some of the new ways in which such operations can deliver products to consumers. The Government have taken care to ensure that the powers in the Bill are robust enough to account for new actors arising from both technological innovation and shifts in supply chain practice.

I hope I can reassure the hon. Member that the Bill as drafted gives us the flexibility and breadth to tackle and cover any new developments in this policy area. Amendment 34 is unnecessary because actors, such as fulfilment houses and others that undertake any activity in relation to products, are already captured by clause 2(3)(i). I therefore ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

Given that the Government feel that this issue is captured elsewhere, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. However, further work needs to be done to ensure that third parties that are involved are given the protection that they need. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am mindful, Dame Harriett, that you wanted to divide the Committee on amendment 4 to clause 2, which we debated with amendment 3. Do you wish to move that amendment formally?

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

I seek your guidance, Sir John, as there were a number of amendments that pertained to clause 2 in the first few groupings on which the Committee could divide. Should we do that now?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

We can divide now—I assume that you intend to ask the Committee to divide on further amendments—and I am inclined to do that. Amendment 4 relates to clause 2 and was linked to amendment 3. If you want to move that formally, I am happy to take the Division now.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It is my intention to allow the Committee to divide on all the occasions that you have requested, Dame Harriett.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

I welcome everybody to the afternoon sitting. I remind the Committee that it is really important for everyone to be able to hear—I have had a plea for Members to speak as clearly as possible. I also draw attention to the Bill’s code of conduct, which has been published.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 2, page 3, line 41, leave out “EU” and insert “foreign”.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 4, line 2, at end insert—

“(7A) Any regulations under subsection (7) which specify a relevant foreign law must specify that the foreign law referred to is that which is in application on a particular date, which must be specified.”

This amendment prevents the Bill enabling ambulatory references or dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws, and only enables alignment with laws as they stand on a particular defined date.

Amendment 22, in clause 2, page 4, line 5, at end insert—

“(8A) Before making provision described in subsection (7), the Secretary of State must make an explanatory statement if the provision relates to relevant foreign law of only one of the markets listed in the definition of ‘relevant foreign law’ in section 1(5).”

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. We start by discussing some of the amendments we have tabled to clause 2. In this morning’s sitting we had a thorough discussion of the issues relating to clause 1, and we also discussed some amendments to clause 2. I hope, Ms Vaz, that you will allow the Committee to consider each measure separately.

Essentially, amendments 20, 6 and 22 would allow for product regulations to be defined by relation to the laws of a wide range of foreign countries rather than just the European Union. Although we have an incredibly important and valuable trading relationship with our friends and neighbours in the European Union, and a very good zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with them, we also have a range of agreements with other countries that facilitate the international trade of products.

Amendment 20 would expand the scope of the powers that the Committee agreed to give to the Secretary of State under clause 1 to cover foreign countries with which we have a close trading relationship. For example, we have a close trading relationship with the United States; indeed, we are each other’s single biggest investor and it is the biggest single country with which we have a trading relationship. We would like to see the Bill enable a discussion whereby we liberalise trade between our countries but also mutually recognise product regulation.

We also have a significant trade agreement, the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, which covers our great trading relationship with friends as far away geographically but as close emotionally as those in Australia and other countries around the Pacific. I am sure that Australia has a system to mutually recognise product safety regimes in important trade agreements, to allow global trade with the confidence that high-quality products are reaching the marketplace.

There is absolutely no reason for the Government to oppose the amendments, unless they truly are uniquely fixated on the EU as a product regulator. Any argument for permitting EU standards should also be one for permitting safe international standards from our other partners. That is unless the actual purpose of the Bill is solely to enable dynamic EU alignment—indeed, EU alignment is mentioned clearly in the impact assessment—while preventing alternatives that could benefit British businesses and, importantly, British consumers, who are our constituents. If the Government do not intend to dynamically align us with the European Union on product regulation, they have every reason to accept amendment 20 and make that clear.

Amendment 6 would add to clause 2 new subsection (7A), which says:

“Any regulations under subsection (7) which specify a relevant foreign law must specify that the foreign law referred to is that which is in application on a particular date, which must be specified.”

That would prevent the Bill from enabling ambulatory references or dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws, and would enable alignment with laws only as they stand on the particular date the Secretary of State decides to use his copious powers under clause 1. That would mean that if regulation changes, Ministers would rightly have to look again and decide whether to maintain alignment.

It is right that we do not give a blank cheque to the EU—or, if amendment 20 is accepted, to foreign countries—by allowing them to diverge on regulations while British businesses and consumers get taken along for the ride. We should be making our own laws that prioritise growth and innovation and that champion businesses here in the UK, thereby giving them the ability to set the standard and the bar and to thrive on the global stage. Only we in this Parliament should be in charge of those decisions; foreign courts should not opine on them. Amendment 6 would allow for flexibility if foreign laws changed, which would allow for a reassessment of their compatibility with the UK market.

Amendment 22 would require the Secretary of State to justify decisions through an explanatory statement, to limit any reference to the laws of one specific territory and prevent the provision of regulations for dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws.

By tabling these helpful amendments, we have given the Government a golden opportunity to show that they are not using this Trojan horse Bill to covertly, and without the express will of Parliament, dynamically align for evermore with EU regulations. They would open up the UK as a global trading nation to mutual recognition around the world. We have our very own certification—UK conformity assessed—which I urge the Government to seek to get recognised in all the trade agreements they sign up to.

Surely we want this Parliament to define the standards by which products around the world are recognised. There should be mutual recognition of the other high-quality jurisdictions—such as Canada, Australia, the United States and the countries in the Pacific—to supplement the recognition that the Secretary of State seems minded to give exclusively to the European Union.

Aphra Brandreth (Conservative, Chester South and Eddisbury)

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.

Richard Holden (Conservative, Basildon and Billericay)

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 (Conservative, Chester South and Eddisbury)

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 (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

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.

Richard Holden (Conservative, Basildon and Billericay)

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 (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

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.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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.

Richard Holden (Conservative, Basildon and Billericay)

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 (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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.]

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

Order. Can the Minister speak more clearly? Some Members cannot hear.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

Okay, Ms Vaz. It was also said in that debate:

“We should bear in mind some of the history and the proximity of the UK to EU markets.”—[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 13 May 2024; c. 4.]

Those were not my words, but the words of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who was the Minister at the time. It is clear that we are acting entirely consistently with the previous Government’s position. We recognise that there is a great deal of common history with the EU on product safety regulation, but the Bill gives us the power and the option to do as we see fit on a case-by-case basis. Conservative Members’ obsession with this issue does not reflect the reality of the Bill.

Amendment 20 would broaden the Bill to recognise product requirements in “relevant foreign law”, rather than only EU law. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents us from adopting other jurisdictions’ standards if we so wish, but “relevant foreign law” is very vague drafting. It could mean almost anything, and there is no definition in the Bill, so it is certainly not a provision that we can support. That approach is capable of being taken under the Bill anyway.

Alison Griffiths (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The Minister is still not being clear with us about exactly why he objects to broadening the scope of the Bill to include the valuable jurisdictions that I mentioned. Instead, he is constraining the Bill to being about only the EU.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

The answer is that the Bill does not constrain us from doing as the amendment proposes; it is perfectly possible for us to do it anyway. However, the definition of “relevant foreign law” is not set out in the Bill, which would cause us difficulties later on.

Alison Griffiths (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The Minister talks about impact assessments and so on, but does not the framing of the Bill mean that the current Government and any future Government can ignore any impact assessments and carry on regardless? There is no parliamentary scrutiny and there are no meaningful safeguards.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

That is not correct. There are a number of opportunities for debate under the affirmative procedure, and we have set out in the Bill the triggers that would allow that, so there will be plenty of parliamentary scrutiny. The amendments do not reflect what the Bill actually does and seek to paint it as a project, which it simply is not in reality. I therefore ask that they be withdrawn.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

I would like to respond before I divide the Committee on this amendment. I seek your advice, Ms Vaz. The previous group contained amendments 21, 5 and 7, which relate to clause 2, and we may also want to get the Committee’s point of view on them.

The Minister’s reluctance to make this innocuous change to the Bill speaks volumes. I am not the only one who thinks that: the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said in paragraph 4 of its 15th report that it is “deeply concerned” that

“the delegated powers in the Bill give Ministers maximum flexibility to choose the direction that the law in this area will take, including making potentially politically contentious choices about the degree to which our domestic laws on product regulation should be aligned with EU laws”.

By not accepting the amendments, I am afraid the Minister compels me to test the will of the Committee not only on these amendments but on amendments 21, 5 and 7, which we discussed in the previous group.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

Clause 2 clarifies the power given under clause 1, specifically what types of requirement the product regulations may cover. It enables regulations to specify the requirements that products to be marketed or used in the UK must meet. That will ensure that the UK can maintain high levels of product safety and compliance, support economic growth, and remove unsafe or non-compliant goods from the market.

The requirements may cover a range of activities related to products, and the list in clause 2 is not exhaustive. It includes, for example, how a product is marketed, how it is assessed, how it is installed and how it is manufactured and packaged. It also allows regulations to set requirements on the components of products, whether tangible or intangible. In that way, although the Bill relates to physical products, regulations may address the effects of intangible components, such as artificial intelligence software, on the risks that a physical product may present.

In terms of who it affects, the clause allows the regulations to set obligations on manufacturers, persons who market or import the products, online marketplace operators and other actors involved in the product journey. Thus, all actors involved in the product’s lifecycle, and therefore the product’s safety, may be covered by the regulations. Members will be aware of the breadth of product safety regulations already on the statute book. The breadth of clause 2 is necessary to ensure that all aspects of ensuring product safety are adequately covered now and in the future by regulations passed under the Bill.

While the growth of e-commerce models has provided consumers with greater choice and convenience, that cannot be at the expense of consumer protection or undermine compliant businesses. The rapid expansion of e-commerce has also brought significant challenges to regulatory frameworks, which were not designed with increasingly complex online and globalised supply chains in mind. Today, the sale of unsafe products to UK consumers via online marketplaces is a significant problem that has led to serious harm and fatalities. The clause will allow the Government to respond to those modern challenges by explicitly recognising the role of online marketplaces in ensuring that products sold via their sites are safe, while enabling businesses to innovate and grow.

We intend to use the powers in the Bill to clarify the responsibilities of online marketplaces. We will build on best practice to create a proportionate regulatory framework for online marketplaces to prevent non-compliant and unsafe products being made available on their sites, to ensure that sellers operating on their platform comply with product safety obligations, to provide consumers with appropriate information, and to co-operate with regulators, such as by establishing processes to remove unsafe products from the market quickly.

The Government will develop the details of the requirements with consideration of the practical implications and through stakeholder engagement and consultation before they are implemented via secondary legislation. The affirmative procedure will also apply when imposing product requirements for the first time on online marketplaces. This will ensure that the first regulations imposing new obligations on providers and platforms are subject to debate and appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.

As Members will be aware, currently we recognise certain EU product requirements, such as conformité Européenne marking, to support the interests of UK businesses and consumers. The clause will ensure that where the EU makes changes to product requirements, including those we recognise, we are able to recognise those changes where it is in our interest to do so. This would offer businesses the choice to use either the CE or UKCA marking to place a range of products on the GB market, helping them to avoid duplication of costs without compromising on consumer safety. The clause also enables the UK to end recognition of EU requirements where that is in our interests. The UK being able to respond to changes made by the EU to product requirements that we recognise will allow us to give businesses the regulatory clarity they need.

Aphra Brandreth (Conservative, Chester South and Eddisbury)

I thank the Minister for his remarks. If he says that these things will be done if they are in the country’s interest, what is the problem with bringing that back to the House to be debated and agreed? The problem we have, Ms Vaz, is that Ministers are to have discretion to decide what is in the country’s interest, when we think that should be for Parliament to decide.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I understand the point being made. We have already made it clear that there will be a number of occasions when we bring regulations under the affirmative procedure—for example, when a new power of entry is created; when regulations are disapplied in the case of an emergency; when a criminal offence is created or widened; when information sharing provisions are introduced; when cost recovery procedures are established; where changes are made to primary legislation; when the definition of an online marketplace is amended; when requirements relating to the marking of products and online marketplaces are introduced for the first time; when requirements on persons who control online marketplaces are introduced for the first time, and so on. I suggest that there will be ample opportunity for Parliament to have its say and scrutinise regulations made under the Bill.

Finally, I turn to the technical standards that will be developed or updated. Technical standards set out practical ways in which a requirement may be met, to help manufacturers in meeting their obligations. Currently, they can be used to demonstrate compliance with a particular product requirement, and are often prepared and adopted by recognised bodies such as the British Standards Institution. The reference to standards in clause 2 makes clear that regulations will maintain this practice, and that will therefore help to provide clarity to manufacturers and traders on how to comply with regulatory requirements through the use of these standards.

Alison Griffiths (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I ask the Minister to speak slightly slower; I am partially deaf and am really struggling to hear him. I am grateful for his forbearance.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I apologise—I had not realised. I will try to slow down.

Clause 2 is a vital part of the Bill: it will ensure that the UK has a comprehensive framework for regulating products sold on its markets and provides the flexibility to recognise global standards and maintain the highest safety and quality requirements for consumers and businesses.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

It will not surprise the Committee to hear that, because our very sensible amendments to clause 2 have been rejected, we continue to have significant concerns about it and the extraordinary powers it confers on the Minister. In particular, subsection (7), which we tried to amend, will allow product regulations to provide that a

“product requirement is to be treated as met if—

(a) a requirement of relevant EU law specified in product regulations is met, or

(b) such a requirement is met and conditions specified in the regulations are also met.”

Because of our concerns about those provisions, and because the Committee took the view that it did not want to accept our sensible amendments, I will divide the Committee on clause 2 stand part.

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Given that addressing the changes in retail, especially the rise of online marketing, is an important part of the Bill, I feel that the clause is vital, and I will support it. It is slightly sad that colleagues on the Opposition Benches allow their ideology regarding the EU to get in the way of supporting British businesses, which, as we know, want clarity and continuity.

Alison Griffiths (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

We share the hon. Member’s view that we should all be ambitious for the United Kingdom. There is no ideology on our side. We are simply seeking a global perspective rather than a constrained perspective.

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but I think we all have to recognise the reality of our starting position, which is that an awful lot of our product regulation is currently aligned. We cannot throw that out and start talking about “foreign law”, as if any country that we happen to have a trade deal with will have similar levels of scrutiny of its products.

Aphra Brandreth (Conservative, Chester South and Eddisbury)

The point is that we want to be forward-looking, and our concern is that this provision is very much backward-looking. My hon. Friends have talked about future trading partners and things like the CPTPP—things we might miss out on by being backward-looking. Does the hon. Member agree?

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

Although I am extremely excited about any future and new trade deals the UK might have across the globe, I am a little worried that we are back to Brexit benefits, which we did not quite see. We have to be realistic: our businesses need continuity and clarity, and I believe that the Bill provides them. It would have been much more useful if we had been able to concentrate on the valid points that Opposition Members made about parliamentary scrutiny, which we could quite clearly support. I will be supporting the clause.

Clause 3 - Enforcement of product regulations

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 3, page 4, line 8, leave out subsection (1).

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 24, in clause 3, page 4, line 11, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment 25, in clause 3, page 4, line 17, leave out subsection (4).

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

Clause 3 deals with the enforcement provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 grants sweeping powers to the Secretary of State, and clause 2 defines the types of requirement there may be on products. Clearly, the regulations that the Secretary of State has so much freedom to enact will need to be enforced, but the wording of clause 3 is such that any lawyer—or anyone who believes in our freedom and democracy under the rule of law—would be concerned about it.

Clause 3 states:

“Product regulations may designate one or more persons as a relevant authority.”

In amendment 23, we seek clarification regarding the designation of a “relevant authority”, as it is completely open to interpretation as things stand. Who are these relevant authorities that can come in and enforce product regulations? In amendment 24, we seek clarification regarding the specific functions that may be conferred upon that relevant authority under the product regulations.

In amendment 25 we seek clarification of the powers that may be granted to inspectors under the product regulations. Subsection (4) grants inspectors vast powers to enter, inspect and search premises and to seize, retain or keep products as evidence. That will be a massive hindrance to UK businesses that are already suffering from growth-stifling measures in taxation and regulation. Our amendment are designed to clarify how the clause will work in practice.

Sweeping powers are being conferred upon a relevant authority, and it would be good to hear from the Minister exactly how he sees the “relevant authority” coming into existence. Are we talking about existing relevant authorities, or new ones? Given the significance of the powers to enter, inspect and search, we hope that the Minister will elaborate on and clarify what exactly is meant by this sweeping term.

Alison Griffiths (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I rise to speak to clause 3 and Opposition amendments 23 to 25. Clause 3 deals with the enforcement of product regulations, but as it stands, it embodies a vast Executive overreach that undermines accountability and business confidence. The Opposition believe in clear and limited rules, not vague powers that spook entrepreneurs. Our amendments would inject much-needed clarity and proportionality into clause 3.

First, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire set out, amendment 23 presses for a definition of the so-called “relevant authority”. The Bill hands out new regulatory powers without even specifying who will wield them. Is it to be the Secretary of State, local trading standards officers, a new quango or devolved Administrations? Nobody knows. Businesses deserve to know who might come knocking at their door to enforce these rules. We need clarity about which authority is in charge, so that there is accountability instead of a free-for-all.

Secondly, amendment 24 highlights the Bill’s vague enforcement functions. Clause 3 would empower unnamed authorities to monitor, investigate and secure compliance with wide-ranging product regulations, but it sets no clear limits or guidance. That open-ended mandate could invite over-zealous enforcement. We all support product safety, but regulators must not have a blank cheque to harass businesses. The functions and scope of enforcement need to be defined with precision and targeted at genuinely dangerous non-compliance, not wielded arbitrarily. Trustworthy business owners should not lie awake at night worrying that some inspector will suddenly decide to make an example of them for a minor technical breach.

Thirdly, amendment 25 addresses the sweeping powers of inspectors. As drafted, the Bill will even allow inspectors to enter homes and seize products on the say-so of a Minister’s regulation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) warned in a previous debate that a future Minister, on a whim, could create legions of inspectors with the rights to barge into people’s homes or businesses and to confiscate property. We must ensure that enforcement powers are proportionate to actual risks, and that innocent consumers and traders are protected from unreasonable intrusion.

Aphra Brandreth (Conservative, Chester South and Eddisbury)

I rise to speak in support of amendments 23 to 25 on the enforcement of product regulations. Let me be clear: no one here is arguing against the need for robust enforcement of product safety or regulatory compliance. However, we must consider the broader context.

Clause 3—indeed much of the Bill—is a classic example of what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place has rightly criticised as “skeleton legislation”. The Bill delegates sweeping powers to Ministers to create regulatory frameworks entirely through secondary legislation, with little to no detail included in the Bill itself, yet here in clause 3, we are being asked to give authorities that have not yet been named real and potentially intrusive enforcement powers for regulations that have not yet been written. That should give us all pause for thought.

Subsection (1) allows Ministers to designate anyone as a “relevant authority”, and subsection (3) gives those authorities the power to investigate, monitor and even mitigate non-compliance. We then come to subsection (4), which grants those authorities the ability to appoint inspectors armed with powers to enter premises, seize goods, demand information and even order the destruction of products. These are serious powers. They may well be appropriate in specific, proportionate contexts but the point is that we do not know what those contexts will be because the Bill does not tell us.

How can we, in good conscience, grant enforcement powers for rules that have not been set to people we have not identified in a system that Parliament will have very limited opportunity to scrutinise? This is not a narrow, technical concern; this is a constitutional one. As the DPRRC in the other place said in its report:

“Skeleton legislation signifies an exceptional shift in power from Parliament to the executive”.

This is not something that this House should hand over lightly.

Our amendments do not reject the need for enforcement powers in principle, but as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire said, the wording of clause 3 needs to be clarified. Who are these authorities and what are their functions? In our amendments, we seek clear information, which is vital. There will be significant costs to businesses, so the powers must be clear. We all support product safety, but I urge the Committee to support the amendments and, in doing so, uphold the role of the House in setting the law, not just rubber-stamping it once the details have been decided behind closed doors.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

Amendment 23 would prevent the naming in regulations of “relevant authorities”. That would render enforcement of the Bill impossible, so clearly it is not an amendment that we will accept. Local authority enforcement officers conduct the majority of product safety and metrology enforcement activities, and the Office for Product Safety and Standards is the national regulator. Other regulators are also responsible for enforcement, including the Health and Safety Executive, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the Office of Communications and the Office of Rail and Road. There is an indicative list in the explanatory notes to the Bill and the code of conduct.

We need to be clear in clause 3 because it is important that the authorities are able to enforce in a targeted way when regulations are created. The Bill places sensible and important restrictions on those who may be named as a “relevant authority”. Only those who are fulfilling a public function will be given powers under the Bill. That is set out in subsections (2) and (3).

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

If I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that “relevant authority” is strictly limited to the organisations that he has already mentioned.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

If we were to limit ourselves to naming organisations in the Bill, we might not have sufficient flexibility in the future. I am trying to indicate the types of body that we would expect to enforce product safety regulations, as they do already.

Amendment 24 would prevent regulations made under the Bill from creating product regulations and metrology enforcement powers and functions. At present, product legislation provides a patchwork of enforcement powers across numerous pieces of legislation, but that has caused complexities and inconsistencies to emerge over decades. The Bill will enable the Government to introduce powers vital to the enforcement of product regulations and will ensure that enforcement powers can meet changing demands, without the continuous process of layering that caused confusion and complexity in the current framework. There is considerable precedent for the inclusion of enforcement powers in regulations, including the Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011 and the Personal Protective Equipment (Enforcement) Regulations 2018.

Amendment 25 would remove powers relating to investigations, which would prevent relevant authorities from effectively monitoring product compliance. Powers to inspect, investigate and dispose of goods are an essential part of effective enforcement. The purpose of clause 3 is to protect the public and ensure a level playing field for businesses. A crucial element of that is ensuring that it can future-proof enforcement against gaps that may emerge following changes in technology, some of which we have already discussed. Technologies such as 3D printing and AI are likely to have meaningful impacts on the supply chain and business requirements, so removing the ability to make targeted provision for investigatory powers in the Bill would undermine the ability appropriately to regulate products involving new supply chain actors and technologies.

There are provisions in subsection (5) on the requirements for warrants to be issued in certain circumstances, and the Bill also limits the criminal penalties that may be implemented for contraventions of product regulations. The criminal penalties imposed under the Bill may not exceed the existing maxima. This is not a massive expansion of powers; it is simply a consolidation of existing laws that gives us additional flexibility to adjust when new products and marketplaces develop, as we expect them to.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

I am not sure that I have heard enough to reassure the Opposition on the subject of who will be a relevant authority, which specific functions will be conferred on that relevant authority and the powers that might be granted to it, so I would like to press the amendments to a vote.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 3, page 5, line 16, leave out subsections (9) to (11).

Clause 3 continues to become even more dystopian. In the debate on clause 1, we acknowledged that we have an extremely benign Minister and Secretary of State, and we all acknowledge that products reach the UK marketplace that should not reach our consumers and constituents. However, that does not mean that we should give the Secretary of State with sweeping powers in law to come up with regulations and to have them enforced by some random “relevant authority”. We have heard a list of those authorities, but we know that it is not exhaustive.

Some poor, innocent business might not notice that the product regulations have been changed suddenly, because there was very little overt scrutiny of that change, and they might be left with a warehouse full of some good that was perfectly saleable on the UK market yesterday but is not today. As a result of the provisions in subsections (9) to (11), the relevant authority can send somebody into that business with sweeping powers to enter a premises, to levy fines, to create criminal offences and to send an individual to prison for up to three months. The provisions under subsection (9) to (11) could also go through with minimal legislative scrutiny—it really is not good enough. This is another of the skeleton clauses about which they despaired in the other place.

Subsection (9) specifies that product regulations can create or widen the scope of criminal offences, with prosecution by the relevant authorities—we do not know who they are—subject to the affirmative procedure, and they can confer powers on that same relevant authority to impose civil sanctions, including fines. The poor business that I am describing—one with a warehouse full of goods that suddenly, unbeknownst to that business, can no longer be sold legally in the UK, because a Parliament in Brussels has changed the rules—can find itself subject to confiscation and fines.

Under subsection (11), criminal offences must be

“triable summarily only, or…triable summarily or on indictment”.

The subsection provides for statutory limits on offences, but frankly, they are pretty harsh for someone who has potentially been caught inadvertently with products that no longer meet the standards for the UK market. Of all the shocking things in the Bill, these provisions are the most shocking.

Amendment 26 seeks to ensure that new criminal offences, which would have consequences for our already overburdened Ministry of Justice and criminal justice system, are not created through new product regulations under the Bill. The ability to create new criminal offences is an incredibly significant power; it really should not be passed through secondary legislation, and Government Members should think about what they are doing by supporting clause 3.

The creation of new criminal offences needs to be brought to both Houses and debated through proper parliamentary procedure, so that we can explore who these relevant authorities are as well as the potential inadvertent breaches of product regulation and metrology. Frankly, I think that this is the most shocking part of the legislation that we have seen. It shocked the other place, it has shocked the Opposition, and I think the constituents of Government Members will be shocked that they might agree to these sweeping powers.

Alison Griffiths (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

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.

Richard Holden (Conservative, Basildon and Billericay)

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 (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

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.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I am beginning to wonder whether Opposition Members think that “Capricorn One” was a documentary rather than a work of fiction. We are really entering some quite interesting territory about what evil plots this Government have, which of course is not the case at all.

Amendment 26 seeks to remove the ability to create or widen criminal offences, or to implement civil sanctions, through regulations. The harm caused by breaches of regulations can vary considerably depending on the product sector. Consequently, offences and penalties must be tailored to the specific requirements of a given sector and the seriousness of the breach. The consequences of failing to provide the necessary instructions for a product could be entirely different for a highly sensitive component within a nuclear energy installation than for a lower-risk product. Reducing enforcement flexibility to a series of broad, rigid offences would negatively impact relevant authorities’ ability to enforce proportionately. Attempting to draft very broad offences and penalties in the Bill, to capture requirements in a less targeted way, would actually undermine legal clarity and the principles of the rule of law.

There was talk from Opposition Members about how this would all be done through the back door. The affirmative procedure will apply where new offences are created or widened, so there will be no rubber-stamping after the event. There will be parliamentary scrutiny, as one would expect. We have considered the views of the DPRRC, but we have taken this approach in the Bill because it is not, in fact, unique to it. The shadow Minister said that she was shocked when she saw these subsections. I wonder whether she was equally shocked when criminal offences were created in regulations by the Building Safety Act 2022, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 or the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Those all included similar powers to the ones that we are talking about now, but I do not recall Opposition Members expressing shock and dismay at what was happening. Existing product regulations, such as the Cosmetic Products Enforcement Regulations 2013, also contained offences and penalties, further demonstrating that this is not a departure from existing practice.

The Bill has also placed limits on the maximum criminal penalties that may be implemented for contraventions of product regulations. Product regulations made under the Bill will not be able to exceed maximum criminal penalties that reflect the existing maxima. I believe that Opposition Members are making this a far more dramatic issue that it needs to be, and I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

Sadly, I have not seen “Capricorn One”. I have already said clearly, on the record, that I have great confidence in the good intentions of the Minister himself and his Secretary of State. However, that is not to say that we should put powers on the statue book that would allow future occupiers of the position to send someone to prison for three months, or to fine them a substantial amount. For those very reasons, I wish to press amendment 26 to a vote.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

Clause 3 reflects an ambition to streamline and modernise our approach to the enforcement of product regulations to ensure that it is proportionate and effective. We will ensure that the tools available for enforcement are effective so that we may further level the playing field for businesses and provide UK consumers with deepened confidence in their purchasing. Many of the powers contained within existing legislation overlap with one another, which has created a proliferated system that is undermined by its complexity.

The clause will enable the introduction of regulations that consolidate existing enforcement powers. New regulations will implement a set of flexible, proportionate and effective enforcement tools. The new toolkit will continue to cover activities relating to the monitoring, investigation, sanctioning and remediation of non-compliance with product safety regulations. By delivering these changes through regulations, we will be able to flex and adapt to the marketplace quickly. We will be able to ensure that duties can always be enforced, and it is imperative that duties can be enforced without ambiguity.

Through regulations enabled by this clause, we will simplify powers to ensure that they are applicable inland and at the border. We will also ensure that powers are available to enforce duties on all those holding responsibility in the supply chain. Powers should be applicable without unnecessary complexity wherever product regulations require enforcement. Additionally, we intend to augment existing powers carefully with precedented powers such as improvement notices and undertakings, which will provide proportionate routes for resolving non-compliance.

Another power under the clause is one to widen or create criminal offences, as well as introduce civil sanctions for the first time. We have committed to following the affirmative procedure when introducing regulations that seek to use the power to widen or create criminal offences. The power will allow offences to meet the requirements imposed by product regulations. Offences and penalties are already often set out in regulations, so this approach follows precedent.

Finally, the clause will allow the Secretary of State to designate relevant authorities responsible for product regulation enforcement to both ensure flexibility and provide additional clarity. We have included a non-exhaustive list of those relevant authorities in the Bill’s explanatory notes. As I have mentioned, relevant authorities will include those currently enforcing product regulation, such as local authority enforcement teams, the Office for Product Safety and Standards and the Health and Safety Executive. Relevant authorities will have access to the new, consolidated toolkit of enforcement powers that I have described. The clause is necessary for the proper enforcement of the UK’s product safety regime, and I commend it to the Committee.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

Ms Vaz, you will not be surprised to hear that this dystopian picture of unnamed relevant authorities sweeping the land with their powers of seizure, fining and imprisonment is not something that we support, and we therefore oppose clause 3.

Clause 4 - Emergencies

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

Members on this side of the Committee always enjoy our clause 4 moments.

Clause 4 is an essential part of the Bill, and it is informed by the lessons of the covid-19 pandemic. The then Government had to act quickly during that emergency to ensure the supply of critical products such as personal protective equipment. However, the regulatory easement was made under sections 45C, 45F and 45P of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 as no alternative powers were available through the product safety framework.

Clause 4 therefore fills the gap by providing a mechanism to disapply or modify product regulations in a controlled manner for future emergencies, including emergencies that go beyond public health. In practice, the clause will allow the supply and fair distribution of critical goods in short supply during a national emergency, while ensuring greater co-ordination of market surveillance and enforcement activities during these periods.

The Government have also produced a code of conduct on product safety to support the use of powers under the Bill. The code outlines the Government’s proposals for how the emergency powers will work. To summarise a few key points, the code outlines that a derogation will be made available only if there is a serious risk of harm to people, businesses or the environment, and if it is in compliance with the UK’s international obligations. A derogation will be granted only for products deemed critical for the emergency response where demand exceeds supply.

In times of emergency, the Government may temporarily reduce or modify requirements for a product to meet essential health and safety requirements for use in certain settings, provided the market surveillance authority is satisfied with the product’s safety and traceability. For example, in the hypothetical scenario of a national power outage, demand for essential consumer products such as gas stoves, torches or batteries could surge rapidly. If compliant products are in short supply, the Government could use clause 4 to allow UK manufacturers or importers to supply these products, where they meet essential safety standards or other internationally recognised standards, while awaiting UKCA certification.

In such circumstances, the market surveillance authority must also be satisfied that the product still meets acceptable safety standards and can be effectively traced through distribution. This may involve reviewing safety data, in-house test reports or batch numbers and distribution records for traceability.

To be clear, and as Members will expect me to say, the Government will use clause 4 only in emergency situations. Depending on the nature of the emergency, the Government will decide how products can best be fast-tracked on to the market and, where appropriate, implement conditions through secondary legislation for pre-market assessments, consumer protections and time limits. We have also committed to developing a clear framework for how clause 4 will operate in practice, in consultation with stakeholders. This will be developed and delivered through the Office for Product Safety and Standards, and it will be published in due course.

It is also important to highlight that the power is not a carte blanche for bypassing product safety regulation, but rather a targeted response to emergencies. The clause will ensure that, while we speed up the process, essential safety standards are maintained through proportionate measures. Crucially, the exercise of clause 4 will be subject to the draft affirmative legislative procedure, ensuring that any regulatory changes made under the clause are subject to scrutiny by both Houses before coming into force.

In conclusion, clause 4 is a necessary response to ensure that, in future emergencies, the Government can react swiftly to guarantee the supply of critical products while maintaining safety standards. I therefore commend it to the Committee.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

As the Committee reaches its clause 4 moment, Members might be pleased to hear that I will not propose voting against it—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I know: a political conversion. I accept that in exceptional times, and unfortunately we have seen a few of those in recent years, the Government need these emergency powers.

I welcome that, in the other place, Lord Leong published the code of conduct on product safety setting out how the Office for Product Safety and Standards expects the emergency powers to work. Will the Minister clarify whether that will include time limiting the period of emergency? How will we know when the emergency has ended? I believe that some products approved during the pandemic are on the market but still have not had their status clarified since the pandemic ended, as anyone would define it. Will the Minister elaborate a little on the time limits for emergency periods?

While the Minister looks at his officials for inspiration, I acknowledge that the pandemic was clearly an emergency, and we have seen a number of situations that could constitute an emergency. We will be able to tell when an emergency has started because of the steps that the Minister set out, but it would be helpful if he could clarify for the record how he would define the end of an emergency, when the powers will effectively end.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s support. As a shadow Health Minister during the pandemic, I had more than my fair share of emergency legislation, and I think it is fair to say that we have all learned lessons from how that process played out. However, I am afraid that her valiant efforts to play for time have not led to my getting the answer I was seeking. My understanding is that there will be some sort of time limit, but it is safer to say that I will write to her. It is important that we are clear.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

Thank you, Minister. This is one of the shorter clauses.

Clause 5 - Metrology regulations

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 5, page 6, line 8, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment removes the powers granted to the Secretary of State under metrology regulations regarding quantities and units of measurement in marketing goods.

We now come to the metrology part of the Bill. You will be glad to know, Ms Vaz, that as we have Parliament’s first elected metrologist in the hon. Member for Erewash on the Labour Benches, I will constrain myself to making legislative points rather than metrological points.

Subsection (2) is another example of the Bill’s Henry VIII powers. It grants the office of the Secretary of State—although I acknowledge that the current Secretary of State is benign—the power to make provisions on the quantities and units of measurement in marketing goods. People really care about the quantities and units of measurement of the goods they purchase. They are of great importance to consumers. I appreciate that food is not in scope, but when people do their shopping, they look at the units and quantities on the side of the packaging of the goods they buy.

There was extensive discussion in the other place about the importance of the pint. When it was first introduced, the Bill did not make clear the importance of the pint in our culture. I am pleased that we can now see on the face of the Bill that a pint is equal to 0.56826125 cubic decimetres. I am sure that is what you ask for when you go to the pub, Ms Vaz. It goes to show how important measurements are to our constituents. It is within the scope of clause 5 for the Secretary of State to do away with that, should he so wish, by arbitrarily rounding it to 0.56827 cubic decimetres. I think we would be very upset if he did that.

Such provisions, which are important to our constituents, should have much greater parliamentary scrutiny and debate. There should not be just one voice and opinion—the voice and opinion of the Secretary of State—on the quantities and units of measurement used to market goods for sale in the UK, which is why I am moving amendment 27.

Adam Thompson (Labour, Erewash)

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. It is also a great pleasure to serve on this Committee. It is rare that a Member has the opportunity to influence legislation that affects their specific area of professional expertise. As the first elected metrologist, I feel deeply honoured to be debating amendments to this Bill.

Amendment 27 seeks to remove the powers granted to the Secretary of State under metrology regulations regarding quantities and units of measurement in marketing goods, as we have just heard from the hon. Member for West Worcestershire. However, there are many reasons why it is not a good amendment.

During my speech on Second Reading, I discussed both what metrology is—the science of measurement and its application—and its history. I highlight that definition again because the decisions we make today will affect not only our trade relationships, as we have been discussing, but how fundamental science is conducted in both research and practice.

I discussed the history of the Egyptian royal cubit, which was the first unit of measurement, but today I will highlight how metrology is a fundamentally British science, with metrology regulations having formed a notable part of our legislative history. Magna Carta, the document that in many ways represents the birth of our nation—a copy of which sits in the other place—contains the first example of metrological regulation in Britain.

Magna Carta specified, for the first time, rules for the measurement of various commodities, such as wine, ale, corn and cloth, and represented a notable step forward in early British science, placing us very much at the forefront of the international curve of progress. The focus on alcoholic beverages in that document perhaps states something telling about the nature of early Britishness, but metrology’s inclusion in our great charter demonstrates Britain’s early standing as a nation of progress and science.

Britain has always remained at the front of that curve of progress, through the greats of the Victorian era, from Lord Kelvin to Darwin, and right up until today. A little over a century ago, we, the British people, formed the Engineering Standards Committee, later the British Standards Institution. The BSI was formed in 1901 and now operates in 195 countries, with 90 offices across 31 of those countries. The international nature of the BSI is essential to its success. By operating on the global stage, we have maintained our global soft power in the creation of standards and regulations that allow British industry to maintain dominance in fields from life science to advanced manufacturing.

I have had the privilege of serving on several BSI committees, most notably spending eight years of my former career on the technical product realisation committee 1/11, which is responsible for standards verifying X-ray computed tomography systems. That committee feeds into the work of the International Organisation for Standardisation, and specifically of technical committee 213, working group 10—the taskforce for X-ray computed tomography. While standards development is often slow and laborious, the great joy for me of sitting on that committee, and the various others that I contributed to over the years that preceded my election to this House, was the opportunity to work alongside technical experts from across my field representing industry, instrument manufacturers and academia.

I stress the importance of technical experts in these spaces. Standards frameworks work only because of the input of unpaid experts who come together to create a mutually acceptable national and international standards system that allows everything to function. Metrology and standards frameworks should be designed not by politicians and Governments but by technical experts. Indeed, I have spent many hours working on standards designed by non-experts that were often cumbersome, non-functional and, crucially, destined to be forgotten as the useless wastes of paper that they were. There is nothing worse than a bad standard. We need standards to be decided and honed by true experts and to have the broadest possible reach so that we can be as productive and effective as possible in our work.

The Bill, as currently drafted, allows the Secretary of State powers to maintain pace with the decisions of those experts. Amendments such as this one serve only to detach us from the perpetual motion of progress. Opposition Members have argued, wholly falsely, that the Bill defers powers to foreign nations or that it gives too much power to the Secretary of State of the day. The Bill is not about giving powers to foreign nations; it is about ensuring that the UK remains at the bleeding edge of science and regulation.

Alison Griffiths (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s point about expert witnesses. Like the relevant authorities we spoke about earlier, and which also come into clause 6, there is no clear definition of who those experts will be. The hon. Member is taking it on trust that they will indeed be experts.

Adam Thompson (Labour, Erewash)

It is important that I describe how standards bodies work. They come together through relationships between experts within an industry, and through mutual recognition of peer-to-peer expertise. That is how standards bodies are formed here and across the world. Inherently, the system that creates those standards bodies forms a trustworthy circle around them. Standards are ultimately optional. If a standard does not work, people can just ignore it. Standards are essentially meritocratic. If they are not good, they do not continue.

Alison Griffiths (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I defer to the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of metrology organisations around the world and recognise his expertise. However, from a legislative perspective, the Bill does not rely on metrology experts being the relevant authorities. If metrology experts had been defined as the relevant authorities, I think we would be significantly less concerned. The hon. Gentleman lays out the exact expertise that we would all love to hear. My issue is with the lack of clarity in the Bill.

Adam Thompson (Labour, Erewash)

I disagree with the hon. Lady’s point. It is clear that, with this Bill, we are designing frameworks that allow the current system to thrive. I cannot accept the amendment which, like many of the Opposition amendments we have discussed today, serves no purpose.

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

It is a pleasure to hear part 2 of the speech that my hon. Friend made on Second Reading. Does he agree that, contrary to what we have just heard, the clause broadly represents continuity with how legislation has worked in this area? One of the final acts of the last Government was to make the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024 under powers that have now expired. The Health and Safety Executive enforces standards based on regulations introduced relating to metrification between 1981 and 1992. For all the claims of change, what we are looking at here, broadly, is continuity.

Adam Thompson (Labour, Erewash)

My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge on this subject, and I completely agree with everything he says.

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the very complex Fire Safety Act 2021 was brought about following a serious fire caused by people who were supposed to be in charge of scrutinising product safety, but actually lied about it, presenting different products that were not part of the original product and were put together slightly differently. The reliance on experts we do not know about is quite a concern. The points made by my Opposition colleagues are extremely important: who are these experts and what scrutiny are they held to?

Adam Thompson (Labour, Erewash)

The hon. Lady makes a good point; it is very important that, in situations such as the one she describes, we maintain the utmost scrutiny. In that situation, however, it was not necessarily a failure of the standards bodies, but of the individual companies that had put forward—

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

It is indeed the case that the standards bodies failed to check that the products they were being presented with were actually the ones on the certificates they were being asked to approve. So it was a failure of our system.

Adam Thompson (Labour, Erewash)

I appreciate that. I take the hon. Lady’s point and will continue, as I am nearly done.

The last point I wished to make was that this amendment, and many of those we have heard today, has no purpose other than to demonstrate that their proposers have broadly failed to maintain the softest grasp of what metrology is, what standard frameworks are for or even why they exist. I hope that the right hon. and hon. Members opposite will consider withdrawing their amendment; otherwise, I implore colleagues to vote against it.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

Just to confirm, we are debating metrology.

Alison Griffiths (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Thank you, Ms Vaz. It has been fascinating to understand more about the science and history of measurement from the hon. Member for Erewash.

I will speak on clause 5, and specifically in support of Opposition amendment 27, which implements a crucial safeguard to prevent regulatory overreach in the sensitive and highly impactful area of metrology. Clause 5 grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers to make regulations about units of measurement and the way that goods must be marketed, weighed or labelled.

Let us be clear: we all agree that accuracy in measurement is important. However, we must also be clear-eyed about the extent of the powers being handed to Ministers under this clause—powers that go far beyond maintaining standards and veer dangerously into heavy-handed interference in markets and consumer choice. The Government want us to believe this is just housekeeping, but let us remember that these powers enable the Secretary of State to change what units are permitted, how goods are packaged and what must be printed on labels, without primary legislation and with minimal scrutiny.

Amendment 27 offers a clear, reasonable boundary by seeking to ensure that any use of those powers is necessary, proportionate and accountable to Parliament. What is the threshold for intervention? Are we comfortable with the idea that, under the current drafting, a future Minister could outlaw certain traditional measurements or enforce rigid labelling regimes with sweeping economic consequences? What is more, businesses are already under pressure. Small producers, corner shops and importers are the people who will be forced to re-label products, change packaging and absorb costs if metrology regulations shift unpredictably.

Without clear safeguards, clause 5 becomes a weapon against small business certainty and economic growth. Amendment 27 would ensure that changes made under the clause are transparent, justified and time-bound, where necessary. We are not anti-regulation; we are pro-accountability. We believe in making rules that support competition, protect consumers and foster innovation, not in granting sweeping authority without oversight.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

This debate is about amendment 27. There would have been a later opportunity to discuss clause stand part, but I feel that that debate has already taken place, so I will call the Minister to respond now.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash most elegantly put it, metrology is a long-standing part of our progress as a species and as a country, and it will no doubt play an important part in the future. He talked about the importance of experts. Other Members in the past have said that we have had enough of experts, but this is clearly an area where expert opinion will be very important. Metrology is critical to ensuring the accuracy of measuring instruments and the quantities in which goods are sold. In turn, that will boost consumer confidence and ensure that we have a level playing field. We require the powers in clause 5 to make changes to our metrology regime to protect consumers, ensure accuracy and, critically, support innovation and technological progress.

Amendment 27 would remove subsection (2) from the clause, which would prevent us from updating requirements in the metrology framework to reflect changing consumer behaviour and business markets. For example, UK consumers and businesses spend many billions of pounds each year on goods sold by weight or measure, such as packaged food and drink. Subsection (2) sets out powers to make legislation that ensures the accuracy of quantity marking on such packaged goods.

As one would expect, the weights and measures legislation where those elements are currently prescribed is very technical, setting out the detailed methods of ensuring that quantities are within the permitted margins of error. Without subsection (2), we would be unable to incorporate in legislation any technical advances in quantity measurement, meaning that consumers and businesses could potentially lose out on more accurate ways of measurement in the future. Additionally, the removal of subsection (2) on its own would reduce the overall clarity of the clause, because a redundant reference to subsection (2) would remain in the rest of the clause.

Again, the alarm has been raised about what we are going to do with the Bill. We had the discussion in the other place about how this was somehow a secret plot to abolish the pint. We responded by ensuring that there was very clear protection for the pint in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash stated, making sure that consumers have confidence by ensuring that measures are accurate and up to date is an essential component of us continuing to progress scientifically. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

Before I call Dame Harriett, I will ask her to address her remarks to clause 5 more widely.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

With your guidance, Ms Vaz, I will try to combine my remarks on clause 5 and amendment 27.

Again, the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee felt that the power in this clause was too sweeping. The Minister has mentioned that the pint is safe, but the sweeping powers cover pretty much any measurement of

“length, area, volume, capacity, mass, weight, time, temperature or electrical current”,

which the Secretary of State will miraculously be able to make regulations on. Going to the market and buying a quarter of sweets or a pound of flour would fall within the scope of the Secretary of State’s wide and sweeping powers. That is why we have tabled amendment 27 to leave out subsection (2) and why we oppose clause 5 itself, and we would like to probe the Committee’s views on both those elements.

Clause 6 - Enforcement of metrology regulations

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 6, page 6, line 36, leave out subsection (1).

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 29, in clause 6, page 7, line 24, leave out subsection (6).

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

We now move on to the enforcement powers in terms of the metrology regulations. I draw the Committee’s attention to the point I made on the enforcement regulations to do with the product regulations, because many of the same concerns exist here. In the case of clause 6(6), there is something that I personally think is the most egregious and extraordinary provision in any legislation I have ever seen. I would call it the “something” provision. Clause 6(6) says:

“Provision described in subsection (3)(c) or (d) may include provision conferring power on a relevant authority by notice to require a person to do or cease to do something.”.

Has this House, or this Committee, ever seen something so broadly defined? I am interested to hear whether the Minister is able to define “something”. It astonishes me that we are sitting here looking at legislation that includes provision

“conferring a power on a relevant authority”,

which as we have already heard is not narrowly defined,

“by notice to require a person to do or cease to do something”.

How are we supposed to know what this particular provision is meant to refer to? Amendment 29 would require the Minister to be very clear as to what he means by “something” regarding the powers of the relevant authority in enforcing metrology regulations. That is far too broadly drawn. It is absolutely incomprehensible to the layperson.

Amendment 28 goes back to the points I made in the debate on clause 3 about how we are defining a “relevant authority”. We have heard about the importance of the relevant authority from the hon. Member for Erewash, who spoke extremely well about the range of bodies that could be the relevant authority here—but we do not know, because the legislation is not clearly defined enough. Because we do not know, and because the legislation simply refers to “something”, I am afraid we are nowhere near able to support clause 6, or to withdraw our amendments 28 and 29 to it. The public deserve to know what they might be required

“to do or cease to do.”

The wording is far too broad, I am keen to hear what the Minister thinks.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I am glad that the shadow Minister is keen to hear from me. I can, I think, explain the power in subsection (6); it refers to subsection (3)(c) and (d), which cover compliance with metrology regulations and mitigating the effect of non-compliance with metrology regulations. This provision is about making sure that those delivering and producing those products are doing so accurately and in compliance with the law. By its nature, subsection (6) has to be broad, but it has to be seen in the context of subsection (3)(c) and (d), which explain the context in which that power would operate.

As the shadow Minister said, the argument here is similar—it is possibly identical—to the one we had earlier about the powers. As I said earlier, enforcement authorities include the Office for Product Safety and Standards, local authority enforcement officers, the Health and Safety Executive, and the Office for Nuclear Regulation. We need to ensure that these bodies can enforce in a targeted way, with the relevant requirements created by these regulations, which set out clearly what those powers do, and they must do so while fulfilling a public function, as set out in clause 6(2) and clause 3(2), which we debated earlier.

Aphra Brandreth (Conservative, Chester South and Eddisbury)

It is still not entirely clear from subsection (3)(c) and (d) what that “something” is. Rather than just referring to those provisions, will the Minister clarify what “something” means, instead of referring it back to the relevant authorities, when we still do not know exactly what they will be required to enforce?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I refer the hon. Member to clause 5(5), which talks about quantities, goods and units of measurement, which is the broad ambit of the areas where these powers will apply.

Amendment 29 seeks to prevent regulations made under the Bill from creating product regulation and metrology enforcement powers and functions. At present, product legislation provides a patchwork of enforcement powers across numerous pieces of legislation. That has caused complexity over the decades, so we are seeking to introduce new enforcement powers that are able to meet changing demands without the continuous process of layering that we have seen in recent decades, which has caused confusion and added complexity to the current framework.

As I mentioned earlier, there is precedent for including enforcement powers within regulations, including in the Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011 and the Personal Protective Equipment (Enforcement) Regulations 2018. I believe that the issues in this debate are the same as those that we discussed earlier; therefore, I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

I will not withdraw my amendment, because I am not sure that I heard reassuring words from the Minister that trading standards officers are not going to sweep through the marketplaces of this land and require people to cease doing something that they would not know, from the Bill as it stands, not to do. I will press amendments 28 and 29 to a Division, and then we will debate other amendments before we debate clause 6 stand part.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 6, page 7, line 27, leave out subsection (7).

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 31, in clause 6, page 7, line 42, leave out subsection (9).

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

Amendment 30 continues some of the themes around the enforcement powers on product regulation. It leaves out subsection (7), which is on sanctions for non-compliance with metrology regulations. Here again is the amorphous concept of a relevant authority that is empowered by metrology regulations. Subsection (7) talks about the

“obstruction of, or failure to assist or co-operate with, a relevant authority or an inspector;”

and about providing

“false or misleading information to a relevant authority or an inspector.”

With amendment 30, we are seeking clarification on what constitutes non-compliance. Is it if a pub landlord manages to serve someone more than “0.56826125 cubic decimetres”? Any reasonable person would think not, but it appears that with the provisions as they are currently set out under the metrology regulations, that could be considered a case of non-compliance.

By tabling amendment 30, I seek a definition from the Minister of how serious he sees those kinds of infractions as being. Given how busy trading standards can be, how serious an infraction of the metrology regulations would a failure to assist be, as an individual would presumably have exactly the right measuring equipment? I want the Minister to put on record how the extremely severe and onerous provisions in the Bill are to be implemented.

Amendment 31 also seeks to remove subsection (9) from the Bill, which again introduces the idea of criminal offences for underselling or overselling measurements, or for potentially not co-operating with this so-called and widely defined relevant authority. Our concerns about that, as well as about the Henry VIII powers involved, are firmly on the record now, but we want to clarify through amendment 31 the specific offences that might be created or expanded, as well as the civil sanctions that might be imposed.

We want to get the Minister’s sense of how bad it would be if an individual were to slightly overpour a pint. The civil sanctions are very broad and allow the Secretary of State significant powers over our criminal justice system. When new offences are created, it is proper that both Houses have the chance to consider and debate them. We had the same debate on the earlier clause regarding product regulations, and there seem to be the same failures of drafting with the metrology regulations, which is why we have tabled amendments 30 and 31.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

As the shadow Minister said, this debate has a similar theme to earlier ones. It is the case that the harm caused by a breach of regulations will vary tremendously, which is why it is important to have different levels of intervention. This clause actually creates a much broader suite of powers at a lower level for intervention. There will be an ability to require undertakings or civil monetary penalties, and an improvement notice could also be served. At the moment, I do not believe that any of those powers are available in metrology regulations, and it is important that we have many tools at our disposal to ensure that measurements are done accurately.

It would not be helpful or proportionate to spell out every single circumstance in the Bill. We can give an assurance that, where new offences are created or expanded on as a result of the Bill, we have already committed to using the affirmative procedure to ensure that there is parliamentary scrutiny. Of course, many measures in the Bill already exist in various legislative guises, so it is not, in the main, a massive extension of power as is being suggested. I think this is a proportionate and reasonable way to deliver on the Bill’s intentions, and therefore I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

I seek the Committee’s decision on the amendment.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

Clause 6 reflects an ambition to streamline and modernise our approach to the enforcement of metrology regulations, in the same way that clause 3 seeks to do for the enforcement of product regulations. We will ensure that the tools available for enforcement are effective and proportionate so that we may further level the playing field for businesses and provide UK consumers with deepened confidence in their purchasing. Many of the metrology enforcement powers in existing legislation overlap with one another, which has created a proliferated system that is undermined by its complexity.

As for product regulations, clause 6 will enable the introduction of metrology regulations that consolidate the existing metrology enforcement powers. New regulations will implement a set of flexible, distinct and efficient enforcement tools. That toolkit will continue to cover activities relating to the monitoring, investigation, sanctioning and remediation of non-compliance with metrology regulations. By delivering these changes through regulations, we will be able to flex and adapt to the marketplace—for example, ensuring that duties can always be enforced even when changes are made by regulations. It is imperative to ensure that all duties imposed may be enforced without ambiguity.

We intend to carefully augment existing enforcement powers with precedented powers, such as improvement notices and undertakings, which will provide proportionate routes for resolving non-compliance. Another power under this clause will widen or create criminal offences, as well as civil sanctions. As clause 3 does for product regulations, so the power in clause 6 will allow offences to fit the requirements imposed by metrology regulations. The clause also provides that metrology regulations may provide for the use of civil sanctions, including fines for certain offences. That power will allow offences to proportionately meet the requirements imposed by metrology regulations. Offences and penalties are already often set out in regulations, so the approach follows precedent.

The clause will allow the Secretary of State to designate “relevant authorities” responsible for metrology regulation enforcement. To ensure flexibility but provide additional clarity, we have included a non-exhaustive list of those relevant authorities in the Bill’s explanatory notes. Relevant authorities will have access to the new, consolidated toolkit of enforcement powers that I have described. The clause is necessary for the modernisation and enforcement of the UK’s metrology regime.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

For the same reasons that we opposed clause 3 on enforcement, we would like to divide the Committee on clause 6.

Clause 7 - Information sharing

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

This clause relates to the collection of data and information that relevant authorities would undertake as part of their usual activities in support of ensuring that products are compliant with product and metrology regulations. Data collection may be instructive or informative for product safety and compliance, or in support of activities in respect of metrology.

The clause seeks for information to be shared with those with a legitimate need for access. That will support the identification of potential product risk and the prevention of serious accidents. Targeted action may then be taken in a more consistent way to prevent the same or similar incidents from recurring.

For example, a relevant authority may collate data and information in relation to electrical products that cause fire or where electric shock has been reported. That relevant authority may be able to provide information or data to another authority as to the frequency of fire incidents or about the use, time or some other relevant circumstance to do with the incident, such as where it has occurred and why.

In that way, a relevant authority, such as the Health and Safety Executive or the Office for Product Safety and Standards, may be able to discern some hitherto unknown physical characteristic or hidden issue that is relevant to a product’s safety or compliance, and recommend a specific course of action. In those circumstances, there is great benefit in the sharing of such information in support of delivering a consistent approach to such products and incidents.

I confirm that personal data is protected specifically by subsection (5), which provides that no metrology or product regulations may be made that require the processing of personal data in a way that would breach data protection legislation. Any information caught by the regulations that identifies an individual is therefore subject to all the same protections it would have in any other context.

I hope that Members can see why it is important that we are able to share data in that way. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

We have not tabled any amendments to clause 7. My earlier point about the vague wording of “relevant authority” also applies to this clause, but the Minister has set out why information sharing under these provisions is necessary. We can see the rationale for that, so we do not intend to oppose or seek to amend the clause.

Clause 8 - Cost recovery

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

Clause 8 will allow enforcement authorities to recover compliance and enforcement costs. As we know, enforcement can come with significant costs, which are currently borne by the relevant authority taking the action unless costs are awarded by the courts.

The clause will enable regulations to be made to provide for the recovery of costs incurred by a relevant authority’s enforcement activities. The regulations may set out a wide range of provisions, including who will be liable for costs, under which circumstances they will be liable, the amount of the fee, how and to whom it is payable, and the possibility of appeal.

The Consumer Protection Act 1987 makes it clear that the court may award costs to an enforcement authority on conviction for an offence in relation to the contravention of any safety requirements or under a forfeiture order. The clause will allow regulations to replicate that, but it also allows regulations to provide relevant authorities with the power to impose costs themselves.

As we know, cost recovery powers are not new and are used by other regulators, such as the Health and Safety Executive, that employ a fee-for-intervention approach. However, we recognise that Parliament may be particularly interested in the impact of the proposed new powers, and we have therefore ensured that any new regulations made under the clause will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

Again, I think we are in relevant authority territory here. We are talking about imposing fees in respect of any costs, and there are certainly some issues to note for the record. On the collection and recovery of payments, I spoke strongly earlier about fines and the interest payable on outstanding payments and so on. Those are material issues that could result in some very serious situations. Nevertheless, we have not chosen to table any amendments to the clause, mainly because the point about relevant authorities was covered earlier in the Committee’s proceedings, and we do not intend to oppose it.

Clause 9 - Application to existing product and metrology provision

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

Clause 9 is necessary to give full effect to the intent of the Bill. As Members will know, one of the central needs for the powers in the Bill is to keep our huge range of product regulations updated. That can extend from small changes to regulations to reflect new ingredients or components in a product, to more substantial changes to respond to new threats. The clause ensures that the powers in the Bill can be used to amend existing product regulations, if those regulations could have been made under the powers in clauses 1 and 5. Such regulations will be subject to the usual statutory instrument procedures, either affirmative or negative depending on which provisions of the Bill are invoked. Some of the regulations extend to many pages, covering a whole host of a factors that go into a product and the risk that it presents.

Without the clause, key parts of the powers—such as those to do with enforcement, standards, information sharing and cost recovery—could be used only on a revoke and replace basis. I do not think it would be a good use of parliamentary time to have to revoke and replace entire sets of regulations simply to make one change to a particular provision—not to mention the uncertainty that it may cause business. The clause is therefore technical, but it is a key provision in the Bill. It helps to deliver one of the Bill’s central aims: to allow us to keep our product regulations updated. I therefore commend it to the Committee.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

Clause 9 is one of the clauses that their lordships were particularly concerned about, because of its sweeping Henry VIII powers. Although I have not tabled any amendments to it, I reiterate the point that I made about relevant authorities, and I think it is only right that we test the Committee’s opinion on the clause.

Clause 10 - Consequential amendment of certain Acts

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 10, page 10, line 24, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment would prevent regulations under this Act from amending provisions made by primary legislation.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 11, in clause 10, page 10, line 29, leave out subsection (4).

See explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 8, in clause 12, page 12, line 6, leave out from “Act” to “may” in line 7.

This amendment would make all regulations under this act subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

Amendment 9, in clause 12, page 12, line 10, leave out subsections (4) and (5).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 8.

Amendment 12, clause 12, page 12, line 26, at end insert—

“(6A) Regulations under this Act may not amend or repeal provision made by or under an Act passed—

(a) before this Act, or

(b) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 13, in clause 12, page 12, line 26, at end insert—

“(6A) Regulations that amend or replace primary legislation must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

(6B) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must—

(a) conduct a consultation for a period of no less than six weeks;

(b) Publish a statement outlining the purpose and necessity of the proposed regulations, the expected impact on businesses, consumers, and enforcement bodies, and the outcome of the consultation.

(6C) Within six months of any regulations made under this section which amend or repeal primary legislation, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the effect of that regulation and lay it before Parliament.”

This amendment requires that any regulations made under the Act that amend or replace primary legislation be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

Once again, the amendments would remove Henry VIII powers and make regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 10 relates to the amendment or repealing, in consequence of the Bill, of provisions made by the Gun Barrel Proof Acts 1868 to 1978. We want to prevent regulations made under the Bill from amending provisions made by primary legislation.

Amendment 11 would leave out subsection (4), which provides:

“Regulations under this Act may, in consequence of any amendment or repeal made by or under subsections (1), (2) or (3), amend or repeal provision made by or under an Act passed—

(a) before this Act, or

(b) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act

It is incredibly wide-ranging, as I am sure you can see, Ms Vaz. Again, the amendment would prevent regulations from amending provisions made by primary legislation.

Amendment 8 would amend clause 12 on regulations to remove a swathe of additional information in subsection (3), and amendment 9 would leave out subsections (4) and (5) of the same clause, again for the reason that the Bill will provide sweeping powers to widen the scope of criminal offences and all those other things that we have made the case are unsatisfactory under our constitution. Amendment 12 would also prevent regulations made under the Bill from amending provisions made by primary legislation. We think that amendment 13, which would insert various provisions into clause 12, is also extremely reasonable.

What we have tried to do with the amendments is come up with a range of sensible limitations to the Henry VIII powers that so concerned the other place, and that would concern any reasonable person—I think of the power to create the scope of a criminal offence and so on. Through the amendments, we seek genuinely to amend the scope of clauses 10 and 12.

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

The Liberal Democrats are supportive of the amendments, specifically amendments 8 and 9, which would take the remaining regulations subject to the negative procedure and make them subject to the affirmative procedure. These powers raise serious constitutional concerns. They risk undermining Parliament’s role and shifting too much authority to the Executive. Such powers should be tightly constrained and used only when genuinely essential and accompanied by robust safeguards, including clear limits on the scope of the mandatory scrutiny procedure. We must be vigilant: laws passed by Parliament should not be easily rewritten by Ministers behind closed doors without full debate or democratic accountability. We are therefore supportive of the amendments, and I urge the Government to realise them.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I am grateful to the hon. Members for West Worcestershire and for Chippenham for the measured way in which they have put forward their concerns, which take us back to where we started this morning. One of the central debates about the Bill concerns the level and balance of the powers in it, and ensuring that the right level of scrutiny is applied to regulations made under it. I believe that we have demonstrated through our actions in the other place that that balance has changed, and that we have struck the right note.

Amendments 8 and 9 would make all regulations made under the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure. As introduced, the Bill required new regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure in a range of important areas, such as emergency powers and the creation of a criminal offence. However, having heard some of the concerns mentioned in the other place, we went further and amended the Bill so that the affirmative procedure would be applied to more areas, including when we impose product requirements on a new category of economic actor for the first time. We believe that that strikes the right balance between the need for scrutiny, appropriate use of parliamentary time, and the flexibility needed to keep our product and metrology regulations up to date. I will not remind Members of the quotes I gave from Ministers in the previous Administration who made similar points.

Amendments 10 to 13 are concerned with how the Bill may amend or repeal existing primary or secondary legislation. I understand the concerns about Henry VIII powers, but we heard the concerns and points expressed by peers and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and have removed almost all the Henry VIII powers from the Bill.

Alison Griffiths (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Does the Minister not agree, though, that amendments 10 and 11 are morally necessary to uphold the role of Parliament as the supreme legislative authority in the United Kingdom?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I am not sure whether I would say they are morally necessary. It is quite normal for there to be some Henry VIII powers in most legislation, and I will now explain why that is not something that we need to trouble ourselves with too much in relation to the Gun Barrel Proof Act 1868, which I am sure all Members have familiarised themselves with. That is, as I have already demonstrated by reading its title, a very old and highly technical piece of legislation. It covers the parameters of the process of approving a firearm, including the archaic governance elements of the Birmingham proof house. It was passed in 1868, when there was a thriving Birmingham gun trade, which I presume no longer exists. To give Members some indication of—

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

rose—

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

Do we have a guardian of the Birmingham proof house in our midst?

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

I rise merely to confirm that the trade does indeed continue, and that one of the two remaining proof houses is in the Digbeth area of Birmingham.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. Indeed, I understand that that is now the premier proof house in the country, but some of the provisions in the 1868 Act show why we think these Henry VIII powers are appropriate. For example, sections 56, 65 and 66 set out that the Birmingham proof house must meet on Thursdays and that its annual general meeting must be held on the last Tuesday of April. I really do not think that parliamentary time needs to be expended on updating those particular rules.

The last Gun Barrel Proof Act was passed in 1978, when I believe some members of the Committee were not even born. That shows that this is not something that is at the cutting edge of our thoughts, although it does need modernising. It will be subject to the affirmative procedure and will also be subject to consultation with relevant stakeholders.

Amendment 11 would remove the power in the Bill to make amendments to legislation in consequence of the amending or repealing of the Acts specified in clause 10. That is a limited power that enables us to tidy up the statute book by ensuring that any cross-references to those Acts are updated as needed.

Amendment 12 would prevent any regulations made under the Bill from amending any primary or secondary legislation passed under other Acts. That goes to the core purpose of the Bill: to enable us to keep our product and metrology legal framework up to date and effectively protect consumers and support businesses. The power to make consequential amendments is a standard approach to legislation. We need to ensure that new regulations do not duplicate or overlap with existing legislation in a confusing way. That is vital for providing consumers and businesses with clarity.

Amendment 13 would make all regulations under the Bill that amend primary legislation subject to the affirmative procedure. It would also impose a mandatory six-week consultation period and require the Secretary of State to publish a detailed statement in advance of regulating. As I have stated, the Bill already requires the affirmative procedure for regulations amending primary legislation, as set out in clause 12(4)(g). In any such debate, the Government would of course set out why they are regulating, and in the other place we introduced an appropriate consultation requirement and additional triggers for the affirmative procedure.

Some of the provisions currently in primary legislation, such as the detailed requirements relating to gun-barrel proofing or the margin tolerances for packaged goods, are very technical. Our approach has therefore been to apply the affirmative procedure to regulations likely to be of particular interest to Parliament, such as the creation or widening of criminal offences or new powers of entry.

The powers in the Bill are crucial to ensuring that our product regulation framework is agile, up to date and able to effectively protect consumers and businesses. We have taken great care and have listened to concerns, and we now have the right balance between taking powers to enabling us to meet the objectives of the Bill and ensuring parliamentary scrutiny for the exercise of those powers. I appreciate that Opposition Members may not agree, but that is the nature of debate. I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

What a welcome moment, Ms Vaz—my colleague from the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Chippenham, supports the rationale behind the amendments. The swelling in support for our amendments gives me a welcome opportunity to test the opinion of the Committee on each of them.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

On a point of order, Ms Vaz. I seek clarification: are not the remaining amendments in the group to clause 12?

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

They are.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

So we will not be taking decisions on them now, but I would like to reserve the right to ask the Committee’s opinion later.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

Absolutely. We will do that.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

We have already had a substantial debate on clause 10 as a result of the shadow Minister’s amendments, so I will be brief. The clause repeals specified provisions within the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Weights and Measures Act 1985 that may be rendered unnecessary or duplicative by regulations made under the Bill. It also allows regulations to amend the repeal of the Gun Barrel Proof Acts, which we have debated extensively.

The Bill, as introduced, sought Henry VIII powers for the repeal of the Consumer Protection Act and the Weights and Measures Act, as well as for the Consumer Rights Act 2015, but we listened to concerns expressed about those powers and have amended the Bill to eliminate most of them. Instead, we are repealing only the necessary specific provisions in existing measures that are no longer needed on the face of legislation. Commencement orders will be used to repeal those provisions at the right time, through regulations made under the Bill, to remove duplication in the statute book or to provide for regulatory continuity.

The single Henry VIII power that remains in the clause allows us to update the Gun Barrel Proof Acts 1868 and 1978. As I have explained, it is a very focused power to deal with the highly technical Gun Barrel Proof Acts. Subsections (3) and (4) of clause 12 ensure that any regulations that amend or repeal the Gun Barrel Proof Acts will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so the House will have the opportunity to express its opinion. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield will make himself available for any such debates. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

Given that the Minister just admitted that the Government had to amend the clause in the other place because of its extensive Henry VIII powers, and that some remain in the clause, we would like to divide the Committee.

Clause 11 - Interpretation

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

Clause 11 sets out the interpretation of key terms used throughout the Bill. Although many terms within the clause are commonplace, the definitions are set out so that the legislation is interpreted as intended, which is critical to the effectiveness of the Bill’s powers, as many of the terms are referenced throughout. It includes a definition of an “online marketplace”, which captures the range of different marketplace business models. We have already debated how that may well change in the future. Online marketplace sales are rapidly growing as a proportion of retail sales, reaching £29.3 billion in 2022, with an estimated growth of 70% between 2019 and 2024. It is therefore vital that product safety legislation captures online marketplaces as key supply chain actors.

We expect supply chains and e-commerce to continue to evolve, with the way in which UK consumers purchase products continually changing in ways that we may not be fully able to predict. Even within the past few years, we have seen new entrants and evolving business models of online marketplaces emerge. For example, since Temu launched in the UK in April 2023, it has amassed more than 11 million UK visitors per month. TikTok Shop launched in the UK in 2021 for businesses to sell products directly from social media videos. B&Q launched its online marketplace in March 2022, with a focus on selling via verified sellers. The proliferation of models is increasing.

It is vital that product safety regulation can keep pace with future changes. Clause 11 provides the power to amend the definition of an online marketplace, which enables the provision to be updated to include any future business models and types of online marketplace that might not be captured within the current definition. The use of the power will be subject to the affirmative procedure because amending the definition of an online marketplace in the Bill through secondary legislation is an important delegated power.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

On the surface, clause 11 looks like just an interpretation clause, but there is one provision about which I would like a little elaboration from the Minister. An online marketplace is defined as

“a service or feature of a service on…a website or part of a website…a mobile application, or…any other platform by means of which information is made available over the internet, which facilitates the marketing of products in the United Kingdom”.

That seems entirely reasonable. The Minister set out some of the new ways in which consumers in the UK are able to buy products here.

Under subsection (2), however, suddenly the Secretary of State

“may by regulations amend this section for the purposes of altering the definition of ‘online marketplace’”.

That strikes me as very strange. Exactly why is subsection (2) in the clause? Suddenly changing the definition of an online marketplace seems like a very wide, Henry VIII-type power. I see that the Minister is receiving inspiration for the answer to my question. I ask him to reply, and then we will decide whether we will press the clause to a Division.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

Inspiration comes in many forms. This is a rapidly evolving way of retailing, so we have discussed it with officials quite extensively. We are seeking to ensure that we are future-proofed for new business models. As I said, there are ways of selling items that I did not know existed until very recently. We want to make sure that, through subsection (2), we have the ability to update regulations when those new models emerge and do not tie ourselves in too much. I agree that definition (c) could cover everything, but we simply cannot predict how things will evolve in the future. It is important to clarify that any extensions to the definition of “online marketplace” will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which I hope gives the shadow Minister assurance that there will be an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

Will the Minister be kind enough to point out where that use of the affirmative procedure is set out in legislation?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I will write to the hon. Lady, but that is definitely my understanding. It is certainly in the code of conduct, but we will make sure that we get that clarified for her.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

Ms Vaz, you heard it. For the record, I think I heard the Minister say that it is set out in the code of conduct, which I think means that extensions to the definition would be subject to the affirmative procedure and a consultation. I am hesitant to allow the clause to become legislation without those assurances.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

We will seek to give the shadow Minister assurances. If she is not assured, she can table an amendment on Report.

Clause 12 - Regulations

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 12, page 12, line 20, leave out “7 to 10” and insert “7, 8 and 10”.

This amendment corrects a cross-referencing error.

Government amendment 1 is a technical amendment to the drafting of the Bill, so I will not take up much of the Committee’s time speaking to it, but simply explain why it is needed. It makes a drafting change to clause 12(4), which lists the regulation-making clauses in the Bill that are subject to the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments. The current drafting includes clause 9 in that list. That is an unintended consequence of a previous amendment inserting clause 9 into the Bill. Unlike the other types of provision specified in clause 12, clause 9 does not confer a power to make a particular type of substantive provision. It specifies that regulations can amend existing provisions, as distinct from making fresh regulations. Government amendment 1 removes that unintended impact by removing the references to clause 9.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

Forgive me, Ms Vaz; it is getting quite late in the afternoon. The Minister’s amendment to line 20 of clause 12 leaves out “7 to 10” and inserts “7, 8 and 10”. Could I clarify what the “9” is a reference to? In which clause is the “9” referenced? I am not following it, because clause 12 seems to have seven subsections.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I do not have an answer to that at the moment. My understanding is that this is effectively a change in the numbering rather than anything more substantive. It is an erroneous reference, which we tried to bottom out in discussions, but there is nothing dodgy going on here.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

I am grateful that the Minister is as confused as I am by this; I thought it was just the lateness in the day. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to write to me to point out where the erroneous “9” exists.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I am happy to do that, and I am sure that we will all be enlightened as a result.

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 12, page 12, line 21, at end insert—

“(i) provision described in section [

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 12—Product recall—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make regulations on product recall processes.

(2) The regulations must include provision to ensure—

(a) the creation and maintenance of a publicly accessible, government-hosted online database of all active product recalls affecting the UK market;

(b) clear obligations on manufacturers, importers, and distributors to notify the appropriate enforcement authority and upload recall notices to the database promptly upon identification of a safety risk;

(c) that recall notices include details of the affected product, risks identified, corrective action to be taken, and information on how consumers can claim a refund, replacement, or repair; and

(d) minimum standards for direct communication to affected consumers, including by email, SMS, or postal notice where reasonably practicable.

(3) The regulations must establish consumer rights entitling individuals to—

(a) a full refund, suitable replacement, or repair of a recalled product within a reasonable timeframe;

(b) access to support and guidance through the recall process, including where a product is no longer in production.

(4) The Secretary of State must consult with consumer protection organisations, trading standards bodies, manufacturers, and other relevant stakeholders before making regulations under this section.”

This new clause would ensure that a centralised Product Recall Mechanism is established to protect consumers.

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

Amendment 35 is a technical amendment that introduces a provision for product recall, which is set out in new clause 12. The new clause would establish a robust and centralised product recall system that truly protects consumers when safety risks arise. The current product recall landscape is fragmented, inconsistent and difficult to navigate, and the new clause is an attempt to fix that.

The new clause requires the Secretary of State to introduce regulations within six months of passing the Bill to strengthen and standardise product recall processes across the UK market. The product regulations must include several key elements, including the creation of a publicly accessible, Government-hosted online database listing all active product recalls in the UK. This is about visibility—people need a single, reliable source to check whether a product that they have bought is affected. The proposal sets out clear duties on manufacturers, importers and distributors to promptly notify the relevant authorities and to upload recall information as soon as the safety risk is identified.

The new clause also includes details of mandatory content for recall notices, including details of the affected product, identified risks, corrective actions and how consumers can access a refund, repair or replacement. It would also establish minimum standards for direct communication with affected consumers, which may be by email, SMS or post. The importance is that people are actively alerted and not left to find out on their own.

Importantly, the new clause also guarantees consumer rights during a recall, including a right to a refund, replacement or repair within a reasonable timeframe, as well as access to support and guidance, even in cases when the product is no longer being manufactured. Finally, the clause requires consultation with key stakeholders, consumer groups, trading standards and industry before the regulations are made. This ensures that the system is practicable, enforceable and effective.

New clause 12 is about building a centralised and transparent recall mechanism, which is long overdue. Unsafe products must be removed from circulation swiftly, and consumers must be able to take action easily and confidently. The existing system is not working and it is not always easy for people to know which products have been recalled. The new clause seeks to address that issue. I urge the Committee to support it.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

The hon. Lady puts some extremely important and valuable questions to the Committee. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I am grateful to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chippenham, for raising this important issue. The amendment is consequential on new clause 12, on product recalls. It is important to state first that the Government are reviewing product recalls, as well as the full range of existing enforcement powers available for product safety and metrology, as part of our work on developing new enforcement regulations under the Bill, so the hon. Lady’s concerns are certainly ones we are aware of. Elements of the developing proposals will be included in the broader consultation document that the Government have agreed to publish on Royal Assent.

Furthermore, consumers are already able to make a claim for a refund, repair or replacement under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and other routes for redress include the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. Supply chain actors are already under an obligation to report products that pose a risk to the relevant enforcement authority, as identified in legislation under the General Product Safety Regulation 2005 and sector-specific product regulations. Additionally, a publicly accessible, Government-hosted online database of product recalls—the “Product Safety Alerts, Reports and Recalls” database—is on gov.uk.

The exact requirements and capabilities of recall notices will be considered within the wider review of enforcement powers under the Bill. Part of that review will consist of extensive engagement with stakeholders. Placing a six-month time restriction on that—as suggested by the amendment—would therefore only restrict the amount of engagement possible. We do not believe that new clause 12 is needed, so the amendment that seeks to apply the affirmative procedure to regulations made under the new clause is also unnecessary. I hope that the hon. Member for Chippenham is assured that we take the matter seriously and will act on it when the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

With that in mind, I will be happy to withdraw the amendment and therefore new clause 12, but as soon as Royal Assent is received, I will remind the Minister of exactly what he has said today. I will bring the subject up again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

Clause 12 is a standard clause that may be familiar to Members. It has two main functions: first, it sets out some general areas that regulations made under the Bill’s delegated powers may provide for—I note, importantly, that that is a “may”, not a “must”; and secondly, it sets out which parliamentary procedure the regulations made under the Bill must follow.

On the clause’s first role, the preceding clauses contain important delegated powers—which we have already debated—and each of those clauses includes some further detail on what can be achieved by regulations made under the relevant powers. It is therefore beneficial to have a general provision in clause 12 to provide some legal certainty over the implications of the regulations made under those powers.

Paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (2) are standard provisions that broadly make it clear that the powers can be used to differentiate for different scenarios and to provide detail about how or when things may or must be done. On paragraph (f), I note that legislation does not bind the Crown unless express provision is made in this respect. The Bill does not itself do that; however, it does allow scope for such consideration to be made in future regulations, should that need to be done.

Paragraph (g) enables the powers to be used to make transitional, consequential and saving provisions, which may be used to mitigate unfairness or provide legal certainty—for example, to deal with manufacturing or conformity-assessment processes that started before a change in the law, or where there are remaining overlaps or inconsistencies with existing provisions that need to be amended.

On the clause’s second function, we have sought to ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny over the use of the Bill’s delegated powers. Since the Bill was introduced in the other place, it has been improved to address concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and by peers during debate. In particular, we have broadened the use of the affirmative procedure for future regulations made under the Bill’s powers, to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny.

Subsection (4) expressly specifies a list of certain types of provision that may be made under the Bill. Regulations made under the Bill that include any of these types of provision will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. That means the draft affirmative procedure will be required for any regulations made under the Bill that provide for the power to enter, inspect and search premises in connection with enforcement of both product and metrology regulations, as provided for by clauses 3 and 6; for arrangements for emergencies, as provided for by clause 4; for the creation of, or widening the scope of, a criminal offence, as provided for by clauses 3 and 6; for any provision made in relation to clauses 7, 8 and 10, which concern information sharing, cost recovery and the amendment of specific items of primary legislation; and for changes connected with amending the Bill’s definition of an online marketplace.

Let me address concerns raised in the other place. The Bill now requires statutory instruments to be laid using the affirmative procedure in additional areas: where requirements relating to the marketing of products on online marketplaces are introduced for the first time; where requirements on persons who control online marketplaces, or on persons who act as their intermediaries, are introduced for the first time; and where requirements on new categories of person under clause 2(3)(e) are introduced for the first time. I confirm that the clause provides that anything not specified as subject to the draft affirmative procedure will be subject to the made negative procedure.

Alongside those changes to parliamentary procedure, the clause has also been amended to include a consultation requirement, thereby reaffirming our commitment to working constructively with interested parties before making any future regulations. I know we have discussed these issues at length, but I hope I have shown that we have taken a proportionate approach, striking the right balance to enable us to deliver the aims of the Bill while providing appropriate parliamentary oversight. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Harriett Baldwin (Conservative, West Worcestershire)

It is appropriate for me to put on the record how grateful we are for the scrutiny that the Bill received in the other place. We have just heard from the Minister how many changes had to be made because of the concerns raised by the Committee in the other place, which I have quoted extensively in today’s debates. We have covered a lot of ground in terms of concerns about individual clauses, and the Minister has helpfully set out the specific items that are subject to the affirmative as opposed to the negative procedure. Given that we have gone over this ground extensively during the debates on the other clauses, I shall leave it there.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.