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

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: † Sir John Hayes, Valerie Vaz

† Baldwin, Dame Harriett (West Worcestershire) (Con)

† Brandreth, Aphra (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)

† Campbell-Savours, Markus (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)

† Gibson, Sarah (Chippenham) (LD)

† Griffiths, Alison (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)

† Holden, Mr Richard (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)

† Hughes, Claire (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)

Jones, Clive (Wokingham) (LD)

† Kane, Chris (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)

† Kumaran, Uma (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)

† McIntyre, Alex (Gloucester) (Lab)

† McMorrin, Anna (Cardiff North) (Lab)

† Madders, Justin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade)

† Midgley, Anneliese (Knowsley) (Lab)

† Thompson, Adam (Erewash) (Lab)

† Turner, Laurence (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)

† Wheeler, Michael (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)

Aaron Kulakiewicz and Kevin Maddison, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

(Morning)

[Sir John Hayes in the Chair]

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

09:25:00

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. Ordered, That— 1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 13 May) meet— (a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 13 May; (b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 15 May; (c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 20 May; 2. the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clause 1; the Schedule; Clauses 2 to 15; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill; 3. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 20 May.—(Justin Madders.) Resolved, That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Justin Madders.)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

09:45:00

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.

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?

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.

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.

I sensed that you might. Question put, That the amendment be made.

1|0|4|11|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

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.

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). New clause 4—Review panel— “(1) The Secretary of State must establish an independent review panel (‘the Panel’) no later than 2 years after the day on which this Act comes into force. (2) The Panel must— (a) carry out a review of all regulations under this Act corresponding to, similar to, or making references to, the requirements of relevant EU laws under section 2(7), with a view to establishing— (i) their effect on economic growth; (ii) their effect on trade in the product concerned on a global basis; and (iii) their effect on the relevant industry or industries within the United Kingdom; (b) prepare a report of the review, and (c) lay a copy of the report before Parliament, no later than 12 months from the date of the Panel’s creation and then every 24 months. (3) The Panel must consist of— (a) at least one person with expertise in economics; (b) at least one person with expertise in trade policy; and (c) at least one person with expertise in domestic regulation of business. (4) If either House of Parliament rejects a motion in the form set out in subsection (5), moved in accordance with subsection (6) by a Minister of the Crown, the Secretary of State must ensure that the regulations reviewed by the Panel cease to have effect not later than the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the rejection takes place. (5) The form of the motion is— (6) So far as practicable, the Secretary of State must make arrangements for the motion to be debated and voted on by both Houses of Parliament within a period of 14 sitting days beginning immediately after the report mentioned in subsection (2)(b) is laid before Parliament.” This new clause would ensure a review and report to Parliament of any regulations aligning the UK with EU laws, and for that review to be approved by both Houses for the relevant regulations to remain in force. New clause 9—Alignment with EU law— “(1) Where equivalent or similar EU law exists in relation to relevant product regulations, the Secretary of State must, when making provision under section 1, update Parliament on whether the Government proposes to vary the regulations from alignment with EU law. (2) If the Secretary of State believes divergence from relevant EU law to be in the interests of the United Kingdom, they must arrange for a statement to be made in Parliament on the benefits to United Kingdom business to be achieved by this divergence, at least fourteen days before the relevant regulations are laid before Parliament. (3) If the Secretary of State believes alignment with the relevant EU law to be in the interests of the United Kingdom, they must arrange for a statement to be made in Parliament on the benefits to United Kingdom business to be achieved by this alignment, at least fourteen days before the relevant regulations are laid before Parliament. (4) The statement under subsection (2) or (3) must include the date by which any such regulations will be reviewed, which can be no later than 36 months after implementation.” This new clause provides greater regulatory certainty for UK businesses by requiring scrutiny of all decisions to diverge or align with EU regulations and a process for Parliamentary scrutiny and review, whether Ministers determine that divergence or alignment from such regulations would be in the best interests of the UK.

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.

10:00:00

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.

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.

10:15:00

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I should be delighted.

10:30:00

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

We will divide on amendment 3 now, and on the others when we reach them. Question put, That the amendment be made.

2|0|4|11|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

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

Thank you, Chair. I am actually Sarah Gibson.

If only Sarah Jones were here!

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.

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.

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. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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.

10:45:00

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Order. Interventions should be pithy.

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.

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?

That was slightly pithier.

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.

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.

11:00:00

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.

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. Question put, That the amendment be made.

3|0|4|11|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

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?

I am always happy to be guided by your wisdom, Sir John. Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

4|0|12|4|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly agreed to.||0|0

Schedule

Excluded products

Question proposed, That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

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.

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. Question put and agreed to. Schedule accordingly agreed to. Clause 2 Product requirements

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.

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.

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.

11:15:00

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.

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. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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?

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?

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. Amendment proposed: 4, in clause 2, page 3, line 39, leave out subsections (7) and (8).—(Dame Harriett Baldwin.) This amendment removes the ability for product regulations to provide that product requirements are met if the requirements of relevant EU law are met.

5|0|4|11|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

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

11:25:00