PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] - 1 April 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

The reasoned amendment in the name of Andrew Griffith has been selected.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Will the Secretary of State give way? [Laughter.]

Of course—why not?

When did weights and measures become metrology? Is this use of newspeak deliberate to cover an Orwellian attempt to cloak this huge grab for power, and to what end?

I am grateful for that intervention very early on in proceedings. I cannot provide a definitive answer to the right hon. Gentleman on the naming of the Bill, but I promise that I will find out and put it to him in writing. But he will know that the Bill was, I believe, originally planned by the previous Government because of the need to repatriate powers to the United Kingdom as a result of our exit from the European Union. It is something we need in our toolkit, so, far from being Orwellian, it is a pragmatic, practical proposal. I look forward to now making the case for it in more detail.

The primary mission of this Government, and the driving force of my Department, is stronger economic growth: not just growth that looks good on paper, but growth that is seen and is felt on our high streets, in our towns and cities, and in the communities we serve; growth that reverses 15 years of stagnation, with all the negative consequences we all felt during that time. To do that, we need an economy in which shops and small businesses can compete on a more level playing field with online marketplaces and the big tech giants. We need an economy that promotes investment and innovation, but at the same time ensures consumers and businesses have real, modern protections. That is why the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill is a small but hugely important piece of legislation, one that will further cement the UK’s status as a world leader in product regulation and safety.

My right hon. Friend is giving an important introduction to the Bill. Does he agree that international alignment in the standards we are discussing on scientific matters is essential for the smooth operation of modern advanced manufacturing?

I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I believe I am correct in saying that he is not only a metrologist, but the first metrologist elected to Parliament. I put no heavy expectations on his speech today, but we are all looking forward to it with interest.

My hon. Friend is right that there are areas where we will choose to work with international standards, and there will be areas where we choose to diverge, but that decision is made possible only by having the powers to begin with. No decisions will be made in this Bill, if it becomes an Act of Parliament, as to how we will do that; however, without it, we would not have the toolkit to make those decisions. The essence of these proposed laws is that we are taking back control for the House of Commons and Parliament to make these kinds of decisions.

The Secretary of State will be aware from the Second Reading debate in the Lords that a number of what I shall gently refer to as Eurosceptic peers have expressed concerns that the Bill is a form of dynamic alignment with the European Union, and that, far from taking back control over which standards are involved and which guidelines are necessary, we will be abdicating control in favour of whatever the European Union decides. Can he set our minds at rest over those concerns? I am sure he would not wish to be diverted along such a dead-end route.

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention; he always brings wisdom to these debates. I can absolutely give him the assurance that the Bill makes no decision as to how we should use these powers. The reason we are bringing it forward today is the same reason the previous Conservative Government first proposed a Bill of this kind: having left the European Union, we need the powers to properly regulate these products in this way; without this legislation, we would not necessarily have the ability to do that.

On that specific point, further to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), that presumably means that the Government will press for recognition of UK standards where they prevail and where we think we are doing the job better. There will absolutely be occasions where we can learn from others, and other occasions where they can learn from us. Is that the Government’s intention? Will the Secretary of State make that clear now?

I am more than happy to make that clear. We see that in a number of areas—it is the case across the whole field of regulation. Let us look at AI, which is topical right now: we have chosen a different regulatory path in the UK from the European Union, which is to our economic advantage. I am very confident in the approach that we are taking. I am sure that when I get to the provisions of the Bill, and in particular when it comes to weights and measures, the whole House will be united in being able to say that we believe that traditional British standards are particularly important to us.

I say again, however, that having the power to set standards in itself makes no decision as to how these powers are used. We can all clearly recognise the need to repatriate these powers to our own statute book.

I was going to make a little progress, but I cannot resist the right hon. Gentleman.

I just want to raise a small point. When I was doing some work on this matter for a previous Government, looking at what we could do with our regulations and standards on leaving the EU, it became apparent that the UK is behind only America and China globally in setting standards for the rest of the world. To what degree is the Secretary of State planning to enhance that, rather than returning to any European usage of standards, when we already dominate the field?

The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say just now that our intention is to cement the UK’s status as a world leader in product regulation and safety. I am sure we would all recognise the tremendous benefits for both consumers and businesses that come from being a jurisdiction whose consumer protections are widely recognised and where people have confidence that the goods and services they buy will be to the highest standard possible. Where we see gaps in our provision, because of the substantial change that has occurred with our leaving the European Union, we would surely want to fill those gaps so that we are in a position to continue our success in this area.

The Minister gives the House the assurance that the idea is not to take us back to EU laws or to have EU laws imposed on the United Kingdom, and yet the Bill heavily references EU laws. How does he explain that?

I can explain it very clearly. Colleagues who are interested in this legislation will have followed the proceedings in the other place and the discussions on this area. I put the case very straightforwardly: we do not have the ability without this Bill to regulate product standards in a whole range of areas. There are some cases where there will be a strong consumer or business demand for alignment with other jurisdictions; there will also be cases where we wish to diverge, because we see that as being in our economic interests.

However, we surely all accept that we cannot have a position where we do not have the ability to regulate key products, and in particular products that have come from the new technology that is available and the opportunities that come from that. Once again, I say politely to anyone on the Opposition Benches who is not quite reassured that the previous Conservative Government were planning a similar Bill to fill this exact gap in the statute book.

I would like to make two points. First, this House can do what it wants. It does not need this Bill to regulate anything. To say that is does simply is not true. Secondly, on the question of whether the Bill will lead to dynamic realignment with the EU, can the Secretary of State explain what clause 2(7)(a) is for? It seems to me that it could be used to dynamically realign with EU regulations.

I will give way to the right hon. Member.

I wish to give the Secretary of State time to read the clause. He owes me now, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The key thing is that we must not use EU standards as the default. The hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) is right that we have the authority to make our own standards, and we often do so very well. But the risk is that where we have not yet done that, the EU standard will become the default position. The Minister can make it crystal clear to us today that that is not the case.

As ever, I am particularly grateful to the right hon. Member for his courtesy. To my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer), I say that clause 2(7) says:

“Product regulations may provide that a product requirement is to be treated as met if—”.

It clearly says “may” and “if”. Again, I say that there will be times when it is in our economic interest to have a close relationship with the product standards in, for instance, the European Union or another jurisdiction. There will also be times when it is not. That will be our choice. I think we would all recognise the absence of powers without this Bill.

The right hon. Gentleman makes reference to the ability of this House to make regulations. We can, of course, do so by primary legislation. There was a parliamentarian who said that

“the use of delegated powers carries a risk of abuse by the Executive, which is not something the Opposition could ever support.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2018; c. 305.]

The Secretary of State should agree with that, because it was he who said it.

That was obviously part of a very wise set of remarks that I made from the Dispatch Box. But, yes, we must recognise that. I say again, because the Bill has been through the other place, that changes have been made as a result of that feedback: we have removed a number of Henry VIII powers; we have introduced a consultation requirement; we have provided for additional affirmative resolution procedures; and we have said that we will publish a code of conduct that sets out the statutory and non-statutory controls to ensure that regulation is proportionate, evidence-based and developed through consultation. Because of the process that we have been through, we have responded to the kind of concerns that I was wisely articulating in relation to primary legislation.

Perhaps it will be of use to the House if I say a little about that journey and the work of the other place in this regard. I wish to thank in particular my ministerial colleague, Lord Leong, for his great efforts in taking the Bill through the other place. I also thank the many Members and Committees of the other House for their assistance in creating what I believe is strong and effective legislation—legislation that will benefit millions of UK businesses, tens of millions of consumers, and, of course, all those who enjoy a pint or two at the pub.

On pints—

I give way on that point.

The Minister is right to praise the House of Lords for making sure that the great British pint is in this Bill as an exclusion from the metrology regulations. However, this will not satisfy the metric martyrs. The Minister will remember that the ability to sell in imperial measures was a big issue a few years ago. Why is it that there is an elaborate schedule to the product regulations, but not to metrology, and why in particular is food generically not included in the exemptions from what the Minister proposes to do?

We would say with confidence that there was never a danger to the pint, but because of the concerns that were raised in the other place and perhaps by some colleagues here, I am more than happy to have made the changes to assure everyone present and everyone watching that the pint will be defended and secured in the Bill. I have to say that I have received no entreaties from businesses that they wish to sell in imperial measurements. However, if the right hon. Gentleman believes that there is an absence of provisions in the Bill, he can write to me and I shall write back to him and hopefully be able to reassure him. I think he may be misplaced in thinking that that is a principal issue for UK businesses.

As all hon. Members know, the digital age in which we live has created significant growth opportunities. The consumer and technology landscapes that we have today are almost unrecognisable from those we had 20 or 30 years ago, so the products that we buy and the way in which we buy them are evolving rapidly. That means that the relevant rules and regulations must adapt, too. If we are to protect consumers and businesses, especially smaller firms, that is essential.

As we have examined in some detail, product regulation and metrology are policy areas that have largely been repatriated from the EU following our withdrawal in 2021. Since then the UK Government have simply not had the necessary powers to continue regulating these areas effectively. We have brought forward this legislation so that we can respond to anticipated changes in the global regulatory landscape. That is why, to be frank, I am somewhat bemused by the reasoned amendments tabled today.

The Bill will ensure that the UK is better placed to address modern-day safety issues. It gives us the power to better regulate items such as potentially dangerous baby sleep products and toys. It will enable us to reduce burdens on business and keep up with technological developments, for example by updating the outdoor noise regulations in Great Britain. It will align testing methods across the UK, which was overwhelmingly supported in our recent call for evidence, and it will protect the public from noise pollution from products like lawn mowers and power generators.

I have only closely scrutinised the Bill today, so I am just bringing myself up to date on this. It appears to give the Secretary of State the power to ban any product he wishes for whatever reason. We make law in this place not for when we are dealing with a Minister of the moral calibre of the right hon. Gentleman, but on the basis that we might have someone who lacks such qualities; that is who we legislate for. Is it true that this Bill would give the Secretary of State the power to ban literally any product, and that all that would have to be done is to notify this House?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his concern and his regard. I believe that if we were of the view that a product was a danger to the public, the right hon. Gentleman would expect me as Secretary of State in my Department to take action. If he is concerned about provisions in the Bill, he can look to the changes that have been made. It has been through an extensive scrutiny process in the other place, particularly in relation to the powers and delegated powers given to the Secretary of State. I think he recognises the case we are making for the safety of the public; indeed, it is why Opposition Members themselves recognise the need for a Bill of this kind.

The Bill will help to create a level playing field between the high street and online marketplaces. Critically, we are able to protect consumers by reducing the number of unsafe and non-complying goods that are sold online. This could include asking sites to verify third-party sellers before allowing them to list their goods or to have a product safety reporting function for customers on their sites. One example is e-scooters and e-bikes, which like many products are reliant on lithium-ion batteries. These batteries have been attributed as the cause of a number of fires in recent years, both in households and on public transport.

While we know that the vast majority of products are safe, in recent years we have seen some goods mis-sold by a minority of unscrupulous manufacturers and sellers. As a result, low-standard, high-risk products have been able to enter the UK market. Some people have paid for this with their homes and, in some cases, their lives. I think we would all recognise that that is unconscionable.

I want to pay tribute to the family of Sofia Duarte. Sofia tragically died when a bicycle that had been converted into an e-bike burst into flames. The bike’s lithium battery pack failed, causing a fire on new year’s day 2023. I know that the whole House will join me in recognising the bravery and courage of Sofia’s family in campaigning for change in memory of their daughter and in fighting for better regulation of e-bikes, along with the batteries and chargers associated with them. I also thank the London Fire Brigade for its campaigning on this issue in recent years. It has been on the frontline, seeing at first hand the devastation that has been wrought by some of these products.

This Bill is about keeping the public safe. The Office for Product Safety and Standards has taken action in this area already. It has issued 26 withdrawal notices on eight online marketplaces, two manufacturers and 16 sellers. This has removed two dangerous models of e-bike battery from sale, and I am glad that the legislation we are discussing today will allow us to consider further steps on enforcement.

I have campaigned for greater regulation of bicycles, which have got away with killing individuals, not to mention e-bikes. I want to pick the Secretary of State up on a particular point. I do not disagree with him on the need for regulation, and it should have been done some time ago, so we are as one on that. However, I still do not think that he has quite answered the question posed by the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) just now. Why do we need to have a wide-sweeping Bill like this if we could do it already in the House by vote?

If we have a powerful enough argument to say to both Houses, “This must be done,” then they will see it through very quickly by the power of persuasion, but they would have the right to vote on it and to disagree. The Bill takes that right away and achieves the same result, but only by way of a diktat from whoever is in power—and, by the way, I agreed with what the Secretary of State said in opposition.

I am sorry that we have not convinced the right hon. Gentleman, but I am certain that the Government need powers in this area. We need to be able to respond to fast-moving changes in technology and regulation. The public would expect me, as Secretary of State, as well as my Department and the Government, to have these powers to keep them safe. Perhaps we have not convinced him at this stage, but he can look at proceedings in the other place and in Committee.

I will give way one more time before we come to the amendments that were made in the Lords.

I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He says that he has failed to persuade Opposition Members in this place, but does he accept that he has also failed to persuade the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place? That Committee, which is chaired by Labour, said last month:

“We remain 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.”

Why does he think the Committee remains against his view?

I find that when political parties go into opposition, all of a sudden they seem less keen on the Government having decisive powers to take action in a whole range of areas. We have listened carefully to the criticism from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and significant changes have been made to the legislation, which I am happy to take the hon. Member through. They relate to the number of Henry VIII powers, the consultation requirement and the additional affirmative resolution procedure. We are always seeking feedback.

I will now go through some of the other amendments that were made in the other place.

The question I always have for the right hon. Gentleman is: is it going to be good? I will give way one more time.

It will be brief. Forget the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee; what about the Secretary of State’s colleague, Lord Leong? He said in the House of Lords that he did not think the Bill was right. In what way does it need to be improved? Will the Secretary of State look carefully at the extent of these powers? Even from this short debate, it is clear how wide-ranging and over the top they are.

On Second Reading, we have a Bill that is even stronger than the one that started in the other House. Once again, I thank all our colleagues in the other place for their constructive feedback and contributions to the debate. I will not go through every change that has been made, but I will mention some aspects of the Bill that have been strengthened.

First, we have amended the Bill to ensure that there is more parliamentary scrutiny, and we have provided for a statutory consultation requirement to ensure that regulations are informed by those who would be impacted by them. There will also be that additional use of the affirmative procedure for regulations stemming from the Bill. Secondly, the Bill now includes a requirement for me, as the Secretary of State, to publish a statement setting out how my Department expects to identify and assess high-risk products.

Finally, contrary to previous suggestions from the Conservative party, the great British pint will clearly not be affected by this legislation, whether that is ale, cider or indeed milk. We do not believe that the Bill in its original form posed any threat to the pint, but we do not want to run the risk of colleagues thinking that my reassurances are small beer, so we accepted an amendment tabled in the other place that will give the pint statutory protection. That means, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in a few weeks’ time, when I hope you will confirm to the House that the Bill has received Royal Assent, we will all be able to raise a pint—protected under statute—to the Bill. I did inquire about whether I was allowed to bring a pint with me to the Chamber to illustrate the point, but that is apparently not in order; only the Chancellor has that ability. Given the week I am having, perhaps we will look at that at a later date.

To summarise, this legislation will finally enable the Government to properly regulate in areas where we have been unable to do so post Brexit. It will also give us the tools we need to better regulate modern-day consumer products. The Bill will help to create a fairer environment for high street shops and small businesses, support our growth mission and provide better protection for millions of consumers. For all those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] because it will provide for regulatory alignment with the European Union, and it has been condemned three times by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee as a skeleton Bill which provides, without justification, inappropriately wide powers for Ministers to re-write the regulatory regimes for product safety and the weights and measures of goods by regulations.”

Too often when the public think of Parliament, they think of out-of-touch power and bad laws. The Bill is the archetype of everything that is wrong with Westminster. There should be an unwritten rule in this postcode: never trust a Bill with a convoluted name. This Bill is no exception.

Although it professes to simplify our regulatory framework, the reality is that this is an EU Trojan horse of a Bill, which will sabotage our Brexit freedoms, undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom, disrespect Parliament, befuddle British business with uncertainty and take us back to being a Brussels rule-taker—all from a party that voted 48 times to overturn the will of the British people.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will not, but before I get into further—[Interruption.] I will say something nice about the right hon. Gentleman in a minute.

Before I get into detail, let me welcome the Government’s U-turn on their plan to scrap the great British pint. Let us hope that that is the first of many. When I raised that on 26 February, Labour Members described it as “a conspiracy theory”. The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) said it was “scaremongering”, and the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), said that an amendment was no more needed than a

“law to say that the sun must rise in the morning.”—[Official Report, 26 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 812.]

The truth is that the Government were caught red-handed trying to ditch our British pint by this back-door Bill. Had the Opposition not fought back, the power to crush the British pint would have rested on the whim of a Minister’s pen. Welcome though that U-turn is, let us not ignore the fact that the Labour Government wanted to give themselves the power in the first place.

I will give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner).

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, and I hope he will also give way to my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench. Will he tell the House what possible motive he thinks a Labour Government would have for scrapping the pint?

The Labour motive is all too plain to see. This is a Labour party that voted 48 times to reject the will of the British people, led by the Prime Minister, who sought a second referendum to overturn that will. I accept that the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield was not in the House at the time, but he might want to spend some time with his colleagues in the Tea Room and hear precisely what happened.

Will the hon. Member give way?

No, I will make some progress.

The anti-pub, anti-hospitality agenda goes far beyond this Bill. The jobs tax, the threshold change, the attack on seasonal and flexible working, the more than doubling of business rates, the war on pub banter and the garden smoking ban are all from this Government. Our hospitality industry—the Secretary of State is smirking—deserves infinitely better than this from this Government.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I am happy to give way if the right hon. Gentleman talks about what he will do to repeal the Employment Rights Bill.

The hon. Member was a senior member of the previous Government and played a well-known role in the mini Budget, as well as a number of other things that that Government did. Will he confirm that they were planning exactly the same piece of legislation because of an absence in the statute book?

Once again, the Secretary of State has failed to engage on the key issue, which is that British businesses—[Interruption.] It is not funny. British businesses are bleeding out, business confidence is at a record low, unemployment is rising, and all the Government have to talk about is the past, not what they are currently delivering.

My hon. Friend was asked just now whether the previous Government were likely to have introduced this legislation. May I set the record straight? Had we done so, the Secretary of State would have voted against it.

My right hon. Friend has great wisdom on these matters.

Will the hon. Member give way?

Let me move on. The biggest flaw of many in this Bill is that, as the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) have both identified, it hands over too much power with too little accountability. There is

“a real need to consider the balance between primary and secondary legislation, which in recent years has weighed too heavily in favour of delegated powers…excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation—”

such as this Bill—

“upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive.”

Those are not my words, but those of the Attorney General. They are taken from a speech that he made in October, while in government, about the importance of restoring parliamentary sovereignty. No one who considered that speech could fail to agree.

The Lords’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has slammed the Bill not once, not twice, but three times, including after the Government’s changes were made. To put this into context, the wide powers contained in this 15-page Bill will allow Ministers unilaterally to amend product safety regulation, impose obligations on online marketplaces, meddle with standards for weights and measures or entirely align British regulatory standards with the European Union, posing a threat to the integrity of the UK internal market. It is 15 pages of the most egregious Whitehall overreach.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is yet another hammer blow to British businesses? We have had the Labour Government introducing £25 billion of tax with the employers’ national insurance contribution, £5 billion of costs with workers’ rights and a never-ending increase in energy bills as they drive forward on their net zero fantasy. Now they will be able to change regulation more or less on a whim, whenever they feel like it, destroying certainty and confidence for British businesses.

My right hon. Friend makes a serious and important point. I take the Secretary of State in good faith when he says that he desires for his Government to grow the economy—every Government should, and I believe that this Government should as well—but he must recognise that every single action he takes will take us further away from that goal by piling on the red tape and increasing the level of tax. The regulatory jeopardy in this Bill will do the same, by simply making it impossible to know what product regulations will look like. How can any business plan for the future when the powers offered up by the Bill introduce such a prospect of unpredictable regulatory change?

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that someone sitting at home watching this will be worried by the argument that it is more important to stick to some anti-EU dogma than it is to protect their children from dangerous products, or to keep dangerous electric bikes off the market and regulate for their safety?

With the very best will in the world, I think the hon. Lady can do a great deal better than that. As hon. Members have said, this House can legislate. If there are dangerous products, bring those use cases here, and I believe that across the House we will legislate rapidly to protect our constituents’ safety. However, our constituents did not send us here to pass a 15-page Bill full of skeleton powers to give the Secretary of State an unlimited ability to regulate without having to consult this place.

The challenge for many of us who were here during the previous Parliament, when the hon. Member was in office and had the power to diverge, is that we watched what happened and we saw the cost to British business. That is why the previous Government decided in the end to abandon the British charter mark, is it not? Would he care to tell the House how much proceeding with his plans would have cost British business? It was £1.6 billion, in case he does not know. British businesses need to hear that we get it. They do not want more paperwork; they want less.

I am genuinely intrigued, and I shall sit here and listen to the hon. Lady’s speech later on. Does she want divergence? Does she want us to use our Brexit freedoms, or does she seek to go back to being a rule taker and converge?

We have not heard a compelling argument from the Secretary of State today as to why these powers should be granted. It is right that we in this House adopt the precautionary principle, and if the Secretary of State, or the Minister in winding up, can give us some more compelling use cases, I am sure we would consider that.

This is all very important. There has been some merriment about the pint, but in the novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four” by George Orwell, the hero goes into a pub, and somebody there laments the fact that the despotic regime has just abolished the pint and forced people to drink litres. The road to serfdom is paved by many steps such as this. By the way, when I was Minister for consumer affairs many years ago, we regularly banned things. We did not need this Bill.

My right hon. Friend makes the perfect point that this is precisely what the road to serfdom looks like, whether it is serfdom to an individual Minister at a moment in time or serfdom to an unelected Brussels bureaucratic elite. Why would we give up the powers of this House, the reason why we are sent here, and the ability to hold the Government to account?

The hon. Member described the Bill as a Trojan horse—it is more like a Trojan donkey. Does he agree that clause 2(7) is a particular problem, because it appears to take European Union regulations as the baseline for determining safety? To many of us, the assumption that European Union regulations should be the starting point for any safety regulations that we might want to make seems somewhat bizarre.

The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right, and we can contrast the number of references to the European Union throughout the Bill with, for example, our biggest single country trading partner—the United States.

I want to directly answer the point made by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and provide clarification that I have just sought. Clause 2(7)(a) is not about alignment; it is about recognition. We already recognise certain EU product requirements on a mutual recognition basis, and where it is of benefit to do so, that is what the clause allows. Rather than take European standards as the basis for our own and align with them, it enables that where it is recognised that we have the interest. I can write to him in detail if he wishes.

On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), I thank the Secretary of State for intervening. It is important that we legislate with full understanding of what the law says, but the point still stands on the overweighting of references to EU standards versus comparable standards from the United States and Commonwealth friends of this great nation.

On that note, the point is the one I made to the Secretary of State: where, as the impact assessment suggests, regulations are moving at pace—the Secretary of State repeated that—we will default to a European set of standards. That is the problem, and that is certainly implied in the Bill’s impact assessment. I sought the Secretary of State’s assurance that that will not happen. If it does not happen, will there be no rules or regulations? How will that work in practice?

We are having the proper debate through these interventions that perhaps we should have had when the Secretary of State was introducing the Bill. That illustrates the point about putting a vast amount of ambiguity—even if it is well intentioned—into the law and how things will operate, and for a reason of which we know not. If there are instances of, for example, e-scooters catching fire in people’s halls, this House has the ability to legislate, and legislate fast where necessary, against those particular harms at that particular moment in time. My right hon. Friend, with his many years of experience in this House, understands that point, and I think that was what he was saying.

Although Opposition Members will perhaps deliberately choose to believe that the words and assurances given are ambiguous, does the hon. Member accept that even Government Members in the House of Lords believe there is an ambiguity that needs to be cleared up? One comment was:

“The question of dynamic alignment with the EU remains unanswered yet ever more topical.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2025; Vol. 844, c. 712.]

The hon. Member makes exactly the right point. This is a blank cheque Bill and a Trojan horse Bill. It is simply not clear under this Secretary of State, or any Secretary of State in the future once these powers have been ceded by this place, how they will be implemented. There is a real asymmetry in the constant litany of references to the European Union—a valued trading partners of ours, but only one valued trading partner of ours, as I hope the Secretary of State is about to reveal over the coming days. Tomorrow we understand that tariffs will be imposed by the United States on British exporters. If that is the case, that would be the worst failure of trade policy for a generation. It is businesses, jobs and our economy that will all pay the price. The Chancellor’s emergency Budget will not have lasted a single week because she made no provision for the imposition of tariffs—if that is indeed what is to come.

It is frankly outrageous that the Government have failed to make a statement about where we are, despite the Prime Minister’s official spokesman briefing the Lobby, and the Business and Trade Secretary himself finding time this morning to conduct a round of media interviews. If the Secretary of State would like to comment on the progress of US talks, I will happily give way.

This is a little off-topic for a Second Reading, but the hon. Gentleman could have just listened to the “Today” programme this morning. He would have heard me articulate those concerns. We are engaged with our US counterparts, more so than any other country, in those negotiations. He will know that I will not share the content or detail of those talks. The policy originates with the President of the United States and we are responding to and engaging with it. The hon. Gentleman will understand that it comes from the mandate and the agenda of the US Administration.

Order. I remind the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State that we are debating the Second Reading of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, and not necessarily tariffs.

Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am nearing a conclusion in any case. However, I do think that the issue of product safety—the rules and regulations that govern our economy, as the Secretary of State himself said—is intrinsically linked with trade, mutual recognition and growing the economy by removing trade frictions and barriers rather than erecting them and subjecting businesses to the tyranny of simply not understanding the corpus of rules and regulations.

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he, like me, hope that the Liberal Democrats, despite their hobby-horse love of the EU, do not allow the EU flavouring of the Bill to blind them to the frankly illiberal Executive-enhancing, legislature-diminishing aspect of the Bill? If they genuinely aspire to being His Majesty’s Opposition, they will join us this evening in voting against Second Reading.

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope, as the Secretary of State slightly alluded to in his remarks about the ability of a country to make its own rules and regulations, that we will soon be back in the House with a Government statement at which we can celebrate the mother of all Brexit benefits: securing the ability to conduct our own trade. I look forward to hearing from the Liberal Democrats exactly how much they welcome that ability on behalf of their constituents.

Although I cannot speak immediately for all Liberal Democrats, it puzzles us that the official Opposition do not seem to recognise that if they had legislated properly when we left the European Union, this legislation would not be necessary. Do they not accept any responsibility for where we are today?

We will not accept any lessons from the Liberal Democrats about what it takes to Brexit successfully and go back to being an independent nation, but if that is what the hon. Lady will speak about, I look forward to hearing it.

To conclude, the Bill is flawed in so many ways. With the best will in the world, Ministers should not be proposing it, particularly given their failure so far to protect us from US tariffs. It is a bad Bill from a Government who are already failing. It is a travesty for anyone who cares about respect for parliamentary democracy and the role of this House versus Ministers. It is, as I said, a Trojan horse Bill that will sabotage our Brexit freedoms and take us back to being an EU rule taker, which the British people had long put behind us. I urge the House to back our reasoned amendment and end this terrible Bill.

I welcome this essential and timely Bill, which upgrades our product safety, regulation and metrology—a word that I admit I had to look up, but it does not take much to understand it—framework, delivering a much-needed boost to protections for consumers and ensuring that every company in the UK, whether they operate online or on our high streets, upholds the high product safety and quality standards that working people in this country deserve and that have been absent for too long.

Whether it is faulty carbon monoxide alarms, dangerous children’s toys or the issue of spontaneously combusting e-bikes and scooters, which has been raised with me by my constituents in Worsley and Eccles, examples of hazardous products being on sale are far too common. Clearly, there is an urgent need to raise the bar on consumer product safety in this country. The Bill achieves that aim, establishing a modern safety regime that will enable companies to operate safely, while accounting for the post-Brexit regulatory landscape.

In an increasingly turbulent international trading environment, it is imperative that the Government update the UK’s product regulations. However, since our exit from the EU, the Government have not had the necessary powers to meet the challenges presented by the fast-moving global product safety standards environment. That has left British consumers vulnerable to falling behind with regard to protections.

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s argument. I have been in this House for a little while; I have sat on both sides of the House, and I have been in government. I have never come across a Government who have failed to get regulation through when they feel it is necessary to do so, but it goes through with debate. We cannot just impose regulations because we think it is right. There has to be some measure of whether it is balanced and whether it works, and that is normally done by this House. Why give it to the Government alone?

If the system we have in place was working, we would not be here debating this, and we would not see these shoddy products on sale or these fires. The only explanation is either that the system does not work or the last Government failed in their duty to the people of this country.

As I was saying, this has left British consumers vulnerable to falling behind with regard to protections in rapidly emerging areas of product safety that need reaction—for example, those related to new technologies such as AI and lithium-ion batteries. I therefore support the Bill’s provisions to enable the Government to meet the fast-moving challenges of the day in these areas.

I am interested that my hon. Friend mentions AI. There are three major systems around the world being proposed for artificial intelligence regulation: those in China, the EU and the United States. If we have to make a choice for our own framework, which might be different from those, for the safety of people in industry, why should that not be done on the Floor of this House rather than through delegated regulation? It is one of the most important issues that will face us in the coming years.

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. I will happily admit to the House that I am not an expert on AI. I do, however, recognise that the fast-developing nature of AI as it relates to consumer safety and product regulation requires a rapid response, which is potentially not necessarily suited to a full debate on the Floor of the House.

Can the hon. Gentleman give a single instance of a Government at any time in the past decade not being able to take action on a seriously risky product? I cannot think of one.

I can think of several—for example, the lack of regulation around the e-bikes and e-scooters on our streets that are causing fires. We are in a fast-moving environment, and we are creating a framework that will future-proof our system.

I want to help my hon. Friend out, because he was not here when the previous Government introduced the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which deleted more than 4,000 laws and used statutory instruments to replace them. The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who was a Minister at the time, is nodding his head as if that process was acceptable. He is now challenging a colleague who was not here at the time by saying that somehow it is not acceptable now, but it was acceptable then. My hon. Friend is right to be concerned and slightly sceptical about the Opposition’s sudden agreement that statutory instruments are perhaps not the best way forward.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I declare an interest having spent 40 years in the toy industry and, in another life, having been the chair and the president of the British Toy & Hobby Association. It was a wonderful job—the second-best job. The best job is being the first ever Liberal Democrat MP for Wokingham.

And the last.

I doubt that very much.

Nearly a decade since the Brexit referendum, this House is still grappling with what it means to be outside of the European Union. Away from the big headlines about trade deals and newly erected borders, the technical nitty-gritty of product safety and metrology is ever more important now that we must decide what we want our policies to be in this area. Our original framework, derived from EU law, must now keep up with fast-evolving technologies and consumer behaviours. Technological changes in the 21st century may have created new opportunities, but they have also left us exposed to new risks, such as AI, battery hazards and e-bike fires.

Our online marketplaces and the complex digital commerce that facilitates them have reduced barriers to small and medium-sized enterprises sharing their products across the UK and the world, but the internet is still a wild west in many ways, leaving small businesses and consumers exposed. That is why the Liberal Democrats welcome aspects of this Bill. We fully understand and support the need to update the regulatory framework for the UK marketplace to give businesses and consumers confidence in their products. We welcome in principle the powers in the Bill to put new responsibilities on online marketplaces throughout the supply chain, and we support enhanced consumer protection for products that pose a safety risk.

The product regulations falling in scope of this Bill will have an impact on our country’s trade policy, and the Liberal Democrats are clear when it comes to trade: we believe the Government must pull the most powerful and readily available lever at their disposal to kickstart economic growth by urgently launching negotiations for a new UK-EU customs union. That would create jobs, boost our public finances and reverse much of the damage inflicted on our economy by the previous Conservative Government’s terrible trade deal with Europe. I take this opportunity to urge the Government to move in that direction and to commit that, as part of these trade negotiations, they will use the provisions in the Bill to facilitate a new customs union, which could have such a transformative effect on our economy.

I am really grateful to the hon. Gentleman for engaging with the issues about product safety and consumer protection in the Bill, and he is making a serious speech in relation to them.

First, on the point of the customs union, which was skilfully woven into his speech, that would preclude us from reaching any arrangements with the United States, India, the Gulf states or other countries. For my money, if we wish to be part of something without a say in how it would affect our trade policy, that would be a very difficult position to take. I will come back to the references made by Conservative MPs, who often feel like they are fighting the old, last war. They cannot get past it—

Order. First, I gently suggest to the Secretary of State that he is meant to be making an intervention. Secondly, we are quite definitely debating the Second Reading of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, not a customs union. Perhaps the Secretary of State will conclude his remarks.

I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. In relation to the number of references made to the EU in this Bill, the EU is explicitly referenced simply because UK product regulations are derived from a lot of EU regulations. We have to reference that when looking to the future, particularly when we recognise some of those European standards, but it is wrong to simply look at those references and try to make them out to be something they are not.

Thank you for your intervention, Secretary of State. You are right—

“He” is right!

Sorry. The Secretary of State is right when he talks about us needing to keep up with EU regulations. We definitely need to do that.

Despite the potential in this Bill, unfortunately it contains very little actual policy. It relies far too heavily on secondary legislation, which limits opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny and provides little clarity on what the Government actually intend to do with the powers they are giving themselves. The Bill hurls us into a hokey-cokey trade policy in which, at Ministers’ political whims, we can stick ourselves into aligning with the EU just as easily as we can throw ourselves out of it all over again if another Government decided they wanted to do that. It will also hurt business confidence, because the underlying regulations of our country can be easily altered without the appropriate levels of scrutiny from Parliament.

Taking a step back from the issue of EU alignment, this principle can apply across any of the areas that this Bill seeks to regulate. It is developing opaque mechanisms on which the Government expect us to trust them to do better. However, Government Members must contend with the fact that they will not be there forever. All the potentially positive things they could do with this legislation could be reversed or made worse by a different Government.

It is at this point that I must recognise the excellent work of the Liberal Democrat peers. For example, a Lib Dem lord introduced an amendment that protected the use of the unique British pint measurement, ensuring that the Bill could not prevent or restrict its use for beer, cider, or milk in the iconic pint bottle. Liberal Democrat peers pressed the Government to introduce stronger protections against lithium-ion batteries, and a Liberal Democrat peer also ensured that the Government included an important amendment that requires the Secretary of State to publish a statement setting out how the Government expect to identify and assess product safety risks before legislation is laid. Put simply, this will ensure greater scrutiny of regulations that are designed to make products safe.

Despite those improvements, the Bill is still ultimately a skeleton framework that shifts legislative authority from Parliament to the Executive without the necessary level of scrutiny. Many great Ministers agree with me that skeleton Bills are the wrong way to deliver legislation. In fact, in 2023—a mere two years ago—one shadow Minister stated that such Bills were not

“a model example of how Parliament would like to see legislation brought forward”,

and that we should be minimising

“the use of delegated powers where possible”.—[Official Report, 18 January 2023; Vol. 726, c. 409.]

I agree with that then shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who is now sitting next to the Secretary of State who has brought forward today’s Bill. I am sorry that he does not agree with himself any more.

I also note the assurances that the Government gave to my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place that a process for editing statutory instruments will be brought forward. We will be pushing for details of that pre-legislative consultation as the Bill progresses through the Commons. Any Government will say that they are acting in our best interests, but all of the things that this Bill could do—such as enhance consumer safety, reduce trade barriers and build an economy fit for the future—could be undone at the stroke of a pen. That is a pen that Parliament should hold, not Ministers.

The use of hazardous chemical flame retardants in domestic furniture has been criticised by the Association of Master Upholsterers and Soft Furnishers and in a 2019 Environmental Audit Committee report, because those chemicals have been shown to cause more toxic smoke, increase the production of carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide and increase the prevalence of health conditions, including developmental disorders, breathing difficulties and reproductive disorders. As this Bill would provide the Government with more powers to act on that issue, does my hon. Friend agree that Ministers should outline how the Government plan to address the dangers associated with CFRs?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that Ministers will address her question—if they heard it. The Bill makes it possible for the Government to use those new powers, and that would be a good place for them to start.

The Minister in the other place stated that this Government are not looking to reduce consumer protections. However, what measures in this Bill make sure that parliamentary scrutiny cannot be bypassed to weaken those protections? The skeletal nature of the Bill also makes clear what is missing—the very heart of our changing economy is nowhere to be seen.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Can I just carry on a bit? Thanks.

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

I note that the hon. Member has described many of these toys as “illegal”. In other words, the law is there already. This Bill is therefore not necessary to deal with children choking on toys and all the other things he has outlined. The law is already there; the question is, do we actually implement the law?

The law needs to be tightened up. We definitely need to be taking a lot more interest in the unsafe products that online companies are selling.

Do we want to allow unsafe toys to be sold to our precious children by some faceless online operation through an online market? I am sure the answer is no, but the Bill as it is written fails to address that. The problem is not just limited to toys, but extends to heaters, phone chargers and batteries. The Government have signalled an ambition to bring online marketplace liability in line with more traditional models of retail, but an ambition can be easily reversed by a different Government without parliamentary oversight. Without the measure being explicitly put into the Bill, consumers and the high street are not receiving the guarantees they deserve.

This is a serious issue for children and personal safety, and we therefore need explicit guarantees of minimum duties for online marketplaces in the Bill. What is the Minister’s view on whether a duty to notify consumers who have been sold unsafe or illegal products should be placed on online marketplaces? Such a duty could enhance consumers’ rights to seek a refund of the purchase price. Will a requirement to verify the identity and activities of sellers be established? If it is a yes to any of those questions, the Minister should do the right thing and amend the Bill so that those guarantees are enshrined in primary legislation.

I could go on. The Bill requires a tighter definition of an online marketplace to ensure that there are no loopholes for platforms to avoid appropriate regulations. That is especially the case for platforms that do not exist solely as an online marketplace, such as TikTok Shop and Facebook Marketplace.

Finally, the Bill does not make explicit reference to e-bikes, e-scooters or lithium-ion battery safety, despite safety being one of the explicit aims of the Bill. E-bike and e-scooter battery fires pose a uniquely high risk to consumers, with the London Fire Brigade estimating that it attends a fire incident caused by one of these devices once every two days. There need to be stronger regulations on these things. Can the Minister explain why they are not included in the Bill?

My constituents would be forgiven for thinking that the clock had turned back, so I will focus on the issues that they have asked me to raise, which are not political in the slightest, but relate to safety. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that while this is a small Bill, it is very important. It is of great interest to my constituents, especially the members of Torphichen community council in my constituency who asked me to speak in this debate. They back the Electrical Safety First campaign, and they spoke to me about the danger of fires caused by lithium-ion batteries in e-scooters and e-bikes and in everyday products. The lithium-ion battery safety campaign is calling for stronger measures, including improved enforcement efforts, particularly online; disposal guidance at the point of sale; and measures to ensure safer charging. I hope that the Ministers who are present will give strong consideration to those suggestions in due course.

Lithium-ion batteries are integral to many modern devices that most of us have in our homes, from e-scooters to laptops, but widespread use has exposed significant safety concerns, largely owing to the lack of oversight. Batteries have been linked to numerous fire incidents and pose serious risks of injury or worse. Thermal runaway is a dangerous phenomenon: battery cells overheat and catch fire, releasing toxic gases and often causing extensive damage. By their very nature, e-scooters are often left in town centres, walkways and communal areas in flats and hallways, putting other members of the public at risk in the event of thermal runaway. As we have heard, in London e-bike and e-scooter fires occur as often as once every two days. Worse still, I am aware of domestic incidents in my constituency, including one in which, sadly, a family lost their home and all their belongings as a result of an e-scooter fire.

The Bill introduces welcome steps to deal with those risks, creating a landscape to address the dangers associated with products that are so widely used. The mandates on safety standards for the storage, use and disposal of lithium-ion batteries will help to mitigate the dangers associated with thermal runaway. I also welcome the new powers to monitor compliance and enforce regulations effectively. It is critical that only safe and reliable products reach the market, and reach our homes. Such measures are essential to prevent incidents and protect people from serious harm, such as that which affected my constituents.

There is much in the Bill that has been long awaited at a local level, and I am glad that the Government are responding to people’s concerns in a timely and stringent manner. The danger posed by poorly maintained or unsafely stored lithium-ion batteries is too great to be ignored.

Is it the hon. Lady’s understanding that the existing regulations on lithium-ion batteries are insufficient? There is a British standard, and there are environmental and disposal regulations. There is a swathe of regulations relating to lithium-ion batteries, but if there is a failure to enforce them, that should not give Ministers carte blanche to decide on a whim what products, in this area or any other, should be available for sale in the UK without any recourse to Parliament.

I do not think that we want to rerun the arguments relating to Brexit, which is what this debate has largely been about so far. The Bill has clearly been introduced to address gaps that have left consumers exposed to great harms.

The prominence of online marketplaces is an established trend in our society. We all know from the pandemic how important essential—and sometimes non-essential—online purchases can be to our daily lives. They have become commonplace, and that trend is only set to continue. By the end of the decade, online purchases will be worth £156 billion. Nevertheless, many products are poorly regulated, faulty and—too often—dangerous. Whether it is the carbon monoxide alarms that do not work that have been used to kit out a cheaply renovated student flat, the faulty chainsaw attachments used by a neighbour or the faulty e-scooter sitting in a back garden, these faulty products have come about because the pace of change online has been poorly matched by regulations. We are now in a situation where regulations in the online world do not match the protections in the real world. Quite simply, if a product is too dangerous or fails the standards for those sold in shops, it should not be available in online marketplaces. As a society, we need to be protected in our increasing reliance on and use of the digital world; otherwise, the lack of online protections will have yet more devastating real-life impacts.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I am about to conclude.

This Bill is a welcome step to alter the regulatory landscape. More importantly, it will ensure basic product safety and better oversight of products such as lithium batteries. The Bill will reduce the risks associated with thermal runaway and protect our communities from potential harm. As online marketplaces continue to expand, it is essential to extend these regulations to the digital realm to respond to the evolving challenges of modern technology and safeguard public safety.

I have deep concerns about this Orwellian Bill because of what it does not explicitly say and its ambiguity regarding EU dynamic realignment. The Henry VIII powers the Bill gives Ministers will have serious consequences for businesses, consumers and our ability to trade, but does so with little detail on how they intend to use such powers.

Let me first turn to regulatory alignment. As you may recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, I spent much time taking the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 through as a Whip, and I believe passionately that that Act was vital to take back control, for parliamentary sovereignty and in freeing businesses to compete by shedding unnecessary EU regulations, directives and red tape. So I will say plainly that this Bill will lead to regulatory alignment with the EU through the back door. I invite the Minister to confirm from the Dispatch Box that this Bill and the powers it gives Ministers will not be used by this Government for dynamic alignment with EU regulations. I doubt that any such categoric reassurance is likely to be forthcoming, but I await with bated breath and a hopeful heart that it be so.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Let me make some progress, and then I will give way.

The Government have always claimed that they would not return us to the single market and the customs union, and many believed them. I was always a healthy sceptic, but I am willing to be proven wrong. However, my fear is that this Bill will lead to back-door EU regulatory alignment, and whether that is deliberate or unintentional matters not. We had our democratic instructions from the British people, and we must honour them.

I now want to talk about competition—

Will the hon. Lady give way on regulatory alignment?

Let me make some progress.

It is on the point the hon. Lady is moving away from.

Well, I am now on competition. Would the hon. Member like to make a comment about that?

No, this is on the last point.

Order. This is turning into a debate in itself. It is very clear that the Member does not want to take an intervention right now, Mr Snell, but she may do so later.

I now want to talk about competition—

Will the hon. Lady give way on a point about competition?

I will give way on a point about competition.

Persistence sometimes pays off, Madam Deputy Speaker. I genuinely want to pick up the point the hon. Lady is making about competition in relation to alignment. In the ceramics sector, the food contact materials regulations set by the European Union are essential to enabling the export of the products we create and make. They are product regulations for safety, but she seems to be suggesting that any regulatory alignment is a bad thing. Is that her party’s message about alignment for the purposes of export that I should take back to the thousands of workers in Stoke-on-Trent?

With exports, we can apply any kind of regulation we want to maximise our market advantage from leaving the EU. We could apply a statutory framework for Japan, or any country we want, to ensure we can export our products. The point of leaving the EU was so that we could remain globally competitive, and so that we could choose to adopt any regulatory framework we wanted if that market enabled us to export our products, support our businesses and help to grow our economy. I would support that, but nothing of that is mentioned in the Bill. If it mentioned realignment with market values in relation to Japan, so we could export things to Japan or to other markets, I would be interested in looking at the Bill holistically, but not once is any country or trade grouping mentioned except the EU. That gives me pause, and it makes me wonder whether this is an attempt to achieve a backdoor realignment with EU regulatory frameworks without the scrutiny of Parliament.

Does the hon. Lady also accept that the Bill is not necessary to promote exports? If a company wants to export its products to Japan or Timbuktu, it will have to align with the regulations that exist in those countries anyway. It does not need a Government Bill, and—far worse—it does not need a Minister to have the power to make regulations without coming to this place.

I agree completely with the right hon. Gentleman. I will leave it there, because that is an excellent point.

This is about free trade and expanding our global reach by making money, growing our economy and allowing everyone to benefit from a tax base that grows because our businesses can export freely. I am very supportive of that. If the Bill in any way addressed the concerns I have raised, I would be happy to support it, but it is vague and does not give us the insight we need into the kind of alignment that is intended. That vagueness presents a challenge that was mentioned repeatedly in the other place. In this House, we must address the Bill’s challenges with a similar rigour. It may look quite harmless on the outside, but under the surface it will deliver profound change and threaten our ability to scrutinise these regulatory changes. In the other place, the noble Lord Sandhurst described it as:

“a Henry VIII Bill par excellence”. —[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC44.]

We would do well to heed those words.

Where is the policy framework under which Ministers will decide to use these powers? On parliamentary sovereignty or Ministers’ decision to use the powers, there is no such framework.

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. As a fellow member of the Procedure Committee, I do enjoy a good procedural debate, but I wonder whether she will get to the meat of the Bill at any point. Will we be talking about Brexit bogeymen, or will we be talking about consumer safety, representing those we are here to represent, looking after their interests and making them safer?

The Bill is a legislative blank sheet of paper for Ministers to fill with whatever legislation they feel like. The Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated that the Bill

“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”.

I say to Members right across this House: heed those words. If we do not stay alert to legislation that looks so harmless yet confers such powers on Ministers, we are failing in our role as legislators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

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

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

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

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

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman; I can see that if I do not, he will have a heart attack.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I shall survive. Given the time that she has spent in this House, I am surprised that, like some newer Members, she may have been taken in by the Government’s wording. The Bill gives Ministers such blanket powers. Sure, they can align more with EU regulation, as she desires; equally, another Government or Minister could go the opposite way and do all the damage she is talking about—needlessly differing from Europe purely out of ideology—and the House would have no say in it. Surely, the hon. Lady must be more like the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) and share with her colleagues the need to restrict Ministers’ powers.

I tried in vain to make exactly such arguments to the right hon. Member when he was a Minister telling me that European legislation was not good enough for this country. [Interruption.] I now ask him to let me finish my speech, because I want common sense in this legislation, as I think Ministers do. We need to stand up to those who puff and spout about Europe as though somehow it is a bad thing to make it possible for British businesses to trade with our nearest neighbours post Brexit. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not an argument about rejoining the European Union.

I will, if I may, continue with my speech, but I shall take an intervention a bit later.

Our colleagues in Northern Ireland know the practical consequences of divergence—the obsession with the concept that somehow we have always to be different, which is somehow believed to be sovereignty. They will know what the “not for EU labels” mean. They will know, too, the impact that that has had on them and their colleagues. Neil Johnston, director of the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium, recently told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee about just that. He described how suppliers have to have separate print runs for labelling, and how the requirements in shops for posters and edge-of-shelf labelling are massively burdensome for small businesses. We end up with a sausage roll that we cannot take across the border between Castlederg and Castlefin simply because of the way that the previous Government undertook Brexit.

I wonder whether the Member has read the schedule to the Bill. Agri-food products are not covered.

I hope the right hon. Member can understand that my point is about divergence—about what happens when we try to ask businesses to run two different regulatory regimes out of a mistaken ideology that somehow we cannot find a way forward. That is what this piece of legislation will do. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield wanted to tell us that British businesses were better off as a result of the “Brexit freedoms”. Well, the numbers and statistics tell us the exact opposite. I am talking about not just the fall in GDP or the fall in trade that is predicted, but the thousands of businesses—16,400 of them—which have given up exporting to the European Union because of the additional paperwork and the additional regulatory regime.

I am so pleased to have eventually got through to the hon. Lady. She heard the Minister at the Dispatch Box say that this was not about dynamic realignment. Am I right in understanding that her view of this legislation is that it is 100% about EU dynamic realignment?

The hon. Member is completely wrong. I hope that he will give me a chance to make my speech before getting too excited about the word Europe.

He should try to understand what we are talking about here, which is British businesses and the regulatory certainty that they need from their Governments. My goodness, if we think how a Tory hard Brexit has hit British businesses, we should also consider how it has hit small businesses, which simply could not afford to comply with multiple regulatory regimes. We do know that we live in uncertain times, and that the threat of tariffs will kill what little business our firms might have left.

As the OBR pointed out to us last week, if global trade disputes escalate to include 20 percentage point rises in tariffs between the USA and the rest of the world, it will reduce GDP by a peak of 1% and reduce our current surplus. In that environment, we owe it to British businesses to talk common sense and to talk about what they actually want, which is a reduction in the Brexit red tape that they have had to deal with. We have been here before—on the practical insanity that Brexit generates. There was the obsession with blue passports, which came at the expense of being able to trade and keep a business going.

We have also been here before with the previous Government, which is why all those Conservative Members who were here before 2024 need to hang their heads in shame at some of the arguments that they are making about this. The previous Government wanted us to have our own UK charter mark. They wanted British businesses to run two separate charter mark arrangements. Undertaking testing requirements for both the UKCA and the European CE to allow a business to be able to sell in both markets was costing businesses hundreds of thousands of pounds. The costs could go as high as £200,000 per product range. I am actually quoting from the previous Government’s own impact assessment of the legislation, and I am happy to send that document to the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), who is chuntering from the Opposition Benches.

UK conformity assessment marking covered goods worth £109 billion. It is little wonder that after four years, and I believe the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham might have been on that very Committee when it happened, those obsessed with the Brexit freedoms were hit with cold, hard reality and had to climb down and say that British companies that had met European standards had also met the British charter mark. They had to roll over the charter mark, because if they had not, their own impact assessment would have shown that it cost British businesses up to £1.6 billion in the decade. That is the Brexit bonus of which Opposition Members are so proud—billions of extra cost to British businesses because they are trying to fill in two forms at once to sell the same item to different sets of consumers.

The Bill is about so much more than just kitemarking. We need to be clear that it does not mean that we have automatic access to the EU market. It means that British businesses can see what the regulatory landscape might look like ahead of them. That is very important in these uncertain times. It also prevents the UK becoming a dumping ground for goods that are no longer considered safe in the European Union. I certainly believe that my constituents need to be confident that we will not be flooded with cheap goods that are bad for them.

It also does not mean that we have to align automatically, and I hope that answers the question from the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham. I am not here arguing for automatic alignment. After all, there are examples of where we have taken a different approach. The vaping legislation was something that Conservative Members opposed, but it put us ahead of European product legislation. The Bill has protections for the British pint. The Lords wrote those in.

It is also clear that choosing not to participate does not mean that UK consumers are not affected. We saw that with mobile phone charging cables. Even though we are too small a market to influence Apple, the European Union acting together made Apple stop selling us multiple cables. As somebody who was carrying around multiple pieces of equipment, I am very grateful for that.

We may also want to look at examples where we might learn from our colleagues. Right now the European Union has been taking the lead on carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons—basically what is in a synthetic football pitch. Our kids right now in the United Kingdom play on pitches that have dangerous chemicals in them, but our European colleagues’ kids are not playing on those. When we talk about alignment, sometimes we are talking about sharing good practice on how to make our kids safer—the consumer regulations product safety that we were talking about.

I suspect that is why the previous Government, in the end, with all their obsession with Brexit freedoms and with all the powers they had, did not diverge very much. Indeed, under their watch, there were only five cases of active diversion. There were 15 cases of passive divergence, where basically they did not update regulations. For all the huffing and puffing, when faced with the cold, hard reality of having different regulatory regimes for goods in this country from those of our next door neighbours, where we might also want to sell, the previous Government took the better approach; they did not look to make British businesses try to double up on their paperwork. Indeed, where we have diverged there are clearly problems being stored up. Anybody watching the court case about sandeels knows what is coming down the line.

This Government are not going to mess British business around in the way that the previous Government did with their huffing and puffing about whether previous Governments in other countries were friend or foe. We need to make trade work. British businesses need less paperwork. That means being clear about where we will diverge, where we will align, why that makes a difference and what that means for product standards.

I think we agree across the House that we want high standards. That is delivered not by being not European, or pro-European, but by looking at what the regulatory regimes are. That is why it matters that we have paused some of the current proposals of divergence—on a new recycling label regime, on the “not for EU” labelling, and on the new checks on agrifood imports. We are looking at what works for British businesses so that we can make it easier for them to trade. That is why I wanted to speak in this debate.

What we need to do in the Bill—I hope the Minister will be open to this—is be clear about the direction of travel and the proper, right way and point for Parliament to be part of that process. If we are going to diverge, we should be clear why that would be in the British interest and how we as a Parliament will have that conversation. Where we have information, we should update our constituents, who might have businesses with products that take 18 to 36 months to develop. They need to know the regulatory regime, for example of the toys they want to make, and which markets they can sell into. That is why it matters that we have parliamentary scrutiny.

I welcome sinners who repenteth about the value of that, but I do not want to see British business faced with the idea of us having to consult on absolutely everything. I do not have an erratic fear of the Europeans somehow holding us back if they help us ensure that our kids are not playing football on pitches that have carcinogenic chemicals on them. That is common-sense British politics, and that is what the Bill needs to deliver.

Regulatory uncertainty undermines economic growth. If economic growth is our primary ambition, we need to reduce the amount of times we ask British businesses to be part of consultations, because they need to have confidence about where regulation is going. That is why it matters that we say, “We are not going to start diverging for the sake of it, but only because we can see there is a national interest in it.”

I will finish on this point. It matters to so many of our growth ambitions that construction materials are also covered under the Bill. Construction costs are due to rise much further here than in the European Union. Many of us who want our hospitals rebuilt and house building to happen know that if we spend our time giving uncertainty to British businesses about which way the regulations will go, we will not get the investment that we want. The cold, hard reality of businesses’ decision making is that they do not want to invest on a risk. My question to the Minister is: how can we give British business certainty about the direction of travel and ensure that we have the right consultation and engagement process for Parliament so that, where there are points where we would diverge—like we did on vaping—we can do that, too? It is not an either/or. Frankly, we have to get over the idea that if something is European, it is somehow taking us back. Nine years after we voted to leave the European Union, and six years after the legislation to do that, what the EU is doing still affects our British businesses.

We have a choice in this House. We can continue to peddle fantasies—I am sorry that the shadow Secretary of State is no longer in his place; he seemed not even to know about the capitulation that his Government must have made in his eye over the charter mark—but we owe it to British businesses who are being hammered by Tory Brexit and facing economic uncertainty not to add to the pile of paperwork in their in-trays as the Opposition would. I hope that when the Minister sets out that direction of travel, he will be open to ideas about how we can secure that. British businesses may have stopped listening to Opposition Members, but they will listen to us if we get this right.

There are three fundamental points to be made about the Bill, and I will make them more briefly than the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), although I am delighted to follow her. First, there is a constitutional issue at the heart of the legislation about the power of this House and this Parliament, and the power of the Executive.

The Bill creates a permissive power for the Executive to introduce by regulation, through statutory instrument, all kinds of measures. Those who have been in the House for a long time, and perhaps those of us who have been in the House for a rather shorter time, will know what that means in practice: a brief debate in a room upstairs that will take a few minutes or perhaps a little longer. It will be thinly populated and the measure will be given scant scrutiny. The Executive should be held to account on the Floor of the House or by a Committee designed for the purpose.

That brings me to my second point about the Bill. We once had a European Scrutiny Committee whose task was to look closely at all kinds of things that emanated from the European Union. The hon. Lady who spoke immediately before me described those of us in the House who are sceptical about the European Union as not being rational; she said these were irrational fears about the European Union. Were that to be true, she would probably have a point, but actually our fears are entirely rational. We know what emanated from the European Union during our membership, and it was endless bureaucracy. I acknowledge that it was often gold-plated here, but none the less it was every kind of rule and regulation, some of which were entirely superfluous to our needs because they were introduced on a pan-European basis. I learned long ago that power is best exercised when it is exercised closest to its effect. When decisions are made, they need to be sensitive to the difference they make to those affected by them. One of the reasons I was a passionate supporter of Brexit is that I want power to return to the place where it has its effect. I fear, therefore, entirely rationally, that if the default position as a result of the Bill is that we end up with European regulation, it will not be sensitive to its effect but instead will be decided upon far from where the businesses that it affects are located.

So, given the second issue is about how the measure is scrutinised, I invite the Government to reinvent some kind of European Scrutiny Committee or similar. Perhaps we can call it a regulatory scrutiny Committee; perhaps it may be a body that allows the full consideration of each of the measures that the Government introduce under this umbrella Bill to ensure the House was happy with them and felt they were appropriate and had been tailored in the right way. That might be an amendment that the Government will accept, given that the Secretary of State said he was open-minded about improving the legislation during its passage.

The third problem that this Bill has at its heart is the assumption about harmonisation. That term is often used and one should always be terribly fearful when it is, because it’s usually not about creating harmony but about accepting control from elsewhere. I worry that that process will snuff out some of the measures that might more usefully be adopted by Government and impose on businesses and others blunt measures that are insensitive to the particularities that prevail in our country. I do not say that is with intent, as it seems to me that the Secretary of State made clear it was not his intention, but I just fear that it will.

The regulatory impact assessment and the explanatory notes that we already had seem to imply that. They say, and the Secretary of State repeated this in his opening remarks, that there are all kinds of changes—new rules, new regulations and new restrictions—happening at a pace that require the attention of Government, and that pace is so great that it is hard for the Government to keep up. My fear is, therefore, that they will adopt very broad measures rather than ones that are sufficiently tailored and sufficiently refined to meet domestic needs.

With that constitutional problem of the balance between the Executive and Parliament; with that lack of scrutiny and oversight that comes from not having a body that can look at these things on a one-by-one basis; and with that tendency to produce broad-brush measures emanating from the European Union, as implied both in the Bill and in supporting documents, I have grave doubts about this legislation.

It is true that we should regulate where necessary, of course; it is right in the public interest that we do so. However, we must always do so with care, because when that regulation becomes burdensome, when it frustrates innovation and when it tempers the ability to produce goods that meet popular demand, rather than becoming helpful to either customers or those that supply them, it inhibits the very things that support those businesses and aid those customers. I simply invite the Minister when he sums up to re-emphasise that the Government believe, as I do, in light-touch regulation and in regulation that only applies when there has been appropriate discussion with those affected by it, that there will be a proper dialogue between business and business representatives before new measures are introduced, and that all that is introduced will have the character that I have set out: tailored, specific and in the British interest.

Our role in this place is to defend the national interest. I know that a kind of heady internationalism permeates particular parts of this Chamber—I look to my left towards the Liberal Democrats—but I have always thought that it was more important to stand up for the British people, to represent my constituents to the best of my ability and to be, as I described earlier, sensitive to the particularities of the locale that I represent and the country that I love. Is that too much to ask of Members of this House?

So, I do not regard my fears about this Bill as irrational, contrary to the hon. Member for Walthamstow’s assertion; they are deeply rooted in a rational fear of the worst this Bill could bring.

Good regulation is basically the immune system of our nation, and it is often unseen. When regulation is working well and having the desired effect, we rarely see it happening because it is keeping us safe and protecting us from those harms that we outsource to the Government to keep watch over for us. It is taking the necessary steps and measures to make sure that we are safe, the things we buy are safe, the interactions we have in our communities are safe and our children are safe. That regulation is a protection, essentially, and this Bill gives the scope and the agility for the Government—any Government—to respond quickly and in a timely manner to new and emerging potential threats that regulation is required to protect us from.

I worry when Governments of any colour—including, unfortunately, that of my own party of late—seek to suggest that regulation is inherently a bad thing, an inhibitor of growth or the heavy hand of the state stopping the illustrious bounds of enterprise, because it often is not. Often it is about a level playing field. It is about creating the circumstances where competitors in Stoke-on-Trent have as much opportunity to compete with their competitors around the country or around the world in a way that we understand to be fair, balanced and proportionate. To me, this Bill sets us on a course where we are able to do that.

There are some areas where product regulation and the safety that comes with it are lacking. If the House will indulge me, I would like once again to talk about ceramics and the ceramic industry because I believe that the product regulatory framework and the existing protections for ceramics—in terms of the quality of goods that are purchased and also the protection of the level playing field—could benefit hugely from actions that the Government could take through the powers in the Bill.

We have discussed online drop-shipping platforms many times in this House. These are websites that bulk buy things and sell them into the UK, often at a fraction of the price that people could buy them for in this country, and often faking and forging the identities and brands of British companies, without any consideration for what people are actually buying. I was shown a great example by a company in Staffordshire, Dunoon ceramics, which makes a very particular style of ceramic mug. The mugs cost about £28 to make and they retail at about £35, sometimes up to £50.

An online drop-shipping website was selling a fake version—with the same artwork and the same “Made in the United Kingdom” sticker and backstamp on the base—into the UK for about £10. We have no idea whether that product was meeting the Materials and Articles in Contact with Food (England) Regulations 2012 that it is required in this country to meet in order to be considered safe. We had no idea of the levels of lead or cadmium in the paint, no idea what the glaze was made of, no idea where the clay had come from and no idea of the conditions under which it was made, but it was sold into the UK thousands at a time, undercutting the British company. For clarity, I have no idea whether the product was defective, but it could have been, thereby putting people at risk.

The hon. Gentleman may not know this, but I collect ceramics, by the way, so I am extremely interested in them. He is right that we should support and, indeed, revere the British ceramic industry, but many laws already prevent the kind of counterfeiting he describes and other laws prevent illegal substances from being used and sold in the manufacture of goods. There is a lot of existing statute that protects consumers from the kind of practices he describes.

The right hon. Gentleman is correct that there are existing protections for some of the things I have mentioned that, if enforced properly, could take those products off the market, but the enforcement of many of our regulatory frameworks in this country is quite weak. Funding for most enforcement agencies across this country was—not to make a party political point—reduced under the last Government. I hope this Government will reconsider that because a regulation is only ever as good as the enforcement regime sat behind it.

Would the hon. Member accept that if Ministers got up at 9 o’clock in the morning and worked until 9 o’clock at night introducing regulations on the basis of this Bill every day, but there was no enforcement or the enforcement was as weak as he says it is on pottery, we would be no better off?

I do not think anybody would disagree with the right hon. Gentleman’s assessment that if there is no enforcement of regulation, there is no benefit, but we are not saying in the Bill that there should be less enforcement. The Bill produces a framework in which the Government can take action to respond to create the good regulation necessary. I will freely admit that what has to come with that are the enforcement arrangements to ensure those new regulations are enforced properly, penalties to deter people seeking to circumvent the regulations, and the proper resourcing of enforcement agencies so they are equipped to take action against those people and companies seeking to circumvent the laws. Without that, I fully accept that regulation for the sake of regulation is no good any more than regulation being cut or diverged for the sake of divergence and reduction is any good. It comes down to enforcement.

To go back to the comments of the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), there is one area in this Bill where Government action could bring in a new product protection regulation that would have a huge impact on the ceramic industry. That is around the backstamp on the bottom of a piece of ceramic or pottery. As an avid collector, he will be aware of the importance of those backstamps. In this country, if we turn over any plate, cup or anything made from good-quality British ceramics, we will normally find the words “Made in England” and the pottery name underneath it. Consumers then know they are buying a premium piece of British-manufactured ceramics that has been made to a suitable product standard that we accept in Stoke-on-Trent is one of the best in the world. It is perfectly plausible, as has been done with some of the fakery, to replicate that phrase when it is not true.

The other challenge we have is companies that import things into the United Kingdom augmenting the wording of that particular backstamp to suggest it has been made in the UK when it has not. It may have been bisque-fired overseas, imported and then decorated and glazed in the UK, but it will normally have a company name, the word “England” and the date upon which that historic brand was established. It gives consumers the idea that they are buying a piece of British-made ceramics that would therefore be protected by the normal product regulations when in fact it is not.

There is the potential for the Minister to use the new powers in the Bill to produce new regulation that says anything produced in the UK that is considered to be ceramic has to have a proper mark on the base that demonstrates where it was made and where it has come from and to demonstrate that it was made in the UK. If a company is not making it in the UK, they become prohibited from putting the words “England” or “Made in the UK” on it.

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time—it is very generous of him. I think that we should jointly sponsor a Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker—the hon. Gentleman and I, not you and I, although we would love for you to be involved. He and I could jointly sponsor a “Made in Britain” Bill that would do exactly what he describes. I am not sure that this piece of legislation is necessary to do that, for we have that power in this House as it stands. Let us get little crowns printed on eggs again, let us have “Made in Britain” printed on everything, and let us go back to “Foreign made”, which was formerly widely used. I would love to see “Foreign made” stamped on imported goods—then people would not buy them!

I am very sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I and a number of my colleagues have already presented the Ceramics (Country of Origin Marking) Bill. He is more than welcome to support it should it ever be given its Second Reading. However, because of the nature of this place and the way private Members’ Bills work, I am realistic about the fact that if we are to see that regulatory protection for British ceramics, it will have to come through a different mechanism. The mechanism in this Bill, which allows the Government to make those protective arrangements through secondary legislation, could increase the protection of British ceramics.

My final point is about a level playing field for exports. I take the point that the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made, after I had intervened on the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), about our regulatory regime and where we want to export. The bulk of the ceramics made in my constituency are exported to the EU. We could diverge from the EU food contact materials regulations and have a secondary system in this country, but all that would do is create a separate set of regulatory regimes for small companies with small margins, requiring them to make products twice. We simply could not stand that burden. Before I get attacked for being one of those horrible remainers, I urge Members to check my voting record during the 2017 to 2019 Parliament. There are times when sticking with what we know—the European regulations—absolutely makes sense. We should control that, but it makes sense to align ourselves where we should.

I support the Bill. I hope that the Minister will, as one of his first actions with his new powers, consider my points about ceramics. If he does not, perhaps he would like to support my Ceramics (Country of Origin Marking) Bill.

Order. If colleagues speak for too long, others will be disappointed, so, unofficially, let us try to keep our speeches to under 10 minutes.

Anyone listening to the debate would think that it is all about saving children from choking on toys, buildings not burning down because of defective batteries in bicycles, saving lives, safe products, and even the internal market and safeguarding the Northern Ireland economy, but it is not about any of that. It is nice to dress it up like that, and I suppose using that kind of language is helpful to make the Bill relevant to constituents, but the Bill is nothing to do with that.

Time and again Members have spoken about those kinds of issues—batteries catching fire, defective toys and so on—but they can and have been dealt with already in law. Indeed, we have even heard Members talking about illegal products being sold, so we do not need some Minister to change the law; we need someone to ensure that the laws in place are enforced. We already have a mechanism to make things illegal, so if there are gaps in the law, we can just use that mechanism.

Let us not obscure what the debate is all about. It is not about gaps and the need to safeguard people. It is all about the Bill’s agenda, which is to give Ministers additional powers. The public see a Government with a majority of over 200 who have been able to drive through legislation that has frustrated and angered them, whether it is taking money off pensioners for winter fuel or the legislation that was driven through last week to meet the net zero agenda, which failed to prevent us from buying solar products from China that are made by slave labour. I could go through all the other things that have made people angry, but a Government with a majority of over 200 now want to take on additional powers to allow a Minister to avoid having to come to this House to ensure product safety.

I have no doubt that the real reason Ministers wish to retain that power is that the Government have already set their mind on resetting our relations with Europe. They know it is unpopular with many of their supporters. They do not want to have constant scrutiny in this House on a weekly or monthly basis of new regulations that align us with Europe, so it is far better to give Ministers the power to do that quietly, without consultation or a vote in this House. As a number of Members have said, the Bill gives Ministers the power to do that.

Indeed, some of the Government’s own supporters in the House of Lords made the point that the Bill contains the potential for dynamic alignment. The Government have been ambiguous about whether the powers will be used to do that, but I am fairly sure that is the main reason. There is little enough opportunity for this House to look at and challenge legislation, but I believe it is wrong for a Bill to allow Ministers, under the cover of darkness, to take us back into arrangements that we have escaped from.

Members have mentioned Northern Ireland. We know the impact of the EU general product safety regulations already, because they apply in Northern Ireland. Businesses in the rest of the United Kingdom that want to sell their products in Northern Ireland will have to have agents in Northern Ireland. The EU makes these laws to try to tie other countries and companies to its regulations. I suspect the excuse the Government will use for pursuing dynamic alignment will be, “We’re doing it for the good of businesses in GB as well as Northern Ireland, because if we’re aligned to EU rules, we escape some of the restrictions on trade that the EU has imposed.” But why did we leave the EU in the first place, and why did many businesses support leaving the EU? First, the EU introduced costly regulations that did not even need to apply to many businesses because they never traded with the EU, but they still had to adjust their products to meet the regulations, which incurred costs.

I am listening with intent to the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution. It may be that the Government are more innocent than he suggests and that there is not this hidden agenda he is describing, but in the words of a Northern Irishman, C. S. Lewis,

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.”

Even if there is not a hidden agenda, in the end, in the name of the victims—the customers—this will end up being regulatory, bureaucratic and costly.

The potential is there, and it has been put in the Bill. I suspect that clause 2(7) has been included in the Bill to give that opportunity, if not now, then at some future time.

The other reason why businesses have opposed the implementation of EU regulations and the other danger of dynamic alignment is that many of the laws and regulations made in Europe that we may be aligning ourselves with only get there in the first place because powerful lobby groups lobby the European Commission to get regulations imposed. Those regulations may well suit one particular industry, or even powerful firms within that industry, but they do not necessarily benefit all of business. Some have said of the Bill, “Oh, this will give certainty to business,” but it may well give businesses additional costs.

Given what has happened in Northern Ireland and the way that our market with the rest of the UK has been disrupted, some may think that I would welcome the measures, but I do not welcome them for two reasons. First, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), many of the restrictions are on goods that are not even included in the Bill, as the schedule excludes them. Secondly, even if this problem is solved, it does not deal with the issue. We know that because Northern Ireland is subject to the EU single market regulations—300 areas of law, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) keeps reminding us on an almost weekly basis. The issue is that we have allowed the United Kingdom to be divided by the deal that was done with Europe. When the previous Government was in power, I warned that this would happen and that Northern Ireland would be the foot in the door. I believe that that will be used as one of the arguments for this legislation.

The DUP will oppose the legislation because we believe it is not in the interests of the United Kingdom and does not address the problems that are faced in Northern Ireland.

Order. I thought it was remiss that the speech by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) did not have a literary person in it, but he managed to get C. S. Lewis into his intervention.

As the Secretary of State said earlier, I believe I am the first metrologist to be elected to this House in history, so it gives me great pleasure to rise to debate the Bill. I took the liberty of checking Hansard and until the Secretary of State used the word earlier, I was the only Member to have ever used the word “metrologist” in the House of Commons. I am proud to be here today and prouder still that the Labour Government have brought forward a Bill featuring metrology in the first year of our new Government.

Most of the debate has focused on the product regulation in the Bill, but given my background I will focus on the metrology. Prior to my election to this place, I was at the University of Nottingham, where I was active in research in metrology for advanced manufacturing, beginning with my PhD, continuing through several more years as a research fellow, and latterly as a senior research fellow. However, like most people I have known in my life, when I began my PhD, I had absolutely no idea what metrology was. Indeed, I am sure several colleagues in the Chamber did not know what it was before today, and I fear some still do not, so I would like to provide an explanation of the nature of my science, and explain why, contrary to popular assumption, it has nothing to do with clouds. [Interruption.] Please forgive my terrible pun.

The international standard, “Vocabulaire international de métrologie”, formally defines metrology as

“the science of measurement and its application”,

noting that

“metrology includes all theoretical and practical aspects of measurement, whatever the measurement uncertainty and field of application”.

It is not the

“branch of science concerned with the processes and phenomena of the atmosphere, especially as a means of forecasting the weather”,

which is, of course, meteorology—something I have explained almost every day of my professional career.

Metrology broadly encompasses the various fields of research that seek to develop the science and technology of measurement, be that measurement of any of the seven base quantities from the système international d’unités—the SI—or any of the units derived from those base quantities. The seven base quantities are, of course, length, mass, time, electric current, thermodynamic temperature, amount of substance and luminous intensity.

The great physicist Lord Kelvin once expressed:

“To measure is to know”.

He also said:

“If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it.”

Those sentiments are rarely more applicable than in the advanced manufacturing industry, where we are interested both in ensuring that a manufactured component meets the dimensional specification laid out by its designer and in constantly improving on existing products.

Metrology is a science that fundamentally underpins all other science. Without tools that allow us to measure and know, we cannot gain any understanding of the world around us, nor can we improve on it. In the fundamental scientific pursuit of understanding our universe, we are most often concerned with the metre, the first of the SI base units. The metre is defined formally by taking the fixed numerical value of the speed of light in a vacuum, C, to be 299,792,458 when expressed in the unit of metres per second and where the second is defined in terms of the caesium frequency. In fact, that definition changed very recently—it came into force in 2018. The metre is more simply described by its older definition, which is simply the distance travelled by light in a vacuum in a time interval, in seconds, of one divided by the speed of light. In my opinion, the metre is one of the most beautiful creations in science: it is defined by light itself, and it is a creation that allows us in turn to create everything in our world.

At the start of this debate, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) asked the House when weights and measures became metrology. The answer to that question is: several thousand years before the common era. Behind every great scientific advancement in history, there has been a metrologist. Behind the pyramids, there was the first standardised unit of measurement—the royal cubit, defined as the length of the pharaoh’s forearm as measured from the tip of his forefinger to the base of his elbow. The cubit was a technology so advanced that it allowed the ancient Egyptians to position the building blocks of the pyramids with an accuracy almost equal to modern methods. Thousands of years later, there remains speculation on whether they were in fact built by aliens, because of how incredible an achievement that was. They were, of course, built not by aliens, but by metrologists.

At the start of this debate, as a fellow scientist, I wondered what the difference was between mensuration and metrology. When I was an undergraduate, we did not use the word “metrology”—it seems to be a new word. Perhaps my hon. Friend can enlighten the Chamber.

Certainly. It is not a new word as far as I am concerned; I believe it was brought into common parlance in the Victorian era.

I will move on to some more examples. There is the James Webb space telescope—something more modern than the pyramids. It takes images of our universe more than 13 billion light years away that are deeper, more brilliant and more beautiful than anything we have ever seen. Behind that, there is the construction of a 6.5-metre mirror, flat to within just a few tenths of billionths of a metre from its highest top to its smallest valley. If we were to expand the size of the 6.5-metre mirror to the size of the Earth, the distance from the highest mountain to the deepest valley would be of the order of the height of my hip.

Behind the discovery of gravitational waves, there is a series of interferometers, kilometres in size, which can detect signals from noise at levels considered unachievable throughout human history until the past 20 years or so and which are capable of listening to the collision of black holes across spacetime.

I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because he is making a wonderful contribution to our affairs, which is indicative of the beauty of science, about which we hear too little. Before he rushes—hurtles, one might say—into the future, can he say a word about the peculiarly British measurements that informed my childhood? I mean things such as pecks, perches, rods and bushels, for each of those was rooted in the way that he described.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I am happy to explain. Those particular forms of measurement are not in common use any more, but of course many right hon. and hon. Members of this House will have grown up with them. Broadly, the ones that are still in use are defined in the modern parlance, but it is important to remember that the modern metric system accounts for all of those heritage measurements. The common inch, for example, is formally defined as 25.4 mm, and while I apologise to Members across the House, it is important for me to let them know that the pint is formally defined as 568 ml. Those heritage measurements and, indeed, the entire imperial system are now referenced on to the metric system; defined very simply, the imperial system is the metric system. There is no reason why we should not use those historical measurements—where they are useful, they are perfectly valid—but they are formally defined with reference to the modern metric system. I will talk more about this shortly.

Metrology lies at the heart of everything we know, from telescopes to speed cameras and from knee replacements to jet engines. Every single thing made by human hand was designed first, constructed second and then checked by a metrologist to ensure it met its specifications—if we cannot know it, we cannot improve it. However, ensuring that parts meet their specifications is not simple, as each measurement, dimensional or otherwise, has an associated measurement uncertainty. That is a non-negative parameter characterising the dispersion of the quantity values being attributed to the thing being measured, based on the information used. Estimation of measurement uncertainty is a complex procedure—one that formed much of my career prior to coming to this place—and is usually performed in line with the “Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement”.

Uncertainty estimation is generally performed by making measurements that are traceable to the definition of the SI metre—when we are concerned with the metre. Again, the “Vocabulaire international de métrologie” defines traceability as a property of a measurement result whereby the result can be related to a reference through a documented, unbroken chain of calibrations, each contributing to the overall measurement uncertainty. Traceable measurements allow for the successful estimation of uncertainty and are generally a base requirement for the verification of manufactured goods. Traceability is considered by the international community to be the only means by which evidence can be provided towards a given product fulfilling the requirements set out by its designer.

To provide an example, let us consider a length measurement made between two faces of a manufactured part, such as a Rubik’s cube. Imagine that I am holding a Rubik’s cube—I could not possibly have brought a prop, Madam Deputy Speaker. The length between two faces could be measured by a calliper. That calliper would be calibrated using a measurement artifact, most commonly a metal cuboid called a gauge block. That gauge block would in turn be calibrated by a more accurate instrument, which itself is calibrated using a more accurate gauge block. That more accurate gauge block would then be calibrated with reference to an optical interferometer using a laser source. That laser source is finally calibrated against the iodine-stabilised laser that is used to realise the definition of the metre, so traceability is established from the shop floor measurement all the way up to the definition of the metre by an unbroken chain of calibrations.

It feels impertinent to intervene, because my hon. Friend is giving a hugely passionate speech about a subject he clearly knows so much about, but how can he can help the next generation of metrologists to be as inspired about this topic as he clearly is?

That is very kind, and I thank my hon. Friend very much for his intervention. If he wishes, I have a 97-slide lecture that I would be more than happy to deliver afterwards.

Nobody wishes for the 97 slides, Mr Thompson.

Do not worry, Madam Deputy Speaker—it is not one for today. I am nearly finished.

Each stage of the traceability chain has some discernible uncertainty, which generally increases as we move down that chain and instrument accuracy decreases. Estimation of uncertainty at each link in the chain is essential; it is impossible to have a traceable measurement without the inclusion of an uncertainty with that measurement. When applied in manufacturing, traceability allows us to create anything we can imagine within the confines of our chosen manufacturing process. It is the cornerstone of our modern manufacturing industry.

Through this Bill, the Government seek to update metrology regulations and the means by which those regulations are enforced. We have heard at great length different opinions about that process, but the Government are today ensuring conformity with SI, ensuring uniformity in the measurement, sale, monitoring and quantity of goods. Further, they are ensuring that the Secretary of State and other appropriate bodies have the powers they require to inspect and enforce that conformity. The Bill will ensure that UK law is updated to recognise new or updated international regulations and keep us at the cutting edge of science and regulation.

Members said earlier in the debate how the UK was at the forefront of regulation. I spent many years on standards committees working through these things. Every standards committee I ever worked on fed into the British standard, which fed into the European standard and the international standard. Those are the frameworks we are updating today to ensure that we remain at the forefront. It will mean cost savings for business and it will promote regulatory stability.

Finally, the provisions laid out in this Bill continue the work begun by the ancient Egyptians—the work that allowed us to build everything from the great pyramids to the phones in our pockets, the paper that we hold in our hands and indeed the very floor on which we stand today. Our work today will ensure that the bulbs that light this room are of an appropriate brightness, that the air that we breathe and that surrounds us is of an appropriate temperature, and that we can finally get a fairly measured full beverage of exactly 568 ml in the pub. I support this Bill wholeheartedly.

Follow that, Jerome Mayhew.

I do not think I can; I thought that was an absolutely brilliant speech. I feel like a party-pooper, because I am going to drag the debate back to the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, and I can only apologise. I was going to assert boldly that I was the only Member of this House who had sat on a standards committee and drafted European regulations, but I stand corrected. There are now two of us.

At first glance, the Bill looks tiny. There are just four clauses on product regulations and four substantive clauses on metrology. There is a reason why it is so tiny: it does not actually say anything. There is no description of the changes anticipated by this legislation. There are no examples of what needs to be addressed. There is no indication of the direction behind any future decisions—nothing. Members, particularly those on the Government Benches, have referred to e-bikes and e-scooters, electrical safety, defective toys and lithium-ion batteries, to name just a few, but not a single one of those things is in the Bill. They could be. This could be a regulation Bill trying to fix the problems that have been identified, but none of that is there.

Worse than that, there is no explanation for the silence. The Bill simply makes a request of this House—of us, as parliamentarians—by saying, “Please give me, the Minister, the power to change primary legislation through regulations, including the power to create new and novel criminal offences.” This is the very definition of a skeleton Bill, where almost all the substance is left to regulations. That is contrary to an established convention in this House and the other place that the principal aspects of policy should be in a Bill, and only its detailed implementation left to delegated legislation. That is an established principle of our legislature. If we wish to depart from that, there needs to be a very good reason.

In exceptional circumstances, there are good reasons, but are there exceptional circumstances here? The issue was picked up immediately in what proved to be a hostile reception in the other place on Second Reading on 8 October last year. That was followed by a review on 15 October by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which is not some right-wing conspiracy theory group. This is not “Brexit or die”; it is chaired by Labour. It is chaired by Baroness Ramsey, and it is a cross-party Committee. By the way, in another role, she is the senior adviser to the Labour party on standards and ethics, yet her report has been entirely ignored by this Government, because it was damning in its conclusions. It said that Government guidance was that skeleton legislation should be used only in the most exceptional circumstances, but that test was “failed” by this draft legislation. As a result, that cross-party Committee, chaired by Labour, made the recommendation that clauses 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9 all be removed. Those are the substantive clauses right through the Bill, on both sides. That is a stinging indictment of this category of draft legislation.

However, the Committee members were so concerned that they did not leave it at that. The following day, they took the exceptional step of summoning the Minister and his officials to give oral evidence. That is very rare, and it was the first time for three years that it had happened. The Committee members were clearly unimpressed by the answers—the attempted explanations —that they were given, because in a subsequent report, on 28 October, they reported that the Minister and his officials had

“failed to provide a convincing justification”.

As a result of that second damning indictment of the Government’s approach, there was some movement: the removal of some Henry VIII powers, and the addition of a duty to consult, at least in the first instance. However, other Henry VIII powers remain, and the duty to consult refers only to the first instance, not to any secondary attempts.

The Committee then produced a third report, on the Bill in its current form. It said that

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

and also that

“the Government have failed to provide a convincing justification for the inclusion of skeleton clauses in the Bill”.

Actually, I think the Government did understand what they were doing, because the Bill gives Ministers the power to make politically contentious decisions about the degree to which domestic law on product regulation and, indeed, on metrology should be aligned with EU laws. That is the real reason behind the Bill: the fear of EU alignment by the back door.

My experience in this place—I am mindful of what my hon. Friend has said already—is that there are two types of Bill to beware of. The first is the Bill whose provisions are so permissive, so broad, lacking the tailored approach that I described earlier, as to allow law to be applied in a way that is not expected by those who debate it as it passes through the House. The second is the Bill that makes specific provision for delegated legislation—for subsequent action by the Government. Those two types of legislation are legislation to beware of, and I say that to Members on both sides of the House, having seen Governments of all kinds introduce such Bills which became, in the end, bad laws.

Of course I agree with my right hon. Friend, and that comes to the nub of what I want to say. Yes, inevitably we are party politicians. We have the official Opposition, we have the Government, and we have those who sit on the left-hand side of the official Opposition. Above that, however, we are parliamentarians, and some of us are quite new. I may look old, and indeed I am, but I was first elected in 2019, and an awful lot of Members in the Chamber who may be voting tonight are even less experienced than me. It takes a while to begin to understand the difference between the role of the legislature and the role of the Executive, and my profound concern is that we are at risk of handing very significant powers from ourselves, the legislature, to the Executive.

Having heard these comments several times, I wonder whether the hon. Member will accept that wisdom is not necessarily proportional to the amount of time spent in the Chamber.

The conventions of the House, and the conventions of the legislature, cannot be brushed aside by a flip comment like that. There are reasons why we have conventions. There is a separation of powers between the Executive and the legislature, and the power to create legislation lies with us. There are grounds, sometimes, on which we can give it to Ministers, but there must be really sensible reasons for that to be done, and there simply are not in this instance.

I have been following the hon. Member’s arguments closely. It is certainly the case that, with or without wisdom, the House is capable of making poor decisions. I have voted for measures and against them on occasion, and the House has made poor decisions. However, it is much more likely that the House will get it right, rather than a delegated legislation Committee dealing with a statutory instrument where a Minister comes along and reads out a brief that she or he often does not understand, as is revealed under questioning—if, indeed, questioning takes place. The argument for the Bill is really to do with speed and capacity. We do not meet to vote on Thursdays, but we often do on Mondays. There is plenty of time for the House to do this.

I entirely agree. I did an analysis, and 48.3% of sitting days since the general election have been on one-line Whips, so there are no grounds for the Government to assert that they do not have time to put forward fresh legislation. It simply is not the case, and they do not have a legislative agenda that they are progressing with any urgency. There is plenty of room, and if we need to regulate, we can do it.

We have a big decision to take as parliamentarians. We are being asked by the Government to nod through a blank cheque—a blank cheque that is in breach of our parliamentary conventions. It is against the express advice of the cross-party Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee not once, not twice, but three times. I say to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that any parliamentarian worthy of the name will vote against this Bill.

As has been said, on the face of it this is a short Bill, but when we look beneath the surface, it is even more exciting than the bare title of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill suggests. Most of us go through our days without giving much thought to the measurement of the units that govern our everyday lives—I confess that, until very recently, I was one of them—but so many of our scientific and medical advances have succeeded or failed on the most precise margins, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) so brilliantly set out. It was a real privilege to be in the Chamber to listen to his speech.

In the city of Birmingham, best known throughout much of its history as the workshop of the world, many millions of hours must have been sweated out to meet the finest of measurements and tolerances. I suspect my hon. Friend is capable of accurately estimating just how many hours that would have taken. However, I note in passing that one of just two remaining proof houses, which fell under the scope of the Gun Barrel Proof Act 1868 and succeeding Acts—they attracted a lot of attention in the other place—is in Digbeth in the city of Birmingham.

At the start of my hon. Friend’s speech, he raised the question of when exactly the word “metrology” entered common parlance. I do not know what that date was, but I note that when the National Physical Laboratory was created in 1900, it was established with a metrology division. One of the early guiding forces, Mr J. E. Sears, later found a second career as a scales manufacturer, again in the good city of Birmingham. Today, when pharmaceutical manufacturing jobs are starting to return to my constituency, 20 years on from the collapse of MG Rover, I know some of the exacting standards that those manufacturers must meet.

We need only look at the number of Weights and Measures Acts passed by this House down the years to understand the importance of these questions for our role as legislators. I fear that I am about to commit an unwise act by referencing Magna Carta in this place, as that text has been the subject of one or two interesting emails that I suspect a number of hon. Members have also received, but it is telling that it stipulated:

“There is to be a single measure for wine throughout our realm, and a single measure for ale, and a single measure for Corn… And it shall be the same for weights as for measures.”

In the other place, and it is fair to say in this place as well, the arguments over the Bill have come down to a simple point: are delegated powers and statutory instruments the right processes for adapting to a rapidly changing landscape for product safety and international measurement standards? It is worth remembering two things. First, the theory that we could make sufficient updates through primary legislation can be tested against the history of legislation in this place. For example, some of the provisions in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 have been overtaken by events, and it has proved hard in practice to bring forward the necessary changes to that legislation.

Secondly, as has been said, this work was initiated by the last Government, who at the time made the case for delegated powers persuasively. As the 2021 response to the 2019 call for evidence stated:

“Over time, the limited powers we retained in domestic legislation became less effective. Rather than update these, the UK relied on powers in the European Communities Act (ECA) 1972 to introduce new harmonised legislation to deal with product safety and metrology.”

Those powers have now expired. Governments of all colours must deal with

“A complex, forever changing landscape”

and current legislation does

“not allow for many of the changes necessary to keep pace with technological advances and modern hazards.”

A good example of the ever-changing metrological field can be drawn from the 2019 changes to the international system of quantities, which altered in subtle ways the definition of the kilogram, the amp, the kelvin and the mole, with implications across a very wide range of regulations. I think it is sensible to update those definitions swiftly by regulations. We have heard examples of some of the unsafe products that are on sale at the moment. It is worth noting that the Bill is not simply about definitions, but enforcement. Clause 3 will enable some of those stretched resources, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) referred, to go further. I also note that through the Transport Committee I received representations from Brompton Bicycle, a very good British manufacturing success story, which said that UK product safety regulations and enforcement have failed to keep pace with the development of e-bike technology. Unsafe, poor quality e-bike products are entering the hands of UK consumers with sometimes devastating consequences.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Many constituents around the country will appreciate the specific points he makes about the changing product environment, and the way that product design and development is moving very quickly. I have a large number of residents who are concerned about e-bikes being ridden irresponsibly, home-made kits attached to bicycles, and cyclists often speeding on pavements. That is an interesting example of how the Bill could be very effective, so I thank him for his work on that.

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that was one of the areas to which he paid a lot of attention in the transport brief. I am sure that as the Committee continues to look into this area, it will build on that work. As he says, this is an issue that comes up time and again in my constituency. We might not ever be able to get every single one of those vehicles off the road, but we need the powers to bring more of them off our streets where they pose a threat to people’s safety.

To illustrate the seriousness of the challenges the Government face and the need sometimes for very swift progress, we need only to look to the scale of technological advancements in the field of hybrid warfare and the implications of those advancements for dual-use civilian technologies. I note that clause 1(4)(d) draws specific attention to products that can

“cause, or be susceptible to, electromagnetic disturbance.”

In Ukraine, the two adversaries are locked into a cycle of innovation and reaction in drone warfare and electronic countermeasures that are escalating at a blinding speed. Some of those developments have implications for the potential misuse of civilian drones in this country. To suggest that primary legislation is capable of keeping pace with that is not realistic.

Similarly, in respect of intangible products, again an issue on which the House of Lords spent a large amount of welcome scrutiny time, there is a case that primary legislation cannot cover enough eventualities in good time, especially in the age of artificially generated code. I think back to the Volkswagen emissions scandal 10 years ago, when so-called “defeat devices” were intangible in nature.

The hon. Gentleman is making a brilliant speech and he has focused on some of the key issues in ways that not every speech has. He makes a powerful case, but why does he think that those arguments have not persuaded, in three different attempts in three different reports, the cross-party Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which provides expert insight into precisely such proposed legislation?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, although I do not agree with his characterisation of the speeches we have heard today. I think hon. Members have brought a wide range of perspectives, and that even though there has been some disagreement across the House—and, on occasion, on the same Benches—all Members have made their points sincerely.

I have read the reports the right hon. Gentleman references and the Minister’s evidence. My reading of that report is that the Committee held a very strong view on the principle of skeleton delegated legislation, but the point it made is that the case must be made for the use of such powers. My view is that the case has been made in this instance because of the seriousness of the matters we are discussing.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the conclusions of the fourth report by the expert Committee, which states:

“We remain of the view…that the Government have 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.”

He is wrong in his assessment, is he not?

No. With respect, I think the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my point. The Committee has every right to express that view; we also have the right to express our view as legislators in this place as to whether the case has been made. As I say, I think the case has been made that primary legislation is not a sufficient vehicle in this instance. I will just say to the hon. Gentleman that there are numerous precedents under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, for example, for regulating dangerous products; the difference is that primary legislation does not cover all the eventualities for products of the kind we are discussing today.

I will finish by talking about the pint. I note, in passing, that the first legislation to clearly regulate the pint—the Act for the ascertaining the Measures for retailing Ale and Beer of 1698—did not see it as necessary to define the actual quantity; perhaps it was left to royal prerogative to define. The history books do clearly show that the pint is safe, so to speak, in Labour’s hands: in his memoir of his time at head of the No. 10 policy unit, the noble Lord Donoughue details how Harold Wilson intervened to save the pint; and it was a Labour Government in 2008 who secured the metric opt-out that preserved the inch, the troy ounce and, of course, the pint.

I know that hon. and right hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have spent a lot of time chasing away phantoms on this particular issue, and I hope that they feel that was a good use of their time and that we see more of it in this Parliament. For the Government Benches, however, I look forward to following the progress of this important Bill and to voting for it tonight, and perhaps also to raising a pint—or, as clause 5(5) has it, 0.56826125 cubic decimetres—to the Bill’s good health as it completes its remaining stages in this House.

Forgive me for bringing the Commons back to the purpose of Parliament. Its historic purpose is to make laws for our constituents and to hold the Executive to account. That is the fundamental that has been loosened by this Bill. Although it is entirely skeletal in form, the Bill’s effect is very far-reaching indeed.

It is quite obvious that the Bill has a clear purpose, which is to align Great Britain with the EU single market on goods. If it were not so, we would not have clause 2(7). The standard that is set in that clause is the EU standard. If the Bill was just about creating the opportunity to make regulations because of a regulatory gap, it would not be tethered to the EU provisions on goods. It would be open ended, and we would be free to make the choice that best suited us. However, the giveaway clause in the Bill is clause 2(7). That lets the cat out of the bag, as indeed did the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) when she quite clearly indicated that that was the direction of travel that she sought. Therefore, that is the purpose.

When we look at clause 1(2), we again have the open affirmation of the desire to make the compliance with “relevant EU law”, so it is abundantly clear that this is a creation to realign us with EU law. The intent is to create this vehicle for realignment without voters noticing. Of course that means realignment with laws that we do not make and that we cannot change because they are made by a foreign Parliament. The ambition in this Bill in respect of clause 2(7) is to disenfranchise—as has happened already in Northern Ireland by our subjugation to the EU single market and all its rules—the people of the United Kingdom, so that, in their entirety, they are at the Government’s whim and can be subjected to laws they do not make and cannot change. That then inextricably ties us to the European Court of Justice. It is the ECJ that mediates and deliberates on those laws that this Bill wishes to tie us to. Therefore, it is an attempt to tie us not just to the EU single market, but to the court that rules the EU’s single market.

On the point the hon. and learned Gentleman is making about enfranchisement and the fact that he wishes this Parliament to be in control of the powers that it has, does he agree that it would be sensible for the UK Government to ensure that, where powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, for example, they seek consent from Scottish Ministers rather than just legislating? The Bill, as currently drafted, allows Ministers here to legislate in areas of devolved competency, much as he is making the case that the EU court would be allowed to do.

One critical thing about the Bill is that, under the Sewel convention, it does not extend to secondary legislation. It does not extend to statutory instruments. The Bill drives a coach and horses through the Sewel convention as far as devolution is concerned, because it heaps all the powers into statutory instruments. One might expect such a bold move to realign the United Kingdom with EU law to be an up-front piece of legislation. I do not think that that is too much to ask—that it should be plain and clear for all to see. Instead, it is to be conveyed in these statutory instruments. And statutory instruments, as we know, are those that, in the main, pass through unnoticed. We have all been to Delegated Legislation Committees. We know that they are farcical in that the Minister comes in with a brief, which is simply rigidly read, and Members nod the motion through. It is a farcical way to make legislation of any sort.

Much of this debate has been about whether this Bill leads us to dynamic alignment. The Government’s position is that it does not and that this is all a mirage and a fantasy. If that is the case, does the hon. and learned Member agree that a simple amendment to this Bill to make that clear would go a long way to reassuring Members.

Absolutely. If the Government are not—as many of us suspect—following a deliberate approach of circumventing debate in this House on key realignment issues, and is seeking rather to channel it through statutory instruments, then call our bluff, change this Bill in that regard. But this idea of skeleton legislation, which sets up the powers that have been taken from Parliament and given to the Executive, is something which, historically, this party of Government have railed against.

Indeed, within a week of Second Reading in the other place, the Attorney General gave the Bingham lecture. He said:

“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law values…but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty. In my view, the new Government offers an opportunity for a reset in the way that Government thinks about these issues. This means, in particular, a much sharper focus on whether taking delegated powers is justified in a given case, and more careful consideration of appropriate safeguards.”

That was the Attorney General. Where did that go to?

I am interested in the Attorney General’s view, and we should take it seriously. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that primary legislation in this place metamorphosises in its passage through scrutiny? I have been involved in many Bills, as shadow Minister, Minister and Back Bencher, and that is precisely what happens. Ministers listen to argument, and as Bills return to the House, they reflect that argument both from here and in the Lords. Secondary legislation does not go through that process. That is why it is so important that the Bills we pass here do not contain the kind of permissive powers that facilitate so much secondary legislation.

The right hon. Member is absolutely right. If one wanted to realign the United Kingdom with the EU, the easiest passage would be by statutory instruments. That is why that is the chosen mechanism here.

I have one final point. This Parliament traditionally and properly makes the law on criminal offences. We set the tariffs. Sometimes we say what the minimum penalty for a criminal offence is, but we always say what the maximum penalty is. We say what the content is of the criminal offence—what are the actus reus and the mens rea. But amazingly under clauses 3(9) and 3(11) and clauses 6(9) and 6(11) of the Bill we are going to make criminal offences by statutory instrument. Surely we have lost the run of ourselves if we think it is appropriate to make criminal offences in that essentially uncontrolled manner. It deprives this House, and therefore those we represent, of the very careful scrutiny that should always go into making something a crime. That is but another of the fundamental flaws of this undeserving Bill.

Order. Dr Prinsley, I am told that your speech is just a few minutes long, so I hope you will honour that.

I welcome this Bill, which will address the alarming proliferation of unsafe products in online marketplaces. I would like to talk particularly about the hazards of unsafe toys, which are increasingly being sold online.

As a very recently retired ear, nose and throat surgeon—yesterday actually—I know the very real harm that these dangerous toys cause. I have operated on young children who inhaled small components from unsafe toys, detachable parts or parts that were unsafely secured and were a choking hazard, and ribbon or string that exceeded the legal limits, creating strangulation hazards. These are frightening life-threatening situations that no family should have to put up with.

Those are not isolated incidents. A Which? investigation found that over 90% of toys purchased from some online marketplaces were unfit for sale in the UK. Shockingly, these toys falsely displayed UK and European safety marks, misleading parents into believing that they were buying something safe for their children. The tragedy is that in many of these cases the sellers simply disappear, vanishing from the platform, and the families are left with no way to seek redress from the harm caused.

That is why we must act. I am glad that the Bill will give the Government the opportunity to address this issue. It will give them the power to regulate new and emerging business models and marketplaces, which previous laws did not allow.

Lithium-ion batteries are essential for achieving our net zero goals, but as demand grows for products containing such batteries we need to do more to protect consumers against dangerous lithium-ion batteries. Since 2020, e-bike and e-scooter fires have—

Order. It is an intervention, not a speech.

Does the hon. Member agree that there should be a mechanism to recognise and regulate high-risk products so that we can protect consumers?

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I would point out the particular danger of button batteries—something that is well known to ENT surgeons—which cause perforation of the oesophagus and the trachea by a chemical reaction.

In the last two years, 95% of consumers have purchased from online platforms, with approximately 23 million monthly transactions in UK. We certainly need strong accountability for these marketplaces. Without that, dangerous items will continue to resurface, putting children at risk. I urge the House to ensure that the Bill puts more pressure on the sellers of unsafe toys, forcing them to take responsibility for their actions.

You are an honourable man.

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. We have had excellent speeches from across the House. I think the whole House agreed on the brilliance of the speech made by the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), and—perhaps I would say this—great speeches have come from Opposition Members in particular. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) got to the heart and the nub of the critique of the Bill.

We have also heard many good speeches, including the last one, about issues of product safety and the need to have a system that can keep up. The speech that addressed both that issue and whether the Bill is appropriate—it was the outstanding speech by a Government Member—was made by the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner). He did not like my praise of his speech in so far as it disparaged in any way anybody else’s, but he faced up to the issues directly. He did not just say, “Well, there are these problems with products and product safety, and here’s a Bill that could do something about it.” He dealt with the fact that the Bill gives enormous power to Ministers. As colleagues across the House have pointed out, the purpose of this honourable House is to hold the Executive’s feet to the fire, hold them to account and hold them in check, and ensure that we champion the will of the people who sent us here. As has been said, not only the Minister but, back in 2018, the Secretary of State warned the House that

“the use of delegated powers carries a risk of abuse by the Executive”.––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2018; c. 305.]

The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) is not here, so I will try to be more polite than I would have been if she was, but if Brexit derangement syndrome is a condition, it is one that affects not only people who are maniacally in favour of Brexit, but those who seem unable to think rationally from the other side. The point that I tried to make to the hon. Lady in an intervention—I would make it again—is that giving such untrammelled power to Ministers is frightening, regardless of whether we prefer closer alignment with the EU. She said that we need common-sense alignment, but these powers would allow a super-ideological future Minister to come in and seek, entirely for ideological reasons, to stop any alignment with the most sensible of EU regulations purely to have some Brexit difference. That makes no sense whatsoever.

I will press on a little, but I may come back to the hon. Lady.

I understand that, following the loveless landslide that brought the Government to power, the Government, and Government Members, have done an about-face. They now delight in more powers for the Executive, so much so that the Bill’s very first subsection gives the same Secretary of State I just referenced the power to make regulations anywhere in the UK, without consulting Parliaments in Westminster, Holyrood, Cardiff Bay or Stormont, on more or less anything he likes.

I was so pleased that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim raised the devolution question. I was a Minister for eight years, and such is the complexity of the devolution settlement now that even with thousands of civil servants working on primary legislation, Ministers can come to the House and suddenly it gets pointed out to them that they are in breach of the Sewel convention and ignoring how Northern Ireland has a slightly different environmental or energy regulatory environment from Scotland or Wales. They find that the situation is more complex than they first thought. Now, we are giving powers to Ministers who will not have to go through any of that rigmarole. They will not get to find out how they are trampling on the devolution settlement, and that is a serious issue.

We on the Opposition Benches can make the arguments, but what we must really do is engage Government Members and get them to recognise that they are not here just to back the Government. They need to question these things, and not just ask whether the powers could be used for good. The hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield gave a brilliant speech with examples of the speeding up and pace of technological change—I think he spoke about the drones in Ukraine. Even though Opposition Members may maintain that the system that we had worked perfectly well, he made the case that perhaps we need something speedier going forward, and I can see that he made a strong argument. None the less, is the answer just to hand to Ministers, in this skeleton Bill, all the powers in the world? I suggest that it is not.

I know the Minister and the Secretary of State are decent people, and I hope that we will see, as the legislation proceeds through this House, ways to curb some of the powers while allowing us to have a regulatory system that can speedily respond to inappropriate products. None of us wants to see parliamentary pride getting in the way of an effective system; we have to find a way of making things work. This Bill, however, goes too far the other way. That is why the cross-party experts on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee have looked at it and said that they do not feel that the case has been made to justify such massive powers.

Some parallels were raised by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, and I think it is fair enough to say, “Look at the way that Henry VIII powers and delegated powers were taken by the Government in the last Parliament.” Quite rightly, people questioned it, but that was about implementing Brexit; it really was something enormous that had to be done at a reasonable speed. Those of us involved were cognisant of the fact that we did not want it to set a precedent; we did not want Government to take the unique conditions of implementing Brexit and take it as a new way of governing. To the comment from the hon. Member for Erewash about rebuilding the world that the ancient Egyptians had, they were very good at centralising authority and I do not think that that is an entirely good thing. That is exactly what the Bill does, so I agree with him on that.

I am sure the Secretary of State is an excellent judge of things such as the safe operation of a laptop, say, for a trainee solicitor, but he will now have the power to regulate any product for sale in the UK on the basis of safety or functionality. The immense power given to him will allow him to decide what is and is not sold in the UK, without consulting this place and by merely providing a written statement. The Bill goes further, with Ministers acquiring the power to give inspectors the right to enter somebody’s home to seize any product that the Minister has decided, on the basis of non-compliance. That can be imposed on manufacturers, marketers, installers, importers or people who run an online marketplace, the definition of which, by the way, can be altered on a ministerial whim and at any point.

We have heard about dangerous and often unpopular electric bikes and scooters, but the powers in the Bill allow a future Secretary of State—we have had some eccentric ones in the past—to decide to ban bicycles because he considers them to be dangerous. He might look at the figures on that. After publishing a statement, he could instruct anyone he likes to enter the house of every bike owner and every bike shop to seize every bike in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State could effectively end cycling in the UK without coming to Parliament. He could create legions of cycle inspectors who could enter people’s homes or businesses and seize their property before disposing of it. And the Government want to hide this act under the innocuous name of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. It is a massive power to give to the Secretary of State.

I say this to the many new Labour Members: I am not very keen on any Government, even the one of which I was a member. It was Lord Acton who said:

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Well, there is an element of absolute power in this Bill, but we have an opportunity both to recognise the powerful case made by the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield for an appropriate system and by his colleagues talking about different challenges, and to make sure that we limit and reduce those powers as the Bill goes through the House. I know that my cycle example is a little extreme, but it is also true. It would not require the Government to return to this House; they would be able to do it.

The Prime Minister has told us that the No. 1 mission of this Government is growth, yet his Ministers, not satisfied with taking the fastest growing economy in the entire G7 and bringing it to a shuddering halt, have introduced what may be the most tediously named but potentially dangerous Bill in the history of Parliament. We can look at what the Government have done for business so far. They have ended the rate relief for hospitality, made part-time workers too expensive to hire, hiked the cost of employing people through next week’s jobs tax, strengthened the trade unions and made it impossible to fire new workers. I would not want to exaggerate this Bill’s role, but in a crowded field, it takes the biscuit in many ways. Businesses are struggling to cope with all these things already, and now we will have greater business uncertainty caused by the fact that Ministers can, on a whim, choose which products can and cannot be sold. This will provide the exact opposite of the certainty that Labour Members suggested the Bill could bring, in a way that has no logic behind it.

Every single one of the measures in that infamous list that my right hon. Friend just went through required a vote in this House, and Labour Members had to put their name to each proposed legislative change. They will not have to do that under this legislation, will they?

They will not. The Secretary of State—not the current wonderful, benign, insightful and genial Secretary of State, but a future rather less palatable one—could wake up one day and impose new regulations on business that effectively strangle and bring red tape to every business in the land. Remember how close we were in 2017 to having a Government that would have been very different from the one that is opposite us today, or indeed from the Conservatives.

Why are the Government doing this? I cannot look into a man’s soul, but I have an idea, because Labour spent years fighting the UK’s attempts to remove the burden of regulation on business after we left the EU. At every turn, Labour tried to cling to nurse rather than let businesses innovate and sell their goods. This Government are seeking to undermine and erode the freedoms we have won over the last few years. Indeed, that is in black and white in the Bill. The Secretary of State may reimpose EU law on products without the requirement to come to this place and ask our permission to do so.

I am not saying that this is the worst thing the Government have done. As I have said, there is quite a packed list, including cutting the winter fuel payment for pensioners, the farm tax, the jobs tax, imposing stamp duty on first-time buyers, which comes in, I think, today—[Interruption.] Suddenly someone wants to buy a house. There is also the hospitality tax. I could go on, but executive powers are at their most pernicious when they have no limits. This legislation is not about metrology or about the better regulation of products; it is about giving the Government the power to do what they like, when they like, for reasons they do not have to explain, and then impose it as they see fit. The fact that we might like, and even trust, the current Secretary of State is no reason to give powers like this to Ministers about whom we know nothing now. I hope that Labour Members will join us in opposing this Bill.

This has been a genuinely important, interesting and lively debate on product regulation and metrology. It has also been a debate about the balance of power between the Executive and us here in Parliament. The UK product safety and metrology framework is derived from European Union law and it developed while the UK was a member of the EU, when we did not have the opportunity here to address product safety in our changing world as rapidly as we do now.

Following our departure from the European Union, the UK established its independent regulatory system, which must be flexible enough to accommodate emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, and address changes in consumer purchasing behaviours. As the Bill’s explanatory notes state, its purpose is to ensure that the UK is better equipped to tackle modern safety challenges, safeguard consumers, seize opportunities for economic growth and so on.

The Secretary of State said in his introductory remarks that the Bill was introduced in the previous Parliament, and I want to emphasise that it was not. I want to offer the Minister the chance to correct the record in his closing remarks, in case the House has been inadvertently misled.

Upon leaving the European Union, the UK created the UK conformity assessed marking, known as the UKCA, to replace the conformité Européenne marking, known as the CE. These markings are used by manufacturers to demonstrate product conformity. The UK still recognises CE markings; however, the EU does not recognise the UKCA. Will the Minister confirm that discussions are happening with the EU, including the resetting of discussions on trade, to ensure that UKCA markings and any products regulated here in the UK are mutually recognised?

Turning to the points raised in today’s excellent debate, we heard fantastic speeches from my right hon. Friends the Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), and my hon. Friends the Members for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) and for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey). We also heard powerful voices from Northern Ireland on the adjacent Benches, from the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). We also heard the expertise that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) brings from his background in the toy industry.

From the Labour Benches, we heard impassioned speeches often about product safety, including from the hon. Members for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler), for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). She described us as sinners repenting, which I hasten to surmise might mean that she is a repenter beginning to sin. We heard from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who is a passionate advocate for ceramics from his constituency. We had the pleasure of hearing a masterclass from Parliament’s first metrologist, the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), on the ancient history of metrology; it was a very enjoyable speech. We heard speeches from the hon. Members for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley).

Before embarking on the reason why we will oppose the Bill tonight, I welcome the Government’s U-turn in the other place on their plans to rule over the size of the great British pint or, as the hon. Member for Erewash would describe it, 0.56826125 cubic decimetres. Although they were initially resistant, Ministers eventually recognised that our great British pint should remain untouched. I am afraid that that is all I can welcome about this piece of legislation, because the Opposition are deeply concerned with the Government’s overreach and excessive reliance on delegated powers within the Bill.

Henry VIII would be absolutely delighted by this piece of legislation. Labour Members claim that it will simplify our regulatory framework, yet all we see is the undermining of our sovereignty and the powers of Parliament. This 15-page Bill would give the Secretary of State unchecked powers to amend product safety regulations, change the definition of an online marketplace and introduce new penalties, inspection powers and charges on businesses, driving up the already soaring costs of doing business in the UK. As many hon. Friends have said, it would grant the Government sweeping powers to make us a passive recipient of laws made in Brussels. International trade and co-operation are welcome, but this is not what more than 17 million people voted for in 2016, when we took back control—it is a betrayal of Brexit.

The Bill is not purely technical; part of its purpose is to allow the dynamic alignment of goods with EU single market laws, giving the EU the power to rule on standards for manufactured goods produced in the United Kingdom. This EU Trojan horse Bill could see us readopting a regulatory regime over which we have no influence, input or sanction, leaving us as rule takers, not rule makers.

It is fundamentally not good practice or good governance to deliver substantial changes through delegated legislation.

“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.]

These are not my words but those of the Secretary of State.

Tomorrow, the United States could impose tariffs on us. It is paramount that we secure a mutually beneficial UK-US trade deal as soon as possible, but I cannot see how the Bill, which drags us closer to the European Union, would give the United States any incentive to work with us.

In closing, let me ask the Minister a few questions. Can he confirm what the limits will be on ministerial powers? What oversight will Parliament have of regulatory changes made under the Bill? What consultation will occur with the real-world businesses that are affected by the change? Will he confirm that no regulations made under the Bill will prevent or impede UK businesses from trading internationally?

The Bill undermines Parliament and risks tying British businesses to EU red tape on which we have no say. We cannot allow these excessive powers to create further uncertainty among British businesses of all sizes, which already face the soaring costs of doing business because of the Chancellor’s tax grab. The Bill is a parliamentary sovereignty sell-out. We got Brexit done; let us keep it that way. The Bill gives away control, and that is why I call on the House to back our amendment and stop it.

I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for what has been an interesting and, at times, informed debate on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in opening, the Government’s primary mission is economic growth to help rejuvenate our high streets and promote innovation, and this legislation is an important element in that drive and will further cement the UK as a world-leader in product regulation and safety. The legislation will have real-world impacts that we can all relate to. As we have heard, product safety failures can have devastating consequences, and we are determined that our regulatory framework be as agile and flexible as possible in its response to new threats and complex modern supply chains but without stifling innovation.

There have been an awful lot of contributions, and I will try to cover as many of them as I can. I think it is appropriate that I start by referencing the excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), which lit up the whole House. He is, of course, the first meteorologist to have spoken in this Chamber—

Metrologist. He may well be on the Bill Committee, because he has definitely talked his way on to it with his insight into this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) almost matched him in terms of technical specificity, and his historical knowledge was also very important. He has just finished sitting on a Bill Committee with me, but he is talking his way on to this one as well—perhaps I should not say that, because it might encourage colleagues not to speak in future debates.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), were among a number of Members who talked about the issue of e-bikes, which is a real concern. I am sure the whole House has been moved by the tragic cases of e-bike fires that we too often hear about. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the tragic death of Sofia Duarte. I met her mother last year to talk about what we can do through this Bill to prevent such tragedies from happening again.

In the wake of the increasing number of fires associated with e-bikes and lithium-ion batteries, there have been calls from businesses, trade associations, consumer groups and parliamentarians to tighten up the law. This legislation will allow us to ensure that the UK’s product safety framework can keep up with technological developments, including on e-bikes. The powers in the Bill will allow us to update regulations to ensure the best protections for consumers and consistency with the majority of reputable retailers.

The Government are currently considering how best to use the powers in the Bill to regulate these products in an efficient and proportionate way, in particular to ensure that products that can pose a greater risk, such as lithium-ion batteries and e-bikes and e-scooters, are safe. That includes bringing forward powers in the Bill to better define online marketplaces and confer additional duties on them to help stop the sale of unsafe products, including converter kits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler) pointed out, this is a fast-moving environment, and the Bill will give us the flexibility to tackle that.

Does the Minister agree that if a UK manufacturer wants to produce a product for the UK market, it should produce it to UK regulations, and if it wants to export it to Europe, it is sensible to produce that product to EU regulations, which will open up a massive market on our doorstep? Keeping up with EU regulations will generally be good for the British business economy and help economic growth.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson tempts me to set out a statement of policy, which the Bill is not intended to do. We want to give ourselves maximum flexibility in our ability to deal with issues as they arise. He talked in his speech about online marketplaces, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) talked about unsafe toys and button batteries, citing the fact that investigations have discovered that up to 90% of products purchased in online marketplaces are unsafe. Because we recognise that online marketplaces are in desperate need of regulation, the Bill will give us powers to clarify and modernise responsibilities for online marketplaces in a flexible and proportionate way, to protect consumers and create a fair playing field for law-abiding businesses. It will enable the Government to modernise the responsibilities of online supply chain actors.

While the growth of e-commerce has provided consumers with greater choice and convenience, it cannot be at the expense of consumer safety. We will continue to engage with consumer groups, businesses and online marketplaces in the development of specific online marketplace requirements to ensure that they are proportionate and to mitigate any costs to consumers. I can also confirm that it is the intention of the Government to consult on the duties for online marketplaces soon after Royal Assent and to bring forward subsequent regulations as soon as is practically possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) spoke with his customary passion about the ceramics industry in the Potteries. I acknowledge his ideas for protecting the industry. I am not sure whether this Bill is the right vehicle for his suggestion, but I will take it away and come back to him.

It is probably worth talking about the issue that seemed to vex Opposition Members rather a lot, which is whether this Bill is in some way a reset to EU laws by the back door. It is about domestic regulation and we are not rejoining the EU by the back door. The Bill is about giving us flexibility to ensure product regulation, now and in the future, that is tailored to the needs of the UK. Of course, there will be some instances when we will want to take a similar approach to the EU, but there will be other times when we will want to take our own approach. Those decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) said, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 gave significant powers to the Executive, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham, quoted me on that Act. It reformed 7,000 regulations, ranging across every function of society. Its regulations were far broader than those proposed in this Bill and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee called it “hyper-skeletal”, which is some way beyond the criticisms it levelled against this Bill.

Turning to the reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition, it is worth restating that the Bill is not about rejoining the EU. David Cameron commented that he wanted the Conservative party to

“stop banging on about Europe”,

but there seems to be some way to go before his words reach fruition, despite the fact that we left five years ago. The Bill gives us the necessary powers to ensure public regulation, now and in the future, meets the interests of the UK. The powers set out in the Bill will be used solely and exclusively in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers.

I recognise that the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee raised concerns about this being a skeleton Bill, but the Government have considered those concerns and other representations made by Members in the other place. Our existing product regulations are necessary to keep consumers safe, and to provide clarity and a level playing field for businesses. They extend to many thousands of pages and cover a huge amount of technical detail. As the noble and learned Lord Pannick said in the other place,

“the practical reality is that technical regulations of the breadth and complexity that will be produced cannot sensibly be enacted by primary legislation.”

He went on to say that if we are required to use primary legislation every time we wanted to make a regulation on product safety, there would be

“little, if any, time for anything else.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 February 2025; Vol. 843, c. 1716.]

Conservative Members seem to have forgotten that since the Consumer Protection Act 1987, Governments of all stripes have recognised the need to make product safety regulations by secondary legislation. Since 1987, the Conservatives have been in power for 24 years, so they had more than enough time to find another way of dealing with product safety, but they did not choose to do that. We are taking a pragmatic approach. We have taken notice of some of the concerns raised about the powers of the Bill: we have removed a number of Henry VIII powers, introduced a consultation requirement, added additional affirmative resolution procedures and published a code of conduct that sets out the controls that we will have to ensure regulations are proportionate and evidence based. I am grateful to Members of the other place for setting out some of their concerns.

As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), pointed out, the Conservatives did not introduce the Bill in the last Parliament; I am happy to confirm that that was the case. That shows that there was a gap in the law that needed filling and the Conservatives failed to act on it.

Some of the important consumer groups in this country, such as Which?, recognised that action was needed. Sue Davies, head of consumer rights, protections and food policy said:

“It’s encouraging that the government is prioritising a Bill that should address the huge gap in consumer protections which allows online marketplaces to facilitate the sale of unsafe and illegal products without facing repercussions.”

If Members vote for the reasoned amendment, we will not be having any of those protections. I do not think any responsible party would move an amendment along those lines.

This Government are never going to compromise on safety. The Bill is essential to strengthening the rules and regulations needed to protect consumers, businesses and the public. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.