PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] - 4 June 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Requirement to inform customers about changes to prepackaged products—

“(1) A supermarket must inform customers if—

(a) there has been an increase in price per unit of measurement in any prepackaged product sold by the supermarket; and

(b) this increase has resulted from a decrease in the quantity of the goods included within the package.

(2) The requirement to inform customers must include a statement attached to the product, or placed alongside the product.

(3) The statement must—

(a) include the amount the quantity has decreased by and the amount the price per unit of measure has increased by;

(b) be the same font size as the unit price of the product and must be visible and legible; and

(c) be in place from the date of the change in unit quantity and remain in place for the following 60 days.

(4) In this section—

‘prepackaged product’ is a product that has been wrapped or placed in a container before being made available for retail;

‘quantity of goods’ includes, but is not limited to—

(a) weight of goods;

(b) volume of goods;

(c) number of units;

‘supermarket’ is a store with a sales area greater than 400m² of which 50% or more of the products sold are food products.”

This new clause would place a requirement on supermarkets to inform customers when the quantity of goods within the product had decreased resulting in a price increase per unit of measurement.

New clause 3—Reviews of potential country of origin labelling for meat products—

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review into the feasibility, benefits, and potential impacts of requiring food service businesses employing over 250 people to display the country of origin of beef products sourced from the United States on menus.

(2) The review must consider—

(a) the potential public health, environmental, and animal welfare concerns related to beef production standards in the United States compared to those in the United Kingdom;

(b) the practicality of creating regulations for the labelling of beef for food service businesses equivalent to the Beef and Veal Labelling (England) Regulations 2010;

(c) consumer demand for country of origin information in relation to beef products; and

(d) the practicality and cost implications for the hospitality sector.

(3) The Secretary of State must, in undertaking the review, consult with representatives of the food and hospitality sectors, the National Farmers Union, food safety bodies, animal welfare groups, and any other stakeholders deemed relevant.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review before Parliament within 6 months of the passing of this Act.

(5) Within 6 months of laying the report under subsection (5) the Government must undertake a further review into the feasibility, benefits, and potential impacts of requiring food service businesses employing over 250 people to display the country of origin labelling for any meat product from any country with reference to the outcomes of the report under subsection (5).

(6) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review under subsection (6) before Parliament within 6 months of the launch of that review.”

This new clause requires the Government to undertake reviews into the feasibility of requiring food businesses to disclose the country of origin of meat products on menus.

New clause 4—Labelling for UK-produced or manufactured products—

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a voluntary labelling system to indicate when a product has been produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom.

(2) The label must be—

(a) displayed clearly on the front-facing packaging of applicable goods;

(b) standardised in appearance, including a nationally recognised symbol or wording indicating UK origin; and

(c) legible, visible and no smaller in font size than the unit price display or equivalent information on the product.

(3) A product qualifies for the label if—

(a) it is wholly or substantially produced, manufactured, grown or reared in the United Kingdom; and

(b) it meets any additional criteria as set out by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(4) The Secretary of State must consult food producers, retailers, consumer groups and relevant trade associations before setting the criteria for qualifying products and the design of the label.

(5) The Secretary of State must undertake a promotional campaign to ensure consumers are aware of the new labelling system.

(6) Regulations under this section must be made within 2 months of the passing of this Act.

(7) In this section—

‘product’ includes food, drink and manufactured goods available for retail sale;

‘produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom’ includes goods where the final significant production process occurred in the UK.”

This new clause would require the Government to introduce a voluntary labelling system, clearly marking goods produced or manufactured in the UK, helping consumers make informed choices and supporting domestic producers.

New clause 5—Support and Guidance for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises—

“(1) The Secretary of State must produce and maintain guidance for small and medium-sized enterprises on how to comply with any provisions made by regulations under this Act.

(2) The guidance must include—

(a) a summary of the key provisions of the Act relevant to SMEs;

(b) practical advice on compliance requirements;

(c) information on any available financial, technical, or advisory support; and

(d) contact details for further enquiries or assistance.

(3) The first version of the guidance must be published on the day this Act is passed.

(4) Each time regulations are made under this Act, a revised version of the guidance must be published on the day the regulations are made.”

This new clause would ensure that guidance and support for SMEs on the impact of the Bill should be available 60 days before implementation.

New clause 6—Review of access to testing and certification for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)—

(1) The relevant Minister must undertake a review into the accessibility and affordability of independent product testing and certification for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in relation to the requirements of this Act.

(2) The review must include consideration of—

(a) the typical costs incurred by SMEs in meeting relevant testing and certification requirements;

(b) the availability and capacity of accredited testing providers serving SMEs;

(c) any barriers to market access arising from testing and certification obligations; and

(d) potential non-financial measures to support SMEs in meeting compliance requirements.

(3) The Minister must publish a report on the findings of the review, including any recommendations, within 12 months of the commencement of this section.”

This new clause would require the Government to undertake a review into the accessibility and affordability of independent product testing and certification for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in relation to the requirements of this Act.

New clause 7—Liability and redress for unsafe or defective products—

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for—

(a) the extension of liability for unsafe or defective products to online marketplaces and any other persons within the scope of section 2(3);

(b) the disclosure of evidence in relation to claims for compensation or other rights of action in law for harm caused by unsafe or defective products and presumptions of liability that may arise accordingly;

(c) proceedings, including collective proceedings, to ensure redress for consumers or other individuals suffering harm as a result of unsafe or defective products made available in breach of requirements imposed under powers given by this Act.”

This new clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for liability of online marketplaces for defective and unsafe products, and to ensure that those suffering harm from unsafe or defective products can obtain redress.

New clause 8—Alignment with EU law—

“(1) Where equivalent or similar EU law exists in relation to relevant product regulations, the Secretary of State must, when making provision under section 1, update Parliament on whether the Government proposes to vary the regulations from alignment with EU law.

(2) If the Secretary of State believes divergence from relevant EU law to be in the interests of the United Kingdom, they must arrange for a statement to be made in Parliament on the benefits to United Kingdom business to be achieved by this divergence, at least fourteen days before the relevant regulations are laid before Parliament.

(3) If the Secretary of State believes alignment with the relevant EU law to be in the interests of the United Kingdom, they must arrange for a statement to be made in Parliament on the benefits to United Kingdom business to be achieved by this alignment, at least fourteen days before the relevant regulations are laid before Parliament.

(4) The statement under subsection (2) or (3) must include the date by which any such regulations will be reviewed, which can be no later than 36 months after implementation.”

This new clause provides greater regulatory certainty for UK businesses by requiring scrutiny of all decisions to diverge or align with EU regulations and a process for Parliamentary scrutiny and review, whether Ministers determine that divergence or alignment from such regulations would be in the best interests of the UK.

New clause 9—Inclusion of lithium-ion batteries as a priority product category—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, make regulations under this Act to include lithium-ion batteries as a specified product category subject to relevant safety, performance, labelling, environmental, and end-of-life requirements.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must include—

(a) provisions for minimum safety and performance standards for lithium-ion batteries placed on the UK market;

(b) requirements for clear labelling, including information on capacity, cycle life, and safe handling;

(c) obligations for manufacturers and importers relating to fire safety, product recalls, and end-of-life disposal or recycling;

(d) powers for market surveillance authorities to take enforcement action in relation to non-compliant lithium-ion batteries.

(3) In this section, a ‘lithium-ion battery’ means any rechargeable battery containing lithium compounds as a primary component of the electrochemical cell.[KM1]

(4) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the following stakeholders—

(a) representatives of the battery industry,

(b) environmental groups,

(c) consumer safety organisations,

(d) fire services, and

(e) any other person whom the Secretary of State considers to be relevant.”

This new clause would ensure that Lithium-ion batteries are included in the Bill.

New clause 10—Duties of online marketplaces—

“(1) Without prejudice to the generality of any other powers or duties conferred by this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about requirements that must be met by a person mentioned in section 2(3)(e), including regarding duties—

(a) to operate an online marketplace using effective systems and processes designed to monitor for, and identify, products presenting risks to consumers or other individuals and prevent such products being made available on or through the online marketplace;

(b) to cooperate with relevant authorities, with other persons mentioned in subsection 2(3) or any other relevant persons, to facilitate any action taken to eliminate or, if that is not possible, to mitigate the risks presented by a product that is or was made available on or through their online marketplace;

(c) to ensure that information regarding the identity and activities of persons marketing products on or through online marketplaces to consumers or other individuals is obtained and verified;

(d) to remove products presenting risks to consumers or other individuals from availability on or through an online marketplace as quickly as possible if alerted to their presence or becomes aware of it in any other way.

(2) Within 3 months from the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a statement that sets out how the Secretary of State is exercising, or expects to exercise, the powers under subsection (1) regarding the proposed duties that must be met by a person mentioned in section 2(3)(e).”

This new clause provides a list of duties that must be imposed upon online marketplaces by regulations, and for a statement by the Secretary of State to be made to Parliament within 3 months of Royal Assent regarding the exercise of the duties conferred by this section.

New clause 11—Product recall—

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

(2) The regulations must include provision to ensure—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 12—Local weights and measures authorities: review—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a review of the funding and capabilities of local weights and measures authorities to carry out in an effective way their enforcement responsibilities under the regulatory framework provided by this Act and other trading standards and consumer protection laws.

(2) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult regulators and other persons likely to be affected by the review, including such representatives of consumer and business organisations as they consider appropriate.”

This new clause provides for the Secretary of State to carry out a review of how the funding and capabilities of Trading Standards authorities affects their enforcement activities, to consult appropriate bodies and stakeholders and to lay the review before Parliament.

New clause 13—International agreements—

“(1) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under section (1)(2) or section (2)(7) that will disadvantage the United Kingdom or its trade under—

(a) the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership,

(b) the Japan Economic Comprehensive Partnership Agreement,

(c) the UK-Canada Continuity Trade Agreement,

(d) The UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement,

(e) the UK-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, or

(f) any other trade treaties to which the United Kingdom is, or becomes, a signatory, including any free trade agreement with the United States of America and India.”

This new clause would prevent the Secretary of State making regulations to align with EU standards which would damage the UK’s current or future trade agreements.

New clause 14—Review Panel—

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish an independent review panel (“the Panel”) no later than 2 years after the day on which this Act comes into force.

(2) The Panel must—

(a) carry out a review of all regulations under this Act corresponding to, similar to, or making references to, the requirements of relevant foreign laws under section 2(7), with a view to establishing—

(i) their effect on economic growth;

(ii) their effect on trade in the product concerned on a global basis;

(iii) their effect on the relevant industry or industries within the United Kingdom;

(b) prepare a report of the review, and

(c) lay a copy of the report before Parliament, no later than 12 months from the date of the Panel’s creation.

(3) The Panel must consist of—

(a) at least one person with expertise in economics;

(b) at least one person with expertise in trade policy;

(c) at least one person with expertise in domestic regulation of business.”

This new clause would ensure a review and report to Parliament of any regulations aligning UK regulations with those of other countries or territories.

New clause 15—Consultation on committee to examine changes to product regulations—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, commission a consultation on the creation of a committee on changes to product regulations.

(2) A consultation under subsection (1) must consider the suitability of current scrutiny mechanisms for assessing regulations created through the powers created or amended by the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025.

(3) A consultation under subsection (1) must consult—

(a) the Chair of the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee,

(b) the Chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee,

(c) the Chair of the House of Commons Liaison Committee,

(d) the Chair of the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and

(e) the House of Commons Commission.

(4) The Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable after receiving a report of a consultation under subsection (1), lay before both Houses of Parliament—

(a) a copy of the report of the consultation, and

(b) a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to that consultation.”

The new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on the establishment of a House of Commons committee that would examine all changes to product regulations which are made by the powers granted by this legislation.

New clause 16—Regulations: requirement for certification—

“When laying regulations to be made using the regulation making powers in this Act, the Secretary of State must certify that their effect is not to undermine the resolve of our constitutional arrangements to honour the choice of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union by means of subjecting the United Kingdom to the same law as the European Union so it could subsequently be argued that the United Kingdom should rejoin so it has a voice in making the legislation rather than adopting legislation that has already been made by the European Parliament and Council of Ministers.”

New clause 17—Brexit good faith statement—

“When laying regulations to be made using the regulation making powers in this Act, the Secretary of State must provide a statement (a “Brexit good faith statement”) setting out how in the development of the regulations it has sought to honour the decision of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union by developing, through the regulations, a legislative framework that intentionally seeks to exploit the opportunities afforded by Brexit to develop competitive and other advantages for the United Kingdom compared with the European Union in the global marketplace.”

Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out subsection (1).

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

Amendment 10, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (2).

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

Amendment 11, page 1, line 9, leave out “also”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.

Amendment 32, page 1, line 10, leave out “the United Kingdom” and insert “Great Britain”.

Amendment 25, page 1, line 11, leave out “EU” and insert “foreign”.

Amendment 12, page 1, line 13, leave out “(1) or”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.

Amendment 7, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

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

This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from making regulations unless satisfied that the regulations will not reduce consumer protection and regulatory standards in relation to products.

Amendment 8, page 1, line 21, at end insert—

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment 26, page 2, leave out lines 12 to 18 and insert—

“‘relevant foreign law’ means law of one or more of the United States of America, Canada, Japan, the European Union, Switzerland, Australia, or New Zealand relating to standards, the marketing, or use of products in those markets, which are in force on a specific date and only that date, as specified in regulations;”

Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, at end insert—

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

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

Amendment 3, page 3, line 21, at end insert—

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

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

Amendment 16, page 3, line 39, leave out subsections (7) and (8).

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

Amendment 27, page 3, line 41, leave out “EU” and insert “foreign”.

Amendment 14, page 4, line 2, at end insert—

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

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

Amendment 15, page 4, line 2, at end insert—

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

Amendment 28, page 4, line 5, at end insert—

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

This amendment, and Amendments 25, 26 and 27, open up the possibility of defining product regulations by relation to the laws of countries other than the European Union, and require the justification of decisions to limit any such reference to the laws of one territory only.

Amendment 29, page 4, line 5, at end insert—

“(8B) The final meaning or interpretation of any provision of relevant foreign law under this Act shall be made exclusively by the Secretary of State or by a court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, as appropriate, and must not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.

(8C) The enforcement of any provision of relevant foreign law under this Act must be undertaken exclusively by the authorities of the United Kingdom Government and must not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.”

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

Amendment 13, page 4, line 6, at end insert—

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

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

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

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

Amendment 17, page 4, line 6, at end insert—

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

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

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

Amendment 21, in clause 3, page 4, line 8, leave out subsections (1) and (2).

Amendment 22, page 4, line 11, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment 23, page 4, line 17, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment 24, page 5, line 16, leave out subsections (9) to (11).

Amendment 6, in clause 12, page 11, line 37, at end insert—

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

This amendment clarifies the meaning of “circular economy” and is consequential on Amendment 5.

Amendment 4, page 12, line 21, at end insert—

“(e) provision described in section [Product recall].”

Amendment 1, in clause 13, page 13, line 4, leave out from “Act” to “may” in line 5.

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

Amendment 2, page 13, line 8, leave out subsections (4) and (5)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.

Amendment 30, page 13, line 8, at end insert—

“(za) provision described in section 2(7);”

This amendment would ensure that the affirmative parliamentary procedure will apply to regulations under Clause 2(7), that is, any regulations which include referenced to relevant foreign law.

Amendment 31, page 13, line 19, at end insert—

“(4A) Any regulations made under section 1(1) or (2) which correspond to, are similar to, or make a reference to the requirement of relevant foreign laws under section 2(7), expire at the end of four years from the date on which they come into force.”

Amendment 18, page 13, line 24, at end insert—

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment 33, page 13, line 24, at end insert—

“(6A) Where the regulations are for the purpose of applying to Great Britain regulations already applied to Northern Ireland by the European Union, Northern Ireland must also be involved in the said consultation on an equal basis with the rest of the United Kingdom.”

I wish to speak briefly to new clause 1, which is a probing amendment that seeks to establish a couple of facts. I will start, however, by thanking the Minister for his time yesterday and for engaging with me on the matter. I know that he takes the matter of how we protect ceramics in the UK, and indeed how we can enhance that protection, as seriously as I do.

New clause 1 is a short amendment that simply asks the Government to explore and consider how we can better protect ceramics from counterfeit production, ensuring that when we buy something that purports to have been made in the UK, that is in fact the case. Most ceramics have something called a backstamp. If we turn over any piece of tableware or giftware in the UK, we normally see a stamp showing the company that made it and the country of origin. Most notably, for most pieces it states either “Made in England” or, even better, “Made in Stoke-on-Trent”.

In Staffordshire.

Yes, that is in Staffordshire, as my hon. Friend says. There are factories in Newcastle-under-Lyme as well.

We are, however, seeing a proliferation of companies that seek to pass off material not made in the UK. Its firing will have taken place overseas and it will then be imported into the UK, with the decorating and final glost firing or hand-decorating stage happening in the UK, and with simply the word “England” put on to it. That way, the consumer thinks that the thing they are buying is a UK-made product, when in fact it is not.

There are many great companies in Stoke-on-Trent, which I know hon. Friends will reference in their speeches. I will speak briefly of Duchess, Churchill, Steelite, Emma Bridgewater and the companies that proudly put “Made in England” on the back of their products, because everything they do is made in England. The clay is first moulded, first fired, glazed, decorated, second fired and sold in the UK. It is a genuinely British product, and there is value in that product. We know from the export markets to South Korea and America, in particular, that those customers want to buy products that are made in the UK.

There are some companies that quite honestly import from overseas and they are very clear about that. Plates made by some companies in my constituency, such as Portmeirion, quite clearly state that they have been made in China, but they sit alongside products made in the UK. The company is very up front about that; it does not seem to hide it or to try to confuse the consumer. It is clear about the fact that it imports some of its ware from overseas.

Some companies, however, simply seek to put the word “England” on the back of their products. That will be because the company is probably English registered, or it is one of the UK’s historical brands that have a long affinity with Stoke-on-Trent, even if the manufacturing processes no longer takes place there. A consumer will turn that product over and see the name of one of our historical companies and a date, normally from the 1700s or 1800s, and they will see the word “England” underneath it. It is completely and utterly understandable for them to look at that and think, “This is a product made in England”, but often it is not.

New clause 1 asks the Government to come forward with an investigation to consider whether there is merit in protecting things that are made in the UK by having that country of origin stamp, specifically for ceramics. I know that the Liberal Democrats have tabled a similar amendment today that would do this for a whole host of products. I am glad that we are using similar language on this, because whether it is food or any other products unrelated to ceramics, if they have been made in the UK they should clearly say so. My new clause specifically looks at ceramics, and I will not deviate into the speech that I am sure will come from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

Another aspect that the Minister graciously made time to discuss yesterday is the companies, particularly Chinese companies, that now seek to copy the backstamp. We have some great examples from a company called Dunoon in Staffordshire that makes excellent ware. If a consumer buys an item from the company’s shops, it will have “Made in the UK” written on the bottom, and little stickers on it that say “Made in the UK”. I have in my office some Chinese copies that have copied the “Made in the UK” sticker and the “Made in the UK” backstamp. These are sold through drop-shipping companies online, so tracing where they actually come from is very difficult.

Any consumer who collects that sort of material would be forgiven for thinking that they were buying something online that had been made in the UK. It will have a “Made in the UK” backstamp and sticker, and all the design elements match almost perfectly the ones that are made in the UK, but the consumer will have no idea where it was made. They will also have no idea whether there are elements of mercury and cadmium in the glaze that has been used, whether the pigments used to decorate it meet the standards we have in the UK, or whether it meets the food contact regulations that are required in the UK for items used for drinking or eating off. The consumer will have no idea about the quality of the clay, or what has been added to the clay before firing. Sometimes, in products that are imported into the UK from less good manufacturers, the clay will have been mixed with material that can have a harmful effect on the consumer.

New clause 1 simply asks the Government to consider the merits of a country of origin marking scheme for ceramics. It does not commit the Government to bringing forward such a scheme. I have a ten-minute rule Bill, which is currently waiting for a free Friday, when it can get an airing and we can discuss that in more detail. This is about trying to establish the principle that there are things that are made in the UK that we value, and that if we know they have value because they are made in the UK, we should do all we can to try and protect that.

I am pleased to have put my name to the new clause tabled by my neighbour in Stoke-on-Trent Central. Does he agree, notwithstanding his comments, that much of this is also about pride? It is about pride in our people, pride in the skill of our people and pride in the vital ceramics industry, not just in Stoke-on-Trent Central and Newcastle-under-Lyme but in many other parts of Staffordshire, as he has noted.

As always, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We in Stoke-on-Trent can talk at length about that pride, but I will not do so today, I promise, although we can talk about our pride that is associated with our industrial heritage.

Rob Flello, who once served in this place and is now the chief executive of Ceramics UK, told me when I first met him that in Stoke-on-Trent people think we have slip in our veins—slip being the wet clay used for mould casting. That is because the ceramics industry in the city is intrinsic to who we are. It is an incredibly important part of our heritage, but it is also a really important part of our future. We can make industrial ceramics, including those strategic ceramics that go into nuclear submarines and into joints for hips and elbows, as well as some of the technical ceramics that are needed in steel and glass making in the UK. Steel and glass cannot be made in the UK without ceramics; a refractory-grade ceramic is needed, because it can withstand heat that would ordinarily melt glass or metal. I know the Minister is well versed on this, because I have bent his ear on the subject on more occasions that he may have cared for.

The ceramics sector is having a tough time, but there is hope on the horizon; I am sure that the industrial strategy will give some relief on energy costs. We are keen to encourage people to buy British-manufactured goods with pride, in order to support jobs in the localities where the industry is dominant. New clause 1 simply asks the Government to consider the merits of country of origin marking.

In my constituency, there is pride in every piece made. In fact, in some factories, people who make and decorate a piece put their initials on the bottom along with the company stamp. Quite often, they can identify their own work in shops because their way of painting and applying transfers is unique to them; it becomes a fingerprint. New clause 1 encourages people to buy British, as my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) have been doing—[Interruption.]—and the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), of course. When people go out and buy that piece of tableware or giftware, and are trying to do their bit to support our industry, if they turn it over and see “Made in England” or “Made in Stoke-on-Trent”, they should have absolutely confidence that what they are buying is made in those places.

I agree and endorse what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said. He makes logical and coherent points, and the Bill could be used as a vehicle for his suggestion. I therefore support his new clause 1 and new clause 4, which is of a similar ilk.

However, aspects of the Bill are democratically dangerous, because it gifts to Government unbridled capacity to make regulations, with virtually no oversight from this elected House, on matters which touch on not just the sanctity of our product production, but the sovereignty of this nation. This Bill, with little attempt at subtlety, enables a Government, if so minded—this one, I fear, might be—to sabotage Brexit in many ways. I stand to be corrected, but I do not think a single member of this Government voted for Brexit, which was the settled and declared will of the people greatest number of people who ever participated in a democratic vote in this nation. Yet in the Bill, we have the capacity, particularly through clause 2(7), to dynamically align all our regulations with those of the EU, without having recourse to this House, at the whim of the Executive. Whatever the subject matter, that surely is a most unhealthy situation.

The hon. and learned Member is making an important point, which is why I will support the Opposition amendments in this vein today. Does he agree that the reports from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords are important in bringing to light just how skeletal the Bill is, and is that not a reason why we should pay attention? We should not always leave it to the House of Lords to do our work for us. We should have those debates about the future on the Floor of this House, rather than having things done by ministerial diktat.

I agree, absolutely. The House of Lords has done some very informative and useful work on the Bill. I only hope that it is not wasted on this Government, but that is my fear.

Has the hon. and learned Member had time to look at amendment 13, under which, if there was any backsliding by the Government, the matter would be brought back to this House for determination? I suspect that he, like me, would not accuse Ministers of being capable of abusing Henry VIII powers at the moment, but those in some future Government might. That is why we need amendment 13, particularly to ensure that retained EU legislation, a third of which the previous Government binned, canned, and got rid of, does not start creeping back over months and years, taking us back to where we began prior to 2016, and effectively taking the public for fools.

I agree, absolutely. No Member of this House should glibly pass over clause 2(7), because it expressly and emphatically sets out that regulations, which can be made without recourse to this House, can provide that

“a product requirement is to be treated as met”

if it meets the relevant EU regulation. That is indisputably a bold platform for dynamically realigning this United Kingdom, in all its regulations, with the EU, so that we become rule takers. That is what I fundamentally object to in the Bill.

This House’s lack of scrutiny powers on these matters is made worse by the fact that we no longer have the European Scrutiny Committee. If we had that Committee, we would at least have that opportunity for scrutiny. That is why I welcome new clause 15, which would require the authorities of this House to explore and hopefully ultimately establish a Committee to scrutinise the regulations being made. Surely the minimum expectation of anyone democratically elected to this House is that we should have the capacity for oversight, challenge and scrutiny of laws being made in the name of those we represent, although made exclusively by the Executive, without the consent or processes of this House. That seems so fundamental to me that it would be a very sad commentary indeed on the intent behind the Bill if new clause 15 was not acceptable to the Government. If it is not, they are saying that they want unbridled, unchallenged, unchallengeable power to make whatever regulations they like, despite and in the face of this House.

The Government have said throughout the passage of this legislation that it is not about the European Union, yet as the hon. and learned Member makes clear, it is only the European Union that we can align with through regulations made under it. Does that not fundamentally undermine the Government’s entire argument, and show why these amendments are so vital to protect this House?

Absolutely. The Government tell us, “When we make trade deals, we may be able to ensure the requisite alignment,” but this Bill provides for alignment only with the EU, which rather lets the cat out of the bag. The Bill is not about facilitating international trade, so that we could, in the relevant circumstances, align with the United States, Japan or whoever we are making deals with, because it is exclusively and singularly focused on alignment with the EU. I suspect that is because the purpose of the Bill is to advance, at the speed of the Government’s choosing, and without the restraint of this House, down the road of dynamic alignment. To me, new clause 15 is very important.

Amendment 16 is key, because it will pull the teeth of clause 2(7) and protect us from the intended course of action. I strongly support amendment 16, because it would rein in powers that need to be reined in, and would remove the threat—indeed, the allegation—that the Bill is about realignment with the EU. A couple of weeks ago, we had the so-called reset with the EU, but the reset is as nothing compared with this Bill. This Bill is the legislative vehicle whereby Brexit can be sabotaged. That is why it is important to address the core issue in clause 2(7).

If the Bill were not about securing dynamic alignment with the EU, there would be Government support for amendment 25, which would make a reference to “foreign” law and not “EU” law. That amendment would put to bed the concerns of those of us who believe that the Bill is a subterfuge to secure realignment with the EU. However, I fear that the Government will not support that amendment.

The legislation is a Trojan Bill. It has a very clear direction of travel, which is to be secured by ignoring the question of what powers of scrutiny this House should have, and by affording to the Executive alone the right to realign dynamically with the EU at a pace and time, and on the content, that they alone approve of. The Bill needs these radical amendments, including the surgery that amendment 16 would do. At the very least, it requires the semblance of oversight that new clause 15 would provide.

It gives me huge pleasure to call our resident metrology expert, Adam Thompson.

Once again, it is a great honour to speak about the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. Today, we are focused on the amendments proposed following the Public Bill Committee, on which, in common with the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), I was honoured to serve; I was the resident metrologist.

In Committee, we heard extensively from Members of the Opposition. They described in great depth their concerns about the Bill’s implications for international alignment of regulations; we have just heard some of those concerns from the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). Today, those concerns have once again been presented to the House through various amendments to the Bill. I will explain, with reference to state-of-the-art metrology, why those issues should not be a significant cause for concern for right hon. and hon. Members.

The hon. Member and I served on the Bill Committee together. I think he misses a slightly important point that this is not about international alignment, as is put forward in the amendments tabled by the Opposition, but alignment with the EU, and that is why there is such concern from the Opposition parties.

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. As I discussed extensively during the Bill Committee, there is a misunderstanding here of exactly what the Bill is doing, so I fundamentally disagree with the point he makes, but I will go into more detail on it in my speech.

One of the first things one learns about as a budding metrologist is the concept of perfection. In his book “Exactly”, Simon Winchester writes of what he refers to as “the perfectionists”, detailing the evolution of the science of metrology through time and how precision engineering has been used to create the modern world that we inhabit. It is a great read, covering the history of my science in the popular mindset. However, I do not necessarily agree with Winchester in his core thesis; he talks about metrology as the science of perfection, whereas it is more accurate to think of it as the science of the good enough. I will elaborate on that shortly.

In the early days of a metrologist’s training, we learn that with more money and more time, a precision engineer can almost always achieve a more precise and accurate result, whether a straighter line, a smoother surface or a better piece of legislation, but that striving for true perfection—the absence of any fault—is always folly. Our resources are never infinite, and in the real world it is always more appropriate to strive for the good enough as opposed to the perfect. Good enough is the core of modern engineering and the fulcrum on which our world balances.

I am, as many colleagues will know, by trade a metrologist, but within the broader field, I am a surface metrologist. Surface metrology revolves around the measurement and characterisation of surfaces—surface texture and surface topography. I am the one who decides whether the leather steering wheel feels right. I am the one who ensures that car engines distribute and hold oil in all the right places to keep them running smoothly. I am the one who ensures that tyres keep us firmly planted on the road as we round corners.

Becoming a surface metrologist involves gaining an intimate acquaintance with the very concept of perfection. Always in engineering I hear people asking for a product to be made perfectly—for the angle of the corner of the table to be exactly 90° or for the surface of the microscope to be infinitely smooth. Let me put it on record that there is no such thing as perfection in reality.

Despite what everyone was thinking, I am not going to suggest that I am perfection, but as a mathematician, may I ask my hon. Friend to accept that the reason perfection is not achievable in that instance is to do with the infinite—the infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 1.1, for instance, or the infinite amount of numbers between 1.1 and 1.11?

Order. I accept that we have some experts in the Chamber, but I remind Members that speeches and interventions must relate to the business at hand and the amendments.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—it was perfect. He is absolutely right, and I will leave the perfection to the mathematicians. To illustrate my point, I hear people in engineering asking for products to be made perfectly—for the angle of the corner of the table to be exactly 90° or the surface of the microscope to be infinitely smooth. To study metrology is to understand the concepts of imperfection and uncertainty and apply those to everything. If one zooms in close enough, the angle is never exactly right, and the surface is never perfectly smooth.

On Second Reading, I made reference to the optical mirrors used in the James Webb space telescope. They are incredibly smooth, yes, but to examine them at the atomic scale, one would find deviations from the nominal plane that mirror those in the Grand Canyon. Being an engineer involves accepting these deviations within the context of the work we undertake towards our goal of constant improvement—be that in the creation of, say, aerospace engines or, indeed, national legislation.

My expertise within surface metrology was in the development of X-ray computed tomography for measuring surfaces. Alongside my good friend Dr Andy Townsend at the University of Huddersfield, who made similar discoveries at the same point in history—a phenomenon that is common across science—I was among the first to be able to use X-rays to measure the interior surface of parts that were otherwise hidden to both the eye and the machine. X-ray computed tomography had never previously been good enough to measure surfaces, with the imaging resolutions achievable lagging significantly behind those required to separate measurements from noise. Previously, such measurements were not really needed, as to manufacture a surface, one generally had to access that surface with a machine tool, so one could similarly access it with a measurement tool.

However, with the birth of industrial additive manufacturing—often called 3D printing—we could suddenly make things with hidden internal geometries that did not need tool access and could not be measured. Without measurement, though, we cannot verify that the parts we make will function as we require them to. As such, new technology was required to allow us to create additively manufactured parts, be they novel, much lighter aeroplane parts or new joint replacements finely customised to suit the individual. Alongside our colleagues, Andy and I solved this problem by demonstrating that X-ray computed tomography had become good enough to measure those surfaces.

This Bill mirrors that “good enough” paradigm. Current legislation places us at risk of falling out of alignment with the rest of the world, which in turn risks our ability as the British to maintain our position at the forefront of international science. In its current, unamended form, the Bill grants the Secretary of State the necessary authority to keep pace with the guidance of relevant experts. The amendments proposed by the Opposition would only hinder our ability to stay aligned with the continuous advancement of progress.

In lauding the Henry VIII powers in this Bill, as an elected Member of this House, is the hon. Gentleman at ease with the fact that the Bill could see criminal offences created without any scrutiny or input from this House? Is he at ease with the fact that the liberty of our constituents—which I think we would be interested in protecting—could be jeopardised by criminal offences created by the Executive alone?

I thank the hon. and learned Member for his intervention, but I disagree with his assessment. This Bill is about providing the Secretary of State with the powers necessary to ensure that we remain at the forefront of science. Opposition Members have incorrectly claimed that the Bill hands over authority to foreign powers, or overly centralises it in the hands of the Secretary of State. This is not a matter of ceding control to external entities; rather, it is about maintaining the United Kingdom’s position at the forefront of scientific and regulatory innovation. It is about ensuring that the British scientists who follow in the footsteps of Newton, Franklin and Hawking can continue to lead the world in their fields.

These Opposition amendments appear to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding—or perhaps a complete lack of understanding—of what metrology and standards frameworks entail and why they are vital. I urge all Members to vote against them and support this Bill through its Third Reading.

I remind Members that they are speaking to the amendments. There are 33 to choose from, so please keep your contributions appropriate.

I rise today in support of new clause 1, which deals with a country of origin marking for ceramic products and which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) so eloquently introduced. My constituency is home to “The Great Pottery Throw Down”, based in the wonderful Gladstone Pottery Museum in Longton, and I am so proud to have many great pottery firms in my constituency. Those include Wedgwood, which is famed for its iconic blue jasperware, and Duchess China, which has factories in Longton and Newstead that I was honoured to visit recently. There, I met Jason Simms, who is a 100-mph visionary for the future of ceramics in Stoke-on-Trent and the world. It was a really interesting visit.

Duchess, founded in 1888, produces the tableware used in the House of Commons. It is proud of the fact that its products are made in the UK, from clay to table. People buying products produced by Duchess, for example, will see that they say on the bottom, “Fine bone china made in Staffordshire”. The phrasing is deliberate; it clearly informs the purchaser not only of the product’s country of origin, but the precise part of the country that it comes from. Most of our ceramic products contain these backstamps to mark authenticity, and many include a reference to Stoke and Staffordshire. As I have before, I invite all colleagues to join the “turnover club” and check the backstamp on the chinaware here. They will probably find it was made in Stoke.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Just for the record, some of the tableware in the Members’ Dining Room is in fact German. I hope everyone will get behind a campaign to replace it.

I thank my hon. Friend for that timely and right intervention. I join him in his campaign.

We do not always have the level of detail needed in this country, and we need to address that nuance so that consumers know exactly what they are buying. That is important, because the pottery industry is at great risk from cheap imports, which are undermining our British-made products and creating unfair competition for our better-quality products made in our own country. This china-dumping of products often falsely pretending to be made by our Staffordshire firms—Dunoon being one example—must be stopped. We must back our British industry and our British workers and do what we can to resist such unfair competition.

Having Stoke tableware in my home, I completely understand the argument that the hon. Member is making, so will she join me in the Lobby in voting for new clause 4, to support UK labelling for manufactured products? That is for not just Stoke tableware, but further afield, too.

The hon. Member is right to point out that Stoke and Staffordshire are not the only places that produce wonderful ceramic and other products. I understand that new clause 4 is broad in scope. I am speaking today to new clause 1, which relates to ceramics. I hope he will indulge me.

A few months ago, I was proud to meet GMB representatives for the British pottery industries here in Parliament, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). That included the formidable Sharon Yates, who is one of my constituents. They have real pride, real passion and real skill in what they do.

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. She is eloquently outlining the real skills and talents of our people who make world-class ceramics. I echo her support for new clause 1, brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). Recently I met the GMB union and workers who had sadly been made redundant at the iconic Moorcroft pottery in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove. Collectively, the 30 people in that room had more than 800 years of honing skills and expertise. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must do all we can to protect our pots, including backstamping our ceramic products, as outlined in new clause 1?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ll take that as a yes.

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

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

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

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

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I just want to make sure that all five Members from north Staffordshire make their voice known on the record. I support him wholeheartedly in his speech.

That is my kind of friend. I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for her intervention, which speaks to the cross-party support for our ceramics industry. I grateful to her for placing that on the record.

It is an honour to speak in this debate on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, and in particular the amendments tabled by the Public Bill Committee. I was not on the Committee—some might say I did not measure up. [Interruption.] My parliamentary assistant has asked me to point out that I wrote that joke, not her.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson). Following his contribution on Second Reading, I did take away his slides on metrology and found them particularly interesting. As a former maths teacher, I am sure he will recognise that without maths there would be no metrology.

I wish to speak to a number of amendments, as is our role in this House. I will briefly touch on new clause 1, because I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell)—every time the ceramics industry is mentioned by anyone in the House, I know there is an intervention coming. In all sincerity, his passion in standing up for the ceramics industry in Stoke should be respected by Members across the House. Businesses claiming that they make their products in England or in Stoke when they do not are not only dishonest; they also damage the industries that do make their products there.

We all want to support our local industry wherever possible. Sadly, I do not go around buying a lot of fibre optic cables—although if I did, I would do so proudly, as the fibre optic cable was invented by George Hockham and Charles Kao in my constituency of Harlow.

The Bill is an important piece of legislation that will update the UK’s product safety regulation and metrology framework. Some were sceptical on Second Reading, but clause 5(5) points out that it will not stop me having a pint—or, for my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), 0.56826125 cubic decimetres of beer—at The Willow, The White Admiral, or any of the other moth-related pubs in Harlow.

Regulation is only effective with enforcement, so I welcome the inclusion of the clause on enforcement. I would also welcome a little more detail from the Minister in his summing up, if possible, on the regulation and how we will ensure it is effective. I would also be grateful if the Minister could touch on cost recovery, which is obviously important for the relevant authorities to impose these regulations.

I will briefly touch on new clause 15, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) advocated so well. She was correct to say that stability is hugely important for UK businesses, and she was also right to say that we do five times as much trade with the EU as with any of our other trading partners. As I said in a recent Opposition day debate, businesses in Harlow would absolutely welcome a breaking down of those barriers to trade with the EU. I also welcome my hon. Friend’s comments on the importance of scrutiny by this House. I joked with Mr Speaker yesterday that I do come to this Chamber quite often to talk about things in my constituency—believe it or not—but one of the most important roles of elected officials, whether on the Government or Opposition Benches, is scrutiny. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) knows how much I scrutinise legislation.

I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way. What we have in common is that he will stand up for his businesses in Harlow, and I will try to stand up for my businesses in Epping Forest. Much of the debate today and some of the amendments touch on scrutiny; the hon. Gentleman is moving on to the power of this House to scrutinise regulation. Small and medium-sized businesses in our country are facing huge pressures, and not just with regulation but with the economic climate set by this Labour Government through the jobs tax. Measures such as new clause 13 are seeking to rein in some of the powers that the Executive are trying to take on board, which will enable them to change regulations on a whim and then create more uncertainty for businesses. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these sensible amendments would enable more scrutiny from this House and actually make the climate better for the businesses that we really want to champion?

I thank my neighbour for his intervention. We both recognise the importance of championing businesses in our constituencies, although I am sure he would recognise that businesses in Harlow are better than those in Epping Forest. That was a joke—apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Would the hon. Gentleman just correct the record on that?

I will pre-empt the point of order: businesses in Epping Forest and in Harlow are equally very good and very successful. I will now move on.

I disagree slightly with the hon. Gentleman on the reasons for the economic challenges. When I have spoken to businesses in Harlow, it is clear that we need to break down the barriers to trade with the EU that have been created. However, as I also said in a recent debate, I do not intend to rehash the same old arguments we have had over Brexit. It is about how we work with where we are at the moment, and I think the trade deal that the Prime Minister and the Business Secretary have secured on that is really positive. This is part of that alignment, and I think it is very positive.

Just to finish, I will welcome the response from the Minister on some of the points that have been raised today. I have absolute confidence in the Secretary of State to ensure that he gets the best for British businesses—businesses in Epping Forest and in Harlow.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

It is a real pleasure to take part in this debate on product regulation and metrology, not least because it gives me the opportunity to highlight the work done by my former colleagues at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington, which is the UK’s home of metrology. I would like to set the mind of the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) at rest. He is still, as far as I know, the only metrologist with whom I have worked in a finance department, but, nevertheless, as a non-scientist, it gave me a real admiration for the work of scientists in this particular area. In Teddington they are setting the standards. They are developing and maintaining the primary measurement standards for the UK and across the world.

What I would like to say to the Chamber this afternoon and to my constituents in the neighbouring constituency of Richmond Park is that if they have been inspired by the hon. Member for Erewash and have had a fire ignited in them for the science of metrology, the National Physical Laboratory is having its open day this Friday, 6 June, and everyone should go along.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. It is lovely to hear of her experiences. I was aware that she was previously at the National Physical Laboratory. Indeed, I recall how excited my field was when she was first elected. I would just like to place strongly on the record how much I agree with her colleagues’ excellent contributions to science.

Following that hymn of praise to metrology, I will now turn to the amendments.

The Liberal Democrats welcome many of the measures proposed in the Bill. The legislation seeks to balance consumer safety, economic growth, and regulatory flexibility, ensuring that UK laws can keep pace with technological advancements. We support enhanced consumer protection for those products that pose a safety risk to consumers, as well as the importance of corporate responsibility for businesses operating in online marketplaces.

The Liberal Democrats support the need to update the regulatory framework and we are glad that the Bill takes steps to address this. However, steps must be taken to level the playing field between online and high street businesses, and to protect consumers. As such we have tabled new clauses 7, 10 and 11 and amendment 3, which work toward that aim.

Equally, the Liberal Democrats remain concerned by the Bill’s reliance on secondary legislation and the overuse of Henry VIII powers, giving Ministers excessive discretion to repeal or amend primary legislation through regulations. All product and metrology regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure and we seek to ensure that the Bill is ambitious in providing proper parliamentary scrutiny. There should also be greater engagement and consultation requirements, meaning that key stakeholders may not be adequately considered in regulatory changes. This lack of consultation feeds more broadly into our apprehensions about the burdens that some measures will place on small businesses, and as such we have tabled new clauses 5 and 6, which acknowledge this and would provide support to small and local businesses.

I wish to speak in favour of new clause 2, which would place a requirement on large supermarkets to inform customers when the quantity of goods within the product have decreased, resulting in a price increase per unit of measurement. Research by Compare the Market found that products such as digestive biscuits have become 28% smaller, yet the price has risen by 65% compared with a decade ago.

Outrageous.

It is outrageous, yes.

Similar situations have been seen with popular household items such as Coco Pops, butter and crisps. We were glad to see that, while the Bill was in the other Chamber, the Government accepted a Liberal Democrat amendment, preventing changes to the pint as a recognised measurement for beer, cider and milk through regulations under the Bill. However, I hope the Government will go further and expand this safeguard to protect consumers by accepting this amendment.

I also wish to speak in favour of new clause 3, which would require the Government to undertake reviews into the feasibility of asking large hospitality businesses to disclose the country of origin of meat products on menus. The farming industry has been pushing for clearer labelling of the origins of food for some time. Previous research by the National Farmers Union has shown that 65% of consumers are more likely to visit a venue that claims that its ingredients are sourced from British farmers, and almost 70% of consumers agreed it was important that the sourcing of food in venues is transparent. Farmers across the country are grappling with the punitive family farm tax introduced by this Government, and continue to cope with the challenges imposed by trade deals under the last Conservative Government. Better labelling of British produce on the menus of larger restaurants would give crucial support to farmers and their businesses, and I hope that the Government will support this new clause as a step towards achieving that.

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words about the amendment and the work that my colleagues are doing. My only point is that the final paragraph under subsection (7) of new clause 4 would allow such labelling

“where the final significant production process occurred in the UK”,

but that is one of the things that we are trying to clamp down on. In ceramic production, products that are bisque fired outside the UK then brought into the UK for gloss firing are passed off as being made in the UK. We argue that this should not be the case; the full process, from clay to table, should take place in the UK. While I have absolute sympathy with her on her new clause, that subsection unfortunately would not address the issue—in fact, it could do further damage to our industry. If she is happy to, we could discuss that outside this place. I am sure that there are areas of commonality, on which we could work together.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that further information about the ceramics industry, which I now feel so much better informed about. He makes a valuable point. When we talk about things being “made in the UK”, what exactly does that mean? How can we use that valuable designation to best support our domestic industries? I thank him for that further clarification.

Liberal Democrats support the need to update the regulatory framework for the UK marketplace to reduce trade friction and give businesses and consumers confidence in their products. We are glad that many of the measures in the Bill will have that effect, but we remain concerned about the excessive ministerial discretion in this legislation, and the reliance on secondary legislation. We will continue to push the Government to strengthen scrutiny mechanisms, and for fairer regulation for online marketplaces. Crucially, I hope the Government will take this opportunity to support British businesses by supporting new clause 4, giving consumers greater transparency and British businesses the boost that they need.

I call the shadow Minister.

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is quite astounding that among the criminal offences that are anticipated being made by the Minister without parliamentary scrutiny are indictable offences, which could result in people losing their liberty for whatever period is specified in the offence? Is that not a retrograde departure from the standards of oversight that any citizen would expect Members elected to this House to exercise?

I am sure the Minister will come back on that point and say, “You can trust us, and you can trust this Government.” Does the shadow Minister agree, however, that this Government may not always be in power, and that the powers they are creating for themselves may be handed down to someone less responsible in future?

I remember sitting through many debates on Bills in the last Parliament, in which Members of the Labour party, then in opposition, talked about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendments tabled by His Majesty’s Opposition are all about improving and bolstering parliamentary scrutiny, and that Government Members have nothing to fear by giving more powers to this House?

I thank all hon. Members for contributing to the debate—my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), for Harlow (Chris Vince), for Erewash (Adam Thompson), the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the shadow Minister the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin). I will address many of the points they raised during the debate.

I welcome the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to her new role. I do not know whether it is a promotion or demotion, but I welcome her all the same. As always, it was a pleasure to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash and his great technical insight. Indeed, we have our own Professor Yaffle in his House—those of a certain age will know who I am referring to. His expertise was greatly appreciated in Bill Committee and again today.

Amendments 9, 11 and 12 would remove clause 1(1) from the Bill. Of course, that is the central power to keep consumers safe and our product regulations updated. As I said in Committee, our product regulation framework is extensive. We have hundreds of often technical regulations. Removing clause 1(1) would freeze our regulations in time. We would be unable to respond to new risks, products or business models. I cannot accept an amendment that would stop us from protecting consumers and businesses from product-related harm.

The Minister talks about protecting consumers. That is exactly what new clause 2 would do by making them aware when a product gets smaller but the price remains the same—shrinkflation—so will he work with us and get that clause into law?

I will address new clause 2 in due course. That is a more a consumer-related issue than a product safety one, but I understand the intent behind it.

We have heard a lot of concerns—many of them misplaced—about the breadth of powers contained within the Bill. In the other place, we did increase the measures that will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We removed several Henry VIII clauses and added a statutory consultation requirement. We also published a code of conduct, available in the Library of the House, which sets out exactly how the powers under the Bill will be used. I now believe the Bill strikes the right balance of appropriate parliamentary scrutiny without clogging up parliamentary time with highly technical product regulations. Gutting the Bill by removing the central power would leave consumers unprotected.

Amendments 10, 14 to 17, 25 to 29 and 32 all relate to EU law. I want to be absolutely clear yet again that the powers in the Bill give the UK the flexibility to manage its own product regulatory framework. Part of that is, of course, ensuring that the UK can respond to relevant developments in EU law. It does not mean that the UK is beholden to EU changes, and all regulations will be subject to Parliament’s oversight. I also wish to reassure the House that the Government remain committed to our obligations under the Windsor framework. The reason the Bill explicitly references the EU rather than other jurisdictions is that most of our product regulation is, of course, inherited from EU law. The UK continues to recognise certain EU product requirements—a policy that was, of course, enacted under the previous Government only 12 months ago.

The Bill’s powers allow us to continue or end such recognition based on the UK’s interests on a case-by-case basis. Decisions on whether to diverge or align will be made as they come along and will only be implemented by laying a statutory instrument in Parliament. Recognition of EU product requirements would be stated in UK law and could only be enforced by UK authorities. The Bill does not grant jurisdiction to foreign courts. I find amendment 15, which would prevent CE recognition, an odd amendment to be pushed by the Conservatives given that they introduced regulations only a year ago that did the absolute opposite.

New clauses 8, 14, 16 and 17 and amendments 13, 31 and 33 deal with themes of EU law, parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. These amendments duplicate the robust safeguards already in the Bill and the statutory and non-statutory controls that we have published in our code of conduct. Those include the statutory requirement for consultation and assessments under the better regulation framework. The Government value Parliament’s role in scrutinising legislation, so we will continue to consult all the devolved Governments as appropriate to ensure that regulations work for the whole of the UK.

Let me turn to amendments 1, 12, 18 and 30, on parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill as introduced already applied the affirmative procedure in key areas, including the creation of criminal offences—contrary to what has been said this afternoon—and amending primary legislation. However, in response to matters raised by the DPRRC, we have added additional areas, which are set out in clause 13(4). For the avoidance of doubt, I can confirm that the affirmative procedure applies to the following: the creation of criminal offences; the first use of regulations covering online marketplaces; the first time duties are imposed on a new supply chain actor; regulations conferring powers of entry, search or inspection; regulations to disapply requirements in response to an emergency; regulations covering the sharing of information between persons; regulations on cost recovery; regulations amending or repealing the Gun Barrel Proof Acts; consequential amendments to primary legislation; and regulations amending the definition of online marketplaces.

Does the Minister agree that online marketplaces should have a greater responsibility to ensure the safety and authenticity of the products they sell, just like a retailer on our high streets?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Labelling for UK-produced or manufactured products

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a voluntary labelling system to indicate when a product has been produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom.

(2) The label must be—

(a) displayed clearly on the front-facing packaging of applicable goods;

(b) standardised in appearance, including a nationally recognised symbol or wording indicating UK origin; and

(c) legible, visible and no smaller in font size than the unit price display or equivalent information on the product.

(3) A product qualifies for the label if—

(a) it is wholly or substantially produced, manufactured, grown or reared in the United Kingdom; and

(b) it meets any additional criteria as set out by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(4) The Secretary of State must consult food producers, retailers, consumer groups and relevant trade associations before setting the criteria for qualifying products and the design of the label.

(5) The Secretary of State must undertake a promotional campaign to ensure consumers are aware of the new labelling system.

(6) Regulations under this section must be made within 2 months of the passing of this Act.

(7) In this section—

“product” includes food, drink and manufactured goods available for retail sale;

“produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom” includes goods where the final significant production process occurred in the UK.”—(Sarah Olney.)

This new clause would require the Government to introduce a voluntary labelling system, clearly marking goods produced or manufactured in the UK, helping consumers make informed choices and supporting domestic producers.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

This Bill will help to preserve the United Kingdom’s position as a global leader in product regulation, supporting businesses, protecting consumers and ensuring a fair and level playing field across our economy, whether on the high street or on online marketplaces. It is designed to future-proof our approach to product regulation and metrology, ensuring that we can respond effectively to emerging technologies, tackle modern-day safety challenges and create the conditions for safe innovation and sustainable economic growth. By strengthening the system that underpins confidence in our goods market, we are reinforcing one of the core pillars of a productive and competitive economy.

As hon. Members will know, the majority of the UK’s product safety and metrology laws have their roots in EU legislation developed over the past 40 years. That framework served us well in many respects, but, of course, we have left the European Union, so we have a responsibility and an opportunity to tailor our rules to the UK’s own needs, circumstances and ambitions.

We have heard arguments today, as we did in Committee, that this measured Bill is some mysterious route back into the EU. Does the Minister agree that, far from discovering a Trojan horse, the Opposition are trying to flog a dead one and that their arguments have been made up on the hoof?

I give my hon. Friend 10 out of 10 for ingenuity. I have heard so many references to horses during the passage of the Bill that at times I felt I was at the Aintree racecourse. We can be clear that the Bill will not lead to dynamic alignment by default.

We have heard a lot of myths about the Bill. The other myth that has been parroted is that the Bill will see the end of the great British pint. Does the Minister agree that actually it secures the great British pint? I look forward to enjoying one with him in the next few months.

Indeed, the Bill does secure the great British pint; thanks to an amendment in the other place, it will hopefully be enshrined in law. I look forward to joining my hon. Friend in enjoying one at some point in the not-too-distant future.

The pace of change in both consumer behaviour and product innovation is only accelerating. From connected devices and artificial intelligence to new materials and manufacturing methods, the nature of risk and regulation is constantly shifting. We must ensure that our regulators are equipped with the right tools to act quickly and proportionately so that we can both manage and harness the hazards and the economic potential of new technologies. The Bill provides the powers to do just that. It gives Parliament the ability to update and strengthen product regulation and legal metrology in a coherent, consistent way.

Does the Minister agree that the Bill is instrumental in keeping the UK at the forefront of science internationally?

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—he has certainly got the measure of this Bill. [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] I will not give up the day job—and we will not have a Division on that, either.

This is a framework that supports businesses by reducing unnecessary burdens, supports consumers by keeping dangerous goods off the market and supports the UK economy by making our regulatory system more agile, more responsive and more transparent. In short, the Bill will help to ensure that every product on the UK market, whether made in the United Kingdom or imported from abroad, meets the expectations of safety, fairness and quality that the public rightly demand.

The Minister rightly points out that the Bill will allow for new regulations to come on board to keep us safe, but the safety element of that comes about through the enforcement of those new rules. Can he say a little about the conversations happening across Government to ensure that our enforcement agencies are properly resourced to enforce the new regulations that are so vital?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will be primarily responsible for enforcement at the local level, but the Bill also increases the powers of local trading standards to enforce measures.

The Bill affects the whole of the UK. We have worked closely and constructively with devolved Governments on policy development through regular engagement and throughout the Bill’s passage at both ministerial and official level. I therefore thank the devolved Governments, Ministers and their teams for working so constructively with us.

In Committee, we tabled an amendment that placed a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the devolved Governments where regulations contain provisions within their devolved competence. We believe that provides for the most effective and appropriate role for the devolved Governments in a way that respects the individual devolution settlements. I am pleased to report that the Senedd passed a legislative consent motion for the Bill yesterday. I have also had constructive discussions with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, and both have recommended legislative consent to their respective legislatures. We will continue to work collaboratively with those bodies to develop product regulation that best supports businesses and consumers across the whole of the UK.

I will provide a quick recap of some of the changes made to the Bill by the Government since it was introduced last year, in addition to the devolution amendment, because there has been some misconception about what the Bill does and does not do. We have added a statutory consultation mechanism to ensure that stakeholders can shape product and metrology regulations. We have extended the affirmative procedure to parts of the Bill to further boost parliamentary scrutiny; for the avoidance of doubt, they are detailed in clause 13(4). The affirmative procedure therefore now applies to: the creation of criminal offences; the first use of regulations covering online marketplaces; the first time duties are imposed on a new supply chain actor; regulations conferring powers of entry, search or inspection; regulations to disapply requirements in response to an emergency; regulations covering the sharing of information between persons; regulations on cost recovery, which I have already referred to in my response to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central; regulations amending or repealing the Gun Barrel Proof Acts; regulations on consequential amendments to primary legislation; and regulations amending the definition of online marketplaces. As Members will be aware from the responses on Report, there were a number of reasons that we want flexibility with regard to online marketplaces, which we believe will develop in ways that we cannot predict.

I can confirm that aviation safety products are exempted from the Bill as they are covered in existing legislation.

The Government have published a code of conduct that sets out the statutory and non-statutory guardrails to ensure that regulation made under this legislation is proportionate and well designed. It is also worth addressing the criticism that this is a skeletal Bill and pointing out that the proportion of skeletal Bills tripled in 2016-2023 compared with 1991-2015. Indeed, in the former period, some 19 separate Bills were described as skeletal by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

Does the Minister agree that, far from being a skeletal Bill, this legislation provides an adaptable framework for product regulation and consumer safety?

My hon. Friend is right; indeed, this goes well beyond the measures in place when we were in the EU when it comes to parliamentary involvement. I will briefly refer to contributions made by hon. Members during the passage of the Bill.

I thank my counterpart in the other place, Lord Leong, for shepherding the Bill through the Lords, with support from Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I also thank the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, who has been alongside us throughout the passage of this Bill in the Public Bill Committee. The hon. Members for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for Chippenham and for Richmond Park, who represented the Liberal Democrats in Committee and in the Chamber, are a trio that we will never forget. I hope that the short passage of this Bill is not a reflection of the high turnover in Liberal Democrat spokespeople—they have engaged with the Bill in a constructive manner.

I thank hon. Members who engaged in the Bill Committee and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz), who chaired that Committee with great expertise. It is probably worth mentioning my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central again. He has championed the ceramics industry both today and on Second Reading, and we recognise his great contributions.

Finally, I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), who, as the first elected metrologist to this House, has brought a deeply technical and knowledgeable perspective to our debates, which we all appreciate—although I do not think we could ever be asked to take a quiz on the finer details of his work.

On that point, could the Minister elaborate on how the Bill supports the advancement of British science?

I suspect that my hon. Friend would be far better at doing that himself. His speech on Second Reading was a fantastic example of how we explain legislation matters and practice. It is important that we have certainty and consistency in how we measure things and that we have a clear legislative framework for the measurements that underpins all science. He gave us a historical sweep of those issues when he spoke on Second Reading.

It is important for me to pass on my gratitude to all those officials who have supported us in the passage of the Bill, as well as the parliamentary staff who have enabled it to come through swiftly and smoothly. It will return to the other place for consideration of the amendments we have made in this place, and I am confident that—in the spirit of constructive scrutiny and co-operation that has characterised its progress so far—it will continue on its way. This legislation is an important step in strengthening our domestic regulatory regime and ensuring that it is robust, future-facing and fit for purpose in a post-Brexit economy. I look forward to working with colleagues in the other place to ensure that the Bill finally reaches the statute book as swiftly as possible.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Let me place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) and for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for their work in holding the Government to account on this Bill.

On Second Reading, I said that the Bill was the archetype of everything that is sometimes wrong with Westminster, but now, after months of debate in both Houses, I fear that it is even worse. In 2017, the now Prime Minister said that his party would respect the outcome of the referendum in which 17 million people voted to leave the European Union. Britain has now fallen victim to Labour’s EU surrender summit, giving up our fishing rights and our ability to make our own laws. I am happy to concede that this is no longer a Trojan horse of a surrender Bill, because it is now in plain sight. It is absurd that any Government would give up the power to shape our own regulations and meet the needs of our own consumers, electors and businesses. Those economies that will succeed in the future are those that are agile, that can adjust dynamically to events and that can tailor their own rulebook to their own particular needs.

While this Government’s track record is frankly disastrous, I still give them the benefit of the doubt when they say they wish for growth, but for the benefit of Labour Members—who I rather suspect have not read the detail of this Bill; they have been whipped into supporting it—let me spell out what it does. The dynamic alignment clauses in the Bill would mean that every time the EU tweaked its standards—shaped by the interests of 27 other states with their own different mix of businesses, often in competition with ours—Britain would have to follow suit. There would be no more bespoke trade deals around the world, as the Prime Minister and his team would be lame-duck negotiators, with the EU President holding the real strings. The Government boast of three trade deals in three weeks, but that is a hollow boast when not a single one is backed up by any detail. The Trade Secretary, who is noticeably absent today, is no doubt trying to make true what his Prime Minister has already announced. The Paymaster General confirmed to me in a written answer this afternoon that British businesses, exporters, travellers and tourists will not benefit from e-gates, as we were promised. Yet the Government, in all their naivety, are legislating to hand control of our product regulations back to Brussels.

At every stage of scrutiny, this Bill has been found wanting. The mild-mannered Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place delivered an uncharacteristically scathing rebuke, branding it a skeleton Bill that grotesquely shifts legislative power from Parliament to Ministers. It shackles British businesses, already bleeding out, to EU standards, stifling innovation. It is a solution in search of a problem, and under the Bill—under the measures being brought forward by the Government today—there is no room for the sort of robust scrutiny that we were sent here by our constituents to do, and no accountability. It is all in the hands of Ministers who keep breaking their promises.

Let us be clear: Labour’s pattern of broken promises does not just set Britain back; it erodes the trust that people have in politics. This House has a duty to restore faith in our democracy, to protect our hard-fought sovereignty and to say no to the overreach of blank-cheque ministerial powers, such as those in the Bill. This House must tonight reject the Bill, as we will seek to do, to stop the Government from forsaking Britain’s ability to carve and determine its own future.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby?