Dame Harriett Baldwin
MP for West Worcestershire · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I welcome the Chancellor to his new role. I paid close attention yesterday to the long speech he made to reset the narrative and drive growth Britain. In paying tribute to his predecessor, will he recognise that she left the highest tax burden on record? Instead of postponing the words he could utter to my hon.”
“I welcome the new Prime Minister to the Dispatch Box. I note that in his statement he referred to the biggest issues facing the country as being “the economy and the cost of living crisis”. Will he accept that one of the things that has damaged our economy and caused prices to be higher is the tax-and-spend Budget in November 2024?”
“Could the Leader of the House make a commitment that the new Chancellor of the Exchequer will come to the House on the first day we are back from recess?”
“With a stroke of his Whitehall pen, the Secretary of State has just abolished Malvern Hills district council, Worcester city council, wonderful Wychavon district council and Worcestershire county council. He said in his statement that this is about making “real improvements to people’s lives and…communities”.”
“In recent weeks in West Worcestershire, I have met local police and the police and crime commissioner; the police and crime commissioner is being abolished, and the police are being reorganised. I have met the local health commissioners; they are being reorganised, and Healthwatch is being abolished.”
“Will the Leader of the House confirm that, given that the other place is sitting next week, there is nothing to stop him tabling a business statement to enable this House to sit next week? Given the enormity of the events happening in the Government next week, does he not think that would be a good idea?”
The complete record
Every one of 3,832 lines we hold for Dame Harriett Baldwin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 77.
“As colleagues will be aware, dynamic alignment of product regulation effectively already applies in the Northern Ireland economy. An update to the Windsor framework was agreed in Parliament last year, with Government support, regarding the democratic oversight of the 2024 regulations. The Northern Ireland Assembly has the important democratic right to trigger the Stormont brake, with the assurance that no UK regulations are aligned with the European Union following that decision in Stormont. Will the Minister put on the record that, should a piece of regulation be highlighted by the Stormont brake, and we were in a pending period while the UK Government negotiated with the European Union about its application, it would not be imposed in Great Britain during that period?”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 5 is designed to obtain clarification on the record from the Minister about how Government new clause 1, which was agreed to earlier, will interact with the provisions in the Windsor framework to do with the Stormont brake. As hon. Members will be aware, if Northern Ireland Assembly Members initiate the procedure under regulation 11 of the Windsor Framework (Democratic Scrutiny) Regulations 2024 in relation to an EU law affecting product regulation or metrology, the Secretary of State must not take any steps to implement that law in Great Britain until the Secretary of State has taken a decision under part 3 of those regulations. The new clause would make the position clear.”
“I think I heard the Minister say that, were the Northern Ireland Assembly to pull the Stormont brake, the Secretary of State would potentially continue to apply EU regulation in GB under the powers in this Bill. If that is what I heard the Minister say—I think it is definitely what he said—it is important that I press the new clause to a Division. Question put , That the clause be read a Second time.”
“I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham for moving the new clause and giving the Committee the opportunity to hear from the Government on this issue. The matter was raised extensively during proceedings on the Bill in the other place, and in the evidence that the Committee has received from members of the public and important public bodies, including fire services across the UK. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister about the existing scope in UK law to regulate lithium-ion batteries, as well as the power that the Bill gives the Minister to address a product that all too often causes horrendous fires. Many of our constituents will have heard of or have been affected by this issue, so I look forward to hearing from him.”
“I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham for raising this incredibly important and wide-ranging issue. He touched on some of its growing importance in the UK, where consumers are buying more and more products online. The hon. Gentleman brings his valuable expertise from the toy and hobby sector to the discussion. Above all, we would be particularly concerned if harmful toys were to find their way to consumers, and indeed they do. Some 80% of the toys purchased from online marketplaces that were tested by the British Toy & Hobby Association were found to be illegal due to missing warning signs. As this issue has been included in the Bill, I know that the Government intend to use this legislation to deal with it. From the many speeches made on Second Reading, I know that this subject exercises colleagues across the House.”
“On Tuesday, on multiple occasions I made the point about how widely the Bill is drawn in terms of the bodies responsible for enforcement. I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Member for Wokingham’s points about a trading standards enforcement review, which we think would be an important part of the ongoing scrutiny of the Bill’s impact, so we are minded to support the new clause.”
“On a point of order, Ms Vaz. I am grateful for the opportunity to thank you for chairing, and Sir John for chairing Tuesday’s morning sitting. I thank the Committee members, particularly the Minister and his officials for their engagement on the important issues that have been raised, and I thank my colleagues. In order to get her name into Hansard , I thank Eleanor Munro from my office, who has been heroic in supporting me during the deliberations. I look forward to continuing our discussions on Report. I also thank the Clerks.”
“Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out subsection (1). This amendment seeks to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State under product regulations, when defining and regulating risks and determining what constitutes efficient or effective product operation.”
“I am sure that the noble Lord is right: there will be further deliberation…and hopefully”— that is the important point— “we will get it to a better place.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2025; Vol. 844, c. 714.] That is a green light from the Government spokesman in the other place for this Committee to do its job. I urge the Committee to accept our amendments to clause 1.”
“The Attorney General said in his recent Bingham lecture on the rule of law that Henry VIII powers such as we see in this legislation are a strike at the rule of law—that skeleton legislation or delegated legislation “not only strikes at the rule of law…but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty.” I see that you are listening intently, Sir John. I want to re-emphasise why I think the powers are inappropriately drawn. Despite some movement in the other place, the Secretary of State is left with powers that are far too wide-ranging. On Third Reading in the other place, Lord Leong, speaking for the Government, said: “We have taken the Bill from its early state to where it is today, and obviously it will now go to the other place.”
“When in opposition, he stated clearly that they carry a risk of abuse by the Executive and were not something that the Opposition could ever support. In 2018, the Secretary of State said: “We must bear in mind that the use of delegated powers carries a risk of abuse by the Executive, which is not something the Opposition could ever support. Rather, it is our duty at this stage to check the powers of the Executive and ensure that we are not giving them carte blanche to change the balance of power permanently in their favour.” –– [ Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2018; c. 305.] It is not just the Secretary of State who feels strongly about this issue.”
“To summarise the concerns about delegated powers, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated that: “A delegated power is needed in order to ensure that the Secretary of State is able to respond swiftly to any new risks and hazards that might arise in this area—” I am sure we will mention that again when we move on to clause 4— “as well as ensuring continuity across the United Kingdom internal market. This will include an ability to maintain continuity with relevant EU law where it is deemed appropriate and, in the United Kingdom’s best interests to do so, but also the ability to make different provision to the EU.” We will talk about that in more detail when we discuss clause 2. It is worth highlighting to the Committee that the Secretary of State himself is not a fan of delegated powers.”
“The Conservatives accept that there is a need to reduce and mitigate the risks presented by products that make their way into the UK marketplace. There is obviously an important role in ensuring that products operate efficiently and effectively, and that products designed for weighing or measuring operate accurately. However, we are startled by the extent of the powers provided to the Secretary State in clause 1, particularly in the subsections that we propose to amend. The Secretary of State’s powers are startling, as will be shown in the Committee’s line-by-line scrutiny of the clause.”
“In short, we are concerned that the legislation would give enormous powers to a future Secretary of State who might not be as benign as the one we have now. We need only to look across the Atlantic to see how President Trump was able to use Executive powers to move away from paper straws to plastic straws at the sweep of his signature. I am sure that Labour Members are extremely concerned about giving enormous delegated powers to the Executive, so will want to support our amendments to clause 1. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee not only had concerns about clause 1, as we will discuss in due course, but also raised concerns about clauses 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9, which I am sure we will discuss at length. It is extraordinary how much power is being taken by the Executive in this legislation.”
“The previous Government extended the recognition of the CE—conformité Européenne—marking, with which people are familiar and which shows that a product has met product regulation requirements in the EU. What plans do the Minister and his Department have for extending recognition of the very high standards that apply in the UKCA marking scheme? What are the Government’s plans for when the operation of clause 1 leads to a difference in standards and labelling for particular products? In the evidence the Committee received, the example of tumble dryers was highlighted. A tumble dryer is likely to be subject to different labelling requirements in different parts of the UK, with the requirements in Northern Ireland being different from those in Great Britain.”
“At the same time, although it may come as a surprise to some people, there are other countries in the world, and they also put in place product regulations. Some may have higher standards than us, and some may have lower standards. We can all agree that we want product regulation to be not only of the very best quality for the UK consumer, but consistent across our United Kingdom. The evidence to the Committee also highlights the need to look at the issue of fulfilment centres, on which it will be interesting to hear from the Minister. It is also the case that we have our own accreditation: the UKCA—UK conformity assessed—marking. Many businesses in the UK have taken extensive and expensive steps to apply for that accreditation.”
“Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State extraordinary powers. I put on the record that the Secretary of State is a man of benign disposition. We can all see that many dangerous products find their way into the UK and to UK consumers’ homes, either through online marketplaces or through other means, and that a prudent and benign Government would need to introduce regulations to address that. The evidence that has been supplied to the Committee cites alarming cases of lithium-ion batteries, and regulations need take into account how dangerous those products can sometimes be. We are all aware of some of the challenges with online marketplaces where products that are illegal in the UK find their way to the UK market and UK consumers.”
“Nevertheless, we heard again from the Committee on 21 February, when it welcomed the amendments the Government had tabled to introduce a requirement for consultation and narrow some of the delegated powers, but stated: “The Government has not taken the opportunity to add flesh to the bones of this skeleton Bill.” The Committee in the other place remained of the view that “the delegation to Ministers of law-making powers in this Bill involves legislative power shifting to an unacceptable extent from the legislature to the Executive” and that “the Government has failed to provide a convincing justification for the inclusion of skeleton clauses in this Bill that give Ministers such wide powers to re-write in regulations the substance of the regulatory regimes for products and metrology.” The Committee added that regulations made under the Bill should “in all cases” be subject to “affirmative procedure scrutiny”, meaning the regulations would require active approval by both Houses.”
“The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place looked closely at the Bill and concluded that the delegated powers in clause 1—we will come to the other clauses later—are inappropriate and should be removed from the Bill. I am sure Members will agree that that is quite a strong statement. In response to the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Government shifted somewhat. They acknowledged that Committee’s concerns and accepted that more detail could have been included in the delegated powers memorandum.”
“What a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir John, and for the duration of this Bill Committee. I am shall start by indulging the Committee with a little bit of background on the reasons behind the amendments in this group. As colleagues will have noted, the Bill gives sweeping powers to the Secretary of State to change regulations through delegated legislation. It is what everyone would describe as a skeleton Bill—and those are not just my words. In clause 1, which we seek to amend, the sweeping powers given to the Secretary of State are quite extraordinary. It is not just the Opposition who have pointed that out.”
“The Minister refers to the Government’s decision to pursue so many skeleton powers in the Bill, and says the Secretary of State now disagrees with what he said back in 2018. Can the Minister elaborate on what has happened in the real world to cause the Secretary of State to have such a damascene conversion?”
“I listened carefully to the Minister. If I heard him correctly, he basically said that these kinds of skeleton Bills exist, and therefore, despite the objections of his Secretary of State in the last Parliament, he will persist in supporting legislation that continues this practice, which has been so soundly described in the other place as unacceptable in our democracy. The Opposition believe the principle is so important that we will press our amendment to a Division.”
“I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (2). This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations about the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom which corresponds, or is similar to, a provision of relevant EU law for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products.”
“I am sure all parliamentarians agree that product regulation ought to be considered at the parliamentary level on a case-by-case basis.”
“That is not even a hunch, as it is spelled out by the Department for Business and Trade in the impact assessment, which states that the Bill will: “Ensure that the law can be updated to enable recognition of new or updated EU product requirements.” It is spelled out, which is why we have also tabled amendment 4 to leave out clauses 2(7) and (8), and amendment 21 to add proposed new subsection (7A): “Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (7)(a), a product requirement of relevant EU law must not be treated as met unless regulations are made by the Secretary of State to incorporate them into United Kingdom law.” Amendment 5 would insert proposed new subsection (10): “The provision described in subsection (7) may only be made if— (a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a statement explaining the necessity of aligning with relevant EU law, and (b) the updated provision had been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.” Without those important provisions, we would be handing the Executive the most extraordinary ability to allow a foreign power to legislate this country’s product regulations.”
“Through this legislation, the Secretary of State will be given the power, for environmental and many other issues, to sign up to the rule of EU law on product regulation in this country without any further primary legislation. We have real concerns that the Bill could effectively be used to facilitate dynamic alignment.”
“We tabled our amendments to clauses 1 and 2 because we can see both what the Secretary of State intends and the purpose of the huge powers he is taking under clause 1. Amendment 3 seeks to remove clause 1(2), which states: “The Secretary of State…in relation to the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom” can make provision “which corresponds, or is similar, to a provision of relevant EU law for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products.” That is an extraordinarily wide power. We seek to delete subsection (2) because it is clear that the Bill is effectively planned to be used as a Trojan horse. It will be a surrender Bill, ahead of the surrender summit next week.”
“I think that the voters of Knowsley, of Birmingham Northfield and of Worsley and Eccles will want to know how their Secretary of State used the powers in this Trojan horse surrender legislation. They will want to know what the impact has been, as judged by experts such as economists and by people who really know their trade.”
“We did not hear anything from the Minister to reassure the Committee on the fundamental points that we have been making throughout the debate. The Bill gives unfettered powers to the Secretary of State, and it is openly acknowledged, both in the Bill and in the impact assessment, that the powers could be used to dynamically align us to EU regulation. We have tried to be constructive by tabling a range of amendments that would give a more prominent role to parliamentary scrutiny and would give the legislature significant oversight of how the Secretary of State uses the powers. The hon. Member for Chippenham also tabled an amendment that would enable the sharing of further information with voters at the next election.”
“It is accepted in the impact statement that that is one potential use of the powers, but if the Minister believes that, he will want to support our amendments in this group. Sir John, I understand that because amendment 14 fell, we were unable to divide on subsequent amendments in the first group. In this group, however, I believe that we can divide the Committee on more of the amendments individually. I seek your guidance on how many amendments in this group we can divide the Committee on.”
“The Government are very good at saying the word growth, but they have so far signally failed to deliver it. The amendment will ensure that, when exercising the powers in the Bill, economic growth truly is the first priority, as the Government so often claim it is.”
“The Committee will see immediately that the purpose of the amendment is to be incredibly helpful to the Government in their growth mission. How different the spirit of the amendment is from the spirit of the Bill! The Bill effectively outsources product regulation to a different Parliament; the amendment would ensure that the regulations made under the Bill prioritise economic growth and the United Kingdom’s role in innovation and economic expansion. Throughout our history, the UK’s innovative spirit has increased our prosperity and growth as a nation. Key innovations that became accepted around the world led to greater prosperity for our fellow citizens, so what could be more important than for the Committee to agree to the amendment?”
“I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 1, page 1, line 21, at end insert— “(4A) The Secretary of State must also by regulations make provision aimed at promoting investment, fostering innovation, and encouraging economic growth in relation to the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom. (4B) Regulations under subsection (4A) must support— (a) the creation of economic incentives for businesses that contribute to economic growth, and (b) the alignment of product regulations with the strategic aim of positioning the United Kingdom as a global leader in innovation.” This amendment ensures that the regulations in the Bill prioritise economic growth and the United Kingdom’s role in innovation and economic expansion.”
“We are trying here to be helpful to the Government and to prevent that kind of behaviour, where the incumbent tries to get the regulations to work in its favour so that its competition cannot come in, compete against it and help the economy to grow through that process of creative destruction that is so often an important part of economic progress. That is why we have tabled this important amendment. I suggest that the best way for the Government to show their passion for growth—they are clinging to a few recent statistics, but I am afraid that their track record since July is a woeful one, and the forecasts have all been halved by the major forecasters—would be by supporting the amendment. That is why I would seek to divide the Committee on amendment 17. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“Well, Sir John, I do have a very noisy fridge, but I am not sure it is helping me to order the milk. The crucial thing about amendment 17 is that it focuses on innovation. I appreciate that the Government Benches are not necessarily always as heavily weighted with those who have run or developed businesses themselves as ours are, but the Minister should recognise that businesses with a good market share are often able to entrench their version of a product into regulations. That prevents innovators from joining the market, because the regulations were put in place to favour those businesses’ approach. That is why the regulations proposed in clause 1 are so important, but also why it is so worrying that the powers that the Secretary of State is taking through this skeleton Bill are so extensive.”
“These exemptions are worth highlighting on the record because, in the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, we should appreciate that questions about food, phytosanitary products, medicines, military equipment and radio spectrum products are incredibly important, particularly in relation to trade agreements. When we discuss some of the clauses as part of the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, those things must be separately considered. It is notable that some of those product lines were ones that were not affected by tariffs when—and I quote —“liberation day” in the United States was announced. It is very important that there is clarity in the legislation. We have not tabled any amendments to the schedule, but it is worth highlighting that what we have been talking about today does not cover those product lines.”
“It is important to highlight the excluded products in the schedule. The powers that the Committee has just agreed to give to the Secretary of State will not cover food, plants, animal by-products, products of animal origin, aircraft, components of aircraft and radio equipment. Importantly, “unmanned aircraft designed or intended…for use in play by children under 14 years old” are not excluded. My eight-year-old grandson was given one of those for his birthday; I am reassured by the fact that, under the schedule, his little radio-controlled aircraft will be something that can be regulated. There are also some exemptions for military equipment and, furthermore, medicines and medical devices.”
“I seek your guidance, Sir John, as there were a number of amendments that pertained to clause 2 in the first few groupings on which the Committee could divide. Should we do that now?”
“Surely we want this Parliament to define the standards by which products around the world are recognised. There should be mutual recognition of the other high-quality jurisdictions—such as Canada, Australia, the United States and the countries in the Pacific—to supplement the recognition that the Secretary of State seems minded to give exclusively to the European Union.”
“Amendment 22 would require the Secretary of State to justify decisions through an explanatory statement, to limit any reference to the laws of one specific territory and prevent the provision of regulations for dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws. By tabling these helpful amendments, we have given the Government a golden opportunity to show that they are not using this Trojan horse Bill to covertly, and without the express will of Parliament, dynamically align for evermore with EU regulations. They would open up the UK as a global trading nation to mutual recognition around the world. We have our very own certification—UK conformity assessed—which I urge the Government to seek to get recognised in all the trade agreements they sign up to.”
“It is right that we do not give a blank cheque to the EU—or, if amendment 20 is accepted, to foreign countries—by allowing them to diverge on regulations while British businesses and consumers get taken along for the ride. We should be making our own laws that prioritise growth and innovation and that champion businesses here in the UK, thereby giving them the ability to set the standard and the bar and to thrive on the global stage. Only we in this Parliament should be in charge of those decisions; foreign courts should not opine on them. Amendment 6 would allow for flexibility if foreign laws changed, which would allow for a reassessment of their compatibility with the UK market.”
“Amendment 6 would add to clause 2 new subsection (7A), which says: “Any regulations under subsection (7) which specify a relevant foreign law must specify that the foreign law referred to is that which is in application on a particular date, which must be specified.” That would prevent the Bill from enabling ambulatory references or dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws, and would enable alignment with laws only as they stand on the particular date the Secretary of State decides to use his copious powers under clause 1. That would mean that if regulation changes, Ministers would rightly have to look again and decide whether to maintain alignment.”
“Any argument for permitting EU standards should also be one for permitting safe international standards from our other partners. That is unless the actual purpose of the Bill is solely to enable dynamic EU alignment—indeed, EU alignment is mentioned clearly in the impact assessment—while preventing alternatives that could benefit British businesses and, importantly, British consumers, who are our constituents. If the Government do not intend to dynamically align us with the European Union on product regulation, they have every reason to accept amendment 20 and make that clear.”
“We would like to see the Bill enable a discussion whereby we liberalise trade between our countries but also mutually recognise product regulation. We also have a significant trade agreement, the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, which covers our great trading relationship with friends as far away geographically but as close emotionally as those in Australia and other countries around the Pacific. I am sure that Australia has a system to mutually recognise product safety regimes in important trade agreements, to allow global trade with the confidence that high-quality products are reaching the marketplace. There is absolutely no reason for the Government to oppose the amendments, unless they truly are uniquely fixated on the EU as a product regulator.”
“Although we have an incredibly important and valuable trading relationship with our friends and neighbours in the European Union, and a very good zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with them, we also have a range of agreements with other countries that facilitate the international trade of products. Amendment 20 would expand the scope of the powers that the Committee agreed to give to the Secretary of State under clause 1 to cover foreign countries with which we have a close trading relationship. For example, we have a close trading relationship with the United States; indeed, we are each other’s single biggest investor and it is the biggest single country with which we have a trading relationship.”
“It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. We start by discussing some of the amendments we have tabled to clause 2. In this morning’s sitting we had a thorough discussion of the issues relating to clause 1, and we also discussed some amendments to clause 2. I hope, Ms Vaz, that you will allow the Committee to consider each measure separately. Essentially, amendments 20, 6 and 22 would allow for product regulations to be defined by relation to the laws of a wide range of foreign countries rather than just the European Union.”
“By not accepting the amendments, I am afraid the Minister compels me to test the will of the Committee not only on these amendments but on amendments 21, 5 and 7, which we discussed in the previous group. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“I would like to respond before I divide the Committee on this amendment. I seek your advice, Ms Vaz. The previous group contained amendments 21, 5 and 7, which relate to clause 2, and we may also want to get the Committee’s point of view on them. The Minister’s reluctance to make this innocuous change to the Bill speaks volumes. I am not the only one who thinks that: the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said in paragraph 4 of its 15th report that it is “deeply concerned” that “the delegated powers in the Bill give Ministers maximum flexibility to choose the direction that the law in this area will take, including making potentially politically contentious choices about the degree to which our domestic laws on product regulation should be aligned with EU laws”.”
“It will not surprise the Committee to hear that, because our very sensible amendments to clause 2 have been rejected, we continue to have significant concerns about it and the extraordinary powers it confers on the Minister. In particular, subsection (7), which we tried to amend, will allow product regulations to provide that a “product requirement is to be treated as met if— (a) a requirement of relevant EU law specified in product regulations is met, or (b) such a requirement is met and conditions specified in the regulations are also met.” Because of our concerns about those provisions, and because the Committee took the view that it did not want to accept our sensible amendments, I will divide the Committee on clause 2 stand part.”