Justin Madders
MP for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough · Labour · United Kingdom
“Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard asked about, will consider the points raised in this debate and whether any of them can be put into future updates to guidance. As was mentioned, good passenger information is central to standards.”
“As the roads Minister, I of course recognise the importance of bus stops and the important effect they have on the streetscape. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard made clear that she is passionate and informed about the importance of bus journeys to everyone.”
“Where responsibility for highways or individual assets sits elsewhere, close and effective working between the relevant authorities is essential. We expect local plans to join up services, infrastructure and passenger information, rather than treating them as separate issues. That will no doubt be music to the ears of my hon.”
“Our guidance encourages authorities to take a strategic approach to stops and interchanges, including keeping an inventory of infrastructure, identifying priorities for investment and setting locally appropriate standards for facilities and maintenance.”
“She is absolutely right that the quality of a bus stop is about more than accessibility, although of course accessibility is vital. Passengers notice whether a stop is easy to find and use, whether it offers shelter or seating where appropriate, whether it is clean, whether the surroundings feel safe and well maintained and, as we have di…”
“That approach reflects a simple principle: local transport authorities know their areas and are best placed to plan improvements across the whole local bus network. That is why the Department’s vision for buses, within an integrated transport system, puts local transport authorities at the centre of delivery.”
The complete record
Every one of 8,481 lines we hold for Justin Madders, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 170.
“The shadow Minister questioned the Prime Minister’s commitment to Northern Ireland, and I would remind her that he was in fact Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland for a number of years before his election to this place. If the new clause were accepted and the Stormont brake were triggered by the Assembly on a particular EU regulation, it would delay the Government from providing certainty on the regulatory approach that we might take and it would cut across the devolution settlement, none of which is the intention of the Bill. The Stormont brake is about EU regulations, but this new clause would prevent UK Ministers from legislating on our own rules, which I am sure is not the shadow Minister’s intention. It is also worth saying that the new clause, as drafted, is inoperable.”
“As Opposition Members have articulated, the new clause would provide for a delay to the Secretary of State’s implementation of regulatory changes in Great Britain where Northern Ireland Assembly Members provide notification of triggering the Stormont brake on similar regulatory changes in Northern Ireland. That delay would persist until the Government make a determination on that notification. I am sorry that Opposition Members feel that the Windsor framework is not up to scratch any more, but we take our responsibilities under it extremely seriously. The Bill does not alter or restrict the Windsor framework scrutiny mechanisms given to the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
“Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton described the Bill as “convoluted,” yet earlier she described it as “skeletal.” I hope she eventually decides her position on the Bill. She seems to be suggesting that we should not legislate at all in this area. The idea of having no legal structure for product safety and metrology is, I think, very dangerous. It is important to protect consumers and to ensure a level playing field for businesses, both of which we are doing with this Bill.”
“That will ensure that SMEs and other stakeholders are involved, at an early stage, in helping to shape any regulations. The Government already provide online guidance to help businesses understand new and existing legal requirements, and any actions that they must take. Ministerial colleagues, my officials and I regularly meet businesses. Hearing from them directly is vital to make sure that our regulations protect consumers and support growth. I have outlined how the intent of new clause 6 is already being met, and we will continue to work closely with SMEs as they are of course a crucial part of the economy. I respectfully suggest that the new clause be withdrawn. The hon.”
“I thank Committee members for their contributions on this group of amendments. The Government are committed to supporting businesses and growing the economy. New clause 6 would specify that 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 the Bill. I say to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham, that I welcome the intent behind the amendment. It is vital that businesses, particularly SMEs, understand and have good notice of any new legal requirements, to allow them to take timely action. In the other place, the Government introduced a statutory duty to consult before making regulations.”
“The better regulation framework is a system that the Government use to manage the flow of regulation and understand its impacts. These assessments will, of course, include the impact of regulations on SMEs as well as other businesses. We will continue to engage with stakeholders, including SMEs, on any new regulations made under the Bill. As product development continues to evolve, this ongoing approach is likely to be more impactful than any one-off review, as suggested by new clause 7. I hope that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham, is sufficiently reassured by what I have said to withdraw new clause 6. I also hope he will accept our assurance that we will continue to engage on these important matters as we move forward.”
“Of course, that is exactly what we are doing with the requirement to consult as part of the amendments agreed in the other place. New clause 7 would require a review of the accessibility and affordability of independent product testing and certification for SMEs under the Bill. As I have outlined, the Government already consider the impact of new regulations on relevant stakeholders, including SMEs. We outlined how we will do that in the recently published code of conduct, to which we have referred on several occasions. The code of conduct details the requirements that the Secretary of State must undertake to ensure that the impacts of any changes are properly considered and reported, including by developing appropriate impact assessments.”
“It is important to note that one of the reasons why we cannot accept the new clause is that product liability extends beyond products in scope of the Bill—for example, it covers food and medical devices—so an alternative legislative vehicle may be more appropriate for making updates in this area. I can confirm to the Committee that we have asked the Law Commission to conduct a full and comprehensive review of product liability legislation and make suggestions for reform. We expect the commission to report back next year, and we will legislate if necessary to ensure that product liability laws are up to date and fit for the future. I hope that reassures hon. Members that we are alive to this issue and actively taking steps to ensure that when we update legislation, we consider the myriad developments in the world.”
“I recognise the important points made by hon. Members in this debate. This issue is being actively considered. Liability for damage caused by defective products is an important area of law, and we agree that there is scope for improvements to the legislation—or modernisation, if we want to describe it in that way—but they need to be made in a considered way. As hon. Members have said, technological advancements and the development of new supply chains since the passage of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 indicate the breadth of change since our liability regime was last updated. We therefore need to carefully consider the range and types of products that should now be in scope of liability claims, as well as who should be liable.”
“We will continue to work closely with all stakeholders—from industry to fire services, and from standards bodies to consumer groups—to develop solutions that are effective, evidence-based and proportionate. We understand the urgency of the issue. I have met victims of lithium-ion battery fires, and they understand that we are doing everything we can to get the measures on the statute book so that we can develop regulations to prevent such tragedies from happening again. It is important that we recognise new dangers and act to protect the public. I hope the hon. Gentleman is reassured that we will take action and are doing what we can at this stage.”
“At this stage, we are actively exploring what regulatory changes might make the greatest difference on lithium-ion batteries. To support that, the Department commissioned research from the Warwick Manufacturing Group to deepen our understanding of the risks posed by these batteries, including issues of compatibility, design and failure patterns. This research has now been published—I am happy to provide a copy to the hon. Member for Wokingham if he wishes to see it—and will help us to identify where interventions are most needed through regulatory standards, clearer compliance pathways or improved consumer guidance. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to tackling the safety challenges associated with lithium-ion batteries.”
“The Bill has been drafted to provide those powers across a wide range of product categories, including lithium-ion battery products. While I fully recognise the concerns raised about batteries, the Bill does not and should not single out individual product types. To do so would risk narrowing its scope and limiting our ability to act effectively across the product landscape, including when new products are introduced. I think we all understand how technologies are evolving and that we need broad powers to keep up to date. A requirement to report in three months would cause some challenges for timelines. There is normally a 12-week period for Government consultations, and that would obviously not fit into the three months suggested by the new clause.”
“In one notable case, the OPSS issued 26 withdrawal notices relating to two dangerous e-bike battery models manufactured overseas by Unit Pack Power. Those batteries had been linked to incidents investigated by fire and rescue services, and action was taken to halt their sale across eight online marketplaces, as well as against two manufacturers and 16 individual sellers. However, we recognise that enforcement alone is not enough. Regulatory reform is needed to ensure that harmful products are stopped at the border or prevented from entering the market in the first place. At the same time, we must avoid placing disproportionate burdens on responsible businesses. Regulation must be effective, proportionate and targeted. This will protect the public without stifling innovation or fair competition.”
“Alongside regulatory oversight, we have engaged directly with UK businesses to help them to comply with existing safety regulations. We want to ensure that good businesses who act responsibly are not undercut by unscrupulous traders who place unsafe products on the UK market. We have also built strong relationships with fire and rescue services, which are often the first to see the consequences of battery failures in the home or in public spaces. Their expertise and intelligence-gathering skills have been instrumental in helping us to identify high-risk products and take appropriate enforcement action. Since 2022, these efforts have resulted in 20 product recalls and 22 enforcement actions targeting unsafe or non-compliant e-bikes and e-scooters.”
“It is right that hon. Members have raised this matter, which is one of the primary drivers behind the Bill. We recognise that the safety of products containing lithium-ion batteries is an increasingly pressing issue, and I welcome the opportunity to speak about what the Government are doing. We are fully aware of the risks that are posed, particularly by products such as e-bikes and e-scooters, and we have already taken meaningful steps to protect consumers and uphold product safety standards. The Office for Product Safety and Standards has worked closely with colleagues across Government, industry partners and technical experts to identify the root causes of the safety issues that we are seeing. That includes addressing faulty design, poor manufacturing standards and issues with battery compatibility and charging systems.”
“Member for Wokingham that our intent is to introduce, at the earliest opportunity, new regulations on online marketplaces that are proportionate and future-proof and that prioritise consumer safety. The regulations will of course be informed by public consultation and subject to the affirmative procedure. I am happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss this issue further, because there is an important role moving forward. I am happy to engage with Members in all parts of the House to ensure that we get it right. In the meantime, I ask him to withdraw his new clause.”
“The new clause, however, would require the introduction of its specified obligations irrespective of the outcome of any consultation or impact assessment, and of consideration of whether that would be proportionate or effective across the range of online marketplace models. We expect the diversity and market share of e-commerce to continue to grow, and the ways that UK consumers purchase products to evolve in ways that we are not yet able to predict. It is therefore important that the product safety legal framework remains flexible, so that it can adapt to future changes while remaining proportionate for different business models. I am afraid that the new clause would significantly hinder that flexibility by mandating that online marketplaces’ duties must include requirements relating to those in the new clause. I assure the hon.”
“We intend to introduce requirements that build on best practice to create a proportionate regulatory framework where online marketplaces: take steps to prevent unsafe products from being made available to consumers; ensure that sellers operating on their platform comply with product safety obligations; provide relevant information to consumers; and co-operate closely with regulators. The framework will also include, if necessary, powers to deal with stolen or counterfeit products, as the hon. Member for Wokingham mentioned. The Bill provides the opportunity to develop requirements following consultation—as required by clause 12(6)—stakeholder engagement, impact assessments and consideration of the practical implications, including whether requirements should be tailored to specific business activities to ensure proportionality.”
“I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham for moving the new clause, which would require the Secretary of State to introduce a list of duties on online marketplaces and to make a statement within three months of Royal Assent. As Members have recognised throughout the debate, online marketplaces now play a significant role in the supply chain and must be explicitly recognised in the product safety regulatory framework. We all recognise that they provide consumers with greater choice and convenience, but of course that cannot come at the cost of compromised consumer safety and of disadvantaging compliant businesses, so I recognise and share the new clause’s intent. However, some of the requirements in the new clause are of the type that the Government are developing for consultation and will thereafter introduce using the Bill’s powers.”
“This legislation is not the right vehicle for a review because it is singly focused on product regulation, whereas local consumer protection is a much broader policy area. I invite the hon. Member for Wokingham to withdraw his new clause.”
“Clause 8 enables the implementation of cost-recovery powers for relevant authorities, and the Office for Product Safety and Standards, in its role as national regulator, supports local authority enforcement teams with training, access to experts, direct support on cases and ringfenced funding for specific projects. The regulator has a dedicated function in respect of communication with local authorities and takes its role extremely seriously. It will provide support on nationally significant cases if local authorities are faced with unco-operative businesses, be they existing supply chain actors or new ones. [ Interruption. ] Was that a request for an intervention? Perhaps it was agreement. Local authority enforcement is a much broader area of consumer protection than product regulation, which is of course the scope of the Bill.”
“I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham for moving his new clause, although he is pushing his luck asking for another meeting straight off the back of his previous speech. We absolutely recognise the crucialness of the enforcement work done by local authorities. It has become clear that the existing framework of layered, complex legislation is part of the problem—part of the drain on resources—and one of the reasons why the Bill is necessary. The selective implementation of new tools such as civil monetary penalties should further assist in providing more proportionate routes for enforcement authorities to use their enforcement activities, which the Bill addresses.”
“On a point of order, Ms Vaz. As we are at the end of our deliberations in Committee, I thank you and Sir John for your exemplary chairing. We have finished in good time, but we have had extensive debate on a number of matters pertaining to the Bill. I thank the Clerks and the officials from the Department who have helped proceedings to go smoothly. I thank all Committee members for taking part in deliberations—no doubt we will hear from some of them again on Report.”
“That work will include careful consideration of paid carer’s leave, and again, work is under way. Officials in my Department have spoken to over 70 employers, third sector organisations and charities such as Carers UK. There have been events in Wales, England and Scotland, and that engagement will continue as the review progresses, alongside both qualitative and quantitative research.”
“It is certainly something that the Department will be advised of following this debate. Employees caring for someone who is disabled, elderly or living with a long-term health condition are entitled to carer’s leave, which can be taken flexibly in half or whole days, or in one go, over the course of a year. Thanks to the hon. Member for North East Fife, the Carer’s Leave Act has now been in force for just over a year. It is still bedding in, and our plan to make work pay includes a commitment to review its implementation. To deliver that commitment, the post-implementation review of the Act is now under way. We have also outlined our commitment to explore the potential benefits of further policy development to support unpaid carers in employment, while being mindful of the impact on business.”
“That means carers can now earn up to £10,000 a year while retaining their carer’s allowance, which can be worth around an additional £2,000 a year. As a result, more than 60,000 additional people will be able to receive carer’s allowance between this year and 2029-30. Several hon. Members referred to the difficulties their constituents have had after receiving an overpayment, and it is fair to say that issue has been recognised by the Department for Work and Pensions. We understand the anxiety it causes, which is why it is important that we independently review what has happened and find out what went wrong to make sure that things are put right. We urge anyone in receipt of carer’s allowance to inform the Department of any change in their circumstances so that overpayments can be reviewed.”
“Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) spoke very movingly about his constituent Sarah. I do not think her experience is unique, and we all recognise that there are people like Sarah in every constituency and every part of this country. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned carer’s allowance, and I will pull up the shadow Minister on what he said about the increase in carer’s allowance, as it actually came into effect on 7 April 2025. This Government increased the earnings limit from £151 a week to £196 a week, so it is equivalent to 16 hours a week at the national living wage. It is the largest ever increase in the earnings limit since carer’s allowance was introduced back in 1976, and the highest increase in percentage terms since 2001.”
“Just half of adult carers are in work, and a quarter are economically inactive. The hon. Lady mentioned the Centre for Care’s research report, which I will certainly look at. We have heard about a considerable number of challenges today, which demonstrates why it is essential that we think about how we support carers to balance those responsibilities alongside other aspects of their life, including, of course, work. The hon. Lady recognised that we are improving access to flexible working through our landmark Employment Rights Bill. We believe that will help people to balance their work and other responsibilities, including their family life, such as where an individual is working alongside delivering care to a loved one inside or outside the home. The hon.”
“Member’s analysis that her Act, while an important step forward, is not a panacea for all the issues that carers face. A number of hon. Members have emphasised that point. I start by recognising the dedication and compassion of carers across the country. It is important to recognise their contribution to society, both in their working life and as carers, but we also need to consider the support they need to navigate their dual responsibilities. I join the hon. Member in paying tribute to the support groups available to carers. Their role is often understated, but that wider network has a very important part to play for carers. As we have heard, carers all too often end up stopping work altogether, or they reduce their hours to manage their caring responsibilities.”
“I will do my best, Mr Stringer. No doubt the tension of knowing there might be an interruption will add to the excitement of my comments. It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I declare an interest as a foster carer. We are not specifically talking about foster care, but it is part of the wider ambit of care. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing today’s debate and on her very long-standing and successful advocacy for unpaid carers. We all recognise the key role she played in establishing the unpaid carer’s entitlement through her sponsorship of the Carer’s Leave Act 2023. It is right that we take time to discuss the support available to unpaid carers who provide care to a family member, partner or friend alongside paid work. I accept the hon.”
“We all agree that unpaid carers deserve our recognition and support, and I am glad to see Members coming together to express that. I once again thank the hon. Member for securing this debate, and I am sure we will continue this discussion.”
“Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke with his customary sincerity—I do not say that just because he was pleasant about me—and conveyed the importance of carers in his constituency and across Northern Ireland. I commit to speaking to my counterpart in the Northern Ireland Executive about some of the points he raised. I am conscious that there may be Divisions shortly and that I need to give the hon. Member for North East Fife an opportunity to respond, so I conclude by saying that we have heard the case that Members have made about the importance of supporting carers and their need to balance paid work against their caring responsibilities. All the issues raised are being considered in the Department’s ongoing work. I genuinely value the heartfelt and constructive discussion we have had this afternoon.”
“We are working with advocacy groups such as Carers UK and the Centre for Care, and we are working across Government to provide a coherent approach. There is now a ministerial working group on unpaid carers, involving the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education, and it is discussing a cross-governmental approach. Turning to the broader dimensions of the debate, the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) spoke with great sincerity about the issues faced by his constituents. The themes that he picked out in relation to his constituents, and to Wales more broadly, about awareness of those rights and whether people can afford to exercise them, were important and are replicated across the UK. The hon.”
“The hon. Member for North East Fife asked a number of important questions about the Department’s role in informing employers and carers of their new rights. Obviously, gov.uk is one source, but other organisations and charities that we work with, such as Carers UK and the Carers Trust, are also sources of information. There are also carers’ networks, employers and bodies such as ACAS and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. As part of our stakeholder engagement in business roundtables, we are considering what further work we can do to promote information on carers’ rights. I am a strong believer that rights are only as good as people’s awareness and ability to enforce them. We are engaging with carers and businesses.”
“An important point was made that, even in organisations that are very supportive of carer’s leave and have all the policies in place, people sometimes do not get any further if they have the wrong line manager. That applies to a number of similar entitlements, so more work is needed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) mentioned, we need to ensure that any decisions we make are grounded in evidence. There are several potential approaches to further support, including paid carer’s leave, and we will continue to consider those with external stakeholders. It is important to note that careful design is needed where leave entitlements have a pay entitlement attached. Thought must be given not only to the impact on carers and businesses but to how any such paid entitlement would interact with existing legislation and rights.”
“That point has been mentioned a number of times in this debate, and we will certainly look at the research as it is produced. I have noted that the shadow Minister now supports paid carer’s leave, although he could not bring himself to support it during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill. I am aware that there has been some debate on the issue in the other place, and we will look very carefully at how that debate unfolds. It is important that we take the time to carefully consider the potential impact of any further policy before taking any decisions. As the hon. Member for North East Fife said, we often receive responses on the 2023 Act’s application from organisations that are engaged on this issue. I pay tribute to those organisations, and some are clearly leading the way.”
“Of course, it is important that Parliament has appropriate scrutiny of the powers—no doubt we can all trade quotes on the various things we have said about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. However, it would not be a good use of parliamentary time to require primary legislation or affirmative procedure debates for every single change in the regulations, no matter how small and technical. We have listened to the concerns of the DPRRC and the Lords Constitution Committee and have already amended the Bill to improve parliamentary scrutiny. We have increased the number of areas where the affirmative procedure will operate, such as when we impose product requirements on a new category of supply chain actor, and removed most of the Bill’s Henry VIII powers.”
“We also need to keep it more substantially updated as business models and products change, not least to reflect the growth of online marketplaces, which I am sure we will debate in due course. The shadow Minister’s amendments 14 to 16 would strip out the power to do that in clause 1(1). Clause 1(1) contains the Bill’s central power to ensure that product risks can be mitigated, to ensure that products operate effectively or efficiently and, of course, to ensure that products operate accurately. It is vital to ensuring that our product regulation framework can adapt, keep consumers safe and give them confidence that what they are buying is safe, which we think is very important. Removing subsection (1) would leave our product regulation framework frozen in time.”
“She has cut to the heart of one of the central arguments that we will no doubt be having over the next few days, on the importance of the powers to keep people safe and to ensure that the right level of scrutiny is applied to regulations made under the Bill. The Lords have made a number of changes to get that balance right. Our product regulation and metrology framework is extensive and highly technical. It extends to dozens of regulations and thousands of products in a huge range of technical detail. The Bill’s powers will allow us to keep that extensive body of regulation up to date. We need to make sure that regulation can be modified to reflect new evidence of risks, such as new chemical ingredients in cosmetics.”
“Thank you, Sir John—and what a lengthy title. I hope that is not a portent for the rest of the day. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning. I thank all Members and officials for helping us to examine the Bill. The Bill, as the title suggests, is a little dry—as dry as the weather, possibly—but it is very important in underpinning product safety in this country. I am sure that by the end of the Committee we will all know a little more about product safety, with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash, who is the first metrologist to be elected to this House. I am sure he will give the Committee the benefit of his experience, which we are all looking forward to. I thank the shadow Minister for her introduction.”
“We have taken great care, and we have listened to get the right balance between delivering that objective and ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny on the exercise of the powers. I therefore invite the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment.”
“The shadow Minister described the powers in the Bill as “extraordinary.” I am afraid they are actually rather ordinary in the sense that, to my reckoning, over the last decade the DPRRC has described some 19 Bills as either wholly or partially skeletal. Of course, the shadow Minister will be aware that all those Bills were introduced when her party was in government. It is entirely normal for Bills to have a degree of delegated powers, particularly within important areas of technical detail where there is a need to act quickly. It is about getting the balance right. We need to ensure that the product regulation framework is agile, up to date and able to protect consumers and businesses effectively.”
“Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, that this has all taken place behind closed doors. The code of conduct is a very clear public statement, there has been relevant engagement and consultation with stakeholders, and the affirmative procedure will be applied on a number of occasions. It is about getting that balance right. I note the shadow Minister’s generous comments about the current Secretary of State being a benign individual; I hope her comments also apply to the Secretary of State’s immediate predecessor. It is worth pointing out that similar product safety powers have existed for almost 40 years in the Consumer Protection Act 1987. I do not believe there has been any occasion on which a Secretary of State, of any political persuasion, has used the powers in a draconian or whimsical way.”
“Without that power, it would take a significant amount of parliamentary time for the Government to bring forward bespoke proposals and consider each amendment on a sector by sector basis.” –– [ Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 29 November 2022; c. 260.] That is essentially the argument. I served on that Public Bill Committee, which accepted that there is a need for a degree of delegated power, but we have gone further. We have published a code of conduct setting out statutory and non-statutory controls to ensure that product safety regulation, now and in the future, is proportionate and evidence based, and takes into account the views of relevant stakeholders. It is not the case, as was suggested by the hon.”
“I am not able to read the Secretary of State’s mind, but this debate is about a different area of law from the one the Secretary of State was talking about. I refer the hon. Lady to one of her colleagues, the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who said: “It is critical that that power operates in that manner to ensure that legislation that sits on the UK’s statute book is able to keep pace with scientific and technological developments, so that we continue to uphold our high standards as well as ensure laws remain tailored to best suit the UK’s needs.”
“It enables us to provide that requirements in our law can be satisfied by meeting specified EU requirements, but it does not mean that we are obliged to recognise EU provisions, and it also gives us the power to end such recognition. We have been clear that decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis, which I think is what the shadow Minister was asking for, based on the needs of UK businesses and consumers, with appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 4 would take away that flexibility and would freeze EU law in time at May 2024. I mention May 2024 because that is when the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which effectively introduced the same powers as those in the Bill, were made.”
“Amendment 3 would remove clause 1(2), which gives us a power to update regulations that address the environmental impact of products where similar provisions exist in relevant EU law. Increasingly, product regulations take account of the environmental impact of goods and provisions. The Bill will enable us, where it is in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers, to choose whether to update our laws or not. As I have set out, the Bill is about supporting the UK’s interests. Clause 1(2) means that, where it is in the UK’s interests, product regulation can make the same or similar provision as that contained in relevant EU law, which can simplify the regulatory landscape for UK businesses. Turning to amendment 4, again, clause 2(7) allows us to act in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers.”
“We have had several impassioned speeches from Conservative Members. Unfortunately, they are all wrong about what the Bill does. I will attempt to explain what the position actually is. The Bill provides powers to make and amend relevant product regulations, so that the UK can act in the best interests of our businesses and consumers, which I think we would all agree is a good thing. That includes choosing to recognise or stop recognising EU product requirements. That is the key: there is absolute ability to recognise or not recognise as we see fit. This is not back-door submission to the EU or having our tummies tickled—I am not sure what the correct legislative term for that is. This is about the Government taking back control to set their own laws, as we determined back in 2016.”
“New clause 4 proposes a review panel. The Government have published a code of conduct, which has been drafted with valuable input from parliamentarians in the other place. It sets out the various guardrails that will be in place when the powers in the Bill are exercised; they include an impact assessment that analyses the expected effects of changes on businesses, consumers and the UK internal market. All secondary legislation made under the Bill will be subject to the statutory and non-statutory assessments set out in the code of conduct, including the principles of the better regulation framework.”
“Amendment 21 proposes that the UK should only recognise updated EU law if we incorporate the relevant updates into our domestic regulations, and the Secretary of State makes an explanatory statement if only recognising EU law under the Bill. The Bill is about ensuring that our domestic regulatory framework works for businesses and consumers. The Bill will allow us to make changes to our framework and reflect global best practice when doing so. The reason that it refers explicitly to the EU is that most of our product regulation is inherited from the EU, and we continue to recognise certain EU product requirements, which is the reason why the 2024 regulations were passed last year. This gives us the ability to review decisions on recognising certain EU product requirements. Clause 2(7) will allow us to do so on a case-by-case basis.”