5,804 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Solar Farms

   My right hon. Friend is of course right, as usual, and I will address that point in more detail later in my speech. Even if we could resolve all those production, recycling and transportation issues, and so accept that solar is viable for the UK, ground-mounted solar projects are not the right approach. Panels installed so far are relatively inefficient. Despite a currently installed capacity of 17.8 GW, the total output last year was less than 10% of that. Our current approach is also centred around technology that is outdated. If Members can cast their minds back to 1984, when the first Apple Mac computers were put on the market, and then look today at the present advances in technology, they will see that technology has evolved at a rapid pace. Solar panels planned for fields today are already being superseded by cleaner, more efficient technology that does not need farmland. Researchers in Japan are developing next-generation panels made from iodine. They are flexible and 20 times thinner than existing panels. They would make it realistic to build solar installations on urban infrastructure such as stadiums, airports and office buildings.

   Hansard source
2. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Solar Farms

   I agree wholeheartedly that we should not use our best agricultural farmland for solar panels. The previous Government took steps to establish a £50 million fund to incentivise rooftop installations on farm buildings. That is the right measure to maximise the efficient use of land. This Government’s approach, by contrast, is to concentrate ground-mounted solar on prime agricultural land. That is folly in the highest degree. There are 600,000 acres of unused south-facing industrial rooftops across this country. We should use those before we even consider industrialising our countryside; industrialising it comes with consequences. I will come back to farming in a moment, but first we should consider the impact on the wider community. Access to green space and exercise are good for wellbeing. Imagine for a moment walking your dog not alongside a hedgerow, but between two 3.5 metre-high metal fences with CCTV cameras on them. How many of us would prefer to run past miles of 4 metre-high solar panels than rolling British countryside? I listen carefully to my constituents and have conducted surveys in the affected areas. I have received over 2,000 handwritten responses to my solar farm survey, many of which contain pages of heartfelt comments from people who are deeply worried about the disproportionate number of applications for massive solar projects in our area.

   Hansard source
3. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Solar Farms

   My right hon. Friend is right. I will come on to the cumulative effect later in my speech. He will recall that the previous Government brought in measures to ensure that happened, but it does not seem to be happening. In my survey, 91% of respondents were concerned about the enormous scale of proposals, and 73% were concerned about the use of productive farmland. The scale of the proposed developments is really difficult to describe. I brought to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), maps, with overlays, of areas with which he was familiar. He saw the problem, and to his credit, he took the action that I have described. If the Minister is prepared to meet me, I would like to provide him with similar maps, so that he can see for himself the scale of these potential developments. The developments go on for miles. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) said, they encircle villages, preventing natural growth and home-building over time. They even encircle individual homes. One isolated rural home in my constituency may soon find itself surrounded by solar panels on all sides, like the hole in the centre of a miserable glass doughnut. Such is the wonderful nature of my constituents that the prime concern that they have expressed to me was not for themselves, their views or their wellbeing, but for the security of the country—specifically, food security. Let us be very clear that using our best farmland for solar puts us at risk, in a volatile world, of being unable to feed our citizens. The best and most versatile land is defined as land in bands 1, 2, and 3a, although land in 3b is a valuable and entirely useable resource for farmers. In Lincolnshire, 99.1% of solar installation area covers land in the best and most versatile land category.

   Hansard source
4. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Solar Farms

   My hon. Friend is right, but I do not believe that the land will ever be returned to farmland, and many of my constituents feel the same. It is worth noting that 99.1% of solar installations cover the best and most versatile land, but tests procured by the developers appear to suggest that soil is of poorer quality than maps from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and local knowledge would have predicted. Will the Minister ensure that where soil testing is done, the results are independently verified? As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) said, Lincolnshire is the nation’s breadbasket, and produces 30% of the UK’s vegetables. The land in the county is also more productive than the UK average; the wheat harvest there, over the difficult past five years, was 25% above the UK average, and it is much more productive than global averages. This is the land that we can least afford to lose.

   Hansard source
5. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Solar Farms

   My hon. Friend is right. As a farmer’s wife, I understand that farmers are being put under a lot of pressure by the various changes that this Government have made to taxation on cab pick-ups, inheritance tax, national insurance and much more. Displacing our farmland leaves us reliant on imports, which use more land, may have been produced to poorer standards, and require us to factor in transport emissions. The previous Government took action by publishing planning guidance that made it clear that the best and most versatile land should not be developed where alternatives are available—and those alternatives are available. I am pleased to have signed my name to new clause 47 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which seeks to prohibit solar development on higher-quality land, and I urge the Government to support it. Let us not forget the tenant farmers, who are often on multi-generational tenancies. They suddenly find their whole family without home or livelihood. A 2023 report for the Welsh Government on the impact of solar panels on agricultural land found that solar sites risk causing soil compaction and structural damage, which in some cases may be permanent. This means that agriculture will suffer, even after the somewhat hypothetical end of these solar schemes. I also ask the Government to give due consideration to the three RAF bases local to my constituency: RAF Waddington, RAF Cranwell and RAF Digby. Glint and glare from reflective panels will cause problems for pilots flying over these areas. Our newest pilots undergo basic training at Cranwell, and RAF Waddington is home to the Red Arrows. It is a huge joy for me and many of my constituents to watch our nation’s iconic display team practise the loop-the-loop and roll into turns at high speeds, but the miles and miles of aligned panels creating glint and glare could lead to disaster.

   Hansard source
6. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Solar Farms

   I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I wonder if the average jumbo jet flying into Heathrow does a loop-the-loop on its way in. RAF Digby is the headquarters of the joint cyber and electromagnetic activities group. Any interference with that part of the defence estate could cause significant harm. My constituency of Sleaford and North Hykeham faces an acute burden from the most high-impact solar schemes. Colleagues will know that projects with a capacity of more than 50 MW are classed as nationally significant infrastructure projects. Four of these large-scale schemes are proposed for my constituency, at Springwell, Fosse Green, Leoda and Beacon Fen. Their combined size is 9,340 acres. For context, that land could support grazing for more than 74,000 sheep, produce 23.5 million loaves of bread and more than 700 million Weetabix. A fifth project, just outside my constituency—proposed by a Labour donor—was recently approved by the Secretary of State. What assurance can Ministers give my constituents that the Department is assessing cumulative impacts appropriately? We often hear that no more than 1% of land will be used for solar panels. However, as we have seen in my constituency, the application for one giant solar farm leads to a proposal for a new substation to accommodate it, which in turn leads to a deluge of further giant solar project and battery storage applications. The cumulative effect will be to destroy the area. With nearly 7% of land in my constituency proposed to be turned over to solar farms, 9% of the land in the neighbouring constituency, represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and 5% of the land in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), we can clearly see the clustering of applications on our best farmland. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) has the Mallard Pass solar farm in her constituency. I congratulate her on the birth of her child recently, which prevented her from being here; I know that this subject is a big concern for her. Indeed, it is a concern for many of us, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Newark, for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), and for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). As members of the shadow Cabinet, protocol prevents them from speaking in the debate, but I know that they would have wished to, and will keep campaigning. The national policy statement says that installations should, where possible, use “suitable previously developed land, brownfield land, contaminated land and industrial land.” Where farmland must be used, it notes that “poorer quality land should be preferred to higher quality land avoiding the use of ‘Best and Most Versatile’ agricultural land where possible.” Sadly, the evidence so far suggests that the Energy Secretary is so ideologically wedded to solar projects that he has not appreciated the damage that giant solar projects are causing to agricultural land. This debate will hopefully demonstrate that covering our best farmland with massive solar projects would be irreversibly damaging to the nation. I urge the Minister to listen to me, my fellow MPs and fellow citizens before it is too late.

   Hansard source
7. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Solar Farms

   I think the hon. Member is making part of the point that I was trying to make in my speech. Some 7% of my constituency is the subject of solar panel applications. Does he agree that that is an obscene amount of solar panels to put on our best quality farmland?

   Hansard source
8. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Solar Farms

   The Minister says that this is not a competition between energy security and farming security. It should not be; the reason it is becoming one is that his Government are allowing our best and most versatile farmland, used for growing crops, to be taken over by solar farms.

   Hansard source
9. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Solar Farms

   Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope the Minister has listened carefully to what has been said, and has understood that this is not about nimbys—it is not about “not in my back yard” and it is not even about the aesthetics of solar farms. It is about the overwhelming scale of the proposals and the fact that solar farms will take up a huge amount of good-quality farmland. If one had a sensible strategy and wanted to use ground-mounted solar, one would put it in places where there is not good food-producing land; one would not put it on the best food-producing land, but that is what this Government are seeking to do. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered solar farms.

   Hansard source
10. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Solar Farms

    Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point was that under a Labour Government and Secretary of State, a Labour donor has been given permission to build a great big solar farm just outside my constituency. That is the point I was making: the Labour—

    Hansard source
11. 15 May 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I have total sympathy with what the Minister is saying, and understand the point that the Member for the hon. Member for North Herefordshire is seeking to address. Does the Minister agree that one of the lessons from section 106 is that, in many cases, funds end up being returned to the developer, as it is impossible to spend on the mitigation because of the specificity for which it is provided? The Opposition agree with the Minister that there will be occasions when, in the view of the Secretary of State or Natural England, it is impossible to build the specified badger, bat or newt mitigation on a specific site, and that it would be better to spend that money somewhere else to create a better overall environmental benefit. It is therefore important to provide for that flexibility in the legislation.

    Hansard source
12. 15 May 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Hobhouse. I wanted to set out briefly the views of the Opposition, in addition to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley has said. Recently, we listened to views from those with specialist experience in this context. There are a number of ways in which issues about biodiversity net gain and protected species may feature, with the relevant protections, as a consequence of the legislation. Although amendment 54 sets out some reasonable points, it does not address them sufficiently. In particular, there is potential scope to bring some of it within the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provisions, which would enable in many cases more effective enforcement powers than under the existing habitats regulations. We acknowledge the Minister’s point that it will be important for those responsible for biodiversity net gain and for considering the mitigation hierarchy to be able to deploy the resources that flow from these different types of agreements in a way that reflects the broader national responsibility, rather than a site-by-site basis. That additional flexibility would be required, and we are therefore likely to seek further amendments later in the Bill’s passage that address the specifics of those concerns.

    Hansard source
13. 15 May 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

    This is a slightly technical question, but what consideration will be given to regional and local variation in the levels of cost? My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne highlighted the point about the interaction with section 106, which the Minister has accepted. One of the calculations under section 106 is child yield, which reflects the number of children we would expect in a development. Through the formula, that produces a payment in respect of the cost of provision of school places. Clearly, that cost will vary significantly depending on which part of the country the development takes place in. I would like to be confident that if, for example, a developer undertakes development in a very high-cost area, we will not see a significant corresponding reduction in the environmental yield from such a negotiation, and that viability will not, in practice, become such a barrier that developments do not go ahead or we end up forgoing the expected yield in some of these crucial areas in order to make housing viable.

    Hansard source
14. 15 May 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

    Does my hon. Friend agree—he is making this point very clearly—that the risk with this process, and with the lack of clarity around the process behind the regulations, is that it will increase the number of permissions being delivered that are not viable? Essentially, all the money is coming from the same pot, and the developer will say to the local authority and Natural England, “You can have the kids or you can have the bats, but you can’t have both.” If the developer has to pay for both, the scheme becomes non-viable. We will simply end up with more units that cannot be built.

    Hansard source
15. 15 May 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

    My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley was particularly concerned about a situation where, in order to fulfil the requirements of the EDP, the compulsory purchase of land that had specific characteristics would be necessary. Therefore, that would potentially drive a very significant increase in the value of the land because it was the only way in which that EDP could be fulfilled, and that would significantly increase the cost to the public purse. What measures does the Minister have in place to ensure that where that type of situation arises—because, for example, there is a blanket bog or a particular type of pond that is required to fulfil the EDP—it is delivered at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer?

    Hansard source
16. 15 May 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

    My hon. Friend is setting out the concerns eloquently. The Minister was clear earlier that the Government’s expectation is that this system will raise no net additional funds compared with the existing one, so the cost to the developers will be no different. The implication is that there will be no significant additional resource, if any, for Natural England to deploy as a result. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that that raises a serious question about its capacity to do the work that is outlined in the Bill?

    Hansard source
17. 15 May 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I had not quite appreciated quite how ill the Minister’s intentions were in respect of our black and white furry friends. It is clear that they have been singled out by the Minister for extra special hostile treatment in the Bill. That raises a more general point, which we referenced earlier in relation to our intentions to introduce debates on biodiversity net gain. As important as badgers are, we know that our countryside is home to hedgehogs, dormice and all manner of protected species of flora and fauna. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire spoke eloquently on the mitigation hierarchy earlier on, and we must ensure that appropriate protection arrangements are in place in that hierarchy. I know that the Minister will write to me on the powers in the Wildlife and Countryside Act and how they might be relevant in this context. We look forward to that. I would like to address two points that arise from clause 75. The first is that, under an earlier clause, the Secretary of State acquires the power to designate another person to undertake the functions of Natural England; this clause makes specific reference to the duty to “co-operate with Natural England”, but it does not specify what happens when a third party may have been appointed. That would have relevance where there may be a conflict, perhaps in planning terms, between the appointed party’s intentions to undertake work in the delivery of an EDP and, for example, a local authority or other public body that is having to consider, under its duties and responsibilities, an application for the delivery of those in its area. It is important to be clear whether third parties that have been appointed are covered by the clause. The second point relates to how that interacts with a situation in which the public body covered by the duty is opposed to the development that gives rise to the need for the EDP in the first place. It reminds me of my personal experience of the example of Heathrow airport. What happens if a local authority says, “In discharging our duty in respect of air quality, we are obligated to oppose this development in any way we possibly can”, but is then advised by the Government, “However, you are obligated to co-operate through the EDP in order to enable that development to go ahead”? Clearly, that is not something that our constituents would expect to happen. The clause would introduce a degree of moral hazard in any major infrastructure project. How will the Minister address those two issues?

    Hansard source
18. 15 May 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Gavi and the Global Fund

    I am grateful to you for stepping into the Chair, Ms Jardine. I was due to chair this debate, but that would have meant that I was unable to contribute, which I very much wanted to do. Given the restricted time, I do not want to rehearse the discussions that we had with Baroness Chapman in the International Development Committee earlier in the week. Like the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), whom I congratulate on securing the debate, I want to say that a contribution to Gavi and the Global Fund is not charity but a strategic investment by the United Kingdom. Although we have to deal with the reality that, as Baroness Chapman set out, the cuts are happening, we have to make the case about what should happen in that environment. I have always believed that aid spending should have maximum impact and maximum returns. Moreover, it should be in keeping with public expectations of food in bellies and shots in arms, and the Global Fund and Gavi deliver both. As the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) said, Gavi has immunised more than 1 billion children, reducing vaccine-preventable child deaths by 70% in the 78 low-income countries in which it operates. That is 18.8 million lives saved and children growing up healthy, going to school and contributing to their communities, which is a huge impact. The Global Fund has saved an estimated 65 million lives since 2002. It has cut the combined death rate from AIDS, TB and malaria by 61%. These are staggering achievements and they should not be discounted. Gavi and the Global Fund are two of the most successful and impactful health programmes in history. They clearly meet the requirement for maximum impact and return, but they are possible only because of sustained, co-ordinated international investment. Alongside Unitaid, they are part of a habitat of organisations that have sustained progress in our understanding of diseases, and our ability to deploy medicines and improve health systems. I join the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central in encouraging the Minister to sustain the existing contributions to both Gavi and the Global Fund. He will be aware that in the last Parliament, I lobbied my own Government very hard to get that £1 billion into the Global Fund. Let us keep it at that at least, and keep the contribution to Gavi. These programmes make a difference.

    Hansard source
19. 15 May 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Gavi and the Global Fund

    The Minister made a passing reference, as other Members did, to Unitaid. Will he more formally acknowledge the huge importance of Unitaid in ensuring the delivery of medicines in some of the most difficult environments around the world?

    Hansard source
20. 15 May 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Driving Test Backlog

    Does the Minister acknowledge that part of what has happened as a result of the pressure tests has been a displacement of learner drivers to test centres in rural areas, where they perceive that there might be less waiting time? That is prejudicing against local applicants. Will she do everything she can to ensure that local applicants for tests get priority?

    Hansard source
21. 15 May 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Business of the House

    The Leader of the House has previously been very helpful in facilitating ministerial engagement on the switch-off of the radio teleswitch service. However, the switch-off is due to take place at the end of June, which is only weeks away, and reports suggest that over 100,000 people in Scotland still have not had a new meter installed. That carries the threat of them losing hot water and heating at the end of June. I have constituents, such as Ian Dalling of Peebles, who have repeatedly had appointments for a changeover cancelled, which I think is unacceptable. Will the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is brought forward to tell us exactly what is happening with the switch-off and to assure us that nobody will be left without heating or hot water?

    Hansard source
22. 15 May 2025·Parliament·David Davis

    Solar Farms

    My right hon. Friend makes a brilliant point. Does he also recognise that the way that this Government have set up the arrangements—they are guaranteeing 10% to 20% returns on investment on these farms—is in effect bribing farmers to move away from farming?

    Hansard source
23. 15 May 2025·Parliament·David Davis

    Solar Farms

    I am listening with interest to what the hon. Member has to say, and I have some sympathy with it, but does he have any specific proposal for how we deal with the nationally significant infrastructure projects approach, which completely overrules what he is talking about?

    Hansard source
24. 15 May 2025·Parliament·David Davis

    Solar Farms

    May I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) on what he had to say? He was at least responsive to local interest in this. We have heard a number of rather glib comments about this and that percentage of land. Let us just look at it from an individual point of view. Last Monday the East Yorkshire solar farm in my constituency, covering 3,150 acres, was approved. Not many policies make me angry in this place, but this one did for my constituents. Why? Because a decision rode roughshod over the desires, wishes and expressed complaints of my constituents. The solar farm will cover an area the size of Durham. Let us imagine, if we were applying to build a town the size of Durham, how long the planning would take. Yet this went through effectively on the nod, and the so-called consultation process was little more than a rubber-stamping operation. Why do I say that? Because there were a lot of sensible and constructive inputs from my constituents, and some from me, and no attention whatsoever was paid to any of them. In trying quite properly to save the global environment, the Government are causing untold harm to the local environment in Britain, and in so doing they will fail in their first aim.

    Hansard source
25. 15 May 2025·Parliament·David Davis

    Solar Farms

    Unless the hon. Lady is talking about the suntans of the criminals, I am not quite sure what the relevance of that was. She was one of the ones who were picking numbers out of the air, with this small percentage and that small percentage. I am pointing out the actual effect on ordinary citizens, and it is not the bland view that she has put forward. A 3,000-acre solar farm is disproportionate for any part of the country, because it surrounds villages and makes life miserable for people. Multiple towns and villages will be completely surrounded by the East Yorkshire solar farm. Another one, the Mylen Leah solar farm, which would cover another 3,000 acres, is proposed for right next door. That will effectively be 6,000 acres. I am not very optimistic about the attitude of the Government in the approval process. We have also heard slightly sneering references to nimbys. What are we talking about here? We are talking about actual people in my constituency. They range from pensioners who have spent their entire life savings to go and live in a quiet part of the country with a beautiful view, who will instead have a view of black plastic, to people not very far from me who bought a place in the country because they have got a child who is severely autistic and needs the peace and quiet and the rural environment that is provided. We have people who take lower salaries to work in the country because that is what they want. We have people who are committed there in farms and rural industries. They are the so-called nimbys and they do not want their lives ruined. That is what we are here to defend. When I surveyed my residents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) did, I found that 90% were against the size of the farm and against the overwhelming impact. They were not against the idea; they were against the ridiculous way this is being done. I am running out of time, so I will make one other point about the ill-thought-through nature of the policy. It depends on access to the grid. Therefore, the reason I have farms of 2,000 acres, 3,000 acres—probably more—is that we are near Drax on the grid. That encourages a concentration of huge farms in concentrated areas all over the country, where ordinary people will have their lives destroyed by an ill-thought-through, rotten policy.

    Hansard source
26. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I put on record my thanks to the Minister for his rapid reply to the points that were raised on Tuesday. I asked questions on time limits for emergency powers under clause 4, on whether amending the definition of “online marketplace” will be subject to the affirmative procedure, and on Government amendment 1, on which I confessed to being a bit confused. We needed some clarification, which we now have in the shape of a very prompt letter. I thank the Minister and his officials for getting that out so quickly. I believe that copies of the letter are now available in the Libraries of both Houses. New clause 1 provides much-needed and helpful elaboration on the extraordinary powers taken by the Secretary of State in earlier parts of the Bill. It will be important to clarify exactly which of those powers are reserved competence and which are devolved competence, and this new clause sets out quite clearly the collaborative approach that the Government intend to follow. I will raise further questions when we come to new clause 5 on how the Windsor framework and the Stormont brake will interact with subsections (3) and (4) of new clause 1, but as far as new clause 1 itself is concerned, the Minister has set out clearly the process for making regulations that contain provisions affecting the whole of the United Kingdom, recognising how important it is that the United Kingdom has a consistent internal market. The new clause provides clarification along those lines. Question put and agreed to. New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 2 Purpose “(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the regulation of products and metrology. (2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under this Act, advance that purpose while prioritising the maintenance of the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy and the United Kingdom’s regulatory competitiveness. (3) Accordingly, and so far as it is possible to do so, provision made by virtue of this Act must be read and given effect so as to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) to the extent that it is consistent with the maintenance of the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy and regulatory competitiveness. (4) When taking action to improve regulation under this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to maintaining the highest quality regulatory framework.”—(Dame Harriett Baldwin.) This new clause sets out that the purpose of this Act is to improve the regulation of products and metrology while maintaining the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy. Brought up, and read the First time.

    Hansard source
27. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 2 is incredibly important. As the Committee heard on Tuesday, it is all too clear how many Henry VIII powers the Secretary of State is taking under this legislation. We do not need to rehearse the concerns raised about those wide-ranging Henry VIII powers by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place. I am sure the Government will want to agree to new clause 2, with which we are trying to be incredibly helpful. The Minister set out on the record on Tuesday how he thought we were exaggerating, pulling the emergency cord and sounding the alarm about the potential for this legislation to be used to dynamically align the United Kingdom’s product regulation and metrology with that of the European Union. New clause 2 would helpfully allow the Minister, when he agrees to it, to recognise that the legislation has a much narrower purpose. The purpose of the Bill is to improve product regulation and metrology. Importantly, new clause 2(2) states that the Secretary of State “must, in taking any actions under this Act, advance that purpose while prioritising the maintenance of the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy and the United Kingdom’s regulatory competitiveness.” That clarifies the importance of the Bill’s purpose, how competitiveness must be taken into account, and, above all, the idea of regulatory autonomy. That is emphasised again in subsection (3). As we said at the beginning of the Committee, we all want the UK’s product regulation and metrology to be of the highest quality and have the best possible regulatory framework, but it must also be autonomous. Supporting this new clause would allow the Government to show the substance behind their words by putting them into legislation. Despite its ostensibly noble intentions, the Bill poses significant risks to the principles of transparency, accountability and fairness that underpin our legal and regulatory systems. In short, new clause 2 does what it says on the tin. It would ensure that the Bill has its intended consequences, rather than the unintended consequences that sometimes slip through our scrutiny. The Committee has heard that the Bill will enact far wider powers than anyone outside this place would consider to be in scope of product regulation and metrology. At the heart of the Bill lies a troubling delegation of power, and the Opposition voted against clauses on Tuesday because this skeleton legislation is an extraordinary expansion of the Secretary of State’s powers. For example, as we heard on Tuesday, there is the creation or expansion of criminal offences, and the powers conferred upon the Secretary of State and “relevant authorities.” We did not get to the bottom of who those relevant authorities are. The powers are alarmingly broad, and there is little to no clear guidance on what the offences will entail. The lack of specificity raises serious concerns about the potential for overreach and the erosion of due process, because criminal sanctions carry profound consequences. It is imperative that Parliament retains control over their creation and scope, and ensures that such powers are exercised with the utmost caution and accountability. The vague language on enforcement bodies, which we have highlighted throughout our scrutiny of the Bill, exacerbates the uncertainty faced by businesses and consumers alike. Without explicit identification of which bodies will have the authority to impose criminal sanctions, businesses will be left in a state of apprehension and confusion. That ambiguity not only hampers compliance efforts but fosters an environment ripe for arbitrary enforcement action. On Tuesday we also discussed the provisions granting powers to inspect premises, seize products and demand documentation without clear safeguards—I am sure that all members of the Committee will agree that those are deeply concerning. The criteria for suspicion are also undefined, leaving the door open for discretionary and potentially unjustified investigations. If left unchecked, such powers could lead to overbearing Government interventions in business activities, disrupt operations and stifle innovation. The lack of procedural safeguards further compounds these risks, making it imperative that we reassess the provisions to protect the rights and interests of all stakeholders. The Bill’s reliance on secondary legislation, particularly in areas such as artificial intelligence, the definition of “online marketplace” and environmental impact, raises significant concerns about the adequacy of parliamentary scrutiny. The use of statutory instruments to introduce new regulations allows for rapid implementation, but at the cost of thorough debate and amendment. This approach diminishes the opportunity for comprehensive oversight and increases the likelihood of unintended consequences that could adversely affect businesses and consumers. Although its objectives may be well intentioned—we have said all along that we do not question the good intentions of the Minister and Secretary of State—the Bill before us poses substantial risks to the principles of democratic governance, legal certainty and economic vitality. It is incumbent on us to ensure that any regulatory framework is crafted with clarity, accountability and respect for the rule of law. This new clause would set out some examples of the Bill’s purpose to bring home the importance of this. We believe that the Bill gives the Government the power to dynamically align our regulations with those of the European Union. That sounds innocuous, but it means that product regulation in this country would be set by another Parliament. We propose a completely different approach so that, in all the different uses of the Bill, the focus is on the competitiveness of our regulations and ensuring that UK-regulated products set the standard and the benchmark around the world. We should be proud of our history of product regulation and metrology. The hon. Member for Erewash, who is on this Committee, is the first metrologist ever elected to Parliament. He has spoken eloquently about the UK’s brilliance in defining a standard for metrology, and we should be proud of that brilliance. In all our agreements as an independent nation, we should seek to have other countries recognise our brilliant product regulation and metrology. Certification for the UK market should be a mark of great pride. In all the trade agreements that the Government are negotiating—as an aside, I note that we have not seen their detail—we should seek recognition of these excellent standards, not only by our friends and neighbours in the European Union but by our biggest single-country trading partner, the United States, by our friends in the Commonwealth countries of Canada and Australia, and by the countries that have signed up to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.

    Hansard source
28. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    It is no surprise to the Committee that the Liberal Democrats’ position is to go back into the customs union, which would require dynamic alignment. It is clear from yesterday’s vote on the Opposition day motion how Government Members feel about it. I have given the Minister the opportunity to agree to this sensible new clause on the Bill’s purpose, but I got the hint that he is potentially not going to vote in favour. Should the Government use the powers they have under this legislation to agree to dynamic alignment at the surrender summit next week, the voters at the next general election will be incredibly disappointed. We have got to a point where an independent free trade agreement could be agreed with our friends in the EU, in India and in the United States, and we would not want to give up those opportunities as a result of widening the Bill’s purpose, so I will press the new clause to a Division. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
29. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Everyone on this Committee can agree that the UK is a proud global trading nation and, however we voted in the 2016 referendum, that one of the changes that has occurred has been our sovereignty over trade agreements. We agreed a comprehensive trade and co-operation agreement with our friends and neighbours in the European Union, with zero tariffs and zero quotas, and most of our product regulation and metrology is inherited from the time when we were a European Union member. I put on record my welcome for the way in which the Government have pursued free trade agreements in line with the United Kingdom’s heritage as a free trading nation. I do not think the details of the new trade agreement with India or all the details of the US free trade agreement have been fully shared with the House at this stage, but from what we can tell there is an improvement in market access for UK manufacturers and for those who follow UK product regulation and metrology. We can all see how important it is that the powers that the Government are taking under this legislation do not accidentally or intentionally cut across any of the international agreements listed in new clause 3. We would not want any of the regulations made under this legislation to disadvantage the United Kingdom under the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership; the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement; the UK-Canada continuity agreement and any improvements to that; the UK-Australia free trade agreement; the free trade agreement with New Zealand; and any other trade treaties, such as the one recently announced with India and the one that is subject to negotiations with the United States of America. There is an extraordinary change in the UK’s trading opportunities. We have this advantageous new trading position with, in effect, a foot in both camps. We are uniquely placed in respect of European and American trade. It would be utter madness for the Government to do anything with this Bill that would cut across the freedoms we have. It would be much more valuable if the Government would, by agreeing to new clause 3, take this opportunity to show that they want to be completely pragmatic, and to ensure that we continue to have the opportunities to open up markets and that product regulation and metrology is not a barrier to that. New clause 3 serves to prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations to align the United Kingdom with the European Union in a way that might hinder any future or existing free trade agreements. It is a pragmatic clause and a necessary step towards maintaining the strength of the UK’s trade relationships and protecting the long-term prosperity of our businesses. The hon. Member for Wokingham rightly pointed out how important it is for us to trade with our European friends and neighbours. However, it is also important to note, as we saw in the recently published Santander trade barometer, that for businesses in the UK, there is a gradual but steady pivot away from the EU and towards global partners. Those incredibly useful statistics show that not only have UK businesses been regarding international trade as more important, increasingly over time, but that they are widening the range of trading partners that they do business with. When the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), made the point in the Chamber that the number of references to the EU in the legislation is far more significant than the number of references to any other country—the United States, our single biggest trading partner, for example—the Secretary of State told him that the Bill will enable regulatory alignment with the EU only “where it is recognised that we have the interest.”—[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 221.] On Tuesday, the Minister told this Committee that he thought Conservative Members had mentioned the European Union more than the Government had, and that he did not believe the Bill will be used to tie us to the EU. However, I refer the Minister to the Bill because, in its 13 pages, the EU is mentioned 12 times. The Bill’s impact assessment certainly implies that we will default to a European set of standards, and the Secretary of State has not defined what the aforementioned interests may be. We are therefore moving the amendment to ensure that the interests of the UK in our existing and future trade agreements are not undermined by unnecessary and egregious alignment with the EU on product regulation. I am not making this up: we have heard, in advance of next week’s surrender summit, that one of the EU’s negotiating objectives is to lock down dynamic alignment with the UK. The EU looks at us and sees the free trade deals that it has not been able to do. The one with India is a prime example, as is the liberalisation of tariffs that was recently announced, which I know is a starting point for the Government in terms of the United States. The EU is pretty worried that we will make the most of these freedoms and show that they are one of the advantages of our not being a member any more, so the EU has this as a negotiating objective. I am sure that behind closed doors in the negotiations, Ministers are pointing to this Bill going through Parliament, to their significant majority, and to the fact that they can therefore turn this on like a switch. As we stand on the precipice of a new era—one in which we can lean into our country’s global free-trading heritage—it is essential that we continue to forge strong trading relationships with our global partners. These agreements, many of which we negotiated after leaving the European Union, are pivotal to our future economic prosperity, and to the growth that the Government rightly seek for the UK economy. The new clause explicitly states: “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”— several key international agreements. These include, but are not limited to, the CPTPP—that opens up new markets in the Asia-Pacific—the Japan economic comprehensive partnership agreement, which strengthens ties with one of the world’s largest economies and biggest inward investors into the United Kingdom, and agreements with our close friends and Commonwealth allies New Zealand, Australia and Canada. We made progress during our time in Government, and we welcome the progress that this Government are picking up. By urging the Government to agree to the amendment, we want to say that this is not merely a technical adjustment; it is a necessary safeguard to ensure that our regulatory environment—product regulation and metrology—does not inadvertently undermine the progress that we have made in securing those agreements. Frankly, these treaties represent hundreds of billions of pounds in trade. They are foundational to ensuring that the UK remains competitive in a rapidly changing global economy. The CPTPP is estimated to increase UK GDP by £2 billion, and it could be higher if countries such as South Korea, which has very good product regulation and metrology, join. We should mutually recognise some of these things. Why would we want to tie ourselves purely to a bloc that is a declining share of the global economy?

    Hansard source
30. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    Given the importance of this point, I would be grateful if the Minister put on the record his acknowledgment that dynamic alignment is an ask from our European Union partners in the negotiations ahead of next week’s summit.

    Hansard source
31. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    The Minister just clarified for the record that, although it is not his or the Government’s intention to use the Bill in the way we have highlighted, those powers exist should they wish to exercise them. Both he and I have read about this in the media, as neither of us is privy to the discussions behind closed doors, but it is clearly a request from our European Union negotiating partners. This week, the Government voted down our Opposition day motion that would have given the Minister the opportunity to rule it out. In the light of that, and given the importance of the issues highlighted in new clause 3, as well as the fact that the Bill simply gives the Minister and his colleagues the chance to legislate in exactly the way they have been speaking about, I will press the new clause to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
32. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    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. 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? Great Britain is united with Northern Ireland, and we must ensure that our ties and duties to Northern Ireland are set out clearly in the Bill. Government new clause 1 goes some way to doing that, but new clause 5 would help to clarify the situation further. When the Prime Minister was recently asked in the Chamber whether he is a Unionist, he refused to confirm that he is. When asked after Prime Minister’s questions whether the Prime Minister is a Unionist, his official spokesperson said: “I think the Prime Minister said before that, of course, he is the Prime Minister for the whole of the UK, including in Northern Ireland.” If the Prime Minister and the Government want to make that very clear, they should have absolutely no problem with backing our clarifying new clause. I hope that the Minister will agree with the principles behind new clause 5: that democratic consent must be sought in all parts of the United Kingdom, as set out in Government new clause 1; that we must ensure that the UK’s internal market continues to function effectively; and that, if the Stormont brake is pulled, it should also be pulled in Great Britain. That is the purpose of new clause 5.

    Hansard source
33. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    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.

    Hansard source
34. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    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.

    Hansard source
35. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    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. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how he will use the powers in the Bill to deal with this important issue.

    Hansard source
36. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    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.

    Hansard source
37. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    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.

    Hansard source
38. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Royal Assent

    I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts: Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Act 2025 Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Act 2025 Great British Energy Act 2025.

    Hansard source
39. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Business of the House

    I commend the Leader of the House for her very full answers, but there are many Members standing and to get everyone in we will need very short questions and short answers, please.

    Hansard source
40. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Solar Farms

    Order. I have no choice but to impose a three-minute time limit on speeches after the Father of the House.

    Hansard source