Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

   I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 3, page 5, line 16, leave out subsections (9) to (11). Clause 3 continues to become even more dystopian. In the debate on clause 1, we acknowledged that we have an extremely benign Minister and Secretary of State, and we all acknowledge that products reach the UK marketplace that should not reach our consumers and constituents. However, that does not mean that we should give the Secretary of State with sweeping powers in law to come up with regulations and to have them enforced by some random “relevant authority”. We have heard a list of those authorities, but we know that it is not exhaustive. Some poor, innocent business might not notice that the product regulations have been changed suddenly, because there was very little overt scrutiny of that change, and they might be left with a warehouse full of some good that was perfectly saleable on the UK market yesterday but is not today. As a result of the provisions in subsections (9) to (11), the relevant authority can send somebody into that business with sweeping powers to enter a premises, to levy fines, to create criminal offences and to send an individual to prison for up to three months. The provisions under subsection (9) to (11) could also go through with minimal legislative scrutiny—it really is not good enough. This is another of the skeleton clauses about which they despaired in the other place. Subsection (9) specifies that product regulations can create or widen the scope of criminal offences, with prosecution by the relevant authorities—we do not know who they are—subject to the affirmative procedure, and they can confer powers on that same relevant authority to impose civil sanctions, including fines. The poor business that I am describing—one with a warehouse full of goods that suddenly, unbeknownst to that business, can no longer be sold legally in the UK, because a Parliament in Brussels has changed the rules—can find itself subject to confiscation and fines. Under subsection (11), criminal offences must be “triable summarily only, or…triable summarily or on indictment”. The subsection provides for statutory limits on offences, but frankly, they are pretty harsh for someone who has potentially been caught inadvertently with products that no longer meet the standards for the UK market. Of all the shocking things in the Bill, these provisions are the most shocking. Amendment 26 seeks to ensure that new criminal offences, which would have consequences for our already overburdened Ministry of Justice and criminal justice system, are not created through new product regulations under the Bill. The ability to create new criminal offences is an incredibly significant power; it really should not be passed through secondary legislation, and Government Members should think about what they are doing by supporting clause 3. The creation of new criminal offences needs to be brought to both Houses and debated through proper parliamentary procedure, so that we can explore who these relevant authorities are as well as the potential inadvertent breaches of product regulation and metrology. Frankly, I think that this is the most shocking part of the legislation that we have seen. It shocked the other place, it has shocked the Opposition, and I think the constituents of Government Members will be shocked that they might agree to these sweeping powers.

   Hansard source
2. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

   Sadly, I have not seen “Capricorn One”. I have already said clearly, on the record, that I have great confidence in the good intentions of the Minister himself and his Secretary of State. However, that is not to say that we should put powers on the statue book that would allow future occupiers of the position to send someone to prison for three months, or to fine them a substantial amount. For those very reasons, I wish to press amendment 26 to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.

   Hansard source
3. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

   Ms Vaz, you will not be surprised to hear that this dystopian picture of unnamed relevant authorities sweeping the land with their powers of seizure, fining and imprisonment is not something that we support, and we therefore oppose clause 3. Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

   Hansard source
4. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

   As the Committee reaches its clause 4 moment, Members might be pleased to hear that I will not propose voting against it—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I know: a political conversion. I accept that in exceptional times, and unfortunately we have seen a few of those in recent years, the Government need these emergency powers. I welcome that, in the other place, Lord Leong published the code of conduct on product safety setting out how the Office for Product Safety and Standards expects the emergency powers to work. Will the Minister clarify whether that will include time limiting the period of emergency? How will we know when the emergency has ended? I believe that some products approved during the pandemic are on the market but still have not had their status clarified since the pandemic ended, as anyone would define it. Will the Minister elaborate a little on the time limits for emergency periods? While the Minister looks at his officials for inspiration, I acknowledge that the pandemic was clearly an emergency, and we have seen a number of situations that could constitute an emergency. We will be able to tell when an emergency has started because of the steps that the Minister set out, but it would be helpful if he could clarify for the record how he would define the end of an emergency, when the powers will effectively end.

   Hansard source
5. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

   I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 5, page 6, line 8, leave out subsection (2). This amendment removes the powers granted to the Secretary of State under metrology regulations regarding quantities and units of measurement in marketing goods. We now come to the metrology part of the Bill. You will be glad to know, Ms Vaz, that as we have Parliament’s first elected metrologist in the hon. Member for Erewash on the Labour Benches, I will constrain myself to making legislative points rather than metrological points. Subsection (2) is another example of the Bill’s Henry VIII powers. It grants the office of the Secretary of State—although I acknowledge that the current Secretary of State is benign—the power to make provisions on the quantities and units of measurement in marketing goods. People really care about the quantities and units of measurement of the goods they purchase. They are of great importance to consumers. I appreciate that food is not in scope, but when people do their shopping, they look at the units and quantities on the side of the packaging of the goods they buy.

   Hansard source
6. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

   With your guidance, Ms Vaz, I will try to combine my remarks on clause 5 and amendment 27. Again, the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee felt that the power in this clause was too sweeping. The Minister has mentioned that the pint is safe, but the sweeping powers cover pretty much any measurement of “length, area, volume, capacity, mass, weight, time, temperature or electrical current”, which the Secretary of State will miraculously be able to make regulations on. Going to the market and buying a quarter of sweets or a pound of flour would fall within the scope of the Secretary of State’s wide and sweeping powers. That is why we have tabled amendment 27 to leave out subsection (2) and why we oppose clause 5 itself, and we would like to probe the Committee’s views on both those elements. Question put, That the amendment be made.

   Hansard source
7. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

   I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 6, page 6, line 36, leave out subsection (1).

   Hansard source
8. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

   We now move on to the enforcement powers in terms of the metrology regulations. I draw the Committee’s attention to the point I made on the enforcement regulations to do with the product regulations, because many of the same concerns exist here. In the case of clause 6(6), there is something that I personally think is the most egregious and extraordinary provision in any legislation I have ever seen. I would call it the “something” provision. Clause 6(6) says: “Provision described in subsection (3)(c) or (d) may include provision conferring power on a relevant authority by notice to require a person to do or cease to do something.”. Has this House, or this Committee, ever seen something so broadly defined? I am interested to hear whether the Minister is able to define “something”. It astonishes me that we are sitting here looking at legislation that includes provision “conferring a power on a relevant authority”, which as we have already heard is not narrowly defined, “by notice to require a person to do or cease to do something”. How are we supposed to know what this particular provision is meant to refer to? Amendment 29 would require the Minister to be very clear as to what he means by “something” regarding the powers of the relevant authority in enforcing metrology regulations. That is far too broadly drawn. It is absolutely incomprehensible to the layperson. Amendment 28 goes back to the points I made in the debate on clause 3 about how we are defining a “relevant authority”. We have heard about the importance of the relevant authority from the hon. Member for Erewash, who spoke extremely well about the range of bodies that could be the relevant authority here—but we do not know, because the legislation is not clearly defined enough. Because we do not know, and because the legislation simply refers to “something”, I am afraid we are nowhere near able to support clause 6, or to withdraw our amendments 28 and 29 to it. The public deserve to know what they might be required “to do or cease to do.” The wording is far too broad, I am keen to hear what the Minister thinks.

   Hansard source
9. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

   I will not withdraw my amendment, because I am not sure that I heard reassuring words from the Minister that trading standards officers are not going to sweep through the marketplaces of this land and require people to cease doing something that they would not know, from the Bill as it stands, not to do. I will press amendments 28 and 29 to a Division, and then we will debate other amendments before we debate clause 6 stand part. Question put, That the amendment be made.

   Hansard source
10. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 6, page 7, line 27, leave out subsection (7).

    Hansard source
11. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    Amendment 30 continues some of the themes around the enforcement powers on product regulation. It leaves out subsection (7), which is on sanctions for non-compliance with metrology regulations. Here again is the amorphous concept of a relevant authority that is empowered by metrology regulations. Subsection (7) talks about the “obstruction of, or failure to assist or co-operate with, a relevant authority or an inspector;” and about providing “false or misleading information to a relevant authority or an inspector.” With amendment 30, we are seeking clarification on what constitutes non-compliance. Is it if a pub landlord manages to serve someone more than “0.56826125 cubic decimetres”? Any reasonable person would think not, but it appears that with the provisions as they are currently set out under the metrology regulations, that could be considered a case of non-compliance. By tabling amendment 30, I seek a definition from the Minister of how serious he sees those kinds of infractions as being. Given how busy trading standards can be, how serious an infraction of the metrology regulations would a failure to assist be, as an individual would presumably have exactly the right measuring equipment? I want the Minister to put on record how the extremely severe and onerous provisions in the Bill are to be implemented. Amendment 31 also seeks to remove subsection (9) from the Bill, which again introduces the idea of criminal offences for underselling or overselling measurements, or for potentially not co-operating with this so-called and widely defined relevant authority. Our concerns about that, as well as about the Henry VIII powers involved, are firmly on the record now, but we want to clarify through amendment 31 the specific offences that might be created or expanded, as well as the civil sanctions that might be imposed. We want to get the Minister’s sense of how bad it would be if an individual were to slightly overpour a pint. The civil sanctions are very broad and allow the Secretary of State significant powers over our criminal justice system. When new offences are created, it is proper that both Houses have the chance to consider and debate them. We had the same debate on the earlier clause regarding product regulations, and there seem to be the same failures of drafting with the metrology regulations, which is why we have tabled amendments 30 and 31.

    Hansard source
12. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    I seek the Committee’s decision on the amendment. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
13. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    For the same reasons that we opposed clause 3 on enforcement, we would like to divide the Committee on clause 6. Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
14. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    We have not tabled any amendments to clause 7. My earlier point about the vague wording of “relevant authority” also applies to this clause, but the Minister has set out why information sharing under these provisions is necessary. We can see the rationale for that, so we do not intend to oppose or seek to amend the clause. Question put and agreed to. Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 Cost recovery Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
15. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    Again, I think we are in relevant authority territory here. We are talking about imposing fees in respect of any costs, and there are certainly some issues to note for the record. On the collection and recovery of payments, I spoke strongly earlier about fines and the interest payable on outstanding payments and so on. Those are material issues that could result in some very serious situations. Nevertheless, we have not chosen to table any amendments to the clause, mainly because the point about relevant authorities was covered earlier in the Committee’s proceedings, and we do not intend to oppose it. Question put and agreed to. Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 Application to existing product and metrology provision Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
16. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    Clause 9 is one of the clauses that their lordships were particularly concerned about, because of its sweeping Henry VIII powers. Although I have not tabled any amendments to it, I reiterate the point that I made about relevant authorities, and I think it is only right that we test the Committee’s opinion on the clause. Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
17. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 10, page 10, line 24, leave out subsection (2). This amendment would prevent regulations under this Act from amending provisions made by primary legislation.

    Hansard source
18. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    Once again, the amendments would remove Henry VIII powers and make regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 10 relates to the amendment or repealing, in consequence of the Bill, of provisions made by the Gun Barrel Proof Acts 1868 to 1978. We want to prevent regulations made under the Bill from amending provisions made by primary legislation. Amendment 11 would leave out subsection (4), which provides: “Regulations under this Act may, in consequence of any amendment or repeal made by or under subsections (1), (2) or (3), amend or repeal provision made by or under an Act passed— (a) before this Act, or (b) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act.” It is incredibly wide-ranging, as I am sure you can see, Ms Vaz. Again, the amendment would prevent regulations from amending provisions made by primary legislation. Amendment 8 would amend clause 12 on regulations to remove a swathe of additional information in subsection (3), and amendment 9 would leave out subsections (4) and (5) of the same clause, again for the reason that the Bill will provide sweeping powers to widen the scope of criminal offences and all those other things that we have made the case are unsatisfactory under our constitution. Amendment 12 would also prevent regulations made under the Bill from amending provisions made by primary legislation. We think that amendment 13, which would insert various provisions into clause 12, is also extremely reasonable. What we have tried to do with the amendments is come up with a range of sensible limitations to the Henry VIII powers that so concerned the other place, and that would concern any reasonable person—I think of the power to create the scope of a criminal offence and so on. Through the amendments, we seek genuinely to amend the scope of clauses 10 and 12.

    Hansard source
19. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    What a welcome moment, Ms Vaz—my colleague from the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Chippenham, supports the rationale behind the amendments. The swelling in support for our amendments gives me a welcome opportunity to test the opinion of the Committee on each of them. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
20. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    On a point of order, Ms Vaz. I seek clarification: are not the remaining amendments in the group to clause 12?

    Hansard source
21. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    So we will not be taking decisions on them now, but I would like to reserve the right to ask the Committee’s opinion later.

    Hansard source
22. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    Given that the Minister just admitted that the Government had to amend the clause in the other place because of its extensive Henry VIII powers, and that some remain in the clause, we would like to divide the Committee. Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
23. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    On the surface, clause 11 looks like just an interpretation clause, but there is one provision about which I would like a little elaboration from the Minister. An online marketplace is defined as “a service or feature of a service on…a website or part of a website…a mobile application, or…any other platform by means of which information is made available over the internet, which facilitates the marketing of products in the United Kingdom”. That seems entirely reasonable. The Minister set out some of the new ways in which consumers in the UK are able to buy products here. Under subsection (2), however, suddenly the Secretary of State “may by regulations amend this section for the purposes of altering the definition of ‘online marketplace’”. That strikes me as very strange. Exactly why is subsection (2) in the clause? Suddenly changing the definition of an online marketplace seems like a very wide, Henry VIII-type power. I see that the Minister is receiving inspiration for the answer to my question. I ask him to reply, and then we will decide whether we will press the clause to a Division.

    Hansard source
24. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    Will the Minister be kind enough to point out where that use of the affirmative procedure is set out in legislation?

    Hansard source
25. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    Ms Vaz, you heard it. For the record, I think I heard the Minister say that it is set out in the code of conduct, which I think means that extensions to the definition would be subject to the affirmative procedure and a consultation. I am hesitant to allow the clause to become legislation without those assurances.

    Hansard source
26. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    Forgive me, Ms Vaz; it is getting quite late in the afternoon. The Minister’s amendment to line 20 of clause 12 leaves out “7 to 10” and inserts “7, 8 and 10”. Could I clarify what the “9” is a reference to? In which clause is the “9” referenced? I am not following it, because clause 12 seems to have seven subsections.

    Hansard source
27. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    I am grateful that the Minister is as confused as I am by this; I thought it was just the lateness in the day. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to write to me to point out where the erroneous “9” exists.

    Hansard source
28. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    The hon. Lady puts some extremely important and valuable questions to the Committee. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

    Hansard source
29. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    It is appropriate for me to put on the record how grateful we are for the scrutiny that the Bill received in the other place. We have just heard from the Minister how many changes had to be made because of the concerns raised by the Committee in the other place, which I have quoted extensively in today’s debates. We have covered a lot of ground in terms of concerns about individual clauses, and the Minister has helpfully set out the specific items that are subject to the affirmative as opposed to the negative procedure. Given that we have gone over this ground extensively during the debates on the other clauses, I shall leave it there. Question put and agreed to. Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 13 Extent Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
30. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

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

    I think the Committee may well return to some of these themes at a later stage of our deliberations. Clause 13 concerns the UK internal market, which is an important topic that deserves considerable further scrutiny and debate. Clauses 14 and 15 essentially clarify when the commencement will be for the various clauses. It would be more sensible if I were to devote my time to a discussion of some of the new clauses that we have tabled, which will come later in the Committee’s deliberations. Question put and agreed to. Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 15 Short title Amendment made: 2, in clause 15, page 12, line 37, leave out subsection (2).—(Justin Madders.) This amendment would remove the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords. Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)

    Hansard source
31. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    UK-EU Summit

    Order. While I am in the Chair, interventions will be shorter than that.

    Hansard source
32. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    UK-EU Summit

    Order. The hon. Member has said “you” twice, and now says “Sir John”. It is a very long-established convention that Members do not refer to right hon. and hon. colleagues by name.

    Hansard source
33. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    UK-EU Summit

    Order. I do not intend to introduce a time limit, but Members will be aware that there are in the region of 25 people wishing to speak. They might like to consider how long they will spend on their feet, so that as many colleagues as possible can get in.

    Hansard source
34. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    UK-EU Summit

    Order. The hon. Member might reflect on the fact that the amendment to which he refers was not even selected, so he should not even be speaking to it.

    Hansard source
35. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    UK-EU Summit

    Order. The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced parliamentarian and knows that he should be addressing the Chair, not facing the back of the Chamber.

    Hansard source
36. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    UK-EU Summit

    Order. I am now instating an immediate three-minute time limit. I call Luke Charters.

    Hansard source
37. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    UK-EU Summit

    Order.

    Hansard source
38. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    UK-EU Summit

    Order. May I respectfully suggest to the hon. Lady that she needs to be very careful in the language that she chooses to use about the Prime Minister?

    Hansard source
39. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    UK-EU Summit

    Order. I suggest the hon. Lady withdraw her comment, in which she has accused the Prime Minister of not being straight.

    Hansard source
40. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    Kashmir

    Following the terrorist attack on 22 April, India and Pakistan engaged in military activity, and India hit nine terrorist bases. Now that there is a fragile peace, which is still being negotiated today, what efforts is the Foreign Secretary making to ensure that the terrorist bases are removed from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir?

    Hansard source