Conservative and Unionist Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Conservative and Unionist Party

Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,804 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

  1. ParliamentDame 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

  2. ParliamentDame 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

  3. ParliamentDame 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

  4. ParliamentDame 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

  5. ParliamentDame 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

  6. ParliamentDame 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

  7. ParliamentDame 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

  8. ParliamentDame 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

  9. ParliamentDame 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

  10. ParliamentDame 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

  11. ParliamentDame 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

  12. ParliamentDame 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

  13. ParliamentDame 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

  14. ParliamentDame 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

  15. ParliamentDame 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

  16. ParliamentDame 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

  17. ParliamentDame 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

  18. ParliamentDame 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

  19. ParliamentDame 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

  20. ParliamentDame 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

  21. ParliamentDame 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

  22. ParliamentDame 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

  23. ParliamentCaroline Nokes

    UK-EU Summit

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

    Hansard source

  24. ParliamentCaroline 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

  25. ParliamentCaroline 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

  26. ParliamentCaroline 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

  27. ParliamentCaroline 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

  28. ParliamentCaroline Nokes

    UK-EU Summit

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

    Hansard source

  29. ParliamentCaroline Nokes

  30. ParliamentCaroline 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

  31. ParliamentCaroline 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

  32. ParliamentBob 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

  33. ParliamentBlake Stephenson

    Flooding: Planning and Developer Responsibilities

    In places such as Maulden in Mid Bedfordshire, we too often see inappropriate or poorly maintained sustainable drainage, which contributes to worsening flooding. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s plans for 1.5 million homes can be considered a success only if they can tackle such problems so that everyone can live in a dry home?

    Hansard source

  34. ParliamentAphra Brandreth

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

    I want to make a few brief points in support of the Opposition amendments. Taken together, they serve a simple but essential purpose: they seek to ensure that the powers granted under the Bill are used transparently, responsibly and with full parliamentary oversight. Let me be clear: this is not about rehashing the debates of the past. It is about making sure that future decisions, especially those that could have profound consequences for British industry, trade and product standards, are subject to democratic scrutiny. As it stands, the Bill gives sweeping discretion to Ministers to align domestic product regulations with European law. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire said, it enables the potential for dynamic alignment, which the impact assessment essentially spells out as the aim, without any binding requirement for parliamentary approval, debate or even explanation. Amendment 5 would change that by requiring the Secretary of State to explain the rationale for alignment and seek Parliament’s consent before any such decision takes effect. This is not obstructionism; it is good governance. As has been noted, the Bill also risks undoing the progress made by the previous Government in removing excessive red tape and regaining regulatory autonomy. Through sovereign decision making the UK has created trading opportunities on the world stage. That is why amendments 3 and 4, to remove automatic mechanisms to treat compliance with EU rules as equivalent to UK compliance by default and without justification, are vital. This is not about rejecting co-operation where it is in our interest; it is about avoiding automatic alignment without accountability. As was raised in the other place, the powers are not just technical; they are significant policy decisions that deserve primary legislation. The democratic will of the British people, expressed in the referendum when we decided to leave the European Union and in elections since, was to restore British sovereignty. It is only right that no authority based outside the UK, whether it be the European Commission or the Court of Justice of the European Union, can unilaterally shape the enforcement or interpretation of our rules. Amendment 21, in particular, would ensure that any EU-derived product standards must first be brought into UK law by regulation before they can be treated as equivalent. That would both protect sovereignty and provide certainty. Ultimately, there must be proper scrutiny, and if Ministers are confident in their decisions, they should have no concern about being asked to report back to Parliament on any regulations aligning with EU law and to ask Parliament to approve their continuation. That would enable proper oversight while guarding against regulatory drift.

    Hansard source

  35. ParliamentAphra Brandreth

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

    I will speak very briefly on amendment 17. The watchword of this Government has been, supposedly, growth. That is supposed to be the driving force behind legislation and policy, yet they have clearly introduced measures that have done nothing to support growth, and the Bill risks being another stumbling block to continuing the path of recovery—a recovery that the Government actually inherited, with the UK the fastest-growing economy in the G7. The Opposition have sought to constructively improve the Bill through the amendment, which would ensure that the Government focus on growth. These are sensible and important provisions to promote investment and to foster innovation. I am sure that Labour Members want to encourage economic growth. Supporting businesses is the way to do that. Empowering them—rather than prohibiting them with regulation and red tape from Brussels—should be central to achieving growth. There are huge opportunities and markets out there for the UK to seize. We must ensure that trade and national policy are as one, supporting job creation, innovation and competition. We need clarity and assurance from the Government that they understand the potential impact of dynamic alignment and the damage that that could do to the economy. When have legally binding powers achieved growth? When has ambiguity in what businesses should expect and in their operating conditions delivered growth? The truth is that it does not. Businesses need clarity and confidence, and this skeleton Bill does not deliver that. If Labour Members really want—as they say they do—to see growth, I am sure they will want to support the amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire pointed out, the Government’s actions so far have seen GDP per capita shrinking and business confidence plummeting.

    Hansard source

  36. ParliamentAphra Brandreth

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

    I thank my right hon. Friend for that important intervention. Dynamic alignment will see us give away control to the European Union, meaning that we cannot focus on growth in a way that will rightly and importantly improve growth for UK businesses across the whole of the UK. I represent Chester South and Eddisbury, a seat in the north-west of England, and we need to ensure that we see growth across the whole United Kingdom. The amendment, importantly, would ensure that we focus on that. More than ever, we must not stifle growth.

    Hansard source

  37. ParliamentAphra Brandreth

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

    I thank my hon. Friend for that clear and important intervention. She is absolutely right: this is an opportunity to create incentives for growth and to position the UK as a global leader in innovation. We all know that we must continue to innovate. We want the UK to be at the forefront for so many possible emerging markets. We must do everything we can to support that. I urge Members to support the amendment.

    Hansard source

  38. ParliamentAphra Brandreth

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

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I rise to speak in support of the Opposition amendments, which are not just minor textual tweaks but go to the core of how we manage product regulations now that we have left the European Union. Amendment 20, which proposes replacing the word “EU” with the word “foreign” in the relevant provision, might seem like a small change on the surface, but it is very important. Focusing only on EU law in this context risks narrowing our horizons at a time when we have been trying to broaden them. Since leaving the EU, the UK has made real efforts to strike up new trade relationships and to move in ways that enable us to take advantage of fast-growing global markets, not just the one on our doorstep.

    Hansard source

  39. ParliamentAphra Brandreth

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

    My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course we need to think about the EU, but we also need to think more widely and broadly, and look at the opportunities across the globe. A good example of that is, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire rightly pointed out, our accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. That is a major economic partnership with Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. To join the CPTPP, the UK underwent a comprehensive review to ensure that our domestic regulations were compatible with those of its members. That progress was possible because we were no longer locked into EU rules. We need to be careful here. If the Bill’s powers allowed us to simply fall back into alignment with EU laws through dynamic alignment, we would end up undoing the very advantages that regulatory independence has given us. That is why amendment 6 is so important: it would make sure that if we chose to align with any foreign law, EU or otherwise, it would be to the version of that law as it exists on a specific date, not as it may evolve in the future. In other words, we keep control: we know exactly what we are aligning with and we do so deliberately. As the Opposition continue to stress, the Bill clearly indicates a move towards dynamic alignment with the EU without oversight. It is clear that the intention is to see our regulations automatically change every time the EU updates its regulations. Dynamic alignment would bring businesses uncertainty by requiring continuous adjustments, and such changes might require businesses to adapt and potentially bear the costs of the changes. As was pointed out in debates in the other place, EU rules are not always made with our economy in mind. They are sometimes protectionist, or designed to benefit specific interests in the single market. We must be sure that the Bill does not jeopardise any progress we have made with new partners, or tie us to a regulatory environment that is not in our best interests. Dynamic alignment would effectively mean outsourcing decisions about UK product standards to a foreign body. That does not sit well with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and, frankly, does not give British businesses the clarity or stability that they need. Finally, amendment 22 would add a simple but important safeguard: it would require the Secretary of State to publish an explanatory statement if the Government plan to base regulations on the law of just one foreign market. It is a transparency measure. If we are going to align UK rules with those of another country or bloc, the public and Parliament deserve to know why that is the right course of action. The amendment would help to ensure that decisions are made in the national interest and, importantly, that they are properly scrutinised. I ask again why Ministers are so unwilling to explain their decisions. Why would they not want transparency? If their decisions are in the public interest, they surely would not have any issue with supporting amendment 22 and agreeing to publish an explanatory statement in relevant cases. The Government have argued that clause 2 provides flexibility and continuity. I understand that perspective, but flexibility should not come at the expense of democratic oversight, and continuity should not mean quietly reverting to rules that we have worked hard to move beyond. The amendments in this group would not prevent alignment where it is helpful; they would ensure that alignment is clear, accountable and firmly in our control. That is a balanced approach that recognises the opportunities of global trade while respecting the sovereignty of this House. I hope the Committee will support the amendments.

    Hansard source

  40. ParliamentAphra Brandreth

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

    I thank the Minister for his remarks. If he says that these things will be done if they are in the country’s interest, what is the problem with bringing that back to the House to be debated and agreed? The problem we have, Ms Vaz, is that Ministers are to have discretion to decide what is in the country’s interest, when we think that should be for Parliament to decide.

    Hansard source