Harriett Baldwin MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 15 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 15 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 3, page 4, line 8, leave out subsection (1).

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 3 deals with the enforcement provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 grants sweeping powers to the Secretary of State, and clause 2 defines the types of requirement there may be on products. Clearly, the regulations that the Secretary of State has so much freedom to enact will need to be enforced, but the wording of clause 3 is such that any lawyer—or anyone who believes in our freedom and democracy under the rule of law—would be concerned about it.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

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

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

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

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 2, page 3, line 41, leave out “EU” and insert “foreign”.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

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

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It will not surprise the Committee to hear that, because our very sensible amendments to clause 2 have been rejected, we continue to have significant concerns about it and the extraordinary powers it confers on the Minister. In particular, subsection (7), which we tried to amend, will allow product regulations to provide that a “product requirement is to be treated as met if— (a) a requirement of relevant EU law specified in product regulations is met, or (b) such a requirement is met and conditions specified in the regulations are also met.” Because of our concerns about those provisions, and because the Committee took the view that it did not want to accept our sensible amendments, I will divide the Committee on clause 2 stand part.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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. )

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. We start by discussing some of the amendments we have tabled to clause 2. In this morning’s sitting we had a thorough discussion of the issues relating to clause 1, and we also discussed some amendments to clause 2. I hope, Ms Vaz, that you will allow the Committee to consider each measure separately. Essentially, amendments 20, 6 and 22 would allow for product regulations to be defined by relation to the laws of a wide range of foreign countries rather than just the European Union. Although we have an incredibly important and valuable trading relationship with our friends and neighbours in the European Union, and a very good zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with them, we also have a range of agreements with other countries that facilitate the international trade of products. Amendment 20 would expand the scope of the powers that the Committee agreed to give to the Secretary of State under clause 1 to cover foreign countries with which we have a close trading relationship. For example, we have a close trading relationship with the United States; indeed, we are each other’s single biggest investor and it is the biggest single country with which we have a trading relationship. We would like to see the Bill enable a discussion whereby we liberalise trade between our countries but also mutually recognise product regulation. We also have a significant trade agreement, the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, which covers our great trading relationship with friends as far away geographically but as close emotionally as those in Australia and other countries around the Pacific. I am sure that Australia has a system to mutually recognise product safety regimes in important trade agreements, to allow global trade with the confidence that high-quality products are reaching the marketplace. There is absolutely no reason for the Government to oppose the amendments, unless they truly are uniquely fixated on the EU as a product regulator. Any argument for permitting EU standards should also be one for permitting safe international standards from our other partners. That is unless the actual purpose of the Bill is solely to enable dynamic EU alignment—indeed, EU alignment is mentioned clearly in the impact assessment—while preventing alternatives that could benefit British businesses and, importantly, British consumers, who are our constituents. If the Government do not intend to dynamically align us with the European Union on product regulation, they have every reason to accept amendment 20 and make that clear. Amendment 6 would add to clause 2 new subsection (7A), which says: “Any regulations under subsection (7) which specify a relevant foreign law must specify that the foreign law referred to is that which is in application on a particular date, which must be specified.” That would prevent the Bill from enabling ambulatory references or dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws, and would enable alignment with laws only as they stand on the particular date the Secretary of State decides to use his copious powers under clause 1. That would mean that if regulation changes, Ministers would rightly have to look again and decide whether to maintain alignment. It is right that we do not give a blank cheque to the EU—or, if amendment 20 is accepted, to foreign countries—by allowing them to diverge on regulations while British businesses and consumers get taken along for the ride. We should be making our own laws that prioritise growth and innovation and that champion businesses here in the UK, thereby giving them the ability to set the standard and the bar and to thrive on the global stage. Only we in this Parliament should be in charge of those decisions; foreign courts should not opine on them. Amendment 6 would allow for flexibility if foreign laws changed, which would allow for a reassessment of their compatibility with the UK market. Amendment 22 would require the Secretary of State to justify decisions through an explanatory statement, to limit any reference to the laws of one specific territory and prevent the provision of regulations for dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws. By tabling these helpful amendments, we have given the Government a golden opportunity to show that they are not using this Trojan horse Bill to covertly, and without the express will of Parliament, dynamically align for evermore with EU regulations. They would open up the UK as a global trading nation to mutual recognition around the world. We have our very own certification—UK conformity assessed—which I urge the Government to seek to get recognised in all the trade agreements they sign up to. Surely we want this Parliament to define the standards by which products around the world are recognised. There should be mutual recognition of the other high-quality jurisdictions—such as Canada, Australia, the United States and the countries in the Pacific—to supplement the recognition that the Secretary of State seems minded to give exclusively to the European Union.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.