British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
Gareth Snell Excerpts(4 days, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Jones
I certainly have oomph, yes, and I am working as fast as I can on this. I will not talk now about the wider support that we are offering people in our former coalfield communities, but a whole raft of Government interventions are there to support people.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituent Robert Ferguson echoes many of the points made by the constituent of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) about the difference between families who worked side by side, whereby one benefits and one does not. I know that the Minister has a rather full portfolio—there are many other things that I constantly nag her about—but will we wait for the Treasury, which is not known for its speed in making decisions, or could interim arrangements be put in place to give some of the surplus back to the BCSSS, or something that allows a demonstration of progress while we wait for the Chief Secretary to come to a decision?
Sarah Jones
I would not want to give the impression that this decision is waiting on the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to say yes. That is not the case. We have to go through the correct processes to get it over the line, because it was not in the manifesto; it is a different scheme and we must go through the proper processes. I hope that my hon. Friend understands that.
It would probably cause more trouble than not to give part but not all of the surplus back, because people would wonder why we were doing that. We want to resolve this properly and quickly. The two outcomes that the hon. Member for Ashfield referred to, and which the trustees want, are goals that we all share, but we have to do this properly by going through the right processes and ensuring that we are not putting words into the mouths of our Treasury officials and colleagues before it is right to do so. My commitment is to work at pace on this. As I said, my officials are meeting the Treasury tomorrow, and we are meeting the trustees before the summer.
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
Gareth Snell ExcerptsWednesday 4th June 2025
(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 4 June 2025 - large print - (4 Jun 2025)
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Requirement to inform customers about changes to prepackaged products—
“(1) A supermarket must inform customers if—
(a) there has been an increase in price per unit of measurement in any prepackaged product sold by the supermarket; and
(b) this increase has resulted from a decrease in the quantity of the goods included within the package.
(2) The requirement to inform customers must include a statement attached to the product, or placed alongside the product.
(3) The statement must—
(a) include the amount the quantity has decreased by and the amount the price per unit of measure has increased by;
(b) be the same font size as the unit price of the product and must be visible and legible; and
(c) be in place from the date of the change in unit quantity and remain in place for the following 60 days.
(4) In this section—
‘prepackaged product’ is a product that has been wrapped or placed in a container before being made available for retail;
‘quantity of goods’ includes, but is not limited to—
(a) weight of goods;
(b) volume of goods;
(c) number of units;
‘supermarket’ is a store with a sales area greater than 400m² of which 50% or more of the products sold are food products.”
This new clause would place a requirement on supermarkets to inform customers when the quantity of goods within the product had decreased resulting in a price increase per unit of measurement.
New clause 3—Reviews of potential country of origin labelling for meat products—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review into the feasibility, benefits, and potential impacts of requiring food service businesses employing over 250 people to display the country of origin of beef products sourced from the United States on menus.
(2) The review must consider—
(a) the potential public health, environmental, and animal welfare concerns related to beef production standards in the United States compared to those in the United Kingdom;
(b) the practicality of creating regulations for the labelling of beef for food service businesses equivalent to the Beef and Veal Labelling (England) Regulations 2010;
(c) consumer demand for country of origin information in relation to beef products; and
(d) the practicality and cost implications for the hospitality sector.
(3) The Secretary of State must, in undertaking the review, consult with representatives of the food and hospitality sectors, the National Farmers Union, food safety bodies, animal welfare groups, and any other stakeholders deemed relevant.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review before Parliament within 6 months of the passing of this Act.
(5) Within 6 months of laying the report under subsection (5) the Government must undertake a further review into the feasibility, benefits, and potential impacts of requiring food service businesses employing over 250 people to display the country of origin labelling for any meat product from any country with reference to the outcomes of the report under subsection (5).
(6) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review under subsection (6) before Parliament within 6 months of the launch of that review.”
This new clause requires the Government to undertake reviews into the feasibility of requiring food businesses to disclose the country of origin of meat products on menus.
New clause 4—Labelling for UK-produced or manufactured products—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a voluntary labelling system to indicate when a product has been produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom.
(2) The label must be—
(a) displayed clearly on the front-facing packaging of applicable goods;
(b) standardised in appearance, including a nationally recognised symbol or wording indicating UK origin; and
(c) legible, visible and no smaller in font size than the unit price display or equivalent information on the product.
(3) A product qualifies for the label if—
(a) it is wholly or substantially produced, manufactured, grown or reared in the United Kingdom; and
(b) it meets any additional criteria as set out by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) The Secretary of State must consult food producers, retailers, consumer groups and relevant trade associations before setting the criteria for qualifying products and the design of the label.
(5) The Secretary of State must undertake a promotional campaign to ensure consumers are aware of the new labelling system.
(6) Regulations under this section must be made within 2 months of the passing of this Act.
(7) In this section—
‘product’ includes food, drink and manufactured goods available for retail sale;
‘produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom’ includes goods where the final significant production process occurred in the UK.”
This new clause would require the Government to introduce a voluntary labelling system, clearly marking goods produced or manufactured in the UK, helping consumers make informed choices and supporting domestic producers.
New clause 5—Support and Guidance for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises—
“(1) The Secretary of State must produce and maintain guidance for small and medium-sized enterprises on how to comply with any provisions made by regulations under this Act.
(2) The guidance must include—
(a) a summary of the key provisions of the Act relevant to SMEs;
(b) practical advice on compliance requirements;
(c) information on any available financial, technical, or advisory support; and
(d) contact details for further enquiries or assistance.
(3) The first version of the guidance must be published on the day this Act is passed.
(4) Each time regulations are made under this Act, a revised version of the guidance must be published on the day the regulations are made.”
This new clause would ensure that guidance and support for SMEs on the impact of the Bill should be available 60 days before implementation.
New clause 6—Review of access to testing and certification for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)—
(1) The relevant Minister must undertake a review into the accessibility and affordability of independent product testing and certification for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in relation to the requirements of this Act.
(2) The review must include consideration of—
(a) the typical costs incurred by SMEs in meeting relevant testing and certification requirements;
(b) the availability and capacity of accredited testing providers serving SMEs;
(c) any barriers to market access arising from testing and certification obligations; and
(d) potential non-financial measures to support SMEs in meeting compliance requirements.
(3) The Minister must publish a report on the findings of the review, including any recommendations, within 12 months of the commencement of this section.”
This new clause would require the Government to undertake a review into the accessibility and affordability of independent product testing and certification for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in relation to the requirements of this Act.
New clause 7—Liability and redress for unsafe or defective products—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for—
(a) the extension of liability for unsafe or defective products to online marketplaces and any other persons within the scope of section 2(3);
(b) the disclosure of evidence in relation to claims for compensation or other rights of action in law for harm caused by unsafe or defective products and presumptions of liability that may arise accordingly;
(c) proceedings, including collective proceedings, to ensure redress for consumers or other individuals suffering harm as a result of unsafe or defective products made available in breach of requirements imposed under powers given by this Act.”
This new clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for liability of online marketplaces for defective and unsafe products, and to ensure that those suffering harm from unsafe or defective products can obtain redress.
New clause 8—Alignment with EU law—
“(1) Where equivalent or similar EU law exists in relation to relevant product regulations, the Secretary of State must, when making provision under section 1, update Parliament on whether the Government proposes to vary the regulations from alignment with EU law.
(2) If the Secretary of State believes divergence from relevant EU law to be in the interests of the United Kingdom, they must arrange for a statement to be made in Parliament on the benefits to United Kingdom business to be achieved by this divergence, at least fourteen days before the relevant regulations are laid before Parliament.
(3) If the Secretary of State believes alignment with the relevant EU law to be in the interests of the United Kingdom, they must arrange for a statement to be made in Parliament on the benefits to United Kingdom business to be achieved by this alignment, at least fourteen days before the relevant regulations are laid before Parliament.
(4) The statement under subsection (2) or (3) must include the date by which any such regulations will be reviewed, which can be no later than 36 months after implementation.”
This new clause provides greater regulatory certainty for UK businesses by requiring scrutiny of all decisions to diverge or align with EU regulations and a process for Parliamentary scrutiny and review, whether Ministers determine that divergence or alignment from such regulations would be in the best interests of the UK.
New clause 9—Inclusion of lithium-ion batteries as a priority product category—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, make regulations under this Act to include lithium-ion batteries as a specified product category subject to relevant safety, performance, labelling, environmental, and end-of-life requirements.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must include—
(a) provisions for minimum safety and performance standards for lithium-ion batteries placed on the UK market;
(b) requirements for clear labelling, including information on capacity, cycle life, and safe handling;
(c) obligations for manufacturers and importers relating to fire safety, product recalls, and end-of-life disposal or recycling;
(d) powers for market surveillance authorities to take enforcement action in relation to non-compliant lithium-ion batteries.
(3) In this section, a ‘lithium-ion battery’ means any rechargeable battery containing lithium compounds as a primary component of the electrochemical cell.[KM1]
(4) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the following stakeholders—
(a) representatives of the battery industry,
(b) environmental groups,
(c) consumer safety organisations,
(d) fire services, and
(e) any other person whom the Secretary of State considers to be relevant.”
This new clause would ensure that Lithium-ion batteries are included in the Bill.
New clause 10—Duties of online marketplaces—
“(1) Without prejudice to the generality of any other powers or duties conferred by this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about requirements that must be met by a person mentioned in section 2(3)(e), including regarding duties—
(a) to operate an online marketplace using effective systems and processes designed to monitor for, and identify, products presenting risks to consumers or other individuals and prevent such products being made available on or through the online marketplace;
(b) to cooperate with relevant authorities, with other persons mentioned in subsection 2(3) or any other relevant persons, to facilitate any action taken to eliminate or, if that is not possible, to mitigate the risks presented by a product that is or was made available on or through their online marketplace;
(c) to ensure that information regarding the identity and activities of persons marketing products on or through online marketplaces to consumers or other individuals is obtained and verified;
(d) to remove products presenting risks to consumers or other individuals from availability on or through an online marketplace as quickly as possible if alerted to their presence or becomes aware of it in any other way.
(2) Within 3 months from the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a statement that sets out how the Secretary of State is exercising, or expects to exercise, the powers under subsection (1) regarding the proposed duties that must be met by a person mentioned in section 2(3)(e).”
This new clause provides a list of duties that must be imposed upon online marketplaces by regulations, and for a statement by the Secretary of State to be made to Parliament within 3 months of Royal Assent regarding the exercise of the duties conferred by this section.
New clause 11—Product recall—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make regulations on product recall processes.
(2) The regulations must include provision to ensure—
(a) the creation and maintenance of a publicly accessible, government-hosted online database of all active product recalls affecting the UK market;
(b) clear obligations on manufacturers, importers, and distributors to notify the appropriate enforcement authority and upload recall notices to the database promptly upon identification of a safety risk;
(c) that recall notices include details of the affected product, risks identified, corrective action to be taken, and information on how consumers can claim a refund, replacement, or repair; and
(d) minimum standards for direct communication to affected consumers, including by email, SMS, or postal notice where reasonably practicable.
(3) The regulations must establish consumer rights entitling individuals to—
(a) a full refund, suitable replacement, or repair of a recalled product within a reasonable timeframe;
(b) access to support and guidance through the recall process, including where a product is no longer in production.
(4) The Secretary of State must consult with consumer protection organisations, trading standards bodies, manufacturers, and other relevant stakeholders before making regulations under this section.”
This new clause would ensure that a centralised Product Recall Mechanism is established to protect consumers.
New clause 12—Local weights and measures authorities: review—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a review of the funding and capabilities of local weights and measures authorities to carry out in an effective way their enforcement responsibilities under the regulatory framework provided by this Act and other trading standards and consumer protection laws.
(2) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult regulators and other persons likely to be affected by the review, including such representatives of consumer and business organisations as they consider appropriate.”
This new clause provides for the Secretary of State to carry out a review of how the funding and capabilities of Trading Standards authorities affects their enforcement activities, to consult appropriate bodies and stakeholders and to lay the review before Parliament.
New clause 13—International agreements—
“(1) 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—
(a) the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership,
(b) the Japan Economic Comprehensive Partnership Agreement,
(c) the UK-Canada Continuity Trade Agreement,
(d) The UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement,
(e) the UK-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, or
(f) any other trade treaties to which the United Kingdom is, or becomes, a signatory, including any free trade agreement with the United States of America and India.”
This new clause would prevent the Secretary of State making regulations to align with EU standards which would damage the UK’s current or future trade agreements.
New clause 14—Review Panel—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish an independent review panel (“the Panel”) no later than 2 years after the day on which this Act comes into force.
(2) The Panel must—
(a) carry out a review of all regulations under this Act corresponding to, similar to, or making references to, the requirements of relevant foreign laws under section 2(7), with a view to establishing—
(i) their effect on economic growth;
(ii) their effect on trade in the product concerned on a global basis;
(iii) their effect on the relevant industry or industries within the United Kingdom;
(b) prepare a report of the review, and
(c) lay a copy of the report before Parliament, no later than 12 months from the date of the Panel’s creation.
(3) The Panel must consist of—
(a) at least one person with expertise in economics;
(b) at least one person with expertise in trade policy;
(c) at least one person with expertise in domestic regulation of business.”
This new clause would ensure a review and report to Parliament of any regulations aligning UK regulations with those of other countries or territories.
New clause 15—Consultation on committee to examine changes to product regulations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, commission a consultation on the creation of a committee on changes to product regulations.
(2) A consultation under subsection (1) must consider the suitability of current scrutiny mechanisms for assessing regulations created through the powers created or amended by the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025.
(3) A consultation under subsection (1) must consult—
(a) the Chair of the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee,
(b) the Chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee,
(c) the Chair of the House of Commons Liaison Committee,
(d) the Chair of the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and
(e) the House of Commons Commission.
(4) The Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable after receiving a report of a consultation under subsection (1), lay before both Houses of Parliament—
(a) a copy of the report of the consultation, and
(b) a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to that consultation.”
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on the establishment of a House of Commons committee that would examine all changes to product regulations which are made by the powers granted by this legislation.
New clause 16—Regulations: requirement for certification—
“When laying regulations to be made using the regulation making powers in this Act, the Secretary of State must certify that their effect is not to undermine the resolve of our constitutional arrangements to honour the choice of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union by means of subjecting the United Kingdom to the same law as the European Union so it could subsequently be argued that the United Kingdom should rejoin so it has a voice in making the legislation rather than adopting legislation that has already been made by the European Parliament and Council of Ministers.”
New clause 17—Brexit good faith statement—
“When laying regulations to be made using the regulation making powers in this Act, the Secretary of State must provide a statement (a “Brexit good faith statement”) setting out how in the development of the regulations it has sought to honour the decision of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union by developing, through the regulations, a legislative framework that intentionally seeks to exploit the opportunities afforded by Brexit to develop competitive and other advantages for the United Kingdom compared with the European Union in the global marketplace.”
Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out subsection (1).
This amendment seeks to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State under product regulations, when defining and regulating risks and determining what constitutes efficient or effective product operation.
Amendment 10, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations about the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom which corresponds, or is similar to, a provision of relevant EU law for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products.
Amendment 11, page 1, line 9, leave out “also”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 32, page 1, line 10, leave out “the United Kingdom” and insert “Great Britain”.
Amendment 25, page 1, line 11, leave out “EU” and insert “foreign”.
Amendment 12, page 1, line 13, leave out “(1) or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 7, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(3A) Further, the Secretary of State may only make regulations under subsections (1) or (2) if satisfied that making the regulations will not result in reducing the necessary levels of consumer protection and regulatory standards in relation to products, with reference where applicable to equivalent product regulations or standards in force at the time.”
This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from making regulations unless satisfied that the regulations will not reduce consumer protection and regulatory standards in relation to products.
Amendment 8, page 1, line 21, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State must also by regulations make provision aimed at promoting investment, fostering innovation, and encouraging economic growth in relation to the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom.
(4B) Regulations under subsection (4A) must support—
(a) the creation of economic incentives for businesses that contribute to economic growth, and
(b) the alignment of product regulations with the strategic aim of positioning the United Kingdom as a global leader in innovation.”
This amendment ensures that the regulations in the Bill prioritise economic growth and the United Kingdom’s role in innovation and economic expansion.
Amendment 26, page 2, leave out lines 12 to 18 and insert—
“‘relevant foreign law’ means law of one or more of the United States of America, Canada, Japan, the European Union, Switzerland, Australia, or New Zealand relating to standards, the marketing, or use of products in those markets, which are in force on a specific date and only that date, as specified in regulations;”
Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, at end insert—
“(2A) Product regulations must include requirements in relation to an environmental impact assessment, and provisions related to the right to repair and the circular economy.”
This amendment guarantees that future regulations under the Act will include provisions which relate to the circular economy and granting consumers the right to repair products.
Amendment 3, page 3, line 21, at end insert—
“(fa) a person involved on behalf of a person mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f), in product marketing or the use of products, including storage, transportation, packaging, labelling or disposal;”.
This amendment closes a potential loophole in the Secretary of State’s powers to ensure that, whatever their legal status or location, all relevant organisations in the supply chain, including fulfilment houses, can be held accountable by regulations to protect consumers from non-compliant goods.
Amendment 16, page 3, line 39, leave out subsections (7) and (8).
This amendment removes the ability for product regulations to provide that product requirements are met if the requirements of relevant EU law are met.
Amendment 27, page 3, line 41, leave out “EU” and insert “foreign”.
Amendment 14, page 4, line 2, at end insert—
“(7A) 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.”
This amendment prevents the Bill enabling ambulatory references or dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws, and only enables alignment with laws as they stand on a particular defined date.
Amendment 15, page 4, line 2, at end insert—
“(7A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (7)(a), a product requirement of relevant EU law must not be treated as met unless regulations are made by the Secretary of State to incorporate them into United Kingdom law.”
Amendment 28, page 4, line 5, at end insert—
“(8A) Before making provision described in subsection (7), the Secretary of State must make a statement in Parliament if the provision relates to relevant foreign law of only one of the markets listed in the definition of ‘relevant foreign law’ in section 1(7).”
This amendment, and Amendments 25, 26 and 27, open up the possibility of defining product regulations by relation to the laws of countries other than the European Union, and require the justification of decisions to limit any such reference to the laws of one territory only.
Amendment 29, page 4, line 5, at end insert—
“(8B) The final meaning or interpretation of any provision of relevant foreign law under this Act shall be made exclusively by the Secretary of State or by a court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, as appropriate, and must not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.
(8C) The enforcement of any provision of relevant foreign law under this Act must be undertaken exclusively by the authorities of the United Kingdom Government and must not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would prevent the interpretation or enforcement of any regulations referring to foreign law, notably that of the EU, from being undertaken by any authorities other than those based in the UK (for example the European Commission or the CJEU).
Amendment 13, page 4, line 6, at end insert—
“(10) The provision described in subsection (7) may only be made if—
(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a statement explaining the necessity of aligning with relevant EU law, and
(b) the updated provision had been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament when aligning with EU law, and for Parliament to approve that provision before aligning with EU law.
Amendment 17, page 4, line 6, at end insert—
“(10) The final meaning or interpretation of any provision of relevant EU law under this Act must be made exclusively by the Secretary of State or by a court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, as appropriate, and may not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.
(11) The enforcement of any provision of relevant EU law under this Act must be undertaken exclusively by the authorities of the United Kingdom Government and may not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would prevent the interpretation or enforcement of any regulations referring to EU law from being undertaken by any authorities other than those based in the UK (for example the European Commission or CJEU).
Amendment 21, in clause 3, page 4, line 8, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
Amendment 22, page 4, line 11, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 23, page 4, line 17, leave out subsection (4).
Amendment 24, page 5, line 16, leave out subsections (9) to (11).
Amendment 6, in clause 12, page 11, line 37, at end insert—
“‘circular economy’ means that products are manufactured to minimise waste and maximise the use, reuse, and recyclability of products;”.
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “circular economy” and is consequential on Amendment 5.
Amendment 4, page 12, line 21, at end insert—
“(e) provision described in section [Product recall].”
Amendment 1, in clause 13, page 13, line 4, leave out from “Act” to “may” in line 5.
This amendment would make all regulations under this act subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
Amendment 2, page 13, line 8, leave out subsections (4) and (5)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 30, page 13, line 8, at end insert—
“(za) provision described in section 2(7);”
This amendment would ensure that the affirmative parliamentary procedure will apply to regulations under Clause 2(7), that is, any regulations which include referenced to relevant foreign law.
Amendment 31, page 13, line 19, at end insert—
“(4A) Any regulations made under section 1(1) or (2) which correspond to, are similar to, or make a reference to the requirement of relevant foreign laws under section 2(7), expire at the end of four years from the date on which they come into force.”
Amendment 18, page 13, line 24, at end insert—
“(6A) Regulations that amend or replace primary legislation must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
(6B) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must—
(a) conduct a consultation for a period of no less than six weeks;
(b) publish a statement outlining the purpose and necessity of the proposed regulations, the expected impact on businesses, consumers, and enforcement bodies, and the outcome of the consultation.
(6C) Within six months of any regulations made under this section which amend or repeal primary legislation, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the effect of that regulation and lay it before Parliament.”
This amendment requires that any regulations made under the Act that amend or replace primary legislation be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Amendment 33, page 13, line 24, at end insert—
“(6A) Where the regulations are for the purpose of applying to Great Britain regulations already applied to Northern Ireland by the European Union, Northern Ireland must also be involved in the said consultation on an equal basis with the rest of the United Kingdom.”
Gareth Snell
I wish to speak briefly to new clause 1, which is a probing amendment that seeks to establish a couple of facts. I will start, however, by thanking the Minister for his time yesterday and for engaging with me on the matter. I know that he takes the matter of how we protect ceramics in the UK, and indeed how we can enhance that protection, as seriously as I do.
New clause 1 is a short amendment that simply asks the Government to explore and consider how we can better protect ceramics from counterfeit production, ensuring that when we buy something that purports to have been made in the UK, that is in fact the case. Most ceramics have something called a backstamp. If we turn over any piece of tableware or giftware in the UK, we normally see a stamp showing the company that made it and the country of origin. Most notably, for most pieces it states either “Made in England” or, even better, “Made in Stoke-on-Trent”.
Gareth Snell
Yes, that is in Staffordshire, as my hon. Friend says. There are factories in Newcastle-under-Lyme as well.
We are, however, seeing a proliferation of companies that seek to pass off material not made in the UK. Its firing will have taken place overseas and it will then be imported into the UK, with the decorating and final glost firing or hand-decorating stage happening in the UK, and with simply the word “England” put on to it. That way, the consumer thinks that the thing they are buying is a UK-made product, when in fact it is not.
There are many great companies in Stoke-on-Trent, which I know hon. Friends will reference in their speeches. I will speak briefly of Duchess, Churchill, Steelite, Emma Bridgewater and the companies that proudly put “Made in England” on the back of their products, because everything they do is made in England. The clay is first moulded, first fired, glazed, decorated, second fired and sold in the UK. It is a genuinely British product, and there is value in that product. We know from the export markets to South Korea and America, in particular, that those customers want to buy products that are made in the UK.
There are some companies that quite honestly import from overseas and they are very clear about that. Plates made by some companies in my constituency, such as Portmeirion, quite clearly state that they have been made in China, but they sit alongside products made in the UK. The company is very up front about that; it does not seem to hide it or to try to confuse the consumer. It is clear about the fact that it imports some of its ware from overseas.
Some companies, however, simply seek to put the word “England” on the back of their products. That will be because the company is probably English registered, or it is one of the UK’s historical brands that have a long affinity with Stoke-on-Trent, even if the manufacturing processes no longer takes place there. A consumer will turn that product over and see the name of one of our historical companies and a date, normally from the 1700s or 1800s, and they will see the word “England” underneath it. It is completely and utterly understandable for them to look at that and think, “This is a product made in England”, but often it is not.
New clause 1 asks the Government to come forward with an investigation to consider whether there is merit in protecting things that are made in the UK by having that country of origin stamp, specifically for ceramics. I know that the Liberal Democrats have tabled a similar amendment today that would do this for a whole host of products. I am glad that we are using similar language on this, because whether it is food or any other products unrelated to ceramics, if they have been made in the UK they should clearly say so. My new clause specifically looks at ceramics, and I will not deviate into the speech that I am sure will come from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Another aspect that the Minister graciously made time to discuss yesterday is the companies, particularly Chinese companies, that now seek to copy the backstamp. We have some great examples from a company called Dunoon in Staffordshire that makes excellent ware. If a consumer buys an item from the company’s shops, it will have “Made in the UK” written on the bottom, and little stickers on it that say “Made in the UK”. I have in my office some Chinese copies that have copied the “Made in the UK” sticker and the “Made in the UK” backstamp. These are sold through drop-shipping companies online, so tracing where they actually come from is very difficult.
Any consumer who collects that sort of material would be forgiven for thinking that they were buying something online that had been made in the UK. It will have a “Made in the UK” backstamp and sticker, and all the design elements match almost perfectly the ones that are made in the UK, but the consumer will have no idea where it was made. They will also have no idea whether there are elements of mercury and cadmium in the glaze that has been used, whether the pigments used to decorate it meet the standards we have in the UK, or whether it meets the food contact regulations that are required in the UK for items used for drinking or eating off. The consumer will have no idea about the quality of the clay, or what has been added to the clay before firing. Sometimes, in products that are imported into the UK from less good manufacturers, the clay will have been mixed with material that can have a harmful effect on the consumer.
New clause 1 simply asks the Government to consider the merits of a country of origin marking scheme for ceramics. It does not commit the Government to bringing forward such a scheme. I have a ten-minute rule Bill, which is currently waiting for a free Friday, when it can get an airing and we can discuss that in more detail. This is about trying to establish the principle that there are things that are made in the UK that we value, and that if we know they have value because they are made in the UK, we should do all we can to try and protect that.
Adam Jogee
I am pleased to have put my name to the new clause tabled by my neighbour in Stoke-on-Trent Central. Does he agree, notwithstanding his comments, that much of this is also about pride? It is about pride in our people, pride in the skill of our people and pride in the vital ceramics industry, not just in Stoke-on-Trent Central and Newcastle-under-Lyme but in many other parts of Staffordshire, as he has noted.
Gareth Snell
As always, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We in Stoke-on-Trent can talk at length about that pride, but I will not do so today, I promise, although we can talk about our pride that is associated with our industrial heritage.
Rob Flello, who once served in this place and is now the chief executive of Ceramics UK, told me when I first met him that in Stoke-on-Trent people think we have slip in our veins—slip being the wet clay used for mould casting. That is because the ceramics industry in the city is intrinsic to who we are. It is an incredibly important part of our heritage, but it is also a really important part of our future. We can make industrial ceramics, including those strategic ceramics that go into nuclear submarines and into joints for hips and elbows, as well as some of the technical ceramics that are needed in steel and glass making in the UK. Steel and glass cannot be made in the UK without ceramics; a refractory-grade ceramic is needed, because it can withstand heat that would ordinarily melt glass or metal. I know the Minister is well versed on this, because I have bent his ear on the subject on more occasions that he may have cared for.
The ceramics sector is having a tough time, but there is hope on the horizon; I am sure that the industrial strategy will give some relief on energy costs. We are keen to encourage people to buy British-manufactured goods with pride, in order to support jobs in the localities where the industry is dominant. New clause 1 simply asks the Government to consider the merits of country of origin marking.
In my constituency, there is pride in every piece made. In fact, in some factories, people who make and decorate a piece put their initials on the bottom along with the company stamp. Quite often, they can identify their own work in shops because their way of painting and applying transfers is unique to them; it becomes a fingerprint. New clause 1 encourages people to buy British, as my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) have been doing—[Interruption.]—and the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), of course. When people go out and buy that piece of tableware or giftware, and are trying to do their bit to support our industry, if they turn it over and see “Made in England” or “Made in Stoke-on-Trent”, they should have absolutely confidence that what they are buying is made in those places.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I rise today in support of new clause 1, which deals with a country of origin marking for ceramic products and which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) so eloquently introduced. My constituency is home to “The Great Pottery Throw Down”, based in the wonderful Gladstone Pottery Museum in Longton, and I am so proud to have many great pottery firms in my constituency. Those include Wedgwood, which is famed for its iconic blue jasperware, and Duchess China, which has factories in Longton and Newstead that I was honoured to visit recently. There, I met Jason Simms, who is a 100-mph visionary for the future of ceramics in Stoke-on-Trent and the world. It was a really interesting visit.
Duchess, founded in 1888, produces the tableware used in the House of Commons. It is proud of the fact that its products are made in the UK, from clay to table. People buying products produced by Duchess, for example, will see that they say on the bottom, “Fine bone china made in Staffordshire”. The phrasing is deliberate; it clearly informs the purchaser not only of the product’s country of origin, but the precise part of the country that it comes from. Most of our ceramic products contain these backstamps to mark authenticity, and many include a reference to Stoke and Staffordshire. As I have before, I invite all colleagues to join the “turnover club” and check the backstamp on the chinaware here. They will probably find it was made in Stoke.
Gareth Snell
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Just for the record, some of the tableware in the Members’ Dining Room is in fact German. I hope everyone will get behind a campaign to replace it.
Dr Gardner
I thank my hon. Friend for that timely and right intervention. I join him in his campaign.
We do not always have the level of detail needed in this country, and we need to address that nuance so that consumers know exactly what they are buying. That is important, because the pottery industry is at great risk from cheap imports, which are undermining our British-made products and creating unfair competition for our better-quality products made in our own country. This china-dumping of products often falsely pretending to be made by our Staffordshire firms—Dunoon being one example—must be stopped. We must back our British industry and our British workers and do what we can to resist such unfair competition.
Gareth Snell
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words about the amendment and the work that my colleagues are doing. My only point is that the final paragraph under subsection (7) of new clause 4 would allow such labelling
“where the final significant production process occurred in the UK”,
but that is one of the things that we are trying to clamp down on. In ceramic production, products that are bisque fired outside the UK then brought into the UK for gloss firing are passed off as being made in the UK. We argue that this should not be the case; the full process, from clay to table, should take place in the UK. While I have absolute sympathy with her on her new clause, that subsection unfortunately would not address the issue—in fact, it could do further damage to our industry. If she is happy to, we could discuss that outside this place. I am sure that there are areas of commonality, on which we could work together.
Sarah Olney
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that further information about the ceramics industry, which I now feel so much better informed about. He makes a valuable point. When we talk about things being “made in the UK”, what exactly does that mean? How can we use that valuable designation to best support our domestic industries? I thank him for that further clarification.
Liberal Democrats support the need to update the regulatory framework for the UK marketplace to reduce trade friction and give businesses and consumers confidence in their products. We are glad that many of the measures in the Bill will have that effect, but we remain concerned about the excessive ministerial discretion in this legislation, and the reliance on secondary legislation. We will continue to push the Government to strengthen scrutiny mechanisms, and for fairer regulation for online marketplaces. Crucially, I hope the Government will take this opportunity to support British businesses by supporting new clause 4, giving consumers greater transparency and British businesses the boost that they need.
Gareth Snell
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Labelling for UK-produced or manufactured products
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a voluntary labelling system to indicate when a product has been produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom.
(2) The label must be—
(a) displayed clearly on the front-facing packaging of applicable goods;
(b) standardised in appearance, including a nationally recognised symbol or wording indicating UK origin; and
(c) legible, visible and no smaller in font size than the unit price display or equivalent information on the product.
(3) A product qualifies for the label if—
(a) it is wholly or substantially produced, manufactured, grown or reared in the United Kingdom; and
(b) it meets any additional criteria as set out by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) The Secretary of State must consult food producers, retailers, consumer groups and relevant trade associations before setting the criteria for qualifying products and the design of the label.
(5) The Secretary of State must undertake a promotional campaign to ensure consumers are aware of the new labelling system.
(6) Regulations under this section must be made within 2 months of the passing of this Act.
(7) In this section—
“product” includes food, drink and manufactured goods available for retail sale;
“produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom” includes goods where the final significant production process occurred in the UK.”—(Sarah Olney.)
This new clause would require the Government to introduce a voluntary labelling system, clearly marking goods produced or manufactured in the UK, helping consumers make informed choices and supporting domestic producers.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—he has certainly got the measure of this Bill. [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] I will not give up the day job—and we will not have a Division on that, either.
This is a framework that supports businesses by reducing unnecessary burdens, supports consumers by keeping dangerous goods off the market and supports the UK economy by making our regulatory system more agile, more responsive and more transparent. In short, the Bill will help to ensure that every product on the UK market, whether made in the United Kingdom or imported from abroad, meets the expectations of safety, fairness and quality that the public rightly demand.
Gareth Snell
The Minister rightly points out that the Bill will allow for new regulations to come on board to keep us safe, but the safety element of that comes about through the enforcement of those new rules. Can he say a little about the conversations happening across Government to ensure that our enforcement agencies are properly resourced to enforce the new regulations that are so vital?
Business and the Economy
Gareth Snell Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith
Once again, my hon. Friend has demonstrated his deep and real knowledge of business, having himself, in a past life, employed more than 1,000 people. One rather suspects that taking that risk, having that responsibility and shouldering that burden, moral and financial, is greater than the entire aggregate responsibility of Labour Members for hiring anyone. My hon. Friend has made the right point about who will end up on the receiving end of the higher unemployment. It will be the young, looking for their first opportunities, and it will be excluded and vulnerable groups on whom a benign employer would today take a chance—but not if that chance is likely to lead immediately to being at the back of an 18-month-long queue for an employment tribunal hearing.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The point made by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) was about day one rights, but that right is to stop unfair dismissal from day one. Is it now the policy of the Conservative party to allow for unfair dismissal between the first and second days? If the shadow Minister is unhappy with that being a right from day one, presumably he is unhappy for people to have that right at all.
Andrew Griffith
I am afraid that to make those points is to misconstrue wilfully what is actually in the Bill. We have a very settled and balanced position of employment rights that dates back to before previous Labour Governments as well as the Government in office before the election. It strikes what will always be a difficult balance between offering employees the chance to enter the workforce and the ability of businesses, and of the public sector and others, to hire and to operate in a way that is profitable. It does nobody any favours to think that we can, merely by passing words of statute, change the outcomes in a way that advantages the most vulnerable, who are the youngest employees. The failure to learn from that point will once again lead to exactly the same outcome, which is why every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than where it started. In his response, the Minister may wish to confirm that this time will be different and perhaps lay out exactly why it will be different, but he has a job of work to convince us and, more importantly, every employer in the land that that is the case.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gareth Snell Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Reynolds
I recognise the shadow Secretary of State’s concern, but let me reassure him on that point. The options available to the Government were: first, the total collapse of British Steel, which would have had an incredible cost to the Exchequer of well over £1 billion; secondly, the request from Jingye for £1.2 billion, which the Leader of the Opposition said she did or did not agree to in some way with it going to Teesside, at very significant cost; or thirdly, as we have done so far, the provision of working capital to British Steel in order to pay wages and continue the purchase of raw materials and the operation of the business. Of course, those costs will be incurred by the company, because they will enable it to produce and sell steel. I will write to him with the details if he is not confident in the decision that we have made, but it was the right decision not just for the steel industry but for the taxpayer.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/ Co-op)
Jonathan Reynolds
I am always keen to support my hon. Friend, and I will certainly consider that legislation. We are not a protectionist Government—we welcome open and free trade—but we believe British goods can compete on quality, and his area is a fine example of that. Where British goods are being undercut, not by price and fair competition but by misrepresentation and fraudulent practices, we take that seriously and have taken more powers to deal with it. I am sure that he will raise this shortly during the urgent question. We will ensure that we give him the support he needs to pursue it.
Energy Prices: Energy-intensive Industries
Gareth Snell Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on the Government’s approach to reducing energy prices for energy-intensive industries.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)
I relay my thoughts to the workers in my hon. Friend’s constituency, for whom I know this is a worrying time. I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue. He is a tireless champion for workers and businesses in his constituency. We have spoken and will continue to speak regularly about these issues and the importance of the ceramics industry in his area in particular.
This Government recognise the challenges high energy prices pose to UK businesses. We know that the ceramics sector is particularly affected; my hon. Friend has raised the issue in Parliament on other occasions. The Government are working closely with Ceramics UK and local Stoke MPs to work out how we can support the sector.
For energy-intensive industries overall, our clean power 2030 target is the key to long-term sustainable price reductions. Clean home-grown energy is the best way to protect bill payers and boost Britain’s energy independence. We are already bringing energy costs for UK industries closer into line with other major economies through the British industry supercharger. That will fully exempt eligible firms, including some but by no means all of those in the ceramics sector, from certain costs linked to renewable energy policies, particularly those exposed to the high cost of electricity.
Using more electricity and less fossil fuel is the future for UK businesses. The latest advice from the Climate Change Committee expects electricity to meet 61% of industrial energy demand by 2040, so we are developing options to enable businesses to do that.
We are already taking action. When my hon. Friend raised this important issue in a Westminster Hall debate in March, I noted:
“We are working on how to remove undeveloped, speculative programmes from the grid connection queue and prioritise others.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 109WH.]
Just last month, we announced pro-growth reforms to help unlock £40 million of mainly private investment a year in clean energy and infrastructure, so that so-called “zombie projects” will no longer hold up the queue for connection to the electricity grid.
We recognise that we need to support a range of energy-intensive industries, including industries such as ceramics, that are essential to our UK economy and our missions, for example to build the 1.5 million homes and the clean energy infrastructure products in which this Government are already investing. Following years of economic chaos and instability under the previous Administration, this Government are implementing a modern industrial strategy that will drive growth and the creation of good high-quality jobs in communities across the UK.
I look forward to continuing to work with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members from across the House. We are meeting next Wednesday and I hope to be able to progress things further at that stage.
Gareth Snell
I thank the Minister for her engagement on this issue, because she has genuinely and authentically tried to look for a way forward. When my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and I had a meeting with the Minister six weeks ago, we warned her that other factories were going to fail, and we stand here following the closure of Moorcroft yesterday. She will be aware that other factories in Stoke-on-Trent are working on short time as a way of reducing costs so that they can put more money into meeting their ever-increasing energy bills.
I thank the Minister for the outline she has given, but she will know that we have previously talked about most of the things she has raised today, and they do not apply to the ceramics sector or to great swathes of the energy-industrial sector as a whole. The supercharger scheme does not work for the ceramics sector; indeed, ceramics companies end up having to subsidise other energy-intensive industries, because they are not part of the supercharger scheme. We have been told that we cannot see an exception to that. We have asked about the emissions trading scheme and free trade allowances and have been told that some are available for ceramics, but that does not go far enough to meet the demands we have today.
We have been constantly promised jam tomorrow, by the last Government as well as this one—well, jam is no good if you are dead, and the ceramics sector in Stoke-on-Trent is on life support. We are at a point where good manufacturing jobs done by proud people are falling away every month. This is not new: it started in 2019, with the closure of Dudson, and continued with the closure of Wade in 2022, Johnson Tiles in 2023 and Royal Stafford and now Moorcroft in 2025. The energy-intensive industries in this country are pivotal to manufacturing. If we see them fall away, manufacturing in this country will fall away.
I ask the Minister three very simple questions. Will she look at a wholesale change to the way in which we do subsidies and energy prices for energy-intensive industry in the short term, before GB Energy comes online? As well meaning as GB Energy is, it is too far away to help. Will she rule out specifically moving any policy costs on to gas costs? Gas is the big cost for the ceramics sector; electricity is a small proportion of what we do. Will she take the opportunity to make a clear commitment at the Dispatch Box, as the Secretary of State for Business and Trade just did when he talked about a sector falling on its knees? Ceramics is there. We do not need the same level of investment that steel does; we need a tiny fraction of it. Can we have it, and can we have it soon? If we have to come back here in six weeks, there will be no sector left to defend.
Sarah Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend and recognise the challenge. We lost 1,250 jobs in the ceramics sector between 2015 and 2023. It has been a very sad decline, and we want to turn that around.
The whole point of an industrial strategy is to have a Government who are proactive in supporting our industries. We will not put extra cost on the ceramics industry; we are looking to see how we can help and support. My hon. Friend has my word on that. We are working on every single one of the suggested policy reforms in the package that Ceramics UK has put forward, and we will meet him next week to talk about these things.
I cannot make promises at the Dispatch Box on areas that are not my responsibility and rule out whole swathes of policy, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will not put extra costs on the ceramics industry. We are looking to do more and to support, and we will come back. I completely understand his point about the timing and the need to act quickly.
British Steel
Gareth Snell Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Jones
I need to be clear on this point, because I know that there has been lots of speculation. We are not aware of any deliberate acts of sabotage. There was an issue with people coming on site who did not gain access. No Jingye officials are on site at the moment. We are talking to Jingye in a respectful way about what happens next. That said, it was the case that we had been negotiating in good faith, and we felt that that good faith had ended in the way in which Jingye was not securing the raw materials that we were really clear it needed to secure, so there was a breakdown there. The position on Jingye is a position about it as a company; it is not a position about our wider view of China. Because we have hundreds of thousands of jobs that are dependent on trade with China and because it is our fourth-largest trading partner, our position remains that we need to be mindful of that, but we also need to be mindful of security, and we always will be. There will always be a very specific and deliberate account of the security implications of any investors in the UK.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
We cannot make British steel without British ceramics. High temperature-resistant refractory ceramics are needed to line the blast furnaces to keep them alight, but the Minister is acutely aware that the ceramics sector in this country, much like the glass and chemicals sectors, is being crippled by energy prices, because of both wholesale costs and policy costs, which the last Government chose to put on and which were continued by this Government. When the Minister talks about backing British industry and manufacturing, can she say when glass, ceramics and other foundational industries will get the support they need to prop up and support the advanced manufacturing that we are all so proud of? The cost of that will be a tiny proportion of what has been committed to British Steel.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is quite right to raise ceramics and their importance in blast furnaces. We have all become steel experts through the many podcasts that everybody has been listening to over recent weeks. One of the issues with shutting down blast furnaces immediately without proper provision is not just that the metal hardens, but that the ceramics crack and fracture. That was the risk with Jingye refusing to bring in those raw materials. My hon. Friend knows that the ceramics industry is very important to the Secretary of State and to myself, and the wider foundational industries are very important too. He is right to raise issues that we have talked about many times in terms of energy prices. The Government are working at pace to try to alleviate that problem and many others that he has raised, whether cheap imports or other issues.
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
Gareth Snell ExcerptsTuesday 1st April 2025
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 18-R-II(a) Manuscript Amendment for Report (Supplementary tot he Second Marshalled List) - (5 Mar 2025)
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I have deep concerns about this Orwellian Bill because of what it does not explicitly say and its ambiguity regarding EU dynamic realignment. The Henry VIII powers the Bill gives Ministers will have serious consequences for businesses, consumers and our ability to trade, but does so with little detail on how they intend to use such powers.
Let me first turn to regulatory alignment. As you may recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, I spent much time taking the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 through as a Whip, and I believe passionately that that Act was vital to take back control, for parliamentary sovereignty and in freeing businesses to compete by shedding unnecessary EU regulations, directives and red tape. So I will say plainly that this Bill will lead to regulatory alignment with the EU through the back door. I invite the Minister to confirm from the Dispatch Box that this Bill and the powers it gives Ministers will not be used by this Government for dynamic alignment with EU regulations. I doubt that any such categoric reassurance is likely to be forthcoming, but I await with bated breath and a hopeful heart that it be so.
Joy Morrissey
Let me make some progress, and then I will give way.
The Government have always claimed that they would not return us to the single market and the customs union, and many believed them. I was always a healthy sceptic, but I am willing to be proven wrong. However, my fear is that this Bill will lead to back-door EU regulatory alignment, and whether that is deliberate or unintentional matters not. We had our democratic instructions from the British people, and we must honour them.
I now want to talk about competition—
Joy Morrissey
Well, I am now on competition. Would the hon. Member like to make a comment about that?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. This is turning into a debate in itself. It is very clear that the Member does not want to take an intervention right now, Mr Snell, but she may do so later.
Gareth Snell
Persistence sometimes pays off, Madam Deputy Speaker. I genuinely want to pick up the point the hon. Lady is making about competition in relation to alignment. In the ceramics sector, the food contact materials regulations set by the European Union are essential to enabling the export of the products we create and make. They are product regulations for safety, but she seems to be suggesting that any regulatory alignment is a bad thing. Is that her party’s message about alignment for the purposes of export that I should take back to the thousands of workers in Stoke-on-Trent?
Joy Morrissey
With exports, we can apply any kind of regulation we want to maximise our market advantage from leaving the EU. We could apply a statutory framework for Japan, or any country we want, to ensure we can export our products. The point of leaving the EU was so that we could remain globally competitive, and so that we could choose to adopt any regulatory framework we wanted if that market enabled us to export our products, support our businesses and help to grow our economy. I would support that, but nothing of that is mentioned in the Bill. If it mentioned realignment with market values in relation to Japan, so we could export things to Japan or to other markets, I would be interested in looking at the Bill holistically, but not once is any country or trade grouping mentioned except the EU. That gives me pause, and it makes me wonder whether this is an attempt to achieve a backdoor realignment with EU regulatory frameworks without the scrutiny of Parliament.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Good regulation is basically the immune system of our nation, and it is often unseen. When regulation is working well and having the desired effect, we rarely see it happening because it is keeping us safe and protecting us from those harms that we outsource to the Government to keep watch over for us. It is taking the necessary steps and measures to make sure that we are safe, the things we buy are safe, the interactions we have in our communities are safe and our children are safe. That regulation is a protection, essentially, and this Bill gives the scope and the agility for the Government—any Government—to respond quickly and in a timely manner to new and emerging potential threats that regulation is required to protect us from.
I worry when Governments of any colour—including, unfortunately, that of my own party of late—seek to suggest that regulation is inherently a bad thing, an inhibitor of growth or the heavy hand of the state stopping the illustrious bounds of enterprise, because it often is not. Often it is about a level playing field. It is about creating the circumstances where competitors in Stoke-on-Trent have as much opportunity to compete with their competitors around the country or around the world in a way that we understand to be fair, balanced and proportionate. To me, this Bill sets us on a course where we are able to do that.
There are some areas where product regulation and the safety that comes with it are lacking. If the House will indulge me, I would like once again to talk about ceramics and the ceramic industry because I believe that the product regulatory framework and the existing protections for ceramics—in terms of the quality of goods that are purchased and also the protection of the level playing field—could benefit hugely from actions that the Government could take through the powers in the Bill.
We have discussed online drop-shipping platforms many times in this House. These are websites that bulk buy things and sell them into the UK, often at a fraction of the price that people could buy them for in this country, and often faking and forging the identities and brands of British companies, without any consideration for what people are actually buying. I was shown a great example by a company in Staffordshire, Dunoon ceramics, which makes a very particular style of ceramic mug. The mugs cost about £28 to make and they retail at about £35, sometimes up to £50.
An online drop-shipping website was selling a fake version—with the same artwork and the same “Made in the United Kingdom” sticker and backstamp on the base—into the UK for about £10. We have no idea whether that product was meeting the Materials and Articles in Contact with Food (England) Regulations 2012 that it is required in this country to meet in order to be considered safe. We had no idea of the levels of lead or cadmium in the paint, no idea what the glaze was made of, no idea where the clay had come from and no idea of the conditions under which it was made, but it was sold into the UK thousands at a time, undercutting the British company. For clarity, I have no idea whether the product was defective, but it could have been, thereby putting people at risk.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman may not know this, but I collect ceramics, by the way, so I am extremely interested in them. He is right that we should support and, indeed, revere the British ceramic industry, but many laws already prevent the kind of counterfeiting he describes and other laws prevent illegal substances from being used and sold in the manufacture of goods. There is a lot of existing statute that protects consumers from the kind of practices he describes.
Gareth Snell
The right hon. Gentleman is correct that there are existing protections for some of the things I have mentioned that, if enforced properly, could take those products off the market, but the enforcement of many of our regulatory frameworks in this country is quite weak. Funding for most enforcement agencies across this country was—not to make a party political point—reduced under the last Government. I hope this Government will reconsider that because a regulation is only ever as good as the enforcement regime sat behind it.
Sammy Wilson
Would the hon. Member accept that if Ministers got up at 9 o’clock in the morning and worked until 9 o’clock at night introducing regulations on the basis of this Bill every day, but there was no enforcement or the enforcement was as weak as he says it is on pottery, we would be no better off?
Gareth Snell
I do not think anybody would disagree with the right hon. Gentleman’s assessment that if there is no enforcement of regulation, there is no benefit, but we are not saying in the Bill that there should be less enforcement. The Bill produces a framework in which the Government can take action to respond to create the good regulation necessary. I will freely admit that what has to come with that are the enforcement arrangements to ensure those new regulations are enforced properly, penalties to deter people seeking to circumvent the regulations, and the proper resourcing of enforcement agencies so they are equipped to take action against those people and companies seeking to circumvent the laws. Without that, I fully accept that regulation for the sake of regulation is no good any more than regulation being cut or diverged for the sake of divergence and reduction is any good. It comes down to enforcement.
To go back to the comments of the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), there is one area in this Bill where Government action could bring in a new product protection regulation that would have a huge impact on the ceramic industry. That is around the backstamp on the bottom of a piece of ceramic or pottery. As an avid collector, he will be aware of the importance of those backstamps. In this country, if we turn over any plate, cup or anything made from good-quality British ceramics, we will normally find the words “Made in England” and the pottery name underneath it. Consumers then know they are buying a premium piece of British-manufactured ceramics that has been made to a suitable product standard that we accept in Stoke-on-Trent is one of the best in the world. It is perfectly plausible, as has been done with some of the fakery, to replicate that phrase when it is not true.
The other challenge we have is companies that import things into the United Kingdom augmenting the wording of that particular backstamp to suggest it has been made in the UK when it has not. It may have been bisque-fired overseas, imported and then decorated and glazed in the UK, but it will normally have a company name, the word “England” and the date upon which that historic brand was established. It gives consumers the idea that they are buying a piece of British-made ceramics that would therefore be protected by the normal product regulations when in fact it is not.
There is the potential for the Minister to use the new powers in the Bill to produce new regulation that says anything produced in the UK that is considered to be ceramic has to have a proper mark on the base that demonstrates where it was made and where it has come from and to demonstrate that it was made in the UK. If a company is not making it in the UK, they become prohibited from putting the words “England” or “Made in the UK” on it.
Sir John Hayes
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time—it is very generous of him. I think that we should jointly sponsor a Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker—the hon. Gentleman and I, not you and I, although we would love for you to be involved. He and I could jointly sponsor a “Made in Britain” Bill that would do exactly what he describes. I am not sure that this piece of legislation is necessary to do that, for we have that power in this House as it stands. Let us get little crowns printed on eggs again, let us have “Made in Britain” printed on everything, and let us go back to “Foreign made”, which was formerly widely used. I would love to see “Foreign made” stamped on imported goods—then people would not buy them!
Gareth Snell
I am very sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I and a number of my colleagues have already presented the Ceramics (Country of Origin Marking) Bill. He is more than welcome to support it should it ever be given its Second Reading. However, because of the nature of this place and the way private Members’ Bills work, I am realistic about the fact that if we are to see that regulatory protection for British ceramics, it will have to come through a different mechanism. The mechanism in this Bill, which allows the Government to make those protective arrangements through secondary legislation, could increase the protection of British ceramics.
My final point is about a level playing field for exports. I take the point that the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made, after I had intervened on the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), about our regulatory regime and where we want to export. The bulk of the ceramics made in my constituency are exported to the EU. We could diverge from the EU food contact materials regulations and have a secondary system in this country, but all that would do is create a separate set of regulatory regimes for small companies with small margins, requiring them to make products twice. We simply could not stand that burden. Before I get attacked for being one of those horrible remainers, I urge Members to check my voting record during the 2017 to 2019 Parliament. There are times when sticking with what we know—the European regulations—absolutely makes sense. We should control that, but it makes sense to align ourselves where we should.
I support the Bill. I hope that the Minister will, as one of his first actions with his new powers, consider my points about ceramics. If he does not, perhaps he would like to support my Ceramics (Country of Origin Marking) Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
Terms and Conditions of Employment
Gareth Snell Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yuan Yang
I absolutely agree. As the Women’s Budget Group has shown, the measures on the minimum wage in the Employment Rights Bill will disproportionately benefit female workers, who are likely to be paid less than men.
These studies on the minimum wage use econometric methods to confirm what many of us can see in our communities at first hand: that too many people have too long been due a pay rise, and when we make the lowest paid better off, that spending goes back into our high streets and local economies. I would like to see even more studies done, producing better data. That must start with improvements to the labour force survey, which the hon. Member for West Worcestershire and I have discussed on the Treasury Committee, as many organisations have flagged that data as an area of concern.
Today I want to focus on one particular group of low-paid workers who are very significant for me and my constituency of Earley and Woodley: young people. There are around 13,000 undergraduates at the University of Reading, which sits in my constituency, who will be better off because of this new law that raises the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds to £10 an hour. It will mean a record wage boost for that age group, who will see their gross annual earnings rise by £2,500, and for apprentices, too, who are the skilled workers of tomorrow.
I support the Government’s youth guarantee, to ensure that all young people are in education, employment or training. The King’s Trust has found that one in 10 young people outside of education, employment or training have turned down a job because they could not afford the costs associated with it—for example, travel, clothing or childcare. For many young people, a barrier to employment is that it does not pay well enough for them.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I was concerned by what I think I heard the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) say about the rate at which the living wage is paid to young people, almost advocating for a reduction in that rate because of the impact it would have on business. Does my hon. Friend agree that is a rather regressive view, given that what young people need is the ability to pay their bills, live a life they enjoy and build a home for themselves in the future?
Yuan Yang
I very much agree with that sentiment. Young people are the future, and to ensure they get off to the best possible start in life, they need work that pays and enables them to live in stability, not concerned about paying the bills from day to day or month to month.
Most young people nowadays have to do a mixture of work and education or training to make ends meet. More than half of full-time students were working long hours in paid jobs in 2024, which is a significant rise from 2021, during the pandemic, when two thirds had no term-time employment. That has been driven by the escalating cost of living for young people, and especially rises in rent.
I want to quote a constituent of mine called Poppy, who is 20 years old and studies at the University of Reading. She says:
“Working part-time was never optional but rather a necessity... With my wages being so low…I found myself working 20-25 hours a week—leading me to miss some lectures and seminars throughout the month”.
I want to ensure that young people such as Poppy are able to study without worrying about how they are going to pay their bills. We also know that young people are less unionised, which means they have less bargaining power and less ability to fight against unfair terms or ask for pay rises, so it is even more important that we support them by raising the minimum wage.
In conclusion, it is essential that we make work pay, for the sake of our high streets, our living standards and our future—our young people. Poppy said:
“I personally cannot wait for the new minimum wage increase in April as it means I should be able to reduce my hours at work, giving me more time to focus on my studies”.
For people like Poppy, in my constituency and across the UK, the new deal for working people is transformational, and I am very glad to support today’s motion.
St Patrick’s Day: UK Bank Holiday
Gareth Snell Excerpts(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Shannon
I am not technically minded, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. I will be clear that St Patrick was not born in Stoke-on-Trent—of that, I think we can all be certain. In genuine sincerity, the fact that we are all here this evening in joyful spirits discussing the potential for St Patrick’s day to be a UK bank holiday demonstrates the importance of the nation’s saints in bringing people together.
The hon. Gentleman talked about teaching our children to help them to understand their identity. Too often, the St George’s cross is misappropriated by people for nefarious means. It is our flag and we own it, just as the St Patrick’s cross is the flag of the hon. Gentleman, and it is important that we use and celebrate them. I think he will agree that by doing so, we can teach our children about their history and their future.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman always brings wise words to any debate. I talked to him on Monday in Westminster Hall, when he got up and said that he had a few comments. I was greatly impressed by his contribution—I went over to him afterwards and said that his words were very wise—and his words now were also wise.
The point I will make about the Milwaukee Irish Fest that I attended for some six years, as an Ulster Scot, is that I did not have any difficulty going there, and they had no difficulty with me going there. What I see in St Patrick is the gospel that he brought for everybody, wherever they are within these Celtic nations, be it Wales, Scotland or England. Those are the things that we very much enjoy.
I will end with these words; I am very conscious that the Minister wants to give me a fulsome response and to reinforce our request. The words of St Patrick are what I leave with everyone now. I want to make the most of the advantages of our heritage of St Patrick, but, more than that, I want the truth of his words to make changes in us all today, and that comes from the love of Christ, which is his message the whole way through. I believe we as Christians should impress and deliver that message to those who we meet in this House. I have a very simple philosophy: be nice to everybody. It is not hard to be kind and to do that in the best way that we can.
St Patrick’s words are these:
“Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me, Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me, Christ on my right, Christ on my left, Christ where I lie down, Christ where I sit down, Christ where I arise, Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me, Christ in the mouth of every one who speaks of me, Christ in every eye that sees me, Christ in every ear that hears me.”
If we had those thoughts in our minds every day, I believe that we would be better as a nation, better to ourselves as individuals and show the love that St Patrick showed through the gospel that he brought from Wales, to Ireland, back to England and back to us again. He is our patron saint; he always will be. Others may claim him, but they are not getting him—I say that in all kindness and love to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister). Tonight we are asking for something, and I hope that the Minister can give us a good, positive response. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for making the time to come to the Adjournment debate that I did not intervene in—my goodness.
Employment Rights Bill
Gareth Snell ExcerptsWednesday 12th March 2025
(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 March 2025 - large print - (12 Mar 2025)
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend served assiduously on the Committee, raising many good points, including the one that he just made, which I absolutely agree with. The public will be asking serious questions about this.
Greg Smith
If the hon. Gentleman wants to try to defend that, I will give him the opportunity.
Gareth Snell
I am happy to declare my interest as a member of three trade unions, but I got less from them than the shadow Minister got from a small business—I think his declaration is £12,500. Does he feel the need to declare that, given that he is now making a case against legislation that would impact that company?
Greg Smith
I am making a point about the trade union movement, which I have never been a part of, and certainly never received any money from. I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to look at all my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Gareth Snell
We can find out, Madam Deputy Speaker; I believe it is. Can you advise whether Conservative Members who received money from businesses affected by this legislation should make a declaration in the same way that we trade unionists do?
Madam Deputy Speaker
This is going to end up in a back and forth on things that are not a matter for the Chair. Declarations are the responsibility of individual Members to make appropriately through the right processes.
Jerome Mayhew
I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then I will make some progress.
Mr French
As we have seen already—this is what I was talking about—the fairytale says that if we improve industrial relations and give trade unions all the money they want, suddenly there will not be any strikes. But what has happened in practice since the Labour Government came in? Trade unions have been given all the money, and they are still threatening to go on strike.
This Bill really does read like a militant trade union wish list. Strike mandates have doubled from six to 12 months, allowing trade unions to impose rolling strikes for a whole year without balloting their members. Turnout requirements have been abolished so that a minority can call strikes, and the Government have removed the requirement for 50% of members to vote and 40% to support industrial action. The Bill reduces the notice for strikes by four days and gives employers less information, making strikes even more damaging to businesses and disruptive to people’s lives. It also allows unreasonable paid facility time for trade unions, making the taxpayer and companies pay out even more for trade union representatives at the same time that the Labour Government are raising everyone’s taxes and cutting public services.
Gareth Snell
I guess that the hon. Gentleman has never been a member of a trade union or participated in an industrial ballot. Members choose to go on strike once the ballot has finished; no one forces them to go on strike. When members give up a day’s pay to go on strike, they do so because they are fighting for improvements to their terms and conditions. He is making out as though they are somehow compelled to strike. When members turn out for a strike, they do so because of their strength of feeling about the conditions they face—nothing more.
Mr French
I would have some sympathy for that argument if the threshold for the percentage of workers voting for a strike was being maintained, but we are now clearly leaving the door open for a minority of militant trade union members to go on strike and cause mass disruption. I will be honest and say that I have never been a member of a trade union, but my experience of trade union bosses is that they live a life that I could never dream of as a working-class man, to be quite frank. As a working-class person from a working-class background, I learnt at a very young age that trade unions and the Labour party stopped representing working-class people many years ago, and this Government are proving it yet again.