Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
Debate between Harriett Baldwin and Nusrat Ghani(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
May I say what an interesting debate this has been? I have a huge amount of sympathy for the case that has been put for new clause 1, which was made in a very coherent way. I also have great sympathy for the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and her proposed new clause 15. I will explain how our amendments would address some of the issues she has spoken about. The Liberal Democrat amendments, and new clause 4 in particular, make a great deal of sense. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) tabled a range of amendments that cover points made in His Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s amendments, which I will come to.
We should ask ourselves why this relatively small and technical Bill has attracted nearly 50 amendments on Report. It is because, as was said, it is a Trojan horse Bill. We tabled our amendments because the Bill does a lot more behind the scenes than appears on the surface. When, in 2016, the voters of Britain—on an 80% turnout—voted to leave the European Union, it created an opportunity for the country to tailor our regulatory regime to best fit British industry, and to set a global standard, so that it is easier to do business. The UK’s product regulation and metrology, as we heard from our resident metrologist, the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), once set the standard for the world, and indeed has the chance to do so again. When in government, the Conservatives started the work of capitalising on that opportunity. We see the Bill as a terrible step back and a Trojan horse, because it will tie us to EU red tape on which we have no say.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) spoke about his hopes for businesses in Harlow. Through this Trojan horse Bill, Labour will restrict Britain’s innovators with over-burdensome regulations, meaning that British industry will fall behind international competitors. As we heard the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), say when speaking to her amendments, it is a prime example of a skeleton Bill. There are two major areas of concern for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition: the use of sweeping Henry VIII powers; and the ability to dynamically align by the back door with the European Union. I will speak to the amendments we have tabled to address those concerns.
When the Bill started its passage, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place found that the powers in the Bill, particularly in clause 1, were excessive, and it recommended that they be removed. Many of our amendments address those elements of clause 1. In the other place, the Government watered down the Bill following those criticisms, but afterwards the Bill was still described as a skeleton Bill that shifted powers “to an unacceptable extent”. As recently as 21 February, the Committee in the other place said that the amendments made in the other place were
“limited changes that do not address the fundamental concern we have about the skeletal nature of this Bill…The Government has not taken the opportunity to add flesh to the bones of this skeleton Bill. It remains the case that the Bill provides for almost all of the substance of the regulatory regimes for product safety and metrology to be provided for by Ministers in regulations.”
While we acknowledge that the current Secretary of State may act responsibly, we do not want to put things on the statute book that future Ministers might treat differently.
We all agree that strong, consistent product safety rules are needed, and we acknowledge the risks from online marketplaces and unsafe imports, but we do not think that the Bill is the right way to deal with that. We also think that Parliament must retain proper oversight, so amendments 9, 11 and 12 seek to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State in clause 1.
Clause 3 is of equal concern, because it grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers to create new criminal offences, creating new complexities in our criminal justice system. It also allow Ministers to create civil sanctions for non-compliance with product and metrology regulations through secondary legislation, reducing parliamentary scrutiny of an issue that is incredibly important for our constituents’ freedoms. The clause also allows the Government to introduce new penalties, and even prison sentences; new powers of entry; and new fines on businesses, which will drive up the cost of doing business. Our amendments seek to change those elements. We believe that such serious offences should be subject to considerably more parliamentary scrutiny. That is why amendment 24 seeks to ensure that new criminal offences that could have consequences for the Ministry of Justice and the criminal justice system are not created through new product regulations under the Bill.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Harriett Baldwin and Nusrat Ghani(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I will try to avoid a word salad. We have heard from various different industrial sectors how important it is to have stable and predictable energy costs. This month has seen little sun and only intermittent wind, so we have been heavily dependent on imported oil and gas. Are Ministers in the Department for Business and Trade challenging the Energy Secretary over his policies?
Growing the UK Economy
Debate between Harriett Baldwin and Nusrat Ghani(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I am sure the Chief Secretary knows and admires the plan for growth of Conservative-led Worcestershire county council. It has been working through the plan, and it has built a new train station on the North Cotswold line, which connects Worcestershire to Oxford, but a lot of that line is still single track. Will he urge the Oxford growth commission to look at the extensive work done by Oxfordshire county council and Worcestershire county council to find a way to double the frequency of the train services on that stretch of track?
Budget Resolutions
Debate between Harriett Baldwin and Nusrat Ghani
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Lady has made it very clear that she is not giving way, so please allow her to continue.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Anyone who has ever worked in business knows that they need to increase the productivity of their business, and investment in that business is linked to its profitability, profits that will fall as a result of the measures that have been imposed on business today. When we work out the numbers, I think those measures will equate to about 4p on corporation tax. This is a Budget of broken promises that will end up giving the British people less growth. Members do not have to listen to me to hear that: they can listen to the Office for Budget Responsibility, which forecasts a short-term boost to growth but a longer-term reduction in the sustainable growth rate of the British economy thanks to the measures that the Chancellor outlined today.
In the months since the Chancellor took office, we have seen the evidence. We have already seen businesses shutting at double the rate they were a year ago. We are already seeing a plunge in business confidence, and we have heard the former chief economist of the Bank of England say that the socialist narrative we have had since the election has generated
“fear and foreboding and uncertainty”.
This is a Budget of broken promises—a straightforward breach of promises to the British public—and it is a dreadful day for the British economy.
Madam Deputy Speaker
When we go through Hansard, I am sure we will see that the hon. Member did not mean to accuse another hon. Member of lying—changing that term to “misleading” would have been far more appropriate. No doubt the hon. Member agrees with me.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I referred to the Prime Minister’s words on national television, and I was quoting him directly, but if I have inadvertently misled the House, I apologise.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Thank you so much. That was an absolutely appropriate way to respond.