I thank noble Lords and the noble Baroness for their amendments in this group. Products in the scope of the Bill are used by every person in this country, covering nearly all manufactured products. We estimate that at least 300,000 UK businesses, employing several million employees, with an estimated market turnover of £490 billion, must adhere to product safety legislation.
The product safety review call for evidence in 2020 and 2021 received something like 158 responses; 126 responses were received in response to the product safety review consultation in 2023; 53 engagement events were held, reaching about 400 stakeholders; and, throughout last year, my department undertook 46 round tables with more than 300 stakeholders, both domestically and internationally. I want to set the picture so that all noble Lords know that we undertook reviews before the Bill was brought to Parliament.
Many businesses and consumer organisations support the Bill, seeing it as a common-sense approach to ensuring that the existing body of product regulation is fit for purpose in the face of technological and other changes. I emphasise again that the Government have been very clear that the UK will not rejoin the EU single market, customs union or freedom of movement. It is important to reset our relations with our nearest friends and neighbours, but that does not mean a return to the arrangements of the past.
Let us not forget that the bulk of UK product regulation is derived from EU law. This is precisely the reason the legislation explicitly references that jurisdiction and not others. If the UK makes a sovereign decision to mirror EU provisions, the Bill provides the mechanism and flexibility, on a case-by-case basis, to do so. This would avoid primary legislation each time technical changes are needed and would increase the certainty that businesses are crying out for. I hope noble Lords will support this pragmatic approach.
However, it is not our default position that we will mirror EU requirements. The Government will be guided by the needs of businesses and consumers, which may differ. Nothing in the Bill prevents the UK diverging from EU requirements. The Government’s approach, whether to mirror or diverge, will be driven by evidence, subject to industry engagement, as discussed earlier in group 1, and support our mission to drive economic growth and provide consistency and certainty to businesses.
I turn to the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Russell. The Bill provides powers that will give the UK greater flexibility in setting and updating its own product-related rules. It also enables the UK to choose to recognise relevant EU product requirements where it is in the interest of our businesses and consumers to do so. The Government have strong relationships with stakeholders, including industry, trade associations and consumer groups, and will continue to engage with them before any regulatory changes are brought to this House.
Amendment 4 proposes removing the powers in the Bill that would allow us to update regulations that address the environmental impact of products where similar provision exists in EU law. Amendment 6 proposes broadening these powers to update UK regulations to
mirror any international jurisdiction. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, talked about environmental impact, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her contribution which leaves me with very little to say here, except that many products are required to meet multiple product regulations, including those which may address the environmental impact of products.
As I have noted, most UK product legislation is derived from EU law. The powers in Clause 1(2) are intended to be used in limited circumstances where there is a corresponding or similar provision in EU product regulations for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products. This ensures that the power could be exercised to create regulatory certainty and manage changes to EU rules we recognise.
This power is limited in this way as we do not wish to create powers to regulate on wider environmental objectives. This already exists, for example, under the Environment Act. Clause 1(2) in no way obliges the UK to recognise or to mirror EU provisions. We have been clear that such decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis and subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
8.30 pm
I note what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said earlier about what is happening in the United States. All I can say is that we do not think it is wise to develop any of our policies because of whoever is in the US, or in Europe for that matter.
Amendments 15 and 36 would change provisions in the Bill to include references to non-EU jurisdictions, but the Bill already allows flexibility to mirror or diverge from global regulatory approaches. The Bill will mean that the UK has the power to manage our product regulation, including to end or continue recognising EU regulations.
Amendment 37 would require regulatory references to foreign law to be tied to fixed dates. Existing references to EU law are fixed in time. The powers in the Bill do not allow regulations to make automatic or ambulatory references to changing EU law. I reassure noble Lords that the Government will return to Parliament to make any changes to references to EU law within our regulations.
Amendment 9, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, seeks to ensure that the UK is not disadvantaged in its existing trade treaties as a result of the regulations made under the Bill. I assure the Committee that the Government are committed to meeting our international commitments, including our existing trade treaties. This is an enabling Bill: it will support the UK to make changes to the UK’s regulatory framework by giving us powers and flexibility to keep pace with international regulatory and technological changes, and thus support business competitiveness. This will support our current and future trade agreements.
I take this opportunity to touch on Amendment 39, also from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and reiterate what I have said before: ending recognition or continuing to recognise EU rules will depend on which approach best serves the interests of our businesses and consumers.
Amendment 94 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State has regard for international law when making regulations under the
provisions of the Bill. He also mentioned international standards, but I think they are covered in group 15, so I will leave them until then. Like the noble Lord, I recognise the value of considering international law and international product requirements when formulating new regulations, including being bound by our commitments as a member of the World Trade Organization. These considerations help to reduce barriers to trade and ensure that the UK remains competitive and embraces global best practices. Consequently, we believe that the objectives of this amendment are already met,
Before I conclude, I want to touch on a couple of points. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, asked six or seven questions. I commit to write to him because it would take too much time to answer them here. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about the Windsor Framework. We do not currently have sufficient power to recognise changing EU product requirements across the UK, even though they continue to apply in Northern Ireland. If mirroring specific EU product requirements is in our interest, we need these powers to do that.
Several noble Lords mentioned bottle tops. After leaving the EU, products placed on our market must ensure that they comply with our laws. We may choose to recognise different EU requirements, but only when they meet our laws sufficiently.
On the issue of divergence, sadly in January 2023 a refuse collector passed away following an accident with a bin lorry. The Health and Safety Executive had concerns that the standard for this requirement was inadequate due to a lack of safety equipment. The Government took the decision to restrict the standard in the UK. Any of the CE markings on a bin lorry for the GB market will have to follow a more stringent conformity assessment process as a result, so we have diverged from EU regulations—so much so that the EU is now following our regulation in this area.
I hope I have reassured the Committee with my comments and respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.