Justin Madders

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson tempts me to set out a statement of policy, which the Bill is not intended to do. We want to give ourselves maximum flexibility in our ability to deal with issues as they arise. He talked in his speech about online marketplaces, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) talked about unsafe toys and button batteries, citing the fact that investigations have discovered that up to 90% of products purchased in online marketplaces are unsafe. Because we recognise that online marketplaces are in desperate need of regulation, the Bill will give us powers to clarify and modernise responsibilities for online marketplaces in a flexible and proportionate way, to protect consumers and create a fair playing field for law-abiding businesses. It will enable the Government to modernise the responsibilities of online supply chain actors. While the growth of e-commerce has provided consumers with greater choice and convenience, it cannot be at the expense of consumer safety. We will continue to engage with consumer groups, businesses and online marketplaces in the development of specific online marketplace requirements to ensure that they are proportionate and to mitigate any costs to consumers. I can also confirm that it is the intention of the Government to consult on the duties for online marketplaces soon after Royal Assent and to bring forward subsequent regulations as soon as is practically possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) spoke with his customary passion about the ceramics industry in the Potteries. I acknowledge his ideas for protecting the industry. I am not sure whether this Bill is the right vehicle for his suggestion, but I will take it away and come back to him. It is probably worth talking about the issue that seemed to vex Opposition Members rather a lot, which is whether this Bill is in some way a reset to EU laws by the back door. It is about domestic regulation and we are not rejoining the EU by the back door. The Bill is about giving us flexibility to ensure product regulation, now and in the future, that is tailored to the needs of the UK. Of course, there will be some instances when we will want to take a similar approach to the EU, but there will be other times when we will want to take our own approach. Those decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) said, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 gave significant powers to the Executive, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham, quoted me on that Act. It reformed 7,000 regulations, ranging across every function of society. Its regulations were far broader than those proposed in this Bill and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee called it “hyper-skeletal”, which is some way beyond the criticisms it levelled against this Bill. Turning to the reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition, it is worth restating that the Bill is not about rejoining the EU. David Cameron commented that he wanted the Conservative party to “stop banging on about Europe”, but there seems to be some way to go before his words reach fruition, despite the fact that we left five years ago. The Bill gives us the necessary powers to ensure public regulation, now and in the future, meets the interests of the UK. The powers set out in the Bill will be used solely and exclusively in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers. I recognise that the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee raised concerns about this being a skeleton Bill, but the Government have considered those concerns and other representations made by Members in the other place. Our existing product regulations are necessary to keep consumers safe, and to provide clarity and a level playing field for businesses. They extend to many thousands of pages and cover a huge amount of technical detail. As the noble and learned Lord Pannick said in the other place, “the practical reality is that technical regulations of the breadth and complexity that will be produced cannot sensibly be enacted by primary legislation.” He went on to say that if we are required to use primary legislation every time we wanted to make a regulation on product safety, there would be “little, if any, time for anything else.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 February 2025; Vol. 843, c. 1716.] Conservative Members seem to have forgotten that since the Consumer Protection Act 1987, Governments of all stripes have recognised the need to make product safety regulations by secondary legislation. Since 1987, the Conservatives have been in power for 24 years, so they had more than enough time to find another way of dealing with product safety, but they did not choose to do that. We are taking a pragmatic approach. We have taken notice of some of the concerns raised about the powers of the Bill: we have removed a number of Henry VIII powers, introduced a consultation requirement, added additional affirmative resolution procedures and published a code of conduct that sets out the controls that we will have to ensure regulations are proportionate and evidence based. I am grateful to Members of the other place for setting out some of their concerns. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), pointed out, the Conservatives did not introduce the Bill in the last Parliament; I am happy to confirm that that was the case. That shows that there was a gap in the law that needed filling and the Conservatives failed to act on it. Some of the important consumer groups in this country, such as Which?, recognised that action was needed. Sue Davies, head of consumer rights, protections and food policy said: “It’s encouraging that the government is prioritising a Bill that should address the huge gap in consumer protections which allows online marketplaces to facilitate the sale of unsafe and illegal products without facing repercussions.” If Members vote for the reasoned amendment, we will not be having any of those protections. I do not think any responsible party would move an amendment along those lines. This Government are never going to compromise on safety. The Bill is essential to strengthening the rules and regulations needed to protect consumers, businesses and the public. I therefore commend the Bill to the House. Question put, That the amendment be made.