Understanding the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill: key issues and implications
On 4 September 2024, the UK Government introduced the Product Regulation and Metrology (PRM) Bill (the PRM Bill) to the House of Lords. Designed as a framework piece of legislation, the Bill empowers the Government to make secondary regulations concerning the marketing and use of products across the United Kingdom (UK). According to its explanatory note, the Bill aims to: mitigate product safety and environmental risks, ensure efficient trade operations, and uphold accuracy in weights and measures.
However, in recent weeks, the Bill has become a focal point of debate in Westminster and the devolved administrations, particularly because of its provisions allowing the Secretary of State of the Department for Business and Trade to decide whether to align with European Union (EU) regulations. One clause, in particular, has drawn attention for its potential implications for internal United Kingdom trade, devolution, and the Windsor Framework.
As the Bill moves into the Lords committee stage, this article explores its scope, proposed amendments, and its potential impact on both governance in the UK and international trade.
The Bill’s objectives and stakeholder perspectives
Currently, product safety and metrology laws in the UK are rooted in EU legislation retained post-Brexit. While this means regulations remain closely aligned with EU law, updates to EU rules since Brexit have not automatically applied. The PRM Bill, and specifically Clause 1(2), seeks to address this gap by granting the Secretary of State the authority to align with new EU regulations under the provisons of Clause 1.
Clause 1(1) states:
The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision, in relation to the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom, for the purpose of—
(a) reducing or mitigating risks presented by products;
(b) ensuring that products operate efficiently or effectively;
(c) ensuring that products designed for weighing or measuring operate accurately.
Clause 1(2) states:
The Secretary of State may also by regulations make provision, in relation to 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.
The powers granted in Clause 1(2) have divided opinion. Stakeholders like the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) have argued that closer alignment with the EU reduces complexity and costs for businesses operating in multiple jurisdictions. The BCC has said “as much alignment as possible is beneficial,” highlighting the EU’s position as the UK’s largest trading partner, accounting for over half of trade in the United Kingdom. The Bank of England has also weighed in following disappointing GDP figures released in November, urging closer ties to the EU.
However, concerns have also been raised about the Bill’s broad scope and its potential to infringe on devolved powers.
Debates over Clause 1(2): amendments in the spotlight
Clause 1(2) has sparked significant debate in Westminster. Some peers are advocating for an amendment that would make EU alignment the default position. Under this proposal, the UK would adopt new EU regulations unless the Secretary of State explicitly opted out and provided a rationale to Parliament. Proponents argue that this would ensure consistency and minimise trade disruption between the two jurisdictions.
Conversely, other peers have called for amendments preventing automatic alignment, emphasising the need for flexibility to pursue trade agreements with other global partners. For example, the recent US presidential election has reignited speculation about a potential free trade agreement. While such a deal could shield the UK from tariffs, it might require greater regulatory divergence from the EU, raising questions about the balance between maintaining EU alignment and forging new trade relationships.
Scope and ambiguities in the PRM Bill
Despite its potentially wide-ranging implications, there are several ambiguities surrounding the PRM Bill. Most notably, the UK Government has yet to specify which EU regulations are in scope.
When first announced in the King’s Speech in July, the Bill appeared to have had a narrower focus on ‘product safety’, but when the Bill was introduced to Parliament, Clause 1(2) referred more broadly to the ‘environmental impact of products’. This shift could significantly expand the range of EU legislation under consideration. Research by UK in a Changing Europe has suggested that rules on supply chain auditing, deforestation-free products, vehicle emissions, product packaging, and artificial intelligence could all fall within the Bill’s scope.
This lack of clarity extends to the powers conferred on the Secretary of State. How these powers would be exercised, and the extent to which the UK would align with EU law, remains uncertain, leaving stakeholders concerned about the potential for inconsistent or unpredictable regulation.
The Bill is also primarily an enabling act, which gives the Secretary of State the power to use secondary legislation to make changes to product regulation and metrology in the UK. While the Government argues this approach is necessary for technical and time-sensitive regulations, research conducted by UK in a Changing Europe suggests this mechanism could limit opportunities for representatives to robustly scrutinise and amend legislation.
Devolution matters
The PRM Bill intersects with devolved policy areas, such as environmental regulation, and so engages the Sewel Convention. Under this convention, Parliament will ‘not normally’ legislate on a matter within the devolved competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly without the Assembly having passed a legislative consent motion (LCM). The Bill’s explanatory note says that the Government will act in accordance with the Sewel Convention and seek legislative consent, however the outcome of an LCM vote is not legally binding. Therefore, Westminster could proceed with legislation even if consent is withheld.
The devolved administrations have also raised concerns over the expansive reach of the Bill’s Clause 1 powers. These powers would enable the Secretary of State to use statutory instruments to legislate on devolved matters without the need to seek the consent of the Assembly. Citing these concerns over the Bill’s impact on devolved powers, the Scottish and Welsh Governments have recommended withholding legislative consent at present. The Northern Ireland Assembly has yet to consider the Bill’s implications.
The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and Common Frameworks
Additionally, questions remain about how the PRM Bill will interact with the UK Internal Market Act (UKIMA) 2020. The Bill does not currently reference UKIMA, leaving uncertainties about how the two frameworks will function together in practice. The House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution in its consideration of the PRM bill suggested that the House might wish to ask the Government:
… to explain how, in the making of regulations under the Bill, it will continue to ensure conformity with the Market Access Principles under the UK Internal Market Act 2020, and the broader commitment within that Act to intra-UK alignment.
The Constitution Committee also suggested that The House may wish to seek clarification on what steps will be taken to ensure that regulations made under the Bill are consistent with the common frameworks already agreed and with those still under discussion.
Windsor Framework: avoiding divergence
Under the Windsor Framework, Northern Ireland remains aligned with EU product rules to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland while safeguarding the EU Single Market. Alignment with EU rules has the potential therefore to reduce the risk of regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Smoother trade within the UK, reduced friction at the UK-EU interface, and greater regulatory predictability are all potential benefits. However, regulatory alignment with the EU also means that the EU sets the standards which the UK adopts but does not get a voice in creating.
Conclusion
As the PRM Bill moves through the legislative process, its implications for UK-EU alignment, devolution, and trade relationships are coming into sharper focus. While some stakeholders welcome its potential to reduce complexity and costs, others fear it could centralise power at Westminster, strain relationships with devolved administrations, prioritises the EU trading bloc over others, and grants too much say over UK law to Brussels.
The ultimate shape of the Bill — and the extent to which it balances alignment with EU rules against broader trade ambitions and domestic considerations — will be closely watched in the weeks ahead.
Further reading
House of Lords Library Briefing, Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, 25 September 2024
SPICe, The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill – a path to EU alignment?, 5 November 2024