Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill
Tuesday 25th October 2022
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRetained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I inform the House that the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have the Bill in front of me. It states that it is presented to the House by “Mr Secretary Rees-Mogg”, but the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) is sitting on the Back Benches. Can you explain to the House how on earth we can possibly proceed with what was essentially a vanity project for that particular individual? Would it not be better for him to try his luck with a 10-minute rule Bill, or in the private Members’ Bill ballot?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman gets the prize for making the best point of order of the day, and possibly of the month or Session. His observation about what is printed in the Bill is correct, as is his observation that the right hon. Gentleman to whom he refers is sitting in his previous customary place on the Back Benches. At the point the Bill was printed, the Secretary of State was the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), but government is seamless. The name of the right hon. Gentleman, then Secretary of State, being on the Bill is of historical importance, but of no constitutional importance today. Other Ministers are now ready to speak at the Dispatch Box representing the Government, and all Government Ministers are Ministers—[Interruption.] I hear a sedentary interruption from somewhere of “for now”, but that is exactly my point: individuals are transient; government is permanent—[Interruption.] Permanent during the space of one Parliament. As we are in that same Parliament, the personal position of the right hon. Member for North East Somerset is, I am sorry to tell him, irrelevant for the moment. I call the Minister, who last week was a new Minister and is now a seasoned Minister, to move Second Reading.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Dean Russell)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
News of my promotion to Secretary of State has been exaggerated, but as Minister I will do my best this afternoon. I pay tribute to—I will not say predecessor—the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). Without his staunch and hard work, and his passion to help families and businesses across the country to survive the difficult winter that is coming, and ensure that the energy support would be there, a lot of families would be very worried this winter. I pay tribute to him for his work. It is honourable of him to be here during this speech.
On 31 January the Government announced plans to bring forward the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which is the culmination of the Government’s work to untangle the United Kingdom from nearly 50 years of EU membership. Through the Bill we will create a more agile and innovative regulatory environment that would not have been possible were we still a member of the European Union. That will benefit people and businesses across the United Kingdom. The Government have achieved much since leaving the European Union and taking back control of money, borders, laws and our waters. We have created a world-leading covid vaccine programme, and signed 35 deals with 70 countries around the world. We accept that there is still more to do, and in January this year we set out our approach to becoming the best regulated economy in the world.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
How will the Minister answer the intemperate correspondence to which many of us have been subjected, announcing that the Bill will provide for the rape of the countryside and the destruction of wildlife? Will he be able to persuade people that this is a proportionate measure that will allow us to choose the regulations by which we wish to live, and judge them on their merits?
Dean Russell
I think that is the longest intervention I have ever heard my right hon. Friend make. He is absolutely right. The premise of the Bill is to ensure that we do what we have always done, which is to be the best place in the world to live, and that includes our environment. It is an absolute priority of this Government that the United Kingdom will be the best place to start and grow a business, to live, and to ensure that our environment around us is supported at all times. Within the Bill are powers that will allow us to make good on that promise.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dean Russell
I will give way in a little while; I want to make some progress. The Bill will enable outdated and often undemocratic retained EU law to be amended, repealed and replaced more quickly and easily than before. That will remove burdens on business, and create a more agile and sustainable legislative framework to boost economic growth.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister be honest with the House? He says that the Bill will allow us to have the highest standards, but clause 15 formally confirms that we can only go down, and we can only have a race to the bottom, because it talks explicitly about not increasing burdens. Will the Minister tell the House who voted to lower our environmental protections in the referendum?
Dean Russell
I can be very honest in saying that the Bill will ensure that we have the highest standards, and within the process of this framework we will ensure that the burdens of delivering the best possible regulatory scheme are removed, while ensuring that we have the highest standards across all we do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dean Russell
I will come back to the hon. and learned Lady shortly.
As has been alluded to, some naysayers have asked, “Why is the Bill needed?” As a consequence of the oddities created by our previous EU membership, there are currently insufficient powers to make subordinate legislation to enable the amendment or removal of retained EU law from the statute book. The practical result is that standards do not get updated when they should be. Regulation, rather than adapting to support the needs of businesses in stable and emerging markets, ends up holding British businesses back. That is simply wrong, particularly when businesses and consumers face high energy bills and food prices as well as the many other challenges that we know are down to world events, and in particular the awful actions of President Putin. With our new-found freedom, it is important that we take the necessary powers to bridge the gap and reform legislation in a timely manner.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
The Minister is doing a fantastic job at the Dispatch Box. At oral questions this morning, Opposition Members were complaining about red tape and bureaucracy hamstringing small businesses. Does he agree that that means they will hopefully support the Bill in the Lobby tonight?
Dean Russell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Bill is about cutting red tape where it is not needed and ensuring that businesses can spend more time transforming their business than filling out forms. We have a great opportunity to deliver for them and for people across the nation.
Dean Russell
I will make some progress and give way in a while.
As I said, rather than adapting to support the needs of business, regulation has potentially been holding British businesses back, and we have an opportunity to deal with that. To ensure that the devolved Administrations can also seize fully the benefits of Brexit, we are providing them with the tools to reform retained EU law by extending the majority of powers in the Bill for use by devolved Administrations. It is a great opportunity—
Several hon. Members rose—
Dean Russell
I am sure that many hon. Members are standing up to say how pleased they are with that announcement.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
As someone who fought to free ourselves from the shackles of Brussels, I welcome the legislation. Does the Minister recognise that the passing of the Bill will make it even more imperative that the Northern Ireland protocol be removed, because those freedoms would not be available to the Northern Ireland Administration, which will still be bound by EU laws?
Dean Russell
The right hon. Member makes an important point. This is about the United Kingdom and making sure that every single person across this great nation, wherever they live, can do and be their best in all that they do.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I strongly support the Bill and congratulate the Minister on his presentation. I hope that the Government will urgently reform the energy directives and regulations that have made us cruelly import-dependent such that we now have to buy excessively expensive energy on the world market when we should drive for self-sufficiency.
Dean Russell
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. It is ultimately about ensuring that we are doing the right thing by people across the country. The truth is that the Bill is a framework, and this is not the time to debate the minutiae and the details as there will be plenty of opportunities for that in Committee, the future stages and statutory instruments. We should welcome the Bill’s framework, which is about taking back control for the country.
Joanna Cherry
The Minister said that the Bill is about doing the right thing by people. Earlier, I understood him to say that there will be no diminution in rights as a result of it. However, has he not looked at clause 15(5), which makes it clear that, far from creating higher standards, replacement legislation can only keep standards the same or lower them? That is the case, is it not?
Dean Russell
I very much enjoyed serving with the hon. and learned Lady on the Joint Committee on Human Rights and understand that she is incredibly focused on detail. There will be much time for her to explore that further if she makes a speech; I hope that she will. The point of the framework is to transfer EU law into UK law and make sure that it does what it should. If she is happy with EU law where that is retained, it will be written in UK law.
Dean Russell
I will come back to the hon. and learned Lady in a little while.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Has my hon. Friend noticed, as I have, that Opposition Members seem to think that the only place that can possibly regulate, possibly have high standards and possibly deliver laws for this land is the EU? Does he agree that, actually, we have created much better regulation and far stronger standards that are much more flexible and suited to these islands than the EU and that we should carry on doing that?
Dean Russell
I thank my right hon. Friend—she is a very good friend—for her comments. The Bill is ultimately about making sure that we continue to do what we have done for decades, if not centuries: exporting high-quality products, exporting doing the right thing and exporting making sure that the world is a better place.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dean Russell
I will continue; I have taken quite a few interventions.
We have carefully considered how the Bill will affect each of the four great nations. We recognise the paramount importance of our continuing to work together as one on important issues, including environmental protections. The Bill will not weaken environmental protections.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
My hon. Friend is doing a great job. It is right that, six and a half years after the referendum, we should get on with the process of taking control of our laws.
I served for two years in the Department for Exiting the European Union and gave many assurances in those years that, as we left the EU, our environmental standards and animal welfare regulations would be improved and strengthened, not weakened. Will he assure me that Ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will meet the Conservative Environment Network and our Wildlife Trusts to ensure that nothing is done in the process of the Bill to undermine our leadership in the nature protection space?
Dean Russell
I thank my hon. Friend and applaud the briefing that the CEN gave Members earlier today. Ultimately, this is about making sure that we are the best place in the world to live. On meetings, I assure him that we will engage widely—including with Opposition Members—and deliver on those promises. We will use the powers in the Bill to ensure that our environmental law is functioning and able to drive improved environmental outcomes, with the UK continuing to be a world leader in environmental protection.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Minister said earlier that the Bill was proportionate, but that is exactly what it is not, particularly given the sunset clause that means that DEFRA will have to go through revising and amending more than one piece of law a day between now and the end of next year. It is not proportionate; it is indiscriminate. It is also ideologically driven. Does he agree that DEFRA staff have better things to be doing, given that they are already late on the river basins management programme and the 25-year environment plan, and that the idea that the Department has the staff and resources to do that is irresponsible?
Dean Russell
I totally disagree, but I thank the hon. Lady for the intervention. Let me remind her that the Conservatives were the green party before the Green party. We are the party of the environment and will continue to be so. We were the party that made sure that businesses will not be able to put sewage in our waters, despite many Opposition Members making out that we voted for sewage. We did not—we made absolutely made sure that we are protecting our waterways. We are protecting our green fields and our land from top to bottom.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dean Russell
I will continue, because I have a lot to get through. I am sure that hon. Members have worked incredibly hard on their speeches, and I would like to listen to them.
As I said, we will use the Bill’s powers to ensure that our environmental law is functioning and able to drive improved environmental outcomes. The former Secretary of State did an excellent job recently meeting representatives of environmental groups alongside the environment Minister and assured them of the work that we will do. I am sure that that will continue.
As well as maximising the benefits of Brexit across the UK economy, the Bill will enable the Government to take the necessary steps to put our statute book on a sustainable footing by removing or replacing more than 2,500 laws derived from the UK’s membership of the EU, many of which are outdated and unduly burdensome. Earlier this year, the former Secretary of State—it irks me to have to say that—invited the House and members of the public to review the mass of legislation for themselves through the retained EU law dashboard, which was published in June and is available on gov.uk. That treasure trove of reform opportunities has acquired more than 100,000 views so far. I thank the public, businesses and civil society organisations for their invaluable views and input.
Together, we have identified where retained EU law must be excised from our statute book. Now, using this Bill, we will go further and faster to capitalise on the opportunities of Brexit. We will achieve that by addressing the substance of retained EU law through a sunset which means retained EU law will fall away on 31 December 2023 unless there is further action by Government and Parliament to preserve it. A sunset is the most effective way to accelerate reform across over 300 policy areas and will incentivise the rapid reform and repeal of retained EU law.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
What is the justification for allowing Ministers to scrap legislation that currently applies simply by doing nothing because of the sunset clause? I have never seen anything like it before. What is the justification for allowing law to fall away if Ministers decide, “Well, I’m not going to address it at all”?
Dean Russell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. He was a staunch advocate of not leaving the EU, and I appreciate that that is his view. To answer the question, the goal here is that we are looking at all those laws. It is actually public on the dashboard; there is an opportunity for everybody to engage. On the framework of the Bill, there will be a Committee stage, and the ability to have parliamentary scrutiny is huge. I would make one other point, however. At what point were we able to scrutinise these laws when part of the EU? We were not. All those laws were put in without scrutiny and without the ability for us to do the work we needed to do. We are now taking back control to this country to deliver on the promises we made to the people and on the referendum they voted in.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dean Russell
I will not take many more interventions. I will continue for a short while.
Prior to 31 December 2023, the Government will determine which instruments should be preserved, which should be reformed and which should be revoked. I commend colleagues from across all Departments for their gallant efforts in establishing ambitious reform plans that will help to drive growth. We are already in the process of removing outdated retained EU law in financial services through the Financial Services and Markets Bill and have already repealed outdated rules, which has enabled us to capitalise on tax freedoms.
Patrick Grady
I thank the Minister for giving way. He is making the case for the constitutional importance of the Bill. As I asked him in Westminster Hall last week, will he not accept that the timetable proposed by the Government in the programme motion is wholly inadequate for the scrutiny of a Bill of such constitutional importance? If he will not commit the Bill to a Committee of the whole House, can he at least guarantee that we will have longer than a day on Report, so that it can receive the scrutiny it really deserves?
Dean Russell
I thank the hon. Member for his comments and for taking part in the debate last week. To be honest, we would have had more time today to debate if we had not played silly games earlier with votes and points of order, although I accept that they were important.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dean Russell
I will continue, if I may.
Prior to the date in the Bill, the Government will determine which instruments should be preserved, which should be reformed and which should be revoked. I repeat that because it is important. I commend colleagues across Departments for helping to ensure that we are driving growth. We are already in the process of removing outdated retained EU law in many areas. The Procurement Bill, for example, which is currently in the other place, replaces the EU procurement regime with a streamlined British approach, and of course DEFRA has made great headway over the past two years, taking us out of the common fisheries policy and common agricultural policy and pushing the boundaries of innovation thanks to Brexit, with two new pieces of legislation on gene editing.
The Bill will help us to sweep away outdated and obsolete EU legislation, paving the way for future frame- works better suited to the needs of the UK, including on energy, emissions trading, services and consumer law. Many in this House have claimed that changes to individual pieces of legislation will not make a difference. I could not disagree more. We must address the EU legislation holistically. By making marginal improvements across a whole host of regulation, we can foment a revolution in the margins and radically improve the UK’s competitiveness and productivity.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dean Russell
I have given way quite a lot today, and I want to at least get to the end of my speech while I am still in post!
For example, there are 33 individual pieces of retained EU law relating to eco-design requirements. I posit that it would be easier for business to comply if there was just one piece of legislation covering all relevant goods, providing a strong market incentive for businesses to increase energy efficiency. There are countless examples across Whitehall of where the Bill enables positive changes, from improving the clinical trial process to establishing sensible and proportionate artificial intelligence regulation, while still being very mindful of the rules around the impact on the culture sector and on many others.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way and I congratulate him on doing such a sterling job under such difficult circumstances.
I recognise that it will be necessary to make changes to retained EU law that was never intended to be permanent, and there are good reasons for doing that, but there is a concern that doing it in the way proposed will add to legal uncertainty. The former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), kindly wrote to me as Chair of the Justice Committee to say that officials from the Department had engaged with the judiciary on how the Bill will work in relation to the interpretation of retained EU law and changes to it. Can the Minister help me, having had the benefit of discussions with the judiciary, with how the proposed changes will improve legal certainty, which of course is itself important for business certainty?
Dean Russell
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. One of the key things for certainty is having a clear date and a point when it will all happen. Uncertainty often comes by not knowing. We were going to have to make sure that the sunset clauses came in at some point. If I am still in post, I will gladly continue to meet him. If I am not, I will make sure that the person who comes in after me—a bit like “Doctor Who” and David Tennant emerging from the TARDIS this week—continues that work. I look forward to that.
After consideration of the retained EU law dashboard, the former Secretary of State took the decision to exclude Acts of Parliament and Acts of the devolved legislatures from the sunset. The content of those Acts largely concerns the operation of domestic policy. As they have all been properly scrutinised and reflect the will of the public as enacted through democratically elected representatives, we will make sure of that. Given the practice of qualified majority voting in the EU, the same cannot be said for most other parts of retained EU law. That is why it is right we have the review and make plans to amend that law now. I remind Members that our constituents voted for us to be here to make decisions on laws that affect them. The idea that we should not be doing that and the idea that we are trying to say, “Let us keep it as it is” feels very wrong to me.
I accept, however, that some retained EU law in the scope of the sunset is required to continue to operate our international obligations, including the trade and co-operation agreement, the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. Therefore, I am very happy to make a commitment today that the Government will, as a priority, take the necessary action to safeguard the substance of any retained EU law and legal effects required to operate international obligations within domestic law. We will set out where retained EU law is required to maintain international obligations through the dashboard, so that the public can scrutinise it. However, the sunset and the powers in the Bill are not enough to fully reclaim our parliamentary sovereignty. That is why I am also delighted to confirm once again that the Bill abolishes the principle of the supremacy of EU law. It is just absolutely absurd that in certain situations foreign law takes precedence over UK statute passed before we left the EU.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dean Russell
I am afraid I will make progress, because I can see the Opposition Front Bencher itching to get up and speak and comment on my speech.
By ending this constitutionally outrageous and absurd provision on 31 December 2023, we will ensure that Acts of Parliament passed during our membership of the EU will be returned to being the highest law in the land. The will of those past Parliaments as expressed through primary and secondary legislation will no longer be secondary to the will of Brussels.
The Bill will unlock growth across the United Kingdom. As we seize the benefits of Brexit and restore a sovereign approach to law and regulation, we can again legislate in support of the UK’s interests, rather than those of Brussels. This is of particular importance now, as our country pushes forward to recharge our economy in order to make the UK the best place in the world to run a business—[Interruption]—whether you want to live here, whether you want to walk in a beautiful green field in a park in our wonderful, beautiful lands of the UK—[Interruption]—or whether you want to start a business or grow a business—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I have let this run, but I have had enough now. The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) must stop shouting at the Minister. It is not appropriate behaviour and it gets us nowhere. She will have an opportunity to make a speech. If the Minister wishes to take her intervention, he will take it as he has taken other interventions, but she must stop shouting at him.
Dean Russell
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have no issue with Opposition Members shouting, but I think that they perhaps sometimes do it a little too much. We want to make this country the best in the world; I have taken many interventions and hopefully that has been recognised. I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call Justin Madders—[Interruption.] Forgive me—I was totally prepared for a change of personnel on the Government Front Bench, but I had no idea that there would be one on the Opposition Front Bench. I call Jonathan Reynolds.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill because, notwithstanding the need to address the future status and suitability of retained EU law following departure from the European Union, the Bill creates substantial uncertainty for businesses and workers risking business investment into the UK, is a significant threat to core British rights and protections for working people, consumers and the environment as signalled by the wide body of organisations opposed to the Bill, could jeopardise the UK’s need to maintain a level playing field with the Single Market under the terms of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and contains powers which continue a dangerous trend of growing executive power, undermining democratic scrutiny and accountability.”
I thank the Minister for stepping in to do a speech at the last minute; that is not an easy task.
Before I turn to the detail of the Bill and the reasoned amendment that has been tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, it is important to revisit the grotesque chaos that we have had over the past few weeks, because it goes to the heart of why the Bill should not become law. The Bill asks the British public to place blind faith in the Government—to trust them with our rights at work, our environmental protections and our legal rights—but why would we trust a Government who have crashed our economy, driven up the cost of borrowing, dashed the hopes of homeowners across the country and hiked up mortgages for the rest? This is the Government who pledged to ban fracking and then voted for it, and who sacked their Chancellor, their Home Secretary and finally, their Prime Minister, only to try—but fail—to bring back the Prime Minister that they sacked before while he is still under investigation by the House. We find ourselves debating a Bill that would transfer vast powers to the Business Secretary, covering every part of national life, yet we do not even know who that Business Secretary will be. It is clear for all to see that where the Conservatives go—like a bull in a china shop—chaos follows. It is just not good enough.
I listened carefully to the Minister’s speech. He cannot assuage the concerns of any of us, on both sides of the House, about the Bill. I do not think he denied that the sunset clause will be a huge source of uncertainty for businesses and workers. Contrary to his claims, rather than taking advantage of the freedoms that Brexit could conceivably grant the UK, that reckless approach threatens many of the core rights and protections that the British people currently enjoy. Far from taking back control, the Bill risks diminishing democratic scrutiny and accountability in key areas of British law.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, unlike the Minister. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns about the lack of a reference to employment rights in the Minister’s speech? Limits on working time, the right to paid holiday, rights for temporary and agency workers and parental leave all derive from EU law. Those fundamental workers’ rights could all disappear under the Bill. Given that the previous Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), stated that holiday pay is not an “absolute…right”, does my hon. Friend agree that we need confirmation that our hard-fought-for employment rights will be protected?
Jonathan Reynolds
My hon. Friend is an expert in such matters and she is absolutely right to highlight those concerns. That is what the Bill is about. It is not about Brexit—Brexit has happened; it is a fact. For most people, there is no appetite to revisit those arguments. Although many people have strong views on how it has been done and how the Government have not delivered on the promises that they made—I understand that—the task for us in the House is to get on and make it work. It is therefore important to recognise that the Bill is not about whether people think Brexit was a positive or negative thing. It is about whether we wish to give the Government the power to sweep away key areas of law that are of great importance to all our constituents with no scrutiny, no say and no certainty over their replacements. Put simply, do we wish to bring more Conservative confusion and chaos into the British economy?
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
We now know that Labour is a party of Brexit, no different from the other major party of Brexit, but how on earth do we make something that is unworkable work in the way that the hon. Member describes? Brexit is not a political strategy; it is an ideological venture and mission. He may have given up on getting back into the European Union, but we on the Scottish National party Benches certainly have not.
Jonathan Reynolds
I understand the hon. Member’s position. I simply say that, if we were to lock ourselves into a permanent debate on this matter, it would produce many of the negative consequences that have already come from this process. I appreciate that, from an SNP perspective, it does not see uncertainty as a problem, because its plans would, in many ways, produce even more uncertainty. However, I do not think what he suggests is a serious way forward. I am happy to have that argument because I do not think that it is a practical set of proposals.
The past four weeks in British politics have been nothing short of a disgrace, but the UK’s problems predate the past four weeks. As we heard earlier in Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions, at the heart of the poor economic performance over the past 12 years is the fact that our business investment has been too low. Even before the mini-Budget set fire to the British economy, the UK had the lowest rate of business investment in the G7, despite having the lowest headline rate of corporation tax.
Business is crying out for stability, for long-term political commitment and for consistent policy. That is why we on the Opposition Benches have published our industrial strategy and why the chairman of Tesco recently said that only Labour is on the pitch when it comes to growth.
The Conservatives’ imaginary view of business leaders who want deregulated, unpredictable, pure market forces simply does not sit with the established facts. Business likes certainty, but the Bill throws thousands of pieces of legislation into the grinder with no idea which and how many of them will survive. Why would a business have any confidence in our country when it has no idea what the rules will be that govern every part of its operation in 12 months’ time? Once again, this is a matter of trust. After the chaos of the past few weeks, Government Members are foolish to think that any business leader would now trust them with this seismic task.
John Redwood
Can the Opposition spokesman name a single regulation or directive of the EU that he thinks should either be repealed or could be improved?
Jonathan Reynolds
I certainly can. I have always said, for instance, that Solvency II could be improved by having to do the regulation on a basis in this country. If we look at the Government’s approach to that area through the financial services and markets legislation, we see that they are taking exactly what might be termed a more sensible approach, going on a sector-by-sector basis, putting forward positive proposals, rather than following the sunset clause procedure, which is so reckless and uncertain. I say genuinely to the right hon. Gentleman: please have the humility to look at the damage done in the past four weeks, and the role of Government Members in that, and perhaps think, “What if we are wrong, and what are the consequences if we are?”
Stella Creasy
Might one of the reasons why businesses are so confused about the impact that the legislation will have be because the Minister is? He tried to claim to the House that all the laws affected are published on the dashboard and will have full transparency. However, 24 hours ago in answer to my written question, the Minister admitted that the dashboard provided an “authoritative, not comprehensive” list. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when businesses and consumers are already struggling with the cost of living crisis, the last thing that we need is to not even know what a piece of legislation is deleting?
Jonathan Reynolds
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The retained EU law dashboard, although useful, is not and never has been a comprehensive list of all the retained law that this Bill affects—[Interruption.] Government Members say that they never said it was. It does not clearly distinguish where retained EU law has been devolved, much to the frustration of the Welsh and Scottish Governments. However, it still lists more than 2,400 sources of law. If the Government want to put a blanket sunset clause on all of this, should they not be able to list exactly what is covered?
The practical case that the Government have put forward for the sunset clause is that they cannot find the time to use primary legislation to amend these laws. Why not? The Government have a majority of 70, at least for the time being. Where the law needs to be changed, what is preventing the Government from doing so? The fear is that what they really want to do is to reduce key regulations entirely, which brings me to my next point—that the Bill poses a threat to core British rights and protections.
There is no question but that the scale of the Bill is large. The policy areas affected cover not only employment law, but environmental protection, consumer protection, agriculture, fisheries, transport, data protection and much, much more. That is why a huge variety of organisations, from the TUC to the RSPB, have signalled their alarm. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will raise their own worries about those issues during the debate.
The situation in relation to employment law is particularly alarming. Most of the UK’s core labour law protections are contained in regulations originally made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, rather than in primary legislation. They are not cumbersome red tape; they are things that British workers expect, including the Working Time Regulations 1998, the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 and the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. On all of them, the Government are saying, “Trust us.” Why should we?
This is a Government who have not kept their promise of an employment Bill to ensure workers’ rights post Brexit and who do not keep their manifesto promises at all. This is a Government in which we do not know who will be in each job from one week to the next—and I wrote that bit before the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) resigned as Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy a few hours ago. I am afraid that we cannot in good conscience hand the Government powers to arbitrarily decide matters that are of fundamental importance to the lives of working people in this country, not least because we have no idea whether any Ministers will still be in position in 24 hours, let alone 12 months.
Under the terms of the Government’s trade and co-operation agreement, the UK must maintain a level playing field with the single market. Such provisions are important to the UK: they protect against a global race to the bottom in standards and protections. We can only guess how the Government will use these powers, but the powers in the Bill are clearly deregulatory in tone.
This goes to the heart of the Conservative party’s simplistic and inaccurate understanding of regulation. When I ask a business what attracts it to invest in the UK, good regulators are always on the list. Businesses simply do not want the fantasy deregulatory agenda that lives only in the mind of so many Tory MPs. After the events of the past month, in which the financial markets themselves rejected the Conservative party’s allegedly pro-market agenda, I would have hoped for a little more wisdom and insight from the Government, but unfortunately I doubt that that will be forthcoming.
Finally, there is the issue of how Parliament will go about changing the law in future. The Government have already been severely criticised for how little power they have returned to Parliament since we left the European Union, and the Bill continues that approach. The use of negative statutory instruments, so that MPs have to actively object to prevent something from becoming law, is very poor practice indeed. When it comes to future proposals, the use of a sunset clause to cover such a large and complex body of law effectively puts a gun to Parliament’s head. Anyone who wishes to scrutinise or object to any future legislation replacing retained law will be taking a gamble, because unless that legislation is passed in time, the current law in its entirety will simply fall away. That is not conducive to good laws being made.
The obvious question is “Why not proceed on a policy-by-policy basis or, if appropriate, a sector-by-sector basis?” As we have already discovered, the Financial Services and Markets Bill does exactly that. Why not bring forward positive replacement proposals where the law needs to change or where something can be done better?
The fact is that this Government are out of ideas. They are more intent on their own survival than on putting in place the positive changes that we need. At a time when the British people are crying out for stable, competent government by a Government who recognise that economic growth comes from working people and businesses and from stability and certainty, not from the fantasy economics of the Conservative party, the Bill is not just wide of the mark, but wantonly destructive.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Member is giving a powerful speech. On environmental regulation, does he agree that this could be a very good test of the credibility of the Office for Environmental Protection? If the Government really are assured that there is no environmental risk, they should have no worries at all about referring the Bill to it. The OEP is already deeply worried about the workload in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and about the number of pieces of legislation that should be coming forward but are not.
Jonathan Reynolds
The hon. Member makes a very good point. Unfortunately, we know that the Government do not like independent assessment of their choices. They believe that they can simultaneously deliver the promises made on net zero and bring back fracking. Some independent verification would be very welcome indeed.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
It was actually this Government, through the Environment Act 2021, who set up the Office for Environmental Protection, knowing that it is so important to be seen to be doing the right thing on the environment. I think the hon. Member needs to be careful in what he says, because actually that is the purpose of the body. I know that it will be looking closely at the matter, but that is its role and that is what it was set up for.
Jonathan Reynolds
I think the hon. Member has agreed with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), so we have cross-party agreement. The Government will struggle to resist such a powerful alliance.
The Bill is the same sorry tale of uncertainty, dogma and poorly thought-out initiatives designed to appeal to Conservative Members and no one else. At a time when we need solutions for the future, the Government are retreating to the failed ideas of the past. The Bill promises yet more Conservative chaos, driving a bulldozer through our hard-fought rights.
Britain is fed up with this nonsense, frankly. It is time for a fresh start. It is time for serious government. The sooner we get a general election to achieve that, the better it will be for everybody.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
May I say what a pleasure it is that normal service can be resumed, and that I am now able to speak slightly more freely than I may have done when I sat in a different place? I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his particularly brilliant speech. I think it was particularly brilliant because I was involved in writing it; I may therefore be a rather prejudiced audience, but I thought it was delivered with panache and verve. He took so many interventions and put the case brilliantly.
I know that it is not orderly to mention people in the Galleries, but I do not know whether the officials’ Box counts for that purpose. Nevertheless, I would like to thank the officials who have been involved with the Bill. They have done a terrific amount of work to get it ready in a short time. I confess to the House that when I was Leader of the House, I thought that getting the Bill ready for Second Reading by this date would not be possible, but the work that has been done is absolutely terrific. Let me reassure those who may think that I have sometimes criticised the civil service that in this instance it is worthy of paeans of praise.
The Bill is of fundamental constitutional importance because it removes the supremacy of EU law. We have heard arguments about certainty. Certainty, certainty—everyone always wants certainty. In an uncertain world, I am not sure that certainty is ever possible, but in a legal context the Bill provides more certainty than the alternative, which would be to retain two different legal systems in these islands of ours that would apply in different circumstances. I know that we have Scottish law, English and Welsh law and Northern Ireland law, but we would have a separate law applying differently in each of those three jurisdictions. We are now removing that, so the law made and voted for by people in this country will be the supreme law. That is surely right.
The issue of supremacy is of constitutional importance. Anybody who opposes the removal of the supremacy of EU law is fighting the Brexit battle over again, saying, “We didn’t really leave after all. We’d like to pretend we’re still there. Isn’t it nice to allow this alien law to continue to tell us what we ought to do?” No, it would not be nice to do that. Let us clarify the law. Let us get as close to certainty as humanly possible, so that we have a sensible, intelligent and well-formulated statute book.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
For some of us, the point is not the constitutional argument about which laws should be sovereign, which we may well happily accept, but the practical issue of how we convert literally hundreds of laws, for DEFRA and so on, within the timescale imagined. Does my right hon. Friend understand the severe doubts that many people have about the practicality of what is on offer?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am afraid that my hon. Friend has never liked the decision to leave the European Union, and everything he says must be taken in that context. Otherwise, he would not have intervened—
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am not giving way again. Otherwise, my hon. Friend would not have intervened at this stage, because I was setting out the issue of supremacy before coming to the crucial point about why the Bill is now necessary and how it works in practice.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. This is a point of order. It would have been simpler had the hon. Gentleman been facing the Chair in the first place, because while he was addressing the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) I could not see him, and it was therefore difficult for me to hear what he was saying. When I ask Members to face the Chair, it is not out of some kind of vanity; it is because if everyone faces in this direction, everyone can be heard.
Richard Graham
This is a very simple point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) just said that I have never accepted the decision of this country to leave the European Union. That is a quite extraordinary and entirely untrue observation, and I would ask him to withdraw it.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I appreciate the sensitivities. The hon. Gentleman knows that the content of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech is not a matter for the Chair, and not one on which I will comment, but he has made his point.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I now give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom).
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for all the work that he has done. I was actually hoping to clarify the point that our hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) was making. Having myself held the role of Leader of the House during that attempt to leave the EU between 2017 and 2019, I recall that the House was able to get through some 800 or 900 pieces of secondary legislation. In my opinion, it is very much within the realms of possibility that this amount of legislation can and will be dealt with by the House very successfully.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has made an excellent point. The ability of the House to get through its business is exceptionally good, and it is able to do so in an orderly way, as my right hon. Friend showed in dealing with the no-deal Brexit legislation.
Patrick Grady
Given his commitment to scrutiny by the House, the right hon. Gentleman, who said that he was involved in drafting of the Bill, must have had sight of the draft programme motion as well. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which created retained EU law, was given eight days of scrutiny on the Floor of the House in Committee, and two days on Report. Does he really think that the time the Government are providing for scrutiny of this Bill is sufficient?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There is always a discussion to be had about whether a few days in a Committee of the whole House or upstairs in Committee provides better scrutiny. People sometimes reach different conclusions on that, but there will be a proper opportunity for a Committee stage upstairs, and I think that is perfectly reasonable.
I want to go back to the fundamental point about the supremacy issue. Let me reiterate that anyone who opposes the Bill is in fact re-fighting the Brexit battle.
John Redwood
I thank my right hon. Friend for all the great work that has been done on the draft legislation. Does he not find it an odd paradox, or contradiction, that many Opposition Members come to this place apparently to form laws but do not believe we can ever make a law that is good, and we need to rely on EU law in so many areas where I think we can actually do better?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is wise, as always. But it is even odder than that, because there is this very strange view that laws that came in without any scrutiny at all—regulations of the EU that became our law automatically—cannot be removed without primary legislation. That is just bizarre.
The laws with which we are dealing came in under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act. Either they came in with minimum scrutiny but could not be amended or changed, or they came in with no scrutiny at all. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) disagrees with me on this, but we are not using this procedure to repeal Acts of Parliament. Even though these measures have the effect of introducing EU law, an Act of Parliament has had full scrutiny in the House, and to be repealed it deserves full scrutiny to be taken away. That is the correct constitutional procedure.
Stella Creasy
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that some of us may be a little bit sceptical about the definition of democratic engagement that he has just set out? He is arguing that, for example, taking away laws that require cosmetics not to contain cancer-causing chemicals or laws on illegal trading—as well as maternity rights and TUPE—is a matter that does not require the scrutiny of the House, but only that of statutory instrument Committees. If he had been so wedded to restoring democracy, might he not have at least written the affirmative resolution procedure into these statutory instruments? Why he is taking back control, not for this House and the great democratic institutions—and he is now joining us on the Back Benches—but to No. 10?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I do not accept that construction of what is actually happening. The House will have the ability to focus on issues on which it thinks the Government are going in the wrong direction. Let me pick at random one of the retained EU laws that may be reformed or become redundant:
“a common methodology for the calculation of annual sales of portable batteries and accumulators to end-users”.
Does the hon. Lady really think that deserves primary legislation—a count of batteries? That is what is in the 2,400 statutory instruments on the dashboard, and, as has been pointed out, that is not necessarily the full list.
There are all sorts of minor and unimportant things that need to be dealt with. As for those that are of major significance, it was said clearly at the Dispatch Box that environmental protections would be maintained. That is fundamentally important. It is a commitment from His Majesty’s Government to this House. The Bill will allow those protections to become UK law—which I use as shorthand to cover the three different types of law in the United Kingdom—to ensure that they can be enforced logically and sensibly by our courts in accordance with our legal maxims. That must be a right and certain means of proceeding.
It is interesting that people, having been told this, are still opposing the Bill. I come back to the conclusion that those who are opposing it actually do not like Brexit altogether.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful for the chance to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman. I was going to welcome him to his position, but I did not want to seem ironic. He says that we can take a guarantee from the Dispatch Box. Even the Conservative party’s manifesto commitments no longer hold: we have seen that. How can we take the word of Ministers when even manifesto commitments no longer bind this Government?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman knows that Dispatch Box commitments have a very high standing in our political system. As Leader of the House, I was concerned that we were not using legislative reform orders as comprehensively as the legislation seemed to imply. In fact, the reason for that was a Dispatch Box commitment given by Paul Goggins, in the last Labour Government, during the passage of the Bill that limited the application of LROs to non-controversial issues. Dispatch Box commitments are actually a fundamental part of the way in which our discussion works, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well.
Sammy Wilson
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. This is an issue of the supremacy of this Parliament, and this law will enforce, and reinforce, the point that when we left the EU we made Parliament sovereign. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, however, that the Bill will also highlight the fact that Parliament is not sovereign across the United Kingdom? Some of this cannot apply to Northern Ireland, where EU law past and future will still apply. If anything, the Bill could drive a greater wedge between Northern Ireland, constitutionally, and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am certainly concerned about that. In the last couple of days I had to sign off a couple of explanatory memorandums covering law that was going to come into Northern Ireland from the European Union. That is an unsatisfactory constitutional situation, which is why I am so supportive of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill that is in the other place today. That is something we must push forward with, to ensure that we have a unified legal system across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Bill creates several new powers that will not require UK Government Ministers to seek consent from the devolved Administrations, essentially retaining power over areas within devolved competence. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the impact of this Bill on the devolution settlement?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Scottish Parliament has been reluctant to give legislative consent motions to any Brexit-related legislation because of the politics of the SNP. That is a view that it has taken because it wanted to remain in the European Union—as the SNP, to its credit, argues for firmly and clearly on these Benches. The SNP is rather clearer about this state of affairs than the socialist friends we have in here who like to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. That inevitably means that, in my discussions with the devolved Administrations, there has not necessarily been a meeting of minds with the Scottish Parliament. But that is to be expected. This Bill in fact returns powers to the devolved Parliaments, because it gives them the authority to reform and repeal EU law too. They will be the decision makers over those areas that are devolved, so we are increasing devolution.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The right hon. Gentleman will of course accept that the Welsh Government have similar concerns to those of the Scottish Government. The Welsh Government are run by the Labour party, which is a Unionist party. Indeed, the Counsel General of the Welsh Government, Mick Antoniw, has said:
“As currently drafted, this legislation could see UK Government Ministers given unfettered authority to legislate in devolved areas.”
These concerns are being expressed not just on the nationalist Benches but among Unionist colleagues.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I know from my previous experience that His Majesty’s Government will observe the Sewel convention in relation to this. There may be occasions on which, for simplicity, the devolved authorities want the Westminster Parliament to move ahead with something on which everybody agrees, but what is devolved is devolved and the devolved Administrations will have the right to pursue it.
This Bill is not only one of constitutional importance that will get our statute book tidied up but one of massive opportunity. It presents an opportunity, not necessarily to do any one big individual thing—like the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which can change Solvency II involving billions of pounds for the economy—but to go through every single individual issue in detail, one by one, so that we can see, bit by bit, those rules that have made our businesses less competitive, those regulations that have put our businesses under more pressure and those intrusions that have made people’s lives less easy. We will be able to sweep those away, and we will be doing so in a proper constitutional process.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
My right hon. Friend previously served on the European Scrutiny Committee, as I still do. Does he recall the inches-thick paperwork that used to land in front of us on a regular basis? Despite the pleadings of the Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), that legislation never had any debate, and even if it had, there was little to nothing we could do about it. This is the true victory and the Brexit dividend that we can now face.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The ports directive was debated and debated, and opposed on both sides of the House, but it went through anyway. There was absolutely nothing we could do. This is why I challenge Opposition Members who say that this is not proper scrutiny. Why did they not object to the section 2(2) power? Why were they not joining my hon. Friend the Member for Stone on the European Scrutiny Committee to ask, week in and week out, why these laws were going through without anybody being able to gainsay them and why parliamentary sovereignty was not being upheld? We are restoring parliamentary sovereignty by ensuring that there is a parliamentary process, that Parliament will have its say and that we will have our own law for our own country.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I agree with the core of his speech about returning supremacy to British law and getting rid of EU supremacy. The way in which statutory instruments and the negative procedure have been used in this House has not always been satisfactory. For instance, covid regulations, past the time they had been implemented, were brought into operation and were inappropriate in many cases. I could give many other examples. As somebody who campaigned to leave the EU and is glad to get back control of our laws, I am disappointed that the process will not see full transparency of debate, because our regulations and laws are better when they are transparent and when different people can bounce their ideas off each other. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We must not have such long interventions.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The scrutiny of statutory instruments in this House is not all that it should be. I actually think that the other place does it better. I think there are too many statutory instrument Committees that look at things for two minutes before they all go home, but that is an issue we must face as a House to decide how we want to improve it.
My final point is that those who oppose the Bill seem to think that British politics and the British electorate count for nothing. They stand up and say that we will have no employment law protections—practically arguing that we will be sending children up chimneys. Do they think the British voter was born yesterday? Do they really think the British electorate and the British people will accept or vote for a party that takes away the protections they already have and enjoy? Are they unaware of the fact that our maternity leave protections antedate the European Union’s regulations, and have always gone further than those regulations?
What sort of a country do opponents of the Bill think we are? Why do they have no confidence in our democracy? Do they think that right hon. and hon. Members on this side, when standing on a parliamentary platform and going before our constituents, will say that we are going to have a burning of everything they like? Of course we are not. We will stand up for people’s rights, we will stand up for people’s dignity and we will stand up for the rule of law. Most of all, we will stand up for that fundamental right, that overarching right, that right on which all our constitutional freedoms are built and on which all human rights depend—the right of the ballot box.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). Little did I imagine when I arrived this morning that that would be the case, because it would mean that one of only two things could have happened: either the SNP had become the official Opposition, or he had been sacked, neither of which would give me great joy.
I rise to speak to the amendment tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, in which we decline to give this ill-conceived, ill-timed, ill-judged and frankly dangerous piece of legislation a Second Reading. I had intended to start by saying that a week is a long time in politics and that events had overtaken the Bill since we first debated the matter in Westminster Hall with the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell). However, the chaos that continues to engulf this place suggests that an hour is a long time, and so much can change.
Already, as we have heard, the former Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset, has resigned, just hours before he was due to lead on one of the most important and wide-ranging constitutional Bills to have come before this House in a long time, leaving the Government frantically searching for a replacement. The Government, having allowed him to take this Bill with him when he was reshuffled out of the Cabinet Office, now find themselves in the farcical, ridiculous position of having to find a replacement for the Secretary of State, with a Bill stuck in completely the wrong Department.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) said, this was always a pet project of the right hon. Member for North East Somerset, something that previous Prime Ministers were prepared to indulge him on. However, today’s resignation means that yesterday’s man is no longer available to introduce yesterday’s Bill on behalf of yesterday’s Prime Minister—yet the Government plough on regardless of this almighty constitutional mess.
Right now, this poisoned chalice has been passed to the hon. Member for Watford to pick up at short notice. I am sure he will be aware of the credible rumours circulating this place that the new Prime Minister is planning to break up the entire Department, leaving this Bill like an unwanted Christmas puppy, which no one really wanted in the first place, no one really cares for and no one is quite sure what to do with now that the person who pressed for it has flounced out of the front door.
The whole sorry episode speaks to the dysfunctionality and complete disarray at the heart of this Government. As I said in my letter to the now former Secretary of State on Friday, I believe that this House and the nations of the UK would have been much better served had the Government withdrawn this Bill, following the resignation of what I think was the last Prime Minister last week. Certainly, given what has happened today, they should have withdrawn it from the Order Paper.
I welcome the hon. Member for Watford to his place, but he will be aware that in the current circumstances, while he may last longer than the average lettuce, the smart money suggests that he may not have too long a shelf life in this role. He, like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, must be pining for the good old days of the ministerial carousel when we could expect a Minister to go around at least once before falling off. We now have a political bucking bronco, from which Ministers are propelled out of the hotseat almost immediately they get in the saddle. The right hon. Member for North East Somerset can testify to what happens in this particular rodeo if one picks the wrong horse, or indeed the wrong donkey.
This Bill is the first test of the new Prime Minister, who has a decision to make. Will he decide it is business as usual and that he will plough on with this scorched earth, far-right, ERG-inspired mess, confirming once and for all that the Conservative party is happy to be the handmaiden of an ideologically driven, UKIP-style deregulatory race to the bottom? Or will he signal a reset in Government policy, one that includes resetting the relationship between Westminster and our Government in Edinburgh? His two predecessors deliberately let that relationship deteriorate to such an extent that, in her 45 days, the previous Prime Minister did not even bring herself to pick up the phone to our First Minister.
This Bill gives UK Ministers unprecedented power to rewrite and replace almost 2,500 pieces of domestic law covering matters including environment and nature, consumer protection, water rights, product safety and agriculture, and to do so with the bare minimum of parliamentary scrutiny. Taken in conjunction with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, this Bill threatens to undermine and alter the devolution settlement by giving primacy to the law of the United Kingdom in areas that are wholly devolved, such as environmental health, food standards and animal welfare. This means that legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament to keep us in lockstep with EU regulations could be overruled by a Government here in Westminster that we have never elected.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman understand the inconsistency of his argument? He objects to Ministers in the country to which he belongs being able to make changes to the law through this Parliament, yet he and his party would be quite happy to hand over all these lawmaking powers to Brussels, where he would have no say.
Brendan O’Hara
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Scotland, exactly the same as Northern Ireland, voted to remain in the European Union. What the Scottish people decide to do with our sovereignty is entirely our own decision. If we decide to pool and share that sovereignty with our European neighbours and friends, that is what we will do. He is asking me to accede to this Government, a Government we have never elected, riding roughshod over Scottish domestic policy in areas that are wholly devolved.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a terrific point. Is it not a fact that, if we were a member of the European Union, the European Union would not seek to take away our powers without consent? What is happening here, at every stage, is an attempt to take powers away from the Scottish Parliament without consent.
Brendan O’Hara
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about consent, because the Scottish Parliament has never agreed to this. I am sure I speak for future Scottish Parliaments, while the SNP are in government, when I say that we will never consent to having our rights taken away by a Government we did not elect.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
In answer to the point made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), the difference in how the European Union treats its members is that, in our current Union, Scotland has 59 out of 650 MPs, so we do not have a proportionate say. The European Union’s members are equal, so a country with the population of Malta has the same say as Germany.
Brendan O’Hara
Again, I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I could not agree more with what he says. He is right to say that the way Scotland has been treated by this Government is disgraceful and it cannot continue, and this power grab will be called out for what it is.
Let me ask the Minister this: what would happen if the Scottish Parliament decides that we will remain aligned to the European Union and we ban the sale of chlorinated chicken, but this place decides that cheap, imported, chlorine-washed chicken is acceptable? Exactly what power will the Scottish Parliament have to stop lorryloads of chlorine-washed poultry crossing the border and appearing on our supermarket shelves? Similarly, what happens if the UK agrees a trade deal that sees the UK flooded with cheap, factory-farmed, hormone-injected meat but our Scottish Parliament decides to protect Scottish consumers and Scottish farmers by adhering to existing standards and protections? Can he guarantee that the Scottish Government will be able to prevent that inferior quality, hormone-injected meat from reaching Scotland’s supermarkets? What happens if the Scottish Parliament decides that it will stick by long-established best practice in the welfare and treatment of animals but Westminster chooses to deregulate? Can he give a cast-iron guarantee that the Scottish Parliament will be able to prevent animals whose provenance is unknown and whose welfare history is unaccounted for from entering the food chain?
Can the Minister guarantee that should this Government decide to “relax” the regulations on the labelling of food packaging but the Scottish Parliament decides to remain aligned to the EU’s rules, that this place, using the provisions in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, will not force labelling changes on Scotland and have Scottish consumers unwittingly subjected to chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-injected beef, genetically modified crops and animals of questionable provenance?
There is a genuine fear that this Bill and the power it confers on this place is a potential death sentence for the Scottish agricultural sector, which in my constituency requires a hefty subsidy to in order to manage the land, keep the lights on in our hills and glens, provide employment and stem the tide of rural depopulation, while producing high-quality, high-value beef, lamb, and dairy products. My Argyll and Bute farmers know that the lowering of food standards, the relaxation of rules on labelling and animal welfare, and the mass importation of inferior-quality products will be an unmitigated disaster for Scottish agriculture.
I know, as the Minister does, that Angus Robertson, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, has already raised these serious concerns directly with the Government. The Minister knows that if the UK Government choose to act in policy areas that are wholly devolved, they will do so without the consent of Scottish Ministers or the Scottish Parliament, and that that will represent a significant undermining of the devolution settlement.
This Bill is the starting whistle on a deregulatory race to the bottom; one in which individual citizens will surely lose out to the spivs and the speculators and, no doubt, to the “politically connected”, who will be fast-tracked into making a quick buck at our expense. Because despite the Government’s assurances, which we heard earlier, that the UK will have the opportunity to be bolder and go further than the EU in securing consumer and environmental protections, there are clauses in this Bill that will prevent Ministers from imposing any new “regulatory burden” on anyone. To me, that suggests strongly that this is headed in one direction only: to deregulation. That deregulation will make it easier to circumvent our existing legal obligations on labelling food for allergens; to row back on safe limits on working hours; to change those hard-won rights on parental leave; or to avoid paying holiday pay.
The Government will be aware of the fury that will follow should they move to weaken the existing controls on polluting substances being released into the air or to lower existing standards for water and in any way dilute the protections and defences of our natural habitats and our wildlife. It seems that for some Conservative Members there is no price too high in their desperate, deluded pursuit of the mirage of Brexit. They are prepared to put at risk our natural environment, food quality, animal welfare standards, consumer protection, workers’ rights and even our natural environment in order to achieve it.
As I said earlier, this is not a road that Scotland has chosen to go down—rather, this is a road that Scotland has been dragged down. Our nation rejected this Tory Brexit fantasy, but our democratic wishes have been ignored at every turn. This is not Scotland’s doing, but because of the constitutional straitjacket in which we find ourselves, we are having this done to us by a Government we did not elect. Thankfully, Scotland has a way out and will, as soon as possible, rejoin the European Union as an independent nation. I sincerely wish the people of the rest of the United Kingdom well in finding their way back, too.
The Government should be under no illusion that SNP Members will oppose the Bill every step of the way. Not only are the Government coming for the rights and protections that we have all enjoyed for decades, but they are coming for our Parliament as well. I urge them, even at this late stage, to perform another of their trademark, almost legendary, U-turns and abandon this disastrous Bill. Not only does it undermine the devolution settlement, but it diminishes the role of MPs, with a plan to deal with everything via secondary legislation, conveniently avoiding scrutiny measures by Parliament. A former Secretary of State said that this was taking back control, but we have to ask who is taking backing control. It is not Parliament, as the Government have gleefully announced to the press that
“the amount of parliamentary time that is required has been dramatically reduced.”
Taking back control for this Government appears to mean finding a group of a hand-picked party loyalists and putting them on a Delegated Legislation Committee, which has a built-in Government majority, so that they can bulldoze through change after change after change, as required. In the history of DL Committees, in the past 65 years, only 17 statutory instruments have been voted down—and that has not happened since 1979. While there is a role for such Committees, it is not to make wholesale and fundamental changes to vast swathes of the law, covering everything from the environment and nature to consumer protection.
As we have heard, parliamentary scrutiny is being avoided because, in their desperation or fervour to rid themselves of any European influence, the zealots at the heart of this collapsing Government have arbitrarily included a sunset clause, meaning that 2,500 laws will be removed and not be replaced. Unless the Government grant themselves an extension, those laws will simply disappear from the statute book.
Jonathan Edwards
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the Institute for Government’s view that the time between now and the date of the sunset clause is completely insufficient, so Parliaments and the Government will be consumed with trying to replicate those laws by 2023?
Brendan O’Hara
That is a very good point, and it is something that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are extremely concerned about, because doing something that is utterly unnecessary will take up a great deal of their time.
The tactic is fraught with danger, as it introduces another totally unnecessary Brexit cliff edge, which will be welcomed by no one outside the inner sanctum of the European Research Group. It is further evidence of panic at the heart of the Brexit project. They know the wheels have come off and their Government are disintegrating before their eyes.
Finally, I repeat: this Bill should be withdrawn. It is a throwback to different times, and if the new Prime Minister is serious about making a fresh start and resetting relationships with Edinburgh, Brussels and the people of these islands, then abandoning this ill-judged piece of UKIP-ery would show that he is serious.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The debate is well subscribed. I do not want to impose a time limit, but my advice is that contributions should be around eight minutes, to make sure that everyone has equal time. I call Sir William Cash.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I add my personal best wishes to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) following his resignation from his post. I commend the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), for his excellent opening speech that he delivered at such short notice, and for his dexterity in answering questions.
Over the past 45 years, before we left the European Union, we were governed by and subjugated to European laws that were made behind closed doors by majority vote and without any transcript, such as we have here every day in our own Hansard in our own Parliament. Manifestly, that was not democratic and it was rejected in a referendum of all the people in this country and in the general election of 2019. Nobody can now justify returning to that undemocratic system of Government and the EU system of law making. It does not work, as we can see from the political resistance and national democratic changes that are taking place now throughout the European community, such as in France, Italy and Poland and throughout the whole continent. President Macron’s bid to create European sovereignty in his recent elections has paralysed his Government.
The sovereignty of our democracy and of the United Kingdom is guaranteed by section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. This sovereignty is not theoretical or constitutional; it is our democracy and is in line with the referendum result of 2016, which was endorsed by the results of the general election of 2019. We were elected on a manifesto, which I am glad the Prime Minister emphatically endorsed this morning as being, as he put it, at the “heart” of our mandate, including embracing “the opportunities of Brexit”, encouraging competitiveness, investment, productivity and some deregulation and innovation, such as our world- beating roll-out of vaccines, including the AstraZeneca vaccine, which, by the way, the EU tried to stop altogether.
We now have the opportunity to deliver those commitments and to stabilise this country against the background of the £400 billion spent on covid, and the increases in inflation, interest rates and the cost of living brought about by President Putin’s energy deal with Germany, which I predicted would create geopolitical and European instability in an article in 2001, which was commended by The Times. Covid and Ukraine were external factors; they were not caused by this Government, and they are at the root of our current problems.
Most other countries in Europe are experiencing a worse cost of living crisis and economic downturn. Our unemployment rate, for example, is running at only 3.5% and our job vacancies, according to the latest figures, stand at approximately 1.2 million. There are those who claim that we need legal certainty—I have heard that argument—but what is certain is that it would be untenable and hopelessly uncertain to have two statute books and two systems of interpretation.
As the Government have said, retained EU law was never intended to remain on the statute book indefinitely, but was preserved as a temporary bridging measure following Britain’s exit from the European Union. This Bill is an essential component in resolving that. It gives us the opportunity to remove unnecessary laws that restrict our competitiveness and growth and enables us to realise our potential as a sovereign independent nation, making our own laws through our own Members of Parliament, from all parts of the House, who were elected by the voters of this country in the general election. This is the fundamental issue that we have to address. This EU-derived law did not have UK levels of parliamentary scrutiny, as our traditional domestic, sovereign legislation demands, and was made subject to goings-on in Brussels behind closed doors. It is right that we should have full control over our domestic legislation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset mentioned the ports directive, and I remember it terribly well. It was opposed by every single person in this House who had representative objections put to them by people from the trade unions, from the Government and from the ports employers. Every single sector involved in the ports legislation refused to accept it, but it made no difference; it went through anyway. Indeed, I can honestly say that, since 1972, and certainly 1984, since I have been in the House, not a single piece of European legislation passed under the auspices and direction of section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 has ever been rejected by this House. This is an opportunity to put right that democratic absurdity. The simple fact is that retained EU law currently on the statute book lacks the legitimacy that we have in our Acts of Parliament. This Bill removes the supremacy of EU-derived law, much of which was created by the Council of Ministers, as I have pointed out, behind closed doors and without a transcript.
I was pleased to read in the Government response to our latest report, “Retained EU Law: Where next?”, that:
“The Government recognises the incongruous nature of Retained EU Law, particularly the principle of EU supremacy, which has no place in the legal system of an independent, sovereign nation”.
I am glad that that is clearly the basis on which the Prime Minister made his comments this morning, and I was actually encouraged, somewhat ironically—because I do not put too much trust in them, to say the least—by the remarks made about Brexit from the Opposition Front Bench.
The European Scrutiny Committee recommended that
“when retained EU law is modified by domestic legislation, the Government ensures that the amending legislation clearly indicates whether the modified legislation is to keep the status of retained EU law. We consider that the status should not continue.”
I am pleased that the Bill makes provision for that, and I welcome the inclusion of the sunset provisions to provide clarity and an effective timeframe for the repeal of all EU retained law, which is essential.
The director of the CBI on the “Today” programme this morning basically agreed that the Government have, as he put it, levers at their disposal that can support the growth push that we will need. He actually used the words:
“The growth imperative is bigger than before”.
He specifically mentioned, as part of that growth imperative, “different kinds of regulation”, and put growth at the heart of what he was talking about, because he knows it is true, Conservative Members know it is true and Opposition Members know it is true. We need growth and productivity. It is essential that we deploy these levers to achieve that growth, and in unity, to realise our potential and improve our competitiveness and our capacity for investment. I strongly support the Second Reading of this Bill.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Here we go again: another piece of legislation introduced in the name of Brexit, which we were repeatedly told was about restoring Parliament’s sovereignty and supremacy, and yet one that gives Ministers absolute control over whole swathes of legislation that impact upon our national life by cutting Members of Parliament out of the process almost altogether, and the public as well. This is what the Hansard Society had to say:
“The Bill…Sidelines Parliament because it proposes to let all REUL expire on the sunset deadline unless Ministers decide to save it, with no parliamentary input or oversight.”
This is a shocking Bill. As I see it, one of the main purposes of the Bill is presentational: it is trying to remove the words “Europe”, “European” and “EU” from the statute book. It is a form of linguistic and legislative purge, which may make those who argued to leave the EU feel better, but it does not add to the sum total of human happiness. The former Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who has just left the Chamber, made it crystal clear what the aim was when he wrote to me on 13 October and said that the Bill will require Departments
“to remove unnecessary or burdensome laws which encumber business and no longer meet the Government’s policy objectives.”
I remind the House that one person’s burdensome law is another person’s safe working conditions; it is their right to take parental leave.
At a time of great uncertainty and economic difficulty, what the Bill does is simply add to the uncertainty. This point was brilliantly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). What businesses want to know is what the rules are and what the framework is, because that knowledge provides them with certainty, on the basis of which they can invest and carry out their work. The Government are doing the absolute opposite with this Bill. They are saying to every one of those businesses and would-be investors, “We just need to point out that the laws, regulations and rules that are in place today may not be in place in the same form after Christmas 2023 if we don’t get round to saving them.” I cannot think of an approach more calculated to undermine confidence in the British economy and to deter would-be investors than the one in this Bill. I point out that we are not doing very well on inward investment—we have the lowest level of inward investment in the whole G7.
Part of the problem is that we have no idea, and I do not think the Government have any idea, which bits of EU law the Government want to scrap, which bits they want to amend and retain and which bits they want to keep in their entirety. We know that there is a list; reference has been made to it. It is not a little list—it is a jolly big list, and it is found on the famous dashboard. I echo the plea made by other Members: I really hope that the Government have counted everything. To paraphrase Lord Denning’s famous phrase, now that the incoming tide of EU law has ebbed away, have Ministers and civil servants searched every estuary, every river, every tributary and every salt marsh to make sure they have found all the bits of legislation that will be subject to this Bill? It is really important that they have done so, because if they have missed anything, that bit of legislation will fall in December next year—it will disappear from the statute book, whether Ministers want it to or not.
The next thing that is objectionable about the Bill is that, for the first time I can recall, it allows Ministers to change the law of this country by doing nothing—by simply watching the clock move and the pages of the calendar fall until December 2023 comes around. Even if Government Members agree with the aim of reviewing these laws—and there is an argument to be had for that—it is extraordinary that Ministers are asking the House to give them this power. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who is no longer in his place, did a good job of moving the Bill’s Second Reading having come to it very recently, but he had no answer to the point I put to him, and I have yet to hear one in the debate, about why Ministers should be allowed to get rid of law simply by sitting on their hands.
Sir William Cash
The right hon. Gentleman is rather avoiding the point that the legislation came in with exactly the same arrangements and was imposed upon us by the Council of Ministers, by majority vote behind closed doors, and he knows it.
Hilary Benn
Well, what I do know is that I sat on the Council of Ministers for seven years as a Cabinet Minister and took part in discussions and decisions about directives. That is a point the hon. Gentleman never, ever mentions; it is like everybody was locked out of the room. He makes that argument to avoid addressing what is in the Bill. Saying that something in the past was not perfect—I happen to agree with him about the fact that we were not allowed to watch the Council of Ministers at work—is not an argument for what is proposed in the legislation before us today.
What is more, are Ministers seriously arguing that, given all the pressures and the things that the new Prime Minister no doubt wants to do, civil servants should spend time going through 2,417 pieces of legislation? I say good luck to the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whose Department has 570 pieces of legislation—the Department for Transport has 424 and the Treasury has 374—and who will have between now and next Christmas to decide what on earth to do about them. While they are valiantly trying to do that, there is absolutely no provision in the Bill for public consultation and there will be no impact assessment on any changes that they are proposing to make. It takes a particular type of genius to make an enemy of worthy organisations such as the Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Green Alliance and others by threatening that which we and they value in pursuit of a headline.
What about workers’ rights? What exactly is the Government’s intention, in detail, when it comes to the working time directive? We have often heard Ministers complain about some of the consequences of the working time directive, but at other times we have heard them say, “Under no circumstances will we weaken workers’ protections.” The Minister acknowledged that we have entered into certain commitments as a country—although that does not mean that the Government will keep to them, if the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is anything to go by—and that certain employment and environmental legislative commitments are engaged by the trade and co-operation agreement.
We all know that, if we act in a way that the EU thinks gives us an unfair competitive advantage, it can retaliate. How will it help economic growth if we are inviting the prospect of that happening? I listened carefully to the commitment that the Minister made from the Dispatch Box on environmental and employment laws, but I am sorry to say that it is still not clear what he means by that. It is the detail that matters, so what will be changed and what will be kept the same?
The Bill does its best to tell the courts what they can and cannot take into account when considering cases before them. The Government tried to do that previously with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and they are back to have another go. One part in particular is extraordinary; clause 7(3) proposes to amend section 6(5) of the 2018 Act by substituting it with:
“In deciding whether to depart from any retained EU case law…the higher court concerned must (among other things) have regard to…the extent to which the retained EU case law restricts the proper development of domestic law.”
What on earth does that mean? Can any hon. Member explain what the proper development of domestic law is? I think that clause 7 is trying to kick the judiciary again into being more enthusiastic about Brexit, but Ministers know that in the end, the courts will take into account the things that they think are relevant.
I will say what I think will happen after this song and dance and all the chest beating about the wonderful new freedom. The Bill has not just one sunset clause, but three: 31 December 2023, 30 June 2026 and forever. Under clause 1(2), Ministers can decide to retain EU law in perpetuity or until such time as they choose to change it. I wager, therefore, that as next December approaches, many Ministers will find lots of reasons to use clause 1(2), because they will not have had time to decide what to do with the legislation.
In conclusion, this is a bad Bill. It threatens lots of laws that people value; it creates uncertainty; it takes powers away from the House; and it allows Ministers to repeal the law by doing nothing. For all those reasons, it should be rejected.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who is no longer in his place. He did a jolly good job of having to step in at short notice. I also pay my respects to the retiring Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), with whom I share Somerset in common.
I rise to support using our Brexit freedoms to design better regulation and unlock economic growth as appropriate. Regulations are obviously there for a reason, but it is right to periodically analyse them to ensure that they are doing what they were designed to do—or indeed, what we would like them to do as things change. We have that opportunity now, so as many hon. Members have highlighted, we need to ensure that the regulations that have been rolled over from the EU are bespoke to our nation. The Minister stressed this himself, saying that they really need to be working in the UK’s interests, and I agree. A lot of very sound points have been made by Conservative Members on that very matter, but I want to focus my comments on nature and the environment, which probably will not surprise Members in the Chamber.
I want to thank the Minister for meeting a group of us earlier to discuss how there are quite clearly concerns and to have open discussions. I, too, have met many outside organisations on these issues—the Green Alliance, the Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Better Planning Coalition, Greener UK—but also many businesses and farmers, because these issues affect all those categories. All of those people and, I believe, Conservative Members as well—particularly those of us from the Conservative Environment Network, which is doing really good work in this sphere—are just seeking assurances that the Bill will not weaken the UK’s environmental protections.
I was reassured by what the Minister did say at the Dispatch Box, because he openly commented that environmental protections will be maintained. I take that as a signal that he means it and, indeed, that the door is open to work on this—and maybe our Green party Member, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), will be working on it, too—so that we get to a place that everyone is happy with.
Jonathan Edwards
I am sure the hon. Member will realise that some of us are less happy than she is about this approach. Would it not be better for the British Government to bring forward alternative proposals on a sector-by-sector basis, as the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), said in his remarks, and then the whole House can discuss and scrutinise those alternative proposals, as opposed to giving the Government a blank cheque?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for that, but we have had assurances from the Minister that he is going to engage with us. I think it behoves us all to get involved in that, and to represent all the people who are coming to us, because there is a great deal of knowledge that I am sure the Minister will be open to discussing with us.
I particular want to set out for the House this Government’s record on the environment. We are the greenest Government we have ever had. We have moved further and faster on environmental issues than any Government, not least through our Fisheries Act 2020, Agriculture Act 2020 and Environment Act 2021, which is a groundbreaking piece of legislation. The rest of the world was watching us as we brought this through our Parliament, and they are still watching us now to see how we are going to implement all its measures, because it does put us on a sustainable trajectory for the future. Indeed, we on the Conservative Benches did all vote for it.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I have just heard the news that the COP26 President has lost his position in Cabinet. Does the hon. Lady agree that that suggests this is a Government who are not fully committed to supporting the environment?
Rebecca Pow
I am obviously not party to all these things, but I believe the COP26 President is just not attending Cabinet but is keeping his position, and rightly so.
I was touching on our environmental record, and I know that the Minister for Climate certainly understands the need to uphold this record. We are a global leader on this, which is very appropriate with COP27 coming up. We cannot be seen to be backtracking on things on which we are actually considered to be a global leader. That is why we need to show that we can uphold our environmental protections, while also being able to grow the economy, as is necessary in what are very challenging times. In my view, there should not be any kind of conflict between having a fully functioning ecosystem and a growing economy, with secure food supplies and, indeed, increasing food production. It is quite possible to make it all work.
We have set a legally binding target to halt the decline of species abundance—basically nature—by 2030 and to start to bend that curve, but I would be the first person to say, and perhaps the right hon. Member for Leeds Central might agree, that while we have had environmental protections, they have not actually done a great job in protecting our nature. We have had a massive nature crash in this country, and that is what we have to sort out. We need to look at some of our system of protection and make it work better. We do not need to undermine what we are doing; we need it to function better for the UK.
Rebecca Pow
I will press on because I think I will be under pressure—I will perhaps give way in a minute.
We have set a whole framework, and we need our protections to help that work to restore our nature. We must get those protections and the regulations enforcing them right. The Environment Act 2021 creates that framework, requiring Ministers to set long-term targets for environmental improvements, to set out policies to meet them, and to report annually on the delivery of those targets that relate to waste, air, nature, water and biodiversity. By the end of this week, on 31 October, the Government should be reporting back on the targets. Those have been widely consulted on, and I urge the new DEFRA team to publish them. They will be an important indication that we mean business on restoring nature, and business on our biodiversity net gain measures, which all developers know are coming down the tracks.
I mention that because it highlights the huge amount of work that DEFRA already has on its plate to tackle these things, and having to do a major review of hundreds of pieces of EU-derived legislation could put it under a great deal more strain. There are something like 572 laws relating to the DEFRA portfolio, whether that is sewage pollution, waste, water, air or pesticides. I know it is a good Department with some great officials, but fifteen months is a pretty short time to wade through that legislation. There is scope in the Bill to extend that sunset clause to 2026 if necessary, and I urge that door to be kept open, and for us to be realistic about this. If the right position has not been found by 2023—some of these things are pretty complicated—and if more engagement would be appropriate, I ask Ministers seriously to consider extending that sunset clause. No one is saying, “Don’t look at the regulations,” but we need that door to be open.
On the habitats directive, I urge Ministers to look at the nature recovery Green Paper that DEFRA undertook while I had the honour of being environment Minister. A whole team was considering proposals to streamline and consolidate site designations, to provide more certainty and predictability for developers—they had input into that—planners, and consultants. A whole range of people were asked to come up with some thoughts on getting a more strategic approach for tackling pressures on our protected sites. We have already done that for the infamous great crested newt, which is often cited as a reason for holding up planning applications. There is now a good plan for working strategically with our newts, with mitigations and compensations and so on, and it is working well. I urge the DEFRA team to look at the proposals in the Green Paper, as they are a basis for reform without weakening environmental protections. May we also have clarity on the Emerald network of areas of special conservation interest?
Finally, businesses need certainty and clarity, which is why we must ensure that they know there is a level playing field that will ensure high environmental standards. Our manifesto committed us to delivering the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth. The Minister mentioned that earlier, and it is something we should be proud of not just here but on the global stage. It is what we need to deliver for future generations. Let us give ourselves time for the assessment process. Do not rush the changes. We cannot grow our economy by weakening our environmental protections, but we can make a bespoke system that is better for us all.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I gently remind hon. Members that, if we are to be fair to each other, I did say that speeches should last about eight minutes, as opposed to 11 minutes.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). I hope she will appreciate that I listened to what she said and responded in my comments.
We have all done it: we have all accidently hit “Delete”, broken something or not saved a document that we meant to save. Or, even worse, we have been in workplaces where somebody has done that and all that institutional memory and knowledge has gone. Then we face a choice: either come clean that all that information is lost, or try to pretend that it did not matter. In taking the latter option, the Government are putting at risk thousands of rights that have been the fabric of everyday life for all our constituents.
In opposing the Bill, let me be clear that that is not talking about Brexit. It is not talking about rerunning a referendum. It is not to argue that we must go back. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) is not in his usual place—I am not sorry, really—because it is also not about supremacy. It is about sanity and the business of doing government. In the time that I have, I want to set out that I and Opposition Members will oppose the Bill because of both what it does and how it does it. I urge Government Members to look at how the Bill operates, because all the powers, promises and ambitions in the legislation cannot be achieved.
We do not really know what the Bill does, because we really do not know what it covers. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell), is not in his place—who knows whether he is still a Minister and whether, when he comes back, he will be on the Front Bench or the Back Benches—because being honest about the fact that we do not know the levels of European law is critical.
It is not just minor changes, as the former Secretary of State tried to suggest; there are serious, important pieces of legislation that many in the House, and especially those who care about environmental issues, have discovered are not on the retained EU law dashboard. The conservation of habitats and species regulation does not appear on the Government’s dashboard. Therefore, as a starting point, we have literally no idea which rules are being abolished by the Bill because the Government do not know—they have not found them all. That is what the parliamentary question admitted yesterday with its authoritative but not comprehensive list. Call me an old- fashioned democrat, but I would quite like to know what I was voting to abolish and be able to tell my constituents about that before being asked to do so.
It is also not clear how the legislation will operate in the devolved legislatures. Of course, that matters in making sure that laws are tenable if they are to cross borders, let alone for our colleagues in Northern Ireland who face multiple legislative processes—all that red tape that we were told we could get rid of by leaving the European Union.
Above all, the Bill asks us to play the worst game of “Snog, marry, avoid” that I have ever seen for any piece of Government legislation; in deciding whether something is kept, amended or simply abolished. Let us have a go at that and see whether our constituents really want to play when they see what is at stake.
Let us talk first, nice and simply, about those things that we probably want to keep. I presume—maybe I have misread things—that there will be general agreement across the House that it is a bad idea to have cancer-causing chemicals in cosmetics, so we should retain rules that keep those out. Again, we all think that insider trading is a bad idea, but the legislation will rip up all the rules on that. On airline safety—by that I mean literally the rules that require a plane to be worthy to go in the air—we probably agree across the House that having rules that ensure that planes are safe is a good thing, so we could take a bipartisan approach. Again, we probably all agree on preventing food manufacturers from making false claims about the nutritional content of their food, and on tackling illegal firearms smuggling. One question from many of us might be: when we have a cost of living crisis and a Government who are in chaos, why on earth are we spending time rewriting laws that, on the whole, we all agree with?
That is where the rub is in the legislation: what the Government want to avoid and abolish. They need to come clean to our constituents. They are asking us to approve powers that would let them get rid of the rules around a whole plethora of issues, including those that require major sporting events to be free to air. I was very troubled to discover at the weekend that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport was trying to claim that was not the case. Clearly, Government Departments have not looked at the legislation on which they have depended. Disease control for bird flu is suddenly up for abolition, along with compensation rules for lost luggage and delayed trains. I guess if a Government are dealing with privatised rail industries and are unable to help them, they think that removing those basic consumer protections will somehow be good for them. However, they should be honest with our constituents if that is what they intend. The payout that comes if someone’s firm goes bust and the entitlement to 50% of their pension pot—let alone TUPE protections if their job is outsourced, paid holiday rights and maternity rights—are up for abolition through the Bill. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for North East Somerset is not in his place, because we could have a conversation about exactly how the EU protected women’s basic maternity rights against decisions by the UK Government.
On part-time workers’ rights, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane says she has had assurances from the Government. Well, I thought the Conservative manifesto was an assurance about what the Government were going to do, but that seems to have been ripped up. The Bill will give the Government carte blanche powers across 2,500 pieces of legislation and 300 policy areas. Can she really, hand on heart, be confident that all of those will be retained? She does not have in the Bill any recourse if those pledges come to nought, so she is taking a huge gamble.
Secondly, one might agree that all those things need to be up for grabs and that it no longer matters—I would love to see the referendum leaflet that said abolishing paid holiday leave would be a good thing; I will sit down if the Government can show me that—but the Bill hits delete through a sunset clause, abolishing everything all at once. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) says, that creates a power for Governments to abolish pieces of legislation just by doing nothing, with no judicial review powers if those rights are important.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is not here. The Bill hands powers to those very Ministers who were in the Council meetings he objected to, to make those laws. In which case, we must all ask, “What help are they getting?” We have talked about 570 different pieces of legislation from DEFRA to be revised. At the moment, there are three DEFRA civil servants dealing with 570 pieces of legislation. It is the same across other Government Departments: two officials in the Department of Health and Social Care dealing with 137 regulations covering healthcare; nobody in the Department for Work and Pensions, which has 208 regulations to rewrite; and nobody in the Treasury, which has 602 regulations to review—snog, marry, avoid—in the next year and decide whether we will keep, or amend, them. The Department for Transport could not even confirm how many staff it had working on this issue. It does not even know who is responsible for it. That is not really a surprise. Of the 2,500 pieces of law that are being ripped up, on which we have been dependent for decades, 800 have no direct ministerial lead to even worry about whether we should keep them.
Ministers will decide what happens to those pieces of legislation—they can water down protections and any promises made to the hon. Member for Taunton Deane, or simply drop them without any form of scrutiny. I am disappointed that the right hon. Member for North East Somerset is not in his place, because those of us who are democrats believe passionately that the only people who are anti-democracy are those trying to take back control to Downing Street rather than to this place. It is simply not true to say to the British public that, through this Bill, Brexit is giving the House powers—let alone the trade war it could easily start, because we signed agreements in good faith with the European Union under the TCA that we would have a level playing field on areas such as food safety and employment rights. The Bill could lead to retaliatory tariffs.
What the hon. Member for Taunton Deane and her colleagues should reflect on most of all, perhaps, is clause 15, which enshrines deregulation. I would be with her in the Lobby on introducing higher environmental standards, but the Bill formally requires that that cannot happen. The direction of travel is only one way—to water down and reduce rights.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Lady will have seen that I put that point to the Minister earlier and he said that clause 15(5) was just a minor detail. Does she agree that that is absolutely wrong and that it is absolutely central to the Bill?
Stella Creasy
Clause 15(5) is why the Bill is the anti- growth coalition. Businesses, consumers and environmental organisations alike are against no regulation. No regulation is a recipe for less competition. It is a recipe for a wild west. They want better regulation. Clause 15(5) rules that out and gives Ministers the responsibility not only of finding legislation, but then doing something with it without any scrutiny from this place. There are plenty of parliamentary mechanisms that could change that. There are many different ways that could work. It is not just about the sunset clause; it is about affirmative regulations. There are ways we could reduce red tape, but they are not written into the Bill.
The new Prime Minister says he will fix the mistakes of the past. He could do no better than to abandon the Bill and rethink it, because, as we all know, when we hit delete and do not save, it is a mess for all concerned.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Having witnessed the EU legislative process at first hand as an MEP for six years, I can attest to the fact that it tends to be bedevilled by horse-trading, misunderstanding, ambiguity, vested interests and protectionism. My experience of that process and its often flawed results radicalised me and was a major reason why I decided, when the referendum came, to campaign to leave the EU. I believe that when it comes to regulation, we can do better in this country. We can and must retain our high standards—as every Government Member has said today, including the Minister—but deliver them in a way that is less cumbersome, less bureaucratic and less costly. We can ensure that our rules are properly targeted at the real problems that we want to resolve and that they are tailored to our domestic circumstances and our national interest. Delivering that change is a crucial means to making us more productive and more competitive and to growing our economy. It is a key benefit of leaving the European Union.
That point was made clearly in the report of the taskforce on innovation, growth and regulatory reform, of which I was a member. We highlighted the need to return to the principles of common law after nearly five decades in which the Napoleonic code-based approach had found its way into such a wide range of our laws in the UK. I therefore welcome the Bill’s proposal to remove the special status of retained EU law. I also believe that it is important to take a fresh decision on each item of law that we have inherited from our period of EU membership to determine whether it should be retained, amended or repealed. But—this is an important “but”—I am concerned that the hard-stop sunset clause, which kicks in at the end of 2023, may not give us time to conduct the in-depth, evidence-based review of regulation that is needed.
The Bill provides a mechanism in certain circumstances for that deadline to be extended to 2026, but, as many have said, that still leaves an immense amount of work to be done in a brief period of time. We do not know with certainty, for example, how many laws there are within DEFRA’s food, animal welfare and environmental remit, because that has not yet been comprehensively counted on the Government’s dashboard. However, groups such as Greener UK point out that it includes at least 570 pieces of legislation. Reviewing those 570 enactments is a mammoth task. I well recall, during my time as Environment Secretary, the huge bandwidth needed to prepare and take through the statutory instruments needed for the initial exit process, and that was only 122 SIs.
It is worth looking at our experience with the deposit return scheme. That is a popular move and businesses believe that it can be made to work well, yet it is not expected to be in operation until 2024 at the earliest—six years after it was announced. If an uncontroversial bit of regulation takes that long to get right, my fear is that the process of reviewing environmental, animal welfare and food regulations might not be completed prior to either the 2023 or 2026 deadlines.
Retaining strong environmental rules and protections is absolutely crucial if we are to meet our commitment to halt species decline by 2030 and become a net zero economy by 2050. The perils of any gaps in food safety regulation are illustrated by the fact that, 30 years after the BSE disaster, there are still countries that ban British beef.
In conclusion, I would be the first to acknowledge that there are aspects of EU environment and food rules that could, and should, be made to work better. The habitats regulations are perhaps the most important example of that. As the former Environment Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), said, important work has already gone into potential changes and reforms, but we must avoid the situation where sunset clauses leave us with a period without legal rules on crucial environment, food safety and other issues.
This Conservative Government have shown the strongest commitment to environmental goals. They have led on the world stage and have enacted a groundbreaking new Environment Act. I now look forward to working with Back-Bench colleagues and with Ministers to improve the Bill and deliver legislation that seizes the economic opportunities provided by regulatory reform and ensures we achieve the historic goal that ours will be the first generation to hand on the natural environment in a better state than we found it.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I listened to the new Prime Minister’s speech this morning, in which he promised to fix “mistakes”, acknowledged that work was needed to “restore trust” in the Government, and said that his Government would be marked by “integrity, professionalism and accountability”. One problem with the Bill, however, is that it will hugely remove the Executive’s accountability to Parliament. That is one of the mistakes that need to be fixed by the new Prime Minister, because it was prompted by ideology and desperation to point to some so-called Brexit benefits, when the overwhelming body of opinion—from business to the trade unions—says that it is a mess that will lead to legal uncertainty and more chaos. The author of the Bill has gone; I think the Bill should go with him.
Let us make no bones about it. The departing Prime Minister has left an almighty mess behind her because she pursued an economic policy that the vast majority of people, including the incoming Prime Minister, advised her against. The vast majority of people are advising against the Bill, including the majority of parties in this House, business, the trade unions, legal experts, all sorts of third-sector bodies and the devolved Governments. My plea to the Prime Minister, given the promises that he made this morning, is not to make the same mistake with the Bill that his predecessor made with the economy.
There are so many problems with the Bill that it is hard to know where to start. Other hon. Members have outlined some of them, but there are seven that I want to raise.
The first problem is that the Bill represents a huge transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive. That is hardly taking back control. Taking back control was supposed to be about the people of the United Kingdom and this Parliament, not the Executive. The Bill will give Ministers incredible powers to legislate on areas that affect our everyday lives without any meaningful democratic input.
The second problem is that the Bill means that if Ministers want retained EU law to fall away, they need take no action at all. The decision to take no action is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, meaning that very important rights and protections could be lost, including the right to equal pay as between men and women—a pivotal change in our society—as well as food safety standards, which other hon. Members have mentioned, and workers’ rights such as a certain amount of paid holiday per year and a 48-hour maximum working week for road hauliers. Those are not the sort of rights that should just fall away, perhaps even by accident.
The third problem, which I raised in my intervention early in the debate, is that far from creating new high standards in our regulatory frameworks, the replacement legislation cannot increase standards; it can only leave them as they are or lower them. That is what clause 15(5) says. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but in my opinion that is what it says, and many other legal experts think so. It is not a minor detail; it is a major problem with the Bill.
The fourth problem is that reducing standards or allowing key pieces of legislation simply to lapse could risk the UK’s trading relationship with the EU at a time when we can ill afford it. I know that it was several Prime Ministers ago, but will the Government please remember the trade and co-operation agreement and their obligations under it?
The fifth problem is the fact that the proposed speed and scale of these changes—as we have heard, the Government’s retained EU law dashboard includes more than 2,400 pieces of legislation in 300 policy areas across 21 sectors of the UK—are completely unrealistic, and will inevitably result in mistakes.
The sixth point concerns the problems that the Bill poses for the devolution settlement. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) went into those in some detail so, given the constraints of time, I will not go into them in the same detail myself. The fact of the matter is, however, that in its current form the Bill will allow UK Government Ministers to act in policy areas that are devolved, and to do so without the consent of the Scottish Ministers or our Parliament, because secondary legislation does not need consent. Primary legislation needs consent, but that rule is more honoured in the breach than the observance.
Jonathan Edwards
As usual, my hon. and learned Friend is making a forensic speech. She will be interested to learn that more than 10,000 people marched for independence in Cardiff recently. I never thought that that would happen in my lifetime, but it is happening because of Bills like this. The people of Wales are seeing the British Government supplanting the devolution settlement, and are concluding that they have a choice between direct Westminster control and independence. That is what is happening in Wales, and I am sure it is what is happening in Scotland.
Joanna Cherry
Indeed, and I am pleased to say that I spent the weekend in Cardiff. It was my first visit, and I found it to be a beautiful city. I was attending the FiLiA feminist conference. I will certainly go back to Cardiff, and I should quite like to join one of those independence marches some time. Whether one is a Unionist or a nationalist, the fact remains that the mess that the Bill will create will only cause problems between Westminster and Holyrood.
That brings me to my seventh point, which concerns Northern Ireland and the impact of the Bill on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. The Government have not yet conducted a full and comprehensive assessment of retained EU law, and they have also failed to analyse which areas of retained EU law interact with or have an impact on the commitments made in article 2(1) of the protocol or, as I pointed out earlier, on the level playing field provisions of the trade and co-operation agreement. The removal of key frameworks for interpreting retained EU laws and settlement agreement legislation—including EU general principles, in clause 5, and retained EU case law, in clause 7—may have an impact on the “keeping pace” commitment associated with article 2(2). That is another area in which the Government need to go back to the drawing board.
As Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I can say that we will be scrutinising the Bill very carefully for its rights implications, and will table amendments. However, I must add that I think it is pretty much beyond amendment, and that, as I have said, the Government need to go back to the drawing board. I say to them, “Please do not pursue another dangerous ideological experiment at the cost of our constituents’ rights, and at the cost of their livelihoods.” The Bill will have a big impact on business and a big impact on workers’ rights. This is absolutely not about people, or this Parliament, taking back control; it is about executive fiat, and the sidelining of democratic scrutiny by this Parliament.
In his speech when he took office this morning, the Prime Minister said that he would put the country’s needs above politics. Well, the country does not need this, and, in fact, there is more than one country in our Union. The Government need to respect the wishes of Scotland’s voters, the wishes of Welsh voters and the wishes of Northern Ireland voters, as well as the devolved settlement.
My message to the Government is that the Bill is a mess. Yes, it is embarrassing to ditch Bills, but let us face it, the Government have had a lot of embarrassment recently and they are getting used to it. They have already ditched one Bill, the Bill of Rights; I believe it may be bouncing back soon as a result of the Cabinet reshuffle, but it is certainly possible to ditch a Bill at this stage. This Bill needs to be ditched, and the way in which we deal with retained EU law needs to be revisited completely.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The UK is party to many international legal arrangements, many of which do not enjoy a great deal of scrutiny in this House. Having heard several Members raise points about scrutiny in respect of EU law, I think it is important for us to acknowledge that there are a number of Members here with direct experience of that scrutiny process. We have heard about the Council of Ministers, in which UK Ministers signed EU law into the laws of all the member states. We have heard from former Members of the European Parliament, where the directly elected representatives scrutinise that law during the law-making process. I can speak as a former member of the Committee of the Regions, where the indirectly elected representatives of the United Kingdom authorities, including the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Government, scrutinised those laws in that law-making process.
I can also speak as having chaired one of the employer organisations in the social dialogue, which were part of the cross-industrial sector process of working up the detail of what those laws and regulations should contain. So while it is absolutely the case that that law, once it was signed into the law of the United Kingdom by our Ministers, did not enjoy further scrutiny here, the UK was well known as a leader in designing good regulation across the European Union. I recall my experiences in the education sector, where in neighbouring conference rooms organisations such as chemical engineers, veterinarians, pharmacists, clinicians and representatives of the aviation sector were having similar discussions seeking to design better law and regulation, which sits in this retained body of EU law today as part of Margaret Thatcher’s single market.
A weakness of that process that we must acknowledge is that it was easy for big industrial organisations and corporates to engage with, but in a country where around 70% of our workforce are in enterprises with fewer than five employees, it was challenging for those types of organisations to have a voice. They will not have had the input that the UK industrial sector had in the designing of these regulations. This should remind us of the importance of our scrutinising the detail of what this Bill means when it comes to deciding what pieces of law we might wish to keep and which we might not. Ministers and Members across the House have acknowledged this.
For example, it is easy to dismiss the value of regulations around batteries, but those pieces of regulation were designed to ensure that the ambition set out in this House by British Governments that all batteries would be recycled was achieved. We will wish to ensure that if we continue to support that ambition, which we clearly do, we will have an equivalent form of UK regulation, appropriate for our market, that will ensure that that outcome can be achieved, as was the intention of those European Union rules.
This seems to be a good moment to take stock of what is in this wide body of legislation. I welcome the fact that our former Prime Minister but one made a number of clear public statements that the Government’s ambition would be to go beyond what was set out in the EU legislation, especially in respect of environmental protections and animal welfare, and that it was the aspiration of the United Kingdom, just as we encouraged higher standards in the EU when we were a member of it, that we would use the freedom from those standards to seek to have still have higher welfare standards and higher levels of environment protections than those that previously legally applied. I hope we are going to hear that this is not simply a matter of maintaining a minimum, or indeed of going back, and that it is going to be a considered process of looking at where we can go beyond what we have, because that is good for our economy, good for our environment and good for our people.
It is positive that several Members have recognised that there are opportunities to make this legislation better. We know that the European Union, much criticised sometimes for the slowness of its law making, would have been unlikely to be able to implement changes to the financial market legislation, for example. I have to acknowledge, having been involved in some of the EU discussions about online safety, that the UK’s Online Safety Bill goes well beyond what was envisaged as part of the EU law-making process. It sets a higher standard for online protection in the United Kingdom than was likely to have been achievable across that greater body of member states. There are opportunities for us to do things better as a result of these changes.
That said, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), I welcome the fact that there is scope within this Bill, as we go through the process of looking line by line at what the implications of those legal changes would be, to extend the life of those protections, indefinitely if necessary. I suspect the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) is correct that there will be a number of areas where we will decide that the regulations work just fine as they are, thank you very much, and we will consider them to be implemented at UK level. However, we will undoubtedly wish to change or reshape some elements in the light of our UK circumstances.
I have had a clear message from constituents, especially those with an interest in the environment and animal welfare. They recognise that some of those pieces of EU legislation have been cumbersome and that they have not always been as helpful, as sharp and as enforceable as we would like to see when it comes to things such as habitat protection; but they note that we have had the highest level of wildlife loss of any nation in the G7. There are reasons for that, and it happened under EU regulation, so there is a need to ensure that within this context of “taking back control”, the promise of higher and better standards and more flexible legislation that was made to the British people is met in full.
I urge colleagues on the Government Benches to keep that at the forefront of their minds. This Bill is not about deregulation; it is about showing that we in the United Kingdom will have the ambition to have the highest possible standards and the best possible regulation as a country outside the European Union.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I will speak as a trade unionist, taking up the point made by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). From the trade union point of view, I have been inundated with briefings from individual unions, including my own, which is Unison, the TUC, etc. All of them have the wishful hope that any legislation that comes before this House would be about improving standards and moving to the best possible, as he said. Unfortunately, all the briefings I have received are about the risks, rather than the benefits, that accrue from this legislation.
The list is almost endless; other hon. Members have mentioned them, but I will run through a few: risks to the right to paid annual leave, limits to working time, health and safety protections, prevention of less favourable treatment for part-time workers, guarantees and protections for parental leave, TUPE rights, discrimination laws, equal pay and maternity, paternity and adoption protections —it goes on and on. There is fear out there about what this legislation can do.
Many trade unionists voted for Brexit. They will have voted on the basis of the slogan “taking back control”—that is the reality of it—and they will have been convinced by some of the arguments about reasserting national sovereignty and the argument that decisions should be taken by this Parliament rather than the EU. However, I do not by any means think they voted for a massive transfer of powers to Ministers on the scale seen in this legislation.
This Bill asks trade unionists for a leap of faith. It asks them to put trust in Ministers on both the sunset clause, to be able to include continuation of or improvement on all the existing legislation, and the scrutiny process in this legislation, which is largely based on delegated legislation. Even in the best of worlds, particularly when the Government are revoking the Lords’ amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 on the use of the super-affirmative process by which delegated legislation can be amended, that is a leap of faith too far.
That leap of faith relies on trust in a Government and a party that has been attacking trade union rights for 40 years and now seeks to introduce a new wave of anti-trade union legislation to undermine the right to strike itself. It also asks trade unionists to put their confidence in Ministers who in many instances do not survive a fortnight in office, and to put trust in Government and Ministerial decisions in the current industrial climate, with the Government cutting trade unionists’ pay and about to introduce another round of austerity.
In all the briefings I have received, there is a complete lack of trust in the Government’s competence to administer that transfer of legal powers. Mention has been made time and again of the 2,700 individual instruments. I agree with hon. Members who spoke of their lack of confidence in the Government even being able to survey the full range of instruments comprehensively. To put it in context, this is a Government who have announced the cutting of 91,000 civil service jobs in the coming period. It is very difficult to have confidence in the Government administering this whole process when they are decimating the civil service and removing that administrative expertise.
I urge the Government to think again about the detail of this Bill. I will vote against it today, because it is just not viable at the moment. Concern has been expressed on both sides of the House about the unrealistic sunset clause. The hard and fixed deadline of the sunset clause will not work. Even with the elements of flexibility contained in the Bill, it is hard to see how we can give assurance to our constituents that all their individual rights will be protected.
I have mentioned the concern within the trade union movement. I cannot see it having any confidence in this Government meeting those deadlines without some element of either malevolently undermining trade union rights or, following the cock-up theory of history, missing individual pieces of needed legislative reform.
We now need to look clearly at the legislative scrutiny process. I am sure the House of Lords will introduce amendments, as it did on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in 2018. We want this House to be able to have thorough scrutiny, with not just the ability to reject but the ability to amend and, in answer to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, the ability to improve legislation through delegated legislation. That means the super-affirmative process included in the EU withdrawal process.
I re-emphasise what others have said: this Bill is transferring from Parliament to Ministers a scale of decision making, authority and sovereignty that we have not seen happen in this country’s peacetime history. This is fundamental to the rights of Parliament. Members on both sides of the House should take it extremely seriously and say to the Executive, “This is too far. You need to think again.”
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
As other Members have outlined, this Bill should not be before us. The chaos that has characterised the Government’s past few months has distracted from the scale and scope of the Bill. By moving the Bill on day one, the Government are undermining the more stable and cautious approach that the new Prime Minister told us they would be taking. There might be a different name over the door, but this is very much the same approach. The idea that Parliament could address all these issues in the next 14 months is for the birds. Members have outlined the vast number of regulations—we are talking more than one a day, in addition to all the other priorities of sponsoring Departments—and the closest we have come to reassurance from the Government is that it is within the realms of possibility, which does not give much comfort.
We have predictably heard quite a lot about sovereignty and supremacy. Actually, retaining these laws, as we decided to do a few years ago, was an act of sovereignty. It was a rational act by a Parliament taking the necessary action to protect its people and the economy, but the Government are now proposing to whip off the tablecloth as a posturing tactic for no real reason, just because other countries—“aliens” we are told—were involved in their shaping. That is petulant and reckless. The Institute for Public Policy Research described it as creating
“extraordinary uncertainty for businesses and workers.”
And it ignores the fact that the vast majority of these regulations, far in excess of 90%, were agreed with the UK’s full consent and, in many cases, with the UK as a driving force.
Handing these powers to Ministers, whoever they may be tomorrow or in the next few months, also undermines the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, which was a core platform of the Vote Leave campaign. Frankly, this race to the bottom stuff—that is what this is really about—would not have flown so well on Facebook in 2016, when that campaign was being run.
As other Members have pointed out, it is for exactly that reason that people do not trust the Conservative party with the scale of these plans. What is at stake is the protection of workers, consumers and the planet. As people have said, maternity, paternity, adoption and parental leave, equal pay, TUPE rights, holiday pay and many other things are at risk of just sliding off the books, with some of the Britannia unchained crew in the driving seat. Unison has called this:
“An attack on working women”.
It is hard to disagree.
As clause 55 makes clear, the only way is down. At no point has there been anything stopping this Government raising standards for workers or for the environment, but they have not done so. The risk to the environment and nature is even more acute. Just in the lifetime of this Parliament, with the Trade Bill and the Agriculture Bill, the Government have had many opportunities to legislate to protect standards and they have absolutely dodged them. So nobody has any confidence that with this Bill things will be any different.
Of course, my key concern is for Northern Ireland, including the impact on the non-diminution of rights provisions in the trade and co-operation agreement and the protocol. Our region is already one of the most nature-depleted on the planet, with more than 10% of species at risk. We only just agreed in the dying days of the last Assembly very basic climate targets. The absence of an Assembly now because of the veto of the Brexit fans and vetoholics who usually sit in front of me means that there is no opportunity for Northern Ireland’s elected representatives to try to design replacement legislation. Even if and when the Assembly returns, this Bill makes good governance all but impossible for Northern Ireland, because the ability to know precisely which legislation applies to us, which is still to be spelled out, and which gaps might suddenly appear in law, is not available to us.
Furthermore, the replacement of retained EU law using delegated powers means that new legislation that could have profound impacts on intra-UK divergence can be made without consulting this House, let alone Stormont or any other devolved Assembly. So the Bill would compound the difficulty we already have of ensuring commonality across the UK and across these islands, including between north and south on the island of Ireland, in the areas that are required by the Good Friday agreement and in the many more areas that have emerged, which we now know need protection and regulation; two and a half decades have passed since that agreement. All the borders that this Government have spent the last few years hardening do not see the environmental problems that this Bill could create.
Unfortunately, the Government have shown themselves to be quite ignorant of the basket of shared norms and regulations that keep these islands together and keep us relatively safe. The Bill will have unknown consequences, with various different Ministers, dozens of them, re-weaving that basket with different threads and different colours, and without any real adherence to any particular pattern or scheme. The concept is bad, the content is bad and the timing is bad. Northern Ireland, once again, appears to be an afterthought. We will be opposing the Bill and we hope others will, too.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
In last Thursday’s business questions, there was some discussion about whether the Bill should be proceeding at this time. It is a good question not simply because of the uncertainty caused by the latest episode in the Tory leadership soap opera, which of course reflects the deep divisions that have torn that party apart in recent years, for which the country has paid the cost, but because the Bill comes from the same thinking that drove the mini-Budget. It puts ideology before common sense, ignoring evidence, refusing advice, dismissing experts, and causing huge damage to the economy and to families, in pursuit of what Conservative Members described as a libertarian experiment. That approach was honed in the referendum campaign. Let us remember the way the Office for Budget Responsibility projection of the hit on our GDP was dismissed. However, as the former Governor of the Bank of England pointed out last week, in 2016, Britain’s economy was 90% the size of Germany’s and now it is less than 70%. That is where putting ideology before common sense leaves us.
The point is not to reopen the Brexit debate, despite the best attempts of some Government Members to frame every discussion on the EU in that way. We are not rejoining the EU. We are not rejoining the single market or the customs union, although major Tory donors have made that case this week. The point is that we should learn from our mistakes, but the Bill doubles down on putting ideology before common sense, and which side he falls on will be a real test for the new Prime Minister.
Let us remember why we have retained EU law—it is because the Conservative Government proposed it as a sensible way of dealing with the practical problem of the legal vacuum that we would face if we left the EU without it. Hundreds and hundreds of laws that are part of the fabric of our lives would otherwise have fallen without proper consideration. We should remember —and the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) made this point—that often those laws were driven through the EU by the UK; they were shaped by us; they were laws we needed.
The principle of retained law was that, over time, we could review the legislation and, if we chose, update, amend or drop it, but there are 2,400 laws. The madness of this Bill, but also its central purpose, is the sunset clause, which will see all retained law expire next December if it has not been incorporated in UK law. Of all people, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) warned about that quite forcefully as an ardent Brexiteer.
The Bill is the brainchild of a Secretary of State who is no longer in government. We know he faced significant opposition in Cabinet when he proposed it, and for good reason: it forces every Government Department to prioritise, above everything, the review of retained law over the next 14 months, or lose it. Is that really the priority for Government? We have an economy that is tanking as a result of their actions, a cost of living crisis that will break thousands of families, a war in Europe and a climate emergency, but in the face of all of that, the Bill tells every Department that its priority is to review retained EU law. It is complete madness.
What is at risk? In a cost of living crisis, with prices rising and businesses struggling, uncertainty will push costs even higher. The regulations and standards that we risk losing at the end of next year, as civil servants are stretched with the real business of government and struggling with the issues, are necessary for confidence in businesses, purchases and markets. They provide the certainty needed for growth. Without them, we are deliberately damaging investment—who would want to bankroll ventures that might lose their viability or access to markets as regulations are set to change significantly? How do British standards remain high and of good quality if we risk their simply dissolving without consideration either by Ministers or by the House when the sunset clause is triggered?
The legal chaos unleashed by this process is wildly unproductive. By tearing up all these regulations at a time of huge pressure on our public services and Government, the potential for things to be missed, late, or poorly executed is huge. How can businesses be sure of the obligations they need to fulfil in this situation? How can they ensure health and safety standards for their employees? How can they be certain that there will not be legal repercussions for their activities if these frameworks are binned in favour of a Daily Mail headline?
The head of the Government Legal Service from 2014 to 2020—the crucial period in which we debated our departure from the EU—said this weekend that this is
“absolutely ideological and symbolic rather than about real policy...there is no indication of which areas the government is thinking of retaining and which it is getting rid of. So there is no certainty about what laws we will have and what will replace them. It is a very, very bad way to change and make law...It creates…uncertainty within a very tight, and completely self-imposed timescale.”
Business is clear too—it has enough to be getting on with, protecting jobs and livelihoods, without the Government creating more barriers to their work. The Federation of Small Businesses has said that the Bill adds
“an extra burden to already very difficult trading conditions.”
It continues:
“A year just isn’t long enough for small businesses”—
the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner made that point well too—
“to work out how their operations will need to change in response to a fundamental shift in the regulatory environment, such as the one proposed by the EU revocation and reform bill.”
As a member of the UK Trade and Business Commission, chaired so well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn)—
Sir Robert Neill
Will the hon. Gentleman give way? I will not be speaking later in the debate.
Sir Robert Neill
The hon. Gentleman refers to business uncertainty. Has he seen the detailed briefing that has been prepared by the Bar Council about its concerns over the creation of legal uncertainty in relation to certain clauses of the Bill? Those clauses leave doubts as to how retained law should be interpreted, and doubts as to its status and what discretion judges will have in its interpretation. Surely those things should be put right before the Bill goes any further.
Paul Blomfield
I have not seen that briefing, but I will now look because the hon. Gentleman makes a very strong and forceful point, as he so often does in this House.
As I was saying, through the UK Trade and Business Commission, which draws representatives from every single party in this House, we have heard many frustrations from businesses over the past two years. Those businesses have asked for many things to improve the environment in which they are operating. Not one has said, “Please, ditch EU retained law.” Laws make sense—laws that we have helped to shape, laws that we have often played a key role in creating. Laws, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), protect pensions, prevent carcinogenic materials in cosmetics, protect part-time workers’ conditions and so on. They are not bureaucratic red tape, but basic laws that underpin a civilised society and a good quality of life.
Why chuck everything in a bin and set it alight? Over the past few weeks, in particular, have we not had enough of disrupters in Government? I listened to the new Prime Minister this morning. He talked about placing economic stability and confidence at the heart of the Government’s agenda. He set out priorities in which this Bill does not figure. He said that his Government will
“have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level.”
If he is serious, he will drop this Bill. Let us legislate with purpose, not for a headline in the Daily Mail. Let us reject this Bill today.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
To state what is so obvious to my struggling constituents, we are in the middle of a cost of living and an economic crisis—a crisis made worse by this Conservative party’s cack-handed handling of the country’s finances and economy. I am talking not just about the past few days either, but about the decisions that the Conservatives have made in the sort of agreement that we struck with the EU following Brexit.
This Government have put up many barriers to trade over the past few years. They have created enough business uncertainty. We do not need any more of it, but that is what the Bill does. As others have said, I am amazed to see the Bill being brought forward—today of all days. It is indeed the brainchild—the baby—of the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). Minutes after Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions this morning, he then resigned, so it was left in the capable hands of the Minister, the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who I guess in this case would be the nanny—but that would be appropriate, would it not?
This is also the first day of the Prime Minister’s new tenure. People say start as you mean to go on. Well, I am sorry, but this is a very, very bad start indeed. What the Minister has failed to fully answer is why the Government are introducing this Bill. Why do they have to introduce it when there are so many other things that we need to get done, post pandemic, to get out of this mess? Why this? Why are the Government taking forward legislation that will make life harder for businesses in my constituency and across the country? Why do they want to make it harder for them to trade with businesses in France, Germany and Spain? Every time we diverge in standards, businesses face more red tape to export into the EU. This legislation would mean divergence en masse. That is not a pragmatic way to approach trading ties with our largest trading partner.
Then there is the cliff edge. Why on earth do Ministers think this is wise? I think back to 2019—I can see many Members who were here then—because if there is one thing that can unite the House, it is that we do not like cliff edges in Parliament. They are corrosive, including incidentally to inward investment, because they are damaging to business. They create a fog of uncertainty and put undue pressure on Parliament. Indeed, Members have been wise to raise that point, in thoughtful contributions not just from the Opposition Benches but from the Government Benches. This cliff edge is entirely unnecessary and, let us face it, will probably not survive the Lords, and quite rightly. I urge the Government to think again.
The Prime Minister told us yesterday that the country faces a profound economic challenge. Actually, on that we agree—who doesn’t? Yet one of his first acts as Prime Minister was to bring in this Bill. If he was serious about putting the economy right, he would pull this Bill. He would act in the national interest and put businesses up and down the country first, but instead he has chosen to put his party first. This Prime Minister, who no one voted for, has decided on his first day in office to push ahead with a massive undemocratic power grab that tries to wrest control of scrutiny away from Parliament, preventing us from having any meaningful say on future changes, and with no clear steer on how exactly the Government are to achieve this mammoth task in the timeframe they have set themselves.
Incidentally—this bit is even worse—Ministers can choose to do nothing. They do not have to lift a finger, and the termination of these standards, regulations and rights becomes the default, and settled areas of law become uncertain and contested, as the Chair of the Justice Committee has rightly pointed out. I am sure that other Members’ inboxes will have been inundated, as mine has, with emails from constituents who are outraged at the whole suite of vital protections that could now be struck down by this Conservative Government —I dare say that the Prime Minister was right to say that trust is not there, because, boy, do they not trust this Government, and nor do I.
Environmental protection is top of my constituents’ list of concerns—I remind the Prime Minister that we are also in a climate crisis, as well as an economic one. The RSPB has described the potential revocation of environmental laws in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs policy space as “an attack on nature” and has expressed particular concern about the regulation of air and water quality, and the prevention of pollution. Ruth Chambers, a senior fellow at Greener UK, a coalition of conservation groups, has said that the Government are
“hurtling towards a deregulatory free-for-all where vital environmental protections are ripped up and public health is put at risk.”
The approach to employment law is the same, as others have said. A host of rights, such as holiday pay and agency workers’ rights, face being downgraded or eliminated. The Institute for Public Policy Research has said that the cliff edge would create
“extraordinary uncertainty for businesses and workers”,
and the same is true in many different areas: justice, data protection, protections for consumers, and a whole host of others.
It is clear that this Bill is simply not fit for purpose. It is a Tory vanity project, replaying and harking back to an old record, played in happier times, and designed, frankly, to keep their fanatical right from their door. All of this will, in return, result in chaos, confusion and yet more consternation for our constituents and all those businesses, which deserve so much better. It will therefore surprise no one to hear that I and the Liberal Democrats will act in the national interest tonight by opposing this reckless Bill.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)
Some 78% of voters in Glasgow North voted to remain in the European Union in 2016, but now in this Bill they find out what “Brexit means Brexit” really means: not just moving away from European directives and regulations, but an attempt to literally erase from history the fact that the UK statute book was ever influenced by them at all. It was this Government who invented the concept of retained EU law with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and now they want to abolish it.
I was going to say that the former Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), like some even more terrifying version of the Borg queen from “Star Trek”, would decide which regulations would become assimilated and which would be ejected into the cold vacuum of space, but he has ejected himself to the cold vacuum of the Conservative Back Benches.
The rejections being imposed by the Government start with the core principles of European law: the equality principle and the protection of fundamental rights. That is what Brexit really means in the minds of the hard Brexiteers: getting rid of all the protections that have improved the safety and wellbeing of people and nature, and putting the drive for profit, externalising responsibilities and the race to the bottom back at the heart of trade and the economy.
Can the Minister name a single stakeholder, even among the former Secretary of State’s friends in the City of London, who genuinely think this Bill is a sensible, pragmatic approach to reforming retained EU law? As we have heard from Members across the House, there is a list as lang’s my arm of groups and organisations who think it is the precise opposite. They call it dangerous, a cliff edge, a power grab and more. Workers’ rights, environmental rights, consumer protections, health and safety standards, the Northern Ireland protocol, the devolution settlement and the building blocks of parliamentary scrutiny and democracy are all at risk from the provisions of the Bill. Yes, there are suggestions from some of the stakeholders for reform, amendments or changes, but the overwhelming consensus is that the Bill should be stopped and scrapped outright.
In Westminster Hall last Wednesday and in the debate today, Ministers have been unable to give a coherent or compelling reason as to why the provisions of the Bill are necessary at all. If Parliament genuinely is sovereign, and if we really have taken back control as a result of Brexit, surely the approach to retained EU law should be the same as to the rest of the statute book: propose policies, engage with our constituents, consult stakeholders and then legislate as necessary through the usual processes of political debate and deliberation in Parliament— but no.
The irony is that the Bill was proposed by a Secretary of State who carved out a role for himself as a defender of Back Benchers, the rights of the House and parliamentary sovereignty, and now from the Back Benches he cheerleads a power grab of unprecedented proportions, even in a world where unprecedented events seem to be taking place on a daily basis. The Brexiteers’ logic was that the EU had become all-consuming and stood in the way of this Parliament’s freedom to consider and legislate for the allegedly unique challenges facing the United Kingdom. Faceless Brussels bureaucrats and unaccountable commissioners were standing in the way of hallowed British parliamentary sovereignty, but now faceless Whitehall mandarins and out-of-touch Tory Ministers will essentially be given all the powers that were once held by the whole suite of EU institutions—its Executive, its legislature and its courts. All those processes will be wrapped up into this one piece of legislation.
That is to say nothing of the total disrespect being shown by the Government to the devolved legislatures on these islands. Tory Ministers sometimes like to ask Members from Scotland to name one devolved power that is being taken back by Westminster after Brexit, and now we know the answer: pretty much all of them. Anything previously regulated by retained EU law can be changed across the whole of the UK at the stroke of a ministerial pen, even if it is in a devolved area. The whole edifice of devolution is being undermined faster than you can say “Sewel convention.” That is particularly important because the Scottish Government have committed to remaining aligned with EU regulation wherever possible.
Alignment makes trade in goods and services easier and more beneficial to all. It will also make the process of Scotland rejoining the European Union as an independent country that much more straightforward, so perhaps it is not surprising that the UK Government want to ensure that as much of the UK diverges as much and as quickly as possible from the EU acquis.
If that was not bad enough, as I have said in interventions, we need to look at how the Bill is being scrutinised. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which created retained EU law, was scrutinised for two days on Second Reading, eight full days in Committee on the Floor of the House, a further two days on Report and then two rounds of ping-pong with their lordships’ House. But this Bill is getting whatever time we have been able to squeeze in before 7 pm today, with a bog-standard programme motion kicking it upstairs to a Committee full of hand-picked Government loyalists to rubber-stamp. A Bill of such constitutional significance should have been debated in a Committee of the whole House, and the Minister and his former boss, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset, know that. I hope that Ministers can commit to a supplementary programme motion for a Report stage that allows proper time for debate and for amendments to be discussed by the House as a whole.
As many hon. Members have said today, this Bill is not about efficiency; it is about ideology—the ideology of a Secretary of State who has now returned to the Back Benches. In reality, as hon. Members have also said, the Government will have to come crawling back to the House, either through the statutory instrument provisions or perhaps even with primary legislation, because what is proposed in the Bill will simply prove unworkable. It is not possible or necessary—let alone safe or secure—to sunset thousands of regulations at the end of next year.
As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and other hon. Members have said, there will have to be extensions, whether to the next arbitrary date of 2026, or perhaps a broader kind of continuation, much like what was established under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act in the first place. In the meantime, there will be uncertainty, confusion and a further erosion of any pretence of democratic scrutiny and accountability in the House. In among the Westminster chaos, people in Glasgow North and across Scotland can see what is happening, and they want no part of it. Their chance for a different kind of repeal Bill—the repeal of the Act of Union 1707—is coming very soon.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of the Opposition’s reasoned amendment. Many of us voted to leave the European Union to see a strong, democratic, sovereign state working, facilitating UK business growth and decent jobs, and ensuring the delivery of public infrastructure and services in the interests of its citizens. Contrary to the assertions made by Conservative Members, I, too, believe that the UK can thrive outside the EU. I support the supremacy of our Parliament, as many hon. Members have put forward already, but this rushed, dog-ate-my-homework legislation presents a future of more chaos and uncertainty under this Conservative Government.
As we all know, at the end of the transition period, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 incorporated most EU law on to the UK statute book as “retained EU law”, so there is a need to resolve its future status and relevance in terms of how applicable it is and whether and where it should be placed in a hierarchy relative to UK primary legislation. Indeed, setting out a future sovereign state after Brexit requires a legislative process to establish the future status of laws—I believe that people expect that.
The Government’s Bill, however, gives enormous powers to the Executive to repeal and amend—but not improve—vast swathes of rights and regulations. In doing so, the Government are flying blind, as they have not bothered to publish an exhaustive list of the retained EU law that is in scope. That is as disrespectful to all citizens and businesses, whatever view they took of our membership of the EU, as it is to the House, which in effect, is not being informed about how many pieces of legislation are affected.
While the retained EU law dashboard is helpful, it is not an comprehensive list, as we heard earlier. The Commons Library has said that the Bill will apply to at least 2,400 pieces of legislation, so will the Minister commit to publishing in the Library, as a matter of urgency, a comprehensive list of the legislation that would be in scope of clause 1? This is an important point of principle; democratic parliamentary scrutiny must not be ridden over roughshod by the Government.
Further to not being certain about the full details of the EU retained law that is in scope, it is absolutely chaotic to then pursue a sunset clause that simply removes it all from the statute book by 2023. That just smacks of a Government shying away from scrutiny and lacking any sense of accountability, in a chaotic pursuit of a free-market race to the bottom of workers’ rights and environmental protections.
The Conservatives have shown that they cannot be trusted on the economy, and while they are hellbent on causing more chaos and uncertainty for the British people, Labour will act in the national interest and make Brexit work. We just need a general election to offer the certainty and leadership that our economy needs.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I was elected to this place on a prospectus for Scotland’s independence, which is a completely legitimate argument. When the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who is no longer in his place, made his remarks about the value of democracy, they rang rather hollow in my ears. Although I respect England’s democratically expressed right to vote for Brexit and withdraw from the EU, I do not accept, as the Government and Opposition Benches do, that holding Scotland’s democracy hostage is somehow acceptable—it is absolutely not. The legislative process being considered this evening has been conducted without the consent of the Scottish people. It has not been consented to by our Parliament and it was not consented to in the referendum that was held. Although I do respect the right of withdrawal from the EU, it is disingenuous, at the very least, for the very people who embraced withdrawal from the EU to deny Scotland the right to withdraw from this Union.
Secondly, part of the agreement between the Kingdom of Scotland and England that led to the treaty of Union was that any law change should be to the “evident utility” of the people of Scotland. That is set in the articles of Union, and I see nothing in the Bill that is for the evident utility of the people in my Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency. Scotland entered this Union through the coercive influence of the English Alien Act 1705 and the financial enticements of Scottish MPs who were bought and sold for English gold, to the outrage and consternation of the Scottish people. There was rioting in the streets and the Act of Union was burned in various towns.
Scotland’s 62% vote in the EU referendum in 2016 is often dismissed, as our history is often dismissed, as irrelevant to the modern era because we voted as one country. But the Act of Union 1707 created one state; it did not create one nation. Scotland is a country, and it has always maintained its identity as a country, even with the UN. From the declaration of Arbroath to the claim of right, it is the people of Scotland who are sovereign, not a Parliament and not a regent. That is a fundamental difference between Scots law and English law. Scots law is underpinned, in the common law, by the claim of right, whereas English law, and many other jurisdictions, is underpinned by Magna Carta. There are two Unions—there was the Union of the Crowns and, 100 years later, there was the political Union—but there was never a territorial union. Scotland is a separate and distinct people and country. The importance of the claim of right was best demonstrated most recently when King Charles acceded to the throne and had to swear to uphold the claim of right.
Despite some of my former colleagues being elected in 2016 on the basis of offering an independence referendum if Scotland were taken out of the EU against its wishes, subsequent elections have happened and no referendum has been brought forward. Despite pronouncements in this place and tough words in other Chambers, no referendum or preparations for a referendum have been forthcoming. Scotland has now been taken out of the EU against her wishes.
Pete Wishart
I do not know if the hon. Gentleman is not paying attention, but has he not noticed, and does he not recognise, that there is going to be a referendum in November next year? I know that Alba represents about 0.7% of all voters across Scotland, but at least they could start to pay attention.
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and if he paid attention he would know that the last poll put us on considerably more than 0.7%, which I know he loves to trot out on Twitter along with his usual offensive messages.
This legislative programme gives nothing to Scotland, and it will undermine the preparations that the Scottish Government are supposedly making to rejoin the EU. We now know what the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill was for. It was to facilitate the destruction of the devolution settlement, and that cannot stand. Alba’s position is that Scotland should join the European Free Trade Association immediately after our Parliament acquires the competencies to sign international treaties and abide by them. That would give us access to the European economic area immediately, and give us free trade with the EU. It would also solve cross-border trade with the UK, because the UK already has an arrangement with EFTA. EFTA membership could be negotiated in weeks rather than the years that it will take for the EU process to complete, and which would leave Scotland in the wilderness. It is essential that EFTA is back on the table for the Scottish people to consider.
We would also bring forward a written constitution by which Scotland will govern itself, and work with the variety of groups that have already brought forward developmental pieces of work on that. We consider that a series of citizens’ assemblies would be much better placed than a Committee Room upstairs to consider the laws that apply to the Scottish people. When the people are free and independent, they must fashion the instruments with which they are to govern: the divisions of powers, the extent of those powers between the Parliament and the Executive, the franchise, the electoral system, the judiciary and its appointment, the relationship between Government, police and people, and the principles and values that describe us as the nation we want to be seen to be on the international stage.
The written constitution should start from the principle that the people are sovereign, in keeping with Scottish constitutional tradition. That would offer us greater economic and social stability than being shackled to a failing, visionless political Union and this tawdry Bill. It is incumbent on all independence-supporting MPs to act in concert through a constitutional convention, to define the means to take us out of this dreadful Union.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
As we have heard, the Bill threatens environmental, health and industrial protections by casting an enormous shadow of uncertainty. During an economic crisis caused by the current period of Tory turmoil, the Government claim that they seek to promote growth, but the Bill would cause major disruption for businesses and, as the Chair of the Justice Committee said, put even more pressure on an overstretched legal system in settling uncertainties in the law.
There is also a huge cost to people and business, and I will concentrate on the tremendous pressure on the chemical industry, such as the one on Teesside, in complying with Government demands for UK regulations as perfectly workable EU ones are ditched. I am told that implementing the British REACH regulations, which has been demanded by the Government, will not now cost the industry £1 billion because, according to the Chemical Industries Association, the final bill is expected to be several times greater. Given that there is no clarification from Ministers about which laws and regulations they intend to retain, amend, or allow to expire, industries are left in a state of precariousness. Will EU regulations be retained, will they be amended, or will they just be ditched?
An incoming black hole left from the ditching of EU-derived legislation is increasing anxieties for businesses, including those in the chemicals industry. Many Members will know of the REACH—registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—regulations, which regulate the majority of chemical substances that are manufactured in, or imported to, the country. They are vital for improving the protection of human health and the environment from hazardous chemicals, and for facilitating trade in chemicals across borders. Businesses that make chemical products and solutions are integral to some 96% of all manufactured goods and key ingredients, including for food and life-saving medicines, as well as material for mobile phones and electric vehicle batteries. The industry is calling for an alignment with EU REACH regulations that does not duplicate the efforts and costs already incurred by British businesses. Indeed, it would be unthinkable to do anything that reverses steps towards a better environment.
Alex Cunningham
No, I will leave it, thanks.
Rather than scrapping any chemicals regulation, the industry wants to ensure that the system for managing chemicals is both risk and science-based to ensure a high level of protection for our environment and society. Furthermore, the Bill places at risk the UK’s fulfilment of legal obligations outlined by the trade and co-operation agreement. Should there be a breach of that agreement, the EU could seek to impose tariffs on UK goods, increasing the impact on consumers during a cost of living crisis. The Bill in no way delivers the frictionless trade and consistency that the industry desperately needs. Instead, it creates barriers to trade and is loading billions of pounds in extra costs on an industry that is already under pressure due to the energy crisis.
I also fear the Bill’s impact on investment. It saddens me to say this, but why on earth would a multinational company opt to invest in Britain where business life is so much more complicated and expensive when it could be on the continent of Europe where such impediments do not exist? That is not what people on Teesside who voted in large numbers to leave the EU wanted or expected. I seek assurance from the Minister that he will think again about ditching and minimise any deviation from the EU REACH regulations to protect our chemical and other industries.
The Bill also poses a significant threat to workers’ rights, as the TUC made clear. EU-derived law—we have heard this several times—currently delivers: holiday pay; agency worker rights; data protection rights; protection of terms and conditions for outsourced workers; protection of pregnant workers; rights to maternity and parental leave; and rights relating to working time. In many areas, it is unclear what will happen to the protections that workers currently rely on as a basic necessity.
The legal system could very much do without untold chaos. Where EU-derived legislation is restated by Parliament, previous judgments relating to those instruments will no longer be binding. Issues will have to go through the judicial system yet again. The result will be workers and employers spending more time in court to establish what the law now means.
It is worth reporting that, at the weekend, Sir Jonathan Jones KC, the former head of the Government Legal Department, said:
“I think it is absolutely ideological and symbolic rather than about real policy”.
That is shown particularly by the failure of Ministers to provide answers on which areas will be affected.
The Bill also undermines the sovereignty of Parliament, removing the necessary opportunity for scrutiny and giving unwarranted powers to Ministers to revoke, modify or replace laws through secondary legislation. When people voted to leave the EU and take back control, they did not expect to be handing that control to a small bunch of Tory Ministers to do what they liked. We cannot allow Ministers to commandeer the parliamentary process for untold control, enabling them to change vast swathes of our law. Businesses, environmental groups, legal experts and unions are united on the desire to avoid the complications that the Bill will create.
The fundamental flaw on which the Bill rests is that well-established laws currently offering crucial protections on workers’ rights, businesses and the environment can essentially disappear. The former Business Secretary would have all forms of rights and regulations axed, but his days are over. It is important that the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) takes the opportunity to review this madness before it causes unbounded chaos and focuses instead on tackling the real problems that our country faces.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
It is like the old days, is it not? I was going to say the good old days, but they were not all that good. Remember the endless blue-on-blue, Tory-on-Tory Brexit wrangling with nobody being able to make up their minds about the way forward. We have had a little of that, and I thought it was going to get quite serious when the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) seemed to be squaring up to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham)—I almost saw top hats at dawn. Thank goodness that they were able to back down and come to some sort of a reasonable conclusion.
Here we are once again debating Brexit: the issue that never goes away. You would expect nothing else, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will put my cards on the table: I think that this is an awful Bill. It is a dreadful Bill. In fact, it is a Bill conceived, drafted and prosecuted in their ongoing ideological Brexit frenzy, ridding the UK of any vestiges of their hated EU. In fact, I would call it a vindictive Bill—more of a vendetta than a piece of legislation. And like all desperate ideologues, all traces of the ancient regime must be obliterated. Everything must be erased. Year zero must be established. We are getting three year zeros, but I think the one at the end of 2024 is the year zero for when all of Brexit is finally banished and we have the sovereignty that they claimed we were always going to have but never actually quite aspired to.
And so, this Brexit exercise in self-harm goes on and on and on. It is the ideological battle that never ends. I get the sense that nothing will ever satisfy them. Their insatiability for things Brexit and EU will never actually be met. They are almost like the Bolsheviks in the 1920s prosecuting their permanent revolution. I suspect that once we are concluded with this Bill and it is on the statute book, they will get around to digging into the earth’s core and start to geologically separate this island just that little bit further from mainland Europe.
The thing is that everybody is coming to the conclusion that their Brexit is a disaster. Anybody and everybody is beginning to tell them that. Even their friends are telling them that. I never knew anything about this guy, Guy Hands, but he is extolling them to
“admit the public was lied to”.
He is saying that they should renegotiate a new deal with the European Union. He says:
“The first thing to do would be to admit that the Brexit negotiations were a complete disaster”.
I do not know this Guy Hands, but I suspected he might have been some sort of tofu-munching Liberal Democrat, with all due respect to my Liberal Democrat friends, but apparently he is the Tories’ biggest donor and even he is saying that Brexit must be renegotiated.
As this disaster unfurls, is it not so disappointing to see the Labour party embracing it? The Labour party is becoming another party of Brexit. But it is okay, Mr Deputy Speaker, because it is going to make Brexit work! Are we not all relieved about that, then? The thing is, and I say this candidly to my colleagues on the Labour Front Bench, is that they cannot make Brexit work. In fact, it is designed not to work. Brexit was never a political strategy, so it cannot work. Brexit is an ideological venture driven by those guys over there on the Conservative Benches, founded by and predicated on British exceptionalism, the exclusion of others and an almost pathological hatred of everything European. But Labour is going to make it work! It is actually going to make it work without revisiting the single market or reinstating freedom of movement. It is going to make it work almost identically to the Brexit ideologists.
Labour may have given up on getting back into Europe, but those of us on the SNP Benches will never give up on our European ambitions. We will lead an independent Scotland back into the European Union. We are a European nation which values our EU membership, which voted to remain and aspires to return. With Scottish independence, we will put Scotland back into the heart of Europe in line with the wishes of the Scottish people.
This is the first day of the third Government in three weeks or four weeks—a few weeks, anyway. Was it not just a perfect opportunity for them to reconsider, pause, rethink and assess whether all of this is working? I went online the minute I got up very early in the morning to have a look to see if the Second Reading debate on the Bill was still on the Order Paper. To my great surprise it was, because I thought they would have taken this opportunity to reset and have a think about their European relationship. But not a bit of it. What we find is that the Sunak Government are the same as the Truss Government, the same as the Johnson Government and the same as the May Government. They are all Brexit—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Not only is the hon. Gentleman going a bit wide of the Bill, but he is mentioning current serving Members by name which he must not do. He has been here long enough. He knows.
Pete Wishart
I heard, Mr Deputy Speaker, from a sedentary position, “Too long!” I am trying to resolve that—help me out. I want to be part of an independent nation. The hon. Gentleman and his friends could help in that ambition.
Simon Hoare
I am told that the Chiltern hundreds are beautiful at this time of year.
Pete Wishart
I hear the Scottish highlands are even more beautiful, but we might debate that one at some other point.
This Bill will drive a coach and horses through the devolution settlement. Combined with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, we are beginning to reach a crescendo in the assault on Scottish democracy and our parliamentary democracy. The joint pincer movement of the internal market Act and the Brexit regulations means that the Government are now almost entirely free to legislate at their leisure on Scottish devolved issues—issues that are the responsibility of Scottish Government Ministers and within the purview of the Scottish Parliament. The fact that the Government can legislate at leisure and at will is a threat to our Parliament.
I say gently to Government Members that what has happened has been a disaster for them. The idea of aggressive, muscular Unionism having any sort of resonance with the Scottish people has not worked. If there is an early general election—let us hope that there is—they will find that out to their cost with the loss of nearly all their Scottish Members.
I can see you exhorting me to finish, Mr Deputy Speaker, but let me say this about the Bill. I do not think that we have ever seen such a nasty, awful piece of legislation come before the House. Given that 2,500 pieces of legislation have to be looked at, doing away with all the EU regulations means that the House will be endlessly debating this stuff. Why not leave it alone? Take this opportunity to reset and rethink. Dump this dreadful Bill. Let Scotland become an independent nation—and then everybody will be happy.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is a positive delight to follow the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), and it was refreshing to hear that strong defence of his position—to say that we will make Brexit work is frankly ludicrous for all the reasons he set out.
In the midst of a climate emergency, a nature crisis and a cost of living scandal, this reckless Government are introducing a Bill that is not only a bureaucratic nightmare, sucking away limited time from civil servants who should be able to address the critical issues that the country faces, but is purely ideological and can set alight vital environmental, worker and consumer standards in a bonfire of regulations.
All of this is happening because the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), was so obsessed with purging our statute book of the European Union, but that is legislation that UK MEPs will have scrutinised, amended or supported. I know that because I was a Member of the European Parliament for 10 years. I can tell the Government that UK MEPs will have had a big part in shaping that legislation. After listening to two of the Government Members who spoke, I am not sure where they have been over the past 20 or 30 years, but it is almost as though they do not know that we had UK Members of the European Parliament. It is almost as though they did not know that environmental legislation, for example, was made through co-decisions, so we had a real say, or that the UK was a leader in some of this stuff and that we had a big role to play in the Council of Ministers, too.
All of that is now being thrown out. REACH, for example, controls or restricts the use of hazardous chemicals and ensures that manufacturers and importers not only understand, but manage the risks associated with their use. Although those regulations are directed at businesses, they are crucial for protecting human and environmental health while also setting rules on, for example, animal testing. What is more, REACH has already been amended through secondary legislation to make it operable in a domestic context. It has already received huge input from the UK through its MEPs and the Council of Ministers. The Bill fails to recognise the importance of that regulation. The Government are prepared to see it fall. That threatens public health, diverges from the EU system of approval and could lead to yet more, for example, animal testing in proving the safety of chemical products for export. This is bad law-making.
The former Secretary of State said in his ministerial statement on the Bill that it would
“fully realise the opportunities of Brexit”.
If he were here, I would ask him, in all seriousness, to tell me for whom those opportunities would be, because all I can see from where I am standing is the opportunity for Ministers to unilaterally strike out legislation that offends their sensibilities—potentially taking us back decades—without giving any indication of which laws will stay and which will go, underlining all the uncertainty for business, which others have mentioned. Simply being derived from the EU does not make laws bad, so this is irresponsible lawmaking of the highest order.
First, as other hon. Members have said, the sunset clause at the start of the Bill will automatically revoke legislation on 31 December next year if it is not already explicitly being retained, replaced or amended. That will create a totally unnecessary cliff edge and could lead to significant gaps in our legislative framework if laws fail. In other words, it is legislative vandalism. I assume that the Government do not actually intend a legal vacuum come January 2024, although who knows? However, that is what will happen as a result of this clearly unreasonable timeline, as many of the Government’s own Members have emphasised. It is simply not a sensible approach to mobilising Departments to act.
Furthermore, although the Bill sets out that there can be a later deadline of 2026 for some laws, neither the threshold nor the process for arriving at that point has been outlined. It is not clear, for example, whether it will be a decision for Secretaries of State to make for themselves. Worse still, the power appears not to be available to the devolved Administrations.
Secondly, clause 15 will allow Ministers to revoke or replace legislation with similar or alternative provisions that they consider “appropriate”. These are far-reaching provisions that have been described as conferring a “do whatever you like” power on Ministers. The Bill will fundamentally undermine parliamentary scrutiny because its role in revoking secondary legislation will essentially become discretionary. As hon. Members have eloquently said, if the Government choose to do nothing, the legislation will simply drop off the statute book.
Thirdly, there are wide-ranging impacts of the Bill that we simply do not yet understand because the Government have utterly failed to produce an impact assessment on the environment, on workers’ rights, on businesses or indeed on devolved competences.
Fourthly, as I have said, the Bill will come at a huge cost to the Treasury and create a massive burden for Departments at a time when they are already under enormous strain to provide basic services and are being warned by the Chancellor that they will have to make so-called efficiency savings when we know that there is nothing left to cut.
In that context, it is hard to imagine how the Secretary of State can possibly think that launching this deeply complex and totally unnecessary programme makes any sense at all. As other hon. Members have said, the Government’s retained EU law dashboard contains more than 2,400 pieces of law across 300 distinct policy areas and 21 sectors of the economy. This is an enormous piece of work that will take a herculean effort to deliver. The Government seem to be relying on a “trust us” mantra, but giving huge powers to Ministers on a “trust us” basis is a bad way to legislate.
The Bill will entrench the Government’s move towards deregulation. Although Ministers can replace laws with alternative provisions, the Bill states explicitly that they cannot increase what it calls “the regulatory burden”. I simply point out that one person’s regulatory burden is someone else’s protection of human and environmental rights. “Burden” is defined as including
“a financial cost…an administrative inconvenience…an obstacle to trade or innovation…an obstacle to efficiency”
and so on. An administrative inconvenience? I mean, come on! The protection of people, our environment, animal rights and human health has to be more important than something that the Government themselves define simply as an administrative inconvenience.
I was reflecting, as one does, on the 2019 Conservative manifesto, which included a clear commitment to “maintain high standards”. Hon. Members have repeatedly reassured us in this place that the Government will not weaken those standards post Brexit. Our concerns have been dismissed, brushed aside and ridiculed, yet the famous clause 15 absolutely makes the thrust of the Bill clear. Eroding regulations, or at least not increasing them, is built into it because they are not allowed to be strengthened, for all the reasons I have set out.
These are laws that have a very real impact on the lives of our constituents, ensuring that they are safe at work, that they are not subject to discrimination, and that they are able to spend time with their children—time that we know is fleeting and precious. The former Secretary of State has often made known his disdain for workers’ rights, but I think he has failed to understand the meaning of rights in the sense that they are universal and for everyone to enjoy, whatever their job is. It is not, as he has said, about some rights for some people but not for others.
The Bill constitutes the most significant threat to environmental law in recent history. As I have said time and again in this place, nature is at crisis point. The latest “Living Planet Report”, published just a few weeks ago, reveals that wildlife populations have plummeted by almost 70% globally in the past 50 years, a decline so severe that the World Wildlife Foundation warns that it
“puts every species at risk, including us.”
In the UK, we have lost almost half of our biodiversity since the industrial revolution—more than any other G7 country. That horrifying decline is blamed on our kick-starting intensive agriculture and industrialisation, or what Professor Andy Purvis describes as
“the mechanised destruction of nature in order to convert it into goods for profit.”
Hundreds of species are at risk of disappearing from our shores altogether. It is essential that we change that picture as a matter of urgency and restore our natural world, on which all life depends, but the Bill is going in the opposite direction.
I want to say a few final words about animal welfare, because it has not been mentioned much today. I am deeply concerned about the status of our major animal welfare laws, 80% of which are EU-derived and which the UK played a leading role in negotiating. These laws include bans on rearing hens in battery cages, the use of hormones in cattle and the import of products made from dog and cat fur, as well as covering the hunting and trapping of wildlife. Those are all deeply emotive issues about which we know our constituents feel hugely strongly.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I am glad that the hon. Lady is raising the issue of animal welfare, which is extremely important. I hope that the Minister, when he sums up the debate, will assure us that the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill will return to the House, and that some of the other Brexit commitments that were given—for instance, that we would ban the export of live animals for slaughter and fattening—will indeed be realised.
Caroline Lucas
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope very much that the Minister will give us that guarantee.
The Environment Secretary reportedly told the Conservative party conference that his Department would become an “economic growth” Department. That, I think, is a ludicrous statement, because it fails to understand that the economy is reliant on and embedded within nature, not external to it. Indeed, as the Treasury-commissioned Dasgupta review makes clear,
“Our economies, livelihoods and well-being all depend on our most precious asset: Nature.”
In the light of that, I urge the Government not only to drop this dangerous Bill, which prioritises deregulation and reducing administration for businesses above our environment, but to drop their entire attack on nature. What we need right now is positive action. The leaders’ pledge for nature needs to be honoured, and the COP26 presidency needs to go forward into COP27 with positive measures, not the kind of aggressive policy that is summed up in this Bill.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The chaos recently visited on our constituents is yet another episode in the Conservative party’s extended Brexit fugue state. Many Conservative Members saw the last Prime Minister’s accession to Downing Street as an intoxicating chance to shrink the state, to deregulate, and to cut taxes for the very rich. We now know how that ended, when their cravings collided with reality. This bad Bill is a morning-after hangover.
Equally delusional was the idea, peddled hard, that the UK could risk trashing trade with our nearest neighbours while also growing the economy. Brexit is the driving force behind a 5.2% fall in GDP, a 13.7% fall in investment and a drop of 16% in UK-EU trade from what was projected—to which the Bill adds uncertainty and its disincentive effects. One might have thought that that would provoke a change of policy, and from both large parties, given that some on this side of the House dream of making the Tories’ hard Brexit work. Were they ever to find themselves in office, however, they too could not evade the contradictions that are implicit between Brexit and wider economic and social aims.
Another Brexit claim that is crumbling on meeting reality is the claim that leaving the EU was about giving power back to the people. This Bill will transfer large legislative powers from Parliament to Ministers. Earlier, the Minister claimed that the Government’s aim was to co-operate with devolved Governments, but the Bill is yet another assault on our Senedd’s powers, and the powers of the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. It gives UK Ministers powers to revoke, replace or update secondary retained EU law in devolved areas, subject only to the negative procedure in the House, and in many instances the test for use of these powers will simply be whether a Minister considers it appropriate. Indeed, as was said earlier, the Wales Counsel General has already warned that the Bill would give UK Ministers
“unfettered authority to legislate in devolved areas”,
and inevitably lead to lower standards.
The UK Government have refused a Welsh request for the dashboard of retained EU laws to be updated to identify which legislation is reserved and which is devolved, and how Welsh legislation might be affected. That was a practical suggestion. I recall the pre-devolution days and the structural confusion when every LAC—local authority circular—from Westminster was a WOC, or Wales Office circular, but every WOC was not a LAC. The Government are insisting on further trouble, further chaos and further uncertainty with this Bill. Will the Minister tell us whether that refusal to update the dash- board will be revisited?
Further, that approach undermines the principle that the UK Government should not legislate in devolved areas without the Welsh Government’s consent. In this regard, I draw the House’s attention to an important Bill tabled in the other place by my colleague, Lord Wigley: the Government of Wales (Devolved Powers) Bill. That Bill would enshrine in law the principle that powers devolved to the Senedd should not be amended or withdrawn without a super-majority vote of Senedd Members. Unfortunately, such protections are desperately needed in the face of a Westminster Government who are openly hostile to devolution. In contrast to the Bill before us, protecting the devolution settlement it is not about posturing; it is about powers for a purpose.
This Bill risks creating a regulatory ceiling that would prevent the Welsh Government from strengthening our rights as citizens, as consumers and as workers. Indeed, it only allows for the status quo or a diminishing of those rights. We are at risk of losing hard-won health and safety rights and employment rights derived from, or reinforced by, EU law. Westminster could abandon or modify laws that are crucial to conserving and restoring the natural environment, protections relating to the safety and standards of baby foods, protections for pregnant workers and rights relating to working time, including rights to a maximum weekly working time and paid annual leave. There is much more, and all this is the Government’s Brexit spree. If they are so confident that the Bill is wanted by the people of Wales, why don’t they just call a general election?
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I too am strongly opposed to the Bill. We can be wishful in our thinking that we are simply going through the motions today and that the Bill will never see the light of day again, but surely any Government who are serious about economic growth and doing the right thing by the UK as a whole would not allow it to proceed any further. Wide-ranging protections around the environment, climate change, employment rights, consumer protection and data protection are under threat from the Bill. We cannot separate this from the context of a Government with a stated objective of deregulation and trying to become Singapore on the Thames.
If the Government are serious about investing in growth, the lessons from around the world are that they should invest in skills, in infrastructure and in research and development. Crucially, they should also address the trade barriers that have been erected with our nearest trading partner, the European Union. That is where the biggest impediment to growth is coming from. I urge the Government to wake up and address that reality, rather than being blinkered around the ideology they have adopted. But even if there were no overt agenda and this was just a change of approach, the approach that has been taken is hugely reckless. Rather than simply adopting or amending each regulation or directive as they go along and as circumstances change, they are upending everything in one go. That is an accident waiting to happen, because gaps will be inevitable in that respect.
A few Members have referenced the pressures on the civil service, and there are precious few civil servants working on this already. This is an impossible timescale to get it done correctly, and next week we will see further announcements of spending cuts to Government Departments, including to staff, which will create further barriers. Frankly, this Bill is at best a huge distraction from what the Government should be doing, and at worst a sinister development that could undermine devolution in the three devolved nations and regions of the UK.
There are also particular threats both to the level playing field protections of the trade and co-operation agreement and, in particular, to the Northern Ireland protocol. Although the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell), spoke about the UK observing its international obligations in that respect, there is none the less a danger that these obligations will be unpicked, particularly at the interface where it is not entirely clear where responsibilities lie or how different commitments are interpreted.
The classic example relates to the Northern Ireland protocol. Although it may be clear that annex 2 takes legal precedence over anything else, that is not the case for article 2 on the non-diminution of rights, which touches on a whole range of equality and employment rights protections that could well be unpicked because it is open to a certain degree of interpretation.
It is also fair to say that the more divergence there is between Great Britain and the European Union on a whole range of regulations, the greater the barriers will be to trade. The classic example is data protection. If the UK diverges on data protection, it will create barriers to UK companies dealing with the European Union. Companies often want to ensure that they have access to the European market, so it is in their self-interest to align with EU regulation. We have to recognise that few powers in the world have the mass and weight to be de facto arbiters of what regulation looks like. One is the United States and another is the European Union. I have to say, the United Kingdom is not at that level outside the European Union.
The Bill also creates an even bigger cliff edge for what is happening inside the UK with regard to the Northern Ireland protocol. The closer that Northern Ireland and Great Britain are aligned, the softer the protocol will be, but if Great Britain diverges further in the areas covered by the protocol, it will create more tensions in the Irish sea interface at a time when, notionally, the Government are seeking negotiations with the European Union to overcome those tensions.
The final area is the Bill’s overall impact on the devolved settlements. I agree with the many opposition Members, from a range of political parties, who have said that the Bill is a major threat to the devolved settlements, as it upends the balance between the UK Government and what happens in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. The Bill builds on the precedent of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the repeated breaches of the Sewel convention.
Although we may have some protection in Northern Ireland through the protocol, we will potentially see as many as 500 pieces of regulation upended. In the devolved regions we have a cliff edge of 2023, as we do not have the option of extending it to 2026. That will place huge pressure on civil servants. I do not need to remind the House that Northern Ireland does not currently have an Assembly or an Executive, much to my regret. Frankly, those who pulled the plug are in dereliction of their duty and were asleep whenever this happened to our devolved settlement.
Civil servants will have precious little time to put this in place, which will potentially leave consumers, businesses and workers in Northern Ireland in an extremely vulnerable situation. I urge Members to reject this Bill today. If they do not, I hope we are going through the motions and that wiser counsel prevails, as this dead end is utterly counterproductive to the UK as a whole.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
This is a Government operating without a mandate. We have had three Prime Ministers in less than two months and no general election. The new Prime Minister was appointed only a few hours ago, having been crowned with the support of fewer than 200 MPs and without a single ballot cast. This Government now want us to entrust them with sweeping powers to rewrite thousands of vital workplace protections. Let us not forget that it was the Tories who brought in the most draconian trade union legislation across Europe. This Government have been a disaster for workers, with a long history of opposing rights and standards at work, as we have seen from fire and rehire to the explosion of in-work poverty, precarious work and zero-hours contracts. They are currently undertaking a bonfire of basic rights, from the Public Order Bill to this Bill. Many years of struggle in the name of progress are being wiped out in the blink of an eye, and all with next to no scrutiny or accountability.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
One of the most pernicious aspects of this Bill is the threat to maternity and paternity rights. In my constituency, and across the country, parents are already under enormous pressure because of the very high cost of childcare. My hon. Friend may well be moving on to this point, but I just want to ask the Minister or his colleagues to write to our shadow Front-Bench team to reassure them about the Government’s intentions in this important area.
Kim Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I will be touching on that point. Others have mentioned today the rights that will be attacked. With all that in mind, how could this Bill be anything other than an unmitigated disaster? Equal pay, maternity and paternity rights, the 48-hour working week, minimum rest periods and holiday pay, to name but a few, are all on the table to be put on the scrapheap—and that’s not even the half of it. Can the Minister tell us where in the 2019 Conservative party manifesto it says that the Government intend to scrap all that? People in this country did not vote for this. Work will become more dangerous and yet more insecure.
This Bill is being driven forward by a small number of ideologues who are hellbent on discarding basic rights and protections, driving a reckless race to the bottom for workers. Hidden in this Bill are sunset clauses: provisions to create a countdown for the expiry of vital workplace protections by December next year. That means that by the time the festive season comes around next year, holiday pay could be off the table.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech, as she always does. She is talking about the sunset on retained EU law, causing most of it to expire by the end of 2023, handing over to the Executive immense powers to do whatever they wish. She is making a powerful case about the impact of that on workers’ rights. The Institute for Public Policy Research has raised the concern that this will create extraordinary uncertainty for businesses and workers, as well as the prospect of legal chaos. Does she agree that in recent weeks the Conservative Government have caused huge uncertainty for businesses and that this simply will not help?
Kim Johnson
My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the disruption that this Government have caused in the past couple of weeks and months. This is a zombie Government clinging to power in order to push through their destructive agenda. They are running scared from the people they are supposed to represent. They have no mandate, no plan to meet the challenges of the cost of living crisis and nothing to offer working people.
The Bill places our rights at work, our environment and our hard-won equal rights on a cliff edge, left to the mercy of Tory Ministers. The economy is on the floor, with the cost of living crisis set to cost thousands of lives this winter. We need a stable economy with a significant redistribution of wealth and power more than ever. I wish to appeal to the Conservative Members opposite: it is within your gift to stop this deeply destructive Bill and the threats it poses to your constituents. You are facing some of the lowest polling your party has ever seen. Your economic credibility is in the bin. After 12 years of Tory austerity—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. You should not use the word “your”—that refers to me.
Kim Johnson
Apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, we have seen Tory austerity, attacks on working people and a concentration of wealth and power. It is time to face reality. People in this country are saying, “Enough is enough.” [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am sorry, there were some noises there but I was not saying anything.
Kim Johnson
Okay, Conservative Members can make a lot of noise, because that is all they ever do. Thanks.
Is now really the time to decimate rights and standards at work, environmental protections, and health and safety? Conservative Members should consider just how destructive this will be, and just how angry people will be with this wholesale attack on their basic rights and protections. This Bill is not fit for purpose and it should not go ahead.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. At noon, the new Prime Minister promised “integrity, professionalism and accountability”. At 5 pm, he reappointed the former Home Secretary, who resigned from the post just one week ago, saying that she had broken the ministerial code and admitting that she had sent confidential documents outside Government from a private email.
In the urgent question last week, I raised a series of questions about whether there had been an official audit to check what other documents the former, and current, Home Secretary might have circulated from personal emails, because there were suggestions in the media that there had been others; and whether the right hon. and learned Lady’s resignation letter was in fact factually correct, because her account was different from briefings to the media and the statement by the Minister for the Cabinet Office last week.
May I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to help us to get urgent answers to these questions? The Home Secretary has access to the most sensitive information of all, relating to our national security. We cannot have someone careless and slapdash in that job. How on earth does it meet standards of integrity and professionalism to reappoint someone who has just broken the ministerial code, and has just breached all standards of professional behaviour in a great office of state? It looks as if the new prime minister has put party before country. Our national security and public safety are too important for this.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order. While she will clearly have opportunities to address those matters in Home Office questions, I fully appreciate that the next Home Office questions will not be until 14 November. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard her point of order, and I am sure that they will pass it on to the Home Office.
Royal assent
Mr Deputy Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty the King has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Supply and Appropriation (Adjustments) Act 2022
Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Act 2022
Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Act 2022
Energy Prices Act 2022.
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 8th November 2022
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRetained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 November 2022 - (8 Nov 2022)
The Chair
Colleagues, welcome to this interesting Committee, as we get stuck into this important Bill. We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. I have taken my jacket off, so feel free to disrobe in any way that you feel is appropriate. I have a few preliminary announcements. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes, if they exist, to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. When I was first elected, we never had to say such things, as we did not have emails. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Date Time Witness Tuesday 8 November Until no later than 9.50 am Sir Stephen Laws KCB KC Tuesday 8 November Until no later than 10.25 am Professor Catherine Barnard, Professor of European & Employment Law, University of Cambridge; Professor Alison Young; Sir David Williams, Professor of Public Law, University of Cambridge Tuesday 8 November Until no later than 10.55 am Tom Sharpe KC, One Essex Court; Martin Howe KC, 8 New Square Tuesday 8 November Until no later than 11.25 am The Bar Council; Eleonor Duhs, Bates Wells Tuesday 8 November Until no later than 2.35 pm Sir Richard Aikens, Brick Court Chambers; Barnabas Reynolds, Shearman and Sterling; Jack Williams, Monckton Chambers Tuesday 8 November Until no later than 3.05 pm Sir Jonathan Jones KC, Linklaters; Hansard Society Tuesday 8 November Until no later than 3.35 pm Trades Union Congress; Unison Tuesday 8 November Until no later than 4.20 pm Green Alliance; Wildlife & Countryside Link; Unchecked UK; RSPCA Tuesday 8 November Until no later than 4.40 pm The Scottish Government Tuesday 8 November Until no later than 5.10 pm Law Society of Scotland; Charles Whitmore, Research Associate, Cardiff University; Dr Viviane Gravey, Senior Lecturer, Queen’s University Belfast
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and, if we need to, a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take those matters without debate. I call the Minister to move formally the programme motion in her name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 8 November) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 8 November;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 22 November;
(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 24 November;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 29 November;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 10, Schedule 1, Clauses 11 to 20, Schedules 2 and 3, Clauses 21 to 23, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 29 November. —(Ms Ghani.)
The Chair
The Committee will therefore proceed to line-by-line consideration of the Bill on Tuesday 22 November at 9.25 am.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Ms Ghani.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receive will be made available in the Committee Room and circulated to Members by email.
The next motion relates to deliberating in private. We may not need to move this motion, colleagues. My suggestion is that I will start every panel by turning to the Labour lead to ask the first questions. We will then go across the Committee. Indicate to me if you wish to ask a question to the particular witness, bearing in mind that the knives are absolute; we have 15 or 20 minutes, or whatever, with each group of witnesses, and we cannot go beyond that.
It would be helpful, if you are asking a question, and if there is more than one witness at the time—particularly if we have witnesses on Zoom and witnesses in person—to indicate who in particular you would like to answer the question, or whether you would like them all to answer. That would be quite helpful, but you will probably forget that after about 10 minutes. Are we happy to proceed on that basis without going into a private session to agree how we will ask the questions? If everyone is happy, that is that.
This is a serious moment, colleagues. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interests in connection with the Bill? No. In that case, we will now hear oral evidence from Sir Stephen Laws, former First Parliamentary Counsel, who is waiting patiently for us on Zoom. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For the first witness, we have until 9.50 am.
Examination of Witness
Sir Stephen Laws KCB KC gave evidence.
The Chair
Will the witness please introduce himself for the record?
Sir Stephen Laws: My name is Stephen Laws. I was First Parliamentary Counsel from 2006 until 2012. Before that, I had been a career drafter and civil servant since 1975. I am now a senior research fellow at Policy Exchange.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Q
Sir Stephen Laws: Yes, I think it is. The ideal for the law is that all law can be found from easily accessible sources and relied on to mean what it says without being qualified by complex, obscure or general glosses, or involving complex historical research to find out whether it is valid. The Bill, by removing everything that is subject to those disadvantages—because the ideal is not the situation at the moment for retained EU law—is an important step towards securing that the ideal is achieved, by forcing the decisions to be made about how this law can be properly integrated into UK law quickly. Things will only get worse if that does not happen.
Retained EU law is imprecise because it has been removed from the context needed to make sense of it. That will get worse because the sources become of historical interest only, and the methodologies in the UK system for dealing with EU law will become lost knowledge and of historical interest only. The law will become obscure. The Bill is a useful way to force things to become better.
Justin Madders
Q
Sir Stephen Laws: The way in which it is scrutinised is a matter for Parliament to work out. It is not something that you would expect to be wholly within the Bill. When deciding what parliamentary scrutiny there should be, it is important to decide what parliamentary scrutiny is for. There is a sort of myth that Parliament should treat itself as the author of legislation and should look at every line, and that legislation for which Parliament has not looked at every line has not been properly written. That is an unrealistic position.
Parliament is a political filter for legislation. It is important that it should identify the bits of legislation that are politically salient, and that it should provide an incentive for technical quality. The first can be achieved, as was the case with the legislation under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, by having a really rigorous system of triaging subordinate legislation made under the Bill to ensure that Parliament picks up the things that are politically salient. The second is achieved in practice already right across the board by random sampling; what keeps drafters keeping the quality of their drafting up is not that Parliament will look at every line, but the fact that they do not know which lines Parliament will look at, so they have to get them all right.
The Bill establishes the conventional methods of scrutiny, but they need to be backed up by a parliamentary process decided by Parliament and not set out in legislation, because, as we have learned in the last six years, if you put provisions about parliamentary procedure in legislation, you find yourself in the courts. That is not where the processes of Parliament should be.
Justin Madders
Q
Sir Stephen Laws: By the support given to the parliamentary Committees that look at legislation, and perhaps by asking the Government to make sure that their plans for legislation are exposed first, so that Parliament has an opportunity to look at the plans and say, “Well, if that’s what you’re going to do, those are the things that we want to look at in particular.”
Justin Madders
Q
Sir Stephen Laws: Yes, I would, because they have not told you what they aim to do with all this legislation that is going to be repealed. I suggest that you ask them to do that as the process proceeds.
The Chair
I have a feeling that that might happen.
Sir Stephen Laws: Yes, I thought that it might happen too.
The Minister for Science and Investment Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Q
Sir Stephen Laws: Yes, it is. EU law applied in a situation where we are not in the EU is quite difficult to work out. The provisions of the 2018 Act are extremely complex; they are glossed. A lot of the EU law was made in the context of trying to harmonise across Europe. When you are trying to work out what it means, you want to know what it is for, and what a lot of it was for is not now relevant. It is not about harmonising rules across Europe; it is about applying rules in a domestic context.
Ms Ghani
Q
Sir Stephen Laws: On the whole, yes. I have some reservations, because there are respects in which the Bill contains worrying aspects through which it might be possible for inertia to reassert itself, and for the status quo to become the default for what replaces it. My experience of all legal change is that it is most effective when it is ratcheted—when people do not have the option of saying, “Oh well, we will exercise this power to keep things the way they were.” That needs to be watched carefully and, if possible, legislatively discouraged.
Ms Ghani
Q
Sir Stephen Laws: Yes, it does. The major difference between the way the UK traditionally legislates and the way the EU—and indeed lots of other countries—legislate is that under a parliamentary system the Government take responsibility for the effect and quality of the law. That means that when law is made, it is made to do something that people have agreed on. Very often, law made in Europe—in different languages as well—was a matter of agreeing words, irrespective of what the words achieved. If you could agree on the words, that was the best that you could hope for; that may happen very occasionally in my experience, and very rarely indeed in the UK. In the UK people agree on the substance, so you know what the law does. Retaining all this law that was there because it was a compromise on words is making life difficult for those people who have to use it.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Q
Sir Stephen Laws: Well, most of the law that this relates to—certainly the early clauses about subordinate legislation—is not law that Parliament made; it is law that Parliament enacted or approved because it had to. The law that will be made under the Bill will be made by a Government accountable to Parliament. The powers in the Bill are equivalent in some ways to the power under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, but in that case there was no choice about the substance of how you exercised the power; the argument was all about the means. Under this Bill, Parliament will have an opportunity to look at the substance as well as the means.
Peter Grant
Q
Sir Stephen Laws: Yes, but that does not mean that Parliament agreed to the substance of the legislation—nor, in some cases, did the Minister. They are all part of compromises. In the end, the European law had to be enacted because it was European law.
Peter Grant
Q
Sir Stephen Laws: There were mechanisms to feed in the UK view, but the UK view did not necessarily have to prevail.
Peter Grant
Q
Sir Stephen Laws: Frankly, that is not a question that I have prepared for, so I cannot say much. What I can say about the Good Friday agreement is that I am not sure that the protocol is relevant, because the law by which the protocol applies is the law of the things that are not retained just because we were carrying over the old law, which is what this Bill is mainly about. I am sorry; I have not looked specifically at the Northern Ireland aspects of the Bill.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Q
Sir Stephen Laws: Yes, I do. I think that that is part of the confusion. If we are going to work out what the law means, it is important that the system for retained EU law should fit the system that we have for all other law, which is that the latest views of Parliament should count.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Sir Stephen Laws: I did not intend to imply that every one of the laws that will disappear needs to be replaced. A rational approach is to say that everything will cease to have effect unless we replace or retain it. There is a fallacy around legal reform that was criticised by Cass Sunstein, the American jurist and adviser to President Obama, which is that the law is very fond of the status quo: the law thinks that if we know the law already, changing or removing it must be less clear. I think that the status quo is something that needs to be justified just as much as any proposal for change needs to be justified.
We have had six years to look at all this law and to decide what of it is so valuable that we need to keep it. If people are now not able to defend specific bits of the status quo that they think are important, it is likely that they never will be able to. People will keep relying on the fact that it is the law already and must be clearer than a change, but to say that we should not change law because change is always more uncertain than keeping things the way they are is an argument against all legislation. We might as well wind up Parliament all together if we are to pursue that argument.
Alex Sobel
Q
Sir Stephen Laws: I think you need to be concerned about it, but first, you have to exclude from the equation the idea that law becomes uncertain just because you are changing it; that is an argument against changing the law altogether. Secondly, you have to recognise that most law, but not all, is about either imposing duties on people to do things, or imposing duties on people not to do things. It is quite clear that repealing a law does not bring about anything that did not exist before. You do not, by removing a prohibition, require people to do what was previously prohibited; nor do you, by removing a duty, forbid people from doing what they were previously under a duty to do. For most purposes, if a law disappears, people can carry on behaving exactly as they did before until they see a good reason not to. It is just that they are not required to undertake that duty, or are no longer subject to a duty not to do something different. I am not sure that as much lack of clarity is produced by removing a whole load of law as is being suggested.
Alex Sobel
Q
Sir Stephen Laws: I do not think so, because as I have said, people have had six years to look at this law and see how much of it they think is important. Another year does not seem an unreasonable period in which to finalise their views on these things.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Q
Sir Stephen Laws: Yes, because it removes a whole load of law that was enacted under a system that qualified parliamentary sovereignty by imposing obligations on the Government and, indirectly, Parliament, to produce particular forms of law. The Bill replaces that with a system in which all new law will be subject to questions, as to substance and form, in a parliamentary forum.
Saqib Bhatti
Q
Sir Stephen Laws: I do not think I can add much to what I said before: there is a great volume of law here; a great volume of law was produced under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 and, indeed, under the 2018 Act. It is important that Parliament develops a sensible system of scrutiny, so that it can do its job of questioning and legitimising matters that are politically salient, and providing a robust system of random sampling, so as to make sure that the quality of legislation is maintained.
The Chair
There is time for one quick question, if anyone is bursting to ask one. Ah! I call Stella Creasy.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
The Chair
You have 30 seconds, Sir Stephen.
Sir Stephen Laws: It is possible to underestimate the influence Parliament has, even if the procedures are relatively formal. In the last six years, we have seen that Governments who try to do things that do not have the approval of Parliament get themselves into a lot of trouble. By now, they have probably learned the lesson—indeed, I think they have always known the lesson— that Governments do not propose things to Parliament that they know Parliament will not, in the end, want to agree to.
The Chair
Thank you. That is a high note on which to finish, Sir Stephen. Thank you for the clarity of your evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Professor Catherine Barnard and Professor Alison Young gave evidence.
The Chair
We will move on to oral evidence from Professor Catherine Barnard, professor of European and employment law at the University of Cambridge, and Professor Alison Young, Sir David Williams professor of public law at the University of Cambridge. Both witnesses are joining us via the magic of modern technology. For this session, colleagues, we have until 10.25 am. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record? Professor Barnard, would you like to go first?
Professor Barnard: Thank you very much for the invitation. My name is Catherine Barnard. I am professor of EU and employment law at the University of Cambridge, and a deputy director of UK in a Changing Europe.
Professor Young: I am Professor Alison Young. I am the Sir David Williams professor of public law at the University of Cambridge, and a fellow of Robinson College, Cambridge.
The Chair
Thank you for being with us. We have a plethora of questions for you. The first is from Justin Madders.
Justin Madders
Q
Professor Barnard: Thank you for that question. No, we have not. UK in a Changing Europe is trying to track the changes to retained EU law, but as we have seen from the Financial Times reports this morning, the National Archives has worked with Government and found an extra 1,400 pieces of retained EU law that the Government did not seem to know about until about last week, so it looks like there are about 3,800 pieces of law. If they found an extra 1,400 pieces after the extensive work that Government had done before that, it makes you wonder whether other things are out there. This is the issue with the sunset being the default position. As a default, it will turn off all retained EU law, even if the Government are unaware of what that retained EU law actually is.
Justin Madders
Q
Professor Barnard: On the first point, listing the provisions that will be turned off avoids those bits of legislation that we do not know about—that is, they have not been found, despite an exhaustive search, including by the National Archives—being accidentally turned off, and our not knowing that they have been turned off until they become an issue down the line in some sort of litigation. One way of avoiding error is to have a list of legislation—it looks like 3,800 pieces of legislation have been identified—and to say, “This is the legislation that is potentially subject to the sunset.” If you list all those in the statute, it avoids the problem of the missed bits being caught up by the sunset.
Once you have done all that, you can say, “Right, we should consult on those bits of legislation.” I am not in any way advocating, as Stephen Laws suggested, being in stasis and doing nothing—quite the contrary. One of the reasons for Brexit was to think about how we can have laws that are more suitable for the United Kingdom. The trouble is that this slash-and-burn technique means that proper consideration is not given to what a future rulebook might look like.
Justin Madders
Q
Professor Barnard: Absolutely. I am in no way advocating for no change—quite the contrary. However, the trouble is that the rather brutal approach envisaged by the sunset clause, and the lack of clarity about how the delay process in clauses 1(2) and 2 will work, will generate huge amounts of uncertainty for users. Unlike Stephen Laws, I would say that these laws cover things as fundamental as gas equipment safety and food safety—what goes into food and the listing of foods. These are things that people absolutely take for granted. The idea that manufacturers will carry on respecting the law even when they are no longer required to because the laws have been simply turned off is, I am afraid, for the birds. All businesses need to try to cut costs, and they will not necessarily comply with high standards in the absence of legislation telling them to do so.
The Chair
Professor Young, did you want to add anything?
Professor Young: To confirm what Professor Barnard was saying, it is important to recognise that although we have had six years to think about which laws to keep and which to remove, we have to put that against a backdrop of those not having been six usual years. We have also had to deal with covid, which generated lots of difficulties, and we are now dealing with energy crises and austerity. I fully accept that there is a need to think about which laws we retain and which laws we change, and that we need a period in which to think about that, but you have to recognise that there are other things on the legislative agenda that might make it difficult to have a complete list of all of them.
I agree that having a list of those laws that we have found will increase legal certainty. It would then also always be possible, once others are found, for the Government to enact regulations and say, “These regulations will be subject to the sunset,” or “These will be subject to a different sunset.” That would give us much more clarity, while still enabling us to change laws to build on the advantages brought by Brexit.
Ms Ghani
Q
“alien to the UK constitutional system”.
As a creation of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it
“sits uncomfortably with established constitutional principles”
in the UK now that we have left the EU. Is it inappropriate for a non-EU country to still have instances where EU law takes precedence over its law?
Professor Barnard: Thank you for that question, Minister. Yes, at first sight, it looks rather unusual to have the notion of supremacy of EU law. You are absolutely right that it was a creation of the Court of Justice. That said, the 2018 Act essentially gave a parliamentary imprimatur to the principle of the supremacy of EU law in respect of retained EU law. Supremacy comes with quite a lot of baggage attached. Thinking about what supremacy means, it is essentially a conflict-of-laws rule—we have loads of them in the legal system. Where there is a potential conflict between two blocks of rules, a conflict-of-laws rule says which one will prevail in which circumstances.
The 2018 Act says very clearly that, in respect of pre-Brexit UK-retained EU law, if there is a conflict with EU law, EU law will prevail for the time being. However, there is absolutely nothing to stop Parliament legislating to reverse that in the future. The purpose of the 2018 Act was to ensure clarity, legal certainty and continuity. You have continuity with the snapshot approach taken by the 2018 Act. If you turn it off, which, of course, a sovereign Parliament is absolutely free to do, there will still be issues about how to manage conflicts between the rules. Indeed, the Bill makes provision for the supremacy provision to be turned back on if a Department decides it is necessary in its particular area.
Ms Ghani
Q
Professor Young: Thank you, Minister. It is a matter of recognising that EU law tends to be drafted by setting out the purposes that it is meant to achieve in certain circumstances. Directives have a different format from regulations; they set out the aims and purposes, and allow member states discretion in how to implement them, which is why so much of retained EU law is secondary legislation that was enacted by the UK to implement particular provisions of directives. In that sense, it tends to be drafted in a slightly different style. You also have to recognise that its main aim was harmonisation, so that might influence how it was drafted.
While the UK was a member of the European Union, we got used to understanding how EU law was drafted, and to interpreting it in line with background EU law principles, including the general principles of EU law. Obviously, one of the things this Bill will do is switch that off. You then have to think about how, without those general principles, we will interpret any of the retained EU law that becomes assimilated or is retained by regulations. We might have to think about not just retaining particular provisions through regulations, but whether we need to add elements to amend them or make them clear, so that we have a fuller understanding of how they are meant to apply in certain circumstances.
Peter Grant
Q
Professor Barnard: The simple answer is no; I am completely unaware of any precedent for this. Of course, that does not mean that we cannot try to adopt this approach, but we need to be extremely mindful of the associated risks. That is one of the reasons why we have proposed carving out areas, such as environment and social policy, that are already subject to obligations under the trade and co-operation agreement. That will ensure that we do not accidently turn them off but not turn them back on again through the powers in clauses 1(2), 2 or 12 to 15, and so will ensure that we are not subject to the trade and co-operation agreement’s dispute resolution mechanisms, which may result in tariffs being imposed on us.
Peter Grant
Professor Young, I saw you nodding. Is there anything you want to add? Do you agree with Professor Barnard?
Professor Young: I agree. I too am unaware of any process that has tried to make such a big change to so many laws in such a short period. That is why it could impose so many practical problems. In most systems, when you have a change of legal system or regime, there is this element of what we did originally, which maintains legal certainty by retaining the old provisions. Then, step by step, in what we often call a sector-specific approach, there is a detailed assessment of whether we should keep those laws or change them. As far as I am aware, this is quite a novel way of doing this with such a large amount of law.
Peter Grant
Q
Professor Young: It is not necessarily that I am reluctant to change or am concerned about change. We need to think about what this is asking against the backdrop of what we are aiming for in the Bill. You have to recognise that the difficulties of uncertainty will be not for lawyers, but for those trying to carry out business. Those carrying out business and trade need legal certainty, so that they have an understanding of the rules, now and going forward. As for the elements and problems of uncertainty, we do not necessarily think that things will be uncertain because they are changing; the issue is that those carrying out business will not necessarily be 100% sure whether things will be retained in the long term. If so, how they will be retained? Has everything that might be revoked been listed? They are not 100% sure whether it has been revoked or not.
Other provisions in the Bill might further that uncertainty. For example, under the Bill, legal officers can refer an issue to the court if they think that a decision should have changed the interpretation of a particular piece of retained or assimilated EU law but did not. That can happen after the agreement has been included and the decision has been made by the parties. You might think, “Well, the Bill says that is not a problem because it won’t affect the result between the parties,” but you have to recognise that others in the legal system will have seen that case, and that interpretation of the law, and will have perhaps planned their business on that basis. They will suddenly find that there is a reference to the court that might change how the law is interpreted or what it means.
That is why we are concerned about certainty. We are concerned about the consequences for those carrying out trade, because they need legal certainty to plan their business activities.
Peter Grant
Q
Professor Barnard: I would just say that the business of legal academia is forever to be making proposals to change the law, to try and improve it in some way. The idea that lawyers are hostile to change is just not correct. The way in which the legal system has worked and has run successfully over the decades is on the basis of incremental change rather than this really quite remarkable slash and burn approach proposed by the sunset clause.
Stella Creasy
Q
It would be quite helpful to know, with the extra 1,400, who has drawn the short straw? Are they all in one particular Department or across the Departments? A previous witness claimed that there would be adequate parliamentary scrutiny, and if Parliament did not like what Ministers were doing, it would intervene. What would this process mean for our ability to influence the content produced as a result of the Bill?
Professor Barnard: On the first point, as you rightly point out, there are provisions in the Bill to allow Ministers, by regulations, to keep retained EU law, which will eventually be called assimilated law, but what is not at all clear is the process by which the Minister decides to engage in that process. Remember, if the Minister decides to sit on his or her hands, the default kicks in, which is that those all those provisions will go. In reality, we understand that Government Departments have a reasonable idea of the law in their area, and civil servants will need to go through that law statutory instrument by statutory instrument.
There is a real issue about capacity in Government Departments. Jacob Rees-Mogg himself said that his own Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy had identified that it needed 400 civil servants to be working on the 300 or so pieces of legislation that had then been identified. Presumably, now they have discovered an extra 1,400 that number will increase. It is a huge amount of civil service time. The issue is even more acute in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is the Department most affected by retained EU law. The question is, what is the internal process? Even if the Secretary of State in DEFRA decides that he or she wants to retain all the legislation because it is so important in different forms, what happens? Does it go to the Cabinet? Is there some sort of star chamber that looks at what is being proposed by the Departments? We know none of that, and we know none of the detail about whether there will be any consultation with external stakeholders, which is particularly important in the field of agriculture, where a large number of stakeholders are affected.
Stella Creasy
Professor Young, do you want to add anything?
Professor Young: We also have to think about how ministerial Departments will liaise with each other, because those different Departments might be looking at the same statutory instrument that might regulate bits that fall within the ambit of their respective Departments. Something will also be required in Government to keep track of that and to work out what the process should be.
With regard to parliamentary scrutiny, under the Bill the default position would be the negative resolution procedure. Obviously, there are some exceptions, for example, if a measure is used to modify primary legislation, to create a power to enact subordinate legislation or to create a criminal offence in certain circumstances. There is an ability to bump that up to the affirmative resolution procedure, but it will be very difficult for Parliament necessarily to keep track of all this, because so much is coming through. As I am sure you are all aware, it is very difficult for either of the Houses to actually pass a resolution to say that they disagree with a particular provision. Because of the demands on parliamentary time, it will be even more difficult when you have so many provisions coming through. Although there is a process for parliamentary oversight, it will be difficult in the timeframe to ensure that that oversight can be exercised in a manner that enables Parliament properly to scrutinise the measures as they come through.
Stella Creasy
Q
Professor Young: Exactly.
Stella Creasy
In your opinion, then, the ability of parliamentarians, as opposed to Ministers, to influence what laws come next, if they are enacted at all, is limited. Can you suggest, or are there examples from your experience, how parliamentary scrutiny could be strengthened in this Bill?
Professor Young: Obviously we have elements that we saw under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which allowed for aspects of enhanced scrutiny in certain circumstances as well as the ability to exercise the affirmative resolution procedures. There can be procedures that you can use whereby you put forward drafts of delegated legislation and allow parliamentarians to scrutinise them. Obviously it is difficult to set that up and to have the time to do so.
I think we need to think about two issues. First, we need to think about what is the appropriate procedure that enables parliamentarians to have adequate scrutiny and we also need to think about how we ensure that parliamentarians have sufficient time to perform that scrutiny. That is why you accurately quoted the information relating to the last time that either the House of Commons or the House of Lords voted against a particular resolution. Perhaps that shows the very great difficulty of actually achieving the time to get that on the parliamentary agenda.
Stella Creasy
Q
Professor Young: Yes.
Stella Creasy
Q
Professor Young: That’s it; absolutely. The only way perhaps to get around that would be to ensure that different departmental Select Committees could go away and look at the area of their law, and perhaps write reports to propose that there should be changes or provisions should be retained or revoked. Obviously, that would only be a report and not necessarily something that a Minister would have to follow in any way, shape or form.
Professor Barnard: If I may just put a footnote to your questions, of course if Parliament did decide to vote by resolution against a statutory instrument, that risks running out of time. Therefore the default kicks in and the sunset kicks in, so you lose a measure all together.
Alex Sobel
Q
Professor Barnard: The Financial Times reports, and indeed the Mail on Sunday report, which is where the story about the extra 1,400 pieces originated, just talk about 1,400 pieces; they do not talk about the fields in which they fall. By definition, however, given that DEFRA already has the largest group of retained EU laws—it is about 500 and something—DEFRA is very likely to be affected by the discovery of an extra 1,400 pieces.
On your question about the Northern Ireland legislation, as you know, annex 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol lists all the areas of EU law that will continue to apply in respect of Northern Ireland on a dynamic basis. Clause 1(5) of the Bill contains a rather general and ill-defined carve-out for Northern Ireland legislation, but it is not clear because, as you will be aware, the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is also going through Parliament at the moment, which will turn off a large amount of the EU legislation that applies in respect of Northern Ireland—all the annex 2 legislation. Other bits of legislation still apply, particularly in the field of equality law and social policy, but you have this generic and rather vague exclusion in respect of Northern Ireland in clause 1(5).
Professor Young: I have nothing to add.
Alex Sobel
Q
Professor Young: I agree that it is a real danger, because obviously a business takes business-based decisions. If a particular regulation that was perhaps making you not as competitive disappears, you might find ways of not following the old regulation because it might give you a competitive advantage in certain situations. We need to think about this against the backdrop of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which provides that, if a good can be marketed in one component part of the United Kingdom, it can be marketed in any other component part of the United Kingdom. That will also incentivise what we call a race to the bottom—the idea that you will have a competitive advantage if you are not following other regulatory burdens that might make your good less competitive. If you are aware that you do not have to follow that, not only will you decide not to do so, which might give you a competitive advantage, but it might put others at a disadvantage across the 2020 Act. You can sell your good across the UK because you are adhering to a lower element, and it is lawful to sell it in one component part. I think that there is a real risk that people will not follow the former rules and regulations.
Professor Barnard: I think Sir Stephen Laws takes a very benign view of human and indeed business nature. If there is an opportunity to save costs by not complying with rules, businesses will take it. The only thing I would add to that is that businesses that are doing most of their trade with the EU will still be required to comply with EU rules, otherwise they will not be able to sell their products on to the EU market. Business that are part of supply chains that feed into the EU market will still have to comply with EU rules. Perhaps he is right there that there might be voluntary compliance, but it is actually market-induced compliance rather than absolute voluntary compliance.
Stella Creasy
Q
Professor Young: The problem with that particular provision is that it is that element of not reducing burdens, which includes elements of administrative inconvenience, as well as obstacles to trade or innovations or obstacles to efficiency, productivity or profitability. The difficulty is what would or would not be increasing burdens in these circumstances. On the one hand, you are right; this is incentivising a reduction in these burdens and the potential follow-on we would see is a reduction in standards, particularly because it is looking at obstacles to trade or obstacles to efficiency, productivity and profitability. Another way of potentially reading it is to say that if I take a number of earlier burdens, turn them into one burden with a higher standard, that is also not increasing the burden. The difficulty is that the clause could be quite ambiguous, which could, in some senses, perhaps alleviate some of the risk that that might incentivise towards removing burdens. However, that is going to leave these particular measures open to potential legal challenges because people will argue “This has increased my burden in these circumstances.” That, in turn, could add to legal uncertainty.
Stella Creasy
Q
Professor Barnard: Yes, you are absolutely right. That is one of the reasons we proposed carving out, for example, environmental law and employment law, because those are the two areas that are subject to the so-called level playing field provisions in the trade and co-operation agreement. We are free to lower our standards—that is our choice—but if we do and, depending on the provision, that materially affects trade between the UK and the EU, the EU can start the dispute mechanism in the TCA. In respect of the so-called rebalancing dimension in the level playing field, the retaliation is brutal, quick and immediate.
Justin Madders
Q
The Chair
Professor Young, you look like you are about to burst forth.
Professor Young: Sorry, I could not quite hear who you were asking. It would be for the Minister to decide, when they are deciding to make a regulation, whether they do or do not think it will or will not increase a burden. There is a possibility for the Minister to make a statement, but there is no requirement to do so, and it will be up to parliamentarians when they see that particular measure to scrutinise it. If you think it imposes a burden and you are concerned about it, you could use the negative resolution procedure to vote against it.
The Chair
Professor Barnard, did you want to add anything in 20 seconds?
Professor Barnard: No, I agree.
The Chair
Thank you very much, both of you, for the clarity of your evidence. We are now moving on to our next group of witnesses. Thank you to those from Cambridge.
Examination of Witnesses
Martin Howe KC and Tom Sharpe KC gave evidence.
The Chair
We are now moving on to hear more evidence in person, from Martin Howe KC of 8 New Square chambers and Tom Sharpe KC of 1 Essex Court chambers. In this session, we have until 10.55. Please introduce yourselves for the record; Martin, would you like to go first?
Martin Howe: I am a practising King’s Counsel, principally in the field of intellectual property law, and formerly European Union law, mainly in the field of free movement of goods and services—cross-border freedom to trade. That is my professional background. I became chairman of a group called Lawyers for Britain, which was set up during the referendum campaign to campaign among the legal profession for a leave vote. I wish we had been able to wind it all up—job done—but we still exist and I am still the chairman.
Tom Sharpe: I am Tom Sharpe, King’s Counsel. I spent too long as an Oxford don, but I have been in practice for quite a long time. The nature of my teaching at Oxford and my practice was heavily European law, which I now put in the semi-past tense. I have appeared in the European Court quite a few times. The central core of my practice has always been the regulatory area—competition law and state aids—but I have done quite a lot of judicial review work, attempting to overturn EU regulations and misapplied and misadopted directives. I, too, am a member of the Lawyers for Britain group, and Martin and I made submissions in Miller 1 and Miller 2.
Justin Madders
Q
Justin Madders
I am indeed. It is the best type.
Tom Sharpe: The honest answer is no. However, your excellent House of Commons research paper does indeed advert to this and describes the justification, which I have forgotten.
Justin Madders
Q
Tom Sharpe: Slightly different between case law and—
Justin Madders
Yes.
Tom Sharpe: Shall I kick off? I know that Martin has some fairly strong views on this. What the Department is trying to do here is to provide some illustrative guidance as to the reasons why people can depart. They could have done nothing and left it open to the court, which would have been unsatisfactory. By and large, judges, like all of us, need some help and guidance. As to the differences, the justification is the TuneIn case, Martin, is it not?
Martin Howe: Warner against TuneIn, yes.
Tom Sharpe: Why don’t you pick this up? It is your area.
Martin Howe: One feature of the 2018 Act, as you know, is that it made European Court judgments continue to be binding after exit in the interpretation of retained EU law. I would have preferred to see them just as persuasive authority from the beginning, but that is what the Act said. It gave only a very tiny exception, allowing the Supreme Court and the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland to depart, but only in circumstances where they would depart from their own previous decisions. It was extremely narrow. That was slightly widened by a statutory instrument under the 2020 Act, which expanded that to the Court of Appeal, the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland and the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland, but it still had a very narrow test. I do not think, even if you got rid of all these restrictions, that the judiciary would actually make very many changes to or departures from legislation.
That comes out from the TuneIn case, in which the Court of Appeal considered a very unsatisfactory area of jurisprudence by the Court of Justice—a very technical area on communication to the public in copyright cases—and did not feel that it wanted to depart from that law, basically because it thought that to do that you have to almost legislate to fill in what you are replacing the judgments with. Judges are naturally reluctant to do that. My view of these provisions is that they are helpful. They slightly widen the circumstances in which there can be a departure, but are unlikely to make much practical difference. They will mean very few cases that see actual departures.
Tom Sharpe: May I add a supplementary? In answer to your specific question, clearly, the case law, which is the second provision in clause 4, is much broader. All sorts of case law is affected, and some would say infected, by European principles. What this is simply doing is inviting Parliament to say that the breadth of review can be triggered by any impact or any influence. It is really very broad—“determined or influenced by”. I think that is the justification for it, and I think it is sound. What is the point of having an imperfect means by which higher courts can be seized of these matters if they are important enough to go up to the higher courts?
Ms Ghani
Q
Tom Sharpe: It is not the right time at all. This should have been started in 2016, and certainly the dashboard—the process of creation—should have happened then. When—or if and when—this is enacted, it will be, what, six years since the referendum? That is a very long time; it will probably be seven years when the Lords get hold of it. It seems to me that the promises that were made in the referendum and the obligations owed to those who voted for Brexit, which in turn, of course, were repeated in the 2019 election, have to be redeemed. It seems to me that it is appropriate for that to be done, and to be done by a means whereby good faith can be applied—that is to say, a balance between speed and comprehension, balancing the requirements of Government in order to get the legislation on the statute book with the interests of Parliament and the interests of stakeholders. It seems to me, as a general rule, that this is actually what it does.
Ms Ghani
Q
Martin Howe: I think the Bill is desperately needed. The flaw with the 2018 Act is that it was clearly necessary to preserve what is now retained EU law on an interim basis until it could be reviewed and either kept or replaced or modified, but what was not necessary was making it impossible to change most of it except by Act of Parliament, which is what the 2018 Act did, and also to import a whole load of EU law doctrines on top of the legislation. It was all said to be for the purposes of legal certainty. In my view, it does not add to legal certainty; it generates legal uncertainties and allows vague things to be argued.
I have had a look to see what progress has so far been made in changing the vast body of EU retained law. There is one important Bill going through the Commons now, the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which would deal with that field, where we put in place our domestic policy choices.
There are also two further Bills that I have identified. One dealt with the Vnuk case, which was a case in the European Court that interpreted the motor insurance directive—in my view, misinterpreted it—to say that it applied to off-road vehicles, so things such as farm tractors would be compulsorily insured. That has now been corrected in our law, but only via a private Member’s Bill, which became an Act in April when the Government lent parliamentary time to the Bill. I think that the Government estimates are that it would have cost £2 billion per year—mainly to farmers, I suppose.
The other Bill, which is actually more important, is on the gene editing matter, where the European Court, in the case between the French peasants collective and the French Government, decided that the genetically modified organisms directive covered gene editing. Now, gene editing is a different technique from genetic modification. There is a lot of criticism of that judgment. It was completely unexpected and had very damaging effects, particularly on the life sciences industry in this country. That is subject to correction by a Bill that has just finished its Commons stages and has gone to the Lords.
Those are just two interpretations of two bits of EU law. That shows the complete impossibility of performing this exercise by primary legislation, and therefore how essential it is to have the statutory instrument power in the Bill. It is important to appreciate that the statutory instrument power does not apply to primary legislation, so Acts of Parliament that were passed in compliance with EU obligations are not within scope; only the secondary legislation is covered.
Ms Ghani
Q
Martin Howe: Well, it does. It is comparable to the parliamentary scrutiny that section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 allowed when most of these measures were introduced.
Ms Ghani
Q
Tom Sharpe: I see the Bill as a framework Bill. Of course, it gives Ministers and Departments very considerable powers—powers of proposal, as you know, to amend, revoke or replace existing legislation.
As Martin has just said, an Act of Parliament, which was probably passed—if I may say so respectfully—before many of you were born, provided an enabling power to enact legislation of some quite sweeping character. Despite all the things that law students learned about how Parliament needed to approve legislation, not one single regulation—this is one of the bits we are discussing—has ever been debated, approved or amended by the House of Commons or Parliament. That is a striking statement, but it is absolutely true. We were forbidden, in law, to debate or amend such legislation. I suspect you all know that, but it does not hurt to be reminded.
As for the directives, of course they, too, were approved by Parliament—or, more accurately, not disapproved—but the power of Parliament was utterly residual because the objective of a directive had to be observed. If it was not, the UK would be subject to proceedings from Brussels—and it was, on occasion, but not as often as many other countries.
We are now debating a system of revocation, amendment and replacement, and giving it far more formality than we gave the creation of the laws themselves. That ought to give us pause for thought. That is the background. As far as parliamentary scrutiny is concerned, yes, most of it will be subject to negative resolution, and it is easy to make what I will disrespectfully call a good debating point about the times when statutory instruments have fallen under the negative procedure. But here, we are dealing with a sea change. We are dealing with masses of legislation, as we know, all of which will be subject to significant scrutiny within the House of Commons by parliamentarians and by the press. It seems to me that those issues have to be given notice. There is also the sifting procedure that we adverted to earlier, which I think could be quite a powerful brake on Ministers’ discretion.
Peter Grant
Q
Tom Sharpe: Where do we start?
Martin Howe: I am concerned by the attitude taken by the Bar Council. As a subscribing member, I fear that it is trespassing rather too far into political issues. Unfortunately, I think there is a sort of small “c” conservative lawyer’s mentality, which has led over time to various things, such as counsel saying in the “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” trial, “Members of the jury, would you allow your wives or your servants to read this book?” Since so many members of the Bar are imbued with the system of working with European Union law—it is all part of their practice and the way they operate—there is a natural mental attitude towards keeping it. I do not think that reflects the necessities of the democratic process following the referendum result.
Peter Grant
Q
Tom Sharpe: It is our trade union, and it does not speak on my behalf on this political matter, very obviously, and it should not have done that. I think there is a broad issue here. If you look at the criticism of the Bill by the Bar Council and by members working with it—the Hansard Society, which got a mention, and various leading members of the Bar whom I know very well; they are my friends and I respect them—the dominant theme is one of extreme pessimism. That is to say that if we have a mendacious Government, a supine Parliament and a lazy and ignorant press, all sorts of things can happen. Now, I do not think that is true. I have far more respect for this House, and even for Ministers and the press. If Ministers are getting out of hand, they will be put in check. If they are not, the judiciary has a role in reviewing the exercise of these powers. We can ignore the judiciary in this context, but it has an important residual role.
We can call it benign or naive, but I do not think that is right. I think that by and large the House of Commons does a pretty good job, and I see no reason at all why it will not continue to do so in relation to this important Bill.
Peter Grant
Q
To go back to the comments you made earlier about the difference between primary and secondary legislation, when was the last time Parliament amended a piece of secondary legislation?
Martin Howe: It does not. The procedure is a yes/no procedure either by affirmative resolution, in which case there has to be a positive vote or it fails; or by negative resolution, in which case, unless it is prayed against and there is a vote against it, it stands.
Peter Grant
Q
Martin Howe: Indeed. By its nature, there is much less opportunity than with a Bill, which you go through line by line, but all the legislation that is within the scope of the Bill to be potentially corrected, changed or left out by secondary legislation was introduced by secondary legislation. The primary legislation is not covered by the powers.
Tom Sharpe: Remember what we are discussing. I think it is very unlikely that there will be a wholesale slash and burn—to use the academic term that we heard earlier—of all EU retained legislation or assimilated legislation; a good deal of it will remain. I do not recognise the gloomy picture of businesspeople clawing their way to the bottom. I understand the theory, but in the course of a year I advise dozens of CEOs and chairmen, and not one has said: “We have a terrific opportunity to make extra money out of the consumer.”
What is missing here is public scrutiny and reputation, and we have to be balanced and less shrill about this: not everything will change; not everything will change at once; and some things will be changed—in particular under clause 15(3) where, respectfully, the real issues arise for parliamentary scrutiny. There, as you heard, some will be determined by affirmative resolution and others will go through the sifting procedure, which requires the Minister to come to Parliament to justify the choice of a negative procedure. You will have an opportunity to deal with that.
Stella Creasy
Q
Martin Howe: The argument I was putting forward was for a practical way to speed up the process. Frankly, it was a suggestion that I floated, a possible—
Stella Creasy
Q
Martin Howe: What I was then proposing was not so much a scrutiny mechanism as a sort of motor to get the process going—
Stella Creasy
Q
Martin Howe: No, because the main thing—the important thing—is to get the job done. What I am disappointed about is that I published a paper in July 2016, a month after the referendum, arguing that we should start a systematic process of review of European Union laws. I naively suggested that that would be with a view to revising what we needed to revise by the time of exit two and a half years later—
Stella Creasy
Q
Martin Howe: No. I was naive to think that the process of revision would be started. I share Tom’s view that it would have been better had this process been started earlier, but it does need to be done.
Stella Creasy
Q
Martin Howe: Well, it is a matter for Parliament as to what you press Ministers on with regards to their plans and intentions.
Stella Creasy
Q
Martin Howe: To be clear, I was not suggesting that they be retained in the long term. Those areas need revising and converting into coherent UK-based law. Elements of EU law should not be retained into the indefinite future.
Stella Creasy
Q
Martin Howe: Sorry, I have not changed my mind on the relationship between retained EU treaty law and other EU law. The point is that that should be converted into domestic law, but our domestic legal system can cope with the question of precedence of one law over the other. I have never been in favour of indefinite retention.
The Chair
Stella, you have asked a lot of questions. We are moving on, and we will come back to you if there is time.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
Q
Tom Sharpe: The general point is very well made, if I may say so. It seems to me that that type of exercise—that kind of inclusive thinking about making the country more efficient and getting rid of silly regulations—would be valid even if we were not dealing with the Bill.
One of the problems with the Bill is that it is a framework Bill, and I can see a quite compelling case for eliminating some of the opacity that surrounds the Government’s intentions. It is early days, and the Bill is just a Bill. I do not think it would be enhanced by Ministers detailing in fine print exactly what is to be done, but there is a case for some ministerial guidance as to where the priorities should lie.
As for doing away with dud regulation, I find it amusing to read the submissions to Government. This is an important point about consultation. My understanding is that there have been thousands of responses to the dashboard—I think I am right in that. That is an element of public consultation. It is amusing to me to see that so many bodies that campaigned remorselessly against some of the EU legislation that we had no control over now resolutely do their best to try to preserve it. With a little more honesty, they would have been more compelling, I think.
Mr Fysh
Q
Martin Howe: That is helpful and it sounds like a good idea. Whether it ought to be spelled out in the Bill is a different question, because there needs to be a certain amount of flexibility over these processes. Certainly, involving outsiders in looking at these issues, as opposed to doing it as a purely internal measure within Departments, strikes me as beneficial.
The Chair
Gentlemen, thank you for your evidence. Our time is now up. Thank you once again for being with us.
Examination of Witnesses
Mark Fenhalls KC, George Peretz KC and Eleonor Duhs gave evidence.
The Chair
We will move on to our final group of witnesses for this morning. Of course, we have a long afternoon ahead of us. We will now hear oral evidence from Mark Fenhalls KC, chair of the Bar Council. I wonder whether he was listening to the previous panels.
Mark Fenhalls: I was listening, Chair.
The Chair
Excellent.
Mark Fenhalls: I am very much looking forward to trying to do my best.
The Chair
I am sure you will do a great job. George Peretz KC of the Bar Council’s working group on retained EU law is joining us via Zoom. We also have Eleonor Duhs, partner and head of data privacy at Bates Wells, here in person—I hope that was the correct pronunciation of your name.
Eleonor Duhs: It was, yes.
The Chair
For this session we have until 11.25 am. George Peretz is not here yet, but if he does appear we will ask him questions as well. We turn to Justin Madders to start.
Justin Madders
Q
Mark Fenhalls: There is nothing but risk. I will tell you one brief anecdote to illustrate this point. Last week I was at an international conference, working with the Ministry of Justice on selling legal services overseas, and talking to lawyers and Bar leaders from around the world. They asked me what this country’s intentions were around its laws following the departure from the European Union. I explained that I have no difficulty with change; change is a necessary thing. We all hope there is a sunlit upland where we can find better or fewer rules and regulations in the future. But when I explained about the inherent uncertainty and risks around this, they all looked and me in horror and said, “Why would we do any business with the UK”—until 2024 on the current timescales—“if we don’t know what the rules and regulations are going to be around all these issues?” There is a tremendous problem with this Bill, which was described by previous witnesses as a “framework Bill”, because we do not know what Ministers are going to do and Parliament does not have the opportunity to take control of the process or scrutinise it.
In our judgment, the Government should take the approach referred to in relation to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, where it looks as though considered, measured changes are being put forward, and there is an undertaking not to change the rules and regulations without consultation with the sector. We cannot understand why financial services are the subject of such a responsible, measured approach, which does not seem to apply to consumer protection, cosmetic and household cleaning product safety, water and air standards, and so forth. If the Government could take the same measured response, sector by sector, that would be a more sensible and less risky way to proceed.
Justin Madders
Q
Mark Fenhalls: I am no expert in how much civil service time exists, but I would be astonished if it were remotely possible to cover but a fraction of this. I do not know why it is set up as anything other than a political problem. The reality is that this is our law. It was passed over four decades of membership while we were a part of the European Union. The previous witnesses may not like the process of scrutiny that existed, but we were part of that. We had MEPs and a Parliament that dealt with that. There was a democratic process, like it or not.
We now have a different democratic process, but these laws are part of our laws, which our businesses operate by and which provide protection to our citizens. If I may say so, I think Parliament has a responsibility not to import uncertainty and change without showing there is something better—and certainly not by just having the power to let the laws lapse.
Eleonor Duhs: Perhaps I could add something on the timeframes. In order to get the statute book ready for Brexit, which was in some ways a much more simple task than this, it took over two years and over 600 pieces of legislation. The reason I say it was a simpler task is that we were essentially making the statute book work without the co-operation framework of the EU. We were taking out references to the European Commission and replacing them with “Secretary of State”—that sort of thing. That was a much simpler task than what we have here, and that took over two and a half years.
A lot of areas also have several pieces of amending legislation. In data protection, which is the field that I work in, there are at least three pieces of legislation that amended and then re-amended the statute book—just to get it ready, from a technical perspective, for Brexit. There may be huge policy changes under this legislation, and the end of 2023 is simply not a realistic timeframe for the process.
Justin Madders
I see that George Peretz has joined us. I do not know whether he wanted to respond to any of the questions first of all.
The Chair
Yes, Mr Peretz, welcome. Did you hear the questions that were asked?
George Peretz: I had a slight technical hitch in joining. I was going to make a point about the effect of the sunset clause. Stephen Laws made the point that law reform is necessary and it happens, and one should not get stuck in defending the status quo. But there is every difference between a Government saying, “Here is the existing law, we propose to replace it with legislation, and here is the text of the proposed reform,” which is the normal process of law reform, and what is happening here. The Government are effectively saying to business and the wider world, “All of this law is open to change; we cannot tell you whether we will keep any of it. Some of it may just disappear, it may be replaced, and we cannot yet tell you what the replacement is. All of this is going to happen in 18 months.” That inevitably produces an enormous amount of uncertainty, and that is uncertainty above and beyond the inevitable uncertainty of law reform.
Justin Madders
Q
Mark Fenhalls: I am not privy to any of that correspondence; I cannot help with that. I do not know whether either Ms Duhs or Mr Peretz is familiar with it.
Eleonor Duhs indicated dissent.
Ms Ghani
Q
Mark Fenhalls: I am sorry if you think I am going on about it. All I am doing is saying that there was a democratic process, which we were party to for several decades: we were members of the European Union, and we followed the lawful processes. We now have this body of law, which Parliament owns, and we are all looking for an opportunity for Parliament to say, “Let’s now take advantage of our departure from the European Union, put aside the conflict of the past and work out a better way.” We are all delighted by that. None of us is hostile to change. We just want change in a measured and balanced way, so that we know what the alternatives are.
The effect of the Bill—I was thinking about it as I listened to the previous speakers—feels a bit like the uncertainty and the uncosted promises made by the former Chancellor, which so disrupted the bond market. [Interruption.] You asked the question, Minister. The difference between that and the Bill is that we are being told to trust Ministers to see what will happen, and we have no idea what they will do. We have no idea what is being left or what will be changed. There is conflict between current Bills before Parliament, such as the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, and the Bill we are discussing, and we do not know how the Government propose to address it.
Peter Grant
Q
Mark Fenhalls: I am not a parliamentarian or a politician. The short answer to that is that I do not know, but I do know that every single stakeholder and lawyer I have spoken to—who are simply thinking about their clients’ business interests and the rights of the people involved—wants to know what the alternative proposals are before they take a view. The difficulty with this Bill is not change, because change in itself is fine; it is the fact that we do not know what the proposals will be. We have suggested what we suggested in our submission and we have put in fall-back positions saying that if the Bill is to proceed, we should put in place scrutiny measures or duties on Ministers to come to the House and say, “This is what we propose to do,” and not run the risk, for example, of the sunset causing us to crash into the wall at the end of next year.
Peter Grant
For the record, there are two lawyers sitting behind you who quite clearly do not share the view that you just expressed about the various lawyers you have spoken to. Some of us think that lawyers argue with lawyers all of the time; that is what they are there for.
The Chair
Before we continue, I think Mr Peretz wanted to come in on that point.
George Peretz: I wanted to come in in response to the Minister’s question about section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. There are two points here. One is the point, developed by Martin Howe, that it considerably underestimates the degree of democratic scrutiny that EU law actually had, particularly in the European Parliament and on the reform of EU law. It also understates the mechanisms that Parliament had to scrutinise how Ministers acted in the Council of Ministers.
I suppose one is getting slightly political here, but perhaps the more important point is that one of the arguments for Brexit, as I understood it, was that it would strengthen democratic accountability for legislation. It is slightly disappointing that the argument put forward for the Bill is sometimes, “Well, the EU was undemocratic in this, so you cannot complain that this is equally undemocratic.” We can do rather better than that.
Peter Grant
Q
Eleonor Duhs: I would still have some concerns, because the end of 2026 is not far away and that is what people are saying would perhaps be the revised timeframe.
There are some really significant things in this Bill in terms of changing the way in which the law works. I will give an example from data protection law. Clause 4 would change the relationship between retained EU law and domestic law. To show what that might mean in practice, I will give the example of a conflict between the UK general data protection regulations and the Data Protection Act 2018. This is not addressed by the provisions that Mr Madders asked about; that is simply about how data protection legislation as a whole interacts with the domestic statute book and is not overridden by it. In a conflict between the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, if we remove the principle of supremacy, for example—which is what the Bill seeks to do—we could end up reducing data protection standards in the UK. That could cost UK businesses up to £1.6 billion and significantly increase red tape, so this is really important.
Last year there was a case called the Open Rights Group case, which was to do with exemptions in the 2018 Act that were overly broad. The Court of Appeal said that the UK GDPR had precedence—so this was decided under the retained principle of the supremacy of EU law—and that the provision in the 2018 Act was unlawful. If we had not had that retention of the principle of supremacy of EU law, and had had this new section 5(A2), the 2018 Act would have had precedence and the broader exemption would have applied, which would have reduced rights in the UK.
Why is it helpful for rights in the UK to remain as they were before? Because our current standard of protection of personal data has been deemed by the EU to be essentially equivalent to their standards of protection. That allows a data adequacy decision and, at the moment, the free flow of data between the EU and the UK. If we did not have that—if we lost data adequacy, which could happen under proposed new section 5(A2) in clause 4—UK businesses would have to spend time putting in place contracts and would have to do transfer risk assessments.
The New Economics Foundation and University College London wrote a paper entitled “The cost of data inadequacy”, which they published in November 2020. It stated that losing the free flow of data could cost UK businesses up to £1.6 billion in extra red tape, and it would have other economic implications, including a reduction in UK-EU trade, especially digital trade; reduced domestic and international investment in the UK; and the relocation of business functions, infrastructure and personnel outside the UK. So the Bill could have really significant implications for trade.
Peter Grant
Q
George Peretz: The short time is clearly a concern given the enormous work that will need to be done both in Whitehall and by Parliament if it intends to scrutinise any of this properly within a very short timeframe. A lot of this law is very important, a lot is very complicated, and quite a lot of it is both, so one should not underestimate the resource implications. Obviously, if you have a longer timeframe—until 2026, say—that resource could be spread over a longer period, and perhaps more efficiently.
There are other, wider concerns about the Bill and how it amends the application of some EU rules to retained EU law as it continues to operate, and about Ministers’ power to revoke and replace. Those are separate from the sunset clause concerns, but the sunset clause does interrelate with the question of Minister’s powers. One of the problems with the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny is that although one hears that Parliament has powers—in some cases via the negative or affirmative resolution procedures—the background against which it is being asked to approve legislation means that if it votes against that legislation, the sunset clause will apply and regulations disappear completely, rather weakening Parliament’s ability to do anything.
To take an example, if Ministers decided to keep the working time rules but rewrite them to make them less favourable to employees, and came up with the new regulations in November 2023, those rewritten regulations would probably be introduced under the affirmative procedure. However, when the House of Commons voted on them, Ministers would say, “You may not like these revised regulations very much, but if you do not vote for them, the alternative is that we will not have any regulations at all.” That weakens Parliament’s ability to control the exercise of ministerial power.
Alex Sobel
Q
“A plan…to review or repeal all EU laws on the UK statute book by the end of 2023 has suffered another setback after the discovery of 1,400 additional pieces of legislation.”
We were aware of 2,100 pieces of legislation, but that is another 1,400, so we are now seemingly aware of 3,500, with a sunset clause at the end of 2023. Is that the end of it? Will it be 3,500 pieces of legislation or could there be more? How are we going to find and define all these pieces of legislation so that we know what law we are acting under? You have just described qualitatively how pieces of legislation will fall under the negative resolution procedure because they are going to be sunset-claused out. Quantitively, where do you think we are going to end up by December 2023?
George Peretz: One does not know. On your point about the legislation being discovered, like you I have read the story in the Financial Times. I do not know the background to it, but we drew attention in the Bar Council paper to the risk of things simply being forgotten. As that story shows, that is not a hypothetical risk. That is one reason why we suggested as a possible amendment to the Bill that the Government add a schedule that simply lists all the regulations that are going to be affected and if it is not on the list, it does not fall. It is very difficult to see the argument against that. Presumably, the Government want to know what is being repealed. One does not want to repeal things one does not know about. What would be the good of not evaluating the risk? It is very difficult to see why there would be an objection to listing everything out. Then everyone would know precisely what goes and what stays. That was one suggestion we put forward.
It is very undesirable to have the sunset clause—for all the work that is going to have to be done to be done effectively with a gun pointed at everybody’s head saying, “Unless you’ve done all this analysis within a very restricted time period, the rules will fall.” There is just endless room for mistakes.
One of the points we discovered when we were rewriting a lot of EU rules for the purposes of the withdrawal Act—which Eleanor knows very well about and can speak about in more detail—was that, as the legislation was being rewritten, it was discovered that there were problems with it. If we look down any of the lists of amended rules, as one might experience in practice, one normally finds that over the 2018 and 2019 period there were frequent amendments. As one version was done, it was found that there was a problem with it or something needed to be added, and another amendment was made. There just is not time within the process of this Bill for that amendment process.
There is also a technical problem. It is not clear that there is the power once a regulation has been rewritten for Ministers then to say, “Oh dear—we realise that this regulation contains the following defects; we would quite like to amend it now.” I am not actually sure that the Bill contains a power for Ministers to do that. That is a bit of a problem.
Mark Fenhalls: I agree with what George just said. You will know far better than we do the stresses and strains on you as individual constituency MPs attempting to deal with those issues, and what in truth MPs can do as individuals scrutinising material like this. Ministers will know how pressured their civil servants are. I know from my dealings with civil servants how afraid they are of the possible forthcoming cuts. It is very difficult as an outsider to contemplate how the civil service can begin to cope with an assessment of what all this law involves.
The concluding point would be that if you have the list that George spoke to, that is a foundation for a proper ministerial division of responsibility as to who is doing what—which regulations affect which ministries and therefore what should our plan be? By the time we get through the end of next year, we might have dealt with financial services, perhaps, and with regeneration and levelling up, perhaps, because that covers environment and habitat and planning, but with that list and that firm foundation, you can make sensible evidence-based decisions about what to do. The frightening thing about the FT story—again, I know nothing about where it has come from—is the thought as to the unintended consequences, which nobody can possibly want, of not knowing what is out there. That is why, in a sense, a framework Bill is so flawed in its approach, because we do not know what we are dealing with.
The Chair
I have three questions to get in before 11.25 am, so let us have quick questions and quick answers, please.
Mr Fysh
Q
Mark Fenhalls: That is a political accusation that could not be more unfair. That is not the case at all. The short answer to your question is no. Parliament, rather than Ministers, should be making the decisions. That is the democratic point, if I were to engage with you on a democratic level. It does not matter what I did or did not want; I have said to you, and I mean it, that I have no difficulty with change—absolutely none whatsoever.
The Chair
Marcus, you have asked a question and now you are interrupting Mr Fenhalls. Let him finish.
Mark Fenhalls: I want it to happen on the basis of evidence and with better proposals coming. What I do not want is to be lost in a world of uncertainty when we do not know what is coming, because, out of uncertainty, clients and people will stop doing business and they will not know where we stand.
Mr Jones
Q
Eleonor Duhs: Retained EU law is domestic law. We domesticated the statute book, and we did that to provide certainty for businesses, for individuals, for the Government and for users of the law, so that they would know what the law was. That was a policy of maximum certainty. Of course, it is now for Parliament—this was in the White Paper on the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—to look at the law and to decide how it should change. We should absolutely make the most of the opportunities that we have, but it must be done in a thoughtful way. It must not be done in a rush and in a way that gives rise to legal uncertainty, because this is our domestic statute book and it needs to work for all of us. It needs high standards, it needs to enable trade and it needs to be the best post-Brexit outcome that we could have.
George Peretz: I can add something to that. It is slightly unfortunate that the EU withdrawal Act chose to continue what was called the principle of supremacy of EU law, because it is something of a misnomer. As Professor Barnard explained, it is actually a conflict-of-laws rule that gives priority to retained EU law over pre-Brexit statutes. You have to remember that pre-Brexit statutes were passed by Parliament, or made by Ministers, against an understood background that EU law was supreme, so you could say that when Parliament passed a pre-Brexit statute, it expected that statute to be inferior to EU law. It was the sea in which we were all swimming at that point, so I do not accept that there is anything constitutionally objectionable about having the conflict-of-laws rule.
Before you change the conflict-of-laws rule, you also have to think very carefully about its effect. One of the disappointments I have is that nobody in the Government or outside has produced any analysis at all of the concrete effect of removing the conflict-of-laws rule. I have likened it to pushing a very large button that says, “We do not know what happens if you push this button.” That is not a wise legislative technique.
Stella Creasy
Q
All the lawyers have talked this morning about the approach of working with businesses and whether a regulatory burden could be created, which clause 15(5) is designed to avoid. We do not have any business witnesses coming forward, but we have heard that businesses are talking about risk being a drag on growth. Can you give us some examples of where you have worked with businesses with legal uncertainty? You have all talked about uncertainty, but can you explain what it could do to your clients?
The Chair
I am afraid we have 40 seconds left.
Mark Fenhalls: In 10 seconds, an organisation such as TheCityUK, which represents a range of financial services, accountancy, law and consultancy firms, will tell you that all its international clients are saying, “We don’t know what the rules are going to be; therefore, we are troubled.” There are business organisations out there from which you may choose to try to take evidence, and they may be useful to the Committee.
Eleonor Duhs: That is exactly what I am hearing too. They want to invest, but you cannot invest if you do not know what the law is going to be.
George Peretz: This is not my area of practice, but colleagues of mine at the Bar have made that point. If you are involved in a large development project—
The Chair
Forgive me, Mr Peretz, but I have to cut you off because we have reached 11.25 am. It is an existing law that we have to honour. Thank you to our three excellent witnesses. We appreciate your time and thank you for being here in person and for contributing online. Colleagues, we will meet again at two o’clock this afternoon for more fun.
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 8th November 2022
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRetained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 November 2022 - (8 Nov 2022)
The Chair
Colleagues, this is just a reminder: we are sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast, so best behaviour is required at all times. We will now hear oral evidence from Barney Reynolds, of Shearman & Sterling; Sir Richard Aikens, of Brick Court Chambers; and Jack Williams, of Monckton Chambers. We are delighted to see that all of them are with us in person, and we have until 2.35 pm for this part of the sitting. Could our witnesses begin by introducing themselves for the record, starting with Sir Richard?
Sir Richard Aikens: Good afternoon. My name is Richard Aikens. I started my professional career as a barrister in commercial chambers. After 25 years, I became a judge of the High Court, where I sat, among other places, in the commercial court. I then went to the Court of Appeal. I gave that up in 2015. I now work as an arbitrator in international arbitrations. I teach law at King’s College London and Queen Mary University of London. I am also involved in writing and editing textbooks, most recently the latest edition of “Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws”, where of course issues concerning EU law and the subsequent part it might play are important.
Barney Reynolds: Hello. I am Barney Reynolds, partner at the international law firm Shearman & Sterling, where I am head of financial institutions—about half the firm’s business—and the financial regulatory group. I practise in UK and EU regulation and associated areas. I led a team, of about 50 people, that drafted the laws and regulations for Abu Dhabi Global Market, which is a new financial centre in Abu Dhabi. It is now in operation, with about 20,000 people and 4,000 companies, and is based entirely on the English law, UK regulatory model. I have been helping other Governments look at adopting our model—in fact, without the EU bits—as well.
Jack Williams: Good afternoon. I am Jack Williams. I am a barrister at Monckton Chambers. Prior to entering practice, I taught constitutional law at Brasenose College, Oxford University. I have written and spoken a lot about the legal implications of Brexit as a matter of domestic law.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Q
Jack Williams: I am happy to begin if that is okay with the other panel members. Clause 7 obviously has a number of different aspects to it. If I may, I will start with the departing from retained EU and domestic case law aspects, before turning to the domestic reference procedure, because I think the implications of both are significant.
The first is essentially a nudge to the courts—a gentle nudge but a nudge none the less—in order to encourage greater departure from retained case law. It achieves that by essentially modifying the test for when certain courts—the Court of Appeal upwards, generally speaking —may depart from retained case law, and it does so by listing three particular factors. As a normal matter of statutory interpretation, when certain factors are listed, they are to be given greater significance and weight. Each of those factors in its own terms is encouraging departure. What you do not see there, for example, which was very clear in the House of Lords practice direction, which this is moving away from, is whether it is right to depart from case law, based on legal certainty grounds and taking into account that change in case law by judges necessarily is different from changes that the politicians and Parliament bring into force prospectively. That has implications for certainty, because one does not know what cases the judges may or may not apply, but also for something that has not been discussed this morning: the separation of powers. This puts an awful lot of policy decisions in the hands of judges.
Justin Madders
Q
Jack Williams: It does dictate what matters are litigated and which arguments parties run, particularly because litigators and our clients will have a number of different options going forward. Does one wait and see how the first-tier judge deploys the retained case law and whether one can convince them to depart from it directly by distinguishing it, so that one is not actually changing the law but departing from the EU principle? Or does one ask now for a reference at first instance stage, which would add in delay and costs, and go off the Court of Appeal, for example, to argue whether that case should remain the law or not? This raises a number of strategic questions that I am sure we will debate in this session.
Sir Richard Aikens: I agree with everything that Jack Williams has said, but, in my experience at least, it is likely that judges will take a very conservative view on the question of deciding whether to depart from retained EU case law, and an even more conservative view about departing from retained domestic case law, which is itself based on what was European case law as applied by judges in the United Kingdom. That is just the nature of the judicial animal: he or she is very conservative and, as Jack Williams said, they will be very reluctant to tread into areas that might be seen as policy or more political. Such departures would obviously have to take account of the statutory considerations that are set out in clause 7(3) and (4), but even when taking them into account, I suspect that judges will be very reluctant to change things—we will see.
On the other aspect, I wonder whether getting a reference to a higher court will be of any practical use at all because of the delay and expense. Unless you have two parties for whom money is no object, money is a very big consideration, especially in civil matters—these are all civil matters—in which, in the vast majority of cases, you do not have anything such as legal aid. The prospect of something going to a higher court and then perhaps coming back again is not something that parties will consider lightly. I really wonder whether it is a practical proposition.
The Chair
Do you want to come in on that question, Mr Reynolds?
Barney Reynolds: The provision is drafted in a very limiting and narrow way. It gives three examples of things that the court should have regard to when considering whether to depart from EU case law, and those three are pretty extreme instances. The first is that you are not banned. The second is a change in circumstances, but it is possible to make a departure under our system anyway if there is a change in circumstances. And the third is if we think that the retention of the EU case law decisions begin to affect adversely the development of our law. Again, that is pretty narrow. I do not think that the Bill as drafted is going to have a dramatic effect. In fact, I would even consider going further in the text by adding to those examples.
It seems to me that—this is true of the Bill as a whole—there is a tension here between lawyers wanting legal certainty, continuity and so on, which is all perfectly justifiable, and the fact that we are going through a constitutional change and need to effect that change. India has taken until only recently to get rid of its version of the Companies Act 1948, but that is a fellow common law country. We are moving from an alien legal system to our own, and our methods are different. The sooner we get on with it, the better.
That transition—this is just in the context of case law, and the same goes with the provisions—inevitably involves some element of change and some element of legal uncertainty. But I think our lawyers will coalesce with the judges around revised interpretations of provisions very quickly. I observe that, in terms of expanding the provision in clause 7(3), for instance, one of the key methods of interpretation that the EU adopts is its own version of the purposive method of interpretation, which of course—
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is hard to hear you. I wonder whether it is because you are between two microphones. I am sorry.
Barney Reynolds: One of the EU’s methods of interpretation is its version of the purposive method of interpretation, which we also have—we look at Hansard and so on when things are not entirely clear—but it is very limited in its use here. We basically go on the meanings of the words on the page, whereas in the EU, the purposive method, which they leap to pretty quickly in the courts, involves trying to work out the intentions of the legislators behind provisions. In the EU context, that includes ever closer union and various other purposes that are alien to our country and our system—as it now is, at the very least.
As I say, it seems to me that the sooner we get on with it, the better. Clause 7(3) is pretty anodyne. I would consider expanding it, and I would not get too troubled by the fact that moving from A to B—that is, where we are now to where we want to get to—potentially involves some element of legal uncertainty that would not otherwise arise. If we wanted perfect legal certainty, we would do nothing.
Justin Madders
Q
Sir Richard Aikens: It is difficult to say. I cannot give you express examples, of course, and I am concerned only with the process, rather than any particular provisions that might be tested. Here, after all, we are looking at the issue of what the case law says, and how the case law has interpreted any particular EU regulation, directive and so on. It may be rather more limited, but as soon as you get into litigation, there are costs. We cannot get away from that.
The Minister for Science and Investment Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Q
Barney Reynolds: I think it will be beneficial as soon as we get through the process. Our system delivers greater legal certainty, which business craves, than the code-based method that we are coming out of, which has swept through our law in a number of areas, including my practice area, financial services law, which is almost all from the EU. I see it day to day. When we come out the other side—how quickly we get through is up to us—I think we will get those benefits.
The transition will probably involve some element of uncertainty arising from that, inasmuch as reinterpreting provisions interpreted using these EU techniques under our system, or wondering whether a judge is going to retain some of that element of interpretation or move completely to our own method, is unclear at the very beginning. I think that very quickly, after a few early court cases, we will get certainty on that. In fact—it is very interesting to hear Sir Richard talk—I think that the judges themselves will do their absolute utmost to make sure that legal certainty is there through the transition, and I would trust that process to work well. I have no real concerns even about the transition. Yes, there could be things that go wrong. If we try to craft it so that there is no conceivable possibility of something turning out in an unexpected way, we will deny ourselves the benefits that I have mentioned.
Ms Ghani
Q
Sir Richard Aikens: May I start a bit further back? We are now in a situation where there is no EU law as such that affects this state, the UK. Everything we have here is, by definition, UK law. The question that has to be addressed is how you deal with that UK law, given its origin and the way it was treated and the way it was interpreted by the EU court, in particular. The whole of this Bill is an attempt to produce a process that enables what is now UK law to be dealt with, as I understand it, in a manner that is consistent with all other aspects of UK law.
Having set that as the objective, it is inevitable that you are going to have some problems on the way. The way in which this has been done means that the timescale is very short. To my mind, it is an almost impossible task to have the whole process done by the end of 2023. Frankly—you will say that I am pessimistic, perhaps too much so—I doubt whether it could be done by the end of 2026.
Given all that, it is inevitable that, because the process is almost entirely by secondary legislation, you are going to get challenges because people will think, rightly or wrongly, “That is a political matter, not a legal one”, or that the changes are not in accordance with the law or not in accordance with due process. I think that the way this has been fashioned is actually an invitation to litigation and an invitation to controversy. It may well mean that there are going to be challenges, because people feel that they have lost rights and that they are disadvantaged, and the manner in which it will have been done is through a short form of secondary legislation, which is not what you might imagine is the normal way of dealing with some of the big issues that have to be dealt with, such as workers’ rights, environmental issues and so on. This is a very difficult process.
Jack Williams: In response to that question, may I add that the outcome of the Bill may well be to preserve rights, but it is an absolute “may” and is entirely in the gift of Ministers. The Bill does not preserve rights or give any safeguards for that outcome to be achieved. That may be the outcome, but that is in the gift of Ministers. That is because the Bill sets one on an irreversible train track that leads to a cliff edge, and Parliament has not built in any breaks or stops on the train track to save or preserve those rights.
I have full faith in Ministers. I am sure that they want to do good for their constituents and to maintain rights. I love the fact that they are coming out and saying those words, but they are only words—it is not in the legislation. There is no legal protection for those rights in the Bill.
Barney Reynolds: I am not sure what the alternative would be. The Bill gives the system as a whole, as it were, the opportunity to execute on a shift that cannot be prescribed in advance, given the unprecedented volume and complexity. I have some limited relevant experience—I mentioned creating a system in Abu Dhabi—but one can go quickly. The main work there took 18 months, and I think that with the right size team we could go even quicker.
I note that in the Bill, the deadline is not in truth the end of 2023, because there are various ways under the switching back on powers in clause 13(6), (7) and (8), to allow even sunsetted provisions to be reinstated before mid-2026. In effect, there is a quick rush to do the main job, and an ability to tidy up things before mid-2026, which seems to be sensible.
You can choose different deadlines; you can debate all of these things. My basic point is that I am not sure quite how else one could do it if you actually want to get it done in any realistic timetable. Obviously, behind and above all that, Parliament will itself need to decide how, through a joint Committee, your Committee, or some other Committee, it wishes to oversee the process. That is a completely separate matter from the Bill.
Stella Creasy
Q
Perhaps Abu Dhabi, as part of an authoritarian state, is not the best example for us democrats of how we might wish to proceed. I wonder if you could talk a little bit more about some of the barriers created in the Bill for judges because of the lack of parliamentary scrutiny, and if there are other examples of legislation that you have seen that may offer us a way forward. Perhaps we start with Jack, as you look most interested by the question, then go across the panel.
Jack Williams: It is extraordinarily difficult to think of ways that the Bill tells judges exactly how and how not to do things. Ironically, one of the ways that the Brexit legislation is going is to codify almost into a civil system exactly how judges should interpret certain matters. The roles of the court are only in clause 7 provisions, which say in their own terms that they may have regard to certain things, but do not give a definitive list. Those that are listed are nudging towards departure, as I said earlier.
I do not think there is anything in the Bill that gives judges the power to preserve or save certain rights. What I would say is that it puts them in a very tricky political position because they will be asked to depart from case law and make all sorts of policy decisions. That is slightly ironic when a lot of the political discussions over the past few years have been to save judges from stepping into the political arena.
I very much agree with Sir Richard that the outcome of the Bill is to generate litigation, because the vast majority of the laws that come out of it will be secondary laws, which are susceptible to challenge. One will be arguing, for example in relation to clause 15, whether the similar objectives were being met by regulations that replaced the earlier retained EU law, and whether that has been met by the new rules. That is an incredibly difficult task, and one that could end up in lots of litigation. I think that we will end up with a lot more cases on those sorts of issues.
Sir Richard Aikens: I agree with what Jack said. As I read clause 7(7), the factors that the court must have regard to are not exclusive. In other words, they can have regard to other factors as well, which Parliament has not identified and has left to the judges to decide whether they might be relevant. So I would like to make two points. First, this is not exclusive, and it may well be that, in future cases, appeal courts will introduce other factors, maybe on a case-by-case basis, which are only relevant to that particular case, but there may be a development of more general factors, which, once you get that at a Court of Appeal or above level, will then tend to be repeated thereafter.
The second point, as has been made by both my colleagues already, is that EU case law necessarily involves a consideration of the way that the Court of Justice of the European Union looks at regulations and its previous case law. In my view, the CJEU is a much more active court in terms of both interpretation of EU instruments, to use the phrase that is in the Bill, and its previous case law. It tends to develop principles derived from both instruments and case law in a rather more positive way than the UK courts do. I can only speak for the English courts, of course.
The problem, therefore, that the judges are going to have to deal with is: do they carry on with that approach, as in the case law of the EU, or do they somehow retreat from that? Although they have got these factors here that are laid out, they do not really deal with that aspect at all. That, again, puts the judges in a difficult position, because they have not got the guidance from Parliament. They have got this body of law—the acquis of the retained EU case law—but do not really know quite how to push it on, or not push it on. I think it will make life quite difficult for the judges.
Jack Williams: As a footnote to that, on the Court of Appeal for the reference procedure, the Court will not even have decided facts, so it is quite ironic that what is being imported with the national reference procedure is like the preliminary reference procedure under EU law at the moment where you ask a court a legal question—an abstract legal question here—on whether to depart from retained case law. And yet, very unlike common law reasoning, one would not actually have a judgment from below with a factual position working out how the case law is applying to a certain set of facts, so it is even harder for the judges, because you are asking them a pure abstract question: should we depart as a matter of law from that EU case law without understanding the full factual matrix? That is very unlike common law reasoning where you incrementally grow and apply to the facts.
The Chair
Order. I have three colleagues bursting to get in and we have only about seven minutes left, so short answers to short questions, please.
Barney Reynolds: In short, I am not suggesting we follow another country. The court interpretation provision is unprecedented. Abu Dhabi created something from scratch. It was not a transition from what they have got, which was based on the French-Egyptian model, to the common law model. We should do our own thing that works for the UK, and using our methods. I agree with that.
I agree with my colleagues on the uncertainties that can potentially arise. As a lawyer, I think we need to be very careful about those. I am concerned with them. My solution is to expand clause 7 and the list of things that should be borne in mind in order to execute an adroit shift to our common law method in a way that does not involve interpretation too much. I do not think you can remove the necessity for judges to exercise interpretative powers to execute the shift. Ultimately, this shift involves trusting the judiciary, which I do. I am fine doing that, and I do not think that there is a shortcut or a way in which we can box people in so they cannot use any discretion and nevertheless get to the same place. We have to trust people to do it.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Q
Sir Richard Aikens: You start from the fact that supremacy no longer exists unless it is retained by UK law. Half speaking as a lawyer, but I suppose half speaking as a commentator, I do not myself see why there should be any part of our UK law that is regarded as more supreme than another, unless specifically identified by Parliament as being necessary for some reason. In many other countries, there is the principle of the constitution, which is inevitably supreme and cannot be crossed; we do not have that and have never had that in our law, except perhaps in very specific circumstances.
In general, therefore, I would say that the whole idea of supremacy should be done away with, unless there is some specific reason in specific areas of law why it is necessary to retain it. For my part, I cannot think of anything that immediately comes to mind that is not already dealt with in our law—I am thinking in particular of human rights.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Jack Williams: I would start by not necessarily having what George Peretz KC calls the gun to your head, so that by the end you do not have time to scrutinise, because if you did take the time to scrutinise it, you might be left with the choice on the last day of what is there or nothing at all. That is obviously a difficult position for Parliament to be put into, having to save its own law somehow without a set procedure.
A direct answer to your question, however, is more scrutiny from Committees. One can imagine, for example, a Committee that was set up specifically to analyse all the changes that are coming to certain practice areas, with consultation and independent experts assisting—much like this Committee format. There is also the legislative reform order super-affirmative procedure, which builds and bakes in consultation and I think extra time in the process—the downside is exactly that last point, which is that it leads to delay. If you have a cliff edge of 2023, it is not particularly suitable, but it might give some ideas for inspiration. It is under a 2006 Act, but I think it has been used fewer than 50 times, precisely because it takes so much time and involves so much scrutiny—but if you are looking for an example.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
Q
Barney Reynolds: Yes, I think we should look at reinstating the Interpretation Act 1978, which spells out the UK method of interpretation. That would mean all lawyers could understand what existing EU provisions will mean on the basis of the words on the page, with very limited delving beyond that, and would probably lead to greater certainty than trying to move slowly from one to the other, case by case.
The Chair
Thank you. I am afraid our time has run out, and we are under strict time limits. I thank all three of you for your expert evidence. It has been very helpful for the Committee.
Examination of Witnesses
Sir Jonathan Jones KC and Dr Ruth Fox gave evidence.
The Chair
We move on to more experts. We have with us in person Sir Jonathan Jones KC, former Treasury Solicitor, and Dr Ruth Fox. Please take your seats. We have until 3.05 pm for this session. Please could the witnesses introduce themselves for the record?
Dr Fox: I am Ruth Fox. I am director of the Hansard Society. For transparency, the Hansard Society is leading a review of delegated legislation, on which we have a cross-party advisory group that will be reporting shortly. Sir Jonathan is a member of that advisory group.
Sir Jonathan Jones: Good afternoon. I am Jonathan Jones. I am a consultant with a law firm Linklaters and I was previously Treasury Solicitor.
The Chair
Thank you. We will start, as usual, with our shadow spokesman, Justin Madders.
Justin Madders
Q
Dr Fox: The fundamental concern we have, as you have heard from other witnesses, is with the sunset clause and its cliff-edge nature. It is also the fact that Ministers will decide which pieces of retained EU law will expire at the end of next year and Parliament will not have any oversight of what falls away. It has been variously described as being turned off, but that implies that it might be turned on again at a later date. It cannot; it will fall away and expire.
The concern is there could be pieces of retained EU law that have been missed. We have heard today that there is a possibility that a significant proportion of retained EU law has been missed from the Government’s dashboard, so we do not know exactly what the scope of retained EU law is. If pieces of legislation have not been identified and saved by the expiry date, they will fall away and we may have regulatory gaps. That is a significant concern for Parliament’s oversight of the regulatory landscape going forward. That is our primary concern: the cliff-edge nature of the sunset clause and the fact that the Government’s objectives, in our view, could be done in a different and less risky way.
Justin Madders
Q
Dr Fox: There were provisions in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act providing additional consultation periods for proposed instruments under the Act. They ensured additional oversight for Parliament. Although the Government are proposing to remove those provisions, that is not a major concern for us because the Government are, frankly, right that there has not been much tangible benefit to that process, because parliamentarians have not used those oversight provisions. For example, when statutory instruments have been laid for pre-consultation for 28 days, parliamentarians have not looked at them. They have not raised issues about them and a Committee has not looked at them.
The House of Lords has done marginally better. Its Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has looked at the instruments, but the Commons has not. It is hard to argue that they need to be retained. There have been problems with them from a civil service perspective because it is complex to determine which of the consultation and oversight provisions apply to the instrument in front of them. Mistakes have been made and they have had to withdraw instruments and lay them again. I do not have a major concern about that, but there are broader scrutiny issues in terms of sifting in the legislative and regulatory reform order process.
Justin Madders
Q
Dr Fox: You are inviting me to give away the Hansard Society’s review proposals before we have published them! We all know that the delegated legislation scrutiny process is, at various points, inadequate for everybody concerned. Ministers spend a lot of time attending delegated legislation Committees, carving out significant time in their diaries. You all spend time in those Committees and feel that they are not necessarily a constructive form of scrutiny and oversight. There are lots of problems with the process.
The triage system applied to European Union (Withdrawal) Act orders was a technical sifting of instruments. Those who participated in European statutory instrument Committees found that it was a useful exercise but a very technical and legal process. We feel that that could be widened and expanded. There is no reason why sifting could not apply to all the instruments laid under the Bill rather than just to those laid under three specific clauses. That would have implications for parliamentary time and management, but it could be a way of improving scrutiny. We would certainly extend sifting to clause 16, for example, which is quite an extensive power that is not sunsetted. Those are possible ways to improve scrutiny.
Ms Ghani
Q
Dr Fox and Sir Jonathan, you are not comfortable with what the Bill proposes, but I get the feeling that you are probably just not comfortable that we are trying stop EU law continuing to sit on the UK statute books for ever without us having any power to amend it. Is that the case, or do you see a time in the future when it would be appropriate to move EU laws off the UK statute books? I will come to you first, Dr Fox.
Dr Fox: I reject that. I am up for change and quite embrace it. This was the purpose of Brexit, was it not? We should therefore get on with it. I do not object to your objectives; I object to the particular nature of the process and procedure by which you are proposing to achieve them, which is unduly risky.
If, for example, you do not find a regulation or a piece of retained EU law and so do not deal with it by next December, it will fall away. You cannot know the implications of that if you do not know about, and have not dealt with, the existence of the regulation—that is my concern. As I set out in our written evidence, I think you could achieve your objectives, and indeed my objectives, in a different way.
Sir Jonathan Jones: I agree with that. Plainly, I have no objection to Parliament changing any law it wants, be it former EU law or any other law. I am sure that the EU law that we inherited when we left the EU is a mixed bag, and that some of it is ripe for review and change.
Like Dr Fox, the difficulty I have with the Bill is twofold. First, it creates a huge amount of uncertainty as to what the law will actually be by the end of 2023 or thereafter, because there are no policy parameters on what might change, what might stay or what might fall away. That is quite aside from the risk you have heard about—that some law might fall away simply by accident, because it has been missed, which creates a huge amount of uncertainty for users of the law.
The second issue that I have difficulty with is the lack of scrutiny—an issue that I know you keep coming back to and that Dr Fox touched on—by Parliament itself of the process. In the Bill, Parliament is not being invited to consider particular policy areas or particular changes to the law; it is simply signing off on a principle and a process, and I would say that the principle and process carry with them all that legal risk as to what the outcome will be. Those are the difficulties that I have. It is not a difficulty with Parliament being able to change any law it wants, including former EU law, whenever it wants to; it is the process being followed that I have difficulty with.
Stella Creasy
Q
I say that as someone who this week received something I had never, ever received before—I wonder, Dr Fox, whether you can advise me if this is common: a ministerial correction to an answer to a written question. The written question was to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the application of the legislation to the Avian Influenza and Influenza of Avian Origin in Mammals (England) (No 2) Order 2006. Originally, Ministers told me that the order was not made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 and therefore did not fall within the scope of clause 1 of the Bill, but they issued me with a ministerial correction to admit that it did. Have there been other instances of Ministers not knowing the consequences of their legislation? What impact do you think that has on our ability to scrutinise legislation as parliamentarians?
Dr Fox: I cannot give you a number, but I am sure that there have been corrections of that kind. We also see that in respect of statutory instruments, where instruments have to be withdrawn and re-laid because of errors.
Clearly, one of our problems is that the complexity of law now, and the layering of regulations on regulations, coupled with inadequate scrutiny procedures, makes the whole scrutiny process incredibly difficult. Another problem is that the breadth of the powers in Bills which enable Ministers to take action, but do not define on the face of the Bill the limits and scope of that action, are very broadly drawn. That makes scrutiny incredibly difficult.
We also have amendment of legislation going through both Houses, and that adds layers of complexity. Particularly in the House of Lords, Members seek to introduce scrutiny constraints of the kind we have talked about in respect of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. That is just additional complexity, which then hits civil servants trying to work out which powers they should be laying instruments under, and which scrutiny measures apply. For people who have to interpret and implement the law, it becomes ever more difficult.
I hope that one aspect of the review process would be to simplify some of those areas, with things like consolidation and so on, to help the process. However, given the scope and scale, I do not think that can be done by December of next year.
Stella Creasy
Q
Sir Jonathan Jones: I am not in the civil service, as you know; I am on the other side, advising clients about what the effect of the Bill will be on their businesses and so on. This was always going to be a very complicated exercise, including for the civil service. We are leaving one legal order and, in one sense, we are out of it—we are free—but the legal constitutional consequences of that were always going to be very complicated, because we had this huge body of law that over decades had been integrated into UK law. We were not keeping a running tally throughout that time of the laws that we might one day want to change, because they had come from a particular source. They were enmeshed it all sorts of different ways with UK law.
As soon as we left, we had to begin the process set out in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which was about identifying what retained EU law needed to be changed in order for it to work operationally and technically. That was the process that was done with the 2018 Act, and it involved, as I think you have heard, many hundreds of sets of regulations to cure deficiencies in the language of that legislation. That was complicated enough, and it is possible that things were missed. There are certainly examples of some changes having to be made multiple times because they were not got right the first time.
That was complicated enough but at least, if something was missed, the law did not fall away altogether; it could be corrected later. What was being done then was an essentially technical exercise to keep the pre-existing law and to make it work as far as possible, in a way that provided continuity and certainty for users. What we are talking about now is an exercise of a completely different order. This is about changing policy, potentially getting rid of some laws and, in some cases, deciding what replaces them.
This is an immensely more complicated exercise even than the one that has already been done, and the civil service will not have started with a pre-existing list, however authoritative they are trying to make it. There is therefore a risk that as Departments perform an audit, or as the National Archives help with that process, additional laws will be found. There must be a risk that some will be missed altogether. If that is so, again as you have heard, the consequence of the Bill is that the law will fall away altogether on the sunset date, and you will not have the option of making a correction. Ministers, if they wanted to, would have to come back to Parliament with a Bill to replace or change the law. That is the complexity of the exercise.
Mr Fysh
Q
I have two questions. First, how else could you inject such urgency to get this done quickly, other than through what has been proposed? Secondly, we have heard a lot about the permanence of the falling away—this is your contention—of the laws because of the sunset, but is it not the case that in various clauses, such as clause 2(1), and clauses 12 and 13, there are powers for a restatement or reproduction of different things up until 2026 should it become necessary? Is that not an adequate safeguard mechanism should there turn out to be something that the taskforce approach, which should be very competent, has missed?
Dr Fox: On the latter point, yes—there is provision to extend the sunset through, as you say, to 2026, but that applies to the piece of retained EU law that you know about and are saving and assimilating, and that you will then have the option to amend later. The concern is that if you have not identified and saved it, it could fall away and you could then have that problem. There is also the prospect that you end up with a patchwork quilt of sunset dates, because it could be before 2026.
There are issues about at what point in that process, prior to December 2023, the Government would identify what they intend to do, either with the individual pieces of retained EU law or sections of retained EU law, which will introduce uncertainty. What we have proposed is to do that in a slightly different way: that is, take away the cliff edge where everything falls away—unless you choose to save it—and use Parliament as an ally in that process.
I completely understand the concern about internal inertia, particularly in the final two years of a Parliament and in these current socioeconomic conditions, where there are lots of capacity pressures. However, it seems to me that you could use Parliament as an ally by, instead of having cliff edge dates where legislation and law falls away, having dates in the process, possibly linked to your taskforces, where there are statutory reporting requirements to Parliament by Government Ministers and Departments and where Select Committees could be engaged in that process by scrutinising those reports.
You could set out what you want the Government to report on—what are their plans, what is their implementation timetable, what progress are they making, as with the EU withdrawal Act process for the statutory instrument programme; you could engage the National Audit Office in monitoring implementation of that; and you could have reporting. One of the things that wakes up permanent secretaries and others in the civil service is the possibility of having to appear before a departmental Select Committee and report on a lack of progress, or the fact that their plans are failing. Your model of taskforces to ensure consultation, coupled with statutory reporting requirements, through to a deadline of 2026 or 2028—whatever you choose—would be a better approach, because you could still achieve what you want to achieve but reduce the risk of missing something.
The Chair
Thank you. I have got a few more questions to get in before five minutes past. It was the first or second question, Marcus, which perhaps Sir Jonathan could answer, if you can remember it?
Mr Fysh
It was whether there are in fact powers to bring back things that have been sunsetted, such as in clause 13.
Sir Jonathan Jones: The short answer is that the powers to extend and save do not work if an instrument has been missed altogether by the time you get to the sunset date.
Mr Jones
Q
Dr Fox: It will probably not be that dissimilar to what we were talking about in terms of what we went through with the Brexit process. On sifting, the process proposed is that all negative instruments will be laid before the sifting committee in draft form. They would have 10 sitting days to decide whether to upgrade it to the affirmative procedure. The implications for parliamentary time will depend on what their decisions and recommendations are and whether the Government accept them, and therefore whether there has to be a delegated legislation Committee.
So yes, the potential is for an increased number of delegated legislation Committees. The reality is that doing all that before December 2023 is clearly nigh-on impossible; if your deadline is 2026 or 2028 and you smooth it out over time, then it is achievable. Again, it will depend on what the numbers are and what proportion of negative and affirmative instruments there are, depending on what the Government propose to do.
Alex Sobel
Q
Dr Fox: It would depend on what the enhancement was—improvement, but if the improvement implied obstacles to trade or innovation, financial cost or administrative inconvenience, then no, it could not. It is hard to see how the kinds of enhancements that have been talked about—for example, in relation to animal welfare—would not necessarily imply an administrative burden; they therefore could not be done under this provision. That said, my understanding is that the former Secretary of State who was the architect of the Bill took the view that it was not appropriate for imposing new regulations through delegated legislation. That is not a bad thing, but the problem is that the nature of the exercise does not work in that context, because of the cliff edge.
Sir Jonathan Jones: May I add a brief comment? First, the power in clause 15 is undoubtedly very wide, so the Minister has huge discretion in deciding what is appropriate. The test about regulatory burdens is quite a slippery test, not least because the assessment is whether the overall effect of the change is to increase regulatory burden. All sorts of factors might weigh within that burden. It may be that the Minister decides to increase some procedural burden and reduce some other, and makes the assessment that overall the effect is to reduce the burden. Within that, however, could be all sorts of complexity. It is very difficult to predict in the abstract exactly how the power might be used.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Q
Sir Jonathan Jones: They will all be doing their best, I have no doubt. The example we have is the one already mentioned, which was the process gone through under the 2018 Act to identify the laws that were going to be carried forward as retained EU law and to work out what changes to those were necessary to make them work. As I said, that was complicated enough, and some things were either missed first time around or needed to be amended more than once, because they were not got right.
I was in the civil service for the first part of that process, and I helped to set it up and saw it happening. Of course civil servants do their best—Government lawyers were drafting like crazy to get the relevant regulations done in time, and by and large I think that did work. I am sure some things were missed, but the consequences for missing something then was not that we had a great gap in the law, but that we would have a technical flaw that later on could be cured. This is of a different order, but I will not repeat myself.
What can I say? They will be doing their best. There must be a risk that things will be missed, and the timescale set for doing this is much tighter than the time that was taken to do the previous exercise, hence the concerns you have heard us express.
The Chair
Thank you very much. I see no further questions, but I think a point of order is about to come.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
On a point of order, Sir Gary. With reference to the Minister’s clarification earlier in respect of the story about the National Archives, from what she said I understand that that was work commissioned by the Department. I seek your guidance on a process by which the Committee will have the full information about that report and, in particular, on whether more laws will be covered by the ambit of the Bill. The situation is unusual, but a written statement by the Minister or a letter to the Committee might be appropriate as a way ahead.
The Chair
That is not a point of order for the Chair. I know the Minister—a very helpful Minister—will have heard the point, and I am sure something positive will be forthcoming.
The Chair
Nodding is going on. I thank the witnesses for their expertise and advice.
Examination of Witnesses
Tim Sharp and Shantha David gave evidence.
The Chair
Colleagues, we have until 3.35 pm for this session. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Tim Sharp: I am Tim Sharp, senior employment rights officer at the Trades Union Congress, which has 48 affiliated trade unions representing 5.5 million members.
Shantha David: Hello, and thank you for having us here today. I am an employment law solicitor. My name is Shantha David. I am head of legal services at Unison, the public sector trade union, which has 1.3 million members, 75% of which are women.
I have listened to some of the evidence, and there is a lot of discussion around process. I, on behalf of the union, would quite like to talk a little bit about the effect that this Bill will have on employment laws and workers.
The Chair
Thank you. I am sure that some of the questions—perhaps even some of the early questions—will draw that out from you. I call Justin Madders.
Justin Madders
Q
Shantha David: As we know, the Bill in the abstract looks at removing EU-derived laws. What we do not understand is how, if the provisions are sunsetted, that will strip away some very basic employment rights. I thought I would set some of those out.
For example, through EU-derived provision, the UK allows for 20 days of statutory annual leave. That will no longer survive if the provision is sunsetted. There is also protection for eight additional bank holidays, which is derived from the UK but is contained in the working time regulations. It is unclear whether those provisions would go, along with the 20 days of statutory leave, leaving UK citizens with no provision and no statutory annual leave entitlement.
Other typical basic employment rights are things such as the TUPE—transfer of undertakings (protection of employment)—regulations and protections, which I am sure you will know about. Those preserve an employee’s employment where their employment is outsourced or brought back in house, or where an employer’s business is bought out by another. Those employees are protected from dismissal. Their terms and conditions are also protected from being varied because of the transfer. If TUPE legislation goes, those sorts of employees could be sacked with no legal recourse, so it is unclear what would happen to them.
Family-friendly provisions are contained in a variety of different legislation. They are derived from the EU, as well as through Acts of Parliament. It is a tapestry of rights. Basic rights to maternity and paternity leave fall under the Employment Rights Act 1996, but the specifics in terms of the length of leave, who is eligible for that leave and payment of leave comes through EU provisions. Given the lack of information, it is unclear what will survive and what will face the chop.
There are other protections, such as part-time worker regulations and fixed-term regulations, which allow for parity of treatment for those types of workers. Again, those provisions will disappear overnight.
There are other provisions, such as the Equal Pay Act 1970. There are certain facets of that Act that are derived from Europe. Where there is a single source of payment for people’s terms and conditions, an employee can compare themselves with employees at a different establishment. Again, there are cases in the tribunals and courts at the moment dealing with this particular point. Removing the principle of direct effect will mean that these women in particular can no longer rely on the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. These are just some of the rights. There are many more, but we will provide written evidence if that is helpful.
Justin Madders
Q
Shantha David: Yes, the TUPE provisions provide for certain types of service provision changes and protections, particularly for outsourcing and insourcing. These are UK-derived provisions that survived and were potentially updated in the 2014 TUPE regulations. It was interesting at that time because the consultation responses said there was a certain level of certainty in the provisions and to keep making changes was unsettling for businesses. It was businesses that came out most loudly saying, “We all know where we stand at the moment. Let’s leave this piece of legislation alone.” Removing it altogether will create a great deal of uncertainty and take us back to the ’70s and ’80s when we did not know quite what was going on. The effect will be to block up the courts and tribunals, which are already under-resourced. We know of the delays and backlogs in the court system. Trying to rectify and understand how the laws will work if TUPE is removed is very hard.
Justin Madders
Q
Tim Sharp: Following on from what Shantha said, it is clear to us that these rights are not some sort of additional “nice to have” rights, they are crucial ones. They are particularly crucial for low-paid and vulnerable workers, and particularly the protections for part-time workers, for agency workers and for security guards and cleaners who are being transferred from one company to another.
At best, the uncertainty means that more things will be fought out in the courts. If you are a low-paid worker holding together multiple jobs, going through that process is both expensive and more than you can probably cope with. At worst, those rights go completely, so we are really worried about the impact it will have on vulnerable workers in particular. When you talk to business groups, it appears to be bad news for good bosses who want to do the right thing and follow what the law says. It is great news for bad bosses who do not care either way and they will have more freedom to do what they like. We are really worried about the impact of the legislation as it stands.
Ms Ghani
Q
The UK is leading in a number of these aspects. We were the first to introduce two weeks’ paid paternity leave in 2003; the EU has only just legislated for this. We have the highest minimum wage if you compare us to France, Germany and Japan. We are leading on paid bereavement as well. We have far more maternity leave with over a year; the EU has just 14 weeks. In April 2019 we quadrupled the maximum fine for aggravated breaches of workers’ rights, so the assumption that we are somehow going to fall into the 1970s, creating an atmosphere of insecurity, is not healthy.
I am sorry; I will get to the point and ask my question. The Government have stated many times in the past few years that we will not reduce rights and protections as we leave the EU, and the Bill contains powers that enable the Government to preserve and codify the REUL in a way that will incorporate it fully into UK law. What basis is there to be fearful of those rights diminishing? I do not want to hear speculation—we do not have enough time. I want to understand what basis there is.
Shantha David: I do not think this is speculation because, unfortunately, the Tableau does not provide a full list of legislation that is due to go. Without knowing what that is, it is impossible to know what will stay and what will go. It is imperative that the Government produce a list. The Tableau is the most incomprehensible piece of equipment. You have to put in random words to try and identify whether certain pieces of legislation will remain or go. The working time regulations contain the provision for the eight bank holidays. Whether they stay or go will be down to the Government, of course, but at the moment we do not know, and that is the biggest problem. It is the lack of clarity that is causing us the biggest headache.
Also, we are talking about 2,400 or 3,800—whatever the number is—pieces of legislation that are due to be sunsetted within a year. I understand they will simply go away at the end of next year unless something positive is done to replace them. If that is the case, yes, we will lose our rights to the 20 days of minimum annual leave entitlement. Women, who tend to be part-time workers, will not have the protections against dismissal and parity of treatment. And fixed-term workers, who also tend to be female, will not have their protections. Women who want to go back to the workplace and have the same employment and protection will not have that protection. You might think that is conjecture, but without knowing anything else, what else is there?
We need to have a comprehensive list of the legislation that is due to be affected. Once we know that, perhaps then we can be consulted as trade unions, as individuals and as members of the public so that we can have our say on what we want to keep. I do not think the Government intend to simply remove all legislation that assists workers and employees. I cannot imagine that that must be what the Government wish to do, so it would be helpful to have that information in front of us so that we can respond.
Stella Creasy
Q
Tim Sharp: No, we have not had those conversations. We are still in the dark. We are really concerned about the array of rights that have been set out so far today. There are lots of health and safety laws as well and things like protection for pregnant workers—there are lots of protections—but, so far, we do not know. It seems we are taking a shortcut to an unknown destination.
Stella Creasy
Q
Shantha David: Just to clarify, the 20 days are derived from Europe. The additional eight days were because, historically, those eight days were incorporated into the 20 days. To ensure that people had the additional eight days of bank holiday, they were allowed for under UK law, but it is contained within the same piece of legislation, which is where the confusion might arise.
Stella Creasy
Q
Shantha David: I think it is worse than that, actually; we will not have the 20 days at all. We will have the eight days of bank holiday only if they are taken out of the current regulations, presumably, and put somewhere else. If the regulations go altogether, regulation 13A, which talks about the bank holidays, will go with them.
Mr Fysh
Q
Shantha David: It would be helpful, though, if that were in writing. I am grateful for your words, but as a lawyer it would be helpful to have a full list of what is included. If that piece of legislation, say, is sunsetted and introduced at a later date, there will be workers who do not have access to those laws. That is a breach of access to justice as well.
Mr Fysh
That would be a strong incentive for the Government to get it right.
Shantha David: Indeed, but the timing is an issue. There is only just over a year to identify the pieces of legislation, and, as we mentioned, they are a tapestry of rights; we do not know where one right begins and another ends. I recommend the Employment Lawyers Association paper, which sets this out clearly.
Mr Jones
Q
Tim Sharp: We have raised our concerns about the protection of workers’ rights on a number of occasions when there has been speculation in the past, and have received lovely assurances, but I do not think we have met BEIS Ministers—there have been quite a few lately—in recent weeks. We certainly have not had the confirmation on workers’ rights. We have not been told if they are being retained.
Mr Jones
No, can Mr Sharp answer this? He is the person who has had the meeting.
Tim Sharp: We have met BEIS officials as the TUC. Have we asked for assurances? We have asked for information on what is planned on workers’ rights, and we have not been given any information on what is intended.
Mr Jones
Q
Tim Sharp: It would be lovely to think that the Government will retain the rights as they are, but even in this benign scenario—it would be great if it happened—we are still going to have great chaos. Let us say that all the regulations are restated. We still have all the interpretive principles and the case law falling away. It has taken years of litigation to work out what entitlement workers have to carry over sick leave, for example. We do not know what the position might be after this Bill is passed. If you are a worker or a rep in a workplace, you do not want to be going to tribunal and to court to settle all these matters again, which is effectively what this Bill does. You want to be able to have a conversation—
The Chair
I think you have pressed far enough on this, David. I would like to hear from Shantha.
Shantha David: Thank you very much. I am just going to remind Mr Jones that the equality impact assessment does identify that the removal of laws will have a detrimental effect. I am not sure that that is an assurance, because it is not. Beyond that, I do not know what help we have. I do not have access to Ministers in that way. It takes a while to get an answer.
Much like Mr Sharp was saying, the only way to clarify legislation as we go along and to get certainty in the law—we will not have it if provisions are sunsetted—is via litigation. That is something I am able to talk about. Litigation is costly, and pursuing appeals in the Senior Courts will take a long time because of the delays I mentioned. Given that tribunals and lower courts will no longer be bound by retained EU law, there is also the question of how long-established principles of precedent would work, and whether referrals would have to be made from tribunals and lower courts to the Senior Courts, which is what is envisaged in the Bill—either to go to the Courts of Appeal in Scotland, Northern Ireland and England and Wales, or to go directly to the UK Supreme Court. We are not aware—there is nothing mentioned in the paperwork, which is the only thing we have to work on—that that will be resourced in any way. We already know that it takes at least a year to get to the UK Supreme Court. There are only 11 justices. I am unclear as to who will make those decisions around interpretation.
Justin Madders
Q
Shantha David: Absolutely. If it is the Government’s intention not to get rid of workers’ rights and legislation that protects employees, of course it would be a lot simpler to simply set out what is protected.
Stella Creasy
Q
The Chair
Let us not stray too widely into Beecroft, because we are considering this Bill, but an answer would be helpful if it is relevant to this.
Stella Creasy
But it is relevant as an element of employment rights.
Shantha David: The difficulty we have here is the speed at which this thing is happening. It is not about whether you want EU-derived legislation to exist; it is about being able to have a considered view on the employment provisions that exist for workers, and to ensure that employees and employers are not mired in litigation forever and a day. The costs of this are incredible, and I think that is not completely understood. The costs of litigation are profound. If there are to be clear exceptions, and if it is very obvious that certain employment legislation will survive this cull, perhaps that should be specified. That would be very helpful.
Mr Fysh
Q
Shantha David: We would be more than happy to help.
Tim Sharp: Absolutely; trade unions would want to engage in such a process. I am not sure that it would stave off the scenarios we see, as the exact meaning of different rights would still end up being litigated. Even in that scenario—great, we would love to have those conversations, as it is really crucial that workers’ voices are heard, but the Bill will still cause immense confusion and costs to business and workers.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed for your evidence. We now move on to our next set of witnesses. We will slightly change the language and tone of proceedings, as we will be discussing the environment, which is an ever important issue.
Examination of Witnesses
Ruth Chambers, Dr Richard Benwell, David Bowles and Phoebe Clay gave evidence.
The Chair
Thank you very much to our next set of witnesses. We are starting three minutes early, but we expect a Division at about 4.15 pm. If that is the case, we will try to end our session when the Division bell rings. Will you please all introduce yourself for the record?
Ruth Chambers: Good afternoon. I am Ruth Chambers. I am senior fellow at the Green Alliance, representing the Greener UK coalition of environmental groups.
Dr Benwell: My name is Richard Benwell. I am from Wildlife and Countryside Link, which is a coalition of 67 environmental and animal welfare charities.
David Bowles: I am David Bowles. I am head of public affairs and campaigns at the RSPCA, and I am representing the animal welfare stance.
Phoebe Clay: I am Phoebe Clay. I am co-director of Unchecked UK. We are a non-partisan network of 60 organisations making the case for strong environmental and social protections.
Alex Sobel
Q
Dr Benwell: Thank you so much for the question. Link has given evidence to lots of Bill Committees over the years—I have given evidence to some of the members of this Committee—and I do not think we have ever been moved to say at this stage in a Bill that it should simply be withdrawn. That is our view of the Bill at the moment.
We see the Bill playing out in perhaps one of three scenarios. In the most benign scenario, you could imagine a situation where the whole body of environmental EU retained law is simply restated and moved across on to the UK statute book as assimilated law. Even in that most benign scenario, we see a situation in which Parliament and the civil service have spent huge amounts of time, likely costing millions of pounds, in delivering the shift across. Even more importantly, we see a huge opportunity cost in terms of lost time to actually make environmental improvements. You said, Mr Sobel, that DEFRA has already had some capacity crises, and it is true. All sorts of important DEFRA agendas—the environmental principles, the environmental targets, the river basin management plans—and a whole raft of pieces of vital DEFRA work being proposed by this Government are now extremely delayed, and that would only be made worse by that scenario.
The second scenario is the cliff-edge version of the Bill, where you imagine huge swathes of potentially vital environmental laws falling off the cliff edge at the end of the sunset. I do not think any of us imagine that the Government will knowingly let things like the habitats regulations, the water framework directive or pesticides rules hit the buffer. I do not think anybody thinks that is the intention, but the fact is that we imagine there will be mistakes along the way. If you look at the process following the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, there were lots and lots of wash-up SIs at that point from all the mistakes that were made by DEFRA alone—simply to get through the legislation at that point. With this version, so much more is on the table. Things are likely to be missed. Mistakes are likely to be made.
The third scenario is one of change and ministerial fiat to mess around with things along the way. The delegated powers in the Bill are some of the most extraordinary that I have ever seen. They give Ministers the power to change things almost without scrutiny along the way. The third scenario, and probably the most likely, is that we see elements of law being cherry-picked, either to be taken out or changed over the next 12 months, without any opportunity for people to amend, scrutinise or improve.
All three are really terrifying scenarios, and we can talk about why they come through the Bill later, but our view at the moment as Wildlife and Countryside Link is that the Bill is irredeemable and should be withdrawn.
Alex Sobel
Q
Ruth Chambers: Absolutely, and I endorse what Rich has just said. One other implication of the Bill relates to environmental law and policy making across the rest of the UK. I know we are very much focused on Whitehall today, but how, for example, will this process be conducted in Northern Ireland without a functioning Government? How are stakeholders going to be involved? That is not clear to us. We know that the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland has identified 600 pieces of rule that pertain to it as a Department. Again, where is it going to find the capacity to deal with that?
In relation to Scotland, there is an interesting angle, because the Scottish Government have a legal commitment to keeping pace with the EU. What is the interplay between that legal duty and the programme of rule in relation to the Bill and the Scottish Government? We note the concerns raised by Senedd Cymru, the Welsh Parliament, that the Bill risks imposing a regulatory ceiling on ambition and distracting from programmes in Wales. Those are some additional impacts to the ones identified by Richard.
I will come back to DEFRA, which is where we are perhaps more qualified to speak, and look at some numbers for a minute, in case that is of assistance to the Committee. We have heard talk of the previous EU exit statutory instrument programme, which we were involved with. Looking at the numbers of SIs involved in the two years of that programme, there were 108 in 2018 and 161 in 2019. That was a huge undertaking for the Department. As you have just said, it took a lot of resource from outside DEFRA, which put in some really innovative consultative mechanisms to help it to cope with that number of instruments.
By contrast, under this programme, the dashboard shows that DEFRA has 570 published pieces of REUL, but that is not the final number. We understand from the Department that the number is 835 and counting. That is not yet a published figure, and obviously we will need to have it confirmed by the Department, but that is a huge increase. The EU exit SI programme will pale into insignificance when you look at those numbers, which will require resource housed in legal capacity and technical policy capacity, and will require asking the expert stakeholder community as well. There is a lot of work to be done.
The Chair
I just want to intervene before the other witnesses give their answers. This is all very good stuff, but the answers will need to be quite a bit shorter or we will run out of time.
Alex Sobel
Q
David Bowles: I concur with everything that has been said. Two years from now will mark the 50th anniversary of the first ever animal welfare law passed at the EU level. The RSPCA has worked out that since that date in 1974, we have had 44 different animal welfare laws.
I will make one additional point. Obviously, animal welfare plays out very resonantly with the public and, indeed, with the Government. The Johnson Government came in with five different manifesto commitments on animal welfare and a pledge to improve animal welfare. It is quite ironic that the Bill, in Richard’s cliff-edge scenario, could get rid of those 44 pieces of legislation.
An additional issue that I do not think the Committee has looked at is that of devolution, which Ruth touched on. As you are probably aware, the Senedd yesterday put out advice on the legislative consent motion to reject the Bill, which it does not believe is good for the Welsh Government. Curiously enough, although Ministers of the Crown have the chance to delay the Bill’s deadline from 2023 to 2026, that option does not apply to Welsh Ministers.
Most animal welfare legislation is devolved—we have worked out that only 13 of the 44 pieces of legislation are reserved, while the rest are devolved—so it is up to those in Wales to decide what to have in their country, such as the battery hen ban and a vast array of other farm legislation, including on the live transport of animals. They will have all those things only until 2023 because Welsh Ministers have no option to extend that deadline. Only Ministers of the Crown have that option, and that really worries me.
Alex Sobel
Q
Ruth Chambers: All the groups you mentioned would be immensely helpful to the various Departments in identifying and commenting on the body of REUL that belongs to them. The important question is how such consultation should be conducted. For us, it should be hardwired from the outset and conducted in a transparent and structured way. Navigating the complexities and time constraints of consultation will place a huge burden on businesses and civil society. The more that that can be signalled in advance, the easier it will be for us all.
Last time around, the Department put in place a reading room on statutory instruments, for example. That was a helpful vehicle that gave stakeholders of all persuasions some extra time to look at the statutory instruments in question. It was just one mechanism that was put in place, but that sort of thing probably is not sufficient given the scale of the work that we are talking about. The more structured the engagement can be, the better, but it will be a big undertaking. It goes back to clarity on just how many pieces of law we are talking about, so that we know which laws are in scope and which are out of scope.
Alex Sobel
Q
Phoebe Clay: Looking further from that list, one important facet of that process is missing, which is people—the public. This is not an expectation of the public, certainly not during the referendum and certainly not in the past five years. What we have done a lot of is talk to people—your constituents—about their attitudes and what they value in relation to regulations. We find very little appetite for a process of this kind. We have been doing polling consistently over three years; all our polling suggests that a good two thirds of the British public think we should retain or, indeed, strengthen the level of standards that we had as members of the European Union. We find very little evidence that people see Brexit as an opportunity to deregulate—quite the opposite. People want to play to a sense of British standards, of the march of progress towards a better—and more—level of protection. In terms of what we value in the UK, this goes very deep. I would echo what my colleagues have said in relation to transparency and having in place a process whereby there is a level of democratic engagement with the Bill.
Alex Sobel
Q
Dr Benwell: As you say, that order is the main plank of action against invasive species. If we were imagining that the Bill is about reducing costs, far from it. If we were to lose that piece of regulation—the cost of invasive species in the UK on businesses at the moment is already in the billions. I think the sum is about £4 billion per year at the moment for the cost of invasive species on, for example, water companies. That would only multiply if we were to see those regulations lost or weakened. There are several areas where those kinds of rules exist only in retained law. For example, think of air quality threshold standards, or provisions such as the habitats regulations for protecting rare species or for providing the gold standard of protection for habitats. Think of the environmental impact assessment and the strategic environmental assessment rules. In some areas there is overlap, but in each of those areas EU retained law adds a really important element, over and above what existed in domestic law.
In some ways, it is a bonkers distinction. We have the term of “assimilation” in the Bill, as if we are taking something that is currently alien and making it British. It is already UK law; it has been on our statute book for a very long time. It has been assimilated in so far as businesses and people know how to work with it, expect it to operate and feel as if it is part of our law. There are loads of areas where the law can be improved, but simply choosing to tackle this block as if it were a special thing is a bad way to target areas for improvement. We could do much better through consultation, and by doing proper impact assessment of the laws that we know need improvement.
Ms Ghani
Q
My question is for Ruth Chambers. The review of the substance of retained EU law has uncovered more than 500 pieces of retained EU law owned by DEFRA. Many of those pieces of legislation relate to environmental regulations and protections dating back 20 years. Surely there is merit in reviewing the totality of those regulations, as the Bill provides for, to see whether they can be consolidated. Do you agree or disagree?
Ruth Chambers: It is certainly true that the body of retained EU law is ripe for being improved. That is what we would hope the processes of the Bill, or anything else, would lead to. Our concern is that the Bill would, either accidentally or if powers were misused in the future, not lead to those sorts of outcomes. Instead of the processes in the Bill, we would prefer a much more targeted approach that looks at retained EU law, and that picks the areas where the benefits to business are the greatest and environmental outcomes could be maximised, which Minister Trudy Harrison said, in answer to a written question, is DEFRA’s aim for reviewing retained EU law.
We are not opposed to reviewing the law, and we are definitely not opposed to improving it; we just do not think that the processes in the Bill will naturally lead to that outcome, especially when you look at clause 15, which we might have time to talk about. It basically makes the direction of travel of the Bill about deregulation rather than anything else.
Ms Ghani
Q
Ms Phoebe Clay, previously your organisation has accused the Bill of threatening to interrupt the Government’s target to halt the decline of nature in England by 2030. Can you set out how you consider that the Bill could interrupt a legally binding target that has been established by the Environment Act? We have a lot of lawyers this morning, and we want to contrast their evidence with yours.
Phoebe Clay: I think that is an ambitious target, and regulation has to be part of the pursuit of it. As Ruth has just said, the intent in the way that it is expressed at the moment is deregulatory. Our view is that, if that intent is pursued, we will struggle to stay on course with those broader objectives. It is worth stressing that is not just my organisation. Like Richard, we are a coalition. We represent a whole series of organisations across the spectrum, ranging from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to women’s institutes and a number of organisations working on worker protections. I guess it is worth underlining that this is not our position as a small coalition, but the position of all the other organisations that have signed up to that.
The Chair
I think it is only fair to give Dr Benwell a chance to come back on the issue of neutrality, very briefly.
The Chair
Q
Dr Benwell: Thanks, Sir Gary. Just to emphasise, we definitely see areas where EU-derived law can be improved, and absolutely share that intention. I could list quite a number for you now. Here I am representing not my personal views but those of the coalition. It is extremely clear from our published materials that the strong view of the environmental sector is that, while we share the intention of improving environmental law, we do not think that this process is the way to achieve it, because of the sunset clause, the deregulatory lock-in and the overly generous delegated powers to Ministers along the way.
Ms Ghani
Q
Phoebe Clay: I guess that we just want the guarantee that those environmental protections will remain in UK statute. At the moment, we do not think that the other providers—
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Q
Dr Benwell: No.
Dr Evans
Q
Dr Benwell: I am not sure that is the crucial part of the Bill from an environmental perspective; the crucial part of the Bill from our perspective is that it potentially or inadvertently allows for the loss of large portions of the statute book and for changes to environmental law without scrutiny. It also locks in an old-fashioned view of regulatory costs, seeing cost to business as the only way to judge the costs of regulation.
Dr Evans
Q
Dr Benwell: I do not think that we are the only organisation to have said that. I think that the Bar Council included the suggestion that the Bill should be withdrawn in its evidence. Wildlife and Countryside Link does not speak as a single body; it speaks on behalf of many of our members. The RSPB, for example, has been very clear in saying that the Bill should be withdrawn, as have lots of our members.
The Government might find features of the Bill they could bring forward separately. I think that the question of supremacy is one where we would see some risks in the interpretation of the law, but that is a political choice and, in itself, it is not the bit that we are most worried about. The bits that we are worried about, however, are so deeply ingrained in the fabric of the Bill that we suggest starting again.
On the sunset clauses, if you look at the House of Commons Library interpretation of what a sunset clause should do, it is there to stop emergency powers existing in perpetuity, giving Parliament a chance to review them. The Bill is taking, en bloc, huge amounts of environmental law and saying that they should potentially end within a year; it is a very strange amplification of sunset powers. On delegated legislation, the provisions in clause 15 that suggest Ministers should be able to bring forward alternative provisions without even tethering that to the original purposes of the regulations on offer are extremely broad delegated legislation powers. Another aspect that is deeply ingrained in the Bill is the idea that no alternative provision should be brought forward if it imposes new costs on business or hampers innovation and that sort of thing. That is an old-fashioned mentality that sees the costs to business of implementing regulation as the only view of the point of that regulation. Actually, if you take a deregulatory approach, it does not reduce costs; it simply transfers them from the businesses responsible for delivering them to the public. Those are all part of the weft and warp of the Bill, and that is why we think that the whole thing should go, rather than starting to amend it.
The Chair
That is clear, thank you. I will bring Ruth in on this, and then we will go to Stella Creasy. Ruth, you wanted to come in.
Ruth Chambers: Thank you, Chair. I have two points of clarification to make. First, I confirm that Greener UK as a coalition also wishes the Bill to be paused and withdrawn. That is not inconsistent with our position that we also believe that the body of retained EU law could be improved and that a process could be devised to do so. I feel that there was a little conflation of those two points but, to be absolutely clear, they are not the same thing.
Secondly, Minister, may I come back to your point about environmental targets, the 2030 species recovery target and the relationship with REUL? The relationship is a rather straightforward one: the opportunity costs that will inevitably come with the Department having to review, assimilate and reform such a large body of law. In fact, the Government have already missed their first legal milestone on environmental targets, on 31 October. That is just one example of how this can have a serious impact—because of the sheer deliverability challenges.
Stella Creasy
Q
The Chair
We are all reunited, more or less. Stella has the floor. We will let you know in a moment what the ending time for this witness panel will be; we are still trying to work it out.
Stella Creasy
Q
David Bowles: There are many examples. I mentioned at the beginning of the session that there are 44 different animal welfare laws, but that is my assessment; if you look at the dashboard that the Government have set up, there are 16 that are not on the dashboard but are on my list. That gives you an indication of the uncertainty, although to be fair, the dashboard is one of the most opaque measures of what the Government are doing. It does not seem to be in alphabetical or chronological order, and going through the 570 laws under the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs tab is quite onerous. I think it is uncertain about where it is.
The Bill applies not just to the UK, but to Wales, and probably 31 of 44 laws in my area of animal welfare are devolved. The Senedd and the Scottish Government, who have responsibility for them, are uncertain as well, because they are taking their lead from DEFRA. Yesterday the Welsh Government said they were not minded to work out which laws were devolved, which were not, and which came under retained law. They were going to leave that up to the UK Government. That just fuels the uncertainty.
Stella Creasy
Q
David Bowles: It could create huge uncertainty. Two things need to be worked out. First, what does retained EU law mean? As we saw today from the article in the newspaper, there seem to be more such laws coming forward. Secondly, which are devolved and which are not devolved? There could be a huge discussion about that. The Bill will have huge implications. There is not just the devolution issue, but the common frameworks issue, which is how the three Governments work out how to move forward on specific pieces of legislation. There is also the matter of the United Kingdom Internal Markets Act 2020, which is the legislation that allows free trade within Great Britain. There are huge implications for all those issues.
Stella Creasy
Q
Ruth Chambers: That is a really important question. Clause 15 and how it defines “burden” is one of our biggest concerns about the Bill. If you look at the passage that defines “burden”, it is everything from an administrative inconvenience to something that causes issues to do with profitability. What does it actually mean? It also does not seem to sit readily with the answer that DEFRA Ministers have given, which is that their intention, in reviewing that body of rules, is to improve environmental outcomes. How does that sit with reducing regulatory burdens?
Not many weeks ago, some Government Ministers were suggesting that environmental protections were regulatory burdens and should be removed. That is not the case, we believe, with the current Government and current set of Ministers, but it shows that things can move quite quickly. That is why the Bill needs to be watertight on these issues.
The Chair
Shall we move down the table? Dr Benwell.
Dr Benwell: This is a really problematic part of the Bill because, as has been said, “burden” is defined in purely financial and business terms. It imagines that the small cost that business might incur is not worth it for the environmental benefits that come out the other end. Of course even critical laws, such as the habitats regulations, can be improved. For example, you could define projects and plans better, so that you could take intensive land management in as well. Those are conversations we are actively having with DEFRA, and we want to find ways to do that, but those proposals simply could not be given effect through the Bill because of clause 15, which sort of sets out a deregulatory agenda. Altogether you see a lock-in of deregulation where you might otherwise find improvements. We want to improve the law, but the Bill does not allow us to do that.
David Bowles: I concur with the two previous witnesses. The Government came in with a manifesto commitment to improve animal welfare, and indeed they are looking, hopefully, to get rid of cages for laying hens and pigs, but because we are so uncertain about the status of the conventional ban on battery hens, which was agreed in 1999 and finally came into force in 2012, we do not know if that ban is to be scrapped. The Government are almost looking two ways on the issue, and that worries us.
We need reassurance that there is a transparent process for filtering the 570 DEFRA Bills, and a time period in which to do that. I concur with the other witnesses: we are not against improving legislation; of course we want to do that. We are not saying that the legislation is perfect, but there are a number of caveats, including the time period, the filtering process and the impact on devolution. All of that is so unclear that we need reassurance.
Phoebe Clay: You put your finger on it when you mentioned the word “burden”, Stella. That is a really problematic word from our perspective. If we were to frame the discussion around environmental, social and human protections, the Bill would probably be less problematic. We know that people see the rules as protections, and conceive of them as things that keep them safe, particularly at a time when people are feeling incredibly uncertain and under-protected. Shifting away from the idea that regulations are necessarily burdensome would be a really important step forward.
The Chair
We have until 4.33 pm, slightly to my surprise, so we have another 11 minutes to go. Minister, did you want to come in?
Ms Ghani
Q
David Bowles: indicated assent.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Q
Ruth Chambers: It is not, unfortunately. I think you have to see these things in their places. On the Environment Act 2021, you are absolutely right: it was groundbreaking legislation that the Government passed to do many things. It is an enormous Bill, as you know, because you were on the Bill Committee. It sets up the Office for Environmental Protection, and it passed law on resource efficiency and so forth, but in the main, it is new legislation. Part 1 ensured that some protections that we lost after we departed from the EU were put in place—for example, on environmental principles. Other parts are brand new, such as the requirement to set environmental targets.
That is, however, separate from this vast body of law that we are talking about today, which is inherited from the EU. It relates to some of the laws I have just been talking about, but also covers completely different areas—for example, pesticide regulation. The important thing is not to pit one against the other, but to make sure that we have a coherent and functioning statute book, in which primary legislation such as the Environment Act continues to work and to be given priority, and the body of retained EU law is treated with respect and improved in a manner that we can all get on board with. They are part of the same legislative picture, but they are not really in competition with each other.
Saqib Bhatti
Q
Ruth Chambers: It is great to hear you say that, but of course every Act of Parliament is only as good as the pace and vigour with which it is implemented. We mentioned that the first statutory deadline on improvement targets has unfortunately been missed. We very much hope and want to work with the Government to address that legal breach at the earliest opportunity. The Act is full of powers. It gives the Government the option to do a great many things, but of course it is only the Government who can decide to do them. We will support you all the way in putting those powers in place in the most ambitious way, but it is not sufficient to say that the Act is testament to the ambition. It has to be implemented, delivered and resourced.
Saqib Bhatti
Q
Dr Benwell: That is what the legislation enables. I do not have a particular view on that from an environmental perspective.
Saqib Bhatti
Q
Dr Benwell: I do not have an environmental view on that question. I completely understand the political point, and that is for Parliament to decide.
Saqib Bhatti
Q
Dr Benwell: Definitely, and things like the Environment Act are a brilliant sign of progress. The promise in the manifesto to have the most ambitious environmental programme on Earth was excellent, and if we can deliver the species target that is in the Environment Act to halt the decline of species by 2030, that will be the first time in the world any country has set and met a target like that—but it does not operate by itself. Delivery of that Act rests on many of the environmental provisions that are put at stake by this Bill, such as provisions on planning rules, species protection and water protection. They do not live in the Environment Act; the Environment Act builds on them.
There is definitely the chance to do things better, and to bring forward lots of the positive things that the Government have already promised in their environmental programme, but they risk being set back as a result of the amount of time that the Bill will take and the potential for mistakes that this Bill introduces. That is why we are worried about it, not because of any of the principles around sovereignty. That is not a question we have a view on. It is more a matter of the practicality and enormousness of the task in front of us.
Justin Madders
Q
Phoebe Clay: We have asked questions very generically, as you saw in the research that was published in October, and we have asked more specific questions. We find time and again that the majority of the British public opt for strengthening rules, including members of the public who voted to leave the European Union.
We find very little evidence of significant geographical differences. People in the south and north of England, for example, have similar views. Our research has been corroborated by research by others, including by Professor John Curtice after the EU referendum, the Legatum Institute and others, so we can state with a lot of confidence that the British public do not perceive these rules as burdensome. I think there is a real sense that they are protections, including the environmental rules, and there is a general sense that protections are something that we should aspire to, exactly as the Member of Parliament just mentioned. We should be aspiring for stronger standards than we had when we were part of the European Union, rather than weaker ones.
The Chair
That concludes this session. Thank you to our witnesses on our expert panel. We appreciate the evidence that you have given.
Examination of Witness
Angus Robertson MSP gave evidence.
The Chair
We are moving on to Scotland. We will hear via Zoom from Angus Robertson MSP, Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture in the Scottish Government. This session must end at 4.53 pm. Thank you for joining us, Angus.
Angus Robertson: Thank you for having me, Sir Gary. Hello to erstwhile colleagues.
The Chair
Lovely to have you with us, Angus. The first question will be from the shadow Minister, Justin Madders.
Justin Madders
Q
Angus Robertson: If you do not mind, I was told that I could briefly make a few points at the beginning of the session. If you would indulge me, I might be able to both answer the question and set out some of the concerns of the Scottish Government and, by extension, the Welsh Government—we have the same position.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you all. I know you have had a lot of witness sessions today, so thank you for your patience. It will come as no surprise to members of the Committee to learn that the Scottish Government have deeply held, fundamental concerns about the legislation, particularly because of the undermining of devolution. There is concern about the democratic deficit that it exemplifies, and there are concerns, as we heard in the previous session, about the potential deregulatory challenges. We would want amendments brought forward in each of those areas.
Fundamentally, the Bill is the result of Brexit, which was overwhelmingly rejected by people in Scotland and is causing real damage to our economy and our society. The Bill is yet another example of a policy agenda being imposed by the Westminster Government on people in Scotland against their consent.
Let me start with devolution and why that is important. I represent a Government who were elected with a mandate to maintain close regulatory alignment with the European Union and EU standards. I recognise that the UK Government have a different agenda, but the whole point about devolution is to allow diversity, and it would be entirely possible to reconcile the difference in approaches through agreed common frameworks. After the EU referendum, that exact approach was agreed between the devolved Governments and the UK Government, yet the United Kingdom Internal Market 2020 and now this Bill make that near impossible. The Bill would allow UK Government Ministers to act in devolved areas without the consent of Scottish Ministers or the Scottish Parliament; there is no requirement even to consult. The internal market Act is having an insidious and erosive effect on devolution; in contrast, this Bill is a direct assault on devolution.
The second concern is about democratic scrutiny. The Bill grants Ministers, including Scottish Ministers, powers to amend or abandon legislation with minimum democratic scrutiny. Mere inaction or oversight could result in important protections falling from the statute book. Far from the promise of Parliament taking back control through Brexit, the Bill sidelines proper and appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.
Thirdly, on deregulation, the UK Government have said that they want the Bill to “utilise regulatory freedoms” by “lightening their burden” on UK businesses. The businesses here that I hear from are not interested in discarding 47 years’ worth of protections. Businesses, workers, consumers and our environment all benefit from high standards and not from a race to the bottom.
In conclusion, the people of Scotland rejected Brexit by a margin of 24%, and there was a majority for remaining in the European Union in every single local authority area in the country. The more people in Scotland see of Brexit, the less they support it; a panel-based survey this summer found that 63% of people in Scotland would vote to rejoin the European Union. Given that level of support for the EU, I note with some sorrow Labour’s pro-Brexit position alongside the Tories, most recently articulated by Keir Starmer when he was in Scotland at the weekend.
To finish where I started, the Scottish Government are fundamentally opposed to the Bill and have lodged with the Scottish Parliament this very morning a recommendation that consent be withheld. Thank you very much, Sir Gary.
The Chair
Thank you so much for making your position crystal clear. Justin, do you have a follow-up question?
Justin Madders
Q
I wanted to ask specifically about some of the inconsistencies when it comes to the powers available to you vis-à-vis the UK Government. Am I right that you will generally have the power to revoke and amend regulations, but the power to extend the sunset clause is not available to you? Do you know why that distinction has been made?
Angus Robertson: Indeed. It runs contrary to the conversation that I had with the erstwhile Cabinet Minister with responsibility for this, Jacob Rees-Mogg. He was very keen to give me assurances that devolution would not be undermined and that Scottish Ministers in the Scottish Parliament would be able to exercise maximum control to fulfil our democratic mandate: to remain aligned with the European Union.
Different powers are being assigned to UK Government Ministers and Scottish Government Ministers in important respects, and that is problematic for us—as is the point of capacity. I do not know whether you want to come on to that, but it is an absolutely massive challenge given that we are a Government who have a legislative agenda already. If we want to remain aligned with 2,000-plus or, if the Financial Times is to be believed, 3,000-plus pieces of European legislation, many of which are about devolved areas, we are talking about massive displacement activity in our Parliament here in Scotland. That is hugely challenging.
Justin Madders
Q
Angus Robertson: We have begun to do that. I should say that when I asked Jacob Rees-Mogg—as the proposing Minister, you would have thought he might have known—how many pieces of legislation would impact directly on the UK Government but then also on devolved policy areas, he was not able to tell me. We have still not been told the scale of the legislative impact, but it will be very considerable. Consider what is devolved—environment, rural affairs, transport and a whole series of other things. It will necessitate the legal services of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament spending a lot of time dealing with the consequences of this Bill.
The problem could quite easily be solved by the UK Government simply acknowledging that there is no demand for this to happen from either the Scottish or Welsh Governments and simply carving out devolved areas. It would remain on the statute book here. If colleagues down south want to go ahead with that, I leave that up to them. We did not vote for this, and we certainly do not want it to happen, yet our parliamentary process and the way in which Government operates here is going to be deluged by trying to deal with this proposal, to which little to no thought has been given as to how it impacts on the devolved institutions of the United Kingdom.
Ms Ghani
Q
Angus Robertson: The Bill confers significant powers on Scottish Ministers and UK Ministers in devolved areas. Where the powers are exercised by the UK Ministers, no role is afforded to the Scottish Ministers or the Scottish Parliament. In devolved areas, it is the Scottish Parliament that has a democratic mandate to hold Government to account. That is why we have consistently argued that where the UK Government have powers in devolved areas under this Bill, they should need the consent of the Scottish Government, which is of course scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament, in order to exercise those powers.
As it stands, the powers you highlight would allow the UK Government to make broad changes in retained EU law in devolved areas, including revoking and entirely replacing standards that we have inherited from the European Union. This Bill will introduce a massive democratic disconnect. I would hope that colleagues across the parties would realise that this is a huge challenge to the basic understanding of how devolution works.
I would be interested to know, Sir Gary, because we have not yet heard, how this will work now that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have both withheld consent for this legislation. We have the ability through the Sewel convention to say that this, as it stands, is not workable, practical, proportionate, and I could go on—
Ms Ghani
Please don’t; I think the point is crystal clear. So much of this is caught up in legal language. You made it clear that there are some powers that would allow you easily to align yourself to retained EU law. This Bill does not limit the powers given to Scottish Ministers in the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 to align with EU law in areas of devolved competence. Rather, the Bill will give Scottish Government Ministers further powers to more easily preserve or sunset retained EU law within a devolved competence. These new powers sit alongside those given to Scottish Government Ministers in the 2021 Act. I can fully understand that you have perhaps had some unsatisfactory conversations with Secretaries of State, or not had the assurances you are constantly seeking, but the reality is that you would have far more authority than you are alluding to with regards to control of legislation with this Bill. [Interruption.] Let’s move the conversation on, because we are very short of time. If we follow your argument, there is a concern that the Bill will cause greater divergence between retained EU law in England and Wales and retained EU law in Scotland. Is that conflict a concern for you?
Angus Robertson: With the greatest respect, the point about devolution is that we are able to do things differently in different parts of the United Kingdom. That is the point.
There are two significant problems that I really hope colleagues understand the scale of. We do not wish the proposal to go forward, yet if it does, we are a Government who already have a legislative programme which is going to come under massive pressure over the next years, depending on when the sunsetting arrangements are finalised for, and we are going to have to legislate through primary and secondary legislation to retain alignment with the European Union. That is the first point. I would hope there is an understanding of that.
The second point that I have tried to underline is the ability of UK Government Ministers to, in effect, override the concerns of the Scottish Government. That is much more than a democratic deficit; it is an undermining of the devolution settlement in its entirety. I am sure that some colleagues on the Committee will have looked closely at the workings of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the common frameworks. In effect, they mean that decisions made in the UK Parliament in relation to England are then applied throughout the UK regardless of the view taken by Parliaments in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. I hope colleagues understand the seriousness of the territory we are getting into.
Ms Ghani
Q
Angus Robertson: I am not talking about any laws returning to Westminster; I am talking about UK Government Ministers having the ability, in effect, to legislate in areas that are devolved. That is a totally different thing—
Ms Ghani
Q
Angus Robertson: They can in any area they like—that is the problem. That is the concurrent nature of the powers for UK Ministers and devolved authorities. It is clear to be read: it is a power that can be used. I cannot foresee exactly which Minister would seek to use such a power or for what purpose, but they would have that power. That should surely be a concern for everybody. Is it not?
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Q
Angus Robertson: Yes.
Peter Grant
Q
Angus Robertson: Yes, it is. I believe the Welsh Government are withholding legislative consent, as are the Scottish Government. If the UK Government are true to the word of the erstwhile Minister with responsibility for this legislation, Jacob Rees-Mogg—when I met him on 28 September he said to me, in terms, that the UK Government would respect the Sewel convention—it is a moot point because they will not proceed. I hope they do not.
Peter Grant
Q
Angus Robertson: Indeed. First, the Bill could be drafted in such a way that it did not apply to Scotland or Wales. That would be the easiest solution: just limit the scope of the Bill to non-devolved areas. That is suggestion 1. Suggestion 2 is to amend it now to do that or to have a similar effect. Why proceed, given the serious concerns that have been raised by both the Scottish and Welsh Governments? I do not understand why the UK Government seem to be ploughing on regardless, given that there has been a dialogue and these concerns have been enunciated for quite some time now.
Peter Grant
Q
Angus Robertson: We know that the scale of the challenge is significant first, for the reasons that I have pointed out: we already have a legislative programme and a Government legal service involved in all the legislation currently going through the Scottish Parliament.
Now we have this additional challenge, which has not been properly quantified by the UK Government, who cannot even tell us what they believe to be the split between reserved and devolved. As I have outlined, we know in broad terms what devolved powers are—they cover very significant areas. Our estimation, which is still to be gone through with a fine-toothed comb, is that this will have an extremely serious impact on the ability of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise legislation that would need to go through our process to ensure that legislation does not fall over the sunsetting cliff edge. That is very significant.
Should the retained EU law dashboard identify whether retained EU laws in scope of the Bill are devolved or reserved? Absolutely. Do we have any sense that that is going to happen? No, we do not. A lot of work will have to be undertaken, and it is a massive displacement effort from what we are trying to get on with. If the UK Government really want to respect the devolved settlement and listen to the Scottish and Welsh Governments, and do not want to break the Sewel convention, they should bring forward an amendment that disapplies the legislation either in whole or specifically in devolved areas. That would be the most sensible and, given what the UK Government Ministers have said to me personally, the most pragmatic way of going forward. If not, one can only conclude that what was said was not said in good faith.
The Chair
Thank you very much. We have one minute left. I am keen to bring in Stella Creasy for a quick question, and then Angus for a quick answer, please.
Stella Creasy
Q
Angus Robertson: I am all in favour of good intergovernmental relations. I have been doing this job since last year, and I have gone into conversations in good faith about any and every potential challenge. If that is one of them, I am happy to do so again.
The wider point is that we are supposed to have a range of measures that we can use to make devolution work, including the Sewel convention. We have subsequently agreed ways in which Governments in the UK should work together to push through potential challenges, and common frameworks and the like are supposed to deal with some of these issues. I wish the UK Government would live up to their promises to work with the devolved Administrations across the UK, as I am keen to do. They have an opportunity to do so by respecting the Sewel convention in this particular piece of legislation.
The Chair
Thank you so much. Your evidence has been very clear, but sadly we have run out of time. It is very nice to see you again.
Angus Robertson: Thanks for having me.
Examination of Witnesses
Michael Clancy OBE, Charles Whitmore and Dr Viviane Gravey gave evidence.
The Chair
I thank our final set of witnesses for being patient—we have run slightly over time because of the Division in the House of Commons. We will now hear oral evidence from Michael Clancy, director of law reform at the Law Society of Scotland; Charles Whitmore, research associate at the School of Law and Politics at Cardiff University; and Dr Viviane Gravey of the School of History, Anthropology, Philosophy and Politics at Queen’s University Belfast. All three witnesses are appearing via Zoom. We have until 5.23 pm.
Would the witnesses introduce themselves for the record, please? Let us start with Mr Clancy—[Interruption.] We cannot hear you at the moment—[Interruption.] Okay, we are having technical problems. We will suspend briefly and someone will do something with a hammer.
The Chair
I hope that we have got it right this time. Would our witnesses like to try introducing themselves again, please?
Michael Clancy: Thank you, Sir Gary. My name is Michael Clancy. I am director of law reform at the Law Society of Scotland.
Dr Gravey: I am Viviane Gravey, a senior lecturer in European politics at Queen’s University Belfast. I am also co-chair of Brexit & Environment, a network of academics looking at the impact of Brexit on the environment.
Charles Whitmore: My name is Charles Whitmore. I am a research associate with Cardiff University’s Wales Governance Centre, where I lead on its joint work with the Wales Council for Voluntary Action, which is the national membership body for charities in Wales, on the constitutional and legal changes arising from, in this case, withdrawal from the EU.
Justin Madders
Q
Dr Gravey: Thank you very much for the question. It is true that, in any case, there will be many more concerns for Northern Ireland. We have two different types of concern. First, it will be more complex for Northern Ireland, and secondly, in the absence of an Assembly or Executive, it will be harder for Northern Ireland to either participate in the retained EU law powers or to give any kind of oversight.
In terms of how it is more complex for Northern Ireland, there were some mistakes in the discussion this morning around the scope of the Bill when it comes to Northern Ireland, in clause 1(5). That is basically just about excluding, as with the rest of the UK, a primary role from the scope of the Bill. Basically, that is there because we sometimes have direct rule in Northern Ireland. There are Orders in Council, and they are not secondary legislation, but there are statutory instruments and statutory rules in Northern Ireland that will fall within the scope of the Bill.
The protocol comes in in two different ways. First, because of the protocol, we have retained EU law in Northern Ireland, but we also have a different type of EU-inspired legislation, which is directly applicable EU law, through the annex to the protocol. There is some question about the overlap between those two groups, and what will happen, for example, if we start removing or adding protocol laws that do different things from retained EU law. We have a very complex system in Northern Ireland right now. That is one of the issues.
The other issue is, as I think you have heard, about the primacy of EU law. That will be removed by the Bill, but it is maintained and reaffirmed in the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which is also in front of the Commons. How those two Bills will work together is one of the big questions, and I do not think anyone has an answer. Civil society and Government—Ministers and civil servants—in Northern Ireland have a lot of questions, and there are concerns that we are not getting answers or clarity from the UK Government on this.
Justin Madders
Q
Dr Gravey: Again, there are two different impacts. There is the impact on deciding on REUL, and what happens on the revoking end impacts on oversight. Before we lost our Ministers at the end of last month, some of the Departments had started work on mapping REUL. We know that the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has identified around 600. The Department for Infrastructure has identified around 500. But the other Departments have not yet told us how many. It looks like the Northern Ireland Office is pushing the Departments to do something, but there is very little clarity. On a NI dashboard, for example, it is very unclear what we are going to get —if anything.
The other point is on consent and oversight for REUL. Through the UK Brexit SIs, we experienced that best efforts at involving the devolved Administrations were very limited in practice. On the environment and agriculture, for example, the experience in Northern Ireland has been that, even when the Assembly returned in 2020, the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and DAERA were getting only parts of the Brexit SIs, and they got them very late, with very little time to engage at all with stakeholders or to provide consent. That was when we had an Assembly. When we did not have an Assembly—for most of the Brexit process—there was no formal process for stakeholder engagement and involvement in the massive change that has already happened for the creation of retained EU law.
The fact that this Bill creates even more of an opportunity to change a vast amount of legislation even more deeply, and the lack of an Assembly, leads to the concern—the Scottish Minister said this earlier—that decisions will be made without the involvement of devolved citizens. That is even more the case in Northern Ireland because we do not have the mechanism for normal consent through the Assembly and the Executive.
The Chair
Q
Michael Clancy: The Law Society of Scotland’s principal concerns are about the potential for confusion and the lack of clarity about what the law is, what law applies and when it applies. In particular, we think that the sunset provisions are unduly short. We are told that the sunset will operate from the end of 2023—a phrase that lacks some statutory precision, I might say, so we will be preparing amendments to deal with that.
There is also a lack of clarity about what comes afterwards. It will be difficult for citizens and businesses to deal with even the provisions about replacement, restatement and the creation of the new category of assimilated law in a short—apparently very compressed—period of time, and without the adequate consultation that one would expect when this sort of law is changed. I hope that is helpful.
The Chair
That is very helpful. Mr Whitmore?
Charles Whitmore: It is important to emphasise as a starting point just how significant the Bill is from a devolved perspective. There has not as yet been sufficient consideration of the implications at the governmental level. It is not evident to me, from the Bill and the Bill documents, that sufficient consideration has been given to that.
For instance, there is a lack of a consent mechanism, despite that being contrary to practice in recent legislation. The clause 2 extension power is not being granted to devolved authorities. There is significant uncertainty about how the legislation might interact with different levels of governance and the different levels of inter-dependence therein. Crucially, we do not know much yet about what mechanisms relating to institutions for intergovernmental relations we might need, have or lack so that we can ensure co-operation in what is fundamentally a shared policy space.
It is important that those issues are given due consideration, ideally prior to the introduction of the legislation. Not having an understanding of them could amplify the significant risks of omissions and accidents arising from the sunset mechanism.
A second core concern for us is the legal uncertainty, which I am sure the previous panels spoke to you about. There is significant scope for the Bill to lead to legal uncertainty, and that is compounded at the devolved level because our capacity constraints are probably more acute, so the time sensitivity is even greater, and because there is uncertainty around how you address the tensions in the Bill at an intergovernmental level.
For instance, we do not know how different parts of the UK will make use of the powers in the Bill. Which will fall within the market access principles of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020? Will they fall within or without an area covered by a common framework? If you start thinking about the different uses that might be made of the restatement powers, and which parts of the UK might take different approaches to supremacy and the general principles, the level of uncertainty really does start to get quite extreme.
Ms Ghani
Q
Michael Clancy: In terms of the EU legislating differently from Scotland, it all depends on what was meant by that phrase, Minister. I am therefore kind of in the dark about what you are asking me to comment on. Certainly, the EU is a completely different legislative creature from legislatures within the UK. It operates in the field of supranational law, rather than national law, and has a different mechanism in the relationship between the Parliament, the Commission and the Council. Those are significant differences constitutionally from the way in which we operate, but I am not really sure what your fundamental objective is?
Ms Ghani
Q
Michael Clancy: As you might have seen from our evidence, we took a lead from the comments made by Theresa May when she was Prime Minister about the creation of retained EU law as a route to certainty following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. Of course, it is always in the gift of Governments to change tack. To change to a different legislative structure, following the creation of retained EU law, is certainly possible, and the Bill seeks to do that, but I suppose the question is whether it is wise to do that in the time of the current economic crisis in which we are living.
Is it wise to do that with what could be described as a doctrinaire approach to time limits? The symbolic element of the later time by which changes can take place terminating 10 years after the referendum is all very well in terms of the political discourse, but will it be practicable to get to that point? Will there be adequate time for consultation with relevant individuals and businesses before that date arrives? Those are real issues embedded in the Bill.
There is then of course the issue that Mr Robertson and others talked about: the way in which all that interacts with the devolved Administrations and legislatures, and how they can deal with that approach to changing REUL. That is where one would want to criticise the Bill and ensure that we get it right if the changes are to proceed.
Ms Ghani
Q
“The UK government is in effect telling the devolved administrations to put on hold a lot of their priorities if they want to keep the status quo in any areas such as the environment where REUL plays a significant role.”
The compatibility and preservation powers in the Bill have been drafted as concurrent powers allowing either the devolved Administrations or UK Ministers to use them in devolved areas, or acting jointly. Those concurrent powers mean that devolved Administrations do not necessarily have to put on hold their priorities or allocate significant resources if they wish to maintain the status quo. Do you not agree?
Dr Gravey: Thank you so much, first of all for having read the blog—
Ms Ghani
I will never get those hours of my life back. That is fine. Please carry on.
Dr Gravey: Just the fact of the need to map all retained EU law in the devolved sphere is something that the devolved Administrations had not planned to do, and are being asked to do. Whether we can restate everything or not, there is one thing that as a Minister you might be able to help us with. Through transposition back in the ’90s or 2000s, a single SI might have been taken for the whole of the UK, even though it is an area of devolved competence. Can the different Administrations now each retain or amend that same SI differently? Can we have that kind of restatement of devolution powers?
There is a potential issue there. We are not sure what will happen when there was only one Brexit SI or one SI that was transposed back in the ’90s. For example, in some cases, transposition has been done by primary legislation in Scotland but secondary legislation in the rest of the UK.
We have all these things that have to be mapped. The mapping itself will take a lot of time, as we know from past SIs work. On the devolved Administration point, a lot of the worry is just going through and potentially making the case that at this point they need to have the right to retain something, although it is perhaps revoked in England. The impression that I have from my engagement with the Administrations is that there are some concerns there. If the UK Government are willing to say, “Don’t worry, even if it is the same SI, you can retain it while we revoke it”, that will reassure the devolved Administrations a lot.
Michael Clancy: May I say that I do not think that concurrent and joint are the same thing? We talk about powers granted to devolved Administrations being conferred concurrently and jointly. Concurrently means that they are used either by a UK Minister or by a devolved Administration independently of each another in devolved areas, whereas jointly means that a UK Minister and a devolved Administration are acting together. It is useful to get that kind of distinction on the record.
The Chair
Thank you, that is very helpful.
Charles Whitmore: While we are on the concurrency of the powers, I think this is a significant concern. It is a constitutional anomaly within our legislation that the UK Government can use concurrent powers in the Bill to legislate in areas of devolved competence without any form of seeking consent from relevant devolved Ministers. It is egregiously out of keeping not only with the Sewel convention, which is already under significant strain but with other EU withdrawal-related pieces of legislation.
Sections 6(7), (8), (9) and section 10(9) of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 require the UK Government to seek the consent of devolved authorities before making regulations and to publish a statement as to—if this is the case—why they are going ahead with that, despite potential devolved refusal. We have mechanisms in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act itself, and an intergovernmental agreement alongside, which provide a consent mechanism so that there is a recognition that this is a jointly shared space. It is quite odd that there is no consent mechanism of that nature in this Bill.
Justin Madders
Q
Michael Clancy: It might be difficult to get a protocol into the Bill, but if one recollects, in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act it was a long tussle between the Government and the other parliamentary participants in making reference to common frameworks in that measure.
One can say that under the EUWA arrangements for making retained EU law that had to be made by UK Ministers, a protocol was established between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament where Scottish Ministers would indicate to the Parliament certain UK measures that would affect devolved matters. The Parliament would consider them and rank them according to whether they were significant or less so. Something like 83 separate orders were dealt with in that way, in terms of creating retained European Union law at that time over the period from 2018 to 2021.
Dr Gravey: If I can just add to that, of course a consent mechanism would be welcome, although we have seen some issues. What has been put in place for REUL around the withdrawal Act has been inter-governmental, so we are removing oversight in Parliament—both in Westminster and in the devolved Administrations—from the equation. They only come in because it is in the gift of the Scottish Government and Welsh Government to involve them, and because they have decided to involve them, but the agreement is between the UK Government and, for example, the Welsh Government.
Secondly, the absence of an Executive in Northern Ireland raises the question of how we can get consent. Can we have some kind of role for the civil service in Northern Ireland to grant consent? Can we have some role for the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the House of Commons to review some of this work? We do not know, but we need to think about it, because the absence of an Executive in Northern Ireland will be a rolling issue, and consent has to be rethought around that.
The Chair
Thank you very much—a final word from Mr Clancy.
Michael Clancy: That is a very important point about the role of intergovernmental relations in all this. We had a long period of reflection on intergovernmental relations, which resulted in the new structure being created earlier this year. One of its key aspects is that the relations should facilitate effective collaboration and regular engagement in the context of increased interaction between devolved and reserved competences in our new relationship with the EU and other global partners. The issue of intergovernmental relations has already anticipated that, and we should not necessarily want to reinvent the wheel. Instead, I suggest that we need to reflect on the structure of intergovernmental relations and see whether there is anything that can be developed or, alternatively, refocused on the issues that arise from the Bill.
The Chair
Thank you very much. There are no further questions, but you have given us a lot to think about. I am sorry for the technical glitch and the delay at the beginning, but thank you for your expert and excellent evidence. We will take it into account as we take forward our Committee proceedings.
Colleagues, I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted—I know you will be upset—for the Committee to ask questions in this sitting. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. The Whip is about to prepare to move the adjournment, and the Committee will next meet on Tuesday 22 November for line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I cannot wait.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Joy Morrissey).
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (Third sitting)
Tuesday 22nd November 2022
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRetained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 November 2022 - (22 Nov 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. I have a few preliminary announcements. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order they are debated but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates.
A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any amendments within the group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they need to let me know.
Clause 1
Sunset of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out “2023” and insert “2026”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 28, changes the date that the revocation of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation would take effect to the end of 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 28, in clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out “2023” and insert “2026”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 26, changes the date that the revocation of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation would take effect to the end of 2026.
Brendan O’Hara
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir George. Amendments 26 and 28, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes, would change the date on which revocation would take effect from the end of 2023 to the end of 2026, essentially moving the date of the sunset clause by three years, from the totally unrealistic and unachievable to something that is still extremely challenging but is at least on the margins of the possible.
Before I address the amendments directly, it is worth pointing out that they have been tabled, like all the others, to try to make a thoroughly rotten Bill a little bit better, and should not be viewed in any way as we on the Opposition Benches giving any succour or support to the Bill. As we have said throughout its passage, the Bill is a dreadful piece of legislation that we will oppose at every step of the way, but if we can help to make it less awful, we will.
I have to begin by asking the Government why they are pushing ahead with the Bill. The architects are gone; it really belongs to another age, when the true believers were in charge, pushing the myth of the sunlit uplands of Brexit. We said it was rubbish then, and as we survey the wreckage of the UK economy post Brexit, it is demonstrable rubbish now. Why are the Government pushing ahead? We are in the middle of an economic crisis. People cannot heat their homes. Children are growing up in poverty. Food banks are being used by millions. Yet the Government are introducing arbitrary targets, which even if they could be achieved would consume just about every Government Department for the next 12 months, not just here but in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast too. As the former senior civil servant in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Jill Rutter told BBC Radio 4:
“If you look at my old department, they have about 500 pieces of law they need to look at…even if they worked every day to the end of 2023, they’d be reviewing whether they keep or allow to lapse a piece of law a day”.
At the moment, an eye-watering 3,800 pieces of EU legislation face the sunset clause on 31 December next year. On Second Reading a few weeks ago, that figure was considerably lower. In the intervening few weeks, no fewer than 1,400 other pieces of legislation have been discovered, and goodness knows how many more are yet to be identified. If the Bill passes unamended, all those will be added to the almost 4,000 existing pieces of legislation that will be sunsetted in 13 months’ time. Why on earth did the Government set such an arbitrary deadline for themselves? Why would they introduce a totally unnecessary cliff edge on such a vital piece of legislation about workers’ rights, environmental protections, food standards and so much more? It makes no sense whatsoever.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Like my hon. Friend, I have been puzzling over why the Government are so determined to die in a ditch over this 2023 date. Does he think it is because instead of admitting to the public that they made promises in 2019 they could not possibly keep— having realised that the promise in 2019 to get Brexit done was completely unrealistic—they are prepared to crash the economy in order to go into a 2024 election saying they have got Brexit done?
Brendan O’Hara
I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say by way of explanation. I agree with my hon. Friend. It makes absolutely no sense, unless the arbitrary deadline is purely ideologically driven and there to appease the true believers, who have now resumed languishing on the Back Benches.
In response to the sunset clause of the Bill, the Scottish warned that it
“carries an unacceptable risk that vital law, on which the smooth functioning of sectors of the economy and society depends, simply drops off the UK statute book.”
If the Government will not listen to us, perhaps they will take heed of the warning from the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who said that the Australia and New Zealand trade deals were so poor because of the Government’s self-imposed arbitrary targets. Of course, Members on the Government Benches will say that there are extensions available if they are applied for, but that ignores the fact that the relevant Departments still have to go through and identify at least 3,800 pieces of pertinent legislation, and then someone has to decide what happens next.
Even then, it is far from clear. Does the Secretary of State get to decide that an extension is allowed? Will a decision be made by the Cabinet or at a Cabinet Sub-Committee? Will a separate body be set up to specifically to examine which legislation can and cannot be granted an extension? Let us not forget that if this is not all done and dusted in 13 months, every piece of EU retained legislation will by default fall off the statute book, leaving huge holes in our domestic legislation.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Could the hon. Gentleman indicate whether he and his party are entirely happy with every aspect of EU retained law? If not, which aspects does he feel should be swept away?
Brendan O’Hara
The right hon. Gentleman misses the point. It is about a much wider area: the principle of sunsetting by the end of next year. It is a legal minefield. If we are determined to travel through it, let nobody come back in a year’s time and say, “We didn’t know”, because it is perfectly obvious. The case has been made perfectly clear; sunsetting by December 2023 is well-nigh impossible and will lead to huge dangers. It is a disaster waiting to happen. Today the Government have the chance to finally accept that the price of appeasing their true believers is a price too high. I urge them to accept our amendment.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir George. I will start by echoing the comments of the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. We do not think the Bill is fit for purpose. We will try to help the Government to improve the Bill with the amendments we will be moving, but fundamentally we think its approach is flawed, not least the subject of this amendment—the unnecessary and entirely artificial cliff edge, which is driven by political considerations, not practical ones.
I have yet to hear any justification for the deadline of 31 December 2023, other than the belief—seemingly rooted in fantasy—that unless we free ourselves of the shackles of these regulations by that date, we can never prosper as a country. That is a fantasy, because whenever a Department is asked to identify which regulations it no longer wants, all we hear is silence. We are told that we must hurry along and free ourselves of the 2,400 or 3,800 regulations—or however many they turn out to be—that are holding us back. The best I have heard any Government Minister say so far is something about vacuum cleaner power, but given the chaos of the past few months I am not sure anyone can seriously say that the reason for our current economic mess is that we do not have sufficient control over our hoovers.
I do understand the need to have a finite date. I understand the importance of having a target to work towards, but the date has been plucked out of thin air, seemingly at random, and we should not accept it unless a compelling and rational case is put forward. The Regulatory Policy Committee has said that setting a deadline is not enough, and that a stronger argument is needed for choosing that particular date, and I agree. The truth is that there is no better reason for that date having been chosen than the Prime Minister of the day, or the week, being able to say, “We will have put an end to all unnecessary EU burdens by the end of next year”—never mind that the Government cannot tell us what those burdens are, or why the end of 2023 is better than the end of 2024, 2025 or 2026. What we can say for certain, though, is that there will not be sufficient capacity in the civil service for a genuinely effective appraisal of the regulations that the Bill seeks to remove. The case for the cliff edge is incredibly weak; the arguments for removing it and putting the date back are much stronger.
Let us look at the numbers for a moment—although, of course, the numbers are something of a moveable feast. If we accept the newspaper reports that 3,800 statutory instruments will come within the ambit of the Bill, and presume—because we have not heard anything to the contrary—that the Government want to keep the majority of them, more statutory instruments would need something doing to them as a result of the Bill than were passed in the whole of last year. Of course, we had many extra regulations in that year due to covid, and plenty of people think the scrutiny of those particular instruments was not at the required level, so even under the most generous interpretation, we are looking at possibly doubling from last year the number of statutory instruments, if everything is to be passed before the end of next year.
It will be in half the time, as well. Let us assume for now that the Government press on with the Bill—although there is still some doubt about that, I believe—and it gets to the Lords early next year. There will probably be a bit of to and fro, given the significant constitutional elements this legislation contains, so it will not get Royal Assent until well into the spring. At best, that gives the Government six, seven or eight months to restate all the laws that will be covered by the Bill, so will the Minister tell us how many extra staff each Department has been assigned to deal with the additional workload? Have they been given any deadlines to work to? As we know, the Financial Times reported on 27 October that the Minister’s Department, with 300 pieces of EU law, would need an extra 400 staff to review the body of retained EU law. What does that mean if we extrapolate it across the whole of Government? How many extra staff will be needed overall in anticipation of the Bill?
The Financial Times also reported that “Whitehall insiders”—I never quite know who those people are, but they obviously have sufficient insight to talk to the press—are saying that
“reviewing the majority of retained EU law by 2023 would present a massive bureaucratic burden. One senior Whitehall official estimated that between 1,000 and 1,500 statutory instruments would be required in order to convert retained EU law that was deemed necessary on to the UK statute book.”
No wonder the impact assessments are silent on the issue of the sunset date. The Regulatory Policy Committee has made clear that it believes the analysis of that sunset date is inadequate. I refer to a newspaper report in the Financial Times, which said that Government officials are considering whether to press ahead with the 2023 sunset clause. I do not know if that is news to the Minister, but it is hot off the press. According to the article, Government officials have said that the Prime Minister and the Business Secretary have “yet to decide whether to stick to the 2023 deadline or push it back.”
No. 10 said,
“It’s too early to say.”
I am afraid it is not too early to say because we are debating it right now. If the Government have plans to push back the sunset, it will be useful to hear. If the Minister is able to comment on that report when she responds, I would be obliged.
I remind the Committee what Mark Fenhalls of the Bar Council said in the evidence session:
“I am no expert in how much civil service time exists, but I would be astonished if it were remotely possible to cover but a fraction of this. I do not know why it is set up as anything other than a political problem.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 28, Q56.]
That is the nub of the issue. This is a politically generated deadline that is going to cause problems, but if the Committee needs further persuasion, I also refer to the written evidence of the Bar Council, which raised the alarm when it said:
“The setting of an arbitrary, and in all the circumstances, impractical sunset date, with the consequent and entirely unnecessary risk of the disappearance of rules of critical importance to business, consumers, employees and the environment (some of which, due to their sheer numbers, may only be missed once lost) without adequate consideration or any consultation, and conferring an entirely unfettered and unscrutinised discretion to Ministers to disapply or delay the sunset provision or not; as well as the attendant risk of rushed replacement legislation”.
Eleonor Duhs also told us in the evidence session:
“In order to get the statute book ready for Brexit, which was in some ways a much more simple task than this, it took over two years and over 600 pieces of legislation. The reason I say it was a simpler task is that we were essentially making the statute book work without the co-operation framework of the EU. We were taking out references to the European Commission and replacing them with ‘Secretary of State’—that sort of thing. That was a much simpler task than what we have here, and that took over two and a half years.
A lot of areas also have several pieces of amending legislation… There may be huge policy changes under this legislation, and the end of 2023 is simply not a realistic timeframe for the process.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 29, Q56.]
There is plenty of evidence of concern out there, indicating that we should look again at the sunset. If Members are reassured that there is departmental and civil service capacity to handle all that in the time required, perhaps they should also consider the scrutiny aspects of the sunset, and whether Parliament will be able to fulfil its role properly in the time available. As George Peretz said in the evidence session:
“the sunset clause does interrelate with the question of Minister’s powers. One of the problems with the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny is that although one hears that Parliament has powers—in some cases via the negative or affirmative resolution procedures—the background against which it is being asked to approve legislation means that if it votes against that legislation, the sunset clause will apply and regulations disappear completely, rather weakening Parliament’s ability to do anything.
To take an example, if Ministers decided to keep the working time rules but rewrite them to make them less favourable to employees, and came up with the new regulations in November 2023, those rewritten regulations would probably be introduced under the affirmative procedure. However, when the House of Commons voted on them, Ministers would say, ‘You may not like these revised regulations very much, but if you do not vote for them, the alternative is that we will not have any regulations at all.’ That weakens Parliament’s ability to control the exercise of ministerial power.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 32, Q61.]
I do not want to be back here in a year’s time faced with a choice between accepting a reduction in the number of days of paid holiday that people are entitled to from, say, 28 to 10, and the alternative—people having no right to paid holiday at all—because we have been forced up to a precipice due to the timescale set out in the Bill. That is not Parliament taking back control.
I am not alone in my concerns. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee raised concerns about primary legislation and said that
“where little of the policy is included on the face of the bill”
but where Parliament is asked
“to pass primary legislation which is so insubstantial that it leaves the real operation of legislation to be decided by ministers”,
this reduces any parliamentary scrutiny to a bare minimum, and we are left only with
“delegated legislation which Parliament cannot amend but only accept or reject, with rejection being a rare occurrence and fraught with difficulty.”
That Committee further warned that
“the abuse of delegated powers is in effect an abuse of Parliament and an abuse of democracy”.
It is a shame that the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), did not take his own advice on that issue before he drafted the Bill. When he was Leader of the House, in response to the Committee’s report into the frequent use of skeleton Bills during the period of the pandemic, he said that it did not
“necessarily provide a model example of how Parliament would like to see legislation brought forward”,
and that he would be
“encouraging them to minimise the use of delegated powers where possible”.
However, here we are today.
Finally, I will respond to the argument that there is already provision in the Bill to address the sunset. The problem is that that can apply to laws only if we know about them in the first place. There is also the prospect that we end up with a potpourri of sunset dates, because it could be any time between now and 2026. That just creates more uncertainty and confusion, and uncertainty for businesses that are trying to invest.
In conclusion, we support the amendments because 2023 is a deadline in search of a headline. It is not a serious proposition and it should be rejected. Parliament legislated, as we were preparing to leave the EU, to avoid a cliff edge. It seems illogical and reckless in the extreme to be now deliberately creating one when we are so close to the precipice.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir George, as indeed I believe it will be throughout the Bill Committee. I am sure that we will have a wonderful and detailed discussion. Government Members are laughing about that idea. Maybe that is the irony about all of this, because, when we were told that Brexit should happen, it was about “taking back control” for this place. Well, let us give some control to this place in the proper scrutiny of this legislation. I support the comments of my Front Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and of the hon. Members from further north than me—the hon. Members for Glenrothes and for Argyll and Bute—on these amendments.
Amendments 26 and 28 are critical. Let us start this debate by being absolutely clear; this Bill has nothing to do with Brexit. Brexit has happened. It may be continuing to cause many problems, but it has actually happened. However, the Bill is not what Brexit was about, because the Bill is a process and it has everything to do with a knee-jerk obsession with the idea that something with the word “Europe” in must be bad. That obsession will cause catastrophic devastation for our constituents, because the process that the Bill brings forward is incredibly destructive.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, it is a deadline in search of a headline. That seems a rather poetic attempt to say something simpler, which is that nobody quite understands why the Government are doing it in this way. After all, when we look at the amendments that have been tabled, and at the evidence that has been given, not a single piece of evidence has been provided in support of this approach. That is a startling thing to recognise. Nobody knows why these particular laws are up for abolition, all in one go, apart from the fact that they contain “Europe” at some point in their titles.
That knee-jerk reaction is incredibly dangerous because it means that we will delete things that we did not even know were on the statute book, as things stand. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of serving in a Delegated Legislation Committee—I suspect that we will have thousands more if this legislation goes through—where the Ministers were not aware of the foundations of the laws that they were trying to amend. They were technical amendments, they said, to do with pollutants, rooted in European legislation.
Now, that is not a case for staying in the European Union; as I said, we have left. I would take up the challenge of the right hon. Member for Clwyd West, who talked about other laws we would want to change. Of course, there are laws we want to change in this place; nobody ever says that the statute book is the preserve of being correct, apart from Governments who are frightened of scrutiny.
The amendments have a simple, pragmatic basis: what this Government are trying to do is too big to do in one year. It is a very simple proposition, and we want to hold the Government accountable for the consequences of trying to delete everything all at once. One might look at the amendment paper and think that there are 50 ways to leave the European Union using this legislation, given all the different amendments that have been tabled. I prefer to think of Warren G, and his debate around “Regulate”, because this Bill is ultimately about the regulations that we have in this country—everyday rules that make such a massive difference to the people of this country.
I know we will come on to those, Sir George, so I will not test your patience by listing them, but that is why this sunset clause matters. When the Government are putting up for grabs people’s rights not just to a paid holiday or maternity rights, but to compensation, to not have cancer-causing chemicals in their cosmetics, to be able to watch the Olympics free of charge, or around compensation if they are artists—thousands and thousands of regulations that have been part of the social fabric of this country for generations—it is right to ask whether deleting all of them in one year, with no guarantee about what will come next, is the right way to approach the matter.
The debate we had yesterday in a Delegated Legislation Committee on the Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022 was a classic example of what the folly is. Not only was it not clear to the Minister which amendments would be deleted by the legislation we are debating, which then underpinned the Statutory Instrument that the Minster was presenting, but she could not clarify what would come next. She made a strong case about the importance of protecting us and protecting against the ways in which pollutants might be used within the chemical industry, but if we do not amend the legislation, that case will fall in a year’s time—by the sheer fact that the very legislation which underpinned the proposals, the technical amendments the Minister was trying to make, will also fall, because the Government are deleting absolutely everything.
During the passage of the Bill, let no one say that the concerns being raised are about whether Brexit should have happened. Brexit is done. This is about the folly of hitting “delete”, “control” and “alt” at the same time—then hoping we can remember what was taken out and that in a single year everything can be replaced. Six hundred statutory instruments were introduced during the Brexit process and anyone who was here at the time—I know that not everyone was—will remember the hours we spent in Committee Rooms. Here we have five times the number in a single year.
Some may suggest that Members of Parliament are lazy, that they do not do very much. Some even suggest that Ministers—current or former—might have time to go into a jungle. I know, however, that no one thinks it really feasible that we will have 167 days of non-stop Delegated Legislation Committees, yet that is exactly what this legislation will require if we stick to this particular sunset clause for everything. At the moment, given the way in which the Bill is drafted, it does indeed cover everything—and that is without beginning the process of what we want to keep and what we want to get rid of. The point of all this is that there are things the Government want to change. Those of us who are democrats believe that the Government ought to set out what regulations they intend to remove, because that is what taking back control really meant. Again, if we have only one year in which people are to understand quite how the Government wish to change their rights to paid holiday, it seems not unreasonable to expect the Minister to give us some idea of the direction of travel before we hit delete—but, again, we have nothing.
The amendment is simply about setting a calmer course of action. I think we owe that to all our constituents. I do not think there is a single member of the Committee who in recent weeks and months has not dealt with constituents who are terrified about the status quo, terrified about what is happening now and worried whether they will get through Christmas. It is not unreasonable to say that our primary focus is stabilising the economy and we will not do anything that would undermine that. Whether someone is a passionate believer that Brexit still brings opportunities—and I say good luck to them, and also, “We all know of a good therapist”—or whether they were worried at the time that this was a high risk to take, recognition that the pace of change is best tackled in a measured and orderly fashion is something I am sure we can all agree on. The amendment is about the pace of change, not the change itself. It is about recognising that in an economy that is struggling, we cannot rip up every single regulation, not provide any clarity about what comes next in under a year, then expect Parliament to find the time to write all those regulations—or, indeed, to find all the regulations; we will come on to the question of whether we know about everything that is going to be deleted. Yesterday, Ministers from DEFRA certainly did not; and the Whips even suggested that it was a problem for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy rather than for DEFRA. I am sure it was news to the Minister in that Committee that she is now responsible for persistent organic pollutants on top of everything else.
I urge Government Members not to see this as about stopping Brexit, because Brexit has happened; but, rather, to see this as the best course of action to show that Brexit could work for this country. That means taking a simple proposal about how best to look at the legislation and its rubric. If we are going to find 4,000 hours of parliamentary scrutiny for delegated legislation, what are Ministers not going to be able to do? If we are going to find the civil servants to be able to deal with all this legislation, what else are they not going to be able to do? Are we confident that the next year will not bring further crises that will require our time, effort and energy? Are we confident that what is happening in Europe right now will not lead to further challenges that we would be better off putting our time, effort and energy towards?
I know that Government Members want to believe that the amendments are about opposing Brexit, but they are about opposing chaos. Government Members will have to explain to people how we will find parliamentary time, let alone find all the regulations. I note that the Minister said she would tell us what other regulations would be affected after we had passed the legislation, which does not inspire massive confidence. If not today, I hope that Government Members will reflect, and perhaps use the opportunity of those press reports to urge a calmer course of action. I think that all our constituents would thank us for it at a later date.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
On a point of order, Sir George. The hon. Member for Walthamstow mentioned at the beginning of her speech that Government Members were laughing. That was not true. I wonder whether we could ask the Hansard Reporters to strike that from the record.
The Chair
Order. I am not responsible for any comments that the hon. Lady might make. I was not aware of anybody laughing, but that does not necessarily mean to say that they were not.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Sir George. I was hoping to make the exact same point. If it will not be stricken from the record, the Hansard Reporters should ensure that the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil are noted.
The Chair
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I think I have already dealt with the point.
Stella Creasy
Further to that point of order, Sir George. I merely rise to clarify that if somebody had a twinkle in their eye, I would consider that to be laughing. It might not have been heard by everyone, but I did not mean to suggest that anybody does not think that this is a serious matter; it was merely a wry reflection on the challenge ahead of us. I hope that the rest of the Committee’s proceedings will follow in good spirit and humour accordingly.
The Chair
I think the hon. Lady is trying to restore the calm that she referred to in her speech. I am sure that she has done so.
The Minister for Industry and Investment Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I hope that, over the next few—or many—days, proceedings will be conducted as calmly as possible. To start on a friendly note, I wish the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston a happy birthday—the big five-0. Now he will not talk to me any more.
I reject amendments 26 and 28, which would change the sunset date from 2023, as well as the date to which the sunset may be extended under the extension power. I am grateful that, although amendment 26 is not appropriate for the Bill, some hon. Members who spoke in support of it at least acknowledged that a sunset will be a valuable tool in dealing with retained EU law. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, for whom I always have a huge amount of time, say that he will oppose every step of the Bill. Fundamentally, he is just opposing Brexit, and we really cannot rehash the same conversation over and over. The hon. Member for Walthamstow referred to Brexit as a process. This is part of the process, so we need to crack on. We need a sunset date, otherwise it will be 20-on-the-never-never.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I, and I think a lot of Opposition Members, have some sympathy for the Minister in having to defend the indefensible—a piece of legacy legislation. Has she seen the report in the Financial Times this morning? Her boss is apparently briefing that the sunset clause is inappropriate for next December. His aides are saying:
“Grant thinks things should be done at a more sane pace”,
reflecting all the evidence that we have received. When will she put us out of our misery and acknowledge that the December 2023 sunset date is madness?
Ms Ghani
If I have to respond to every item in a newspaper, regardless of where it comes from, we will be here much longer than we are already committed to be. If the hon. Member gives me a few moments, I will explain why the sunset date matters. As he says, many people are concerned about the timelines in the Bill, but I assure the Committee that there is definitely not a cliff edge. I want to respond to allegations of a bureaucratic burden—although that would assume that we would never have any change. This process is not simple, but we are not in government to do simple things; that is the honest truth.
Paul Blomfield
The Minister says that work is taking place in every Department. The Government clearly have a lot concerning them at the moment and many priorities. What assessment has been made of the amount of civil service time that will be involved? We have seen many estimates of hundreds of civil servants having to be devoted solely to this work, so I assume that the Government have done an evaluation of the impact. Can the Minister share that with us?
Ms Ghani
Every time the Government put forward a piece of legislation, Government resources are focused on that piece of legislation to ensure that it is delivered. We have a Brexit Opportunities Unit in place as well. The assumption that resources are not moved around to get a piece of legislation through is slightly absurd. We understand that it is a piece of work that needs to be done, that it is a process and we have a deadline, but the work will be done.
Ms Ghani
If the hon. Member gives me a moment to expand a little more I can explain; I will then take interventions from the birthday boy. Officials have catalogued retained EU law across Government, which has been collated, as part of the cross-varietal substance review of retained EU law, into the dashboard that was published on 22 June. Crucially, powers in the Bill have been drafted to ensure that the current date is workable. The preservation power enables UK Ministers and devolved authorities to keep specific pieces of legislation that would otherwise be subject to sunset where the legislation meets a desired policy effect, without having fully to restate or otherwise amend the legislation.
The power to revoke or replace the compatibility power and the power to restate assimilated law will be available until 23 June 2026, while the power to update will be a continuous power. These powers have the ability to amend assimilated law once the sunset date has passed and retained EU law is no longer a legal category; that means that Departments can preserve their retained EU law so that it becomes assimilated law after the sunset date, and amend it further beyond that date if required. In addition, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will be working closely with other Government Departments, as well as devolved Governments, to ensure that appropriate actions are taken before the sunset date. Finally, the extension mechanism in clause 2 ensures that, should more time be required fully to review the changes needed to retained EU law, the sunset can be extended for specific provisions or descriptions of retained EU law until 23 June 2026.
Peter Grant
The Minister has tried heroically but unsuccessfully, I am afraid, to argue that this arbitrary deadline will not place enormous strain on a civil service that is already under enormous strain. Can she look at it from the opposite direction? Can she explain why it would be bad to set an absolute deadline of 2026? If Departments and Ministers are able to sort things out by the end of 2023, they can do so in a safe environment where they are not under pressure to get it done quickly, with the possible consequence that it would then be done wrong.
Ms Ghani
I simply do not recognise that the added burden means that the programme of work cannot be deliverable. I mentioned the fact that we have an ability to provide an extension, depending on what that piece of legislation is. What we do not want to do is undermine focus on delivering the bulk of the work by the sunset date that is in place at the moment.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the Minister’s references to my special day, which will now be recorded forever more. She mentioned the Brexit opportunities team. Who is the Minister responsible for that team?
Ms Ghani
The Brexit opportunities team sits in BEIS and it works across Whitehall. This programme of work is being delivered with the team and across all Whitehall Departments as well; the focus of the work that is taking place is across Whitehall. Any anxiety that people are not working closely or collectively is for the birds. The fact that we have a deadline means that it focused everyone’s mind and attention.
Justin Madders
This is a very important piece of work, as the Minister has outlined. There must be a Minister who is responsible for it. Who is that? Who can we ask and speak to about this issue, because this is clearly a matter of important scrutiny?
Ms Ghani
I am not sure exactly what the hon. Member wants to speak about with regard to the Bill. I am here to perform my role and deliver this piece of legislation. We have a Secretary of State and we know that the Prime Minister is delivering on this piece of legislation as well. I am not sure what further contact the hon. Member needs.
Alongside amendment 26, amendment 28 would have very little impact, as clause 2 would still specify that 2026 was the maximum date that an extension could be set for. If we combined these amendments with amendment 29 or amendment 32, which we will debate later, that would result in the extension mechanism being able to extend specific provisions or descriptions of retained EU law beyond 31 December 2026. The extension power’s very nature is to mitigate any risks posed by the current sunset date. I recognise that, without an extension, there is a risk that Departments would not have sufficient time to perform the legislative and administrative procedures required for retained EU legislation in certain complex areas.
Stella Creasy
If we cannot play a game of “Guess Who?” as to who will then be responsible for the implementation of this legislation if it is passed, let me ask this. The Minister wrote to us to say that the Government were still scoping out which laws would be covered by it, so how can she be confident that everything is in place to cover the full gamut of what would be covered by this legislation if she cannot at this point tell us how many laws will be covered? It is a reasonable question to ask, is it not? How much work is there to be done? If the Minister cannot tell us now or at least confirm how many laws are covered, it is not unreasonable to worry that equally she cannot confirm that the Government have put in place the people and the processes to do it all within a year.
Ms Ghani
The dashboard is there to identify the pieces of legislation that need to be uncovered, but of course we will constantly look, constantly dig and constantly ask Departments to see what else is in place. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask Departments to explore what pieces of legislation are in place, which ones are valid, which ones have already come to the end of their lifespan and what more we need to do. I think it is really healthy to ask Departments, to ask across Whitehall, what further work needs to be done. That work will then continue, and on the anxiety over the sunset clause, we have the extension in place as well.
Combined, the amendments would thwart the Bill and retain REUL as a distinct category of law on the UK statute book. I therefore ask that the amendments be withdrawn or not pressed.
Brendan O’Hara
I thank the hon. Member for Walthamstow and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston—and happy birthday! I am sure that he dreamed of spending his big day with us. Both Opposition colleagues made extremely convincing arguments that this work simply cannot be done in the timescale that has been laid out in the Bill. I think that nobody believes that it can be done in the timescale, because basic logic tells us that it cannot. Like the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, I have enormous sympathy for the Minister, who I think has been sent in, as he said, to defend the indefensible. I suspect that eventually, when the harsh reality dawns over Downing Street, which it appears to be doing, this will change, and I hope that it will change sooner rather than later. On that basis, I will not push our amendments to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Brendan O’Hara
I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an instrument, or a provision of an instrument, that—
(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or
(b) could be made in subordinate legislation by the Scottish Ministers, the First Minister or the Lord Advocate acting alone.”
This amendment restricts the automatic revocation or “sunsetting” of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation under Clause 1 of the Bill so that it does not apply to legislation that is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 21, in clause 23, page 22, line 23, leave out “Scotland”.
Brendan O’Hara
I rise to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes, which would remove the sunsetting of EU legislation where it falls within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
The amendments would mean that if, defying all logic, the Government are still determined to push ahead with the dangerous sunsetting of all EU legislation by 31 December next year, the Scottish Parliament could, in respect of areas that are wholly devolved, decide to keep relevant domestic legislation aligned to that of the European Union. That would mean that, in areas such as environmental health, food standards and animal welfare, the people of Scotland could continue to enjoy the high standards and protections that we have had as members of the European Union for almost five decades.
In his oral evidence to the Committee, Angus Robertson MSP suggested that it would be perfectly possible to draft the Bill
“in such a way that it did not apply to Scotland or Wales”
by limiting
“the scope of the Bill to non-devolved areas.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 80, Q136.]
Why should it not be drafted in such a way? Let us never lose sight of the fact that this is not our Brexit. This is something that is being done to us by a Government we did not elect pursuing the hardest form of a policy that we overwhelmingly rejected. In the circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that legislation that is the preserve of the Scottish Parliament be excluded from this one-size-fits-all approach.
Angus Robertson also told the Committee that the UK Government were still, even at this late stage, unable to tell Scottish Government Ministers exactly which areas of competence they consider devolved and which they intend to view as being reserved to this place. In his evidence, Charles Whitmore from the school of law and politics at Cardiff University warned our Committee that the Bill could lead to
“legal uncertainty, and that is compounded at the devolved level because our capacity constraints are probably more acute, so the time sensitivity is even greater”.––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 85, Q141.]
As I said earlier, it might be the skewed priority of this Government to instruct Departments across Whitehall to prioritise this ill-conceived bonfire of retained EU law ahead of trying to mend the broken economy or lift people out of poverty, but that is certainly not the priority of the Scottish Government nor, I suspect, of the Welsh Government. Yet, as it stands, they will be forced to set aside valuable Government and parliamentary time to take part in this exercise, which will undermine the high standards and protections that people in Scotland have enjoyed and have quite rightly come to expect from European Union membership. Given that, I intend to press amendments 68 and 21 to a vote to ensure that the sunsetting of retained EU law does not apply in areas that are devolved.
Justin Madders
We have some sympathy with amendment 68. From what we can determine, it tries to equalise the approach to the current anomaly whereby under clause 1(2) the power to remove the sunset is granted both to Westminster and to devolved authorities, but the power to extend the sunset under clause 2(1) is just for Ministers in Westminster. I do not know the reasons for the difference in that approach.
I suggest that the evidence sessions did not reveal a particular state of readiness in the Scottish Parliament for the administrative burden that the Bill will leave it with. That is not, by the way, a criticism of the Scottish Parliament; it is a reflection of the timescales that we face. The current powers in the Bill leave the Scottish Parliament in a position in which it would have to remove the sunset entirely, whereas perhaps an option could be for it to extend the sunset for reasons of capacity. That would be a much more measured approach.
Peter Grant
My recollection, which may help the hon. Member on his first point, is that Angus Robertson said they had not had a chance to begin to quantify the amount of legislation. He was saying not that it was because there was not very much but because there was so much of it. Can the hon. Member be clear as to what Labour’s current position is? If a piece of retained EU law related exclusively to one of the devolved competences—either the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or the Northern Irish Assembly—is it Labour’s position that that retained law should be removed from the devolved legislatures only with their explicit consent, or does Labour support the Government, who think this Parliament can legislate away in fields of devolved competence without the consent of the devolved Administrations?
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think we start from the point that this should be a matter of logic. If an issue is within devolved competence, it should be for the devolved Administration to determine, but I wait to hear the Minister’s explanation for leaving that proposition to one side for the purposes of the Bill. We suspect the Government have done this because of the political imperative that Ministers will be able to say they have got rid of everything they do not want by the arbitrary deadline of 31 December 2023. If this amendment is accepted and it is something the Government accept is a valid argument, we would expect similar measures to come forward for Wales.
Another consideration is that we do not actually know at this stage which laws are within the competence of Scotland. We do not know which laws are covered, because there is no list anywhere. We just have the dashboard, but that does not give us any clues as to which pieces of regulation are considered to be within the devolved nations’ competence. Can the Minister justify the power to extend the sunset having to reside only in Westminster when it deals with matters of devolved competence? Can she also explain what the process will be in Government with the Brexit Opportunities Minister, when appointed, for identifying the laws that are within devolved competence, and the procedure to be followed for resolving any disputes about ownership of those pieces of legislation and which authority has competence?
Stella Creasy
This is a good example of the challenge we faced yesterday in the Delegated Legislation Committee on persistent organic pollutants, where it was not clear what legislation was covered by this Bill and what would be deleted and, therefore, whether it was worth rewriting any legislation. The Minister got into a tangle. We would be talking about such a tangle on a more widespread scale across our devolved Administrations.
I echo the point made about my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, about the importance of recognising our colleagues in the Senedd as well. That is the challenge with this legislation. Because we do not know the full extent of what it will do, we do not know how it will affect devolution. We do not know where the lines between devolved powers and powers held at Westminster will be drawn and what will be retained. These amendments reflect that. It is not unreasonable to ask Government Ministers to clarify how they see this all working.
One of the concerns over the last couple of years has been the fractures in devolution and the pressure we have put on our devolved Administrations in making the decision to leave the European Union. I would ask the Minister to set out not just why she thinks Westminster should supersede any of the devolved Administrations, but also what her plans would be, should in that subsequent, updated, rolling list of laws a piece of retained law come up that had perhaps not been previously identified but that is quite clearly about devolved powers. How would she look to manage that?
The Minister’s colleagues yesterday were rather intemperate, shall we say, when it was pointed out that they were passing a statutory instrument that rested on legislation that would no longer exist at the end of the next year, 50% of which had not yet been identified as being on the dashboard but was clearly part of the regulations the Government had put forward. How does the Minister feel that will affect our relationships across the United Kingdom and our ability to speak up for the Union if the Westminster Government puts Government Ministers across the devolved Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament in the same position for 4,000 pieces of legislation?
I hope the Minister will recognise that these amendments and concerns about devolution come, yet again, not from a desire to stop Brexit, because Brexit has happened, but from a desire to protect the Union and ensure that people in any part of the United Kingdom have confidence that Government Ministers know exactly what they are doing.
Ms Ghani
The Committee should reject the amendments, which would exempt devolved legislation within Scotland’s legislative competence from the sunset, and amend the territorial extent of the Bill so that it does not extend to Scotland. A sunset is the quickest and most effective way to accelerate the review of the majority of rules on the UK statute book by a specific date in the near future. That will incentivise genuine rule reform in a way that will work best for all parts of the UK.
The territorial scope of the Bill is UK-wide. It is therefore constitutionally appropriate that the sunset applies across all four sovereign nations in the UK. That approach is consistent with other EU exit legislation, and will enable the devolved Governments to make provisions for addressing retained EU law in areas of devolved competence. Every nation of the UK should have the opportunity to review the retained EU law and have the powers to reform the legislation in a way that is appropriate and best suited to its citizens and businesses. Nothing in the sunset provision affects the devolution settlement. It is not intended to restrict the competence of either the devolved legislatures or the devolved Governments.
Peter Grant
I put it to the Minister that rejecting the amendment very much affects the devolution settlement. It means that the priorities on which the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland civil service work will no longer be those set by their democratically elected Parliaments and Governments, but the policies set by the UK Government. Angus Robertson made it clear that the Scottish Government believe that there will be a substantial burden of administration on the Scottish civil service. What gives Ministers in this Parliament the right to tell the Scottish civil service to do what they tell them to, not their elected Ministers?
Ms Ghani
I will continue.
A question was raised earlier, as the hon. Member raised just now, about a power grab. When using the powers under the Bill, the Government will use the appropriate mechanisms, such as the common frameworks, to engage with the devolved Governments. That will ensure that we are able to take account of the wider context and allow for joined-up decision making across the UK. If any disputes arise, we are committed to using the appropriate processes set out in the review of intergovernmental relations.
Nothing in the sunset provision affects the devolution settlement. It is not intended to restrict the competence of either the devolved legislatures or the devolved Governments; rather, it will enable the Scottish Government to make active decisions about the retained EU law within their devolved competence for the benefit of citizens and businesses throughout Scotland. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute to withdraw the amendment.
Brendan O’Hara
It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I will not withdraw the amendment. I repeat that Scotland is having this done to us by a Government that we did not elect, pursuing a policy that we overwhelmingly rejected. My hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes is right that the priorities of the Scottish Government will be dictated by the Government in Westminster. That flies in the face of the devolution settlement. I agree with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston that, if a matter is within the devolved competence, it should be for the devolved Parliaments to decide whether they retain EU law and whether they sunset it. On that basis, I will press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) Schedule [the Definitive List] sets out a complete list of instruments to be revoked by subsection (1) (referred to as the ‘Definitive List’).
(1B) The Secretary of State must by regulation add all relevant instruments referred to in subsection (1), so far as they are known to the Secretary of State at that date, to the Definitive List within 14 days of the date of Royal Assent to this Act.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 91, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) Before 30 June 2023 a relevant national authority must consult such organisations as appear to it to be representative of interests substantially affected by the inclusion of an instrument in the Definitive List, and any other persons potentially affected as the relevant national authority considers appropriate.
(2A) Following the consultation referred to in subsection (2), where a relevant national authority considers it appropriate, it may by regulations made no later than 31 May 2023—
(a) add any EU-derived subordinate legislation or retained direct EU legislation to the Definitive List, or
(b) remove any EU-derived subordinate legislation or retained direct EU legislation from the Definitive List.
(2B) No later than 30 June 2023 the Secretary of State must publish and lay a report before Parliament setting out—
(a) a summary of the objectives and effect in law of each instrument listed in the Definitive List and of the legal consequences of its revocation;
(b) whether that instrument affords any protections for consumers, workers, businesses, the environment, or animal welfare, and, if so, whether and how that protection is to be continued when the instrument is revoked;
(c) any benefits which are expected to flow from the revocation of that instrument;
(d) the consultation undertaken as required by subsection (2), together with any representations received in the course of the consultation;
(e) the reason why the relevant national authority considers that it is appropriate to revoke the instrument having considered those representations;
(f) the likely effect of the revocation of that instrument on the operation of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU, and on UK exports of goods or services to the European Economic Area; and
(g) the likely effect of the revocation of that instrument on the operation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in the EU Withdrawal Agreement.
(2C) The Secretary of State must by regulations remove an instrument from the Definitive List following an order of either House of Parliament (or, as the case may be, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru, or the Northern Ireland Assembly) calling on the Secretary of State to remove that instrument from the Definitive List.
(2D) If the Secretary of State is required by subsection (2C) to make regulations removing any instrument from the Definitive List but the Secretary of State has either—
(a) not made such regulations, or
(b) has made such regulations but they will not come into force on or before 31 December 2023,
then such regulations will be deemed to have been made and to have come into force on 31 December 2023.”
New schedule 1—The Definitive List—
“This schedule sets out the Definitive List in accordance with section 1 of this Act.”
Justin Madders
I apologise in advance that this discussion will last longer than that on other amendments. We accept that these amendments would fundamentally change the nature of the Bill, but they would do so in such a way as to create greater transparency and accountability and ensure that Parliament was able to properly fulfil its role in relation to the regulations. I refer to the evidence of the Bar Council, which said:
“It is a matter of great public interest that, where it applies, REUL should be as certain as possible. It is also important as a matter of democratic principle—as well as ensuring that replacement legislation in areas of great importance to business and the wider public is effective in achieving its goals—that replacement legislation be carefully considered and properly scrutinised before it is enacted.”
We certainly agree with that as a starting proposition. It is clear that the Bill as currently drafted does none of those things. The first thing to do is to identify and agree on what is covered by the Bill, but I am afraid that has not been forthcoming so far. I am grateful to the Minister for writing to us on 11 November to set out her understanding of the position following reports in the Financial Times that another 1,000 or 1,400 laws that have been identified do not appear on the dashboard. The critical point, as she wrote in her letter in respect of further legislation that may be identified by the National Archives, is:
“This number has not yet been verified by the Government.”
We still do not know what the Bill covers.
The former Minister, the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell), told us in response to a written question on 24 October:
“The dashboard presents an authoritative, not comprehensive, catalogue of REUL. Therefore, there may be some legislation that is covered by clause 1 of the Bill that is not yet captured in the dashboard. The Government will continue to identify additional REUL and update the dashboard on a quarterly basis to reflect this.”
I am sure that I am not the only person struggling to understand how something can be authoritative but not comprehensive. The former Minister also told us in response to a written question on 21 October that
“we anticipate over 100 additional pieces of legislation will be added to the REUL dashboard.”
We now know that it may well be considerably more than that. Even if just 100 pieces of legislation are missing, that will make that dashboard neither authoritative nor comprehensive. In that same answer, the former Minister also told us:
“Government officials are currently working to quality assure this data and any amendments to the data will be reflected in an update of the dashboard this Autumn.”
The position is that the dashboard may be updated at some point in the not-too-distant future, but it is certainly not comprehensive or authoritative at the moment. With this Bill, we do not even know what we are allowing the Government to change.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow told us in an evidence session, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs issued a ministerial correction to a written answer about the application of the Avian Influenza and Influenza of Avian Origin in Mammals (England) (No.2) Order 2006. Originally, it said that the order
“was not made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, and therefore it does not fall within the scope of Clause 1 of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill”,
but the ministerial correction confirmed that it did. Those actions hardly inspire confidence that that Department—or, indeed, any Department—has adequately identified the regulations that will be classified as retained EU law.
For good measure, the Marine Conservation Society has said that the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) (England) Regulations 2015, the REACH Enforcement Regulations 2008 and the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 are all absent from the dashboard but are retained EU law.
Those are just a few of the known unknowns, so we find ourselves in the unacceptable position of setting up a framework for the removal of laws, but we do not know which laws it will apply to. It is now six and a half years since the country voted to leave the EU. Surely the Government should know by now which laws are EU-derived and which ones they want to junk. I will come to that later point in due course, because before we get to the substance of what the Government intend to do with the Bill, let us first have an agreed baseline for what is covered by it.
Peter Grant
I have a great deal of sympathy with amendment 90, but amendment 91 seems to be telling the devolved Administrations how to do their job. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that if we want to allow the devolved Administrations to decide whether to vote for a particular piece of retained EU law, we should also leave it to them to decide the process by which they do it?
Justin Madders
If the hon. Member does not think that doing proper consultations is the way the Scottish Parliament wants to go, that is a matter for him, but we would like consistency of approach across all Departments and nations of this United Kingdom. Subsections (2C) and (2D) in amendment 91 would effectively create a failsafe so that any attempts to frustrate the will of the devolved nations cannot be made by the inaction of a recalcitrant Secretary of State. I hope the hon. Member can at least take some reassurance from that—any exercises of the devolved nations would, under the amendment, be honoured by Westminster.
We have already heard arguments that some of these laws were not brought into force in a truly democratic manner. Therefore, they do not need the same level of scrutiny that would ordinarily be afforded to other laws passed by this Parliament. Frankly, I find that argument nonsense. It is like saying, “I object to my neighbour planting leylandii in their garden, so I am going to do exactly the same.” If the complaint is that the level of accountability and scrutiny was insufficient when the laws were brought in, surely those making that argument would want accountability and scrutiny when those laws are reviewed. Is taking back control not about us—this Parliament—having a fuller role in the legislative process?
As it happens, I do not accept that characterisation of how these laws were introduced in the first place. In its written evidence, the Bar Council said that
“the EU legislative process, whilst certainly capable of much improvement, contains a number of democratic checks and balances: for the vast bulk of EU subordinate legislation, the co-legislators, both of whom must adopt the final text by (normally weighted) majority, are the Council, comprised of elected Ministers from the Member States, and the European Parliament”,
which is democratically elected, of course, and whose membership included until 2020 Members who were democratically elected from the UK. It continues:
“Important Commission legislative proposals are preceded by impact assessments and so-called roadmaps, and often accompanied by Staff Working Documents, all publicly available and setting out the policy intent. In addition, public consultations and stakeholder meetings are frequent features of the process, whether concerning binding or non-binding measures.”
I do not know whether the criticisms of this process are about the quality of representation that we had over there. A number of former MEPs are now Members of these Houses of Parliament, and they all seem pretty capable people to me. Let us not forget that once the EU issued its directives, we in this place had the European Scrutiny Committee and other Select Committees to examine any proposals. It is simply wrong to say that our politicians, stakeholders and policymakers did not have ample opportunity to exert influence on the development of EU policy and secondary legislation.
There are many examples where EU legislation was supported, and even promoted, by the UK Government of the day. One example—I am sure you will remember this, Sir George—was the social chapter. That was clearly telegraphed by the Labour party as something it would introduce if it got into power back in the 1990s; it was in the manifesto. Of course, Labour won that election and those laws were introduced, including rights on parental leave and working hours. Nobody can say those rules were forced on us without our consent. It should therefore be a matter of agreement for everyone who wants to see democracy prosper that the replacement legislation under this Bill should be made by Parliament after proper consultation, public debate and scrutiny, not simply a ministerial decision—or, as the case may be, ministerial non-decision.
The best idea we have at the moment regarding how the Government intend to approach this mammoth task is a statement from Lord Frost, who said the policy intention was
“to amend, replace or repeal all retained EU law that is not right for the UK.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 September 2021; Vol. 814, c. 1533.]
“Not right”—is that the best we can do? This centuries-old Parliament, taking a historic decision to wrestle back control from those unelected Brussels bureaucrats, finds itself in the ludicrous position of having another unelected person tell us that laws will be changed if they are “not right”. Surely the Minister can see that could mean absolutely anything. That is the equivalent of a dictator waking up one morning and saying, “I don’t think it’s right that people in my country are allowed to wear hats, so from today we will outlaw that.” Clearly that is an extreme example, but that is the consequence of having a Government who have the power to dispense with laws with no consultation or scrutiny because they do not think those laws are right. Surely as a Parliament we can do better than that. Surely we should hold ourselves to a high standard when we want to change legislation. We should not legislate on a whim, and Parliament should not hand powers to Ministers that enable them to do just that.
Stella Creasy
Government Members may find this incomprehensible, but at some point it is not inconceivable that they may be in opposition. When they are, and they are presented with a Government Bill and literally nobody knows the full extent of what it does, that will seem similarly incomprehensible. I know that many Government Members have never contemplated the wilderness of opposition. For other Members, such as myself, it is all that we have ever known—but we have never known a situation where to ask Ministers to set out what a piece of legislation covers is considered an inconvenience at best or offensive at worst. The amendment is about rectifying that—not to put Ministers on the spot, but because it is completely reasonable and rational in a democracy to expect to know what Parliament is being asked to do.
The fact that we have to state that—my colleague on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, gave an admirably gentle and mild version of what I am about to say—is a reflection of the difficulties of a Government who are struggling on after 12 years and cannot explain themselves. Our constituents could look at the consequences of not knowing what the legislation does as either—in what I believe is the common parlance—cock-up or conspiracy. That is precisely what will happen if we do not know what laws will be covered. Yet the Minister has admitted that she does not know. She wants to tell us some time next year, after the legislation will apparently have passed through Parliament.
I do not know about you, Sir George, but I am pretty sure that the Netflix special is already being written, because there must be some conspiracy behind this. Why do the Government not want to tell us what laws they want to get rid of? After all, we have just been told that actually the Bill is all about Brexit. Those of us who think that this is a bad process and that Brexit could be done in 101 other ways are clearly mistaken. There must be a conspiracy at stake here. The true width of what is happening must be something that could rival “Designated Survivor”. The alternative—that the Government have put forward a Bill with a timetable and pace that mean they literally do not know what will happen next—is frankly disrespectful to our constituents. This amendment is about the confidence that the Government have in their own work. I turn again to the wondrous words of Warren G, when he said about being a regulator,
“you can’t be any geek off the street”.
Surely there must be some competency involved in this role. That competency is knowing what the legislation does. That is why with every other piece of legislation we have an impact assessment. It is not unreasonable for us as parliamentarians to ask for that. After all, we will have to justify it to our constituents—well, we Opposition Members will not, but those currently sitting in the glorious offices of Government will. They will have to explain to their constituents why they passed a piece of legislation while not realising what it would do. At this point in time, nobody in this House can explain what it will do. Nobody, as the Minister yesterday discovered, could explain what would replace it. Nobody in this room can tell us exactly what is on that list. It is indescribable.
I do not think that in 12 years—that makes me a grandee in Labour terms at this rate—I have ever seen a piece of legislation where we as the Opposition have to ask for the extent of its impact. I want to warn Government Members: some day this may well happen to them. I know that must seem a gross insult, but they too will want Governments who are able to explain what they are intending to do, even if they do not agree with it, because they would then be able to go and tell their constituents why they do not agree with it. It is a reasonable proposition.
Amendment 90 asks the Government to set out a comprehensive list of retained EU law. After all, it is on the face of the Bill that that is what this legislation does. I apologise, Sir George, because I am now laughing. I am laughing at the absurdity of our being at a point where we have to ask the Government to set out what they are going to do. There is the concept of an “authoritative but not comprehensive” list—those words are worthy not just of “Yes Minister” but of “Blackadder” in their pomposity and stupidity. It is stupidity because it is incredibly dangerous to give the Government powers that they do not know what they are going to do with. Let me be clear that I am talking about the stupidity of the legislation, not the people.
I am talking about stupidity in terms of accidental intent—the cock-up element of this, rather than conspiracy. That is what I fear most of all. A conspiracy means somebody at least has a plan. As I am sure we will come on to later, the conspiracy is that the Government intend to rip up thousands of rights that people have relied on, such as by ending people’s right to bank holidays, leaving them as an option, and ripping up maternity rights. After all, some of us in the House remember the Beecroft report well, so we know this is something Government have talked about before. That would be the conspiracy.
The cock-up is in creating a piece of legislation that deletes things and the Government then not realising they have deleted them until somebody comes forward to point it out. The statutory instrument I spoke to yesterday, which I really hope Ministers go and look at, was also about correcting deficiencies in how legislation was written. That is to say, things had been missed off. It happens, but asking the Government to set out clearly what legislation the Bill will amend—whether that be deleting, replacing or amending it—is not an unreasonable request. Our constituents should expect us to know what it is we are going to be legislating on.
On Second Reading, the previous Minister—not the Minister in front of us, to be clear—tried to claim that I should not be worried that this legislation would have an impact on airline safety, as that was a matter contained in primary legislation, so not subject to the sunset. In reality, we have now replaced that provision of civil aviation legislation with a range of secondary legislation, meaning precisely that airline safety is up for grabs and we will need to find time to rewrite that legislation.
If the Ministers responsible for this legislation do not themselves know its extent, how can we expect all those civil servants—who the Minister cannot clarify are working on this legislation—to know the full extent, let alone the colleagues she cannot name who are working on it? What will happen when a Minister is suddenly presented with a piece of legislation that has been abolished, which was not on the dashboard, not identified and not set out in the legislation? A Minister presented with that scenario will have no recourse—it will have happened, unless we pass amendments that give everybody clarity and confidence. It is not unreasonable to want to set out a workload for Government so that they know what they are doing.
Amendment 91 allows us to work out how the amendments happen. Again, I am laughing at the absurdity of our being in a position where we have to set out an understanding of how things might be changed and who we might want to talk to—perhaps industry experts. I am sure Government Members who stood on platforms where they supported things such as Beecroft have no problem with watering down the working time directive. I am sure they will tell us later when we come to debate that.
What about standards regulations—those incredibly technical but incredibly dull pieces of legislation that, if we are all honest, we have not spent a lot of time looking at, but we look to industry experts to be able to tell us about? How is it unreasonable to set out a process by which those people will be consulted? What have we got against experts in this country? Frankly, at this point in time, some expertise on legislation, given that the Government have to admit they do not know the full extent of the Bill, would be welcome.
In my 12 years as an MP, we have always expected to have impact assessments and to know roughly what is in scope in legislation. Clerks cannot tell us that because Clerks do not know the full extent of the legislation, because we do not have a full list. We keep coming back to the themes of the amendment, but we also have to recognise that removing the entire body of EU-based legislation at a stroke, without clarity about what replaces it, will also have a wider impact. It could impact on the TCA itself, because it could be considered to breach regulations that we put into the TCA to show that we were not going to reduce or water down rights in order to make sure we did not start a trade war. Again, setting out what laws are up for grabs would help mitigate that impact.
Government Members can be as blind as they like or as deaf to the idea that there could be any problem with passing a piece of legislation where we literally have no idea of what it covers. But mark my words, Sir George: if and when they find themselves in opposition, they will rue the day they set the precedent that it is possible for Government Ministers not only to have such sweeping powers, but not to be told what it is they can use those powers for.
The amendments are not unreasonable; I will wager that when the Bill comes to the House of Lords, if the Ministers today are adamant about turning down the amendments, we might see something similar. I hope that Members across the House will support them if only for the sanity of being able to remove the idea that there is some sort of conspiracy, and we can go back to expecting a common or garden cock-up in how legislation in this place is written.
In the meantime, I urge Government Members to support the amendments. If they cannot explain to their constituents what they are doing in Committee today, they certainly would not be able to explain it when we come to the election to decide which side of the House any of us sits on, and that will be a very testing moment indeed.
Ms Ghani
I ask hon. Members to reject amendments 90 and 91 as well as the introduction of new schedule 1. The amendments undermine the central sunset policy of clause 1 and the Bill as a whole. The sunset provision was drafted to incentivise Departments to review their retained EU legislation and actively make a decision on whether to preserve something. Amendment 90 creates the preservation of a default position and therefore removes the key impetus for reform. Allowing outdated retained EU laws to languish on our statute book where they do not work in the best interests of the UK is irresponsible.
The sunset is the backbone of the Bill as it accelerates reform and planning for future regulatory changes. Without it, the benefits and the potential to bolster economic growth might not be realised at all, as sunset ensures that a single cohesive domestic statute book will exist following the sunset deadline. We have already committed to abolishing retained EU laws that stifle growth and are not in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers. The sunset is our fulfilment of that commitment.
I want to quickly respond to some of the questions raised. I do not have a list of TV or Netflix programmes or movies to contrast my responses. To crush the conspiracy about the laws that have been recognised, I refer hon. Members to the dashboard, which has the retained EU laws available, collected as part of a cross-Government collaborative exercise. The process was led by the Brexit Opportunities Unit, and it is where retained EU law sits across over 300 policy areas and 21 sectors of the economy. Hopefully, that conspiracy theory can die very quickly.
Ms Ghani
If I make progress, maybe I will answer some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions.
A question was raised about whether this was the only account of retained EU law. Throughout the process of the retained EU law review, we have been working closely with the National Archives. There was a figure in the Financial Times, but we have yet to verify all those items. The number covers all existing legislation, but some of it may have already outdated itself as legislation has been updated.
On the question about management and cost, the retained EU law dashboard was built by officials from the Brexit Opportunities Unit and the Cabinet Office using the software Tableau. It was created with no additional cost to the Government. Hopefully, that covers some of the conspiracy theory about where the information is kept.
Ms Ghani
If I can continue, I will hopefully finish on some of the questions that were raised, such as the one about working with Parliament. We are committed to working collaboratively with Parliament to deliver the programme, as we did with our programme of statutory instruments for EU exit. I do not see why we cannot build on that approach as well.
The question was raised about international obligations. The UK Government are committed to ensuring that the necessary legislation is in place to uphold the UK’s international obligations, including the withdrawal agreement, the Northern Ireland protocol and the trade and co-operation agreement after the sunset date. The UK Government will make sure that the necessary legislation is in place to ensure the terms of the withdrawal agreement are upheld after the sunset date, including regarding citizens’ rights and the Northern Ireland protocol. The aim of the Bill is not to alter the rights of EU nationals, which are protected or eligible to be protected by the relevant citizens’ rights provisions contained within the withdrawal agreement.
I do not buy the Opposition argument that somehow we will take decisions that mean we have a different set of values to Brussels—lower standards, making our constituents less safe and taking away their rights. That is not who we are as elected officials. We are all working together in the same room and many Opposition Members know that we share the same values as they do. Scaring people that we are going to do something that takes away those rights is slightly absurd.
Clause 2 also allows for extensions to the sunset date for specified instruments or a specified description of retained EU legislation where we have plans to amend and reform but need slightly longer to do so. Everybody will recognise and welcome that. Introducing a schedule that requires a listing of all retained EU law to be revoked is unnecessarily burdensome and not a good use of civil service and parliamentary time when preservation would still be necessary.
Several hon. Members rose—
Justin Madders
Thank you, Sir George. I am happy to take interventions if any hon. Members wish to intervene.
Stella Creasy
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Given that we are debating whether Ministers are capable of scrutiny, not to take any questions rather proves the point. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that he has already set out a number of instances of regulations that are not on the dashboard? I wish to add the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2012. Is there a number for the regulations that are not currently on the dashboard that people can feel comfortable with? Is there a margin of error that the shadow Minister can set out, given that the Government will not answer that question? Or given that businesses want better rather than no regulation, is it not completely unreasonable not to know what is up for grabs?
Justin Madders
Businesses want certainty and, with this Bill, we are as far away from that as is possible. I do not know if there is going to be a margin of error. Indeed, I do not think there should be any margin for error when talking about legislation in this place. We should all know exactly what we are voting for and signing up for. At the moment, the Bill does none of those things. The Minister said that the amendments would undermine the Bill. Absolutely they would. They are intended to create some parliamentary scrutiny, which the Bill sorely lacks. The Minister also said that the Bill’s drafting aims to incentivise Departments to hurry along and decide which laws they want to retain, but I am afraid that if we are using legislation as a management tool for civil servants we are in a pretty poor place
Paul Blomfield
Does my hon. Friend agree that the purpose of a Public Bill Committee is to put legislation under scrutiny and that that process is enabled by Ministers answering questions? Does he further agree that the objective of the process we are involved in will not be served if the Minister refuses to take interventions?
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. When a Bill is clear, and when the intention and the factual basis for proceeding are clear, it is not always necessary to have interventions, but when a Bill is as opaque and uncertain as this, it is important that the Government set out clearly their rationale for proceeding in such a way. No doubt those concerns will be picked up in the other place, where I hope they get more comprehensive answers.
Paul Blomfield
I understand the difficulties the Minister has in dealing with some of the questions, but on her specific point about it being too burdensome for civil servants to produce a list of laws, does my hon. Friend share my incredulity at her acceptance that undertaking a review and putting forward revised proposals, or indeed making a recommendation, to revoke all the laws is not too burdensome, although it is too difficult for the Government to list those laws?
Justin Madders
I agree. I, too, have sympathy for the Minister, who has been dealt a pretty poor hand, but the idea that we cannot get someone to cut and paste from the dashboard to the Bill is ludicrous.
Peter Grant
I note that the hon. Gentleman’s incredulity is almost as great as mine with respect to a Minister who a minute ago said that we can deal properly with 4,000 bits of legislation in just over a year, but then said that the Government cannot take stuff from their own dashboard and transpose it somewhere else.
Am I correct to think that, essentially, the purpose of the amendment is to give the Government some insurance cover to prevent them from revoking useful legislation by mistake? What does it say about the arrogance of a Government that they refuse to accept such an offer of help and prefer to see legislation that could have unintended damaging consequences, rather than simply having the humility to accept such a proposal, which they seem to reject purely because of where it comes from, rather than any benefit it might contain?
Justin Madders
I hope the Minister will learn that I always try to be helpful with my amendments. We are genuinely trying to get the Bill into some kind of shape whereby it might restore faith in parliamentary democracy. We will not be the ones to bear the consequences of accidental omissions; it will be our constituents. They will rightly ask, “What were you doing? Where were you when the Bill was passed?” It will be clear that we raised our concerns and pointed out the terrible potential consequences of not doing this correctly.
Stella Creasy
Can my hon. Friend have any confidence in the dashboard itself if Ministers are not prepared to put it on a statutory footing by at least listing the laws that are creating it? The Minister tells us to have confidence in the dashboard process, saying that it is a wonderful tool for people to be able to learn what is going on, but not so wonderful that it can be transplanted in legislation. Does my hon. Friend agree that that rather undermines any confidence that people might have in the dashboard, even as an authoritative if not comprehensive list of the legislation affected?
Justin Madders
I will use a hip-hop lyric in response, seeing as that is the road we are going down. LL Cool J once said
“you can’t gain or maintain…Unless you say my name”,
and that is the point of this amendment. We cannot actually say, scrutinise or understand the effect of the Bill if we do not have a comprehensive list. The Minister has said that the dashboard is the panacea for our criticism, concerns and, indeed, conspiracies about what is going on here, but when the Government themselves admit that the dashboard is not a full list of the laws, it cannot be acceptable or tenable that that is the basis on which they intend to proceed. We do not legislate in this place by website; we legislate by legislation, and the intention of the legislation should be clear.
I will pick up one other point that the Minister made. She said that we continue to support the values of the EU, even though we are leaving it. I am afraid that clause 5 does not do that; it specifically says that we will no longer be following the principles of EU law as we leave. I accept it is a legitimate position, but that is the fact of the matter. I appreciate that we have dealt with this matter to the nth degree, so I will finish by saying that I intend to push this amendment to a vote. We cannot have a situation where we do not know what legislation covers, where we do not what know what the Government intend to do with the legislation, or where the Government will not talk to anyone about what they intend to do with it.
We cannot have the Government changing the law on a whim; there must be proper accountability and scrutiny. We cannot have unaccountable Ministers changing the rules without reference to anyone else. That is not what taking back control was supposed to mean. I am afraid that says that the Government are not confident about their intentions and, frankly, that is a completely unacceptable situation, which this amendment would go some way to putting right.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Brendan O’Hara
I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply unless a motion approving the revocation of any piece of legislation to be revoked has been passed by the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 23, in clause 15, page 17, line 4, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (1A),”.
Amendment 24, in clause 15, page 17, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) A Minister of the Crown may not make regulations under subsection (1) unless a motion approving the revocation of the secondary retained EU law has been passed by the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(1B) A motion under subsection (1A) must state the date on which the secondary retained EU law is to be repealed, and any regulations under subsection (1) which follow such a motion must provide for the revocation to take place on that date.”
Brendan O’Hara
The amendments are in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes. I will be extremely brief. The purpose of these amendments is to recognise the fact that there are four Parliaments on these islands, and those Parliaments should be respected, so it should be the case that nothing can sunset, whether reserved or devolved, unless that is agreed to by the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly. We need to remind Committee members that Scotland and Northern Ireland completely rejected Brexit; only England and Wales supported it.
Had David Cameron been wise enough to accept a similar proposal to the one set out in the amendments—that is, had he said that the UK would not leave the European Union unless every constituent part of the UK agreed to that—we would not be in the boorach that we find ourselves in. I ask the Government to learn from their mistakes, and to accept that listening to and respecting the opinions of the Parliaments in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom might be a useful way to avoid yet another almighty mess. What is decided in this place will have a profound effect on the peoples across these islands. Heeding the views of their Parliaments, which represent the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, would do nothing other than improve our democracy. For that reason, I urge the Government to accept amendments 22, 23 and 24.
Justin Madders
The amendments acknowledge that it should not be Ministers who get to decide which laws to keep and which to chop. The Bill gives the Government widespread executive powers to rewrite affected laws through statutory instruments that require little parliamentary scrutiny, and with no mandate from the voters. There has been no guidance on, or indication of, which laws Ministers consider to be outdated, and what improvements are intended to make them
“better suited to the UK.”
Any replacement for these rights would require little parliamentary scrutiny. Core workers’ rights, key environmental protections and important consumer rights are left in the gift of Ministers. I think we have made it clear that we do not think that is acceptable.
The refrain of those who advocated for Brexit was that we should take back control—“we” meaning the people we represent, not Ministers sitting in rooms on their own, answerable to nobody, and under no requirement to explain their actions or inaction. That is not the way to go. The Government cannot argue that the Bill brings sovereignty and democratic control back to the legislative process when it demolishes the role normally undertaken by Parliament.
Any meaningful attempt to increase democratic oversight would seek to address those fundamental flaws. Parliamentary safeguards exist precisely because Ministers might always be tempted to resist scrutiny from Parliament. Those safeguards are important, if only because scrutiny and debate prevent errors, omissions—we certainly feel that there may well be omissions—and mistakes. These are important matters that will impact our constituents’ lives, and the prosperity or otherwise of the nation for years to come. Should not any Government have the courage of their convictions and open up their decisions for parliamentary approval? Should not we have a say on whatever Government decide that they are letting themselves and their citizens in for?
The Civil Society Alliance has said that this Bill will further destabilise devolution arrangements at a time when tensions between devolved and central authorities are more challenging than ever, and that will undermine the UK’s democracy and constitution, as well as the role of devolved and central Parliaments. The alliance says that the Bill gives staggeringly broad delegated powers to repeal and replace parliamentary laws with policy that is subject to little or no democratic scrutiny and is introduced at an alarming pace. We have already made clear our position: we do not agree with this. No one, whether they voted remain or leave, would want that. For that reason, we think that the amendments have some merit.
Ms Ghani
I ask hon. Members to reject amendments 22 to 24. Amendment 22 would fundamentally undermine the principles of the Bill by requiring individual pieces of retained EU law to be approved by a motion in the House of Commons and all the devolved legislatures before the sunset could revoke them. Notwithstanding the issue with parliamentary time, this amendment would require the UK Government to seek consent from all the devolved legislatures before revoking any secondary retained EU law, irrespective of its devolution status or territorial extent. It seems that it would in effect give the devolved legislatures a veto over retained EU law in other parts of the UK, and is therefore highly inappropriate.
Amendments 23 and 24 would hinder the efficient removal of regulations that have been identified as beign outdated, unduly burdensome and not suitable for UK citizens and businesses. The intention in this Bill is not for the Government to take on the function of the devolved authorities; nor is the Bill a power grab. I therefore ask that the amendments be withdrawn or not pressed.
Brendan O'Hara
I am not remotely surprised by the Minister’s reply, but I gently ask her: who knows better than the parliamentarians representing people across these islands in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast about what is best for them and the people who elected them? They can also provide expertise on the damage that unintended consequences can cause. How often in this Parliament have we made the case that on occasion—or often—the views of other parts of the United Kingdom have been overlooked or ignored by the Government, and that Government officials have been unaware of them?
This is about democracy. This is about giving the other Parliaments the right to say, “No, this will not work, and these are the reasons why.” Very recent history tells us that had we adopted such an approach only six or seven years ago, we would not be in the mess we are in. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 73, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999,
(b) Children and Young Person Working Time Regulations 1933,
(c) Posted Workers (Enforcement of Employment Rights) Regulations 2020,
(d) Part Time Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000,
(e) Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002,
(f) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006,
(g) Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004,
(h) Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005,
(i) Working Time Regulations 1998,
(j) Agency Workers Regulations 2010,
(k) Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999,
(l) Trade Secrets (Enforcement etc) Regulations 2018,
(m) The Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996, and
(n) Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004.”
This amendment would exclude certain regulations which provide for workers’ protections from the sunset in subsection (1).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 76, in clause 15, page 17, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999,
(b) Children and Young Person Working Time Regulations 1933,
(c) Posted Workers (Enforcement of Employment Rights) Regulations 2020,
(d) Part Time Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000,
(e) Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002,
(f) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006,
(g) Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004,
(h) Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005,
(i) Working Time Regulations 1998,
(j) Agency Workers Regulations 2010,
(k) Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999,
(l) Trade Secrets (Enforcement etc) Regulations 2018,
(m) The Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996, and
(n) Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004.”
This amendment would exclude certain legislation which provides for workers’ protections from the power to revoke without replacement in subsection (1).
Amendment 67, Clause 22, page 21, line 42, at end insert—
“(da) section [Workers’ rights];”
Amendment 60, in clause 22, page 22, line 19, at end insert—
“(d) any regulations made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 which have the effect of conferring rights or protections on workers.”
New clause 4—Workers’ rights—
“The Secretary of State must by 1 January 2023 publish a list of any provision to which this Act applies which confers rights or protections on workers which has not been—
(a) subject to regulations under section 1(2),
(b) restated under section 12 or 13,
(c) replaced under section 15(2), or
(d) revoked under section 15(3) and replaced with alternative provision
as at 1 January 2023.”
Justin Madders
Amendment 73 provides that clauses 1 to 3 and the powers under clause 15 do not apply to the list of regulations set out in the amendment. Committee members with a keen eye will notice that they all relate to employment and workers’ rights. The amendment would remove them from the sunset clause and prevent further watering down by the Government. If the Committee is minded to support the amendments, we can all leave here today safe in the knowledge that we have done our bit to protect workers’ rights from deliberate action or careless inaction.
I will not go through the effect of every one of the regulations. Some will be more familiar to Members than others. They represent, as far as we can identify, all the major employment rights in the ambit of this Bill—rights that people enjoy every day.
Paid annual leave is one of the greatest achievements of the last Labour Government. Also included are the regulations that introduced daily and weekly working limits. For Members who are not aware, that arose from a concern about workers’ health and safety. The risk of working excessively long hours has been shown time and again. The regulations listed also include a worker’s right to a 20-minute break in a shift, a break from work each day, and a day off every week or two days off every 14 days. We should not jettison those minimum standards.
Other regulations in the list oblige employers to assess health and safety risks to their workers, and to keep that risk assessment up to date. Do we not think that everyone has a right to work in a safe environment, and that employers should take steps to ensure that?
There are other laws in the list that are well worth fighting for, such as the right of part-time and fixed-time workers to be treated, pro rata, similarly to permanent workers unless the employer can justify the different treatment. Agency workers have the right after 12 weeks to receive the same basic working and employment conditions as directly employed workers. There are rights to do with taking parental, paternity and maternity leave, and of course the right not to be subject to detriment or to be dismissed for having exercised such a right. Importantly, there is the right to return to the same job that the employee had before they went on maternity leave.
Employees have the important right to be consulted on health and safety, and to paid time off to carry out health and safety training and other duties. They also have the right to protection from discrimination or victimisation for carrying out health and safety duties.
Also included are rights under the TUPE regulations, which ensure that when one business buys another, there is reasonable certainty about which workers transfer to the new business, so that the purchaser knows which employers it is getting and, critically, workers know that they cannot be dismissed or have their terms and conditions chopped just because they are working for a new employer. How many times does the TUPE regulation get applied every year? I do not have a figure, but I expect that hundreds of thousands of people have their employment changed each year under TUPE. No one has ever come to me and said that they do not think that workers deserve the protections and consideration that those regulations provide.
Having a new boss creates uncertainty, as Government Members will no doubt appreciate after the past few months, so let us not add to it. Let us make it crystal clear that TUPE will stay. Imagine if someone was thinking of buying a business in 2023. How on earth would they know whether to proceed with the purchase if they did not know whether they were obliged to take on its employees? We have a stable, settled, well-understood framework of law that helps businesses to operate more efficiently, and this amendment seeks to retain that.
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 22nd November 2022
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRetained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 November 2022 - (22 Nov 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 76, in clause 15, page 17, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999,
(b) Children and Young Person Working Time Regulations 1933,
(c) Posted Workers (Enforcement of Employment Rights) Regulations 2020,
(d) Part Time Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000,
(e) Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002,
(f) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006,
(g) Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004,
(h) Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005,
(i) Working Time Regulations 1998,
(j) Agency Workers Regulations 2010,
(k) Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999,
(l) Trade Secrets (Enforcement etc) Regulations 2018,
(m) The Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996, and
(n) Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004.”
This amendment would exclude certain legislation which provides for workers’ protections from the power to revoke without replacement in subsection (1).
Amendment 67, in clause 22, page 21, line 42, at end insert—
“(da) section [Workers’ rights];”
Amendment 60, in clause 22, page 22, line 19, at end insert—
“(d) any regulations made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 which have the effect of conferring rights or protections on workers.”
New clause 4—Workers’ rights—
“The Secretary of State must by 1 January 2023 publish a list of any provision to which this Act applies which confers rights or protections on workers which has not been—
(a) subject to regulations under section 1(2),
(b) restated under section 12 or 13,
(c) replaced under section 15(2), or
(d) revoked under section 15(3) and replaced with alternative provision
as at 1 January 2023.”
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir George. Before our lunch break, I was talking about some of the important employment rights that derived from EU legislation.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I rather wondered why the hon. Gentleman was regaling us with this list of workers’ rights. Is he seriously suggesting that this Government would sweep away all those rights? If he is, does he not accept that that is scaremongering? Does he not agree that in many respects, workers’ rights in this country are far superior to those employed in many European countries?
Justin Madders
If the right hon. Member wants to give the public reassurance that there is no intention to sweep away the rights, this is the perfect opportunity to do so by voting for the amendments. I remind him that over the past 12 years the Government have doubled the qualifying period for unfair dismissal, introduced employment tribunal fees and cut down on consultation requirements for collective redundancies. The track record is a mixed one to say the least. A number of prominent Brexiteers have talked extensively about the need to reduce red tape and do away with employment rights, which I will discuss shortly.
If, as the right hon. Member says, there is no intention to remove employment rights, that is welcome news. It would be more welcome if the amendments were supported, because that would be consistent with the manifesto that Conservative Members stood on in 2019, which says on page 5 that
“we will legislate to ensure high standards of workers’ rights, environmental protection and consumer rights.”
This is the chance to legislate for that, starting with amendment 76 on workers’ rights.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am possibly anticipating what will be said later, but for clarification will the hon. Member confirm that retaining all this EU legislation in domestic law does not in any way prevent the Government from deciding that they want to legislate for a greater level of workers’ rights or environmental protection than is currently the norm throughout Europe? They would only need to repeal this law if they intended to weaken those protections.
Justin Madders
The hon. Member is exactly right. If there is no intention to do away with these laws, the Government simply have to accept the amendment with no further question or debate about it. We will be very pleased to be able to report to our constituents that their rights are protected.
We are sceptical about some of the intentions of the Conservative party. The right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), the architect of the Bill, has gone on the record with what can only be described as a Victorian attitude to workers’ rights, with such classic lines as “there is no moral right to annual leave.” There were reports in The Times only a couple of months ago that he was planning to scrap both the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the Agency Workers Regulations 2010. Amendment 76 would protect both measures, putting the issue beyond doubt. The Minister does not need to the follow the right hon. Member’s lead any more; she can act today to show that she is on the side of workers, that she understands the value and importance of workers’ rights and that she can do the right thing by supporting the amendment.
When discussing these amendments it is important to acknowledge that there will almost certainly be a disproportionate impact on women if these laws are scrapped, as many of them have been of great benefit to women in the workplace. Fifty years after this country legislated for equal pay between men and women we still have not quite got there. Women face far greater challenges of discrimination at work. Let us not make an unacceptable situation any worse by reducing some of the measures that protect them.
The Bill’s own impact assessment recognises that it contain threats to equality, particularly in paragraphs 11, 25 and 41. Unison has said that the Bill will
“deliberately wipe the slate clean and create confusion around the principle of precedent that UK common law is premised on. It places ideological principles above the lived, practical needs of the UK.”
Perhaps the Minister will tell us, as the right hon. Member for Clwyd West has already suggested, that we are being melodramatic, and that the Government do indeed intend to honour their manifesto commitments to improve workers’ rights. We know what we need to do if that is the case.
As I say, I am a little suspicious about what is going on with the Bill and why it has been drafted in such a way to squirrel away debate and discussion about workers’ rights. If the Government truly intended to maintain these rights, they could have put something in the Bill along the lines of the amendments from Labour or the SNP. Better still, as we have touched on, they could have done the Bill the other way round, so that we knew what was going to be removed. The fact that they have not done that raises concerns.
When the review of retained EU law commenced, Lord Frost said that the Government were in the position to ensure that retained EU law could be revoked, replaced, restated, updated and removed or amended to remove burdens. Of course, he could have added to those comments and said that, while we want to do that with retained European law, we respect and support workers’ rights and do not need to change them. Instead, we have the language of attack—of revocation, of removing burdens—not the language of a Government intent on upholding workers’ rights.
I urge Members to consider what the Minister’s colleague, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, said on Second Reading on the subject of workers’ rights:
“In line with the UK’s track record, we will seek to modernise our regulations, including on workers’ rights, ensuring that unnecessary burdens are minimised”.—[Official Report, 25 October 2022; Vol. 721, c. 252.]
I am not sure what he meant by “modernise”, given that the Government have yet to implement the vast majority of recommendations from the Taylor review that sought to bring in new regulations to protect workers in the gig economy, but it is the latter part of that sentence that I want to examine further.
We hear far too often from those on the right of politics that employment rights are an unnecessary burden on businesses. Of course, for many, the visceral hatred of workers’ rights was a huge motivating factor for wanting to leave the EU. However, I would say that workers’ rights are not a burden, but an essential ingredient of a civilised society. If we want our citizens to play an active role in the country moving forward and in future economic growth, our citizens have to be rewarded fairly and treated fairly. Security and respect at work are the cornerstone of any success we may have as a nation. A secure and happy workforce is a productive workforce. Giving people dignity, certainty and fairness in the workplace is not a burden on businesses, but is what good businesses want to do, what good businesses will see the fruits of, if they implement it properly, and what we as Members of this House should want to see in every workplace.
We view the Government’s approach to the amendment with scepticism. I urge all members of this Committee not to pass up the opportunity that this amendment gives them to say to those who may see the Bill as a chance to weaken workers’ rights that we are not going to let that happen: these rights are not up for grabs, they are non-negotiable and they will not be dumped at the end of 2023.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I know there was bated breath and anticipation as we returned this afternoon. I hope we have as joyous and entertaining a debate as we had this morning about such an important piece of legislation.
We are getting to the meat of the matter this afternoon, which is what the legislation will do and what the Government’s intention actually is. It is only fair for the Government to come clean on their intentions. They keep saying that those of us who are raising concerns are scaremongering, but it is our job to probe the Government. As much as the Minister might not like these questions, our constituents deserve better than vague pledges that the Government would not possibly do something that we know in the past this Government and its Members have tried precisely to do.
Let us start with workers’ rights. These amendments are about a perfectly reasonable parliamentary process of fleshing out the Government’s intentions. This morning, we heard that there is, of course, time for the replacement of all the legislation that will be deleted by the Bill. We heard that none of us should have any concerns about the timetable or process or persons unknown who will be responsible for this legislation. The reasons for our concerns are to do not with Brexit but with the content of the Bills that are going to be deleted. They are Bills and rights on which our constituents have depended for generations, and workers’ rights are an absolute case in point because they safeguard the right to a decent workplace and decent employers. Businesses do not want employment rights to be watered down. They want certainty so that they can get on with rebuilding their businesses in this difficult economic climate.
As we have seen in the responses that we have received, many businesses agree with the rights that the Bill puts at risk of deletion. The Working Time Regulations 1998 include the right to paid time off, including bank holidays. This is a very simple proposition for Conservative Members: if they do not vote with us to remove these laws from this Bill, they will put the right to a bank holiday up for deletion. The Government have been very clear that they will not provide any guarantees as to what will replace or amend any of the laws that they are deleting. If they join us, they will make things a lot clearer for our constituents.
It is not just about the working time directive. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said this morning that he was not sure how many people benefit from TUPE. I can tell him that 30,000 people a year benefit from TUPE protections, yet the Beecroft report suggested that TUPE legislation should be watered down. It is not unreasonable for those of us who have had concerns for many years about this Government’s approach to workers’ rights to be concerned that this Bill deletes TUPE in its entirety, which is something that Beecroft only dreamed of.
The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 protect, among other rights, the requirement for an employer to perform a risk assessment for all workers, and specify that that must include a risk assessment once an employee falls pregnant. If Conservative Members think that those rights should be protected, they should vote in favour of them today, send a clear message to their Government colleagues to remove the measure from the Bill and put beyond doubt the fact that it is reasonable to require an employer to carry out a risk assessment when an employee falls pregnant. We must protect health and safety regulations. Each year many of us commemorate those who have lost their lives in the workplace, but this Bill deletes important legislation at a stroke and Ministers have not given any assurances or details as to which regulations they will bring back in their entirety.
The children and young person working time regulations protect a child’s right to access education by preventing the employment of children. Ministers and Conservative Members will say that it is scaremongering to talk of sending children back down the mines or up a chimney, but that legislation was brought in precisely to protect children. Why on earth would we not want to put it beyond doubt that we want to keep those protections, unless the Government either want to water them down or abolish them altogether? Voting for the amendment would put that beyond doubt.
The Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 ensure that millions of our constituents are not discriminated against in the workplace. It is predominantly women who are protected by those regulations. Nearly a fifth more women than men are on temporary contracts, and more than twice as many women are in part-time employment than men. When this Bill is enacted, the rights that they have relied on to protect them in the workplace will be dissolved at a stroke. It is not unreasonable for us to give them the comfort that those rights will remain by ensuring that they are not removed by the Bill.
The Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999 protect women in the workplace from unequal treatment on account of maternity leave, pregnancy or childbirth. We know that 50,000 women a year experience pregnancy discrimination, even with that legislation in place. Removing it and refusing to keep it will result in even more women experiencing pregnancy discrimination. That is a critical point. Nobody is suggesting that these laws are perfect or that they do not require amendment and should not change with the times we are in, but that does not mean that they should be abolished and that we should hope that a future Minister remembers that they were on the list and comes up with some proposals. The 50,000 women already experiencing pregnancy discrimination need to know that the law is going to move forwards, not backwards, and this Bill can only be a retrograde step.
Conservative Members should come clean to their constituents. If they do not think these rights are important, they should put them up for abolition and hope that Ministers will come forward with alternatives. They should be clear with their constituents, because we will hold every single Member in this House to account if they delete the right to have a bank holiday or not be discriminated against as a pregnant woman or new mother.
Stella Creasy
I can see the hon. Lady shaking her head—I am sure everyone can—but that is exactly what the legislation does. It is important to our constituents that we either do not deny that that is a possibility or we act to remove it. This amendment gives Conservative Members the ability to offer more than just words on this matter—to make a deed and ensure they protect the workers’ rights their constituents depend on.
We are very clear: if Government Members do not vote for this amendment, we will hold them to account and ensure that their constituents know that they voted to put those rights up for grabs with no guarantee that they will be protected. I can see Conservative Members smiling. Those smiles will not be smiles when our constituents ask why they put their rights into a process that will mangle them with 4,000 other pieces of legislation, with no guarantee that parliamentary time can be found and no guarantee of what it means for their employers. The right hon. Member for Clwyd West asked if it was scaremongering. It is not scaremongering. It is called accountability, and it is about time the Government listened to it.
Mr Jones
The hon. Lady will know that this Government have consistently improved the rights of workers. It is a process that has continued over the last 12 years since this party has been in Government. Frankly, it does her no credit at all to raise these concerns with probably very vulnerable people, who will now be concerned about what she has said. She will have to be accountable for what she has said.
Stella Creasy
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He was part of a Government who brought forward the Beecroft report, so I will take absolutely no lectures about frightening vulnerable people.
What I see before me is a piece of legislation that deletes those rights. That is beyond doubt. The question is whether they are going to be replaced. The right hon. Gentleman could argue that that is what Ministers have committed to. I am sure that is what the Minister will try to say—that we should not worry and that these rights will be replaced—but at this point in time when we are being asked to pass this legislation, there are no guarantees. There is nothing on the statute book. There have been no specific pledges on these rights.
We have a Government with a track record of seeking to try to delete and dilute rights. They were prevented from doing so by being members of the European Union at the time. Brexit has happened. Now the entire responsibility and onus on protecting those rights relies on Government Ministers and Members of Parliament holding the Government to account. That is exactly what we are doing today. Vulnerable people deserve to know the truth of what the outcome of this legislation will be.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a very good point about ensuring we have protections in place. Is she not missing the point and being slightly mischievous, because this is setting out a framework of how to deal with the problem, not the specifics? Those can still come later. She is right to argue that anyone in the House could make those changes, but the whole principle here is laying out the framework to enact these rights.
Stella Creasy
The hon. Gentleman comes so close, yet does not quite score his goal. He has said that it is about setting out a framework so these things could happen. There is no guarantee about what comes next. That is the challenge for his constituents. That is why the amendment puts in place what could come next by removing these particular rights from that process. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it sets out a process. The point is what is the impact of that process. If he cannot read this legislation, he needs to read all the submissions we have had from people setting out their concerns.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is right in her response to the question of process. Does she agree that it was a previous Conservative Government—there have been so many—that set out a process in the withdrawal Act? That process was to embrace the principle of retained law so that we did not risk losing the rights and protections we had collectively agreed over 43 years and would then have the opportunity, as and when the chance arose or it would seem fit, to change or improve that law. That process would be set against the safety net of not losing what we already had. That was the process the Conservative Government put in place and which this Bill is now ripping apart.
Stella Creasy
My hon. Friend speaks with the experience and frustration of having seen this all before. That is the challenge. The hon. Member for Bosworth is relatively new to this experience, but many of us who have had to deal with this Government in its various incarnations over employment rights—and, indeed, over legislative processes—have seen the deterioration in their respect for and approach towards the parliamentary process, whereby Members could be confident about the Government’s direction of travel.
In this morning’s sitting I mentioned the words “cock-up” or “conspiracy”. A cock-up would be accidentally losing some of these pieces of legislation. That is why this amendment is so important: it sets out specifically all those pieces of legislation and provides a safety net. We could then have a sunrise approach to this legislation. If the Government wish to amend things, at least the legislation would be retained until it is amended. The conspiracy element comes from the previous experience of dealing with this Government, and the bemusement as to why Ministers and Back Benchers claim that we are scare-mongering, but refuse to give that commitment.
If the Minister will give a specific commitment today that every single one of those rights will be rewritten into UK legislation to give our constituents the same protection that they have now, I will happily support her, but she is not likely to do so. In that absence, it falls to all of us to make sure that our constituents—the vulnerable people we are concerned about—do not worry that their rights, precious as they are, are about to be abandoned. They have to hope that it is better to have a cock-up than a conspiracy, and that they might still be saved at some point, rather than that there is a deliberate attempt to reintroduce Beecroft by the back door—because that is what the Bill looks like, and that is what the amendment protects us against.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I will speak to amendments 60, 67 and new clause 4, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes. The amendments would oblige the Secretary of State to publish a full list of workers’ rights that could be put at risk under this legislation by 1 January 2023. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and for Walthamstow. I fully agree with everything they said. If they press their amendment to a Division, our support is guaranteed.
We have heard several times today that the Bill gives UK Government Ministers unprecedented powers to rewrite and replace huge swathes of domestic law, covering matters such as environmental protection, consumer rights, and of course those long-established, hard-won workers’ rights. The right hon. Member for Clwyd West, and indeed the Government generally, have been at pains throughout the passage of the Bill to say that there will be no diminution of workers’ rights, but given that they have failed to produce an accessible list of exactly what will stay and what will go as a result of the Bill, coupled with the fact that so many stakeholders see the Bill as the starter pistol for a deregulatory race to the bottom, they will fully understand the scepticism that exists not just here, but outside this place, over any promise that workers’ rights will be protected.
Although we have heard the Government’s vague promises that everything will be okay, and the reassuring words, “Trust us, we’ll see you okay”, that is not good enough. Workers across the country will fear that the Government are going down a one-way road towards deregulation that will certainly not benefit workers or protect their rights.
We heard in the oral evidence session that the trade unions are particularly sceptical about what the Government have planned for workers’ rights. They have serious concerns that, among those 3,800—so far—discovered pieces of legislation that are due to be sunsetted in 13 months’ time, there could be legislation covering annual leave entitlement, women returning to the workplace, the treatment of part-time workers, protection from dismissal, holiday pay, legislation on working hours, and rights to parental leave. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said earlier, the fact that this legislation was the brainchild of, and initially piloted by, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) sets alarm bells ringing—with some justification, given that back in 2013 he was quoted as saying,
“It is hard to believe that the right to paid holiday is an absolute moral right; it is something that comes about because of political pressure at the time”—[Official Report, 1 March 2013; Vol. 559, c. 605.]
If that is not evidence enough of the direction of travel—or, at least, the suggested direction of travel—in which this Government are heading, I do not know what is. The Government have to accept that they have a long way to go in addressing the concerns of the trade unions, who explained much of their fear was based on being unable to find out exactly which pieces of legislation will stay and which will go. Shantha David of Unison said that the dashboard is
“the most incomprehensible piece of equipment. You have to put in random words to try and identify whether certain pieces of legislation will remain or go.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 58, Q91.]
It is a completely unsatisfactory position. All that new clause 4 would do is oblige the Government to provide trade unions, individuals and other organisations with a comprehensive list of every piece of employment legislation that could be impacted by the Bill. I do not think for a minute that that is too much to ask, or indeed too much to expect, the Government to provide. If the Government are serious and they want us to believe that the Bill will not put workers’ rights under threat, that is a very small and simple step to at least signal they are moving in the right direction.
The Minister for Industry and Investment Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
You will not be surprised to hear, Sir George, that I wish to reject amendments 73, 76, 67 and 60, and new clause 4. While the speeches were taking place, I was reflecting on the level of scrutiny we had when we were governed and subjugated by rules coming out of Europe. I do not recall transcripts from those meetings, or opportunities for Members elected to represent constituents and their businesses to get involved and offer up what they thought was needed for those businesses domestically. However, here we have an opportunity to assimilate, review and potentially improve rules and regulations, and to ensure that we are governed by rules that we enact here in the United Kingdom.
Peter Grant
I may be mistaken, but I distinctly remember being a member of the European Scrutiny Committee in this place for several years. The explicit job of that Committee was to scrutinise proposed EU legislation and to express whether it, on behalf of Parliament, was content for Ministers to either support that legislation or oppose it. It was not the fault of the European Union that very often that Committee had no teeth. It was certainly not the fault of the European Union that as often as not, Ministers ignored the views of that Committee. Is it not the case that the difficulties with parliamentary oversight of European legislation for the 40 years that we were in the EU were nothing to do with the failings of the European Union, and everything to do with the failings of scrutiny in this place?
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Opposition Members keep telling us that they accept the result of the referendum and this is not about Brexit. Is it not the case that through this legislation we are taking back control and allowing Parliament to be the body that has the scrutiny mechanisms? Does the Minister have more faith in Parliament than Opposition Members do?
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Minister for giving way. On her point on the absence of scrutiny, did she not read the written evidence submitted by the Bar Council? In paragraph 12, it said:
“We also point to the very valuable work over the years of the House of Commons EU Scrutiny Select Committee and other Select Committees...UK ministers, politicians and officials, stakeholders and policy makers had ample opportunity to, and did, exert influence on the development of EU policy and secondary legislation...Indeed, in most cases, the EU legislation was supported, and even promoted, by the UK Government of the day.”
The idea that there was no scrutiny is nonsense, is it not?
Several hon. Members rose—
Ms Ghani
What I will make some progress now.
The Bill is enabling legislation. The measures in it, including the sunset, will allow UK Ministers, including those in the devolved Governments, to make decisions to review, amend or repeal retained EU law as they see fit. We have heard considerable contributions about which laws have moved down into UK law from the EU, making the assumption that we were never able to lay down rules and laws for our people in the UK, and that somehow we would get rid of all the high standards we have.
Let me point out some of the things that we have done, to let everyone know that we have pretty high standards when we are passing legislation. We have the highest minimum wage in Europe, which increased again on 1 April. UK workers are entitled to 5.6 weeks of annual leave, compared with the EU requirement of just four weeks. We provide a year of maternity leave, with the option to convert to shared parental leave to enable parents to share care, while the EU minimum maternity leave is just 14 weeks. The right to request flexible working for all employees was introduced to the UK in the early 2000s, while the EU agreed rules only recently and will offer the right to parents and carers only. The UK introduced two weeks’ paid paternity leave in 2003, while the EU has only recently legislated for that. Those facts show that we are very capable of ensuring good standards here in the UK.
Ms Ghani
I am moving forward. I will give way shortly.
The sunset is not intended to restrict decision making; rather, it will accelerate the review of REUL. The Bill will allow UK Ministers, including those in devolved Administrations, additional flexibility and discretion to make decisions in the best interests of their citizens. It is up to Departments and devolved Administrations what they will do on specific pieces of policy. The Bill creates the tools for Departments. Plans will be approved by a Minister of the Crown or the devolved authority where appropriate, and will be shared when ready, given that this is an iterative process that is still ongoing.
On the specifics policies listed in the amendment, the Government do not intend to remove any necessary equality law rights and protections. With the introduction of the Bill, the Health and Safety Executive is reviewing its retained EU law to consider how best to ensure that our regulatory frameworks continue to operate effectively, and to seek opportunities to modernise its regulations without reducing health and safety rights. The Government have no intention of abandoning our strong record on workers’ rights, having raised domestic standards over recent years to make them some of the highest in the world. Our high standards were never dependent on our membership of the EU. Indeed, the UK provides stronger protections for workers than required by EU law. I listed a few a moment ago.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ms Ghani
On new clause 4, it is right that the public should know how much legislation is derived from the EU and the progress that the Government are making to reform it. This is why on 22 June 2022 we published an authoritative public record of where REUL sits on the UK statute book in the form of the REUL dashboard on gov.uk, which catalogues more than 2,400 pieces of legislation derived from the EU. The information is there; asking that we cut and paste it somewhere else is slightly ridiculous and over-bureaucratic.
Ms Ghani
The Government have no intention of abandoning our strong record on workers’ rights, having raised domestic standards over recent years to make them some of the highest in the world.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow raised the issue of maternity rights. She has done a huge amount of work for women’s rights, as have I. I just find it incredibly unfortunate that both she and I have been defending and promoting women’s rights but that we might create an anxiety based on fiction and not on fact. The repeal of maternity rights is not and has never been Government policy. The high standards of maternity rights that I mentioned earlier have never been dependent on, or even mirrored, those of the EU; we have always gone a lot further.
Taking all that into account, I ask the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston to withdraw his amendment.
Justin Madders
I have quite a few things to say. First, the rehashing of the old arguments about a lack of scrutiny when the laws covered by the amendment were introduced is, as I said at length this morning, not correct. Even if people think that, the answer is certainly not to make it harder to scrutinise laws now.
Stella Creasy
Will my hon. Friend comment on the irony that the Minister has argued that we need to do this because we were never able to refuse a piece of legislation from the European Union, but at the same time is defending a piece of legislation that will not take back control to Parliament, but will give it to Ministers? Under the Bill, MPs will not be able to refuse or amend a piece of legislation that, like it or lump it, will come from No. 10 rather than Brussels. How is that taking back control?
Justin Madders
It is not taking back control, is it? Anyone who has read the Bill will understand that Parliament’s role will be severely restricted, and that is why the Opposition are worried about what will happen. The Minister cited a long list of measures that strengthened employment rights, many of them introduced under a Labour Government of course. Not all of them came from Europe—the minimum wage is not derived from European law. We want to see such rights protected.
I think the Minister is sincere in her desire to support equality, but her exact words were that there is no intention to remove any necessary equality law. I just question whose definition is used to decide what is necessary or unnecessary. What does that mean? That is why it is so important that we have a proper scrutiny process. If it is decided that no equality laws are unnecessary, they should be removed from the terms of the Bill all together.
Peter Grant
I will ask question that the Minister chose not to hear. The Bill runs to 37 pages, and we do not know how long the Government have taken to put it together, but we know that they had a month between First and Second Reading. In that time, at least 15 mistakes were identified in the Bill, because the Government themselves have tabled 15 amendments to correct mistakes in a Bill of 37 pages. The items of legislation subject to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment run to something like 360 pages. The legislation relating to this amendment alone is nearly 10 times as long as the Bill we are currently considering, yet the Government have so far identified 15 amendments that are required to the Bill. What confidence can we have that 360 pages of revoked legislation will have been properly gone through and assessed, and all properly put back into law in just over a year from now?
Justin Madders
We do not have a lot of confidence. The hon. Member is right to point out the amount of legislation to which just this amendment relates. We are trying to do the Government a favour by attempting to remove various legislation from the Bill. The Minister spoke about an over-bureaucratic process, and we can help with that by removing some regulations from the Bill so that they are retained in law. There is therefore no need to go through any bureaucratic exercise.
The Minister spoke about modernising health and safety law. To me, modernising can mean any number of things, and it does not always mean that law will be improved or rights increased. As we know, the Bill specifically prevents an increase in the legislative burden, and I think a lot of people may say that health and safety is a burden, although I certainly do not think it is; I think it is an absolute essential, but we know how it is characterised in some quarters.
I want to address head-on the claim that we are scaremongering, worrying people and causing anxiety by raising the issue. In order to remove such anxieties, the simple answer is to vote for the amendment, because then there would no question about those rights being protected.
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend is right. Had I had the opportunity to intervene on the Minister, and had she accepted my intervention, I would have asked why she failed to respond to the challenge from my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow to reassure the House simply by committing on the record that all the legislation listed in our amendments 73 and 76 would be replicated at least in full, and perhaps made better, and not lessened in any way whatsoever. As a starting point, the Minister could commit to put the legislation through before December 2023. Would my hon. Friend welcome that if the Minister were to intervene now to give that commitment?
Justin Madders
I guess that we are not going to get that assurance, and that shows why we were exactly right to table the amendment, and we will put it to a vote. I do not think that even Conservative Members when campaigning for election here put on their literature that they wanted to put workers’ rights at risk. I doubt the people of Grimsby, Orpington or Yeovil actually want to see a reduction in workers’ rights. It is time now to send out that clear message.
Justin Madders
It may be news to the hon. Lady, but we left some time ago. I find that intervention interesting, because it rather suggests that there is an intention to weaken some workers’ rights. We have concerns, and I am afraid that the debate has heightened them.
Stella Creasy
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is worth having concerns when not only do Government Members prioritise removing anything that includes the word “Europe”, but the Minister seems not to know the complete history of maternity and pregnancy discrimination legislation in this country? The European Union held the UK Government to account with the pregnant workers directive in the 1990s because the UK Government sought to water down the protection of women. I am sure that Government Members would support the legislation on maternity discrimination introduced by their colleague, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), which sought to move things forward, but we have not seen progress on that from the Government.
Ministers seem not to be fully aware of the history of European legislation when it comes to maternity rights and pregnancy discrimination; there has been a lack of action in response to proposals from Government Members; and we now have a piece of legislation that deletes rules simply because they have the word “Europe” in, with no guarantee of what comes next. Given all that, we understand why organisations such as Pregnant Then Screwed are campaigning on maternity and pregnancy discrimination. It is happening now, under this Government, and the Government are doing very little about it.
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I think there was a question in there somewhere. I agree with the general point that the fight for equality does not stop. It is always ongoing, and we have to look forward and ask ourselves what kind of country we want to be now that we have left the European Union. Do we want stronger workplace rights? Do we want equality in the workplace? Do we want to end discrimination? If we agree with those things, and certainly the Opposition do, the way to guarantee that we at least maintain the status quo is to vote for the amendment. My constituents will be considerably poorer over the next few years as a result of the economic decisions made by the Government. I do not want them to be poorer in rights as well, and that is why I will press the amendment to a vote.
Brendan O’Hara
Very briefly on new clause 4, it is extremely disappointing that the Government have dismissed what I believe was an easy opportunity to show that they were listening to genuine concerns that have been brought before the Committee. The information may be out there, but the fact that it is so difficult to find and has been described as incomprehensible by a qualified solicitor acting on behalf of trade unions should raise some concerns within Government. It really is not good enough to say, “It’s there. You just have to find it.”
All Governments have a duty to make things as transparent as possible. Now that the Government have been alerted to the fact that the information is incomprehensible, their casual dismissal of such fears as ridiculous does not bode well for those in the Opposition and outside the Committee who think we are on a one-way track to deregulation and the diminution of workers’ rights.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 74, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) The REACH Regulation and the REACH Enforcement Regulations 2008,
(b) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,
(c) The Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,
(d) The Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994,
(e) The Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (England) Regulations 2010,
(f) The Bathing Waters Regulations 2013,
(g) Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017,
(h) The Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018 (also known as the Farming Rules for Water),
(i) The Marine Strategy Regulations 2010,
(j) The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007,
(k) The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017,
(l) The Plant Protection Products Regulations 1107/2009,
(m) The Sustainable Use Directive Regulation (EC) 396/2005,
(n) The National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2018,
(o) Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order (2019),
(p) Directive 2010/63 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes,
(q) Directive 1999/74 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens,
(r) Regulation 139/2013 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Union and the quarantine conditions thereof, and
(s) The Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006.”
This amendment would exclude certain legislation which provides for environmental protections from the sunset in subsection (1).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 77, in clause 15, page 17, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) The REACH Regulation and the REACH Enforcement Regulations 2008,
(b) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,
(c) The Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,
(d) The Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994,
(e) The Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (England) Regulations 2010,
(f) The Bathing Waters Regulations 2013,
(g) Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017,
(h) The Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018 (also known as the Farming Rules for Water),
(i) The Marine Strategy Regulations 2010,
(j) The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007,
(k) The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017,
(l) The Plant Protection Products Regulations 1107/2009,
(m) The Sustainable Use Directive Regulation (EC) 396/2005,
(n) The National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2018,
(o) Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order (2019),
(p) Directive 2010/63 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes,
(q) Directive 1999/74 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens,
(r) Regulation 139/2013 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Union and the quarantine conditions thereof, and
(s) The Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006.”
This amendment would exclude certain legislation which provides for environmental protections from the power to revoke without replacement in subsection (1).
Alex Sobel
We now come to the impact of the Bill on laws that fall within the remit of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Government’s dashboard lists only 570 laws that DEFRA identified as falling in scope of the Bill; that figure alone would make DEFRA the most heavily impacted Department in Government. However, we understand that DEFRA officials have privately revealed that more than 1,000 individual laws are at risk of being revoked by the Bill’s sunset clause. How do the Government plan to resource DEFRA to enable officials to properly examine each of these laws in the time remaining before the sunset sweeps them away?
The Department is already beset by delay and overwhelmed by consultation responses. The supposed Government priorities of environmental action and animal welfare are long past their due dates; on 31 October, for example, the Government missed a legal deadline to publish environmental targets. Instead of clogging up the entire Department with months of pointless work reviewing lists of laws that no one wants to drop, the Government should prioritise their environmental commitments in the Environment Act 2021 and the 25-year environment plan, including the actions and policies necessary to deliver nature’s recovery by 2030.
The sample of 19 laws listed in these amendments cover a vast range of important policy areas about which the public feel passionately. They include animal welfare, water quality, the treatment and discharge of sewage, the protection of wildlife, the safe use of chemicals and pesticides, the protection of human health from the impacts of air pollution, the use of animals in scientific testing and the prevention of the spread of animal diseases, such as the bird flu that is devastating poultry businesses and our precious wild bird populations. The regulations listed in amendments 74 and 77 should therefore be seen as a non-exhaustive list of the key examples of law that it is vital to retain to maintain standards. The regulations listed in the amendments represent some of the most prominent environmental protections, but many potentially vital but not always easily identifiable protections will remain at risk.
A definitive list of environmentally important measures does not exist. One could say that the Government have been naughty by nature, but I would not do that. However, we know that it is even more extensive than the comparable list of the retained EU law that provides critical protections for workers’ rights and conditions, which we have debated in relation to amendments 73 and 76. The inventory of workers’ rights legislation is shorter and more easily identified, so there are important differences between the three domains of rights and protections highlighted by our amendments.
The environmental retained EU laws covered by the Bill include major protections that we rely on for clean air, clean water and safe food, as well as providing crucial safeguards for a struggling natural world. Under the Bill, critical environmental protections face the prospect of being revoked without replacement or replaced by weaker regulations, because of the extremely limited time available to consider and draft workable replacements before the application of the sunset clause, and because of the lack of parliamentary oversight and public consultation—those are the focus of other amendments.
The Government have said that they are committed to maintaining environmental protections. For instance, the former Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset, said that
“the Government is committed to maintain all the environmental protections that currently exist and met a number of the environmental lobby groups to confirm this”.
I will go into a little more detail about how we believe the Bill will completely undermine those commitments and place at risk the safety of chemicals.
REACH stands for the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the EU REACH regulation was brought into UK law on 1 January 2021 and is now known as UK REACH, but the UK and EU REACH regulations operate independently from each other. Most industries must therefore comply with both sets of regulations if they want to trade in both the UK and the EU. Furthermore, UK REACH regulates only chemicals placed on the market in GB, and, under the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol, EU REACH continues to apply in Northern Ireland.
The HSE website explains that REACH is
“a regulation that applies to the majority of chemical substances that are manufactured in or imported into Great Britain (GB)…This can be…A substance on its own…A substance in a mixture, for example ink or paint”
or a
“substance that makes up an ‘article’—an object that is produced with a special shape, surface or design, for example a car, furniture or clothes.”
The chemicals legislation in the amendments works closely with the 2008 classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals regulations, which are about the responsibility for identifying and communicating hazardous properties of chemicals. That legislation also works with other chemicals regulations listed on the Government dashboard, such as the Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011 and the Cosmetic Products Enforcement Regulations 2013, which restrict the use of certain chemicals in those products.
REACH places restrictions on the use of more than 2,000 harmful chemicals on which it has taken more than 13 years to legislate at EU level. That has helped to drive innovation in the development of safer alternatives and delivered considerable benefits for our health and environment. Lifting or weakening those restrictions could result in the import of everyday products—from sofas and paint to cosmetics and toys—that contain chemicals that are linked to cancer or affect intellectual development, and that are restricted in the EU but sold in other parts of the world.
The UK was one of the driving forces behind the creation of EU REACH in 2006. That was acknowledged during proceedings on the Environment Act by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who said that
“we were instrumental in designing the whole process in the first place, which we kicked off during our presidency in 1990.”––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 19 November 2020; c. 598.]
Perhaps the Minister who is with us today will argue that revoking REACH would nevertheless realise Brexit opportunities. However, businesses are not asking for the revocation of REACH; quite the reverse.
Last week, the chief executive officer of the Chemical Industries Association said:
“We are not in the market for any regulatory bonfire”.
Far from helping to drive economic growth—that is the intention behind the Bill—throwing UK rules into doubt will create uncertainty and instability for businesses, and it will very likely deter investment. Businesses will essentially be left with three costly options: to comply with two regimes at once; to end exports to the EU; or to remain aligned to EU standards, in which case why attempt to deregulate UK REACH?
If Ministers think that the Bill is needed to provide the flexibility to adapt the regulations to a UK context, they seem not to realise that legislative powers for updating and adapting REACH for a UK context already exist under schedule 21 of the Environment Act. Those Environment Act powers include important safeguards for public health and the environment that the Government have not necessarily thought to include in the Bill. Furthermore, work to review and adapt REACH to a UK context has been ongoing pre and post EU exit. The Bill will pointlessly divert that work. For example, we are still waiting for a UK chemicals strategy, which was first promised in the 25-year environment plan more than four years ago.
Without a strategy, the various parallel Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs reviews lack strategic direction. A strategy is urgently needed to set out much-needed measures to improve the regulation to address our growing chemical pollution crisis. Why does REACH need the amending powers in the Bill, unless it is to deregulate and to lower standards? The hon. Member for Taunton Deane previously assured us that we would maintain
“high standards of protection for the environment, consumers and workers”
while having
“the autonomy to decide how best to achieve that for Great Britain.”––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 19 November 2020; c. 598.]
The status quo in the Environment Act already does that, but the Bill could only be designed to usher in low environmental standards.
Labour tabled an amendment to provide a non-regression mechanism to schedule 21 powers in the Environment Bill. The response from the hon. Member for Taunton Deane was that there was no intention to regress. She pointed to proper safeguards in the powers to ensure that, including protected provisions
“that cannot be changed…relating to the fundamental principles of REACH”.––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 19 November 2020; c. 598.]
Those principles include core principles of good chemicals regulation such as “no data, no market” and the precautionary principle. It is difficult not to see the “malign opportunities” that she rejected when she highlighted the safeguards in the powers two years ago. If the aim is a sensible review and updating of our laws, the Government should allow her Department to get on with it.
We already know that there is a serious lack of capacity and expertise in the HSE to do its job. That has resulted in declining safety standards on chemicals in the UK. A recent NAO review found that a lack of operational capacity and loss of data is having a negative impact on HSE’s ability to assess risks and carry out its work, and that it would not be able to achieve its long-term objectives unless that were addressed. How can the Government even contemplate piling even more work on to the HSE’s already overstretched workforce by requiring it to review and rewrite the retained EU law elements of our chemicals regulation?
On top of that, Ministers seem to completely ignore the additional burden on UK business. The pressure on HSE already results in UK REACH considering far fewer protections for health and the environment from harmful substances. For example, the UK has initiated only two restrictions on hazardous substances compared with the five that have been implemented in the EU since UK exit, and a further 20 are in the EU pipeline. Specifically, it has rejected 10 protections that have been targeted by its European counterpart. That includes a restriction on concentration limits for eight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons used as infill and in loose form in synthetic football pitches and playgrounds.
Alex Sobel
You will have to intervene if you want me to say it again. Those chemicals are linked to an increased cancer risk, putting our children’s health at risk.
The protective gap between the UK and the EU could become a chasm over the years ahead as the EU takes forward its chemicals strategy for sustainability. That is likely to result in the dumping of harmful chemical products on the UK market, with the divergence harming UK businesses.
There is a severe lack of chemical safety data. This is the central challenge of a separate, stand-alone system and it still has not been resolved. Deadlines for companies to submit vital safety data on the UK market are due to be put back for the second time, while the chemical safety database will not be complete for eight or nine years. The Government’s own latest figures estimate that the chemicals industry faces £2 billion of post-Brexit red tape—twice the cost of initial estimates. During proceedings on the Environment Act, Labour pushed for a minimum standard of protection under UK REACH. We have major concerns that the UK system is already considerably weaker than EU REACH, and the Secretary of State has taken sweeping powers to further reduce the level of protection for the public and environment from hazardous chemicals.
I will now turn much more briefly to other important environmental protections, a sample of which are listed in the amendments. The Government have been dragging their heels on protecting our animals for years, with lots of press releases but little action. Many of the animal welfare measures in the last Queen’s Speech were lifted directly from Labour’s animal welfare manifesto, but the Government have repeatedly stalled and delayed on taking through Parliament the limited selection that they have so far committed to, such as the missing-without-a-trace Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and the unkept promises to ban the imports of fur and foie gras.
We can have little confidence in this Government’s commitment to animal welfare. Their manifesto promised not to compromise on Britain’s high standards in trade deals, but the Australian trade deal and the precedent it has set risk bulldozing through our standards for animal welfare and environmental protections as well as impoverishing our farmers. As the Committee heard from David Bowles of the RSPCA, there are 44 individual pieces of animal welfare legislation that could be dropped or weakened because of the Bill.
Amendments 74 and 77 list an illustrative sample of just four of these: directive 2010/63 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes; directive 1999/74 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens; regulation 139/2013 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Union and the quarantine conditions thereof; and the Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006.
As we have explained, the whole purpose of the Bill is to weaken and reduce regulations that ideological purists in the Conservative party see as an irredeemable burden. However, directive 2010/63 sets standards for the accommodation and care of animals used for research, and lowering these standards would increase suffering among lab animals. Article 14 of the directive requires, where possible, animal experiments to be carried out under general or local anaesthesia. The removal of this requirement could greatly increase the pain and suffering of animals undergoing experiments.
Directive 1999/74 banned the use of barren cages for laying hens. Weakening it could change acceptable cage standards for laying hens, allowing the expansion of battery chicken farming through the back door. Regulation 139/2013 stops the importation of wild-caught birds for the pet trade. Its introduction across the EU in 2005 reduced the volume of wild bird trading to about 10% of its former level. In addition to increasing the risk of the importation of wild bird diseases such as avian flu, weakening the regulation could breathe new life into the trade in wild-caught birds, and renewed UK demand could provoke further devastation of wild bird populations in South America, Africa and Asia.
Finally, the Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006 set basic welfare conditions for the live transportation of animals. Weakening the order could see UK welfare standards for animal transportation fall below those of our neighbours in the EU. It would also mark the complete reversal of the UK Government’s plans to increase welfare standards in transportation following Brexit—already stalled through the halting of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill.
I turn to the conservation of rare and endangered wildlife and the precious habitats inhabited by vulnerable species. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 include a crucial provision preventing any development that could adversely affect the integrity of our most precious nature sites. We have already seen this Government threaten our areas of outstanding natural beauty through scrapping protections when they fall in a so-called investment zone. Now, with this Bill, we face the prospect of a much more widespread weakening to allow unsustainable development to go ahead on or around important nature sites, even when it would cause damage to them. This damage could include more pollution reaching water habitats and the shrinking of terrestrial habitats. Nationally and internationally important nature sites on land and at sea in England, including Ashdown Forest, Braunton Burrows and Dogger Bank, will become more vulnerable.
Amendments 74 and 77 list the following laws that are part of the legal framework protecting our waterways from pollution: the Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994; the Bathing Waters Regulations 2013; the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017; the Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (England) Regulations 2010; and the Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018. Those regulations provide the legislative underpinning for efforts to protect and clean up our rivers.
The Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994 are important for keeping up the pressure on water companies and developers to provide sufficient primary waste water infrastructure to meet the needs of urban areas, especially when they are growing. If those regulations end up weaker as a result of the Bill, there will be an increased risk of insufficiently treated waste water from urban areas spreading pollution across the fresh water network. Weakening the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 and the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 would undercut the measures that drive frontline organisations, especially water companies, to take holistic action to improve water quality.
Stella Creasy
I pay testament to my hon. Friend for working through that list, and for introducing us all to the concept of killer shrimp. I am sure that we will have nightmares about them, as we might about the legislation and the Committee sittings.
I hope that we can find common ground in Committee, because many of us have had to deal with the consequences of animal welfare legislation in our constituencies, particularly in relation to avian flu. As a local MP, I never thought that I would say regularly, “Don’t touch the ducks!” but that has become a refrain in my community because of problems we have had with avian botulism and avian flu. That is why I am convinced that it is important we parliamentarians should understand legislation—just as we should the Schleswig-Holstein question—and the intricacies and details of the negotiations behind the laws that protect us.
I see that Regulation (EU) No 139/2013, which lays down the animal health conditions governing the importation of birds and their quarantine conditions, is up for deletion under the Bill. I know, however, that in Bosworth last year, Wealden earlier this year, and recently in Clwyd West, members of the Committee had the same experience and I have of bird flu in their constituency. They know about the importance of the regulation. We recognise the concern that if that regulation is simply torn up and no commitment is made to it, the means of addressing that very live issue in our communities is at stake. Consider the work that is done to protect our bird life, our wildfowl and other wildlife. In particular, consider the avian influenza prevention zones, which have had an impact in many constituencies across the House. All that work is underpinned by that EU regulation, so the idea of deleting it when we have such a live issue with bird flu in the UK causes concern.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West referred to the National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2018. Many of us will have seen the horrific case this week of the child who died in a damp property, but we also remember Ella Kissi-Debrah’s death in February 2013, which was found to be caused by acute respiratory failure and severe asthma. As MPs we deal with such issues—damp, mould, air quality—and complaints about them daily. The retained European law has underpinned the regulations and standards to which we have held our local authorities and, indeed, our national Government. Nobody is saying that that is why we should not have left the EU—that has happened. We are simply saying that deleting laws on such live issues without making a commitment to replace them creates uncertainty at a time when our constituents are asking for action on air quality and avian flu.
Anyone who has been an MP for any length of time also knows that when animal welfare issues come up in the House, our inboxes explode. It is an old chestnut. The Bill deletes all the protections offered on animal welfare, and brings back something that I have not seen since I was a teenager—not terrible ’90s fringes or blue lipstick, but live animal exports. I never thought that we would have to debate that again in the House, because I thought that there was agreement that we would not see that practice return. The Bill, however, deletes the very laws that made that debate go away and made clear what we wanted to see as a country. The Minister may say to us that the Government have no plans to remove such laws, but at the moment, the only plan on the table is the plan to remove them. That is the challenge here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West did an incredible job in setting out the range of laws at risk. Supporting the amendment would be the first step towards taking 3,500 laws, possibly more, that would need to be rewritten, off the table. There is common agreement. Perhaps I am naive, but I have yet to meet anyone in this place who wants to reinstate live animal exports, or battery farming for hens. Those are settled matters, and yet we will now have to find parliamentary time for them, unless we can pass the amendment and take those issues off the table.
I am sure that there were firm words among Ministers after the Statutory Instrument Committee that sat yesterday. My hon. Friend talked about REACH and the chemicals regulations. Those chemicals regulations, which were part of another piece of legislation, were not known to DEFRA officials. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) said she knew that at least 800 pieces of legislation were up for grabs, but what that means in terms of the ability to do business next year, let alone in the years to come, is questionable. Taking major pieces of legislation off the table, including some that are not on the dashboard but we know will be affected by the Bill, will make the Government’s life simpler.
I plead with the Government to see sense, if not for the ducks in my local park, Lloyd Park, which are struggling, then for the hens and sheep that were being exported when I was a mere 15-year-old. Involvement in politics was then just a glint in my eye, but I was getting up early to shout at the docks. Those issues are not contentious, because there is a commitment to animal welfare across the House. Why would we put them up for grabs? Why would we raise the prospect of reducing our standards, or having to spend parliamentary time to rewrite regulations on them? Why not take those regulations off the table and move on? The point of the amendments is to take off the table the things that we all thought were not contentious. I suspect that our environmental colleagues who are listening in will hear this loudly.
If the Government do not do this, they are sending a clear message that they want to put these issues up for grabs, revisit old arguments, and water down animal welfare and conservation regulations, with all the chaos that will come with that. So many laws such as planning laws rest on those regulations. That is quite apart from the fact that colleagues in DEFRA are having nightmares about the effect on those 800 laws.
I hope that the Minister will give us some more positive news. She did not really take up my offer to suss out which employment protections the Government will absolutely keep, so that my constituents could be confident in supporting her, but perhaps she will do so on the environmental protections, and will reassure us that the ducks are safe and the killer shrimps will be defeated.
Ms Ghani
Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that I will reject amendments 74 and 77. It has been an absolute joy to hear a new shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds North West, who shadows DEFRA. I have a couple of powerful responses to make to his points, but I will need time to go through them; as he knows, I am not a DEFRA Minister.
I do not understand why the Opposition are trying to create a huge amount of fear. Fundamentally, that comes from their standpoint of being part of the anti-Brexit brigade. We are simply trying to finally finish the process finally. As Members know, because I have said it many times, the Bill is enabling legislation. The measures in it, including the sunset, will provide for UK and devolved Ministers to make decisions to review, amend or repeal their REUL as they see fit. Where Ministers see fit, they have the power to preserve REUL that would otherwise be in scope of the sunset. That includes Ministers in the devolved Governments. There is no need to have specific exemptions. I am responding directly to amendments 74 and 77.
Secondary REUL that is outdated and no longer fit for purpose can be revoked or replaced. Such REUL can also be restated to maintain policy intent. As such, there is simply no need for any carve-outs for individual Departments, specific policy areas or sectors. REUL across all sectors of the economy in the UK is unfit for purpose, and it is right that it be reviewed and updated equally in all sectors and in the same timeframe.
A point was made about scrutiny. Departments will be expected to develop and deliver plans that outline their intention for each piece of retained EU law. The Brexit Opportunities Unit team will work with Departments to draw up those delivery plans and to ensure that the legislative process proceeds smoothly. The delivery plans will be subject to scrutiny via the internal Government or ministerial stock-take process. More information will follow, including on how to factor such processes into statutory instrument timetables.
There is no doubt that this is a considerable amount of work, but we do not enter politics or Government to be work-shy. The work will definitely be done. The sunset empowers all to think boldly about these regulations, and provides an impetus for Departments to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens.
Turning to amendment 77, the Bill will allow Departments to unleash innovation, and will propel growth across every area of our economy. The power in clause 15 to revoke or replace is an important, cross-cutting enabler of reform. Exempting regulations associated with environmental protections from the power will reduce the genuine reform that the Bill sets out to deliver. The UK is a world leader when it comes to environmental protection. In reviewing our retained EU law, we want to ensure that environmental law is fit for purpose and able to drive improved environmental outcomes. We remain committed to delivering on our legally binding target to halt nature’s decline by 2030. The Bill will not alter that. That is why we do not consider the proposed carve-out for environmental regulations to be necessary.
Alex Sobel
The Minister’s response reflects the scale of the task at DEFRA. Just last week, a question was asked of DEFRA on the topic of pesticide regulations. The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries responded:
“We are currently working through Defra’s REUL to identify the actions we intend to take before the sunset date.”
I think the scale of the task is reflective of what is before DEFRA. From what the Minister has said, I am looking forward to this huge army of new civil servants who are going to arrive in DEFRA and do all this work before December 2023. We are just trying to retain and carve out some of the most important pieces of legislation—the ones the public will be most concerned about in terms of the regulation that they see as protecting them in their everyday life.
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend will be aware that the former Secretary of State for DEFRA, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), bitterly fought the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) in Cabinet in opposition to the sunset clause, and was worried about the impact on the Department and its capacity to deliver on it. Does my hon. Friend think that is because the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth had real concerns, or is it, as the Minister suggested, because he was workshy?
Alex Sobel
It was interesting to see the proclamations by the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth on various aspects. I mentioned the Australia trade deal in my speech, and last week the right hon. Member was very derogatory about the terms of that trade deal for the UK and UK farmers. We are now hearing from him what really happened behind the scenes, and we are going to see an unfurling of some of the work that took place and the disagreements around the Cabinet table. I do not want to prejudge the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, but we might hear about some of the consequences of the Government carrying on with this Bill. We might see some of the same commentary as that from the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth from other Members who have left ministerial offices. We have had a lot of churn recently, have we not?
Stella Creasy
Does my hon. Friend think this is also a live issue for current DEFRA Ministers? In the Delegated Legislation Committee yesterday on the Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations, the Minister was not able to say what would happen with them, given that the regulations are based on legislation that is not on the dashboard in some areas and on it in others. She could not give a commitment as to what would happen to those regulations post 2023. As DEFRA has most of the regulation, does he think that DEFRA Ministers probably have the most to offer in terms of understanding why taking some of these regulations off the rule book altogether would make life a lot simpler for them?
Alex Sobel
I do not want to rehash the debate we have already had, but we were talking about maybe as many as 500 or more regulations not currently on the dashboard, with effects that we cannot predict. I would not want to be a Minister in the Government staring down the line at that, but that is exactly what Ministers in DEFRA are doing, so they have my sympathy in that regard.
The 20 sets of regulations that we want to carve out represent a small fraction of the canon of DEFRA legislation that the Bill could sweep away at the end of next year or leave at risk of being weakened. Amendments 74 and 77 list only a tiny sample of the protections that could be swept away because of the reckless and incompetent approach the Government have chosen to take with this Bill. There are hundreds of items of retained environmental law, in a complex web sitting within and alongside domestic legislation, some with significant case law attached to them. The Minister is making the argument that the amendments are unnecessary, but I am looking to the future progress of the Bill and seeing how that will unfurl and how many of these Bills will potentially be swept away, whether by the present set of Ministers or those who might follow.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 75, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) The Civil Aviation (Denied Boarding, Compensation and Assistance) Regulations 2005,
(b) Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations,
(c) The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012,
(d) The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016,
(e) The Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011,
(f) The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012,
(g) The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015,
(h) The Cocoa and Chocolate Products (England) Regulations 2003,
(i) Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 of 3 August 2012,
(j) The Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, and
(k) The Bauer [C-168/18] and Hampshire [C-17/17] judgements.”
This amendment would exclude certain retained EU law which provides for consumer protections from the sunset in subsection (1).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 78, in clause 15, page 17, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) The Civil Aviation (Denied Boarding, Compensation and Assistance) Regulations 2005,
(b) Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations,
(c) The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012,
(d) The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016,
(e) The Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011,
(f) The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012,
(g) The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015,
(h) The Cocoa and Chocolate Products (England) Regulations 2003,
(i) Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 of 3 August 2012,
(j) The Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, and
(k) The Bauer [C-168/18] and Hampshire [C-17/17] judgements.”
This amendment would exclude certain legislation which provides for consumer protections from the power to revoke without replacement in subsection (1).
Justin Madders
Now that we are done with the forces of nature, I will take Government Members to the edge of panic again with more of what they will consider to be scaremongering—this time, about consumer rights. We are not trying to worry anyone; we are just trying to protect the rules that are already in place.
Amendment 75 prevents key consumer regulations and legislation from falling off a legislative cliff edge in a little over a year’s time, and amendment 78 removes them from the scope of the powers to revoke without replacement in section 15 of the Bill. To be clear, neither of the amendments is designed to tie the hands of the Government; in fact, they could be seen as doing the opposite. Leaving barely a year to process all the retained EU law could be seen in itself as tying the hands of the Government, although they seem very comfortable with that at the moment. The amendments remove the hard deadlines for these key pieces of legislation, preventing them from being removed without replacement or being watered down. That will free the Government to find ways to improve upon these rights in a considered manner, and—as was argued during the referendum campaign—make the most of our freedom to move beyond EU regulations to better and more appropriately protect consumers’ rights. I cannot see how Conservative Members could oppose these amendments, but I have a feeling that we may again be disappointed.
Paragraphs (a) to (k) of amendment 75 deal with only a fraction of the consumer rights that come under the scope of the Bill. However, these are some of the most important rights to our consumers and constituents, and their presence on the list of rights subject to the sunset date will no doubt cause unnecessary uncertainty. Taking a lead from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West, I will go through some of the legislation we are seeking to protect—I will probably not take quite as long as he did, but I will do my best.
First, the Civil Aviation (Denied Boarding, Compensation and Assistance) Regulations 2005 enact EU regulations that uphold rights in the commercial aviation sector. Its provisions include the right to compensation when flights are cancelled or delayed or boarding is denied, and giving priority to passengers who have a disability. I ask the Minister: are those rights meaningless red tape? They are important protections for Britain’s air passengers and should be maintained, not under the threat of being sunsetted in a year’s time without any replacement.
Of course, it is not just the protection of air passengers’ rights that falls under that sunset date. Key protections for Britain’s rail passengers are also included in the retained law that implements regulation 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and the Council. It contains provisions that impact all aspects of taking a train in the UK, including, rather topically—I am sure many Members will be aware of this—stipulations on passengers’ right to receive compensation, and the amount of compensation they are entitled to, when a train is delayed or cancelled in the form of the Delay Repay system. That system is probably getting more visits than the Government’s retained law dashboard at the moment. The regulation also contains important rights to accessibility assistance at platforms and on train services, maintaining a lifeline for many of the people who rely on that form of transport. Why can the Government not accept that those rights should be retained?
Paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of amendment 75 are all examples of how retained EU law protects the rights of our high street shoppers on a daily basis. The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012 prevent shops from imposing surcharges that go beyond the coverage of costs; the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016 are technical and sweeping, yet are crucial in protecting consumers from unsafe electrical equipment by setting standards for the testing of products and the voltages of appliances; and the Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011 impose minimum safety standards on products sold for children’s consumption.
The amendment does not only name consumer protections that maintain high-quality standards on products and services; it also deals with how to deal with disputes under the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015. Under those regulations, consumers have a clearer route for out-of-court settlements when they have a dispute over a product. In essence, they facilitate, through an impartial body, the ability to claim compensation. Given the amount of litigation that this Bill will generate, it is a good idea to continue to divert people away from the court process if an alternative is possible.
Stella Creasy
We come to a list of things that surely leads Members of different parties to think, “Of course we’re going to retain these pieces of legislation. Why even give it a second glance?” I am absolutely confident that Government Members will say to us, “Don’t scaremonger. Of course people will still be able to get compensation if their flight is delayed.” The trouble is that we do not have from the Government anything like a list of what will exist post 2023. That is the challenge, as these are probably the pieces of legislation that our constituents rely on most of all, because they deal with people’s everyday transactions. They are matters about which people get extremely agitated, because it feels incredibly unfair if someone’s flight is delayed or they suddenly discover that they have bought something that is faulty. People expect to be able to get redress as a matter of course.
In a former lifetime, I had the sheer joy of being the shadow consumer Minister. I encourage all Members to come shopping with me—if nothing else, most employers try to get me out of the shop quickly by offering a very good deal by the end of the transaction, because I was involved in writing the Consumer Rights Act 2015. These sorts of requirements shaped that piece of legislation, and they did so with good reason, because where is the partisan argument about the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016? We may disagree about the impact of workers’ rights on our economy—clearly, we do. Government Members did not want to save bank holidays, and that is their call, but surely we all agree that somebody should be able to plug in a toaster and not have it blow up or cause them harm, and that having regulations is not onerous but sets a level playing field. Most businesses, which are good actors, want to be confident that they will not be undercut by somebody selling faulty goods.
I know that the hon. Member for Bosworth will be relieved to hear that the regulations do not cover charging cables for phones and iPads—so they can play as much music as they like. However, they do cover whether goods are of a certain standard. Having goods of a certain standard is surely not something that we want to put up for grabs, because if we do, over the course of the next year—assuming that we find time for all the DEFRA pieces of legislation and for working out whether workers’ rights will be replaced or changed—we will then have to find time to deal with all these pieces of legislation.
Members may feel more strongly about some pieces of legislation than others. As I say, not being able to get a refund when someone has been mis-sold something, or has experienced a delay, is a cause of high concern for many people. Often, it is something that they will come to their Member of Parliament about, so I would not want to be the MP explaining that I had deleted people’s right to compensation and did not know what was going to come next. I would be giving a green light—unusually for some of these companies, because many of them operate with red lights.
Justin Madders
It just strikes me that the idea of someone coming to their Member of Parliament and saying, “This isn’t what we asked for, and we would like a refund,” is what we are dealing with in the Bill. I do not think that many people who voted to leave the European Union voted to remove all the laws that we are talking about.
Stella Creasy
I would certainly be happy to refer them to any consumer champion, because I think they would have a very strong case that they were not getting compensation in reasonable time and in a reasonable format, which is obviously what the Consumer Rights Act—it is a piece of UK legislation, but it echoes the requirements—does.
There are other things on the list, which is not comprehensive but is authoritative—after all, we have been told that that is acceptable—about the sorts of things that surely we should all want to put beyond doubt, such as when people’s pensions are at risk. We have all had cases in our constituencies of pensioners whose pensions were put at risk. They may have worked for companies that went bust, and now they need protection. I absolutely want to take up the challenge about not frightening vulnerable people. The pension protection fund itself would not disappear, because that is part of UK legislation, but the challenge is that the Bauer and Hampshire judgments set out what that fund can do. The issue is not that there would not be someone to whom we could refer our constituents, but let us be clear: if we delete the relevant legislation and do not replace it, that organisation will start to query what it can do to help our constituents. That may mean that they end up with a lower level of compensation.
It could be the same when it comes to people having their flight or train delayed. The Delay Repay claims have given most people a level of certainty and confidence about their travelling, and I think we all want to see that reinforced—we all think people should have a fair deal. Why would we therefore spend parliamentary time rewriting something that works? Why would we put up for grabs the amount that people can be charged for using a debit card, when many of our constituents are trying to use them to manage their finances because there is too much month at the end of their money? Why would we do that?
Why would we again put the content of chocolate up for grabs? Come on. We have seen what happened to Cadbury; we have all tasted the difference. Anyone here knows the limitations of Hershey. Yet here we are again, rewriting laws that we brought in to protect things so that consumers could have confidence and go about their business every day. That is the point about all this. It is not about leaving the EU; that has happened. It is not about an objection to leaving the EU; that debate has happened. It is about an objection to deleting laws we all agree on, and the waste of time that the legislation creates, especially in terms of consumer protection.
Again, I offer the hand of friendship to the Minister, although I am sure she will bite it off with glee at this point in the afternoon. If she can tell us precisely what will replace the regulations listed in the amendment, and commit that our constituents will retain the protection of those standards, she will have my support. That is the purpose of the amendments. If she can tell us what will happen to the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, she will have our support, because people want that certainty. The parts of EU law to which the amendment relates refer to those bits of everyday life where people do not want the headache of uncertainty. I hope that the Minister will take up that offer, finally, as we consider the third list of regulations.
Now that we have been through some of the laws in question, I hope the Minister’s colleagues understand what is at stake. This might be a process, but we must remember the impact of it and the uncertainty that it creates. There is a risk that Ministers and MPs will sign off a piece of legislation only to find themselves having to explain to their constituents, “Ah yes, I was told that there wouldn’t be a dilution of your rights to compensation, but the Minister came forward with a change and, like with those pesky EU regulations I said I could not amend, the Minister has told me that I’ve got to like it or lump it.” Remember, the Bill does not offer any scope for amendment. I do not think Conservative Members would want to be in that constituency surgery explaining to somebody that, if they have been done over by Mastercard, they have been done over, or that their chocolate will have to taste bitter. That would be a bittersweet conversation.
Ms Ghani
I urge the Committee to reject amendments 75 and 78. The issue of scrutiny has come up again, and I find myself repeating that, as well as the dashboard, Departments will be expected to develop a delivery plan to outline their intention for each piece of retained EU law. I will try to go through each of the points raised to satisfy some of the questions.
A question was raised about electrical equipment and toy safety. Our current product safety framework is largely a mix of retained EU law, domestic law and industry standards. As a result, it can be complex and difficult to understand. The Government remain committed to protecting consumers from unsafe products being placed on the market now and in the future. Although the Bill is unlikely to give us the powers needed to implement a new framework, we hope that the powers in it will make it possible to amend or remove outdated EU-derived regulations and give us the ability to make some changes to reduce burdens for business.
Justin Madders
Can the Minister give us some examples of those outdated regulations?
Ms Ghani
That is the beauty of each Department putting together their delivery plan. Their own teams will be able to put forward the pieces of REUL that they will assimilate, update or remove. That is the beauty of the programme; it works across each Department.
A question was raised about consumer disputes. The Government are committed to a consumer rights framework that protects consumers and drives consumer confidence, while minimising unnecessary cost to business. Core consumer protections, as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015, remain unaffected by the REUL Bill. The Government will maintain their international commitments on consumer protection. We will bring forward proposals to address REUL that impacts consumer protection using the powers in the Bill or other available legislative instruments. The UK regime sets some of the highest standards of consumer protection in the world, and this will continue to be the case.
Ms Ghani
As I mentioned earlier, it is up to Departments and devolved Administrations as to what they would do on specific pieces of policy. The Bill creates the tools for Departments. Plans will be approved by a Minister of the Crown—I know that Opposition Members object to that—or a devolved authority where appropriate, and will be shared when ready, given that this is an iterative process that is still ongoing. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston to withdraw the amendment.
Justin Madders
I think we got a real mix there of things that the Government intend to continue with, but also—I am particularly concerned about how this relates to the Bauer judgment—things that they do not wish to continue with. But the underlying theme, the stock answer or explanation, was that Departments will put forward their delivery plans in respect of these REULs in due course, and that simply is not good enough.
Stella Creasy
Given that the Minister would not let me intervene on her earlier, I want to clarify that she appeared to give us our first piece of evidence about what the Government intend to do with this Bill, when she said that they do not intend to continue with the Bauer and Hampshire judgments, which require pension protection funds to pay out half the value of people’s pension if their employer goes bust. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have finally seen, for the first time today, what the consequences of this legislation are? That is why we are all so worried: because protection for employees is being withdrawn by this Government. The Minister has just confirmed that—perhaps she wants to intervene to say that that is not the case, although that is what she said, and she does not look like she is about to get up. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that at least now we have seen why we should all be so worried by this legislation?
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It has taken us perhaps five or six hours to get to that point. We now finally see why we are right to be concerned about this process, why it is important that we put in proper scrutiny safeguards, and why we want to see certain pieces of legislation exited from the Bill so that they are not lost. Pension protection is an important issue. My predecessor, the late Andrew Miller, did an awful lot in that regard when he represented Ellesmere Port and Neston. An awful lot of people in my constituency have benefited from the Pension Protection Fund. If we are to see a reduction, we will no doubt explore that with the relevant Department. For now, we will do our bit to protect these regulations and the others mentioned in the amendment by pressing it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ms Ghani
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, after “instrument” insert—
“, or a provision of an instrument,”.
This amendment and Amendment 3 provide that the revocation of a provision of an instrument does not affect any amendment made by the provision to any other enactment.
Ms Ghani
As hon. Members know from this morning, the clause is the backbone of the Bill, ensuring that EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation will all be removed or reformed by 31 December 2023. Specifically, the amendment will ensure that the Bill’s sunset does not impact on amendments to primary legislation inserted by retained EU law that is now in scope of the sunset. As drafted, the Bill provides for that to be the case only where an entire instrument is revoked by the sunset. This Government amendment provides that the revocation of a particular provision of an instrument does not affect any amendment made by the provision to any other enactment. Sunsetting amendments to primary legislation is not our aim with the Bill. We clearly rule that out of the Bill’s scope. I ask the Committee to join me in voting for the amendment.
Turning to Government amendment 3, further clarity is required to ensure that, where the preservation power under clause 1(2) has been exercised, it is REUL as it exists at the time of the sunset that is preserved. Without amendment 3, there is a risk that modifications to a piece of REUL made after it has been preserved, but before the sunset date, would unintentionally be subject to the sunset. The amendment will ensure that the modification is also preserved. As such, it is minor and technical but ensures the necessary clarity that REUL is preserved as intended, with necessary amendments or restatements.
Peter Grant
The Government have admitted that, even before we decide on clause 1, three important parts of what the Minister described as a fundamentally important clause need to be amended, because the Government got it wrong. How can we be confident that, in less than a year, 4,000-plus statutory instruments will be amended, revoked or replaced without similar mistakes being identified when it is too late and the defective legislation is already in place, with no other choice but to amend them in a Public Bill Committee?
Ms Ghani
The hon. Gentleman might have been in Parliament longer than I have and might have sat on Committees longer than I have, but it is not unusual to amend pieces of legislation in Committee. I have known that in legislation from many Departments. It is not unusual; it is just the process that we are in.
Ms Ghani
Government amendment 4 clarifies the power to make transitional provisions for the sunset. Transitional provisions are provisions that regulate transition from the existing law to the law as it will be amended by the Bill. For instance, transitional provisions could be made to ensure that laws that fall away after the sunset will continue to apply to certain types of ongoing contracts after the sunset date if the contracts were entered into on the basis of those laws applying. Consequently, the amendment ensures consistency for businesses and citizens following the sunset’s effects. That is highly important, given the role the Bill will play as a key driver for growth. I trust that Committee Members will support consistency and growth for British business and citizens, and I ask them to support these amendments.
Justin Madders
I will not speak for long. Will the Minister explain what the procedure will be, particularly for dealing with amendments to regulations under Government amendment 4? That is important. I think I understood the Minister’s train of thought, but if she could explain what that process will be and what opportunity there will be for parliamentary scrutiny, I would be grateful.
Stella Creasy
The Minister is not allowing questions, so will she provide clarification? It is absolutely normal to have amendments to legislation, but it is not normal to delete all the legislation and then try to amend in a lacuna. Will she clarify whether she recognises that these amendments need to be put forward because the legislation, as currently drafted, is not correct? She will know of other legislation that has had to be drafted—indeed, statutory instruments have come forward. What provision—what backstop or safety net—is in place, should something be deleted and should a change need to be made by this legislation in that absence? Will that law remain on the statute book, or will we simply see potentially thousands of amendments needing to be made but no legislation to be amended? If the Minister could take questions, she could probably reassure all of us on these questions. I do not think they are unreasonable ones to ask—she has raised the point.
Peter Grant
Before the comments from the hon. Member for Walthamstow, the Minister thought she was winning the argument. She said that there was nothing unusual in legislation having to be amended by the Government in Committee. That is exactly the problem. It is not unusual; in fact, it is almost inevitable. It is happening so many times in this 23-clause Bill, which runs to 30-something pages, but we are expected to believe that anything up to 4,000 pieces of legislation can be wiped out and that they will all be properly and adequately replaced, when this Public Bill Committee stage, which is allowing the defects in the original Bill to be corrected, will be removed from all of them. That is why this is such a reckless and cavalier way to go about changing the laws of these islands. We are not talking about one or two pieces of secondary legislation being introduced to replace or amend what was there before. We are talking about thousands of pieces of legislation needing to be enacted to replace a blank set of paper—in order to replace complete anarchy. Does the Minister now understand that that is why, with the best will in the world, the civil servants will not get them all right? If we go ahead with clause 1 and the rest of the Bill, as the Minister insists, there will be defects in the legislation that is put in place. Bits will be missed out that no one wanted to miss out. Businesses will suffer as a result.
Ms Ghani
Another question about scrutiny. Thank goodness that we are having this debate and legislating in the UK, where there is an opportunity to scrutinise and have everything on record in Hansard.
Let me go through the process again. Departments will be expected to develop a delivery plan, which will outline their intention for each piece of retained EU law. They will be supported by the Brexit Opportunities Unit. There will be a huge amount of outreach and stock-take process in place. To go through the process further, the Bill will obviously go from here to Report stage and then to the House of Lords. There will be a huge amount of scrutiny throughout. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, work on reform will continue in Departments. They will review their retained EU law, prioritise areas for reform and lay statutory instruments where appropriate. That process may include designing policy and services; conducting stakeholder consultations; drafting impact assessments; or supporting individuals who may be impacted by any such reform. That is the level of work that we always conduct when we are legislating.
On the question about the statutory instrument programme, and how the House will have sight, the Government recognise the significant role that Parliament has played in scrutinising instruments to date and are committed to ensuring the appropriate scrutiny of any legislation made under the delegated powers in the Bill. The Bill will follow the appropriate scrutiny procedures as it progresses through Parliament. It is right that we ensure that any reforms to retained EU legislation receive the proper scrutiny from the relevant legislatures and are subject to the proper processes for consultation and impact assessment.
Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, work on reform by Departments will continue. They will review their retained EU law, prioritise areas for reform and lay SIs before Parliament where appropriate. A sifting procedure has been included to ensure that Parliament can assess the suitability of the procedure used for SIs. Parliament can recommend stronger scrutiny procedures as needed. I hope that is thorough enough.
Peter Grant
I do not want to detain the Committee much longer, but I cannot support clause 1. It is not just about me not accepting that this Parliament has the right to take my people out of an international union that they voted to be part of. It is about the fact that even if we accept that there is no way back into the European Union—even if we accept that Brexit has to be a process of substantially distancing ourselves from it—this is not the right way to go about it.
It is perfectly possible, as others have said, to set up a process that allows retained EU law that gets in the way to be revoked, repealed or amended, but that allows good EU law to be maintained and adopted into domestic legislation, without running the risk of having to start from a blank sheet of paper and replace 40-years of legislation in the space of a few months.
The briefing paper to the late Queen’s Speech that the Government produced to set out the background to the Bill talked about using the Bill to assert the sovereignty of Parliament. Well, quite clearly, the Government do not understand that this Parliament never has exerted, and never will exert, sovereignty over the people of Scotland. If the Bill was to progress with clause 1 as it is, it would not be asserting the sovereignty of Parliament; it would be asserting the sovereignty of the Prime Minister and the Government Chief Whip. They will decide what goes in the legislation, they will decide who presents that legislation to Parliament and they will decide what Minister gets the boot if they do not support the necessary changes. That is not about the sovereignty of Parliament; it is about the sovereignty of the Executive—of the Prime Minister and Chief Whip in particular.
If we look at that briefing on the important aspects of the Bill, we see red flags all over the place because it is about short-circuiting the parliamentary process. The Government’s own assessment is that, if we were to take this retained EU law through a proper process of parliamentary scrutiny, it would take decades to get through. I am not necessarily saying that we should wait decades for the process to be completed. But taking a process of decades—by implication, that is 20 years at least—and squeezing it into a single year, and especially a single year when the Government are dealing with the impacts of the war in Ukraine, the after-effects of covid and the worst cost of living crisis in living memory, is not a responsible way for the Government to make legislation.
I will be opposing clause 1. If people believe that that will wreck the Bill, then this is a Bill that has to be wrecked. The Government have to be told to go back and bring forward a Bill that achieves what most Members in this House now seem to want, but that does so in a way that does not expose all of us—and those who elected us—to risks that we cannot yet even identify because they could come out of legislation that nobody here knows exists. It would be madness to repeal a piece of legislation that we do not even know is there.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 72, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out “Minister of the Crown” and insert “relevant national authority”.
This amendment provides devolved assemblies the power to make the decision to delay the sunset of legislation, and not just a Minister of the Crown.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 31, in clause 2, page 2, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) has effect in relation to provision which is within the competence of the Scottish Ministers as if, after “A Minister of the Crown”, there were inserted “or the Scottish Ministers”.
(1B) A provision is within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of this section if—
(a) it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament, or
(b) it is provision which could be made in other subordinate legislation by the Scottish Ministers, the First Minister or the Lord Advocate acting alone.”
New clause 5—Extension of sunset to 2026 under section 1 by Scottish Ministers—
“(1) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations provide that section 1, as it applies in relation to a specified instrument or a specified description of legislation within section 1(1)(a) or (b), has effect as if the reference in section 1(1) to the end of 2023 were a reference to a later specified time.
(2) In subsection (1) “specified” means specified in the regulations.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may not specify a time later than the end of 23 June 2026.”
This amendment would give the Scottish Ministers a power to extend the sunset date for devolved retained EU law equivalent to that conferred on a Minister of the Crown by Clause 2 of the Bill.
New clause 6—Extension of sunset to 2029 under section 1 by Scottish Ministers—
“(1) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations provide that section 1, as it applies in relation to a specified instrument or a specified description of legislation within section 1(1)(a) or (b), has effect as if the reference in section 1(1) to the end of 2026 were a reference to a later specified time.
(2) In subsection (1) “specified” means specified in the regulations.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may not specify a time later than the end of 23 June 2029.”
This new clause confers a power on the Scottish Ministers to modify the date that the revocation of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation may take effect, to a date no later than 23 June 2029.
Justin Madders
I will not detain the Committee long. We have ventilated a lot of the arguments about amendment 72 already in relation to why the 2023 deadline —or cliff edge—is unacceptable. The amendment would give the power that UK Government Ministers feel able to retain for themselves to extend the cliff edge to 2026 to the devolved authorities. There is no reason why we should have a different approach in the devolved authorities from that of the UK Government. Again, when we get into questions of devolved competency, it is clearly appropriate that those provisions should apply to devolved nations as well. We have already discussed these issues at length so I will not detain the Committee any longer.
Brendan O’Hara
I shall speak to amendment 31, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes. The amendment is crucial and goes to the heart of the whole debate. It seeks to clarify exactly which provisions the UK Government consider devolved and would therefore fall under the competence of Scottish Ministers, and which provisions would be reserved to the UK Secretary of State.
When this place passed the Scotland Act 1998, it listed areas of competence that were reserved. Everything that was not on that list was considered to be devolved. Yet in terms of the Bill, and with particular reference to the Government’s published dashboard, remarkably we still do not know exactly which areas the UK Government regard as reserved and which they consider to be wholly devolved.
Of course, it could be argued with some justification that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 knowingly created that confusion, and deliberately blurred the hitherto clear lines of demarcation between powers that had been devolved and powers that were reserved. Prior to the passing of the 2020 Act, it had long been accepted that environmental health, food standards and animal welfare were wholly devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but since its passing we have seen a significant encroachment by the UK Government and Ministers into policy areas that hitherto have been wholly devolved. That not only goes completely against the spirit of devolution, but directly contravenes the Sewel convention, which in 2016 was given statutory footing in the 1998 Act.
As a result, the Bill, in tandem with the 2020 Act, threatens to further undermine the devolution settlement by giving primacy to UK law in areas that have been wholly devolved, meaning that legislation passed in the Scottish Parliament to keep us in lockstep with European Union regulations could be overruled by the Government in Westminster, so I have a number of questions for the Minister. If the Scottish Parliament decides that we will remain aligned to the European Union and re-ban the sale of chlorinated chicken, but this place decides that cheap imported chlorine-washed chicken is acceptable, will the Scottish Parliament have the power to stop lorryloads of chlorinated chicken crossing the border and appearing on our supermarket shelves—yes or no?
Similarly, should the UK agree a trade deal that allows the importation of hormone-injected meat, but the Scottish Parliament decides to protect Scottish consumers and farmers by adhering to the standards and protections that we have now, can the Minister guarantee that under the provisions of the Bill the Scottish Government will be able to prevent hormone-injected meat from reaching Scotland’s supermarkets—again, yes or no? If we decide to retain long-established best practice in the welfare and treatment of animals entering the food chain but Westminster chooses to deregulate, will she give a cast-iron guarantee that the Scottish Parliament will be able to stop animals whose provenance is unknown and whose welfare history is unaccounted for from entering the food chain—again, yes or no?
Under the terms of the devolution settlement, the answer to all those questions should be an unequivocal yes, but despite us and the Scottish Government asking several times, we have been unable to get those guarantees. That is why amendment 31 is vital. I would be enormously grateful if the Minister could give clear, precise and unambiguous answers to my questions.
Ms Ghani
I ask hon. Members to reject the amendments and new clauses. Amendments 72 and 31 seek to make the power to extend available to devolved authorities as well as Ministers of the Crown. That power, exercisable under clause 2, will allow Ministers of the Crown to extend the sunset for specified pieces and descriptions of in-scope REUL, both in reserved and devolved areas, up to 23 June 2026. We therefore do not consider it necessary for the power to be conferred on the devolved authorities.
Conferring the power on the devolved Governments would introduce additional legal complexity, as it may result in different pieces and descriptions of REUL expiring at different times in different jurisdictions in the UK, across both reserved and devolved policy areas. I am sure that hon. Members understand how that would create a lot of confusion. Ministers of the Crown will also have the ability to legislate to extend pieces or descriptions of retained EU legislation in areas of devolved competence on behalf of devolved Ministers. That is to minimise legal complexity across the jurisdictions, as previously described.
Turning to the new clauses, the Bill already includes an extension power in clause 2. There is no need for an additional extension power solely for Scottish Ministers. Moreover, new clause 6 would change the sunset extension date from 23 June 2026 to 23 June 2029, in effect allowing REUL and revoked direct EU legislation otherwise subject to the sunset date to remain on our statute book in some form until the end of the decade. We have every intention of completing this ambitious programme of REUL reform by 31 December 2023. However, we are aware that complex reforms sometimes take longer than expected, and we will need to consult on new regulatory frameworks that will work best for the UK.
Brendan O’Hara
Could the Minister clarify the answer she has given? I think she said that because of the confusion that could arise from different regulatory frameworks operating in different Parliaments and different jurisdictions, UK law will take primacy, and there would be nothing that the Scottish Government could do to prevent us from having chlorinated chicken, hormone-injected beef or animals of questionable provenance. I am not clear on that; I am looking for a simple yes or no.
Ms Ghani
Well, it was not a simple question, and it was full of contradictions. During debates on previous amendments, we have spoken to the high levels of animal welfare that we have here in the UK, and the level of scrutiny that will take place.
To the point that the hon. Gentleman raised, conferring the extension power on the devolved Governments would introduce additional legal complexity. Specifically, it might result in different pieces and descriptions of retained EU law expiring at multiple different times in different Administrations across the UK. Those pieces of retained EU law may cover a mix of reserved and devolved policy areas, and policy officials are still working through how the extension power will work in practice, but we are committed to working collaboratively with devolved officials. I am keen to discuss this policy as it progresses to ensure that the power works for all parts of the UK. The amendment would work against everything we are trying to achieve through the Bill, which is why I ask the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston to withdraw it.
Peter Grant
The Minister’s clarification in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute’s questions has been about as clear as mud. On the basis of that response, I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend will stick to his guns, move his amendment and push it to a vote. Either the Minister genuinely does not get devolution, or she gets it and is trying to roll it back, because the whole point of devolution is the recognition that there are four distinct identities, at the very least—four distinct sets of needs and priorities—within the four nations of this Union. Arguably, England could be split into several autonomous regions as well if the people of those parts of England so desired.
I think the fault line is that the Minister continually expects the people of Scotland to be reassured when she says, “This is not what the Government intend to do with this new power. This is not what the Government intend to do with this new legislation.” I mean nothing personal against this particular Minister when I tell her that the people in Scotland do not trust this Government. The people in Scotland have never trusted a Tory Government and never will, so if the reassurance that the Minister wants to give my constituents and constituents of other colleagues in Scotland is “We promise you that although we’ve got this power, we will not do it to you”, that will not be enough. The one way to make that promise credible is to say, “We are so determined not to do this to you that we are not going to take the power that would allow us to do it. We are going to make a law that would prevent us from doing that.”
The Minister still has not answered my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute’s questions, so maybe I can ask them in a different way. Who does she believe should have the right to decide whether chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-injected beef should be allowed to be sold in shops in Scotland? Is that a decision that rightfully belongs with the Parliament of Scotland, or does it belong to this place?
Justin Madders
To follow on from what the hon. Member for Glenrothes has said, I think the Minister misunderstands the point of devolution if her main argument against these amendments is that we cannot have different deadlines and laws in different jurisdictions. The whole point of devolution is that each devolved nation is able to decide the laws that sit within its devolved competence. I will not push our amendment to a vote, but the answers we have received this evening are pretty inadequate.
Brendan O’Hara
We will press amendment 31 to a vote. I am far from satisfied with the answer that the Minister provided. We recognise that there is a power grab taking place and this Government are coming for the powers of our Parliament.
Shortly before Second Reading, I met the National Farmers Union Scotland in my constituency of Argyll and Bute. It recognises that this legislation is a potential death sentence for the Scottish agricultural sector. In rural areas, such as my constituency, the farmers require a hefty subsidy to manage the land, keep their lights on, provide employment and stem rural depopulation, while producing high-quality, high-value beef, lamb and dairy products. This legislation is a death sentence for Scottish agriculture.
Tomorrow morning I will again meet a delegation from the National Farmers Union Scotland here in Westminster, and I will be sorry to have to report to them that we have received no assurances whatsoever about the protections that this vital industry needs. That is why it is essential that we push amendment 31 to a vote.
Justin Madders
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 31, in clause 2, page 2, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) has effect in relation to provision which is within the competence of the Scottish Ministers as if, after “A Minister of the Crown”, there were inserted “or the Scottish Ministers”.
(1B) A provision is within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of this section if—
(a) it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament, or
(b) it is provision which could be made in other subordinate legislation by the Scottish Ministers, the First Minister or the Lord Advocate acting alone.”—(Brendan O’Hara.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Brendan O’Hara
I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (3).
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment 29, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, leave out “2026” and insert “2029”.
This amendment changes the date that the revocation of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation may be extended to, up to a final deadline of 23 June 2029.
Brendan O’Hara
The amendment is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes. It seeks to extend the date at which revocation can take place to 23 June 2029.
As we have heard from many, many hon. Members, this Bill is a bad piece of legislation that has been badly drafted and ill conceived. As I have said, we will vote against it, as we have throughout this Bill Committee, and as we will again when it returns to the Floor of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes has laid out in pretty thorough detail what a confused mess of a Bill this is, both in terms of what it is trying to achieve and how it has been so hurriedly thrown together. That is why we will soon get on to Government amendments that seek to correct basic mistakes. As my hon. Friend correctly pointed out a few moments ago, if there are that many mistakes in this legislation, goodness knows what is yet to appear and what will be missed in the coming 13 months if we are to stick to the insane timeline that the Government are working to.
Having said that we will oppose the Bill every step of the way, we feel duty-bound to highlight its most glaring deficiencies and to suggest amendments. If the Bill has to pass, it should do so in a form that does the least damage to the people who will have to live with its consequences.
It is in that spirit that we tabled amendments 32 and 29. Amendment 32 would remove clause 2(3) entirely, and amendment 29 would change the final deadline from 2026 to 23 June 2029. As we have heard many times today, arbitrary, self-imposed deadlines are rarely, if ever, useful. I again suggest, as many others have, that Government Members canvass the opinion of the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth on arbitrary, self-imposed deadlines.
The cliff edge makes no sense whatsoever. It appears to have been inserted into the Bill by the zealots who were then in charge of the ship, and were merrily steering it on to the rocks, as a way of preventing cooler, more rational heads from looking at the Bill and coming to the same conclusion as the rest of us: it is unworkable, ideologically driven madness. If the Bill is to work, there must be adequate time for its provisions to be put in place.
Surely all but the true believers will see the sense in the amendment. Although it would not improve the substance or intent of the Bill, it would allow for a far more reasonable timescale, and would ensure that mistakes are not made, or that when they are people are not left exposed, which will almost inevitably happen given the way the Bill is currently written; things will almost certainly be missed, and will fall off the statute book. I encourage the Minister to see this as a helpful amendment to a thoroughly rotten Bill. It is an attempt to make the Bill ever so slightly less unpalatable.
Ms Ghani
I ask hon. Members to reject amendments 32 and 29. In short, they delay and deny Brexit. As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute has said himself, he opposes every step of the Bill. Amendment 32 would leave out clause 2(3), which would remove the extension mechanism’s deadline, and effectively allow retained EU law to be extended for ever more. Amendment 29 would push the date to 2029. Conservative Members are here to deliver Brexit, not to deny it. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Brendan O’Hara
I thank the Minister for her answer. As I have often said, it satisfies me not one jot, but I understand and was expecting that answer. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Joy Morrissey.)
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (Fifth sitting)
Thursday 24th November 2022
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRetained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 24 November 2022 - (24 Nov 2022)
The Minister for Industry and Investment Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir George. The clause is a vital part of the Government’s retained EU law reform programme and will make sure that EU rights, obligations and remedies saved by section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 cease to apply in the UK after 31 December 2023.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Sir George. Members will note that I am a little hoarse —please do not give me a sugar cube. I hope that means I will not be quite as lengthy as I was on Tuesday.
Justin Madders
We can try.
I want to say a few words about the clause, which will fit in with the discussion we will have on the following clauses. All these clauses pertain to the future of our law after the removal of the legal effects of EU law. I will try not to repeat myself and to focus specifically on the terms of this clause.
I begin by stating the obvious: as we untie ourselves from the European Union, we will clearly need a new settlement of legal principles. Nevertheless, we ought to treat the clause with some scepticism and scrutinise the impact it will have on our country’s legal system. In doing so, we must consider why it was decided to take a snapshot at the end of 2020 in the first place.
When the country entered the transition period for leaving the EU, the potential for a legal vacuum to emerge rapidly became apparent, as the process of preserving EU legislation and EU-derived legislation made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 began. Section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 was therefore designed to prevent such a legal vacuum once the 1972 Act was repealed, by catching everything that might have been missed and its legal effects.
I am saying that to highlight an important feature of the 2018 Act, which has been to maintain the smooth operation of our legal system while we formally left the EU. Clearly, it still has importance. Unless the Government are able to use the powers in clauses 12 to 15 to replace the effects of EU law exactly—although it is clear that they do not want to do that—we face the prospect of a legal vacuum.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, does she agree that section 4 of the EU (Withdrawal) Act has provided an important function over the previous years in creating stability and certainty? Secondly, does she recognise the risk of a legal vacuum opening after 2023, and can she provide any assessment the Government have made of that risk?
As a matter of interest, I have just read on the front page of today’s Financial Times that a wide range of groups, from the TUC to the CBI, have written to the Prime Minister requesting that the Bill be withdrawn. One reason they give is that it will create a vacuum and a great amount of legal uncertainty. I suspect that the Minister has not yet had a chance to discuss the contents of that letter with the Prime Minister, but if she has, will she update us? [Interruption.] The Minister’s response suggests that she has not had that opportunity.
Such questions naturally lead us to the identification problem that we discussed on Tuesday. My understanding is that the dashboard sought to capture the examples under section 4 of the 2018 Act on retaining
“rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures”.
Due to the dashboard’s catch-all nature, however, can we be certain that all those have been picked up, given that even the Government admit that not all the regulations have been captured? How on earth can we be certain that serious vacuums will not be left by the removal of section 4 if we cannot be sure that we have identified everything affected by it? That is an important point.
Linking again to our debate on Tuesday about the timeframe in which such legal effects and legislative provisions need to be restated, replaced or revoked under clauses 12 to 15, we must not treat clause 3 in isolation. We must remember that what happens alongside the mountain of other pieces of EU legislation that need to be processed will be key to how the country moves forward. At the very least the Minister must try to offer us some reassurance—or, better yet, a plan that shows—that the Government have the matter in hand and will deal with all the legislative provisions and legal decisions before the 2023 deadline.
Overall, we agree that there has to be an end to EU supremacy in UK law, but we still have concerns about how that will operate in practice. We want to avoid a situation that the Government have known was coming for at least two years. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some assurances to the Committee that action on the concerns that have been expressed by a wide body of representative groups is in hand.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Good morning, Sir George. I rise to support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. I also think that the debate on the clause sums up some of the practical challenges with the legislation. The retained EU law dashboard has identified just 28 pieces of directly effective retained law under section 4 of the EU withdrawal Act—a mere amuse-bouche of laws that will be affected by the Bill overall. Given that the number is so small in comparison with the at least 2,500 that have been identified, and the possible 4,000, why could the Minister not show us what will happen next? After all, our debates on Tuesday were all about what would happen if we deleted every piece of legislation. There are no guarantees about what would happen next. Rather than assuming that all these pieces of legislation should go at the end of 2023, surely Ministers could commit to reviewing the 28 now and showing us the way ahead—whether some will be retained, amended or indeed abolished. Then the clause would not be required.
All of this does make a difference. For example, on Tuesday the Government gave their very first commitment on what will happen to one of the 4,000 pieces of legislation—the Bauer and Hampshire judgments about pensions. To remind Government Members, who may well have constituents coming to them about this, those are the requirements—the pieces of case law—that mean that if a company goes bust, people are entitled to at least 50% of their pension fund. The Government committed on Tuesday to abolishing those pieces of legislation, but they are affected by the clause.
The 28 pieces of legislation are not insubstantial; they could be the way forward for the Minister. Instead of requiring the clause, she could say, “We’re going to look at the 28 and tell you what we’re going to do with them,” so that people can have confidence that we have an administrative process for these pieces of legislation and the suggestion that there has been scaremongering can be put aside. She could say, “Here are 28 examples of what we’re going to do, and the fact that they are rights under section 4 of the EU withdrawal Act helps us to contain them as a piece of work.”
The Intellectual Property (Exhaustion of Rights) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are another of the 28. Given that the Government are getting rid of the Bauer and Hampshire judgments, thereby affecting the pension rights and protections of our constituents, could the Minister set out what might happen on that one? She was very kind on Tuesday to set out an example of what will happen to one of the 28. It would be incredibly helpful for us as a Committee to understand the impact of the legislation and to perhaps start, if not to allay our concerns—I think Opposition Members are concerned when people’s pension protections are being not just watered down but, frankly, abolished—then to understand what the Government’s intentions are in using these powers.
I simply ask the Minister to use the clause stand part debate to explain why the 28 pieces of legislation could not have been dealt with in advance of the Bill, given that they stand on the EU withdrawal Act, and to tell us a bit about what will happen to them, to give us an indication of what horrors are to come or perhaps to reassure us. Government Members want to use the term “scaremongering”. I use the term “accountability”. I am looking forward to what the Minister has to say.
Ms Ghani
It is curious that Opposition Members say they do not want to prevent Brexit or accept the supremacy of EU law, but then they come up with every which way to stop these things actually being delivered.
The matters saved by section 4 of the EU withdrawal Act consist largely of rights, obligations and remedies developed in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Many of those overlap with rights already well established by domestic law, and those overlaps can cause confusion. The Bill allows the Government to codify any specific rights that may otherwise cease to apply if they consider it a requirement.
A question was raised about whether we are ending section 4 rights; that is not the case. Section 4 of the EU withdrawal Act incorporated the effect and interpretation of certain rights that previously had effect in the UK legal system through section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972. Section 4 rights largely overlap with rights that are already available in UK domestic law, and it is domestic legislation where they should be clearly expressed. This Bill seeks to rectify that constitutional anomaly by repealing section 4 of the 2018 Act. That does not mean the blanket removal of individual rights; rather, combined with other measures in the Bill, it will result in the codification of rights in specific policy.
Ministers in each Department, which will be responsible for their own elements of the Bill, will work with the appropriate bodies to ensure that they share what they will be assimilating, repealing and updating. All of that will provide additional clarity, making rights clearly accessible in UK law. That is why I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Abolition of supremacy of EU law
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 5 and 6 stand part.
New clause 8—Conditions for bringing sections 3, 4 and 5 into force—
“(1) None of sections 3, 4 or 5 may be brought into force unless all the following conditions have been satisfied.
(2) The first condition is that a Minister of the Crown has, after consulting organisations and persons representative of interests substantially affected by, or with expertise in the likely legal effect of, that section on a draft of that report, laid a report before each House of Parliament setting out, with reasons, the Minister’s view as to the likely advantages and disadvantages of bringing that section into force, setting out in particular the effect of that section on—
(a) the rights of and protections for consumers, workers, and businesses, and protections of the environment and animal welfare;
(b) legal certainty, and the clarity and predictability of the law;
(c) the operation of the Trade and Cooperation agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU, and UK exports of goods and services to the European Economic Area; and
(d) the operation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in the EU withdrawal agreement.
(3) In relation to section 4, that report must take into account any regulation made or likely to be made by a relevant national authority under section 8(1).
(4) The second condition is that a period of sixty days has passed since that report was laid before Parliament, with no account to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days.
(5) The third condition is that, after the end of that period, both Houses of Parliament have approved a resolution that that section come into force.
(6) If both Houses of Parliament have approved a resolution that that section should not come into force unless it is amended in a way set out in that resolution, then the Minister may by regulation amend that section accordingly, and that section may not be brought into force until that amendment has been made.”
This new clause requires Ministers to analyse, and to explain their analysis of, the effect of the removal of retained EU law rights, the principle of supremacy of EU law, and of the general principles. It also includes opportunity for Parliamentary approval and timeframes for laying reports before both Houses.
Justin Madders
I rise to speak to new clause 8, but before that I will address clauses 4, 5 and 6.
Clause 4 is a Ronseal clause: with regard to abolishing the supremacy of the EU, it does exactly what it says on the tin. However, unlike putting a coat of varnish on a fence, it will not be a case of simply walking away once it is done. It is inevitable that courts will need to consider case law that we have previously regarded as settled, because that law was settled when EU law was supreme, and it no longer will be. The reality is that none of us know where this clause is going to take us.
Most lawyers practising today know no other legal environment. The world has moved on in the last 50 years in ways that we could not have foreseen, and the law has moved with it, so any reinterpretation of the law needs to be done carefully. It must strike a balance between making changes where appropriate, based on our new position outside the EU, and maintaining some consistency and predictability for businesses and individuals who are trying to conduct their working and private lives within the ambit of the law. That is why some of our other amendments have attempted to create stability in terms of what the Government can control with these regulations, because we recognise that not even this Government can control the courts and which issues are litigated.
Section 5(2) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 stated that the principle of the supremacy of EU law will continue to apply
“so far as relevant to the interpretation, disapplication or quashing of any enactment...passed or made before exit day.”
That means that retained EU regulations would take precedence over pre-existing domestic legislation that is inconsistent with them. It also makes it clear that this does not apply to anything passed after 31 December 2020, so to some extent, supremacy of EU law has already entered history. What analysis has been done on the legal consequences of retrospectively altering the relationship between retained EU law and domestic legislation passed before 31 December 2020? Have the Government have done any analysis of this, and can they anticipate which areas will be prone to more legal challenge on the issue of supremacy?
I suspect that it will be impossible for any of us to say whether the consequences of removing the principle of supremacy would reduce the clarity of the law or change its effect in any particular case. However, the overall effect is that there will be a reduction in certainty and a risk of unpredicted—and perhaps entirely undesirable and unjust—consequences. What assessment has been made of the impact of the new level of uncertainty on business investment?
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I wish to make a relatively brief point, anticipating what the Minister might say on the basis of her response to comments on clause 3. It is worrying, when we are trying to have a serious consideration of the Bill, that serious questions either from our Front Bench or from my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow are met with the suggestion that we are, in some way, trying to deny Brexit.
I think we need to be clear on this: we campaigned to remain in the European Union; the majority of Conservative Members campaigned to remain in the European Union; but we lost and we left. There is no going back; none of us is arguing for it—no rejoining the EU, no rejoining the single market, no rejoining the customs union. But there are choices in the way that we manage our future outside of the EU. That is what we are trying to deal with, because we want to make the right choices, and are worried that the Government are not.
I have come to this session from a meeting of the UK Trade and Business Commission, which is a cross-party, cross-industry body looking at the trade opportunities and trade implications of our departure from the European Union. Both the British Chambers of Commerce, which gave evidence to us this morning, and the TUC expressed huge concern about the uncertainty created by the provisions in clauses 4 to 7 and the potential for businesses and workers to get lost in a legal quagmire from which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston says, only the lawyers will benefit. Given the current backlog of such cases in our courts, that uncertainty will last for some time.
Will the Minister address the concerns that were raised by the Bar Council, whose evidence I know she will have read? It warns about,
“creating uncertainty as to the meaning and status of such REUL by removing established principles by which it is to be interpreted, altering its status vis-à-vis other law, and nudging the courts towards departing from EU case-law that interprets it.”
I hope that the Minister will respond to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, because the evidence then says:
“We detect no sign that any assessment has been done as to the legal effect of those changes on the regulations concerned (despite their importance) and can therefore detect no policy rationale for those changes whatsoever.”
I hope that, in her remarks, the Minister will address those points.
Stella Creasy
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central is absolutely right. This is not about whether Brexit has happened. We all know that Brexit has happened. We have left the European Union, and, frankly, it reflects an intellectual insecurity about the legislation if that is the only response that the Government can come up with—if they cannot actually engage in defending their proposals but try to take us on to a completely different debate.
That matters because millions of people across the country are dealing with the consequences of Brexit on a daily basis, none more so than our friends and family in Northern Ireland. I rise to ask the Minister to put aside the constant talk about, “Well, if you disagree with this, if you want to ask these questions, it’s cos you didn’t agree with Brexit,” and to do justice to the people of Northern Ireland.
The Chair
Before I call the Minister to respond, the hon. Lady prayed in aid the Schleswig-Holstein affair. Without interfering in the politics of the debate, I think that a more appropriate comparison might be Zollverein in Germany or Risorgimento in Italy, which were all about the assertion of the rights of nation states.
Ms Ghani
This is turning into a very interesting morning indeed, Chairman.
I rise to resist new clause 8. This new clause seeks to set conditions on the commencement of clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill. I will explain to the right hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston why we are making the changes in these clauses.
Each clause is vital to this Government’s programme to reform retained EU law. That there are still circumstances where retained EU law takes precedence over UK law is not consistent with our status as an independent nation. The principle of EU supremacy must be ended without delay. These amendments would add further delay by requiring the Government to write reports on items to which we have already committed. As set out already, the Government have committed to ensuring that the necessary legislation is in place to uphold the UK’s international obligations, which includes maintaining the UK’s obligations under the trade and co-operation agreement or the Northern Ireland protocol. We will come on to consider an amendment that will allow us to spend more time discussing that issue.
This Bill will not lead to legal uncertainty—to have perfect legal certainty would mean that we would forever keep the same laws. Our approach is to improve accessibility and legal clarity by codifying, where necessary, rights and principles expressly into domestic statute.
With regard to the delegated powers in the Bill, the Government are committed to ensuring robust scrutiny for the secondary legislation made under these powers while ensuring the most effective use of Parliamentary time; I believe, Chairman, that we spent many hours discussing this issue just on Tuesday. This means that legislation made using the delegated powers in the Bill will be subject to either the negative or draft affirmative procedure, depending on the legislation that is being amended and the power used. A sifting procedure will also apply to regulations to be made under the power to restate, which affords additional scrutiny of the use of power.
Clause 4 ends the principle of supremacy of retained EU law in so far as it applies to pre-2021 legislation. The clause establishes a new priority rule, which ensures domestic legislation prevails over retained direct EU legislation where there is a conflict. Thanks to the clause, an Act of Parliament will once again be the foremost law in the land. Clause 5 ensures general principles of EU law will no longer be part of the UK statute book from the end of 2023. Clause 6 establishes that after the end of 2023 all retained EU law preserved from the sunset provisions will be known as “assimilated law”.
In response to some of the questions raised, I put on the record once again that the rulebook does not seek to remove rights. In most instances, those rights already operate and are available in domestic legislation. The rulebook contains provisions to enable the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to safeguard the rights and protections of citizens of the United Kingdom. The Bill includes a restatement power so that Departments can codify rights into domestic legislation.
On Tuesday, we spoke at length about scrutiny, the sifting process and the role that Parliament will play, so I am not sure what further response I can make today. That programme has been made clear. The Government recognise Parliament’s significant role in scrutinising statutory instruments to date and are committed to ensure appropriate scrutiny of any secondary legislation made under the Bill’s delegated powers.
Changes in the law can give rise to litigation—that is normal—but we would never change the law if people wanted no change whatsoever. The risk will be mitigated in areas where Departments use the Bill’s powers to maintain the effect of our current law, if necessary, for desired policy outcomes. In other cases, proactive management of the removal of retained EU law will allow a controlled and positive introduction of a new legal regime that seeks to mitigate any risks posed by increases in litigation. For instance, the Bill contains powers allowing the Government to retain the current legislative hierarchy between specified pieces of legislation. The effects of repealing supremacy will only be considered relevant to matters arising after the enactment of policy. The change is not retrospective, and cases that have already been concluded will not reopen. Upon finding that pre-2021 domestic law is incompatible with retained EU law, courts may place conditions in the incompatibility order to mitigate the effect of that finding.
Justin Madders
I did posit in my opening remarks the principles of EU law that will be jettisoned. In the example of legal certainty and equal treatment, does the Minister consider that those principles should no longer be part of UK law?
Ms Ghani
That assumes that we would not be treating people equally and fairly, and that is not the case when we legislate in the UK. I do not buy the idea that without EU law we are incapable of governing fairly in the UK. We are all elected to Parliament to represent our constituents, and we want to go home and tell our constituents, regardless of who they are and where they are from, that we are legislating fairly for everybody.
Why are we removing the principle of EU supremacy? That principle means that pre-2021 domestic law must give way to some pieces of retained EU law when the two conflict. That ensured legal continuity at the end of the transition period, but it is constitutionally anomalous and inappropriate, as some domestic laws, including Acts of Parliament, are subordinate to some pieces of retained law. That is the nub of the issue. We either accept the supremacy of the EU or accept the supremacy of this place. We can go round and round, but only one can prevail, and the Government believe that this Parliament should be supreme.
On the protection of fundamental rights and the equality principle, the principle of fundamental rights is generally not the exclusive preserve of the EU. We are proud of the history of the UK legal systems in which common law principles and legislation are well established to protect fundamental rights. For example, the principle of equality before the law is rooted deeply in British law. It was in 1215 that Magna Carta first acknowledged that British people had legal rights and that laws could apply to kings and queens too. The Equality Act 2010 has, to date, brought together more than 116 pieces of legislation into a single Act—a streamlined legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and to advance equality of opportunity for all. There is no equivalent to that Act in EU law, which shows how important it is that we are able to express principles such as equality before the law in a UK statute rather than relying on principles of EU law.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend not agree that a particular strength of our domestic legal system is the principle of stare decisis, whereby there is a strict rule that cases are followed in terms of precedent, which does not apply in the case of EU law?
Justin Madders
I will first address the intervention of the right hon. Member for Clwyd West. The point of clause 4 is that it removes the ability of the courts to refer to precedents from any decisions that have been taken in accordance with EU law, so it is worrying that the right hon. Member makes such comments.
The Minister said that we must decide whether we accept the supremacy of Parliament. We absolutely do, which is why so many of the amendments that we have tabled are about giving Parliament back control, not handing power to Ministers or, in the case of this clause, handing power to lawyers and judges to decide how our law moves forward.
I thank the Minister for promoting me to a right hon. Member—that was very kind of her. She also said that new clause 8 would delay matters. It will not. If the Government are on top of things, which I would like to think they were, they should be doing this work anyway. They should be doing this analysis in a way that enables Parliament to scrutinise the effect of the Bill.
Stella Creasy
Does my hon. Friend recognise that the Minister did not utter the words “Northern Ireland”, and did not at all address the question of how supremacy will be resolved in Northern Ireland, which follows both EU and UK legislation? I see that she is being given a note, so perhaps she can do us the courtesy of responding to that question.
The Chair
The Minister might care to intervene on the hon. Member who is speaking. That does not require a point of order.
Justin Madders
We will be returning to Northern Ireland, as the Minister says. She said that the Bill will not add legal uncertainty. I am afraid that that is exactly what it will do, and it is exactly what the bulk of evidence from every legal representative who has contacted the Committee shows. By abolishing principles that have been in formation for half a century, we will be in a new era and will have to develop new legal principles. That can only create uncertainty.
It is worth reflecting on the letter to which I referred earlier, which is reported in the Financial Times today. It was sent by about a dozen organisations, including the Trades Union Congress and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, that have a huge interest in ensuring that the law is fair and certain. The letter warns that the Bill
“would upend ‘decades-worth of case law’ and create ‘a huge risk of poor or potentially detrimental law entering the statute book’”.
We should be listening to these people; they know what they are talking about. They have looked at the effect of the Bill and believe it will not do what some think it will. It will not be a rerun of 2019, although the Conservatives would like us to go back to 2019, because they were ahead in the polls then. We have left the EU. This legislation is about how we move forward, but I am afraid that there has been a complete failure to address the consequences of its provisions. We will be coming back to the issue for years to come, because there has been a shocking lack of forethought about the Bill’s implications. I will press new clause 8 to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Role of courts
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 7, page 4, line 32, at end insert—
“(d) the undesirability of disturbing settled understandings of the law, on the basis of which individuals and businesses may have made decisions of importance to them;
(e) the importance of legal certainty, clarity and predictability; and
(f) the principle that significant changes in the law should be made by Parliament (or, as the case may be, the relevant devolved legislature).”
This amendment adds further conditions for higher courts to regard when deciding to diverge from retained EU case law.
I will not speak for as long as I did on Tuesday, when I recited many different chemicals and species. I will also disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow by not mentioning killer shrimp. My contributions from now on will be pointed, seeking clarity from the Minister.
Through amendment 79, for which we are indebted to the Bar Council, we seek to expand clause 7 to make clear the important legal and constitutional principles that will be taken into account by the courts. The amendment directs higher courts, when deciding whether to depart from retained EU case law, to consider the well-established and, we hope, uncontroversial principles of legal certainty and regulatory stability. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether she and the Government accept those legal principles and, if so, whether she agrees that higher courts should have regard to them when deciding whether to depart from retained EU law.
The amendment aims to safeguard the important constitutional principle that a significant change to the law, including a change to established case law, should be made by Parliament or the relevant devolved legislature. Again, does the Minister accept that fundamental constitutional principle and, if so, that it should guide the courts’ decisions under clause 7? She may not be in a position to accept the amendment, but I hope that she can make a simple and straightforward statement that she and the Government agree that the three legal constitutional principles set out in it must be maintained and respected by the courts.
Ms Ghani
I rise to resist amendment 79, which puts in place too high a bar for UK courts to depart from retained case law, including judgments made and influenced by the EU courts. Clause 7 will free our courts to develop case law on retained EU law that remains without being unnecessarily constrained by the past judgments of these new foreign courts. The clause introduces a new test for higher courts to apply when considering departure from retained EU case law. The test gives higher courts greater clarity on the factors to consider, and greater freedom to decide when it is appropriate to depart from retained EU case law. The amendment, however, would reinforce the excessive influence of the European courts and judgments on our domestic courts, and limit judges’ ability to decide to depart from retained EU case law, as should be their right and responsibility. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Sobel
We will not push the amendment to a vote, but the Minister did not give us sufficient clarification. I am sure that when we progress we will continue to hear the opinions of other bodies in relation to retained case law. That is really important as the Bill progresses through the House and into the other place.
Stella Creasy
The Government might not listen to Opposition Members, but they might listen to the Office for Environmental Protection, which, after all, they set up. It said:
“In making it easier for courts to depart from environmental retained case law, the Bill is likely to lead to uncertainty as it will be unclear whether long-established precedents will continue to be followed. This could result in unnecessary, costly legal proceedings. Consideration should also be given to whether this could also result in a reduction in environmental protection (where protections have been established through case law) and how this will be addressed.”
Does my hon. Friend agree that those critical points need to be addressed?
Alex Sobel
Absolutely. Agencies such as the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Office for Environmental Protection use these regulations and case law all the time. They have evolved over time in many areas—water, nature and so on. There is now a real danger to those provisions, so I hope the Minister will consult with her colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and ensure we are not unable to undertake regulatory and enforcement action on the environment.
Alex Sobel
Having seen the opinions of different agencies—my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow mentioned the Office for Environmental Protection—and heard the evidence of the Bar Council, I am not sure that is the case.
Mr Jones
I hesitate to intervene again, but it is specifically provided for in clause 7(2) that, although precedent may not apply in the case of European decisions, it does in the case of domestic decisions. Of course, European courts are not bound by precedent, so we have a significant safeguard in clause 7(2) against the risks that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
Alex Sobel
I know from my brief in the shadow DEFRA team that some very important enforcement actions are extrapolated from European case law, because we were under the aegis of the European Court of Justice for a very long time. It is important that we are mindful of that.
Stella Creasy
Obviously the Bill also enshrines the idea that protections can only be watered down, because it says that nothing can be brought in that increases burdens. Of course, courts are free to set new precedents, but when this Bill is enacted only precedents that reduce protection can be set. That is why the Office for Environmental Protection is concerned.
Alex Sobel
I fear we may be straying into future debates. I will not take much longer—I take your lead, Sir George. We will have further discussions about burdens and regression, so I will not labour that point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 7, page 5, line 39, after “court)” insert
“in England and Wales or Northern Ireland”.
This amendment, together with Amendments 39 to 47 and (a) to Amendment 5, would remove the Scottish courts and Scottish law officers from the case law reference procedure provided for by new sections 6A, 6B and 6C of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 39, in clause 7, page 5, line 42, leave out from “Court,” to the end of line 2 on page 6.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 38.
Amendment 40, in clause 7, page 6, line 35, after “court)” insert
“in England and Wales or Northern Ireland”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 38.
Amendment 41, in clause 7, page 7, leave out lines 4 and 5.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 38.
Amendment 42, in clause 7, page 7, line 19, leave out from “Court,” to the end of line 21.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 38.
Amendment 44, in clause 7, page 8, line 40, leave out
“, the Advocate General for Scotland”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 38.
Amendment 45, in clause 7, page 9, line 2, after “court”, insert
“in England and Wales or Northern Ireland”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 38.
Amendment (a) to Government amendment 5, in line 4, leave out “(b) the Lord Advocate”.
Amendment 46, in clause 7, page 9, leave out lines 10 and 11.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 38.
Amendment 47, in clause 7, page 9, line 11, after “legislation” insert
“, or to the retained functions of the Lord Advocate (within the meaning of section 52(6) of the Scotland Act 1998)”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 38.
Brendan O’Hara
Anyone sufficiently interested in knowing the list of amendments I am addressing can read them in Hansard. As we have heard, clause 7 seeks to relax domestic rules on judicial precedent, which will make it easier for appellate courts across the UK to depart from retained case law. The clause also delivers a mechanism by which courts of first instance can depart from otherwise binding retained case law. I therefore very much welcomed the Labour party’s amendment 79, and supported its efforts to tidy up this section of the Bill. Labour Members are right to point out that the Government’s proposals are driven by ideology, and that they have not considered the legal uncertainty and complications that will now almost certainly prevail.
We heard from Professor Catherine Barnard in an evidence session, who warned that:
“The way in which the legal system has worked and has run successfully over the decades is on the basis of incremental change rather than this really quite remarkable slash and burn approach proposed”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 15, Q26.]
That is exactly what this is: slash and burn. It is another example of how the now-departed brains behind this whole operation were moving with undue haste, total disregard for the consequences of what they were doing, and the obvious fear that a more considered approach would reveal the multitude of problems that will come with this plan.
Indeed, Alison Young, professor of public law at Cambridge University, warned us of the extreme uncertainty that could come from these new legal arrangements, saying:
“Those carrying out business and trade need legal certainty, so that they have an understanding of the rules, now and going forward.”
She added that
“the issue is that those carrying out business will not necessarily be 100% sure whether things will be retained in the long term. If so, how they will be retained? Has everything that might be revoked been listed? They are not 100% sure whether it has been revoked or not.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 14, Q25.]
That is a recurring theme throughout these proceedings.
It is against that backdrop that we have tabled these amendments, which, although plentiful in number, are all intended to do the same thing: remove Scots law wholly and entirely from this part of the Bill. I make no apology for repeating that this is not our Brexit. Scotland did not vote for Brexit. We did not vote for this reckless piece of legislation and, quite simply, we want nothing to do with it.
Government amendment 5 is another example of the UK Government completely failing to understand Scotland or our legal system. Although I welcome the amendments in so far as they go to repair the poorly drafted first version of the Bill, with the Lord Advocate now having his or her proper place in the functions of it, it pains me that Scotland has been dragged into this mess at all. Indeed, so great is the concern about the impact of the Bill on Scots law that I understand our amendments have been directly communicated to the Secretary of State by the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, Angus Robertson. I hope that, in that spirit, the Government will now accept them.
Ms Ghani
There is too high a bar for UK courts to depart from retained case law, including judgments made and influenced by EU courts, so I rise to resist amendments 38 to 42 and 44 to 47. Clause 7 will free our courts’ developed case law and retained EU law that remains in force, without being unnecessarily constrained by the past judgments of these foreign courts. The clause will introduce new tests for higher courts to apply when considering whether to depart from retained EU case law and retained domestic case law. Lower courts will also be given greater freedom. They will be able to refer points of law relating to retained case law to higher courts for a decision, which, if successful, could result in the lower court departing from retained case law where it would otherwise be bound by it, enabling a faster and more dynamic evolution of our domestic case law away from the influence of EU law.
The clause also provides UK Government Law Officers and Law Officers of the devolved Administrations with the power to refer points of law arising on retained case law to the higher courts where proceedings have concluded. It will give Law Officers the power to intervene in cases before the higher courts and present arguments from them to depart from retained case law. This will ensure the appropriate development of the law as we move away from the influence of EU case law and the rules of interpretation.
The amendments would remove the Scottish courts and Law Officers from the lower to higher court reference procedure and from the Law Officer reference procedure. However, consistent with EU exit legislation, these measures in the Bill will apply to the whole UK. This will give courts in all four of our great nations greater freedom to develop case law unimpeded by the excessive influence of the European courts. In addition, amendment 47 would give Law Officers of the devolved Administrations the power to intervene in reserved matters, which is not constitutionally appropriate.
Proposed new section 6C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, established in clause 7 of the Bill, gives Law Officers the power to intervene in cases before the higher courts and present arguments for them to depart from retained case law following the new tests for departure in the Bill. These provisions are framed so that Law Officers may exercise the intervention powers on behalf of their respective Governments in cases where other Ministers or the Government as a whole have a particular view on the meaning and effect of relevant pieces of retained EU law for which they are responsible.
In the light of a new test for departure from retained case law, the powers will allow the Law Officers to bring such matters before a higher court for a decision after hearing the relevant Government’s view on the correct interpretation of relevant retained EU law. Consequently, it is right that the intervention power is not available in relation to points of law that concern the retained functions of the Lord Advocate as a prosecutor. Those functions concern legislation that is reserved to Westminster. The structure of the Law Officers’ powers is consistent with the established position of the Lord Advocate within the Scottish Government, as in other contexts the structure rightly allows the Lord Advocate to represent the Scottish Government’s views on the interpretation of devolved legislation, but not legislation that is reserved to Westminster.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is clearly not for me to comment on the best way for a Department for domestic English affairs to rule on what English courts and English Law Officers can do and must do. Equally, it is not for anybody here, including those of us from Scotland, to change the rules on what the Law Officers and courts of Scotland can do and must do—that is exclusively for the Parliament of Scotland.
Given the importance that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland repeatedly attached yesterday to the need for consensus when considering any change to the relationship between our two nations, will the Minister confirm that the consensus principle works in both directions, and that no changes will be made to the powers and responsibilities of Scotland’s Law Officers or Scotland’s courts without the explicit consent of the Scottish Government?
Ms Ghani
As I just said, the structure of the Law Officers’ powers is consistent with the established position of the Lord Advocate within the Scottish Government, as in other contexts the structure rightly allows the Lord Advocate to represent the Scottish Government’s views on the interpretation of devolved legislation, but not legislation that is reserved to Westminster. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute to withdraw the amendments.
Peter Grant
I do not know whether the Minister fully understood the significance of my question. We have not tabled the amendments because we think that the power is being given to the domestic Law Officers and courts of England—that is not for us to comment on. It is not even that we think that what is being proposed is wrong for the domestic Law Officers and courts of Scotland. However, what is completely wrong is for the domestic Parliament of England to legislate on the legally separate legal system of Scotland against the clear objections of the domestic Parliament of Scotland, which speaks on behalf of the sovereign people of Scotland.
If the Minister is convinced that what is proposed in the Bill is in the best interests of justice in Scotland, and if she can persuade the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Law Officers that that is the case, there is no question but that the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament will legislate on those terms. However, on the day after the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland insisted that the relationship between our nations must be based on consensus, the Minister is proposing to drive a coach and horses through that consensus by insisting that this Minister and this Parliament have the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of another nation in this Union. That is a serious breach of the guarantees contained in article 19 of the Treaty of Union, and it is not acceptable.
I invite the Minister to come back, should she so wish, and advise the Committee. In preparation for the Bill, has she had any advice whatsoever on the application of article 19 of the Treaty of Union? Does she know what it says?
Brendan O’Hara
I absolutely associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes. It is for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Law Officers to decide what they can and cannot do and it is not for this place to impose that. I have always imagined that, in a partnership of equals, each partner has their voice listened to and their opinions respected. Clearly, the Union is not the partnership of equals that we have been led to believe it is. Scots law has always been independent, and it ill behoves the UK Government to try to ignore the democratically elected Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Law Officers, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Brendan O’Hara
I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 7, page 7, line 4, leave out
“, if the point of law relates to the meaning or effect of relevant Scotland legislation”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 36, modifies the points of law on which the Lord Advocate may make a reference under the new section 6B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 so that it is not restricted to points of law which relate to the meaning or effect of relevant Scotland legislation.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 37, in clause 7, page 7, line 5, after “legislation” insert
“, or to the retained functions of the Lord Advocate (within the meaning of section 52(6) of the Scotland Act 1998)”.
This amendment modifies the points of law on which the Lord Advocate may intervene under the new section 6B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 so that the power to intervene may be exercised in relation to points of law which concern the retained functions of the Lord Advocate.
Amendment 36, in clause 7, page 8, leave out lines 8 to 21.
This amendment, which is consequential to Amendment 35, modifies the points of law on which the Lord Advocate may make a reference under the new section 6B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, omitting the definition of “relevant Scotland legislation” from section 6B.
Amendment 93, in clause 7, page 9, line 10, leave out
“, if the argument relates to the meaning or effect of relevant Scotland legislation”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 48, modifies the arguments in legal proceedings on which the lord Advocate may intervene under the new section 6C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 so that that section is not restricted to arguments which relate to the meaning or effect of relevant Scotland legislation.
Amendment 48, in clause 7, page 9, line 22, leave out “relevant Scotland legislation,”.
This amendment, which is consequential to Amendment 93, modifies the arguments in legal proceedings on which the Lord Advocate may intervene under the new section 6C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, omitting the definition of “relevant Scotland legislation” from section 6C.
Brendan O’Hara
I will speak briefly about the amendments, which will remove any restraint the Bill would place on Scotland’s Lord Advocate in making reference to retained EU law.
As it stands, the Bill restricts the Lord Advocate’s power to make reference only to points of law that relate to the meaning or effect of relevant Scottish legislation. There is no corresponding restraint on the power of any other UK Law Officer regarding the law of England or Wales on matters that are reserved. Again, I understand that the message has been communicated directly to the Government by the Scottish Government. On the basis that we take the issue so seriously, I ask that the Government accept our amendments.
Peter Grant
The comments I made in relation to the last group of amendments are equally, if not more, applicable here. I appreciate that many members of the Committee would not have thought that the submission from the Law Society of Scotland was relevant to the interests of their constituents, nor should it be. The legal systems of the two nations are entirely separate. They are required to be in perpetuity by the Treaty of Union. That is not my favourite piece of legislation, but while it is there it is incumbent on this Parliament to comply with it.
The Law Society of Scotland wanted the whole of proposed new section 6B to be deleted in its entirety. It raised a number of serious concerns in principle, many of which will apply to the application of the legislation to English courts and Law Officers as well. Proposed new section 6B changes the way in which some civil law can be challenged in the courts without changing the way in which other civil law can be challenged in the courts, so the concept of the unity of a single body of civil law starts to be weakened. The legal profession will be extremely concerned about that.
The legal profession is also concerned about the idea that after a civil case has been concluded, when the time for any appeal has passed and the case is settled, Law Officers who are not a party to the case can then intervene, effectively to act as an appellant in a case in which they have no direct interest. That process rightly applies in relation to criminal law, because almost every criminal prosecution involves the Law Officers acting in the name of the Crown on behalf of the public interest.
In fact, in Scotland nobody but the Law Officers is allowed to take a prosecution in the public interest. Bodies such as the Post Office and the Health and Safety Executive are not allowed to prosecute cases in Scotland’s criminal courts. After a case has been concluded, it is perfectly in order for the Law Officers to appeal against the leniency of a sentence, for example, because they were an interested party in prosecuting the case in the first place. That does not apply if it is a civil case, so there is a legal precedent created here that the Law Society of Scotland has raised serious concerns about, as well as very possibly the Law Society of England and Wales.
The clause again threatens compliance with the Treaty of Union—that is how serious it is, Mr Howarth. Passing the clause threatens to be in breach of article 19 of the Treaty of Union, because it makes the Law Officers of England superior to the Law Officers of Scotland. It makes the domestic courts of England superior to the domestic courts of Scotland. Why do I say that? It explicitly allows the Law Officers of England to step in and interfere in a civil case that applies only in Scotland, between two parties who are resident in Scotland and subject to the law of Scotland, where a case has been considered through due process in the domestic courts of Scotland and settled with finality as a matter of Scottish law. At that point, the Law Officers of England are allowed to wade in and interfere in a legal system that has nothing whatsoever to do with them—not on a matter of reserved legislation or one that is within the remit of domestic law in England.
The equivalent power does not apply to the Law Officers of Scotland. There are no circumstances in which Scotland’s senior Law Officers can come in and interfere in a civil case that has been heard in English courts. However, there are circumstances in which the Law Officers of England can interfere after the event in a domestic case in Scotland’s court. That is not equal treatment of the two legal systems. That is not recognition of the right of the Scottish legal system to operate independently of interference from this place. I will take advice on that and I will be interested to hear if the Minister has. That would appear to me to be a deliberate breach of one of the articles of the Treaty of Union. As many will be aware, when one article of a treaty is broken, either party has the right to consider the treaty to have been brought to an end.
I expressed my concerns in the previous sitting of the Committee that the Minister might be about to accidentally repeal hundreds of bits of legislation by mistake. I am tempted to say that we should not interrupt our opponents when they are making a mistake. If this place wants to take the risk of repealing the Treaty of Union by mistake, I will not stand in its way. However, I think I should bring it to hon. Members’ attention so that at least they cannot afterwards say they did not know what they were doing.
Ms Ghani
I will try to address all the points raised because I know how seriously they are taken by Opposition Members. The Committee should reject amendments 35, 36, 37, 48 and 93 as they would give Law Officers of the devolved Administrations the power to intervene in reserved matters, which is not constitutionally appropriate.
Amendments 35, 36 and 37 concern proposed new section 6B, established by clause 7 of the Bill, which provides UK Government Law Officers and Law Officers of the devolved Administrations with the power to refer points of law arising from retained case law to the higher courts, when proceedings have concluded, for consideration against the new test for departure set out by the same clause.
Amendments 48 and 93 concern new section 6C, which gives Law Officers the power to intervene in cases before the higher courts and present arguments for them to depart from retained case law following the new test for departure in the Bill. It is right that references and interventions by the Lord Advocate are restricted to the points of law within the devolved competence of the Scottish Government. The provisions are framed so that Law Officers may exercise the reference and intervention powers on behalf of their respective Governments in cases where other Administrations have a particular view on the meaning and effect of a relevant piece of retained EU law for which they are responsible.
The powers allow Law Officers to bring the matters before a higher court, in the light of the new test for departure from retained case law, for a decision after hearing the relevant Government’s view on the correct interpretation of a relevant retained EU law. That will allow Law Officers and the Lord Advocate to ensure an appropriate development of the law as we move away from the influence of EU case law and the rules of interpretation. It would consequently be inappropriate for the Lord Advocate, on behalf of the Scottish Government, to exercise the reference and intervention powers where the points of law relate to reserved legislation. That includes points of law that concern the retained functions of the Lord Advocate as a prosecutor, as those functions concern legislation that is reserved to Westminster.
We consider the structure of the Law Officer powers to be consistent with the established position of the Lord Advocate within the Scottish Government. As in other contexts, the structure rightly allows the Lord Advocate to represent the Scottish Government’s views on the interpretation of devolved legislation but not legislation reserved to Westminster. For those reasons, we ask the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute to withdraw his amendment.
Brendan O’Hara
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes for his very thoughtful contribution. Again, that goes to the heart of the Bill and the bonfire that the Government are setting if they get it wrong, time and again. There are dangers in treating this state as one country—that is what happens when one does not consider the devolution settlement properly. But on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ms Ghani
I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 7, page 9, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert—
“(2) The following are entitled to notice of the proceedings—
(a) each UK law officer;
(b) the Lord Advocate;
(c) the Counsel General for Wales;
(d) the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.”
This amendment and Amendment 6 leave out the definition of “devolved law officer” from subsection (5) of new section 6C of EUWA and instead mention each devolved law officer in subsection (2) of that section.
Ms Ghani
I will be brief. Conservative colleagues will be keen to know that we are accepting amendments 5 and 6, which will remove references to a “devolved law officer” and replace them with the specific titles of the law officers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland where appropriate. This is a policy-neutral change requested by the Scottish Government and tabled by this Government in the spirit of collaboration and co-operation.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Amendment made: 6, in clause 7, page 9, leave out lines 20 and 21.—(Ms Ghani.)
See the statement for Amendment 5
Brendan O’Hara
I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 7, page 9, line 33, at end insert—
“(11) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament an assessment of the impact of this section on the commitment of the UK enshrined in article 2(2) of the Northern Ireland Protocol.”
This amendment has been tabled in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes. A recurring theme with this Bill has been a lack of attention to detail to either the drafting or to fully understanding the consequences—unintended or otherwise—for great swathes of the UK’s Governments, the economy and wider society. It is breathtaking. The impact of the massive changes that will be brought about by the Bill has been at best an afterthought, and at worst completely ignored. It is reckless, and some could reasonably argue that it is a dereliction of duty on the Government’s part.
This lack of attention to detail will be most acutely felt in Northern Ireland, and in the impact that clause 7 could have on the protocol. Given that the primacy of EU law will be removed by this Bill, but it has been retained and reaffirmed in the Northern Ireland protocol, will the Minister explain how the two pieces of legislation are expected to interact with each other? The Government have committed to there being
“no diminution of rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity”
in Northern Ireland.
What mechanisms have been established to assess and monitor how that is working? The very least that the people of Northern Ireland deserve is a thorough and detailed assessment of the Bill’s exact impact on the protocol. That is why we ask the Secretary of State to, within three months of the Bill passing,
“lay before both Houses of Parliament an assessment of the impact”
that the Bill has had
“on the commitment of the UK enshrined in article 2(2) of the Northern Ireland Protocol.”
Ms Ghani
The Government have already committed to ensuring that the necessary legislation is in place to uphold the UK’s international obligations, including the Northern Ireland protocol. The UK is committed to ensuring that rights and equality protections continue to be upheld in Northern Ireland. I therefore ask the Committee to reject this amendment.
Article 2’s reference to
“no diminution of rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity”
demonstrates the UK Government’s commitment to ensuring that the protections currently in place in Northern Ireland of the rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity provisions set out in the relevant chapter of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement are not diminished as a result of the UK leaving the EU. The provisions in the Bill enable the Government to ensure that the retained EU law that gives effect to article 2 of the protocol is preserved beyond the sunset, or that an alternative provision is created to meet such requirements. The restatement power will also allow the UK and devolved Governments to codify case law and other interpretative effects where it is considered necessary to maintain article 2 commitments.
Clause 7’s provisions concerning case law do not apply in relation to obligations under the protocol. Section 6(6A) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act continues to apply, so that our new test for departing from retained EU case law is subject to the rights and obligations in the protocol. The House already has its usual robust and effective scrutiny processes in place to hold Ministers accountable in relation to the Government’s commitments under the Northern Ireland protocol. In addition, these are bespoke arrangements in relation to the EU Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee where the UK and EU jointly oversee each other’s implementation, application and interpretation of the withdrawal agreement, including the Northern Ireland protocol—for example, the publication of the annual report of the Joint Committee to aid Members’ scrutiny.
Adequate processes are already in place, and the introduction of a new statutory reporting requirement is not an appropriate use of Government or parliamentary time. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute to withdraw the amendment.
Stella Creasy
It would be incredibly helpful if the Minister could clarify what she said about bespoke arrangements for Northern Ireland. Under article 2 of the protocol we have an obligation to uphold the institutions, including the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. Is she therefore saying that there are instances in which EU law will be retained because of the Northern Ireland protocol? Is she committing to upholding EU law where those institutions propose that it is part of upholding the Good Friday agreement? She said they were bespoke arrangements. Can she clarify that? It is quite an important point.
Ms Ghani
The preservation and restatement powers in the Bill or other existing domestic powers, such as section 8C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, will ensure that retained EU law that gives effect to article 2 rights is either maintained beyond the sunset or the alternative provision is created to meet such requirements. The delegated powers in the Bill, particularly the restatement powers, will provide the ability to recreate the effects of secondary retained EU law, including the interpretative effects of case law and general principles of supremacy where it is necessary to uphold article 2 rights. That provides a mechanism through which national authorities might implement article 2 obligations. As I said earlier, I asked the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute to withdraw the amendment.
Brendan O’Hara
I will not push the amendment to a vote, but we will return to it on Report. I remain completely unclear, given the timeframe, how EU law will be removed by the Bill, but be maintained and reaffirmed in the protocol. I am unclear how that actually works.
Stella Creasy
The hon. Member is making a fair point. The people of Northern Ireland deserve some clarity because, if the Bill takes away the supremacy of EU law, as we discussed earlier, but the Government are committing that there will be instances in which article 2 rights will be upheld, it would be helpful to understand what those instances are and what the process is. Who will determine what EU law can be retained? The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, for example, could be part of that, but it is not clear how the process works. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we owe it to the people of Northern Ireland to set out that process now?
Brendan O’Hara
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. Such muddled thinking and the unintended consequences of pushing it through so quickly go to the heart of the Bill. There are consequences to setting a ridiculously unachievable sunset clause. The thinking time that should have gone into the Bill has not happened. Although I will not push the amendment to a vote now, I strongly urge the Government to work on it to be able to explain on Report exactly how the measure will work. It is far too important to the people of Northern Ireland to let it wither on the vine and hope it does not come back. This is hugely important, but I will not press it a vote.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Ms Ghani
The bar for the UK courts to depart from retained case law in the judgments of EU courts is too high, and there continues to be an overriding desire for our judicial decisions to remain in line with the opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Clause 7 will free our courts to develop case law and retained EU law that remains in force without being unnecessarily constrained by the past judgments of these now foreign courts.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Joy Morrissey.)
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (Sixth sitting)
Thursday 24th November 2022
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRetained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 24 November 2022 - (24 Nov 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Industry and Investment Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It is a privilege to spend the afternoon with you in the Chair again, Sir George.
In certain areas of legislation, for example on data protection, it is likely necessary to specify that certain effects of the existing legislative hierarchy are maintained, to ensure the continuation of the legal regime. The clause therefore establishes a new power to maintain intended policy outcomes by specifying the legislative hierarchy between specific provisions of domestic legislation and provisions of retained direct EU legislation or assimilated direct legislation to maintain the current policy effect.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I have only a couple of questions. As I said, the Opposition consider the clause to be sensible, but will the Minister outline whether any assessment has been done as to what circumstances it is likely to be used in? What steps will the Government take to preserve the intent of the measure after 23 June 2026, when regulations made under the Bill will expire?
Ms Ghani
The hon. Gentleman asked about assessment. The REUL reform programme has been under way for more than a year. Departments have been engaged as to the effect of removing EU law principles—such as that the EU is the only one that can create principles and legislation—which is what we are working on. The work will continue to take place.
On the evidence about changing interpretation rules under clause 4, in specific cases—data protection regulation and competition law—removing the principles of interpretation as set out in the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will cause unintended policy consequences as a result of the way that the legislation has been written. The compatibility power will ensure that the relationships between individual pieces of domestic legislation going forward are maintained. We intend that to ensure that our domestic law operates as the UK Government want it to. Each Department will of course be responsible for REUL elements within their portfolio.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Incompatibility orders
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 9, page 10, line 36, at end insert—
“(4A) Within 28 days of the making of an incompatibility order, a Minister of the Crown must, by written statement, set out the Government’s view on the incompatibility. The statement must include consideration of the impact the incompatibility order has on rights of and protections for consumers, workers, and businesses, and protections of the environment and animal welfare, and whether the Government intends to produce regulations to revoke, amend or clarify the law in light of the order.”
This amendment requires ministers to set out, through a ministerial statement, their position on an incompatibility order that includes a consideration of the impact it will have on the rights of people.
Alex Sobel
The amendment would require Ministers to report to Parliament with a written statement in the event that a court made an order to declare that EU law and domestic law are incompatible. As we explained in relation to previous amendments, the Bill could impact on many fundamental rights of citizens in multiple areas of daily life. It could also interfere with important existing environmental protections, which I have explained at length in previous amendments.
The clause might have the effect of a court setting aside laws that guarantee such rights and protections, without giving Parliament any opportunity to ensure they can continue in place. In the interests of transparency and proper scrutiny, the amendment is designed to ensure that Parliament is alerted if that happens, enabling us to scrutinise the court decision and to consider whether we should exercise our rights to legislate to ensure that there is no confusion about Parliament’s intentions. It is not my intention to press this amendment to a vote, but I would like the Minister to explain how we can ensure proper scrutiny when such clashes inevitably occur.
Ms Ghani
The clause gives the judiciary powers in connection with the ending of the supremacy of EU law. It requires a court or tribunal to issue an incompatibility order where retained direct EU legislation cannot be read consistently with other pieces of domestic legislation. It gives the judiciary broad discretion to adapt the order to the case before it. That includes granting remedies to the effect of the incompatibility.
Courts generally have wide discretion to grant remedies that they may grant in a given case, and the clause is consistent with that principle. Where the court considers it relevant, the order could set out the effect of the incompatible provision in that particular case, delay the coming into force of the order, or remove or limit the effect of the operation of the relevant provision in other ways before the incompatibility order comes into force.
The clause is a matter of judicial process. It grants powers to the courts but does not change any rights or protections in and of themselves, which is a matter for Parliament in the scrutiny of this Bill. We do not need to create a new scrutiny process for incompatibility orders. A process of “declaration of incompatibility”, similar to that set out in clause 9, exists under the Human Rights Act 1998, and no new scrutiny procedure, such as the one proposed by this amendment, has been deemed necessary. Similar court orders could also be made under the European Communities Act 1972, where conflicts arose—again, with no such scrutiny procedure.
Once again, the hon. Member for Leeds North West raised environmental regulations. To repeat myself, we will not weaken environmental protections. The UK is a world leader in environmental protection and, in reviewing our retained EU law, we want to ensure that environmental law is fit for purpose and able to drive improved environmental outcomes. We are committed to delivering our legally binding target of halting nature’s decline by 2030. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Sobel
I take on board what the Minister says, although that last comment on the environment is slightly galling considering that on 31 October the Government were meant to bring forward, under their own domestic post-Brexit legislation—the Environment Act 2021—targets on a whole range of areas, including air quality and water quality. It is now 24 November and we still have no targets. If I am a little concerned about the Government’s performance here, she should not be surprised, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Scope of powers
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 10, page 11, line 12, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) for sub-paragraph (2), substitute—
(2) Power may only be exercised by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) if—
(a) a written statement explaining the modification has been published by the Secretary of State,
(b) the Secretary of State has made an oral statement on the modification to both Houses of Parliament, and
(c) the Secretary of State has published an assessment of the impact of the modification.”
The intention of the amendment is to do what Brexit was supposed to do: restore some parliamentary oversight to the way in which the Government make and change legislation in this place. The amendment is pretty self-explanatory. It is not ideal that Ministers are giving extensive powers to chop and change laws as they see fit. If, in exceptional circumstances, it is necessary for them to have those powers, the very least Parliament should expect is that Ministers will be held to account and will explain to Parliament—ideally beforehand, but certainly afterwards—why they have done what they have done and what the impact has been.
If the Minister genuinely believes in improving accountability in this place, she will accept the amendment. In saying that, it is clear that all Ministers—nothing against this Minister—in all Public Bill Committees are under instruction not to accept anything from the Opposition. If we moved an amendment that said, “Today’s Thursday”, the Government would keep talking until it was Friday and then vote it down.
Ms Ghani
I recognise that none of that was directed at me personally, but rather collectively at all Ministers. I beg hon. Members to reject the amendment. The Government recognise the significant role that Parliament has played in scrutinising instruments to date and we are committed to ensuring the appropriate scrutiny of any secondary legislation made under existing delegated powers. We must end the restriction that some existing powers may only be used to amend retained direct principal EU legislation or rights under section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 if they are also capable of amending domestic primary legislation.
The hon. Member for Glenrothes suggests that a written ministerial statement made by a Secretary of State is accompanied by an oral statement when an existing power is exercised. I remind him that all statutory instruments that are subject to parliamentary procedure must be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum. These memorandums provide Parliament with the information and explanations required. When powers are exercised by virtue of paragraph 3(1) to schedule 8, explanatory memorandums would be laid as appropriate. Any statutory instrument that reforms retained direct EU legislation made under existing delegated powers will be subject to the proper processes for impact assessments. However, a blanket requirement for impact assessments is not appropriate as some reforms could fall below the de minimis threshold set out in the “Better regulation framework” guidance.
Now that we have left the EU, it is only appropriate for retained direct EU legislation that was not scrutinised or approved by Parliament to be treated in the same way as domestic secondary legislation, which is amendable by existing delegated powers that this Parliament has approved. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Peter Grant
The difference, of course, is that any secondary legislation—even if it is done by the affirmative procedure—goes through a Delegated Legislation Committee in which, at best, three or four of the parties in this House are represented. For the last seven and a half years, the Scottish National party has been represented in those Committees because of the exceptional level of support that it enjoys in our country, but there are Members of Parliament, who collectively represent the interests of a lot of constituents, who never get on to Delegated Legislation Committees. The only chance they get to question the Minister about secondary legislation is if the Minister makes an oral statement before the House. Publishing something is all very well, but Members of Parliament who are not in one of the big three or four parties do not get the automatic right to question Ministers on a written statement—they do get the automatic right to questions Ministers on an oral statement. It is quite clear which way this is going, so I will not detain the Committee by pushing the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 10, page 11, line 18, leave out from “paragraph 3” to the end of line 23 and insert
“may not be so made, confirmed or approved unless a draft of the legislation has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, (as the case may be) both Houses of Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
The amendment is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes. As we have argued since the date of publication, the Bill not only undermines the devolution settlement, but puts at risk workers’ rights, product safety, food labelling, the future of the agricultural sector, and the natural environment. Clause 10 allows for all that to happen with the bare minimum of parliamentary scrutiny, allowing everything to be dealt with via secondary legislation, and thereby conveniently avoiding the intense parliamentary scrutiny that these measures most certainly require. Clause 10 would make it easier for the Government to remove our rights and protections by using delegated powers, and therefore circumvent parliamentary scrutiny, avoid transparency and evade accountability to all Members of Parliament. This is the Executive power grab people have been talking about since the day the Bill was published.
When the Bill was published, the Government told everyone who would listen that this was all about the United Kingdom taking back control and asserting the sovereignty of this Parliament, as opposed to—in their words—shady deals being agreed in small committees in Brussels, but it does not feel like that. Who exactly is it that is taking back control here? It is not this Parliament, and it is not Members of this House, because the Government have already gleefully announced that when it comes to retained EU law,
“the amount of parliamentary time that is required has been dramatically reduced.”
It seems that for the Government taking back control means putting a group of hand-picked party loyalists on to a Delegated Legislation Committee—a Committee that, as we know, has a built-in Government majority—which will bulldoze through change after change after change, as instructed. The history of DL Committees is not particularly encouraging; in the past 65 years, only 17 statutory instruments have been voted down by a DL Committee—and that has not happened since 1979.
Although there is certainly a role for DL Committees, I do not believe that that extends to them making wholesale, fundamental changes to vast swathes of the law—on matters covering everything from the environment, nature and consumer protection through to workers’ rights, product safety and agriculture—just to help the Government avoid proper parliamentary scrutiny. The reason they are avoiding parliamentary scrutiny is that, in their fervour to get rid of any lingering European influence, the wide-eyed zealots at the heart of this dysfunctional Government have arbitrarily imposed a sunset clause for December next year. This is not just the view of the Opposition; it is a widely-held view. Professor Catherine Barnard warned against the lack of parliamentary scrutiny afforded, saying:
“Although there is a process for parliamentary oversight, it will be difficult in the timeframe to ensure that that oversight can be exercised in a manner that enables Parliament properly to scrutinise the measures as they come through.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 16, Q27.]
In his evidence, George Peretz KC warned,
“One of the problems with the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny is that although one hears that Parliament has powers… the background against which it is being asked to approve legislation means that if it votes against that legislation, the sunset clause will apply and regulations disappear completely, rather weakening Parliament’s ability to do anything.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 32, Q61.]
Ms Ghani
I ask hon. Members to reject the amendment. Clause 10 ensures that appropriate parliamentary scrutiny is applied to the use of existing delegated powers when they are used to amend retained direct EU legislation or section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 rights. It is this Government’s view that the appropriate procedure applied when amending retained direct EU legislation should be the same as the procedure applied to domestic secondary legislation. Any additional procedure, such as that proposed by the hon. Member, would be disproportionate given the type of legislation retained direct EU legislation is composed of.
It would be wholly inappropriate if, for example, updating individual provisions adding cheese and honey to the simplified active substance list required the approval of both Houses of Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Parliament. Making it easier to use pre-existing powers to amend assimilated retained direct EU legislation, while ensuring it receives the most suitable level of parliamentary scrutiny, will ensure our regulations can be kept up to date, supporting growth across the whole UK.
Peter Grant
The Minister referred to domestic secondary legislation. Does she not understand that if a piece of secondary legislation relates exclusively to, for example, a devolved power of Senedd Cymru, as far as this place is concerned that is not domestic law—it is somebody else’s domestic law—and this Parliament should keep out of it?
Ms Ghani
I think we have covered the point of domestic law, law in Westminster and the role of Attorneys General. At the moment, we are forced to treat some retained direct EU legislation as equivalent to an Act of Parliament when amending it. It is no longer appropriate for retained direct EU legislation to keep the status of primary legislation when most of it has not had anywhere close to the same level of UK parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute to withdraw the amendment.
Brendan O’Hara
I will withdraw the amendment, but it is something that we will return to on Report. This is an Executive power grab; it is a weakening of the role and influence of Members of Parliament in favour of the Executive. It is intolerable, and I hope that, when we do get to discuss it on Report, we will have the combined support of the Opposition. This is a dangerous road that we do not want to go down, and something we should avoid at all costs. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to debate that schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
Ms Ghani
Hon. Members are already aware that clause 10 modifies powers contained in other statutes that can be exercised to make secondary legislation amending former directly effective EU law. Schedule 1 makes related amendments with similar effect to alter the procedural requirements in relation to other powers to amend retained direct principal EU legislation in line with the changes made in clause 10 to schedule 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Schedule 1 also contains amendments that are consequential on the changes to the EU withdrawal Act in clause 10. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 11
Procedural requirements
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 81, in clause 11, page 13, line 26, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
This amendment removes the subsections that omit and replace paragraphs 13, 14, and 15 from the European Withdrawal Act 2018, and thereby leaves intact the existing scrutiny procedure for instruments which amend or revoke subordinate legislation made under s2(2) of the ECA 1972.
Good afternoon, Sir George. In essence, the amendment would remove the subsections that omit and replace paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of schedule 8 to the EU withdrawal Act and leave intact the scrutiny procedure inserted for instruments that amend or revoke subordinate legislation made under the European Communities Act 1972.
If Ministers wish to revoke retained EU law, they are currently subject to what I would consider to be an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny, with mandatory explanatory statements, mandatory periods of prior parliamentary scrutiny and the mandatory use of draft affirmative procedures. Those enhanced provisions were inserted during the passage of the EU withdrawal Act in 2018 because Parliament considered such enhanced scrutiny necessary and proportionate, given the vast and varied nature of retained EU law and the potential impact of changes that we have debated at length over the past few days. We are talking about important environmental rights, workers’ rights and consumer rights. As we can see from the submissions made to the Committee, it appears that social media platforms are also at risk of being inadvertently switched off as a result of the Bill. We therefore think that this enhanced scrutiny is required.
I gather that the Government’s response as to why the requirements from the EU withdrawal Act can be watered down is that they believe those procedures have brought no tangible benefit. However, it is difficult to see what the rationale is for reducing the level of scrutiny when Parliament as a whole obviously thought that they were important enough to place in the Act just a few years ago. Could the Minister set out why she considers that a lower level is now appropriate?
I hear what the Hansard Society said about these procedures not having been used extensively thus far, but we are, of course, talking about something of an entirely different order to what we have seen to date. The procedures have mainly been used to maintain the status quo, but we are on a different and possibly uncertain trajectory now. It is clear from the Government’s refusal to accept any of our amendments to protect any pieces of regulation that there are going to be dramatic changes as a result of the Bill. Removing the requirement for the affirmative procedure will, once again, see a significant erosion of Parliament’s ability to scrutinise and hold Ministers to account when they amend the law. Why should parliamentarians not have greater involvement in the process set out in the Bill?
I have said this a number of times, but we really should aim to do better in the Bill. We should ensure that we are confident that, when changes are made, both Houses are able to scrutinise Ministers’ decisions. We will probably be presented, yet again, with arguments as to why we do not need such levels of scrutiny because these laws were foisted on us against our will in the first place, but that is essentially a way of saying that two wrongs make a right. I do not accept that. As I explained extensively on Tuesday, there has been a great deal of involvement on the part of UK politicians and representatives in the development of EU laws. I just do not accept the characterisation of these laws as having been foisted on us as correct.
I am not going to rehash all the arguments at the length I did the other day. I merely reaffirm that scrutiny is important, and when we, as parliamentarians, are faced with such a ministerial power grab, we should be concerned about trying to restrain it in some way. That is what this amendment seeks to do.
Stella Creasy
Apologies, Sir George, I was waiting for an affirmative action—in the same way I am waiting for an affirmative version of scrutiny from this legislation.
I rise to support amendment 81 because it is the nub of the issue, isn’t it? This is exactly what taking back control was supposed to be all about. It was about giving this place the powers that it was claimed had been cruelly taken from us by being part of the European Union. It is a while now, if we are honest, since we had the Brexit debates, but I do not recall a single leaflet that said, “Taking back control to Downing Street. Taking back control to a civil service office that would advise a Minister to pass an SI.” Yet, that is exactly what this piece of legislation will do on thousands and thousands of laws that our constituents care about because they have depended on them existing for generations.
I totally understand the challenge for Government MPs. Whether they were elected in 2019 or before, their experience of this Government has been of stability—of confidence in every decision and every piece of legislation that has been introduced. So they have never felt the need to question things or to have a mechanism whereby they could have a voice. What I often hear them loudly saying is, “In Downing Street we trust”—
Stella Creasy
Whoever is in it at any point—this week, next week, come what may.
The point is that parliamentary scrutiny is not a bad thing. Those of us who are democrats think it is quite a good and healthy thing.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does she recognise the way this procedure contrasts with the way these laws were originally made? Obviously, under the co-decision making in the European Union, laws are not made only by the Commission, which is characterised as the bureaucrats. They can be passed only with the active engagement and approval of the Council of Ministers, consisting of elected representatives from each member state, and the European Parliament, consisting of directly elected Members. Does it not appear that, when Government Members talk about taking back control, the democratic deficit that they once spoke of, pointing their fingers at Brussels, will now be pointed out here?
Stella Creasy
My hon. Friend has alighted on the fundamental challenge here. Obviously, it is a case of Council of Ministers—bad; individual Minister—no problem whatever. That seems to be what this Bill is doing and the process that MPs are setting up. As somebody who is hopeful that—not too long from now—Labour Members will be sitting on the Government side of this room, I still think it is a good idea for Back-Bench MPs to be able to raise questions, to table amendments and to have a voice. I thought taking back control was very much about saying that we did not trust Ministers when they joined a Council, but we did trust them when they had to face parliamentary scrutiny and to be in front of MPs who could ask them questions—difficult or otherwise, approved by the Whips or not. I know that my Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside, will catch my eye at this point. Amendment 81 would restore the scrutiny powers that we all agreed to in the EU withdrawal Act in the end and that were part of a process of giving people in this place more opportunity to influence what would happen next.
There is a practical challenge here. If we have all accepted that we do not even know which laws will be covered, because the dashboard will not be updated until next year, will all of us on this Committee be completely confident when a constituent comes to us and says, “You did X, but your Parliament did Y. Tell me the reason for that. Did you vote for that? Where were you when laws were passed that led to Facebook stopping working in the UK? Where were you when laws were passed that led to pension protections being deleted? What did you say? Did you vote for it? How did you represent me in that process?”—and answer there comes none, because the powers were entirely with Ministers, and the power of scrutiny, which MPs in this place could have saved and given to colleagues, was abandoned?
Peter Grant
I stand to speak in favour of the amendment, although, at best, all it seeks to do is take an entirely unacceptable clause and make it slightly less unacceptable. Clause 11 is about a Henry VIII power; it is about removing protections for this House that were, ironically, forced on the Government by Members of the other House. I am not a great fan of unelected legislatures anywhere—I certainly do not want my country even partly ruled by one—but I have to say to Conservative Members that when the House of Lords is keener on protecting the rights of this House than Government Back-Bench and Front-Bench Members are, the Government really do need to look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves: are we a democratic Government or are we not?
I support the limited improvements to the clause, but if the amendment falls, I will seek to divide the Committee to exclude clause 11 in its entirety.
Ms Ghani
I ask hon. Members to reject the amendment. Unless I was in a different Committee Room, or on a different planet, I think Opposition Members have had every opportunity to raise their voices, because we have heard much from them today and on Tuesday, and we have had much scrutiny as well. Our constituents know exactly what we are doing because it is all noted in Hansard.
The amendment would render clause 11 without purpose. Subsections (1) and (2) ensure the removal of additional parliamentary scrutiny requirements, established in the EU withdrawal Act, in relation to the amendment or revocation of secondary legislation made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. Subsections (1) and (2) will ensure that when secondary legislation made under section 2(2) ECA is being amended or revoked using other delegated powers, the only parliamentary scrutiny requirements that will apply are those attached to the power being used. These delegated powers have their own parliamentary scrutiny procedure attached, which has been approved by Parliament, ensuring suitable scrutiny will continue to occur.
It is imperative that additional scrutiny requirements are removed, because it is clearly inappropriate that legislation created solely to implement our obligations as a member of the EU enjoys this privileged status. What is more, no tangible benefit has been identified as a result of these scrutiny requirements; as was mentioned, that was referenced in the evidence session by Dr Ruth Fox of the Hansard Society. In practice, they add a layer of complexity that makes it difficult to make amendments to legislation containing section 2(2) ECA provisions.
Removing these requirements reflects the main purpose of this Bill, which is to take a new approach to retained EU law, removing the precedence given in UK law to law derived from the EU that is no longer considered fit for purpose.
Brendan O’Hara
The Minister said that we get our voices heard, including in this Committee, and that may well be true for the Government, the official Opposition and SNP members. However, we have heard a lot today about Northern Ireland. When is the voice of the Democratic Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party going to be heard? We have heard a lot about the environment, but where is the voice of the Greens? Where is the voice of Plaid Cymru? Where is the voice of the Liberal Democrats? They will not be heard in a Delegated Legislation Committee. We are not talking about the voice of Parliament, but the voice of a DL Committee, which is very restricted.
Ms Ghani
The hon. Member is not being wholly honest. The level of scrutiny of any piece of legislation, not only in Committee but on the Floor of this House and the Floor of the other place, takes place for all items of legislation.
The hon. Member will be well aware of the evidence session we had just a few weeks ago, when we had a number of people from environmental agencies who previously had Green credentials or who were previously Green or Lib Dem candidates. So it is not as if those voices are not heard.
Justin Madders
I think the irony is noted: the Minister says that everyone has their opportunity to speak and then does not give way to interventions.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
On a point of order, Sir George. I think it is fair to say that the Minister has given way numerous times. It is a little churlish to suggest that she has not, and I would like Hansard to observe that.
The Chair
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, it is not up to me to decide whether a Minister, or anyone else, should give way during a speech. So, strictly speaking, it is not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point.
Justin Madders
The convention is of course that Ministers give way when asked to in Bill Committee, because that is the point of a Bill Committee—that we have the opportunity to scrutinise legislation and question the Minister on its intent. I think the record will show that that has not been possible on every occasion.
That is why this amendment is so important, because the Government are obsessed with keeping power for themselves. The idea that the decision to leave the EU was about taking back control was not about the people of this country; it was about Ministers in Parliament making decisions that they do not have to address the elected representatives of this country on and that they do not have to justify. They are hiding away from proper accountability. That is not what taking back control is about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said it is clear that Government Members have no scintilla of doubt about the intentions of the Government and are confident that nothing untoward will happen. Well, if the last scintilla of doubt has ridden out of town for them, it is certainly very much in the high street for us, because we are concerned about the Government’s intentions. We have plenty of reasons to be concerned that they will not maintain laws that we want maintained and that our constituents expect to see maintained. So we want to push this amendment to a vote.
Stella Creasy
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite worrying that the Minister is conflating scrutiny of the Bill, and Opposition Members raising concerns about the process set out in it, with scrutiny of the subsequent statutory instruments that will be laid by Ministers under the Bill to address the 4,000 pieces of legislation that will be deleted by it? The Committee is scrutinising the Bill itself, not its impact. That the two are being conflated—the idea being that no further scrutiny should be required—is troubling. We do not know what impact the Bill will have, only the powers that it asks for. Does my hon. Friend agree that separating out those two things is important in taking back control?
Justin Madders
I agree, and I hope that by the time the Bill reaches its conclusion we have clearer answers on how Parliament will be able to properly scrutinise many of the powers that the Government are awarding themselves in the Bill. I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Peter Grant
I oppose the inclusion of clause 11, as I indicated earlier. I will give the Minister credit and assume that she just got confused. She has attempted to justify removing the requirement for full parliamentary consideration of a Bill to revoke European legislation and turning it all into secondary legislation. Not content with insisting on a sunset clause that means that if that secondary legislation does not get approved, nothing gets approved, she then attempted to justify removing the requirement to use the affirmative process for the vast majority of that legislation and instead use the negative process, which we all know is an even weaker form of parliamentary scrutiny. She completely missed the point. In fact, I think she confused the status of a Public Bill Committee such as this with that of a Delegated Legislation Committee, which she thinks is an adequate way for some of these important regulations to be considered.
The reason this Public Bill Committee exists is that the legislation was approved—not unanimously, by any means—by the House of Commons. The only requirement that anybody had to speak and vote on Second Reading was that the people of their constituency chose them to represent them in Parliament. Every member of the Committee is here because our party Whips chose to put us here. We were not elected to it by our people. We had to be elected to be in the Chamber of the House of Commons, but it is the Whips who decided who got to serve on this Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute has said, Northern Ireland Members never get the opportunity to have their voice heard on a Delegated Legislation Committee, though they do have a voice on Second and Third Reading. There is also no automatic right for Wales to be represented. Wales is represented in this place by four political parties, but there is only one voice from Wales on this Committee. That did not have to happen; the Whips could easily have put someone else on it instead.
Dr Evans
If Scotland were to be independent and part of the EU, the European Council uses majority voting so members have to like or lump whatever they are given at the end of the vote. At the end of the day, someone has to make a decision and Government have to decide. How would that fit if Scotland were independent?
Peter Grant
I cannot speak about what decisions the Scottish Parliament will take after we are independent, but I look forward to seeing that day before any of us are very much older. I am confident that it is a modern, democratic Parliament with much improved scrutiny procedures. For example, in the Scottish Parliament it would have been impossible for us to have two changes of Prime Minister without the explicit approval of the Parliament. Nobody can become a Minister of the Scottish Government without being approved by the Scottish Parliament. There is much greater parliamentary accountability for the Executive than there is ever going to be here.
My confident expectation is that when an independent Scotland goes back into the European Union, the Scottish Parliament will have a much greater role in scrutinising the actions of our Ministers, acting on our behalf, at the European Council than this Parliament has ever had. As I have said to the Committee before, the problem with lack of accountability and scrutiny of European legislation is not because the European Union’s processes are flawed, but because parliamentary accountability in this place is fundamentally flawed.
If I intended to be part of this establishment for much longer, I would be attempting to improve its processes in order to bring it into line with proper democratic Parliaments, such as the one in Scotland. Given that neither I nor any of my colleagues from Scotland are likely to be here for very much longer, I will have to leave it to those who remain to sort out the mess of a Parliament that they have created.
Ms Ghani
Our objective is not to remove power from Parliament. Our objective is to ensure that amendments or revocations made to subordinate legislation made under other existing powers receive the most appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. Fundamentally, people need to accept the Brexit vote and appreciate that we have to have sovereignty here. I do not think we are going to win that argument—we are too far apart.
When the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 was agreed, additional parliamentary scrutiny requirements were agreed in relation to the amendment or revocation of secondary legislation made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. It is clearly inappropriate that legislation created solely to implement our obligations as a member of the EU enjoys that privileged status. We therefore seek to remove those requirements. This reflects the main purpose of the Bill—removing the precedence given in UK law to EU-derived law—which is no longer fit for purpose now that the UK has left the EU. I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Brendan O’Hara
I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 12, page 15, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 8 and 9.
Amendment 54, in clause 12, page 15, line 13, leave out subsection (7).
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 10 to 13.
Clause 13 stand part.
Brendan O’Hara
I will speak to amendments 53 and 54 on behalf of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes. Members will be aware that clause 12 is about the mechanism that will allow UK Government Ministers, or Ministers in the devolved Administrations, to restate or protect current retained EU law so that it does not fall away automatically at the end of 2023.
Thanks to the insidious Internal Market Act 2020, there is, as with so much of this Bill, huge confusion about which areas are devolved and which areas remained reserved. That problem was recognised by Charles Whitmore from the school of law and politics at Cardiff University when he gave evidence. He highlighted the issues surrounding restatement powers, particularly for the devolved Governments, taking into account the role of the Internal Market Act. He told the Committee:
“If you start thinking about the different uses that might be made of the restatement powers, and which parts of the UK might take different approaches to supremacy and the general principles, the level of uncertainty really does start to get quite extreme.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 85, Q141.]
Of course, Mr Whitmore was absolutely right to make that assessment, but it is just one of multiple problems with the clause, because it allows Ministers the freedom to decide exactly how much EU law they want to restate or protect. It lets the Government view the existing statute book as something of a smörgåsbord, whereby they can pick and choose which parts of the law they wish to keep and which parts, simply by their inaction, they will allow to disappear in December next year. For example, they could brazenly announce that they have decided to protect workers’ rights by restating them, when in reality they will have saved only the bare minimum of regulations—the ones that suit them, rather than the whole suite of laws that combine together to provide what we currently understand to be workers’ rights.
Another huge problem with the clause—indeed, it is a problem that runs throughout the Bill like the writing through a stick of rock—is that it has yet another one of those self-imposed, utterly unachievable and ideologically driven sunset clauses. It is no surprise that the clause has been criticised by the Law Society of Scotland’s Michael Clancy, who warned in his evidence to the Committee that there was a real danger that the restatement provisions contained in the clause could create further uncertainty. He said:
“There is also a lack of clarity about what comes afterwards. It will be difficult for citizens and businesses to deal with even the provisions about replacement, restatement and the creation of the new category of assimilated law in a short—apparently very compressed—period of time, and without the adequate consultation that one would expect when this sort of law is changed.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 84, Q141.]
Clause 12(3) declares that should a piece of legislation be restated and an extension be granted beyond December 2023, the legislation cannot be regarded as retained EU law. That appears particularly petty, if not vindicative, and it reflects the almost irrational hatred and loathing of anything connected to the European Union, however loosely. Our amendment 53 would remove subsection (3), meaning that the retained EU laws that the UK, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish Governments wish to restate will still be what they are: retained EU law.
Amendment 54 would remove the arbitrary deadline of 31 December 2023 proposed in subsection (7). As we have heard numerous times, that impossibly tight deadline is only there for narrow ideological reasons and is a disaster waiting to happen. Amendment 54 would remove the dangerous cliff edge by deleting subsection (7) entirely.
As we have said throughout, we will help to improve the Bill, which is a truly awful piece of legislation, wherever we can, and that is what amendments 53 and 54 are designed to do. We want to make the Bill a little less damaging to the statute book and, more importantly, to those whose lives and livelihoods depend on there being robust law and regulation in place.
Ms Ghani
The overarching aim of the Bill is to define retained EU law as a legal category, and the power to restate such law must be viewed with that in mind. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute said that he wants to help the process, even though he is fundamentally trying to block it. The power to restate has been designed to allow the Government to restate domestic law where it is considered appropriate for the UK in a post-Brexit setting. However, the resulting legislation will no longer be retained EU law, as subsection (3) makes clear. The restated legislation will be ordinary domestic UK legislation that is subject to traditional domestic rules of interpretation. In particular, the supremacy of EU law will no longer apply, and section 4 rights and the general principles of EU law will cease to be read into the legislation.
Ms Ghani
If I can make a bit of progress, I will give way later.
The power will enable the Government to clarify, consolidate, codify and restate REUL to preserve the effect of the current law, while removing it from the category of REUL. It will be used selectively and is not a way to simply continue the broad concepts of EU law. Retained EU law was never intended to sit on the statute book indefinitely, although I believe that hon. Members wish it did. It is both constitutionally anomalous and politically challenging. Subsection (3) is therefore a crucial part of clause 12, and is necessary to ensure that the Government can deliver on the overarching aims of the Bill.
Peter Grant
Can the Minister explain the difference between restating and amending? At what point does a restatement of a piece of legislation become either an amendment or a completely new piece of legislation? Who will be the arbiter of that? Will the courts decide?
Ms Ghani
I did not hear the end of that question, but each Department will be in charge of the Bills in its portfolio. We have the Brexit opportunities department helping as well. I have already mentioned the processes in place to ensure that scrutiny happens, and how Ministers will work to ensure that we assimilate, amend or update.
Peter Grant
I am sorry if the Minister did not understand my question. I am talking not about the political, democratic scrutiny, but about the legal interpretation of restated legislation, which will fall to the courts. My question is: who decides whether what has been done under clause 12 is simply a restatement of EU retained law or an amendment to law, which requires a different process?
Ms Ghani
I hope I am not failing to understand the question. As I mentioned, each of the REUL Bills is assigned to a Department, and it will be for the Ministers responsible for the REUL Bill to make a decision on whether they need to assimilate, repeal or update.
I ask the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute to withdraw his amendment. I ask the Committee to accept the Government amendments. They are simple clarificatory amendments that ensure that the restatement powers in clauses 12 to 14 cannot be used to bring back EU law concepts, such as the principle of supremacy, or general principles that the Bill aims to sunset.
Brendan O’Hara
The Minister is right. As we have said from day one, we oppose the Bill, but if it has to pass—history and the numbers in the room tell us that it will pass—it will do so without our support. As we have said, we have a duty not to ignore the most egregious parts of this legislation. Where we think that it will hurt people, affect businesses or leave holes in the statute book, or is ideologically driven folly, we will oppose it, and point out the problems to the Government, so that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes said, there cannot come a time when the Government say, “We didn’t know. Nobody told us this was happening.” Our role here is to oppose every step of the way, but also point out in as much detail and with as much clarity as we can where this dreadful piece of legislation is almost inevitably headed. We will pick the matter up, I am sure, on Report, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 8, in clause 12, page 15, line 2, leave out “legislation” and insert “the thing”.
This amendment provides that effects produced by virtue of the retained EU law referred to in subsection (5) do not apply in relation to anything that is codified.
Amendment 9, in clause 12, page 15, line 10, leave out “of legislation”.—(Ms Ghani.)
This amendment enables regulations to produce, in relation to anything that is codified, an effect equivalent to an effect mentioned in subsection (4).
Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Power to restate assimilated law or reproduce sunsetted retained EU rights, powers, liabilities etc
Amendments made: 10, in clause 13, page 15, line 29, leave out “legislation” and insert “thing”.
This amendment provides that effects produced by virtue of the retained EU law referred to in subsection (4) do not apply in relation to anything that is codified.
Amendment 11, in clause 13, page 15, line 33, leave out “of legislation”.
This amendment enables regulations to produce, in relation to anything that is codified, an effect equivalent to an effect mentioned in subsection (4).
Amendment 12, in clause 13, page 15, line 36, leave out “of legislation”.
This amendment enables regulations to produce, in relation to anything that is codified, an effect equivalent to an effect mentioned in subsection (7).
Amendment 13, in clause 13, page 15, line 40, leave out “legislation” and insert “thing”.—(Ms Ghani.)
This amendment enables regulations to produce, in relation to anything that is codified, an effect equivalent to an effect mentioned in subsection (7).
Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill
Clause 14
Powers to restate or reproduce: general
Alex Sobel
I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 14, page 16, line 18, at end insert—
“(1A) No regulations may be made under section 12 or 13 unless all the following conditions have been satisfied.
(1B) The first condition is that the relevant national authority has consulted on a draft of the regulations with organisations and persons representative of interests substantially affected by, or with expertise in the likely legal effect of, those regulations.
(1C) The second condition is that, after that consultation has concluded, the relevant national authority has laid a report before each House of Parliament (or, as the case may be, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru, or the Northern Ireland Assembly) setting out—
(a) the authority’s view as to whether the proposed regulations make any change in the rights of and protections for consumers, workers, and businesses, and protections of the environment and animal welfare, and the reasons for that view;
(b) whether in making the regulations the national authority has considered using its discretion under section 12(6), section 13(6), or subsection (2), (3) or (4) of this section, and if so, the reason why it does or does not intend to exercise that discretion.
(1D) The third condition is that a period of sixty days has passed since that report was laid, with no account to be taken of any time during which Parliament (or, as the case may be, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru, or the Northern Ireland Assembly) is dissolved or prorogued or during which it was adjourned for more than four days, and where they were laid before Parliament, paragraph 8(11)(a) of Schedule 3 shall apply in determining the commencement of that period.”
This amendment requires the national authority to consult on a draft text of “restatement” regulations, and to set out its reasoning on the choices made when drafting those regulations to Parliament or the relevant devolved legislature.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 83, in clause 14, page 16, line 26, at end insert—
“(3A) A restatement may not be made unless such consultation with relevant stakeholders as the relevant national authority considers appropriate has taken place on whether the conditions set out in subsection (3) are met.”
This amendment ensures that relevant stakeholders are consulted to ensure that the conditions for the exercise of the power to restate set under clause 14(3) are met.
Government amendment 14.
Amendment 56, in clause 14, page 16, line 32, leave out subsection (5).
Government amendment 15.
Amendment 55, in clause 14, page 17, line 2, at end insert—
“(9) Regulations under section 12 or 13 may not be made unless the relevant national authority has consulted all parties that authority considers relevant.”
Clause stand part.
Alex Sobel
Our amendments 82 and 83 require the national authority to consult on a draft text of restatement regulations, and to set out to Parliament or the relevant devolved legislature its reasoning on the choices made when drafting the regulations. I am sure the Minister will want to earnestly reassure us that national authorities are bound to consider those decisions carefully. It follows that she should readily accept that their reasoning should be published.
On consultation, the Bar Council’s written evidence refers to clauses 12 to 15 and schedule 3 granting Ministers enormous power to legislate at will to replace or update retained EU law, without any requirement to consult anyone, on matters of enormous importance to business, consumers, employees and the environment. There is no requirement for any parliamentary vote; there will be only the minimal scrutiny afforded by the affirmative procedure.
Furthermore, Parliament may well be confronted with Hobson’s choice: either agree in full to unsatisfactory replacements for retained EU law, or vote out the whole lot. As a result, as we heard earlier, fundamental rights such as paid bank holidays or environmental protections to stop air or water pollution could simply disappear completely, perhaps through mistake or oversight, with little or no opportunity for public debate.
We agree with the Bar Council that important changes to our law should be made by Parliament after proper consultation, public debate, and scrutiny, not by ministerial fiat. The rushed and uncertain process for replacement or removal of REUL and the deliberate creation of legal uncertainty will seriously damage the UK’s hard-won reputation for regulatory stability, predictability, and competence, on which growth-promoting investment in critical sectors of our economy depend.
The Bar Council points out that the complete absence of any requirement to consult those affected by the exercise or non-exercise of Ministers’ powers under the Bill is incomprehensible, given that we are talking about often complex legislation, and that errors or omissions can have serious adverse consequences for business as well as consumers, workers and others. Businesses can have no confidence that they will have any ability to comment on or influence, or even any prior notice of, legislation that can profoundly affect them—a gap that, in the Bar Council’s view, which we share, would be a serious deterrent to investment.
Stella Creasy
I have a horrible feeling that it is because of something I am about to say. I rise to support amendment 82. To go back to the theme of this afternoon, if we are taking back control, then surely control should rest with this place. That means that this place needs the relevant information and powers to do its job. Amendment 82 would require consultation on any restatement of retained EU law, including on whether it affects rights and protections.
The right hon. Member for Clwyd West will find that amendment 82 finally satisfies his concern that we are all scaremongering. If we are scaremongering, it should not be a big deal for Government to restate and confirm that the laws they are replacing will not change any protections; that will reassure those of us who might otherwise trouble vulnerable people.
Amendment 82 does two things. First, it helps with the reality, which is that no Government—shock, horror!—is perfect. No Government get everything right all the time, so sometimes, with the best will in the world, and the best grace in the world, corrections need to be made. We have all sat on Delegated Legislation Committees to do that.
Consultation on draft regulations will help identify minor issues, unintended consequences and drafting errors before a law comes into force; that ensures that it is better legislation before parliamentary time is committed to it. We agreed on Tuesday that this would take 4,000 hours of parliamentary time—267 days, if we sat 24 hours a day. The Minister looks surprised at that; I hope she has done some maths on how we will pass all these SIs before the deadline in the Bill. It will require some parliamentary time, at least.
Consultation can be incredibly helpful. It can identify quirks, and experts come up with points. We might have strong views on workers’ rights, but SIs will come up regarding standards, and there are experts out there who spend their lives being obsessed with electrical standards. Surely asking them to double-check what we have written down would be good.
Restatements are subject to less scrutiny, because they should not make substantive changes to regulations. That takes me to my second point, and the more substantive—dare I say it, “conspiracy, rather than cock-up”—moment in all this. It would be simple and straightforward for the Government to affirm that there will be no change in protections or rights if they did not intend to use the powers in the Bill to water down workers’ rights; to reduce environmental protections that we all believe are important; or to reduce fundamental consumer protections that resolve knotty problems, such as whether, at this time, when everyone is trying to book a train, we will get compensation from Avanti. We live in hope. Why would the Government not commit to doing that, and reassure us all? All amendment 82 does is hold the Government to the pledges that they are making, and ensure that every single time a piece of legislation is brought before the House, it does what it says on the tin. I have forgotten the name of the company I am thinking of. It is not Dulux; it is the other one—the one that has to do with paving.
Stella Creasy
Ronseal, that’s it; I am showing my age. This should be a Ronseal moment—it does what it says on the tin. I have a horrible feeling that the Minister will reject the amendment. I hope that she recognises that the concern comes in when the Government reject relatively benign proposals, such as the suggestion that they should simply say, “Yep, this legislation is like-for-like; it does not water down protections.”
As we saw on Tuesday, the Government have already started to decide, in private, which pieces of EU retained law they will not continue with, so we know that some things will change. Some legislation will fall, and we understand that; the whole point of leaving the European Union was to have the power to reject things. Knowing what will or will not be taken out is surely the epitome of taking back control. Each of us should be able, in our constituency surgeries, when we are inevitably asked about a piece of legislation and its impact, to say, “Ah, yes. Well, that is where this decision came from, and this is what we were told at the time.” Parliamentary scrutiny, done well—even done at all—is taking back control, so let us see some of it in this Bill, for a change.
Peter Grant
I rise to speak to amendments 55 and 56 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute. This is an attempt to, once again, restrict the Executive’s power grab and to limit, to some small extent, the extent to which the Government are taking powers away from this Parliament and for themselves. It is an attempt to limit the use of Henry VIII powers.
First, the amendments seek to remove subsection (5) to clause 14. I make no apology for raising this point every time I see such a provision in any legislation. It is a bad idea to allow a Minister of the Crown to change any Act of Parliament that they fancy without having to present a Bill in the House of Commons that amends it. The whole House should need to approve the change, after giving it appropriate consideration, and after every single Member has had a chance to comment on it. Subsection (5) essentially seeks to do that. Interestingly, its text is now fairly standard in Bills featuring the Henry VIII powers that the Government are putting through. At some point, the Government spotted something that worries them. They have discovered a part of an Act of Parliament that they are terrified a Minister could ever change, so they have tabled Government amendment 14 to stop that happening.
Ms Ghani
The Government recognise the importance of ensuring legislation undergoes appropriate scrutiny and consultation, and I will set that out shortly. However, I ask that hon. Members reject amendments 82, 83, 55 and 56.
It is right that we ensure that any amendments to retained EU law or assimilated law receive appropriate scrutiny and are subject to the proper processes for consultation. That is why we have sought to ensure that the Bill contains robust scrutiny mechanisms, including for the powers to restate under clauses 12 and 13. First, the draft affirmative procedure will be applied where the powers to restate are being used to amend primary legislation. Secondly, the sifting procedure will apply to clauses 12 and 13 for the regulations that are proposed to be made under the negative procedure. The sifting procedure largely corresponds with the sifting procedure under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and will provide for additional scrutiny of the legislation being made. Parliament can then scrutinise instruments, subject to sifting, and make active decisions regarding the legislation. It is our expectation that Departments will follow the standard procedures regarding consultation during policy development.
On amendment 56, let me be clear that the powers are not capable of restating any REUL or assimilated law that is primary legislation. Work is already ongoing across Whitehall on a REUL statutory instrument programme, which will continue after the Bill’s Royal Assent. The inclusion in the Bill of a consultation requirement for the powers, which is what the amendments seek to achieve, would build further time into the SI programme. That would disempower Departments, hindering their ability to pursue the REUL reform that they judged to be necessary. For the powers to restate in particular, that would delay the opportunity for Departments to use the powers to maintain the existing policy effect of their REUL in cases where that was judged to be necessary, by reproducing certain EU principles of interpretation that will cease to apply after the sunset.
Given that the powers to restate have been designed to enable Departments only to provide for substantially the same policy effect, when that is considered desirable and appropriate for the UK in a post-Brexit setting, the inclusion of a requirement to consult—both on the regulations proposed to be made and the purposes for their use—seems particularly unnecessary. As such, I ask the hon. Member for Leeds North West to withdraw the amendment.
The Government’s simple clarificatory amendments will ensure that the restatement powers in clauses 12 to 14 cannot be used to bring back the EU law concepts—such as the principle of supremacy or general principles—that the Bill aims to sunset, in general terms.
Alex Sobel
The Minister talked about both an appropriate level of scrutiny and robust scrutiny, but then went on to talk about sifting. We know that there are upwards of 4,000 regulations. That is exactly the concern we have about how much scrutiny there will be across those regulations. The Minister’s main objection seemed to be that the provision would create too lengthy a procedure for the SI programme. Our point is that it would otherwise be rushed through within a matter of months, until the 2023 sunset date, without the proper scrutiny. That is why amendments 82 and 83, and the SNP amendments 55 and 56, are necessary. I will press amendment 82 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Peter Grant
I had intended to press both to a Division, Sir George, but to save time, and given that the Government Whip already has her great big no vote ready to hang up to make sure that Conservative Back Benchers know what they are supposed to do, there is clearly no point. We know the result already, so to save the Committee time, I will not press either amendment.
The Chair
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We would have been in a bit of muddle otherwise.
Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Powers to revoke or replace
Alex Sobel
I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 15, page 17, line 30, at end insert—
“(4A) No regulations may be made under this section unless the conditions set out in section [Conditions on the exercise of powers under section 15 and 16] have been complied with.”
This amendment ensures that the powers to revoke or replace would be subject to restrictions as laid out in NC9.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 85, in clause 15, page 17, line 31, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
This amendment will remove the restriction on the replacement of EU law that states it must not add to the regulatory burden.
Amendment 94, in clause 15, page 17, line 37, at end insert—
“(6A) No provision may be made under this section unless the relevant national authority considers that the effect of the provision will lead to an increase in levels of environmental protection.
(6B) The relevant national authority must consult its environmental governance body before making any provision under this section.
(6C) The relevant national authority must publish any advice it receives from its environmental governance body, as well as the authority’s response and reasons for any departure from this advice, and lay these documents before the relevant parliament or assembly.
(6D) No provision may be made by the relevant national authority under this section until the final version of its policy statement or statutory guidance on environmental principles, as set out in Section 14 of the Environment Act 2021 for England, Schedule 2 paragraph (6) for Northern Ireland, and Section 14 of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 for Scotland, has been laid before the respective Parliament and the relevant legal duty commenced.
(6E) The relevant national authority must consult persons or bodies representing the interests of those likely to be affected by the provisions before making regulations under this section.
(6F) No provision may be made under this section by a Minister of the Crown until the legally binding targets required under the Environment Act 2021 have been published, and the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a statement setting out how the provision is compatible with the delivery of these targets.”
This amendment sets a number of conditions which must be met before provision under this clause revoking or replacing retained EU law may be made.
Amendment 86, in clause 15, page 18, leave out lines 1 to 7.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 87, in clause 16, page 18, line 27, at end insert—
“(3) No regulations may be made under this section unless the conditions set out in section [Conditions on the exercise of powers under section 15 and 16] have been complied with.”
This amendment would ensure that the power to update would be subject to the restrictions laid out in NC9.
New clause 9—Conditions on the exercise of powers under section 15 and 16—
“(1) The first condition is that the relevant national authority has consulted such organisations as appear to it to be representative of interests substantially affected by its proposals, and any such other persons as it considers appropriate, on a draft of those regulations.
(2) The second condition is that the national authority has, after that consultation has concluded and after considering any representations made to it, laid a draft of the regulations before each House of Parliament (or, as the case may be, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd or Northern Ireland Assembly), together with a report setting out, with reasons, the authority’s view as to the likely advantages and disadvantages of making those regulations, setting out in particular—
(a) a summary of the objectives and effect of those regulations as compared to the instrument that they will revoke, replace or modify;
(b) any difference as between that instrument and the proposed regulations in terms of protections for consumers, workers, businesses, the environment, or animal welfare;
(c) any benefits which are expected to flow from the revocation or replacement of that instrument;
(d) the consultation undertaken as required by subsection (2);
(e) any representations received as a result of that consultation;
(f) the reason why the national authority considers that it is appropriate to make those regulations, having considered those representations;
(g) the reasons why the national authority considers that section 15(5) (overall reduction in burdens) does not preclude the making of the regulations, explaining what burdens are reduced or increased as a result of the making of the regulations;
(h) the compatibility of the revocation, modification, or replacement of that instrument with obligations in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU, and the likely effect on UK exports of goods or services to the European Economic Area; and
(i) the likely effect of the revocation, modification, or replacement of that instrument on the operation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in the EU withdrawal agreement.
(3) The third condition is that a period of sixty days has passed since those draft regulations or that report were laid as required by subsection (2) with no account to be taken of any time during which Parliament (or, as the case may be, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or Northern Ireland Assembly) is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House or that body is adjourned for more than four days, and where they were laid before Parliament, paragraph 8(11)(a) of Schedule 3 shall apply in determining the commencement of that period.
(4) The fourth condition is that the national authority has considered any representations made during the period provided for by subsection (3) and, in particular, any resolution or report of, or of any committee of, either House of Parliament (or, as the case may be of the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or Northern Ireland Assembly) with regard to the proposals, and has published its reasons for accepting or rejecting any such representations, resolution, or report.”
This new clause requires the relevant national authorities to consult with key stakeholders on proposed regulations revoking or replacing REUL, and to show Parliament their assessment of the impact of the changes.
Alex Sobel
I am afraid we are back to the Homeric length of speech that I regaled everyone with on Tuesday.
This wide range of amendments is designed to do three things. First, amendments 84, 87, new clause 9 and amendment 94 require proper consultation before the revocation, replacement and updating powers in clauses 15 and 16 can be exercised. Secondly, amendments 85 and 86 remove a prohibition in clause 15(5) against the relevant national authority using powers in a way that would “increase the regulatory burden”. Thirdly, amendment 94 adds a new subsection to clause 15 to ensure that the use of powers to revoke or replace retained EU law is made subject to compliance, in addition to consultation, with the environmental governance framework established by the Environment Act 2021. I will consider each of those three considerations in turn.
First, on consultation, as we have already discussed when considering other amendments, many worried stakeholders have voiced deep concerns about the unchecked powers that clauses 15 and 16 in particular place into the hands of Ministers. The Hansard Society has commented that clause 15 includes, with just a few caveats, “Do anything we want” powers for Ministers. I will not denigrate them by calling them Henry VIII powers. The Hansard Society's written evidence says the blank-cheque powers allow Ministers to act without having to observe the same oversight provisions—for example, a requirement to consult—that were required by the very legislation they are replacing.
Clause 15 also permits sub-delegation, the creation of a criminal offence or the imposition of a monetary penalty providing that any new regulations “correspond” or are “similar to” the original retained EU law. What such terms as “appropriate”, “correspond” and “similar” mean in practice is left entirely up to Ministers—“Do anything you want.” The duty to consult those bearing the brunt of the changes should be one of the most basic to a Government who have now been in power for more than 12 years. Carrying out such a process should not be viewed as burdensome; it is, or should be, a basic requirement of good and proper governance.
Our new clause 9 would remedy that defect by setting out a proper, good governance process of consultation. After consultation, Ministers would need to report to Parliament on the comments and representations made, and explain their objectives, their reasons for accepting or rejecting comments and any differences between the proposed and original regulations, in terms of protections for consumers, workers, businesses, the environment and animal welfare. They would be required to explain what burdens are reduced or increased as a result of the new regulations and to list the anticipated benefits they expect from the revocation or replacement, state whether the revocation or replacement is compatible with the trade and co-operation agreement, explain the likely effect on UK trade with the European Economic Area and, finally, set out the likely effect on the Northern Ireland protocol.
I hope the Minister agrees that those are all perfectly reasonable things to consider. If so, I hope she will either accept our amendments or, if she prefers, could make a commitment now that that will be part of the Government’s process.
Stella Creasy
We come to the rub of the matter. When Brexit happened, we were told that we wanted to make our own laws. Any of us who were concerned that that might lead to a reduction in standards or protections were told we need not worry: being out of the EU, which was holding us back from making our own laws, was also holding us back from having higher standards.
Fast forward to 2022 and clause 15, and we know the truth. The clause writes the obsession with deregulation into law. If the Bill passes in its current form, all that our constituents can look forward to is the slow trickle of their rights being watered down and washed away—all in the name, allegedly, of reducing burdens on business. Let us be very clear: business does not want a no-regulation environment. That is a recipe not for competition, creativity and entrepreneurship, but for bad actors running riot over well-established industries and ruining entrepreneurship and creativity. Business wants better regulation. It wants good regulation.
When a law talks of a “regulatory burden”, we know that it does not speak to our economy; it speaks to an ideology that is holding this country back. At a time of economic boom, that would not be a sensible measure. At a time of economic crisis, it is genuinely destructive. Clause 15 means that all the things we were told during the Brexit referendum about higher standards were not true. It means that the promises that environmental protections would be better if we left the European Union will not be kept.
For the avoidance of doubt, that is not an argument about returning to the European Union or undermining the referendum, and nor is it saying that we should not have left the European Union—that debate has been had. It is an argument for holding to account all who claimed during the referendum campaign that somehow things would be better. The Bill demands that they must not be, because it insists that a regulatory burden cannot be created, and what it defines as a regulatory burden is a better standard.
The amendments in this group are therefore designed not just to hold to account all those Brexiteers who made such rash claims, but to protect the right of the British public to have the standards that they want, especially when it comes to the environment, workers’ rights or consumer protections. On Tuesday, Ministers spent much of the time telling us about their record of improving our legal standards and the rights of our constituents. Indeed, the Minister said:
“The UK regime sets some of the highest standards of consumer protection in the world, and this will continue to be the case.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2022; c. 168.]
This clause means that that is not necessarily the case.
The clause says that we cannot improve our consumer protections. Indeed, we have already seen that from how the Government have reacted since we left the European Union. The European Union tried to bring in various regulations about sustainability of goods—frankly, about ensuring that if someone is sold something, it is not tat. Our Government have refused to implement those regulations. Indeed, if the Bill is passed as drafted, we could not introduce them. In this brave new world, we could be sold as much tat as we like and not know that it is tat, all because the Government are determined that deregulation is what the country wants. Again, that is not something I ever saw on the leaflets that came out during the referendum campaign.
Amendment 85 deletes the ratchet provision, and amendment 86 is consequential to it. Between them, the amendments would allow Ministers to replace existing retained EU law with more stringent measures to allow us to have the higher standards that we all say we want on environmental issues, so that we can protect and conserve our precious species—dare I say it, even the killer shrimp. That would help to make the promise a reality.
The Minister might suggest that new burdens should not be pushed through without consultation, and that the minimal parliamentary scrutiny given the potential impact is not a problem, but deregulation is not value-neutral. The loss of a protection can and will create as much of a burden for businesses as not having a burden would do. When we open the door to lower standards, we open the door to bad actors. Good legal protections for workers’ rights, consumer rights and environmental rights help to ensure that the market is fairer. They give businesses certainty and encourage creativity, because they allow people to plan without worrying that they will be undercut.
Given that, the Minister needs to be clear about the definition of a burden in what the Government are doing. For example, is it a burden for a business to pay new parents during their parental leave, regardless of how long they have been employed? In that case, is it deemed undesirable? Is it a burden to have to record whether any materials known to be harmful to human health are involved in a cosmetic product, and therefore is it something undesirable? Are rules governing how many hours employees are allowed to take off possibly a burden? Is reporting on the ethnicity pay gap in an organisation a burden, and therefore something deemed undesirable by the Bill?
If we are reviewing all retained law—it is debatable whether we even have the time to do so in the timetable set out by the Government—we should use the opportunity to usher in the higher protections that Ministers have assured us are the Government’s ambitions. They are things that my and all our constituents deserve. Here are some of the places where, without subsections (5) and (6), Government regulations could improve rights and standards in the UK.
We could have stronger protections for agency workers, many of whom work in the creative industries and have been hit hard by covid and the cutting of our ties with the European Union. That is something that many musicians, actors and performers would benefit from.
We could have higher standards on equal pay. I was born shortly after the equal pay legislation was introduced in this country, and it is a source of shame for many of us that we still do not have equal pay. However, we could finally use the freedom that comes from taking back control to do that. The Government have fallen behind on their own commitments, and that is nothing to do with retained EU law—they failed to publish a report on the gender pay gap, which we were promised. We could use this gap and the fact that we are abolishing all the existing laws to bring in higher standards. On Tuesday, the Minister spoke passionately on how she has been supporting those campaigns.
We could bring in the legislation sponsored by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), and ensure that pregnancy and maternity discrimination does not happen in this country.
Peter Grant
A long time ago now, it seems, I was a member of my local planning authority for a number of years. We used to get dozens and dozens of planning applications for consideration, and there was often a lot of discussion about whether councillors who were uncomfortable with an application should attempt to draft conditions that had to be honoured before the application could be approved. A lot of those conditions were perfectly reasonable; we would put in conditions to ensure that housing development was road-safe, for example. An important piece of national guidance that certainly applied in Scotland—I do not know if there was an equivalent in England—was that if someone had to burden a planning application with a huge, complex set of conditions in order to make it acceptable, the application should be refused and the applicant invited to come back later with a better one. That is where we are with clause 15. The official Opposition clearly feel that the only way to make clause 15 even vaguely acceptable is to restrict it in so many ways, and with so many amendments, that it would effectively tear the heart out of the clause.
Although I certainly will not oppose any of the amendments that the hon. Member for Leeds North West wants to press to a vote, we will oppose clause 15 when the question on it is put, whether it is amended or not. It is an utterly dreadful piece of legislation. Can Members imagine any circumstance in which it could be considered good governance to give an individual or a national authority the right to repeal 4,000 pieces of legislation, knowing perfectly well that they have no intention of bringing anything forward to replace them? That is what clause 15 effectively aims to do.
As the hon. Member for Walthamstow pointed out earlier, subsection 5 of clause 15 gives the lie to the entire argument about why the Tories wanted to be allowed to regulate for themselves. It was never about being allowed to have better standards of employment law than the rest of Europe, and it was never about being allowed to apply better standards of environmental protection, consumer protection, animal welfare or anything else. It was always about pandering to what my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute has described as the wide-eyed enthusiasts of the European Research Group, and those who are so far to the right of the ERG they cannot even get elected to this place. In clause 15, and particularly in subsection (5), theirs is the agenda we are being asked to follow.
I am really interested to hear the Minister explain why she feels it is necessary to have an Act of Parliament that potentially allows a national authority to tear down 40 years of protective legislation, with the intention of replacing it with nothing, and with the extreme risk that we will run out of time to replace it with anything. We should remember that we have barely a year from now, never mind from when they start to tear apart the legislation.
When we look at the restriction in subsection (5) and then look over the page at what some of the terms in the subsection mean, we find that they are hair-raising. Legislation that imposes a burden that could include a financial cost is not allowed. There is no threshold and no limit on how many people would need to be affected by that financial cost. For example, the personal protective equipment non-provider PPE Medpro—it was slated in The Guardian this morning and in the Chamber earlier—made a profit of £76 million by supplying to the Government PPE that was not fit for use. If the Minister had been minded to bring in replacement legislation, it would have reduced PPE Medpro’s overnight profit from £76 million and tuppence to a mere £76 million. The Bill would say that was a financial burden. It would therefore be an increased regulatory burden, and it would not be allowed.
Subsection 10(b) refers to “an administrative inconvenience”. Well, good luck to the lawyers who want to decide what is an inconvenience and what is not. Again, there is no threshold and nothing about proportionality. There is nothing to say whether it imposes a disproportionate administrative inconvenience on a substantial section of the economy. That would be a reasonable protection to want to build in, but anybody who claims that that is inconvenient administratively could then challenge it in court. In fact, there is nothing written into the clause that says that the burden has to affect the private sector in order to make it unlawful.
If the burden applies to the civil servants that are trying to administer the new legislation, that is an administrative inconvenience to the civil service, especially if there will be 90,000 fewer of them than we had last year. I am talking about improving legislation that allows one person out of 60 million in these islands to say, “That’s a bit inconvenient for me”, and an entire piece of secondary legislation can be struck down. Despite some of the things I have seen from the Conservative party in my time, I genuinely do not believe that that is what it wants, but I know that that is what some people want.
My fear is that people who cannot get elected to this place are pulling the strings of those who did. Those people are looking to use the clause, and particularly subsection (5), to achieve their dream of a tiny bit of the world where all regulations can be struck down at the stroke of a pen, and once they are struck down it is impossible to replace them with anything. There are people who, at times, have been very close to the seat of power in this place—their donations have helped to change the course of political history in the last 10 years—who do not want there to be any workers’ rights whatever.
A former member of the Government, on whose watch this Bill was drafted, is on the record as saying that he does not think workers have an automatic right to paid holidays. That is the kind of ideology we are dealing with here.
Clause 15 is not about achieving a reasonable objective; it is about completely tearing down 40 years of legislation, some of which we might not welcome but much of which has helped to make the four nations of the United Kingdom more modern and democratic. For that reason, I can understand why some people would happily see all that legislation torn up and replaced with nothing. I genuinely do not believe that is what the Minister wants, I genuinely do not believe it is what the majority of Conservative party members want and I can say with absolute certainty that it is not what the people of Scotland want, and it is not something that the people of Scotland will accept.
I will support any amendments that the Opposition are minded to press to a vote but, amended or unamended, I will seek to divide the Committee on removing clause 15 from the Bill.
Ms Ghani
I beg that the Committee rejects amendment 84 and does not press new clause 9 or amendment 87.
It may surprise the Committee that English is not my first language—I was not born in this country—but it has never occurred to me that the words “regulation” and “standards” are the same. Members can look them up in a dictionary, but they are definitely not the same.
Clause 15 is about ensuring we have the right regulations in place, by removing those regulations that are unduly burdensome, outdated or not fit for purpose in the UK. How about swapping them for proportionate, high-quality and agile regulations that help the UK economy, and all of us who work in it, to be nimble and competitive?
I remind the Committee that Departments will be able to maintain the current level of regulation where it is considered appropriate. Only where existing regulations are considered to be unnecessarily burdensome and not fit for purpose may a lower level of regulation be introduced. I will validate that in a moment.
The concerns of hon. Members regarding the scope of the Bill’s powers are unfounded, as the powers to revoke or replace are important cost-cutting enablers of retained EU law reform. The dashboard has identified more than 2,500 pieces of retained EU law, and it is therefore right to have a power of this scope that is capable of acting on a wide range of REUL covering a variety of policy areas. The powers have several safeguards that mitigate their use, namely any legislation made under clause 15(2) that recreates a delegated power or a criminal offence present in REUL is subject to the affirmative procedure. Legislation made under clause 15(3) is specifically subject to the affirmative procedure, which will ensure that changes to policy objectives can be actively approved by Parliament. In addition, a sifting procedure will apply to legislation where Ministers choose to use the negative procedure.
The clause 16 power is intended to facilitate technical updates to retained EU law, to take account of changes in technology or developments in scientific understanding. This ongoing power is not intended to bring about significant policy change. It is instead designed to ensure the UK keeps pace with advances in science and technology over time.
The amendments would add a significant amount of time to the process and, ultimately, could risk Departments being unable to maximise the use of their powers to revoke or replace retained EU law across all policy areas, until such powers sunset. The Bill has been drafted to ensure that legislation made under these powers is subject to robust scrutiny procedures that are proportionate to the scope of the powers, as highlighted above.
I ask the Committee not to press amendments 85, 86 or 94. As I mentioned, the Bill is an enabling Act. Amendment 94 would place a number of environmental requirements on UK Ministers or devolved authorities when they intend to use the powers to revoke or replace, irrespective of the policy area. This amendment would therefore preclude Departments making reforms in policy areas unrelated to the environment, which would significantly impact the opportunity to use these powers.
On amendments 85 and 86, we have sought to ensure that the powers to revoke or replace cannot be used to add to the overall regulatory burden on this subject area. In her evidence to the Committee, Professor Alison Young noted that combining
“a number of earlier burdens, turn them into one burden with a higher standard, that is also not increasing the burden.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 19, Q33.]
The requirement not to add to the overall regulatory burden has been drafted to allow the relevant national authority to determine how best to achieve the desired policy outcome. For example, removing regulations or administrative requirements that are deemed unnecessary or unsuitable will make it possible to add new regulations with a higher standard—shock, horror—where it is deemed necessary or desirable, provided that the overall regulatory burden is not increased. The reforms that these powers will enable are vital to allow the UK to drive genuine reform and seize the opportunities of Brexit.
We had a repeat of the debate about animal welfare. As I mentioned the other day, the Government remain focused on how best to deliver the “Action Plan for Animal Welfare” published in 2021, which builds on our existing high animal welfare standards. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Leeds North West to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Sobel
The Minister and Conservative MPs expect us to trust them, when they have repeatedly voted against our attempts to preserve the most basic legal rights and protections for consumers, workers and the environment in Committee so far. In fact, no Government should be trusted with the sweeping powers that this Bill will grant, with minimal parliamentary oversight or scrutiny. Instead of wasting time debating their trustworthiness, our amendments were designed to move beyond the trust that the Government have failed to earn and allow for greater transparency. I will push amendment 85 to a vote, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 84.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 85, in clause 15, page 17, line 31, leave out subsections (5) and (6).—(Alex Sobel.)
This amendment will remove the restriction on the replacement of EU law that states it must not add to the regulatory burden.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (Seventh sitting)
Tuesday 29th November 2022
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRetained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 November 2022 - (29 Nov 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 16, page 18, line 25, at end insert—
“(1A) Before the power in subsection (1) may be exercised, the relevant national authority must publish a written statement on any societal and economic changes relevant to the intended modifications.”
Brendan O’Hara
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Gary, for our final day of scrutiny of the Bill. The amendment was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes. It will be a relief to the Committee that I will be as brief as I can, as I know we have an awful lot to get through.
Clause 16 allows a relevant national authority to make modifications to secondary legislation that it considers appropriate, taking into account
“changes in technology, or…scientific understanding.”
We do not disagree with that. Our amendment simply seeks to widen the scope of the clause by allowing relevant national authorities not just to consider changes in technology and developments in scientific understanding, but to take into account societal and economic changes that may be pertinent when making modifications to retained EU law.
It is the narrowness of the clause that concerns us the most. It has been highlighted as a potential problem by the Law Society of Scotland, which in its excellent briefing paper suggested widening the scope to reflect other factors and include economic or societal changes. It seems eminently sensible to include factors that go beyond science and technology. Whether we like it or not, things happen in society that we cannot reasonably predict. It would therefore be unwise for the legislation to be so completely straitjacketed that we could not react appropriately to unpredicted societal events.
Similarly, giving relevant national authorities the ability to pivot when changes to the economic circumstances dictate also seems logical. Imagine we had been examining the Bill before the summer, and I had tabled an amendment that would have allowed relevant national authorities the flexibility to consider changes in economic circumstances when considering retained EU law. Had I based my argument around a Conservative Prime Minister resigning and forcing a lengthy leadership election, and the arrival of a new Prime Minister who promptly tanked the economy and then resigned six weeks later, everyone on the Government Benches would have howled with derision, but that is precisely what happened.
As much as we like to think we know what is around the corner in terms of society and the economy, the truth is that we simply do not. That is why, again in the spirit of trying to be helpful and improve what is a thoroughly dreadful piece of legislation, I commend amendment 70 to the Government.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Gary. I was sorry to read that you may not be seeking re-election. I know that social media is not always truthful on such things, but what I read appeared to be legitimate, and I will be sorry to see you go. I welcome the Minister in the Jack Grealish role, coming in late in the day to retrieve a seemingly lost position for the Government.
I understand that we are dealing with clause 16 stand part as well as amendment 70. I thank the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute for moving the amendment, which is very similar to some of ours. It will be no surprise that we are sympathetic to and supportive of it, but to avoid repeating what we have said previously I will try to keep my statements brief. Government Members will be tired of hearing this, but those who are tired of scrutiny are tired of democracy itself, so I will yet again refer to the lack of scrutiny and consultation that are the hallmarks of the Bill.
Amendment 70 offers a means to address that problem in the specific and possibly limited circumstances in which clause 16 will apply. We know how often the Government like to use the phrase “specific and limited circumstances”. The amendment contains the guiding principle of our new clause 9, which was previously debated: the Government and relevant national authorities need to address the impact of changes made by the use of the Bill’s powers. Having Ministers of the Crown produce written statements about intended modifications will ensure not only that the societal and economic impacts of changes are considered, but that they are justified, which, as we have discussed, ought to provide a greater level of accountability. Despite the fact that the amendment could benefit from extra conditions—for example, mandating a programme of consultation with relevant stakeholders—it serves the purpose of demanding greater scrutiny. Given that the Government rejected our new clause, which previously requested that, I suspect we will not find favour with this one.
The Minister for Climate (Graham Stuart)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary.
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute for tabling the amendment, but I urge the Committee to reject it. The power under clause 16 is intended as an updating power to make modifications to retained EU law that take account of a change in technology or developments in scientific understanding. The scope of that power has been deliberately restricted so that it can only be exercised to bring about such modifications.
It is critical that that power operates in that manner to ensure that legislation that sits on the UK’s statute book is able to keep pace with scientific and technological developments, so that we continue to uphold our high standards as well as ensure laws remain tailored to best suit the UK’s needs. Without that power, it would take a significant amount of parliamentary time for the Government to bring forward bespoke proposals and consider each amendment on a sector by sector basis.
I consider the requirement for Ministers to produce a written ministerial statement on the societal and economic changes relevant to the proposed changes under the clause to be neither relevant nor appropriate. The UK Government are committed to the appraisal of any regulatory changes relating to retained EU law, and the nature of that appraisal will depend on the types of changes that Departments make and the expected significance of their impact. We assess that current scrutiny procedure for legislation made under the clause is sufficient. Further scrutiny would be inappropriate for that type of power and would place additional pressure on parliamentary time. The power is circumscribed and, in answer to an earlier question, it is for Ministers to make those decisions. Further scrutiny could hinder the UK’s ability to keep pace with new scientific and technological developments, and I am sure that no member of the Committee would want that.
Justin Madders
Will there be a standard threshold across Departments to trigger when Ministers may use the power? If so, can the Minister share it with us?
Graham Stuart
In so far as I understood the hon. Gentleman’s question, the powers are circumscribed. They are designed to deliver the technical changes necessary and are certainly not meant to lead to substantive changes in policy. That would absolutely not be within the scope of the clause.
On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute to withdraw his amendment.
Brendan O’Hara
I thank the Minister for his response. I also thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston for his support. I still do not quite understand why the Government have been so deliberately restrictive in the scope of clause 16. In common with much of the Bill, the Government’s complete refusal to accept any reasonable amendments is worrying. The amendment is not party political, but arose directly from a suggestion from the Law Society of Scotland. I will not pursue it to a vote, however, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Power to remove or reduce burdens
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
The clause relates to legislative reform orders under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. There are certainly positives associated with the mechanisms within which those orders operate.
The procedure for enacting draft Bills, in common with the terms of new clauses we have tabled, would include requirements for consultation, with further time for parliamentary consideration. When we are talking about between 2,400 and 3,800 laws, we think that is a reasonable proposal. That requirement would apply to instruments introduced under both the negative and the affirmative procedure, with the super-affirmative procedure further requiring 60 days for consideration, and a requirement on Ministers to have regard to recommendations to amend the draft order. Even if Ministers choose to press ahead with the unamended order, they must still lay a report before the House detailing the representations made and the proposed revisions. Although these measures do not go quite as far as our proposed new clauses, if they were used across the board for non-deregulatory purposes, they would be far more preferable to the use of the standard procedures currently in the Bill.
As Jack Williams pointed out in evidence a couple of weeks ago, the main concern is that using any of the mechanisms contained in the 2006 Act will put in place completely unrealistic time constraints, if they were used on all regulations and pieces of legislation on the EU dashboard. We have discussed at length why we think the 2023 sunset is unrealistic. Given that the time restrictions we face are well known, why does the clause remain in the Bill? Are there plans to use this power? Will the Minister provide us with some examples of where he thinks it might be appropriate to use this procedure or where it is already intended to be used? How will the problem of the clear six to eight months we will have once the Bill is passed to deal with all the regulations be dealt with?
The Government have promised to abide by all the stages of consultation and reporting in the Bill. It seems to me that it would therefore be a challenge to deal with this in the timeframe we have. Will the Minister tell us what criteria will be used when deciding to use this procedure? I presume some consideration was given as to when it might be appropriate to use it before it was inserted into the Bill. If Ministers choose not to use this power, there is nothing that we as parliamentarians can do about it. That is the nub of it.
Looking at 2016 Government guidance on legislative reform orders, it was noted that it can take some 10 to 14 months from the start of a consultation before a legislative reform order becomes law and reaches the statute book. I think we are all conscious of the fact that, even in the unlikely event that there is a smooth passage of this Bill through the Lords, it will be in force at the lower end of that timescale, if not far below it. I wonder if the Minister can tell us whether there is any intention to use the powers under the clause and, if so, in which circumstance they might be operative.
Graham Stuart
Clause 17 amends the LRRA 2006 explicitly to include any retained direct EU legislation in its definition of legislation. This amendment confirms that the delegated powers existing in the framework for legislative reform orders extend to retained direct EU legislation, and enable it to be amended within the current procedures and scope of the LRO process. There is no reason to exempt this category of legislation from the LRO process. It is a pretty innocuous technical change, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Abolition of business impact target
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I will be brief, as we have many clauses to get through. Clause 18 abolishes the business impact target in the annual report that the Conservative Government themselves introduced in 2015. Perhaps the Minister could explain the rationale behind the change. Have the Government finally caught up with the pointlessness of this exercise, which has piled unnecessary work and bureaucracy on civil servants over the past seven years? It would be helpful to hear the Minister’s explanation for the change.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
My apologies for being late for the start of the sitting, Sir Gary.
About eight years ago, I bought myself a car. For a long time, the car did pretty much what I wanted it to do, but now it is showing its age and is not really behaving the way I would like, and I am wondering whether it is worth keeping. It would be foolhardy for me to get rid of my car when I have no idea what kind of car I want to replace it with, because I would leave myself open to the possibility either that I am without a car for a lot longer than I expected to be or that a replacement car is much more difficult and expensive to acquire. That is the position the Government want to put us in with this clause.
Graham Stuart
Having left the EU, the UK has the regulatory freedom to ensure that all regulations are designed with UK interests front and centre. To seize the opportunities that come with this freedom, it is important that the Government’s framework for scrutinising regulation—the better regulation framework—is reformed. As set out in “The benefits of Brexit”, we are reforming the system to ensure that we regulate only where necessary. When regulation is needed, it should be designed and implemented in a way that minimises burdens on businesses and households, thereby driving competition, innovation and, ultimately, growth.
The abolition of the business impact target will support the delivery of the reforms by reducing what is currently a disproportionate focus on direct costs to business and allowing—I hope the whole Committee will agree—a more holistic appraisal of the impacts. By increasing the early scrutiny of the flow of new regulation and improving the existing stock of regulation undertaken through the use of powers elsewhere in the Bill, the new system will support the Government’s growth ambitions.
Peter Grant
The Minister has great faith in the new system, but none of us can have any faith in it because we have not seen it. When can we expect to see the intended replacement for the relevant sections of the 2015 Act?
Graham Stuart
As I said, we expect the reforms to the better regulation framework to set a higher bar for the introduction of regulation and to help to reduce the flow. On the precise timing of when that will be, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman, unless I am suitably refreshed right now. As I say, this is a more proportionate approach, which I think the whole Committee will support. I therefore recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Peter Grant
On the basis of the Minister’s answer, I assure him that we will come back to him in due course and tell him when we are prepared to support clause 18, but we are not prepared to support it yet.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Sobel
We have already debated how the Bill grants Ministers sweeping powers; we now come to clause 19, which looks like it literally and explicitly allows Ministers to do anything they want. The Minister needs to explain what the Government think the powers are going to be used for, specifically in relation to EU regulations.
On the face of it, clause 19 would allow Ministers to make the case for anything at all, provided only that they consider it appropriate and in consequence of the Act. It is entirely left up to Ministers themselves to define “appropriate” and “in consequence”. I would like the Minister to give the Committee further clarification of what “appropriate” and “in consequence” really mean—or perhaps he does not yet know.
It is noteworthy that the powers include modifications to any Act of Parliament—including this legislation. The powers are so sweeping that it is difficult to understand why the Government cannot better define the powers they are giving themselves in the clause.
Peter Grant
First, I have a concern similar to the hon. Gentleman’s. It is the same concern that the SNP has expressed repeatedly throughout the progress of this Bill and many others. If the Bill does not just give any Minister the power to do whatever they like, will the Minister explain what clause 19 does not allow them to do? I always think it is interesting that when they give powers to Ministers, the Government put it into legislation that the Minister can do only what they consider appropriate. It is almost as if they do not trust their own Ministers not to do things that are considered completely inappropriate—although, having seen the actions of some Ministers over the past few years, I completely understand why they put that restriction in.
Secondly, is there a legal definition of what is actually meant by the words
“in consequence of this Act”?
If there is not, we could see regulations made under clause 19 being challenged in court, with the case hanging on whether the Minister’s decision was in consequence of this Act. A phrase as woolly as that is going to be a field day for lawyers. It is going to end up with the Government, and potentially businesses, being tied up in exactly the kind of legal uncertainty that the Government claim they are trying to get rid of by the passing the Bill. Will the Minister clarify those two points, with particular regard to the legal interpretation?
Graham Stuart
Clause 19 establishes a power to make consequential provision. It is necessary to enable the UK Government to make appropriate provision in consequence of the Bill. That includes the ability to modify any enactment, including provisions in the Bill. The power in the clause is exercisable by a Minister of the Crown and can be used to make regulations by statutory instrument.
You might not know it from listening to the debate, Sir Gary, but the inclusion of such a power is standard practice for Bills in respect of which minor additional changes to legislation may be necessary as a consequence of the changes brought forward by the Bill. Consequential amendments to legislation may be necessary to ensure that the UK statute book continues to function effectively. It is therefore appropriate that the power be included in the Bill to enable UK Government to deal with consequential amendments—and strictly consequential amendments.
The consequential power is subject to the negative procedure. If the power is used to amend primary legislation, it will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure to ensure the sufficient level of scrutiny. It is in fact entirely appropriate and proportionate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Regulations: general
Brendan O’Hara
I beg to move amendment 64, to clause 20, page 20, line 13, at end insert—
“(1A) A Minister of the Crown may not include in regulations under this Act any provision which is within the devolved competence of any devolved authority as defined in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Brendan O’Hara
The amendment was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and takes us back to a recurring theme of this Bill Committee—namely, the incursion by the UK Government into areas that are, and have been since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament more than 20 years ago, wholly devolved.
I assure Members that before today is out they will have heard a great deal more about the power grab that is happening and how the Bill and its partner, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, are systematically undermining the devolution settlement and stripping powers from our Parliament. The amendment would simply protect the integrity of the devolution settlement by preventing a UK Minister from revoking any piece of retained EU law that currently sits within the competency of the Scottish Government, as defined in paragraph 2 of schedule 2.
The Union is hanging by a thread. The polls increasingly show a pro-independence majority, and among young voters in particular that majority is substantial and growing. We have heard lots of talk about the partnership of equals and how Scotland has an integral place in this so-called precious Union; those may be nice words and easy for politicians to say, but the problem is that fewer and fewer Scots believe it any longer. Not only have we been dragged out of the European Union in the face of an overwhelming desire to remain a member, but in the past weeks we have discovered that this is not a voluntary Union after all. We cannot decide our constitutional future without the permission of this place. Now, with this Bill, coupled with the insidious United Kingdom Internal Market Act, we have to sit and watch the powers of our Parliament being eroded and our democracy being dismantled.
I challenge the Government to prove me wrong and show the people of Scotland that this place is no threat to our Parliament and our democracy by accepting amendment 64 and allowing our Government to act according to the mandate given to them in 2007, 2011, 2016 and, again, in 2021. That mandate is to keep our regulations in lockstep with the European Union if that is what we choose to do.
Alex Sobel
I shall speak briefly to schedule 2. The need for the Government to act with devolved authorities when provisions are outside the devolution settlement makes a lot of sense. We are currently in a situation in Northern Ireland in which there is no Executive, the Assembly is not functioning and the Northern Ireland protocol, which is hugely affected by the Bill, is effectively broken. The schedule 2 powers will, in the end, as things stand—they do not look like they are going to change in the near future—be enacted by a UK Minister of the Crown rather than by the devolved authority, whether with or without a Minister. I note that that is made explicit. So we have a situation in which, although the Bill cannot have any impact on what happens regarding the Executive, there is a mismatch between what is happening de facto in Northern Ireland and de jure in the Bill. That creates a dichotomy, so will the Minister tell us how he thinks that will resolve itself, considering that a new Executive is nowhere in sight?
Peter Grant
Following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute, the existence of schedule 2 specifically tells us everything we need to know about the nature of what is sometimes claimed to be democracy in this place. There is an explicit assumption in the schedule that Ministers in this place have the right to directly hold to account the democratically elected national Parliaments of the United Kingdom. That is not devolution; that is colonialism. It is not democracy; it is elected dictatorship. I appreciate that what is stated in schedule 2 is simply a restatement of the assumption that has run through this place for the past 300-plus years, yet it is a false assumption. It is an assumption that ultimate sovereignty by gift of God resides with an unelected individual who then passes down that sovereignty to a semi-elected Prime Minister.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
If the SNP decides to join the EU, is that not exactly what would be being joined?
Peter Grant
I think the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is not the case. The European Union is about sharing and pooling sovereignty; there is no shared or pooled sovereignty within this Union. There is absolute sovereignty exerted, in effect, by one individual. One individual was able to end the careers of 40 Conservative MPs in 2019, just because they disagreed with him. That is how powerful one individual in this place can be. No individual in the European Union would have that authority against the will of national Parliaments and national Governments. My final response to the hon. Member is that he might think it is in Scotland’s interests to leave the European Union but, with the greatest respect, it has nothing to do with him. It is—it should be—a choice for the people of Scotland—
Peter Grant
It is also for the people of Scotland to decide what restrictions are put on the actions of their national Parliament and national Government, as it is for the people of Wales and of Northern Ireland. The inclusion of the schedule is another example of the rights of those three devolved nations being usurped by a state that claims to have the absolute right of sovereignty over them—but it does not have that absolute right, and, quite soon, it is going to discover, to its cost, that it never had that right.
Graham Stuart
I urge the Committee to reject the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. It would prevent UK Ministers from making provisions within the competence of any devolved authority in respect of any of the powers in the Bill. As Members will be aware, the UK Government are committed to respecting the devolution settlements and the Sewel convention. The territorial extent of the Bill is UK-wide, and it should take effect UK-wide so that the benefits of Brexit can be seized across all four nations of the UK.
Conferring the powers concurrently ensures that the UK Government are able to legislate on behalf of a devolved Government who do not intend to take a different policy position. That will ensure that the most efficient and appropriate approach to the reform of retained EU law can be taken in every situation. Because of the nature of retained EU law, the edges of where UK Government competence ends and devolved competence begins are not always absolutely clear, so it is important that UK Ministers are able to make provision in areas of devolved competence to ensure that nothing important falls between the areas of reserved and devolved competence.
When using the powers in the Bill, we will use the appropriate mechanisms, such as common frameworks, to engage with devolved Governments, enable us to take account of the wider context and allow for joined-up decision making across the UK. The idea that we are riding roughshod over the devolution settlement is incorrect.
The hon. Member for Leeds North West mentioned Northern Ireland. The powers in the Bill are concurrent partly so that we can work with the Northern Ireland Executive—when there is one—to ensure that the Northern Ireland REUL required to operate the withdrawal agreement and the NIP is preserved.
I think I have answered most of the points that were made—I hope so, anyway—so I ask the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Brendan O’Hara
Over the course of today, I will give the Government numerous opportunities to show that they respect the devolution settlement and that they are not intent on usurping powers from our Parliament. Given their past record, I had no expectation that they would accept amendment 64, but I never wanted it to be said, in future, that they did not understand what they were doing, or that it was somehow accidental. The Minister said that it is not clear what is devolved and what is reserved. It is absolutely clear: it is in the Scotland Act 1998, which says clearly that if it is not reserved, it is devolved. We will vote against schedule 2, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question put, That the schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Graham Stuart
I beg to move amendment 1, in schedule 3, page 30, line 5, leave out paragraph 2 and insert—
“2 (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies to a statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act which is subject to a procedure before Parliament for the approval of the instrument in draft before it is made.
(2) The statutory instrument may also include regulations under this Act or another enactment which are made by statutory instrument which is not subject to the procedure mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) (whether or not it is subject to any other procedure before Parliament).
(3) Where regulations are included as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), the statutory instrument is subject to the procedure mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) (and is not subject to any other procedure before Parliament).
(4) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) apply in relation to a statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act which is subject to a procedure before Senedd Cymru as they apply in relation to a statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act which is subject to a procedure before Parliament, but as if references to Parliament were references to the Senedd.
(5) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) apply in relation to a statutory rule as they apply in relation to a statutory instrument but as if references to Parliament were references to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(6) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) apply in relation to a statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act which is subject to a procedure before a devolved legislature as well as a procedure before Parliament as they apply in relation to a statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act which is subject to a procedure before Parliament, but as if references to Parliament were references to Parliament and the devolved legislature.
(7) In sub-paragraph (6) ‘devolved legislature’ means the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(8) Nothing in this paragraph prevents the inclusion of other regulations in a statutory instrument or statutory rule which contains regulations under this Act.”
This amendment enables regulations under this Act subject to the draft affirmative procedure to be combined with regulations that are not subject to that procedure.
This is a technical amendment necessary to ensure that the mechanism for combining statutory instruments in the Bill functions correctly. The intent behind the Bill is to enable regulations made under different powers in the Bill to be combined into a single statutory instrument where it would be more appropriate to do so. This technical amendment will allow provisions made under any powers in the Bill and other enactments to be combined with regulations under the Bill that require a draft affirmative instrument.
Where such provisions are combined, the default procedure will be the higher procedure, which is the draft affirmative. That will enable statutory instruments to be combined more effectively, which will save resource and reduce the future burden on parliamentary business. The amendment also makes equivalent provision for the devolved legislatures. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for providing an explanation of the technical nature of the amendment. It actually quite an important amendment for the Government if they are to have any chance of meeting their self-imposed deadline in a year’s time. Being able to link together different instruments that require different procedures will, as the Minister said, be a helpful tool to limit the amount of parliamentary time taken up, although that may come at the cost of scrutiny. I am, however, encouraged by the Minister’s confirmation that the affirmative procedure will be used in those circumstances. It is almost as if there will be levelling up of regulations so that the higher standard of scrutiny will apply.
Will the Minister tell us whether there has been any assessment of on how many occasions it is anticipated that the amendment will be used? It is worth saying, once again, that if the Government had not created this artificial cliff edge and put themselves up against the clock so steadfastly, the amendment would not be necessary.
Peter Grant
I will not oppose the amendment, but I need to put on record that the fact that such a detailed technical amendment is needed is clear evidence that the people who draft legislation do not always get it right first time. Is it not lucky that we have a Bill Committee, so that errors, omissions and oversights in the drafting of the Bill can be put right before it comes into force? The 4,000 or so—at the latest estimate—bits of legislation that the Bill will tear up and throw in the fire will be replaced by things that we will not get a second chance to put right in Bill Committee.
When, as will almost certainly be the case, the Government end up repealing bits of legislation that nobody knew existed, we will not have a Bill Committee to put things on hold in order to correct any mistakes. The fact that the Government have already had to table this and so many other amendments and we have no idea what else they will have to introduce on Report or in the House of Lords does not represent a criticism of those who drafted the legislation. It is simply an illustration of an uncomfortable fact: no matter how good we are at drafting legislation, we do not get it right first time. If this Bill passes in the form in which the Government are determined to pass it, there are potential catastrophic impacts from Parliament repealing legislation that it did not even know existed.
Graham Stuart
I am glad that there is, I think, acceptance that this amendment is a practical and sensible measure. By bringing procedures together in one and having the affirmative procedure, we can ensure that Parliament can scrutinise in a more holistic manner, to address some of the concerns that have been raised by the Scottish nationalist spokesman. As to precisely how often, I do not have an estimate on that, but I expect it to be on numerous occasions, because, as has been said, there is a substantial amount of retained EU law. If that can be brought together and scrutinised in an effective manner that allows full and proper scrutiny but does so in a way that does not waste parliamentary time, I hope we will have something that works for all parts of the House and is seen as practical and proportionate.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Alex Sobel
I beg to move amendment 88, in schedule 3, page 31, line 6, leave out from “15” to the end of line 8 and insert—
“(d) regulations under section 16.”
This amendment, together with Amendment 89, would make all regulations under Clause 15 (regulations that are intended to achieve the same or similar objectives as the REUL being replaced) and under section 16 (technological developments) subject to affirmative procedure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 89, in schedule 3, page 31, line 17, leave out paragraph (c).
See explanatory statement to Amendment 88.
Alex Sobel
We have already spoken at length about the lack of effective parliamentary scrutiny provided for in the Bill. Our amendments 88 and 89 would ensure that any instruments made by Ministers to replace retained EU law under clause 15 or to update it under clause 16 were subject to the affirmative procedure and had to be approved by both Houses. At present, schedule 3 does not provide for the affirmative procedure for clause 16 instruments at all; for clause 15, it provides for the affirmative procedure to apply only in the case of revocation or for much more limited cases where the clause 15 powers are used for sub-delegation or to create a new criminal offence.
It seems to us, as well as to many of those who have submitted written evidence, that the powers in both clauses are potentially extremely significant even if they are not being used for wholesale revocation. Updating and replacing retained EU law might well involve alterations to existing and long-established rights and protections—alterations that we feel Parliament should be asked to positively agree to before they pass into law. The Minister himself just said that this Bill covers a substantial number of regulations, so it is only right and proper that we have the correct level of scrutiny and process in this place.
Can the Minister explain the circumstances in which he envisages the powers to replace and update being used? Can he also provide examples of the replacement or updated legislation that Departments are planning to take through, using these powers? I ask because we have heard very little, but we know that civil servants are busy preparing regulations for this procedure.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Good morning, Sir Gary. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning on this Bill. You have missed some real treats, I venture to suggest, about the future of decision making in this place.
Members who have been on this Committee for the whole marathon rather than the last couple of miles will know that Opposition Members have been raising consistent concerns about how we do what we were all promised we would be able to do—take back control. The amendments before us this morning are about exactly that, because one of the central concerns that we have about this legislation is that it does not take back control to the British people; it simply takes back control to the back rooms of Downing Street and Departments. These provisions, these amendments, show why that concern is merited.
All of us have sat through statutory instrument Committees in our time in Parliament. It is a joy to receive the message, at the last minute, that you have been selected, Sir Gary, for what pleasures—what delights—await you and what information you will learn on one of those Committees. But they are a vital part of our parliamentary scrutiny process. After all, they offer the opportunity for Ministers to set out clearly the purpose behind any amendments; the recognition that not everything needs to be debated on the Floor of the House; and clarity about the Government’s thinking. Many of us who have sat through court cases will recognise how important that is when it comes to the application of the law.
As we have discussed previously in Committee, this legislation will delete overnight potentially 4,000 laws. It could be more, or it could be slightly less—who knows? We probably should know before we pass the Bill. We have had that debate and the Government still do not think it is important, but they have always told us that they wanted to take away unaccountable European bureaucrats and give us the opportunity to have British bureaucrats making legislation. The amendment challenges that process. It would give back to us, as parliamentarians, the responsibility for holding the Government to account.
Stella Creasy
Perhaps, then, the Minister will publish and confirm for all of us who have been on the Committee—he is new to these debates, but I am afraid he is going to hear this concern repeated at length—what comes next. Without clarity over what comes next, it is difficult to be confident that the legislation will not be a destructive disaster. I see he is already enjoying the fact that he is on duty today.
Having this power only for revocation undermines other powers the Bill gives to Ministers, because it is a power both to ignore and to amend legislation. Taking back control and returning it to the back rooms to allow Ministers to write legislation and then simply put it before us in a “like it or lump it” proposal is not really taking back control.
I also venture to say that it is worth ensuring that we have this procedure for all forms of legislation that are affected by the Bill—not for some grand political design so we can have these wonderful debates, but because, as we have already seen with this Bill, not everything is going to be perfect. Departments make mistakes. Drafting can contain errors. I am reminded of the tale, which is completely true, of the Belgian legislature that managed to put a recipe for asparagus into Belgian law because it was cut and pasted into legislation by accident. That genuinely happened—I am sure the Minister will google it—in 2021.
Statutory instruments give us an opportunity to pick up drafting errors, as well as to hold Ministers to account, and to challenge and query legislation—for example, one of those so-called technical amendments, although we know the Bill represents not technical amendments, but, potentially, serious changes to rights, rules and regulations that people have relied on and recognised for generations. Having such a procedure would give us the chance to identify actions, and possibly to identify the asparagus.
If the Minister will not accept the amendment, he is saying two things: first, that taking back control is not about Parliament, but simply about the back rooms, and, secondly, that we never get things wrong. We have all met in life individuals, and perhaps even organisations, who say, “I never get things wrong,” and we know that that is the most worrying thing that anybody can say. Drafting errors are part and parcel of trying to get right even one or two pieces of legislation, but the Government, potentially, are setting us up to try to get 4,000 right to replace the laws they are deleting overnight.
Statutory instruments and the use of processes and amendments are an important part of the process of trying to ensure that that is done with the greatest possible skill. Removing those powers, or not clarifying that they are part of those processes, and giving Ministers the opportunity to decide whether they want to put themselves up for parliamentary scrutiny is like letting contestants in “The X Factor” avoid the judges’ houses stage. This all forms an important part of the process.
I have a horrible feeling that the Minister is not going accept the amendment, so in responding to the queries and questions we have raised, and in reflecting on why the amendment has been tabled, will he consider why—when we are discussing potentially significant and meaningful changes, and when we know he can only water down regulation because the Bill says that regulation can only be something that does not create a burden—he believes our constituents should be denied that representation and that voice in the process? That is what not including such a provision, or not having any form of it, means.
We saw that in the pandemic, when statutory instruments were not receiving appropriate scrutiny. In December 2020, a new set of covid restrictions that would have criminalised a child going to school in tier 4, despite schools remaining open, were implemented without any parliamentary scrutiny. In that case, due to the extraordinary public scrutiny these regulations faced, the issue was finally identified before the schools returned from the Christmas break for one day. Despite what they might think, however, it is not normal for commentators on Twitter to go through legislation at this level. Such errors are not minor—they are not just asparagus—but could have real life implications. They happen and they happen in this place, and not having proper scrutiny of SIs is the foundation of such errors.
I hope the Minister will do more than laugh at the asparagus. I hope he will act on these concerns and finally agree, if not to this amendment, to the tabling of the Government’s own amendment in the other place to ensure we finally take back some control. I say to my colleagues on the Government Back Benches that at some point, somebody will turn up in their constituency surgeries asking about the outcome and implication of this legislation, and they will have to say, “Well, I didn’t vote through any changes. I did not recognise the problems with the sunset. I was pretty confident about not knowing what laws this would affect and I did not even vote through any powers to be able to scrutinise what happens next. I just thought it would all be fine because this Government never make mistakes.” It simply will not wash.
Graham Stuart
I urge the Committee to reject amendments 88 and 89. Alongside the other powers in the Bill, the power to revoke or replace in clause 15 is an important, cross-cutting enabler of reform in the Bill. The power to update in clause 16 is an essential, ongoing power that will facilitate technical updates to retained EU law to take account of changes in technology or developments in scientific understanding. We recognise Parliament’s important role in scrutinising legislation, and the Bill ensures the appropriate scrutiny of all amendments and revocations of retained EU law using the powers in the Bill, including the powers provided for in clauses 15 and 16.
When discussing matters of scrutiny, I feel it is important to note the negligible scrutiny that most of the legislation we are discussing today—with such high-falutin’ language from the Opposition—received when it was created. When our democratically elected Government of the people of the United Kingdom take decisions, for which they are accountable at the ballot box, that is what I mean by taking back control. The people who are elected are responsible for what happens. That is what we have, and we are accountable at the ballot box. When they go to the ballot box now, British people will know who to hold responsible: us. It is not some pooled whatever system in Brussels; it is here in the United Kingdom. Power sits within this legislature, which is elected by the people of this country; it is not about precisely where the powers sit within our legislature. That is why it seems ironic that the Opposition parties had so little concern when powers were exercised on the other side of the channel, but apparently it is outrageous when those powers are exercised here by a democratically elected Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stuart
I am not going to give way. If I was, I would certainly let them know, Sir Gary. [Hon. Members: “Lack of scrutiny!”] More important than issues around lack of scrutiny is the Minister’s failure to keep everyone calm. I recognise that is a significant misstep on my part.
Let me first turn to clause 15. Any regulations made under subsection 15(2) that recreate a power to make subordinate legislation or a criminal offence present in the retained EU law that is being replaced are already subject to the affirmative procedure, as are those regulations making alternative provision to the REUL being replaced under subsection 15(3). The power to update has been crafted so that we can do this in the right way. I must underscore this by saying that the power is intended to enable UK legislation to be updated to reflect future advances in science and technology, rather than to provide for any fundamental policy changes.
Given the scope of the power and the amendments that we expect to be made to regulations under this power, we judge the negative procedure to be the proportionate level of scrutiny. We therefore do not assess that it is necessary or appropriate for all regulations made under clauses 15 or 16 to be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. To do so would place additional pressure on parliamentary time and detract from the legislative agenda, and indeed from the scrutiny of substantive measures that should be subject to that positive scrutiny that we are talking about. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendments.
Peter Grant
Thank you, Sir Gary, for calling me to speak. You will be aware that I attempted to intervene on the Minister to correct his mistake, because we are not in the same position with this Bill as we were with European legislation. The reason that Parliament did not do more to scrutinise the action of British Government Ministers in making legislation on our behalf while we were in the European Union is that, for most of the time, Parliament under any Government was completely supine. This Parliament is set up in such a way that it does what the Government tell it to do. It is headline news around the world if Parliament does not do what the Government tell it to do. Parliament had the power to rein in Ministers, but shamefully it repeatedly failed to do so. If this Bill goes through, Parliament will not have that power; Ministers will be able to do pretty much what they like.
The Minister talks very grandly about the fact that people have the chance to hold the Government to account. It is not a debate for just now perhaps, although some of us think that it is a debate for every day of the week, but the people of Scotland have been holding this Conservative party to account since 1955 and they just cannot get rid of them. He will perhaps understand why we can have no confidence in a legislative process that puts powers into the hands of a group of Ministers who people in Scotland have rejected at every opportunity they have been given since before I was born.
Alex Sobel
I want to just pick up on the idea that before 2016, or before early 2020 anyway, the regulations that we are talking about were somehow just created out of thin air—that an EU Commissioner decided one day that that was the regulation and that was it, and suddenly it was law in this country. That is a long way from the truth. The regulations had to go through the Council of Ministers, on which a UK Minister sat; they had to go through the European Parliament, where UK MEPs sat and provided scrutiny; and then they had to go through this House and the whole process here in the UK Parliament. When they related to devolved bodies, they also had to go through the devolved Administrations. I do not understand the argument that somehow there was a lack of scrutiny and process before, and now there is proper scrutiny and proper process. What our amendments would do is introduce the affirmative procedure.
Stella Creasy
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a heavy irony in a Minister who refuses to take interventions and to be held accountable for what he says suggesting that nobody should be worried about the details of parliamentary scrutiny, who then cloaks himself in an argument that somehow the scrutiny mechanisms within the European Union were not acceptable?
Alex Sobel
That is a theme running through the whole Bill. First, Ministers want to take powers for themselves—for the Executive—and away from Parliament. I understand that the Executive in this country is elected, at least in part—that is, down at this end of the building. Secondly, even in the microcosm of this Bill Committee, this is the third part of the Bill on which Ministers have refused to take interventions from the Opposition. They are not prepared to allow relevant scrutiny, which creates an even stronger argument as to why we need protections.
Justin Madders
Does my hon. Friend agree that although we hear an awful lot about how terrible the processes were and about these laws being imposed on us, as we discussed at length, we never hear which specific laws the Government object to?
Alex Sobel
As we do not know, there might be more than 4,000 of these regulations. We would all like lists of the various different types of regulations; I would certainly like to see which of the regulations did not receive adequate democratic process and scrutiny.
In conclusion, all of the arguments that we have heard make it even more important that the Committee accepts these two amendments.
Brendan O’Hara
I beg to move amendment 69, in schedule 3, page 33, line 10, at end insert—
“Consent of Scottish Ministers
8A Before making regulations to which this Part of this Schedule applies, a Minister of the Crown must obtain the consent of the Scottish Ministers.”
This amendment modifies the powers which are conferred on Ministers of the Crown in devolved areas so that they may only be exercised with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.
Amendment 69, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes, simply adds a line to the end of schedule 3 that, in layman’s terms, would prevent the UK Government from acting in areas of devolved competence without the consent of the relevant Scottish Government Minister or Ministers. In previous sessions, we have discussed how the UK Government plan to avoid parliamentary scrutiny by packing Delegated Legislation Committees of this House, and using secondary legislation to dispose of thousands of pieces of retained EU law.
The Minister has heard that we on these Benches are deeply concerned about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny. Although we who work in this Parliament might be concerned, it is completely unacceptable that the Governments and parliamentarians across these islands will be excluded from those Committees and will have to sit and watch us. My hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes pointed out that they will have to watch as members of a party that has not won an election in Scotland since 1955 push through change after change to legislation in areas that have been—and are—wholly devolved, and which the people of Scotland and its democratically elected Government do not want changed.
It is yet another example of things being done to us, against our wishes, by a Government who we did not elect. I say to the UK Government that amendment 69 is another opportunity to show the people of Scotland that you value their opinion, you respect their Parliament and Government, and you wish to respect the devolution settlement. I urge you to accept this amendment. If you do, then maybe you will go some way to letting the people of Scotland know that you are not coming for our Parliament or our powers.
The Chair
Just a reminder that “you” is me. Does the hon. Gentleman mean the Minister, because I love the people of Scotland?
Brendan O’Hara
Absolutely, Sir Gary. I have no idea what you wish to do after you leave this place, but I am certain it is not that. If the Minster accepts the amendment, that would maybe go some way to showing that his Government are not coming after our powers or our Parliament.
Graham Stuart
I urge the members of the Committee to reject the amendment. As they are aware, the Bill contains a sunset date of 31 December 2023, by which all retained EU law will be removed or reformed. That date was chosen to create the impetus for REUL reform and enact change at the earliest opportunity. The Bill has been drafted to ensure that the sunset date is workable, but it is pivotal that there are no impediments or delays in that process. A delay of a month or more to seek consent would make it more difficult for the necessary regulations to be laid before that date. That risks the inadvertent sunsetting of laws that Departments have identified they wish to keep.
Peter Grant
The Minister appears to be admitting that the ideological, arbitrary and unnecessary deadline of the end of next year is more important than the basic processes of democracy and of courtesy towards the devolution settlement. Is that correct? Is that what he is saying?
Graham Stuart
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his colleague, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, on the mental and political gymnastics through which they put themselves in order to make out that perfectly reasonable, fair, proportionate and devolution-friendly legislation is somehow an affront to the Scottish people and devolution. It takes a particular turn of mind and will to twist everything into a grievance, even when that is not borne out as a reasonable outcome.
The UK Government take into account a variety of factors when seeking delegated powers in devolved areas. Each Bill is drafted according to its specific policy intent and the most appropriate way to effect those policy changes. The powers for the UK Government to make statutory instruments in devolved areas are not new, and have been used across a wide range of policy areas since the advent of devolution. That is because it is often appropriate for the UK Government to amend existing, or introduce new UK-wide regulations, including in devolved areas. That approach is more efficient and ensures greater coherence across the UK, as well as making it easier for our stakeholders.
Furthermore, the amendment would impose on UK Ministers a consent requirement from Scottish Ministers for provisions in areas of devolved competence. As I said, the boundaries are not always clearcut and could give rise to litigation, which might result in regulations being struck down by the courts.
The Bill is not intended to take powers from the devolved Governments and nothing in our proposed legislation affects the devolution settlements. In fact, the powers under the Bill will give the devolved Governments greater flexibility to decide how they will regulate those areas governed by retained EU law in the future. That will enable the Scottish Government to make active decisions about retained EU law within their devolved competence for the benefit of citizens and businesses in Scotland. What a shame that we did not hear any of that reflected in the contribution of the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute.
The Government remain committed to continuing discussions with the devolved Governments throughout the passage of the Bill to ensure that the most efficient and appropriate approach to REUL reform can be taken in every situation in a way that works and provides certainty for all parts of the UK. As I said and do not apologise for repeating, the Scottish Government will be able to make active decisions about retained EU law within their competence. They need to get on with that and not have their representatives in this Parliament making out inaccurately that the Bill makes impositions on Scotland that it does not.
Brendan O’Hara
It is nice to see the Minister revert to type. Having been regaled for the past two or three days by someone with a slightly more considered approach, it is nice to see that the Government’s gloves have finally come off. We are getting down to the nitty-gritty of the Bill.
Let us be absolutely clear: this Bill is a full-on attack on the devolution settlement. Coupled with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, this is an attack on our Parliament and our power. The idea that the Bill is “devolution-friendly” is literally laughable, as he heard from the reaction to it of me and my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes.
To be clear, that date of 31 December was chosen without consent. No one asked the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament if they agreed to that date. The date is ideological, arbitrary and a cliff edge 13 months from now, and it is almost certain to fail. It is an impossible target to achieve, and it will not be achieved. I say to the Minister again: we are giving him and his Government the opportunity to show that they respect the devolved settlement and Administrations. The amendment gives them the opportunity to say once and for all: “We respect you, listen to you and value your contribution.”
Despite all the Minister has said, I urge him yet again to accept the amendment. If he does not, however, I will not press it to a vote.
Peter Grant
It is not only in their debate style that we have seen a complete contrast between the Minister and his colleague the Minister for Industry and Investment Security, who was in Committee last week. We should remember what the Minister’s colleague said last week about the need for the 31 December deadline and how achievable it was. When we raised concerns that bits of legislation will be repealed by mistake, that was scaremongering. When we raised concerns that if the Government force through 90,000 job cuts in the civil service, civil servants who are already overworked will be put under impossible pressure, that was scaremongering as well. When we warned that the pressure would lead to more mistakes being made than would be acceptable or sustainable, that was scaremongering because the civil servants would get it right first time in just over a year. Now we are being told that a delay of a month in a small minority of some of these 4,000 bits of legislation would be so catastrophic that it cannot even be allowed in the name of simple democracy or simple courtesy.
If the Minister is concerned that a month’s delay is too long and if the Government are really on top of the problem, as they keep telling us they are, they could send a message to the devolved Governments today to say: “These are the parts of retained EU law that we think have got a direct impact on your devolved powers. We only need to give you a month to decide whether or not to give consent. But because the Government are in control and we know what we are doing, we can give you six months. If you come back in six months and tell us whether you consent, we still have three months to negotiate any differences and then a full three months to put the legislation in place.” That is how the Government would manage the situation if, first, they really were in control and knew what they were doing, of which we have seen very little evidence so far, and secondly, if they really believed in and respected the spirit of devolution.
The spirit of devolution is that there will be different answers in the four different nations of the United Kingdom because there are different needs, different priorities and, as we see, more and more different expressions of political will. On that point, the Minister keeps referring to the suggestion that Government Members understand and respect the will of the people of Scotland. We are prepared to put that to the test at any date of the Government’s choosing. The Government are running away from the will of the people of Scotland.
Brendan O’Hara
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
Just a gentle reminder that we are sometimes in danger of making Second Reading speeches on some of the amendments. We all know the rules, so let us keep our focus on the amendment in hand.
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Justin Madders
It is worth spending a little time on schedule 3 because it is the engine underneath the dashboard of the vehicle that will drive us off the cliff edge at the end of next year. It gives the Government the ability to use regulations to carry out the heavy lifting required by the Bill. As we have discussed many times already, we know the potential ramifications of that for the huge range of protections that our constituents currently enjoy and for the lack of parliamentary oversight that there will be in that process.
We have said all this before, but the broad changes that will be carried out under the regulations will mainly fall under the negative procedure. Offering only the affirmative procedure to a small proportion of the changes envisaged by the Bill falls far below the standard of scrutiny that we would expect. When one considers the sheer number of regulations required to make the changes, which we have talked about, and of course the risk that laws will fall by default because the relevant Department has not identified them, the concerns over lack of scrutiny multiply.
Stella Creasy
Does my hon. Friend agree that what is so critical is that we depend on Ministers knowing what is affected and what is not? I am struck by the fact that the Minister tried to tell us on Second Reading that airline safety rules would not be included and therefore we did not need to worry about the regulations. In fact, subsequent written parliamentary questions have confirmed that the SIs around airline safety were part of the Bill and therefore not contained in the Civil Aviation Act. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that making sure the engine underneath is roadworthy is perhaps one of the most critical things we can do in Committee, given that Ministers themselves perhaps should not be at the wheel?
Justin Madders
I think I have got rather lost in the number of analogies there; I might want to pull over and take a breather. The point is that we just do not know the full extent of the Bill. If we do not know, and if the Ministers and civil servants do not know, we cannot be confident that there will be no unintended consequences, which is why the level of scrutiny that the Bill affords is inadequate.
The wider problem is the way the Bill is framed. It seeks to provide the wrong answer to, essentially, the right question—“What do we do about all the retained EU law?”—but I am afraid that the answer we have come up with is wholly inappropriate. It does not uphold principles of scrutiny or parliamentary supremacy; actually, it makes Parliament a bystander in large parts of the process.
Graham Stuart
Schedule 3 specifies how the powers in the Bill will be exercised through regulations made by statutory instrument or the relevant equivalent in the devolved Administrations. The schedule sets out the parliamentary procedure applicable to specific powers in the Bill, including in cases where instruments contain combined provisions using a number of powers. It provides for equivalent procedures to apply in the devolved legislatures and for joint procedures to be available when Ministers of the Crown are making regulations jointly with devolved authorities.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the sifting procedure. The sifting procedure will apply to legislation made under clause 12, the power to restate retained EU law; clause 13, the power to restate assimilated law or sunsetted EU rights, powers, liabilities and so on; and clause 15, powers to revoke or replace, where Ministers decide to use the negative procedure. The sifting procedure largely corresponds with the sifting procedure under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and under the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. In both cases, sifting was effectively used to ensure proportionate parliamentary scrutiny on legislation regarding EU exit.
Under the procedure, recommendations on the appropriate procedure from both Committees, in the House of Lords and House of Commons, must be received before the instrument can be made. If either Committee recommends that the instrument should be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, the Minister must either follow that recommendation or publish a written statement explaining why they disagree with the Committee’s recommendations. If no recommendations have been received from the Committees after 10 days, the legislation can be made under the proposed procedure.
The sifting procedure will provide additional scrutiny of the powers while retaining the flexibility of using the negative procedure when and only when there are good reasons for doing so. The Government recognises the significant role Parliament has played in scrutinising instruments subject to these sifting procedures and are committed to ensuring the appropriate scrutiny of any secondary legislation made under the delegated powers in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Commencement, Transitional and savings
Brendan O’Hara
I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 22, page 21, line 39, at end insert—
“(aa) section [Impact assessments];”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—Impact assessments—
“The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the
(a) revocation of any—
(i) EU-derived subordinate legislation, or
(ii) retained direct EU legislation, or
(b) removal under section 3 of any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies or procedures saved by virtue of section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 at least three months before the revocation or (as the case may be) removal takes effect.”
Brendan O’Hara
I will be mercifully brief. The amendment stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes. The amendment and new clause 3 would oblige the UK Government to provide an impact assessment on what they believe the likely consequences would be of any withdrawal of a piece of legislation before any revocation of the EU law takes place. That impact assessment should be published three months ahead of any scheduled revocation date.
The Government may see that requirement as a tad onerous, but it simply reflects the gravity of what the Government are planning with retained EU law. It would ensure that, rather than having the planned bonfire of legislation, the Government and their Departments of State are forced to consider very carefully and in great detail exactly the consequences of what they are about to do. Is that not what our constituents would expect of this Parliament and its parliamentarians—to consider very carefully the consequences of each piece of action that it takes and what impact it may have on those constituents, their businesses and livelihoods? I urge the Government to accept the amendment and new clause.
Graham Stuart
I ask that the Committee reject the amendment and new clause. When retained EU law is a regulatory provision and is being amended significantly, we would expect Departments to put their measures through the Government systems for regulatory scrutiny, such as the better regulation framework.
Where measures are being revoked, Departments will be expected to undertake proportionate analytical appraisal, and we are exploring appropriate steps that we can take to appraise the resulting impacts. However, given that Departments will undertake proper and proportionate cost-benefit analysis in relation to amendments to retained EU law, we do not consider there to be a need to include a reference to impact assessments in clause 22, relating to commencement, as such procedures and approaches are baked into the way Departments behave. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing the amendment.
Brendan O’Hara
I am disappointed but not in the least surprised by the Minister’s response. In the future, when we pick over the detritus of the Bill and people say, “Why did they do it the way they did it?” the Government will never be able to say that they did not know what would happen and that it was not brought to their attention. They have decided to plough on regardless with this self-imposed cliff-edge deadline. I will not push the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Brendan O’Hara
I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 22, page 21, line 39, at end insert—
“(aa) section [Assessment of the impact of repeal of retained EU law];”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 7—Assessment of the impact of repeal of retained EU law—
“Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the repeal of any retained EU law done under the provisions of this Act.”
Brendan O’Hara
I will again be brief. The amendment and new clause would oblige the UK Government to publish an impact assessment of the consequences of repealing retained EU law. If they are not prepared to publish an analysis before, it is incumbent on them to publish an impact assessment of the consequences of every piece of retained EU law that is being revoked, and for that impact assessment to be published no later than three months after the date that any revocation has taken place.
This proposal is similar to what we proposed with amendment 66. We understand that it will take a great deal of work for Ministers and officials, but given the seriousness of the consequences of getting this wrong, if this revocation of retained EU law has to happen, it should happen with as little negative impact on businesses and people’s lives. That may mean a little extra work for Ministers, their staff and Whitehall Departments, but we think it is well worth doing.
I hope the Minister will view this amendment—indeed, all our amendments—as being in the spirit of trying to make what we have described as a truly awful piece of legislation just a little better. As we said at the outset, given the rate at which the Government are planning to proceed, mistakes are absolutely inevitable, and people—our constituents and their businesses—will be hurt by those mistakes. If the Government are not prepared to do an impact assessment before they revoke EU law, it is incumbent on them to carry one out after the EU law has been revoked so we can understand the consequences of what has happened and hopefully avoid a future catastrophe.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the constructive spirit in which he tabled the amendment and new clause. None the less, I ask the Committee to reject them. They are similar to the previous group. Given that Departments will undertake proper and proportionate analysis in relation to amendments to retained EU law, and that effort is under way to understand the potential impacts of sunsetting, we do not consider that there is a need to include them in the Bill. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw them.
Brendan O’Hara
I thank the Minister for his reply. It is nice to see that the temperature has come down somewhat. If only to reassure the public that what they are doing is working, it is incumbent on the Government to provide these impact assessments. The Bill is happening hurriedly and, dare I say it, with a lack of planning, and when it hits the buffers on 31 December next year, people have a right to know what that means for them. However, I will not press the amendment to a vote. I am certain that we shall return to this issue on Report, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Brendan O’Hara
I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 22, page 21, line 42, at end insert—
“(da) section [Impact on the UK’s obligations under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement];”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—Impact on the UK’s obligations under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement—
“Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of this Act on the UK’s obligations under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the UK and the European Union done at Brussels and London on 30 December 2020.”
Brendan O’Hara
When England and Wales voted to leave the European Union, and took Scotland and Northern Ireland out of the EU along with them, the United Kingdom Government signed a withdrawal agreement with Brussels. In return for certain rights and privileges in terms of trade with the EU, the United Kingdom promised not to diverge from the agreed level playing field set out in the trade and co-operation agreement.
I and many others have serious concerns that, if the Bill passes into law as it stands, the United Kingdom is in grave danger of breaching the international agreement it signed—I presume in good faith. On the presumption that the trade and co-operation agreement was signed in good faith, and that the UK Government would not knowingly and deliberately break such an important international treaty, I strongly urge the Government accept amendment 61. It would oblige the Government to publish, within three months of the Bill becoming law, an impact assessment of how the revocation of retained EU law, particularly on workers’ rights and environmental protections, has affected the trade and co-operation agreement.
The Government cannot be deaf to people’s concerns about the Bill, or to the genuinely held fear that, if it is pushed through unamended, and is implemented in the way that the Government have suggested, it will have a detrimental impact on the level playing field agreement with the European Union. If that happens, and if we stumble, accidentally or otherwise, into a situation in which we have broken the level playing field agreement, I fear that the United Kingdom could expect economic sanctions to follow. The last thing that the economy needs right now is another completely avoidable self-inflicted knock.
I urge the Government to accept the amendment. It makes sense. It sends a signal to our friends in the European Union that the United Kingdom is not about to unilaterally diverge from or break its international agreements, that we respect the level playing field, and that we will stick to what we said.
Justin Madders
I will be brief. This is an issue about which we are also concerned. No one wants to enter into a trade war because a Minister makes a mistake, and amends or forgets to restore regulations. That is what the Bill risks. I remind the Committee what the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) said on Second Reading:
“I am very happy to make a commitment today that the Government will, as a priority, take the necessary action to safeguard the substance of any retained EU law and legal effects required to operate international obligations within domestic law. We will set out where retained EU law is required to maintain international obligations through the dashboard”—[Official Report, 25 October 2022; Vol. 721, c. 189.]
We are back to the dashboard. That is not quite as good as having something in the Bill, which is what the amendment seeks. However, it prompts a question for the Minister: when can we expect the commitments regarding the lovely dashboard to be honoured? We are all regularly hitting “refresh” to see whether the dashboard will be updated with the additional 100-plus or 1,400-plus Bills that have been identified. It is important that our international obligations are maintained. If there is a way of ensuring that Parliament is content, we are happy to support the amendment.
Graham Stuart
I ask the Committee to reject the amendment. None the less, the Government agree about the importance of the UK continuing to meet the obligations set out in the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement. As a sovereign nation, we have the right to regulate as we see fit and in the best interests of the UK. This right is preserved in the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement, and the Bill is part of us exercising that right. The level playing field provisions commit the UK and EU not to weaken or reduce overall levels of protection on labour and social standards, climate and the environment in a manner affecting trade or investment between the parties.
The Government’s intention is to ensure the necessary legislation is in place to uphold the UK’s international obligations. That is why we pledged on Second Reading to safeguard in domestic law the substance and legal effect of any retained EU law necessary to meet those international obligations. We have an exciting opportunity to embark on ambitious regulatory reform and remove outdated legislation that does not suit the UK. We can build on the high standards we have committed to within the trade and co-operation agreement, and at the same time boost competitiveness and productivity—something I hope the whole Committee will support. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute to withdraw the amendment.
Brendan O’Hara
I thank the Minister for that response. Whether on workers’ rights or environmental protection, we have heard so much evidence and correspondence from people outside this Parliament who have genuine fears that this is the starting pistol of a deregulatory race to the bottom. If that were to be the case, I fear that the United Kingdom would be in breach of the level playing field agreement. I do not think the Government have fully considered the implications of this legislation. All my amendment sought to do was force the Government to consider those implications. I would push it to a vote, but I think it is another issue we will return to at a later stage, because it is vital that we are not seen to be tearing up international agreements or flying in the face of them in the way I fear the Bill will do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Brendan O’Hara
I beg to move amendment 65, in clause 22, page 21, line 42, at end insert—
“(da) section [Disapplication of the UK Internal Market Act 2020];”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Disapplication of the UK Internal Market Act 2020—
“Where Scottish Ministers have used any power granted to them under this Act—
(a) to provide that any EU-derived subordinate legislation or retained direct EU legislation is not subject to revocation at the end of 2023, or
(b) to restate any provision of retained EU law (or, as the case may be, assimilated law), that legislation or provision shall apply notwithstanding any provision of the UK Internal Market Act 2020.”
Brendan O’Hara
Having been mercifully brief previously, I may take slightly longer now, because I think these measures are fundamental to our concerns about the Bill. Amendment 65 and new clause 2 would ensure that UK Ministers could not use the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to undermine or deny Scottish Ministers protecting retained EU law. These measures go to the heart of the issue—working between the internal market Act and this Bill.
We have said throughout Committee that even if this were a standalone piece of legislation, it would be sufficiently bad for us to oppose it at every step of the way. But for Scotland—and, I suspect, other devolved Governments—we have taken it in conjunction with the internal market Act. Not only does it present an existential threat to Parliament and the devolution settlement; this Bill is a disaster for crucial parts of the Scottish economy. I do not think it was coincidental or accidental. This is part of a deliberate policy to undermine and weaken devolution and the devolved Parliaments. It is designed to force the constituent parts of the United Kingdom to align their policies with those of the UK Government and to do what this Government tell them to do. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 knowingly created confusion and deliberately blurred the hitherto clear lines of demarcation that existed.
The Bill, when in effect, will impose this place’s will on areas that have been wholly devolved since the Scottish Parliament was reconstituted more than two decades ago. In the areas of the environment, health, food standards and animal welfare, the democratically elected Scottish Parliament is the body that sets policy and direction. Since the internal market Act came into effect, we have seen significant encroachment by the UK Government into these wholly devolved areas. Amendment 65 and new clause 2 would ensure that if the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament decided that they wished to remain aligned to EU law, they could do so without the imposition of the internal market Act forcing them to change their position.
The infringement into the powers of our Parliament has, I fear, become a full-scale attack, with blanket, UK-wide—from Truro to Thurso—policies being imposed in areas over which this Government have no legislative consent. It is a crusade to weaken food standards, animal welfare, product labelling, environmental health and so much else by a Government who have no mandate to operate in those fields in Scotland. As I said earlier, this is the starting pistol on the deregulatory race to the bottom. That is why the United Kingdom Internal Market Act and the Bill have been brought in in this way. It goes completely against the spirit of devolution and is in direct contravention of the Sewel convention.
Before Second Reading, I met with the regional board of the National Farmers Union of Scotland in Argyll and Bute on a farm near Oban. The message was stark: farmers feel forgotten and undervalued. They have been battered by Brexit and they now face this Bill, which, they have said, is a potential death sentence for the agriculture sector in Scotland, which requires subsidies to manage the land, keep the lights on in the hills, provide employment and stem rural depopulation, as well as producing high-quality, high-value beef, lamb and dairy.
We know that the Bill will allow the lowering of food standards. We know that it will allow the relaxation of rules around labelling and animal welfare. We know that it will allow mass importation of inferior-quality products. All that will be an unmitigated disaster for Scottish agriculture. Our farmers are also painfully aware that, as it stands, there is very little that their democratically elected Parliament can do about it.
Last Wednesday, between our sittings on Tuesday and Thursday, I met Martin Kennedy, president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, and his officials. They repeated almost word for word what I was told by my Argyll and Bute farmers. Martin Kennedy’s message to the Committee and this Government is that he and his members have severe reservations and concerns about the potential impacts of this Bill. As we do, he and his farmers accept that the Bill cannot be taken in isolation, but has to be put alongside the United Kingdom Internal Market Act.
Scottish farmers are not best noted for their political radicalism—probably because they are so busy battling the elements day and night to produce some of our best dairy and meat products—but this Government should understand that the Scottish agriculture sector is up in arms, maybe as never before, about the Bill and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, and their disastrous consequences. If the Government will not listen to us here today and choose to ignore the Scottish Government, I implore them: listen to Martin Kennedy and his members about what this Bill will do to them, and their businesses and livelihoods. They are the ones who will bear the brunt of being forced into a UK-wide, one-size-fits-all regulatory framework that forces us to diverge from EU regulations.
When supermarket shelves become full of cheap, inferior cuts of meat, when lorryloads of chlorine-washed chicken cross the border and saturate the market, when animal welfare is a thing of the past, and when labelling rules are so relaxed that consumers do not know what they are consuming, that is a death knell for Scottish agriculture. The people of Scotland should be in no doubt that this Bill, coupled with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, means one thing and one thing only: this place is coming for our Parliament and our democracy.
Justin Madders
Unfortunately, the new clause appears to apply only to Ministers in Scotland, not in the other devolved nations, but it does raise some important issues. If we start from the proposition that it is right that in areas of devolved competence, the devolved Administrations should have the ability to re-regulate their own priorities, which, I think, is where the Bill takes us, it does not take much to see where that might cause some difficulties, particularly when the Bill creates no wider duty in relation to the operation of the market access principles underpinning the UK internal market. The Bill creates the risk of new barriers to trade in the UK internal market. I accept that there is a conundrum there.
We want to allow the devolved nations to develop policy as per their own competencies, but there is no process in the Bill for resolution of any regulatory differences between the UK and the devolved Governments and, critically, no process for businesses or consumers to be consulted on the potential for new barriers between England, Scotland and Wales for certain categories of good. We need to understand how the Government intend to address that. Are the processes in the UK Government and devolved Administrations common frameworks post Brexit intended to apply to the Bill? If so, it is not clear from the Bill. Perhaps the Minister can reassure us on that.
Peter Grant
I take the initial point of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston that we should perhaps have included the other devolved nations. It is an indication of the weakness of the Bill Committee system that sometimes some of the devolved nations have no representation whatever on a Committee. Of course, the way to address that is for the Government to signal their clear intent by accepting the amendment and undertaking to introduce an equivalent amendment protecting Northern Ireland and Wales at a later stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute raised a concern that the Bill will be used to lower standards. The Government always howl in protest and say that it will not be, but last week they insisted on including a clause that would prohibit making regulations under the Bill that placed additional burdens on businesses. They have not introduced a clause that prohibits the use of the Bill to make regulations to lower standards on workers’ rights, animal welfare or anything else. I wonder why that might be.
My hon. Friend also pointed out yet again that the presumptuous way in which the UK Government forced through the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 was based on the assumption that, notwithstanding the devolution settlements, Ministers in the British Government have the right to overrule the elected national Parliaments and Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Although there will be cases where it is better to have similar or sometimes identical standards across these islands, the Government assume that what is decided by those who are elected by and for the people of England should automatically be what is imposed on the people of the other nations of the United Kingdom. That is not how devolution works. That is not how consensus works, which is what the Secretary of State for Scotland kept going on about last Wednesday in reply to our urgent question.
If the Government seriously want to work by consensus across the four nations, they would introduce legislation that required it to be in place before anything was done to change legislation. The Government have been reminded umpteen times over the past few weeks of the devolved competencies of our national Parliament in Scotland, Senedd Cymru and the Assembly in Northern Ireland. I appreciate that there is a different situation in Northern Ireland just now, and that there may be times when it is essential, and in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, for the UK Parliament to act when the Northern Ireland Assembly is not functioning, but the Bill is not about stepping in in emergency circumstances. The Bill, and the clause that we are looking at, is about the Government having the right to step in wherever it suits them.
I urge the Government to accept the amendment. I know they will not, because they seem to be under orders not to listen to or accept any amendment, regardless of how sound or sensible it is, if it comes from the wrong side of the Committee. If that is an indication of the way they intend to use the powers that the Bill will give them, we should all be very concerned indeed.
Graham Stuart
I urge the Committee to reject the amendment. The UKIM Act was introduced to protect businesses, jobs and livelihoods following our exit from the EU. The amendment seeks to disapply the provisions of the UKIM Act in cases where Scottish Government Ministers use the powers contained in the Bill to preserve or restate retained EU law. The operation of the UKIM Act is essential in maintaining our integrated market to ensure the free flow of goods, services, and people through the recognition of professional qualifications throughout the UK. The UKIM Act provides certainty for businesses and consumers where divergent approaches to regulation are taken in different parts of the UK, and the provisions of the Bill do not change that.
We recognise and value four nation co-operation—that is one reason that all four Administrations jointly started the common frameworks programme—and we remain committed to working with the devolved Governments in areas of shared policy interest, including REUL. I can see why the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, from an oppositional point of view, would make out that we will lower our standards, but that is absolutely not our intent. Food standards are a devolved matter—I think that will be reassuring for Martin and his members—and key measures in the Bill apply to the devolved Administration. Accordingly, the devolved Governments will be able to exercise the powers in the Bill to amend retained EU law in their existing devolved competencies. We will work with all the devolved Governments, including the Scottish Government, on retained EU law reforms in line with commitments and common framework agreements that cover food standards.
Brendan O’Hara
If food standards will be absolutely protected and enshrined, as the Minister said, will he give me a cast-iron guarantee that, if the Scottish Government decide they do not want chlorine-washed chicken, they can prevent lorryloads of chlorine-washed chicken from crossing the border? Can he give me a cast-iron guarantee that if the Scottish Government say that they do not want inferior, cheap, hormone-injected beef on Scottish supermarket shelves, they can prevent that from happening? Can he give me a guarantee that, should the Scottish Government decide they will stick to the legislation on animal welfare and passporting, that too will be absolutely protected in this legislation?
Graham Stuart
Of course, chlorine, chlorine dioxide and other chemical washes have not been approved for washing chicken meat, and therefore are not allowed to be used. The hon. Gentleman can paint up any number of other unfounded scare stories and ask for categorical assurance from the Government that they are not planning to kill every firstborn, but I assure the Committee that that is not our intention.
Brendan O’Hara
Let me rephrase the question. Should the UK Government decide that chlorine-washed chicken is acceptable and the Scottish Government decide it is not, could the Minister give me a cast-iron guarantee that the primacy of the Scottish Government’s decision to continue to ban chlorine-washed chicken would be respected under the terms of the Bill?
Graham Stuart
Of course, it may be a question as to whether the Scottish Government decide to approve chlorine-washed chicken. Imagine if the scientific evidence provided in Scotland did that; perhaps the Scottish Government are secretly planning to bring in chlorine-washed chicken, in which case we would have to consider how that would be dealt with. In that instance or any other, the Government will continue to work closely with the devolved Governments to manage intra-UK divergence, including through existing mechanisms such as the common frameworks programme and the UK Internal Market Act.
I will not insult the Committee by suggesting that the Scottish Government will do things that I honestly do not think that they will do; I just wish that the hon. Gentleman would do us the courtesy of doing the same. I urge him to withdraw his amendment.
Brendan O’Hara
I will not withdraw the amendment, and I will seek to divide the Committee. The Minister said that the UK Internal Market Act is there to protect the interests of business; perhaps it is there to protect the interests of business as long as the business is not a Scottish farmer. This will be the death knell for the Scottish agricultural sector. Those in the sector are not the most radical group on the planet, but this Government and legislation have fired them up as I have never seen before. This is not four nation co-operation; this is as far as we can get from four nation co-operation. This is one nation imposition. On that basis, I will seek to divide the Committee.
The Chair
Order. It is 11.25 am. We will start this afternoon at 2 o’clock with a Division. I know that Members are keen to get to the Chamber, so off you go.
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (Eighth sitting)
Tuesday 29th November 2022
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRetained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 November 2022 - (29 Nov 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering new clause 2—Disapplication of the UK Internal Market Act 2020—
“Where Scottish Ministers have used any power granted to them under this Act—
(a) to provide that any EU-derived subordinate legislation or retained direct EU legislation is not subject to revocation at the end of 2023, or
(b) to restate any provision of retained EU law (or, as the case may be, assimilated law),
that legislation or provision shall apply notwithstanding any provision of the UK Internal Market Act 2020.”
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 62, in clause 22, page 22, line 5, at end insert—
“(3A) But no provision of this Act, other than this section, may come into force in relation to Scotland unless the Scottish Parliament has passed a motion consenting to the Act.”
This is the last of the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes, but it is arguably the most telling, because it gets to the nub of everything that we have said about the Bill, while putting the Government on the spot about their commitment to the devolution settlement. The amendment says that none of the Bill’s provisions can take effect on areas of devolved competence unless and until the Scottish Parliament has consented to the Bill through the granting of a legislative consent motion.
I have mentioned on numerous occasions in Committee the seemingly endless stream of warm words on how valued, respected, appreciated and indeed cherished Scotland is by this place, and on how absolutely catastrophic it would be if we decided to leave this not-so-voluntary and not particularly precious Union. The amendment is a litmus test of that commitment to devolution. It would allow the Scottish Parliament to operate as it has done, and as it has always intended to, by giving it the power to decide on matters in a whole raft of policy areas—indeed, on everything that is not specifically reserved to this place. In that spirit, and mindful of everything said by the Prime Minister and others in the past week, I ask: is it too much to ask the Government turn that stream of warm words into action, to accept this amendment, and to prove to the growing band of doubters north of the border that the Government respect Scottish democracy after all? This is, in many ways, the last chance for the Government to secure their support and turn the tide. I wonder whether they will take it.
The Minister for Climate (Graham Stuart)
It is only right that all four nations of this United Kingdom should benefit from the ability to reform and amend retained EU law, so I reject the amendment. The Bill’s territorial scope is the whole UK. As such, all its key measures, including the sunset, will apply to the devolved Governments. That will ensure that we can amend or remove outdated EU-derived law that is no longer right for any part of the UK. The Bill is an essential piece of legislation that will enable the four nations of the UK to capitalise on the regulatory autonomy offered by our departure from the EU, and to fully realise the opportunities of Brexit.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Who is best placed to decide whether any of this retained EU law is in Scotland’s best interests? Is it the 5.5 million people who live in Scotland or the Minister?
Graham Stuart
I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would still be smarting from finding out—from the Supreme Court, no less—that all the exaggerated, hyperbolic claims made by the Scottish National party had no grounding whatever. If he was a true democrat, he would respect that once-in-a-generation opportunity taken by the Scottish people, in which they were asked if they wished to stay part of this Parliament and this United Kingdom; and they decided that, yes, they would. It is on that basis that I reject the amendment. I am pleased that the Supreme Court agreed with any other well-informed commentator—other than those specially selected by the Scottish nationalist party—that we are behaving in an appropriate way that fully supports and respects Scottish democracy, and will continue to do so.
Peter Grant
I genuinely and sincerely thank the Minister for the contemptuous way in which he has dismissed the demands of the people of Scotland, because he has added another couple of percentage points to their support for independence. Perhaps—appropriately, when we are discussing a Bill that is full of opportunities for the Government to change the law by mistake—he is single-handedly bringing independence day that wee bit nearer.
There is an important point here. The Minister claimed that in 2014 the people of Scotland were given the chance to decide our future. The chance to decide our future is not something we are given by some colonial overlord. The chance to decide our future is recognised in this place as a fundamental right, as, indeed, is the chance to decide whether the interests of Scotland are best served by a chaotic Brexit, as illustrated in this Bill, or by remaining in the European Union. I accept the Minister wants this country out of the European Union. It is time he respected that I want my country back in. If he wants to talk about the decision that was made in 2014—
The Chair
Order. I blame the Minister for taking us down a particular path, but I encourage the hon. Gentleman to stick to amendment 62.
Peter Grant
I will stick to amendment 62, Sir Gary. The amendment is the last chance in the Bill to respect the decision of the people of Scotland in 2014. Among other things, they voted the way they did because they wanted to remain in the European Union, and they confirmed that with a 24% margin of victory in the 2016 referendum. If the Minister wants to respect the will of the people of Scotland in respect to our relationship with Europe, he will support the amendment, and his Whip, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, will hold up a board telling Government Back Benchers to support it too.
Brendan O’Hara
Again, I am not remotely surprised that the Government have rejected the amendment; they have rejected every single amendment we have tabled in the past six sittings, over three days. We have given the Government ample opportunity to respect the devolution settlement and for them to say to the Scottish people, “Yes, we respect your Parliament. We respect your democracy. We respect that you have the right to do things differently, as enshrined in the devolution settlement,” but they have rejected every single opportunity they have been offered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes is absolutely right to say that Scotland is being denied democracy. This Bill, coupled with the UK Internal Market Act 2020, is a full-on assault on Scottish democracy. I will not push the amendment to a vote, but I will return to this issue on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Graham Stuart
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 22, page 22, line 9, at end insert—
“(b) the revocation of anything by section 1, or
(c) anything ceasing to be recognised or available in domestic law (and, accordingly, ceasing to be enforced, allowed or followed) as a result of section 3.”
This amendment provides that transitional, transitory or saving provision may be made in connection with anything sunsetted under Clause 1 or 3.
Graham Stuart
The amendment clarifies the power to make transitional provisions for the sunset. Transitional provisions regulate transition from the current law to the law as it will be when amended by the Bill. For instance, transitional provisions could be made to ensure that laws that will fall away after the sunset continue to apply to certain types of ongoing contracts after the sunset date, if the contracts were entered into on the basis of those rules applying. Consequently, the amendment ensures consistency for businesses and citizens following the sunset’s effects. That is highly important, given the roles the Bill will play as a key driver for growth. I trust the Committee will support consistency and growth for British business and citizens, and thus will join me in voting for the amendment.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
As the Minister just said, Labour will support growth for British business, and we look forward to seeing some in the next 18 months, or maybe before. However, I have a couple of questions about the commencement dates.
Subsection (2) states:
“Section 18 comes into force…two months”
after Royal Assent, whereas subsection (3) contains a much broader provision for Ministers of the Crown to implement different parts of the Act on different dates. As the Committee will have gathered from my comments this morning, I think that that will be sooner rather than later for much of this Bill, but will the Minister explain the difference? Why is there a specific date for section 18, but a much broader power for the remaining provisions?
Subsection (5) refers to various pieces of legislation, including the Financial Services and Markets Act 2022, Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority rules, and the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, as not being applicable to this Act. We have tried to exclude and carve out various pieces of legislation from this Bill, because we believe that some provisions are important for our constituents. I wonder what the rationale is for deciding that those particular provisions are so special that they deserve that treatment.
Graham Stuart
In short, it is because clause 18 covers the business impact target, which is an internal Government process, so I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
We come to new clause 1, which has already been debated. I call Brendan O’Hara to move new clause 1 formally.
Peter Grant
On a point of order, Sir Gary. I am looking for some clarification. The earlier amendments that would have introduced these new clauses were voted down, so we were unsure whether the new clauses themselves could still be voted on, or whether they had automatically been deemed to have fallen.
The Chair
I think I have made a slight error, so we will move on. The new clauses have fallen—my apologies.
New Clause 8
Conditions for bringing sections 3, 4 and 5 into force
“(1) None of sections 3, 4 or 5 may be brought into force unless all the following conditions have been satisfied.
(2) The first condition is that a Minister of the Crown has, after consulting organisations and persons representative of interests substantially affected by, or with expertise in the likely legal effect of, that section on a draft of that report, laid a report before each House of Parliament setting out, with reasons, the Minister’s view as to the likely advantages and disadvantages of bringing that section into force, setting out in particular the effect of that section on—
(a) the rights of and protections for consumers, workers, and businesses, and protections of the environment and animal welfare;
(b) legal certainty, and the clarity and predictability of the law;
(c) the operation of the Trade and Cooperation agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU, and UK exports of goods and services to the European Economic Area; and
(d) the operation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in the EU withdrawal agreement.
(3) In relation to section 4, that report must take into account any regulation made or likely to be made by a relevant national authority under section 8(1).
(4) The second condition is that a period of sixty days has passed since that report was laid before Parliament, with no account to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days.
(5) The third condition is that, after the end of that period, both Houses of Parliament have approved a resolution that that section come into force.
(6) If both Houses of Parliament have approved a resolution that that section should not come into force unless it is amended in a way set out in that resolution, then the Minister may by regulation amend that section accordingly, and that section may not be brought into force until that amendment has been made.”—(Justin Madders.)
This new clause requires Ministers to analyse, and to explain their analysis of, the effect of the removal of retained EU law rights, the principle of supremacy of EU law, and of the general principles. It also includes opportunity for Parliamentary approval and timeframes for laying reports before both Houses.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 11—Impact assessments—
“(1) This section applies when—
(a) a relevant national authority is making regulations under section 12, 13, 15 or 16, or
(b) EU-derived subordinate legislation or retained direct EU legislation is to be revoked under section 1(1) of this Act and regulations made under section 2 do not apply to that legislation.
(2) Six weeks prior to the coming into force of the regulations or (as the case may be) three months before the revocation of the legislation, a relevant national authority must lay before Parliament the report required by subsection (3).
(3) The report required by this subsection must outline the impact the authority expects the regulations or (as the case may be) revocation to have on—
(a) the UK’s obligations under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement,
(b) divergence in standards, rights, protections and regulatory burden between component parts of the UK,
(c) the regulatory burden for businesses seeking to import or export goods or services, and
(d) level playing field provisions contained within bilateral trade agreements between the UK and countries outside the EU.
(4) If the report required by subsection (3) is not laid before Parliament by the date required by subsection (2), the regulations may not be made or (as the case may be) the legislation is, notwithstanding section 1(1), not revoked.”
This new clause will insert the requirement for taking out a comprehensive impact assessment when using the powers afforded by sections 12, 13, 15, and 16, and before the application of section 1(1) (sunset of retained EU law).
Justin Madders
The Government have a track record of inadequate impact assessments going back a few years, and they are not showing much sign of improvement with this Bill. Labour sees it as our duty to push for new clauses that would force the Government to wake up and properly assess the impact of this Bill and policies that will flow from it. As we are approaching the end of proceedings, I will try to keep this brief.
Subsections (1) and (2) of both new clauses should be somewhat familiar to those who have been following our new clauses closely. In both new clauses, subsection (1) simply states that the new clauses would apply to national authorities making regulations under clauses 12, 13, 15 and 16, or section section 1(1), and subsection (2) mimics the timeframe stipulations in our other new clauses; it requires that at least six weeks before the legislation comes into force, or at least three months before it is revoked, a report should be laid before the House that sets out the issues outlined in the new clauses.
The two new clauses differ in the issues that the impact assessments are designed to tackle. New clause 10 focuses on the impact that modifications will have on each authority’s obligations under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. If Members are unaware of what that includes, it is a duty to consider the need to
“eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act…advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it”
and
“foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.”
Those are principles that I hope all members of the Committee can sign up to, so it should not be seen as an unreasonable requirement on the Government to prepare such an assessment. In fact, I would be deeply concerned if they were not planning to do that as a matter of course.
The Minister told us last week that the Government were committed to retaining all necessary equality legislation. Leaving aside the question of who decides whether legislation is necessary, if the Government were committed to maintaining equality, they would surely as a matter of course want to know the impact on equalities of all the changes that Ministers are giving themselves the power to make under the Bill. All the new clause does is require the Government to lay a report on these issues before Parliament in good time. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government intend to undertake equality impact assessments of each legislative change in the Bill? He mentioned this morning that there was a commitment to undertaking assessments, but I do not think that we specifically heard that there would be equality impact assessments.
I remain sceptical that we will get the full and proper assessments that we need, because there has been little time and space for proper scrutiny and assessment of the consequences of the powers that Ministers are giving themselves in the Bill. That is, of course, not an accident. As I argued last week, it is by design, so that as little attention as possible is drawn to the impact of any changes that the Bill may deliver.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that equality impact assessments under the 2010 Act are not a legal requirement anymore. If I am right on that—I may not be—are the Opposition requiring an equality impact assessment for this Bill alone, or is this part of a broader change in their approach?
Justin Madders
Of course, we can talk only about the effects of the Bill, so the proposal is limited to the Bill at this stage. If the hon. Member has been listening throughout the last three days, he will know that Ministers’ powers to revoke and amend EU legislation have a range of potential implications on equalities. That is why an assessment is particularly important in this instance. Our concern is that the Government do not want it in the public domain that changes under the legislation will lead to Equality Act obligations being failed or less stringent. They seem to be trying to ensure, either by accident or design, that the legislation passes without the microscope of scrutiny and assessment that we think is necessary when talking about basic protections and equality laws.
We parliamentarians should be concerned about the consequences of any legislation that we pass. Our new clauses address that. They do not just set out a requirement to report on obligations under the Equality Act. In new clause 11 we ask for a more general impact assessment, including of the effect on our obligations under the trade and co-operation agreement, which we discussed briefly, and on divergences in rights, standards protections and regulatory burdens in the component parts of the UK. We discussed that, and why it is important, this morning.
We have already discussed the regulatory burdens incurred by businesses seeking to import and export goods and services, and the level playing field provisions in bilateral trade agreements between the UK and the EU, so I will not detain the Committee by setting out why those assessments are vital for the Bill. One would hope that those issues were being factored into any decisions made by Ministers under the powers in the Bill, but there are two key problems that would be made less likely as a result of the impact assessments under new clause 11. Proposed new subsection (3)(a) and (d) would ensure that the assessment highlighted the potential for changes to break international trade obligations. Proposed new subsection (3)(b) and (c) would require the assessment to ensure that the impact on our economy was minimal.
The Minister does not need me to tell him that if the Government decide that basic employment or environmental protections should no longer apply, they will potentially be in breach of the level playing field provisions in the TCA. That is probably the headline example of why we think that impact assessments are important. We certainly do not want to enter into a trade war. All we ask is that the Government make available to parliamentarians the details of what they have taken into consideration. Given how short a period the Government have in which to process every retained law, it is important that the assessment is available to parliamentarians. It will help us to identify any potential burdens on businesses and, significantly, whether there will be divergences across the country—an issue that we have already discussed. It is important that those issues are picked up at an early stage before regulations are passed.
We rely on the Government to undertake the necessary due diligence, but at the moment, we parliamentarians will not see the benefit of it. That is why I tabled the new clauses. We are trying not to place unreasonable restrictions on the Government, but we parliamentarians need the right information to scrutinise the changes. Unfortunately, assessments in recent times have been pretty flimsy. The Regulatory Policy Committee described the impact assessment for the Bill as “weak” or “very weak” in every respect. It said:
“As first submitted, the IA was not fit for purpose as it failed to consider adequately the full impacts of the Bill, in line with RPC primary legislation guidance. Specifically, the RPC highlighted, in its initial review, that the IA had not…provided a clear baseline position, with respect to the overall number of REUL”,
which of course is something that we are still waiting to get to the bottom of,
“that was in scope of the Bill and would, potentially, be retained, amended or sunset”.
We have discussed the question of what is in scope. The report also said that the impact assessment had not
“clarified whether other legislation that is in progress, will have impacts on some of the REUL contained in the overall figure of over 2,400 pieces of REUL”,
or 3,800, depending on which report we believe.
The Regulatory Policy Committee also said:
“The Department was not clear on how the different legislation would interact with the Bill”,
nor had it
“discussed, or set out, any examples of the REUL that is likely to be sunset, despite the Department having previously published extensive assessments of candidate REUL that could be changed or removed…The Department had not drawn upon any evidence or analysis, which was used to support those prior legislative changes, to provide an indication of the potential impacts associated with amending/replacing”
legislation, nor had it
“provided a more considered assessment of the full range of impacts of the Bill”,
so—
The Chair
We will continue with the excellent speech being made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. If you feel that there are points that we may have forgotten, you may wish to repeat them.
Justin Madders
With that encouragement, I will start from the beginning. Hon. Members will be relieved to hear that I was actually reaching my peroration. The new clauses are designed to address our concerns about the amount of consideration that has been given to the Bill’s impact. We are continually told that this is a framework Bill. What confidence can we have that there will be sufficient assessment of the powers in the Bill? It is not outlandish or unreasonable to ask the Government to identify and critique the impact of the changes that they intend to make. Any prudent Government would seek to do that, given the nature of the Bill. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will finally agree, at the fag end of this Committee, to the new clause.
Graham Stuart
I ask the Committee to reject the new clause. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government take their responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 very seriously. We would never intend to bring forward legislation that does not comply with that law. The Government will continue to provide equality impact assessments for regulations that engage a relevant public sector equality duty, as is good practice. We follow our responsibilities under the Equality Act, and will continue to do so when the Bill becomes law. With no further ado, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing the new clause.
Justin Madders
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 12
Assessment of impact on governance
“(1) Each relevant national authority must, within 28 days of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on—
(a) the projected cost incurred by each Government department or relevant national authority of complying with the requirements of sections 1 to 23 of this Act;
(b) the projected number of staff required by each Government department or relevant national authority to process all of the relevant retained EU law by the deadline in section 1(1);
(c) the amount of Parliamentary time expected to be needed to process the legislation relevant to each Government department or relevant national authority; and
a timeline outlining how each Government department or relevant national authority plans to meet the deadline in section 1(1).”—(Justin Madders.)
This new clause will establish the requirement for relevant departments to publish an assessment of the impact of processing through all the retained EU Law before the deadline set by Clause 1(1).
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We are almost back where we started, with questions about governance and capacity. Despite spending the best part of three days scrutinising the Bill, we are no closer to getting satisfactory answers. The new clause requires each national authority to produce a report for its Parliament within 28 days of the Bill becoming law, setting out the costs that each Department expects to incur in complying with the Bill’s requirements, the projected number of staff required to process all the retained EU law before the 2023 cliff edge, and the amount of parliamentary time that will be needed to deal with all the legislation. Most importantly, the new clause requires national authorities to produce a plan for how that deadline will be met.
I hope that Members see why there is a need for that report. We are concerned, if not alarmed, about the level of denial in Government about what they are letting themselves in for. There will be consequences, possibly negative ones, because of that lack of understanding of the task ahead. Any big project needs a critical analysis of timescales, resources and capacity.
Say the Government decided to build a giant gas pipeline all the way to Arctic, and someone said, “Let’s have it done by the end of next year.” People might reasonably ask whether one could build a pipeline of that length in just over a year. If all we parliamentarians got back was an assurance that each Department had teams looking at what was involved, we might question whether those plans were realistic. If we were lucky, that Arctic pipeline might reach the Shetland islands by the end of next year. The Bill is that pipeline. It is a hopelessly optimistic, totally unrealistic and frankly reckless attempt to achieve something on a timescale that is driven entirely by political rather than practical considerations. For the umpteenth time, completing this task by the end of next year is not going to stop Brexit, because we have already left the European Union.
Graham Stuart
You will be surprised to learn, Sir Gary, that I ask the Committee to reject the new clause. I apologise to Government Members for the Opposition’s mournful tone. They may not realise that, here we are, restoring our sovereignty in this Parliament—restoring our law, rather than being subject to that of a foreign sovereign.
Through the legislation that my colleagues and I are helping to proceed through this House, we are seeking to ensure that this law is fit for the needs of the UK, Department by Department. We are challenging Departments to look at retained EU law to ensure it is fit for purpose. I admit we are giving them a challenging deadline by which to do that, but I make no apology for doing that, and nor does any other Government Member. We are ambitious; we want to get on with growing the UK economy and ensure we do so in the right way. The new clause would place an unnecessary and laborious burden on the very officials who should be dedicating their time to delivering the retained EU law reform programme.
Paul Blomfield
I am impressed by the Minister’s ambition, although I am not sure that everybody shares his confidence. Will he share with the Committee how realistic it is that that ambition will be realised? He will know that the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), was advised that, in his Department alone, it would take 400 civil servants to work on the 300 laws that need revision. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that will have on the Department’s other work? If that figure is wrong, what is the correct figure? I am sure that, behind all that rhetoric, an awful lot of detailed work has gone on to work out how this will be put into practice.
Graham Stuart
I recognise that the retained EU law reform programme is a significant piece of work. However, it is the quickest and most efficient way to deliver the Bill’s objective and end retained EU law as a legal category in its current form—something that everyone who accepts the result of the referendum—
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman, who represents the SNP, does, of course, have a problem with accepting the results of referendums. He never likes the result they come to! Those who have accepted the result will recognise that this is the best way to incentivise genuine reform of retained EU law in ways that work for all four nations of the UK and are consistent with the devolution settlements.
Peter Grant
If the Minister checks his record, he will find that in three of the four referendums I have voted in in Scotland, Scotland voted in accordance with my wishes, and only one of those has been in any way respected by the present Government. The Minister gave a great oration about how important it is for him that the laws affecting his country are made by his country. Could he then explain why it is that when he wants the laws that affect his country to be made by a Government elected by his country, he is a patriot, but when I want the laws affecting my country to be made by the Government elected by the people of my country, I am a narrow-minded separatist? Why is that?
Graham Stuart
Of course, the hon. Gentleman is part of Parliament. That is why he is sitting in this United Kingdom Parliament—because, when his electors and electors across Scotland were asked, “Do you want to be in an independent Scotland?”, they said no. Despite that, this false narrative is pushed on a daily basis by the separatists opposite, who try to suggest that they are being held against their will. In fact, the only will they are being held against is the will of the Scottish people, who refuse to comply with the demands of the separatist SNP, which does not listen to the results of a referendum taking place in Scotland.
Getting back to the Bill, Departments will be expected to develop a delivery plan that outlines their intention for each piece of retained EU law. The Brexit Opportunities Unit will work with Departments to draw up those delivery plans and ensure the legislative process proceeds smoothly. The delivery plans will be subject to scrutiny via an internal Government process or ministerial stocktake process. More information on that will follow, including information on how to factor these processes into statutory instrument timetables.
Turning to the body of law we are talking about, we are currently engaging with the National Archives to uncover any additional information on retained EU law. However, it is worth nothing that many statutory instruments uncovered by the National Archives have been recognised either as orphaned statutory instruments or as no longer applicable to our current legal framework. We are exploring various ways—whether that is star chambers or using the dashboard—to identify what REUL is kept or sunsetted. Although individual Departments will take responsibility, we in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will be helping to co-ordinate this across Government.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is helpful that the Minister has given us some insight into the work of the National Archives. When does he think those regulations—whether orphaned or not—will appear on the dashboard so that we can see them? They are currently opaque for the rest of us.
Graham Stuart
The National Archives has a statutory duty, as the King’s printer, to ensure the statute book is accurate, so asking it to look at REUL is in its existing remit, and—going back to the question from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston—it does not cost additional money. It is actually a fundamental part of its work. It is working on that and, like him, I hope to see progress as quickly as possible.
The Government have proved during the Brexit transition and covid-19 that they can deliver extensive legislative programmes to tight deadlines. In so many ways—I should not stray from the subject, so I will not—we have learned from those programmes, and will work with Parliament to bring an even more successful REUL SI programme before the House. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston to consider withdrawing his new clause.
Justin Madders
We have had a slightly lively end to the proceedings. I want to pick up on some of the comments made by the Minister. He characterised our opposition to the Bill as not being ambitious—well, if we are in league with the Institute of Directors in saying that this Bill should be withdrawn, I cannot think of a more ambitious bunch of people. Its correct characterisation is that anyone who thinks the timescales in this Bill are realistic is deluded. There is a difference between reality and ambition, and at some point the Government will find the two colliding. I do not want be on the Government Benches when we have to deal with the fallout from that.
Justin Madders
We’ll see about that.
Whichever Benches I am on, I will always hold firm to the view that Parliament should be sovereign, and that Parliament should be the body that looks at laws and considers changes that affect our constituents. People voted in 2016 for Parliament to take back control, but the Bill does not do that; it gives control to Ministers. It wrenches control away from Parliament and the people we represent. At the core of this is a lack of transparency and a lack of confidence in the Government’s programme, because if they cannot tell us what they intend to do with the Bill and they do not want the light of scrutiny shone on their intentions, it suggests that they are not confident about what the public will say when those intentions become clear. A Government who are not confident in their own policies should not have the confidence of the public. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Justin Madders
On a spurious point of order, Sir Gary—no point of order is ever spurious in this place. I would like to thank you and Sir George for chairing the Committee, and the Clerks for their hard work in making sure that everything we have done has been in order—even this point of order. I also thank all Members for participating. We have had some robust and healthy debates, and I look forward to taking them forward in the main Chamber.
Brendan O’Hara
Further to that point of order, Sir Gary. I associate myself with the comments made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and thank the Clerks and the Government’s civil servants for the hard work that they have done. I realise that it has been a bit of mauling from this side of the House, but it was never, ever intended to be personal; it is purely political.
I thank you, Sir Gary, and Sir George, who guided us through the first two days of our proceedings. I am delighted to thank colleagues on both sides of the Chamber for the usually constructive, respectful and informed discussions that we have had over the past few days. I put on the record my sincere thanks, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes, to Emilie-Louise Purdie, who did so much work behind the scenes so that my hon. Friend and I occasionally knew what we were talking about.
Graham Stuart
Further to that point of order, Sir Gary—spurious or otherwise. I thank the Committee for being so indulgent of me, as I have come in on this final day. It has been a robust but extremely good-humoured Committee, which has managed—under your excellent chairmanship, Sir Gary—to move with expedition through the Order Paper in front of us. I thank the Clerks for their support for all that we have done, and my civil servants in BEIS. If the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute had trouble with his colleague being brought up to speed, I can assure him that BEIS civil servants had an even harder task at bringing me up to speed. Members will be the judge of whether they managed that very well, but they put in a great deal of effort. Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and I congratulate him on his birthday last week and on the fact that he brought in his 50th birthday cake—it is just a shame I did not get a slice.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill
Wednesday 18th January 2023
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRetained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 18 January 2023 - (18 Jan 2023)
17:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 239 / Noes: 297 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:07 - The House divided: - Ayes: 239 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:19 - The House divided: - Ayes: 238 / Noes: 301 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:32 - The House divided: - Ayes: 242 / Noes: 295 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:55 - The House divided: - Ayes: 297 / Noes: 238 - Question accordingly agreed to.
At or before the end of 2023 | After the end of 2023 |
|---|---|
Retained EU law | Assimilated law |
Retained case law | Assimilated case law |
Retained direct EU legislation | Assimilated direct legislation |
Retained direct minor EU legislation | Assimilated direct minor legislation |
Retained direct principal EU legislation | Assimilated direct principal legislation |
Retained domestic case law | Assimilated domestic case law |
Retained EU case law | Assimilated EU case law |
Retained EU obligation | Assimilated obligation |
The Minister for Industry and Investment Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Conditions for bringing sections 3, 4 and 5 into force—
“(1) None of sections 3, 4 or 5 may be brought into force unless all the following conditions have been satisfied.
(2) The first condition is that a Minister of the Crown has, after consulting organisations and persons representative of interests substantially affected by, or with expertise in the likely legal effect of, that section on a draft of that report, laid a report before each House of Parliament setting out, with reasons, the Minister’s view as to the likely advantages and disadvantages of bringing that section into force, setting out in particular the effect of that section on:
(a) the rights of and protections for consumers, workers, and businesses, and protections of the environment and animal welfare;
(b) legal certainty, and the clarity and predictability of the law;
(c) the operation of the Trade and Cooperation agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU, and UK exports of goods and services to the European Economic Area; and
(d) the operation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in the EU withdrawal agreement.
(3) In relation to section 4, that report must take into account any regulation made or likely to be made by a relevant national authority under section 8(1).
(4) The second condition is that a period of sixty days has passed since that report was laid before Parliament, with no account to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days.
(5) The third condition is that, after the end of that period, both Houses of Parliament have approved a resolution that that section come into force.
(6) If both Houses of Parliament have approved a resolution that that section should not come into force unless it is amended in a way set out in that resolution, then the Minister may by regulation amend that section accordingly, and that section may not be brought into force until that amendment has been made.”
This new clause requires Ministers to analyse, and to explain their analysis of, the effect of the removal of retained EU law rights, the principle of supremacy of EU law, and of the general principles. It also includes opportunity for Parliamentary approval and timeframes for laying reports before both Houses.
New clause 3—Conditions on the exercise of powers under section 15 and 16—
“(1) The first condition is that the relevant national authority has consulted such organisations as appear to it to be representative of interests substantially affected by its proposals, and any such other persons as it considers appropriate, on a draft of those regulations.
(2) The second condition is that the national authority has, after that consultation has concluded and after considering any representations made to it, laid a draft of the regulations before each House of Parliament (or, as the case may be, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd or Northern Ireland Assembly), together with a report setting out, with reasons, the authority’s view as to the likely advantages and disadvantages of making those regulations, setting out in particular:
(a) a summary of the objectives and effect of those regulations as compared to the instrument that they will revoke, replace or modify;
(b) any difference as between that instrument and the proposed regulations in terms of protections for consumers, workers, businesses, the environment, or animal welfare;
(c) any benefits which are expected to flow from the revocation or replacement of that instrument;
(d) the consultation undertaken as required by subsection (2);
(e) any representations received as a result of that consultation;
(f) the reason why the national authority considers that it is appropriate to make those regulations, having considered those representations;
(g) the reasons why the national authority considers that section 15(5) (overall reduction in burdens) does not preclude the making of the regulations, explaining what burdens are reduced or increased as a result of the making of the regulations;
(h) the compatibility of the revocation, modification, or replacement of that instrument with obligations in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU, and the likely effect on UK exports of goods or services to the European Economic Area; and
(i) the likely effect of the revocation, modification, or replacement of that instrument on the operation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in the EU withdrawal agreement.
(3) The third condition is that a period of sixty days has passed since those draft regulations or that report were laid as required by subsection (2) with no account to be taken of any time during which Parliament (or, as the case may be, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or Northern Ireland Assembly) is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House or that body is adjourned for more than four days, and where they were laid before Parliament, paragraph 8(11)(a) of Schedule 3 shall apply in determining the commencement of that period.
(4) The fourth condition is that the national authority has considered any representations made during the period provided for by subsection (3) and, in particular, any resolution or report of, or of any committee of, either House of Parliament (or, as the case may be of the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or Northern Ireland Assembly) with regard to the proposals, and has published its reasons for accepting or rejecting any such representations, resolution, or report.”
This new clause requires the relevant national authorities to consult with key stakeholders on proposed regulations revoking or replacing REUL, and to show Parliament their assessment of the impact of the changes
New clause 5—Powers to revoke or replace: application to environmental law—
“(1) This section applies in respect of provision which may be made by a relevant national authority under section 15 where the provision is in respect of secondary retained EU law which is environmental law.
(2) No provision may be made unless the relevant national authority considers that the provision will contribute to a significant improvement in environmental protection.
(3) The relevant national authority must—
(a) have regard to international environmental protection legislation and international best practice on environmental protection,
(b) comply with the requirements and objectives of the Aarhus, Bonn, Bern, Ramsar, OSPAR and Biodiversity Conventions, and
(c) comply with environmental principles and the policy statement on environmental principles.
(4) The relevant national authority must—
(a) seek advice from persons who are independent of it and have relevant expertise,
(b) seek advice from, as appropriate, the Office for Environmental Protection, Environmental Standards Scotland, a devolved environmental governance body or other person exercising similar functions, and
(c) publish a report setting out—
(i) how the provision will contribute to a significant improvement in environmental protection, and
(ii) how the authority has taken into account the advice from the persons referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).
(5) In this section—
“Aarhus Convention” means The UNECE Convention on access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice in environmental matters (Aarhus, 25 June 1998);
“Bern Convention” means the Council of Europe's Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern, 1979) [ratified / signed];
“Biodiversity Convention” means the UN Convention on Biodiversity (Rio, 1992);
“Bonn Convention” means The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn, 1979);
“devolved environmental governance body” has the same meaning as in section 47 of the Environment Act 2021;
“environmental law” has the same meaning as in section 46 of the Environment Act 2021, but without the exception set out in section 46(3) and (4) (devolved legislative provision);
“environmental protection” has the same meaning as in section 45 of the Environment Act 2021;
“environmental principles” and “policy statement on environmental principles” have the same meanings as in section 17 of the Environment Act 2021;
“Environmental Standards Scotland” has the same meaning as in section 19 of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021;
“international environmental protection legislation” has the same meaning as in section 21 of the Environment Act 2021;
“Office for Environmental Protection” has the same meaning as in section 22 of the Environment Act 2021;
“OSPAR Convention” means The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (1992);
“RAMSAR Convention” means The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar, 1971).”
This new clause creates additional conditions to be satisfied before the powers set out in clause 15 can be exercised where the subject matter of their exercise concerns environmental law.
Amendment 33, page 1, line 2, leave out clause 1.
This amendment deletes the sunset clause.
Amendment 18, page 1, line 4, leave out “2023” and insert “2026”.
This amendment moves the sunset of legislation from 2023 to 2026.
Amendment 28, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an instrument, or a provision of an instrument, that—
(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or
(b) could be made in subordinate legislation by the Scottish Ministers, the First Minister or the Lord Advocate acting alone.”
This amendment restricts the automatic revocation or “sunsetting” of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation under Clause 1 of the Bill so that it does not apply to legislation that is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
Amendment 37, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an instrument, or a provision of an instrument, that—
(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly, or
(b) could be made in subordinate legislation by Ministers of the Northern Ireland Executive.”
This amendment restricts the automatic revocation or “sunsetting” of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation under Clause 1 of the Bill so that it does not apply to legislation that is within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly.
Amendment 38, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an instrument, or a provision of an instrument, that—
(a) would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of Senedd Cymru, or
(b) could be made in subordinate legislation by the Welsh Ministers acting alone.”
This amendment restricts the automatic revocation or “sunsetting” of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation under Clause 1 of the Bill so that it does not apply to legislation that is within the legislative competence of the Senedd.
Amendment 19, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999,
(b) Children and Young Person Working Time Regulations 1933,
(c) Posted Workers (Enforcement of Employment Rights) Regulations 2020,
(d) Part Time Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000,
(e) Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002,
(f) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006,
(g) Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004,
(h) Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005,
(i) Working Time Regulations 1998,
(j) Agency Workers Regulations 2010,
(k) Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999,
(l) Trade Secrets (Enforcement etc) Regulations 2018 and
(m) The Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996.”
This amendment would exclude certain regulations which provide for workers’ protections from the sunset in subsection (1).
Amendment 21, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) The REACH Regulation and the REACH Enforcement Regulations 2008,
(b) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,
(c) The Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,
(d) The Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994,
(e) The Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (England) Regulations 2010,
(f) The Bathing Waters Regulations 2013,
(g) Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017,
(h) The Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018 (also known as the Farming Rules for Water),
(i) The Marine Strategy Regulations 2010,
(j) The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007,
(k) The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017,
(l) The Plant Protection Products Regulations 1107/2009,
(m) The Sustainable Use Directive Regulation (EC) 396/2005,
(n) The National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2018,
(o) Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order (2019),
(p) Directive 2010/63 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes,
(q) Directive 1999/74 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens,
(r) Regulation 139/2013 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Union and the quarantine conditions thereof, and
(s) The Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006.”
This amendment would exclude certain legislation which provides for environmental protections from the sunset in subsection (1).
Amendment 24, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) The Civil Aviation (Denied Boarding, Compensation and Assistance) Regulations 2005,
(b) Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations,
(c) The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012,
(d) The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016,
(e) The Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011,
(f) The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012,
(g) The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015,
(h) The Cocoa and Chocolate Products (England) Regulations 2003,
(i) Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 of 3 August 2012,
(j) The Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, and
(k) The Bauer [C-168/18] and Hampshire [C-17/17] judgements.”
This amendment would exclude certain retained EU law which provides for consumer protections from the sunset in subsection (1).
Amendment 36, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months before the date specified in subsection (1), publish a list of all legislation being revoked under this section (the “revocation list”) and lay a copy before Parliament.
(3B) With each update of the revocation list up to the date specified in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must lay an updated copy of the revocation list before Parliament.
(3C) Any legislation not included in the revocation list, as updated, on the date specified in subsection (1) is not revoked.
(3D) At any time before the date specified in subsection (1), the House of Commons may by resolution amend the revocation list by adding or removing instruments specified in the resolution, and the Secretary of State must accordingly lay the updated revocation list before Parliament.
(3E) At any time before the date specified in subsection (1), the House of Lords may by resolution propose amendment of the revocation list by adding or removing instruments specified in the resolution.
(3F) If the House of Commons does not pass a motion disagreeing with a resolution of the House of Lords under subsection (3E) within ten days of the date of that resolution, the Secretary of State must amend the revocation list in accordance with the resolution of the House of Lords and lay the updated version before Parliament.
(3G) If the Secretary of State does not amend the revocation list when required to do so by paragraphs (3D) or (3F) before the date specified in paragraph (1), the revocation list will be deemed to have been amended as specified in the resolution of the relevant House of Parliament, and the relevant legislation will be treated as though the change has been made.
(3H) Any legislation to which section (3C) applies is not to be considered as either retained EU law or assimilated law.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish an exhaustive list of every piece of legislation being revoked under the Sunset Clause, and allow for Parliamentary oversight of this process so that it is the House of Commons which has the ultimate say on which legislation is affected.
Amendment 29, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) has effect in relation to provision which is within the competence of the Scottish Ministers as if, after “A Minister of the Crown”, there were inserted “or the Scottish Ministers”.
(1B) A provision is within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of this section if—
(a) it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament, or
(b) it is provision which could be made in other subordinate legislation by the Scottish Ministers, the First Minister or the Lord Advocate acting alone.”
This amendment clarifies what provisions would be devolved and therefore under the competence of Scottish Ministers for decision, rather than a Secretary of State.
Amendment 39, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) has effect in relation to provision which is within the competence of the Welsh Ministers as if, after “A Minister of the Crown”, there were inserted “or the Welsh Ministers”.
(1B) A provision is within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers for the purposes of this section if—
(a) it would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of Senedd Cymru, or
(b) it is provision which could be made in other subordinate legislation by the Welsh Ministers acting alone.”
This amendment clarifies what provisions would be devolved and therefore under the competence of Welsh Ministers for decision, rather than a Secretary of State.
Government amendments 1, 3 and 6.
Amendment 26, in clause 7, page 4, line 36, at end insert—
“(d) the undesirability of disturbing settled understandings of the law, on the basis of which individuals and businesses may have made decisions of importance to them;
(e) the importance of legal certainty, clarity and predictability; and
(f) the principle that significant changes in the law should be made by Parliament (or, as the case may be, the relevant devolved legislature).”
This amendment adds further conditions for higher courts to regard when deciding to diverge from retained EU case law.
Government amendments 7 to 17 and 2.
Amendment 20, in clause 15, page 17, line 28, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999,
(b) Children and Young Person Working Time Regulations 1933,
(c) Posted Workers (Enforcement of Employment Rights) Regulations 2020,
(d) Part Time Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000,
(e) Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002,
(f) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006,
(g) Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004,
(h) Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005,
(i) Working Time Regulations 1998,
(j) Agency Workers Regulations 2010,
(k) Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999,
(l) Trade Secrets (Enforcement etc) Regulations 2018 and
(m) The Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996.”
This amendment would exclude certain legislation which provides for workers’ protections from the power to revoke without replacement in subsection (1).
Amendment 22, page 17, line 28, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) The REACH Regulation and the REACH Enforcement Regulations 2008,
(b) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,
(c) The Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,
(d) The Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994,
(e) The Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (England) Regulations 2010,
(f) The Bathing Waters Regulations 2013,
(g) Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017,
(h) The Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018 (also known as the Farming Rules for Water),
(i) The Marine Strategy Regulations 2010,
(j) The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007,
(k) The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017,
(l) The Plant Protection Products Regulations 1107/2009,
(m) The Sustainable Use Directive Regulation (EC) 396/2005,
(n) The National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2018,
(o) Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order (2019)
(p) Directive 2010/63 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes,
(q) Directive 1999/74 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens,
(r) Regulation 139/2013 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Union and the quarantine conditions thereof, and
(s) The Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006.”
This amendment would exclude certain legislation which provides for environmental protections from the power to revoke without replacement in subsection (1).
Amendment 25, page 17, line 28, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) The Civil Aviation (Denied Boarding, Compensation and Assistance) Regulations 2005,
(b) Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations,
(c) The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012,
(d) The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016,
(e) The Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011,
(f) The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012,
(g) The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015,
(h) The Cocoa and Chocolate Products (England) Regulations 2003,
(i) Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 of 3 August 2012,
(j) The Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, and
(k) The Bauer [C-168/18] and Hampshire [C-17/17] judgements.”
This amendment would exclude certain legislation which provides for consumer protections from the power to revoke without replacement in subsection (1).
Amendment 34, page 18, line 12, at end insert—
“(4A) No regulations may be made under this section unless the conditions set out in section [Conditions on the exercise of powers under section 15 and 16] have been complied with.”
This amendment ensures that the powers to revoke or replace would be subject to restrictions as laid out in NC3.
Amendment 23, page 18, line 13, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
This amendment will remove the restriction on the replacement of EU law that states it must not add to the regulatory burden.
Amendment 35, in clause 16, page 19, line 9, at end insert—
“(3) No regulations may be made under this section unless the conditions set out in section [Conditions on the exercise of powers under section 15 and 16] have been complied with.”
This amendment would ensure that the power to update would be subject to the restrictions laid out in NC3.
Amendment 30, in clause 20, page 20, line 38, at end insert—
“(1A) A Minister of the Crown may not include in regulations under this Act any provision which is within the devolved competence of any devolved authority as defined in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2.”
This amendment adds protection for devolved competence, denying any Secretary of State the chance to revoke REUL within devolved competence.
Government amendments 4 and 5.
Government new schedule 1—“Assimilated law”: consequential amendments.
Amendment 31, in schedule 3, page 34, line 38, at end insert—
“Consent of Scottish Ministers
8A Before making regulations to which this Part of this Schedule applies, a Minister of the Crown must obtain the consent of the Scottish Ministers.”
This amendment modifies the powers which are conferred on Ministers of the Crown in devolved areas so that they may only be exercised with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.
Ms Ghani
It is a pleasure to be here, and I thank all Members who have tabled new amendments and new clauses and who will speak in the debate. I also thank the members of the Public Bill Committee for their work.
I will address the Government new clauses and amendments first, but I will say more about them in my closing speech when other Members have had a chance to contribute. I will also address some of the concerns that have been raised, and some of the misinformation about the Bill.
The Government new clauses and amendments are minor and technical. They cover four areas. The first is updating the definition of “assimilated law” and how it should be interpreted, and, in the case law provisions, ensuring that the High Court of Justiciary is covered in all instances. I thank the Scottish Government for their engagement: there has been engagement between our officials and those in the Scottish Government, and with the Advocate General. Our new clauses also clarify the fact that the use of extension power also applies to amendments to retained EU law made between the extension regulations and the sunset, and clarify the application of clause 14 to codification as well as restatement. These are technical drafting measures, and I ask the House to support them.
Let me now explain why the Bill is crucial for the UK. My explanation will directly cover many of the new clauses and amendments. The Bill will end the special status of retained EU law on the UK statute book by the end of 2023. It constitutes a process. Considerable work has been done with officials across Whitehall and with the devolved authorities; that work has been proportionate, and has been taking place for over 18 months. I cannot stress enough the importance of achieving the 2023 deadline. Retained EU law was never intended to sit on the statute book indefinitely. It is constitutionally undesirable, as some domestic laws, including Acts of Parliament, currently remain subordinate to some retained EU law. The continued existence on our statute book of the principle of supremacy of EU law is just not right, as we are a sovereign nation with a sovereign Parliament.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
We all accept that the status of EU law must change and that it will have to be reassimilated into domestic law in due course. No one argues with that. Will the Minister not reflect that it is constitutionally unacceptable to create what the Law Society—which might know a little more about the law than politicians and civil servants—described as a “devastating impact” on legal certainty and business confidence? To do so by means of Henry VIII powers so wide that all scrutiny is, in effect, removed from this House is not taking backing control but doing the reverse of what the Government seek to do.
Ms Ghani
I always respect my hon. Friend’s opinion, but he is fundamentally mistaken. We have undertaken a considerable amount of consultation with our courts and have worked with them consistently. It is absolutely right that we deliver Brexit by ensuring that laws made here are sovereign over EU laws.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) is fundamentally wrong. The Bill is providing legal certainty. Rather than having a flow of EU law interpreted according to EU principle, from now on we will have a single set of laws within this country. That must be certainty rather than otherwise.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ms Ghani
Before I take any more interventions, I want to address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) about the Henry VIII powers. That is a misrepresentation of what is happening. Each Department will review and then amend, assimilate or revoke EU law. Each Department’s Secretary of State will be responsible for the decisions they take. All the laws are on the dashboard, which will be updated once again, and we will be codifying the retained EU law. In the absence of the application of supremacy, restating a rule in primary legislation could lead to the same policy effect as the rule itself currently has. The Bill just sets out a process to allow each Department to take a decision. Why would we not want to review the EU law that is out there and assess what needs to be assimilated? If we can amend and update it, why would we not do that?
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Notwithstanding the charmingly innocent faith in lawyers of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the key thing about our decision to leave the European Union is that sovereignty lies in this place and with the people to whom we are accountable. The point about this measure is that it will allow exactly that sovereignty to be exacted in practice with regard to retained EU law.
Ms Ghani
Absolutely. When decisions are taken either to amend or to revoke, the usual channels will be followed in Parliament. Committees will be put in place and decisions will be reviewed the Leaders of both Houses. Decisions can be taken openly and transparently. We also have the dashboard, which will be updated and already has thousands of EU laws on it.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister is right that the whole point of Brexit was to take control of our own laws. She is also right that there needs to be a single set of laws across the United Kingdom. But the Bill makes it clear that we will not have a single set of laws across the United Kingdom, because a wide range of laws in Northern Ireland are exempt from the provisions of the Bill. Furthermore, in future when EU law changes and applies in Northern Ireland, the gap between the laws in the rest of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland will get ever wider. Does she accept that unless the protocol is dealt with, there is a real danger that Northern Ireland will be treated differently and be constitutionally separated from the United Kingdom?
Ms Ghani
My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue. As it is sensitive, he must allow me a moment to ensure that my response is accurate. The UK Government are committed to ensuring that the necessary legislation is in place to uphold the UK’s international obligations, including the Northern Ireland protocol and the trade and co-operation agreement after the sunset date. The Bill will not alter the rights of EU nations that are protected, or eligible to be protected, by the relevant provisions in the Northern Ireland protocol. The Bill contains provisions that, when exercised appropriately, will ensure the continued implementation of our international obligations, including the Northern Ireland protocol.
It is our preference to resolve the Northern Ireland protocol issue through talks. The Government are engaging in constructive dialogue with the EU to find solutions to these problems. I must put on record that officials have been working with officials in Northern Ireland for the last 18 months. We know how important and sensitive this issue is.
Ms Ghani
I will just make a little progress before I take more interventions.
I cannot stress enough the importance of achieving the deadline. The retained EU law was never intended to sit on the statute books indefinitely. On 31 January last year the Government announced plans to bring forward the Bill, which is the culmination of the Government’s work to untangle ourselves from decades of EU membership. It will permit the creation of a more agile, innovative and UK-specific regulatory approach, benefiting people and businesses across the UK.
It is a priority of the Government that the United Kingdom will be the best place to start and grow a business. The Bill contains powers that will allow us to make good on that promise. It will allow outdated and often undemocratic retained EU law to be amended, repealed or replaced more quickly and easily than before. It will remove burdens on business and create a more agile and sustainable legislative framework to boost economic growth.
Sir James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember being on the Back Benches and sitting in statutory instrument Committees in which we had no ability whatsoever to change the legislation going through, because it was driven by the European Union. This is about taking back control by giving democratic authority to this place. Furthermore, on things such as maternity leave, minimum wage, annual leave, product safety and international regulations we are already doing better than the EU minimum standards. This Government will promise to keep those standards and, in many cases, increase them.
Ms Ghani
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been a lot of misinformation about the environment. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has committed to maintain or enhance standards. He is right that we had very little say over positions taken in Brussels, but now, in the Bill, those decisions are taken by the devolved authorities. That will remain devolved and they will have a say, so why would they want to give away that power?
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
The Minister spoke of taking back control, but the harsh reality is that the Government are taking back control from the Scottish Parliament. Yesterday we heard about the UK Government enacting section 35 to strike out a Bill of the Scottish Parliament. The Scotland Act 2016 contains the Sewel convention, which requires the UK Government to obtain the consent of the Scottish Parliament when they are acting in devolved matters. The Scottish Government are not giving their consent. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Why should the Scottish Government not have the right to veto this Bill, which tramples over devolution and our laws in a way that we do not consent to?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. Could I gently say to the Minister that in order to facilitate Hansard and hon. Members seeking to hear, it would be helpful if she could address the microphone rather than the Back Benches?
Ms Ghani
My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The question is, why would the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) not take the power that the Scottish Government will be given through this Bill when it comes to devolved matters, to look at the EU laws and see whether they want to maintain them or enhance them for their own people? Why would they want to reject the power that they have been offered through this Bill? We remain fully committed to the Sewel convention. It is an essential element of the devolution settlement. The UK Government continue to seek legislative consent for Bills that interact with devolution. The right hon. Member’s argument does not make any sense. My worry is that Scottish Government do not want the powers because then they will have to exercise them. I know it is a little bit of work, but it is worth doing.
This Bill provides the opportunity to improve the competitiveness of the UK economy while maintaining high standards. It will ensure that the Government can more easily amend, revoke or replace retained EU law, so that the Government can create legislation that better suits the UK. This programme of reform must be done. The people of the UK did not vote for Brexit with the expectation that nearly a decade later, politicians in Westminster would continually rehash old and settled arguments, as those on the Opposition Benches so love to do. We must push on and seize the opportunities that Brexit provides. That will ensure that our economy is dynamic and agile and can support advances in technology and science.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
On agility, the Minister will know that the majority of the thousands of rules that need to be changed are in the environmental area. Does she think it is a good idea that civil servants are completely distracted and focused on the changes to these rules when we have one in four people in food poverty, 63,000 people dying a year due to poor air quality, sewage pouring into our seas and crabs dying off the north-east coast? Would it not be better if the civil servants and the Government tackled those problems rather than going down a rabbit hole and inventing worse standards than the EU, such as trying to get to World Health Organisation air quality standards by 2040, which the EU is trying to get to by 2030?
Ms Ghani
I think many people coming into the debate today think that this is the start of something, but this process has been in place for more than 18 months, and DEFRA has committed to maintain or enhance standards. The constant misinformation given out over what is happening on the environment is simply incorrect. DEFRA has already taken decisive action to reform areas of retained EU law and it already has flagship legislation on our statute book, including the Environment Act 2021, the Fisheries Act 2020 and the Agriculture Act 2020, all on powers that the SNP wants to give back to Brussels. The Environment Act strengthens our environmental protections while respecting our international obligations. It is simply incorrect to suggest that the Government will be weakening any of those protections. The Environment Act has set new legally binding targets, including to halt and reverse nature’s decline. Those targets, with oversight from the Office for Environmental Protection, will ensure that any reform to retained EU law delivers positive environmental outcomes. DEFRA will also conduct proportionate analysis of the expected impacts, so it is absolutely incorrect to misrepresent this Bill.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (Sir James Duddridge) talked about statutory instrument Committees. I think all of us have sat on statutory instrument Committees, where we know that it is a question of like it or lump it when it comes to what is being proposed. Under this Bill, Ministers will have powers over key issues that our constituents care about. The Minister talks about the dashboard and admits that it still needs to be updated. As a matter of good democratic practice, will she give us, here and now, today, the exact number of laws covered by this Bill, so Members of this House can at least have some sense of the task that they are voting for? If she cannot tell us how many laws are covered, it is definitely not clear to us how any of us can influence them.
Ms Ghani
The hon. Member was very astute in Committee, and we spent many hours together discussing this. The dashboard is public. It has had more than 100,000 views to date. I was on it only last night. It has thousands of laws on it, and it will be updated again this month. There is a process within each Department, which is why a unit has been established to work with each Department across Whitehall. Every EU law that is identified will be put on the dashboard. So it is public, it is accessible, and all the information is out there.
I must just respond to another point that the hon. Member raised, once again, about scrutiny in this place, because it is being misrepresented—[Interruption.] Unfortunately, it is. The Bill will follow the usual channels for when laws are being either amended or revoked. The Leaders of the two Houses will meet and the business managers will take a decision. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords has already said that it is comfortable with the way the Bill will progress and the laws will be scrutinised, and the European Statutory Instruments Committee has said that it is comfortable with the way the laws will be scrutinised and assessed. So there is a process in place, as there was for a no-deal Brexit. The crunch is: if you do not like Brexit and if you did not like the way the Brexit vote that took place, you are not going to like any elements of this Bill.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Just before that intervention, the Minister was talking about the environment. Is it not the case that Members on this side of the House have delivered the Environment Act, that we are perfectly capable of making our own laws and delivering for the British people and that we do not need guidance from the European Union, unlike those on the Opposition Benches?
Ms Ghani
Absolutely. We on this side of the House have done a tremendous amount of work that did not require us to be directed by bureaucrats in Brussels. This gives me a great opportunity to point out all the fantastic work that we have achieved.
First of all, I must just say again that we will be maintaining and enhancing environmental standards. I want to touch on a list of things that we have achieved, especially on animal welfare, which has been a huge priority for Government Members. We have had the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 and the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. Since 2010, we have had new regulations on minimum standards for meat and chickens, banned the use of conventional battery cages for laying hens, made CCTV mandatory in slaughterhouses in England, made microchipping mandatory for dogs in 2015, modernised our licensing system for a range of activities such as dog breeding and pet sales, protected service animals via Finn’s law, banned the commercial third-party sale of puppies and kittens via Lucy’s law, passed the Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019 and led work to implement humane trapping standards. Our Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill will further the rights of animals outside the EU, including the banning of export of live animals for slaughter and fattening. It is remarkable how much we can achieve when we are left to our own devices.
Ms Ghani
I will just make a little bit of progress.
As I have said, the sunset clause is necessary and is the quickest and most effective way to pursue retained EU law reform. It is only right to set the sunset and the revocation of inherited EU laws as the default position. It ensures that we are proactively choosing to preserve EU laws only when they are in the best interests of the UK. It ensures that outdated and unneeded laws are quickly and easily repealed. It will also give the Government a clear timeline in which to finish the most important tasks. Some retained EU laws are legally inoperable, and removing them from the statute book easily is good democratic governance. Requiring the Government to undergo complex and unnecessary parliamentary processes to remove retained EU law that is no longer necessary or operable, and can more easily be removed, is not good governance.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Surely parliamentary sovereignty is giving Members of Parliament control, not the Executive or bureaucrats in Whitehall.
Ms Ghani
The reality is that Ministers take decisions all the time, and there is a process in place where laws are amended or updated if there is a significant policy change. The same policy process will be in place. If the hon. Member is not comfortable with Conservative Ministers taking those decisions or with the SI process that is already in place, fundamentally he is just not comfortable with the decisions we are taking because we are taking these rules from Europe and placing them here on our UK statute book. That is a different argument altogether.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I want to react to what I think I heard the Minister saying when she suggested that those of us who did not support Brexit in the referendum would not support this Bill. That is not the case. As someone who did not vote for Brexit but who absolutely recognises that democratic choice and respects the referendum, I do support the premise of the Bill. We need to look at the EU law, although there are elements of the Bill we could improve on to give some certainty, and I hope that I will be called to speak later.
Ms Ghani
I would not want to misrepresent my right hon. Friend’s position. The point I was making was that Opposition Members who have complained about the Bill have a particular position that has been long held because of the outcome of the vote that took place.
We believe it is right that the public should know how much legislation there is derived from the EU, and know about the progress the Government are making. For that reason, we have published a public dashboard—perhaps colleagues would like to go on to the site for a moment—containing a list of UK Government retained EU law. The site will also document the Government’s progress on reforming retained EU law and will be updated regularly to reflect plans and actions taken. It will be updated again this month. I was slightly inaccurate earlier: there have in fact been 148,727 visitors to that site. It is not as if people are in the dark. There are many opportunities to be aware of what we are doing.
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful to the Minister for finally giving way. She is suggesting that those of us who oppose the Bill are opposing it for some kind of ideological reason. I draw her attention to the words of the chair of the Office for Environmental Protection, who herself said:
“Worryingly, the Bill does not offer any safety net, there is no requirement to maintain existing levels of environmental protection”.
Not only that, there is actually a requirement not to go on and make the legislation stronger. That is written into the Bill.
On the issue of certainty, I do not know how the Minister can stand there and pretend that this is about certainty when businesses have no idea which laws will be in or out and when she does not know how many laws are on her dashboard.
On democracy, when we were in the European Union we at least had Members of the European Parliament who had a say over these things. When the laws come back here, we have no say over them at all; it is all with Ministers. Is that what she means when she says this is supposed to be a good Bill that is full of opportunities from Brexit?
Ms Ghani
The hon. Lady has got the meme for her Facebook page. Unfortunately, she wholly misrepresents what the Bill is doing. Environmental standards will be maintained or enhanced. At the moment, the laws that come down from Brussels on the environment and land cover everything from the Arctic to the Mediterranean. This Bill is a great opportunity to maintain, to enhance and to review what more we can do to make things better for our environment across the UK. We already have flagship legislation in place: the Environment Act 2021, the Fisheries Act 2020 and the Agriculture Act 2020. The Office for Environmental Protection has been fully established to enforce those elevated environmental rules and standards. The water framework directive covers our water. Instead of misrepresenting what the Bill does, why not take the opportunity to ensure that we enhance provision for what we are not maintaining?
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Listening to the Opposition, we might think that the EU is the land of milk and honey when it comes to the environment. This is the same EU that put fossil fuels and gas in last year’s green taxonomy. Getting out of the EU allows us to have our own taxonomies and to make far greener efforts than naming gas as a green technology, which it is not.
Ms Ghani
We can make sure that we have a better focus on renewables, and we can take the decisions that work best for our communities. Fundamentally, we are maintaining and enhancing. We must not forget that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been able to introduce substantial law on water, animals and land. I have covered the dashboard, and I assume colleagues will now be pouncing on it.
Departments have been actively working on their retained EU law reform plans for well over 18 months to ensure that appropriate action is taken before the sunset date. Additional work to lift obsolete laws will inevitably be slow, but that work will continue. We cannot allow the reform of retained EU law to remain merely a possibility. The sunset provision guarantees that retained EU law will not become an ageing relic dragging down the UK. It incentivises the genuine review and reform of retained EU law in a way that works best for the UK. What reforms are desirable will differ from policy area to policy area.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, said on Second Reading, the environment is one of the Government’s top priorities. We will ensure that environmental law works for the UK and improves our environmental outcomes. As I said, we will be maintaining and enhancing. The Bill does not change the Environment Act, and we remain committed to delivering our legally binding target to halt nature’s decline by 2030.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Many constituents have been in touch with me with their concerns about habitat protection, maternity leave protection and other issues. The National Archives says that 1,300 additional pieces of legislation are not necessarily in scope. Can the Minister give more clarity on how many pieces of legislation this Bill will cover?
Ms Ghani
We are working across Departments to cover laws that will either be assimilated, amended or revoked. We are finding that a number of those laws are obsolete, and the fact we are still identifying them is good. We are putting them on the dashboard as soon as we can, and we will update the dashboard again this month. It is right that we conduct this exercise to know where we are and to ensure that we refer to UK law where we assimilate, and that we amend it to improve the situation for our communities and businesses. If the laws are not operable in the UK, we can revoke them.
The hon. Lady mentioned maternity rights, which is one of the unfortunate misinformation campaigns on this Bill. I struggle with the fact that colleagues are sharing misinformation, as people who may be vulnerable are made more vulnerable by such misinformation. The UK has one of the best workers’ rights records in the world, and our high standards were never dependent on our membership of the EU.
Indeed, the UK provides far stronger protections for workers than are required by EU law. For example, UK workers are entitled to 5.6 weeks of annual leave compared with the EU requirement of four weeks—we are doing better here. We provide a year of maternity leave, with the option to convert it to shared parental leave. The EU requirement for maternity leave is just 14 weeks—we are doing better here. The right to flexible working for all employees was introduced in the UK in the early 2000s, whereas the EU agreed its rules only recently and offers the right only to parents and carers—we are doing better here. The UK introduced two weeks’ paid paternity leave back in 2003. Who can remember then? The EU legislated for this only recently—once again, we are doing better here. I ask Members please not to hold up Brussels as a bastion of virtue, as that is most definitely not the case.
Ms Ghani
I will make a little progress.
Significant reform will be needed in other areas, which is why the powers in the Bill are necessary. The people of the UK expect and deserve positive regulatory reform to boost the economy. Via this Bill, we will deliver reform across more than 300 policy areas. We cannot be beholden to a body of law that grows more obsolete by the day just because some in this House see the EU as the fount of all wisdom.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
My hon. Friend is setting out a very powerful case. On the one hand, she is making the case that in Britain we have many laws that are superior and offer greater benefits and protections to residents, and on the other hand, she is making the self-evident point that we should unshackle ourselves from laws that will become increasingly historical, some of which were assimilated into British statute without scrutiny.
Will the devolved Administrations be able to preserve retained EU law where it relates to devolved areas of competence?
Ms Ghani
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the law is already devolved, the devolved Administrations have the ability to assimilate, amend or revoke, which is why some of the interventions from Opposition Members are slightly absurd. Why would they not want the opportunity to have a review? If the devolved Administrations want to assimilate the law, they can. If they want to amend it, they can. If they wish to revoke it, they have that choice. Why would the devolved Administrations not want to embrace the powers this Bill will give them?
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The Minister talks about the devolved Administrations hanging on to their powers. Will she ensure that the dashboard on retained EU law is updated to identify which legislation is reserved and which is devolved, as well as how legislation in Wales might be affected?
Ms Ghani
Yes. The hon. Gentleman may have missed the earlier part of my speech. Government officials have been working with devolved Administration officials for more than 18 months, and that work will continue. When we discover an EU law, we put it on the dashboard. Of course, there are conversations with officials in the devolved authorities, and it is important that we continue to work closely with them.
I was going to say more about the UK’s tremendous work on the environment, because I saw some dreadful, inappropriate coverage in the press, including nonsense about marine habitats. I have just had some information from DEFRA about its fantastic work in Montreal on marine. We have done more work on environmental standards and status outside the EU, including in protected areas such Dogger Bank, to enhance protection by 2030. We are also integrating our ocean and coastal mapping.
Unfortunately, colleagues who are uncomfortable with the Bill have also peddled misinformation about our water bodies and water standards. There is an assumption that the target is being moved, which is absolutely incorrect. Targets are not being moved. It is incorrect to say that the target for the good state of England’s water bodies has been changed—it is still 2027, as outlined in the water framework directive. Hopefully that will cancel out any other misinformation on this stuff being shared on social media sites.
Reform will be needed in other significant areas, which is why the powers in the Bill are necessary. It has been suggested that the Bill will somehow be a bonfire of workers’ rights. We are proud of the UK’s excellent record on labour standards, and we have one of the best workers’ rights records in the world. Our high standards were never dependent on our membership of the EU. Indeed, the UK provides far stronger protections for workers than are required by EU law. I have already spoken about maternity rights, but we can also look at maternity cover, holiday pay and other rights for employees.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice because the Environment Secretary testified to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the water framework directive was subject to change, on the advice of the Environment Agency, but now we are being told that it will not be. So who should we believe?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
The hon. Gentleman is well aware that that is not a matter for the Chair. The Minister is responsible for her own words and statements, and she must take responsibility for them. While I am on my feet, let me say that a significant number of Members wish to participate in this debate and a limited time is available. It is clear that the Minister does not intend to give way, having done so several times, and we should progress with the debate.
Ms Ghani
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. To ensure that the devolved Governments are also able to fully seize the benefits of Brexit, we are providing them with the tools to reform the retained EU law that is within their own devolved competence. That will give the devolved Governments greater flexibility to decide how they should regulate those areas currently governed by retained EU law. The majority of the powers in the Bill are conferred on the devolved Governments, which will enable them to take more active decisions about their citizens and their businesses. The devolved Governments will also have the ability to decide which retained EU law they wish to preserve and assimilate, and which they wish to let sunset within their devolved competences.
Since we left the EU, more powers have already been passed on to devolved Administrations, in areas such as farming, fishing and the environment. Under the Bill, these powers can continue to be there. The question is: why would they not enjoy that power to make sure that decisions are taken that best fit their communities? We have carefully considered how this Bill will have an impact on each of the four great nations and we recognise that it is of paramount importance that we continue to work together as one on important issues, including the environment.
As has been mentioned, we accept that some retained EU law in scope of the sunset is required to continue to operate our international obligations, including the trade and co-operation agreement, the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. Therefore, I am happy to make a commitment here today that the Government will, as a priority, take the action required to ensure that the necessary legislation is in place to uphold the UK’s international obligations. In the near future, we will set out where retained EU law is required. Obviously, as well as sharing things on the dashboard, we are working closely with officials in Northern Ireland.
One amendment relates to carving out devolved nations. This Bill must and should apply to all nations of the UK. The territorial scope of the Bill is UK-wide and it is therefore constitutionally appropriate that the sunset applies across all four sovereign nations of the UK. One of the Bill’s primary objectives is to end retained EU law as a legal category across the UK. Providing a carve-out for legislation that is within a devolved competence would severely impact the coherence of the UK statute book and legal certainty for our public and businesses.
I also commend my Cabinet colleagues who are already making gallant efforts to establish ambitious reform plans that will help to drive growth. We are already in the process of removing outdated retained EU law in financial services, through the Financial Services and Markets Bill, and we have already repealed other outdated rules, enabling us to capitalise on tax freedoms. For example, the Government have ended the tampon tax by removing VAT on women’s sanitary products. We have also been able to embrace other opportunities, such as on vaccines, freeports, gene editing, free trade agreements, EU budget payments, immigration control, fishing and even foreign policy on Ukraine. Outside the EU’s unwritten rules on solidarity in foreign policy, we were the first to send arms to defend Ukraine, ignoring German bans on such equipment. That is unlikely to have happened when we were in the EU.
Ms Ghani
I will finish this point and then I will take some interventions. We also now have AUKUS, where we have signed a nuclear submarine deal with Australia, in opposition to France; we have new agricultural support schemes; and—this is one of my favourites—no MEPs means more democracy here.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
The Minister is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that stagnant EU laws are hindering economic growth in the UK and that this Bill will enable us to protect and enhance our important fishing industry, particularly our famous cockle industry in Leigh-on-Sea?
Ms Ghani
It will indeed help the cockle industry. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has said that it will be maintaining and enhancing when it comes to the environment, including our waters. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; this is just an enabling Bill. It is a process to enable Departments to review EU law to see what we can do to ensure that regulation best suits us here in the UK and that we are nimble for the sectors we want to promote. Some of the sectors we want to work fast and hard in are incredibly progressive and modern, and we cannot have law that is made for a much larger group of nations overseeing us here in the UK.
Patrick Grady
Is that not precisely the point: any Department, at any time, that identifies areas of retained EU law that it thinks need to be reformed can bring forward primary legislation—that is the point of parliamentary sovereignty—so that it can be properly scrutinised in this place? The Minister does not need the powers in this Bill. This House already has those powers—I thought that that was supposed to be the point of parliamentary sovereignty.
Ms Ghani
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman fundamentally misunderstands the Bill. Many items of law will be assimilated. The idea that we will debate every single one on the Floor of the House is slightly absurd. The idea that we will be debating laws that are now obsolete is absurd. We will use the same process as we did for the no-deal Brexit; the usual programme of work will take place.
The powers in the Bill will allow us to overhaul regulation where it is not fit for purpose and move us away from the EU body of law. However, once powers have been used to replace the retained EU law or assimilated law with ordinary domestic legislation, they cannot be used in respect of that legislation again. This is a far cry from the Executive power grab of which we have been accused.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I chair the European Statutory Instruments Committee, which has been mentioned in this House already. We provide the sifting process, ensuring that there is parliamentary oversight as we review Brexit legislation. Does the Minister agree that comments that there is no parliamentary oversight are plain wrong and that attacks from the Labour party, when it does not even take its Committee places, are entirely—[Interruption.] Does she agree that those attacks are extremely hollow?
Ms Ghani
They are not just hollow, but simply inaccurate. My hon. Friend has mentioned his European Statutory Instruments Committee, but we also have the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee; the usual channels, which are managed by our business managers; and Leaders of the House in both Houses. So it is not as though there is not ample opportunity to consult.
Once again, let me say that I know people are amused by the dashboard, but it is there and people who are interested can log on, and it will indeed be updated. Without this Bill, legislation that flowed on to the statute book directly from the EU into 300 different policy areas would, in many cases, have to be replaced via primary legislation. That would take decades to amend and this would mean a marked reduction in our ability to regulate in an adequate and timely manner. Without the powers in the Bill, the UK will remain at a competitive disadvantage. It would be economically irresponsible to leave this body of law unchanged, as the Opposition would wish us to do. As I have set out today, this Bill is of vital importance to the future of the UK. As I am sure colleagues will recognise, the reform of retained EU law must be completed without delay. I look forward to the remainder of the debate.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to rise to speak in support of the amendments that appear in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Our amendments, even if they are all accepted, cannot completely cure this fundamentally defective Bill, but we will see where we go with that. Let me add my appreciation, as the Minister did, to those on the Committee for their efforts in scrutinising this Bill and to the Clerks for assisting us in doing that.
First, turning to amendment 18, I have yet to hear any rational justification for the deadline of 31 December 2023 for the jettisoning of all EU regulations. We are told that it is an imperative that we free ourselves of the shackles of these regulations by that date and that we must hurry along and free ourselves of the 2,400 or 3,800 regulations—or however many it turns out to be—that are holding us back.
I understand the importance of having a target to work to, but the date has been plucked out of thin air, seemingly at random, and we should not accept it unless a compelling and rational argument is put forward, especially, as I shall go on to explain, as it carries far greater risks than benefits. We were told by the Minister at the Committee stage that, in essence, the cliff edge is being used as some sort of management tool to ensure that civil servants remain focused and can deliver the work necessary to clear the statute books of all this legislation. What a sad state of affairs it is that the only way that the Government think they can get officials to function properly is to legislate for them to do so. Imagine if we got ourselves into a position where every time the Government wanted the civil service to work to a deadline we had to put it in a Bill. It is an explanation that is as threadbare as the impact assessment that accompanies the Bill.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
As we have heard, the vast majority of policy, from use of harmful pesticides to air quality, that will be impacted by the changes brought through this Bill is with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Does the shadow Minister share my concern that, even if the timeline were extended, that is a lot of work for one Department and its officials to make sure they are getting right so quickly?
Justin Madders
I will go on to explain why that deadline is inappropriate and, indeed, impractical.
The Government are using the Bill as a motivational tool. That message has not got through to DEFRA, which, as we know, is considered to be the Department with the most regulations, although, of course, until we see a definitive list, we cannot know that for sure. At the moment, according to the Secretary of State, there are probably about 1,100 regulations in DEFRA that are subject to the sunset. I will not get into whether the word “about” is good enough in this context, but the number of civil servants that we have been told are working on this in that Department is three. It is no good this Bill being used as a way of focusing Departments’ minds if they do not have the resources to do the job properly in the first place.
This is a serious issue. The House of Lords Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee even complained about a lack of engagement from that Department after not receiving a response from it to five separate letters. We know from a written ministerial answer that the Department itself does not know how much the exercise will cost or how many staff it will need. If the deadline is meant to focus attention, it has not succeeded in doing so yet.
Alexander Stafford
I am listening carefully to the hon. Member’s speech, especially about the timeline. My question is this: when does he want this to end. My constituents in Rother Valley voted in 2016 to leave the EU—lock, stock—not to wait. Even now, I would want to bring the deadline forward, because we should have left fully years ago. When do the Opposition and those who want to stifle our leaving want us to leave—2024, 2025, 2026 or never? I want to leave fully and utterly now.
Justin Madders
If people are going to intervene, they should read the Bill and the amendments, because they would see our suggestion for a deadline. Of course, as everyone else in this Chamber seems to know, we have already left the EU, so this is not about leaving the EU, but about the remaining laws.
The Regulatory Policy Committee has said that setting a deadline is not enough and that a stronger argument is needed for choosing that particular date, and we agree. What is far more convincing than the arbitrary date that we are presented with are the warnings that we have received that there is not sufficient capacity in the civil service for a genuinely effective appraisal of the regulations that the Bill seeks to remove in the timescale allowed. The case for the cliff edge is incredibly weak. The arguments for removing it and putting it on a more realistic footing are much stronger.
The potential for things to be missed is clear. If worse comes to worst and some vital regulation ceases to be law by accident and nobody notices until it is too late, our constituents will rightly ask us, “What on earth were you doing? What were you thinking of?” No wonder the impact assessment on the Bill is silent on the issue of the sunset date.
The Regulatory Policy Committee has made it clear that it believes that the analysis of that sunset date is inadequate. This is a deadline in search of a headline. Presumably, that headline will be, “Free at last”. I would suggest that a more apposite headline might be. “The sun has set on your employment rights, your consumer rights and your environmental protections.” Indeed, the sun has set on parliamentary democracy.
Overall, the Regulatory Policy Committee puts a red rating on the impact assessment of the Bill as not fit for purpose, yet here we are, ploughing on as if it will be all right on the night.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that our first legislation on consumer rights was in 1893, some time before the European Union, and that the Act giving paid holidays was 1938, again before the European Union. We have never needed the European Union for worker and consumer rights.
Justin Madders
I am sure that those were the glory years—the right hon. Member’s favourite period of time. This is about protecting the rights that we have, and this Bill allows those rights to fall by default if no action is taken. That is why we are so concerned about the Bill.
Stella Creasy
I think everybody agrees that, as we have left the European Union, we need to look at the foundation of the laws that we have in this country. One challenge of this legislation is that, because we do not know precisely what laws are covered, we do not know the laws that we need to look at. Does my hon. Friend agree that people are concerned not because the law says “Europe” on it, but because it is about things such as maternity rights and employment rights? [Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position. She needs to talk to her colleagues who, when we have asked about these explicit regulations and whether they are going to retain, replace or revoke them, have said that they do not know. They do know on other legislation. Does he agree that, if Ministers have made up their minds on some things but not others, they should be honest with the British public that they are asking us to give them the power to make that decision and take it away from this place? That is not taking back control.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for that intervention. That is exactly the problem here. If Ministers decide to remove laws, there will be no opportunity for us to challenge it, which is why we are concerned. The Minister told us in Committee that the sunset date was chosen because it is the quickest and most efficient way to enact retained EU law without taking up additional parliamentary time—so the Government are doing us all a favour by giving us less work to do.
In this context I refer to the written evidence of the Bar Council, which raised the alarm when it said:
“The setting of an arbitrary, and in all the circumstances, impractical sunset date, with the consequent and entirely unnecessary risk of the disappearance of rules of critical importance to businesses, consumers, employees and the environment (some of which, due to their sheer numbers, may only be missed once lost) without adequate consideration or any consultation, and conferring an entirely unfettered and unscrutinised discretion to Ministers to disapply or delay the sunset provision or not; as well as the attendant risk of rushed replacement legislation”.
That sums up exactly why we should be voting against the Bill.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
When it comes to workers’ rights or environmental protections, does the shadow Minister suspect, as I do, that this is a Government determined to throw people’s rights on to the Brexit bonfire? If this is the future of the United Kingdom, is it any wonder that more and more people in the north of Ireland are looking forward to being part of a progressive new and united Ireland?
Justin Madders
That probably takes us slightly away from the thrust of the Bill. But what is this Government’s record on employment rights? They doubled the time to be able to qualify to claim unfair dismissal, taking millions of people out of being able to claim that right. They slashed the consultation periods for people on redundancy. They introduced employment tribunal fees. Their record on employment protection is not a good one. There is a whole back catalogue of Ministers and Cabinet Ministers saying why they want to get rid of these burdensome employment rights. We are right to be worried about where this is all heading.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Member is being generous and making a powerful case. Does he share my concern that, for all the rhetoric and green wash coming from the Government when they say that this is about keeping high standards, that is completely undermined by a clear clause in the Bill that states that, while Members can replace laws with alternative provisions, those cannot “increase the regulatory burden”. That is clear—it is in black and white. The Bill is an absolute ideological attack on safety and on environmental standards—on the things that keep us safe and our planet safe as well.
Justin Madders
The hon. Member is right. I shall come back to that in a little while.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
In essence, when we took back control through the referendum decision in 2016, it was not to a particular party or even to a particular Government: it was to the British people and their sovereign Parliament. I find it inconceivable and rather disappointing that the hon. Gentleman does not have the confidence that this Parliament will do the right thing in a range of legislative areas.
Justin Madders
I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman does not understand what the Bill does. It hands the power to Ministers, not to Parliament—that is why we are so concerned about it. Taking back control was about this Parliament, not giving power to Ministers.
I turn back to the Bar Council’s clear warnings. It is not some sort of anarchist organisation, it is not part of an anti-growth coalition—it is the Bar Council, for goodness’ sake. Anyone who is concerned about parliamentary scrutiny and accountability and who wants to make this country work should listen carefully to what the Bar Council says and its warnings about why the Bill is inappropriate.
The sunset clause is interrelated with the question of Ministers’ powers and the ability of Parliament to effectively scrutinise changes. I do not want to be faced later this year with having to make a choice between a reduction in the number of days’ paid holiday that people are entitled to and their having no rights at all—and that is a choice that this Bill could force upon us, if we are pushed up to the precipice due to timescale.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Following the Bar Council’s recommendations and concerns about protections, I put on record that I have been contacted by a large number of constituents who are concerned about the protection of their rights as workers, which they fought hard for, and their rights as consumers. Furthermore, they want hon. Members, particularly the Minister, to know that they are concerned that no scrutiny will take place on this. Does my hon. Friend agree that, based on this Government’s record, there is no way they will maintain the high standards that our constituents expect or ensure that this Bill adequately represents our constituents?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend articulates well why her constituents and indeed many people across all sectors of society are concerned about the impact of the Bill. It is not about Parliament taking back control. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has said that the
“abuse of delegated powers is in effect an abuse of Parliament and an abuse of democracy”.
As the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) is here, I will quote his response, when he was Leader of the House, to the Committee’s report on the frequent use of skeleton Bills. He said that it did not necessarily provide
“a model example of how Parliament would like to see legislation brought forward.”,
and that he would be encouraging Secretaries of State
“to minimise the use of delegated powers where possible.”
For once, I agree with him; I am sorry he does not agree with himself any more.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The shadow Minister has implied that the whole country is very concerned about what is going to happen to the current bulk of EU retained law, but he would have heard the Minister saying that all those laws that come under DEFRA—as he knows, that is probably three quarters of the total EU retained law—will be either retained or improved. Now that the Environment Act 2021 brings them under the remit of the Office for Environmental Protection, the watchdog that is there to make sure that they are enhanced, surely he will accept that that gives huge numbers of people and organisations, particularly in the environmental sector, a lot of reassurance.
Justin Madders
I think we would be reassured if that was what the Bill did, but the Bill does not give Ministers the power to improve the situation: specifically, as we have heard, it prevents burdens from being increased so—
Geraint Davies
Does my hon. Friend agree that, over the 47 years of our membership, we evolved thousands of rules with the EU, that the choice for Ministers in DEFRA and elsewhere will be whether to assimilate, revoke or amend those rules, and that, if they do not have time to go through them all, the rules will simply fall out of bed? The real risk is that employment, environmental and other rights will simply—perhaps accidentally—disappear. Does he therefore agree that this sunset clause is completely ridiculous?
Justin Madders
That is a very good point. If the Government cannot even tell us how many rules are covered by this Bill, how can we be confident that things will not be missed? The 2023 date is a deadline in search of a headline; it is not a serious proposition or the action of a responsible Government, and it should be rejected.
The cliff edge is even more absurd when we consider that the Government do not know what rules will be covered by this Bill. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) in his place; when he was on the Front Bench, he told us, in answer to a written question:
“The dashboard presents an authoritative, not comprehensive, catalogue of REUL.”
He told us in response to a written question on 21 October:
“we anticipate over 100 additional pieces of legislation will be added to the REUL dashboard”.
As we know now, that 100 is probably more like 1,400, so we cannot accuse him of over-promising and under-delivering. He also told us:
“Government officials are currently working to quality assure this data and any amendments to the data will be reflected in an update of the dashboard this Autumn.”
It is 2023 now and, as of midday today, that dashboard had not been updated at all since this Bill was first presented, so it is certainly not comprehensive or authoritative—it is actually not very helpful either. That is undoubtedly not a sound basis on which to be legislating.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I am sure many of us have received emails from constituents concerned about this process, or rather the lack of process. Thousands of pieces of legislation need to be reviewed and amended. I am sure our constituents would agree that it seems very undemocratic of the Government not to bring that legislation to the Chamber to be scrutinised, as legislation is processed in this place.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is right that we must answer to our constituents about what is going to happen with these rules. That is why we have tabled our amendments.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
There is a huge point of principle here, but there are also issues around pragmatic logistics. I can understand some of the frustrations of Conservative Members about delays in implementation since the referendum, but I must remind them that they have been in Government. Privately, I know of no civil servant who has any confidence that the deadline will be met. We now face a strike by 100,000 civil servants. Even the FDA has gone for strike action. The world may have changed since this legislation was first prepared. May I suggest to my Front-Bench colleagues that we assure the Government that there will be an open door for discussion throughout this process when they want to talk about extending the deadline to ensure proper scrutiny of this legislation? I fear that the parliamentary process will break down, poor decisions will be made and we will overburden an administration that already has enough on its plate.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The deadline was pretty risky to start with, but it now looks completely foolish. That is why we will be moving an amendment later to make sure the deadline is put back three years, to give us confidence that things will be done properly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Justin Madders
If you do not mind, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not going to take any more interventions for a while, because I appreciate a lot of people wish to speak.
Just for a minute, I ask hon. Members to imagine they are a business trying to plan for the next year and having to navigate a dashboard that is not complete, but might be updated at some point. That business is looking at the dashboard just to understand what rules might be changed under the auspices of the Bill, never mind whether they should be changed or whether those changes will affect the business.
If the Government do not even know what the Bill covers, how can they expect anyone looking to invest to do so? That is an absurd way to proceed. No wonder groups as diverse as the TUC and the Institute of Directors oppose this Bill. We do not legislate in this place by website; we legislate by legislation, and the intention of that legislation should be clear.
There is a solution in sight to this rather unsatisfactory state of affairs, in the shape of amendment 36 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), which would at least enable us to see what laws Ministers want to revoke and allow Parliament—yes, Parliament—to express a view on whether it wishes to see those laws taken off the statute book, in the true spirit of taking back control. Crucially, the amendment would require Ministers, at least three months before the cliff edge, to set out which laws they intend to revoke.
One would hope that, by September this year, Ministers would have formed a view on which laws they wanted to keep and which they did not. It would be nice if they had done so by then—it would be even nicer if they let Parliament know, and nicer still if they afforded that courtesy to the rest of the country, so that people were able to plan.
We cannot have the Government changing the law on a whim. There must be proper accountability and scrutiny. We cannot have unaccountable Ministers changing the rules without reference to anyone else—that is not what taking back control was supposed to look like. When this Bill was first mooted and Lord Frost was still a Government Minister, he said that the policy intention behind the Bill was
“to amend, replace or repeal all retained EU law that is not right for the UK.”
I think we need something a bit more detailed than a general feeling that something is not right for the UK. This centuries-old Parliament, having taken a historic decision to wrestle back control from those unelected Brussels bureaucrats, finds itself in the ludicrous position of having another unelected person telling us that laws will be changed if they are “not right”. What that phrase gains in brevity it loses in clarity. It can mean absolutely anything, and of course—crucially for this place—it puts all the power in the hands of Ministers. Surely, as a Parliament, we can do better than that; surely we want to hold ourselves to a higher standard when we change legislation. We should not legislate on a whim, and Parliament should not hand powers to Ministers enabling them to do just that. The Regulatory Policy Committee described the Bill’s impact assessment as either “weak” or “very weak” in every aspect, so any Member who is thinking of handing over those powers should, in the light of that warning, think very carefully before doing so.
Andrew Jones
It is clearly right to have parliamentary scrutiny of these measures and those that will come as a consequence of this legislation, but why has Labour not filled its places on the European Statutory Instruments Committee? If the hon. Gentleman is so keen to see parliamentary scrutiny, why has his party not taken the opportunity that it has?
Justin Madders
I direct the hon. Gentleman to the Whips Office around the corner. He can have a word with them and see what is going on.
I do not accept the characterisation of how these laws were introduced in the first place. As we know, the vast bulk of EU subordinate legislation was adopted by the member states and the European Parliament, of course, both of which had representatives from the United Kingdom—indeed, our MEPs were democratically elected until 2020—so it is simply wrong to say that politicians, stakeholders and policymakers did not have ample opportunity to exert influence on the development of EU policy and secondary legislation.
In fact, there are many examples of where EU legislation was supported and even promoted by the UK Government of the day. One good example is the social chapter, which the Labour party’s 1997 manifesto pledged to introduce. It included rights on parental leave and working hours. Nobody can say that those rules were forced on us without our consent. Conservative Members may not have liked them—that is clear—but there was a clear democratic pathway to their introduction.
Amendment 36 is about Parliament taking back control, but new clause 2, which is on the amendment paper, goes one step further. It would require Ministers to set out their analysis of the impact of the removal of EU laws and the abolition of the application of EU principles to our laws. As our amendment 26 sets out, there needs to be some recognition that tearing up 50 years of legal development overnight might just create a little bit of uncertainty—as, of course, will revoking thousands of laws. New clause 2 would require some thought to be given to what the impact of all that might be and, crucially, would require it to be shared with everyone else.
We therefore think that it ought to be a matter of agreement among everyone who wants to see democracy prosper that the replacement regulations under the Bill should be made by Parliament after proper consultation, public debate and scrutiny, not simply by ministerial decision—or, as the case may be, by non-decision. All we are asking Ministers to do is to publish their work on how these laws will affect our constituents, which they ought to be doing anyway. Or will we have to wait until the end the year to find that some law that has slipped off the books is causing problems with, for example, the trade and co-operation agreement? Is it not better for us to know about that now? Ministers will know what the issues are, so why do they not share that knowledge with the rest of us? New clause 2 would give Parliament sufficient time to express a view on all that, putting power back into the hands of Parliament, which is what I thought all those who campaigned to leave the EU actually wanted to happen.
Likewise, new clause 3 would create a requirement for there to be genuine consultation if the powers under sections 15 and 16 are to be exercised in revoking, replacing or updating a regulation, and, again, for Parliament to be sighted on that consultation and on the Government’s assessment of the proposed changes. I hope that we are not being too revolutionary by wanting accountability and transparency for Ministers’ actions.
While we are on the regulations, why are we tying Ministers’ hands—we have already touched on this—by insisting that anything that replaces them cannot add to the regulatory burden? Why is the language of rights and protections always expressed as a burden? Of course, the whole thrust of the Bill is to reduce the number of EU regulations in our system, which in itself will reduce the regulatory burden, but when Ministers are looking to update or replace these rules, why must we insist that they do not add to the burden? What even counts as a burden? I am saddened that Conservative Members think it a burden to ensure that our workplaces are safe and that people are protected against discrimination, and to protect natural habitats.
If it was thought that reviewing the laws on maternity discrimination, for example, was actually a good opportunity to strengthen protections—possibly along the lines of the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis)— this Bill would not allow that. If my hon. Friend’s Bill navigates the private Member’s Bill lottery, it would extend the time period for protection against unfair redundancy to a six-month period after the return to work from maternity, adoption or shared parental leave. That is, by the way, something that the Government committed to in 2019, but under this Bill they would not be allowed to implement it because it would increase the burden. I am not sure how that circle will be squared, but it illustrates the point that this Bill could prevent the Government from implementing their own policies. Although most of us on the Opposition side would want that to apply to just about everything this Government introduce, when it is confined to things that might actually benefit our constituents, it is a cause for concern.
That brings us neatly to our amendment 20, which deals with workers’ rights. The regulations that it lists represent, as far as we can identify, all the major employment rights within the ambit of the Bill—rights that people enjoy every day; rights that nobody voted to squash; rights that those on the Labour Benches will do everything in our power to protect. To protect them and remove any scintilla of doubt, we need to take them outside the scope of the Bill.
I heard what the Minister said about there being no plans to remove those rights, which ought to mean that she has no problem with voting for the amendment. After all, if that is what the Government are going to do anyway, what is there to lose?
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has already said that the UK’s elected processes already had input into EU laws and protections and rights for workers. I will go one step further and say that this country actually led on a lot of those EU rights and protections for workers, so why does he not believe that this place can enhance those rights and protections, driving them forward for workers in this country?
Justin Madders
Well, a Government who have been promising an employment Bill for five years and allowed the scandal of 800 P&O workers being dismissed without any notice are not a Government who can really claim to be on the side of workers. If the hon. Gentleman is genuine about supporting workers’ rights, he will support our amendment to ensure that they are protected.
Let us look at some of those rights. The first regulations listed in amendment 20 are the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, which ensure, among other things, that an employer must perform a risk assessment for all workers, and that there must also be a specific risk assessment if an employee becomes pregnant. I sincerely hope that the requirement to conduct risk assessments to ensure that people work in a safe environment is not something that the Government consider an unnecessary burden. Do we not think that everyone has a right to work in a safe environment, and that employers should take steps to ensure that?
Those regulations ensure that employees have the important right to be consulted on health and safety, and to receive paid time off to carry out health and safety training and other duties. They also have the right to protection from discrimination or victimisation for carrying out health and safety duties. It is just as important as the requirement for a safe working environment that those who put themselves forward as health and safety representatives can do so without fear of reprisal.
In Committee, the Minister talked about modernising health and safety law, which is not, of course, the same as promising to keep those laws. The term “modernising” can mean any number of things—it certainly does not always mean that a law will be improved or a right increased. As we know, the Bill specifically prevents an increase in the regulatory burden. I know that health and safety is often characterised by Conservative Members as a burden. I do not think that; I think it is absolutely essential. If Members agree with me on that, they should vote with us on amendment 20.
On the part-time employee regulations that are included in the amendment, more than twice as many women than men are in part-time employment. Why would we want to open the door to greater discrimination against women by getting rid of protections for part-time workers?
The Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999 protect women who might be pregnant or taking maternity leave from workplace discrimination, ensure that they have the right to return to the same job once they return from maternity leave, and, of course, make it unfair to sack someone because they are pregnant. Surely Conservative Members want to ensure that those regulations are protected under the Bill?
Vicky Ford
The hon. Member is suggesting that this Government want to get rid of a huge number of workers’ rights. The Minister wrote to all Members this morning making it clear that the Government have no intention of abandoning workers’ rights. Is he suggesting that this Minister is not true to her word?
Justin Madders
If the Minister is true to her word, she will vote with us and make sure that that is exactly what happens. I refer to the impact assessment, which recognises in three separate paragraphs that the Bill contains a threat to equality, so this is not something we are making up out of our own heads; it is something that is there and to be concerned about.
One set of protections definitely in the sights of those who see employment rights as a burden include the working time regulations, the introduction of the right to paid annual leave, limits on weekly working hours and a legal entitlement to daily and weekly rest breaks. They are some of the greatest achievements of the previous Labour Government, and for Members who are not aware, those regulations originated from concern about workers’ health and safety and the risks associated with working excessively long hours. I am proud that my party tackled that. Do we want to turn the clock back to when people worked 70 or 80 hours a week? We know that some on the Government Benches think there is no moral right to annual leave, but on these Benches we could not disagree more. Also included in our amendment are the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.
Mike Amesbury
I am after my hon. Friend’s help on this: was it a figment of my imagination, or did those on the Government Benches drive through a piece of legislation that curtailed the fundamental freedom and right to strike in the past few days? I just seek his help on that.
Justin Madders
Yes, I think that Bill also gives employers the power to sack striking nurses, teachers and doctors. Those are not the actions of a Government who want to protect employment rights.
The amendment includes the 2006 TUPE regulations, which ensure that when one business buys another, there is reasonable certainty about which workers transfer to that new business, so that the purchaser knows which employees it is getting and, critically, workers know that they cannot be dismissed or have their terms and conditions slashed just because they are working for a new employer. Let us make it crystal clear that TUPE will stay. That would ensure protection and certainty for employees, but also certainty for employers. How on earth would someone thinking of buying a business in 2023 know whether to proceed with the purchase if they did not know whether they were obliged to take on the workforce with it? We have a stable, settled, well understood framework of law that helps businesses to operate. Why put that in jeopardy, particularly if, as is claimed, Ministers have no intention of removing it?
To make a general point on employment rights, they are not a burden. They are an essential ingredient of a civilised society. If we want our citizens to play an active role in the country moving forward and in future economic growth, our citizens have to be rewarded fairly and treated fairly. Security and respect at work are the cornerstone of any success we will have as a nation. A secure and happy workforce is a productive workforce. Giving people dignity, certainty and fairness in the workplace is not a burden on businesses; it is what good businesses do, and what good businesses will see the fruits of, if they are allowed to operate on a level playing field.
My constituents will be considerably poorer over the next few years as a result of the economic decisions made by this Government. I do not want them to be poorer in terms of rights, as well. Employment rights ensure that people can participate in the labour market without facing unfair discrimination. They give vulnerable workers more job security and stability of income. They help to encourage a committed workforce and the retention of skilled workers. They are not just about individual dignity and respect in the workplace; they also have social and economic value and are an essential component of a healthy, stable and progressive country.
We need a country where people have the security of knowing that if they do a good job and their employer runs its business well, they will be rewarded properly and be able to stay in work. What we have instead is a culture of disposable commodities and fire and rehire, where loyalty counts for nothing. It is time to draw a line in the sand and say, “No further.” Let us not allow this Bill to open up another line of attack on working people. Let us close it off now once and for all and support amendment 19.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. Take out your mental editing pens, ladies and gentlemen, because you are going to have to start cutting your speeches in a big way. We have heard two very lengthy opening statements and a number of lengthy interventions. There are some 30 Members still wishing to take part and the wind-up speeches will start at 5.30 pm. I am going to call the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee and the SNP Front-Bench spokesperson, upon both of whom I would urge brevity, after which I shall impose a six-minute time limit on speeches, which may drop further under Mr Evans later on. I call the Chairman of the Select Committee.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Having endured the last 40 minutes, I am bound to say, as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, that although I will be relatively brief there are important matters that need to be discussed. I will raise them and give the House the opportunity to reflect on what I have to say.
This Bill was passed by this House without amendment. There were no amendments on Second Reading or in the Public Bill Committee. I have been Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee for many years, and I have been on this Committee since 1985. I draw the attention of the House to the European Scrutiny Committee report tagged to this debate, published on 21 July last year. As the Minister said, EU retained law was never intended to remain part of our domestic statute book. I am deeply grateful to the Government for today’s round robin letter to all Members and to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) for his work on the genesis of this Bill.
We left the European Union with section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 guaranteeing UK sovereignty and democracy, and therefore UK democracy itself. It was the culmination of a process that began with my sovereignty amendment to the Single European Act in 1986, which, at that time, I was not even allowed to debate. In turn, that was followed by the Maastricht treaty and a whole series of treaties, enactments and debates on the Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon treaties.
Incidentally, on the question of maternity pay—the only interesting thing mentioned by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders)—the UK actually has 52 weeks of maternity pay, while the EU has merely eight. On holiday pay, we have six weeks; the EU has four.
The views of the British people, as expressed ultimately in the 2016 referendum, repudiated the idea of our remaining in the EU by democratic vote, and the general election that endorsed that decision, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) as Prime Minister, gave the present Conservative Government a large majority. The democracy that we enjoy is based on our unique and universally envied constitutional arrangements, whereby laws are passed in this House by a simple majority of MPs representing individual constituencies, who derive their authority exclusively from those who voted them into the House of Commons.
Sir John Hayes
This is the essence of the misunder-standing of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. The relationship between the Executive and the legislature is such that the Government receive a mandate from the people, but Ministers are answerable to this House. I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman has not grasped that constitutional fundamental.
Sir William Cash
I am grateful for that intervention, because nothing could have been more obvious than the fact that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and indeed many Opposition Members, simply do not have a clue about how the operations of the European Union function. I will deal with them in a minute, as the hon. Gentleman will find out—I would be interested if he would like to intervene and repudiate what I am about to say.
The Lords themselves—unelected, of course—are subject to the Parliament Acts, which may well prove necessary in relation to this Bill. This is therefore an issue of democracy.
I have watched and participated in the evolution of change in relation to European matters both in this House and outside, in referendum campaigns and the like, for the best part of 38 years. It is essential for those who are not so well acquainted with the manner in which EU law is made, which became more objectionable as the competencies in each of the treaties expanded, to appreciate just how undemocratic and unaccountable the EU system unequivocally is. I have to say that my own party is responsible for many of the problems that were created, but I am delighted to say that the democratic decisions of the British people have now demonstrated the need for this Bill, along with the fact that we have left the European Union.
The democratic deficit is one of the most important reasons—if not the most important reason—why we had to leave and why the Northern Ireland protocol arrangements and the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill are in need of immediate resolution. That Bill, which has passed all its stages in this House, is now becalmed like the Mary Celeste in the House of Lords, with nobody on board, pending agreement from the European Union to change its mandate and resolve this outrageous democratic deficit immediately.
As Con O’Neill, who negotiated our entry into the European Union, admitted in his 1983 report to Lord Hume—by then, far too late—the Government simply did not understand the undemocratic system that was and remains employed by the European Union. Many people, as is quite obvious from what we have heard in the past 40 minutes, do not have the foggiest idea what that means in practice and the way in which the European Union actually functions.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sir William Cash
No. In a nutshell, every single law that goes to the Council of Ministers, which is the ultimate law-making body, does so by a majority vote of the 27 member stated behind closed doors, without even so much as a transcript and in total secrecy. Indeed, I had an exchange with the noble Lord Clarke of Nottingham on this matter when he was still in this House in 2017. He made it abundantly clear in his response to an intervention that the real legislative power of the Council of Ministers was exercised in private, going on to say,
“I used to find that the best business at the European Council was usually done over lunch”,—[Official Report, 14 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 215.]
which is fundamentally different from the way in which we have legislated since we left the EU and in this actual debate today. By contrast, we are conducting business today, and taking democratic decisions, by a majority of this House, which is proof in itself that it works.
In practice, in the context of the sunset arrangements in this Bill, clauses 12 to 16 provide delegated powers to restate, revoke and/or replace and update certain retained EU laws, which are secondary retained EU law and a new category of “secondary assimilated law”. Many of these powers are subject to the negative procedure, but the affirmative procedure is required where primary legislation is being amended or substantive policy change implemented. Some primary legislation is in the Bill. Where the negative procedure applies, the scrutiny system is similar to the work done by the European Statutory Instruments Committee, and it will be for the House to decide how that evolves in line with the democratic decision taken by this House today.
When the original proposals for the first withdrawal agreement Act were brought into effect, at my suggestion—I introduced a Bill on the subject—all EU law was then deemed to be UK law. But then remainers got to work and came up with the concept of retained EU law, which asserted the supremacy of the principles of EU law and decisions by the European Court. We may have left the EU, but a massive ball and chain was embedded in that Act preventing us from making our own sovereign laws on our own terms. I add, by way of parenthesis, that the Prime Minister responsible for that Act resigned—thanks to the Spartans.
Those laws had been made under sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972. It is certainly true to say that since that date, not one single European law was ever repudiated by this House, because the provisions of that 1972 Act prevented it. We were therefore subjugated to the European Union and decisions of the European Court of Justice by our own irresponsible, voluntary abdication of the inherent and democratic procedures that evolved in this House over the best part of 400 years.
Our entry into the EU in 1972 was therefore a blind step into the void of an undemocratic and unaccountable system of government. These thousands of laws lack inherent democratic legitimacy, and must therefore be removed from and/or replaced on our statute book. The Bill also allows us to move back to the certainty implicit in the UK common-law way of doing things, as compared with the purposive interpretation of law by our judges, as laid down by the principles of EU law. Nobody can dispute that.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been told many times that when we are on Report, we should not make general speeches but refer to amendments. Can you make a judgment on whether what is being said is appropriate?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I have already exercised that judgment. If I thought that the hon. Gentleman was out of order, I would have ruled him out of order.
Sir William Cash
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So much for that.
Our system has relied uniquely on a large bench of high-quality, independent judges, who address points that are brought before them when people or businesses apply to the courts for remedies for perceived damage or misconduct. Through our traditional decision-making process, which must be interpreted in accordance with what is precisely set out in our sovereign Parliament, the judges must develop what is generally regarded as a fair and equitable system of redress, and set standards of care and determine consequences of breach in matters of responsibility and duty.
We therefore have to strip away vast amounts of inherited EU law, which operates on the constitutional code-based model that is alien to our system, so that we once again have a single common law system in our country—provided, of course, that we have the right people doing it, such as the Brexit opportunities unit, and that the task can be performed smoothly. In addition, economic research shows that this step will considerably enhance the UK growth rate, not by lowering standards but by removing or replacing voluminous, poorly drafted, generalised, purposive EU texts.
If we miss this opportunity, we will have shirked the core and inevitable consequence of the democratic decision that was taken by the people of this country. We must make our own sovereign democratic laws on our own terms, although on occasion, we may well decide to complement laws made in the US, parts of the EU or parts of the Commonwealth. Exchange across different constitutional arrangements sometimes leads to improved ways of doing things and improved laws, which is a good thing.
Ultimately, however, the simple test is what this House decides as the democratic law-making system under which we are governed; what the judges determine in the best tradition of our constitutional arrangements, which have been built up over many centuries; and how they interpret those laws in line with what our sovereign Parliament has decided. The work of the Brexit opportunities unit and of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, to whom I pay tribute, as well as the work of my Committee, is absolutely enormous.
The principle of the Bill was agreed on Second Reading and, as I said, in the Public Bill Committee. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister and the Government for listening to the strong advice that I and others have offered. The Bill not only is justified democratically but, as enacted, will continue to be so. The freedoms that it will provide, in creating new opportunities for legislation, competitiveness and innovation, are self-explanatory.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). Bluntly, we do not agree on much, but I do not doubt his enthusiasm for the subject. If what he is on comes in powder form, I would be grateful if he could slip me over some wraps—I think I am missing out on quite a journey.
Much as we disagree with the substance and content of the Bill, it is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), who did much of the heavy lifting throughout its earlier stages and who, for his troubles, was rewarded by metamorphosing into our Chief Whip so he cannot be here today. I am pleased to carry on his work. The fact that he has maintained his sunny disposition and sanity during the process is testament to his fortitude, because when I read the earlier proceedings, I could not help thinking that they were some sort of satirical effort written by Armando Iannucci, Ian Hislop, Paul Foot or—to go back a bit further—Jonathan Swift or Lewis Carroll; I very much enjoyed “Nusrat in Wonderland” during the Minister’s opening speech.
I will focus on our amendments 29, 30, 31 and 33. We will press amendment 28 to a vote, because we believe that it is worth checking the mood of House. I will come on to the detail of that in due course.
I will speak about our philosophy and approach to the Bill, and about its import. I have never been more conscious of the difference in world view between Government Members and my party and country. We did not see the EU as a prison to leave or as undemocratic. EU laws were passed in conjunction with the democratically elected UK Government and democratically elected MEPs in the Council. The hon. Member for Stone talked about the codified basis of EU legislation, and he is right about that in codified jurisdictions, but to enter into the domestic legal framework of these islands, it had to be dealt with via statutory instrument. I really do not think, therefore, that the starting point of the Bill is correct.
I will give our bona fides. SNP Members deeply regret leaving the EU, as does my country, which voted against it. We in Scotland were taken out against our democratic will, so although the hon. Gentleman talks about a democratic deficit, Government Members should worry far more about the democratic deficit in the UK than the one in the EU. I see their smirks, as ever, but it is not just us that they are denigrating—it is the people of Scotland. In the last opinion poll, 72% of the people of Scotland wanted to go back into the European Union. We hear that Brexit has been such a success, but in 2016, the UK economy was 90% the size of the German economy and it is now 70%. If anybody would like to prove me wrong about that, they can try. These are facts.
I accept the democratic mandate that some hon. Members talk about, but in terms of where we are coming from with the Bill, I hope that Government Members respect our pro-EU sentiment, because it is deeply felt. To be clear, this is a matter of deep sadness and anger for us, but I am not interested in fighting old battles. I am interested in fighting future ones, however, and we will have plenty of those.
I say to Government Members: “If you will do this damn silly thing, don’t do it in this damn silly way.” I do not agree with the premise or the intent of this legislation, but it is the content that will quickly come back to haunt the Government, in exactly the same way that many other mistakes that were harrumphed to the rafters in this House came back to haunt the Government who tried to deny that they had anything to do with them.
Robin Millar
The hon. Gentleman makes some interesting and thoughtful points. How, then, did leaving the European Medicines Agency come back to haunt the country, given that we were free to invest in and create a vaccine that has benefited others because we were not part of it?
Alyn Smith
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that often-quoted canard. As a starter, the European Medicines Agency had 700 jobs in London, which were lost. There was also absolutely nothing in the UK’s response to covid that membership or otherwise of it hindered; it is important to get that point across. It is perfectly legitimate to have wanted to leave the EU or the European Medicines Agency, but let us not claim that successes were predicated on things that they were not.
What I find so objectionable about the Bill is that it is unnecessary. I am really not interested in fighting old battles, but the people who voted leave and wanted to take back control of our laws and so on won—it happened, so get over it! They are not so much bad losers as bad winners. Every single law, regulation or standard, however it was derived through the EU channels over the long history of the UK’s involvement in it, is subject to this House and this Government—right now. Any legislative instrument that the UK Government want to amend, repeal or bin is open to that authority in the House right now, so there is a deeply ideological mistake in the Bill that, even at this stage, I urge hon. Members to think hard about.
The fact that we do not know how many legislative instruments will be affected by the scope of this Bill should give a sensible, rational Government pause. I do not dispute the idea that a greater complementarity of the domestic statute book is desirable: I am in favour of the codification of all UK and Scots law. If the UK had a unified Gesetzbuch the way the German Government have, we would have a far more logical legislative framework, but we do not need to set arbitrary deadlines that are going to come back to haunt our own officials and Ministers for the artificial black hole that will open up over various Whitehall Departments. That will not give any legislative certainty. It will give the opposite: there will be a chill effect over deeply held rights.
For those who want to take back control, I do not dispute the logic of the idea. If there is a particular legacy piece of EU legislation that is not fit for purpose, it is open to the Government to get rid of it through the normal legislative process, but this Bill is not the normal legislative process. We have heard much about parliamentary scrutiny, but this Bill is a huge blank cheque for here today, gone tomorrow Ministers who have demonstrated throughout the Brexit process a lack of foresight and competence. That is not a sensible thing to do. I appreciate that there is a degree of scrutiny over subordinate legislation, but it is nowhere near as good as the scrutiny of this House, which is why we will support amendment 38, which would make it clear that this House, and not here today, gone tomorrow Ministers, should be in charge of that process.
The idea is that the abolition of laws will lead to some sort of dynamism and freedom, but it will not. It will lead to legislative black holes into which bad actors will expand very quickly. The idea that the UK Government are properly set up to take due account of that, when they cannot even tell us how many instruments are under consideration, should be of concern.
So I do not like this Bill, and I really fear that the Government are making problems for themselves, because this legislation is neither rational, proportionate nor pragmatic. The idea that particular domestic provisions—they are all domestic provisions now; they have all been incorporated into domestic UK law—should, because of their origin rather than their content, somehow lapse is an utterly flawed premise.
Sir William Cash
I jib very strongly at the suggestion of avoiding the procedures whereby these laws were made. It is not just a question of their origin, because it is the EU and some people do not like it very much. It is rather because of the manner in which the procedures operate.
Alyn Smith
That is a point on which we flatly disagree. These legislative instruments were for over 40 or 50 years accepted by the UK Government in this House and latterly in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and others. They were also incorporated by the hon. Gentleman’s Government into domestic law in order to provide ongoing continuity in legal sentencing. So where there are pieces of legislation that are not fit for purpose—or are somehow holding the country back from this brave new world we are all excited about—then get rid of them, but do not say that vast swathes of legislative instruments on our statute book should just somehow stop without any thought about their replacement or anything else; that is not a sensible way to go.
These are significant points. I accept there has been some hyperbole in describing what is at risk, but what is at risk is fundamental to how the citizens of our countries lead their lives: labour rights; rights to clean air and water; product safety; consumer protection; food quality; protection for women in the workplace; protection of biodiversity; trading standards; and health and safety. I could go on—there is a lot more, and colleagues will come on to that—but there are deeply held principles that our party cherished which under this Bill will be subject to a reversal process which we reject.
Turning to what we are looking to do and focus upon, we will support amendment 36 and also the Labour amendments on workers’ rights and other matters; we need a united front on this. Our focus, however, given that we are the SNP, is Scotland’s democracy. The Minister made a number of points about the increased power for the Scottish Parliament, and there are some powers, but if we are being fully intellectually robust about that process we also need to look at the interaction with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the fact that just yesterday a section 35 order was made by this Government. That is implicit in the devolution settlement; that makes clear that the reality of devolution is that anything done by the Scotland Parliament can be called in by the UK Ministers. I do not like that, but it is the reality of devolution, but the UK Internal Market Act makes clear that any future law of any Scottish emanation of government could be subject to calling in on political grounds in order to maintain the coherence of the UK internal market. That means every single power of the Scottish Parliament and every local authority, health service, university and all the rest is subject to a gainsaying that upends the fundamental principle of devolution.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
What are my hon. Friend’s thoughts on the fact of those powers being called in by a Minister, not this House?
Alyn Smith
I agree with that point, but that is the reality of devolution, which is why we think devolution is not suitable for Scotland’s ambitions and wants.
The Act in question was passed by Labour Members, SNP Members, Greens, Liberal Democrats and three Conservative Members, yet it has been called in by the Secretary of State for Scotland. We will fight that; we think it is a bad decision and we will take it right the way through the courts. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 makes it clear, however, that any future decision of any Scottish body is subject to it. The Bill makes it clear that the past is not safe either; existing bits of the domestic statute book are open to reversal as well, and some will fall off the statute book entirely. The Minister says she is keen for more powers for the Scottish Parliament, so I hope she will accept our amendment 28, which we will put to the vote, which makes that explicit. There are opportunities to tidy up EU elements of domestic statute. I fully accept that and I accept it needs to be done, but it is not done by setting fire to the house because we do not like the curtains in the downstairs privy, which is what this Bill does. It is, flatly, a damned silly thing.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a commonality of approach and of concerns, which he has voiced, between Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? My hon. Friends the Members for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and I, and indeed Plaid Cymru Members, have tabled similar amendments—amendments 37 and 38, which I am glad the hon. Gentleman is pressing to a vote. Does he recognise that the capacity of our local civil service is constrained, particularly in relation to the “end of ’23” deadline? In Northern Ireland, which does not have a functioning Assembly, we have a particular challenge as none of this might drop off the statute book and no one is in political charge to take control of the situation.
Alyn Smith
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The UK constitutional arrangements in London, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland were all predicated upon the maintenance of the single market, the customs union and the EU; that was the balance of devolved competences that was struck. All this was upended by Brexit and the actions of the UK Government since. So there is deep consequence for the devolved settlements in all the home nations, and indeed the Brexit process, from this Bill.
If we are serious about protecting devolution—frankly, in light of yesterday’s decision, I do not accept that the UK Government are—we have put forward, as have others, ways to do so. But I do not think the Bill is fit for purpose. I disagree with its purpose; I think it was borne of spite and hubris rather than any pragmatic, rational process. I think it will cause problems for the UK Government—I say that with no pleasure—and in so doing will undermine the devolution settlement and cause grave disquiet to millions of our businesses and citizens.
I say to the Government that if they are going to do this damned silly thing, do not do it in this damned silly way.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I rise to speak primarily about new clause 1, but I will touch on other amendments.
This Bill delivers on the promise of Brexit, but also the practicalities of what that means for this country. The truth is that when people voted for Brexit across the country in large majority, especially at the last election, they wanted—to use a phrase that has been referred to a lot today—to take back control. There is no greater taking back control than having politicians and MPs in this place, and the Government that the people have elected, being able to decide our laws and make sure they are being implemented.
There has been a lot of talk about the idea that this is somehow a burden and a bonfire of rights. Actually, what we have seen in the Conservative party and the Government—I saw it myself last year—is an absolute passion to ensure that workers’ rights are at the heart of what we do. In my own work as a Back-Bench MP in the last year, I brought in a private Member’s Bill so that workers could keep their tips, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) is taking through its stages. On workers’ rights, we have backed private Members’ Bills on extending maternity rights and carer’s leave. We are doing that in lots of ways not because we are being forced to or because the EU has told us to but because we believe that that is the right thing to do. I fully back that.
The truth is that the Bill is about ensuring that, when voters elect us to this place, we have the ability to make changes. At the next election, they can choose to keep us or get rid of us, but, by kicking the issue down the road, which is in effect what some of the amendments are about, that will never happen. We need a deadline that is purposeful and delivers on what people voted for at the last election. We need to ensure that we are delivering in a timely fashion.
There is the idea that somehow we are putting too much work on to civil servants, that it will be too hard and that it is too much effort. Actually, we are voted in to be here to deliver and to ensure that our civil servants are delivering on the promises that we made to the British public. I have to say that civil servants do an amazing job; my experience with them has been fantastic.
I have heard lots of misinformation and, sadly, in some cases, disinformation in the media and in emails about what the Bill will do. It is not about reducing rights or reducing environmental measures. It is actually about looking at what laws are in place and being delivered in this country for the British people.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The hon. Member and I have worked collaboratively on a number of things, including the Online Safety Bill. Given the vast swathe of legislation that has still yet to be determined, what is concerning is that there are difficulties around trust. I think in particular about the rights of workers built up over a number of years, environmental standards, and even several aspects of online safety. If, for such significant changes in existing provision, that legislation could be brought back to the House so that we could see it, that would restore confidence.
Dean Russell
I enjoyed working with the hon. Lady on the Online Safety Bill, which made huge progress yesterday and is now going to the Lords. The key point here is that there are many laws—and many pieces of what I would consider to be red tape—on the statute book, some of which even those who wanted us to stay in the EU do not know exist. We need to go through a process to identify that. The Bill is about amending, repealing or replacing that legislation. One part of that is about ensuring that case law that currently refers to pieces of EU case law and others refers to UK pieces. There is legislation that will become rapidly out of date because it refers to old EU legislation, priorities and policies. That cannot be right. We need to ensure that our legislation is fit for purpose and up to date.