Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Alex Cunningham and Hywel Williams

2nd reading
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[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.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Twentieth sitting)

Debate between Alex Cunningham and Hywel Williams

Committee stage
Thursday 24th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Hywel Williams]

I thank the Minister for that response, and I am grateful for the news that there are continuing discussions with the Welsh Government even at this rather late stage in the consideration of the Bill.

Obviously, we have a fundamental disagreement. I would hold that the context in Wales is sufficiently different to require a specific assessment. That context is not only the fact that policy may diverge, but the fact that there is specifically Welsh legislation that may impact the provision. However, at this point I am content to withdraw the new clause and possibly bring it back at some other time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 75

Automatic exemption from jury service for those who are pregnant, breastfeeding or on parental leave

‘(1) The Juries Act 1974 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 9, after subsection (2B), insert—

“(2C) Without prejudice to subsection (2) above, the appropriate officer shall excuse a person from attending in pursuance of a summons if—

(a) that person is pregnant,

(b) that person is breastfeeding, or

(c) that person is on parental leave.”’—(Alex Cunningham.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Alex Cunningham]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Motherhood has featured well in our deliberations today, and we are going to turn to it again, but first I want to pay tribute to all mothers. I am going to be a bit cheeky here and pay particular tribute to my own mother, who will be 88 in five weeks’ time, and to my dad, who will be 90 a few weeks later and who still looks after her in their own home—just a little indulgence there.

New clause 75 would provide an automatic exemption from jury service for those who are on maternity leave, breastfeeding, or pregnant. The Opposition have tabled it because the Government have yet to take the action called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), who has been leading an important campaign on this topic in recent months. The issue is that there is no default exception from jury service for mothers of newborn babies who are still breastfeeding, and this can cause serious difficulties for the mother. I do not need to go into the proven benefits of breastfeeding because—perhaps unusually, given the general content of the Bill—I have already rehearsed those arguments in my speech on new clause 27.

Jury service is an important civic duty that we should all engage in, as I am sure every member of the Committee agrees—indeed, in our debate on clause 164 we all recognised the importance of extending possible engagement with jury service to more citizens. However, that cannot be done at any expense, and certainly not at the expense of the wellbeing and health of newborn babies and of mothers.

My hon. Friend shared a case in which an expectant mother deferred her jury service because it coincided with her due date. That much was fine, as the initial deferral went through, but her postponed jury service then fell within the first six months of her son’s life, during which she was exclusively breastfeeding him about every two hours. As my hon. Friend explained in her letter to the Lord Chancellor:

“The Court she has been asked to attend—York Crown Court—does not offer child-minding facilities. This creates a number of problems. As she cannot defer a second time and despite appealing the decision she is being forced to attend jury service even though it will compromise her ability to breastfeed her son during the first six months of his life. If there are no child-minding facilities, she cannot be with her son to breastfeed him unless she is allowed to bring him into the courtroom which clearly presents its own difficulties. Even if there are child-minding services made available at the Court, she will have to leave once every 2 hours to breastfeed her son.”

The Minister’s response to the case was:

“Your letter refers to your constituent making an application for a second deferral but does not mention whether she applied for an excusal. The gov.uk website provides examples of possible reasons for excusal but there is no exhaustive list. Though I cannot say that an application for excusal would have been granted in this case, potential jurors must have a good reason for applying which could include exclusively breastfeeding a child. Each application is considered on its own merit and if not granted in the first instance, there is a route of appeal whereby a judge would consider the application, either by considering the information available or arranging a short hearing to speak to the potential juror in person to discuss their reasons.”

Imagine someone undergoing postpartum recovery and caring for a newborn—up at all hours of the day and night, with all their days filled with responding to the needs of their new baby. Is it really appropriate that the Government should expect them to trawl though the Government website and go through an application process that may then be denied and need to be appealed by attending the court to speak to the judge? As my hon. Friend noted in her follow-up letter, absence of an exemption means that a new mother has to

“deal with the effort and stress of navigating a bureaucratic process to secure exemption when she should have been free to solely focus on her pregnancy and new-born.”

That is illustrated by the case of Zoe Stacey, with which I know the Minister is familiar. Zoe was called for jury service in May, while she was breastfeeding her then two-month-old child. Her application for an excusal was rejected, so she had to appeal the decision. All the while, she was breastfeeding her newborn after weeks of painful medical problems, as well as having to look after her other son, who is in pre-school four mornings a week. Surely Ministers recognise that this is a hugely stressful time for anyone, and it was made all the more difficult by the fact that Zoe had little family support nearby. In the end, she did receive an excusal, but she should not have had to go through such a stressful bureaucratic nightmare to get it.

My hon. Friend knows of more cases, some of which she shared in her correspondence with the Minister. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), wrote to her earlier this week, informing her that the guidance has been reviewed and that some amendments have been made, including the addition of “new parent” as an explicit reason for possible deferrals or excusals and a change to Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service’s internal guidance so that it states explicitly that excusal applications on the grounds of caring responsibilities are to be considered sympathetically.

While my hon. Friend and I both appreciate that the Government are making an effort to address the problem, they are not going quite far enough. Why do excusal applications on the grounds of caring responsibilities need to be considered sympathetically? Why cannot it simply be that an excusal is guaranteed to be always granted in the case of a new parent when they ask for it? That does not remove the option of attending or deferring jury service if that is what the pregnant mother or new parent chooses; it simply ensures that any new parent has the automatic right to exercise an exemption if they wish to. I understand that the Government would not want to remove the choice to serve or defer from pregnant women and new parents, but they do not have to do that in order to provide a guaranteed exemption for all who want one. I hope that the Minister can see where we are coming from, and accept the amendment today.

Childcare Payments Bill

Debate between Alex Cunningham and Hywel Williams

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams]

I very much agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. His point applies particularly to people in seasonal industries such as agriculture or, as in my constituency, tourism. I am sure that he agrees that there is a particular problem for those sorts of workers.

[Alex Cunningham]

Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I most certainly do agree with him. Pieceworkers and others can have hours and wages that fluctuate over a long period; they will most certainly be affected. I feel that the

“easy-to-use online tool”––[Official Report, Childcare Payments Public Bill Committee, 23 October 2014; c. 222.]

promised by the Minister in Committee will prove elusive.

On top of the sizeable potential for confusion, the different mechanisms by which child care costs are to be paid under the tax-free child care scheme and universal credit are also worrying. As we are aware, under the tax-free scheme, payments will be made through child care accounts. That will provide families who are in receipt of tax-free child care with an important budgeting tool to help them manage their finances; that is particularly important as payments will be made through child care account top-ups before costs are paid by the parent. However, child care support received through tax credits and universal credit cannot be provided through child care accounts. That means that child care payments are not aligned, which gives rise to the potential for further confusion and complexity for parents, and it means that an important budgeting tool for households in receipt of tax-free child care is not available to those receiving child care support through universal credit.

It is worth highlighting that the Children’s Society report “The Debt Trap” found households in poverty containing dependent children to be twice as likely to be in some form of arrears as families on higher incomes. It is precisely these families who are most likely to need help with budgeting, but who will be given the least support. Moreover, universal credit payments of child care costs will be made in arrears. As Members will be aware, parents are usually required to pay child care providers one month in advance, but families on low incomes claiming universal credit are likely to have the lowest savings, if any at all; this will inevitably result in many being forced to borrow money to pay for their child care up front. We should be under no illusion: that could be a hefty sum, and if child care costs are higher during school holidays, further loans may be required to meet those costs. This runs the obvious risk of forging a cycle of dependence. Reporting requirements for universal credit are significantly greater than those for either tax credits or tax-free child care, and any failure to report in time will lead to the loss of all payments for that assessment period.