Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[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Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[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.]

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Peter Grant]

rose—

[Brendan O'Hara]

rose—

[Ms Ghani]

I therefore ask the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston to withdraw his amendment.

[Brendan O'Hara]

rose—

[The Chair]

I know you were trying to intervene. Do you want to make a speech?

[Brendan O'Hara]

No, I was trying to intervene on the Minister.

[The Chair]

I call Justin Madders.

--- Later in debate ---

Power to restate retained EU law

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (Third sitting)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[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 [e-mail]. 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 2

Ayes: 7

Noes: 9

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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).

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

Division 7

Ayes: 6

Noes: 9

[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

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[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—]

Scottish Devolution Settlement: Retained EU Law

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)]

I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. The question whether provisions in the draft Independence Referendum Bill relate to reserved matters under the Scotland Act 1998 has been referred to the Supreme Court and a judgment is anticipated in the coming months. I am exercising the discretion given to the Chair to allow reference to the issues concerned, given their national importance.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of retained EU law on the Scottish devolution settlement.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for this morning’s debate, Mrs Murray, and I welcome the Minister to his new post.

Should this shambles of a Government manage to stumble on past the weekend, we are being told that their Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill will come before the House on 25 October. The Brexit freedoms Bill, as the Government like to call it, will give UK Ministers unprecedented powers to rewrite and replace almost 2,500 pieces of domestic law covering matters such as environment and nature, consumer protection, workers’ rights, product safety and agriculture, and that will be done with the bare minimum of parliamentary scrutiny. It is, in short, an ideologically driven deregulatory race to the bottom that will do enormous damage to our society and our economy.

The Bill, taken in conjunction with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, will fundamentally undermine and alter the devolution settlement by giving primacy to UK law in areas that are wholly devolved, such as environmental health, food standards and animal welfare. Today, I thought it would be useful to consider the Bill to examine what it could mean for Scotland and for the devolution settlement. I believe that any objective analysis would see not only that it puts at risk many of the high standards and protections that the people of Scotland have enjoyed and come to expect from more than four decades of EU membership, but that it is part of the Government’s long-term plan to undermine the devolution settlement and weaken our Scottish Parliament.

Under the Bill, and with the 2020 Act already in place, any legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament could be undermined by a Government here in Westminster whom we did not elect, even in matters that are wholly devolved. I will give a few examples. In the area of food standards, if the Scottish Parliament decided that we would remain aligned with the European Union and would ban the sale of chlorinated chicken, but this place decided that cheap, imported, chlorine-washed chicken was acceptable, there would be almost nothing the Scottish Parliament could do to stop lorryloads of chlorine-washed poultry crossing the border, with that chicken then appearing on our supermarket shelves.

Similarly, if the UK agreed a trade deal that saw the UK flooded with cheap, factory-farmed, hormone-injected meat, but the Scottish Parliament decided to protect Scottish consumers and Scottish farmers by adhering to the standards and protections that we have up to now enjoyed, under the terms of the Bill—again, backed by the 2020 Act—Westminster could override that and Scotland’s supermarkets could be inundated with inferior-quality cheap cuts of meat that under existing EU law would get nowhere near our supermarket shelves.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Is it not the case that this is not just about standards? On farming and farmers, we have only to look at the trade deal signed by the UK with Australia and New Zealand, which allows them a higher quota for importing lambs to the UK than is allowed for the entire EU. The EU is protecting our farmers whereas the UK Government are throwing them to the wind.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is correct, and I will expand on his point in a moment.

This Government and the Bill are an existential threat to Scottish agriculture. Scotland could decide to stick to long-established best practice in the welfare and treatment of animals, and retain the stringent checks on animals entering the food chain. However, if this place decides to deregulate, animals whose provenance is unknown, and whose welfare history is unaccounted for, can and almost certainly will enter the food chain. Most worryingly, if the Government decide to change food labelling standards, Scottish consumers not only could be subjected to chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-injected beef, genetically modified crops and animals of questionable provenance, but will probably not be able to tell what they are eating. The labelling regulations could be so diminished that the protections consumers now enjoy could be completely removed.

On Friday, I met with the Argyll and Bute regional board of the National Farmers Union Scotland. Its message was stark: farmers feel forgotten and undervalued. They have been battered by Brexit. They are barely surviving the energy crisis. At a time of falling incomes, they are at a loss as to how they will cope with the skyrocketing costs of feed and fertiliser.

Farmers know, too, that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill is a potential death sentence for an agricultural sector that requires a hefty subsidy. It needs that subsidy because it manages the land, keeps the lights on in our hills and glens, provides employment in rural communities, and helps stem the tide of rural depopulation while producing high-quality, high-value beef, lamb and dairy products. They know—we all know—that the lowering of food standards, the relaxation of rules on labelling and animal welfare, and the mass importation of inferior products will be an unmitigated disaster for Scottish agriculture. They are also painfully aware, as we are, that there is precious little that their democratically elected Scottish Parliament can do about it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Member will know that his opinion and mine greatly differ on this precious Union. I understand that, but it does not make us friends any the less; we are dear friends, and work on many things together. One of the reasons for that difference of opinion is seeing the impact that being slightly removed has had on constituents, which he has referred to. Undoubtedly there are some businesses that will thrive in dealing with the EU, but for the vast majority, basics are more expensive to come by. It is simply wrong to have no representative to speak on our behalf on EU legislation. We are painfully aware of that in Northern Ireland. It goes against everything we in a democracy hold so dearly and believe. Does he agree that no nation can knowingly subject itself to law with no voice?

[Brendan O'Hara]

I thank my dear hon. Friend, and reciprocate the feelings that he has expressed. Every community needs a voice, and his community and farmers need a voice. His farmers need protection. I would caution that his farmers will look at the situation and also be extremely worried that, if the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 are spread across into Northern Ireland, as they may well be, they will face the same threats as Scottish farmers.

Angus Robertson MSP, Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, has already raised the Scottish Government’s serious concerns with the Secretary of State. The Minister will be aware that if the UK Government act in wholly devolved policy areas, they will do so without the consent of Scottish Ministers or the Scottish Parliament, and that will significantly undermine the devolution settlement.

As I said earlier, we will be in a deregulatory race to the bottom, a race 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 citizens’ expense. The Government say that the Bill will give the UK the opportunity to be bolder and go further than the EU in securing consumer rights and environmental protections, but there are clauses in the Bill that actively prevent Ministers from imposing any new regulatory burden, including any “administrative inconvenience”, on anyone.

Those clauses suggest very strongly that this is headed in one direction only, towards deregulation, and that that deregulation will make it easier to circumvent our legal obligations on food labelling for allergens, or not to pay holiday pay, or to roll back on the safe limits on working hours, or to change hard-won rights to parental leave. The Government will be aware of the fury that will follow should they move to weaken existing controls on polluting substances, or attempt to lower existing water or air quality standards, or dare to dilute the essential protections that defend our natural habitat and our wildlife.

Let me stress again: this is not a road that Scotland has chosen to go down. Rather, it is a road that Scotland is being dragged down. Our nation rejected this Tory Brexit fantasy, but our democratic wishes have been ignored at every turn. This is not of Scotland’s doing, but because of the constitutional straitjacket we find ourselves in, we are having this done to us by a Government that we did not elect.

The Minister cannot dismiss this as SNP scaremongering, because organisations as diverse as the Scottish Trades Union Congress, Food Standards Scotland and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have all warned about the adverse impact that the Bill will have. Frances O’Grady, Trades Union Congress general secretary, has described the Bill as “reckless” and said that

“vital protections could disappear overnight”.

The RSPB has warned that if the Government push ahead, they will be undermining the long-established and vital laws that are in place to protect nature. Food Standards Scotland said that the Bill poses

“a significant risk to Scotland’s ability to uphold high safety and food standards.”

Yet it seems that, in their desperate, deluded pursuit of the mirage of a Brexit Shangri-La, this Government are prepared to put at risk our natural environment, our food and animal welfare standards, consumer protections and workers’ rights. That is why the SNP will oppose the Bill every step of the way.

Not only are this Government coming for those rights and protections that we have enjoyed for decades, they are also coming for our Parliament. I repeat the call from the Scottish Government for the UK Government, even at this late stage, to perform one of their trademark—almost legendary—U-turns, and abandon this disastrous Bill. The Bill not only undermines the devolution settlement, it also diminishes the role of MPs here, with the plan to deal with everything via secondary legislation, conveniently avoiding the intense parliamentary scrutiny that the measures require. The Secretary of State claimed in his letter that this was about “taking back control”, but I have to ask: who is taking back control? It is not this Parliament.

As the Government have already gleefully announced to the press, the amount of parliamentary time required has been dramatically reduced. It seems that, for this Government, taking back control means putting a group of hand-picked party loyalists on to a delegated legislation Committee—a Committee with a built-in Government majority, which will be able to bulldoze through change after change after change, as instructed by the Government. The history of delegated legislation Committees is not particularly encouraging. In the past 65 years, only 17 statutory instruments have been voted down in DL committees. The last time that happened was in 1979. While there is certainly a role for DL Committees, I do not believe it extends to making wholesale and fundamental changes to vast swathes of the law on everything from environment and nature to consumer protection, workers’ rights, product safety and agriculture, just to help this Government avoid proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Of course, the reason the Government are avoiding scrutiny is because, in their fervour to rid themselves of any lingering European influence, the zealots at the heart of this collapsing Government have arbitrarily put a sunset clause of 31 December 2023 in the Bill. Unless 2,500 pieces of legislation are removed and replaced—unless the Government give themselves an extension, of course—they will simply disappear off the statute book, leaving huge holes in UK law. It is a tactic fraught with danger as it once again introduces another totally unnecessary Brexit cliff edge that will be welcomed by nobody outside the inner sanctum of the European Research Group—sorry, I mean the Cabinet. It is further evidence of the panic at the heart of the Brexit project. They know the wheels have come off and that the Government are disintegrating before their eyes. Thankfully, Scotland has a way out and we will, as soon as possible, rejoin the European Union as an independent nation. I sincerely hope that the rest of the United Kingdom will find its way back to the European Union as well.

I will conclude with a number of questions for the Minister. Will he confirm that, should the Scottish Government decide to preserve all retained EU law, that would be respected and upheld by the Government here in Westminster? Does he accept that, as it is currently written, the Bill threatens sweeping controls here in Westminster over areas that are wholly devolved? Can he explain why, despite issues raised over the summer by the Scottish Government, the Bill was published with powers to undermine devolution? What impact assessment has been carried out on how the Bill will affect the sectors of the economy that will be most affected by it, particularly farmers in remote, rural, economically fragile areas? Will the Government accept and honour the legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament? If they do not, why will they not?

Finally, does the Minister agree that by allowing the UK Government to act in policy areas that are wholly devolved, and to do so without the consent of Scottish Ministers or the Scottish Parliament, that is in direct contradiction to the 1998 devolution settlement and particularly the Sewel convention, which was given a statutory footing in 2016?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair for the first time, Mrs Murray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) on bringing this debate. We never know during these debates which Minister will actually turn up, because we are never quite sure who the Minister is. We are always online trying to search the departmental webpages, if they are ever updated properly, to find out who the Ministers are. I welcome the Minister present to his place.

It is very strange that no Scottish Conservative MPs are here to take part in this important debate, but maybe this is a vision of the future after the next general election, where there will be no Scottish Conservative MPs available to be here. I am very disappointed that it was not put on record earlier that the entire contribution of the Scottish Labour party is here participating in this debate, unlike the SNP—only a small fraction of that entire party is present. I think Labour wins that particular battle.

I want to say a few words about this particular debate, which is similar to a debate we had in this Chamber a few weeks ago on the devolution to Scotland of employment law. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that this matter boils down to two things: one is an ideological attack on the rights and protections we have all enjoyed, whether in or out of the EU; the other is the Conservative Government who are putting these changes through. My contention in the previous debate was that this matter is not about two Parliaments up against each other, but about a UK Conservative Government making decisions that we find to be deplorable and not in line with what we would like to see. Perhaps a change of Government would make these things an awful lot easier to achieve.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Does the hon. Member agree with my substantive point that this is actually a power grab from this place against the Scottish Parliament? It is a power grab that gives primacy in law to what happens in Westminster, as opposed to areas that have hitherto been wholly devolved.

[Ian Murray]

The powers argument is a consequence of what the UK Government are trying to do. They want to get rid of all this EU law and this is the way they want to do it, so it is an ideologically driven piece of legislation and policy. The consequences of that are all the consequences he laid out in his speech.

There is one thing I want to say about power grabs. We have an argument—whether it be in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which is now on the statute book, or in this debate—where the Minister stands up and says, “This is a powers bonanza” and the SNP says, “It is a power grab”. It is probably neither, and it will depend on the decisions made by both Governments about what will happen, which is driven by the desire of the Scottish people. In the past few polls, nearly 70% of Scottish people want both Governments to work together. It surprises me that when the Scottish Government were talking about a power grab in the Internal Market Act, they were hiring all these new civil servants to deal with the new powers that were about to arrive. Of the 157 powers that have been repatriated from the European Union, 130 or 135 of them currently sit with the Scottish Government. These bland statements about power grabs and power bonanzas are rather unfortunate and are probably not of any use to the debate.

I agree with the hon. Member about the consequences that could happen if decisions in Westminster are made in line with how we think they will be made. We only have to look at our inboxes over the past few weeks to see the emails from all the nature organisations, such as the RSPB, as the hon. Member mentioned, Greenpeace and others, which were apoplectic at the possible consequences for protections from this attack on nature across the whole of the UK. The Minister has to tell us the driving force behind this. I think the Minister or the Secretary of State said that the reason for this piece of legislation is that if it was not in place removing or amended outdated EU laws could take several years. I ask the Minister to give us an example—if we did not have this Bill—of a piece of EU law that would take several years to repeal. I bet he cannot give us one because it is just another line from the Secretary of State’s speech that makes no reference to the reality of the situation.

The key point is that we were all told at the Brexit referendum that EU law would be repatriated to the EU, but it would be the minimum standard and it would be built on. We seem to have a bonfire of regulation and a clumsy drive from this Govt and the previous two Conservative Governments since the EU referendum to rip up regulations and turn the UK into the Singapore of Europe. Rather than working in the national interest, it is always about what is in the party’s interests.

Hon. Members have asked some questions. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) rightly talked about the impact on devolution. All these things have an impact on devolution. Asymmetric devolution across the United Kingdom gives us these kinds of issues, and it is driven by a Government that wishes to create them. We have a situation where the UK Government and the Scottish Government want to rip up the devolution settlement. That is just a fact. Whether the Government realise it, every time they bring a piece of retained EU legislation to this House, they just give succour to the nationalists who wish to rip up the devolution settlement to deliver independence.

While we have just had a huge discussion about this Conservative Government wrenching the UK out of the European Union with a hard Brexit, we have the hard Scexiteers here, who want to do exactly the same. [Interruption.] They like that, don’t they? They are hard Scexiteers who wish to do exactly the same, and it is not my words: it is the words of the economic paper that the First Minister launched on Monday. There would be a hard border between Scotland and England for goods, services and probably people. They want to seamlessly rejoin the EU with a 12% deficit, using someone else’s currency with no central bank as a lender of last resort with no money. The paper itself has been trashed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It was trashed by Robert McAlpine, who is a massive supporter of independence, who asks, “How do we get out of this crazy mess?” While we have a discussion about hard Brexiteers, we have three hard Scexiteers here—I will give way to one of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

rose—

[Brendan O'Hara]

rose—

[Dean Russell]

I give way to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South.

[Dean Russell]

I shall assume that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute wanted to make the same point. To be absolutely clear, the premise of the Bill is to enable the conversations to happen among the UK Government and the devolved Governments and to enable us to look at the best way to ensure that we have very high standards in our approach around a whole load of areas. It is not about trying to reduce the quality of food or any of those things. The UK has always had very high standards. I will come to that later in my speech.

[Brendan O'Hara]

rose—

[Dean Russell]

I want to make progress if I may, because I will come to those points—

[Brendan O'Hara]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Dean Russell]

Okay, I will take an intervention, but I am going to come to those points later.

[Brendan O'Hara]

The Minister has failed to answer the question, which is very specific. He talks about conversations being had, but this is not about conversations. It is about where decision making and power lie. If the Scottish Parliament decided that chlorinated chicken was banned, but the UK Parliament decided that chlorinated chicken was okay, what would stop chlorinated chicken appearing on supermarket shelves in Scotland? That is a very specific question.

[Dean Russell]

I take the intervention. The key point here is that this is about the Bill, and the conversations between the UK Government, through devolution, with the Scottish Government and others are yet to be had. We have to have those conversations, and the Bill will enable them to be had and to look at how we put those regulations in place. The idea that the UK is somehow going to start to reduce quality with respect to food or any other area is a rehash of old, proven-to-be-untrue Brexit arguments, and it is not the case here. I am going to make progress and I will come to some of those points later.

The majority of the powers in the Bill will be conferred on the devolved Governments. Conferring those powers will provide the devolved Governments with the tools to reform retained EU law in areas of devolved competence. That will enable the Scottish Government to make active decisions about the retained EU law that is within their devolved competence, for the benefit of citizens and businesses throughout Scotland. When using the powers of the Bill, the Government will use the appropriate mechanisms, such as the common frameworks, to engage with the devolved Governments. That will enable us to take account of wider context and allow for joined-up decision making across the UK.

The Government believe that a sunset provision is the quickest and most effective way to remove or amend all retained EU law on the UK statute book. That will incentivise genuine reform of retained EU law. The reform is needed, and it will help to drive economic growth. It will also enable us to capitalise on the rich vein of opportunity afforded to us via Brexit.

The sunset provision will of course not include Acts of Parliament, or indeed Acts of the devolved legislatures. It is right that an Act that has received proper parliamentary scrutiny should be the highest law of the land. Most retained EU law, however, sits on our statute book as a constitutional anomaly—somewhere between primary legislation and secondary, neither here nor there. It never received proper parliamentary scrutiny, and unless we actively want it, it ought to be removed.

The power to preserve specified pieces of retained EU law will also be conferred on the devolved Governments. That will enable the Scottish Government to decide which retained EU law they wish to preserve and assimilate, and which they wish to allow to sunset within their devolved competence.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dean Russell]

I will take one more intervention.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Time is pressing, so I appreciate the Minister giving way. Given what he has just said, will he confirm now that should the Scottish Government decide to preserve all retained EU law, that would be respected and upheld by the Government here at Westminster?

[Dean Russell]

I will come to that later, so the hon. Gentleman will get his answer. Ultimately, we are saying that where there is devolved competence and where there is engagement on that, absolutely we will work together on it.

I want to assure the House that the Government are committed to ensuring that the Bill works for all parts of the UK. We have carefully considered how it will impact each of the four nations, in close discussion with the devolved Governments, and it is of paramount importance that our legislatures function in a way that makes certain that we can continue to work together as one.

The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that the Bill is consistent with the devolved arrangements, and we remain committed to respecting the devolution settlements and the Sewel convention. Indeed, the Business Secretary has made that commitment clear in his engagement with Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, Angus Robertson. The Government have sought legislative consent from the devolved legislatures for the provisions in the Bill that engage the legislative consent motion process. Both I and the Business Secretary look forward to engaging with the devolved Governments on the process of seeking legislative consent as the Bill progresses through Parliament. Alongside that, the Business Secretary and I remain committed to engaging with our devolved counterparts as the Bill moves through. We will work together to address any concerns and ensure that the Bill works for all parts of the UK.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute asked about devolved settlements. We are not changing the constitutional settlement. The Scottish Government will still have control of areas within devolved competence, including food standards. On workers’ rights, the UK has one of the best records on workers’ rights—those high standards were never dependent on the EU—and we intend to continue them. Environmental protections will not be weakened. We want to ensure that environmental law is fit for purpose and able to drive improved environmental outcomes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara]

I thank everyone who has taken part this morning. What we lacked in numbers we certainly made up for in quality. I thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), and even the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who, despite his best efforts to go on a fishing expedition very early on this Tuesday morning, will have noticed that I and my colleagues are far too long in the tooth to bite, particularly this early in the morning.

I thank the Minister for what he said. I am delighted that he confirmed that, should the Scottish Government decide to preserve all retained EU law, that would be respected and upheld by the Government here in Westminster. But nothing that he has said has altered the fact that on the rights and protections—

[Dean Russell]

I just want to be clear on the wording that the hon. Member used. I said that if the Scottish Government want to preserve all areas within their competency, the UK Government will respect that. I want to be clear that that is what was being repeated back.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Okay—as we dance on the head of a pin this early in the morning. What it does not change is the fact that our rights and protections that we have enjoyed for 40-odd years in the areas of food standards, animal welfare and environmental protections are under threat. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun says, why would the Government legislate to ensure that we cannot get access to the biggest market in the world sitting on our doorstep? Nothing the Minister has said changes my position that they are coming for our Parliament. The sooner we are out of this Union and rejoin the European Union, the better.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of retained EU law on the Scottish devolution settlement.

Energy Update

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I am concerned to hear about the hon. Lady’s constituent. Indeed, many of all our constituents are facing difficulties and prospective difficulties at this time. In relation to her constituent’s car, the Government have reduced fuel duty at the cost of about £5 billion to the Exchequer, and that will help people to run their cars. We are acutely aware of the difficulties faced by consumers, but we have risen to the challenge. The £37 billion package announced for this year so far is a considerable amount of public spending to help consumers with bills, and there will be more to come.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Many people across rural Scotland depend on heating oil to heat their homes. Today I spoke to someone who was quoted 110p a litre, with a minimum delivery of 500 litres. Of course, once heating oil is gone—when the tank is empty—it is gone. If people cannot afford to refill the tank, they cannot heat their house. With winter approaching, that is a potential death sentence for vulnerable people in an already economically fragile part of Scotland. What will the Government do to help those people, and what reassurances can the Minister give to those who rely on heating oil that they will be protected from skyrocketing fuel prices this winter?

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Member for that question because many consumers, up and down this United Kingdom, are dependent on heating oil. They are off the gas grid and heating oil is the principle means of heating their home. We need to be keenly aware of that, as the Government are.

It is worth recognising that there is a competitive market for heating oil. I often speak with the UK and Ireland Fuel Distributors Association, which is a trade body, and with consumer groups in relation to heating oil. Obviously, prices have risen; they are closely related to the price of kerosene, for example, which has been quite volatile this year.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that households that have an electricity charging point will benefit from the £400 payment, and others will benefit from the payments to the more vulnerable, so it would not be right to suggest that those who use heating oil are not recipients of Government assistance. There is also the £1.1 billion home upgrade grant, through which the Government have committed to improve funding for energy efficiency and clean heating upgrades for those dependent on heating oil and other liquid fuels.

Post Office Network

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl, for this important debate on the sustainability of the post office network. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on securing it and on her excellent contribution, which highlighted the ongoing crisis in the Post Office and the pressure faced by those who have to work in extremely difficult circumstances to deliver a service on which so many of our constituents rely.

There have been some excellent contributions, none more so than that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). The Government should be in no doubt about the strength of feeling about this issue and the support that the post office has from Members of all parties. I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, who said that the post office network is being run down and set up for future privatisation, which would have absolutely catastrophic consequences, particularly for those of us who represent and live in rural communities.

I hope the Government take heed of what is being said here today and start to show the level of commitment required to sustain—and, indeed, grow—the post office network. As we have heard, it is a lifeline service for many people living in rural areas, such as my constituency of Argyll and Bute—a vast area covering more than 7,000 sq km and taking in 26 inhabited island communities.

I have my doubts about whether that will be the case. Last month, when responding to an Adjournment debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), the Minister said that, under this Government, the post office network is

“at its most stable in decades”,

and that

“Government funding required to sustain the network has drastically decreased and is set to decrease even further in future years.”—[Official Report, 27 March 2019; Vol. 657, c. 477.]

That is not the message that my constituents want to hear from the Government. The Government have achieved what they describe as stability, but we in Argyll and Bute have lost 20% of our post offices in the past 13 years. In the past two years, six post offices have closed their doors, yet the Government still say they plan to decrease funding drastically in the coming years. We can have no faith in them.

Our rural communities know how important local post offices are in sustaining already economically fragile parts of the country. I am afraid that, as with so many other areas of their lives, when it comes to protecting the rural post office network, they can have no faith that the UK Government will act in their best interests.

It is not just the ongoing threat of closure that threatens many of our rural post offices, but the additional workload being placed on them as high street banks abandon rural Scotland as fast as their desire to make a quick buck will carry them. In the time remaining to me, I want to look at the effect that bank closures are having on the rural post office network. Small rural post offices, which are often community-run, were not designed, and are simply ill-equipped, to replace long-established banks. I want to use as an example the community post office in the village of Cairndow.

Cairndow sits on the shores of Loch Fyne, and is situated 10 miles from Lochgoilhead and Inveraray. Several years ago, the community identified the need for a post office in the village, and in 2015, thanks to the dedicated hard work of local people and Here We Are, a local third-sector organisation, the people of Cairndow celebrated the opening of their brand new community-run post office. The new venture has been hugely successful, and I pay tribute to the people at Here We Are and the entire community of Cairndow for what they have achieved.

It is not all good news. Because of a seemingly endless programme of bank branch closures in Argyll and Bute—most notably, the Royal Bank of Scotland’s decision last year to close the last bank in the town of Inveraray—what was a small community-run post office designed simply to meet the needs of a small rural population has become a replacement bank.

Although the post office at Cairndow has always been more than happy to provide a banking service to small local businesses that cannot manage the 60-mile round trip to the nearest bank in Dunoon or Lochgilphead, it fears that it is now in danger of becoming swamped. It has become the bank of choice for many large international businesses that operate in the local area. It reports that its levels of cash-handling have gone through the roof in recent months, as has the amount of time staff have to devote to it. So much of its time is now taken up providing banking facilities for people: it feels that its core business—providing a post office service—is suffering as a result. As we have heard, it is not even as if the efforts to provide that extra service are well rewarded. It is being asked to fill the gaps left by high street banks as they desert rural Scotland.

After all, it is that post office, along with other rural post offices, that has to shoulder the burden of all the additional security concerns. It now holds a great deal more money than it ever had before, and it has had to put appropriate measures in place for the increased cash on the premises. Despite all that extra banking work and the extra security concerns that come with it, it receives scant reward for providing that increased level of service. As one leading member of Here We Are at Cairndow said to me just yesterday,

“We didn’t set this up to become a community bank. We set this up as a community post office, and now we feel as if we are subsidising both the bank and the Post Office.”

When the Minister responds, I would appreciate it if she advised those people at Cairndow that something practical will be put in place to ensure that they are able to continue as a community post office, rather than having the burden of being a replacement bank forced on them. Despite the loss of 20% of my constituents’ rural post offices in the last 13 years and the funding cuts that the Minister has announced, will she provide a cast-iron guarantee to them that there will be no more post office closures in Argyll and Bute?

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

I do not intend to go too far off track, but I must respond. It is absolutely typical of the Tories to say that we have to fix every mess and failure at the expense of the Scottish public and services in Scotland. That is a ridiculous proposition.

Returning to the core debate, there was enormous consensus among hon Members. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) pointed out that businesses across communities lose money if post offices close. She said that people are cynical about the politics of the Westminster Government, who make no commitment to post offices and then wring their hands at the consequences. She talked about hand-counting thousands daily, and everything that involves. She talked about the post office being the last place for face-to-face contact in communities. It is more than just a commercial entity, and older and more vulnerable people are the most affected by closures.

It is telling that Later Life Ambitions, a pensioners’ organisation, points out that the post office is important in day-to-day life, because older people, who are often the most vulnerable people in society, rely on post offices. They are a lifeline; they offer access to pensions and benefits, and let people pay bills, get advice and even socialise. Does the Minister acknowledge that this is a social issue, too? For those who do not or cannot communicate digitally, post offices are very important. They are used by 42% of consumers over 65, and 31% of disabled consumers.

The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) talked about working with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, and about post offices needing to be run in the interests of people. That is absolutely correct. In talking about franchising policy, he highlighted that WHSmith has been voted worst retailer. It is notable that the jobs it advertises are particularly low-paying.

In a very telling speech that hit home with me as a fellow MP representing a rural community in the highlands and islands, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) shared concerns that post offices are being run down and prepared for privatisation. He talked about the catastrophic effect that can have on rural communities, particularly in the highlands and islands, where often there are huge distances between the services that people rely on. My hon. Friend talked about the stability policy of the UK Government; Argyll and Bute has lost 20% of its post offices, with six post office closures in the last two years. The drastically reduced funding has put post offices in a very vulnerable place, and the public have no faith in the UK Government protecting rural post office services. He was also right to point out the success of Cairndow, and to congratulate those people on taking matters positively into their own hands to try to do something for their communities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) talked about the transaction charges, and so he should, because his work should be commended. I congratulate him on forcing action, not only through his Adjournment debate, but through continued pressure and engagement. He talked about the impact of the systemic degradation of services in towns and villages and, importantly, the issue of community designation. It is a good thing to have community designation, but the problem is that rural and semi-rural post offices are losing out, while cities can gain. The criteria are too black and white, especially the three-mile rule.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) talked about the unsustainable model imposed on the post office network, and shared his concerns about franchising. When there are bank closures in our communities, we have all been told, “Don’t worry; the post office network will pick up the slack.” He also talked about the toxic conditions for the people who run post offices, many of whom got into the job because they thought it was a great thing to do for their communities, a proper career and a valued position in the community. My goodness, how they have been let down by how they have been treated. He predicted a massive failure over the next five years if there is no action.

[Philip Davies in the Chair]

Post offices are not just business; they are focal points for many communities. This issue is about communities and their health and wellbeing, as well as the national and local economic impact. For many, the shiniest jewel in the crown has been prised out and cut up for the profit of those who do not rely on or even need a post office. In 2017, Citizens Advice found that people valued their community post office more than a local pub, a bank branch or a library. Does the Minister acknowledge that importance? In rural areas, 36% of businesses use post offices at least weekly, and 62% of small businesses use them at least once a month. Over 500,000 businesses are registered in rural areas—that is one in four companies—and they contribute more than £200 billion to the economy. These people are creatives and innovators who use post offices to send goods and pay bills. According to Citizens Advice, eight out of 10 of them will lose money if local post offices are closed. Will the Minister take notice of that?

We in the SNP—and others, as we have heard—are clear that we want our Post Office to remain robust, and to serve our businesses and communities, but that is not a priority under the UK Government’s management. Consequently, the Government should devolve power to us to ensure that the Post Office is protected. Under the current policy, there has been a mass exodus of postmasters, often leaving communities branchless. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw should be commended for arguing for fair hourly rates for postmasters, but the Minister must undertake to commission independent analysis and answer the big questions about fairness.

As we have heard, pay levels are leading to a major exodus of postmasters. Rather than watch the Post Office crumble, the UK Government should support postmasters and ensure fair remuneration. As was pointed out, the publicly owned Post Office’s North Star initiative is aiming for a £100 million profit by 2021. That is all very good, but postmasters’ pay has declined by £107 million since 2012. The majority of postmasters now earn less than the minimum wage. In many cases, they cannot even get out; their businesses are now too unattractive to sell.

The National Federation of SubPostmasters has raised the issue of sub-post office closures with the UK Government and the Government-owned Post Office Ltd. The federation’s spokesperson said:

“Our records show around two-thirds of closures are due to the resignation of the sub-postmaster— and a survey of our members conducted earlier this year gives an insight into why sub-postmasters are resigning. Income is dropping over time, the majority earn less than the national minimum wage for running their post office—and therefore earn less per hour than their staff—and as many as a third took no time off last year.

We agree with Marion Fellows that Scotland has been hit hard by sub-post office closures. This is a particular problem for rural areas in Scotland, as well as across the UK, where people rely on their local post office for vital postal and banking services.”

Action on transaction charges is welcome, but why wait? Why not give the same rates to local branches and main post offices? Around 90% of post offices in the highlands and islands are local branches, not main post offices. Will the Minister challenge that with the Post Office? As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw pointed out, there must be a vision for the post bank, and it should be properly funded.

There is more pressure on post offices than ever, given the loss of local banks through short-sighted closures by the Royal Bank of Scotland, Halifax Bank of Scotland and others. Now we find that TSB is starting the process of shortening hours, which is always the cynical first move in reducing a branch’s viability to the point where its closure can be justified. As we heard, all those banks say, “It’s okay, you can use the post office,” but we cannot if they have gone.

Even where post offices remain, Robert Cockburn, a constituent of mine who runs the post office in Drumnadrochit, says the workload is absolutely punishing. He often has to run his business as a single-manned operation, so while he goes behind the screen for the time it takes to deal with a transaction, he loses out on custom from people who come to his business and might have bought goods to help sustain him.

[Brendan O'Hara]

While we have been sitting here, I have received an email informing me that yet another bank branch in Argyll and Bute is planning to cut its numbers ahead, I believe, of closure. The TSB branch in Dunoon now says its customers have to travel what it calls 7 miles to their nearest branch, seemingly unaware that that journey involves a ferry and a bus. Yet again, it is death by 1,000 cuts to financial services in rural Scotland. Will my hon. Friend join me in utterly condemning that latest move.

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I join him very robustly in condemning that move. As I said a moment ago, shortening hours is the first step towards making a branch unviable so it can no longer do business. The call then goes out, “Don’t worry, the post office will pick up the slack.” As we know, that is not always the case.

My constituent Mr Cockburn says it is punishing to run his post office. He told me:

“It is a combination of everything. The work that we have is onerous and does not pay enough money to cover your time. The business banking, for example, we get paid 23p per £1,000 that we count. That’s nothing. You think, on minimum wage, how long it takes you to count £1,000. If you make a mistake or”—

more commonly—

“if the customer’s made a mistake you have to double check it. We get paid for taking a parcel over the counter, but the Post Office took 6% away from us on that because they gave us a faster printer and said we could print labels faster. It’s ridiculous.”

A rural post office gets to print a label faster, and the Post Office cuts its money for doing so. That is ridiculous.

The UK Government must ensure that there are more incentives for new and existing postmasters to maintain and open post offices. Union officials rightly have been clear about the folly of closing Crown offices and franchising the service. As we have heard, franchises often advertise jobs at a lower rate than the Post Office pays. As the all-party parliamentary group on post offices found, the Post Office has no back-up plan in the event of WHSmith failing to deliver the service.

I hope the Minister has taken clear cognisance of what has been said during the debate by people representing their constituencies and communities, the vulnerable people who need these services most, and the postmasters who are being forced into subsistence living and locked into a business they simply cannot afford to get out of. This is a matter of having a social conscience and ensuring that communities have something they can rely on, not just now but into the future. If post offices are going to have to pick up the slack of bank closures and other things, they should be allowed to become sustainable in order to do that job.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), and the hon. Members for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), on securing today’s important debate on the sustainability of the post office network.

As I have said many times before, I am always happy to challenge the Post Office on specific concerns that MPs have at constituency level. I am therefore grateful to hon. Members for their contributions. It is encouraging to see that all sides of the House share common cause in ensuring that a vital national asset continues to serve our constituencies for many years to come. It is because of the key role that post offices play in service to their communities that our 2017 manifesto committed to safeguarding the network.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Will the Minister join the consensus across the House to support the retention of the post office network in public hands?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

If the hon. Gentleman would allow me the courtesy of getting to the content of my speech, that would be really useful. I am still at the start. We made a commitment in our 2017 manifesto and are committed to safeguarding the network. The Post Office is publicly owned and it is a commercial business operating in competitive markets. The Government set the strategic direction for the Post Office to maintain a national network, accessible to all, and to do so in a more sustainable way for the taxpayer. We allow the company the commercial freedom to deliver that strategy as an independent business.

I must point out some of the language and words used in the debate, such as “managed decline” and “undermining the network”, and the idea that it is ideological of the Tories to run down post office branches. As the Minister responsible for post offices, I find that incorrect and inaccurate. I do not regard Government investment of £2 billion over eight years as a so-called managed decline or undermining of the network, and I do not regard the establishment of 450 new locations since 2017 as managed decline or an undermining of the network. As hon. Members have outlined, at the end of March there were 11,547 branches. That number is as stable as it has been in many decades, so I refute those claims.

Draft State Aid (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2019 General Committees

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The Government made it clear in the intergovernmental agreements on the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 that state aid would be a reserved matter. The SI before us relates to a UK-wide regime and would transpose retained EU law into UK law. Any further discussions or decisions on future state aid policy that might or might not be introduced will obviously not be for this Committee. As I said in a previous answer to the hon. Member for Sefton Central, I will happily provide him with the letter to which he has referred. However, I point out that the Secretary of State has communicated comprehensively with colleagues and with the devolved Administrations, and through officials. There has been no lack of communication between the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations.

The hon. Member for East Lothian referred to appeals against decisions. The CMA is not the arbiter; it will be the decision maker, and the courts—either the High Court in England and Wales, or the Court of Session in Scotland—will make the judgment on an appeal. Looking at how the EU regulations already work, the Commission makes a decision and the courts then make a decision on an appeal. All law will always be a mixture of legal judgments and future policies. There is no contradiction in what I have said. The CMA will effectively be the decider and will hold the powers, and it will be for the courts to decide whether that decision is correct.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I appreciate the fact that the Minister is taking so many interventions. This SI, like so many others, seems completely half-baked. Given that there is such opposition to it in Cardiff and Edinburgh, can she tell us whether the discussions with the devolved Administrations have ceased, or are they ongoing? Has any thought been given to what indemnifying policy or process could be given to the Scottish and Welsh Governments, should they be found in breach of these state aid regulations?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the devolved Administrations are highly aligned with the policy position on setting a UK-wide state aid regime. Our conversations with the devolved Administrations are ongoing and will continue as they are. The Secretary of State has made it very clear that he is committed to meeting the devolved Administrations to discuss these matters and many others in relation to how we exit the EU. In fact, the Prime Minister has made it clear that, were we to enter into an agreement with the European Union and therefore not be in a no-deal situation, we would extend the opportunities for devolved Administrations to feed in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If we entered into an agreement, we would go into an implementation period, and we would be bound by EU rules as they stand until the end of that implementation period. In any arrangement for our future relationship with the European Union, state aid would be subject to debate and to further negotiation and agreement. It would not be right for me to anticipate that. I am here to talk about a no-deal scenario and the legislation in front of us.

On the hon. Gentleman’s shopping list of state aid requirements—the things he would like to spend money on—I point out that the Post Office effectively does receive state aid. We subsidise the Post Office. We have maintained our network of 11,500 post offices, unlike previous Governments, who have undertaken programmes of closures. I am proud to stand here as the Minister responsible for post offices and say that the Post Office is in a much better place financially than it has been for many years. We are committed to delivering postal services in rural areas, and there are a number of funds to support that. I am determined that that will continue under these regulations.

It is a matter for debate whether, how, where and how much money will be granted to other worthy schemes. It is not for us to decide today which schemes and which parts of the country will receive additional funding. This debate is about the regulations—the rules—and how those decisions will be made. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s wants, but this debate is about the rules for agreeing or disagreeing.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about support for the regions. As he will know, the regional growth fund and most of the regional support funds granted through state aid are covered by the block exemption regulations, so these measures do not stop the Government supporting local communities and regions where required. This Government operate a successful industrial strategy and are determined to continue to invest in research and development, regional growth and opportunities, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. Let us not forget the funding available from the British Business Bank, which is an example of where those regulations have been used to benefit SMEs and provide access to finance.

On the devolved Administrations, I repeat that the Government consider the regulation of state aid to be reserved to the UK Government. However, individual choices about how and when to give aid within that framework are for public authorities, including devolved Administrations, to make. The devolved Administrations will have full autonomy in state aid case management and in dealing with the CMA. As I outlined, I recognise that there is a difference of view about whether the regulation of state aid is a reserved matter. However, given that the UK Government are closely aligned with the devolved Administrations on the substance of the policy, and given the limited scope to depart from mirroring the EU regime using powers in the regulations, it is not necessary to resolve that question now. The Government will continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations on the development of state aid policy.

[Brendan O'Hara]

The Minister says it is not necessary to decide that now. If not now, when will it be decided?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

As I have already outlined to the hon. Gentleman, the Government are clear that we believe state aid to be a reserved matter. I have tried to outline that a number of times, and I have outlined that there will be no loss to the devolved Administrations.

As I have said, under the current regulations, when the devolved Administrations decide to give aid they have to notify the European Commission. In the future, they will notify the CMA. As I have outlined, the Secretary of State will continue to consult, work with and have conversations with the devolved Administrations on any future aid policy. The Secretary of State has made that commitment, and there is no reason to suspect that it will not happen.

Exiting the European Union (Structural and Investment Funds)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Like the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), we will not oppose this SI this afternoon, but we do share many of the deep concerns, particularly in relation to what exactly the UK shared prosperity fund will be and what it will mean. Of course, this SI would not be necessary if the Government would simply take the threat of a no-deal Brexit off the table. They could, if they so choose, remove that threat today, but instead they have decided—very cynically, in my opinion—that it is too politically useful to have as a tool in order to bludgeon MPs into supporting a deal that we have already rejected as the clock runs down towards 29 March. However, if the Government insist on preparing for the possibility of a catastrophic no-deal scenario, then yes, this SI does allow for the transfer of regulations in order to ensure the continued roll-out of the European agricultural fund for rural development and the European maritime and fisheries fund. The SI will continue to allow payments until their closure after the end of the current 2014-20 programming period.

It is worth pointing out the huge importance of those funds to communities right across Scotland, particularly in remote and peripheral areas such as my Argyll and Bute constituency. The EU structural funds in Scotland are worth up to €941 million across the EU budget period, for use in economic development. Over £500 million a year comes to Scotland from the common agricultural policy in the form of direct payments to farm businesses and rural development funding. The UK Government have provided short-term guarantees to replace most CAP funding until 2022 following Brexit, but no firm commitments have been given about replacing the CAP in the long term.

[Mr Simon Clarke]

It is important to note that the Agriculture Bill provides for ensuring that environmental incentives are aligned with good practice in agricultural management. I think that hon. Members of all parties want that. It will be a welcome change from the way in which the CAP simply rewarded the largest farmers.

[Brendan O'Hara]

The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that we are discussing the SI before Report stage of the Agriculture Bill. I will come back to that. I do not necessarily defend the way in which the CAP is administered—the way in which every pound is allocated—but it is important to recognise the amount of money and support that the CAP gives UK agriculture, particularly those less favoured area support scheme parts of my west of Scotland constituency.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a great speech. On the lack of certainty beyond 2022, are not those in farming communities planning a long way ahead for what they intend to do with their land? Certainty beyond 2022 would help them in their long-term planning for their stewardship role as well as for trying to make money.

[Brendan O'Hara]

My hon. Friend is right that it is vital that our farmers have the ability to plan into the future. At the moment, we enjoy that ability to plan long term, and the fear is that that is being taken away.

The common fisheries policy is co-financed in Scotland through the European maritime and fisheries fund, and Scotland is allocated 44% of the total UK figure, with £42 million—over 80% of the Scottish allocation—already committed to projects. Competitive funds are awarded directly by the European Commission to organisations, and that includes significant research, innovation and education exchange programmes. Since 2014, Scottish organisations have secured €533 million of Horizon 2020 funding, €65 million of Erasmus+ funding and €58 million of European Territorial Cooperation funding. Even since 2016, the European Investment Bank group has signed loans worth €2 billion for projects in Scotland.

These EU-funded programmes represent a vital source of funding to communities right across Scotland, but as I said earlier, they are particularly important to peripheral communities, which are in greater need of support. That is why, when the question was asked in 2016 whether we wished to remain part of the European Union, every single part of Scotland, without exception, urban and rural, said yes to staying in the EU. Our communities knew—and still know—the benefits of being a member of the European Union and the significant difference that that has made to their lives, economically, socially and culturally.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making some great points. Is he aware that urban areas such as Glasgow have hugely benefited as well? Since 2010, regional selective assistance grants to businesses in Glasgow have provided more than £83 million of investment and created 7,292 jobs.

[Brendan O'Hara]

It is absolutely remarkable that all 32 Scottish local authority areas—urban and rural, with the vast differences that exist between them—said with one voice that we as a nation wished to remain in the European Union. That cannot and should not be ignored. Its significance cannot be underplayed.

The loss of the funds I listed earlier could be absolutely devastating for our farming and fishing communities. As yet, there are no guarantees about the continuity of these funds beyond 2020. Here we are, a month from Brexit day, and there is still no certainty for our farming and fishing communities as they plan for the future.

[Kirsty Blackman]

My hon. Friend is making a great point about funding. Does he share my concern that these communities will be hit doubly, because there will also be changes to immigration, which may mean they do not have access to labour? Given that some of our areas are suffering from depopulation, which we have worked very hard to counter, does he feel this is a double whammy that rural communities cannot afford?

[Brendan O’Hara]

My hon. Friend may well have been looking over my shoulder, because I was about to come on to that very point.

My constituency of Argyll and Bute is suffering from massive depopulation. We are losing population at a rate that we cannot sustain. We need to get people to come and live, work, invest and raise families in Argyll and Bute, and much of our plan is predicated on EU nationals coming to Argyll and Bute to fulfil that function. We are being denied access not only to funding, but to people. Unless we can find a way of squaring that circle, which I do not think is possible, then I fear for the future. That is why independence, with an independent Scottish Government being represented as an equal partner in the European Union, is without doubt the only way that Scotland is going to prosper.

It has been reported just today that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary has told the National Farmers Union, in relation to UK farmers, that

“there is no absolute guarantee that we would be able to continue to export…to the EU”

under a no-deal scenario. This is the chaos into which we have descended.

As has been said, the UK Government have of course promised to replace EU funds with a much-vaunted UK shared prosperity fund, but despite all the repeated promises, still no detail or definition has been given about how that new structure will operate. May I ask the Minister when we will find out the detail of this shared prosperity fund, and when will we know exactly what it will mean for people across the UK, including for people in my Argyll and Bute constituency?

Will the Minister tell me, post-2020, when the cycle of these current EU funds comes to an end, how the proposed new system will operate? What consent and control will the devolved Administrations have in relation to this future funding model? What consultation has been carried out to ensure that this new system will have the consent of and remain consistent with the devolution settlement? Will he explain why, as I said to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), this statutory instrument has come to the Floor of the House before the Agriculture Bill and the Fisheries Bill have even reached their Report stages in this place?

Given that the President of the European Commission has promised to support Irish farmers financially in the event of a no-deal Brexit, why have the UK Government not offered similar support to Scottish farmers? Finally, does the Minister agree that so much of this worry, angst and trauma we are being put through and putting other people through could all be prevented if the Government simply took no deal off the table?