Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

David Jones Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) described the Bill as a pig in a poke. I think it is a pig in a poke that the Government have put lipstick on. We have heard about taking back control many times this afternoon, so I am at a loss to understand why Government Members would go through the Lobby in support of this Bill. In effect, a whole range of legislation will be wiped out, but they do not know what it is or what authority they are giving to the UK Government. They do not even know whether it will be 3,000, 4,000 or more pieces of legislation. It is extraordinary that a group of people who want to take back control are giving authority to the UK Government to do what they like without any scrutiny in this House—that is exactly the point of the Bill.

We have heard that we should not worry, because we will have statutory instruments and the ability to hold the Government to account, but the last time that the Government were defeated on a statutory instrument was in 1979—my goodness. Those who want to take back control talk about parliamentary sovereignty and the lack of democracy in the European Union, but all that they are doing is giving untrammelled powers to Ministers to do what they like. There is nothing that the Opposition or Government Back Benchers can do to effectively hold the Government to account. What an extraordinary set of circumstances.

SNP Members have always accepted that it is the right of others in other parts of the United Kingdom to determine their future. They want to leave the European Union, but we reject that—of course, we do not want to leave. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said, according to a recent opinion poll, 72% of the public of Scotland want to stay in the European Union. We have a tale of two different Parliaments moving in different directions. It is clear that Scotland is on a journey to independence and we will rejoin the European Union as a member, hopefully soon. To do that, however, we need to remain aligned with the European Union.

This is about democracy. We have referred to the Scotland Act 1998 on many occasions, as we did yesterday in the debate on section 35, and it is worth reflecting on the difference between what happened there and what is happening today. We have a Parliament in Edinburgh that we are proud of. There was a majority in that Parliament for legislation that was passed before Christmas, yet this Government in London can bring in legislation under the Scotland Act that strikes out an Act of the Scottish Parliament and there is nothing we can do about it. In this particular case, the legislation impinges on domestic legislation and devolved legislation in Scotland. The principle was established in the Scotland Act that in order to do that the principle of consent stood—the so-called Sewel convention. That means the devolved Government in Edinburgh, and in Cardiff and in Belfast, have to give consent for matters that affect domestic legislation. Yet we are told to go and stick it—the view of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government that this is not in our interest and we do not consent to it.

We saw yesterday that a UK Government can strike down a Bill of a Scottish Parliament. Why does not the Scottish Parliament have the right to say to this Government that they are doing that without our consent? That demonstrates to the people of Scotland that devolution as it works at the moment means Westminster continues to call the shots. Westminster determines what happens in devolved legislation. It is a wake-up call to the people of Scotland in the debate we are having on independence that, if we want to secure the right to determine areas such as the economy, the environment and consumer protection, we cannot rely on the Westminster Government to protect our rights and we cannot stop a UK Government interfering in what are devolved matters. If we want to secure that protection, if we want to secure our rights, if we want to celebrate the joys we had of European membership from 1973 until now, we need to take the final steps.

Look at what has happened in this House this week: there has been the threat to the right to strike, the threat to democracy in Scotland yesterday, and the threat to the values and protections we have built over many years in the European Union. All are being swept away. This is a United Kingdom turning the clock back, moving backwards. We want to move forwards as a member of the European Union. That is why today we will push our amendments and reject this Bill.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

The measures in the Bill are wholly necessary and greatly welcome. The retention of EU law after our departure from the European Union was certainly necessary in order to maintain temporary legal equilibrium and avoid gaps in the UK’s statute book. However, as time has passed, it has become increasingly anomalous for the United Kingdom to have a large body of foreign-derived legislation that is accorded supremacy over our own domestic law.

After almost half a century of EU membership, the United Kingdom has automatically absorbed a vast amount of EU legislation, which was either directly imposed or created by domestic subordinate legislation. Much of that legislation is probably obsolete. It was telling that around 1,400 items of EU law that everyone had apparently forgotten about were recently discovered in the National Archives. It seems self-evident that those pieces of legislation could not possibly have been of much practical utility if everybody had forgotten about them, but despite the fact that those items of law had been forgotten, they continue to have special status in our domestic legal system. Not only do they have supremacy over our domestic legislation, but they are interpreted in accordance with the general principles of EU law, rather than those of our own indigenous systems. They are a kind of EU cuckoo in the nest of the common law and Scots law.

It appears there are in total about 3,800 items of retained EU law, and the Government are entirely right to have decided to review them as quickly as possible and remove or assimilate them as appropriate. Furthermore, the Government are right to set out an ambitious timetable for the completion of that exercise through the sunset provisions of clause 1. Amendment 36 would hamper that process. The sunset provisions of clause 1 are of course intended to encourage and incentivise Government Departments to press on quickly with the exercise of identifying and reviewing individual items of retained EU law that affect them. Those Departments will then make a decision as to whether those items of law should be revoked, pursuant to clause 1, or assimilated into the domestic legal system, pursuant to clause 6. That is an entirely sensible process, which will ensure that those items of retained EU law that are not revoked pursuant to clause 1 become subject to the ordinary processes of the domestic legal system. That will be beneficial to businesses and citizens in that the well-understood principles of common law or Scots law, with their nimbleness and certainty, will apply to assimilated law rather than the unpredictable purposive approach of the EU legal system.

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

David Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Ms Ghani]

That assumes that we would not be treating people equally and fairly, and that is not the case when we legislate in the UK. I do not buy the idea that without EU law we are incapable of governing fairly in the UK. We are all elected to Parliament to represent our constituents, and we want to go home and tell our constituents, regardless of who they are and where they are from, that we are legislating fairly for everybody.

Why are we removing the principle of EU supremacy? That principle means that pre-2021 domestic law must give way to some pieces of retained EU law when the two conflict. That ensured legal continuity at the end of the transition period, but it is constitutionally anomalous and inappropriate, as some domestic laws, including Acts of Parliament, are subordinate to some pieces of retained law. That is the nub of the issue. We either accept the supremacy of the EU or accept the supremacy of this place. We can go round and round, but only one can prevail, and the Government believe that this Parliament should be supreme.

On the protection of fundamental rights and the equality principle, the principle of fundamental rights is generally not the exclusive preserve of the EU. We are proud of the history of the UK legal systems in which common law principles and legislation are well established to protect fundamental rights. For example, the principle of equality before the law is rooted deeply in British law. It was in 1215 that Magna Carta first acknowledged that British people had legal rights and that laws could apply to kings and queens too. The Equality Act 2010 has, to date, brought together more than 116 pieces of legislation into a single Act—a streamlined legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and to advance equality of opportunity for all. There is no equivalent to that Act in EU law, which shows how important it is that we are able to express principles such as equality before the law in a UK statute rather than relying on principles of EU law.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that a particular strength of our domestic legal system is the principle of stare decisis, whereby there is a strict rule that cases are followed in terms of precedent, which does not apply in the case of EU law?

[Ms Ghani]

Exactly. My right hon. Friend is incredibly knowledgeable on all those issues, and I am more than happy to defer to him; he is absolutely right. We reject new clause 8.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel]

Absolutely. Agencies such as the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Office for Environmental Protection use these regulations and case law all the time. They have evolved over time in many areas—water, nature and so on. There is now a real danger to those provisions, so I hope the Minister will consult with her colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and ensure we are not unable to undertake regulatory and enforcement action on the environment.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the danger of departing from precedent, but is that not substantially mitigated by clause 7(2)?

[Alex Sobel]

Having seen the opinions of different agencies—my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow mentioned the Office for Environmental Protection—and heard the evidence of the Bar Council, I am not sure that is the case.

[Mr Jones]

I hesitate to intervene again, but it is specifically provided for in clause 7(2) that, although precedent may not apply in the case of European decisions, it does in the case of domestic decisions. Of course, European courts are not bound by precedent, so we have a significant safeguard in clause 7(2) against the risks that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

[Alex Sobel]

I know from my brief in the shadow DEFRA team that some very important enforcement actions are extrapolated from European case law, because we were under the aegis of the European Court of Justice for a very long time. It is important that we are mindful of that.

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

David Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[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.

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

David Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir George. Before our lunch break, I was talking about some of the important employment rights that derived from EU legislation.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

I rather wondered why the hon. Gentleman was regaling us with this list of workers’ rights. Is he seriously suggesting that this Government would sweep away all those rights? If he is, does he not accept that that is scaremongering? Does he not agree that in many respects, workers’ rights in this country are far superior to those employed in many European countries?

[Justin Madders]

If the right hon. Member wants to give the public reassurance that there is no intention to sweep away the rights, this is the perfect opportunity to do so by voting for the amendments. I remind him that over the past 12 years the Government have doubled the qualifying period for unfair dismissal, introduced employment tribunal fees and cut down on consultation requirements for collective redundancies. The track record is a mixed one to say the least. A number of prominent Brexiteers have talked extensively about the need to reduce red tape and do away with employment rights, which I will discuss shortly.

If, as the right hon. Member says, there is no intention to remove employment rights, that is welcome news. It would be more welcome if the amendments were supported, because that would be consistent with the manifesto that Conservative Members stood on in 2019, which says on page 5 that

“we will legislate to ensure high standards of workers’ rights, environmental protection and consumer rights.”

This is the chance to legislate for that, starting with amendment 76 on workers’ rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

I can see the hon. Lady shaking her head—I am sure everyone can—but that is exactly what the legislation does. It is important to our constituents that we either do not deny that that is a possibility or we act to remove it. This amendment gives Conservative Members the ability to offer more than just words on this matter—to make a deed and ensure they protect the workers’ rights their constituents depend on.

We are very clear: if Government Members do not vote for this amendment, we will hold them to account and ensure that their constituents know that they voted to put those rights up for grabs with no guarantee that they will be protected. I can see Conservative Members smiling. Those smiles will not be smiles when our constituents ask why they put their rights into a process that will mangle them with 4,000 other pieces of legislation, with no guarantee that parliamentary time can be found and no guarantee of what it means for their employers. The right hon. Member for Clwyd West asked if it was scaremongering. It is not scaremongering. It is called accountability, and it is about time the Government listened to it.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Lady will know that this Government have consistently improved the rights of workers. It is a process that has continued over the last 12 years since this party has been in Government. Frankly, it does her no credit at all to raise these concerns with probably very vulnerable people, who will now be concerned about what she has said. She will have to be accountable for what she has said.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He was part of a Government who brought forward the Beecroft report, so I will take absolutely no lectures about frightening vulnerable people.

What I see before me is a piece of legislation that deletes those rights. That is beyond doubt. The question is whether they are going to be replaced. The right hon. Gentleman could argue that that is what Ministers have committed to. I am sure that is what the Minister will try to say—that we should not worry and that these rights will be replaced—but at this point in time when we are being asked to pass this legislation, there are no guarantees. There is nothing on the statute book. There have been no specific pledges on these rights.

We have a Government with a track record of seeking to try to delete and dilute rights. They were prevented from doing so by being members of the European Union at the time. Brexit has happened. Now the entire responsibility and onus on protecting those rights relies on Government Ministers and Members of Parliament holding the Government to account. That is exactly what we are doing today. Vulnerable people deserve to know the truth of what the outcome of this legislation will be.

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

David Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Grant]

Q If enacted as drafted, what difference will the Bill have on the application of EU law in Northern Ireland, in particular in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol and the Good Friday agreement?

Sir Stephen Laws: Frankly, that is not a question that I have prepared for, so I cannot say much. What I can say about the Good Friday agreement is that I am not sure that the protocol is relevant, because the law by which the protocol applies is the law of the things that are not retained just because we were carrying over the old law, which is what this Bill is mainly about. I am sorry; I have not looked specifically at the Northern Ireland aspects of the Bill.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

Q Good morning, Sir Stephen. The Bill abolishes the principle of the supremacy of retained EU law. Do you think that that is the right course?

Sir Stephen Laws: Yes, I do. I think that that is part of the confusion. If we are going to work out what the law means, it is important that the system for retained EU law should fit the system that we have for all other law, which is that the latest views of Parliament should count.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q In your initial response, you said that we should replace the laws quickly. In your view, with 2,100 or so regulations, how quickly can Parliament include those laws in UK law?

Sir Stephen Laws: I did not intend to imply that every one of the laws that will disappear needs to be replaced. A rational approach is to say that everything will cease to have effect unless we replace or retain it. There is a fallacy around legal reform that was criticised by Cass Sunstein, the American jurist and adviser to President Obama, which is that the law is very fond of the status quo: the law thinks that if we know the law already, changing or removing it must be less clear. I think that the status quo is something that needs to be justified just as much as any proposal for change needs to be justified.

We have had six years to look at all this law and to decide what of it is so valuable that we need to keep it. If people are now not able to defend specific bits of the status quo that they think are important, it is likely that they never will be able to. People will keep relying on the fact that it is the law already and must be clearer than a change, but to say that we should not change law because change is always more uncertain than keeping things the way they are is an argument against all legislation. We might as well wind up Parliament all together if we are to pursue that argument.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Marcus, you have asked a question and now you are interrupting Mr Fenhalls. Let him finish.

Mark Fenhalls: I want it to happen on the basis of evidence and with better proposals coming. What I do not want is to be lost in a world of uncertainty when we do not know what is coming, because, out of uncertainty, clients and people will stop doing business and they will not know where we stand.

[Mr Jones]

Q I want to come back to Ms Duhs on her point about the supremacy of retained EU law. As a consequence of the referendum in 2016 and all the legislation that has been introduced since then, this country has recovered its sovereignty. Do you not think it repugnant to that sovereignty to have a state of affairs whereby the laws enunciated by a foreign jurisdiction and applied by a foreign court continue to have supremacy in this country?

Eleonor Duhs: Retained EU law is domestic law. We domesticated the statute book, and we did that to provide certainty for businesses, for individuals, for the Government and for users of the law, so that they would know what the law was. That was a policy of maximum certainty. Of course, it is now for Parliament—this was in the White Paper on the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—to look at the law and to decide how it should change. We should absolutely make the most of the opportunities that we have, but it must be done in a thoughtful way. It must not be done in a rush and in a way that gives rise to legal uncertainty, because this is our domestic statute book and it needs to work for all of us. It needs high standards, it needs to enable trade and it needs to be the best post-Brexit outcome that we could have.

George Peretz: I can add something to that. It is slightly unfortunate that the EU withdrawal Act chose to continue what was called the principle of supremacy of EU law, because it is something of a misnomer. As Professor Barnard explained, it is actually a conflict-of-laws rule that gives priority to retained EU law over pre-Brexit statutes. You have to remember that pre-Brexit statutes were passed by Parliament, or made by Ministers, against an understood background that EU law was supreme, so you could say that when Parliament passed a pre-Brexit statute, it expected that statute to be inferior to EU law. It was the sea in which we were all swimming at that point, so I do not accept that there is anything constitutionally objectionable about having the conflict-of-laws rule.

Before you change the conflict-of-laws rule, you also have to think very carefully about its effect. One of the disappointments I have is that nobody in the Government or outside has produced any analysis at all of the concrete effect of removing the conflict-of-laws rule. I have likened it to pushing a very large button that says, “We do not know what happens if you push this button.” That is not a wise legislative technique.

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

David Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Order. I have three colleagues bursting to get in and we have only about seven minutes left, so short answers to short questions, please.

Barney Reynolds: In short, I am not suggesting we follow another country. The court interpretation provision is unprecedented. Abu Dhabi created something from scratch. It was not a transition from what they have got, which was based on the French-Egyptian model, to the common law model. We should do our own thing that works for the UK, and using our methods. I agree with that.

I agree with my colleagues on the uncertainties that can potentially arise. As a lawyer, I think we need to be very careful about those. I am concerned with them. My solution is to expand clause 7 and the list of things that should be borne in mind in order to execute an adroit shift to our common law method in a way that does not involve interpretation too much. I do not think you can remove the necessity for judges to exercise interpretative powers to execute the shift. Ultimately, this shift involves trusting the judiciary, which I do. I am fine doing that, and I do not think that there is a shortcut or a way in which we can box people in so they cannot use any discretion and nevertheless get to the same place. We have to trust people to do it.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

Q I will ask you about the principle of the supremacy of EU retained law, on which we had some conflicting evidence this morning. As you know, the Bill abolishes that principle. Do you think that it is a good thing that it does so, or are there any dangers inherent in that?

Sir Richard Aikens: You start from the fact that supremacy no longer exists unless it is retained by UK law. Half speaking as a lawyer, but I suppose half speaking as a commentator, I do not myself see why there should be any part of our UK law that is regarded as more supreme than another, unless specifically identified by Parliament as being necessary for some reason. In many other countries, there is the principle of the constitution, which is inevitably supreme and cannot be crossed; we do not have that and have never had that in our law, except perhaps in very specific circumstances.

In general, therefore, I would say that the whole idea of supremacy should be done away with, unless there is some specific reason in specific areas of law why it is necessary to retain it. For my part, I cannot think of anything that immediately comes to mind that is not already dealt with in our law—I am thinking in particular of human rights.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q My question follows on from what Jack was talking about earlier: the lack of parliamentary scrutiny and how it will be up to Ministers to make decisions on what we now understand might be as many as 3,500 individual pieces of EU legislation. Jack, what would you deem to be an appropriate level of scrutiny? The negative procedure for statutory instruments really means no parliamentary scrutiny at all—I think Stella mentioned that 1979 was the last time we managed to overturn one of those in the House. What would be an appropriate way, considering the number and importance of some of the regulations?

Jack Williams: I would start by not necessarily having what George Peretz KC calls the gun to your head, so that by the end you do not have time to scrutinise, because if you did take the time to scrutinise it, you might be left with the choice on the last day of what is there or nothing at all. That is obviously a difficult position for Parliament to be put into, having to save its own law somehow without a set procedure.

A direct answer to your question, however, is more scrutiny from Committees. One can imagine, for example, a Committee that was set up specifically to analyse all the changes that are coming to certain practice areas, with consultation and independent experts assisting—much like this Committee format. There is also the legislative reform order super-affirmative procedure, which builds and bakes in consultation and I think extra time in the process—the downside is exactly that last point, which is that it leads to delay. If you have a cliff edge of 2023, it is not particularly suitable, but it might give some ideas for inspiration. It is under a 2006 Act, but I think it has been used fewer than 50 times, precisely because it takes so much time and involves so much scrutiny—but if you are looking for an example.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you. David Jones, followed by Alex Sobel.

[Mr Jones]

Q Dr Fox, you postulated earlier that sifting committees might be established to assess whether individual pieces of retained EU law should be retained or dispensed with. Given the volume of retained EU law that we are aware of—and given that there may well be more—how long a process do you think that would be, and do you not think it would take up a huge amount of parliamentary time?

Dr Fox: It will probably not be that dissimilar to what we were talking about in terms of what we went through with the Brexit process. On sifting, the process proposed is that all negative instruments will be laid before the sifting committee in draft form. They would have 10 sitting days to decide whether to upgrade it to the affirmative procedure. The implications for parliamentary time will depend on what their decisions and recommendations are and whether the Government accept them, and therefore whether there has to be a delegated legislation Committee.

So yes, the potential is for an increased number of delegated legislation Committees. The reality is that doing all that before December 2023 is clearly nigh-on impossible; if your deadline is 2026 or 2028 and you smooth it out over time, then it is achievable. Again, it will depend on what the numbers are and what proportion of negative and affirmative instruments there are, depending on what the Government propose to do.

[Alex Sobel]

Q I could get into a debate about the numbers, but we have explored that quite a lot. I have a number of concerns about clause 15 and the sort of power grab that it makes. Ministers debated Henry VIII powers at length during the Brexit legislation and the EU Act. I am also concerned that clause 15 says that Ministers should not “increase the regulatory burden” when changing retained EU law. Last night, I was at a rewilding reception where the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer)—he must get a lot of outings in this Committee—said that sometimes they will improve regulatory arrangements. But clause 15 says that they cannot. Can they or can they not? If a Minister tells the sector informally that he can do that—perhaps we should ask a written question to see if he will say it formally—it creates uncertainty in the minds of non-governmental organisations, businesses and everyone else about the direction of travel in certain areas where it is intimated that the regulatory burden could be increased. My reading of clause 15, however, is that Ministers cannot increase the regulatory burden.

Dr Fox: It would depend on what the enhancement was—improvement, but if the improvement implied obstacles to trade or innovation, financial cost or administrative inconvenience, then no, it could not. It is hard to see how the kinds of enhancements that have been talked about—for example, in relation to animal welfare—would not necessarily imply an administrative burden; they therefore could not be done under this provision. That said, my understanding is that the former Secretary of State who was the architect of the Bill took the view that it was not appropriate for imposing new regulations through delegated legislation. That is not a bad thing, but the problem is that the nature of the exercise does not work in that context, because of the cliff edge.

Sir Jonathan Jones: May I add a brief comment? First, the power in clause 15 is undoubtedly very wide, so the Minister has huge discretion in deciding what is appropriate. The test about regulatory burdens is quite a slippery test, not least because the assessment is whether the overall effect of the change is to increase regulatory burden. All sorts of factors might weigh within that burden. It may be that the Minister decides to increase some procedural burden and reduce some other, and makes the assessment that overall the effect is to reduce the burden. Within that, however, could be all sorts of complexity. It is very difficult to predict in the abstract exactly how the power might be used.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Fysh]

That would be a strong incentive for the Government to get it right.

Shantha David: Indeed, but the timing is an issue. There is only just over a year to identify the pieces of legislation, and, as we mentioned, they are a tapestry of rights; we do not know where one right begins and another ends. I recommend the Employment Lawyers Association paper, which sets this out clearly.

[Mr Jones]

Q I imagine that you both have regular meetings with Ministers and senior Government officials. Is that correct?

Shantha David: I am a lawyer, so I do not necessarily.

[Mr Jones]

I do not think that that necessarily precludes you.

Shantha David: I am a practising lawyer.

[Mr Jones]

What about you, Mr Sharp?

Tim Sharp: We meet BEIS officials, for example, on a reasonably regular basis.

[Mr Jones]

Q So you have presumably raised your concerns about the issue of protecting workers’ rights and the potential impact of the proposals in the Bill?

Tim Sharp: We have raised our concerns about the protection of workers’ rights on a number of occasions when there has been speculation in the past, and have received lovely assurances, but I do not think we have met BEIS Ministers—there have been quite a few lately—in recent weeks. We certainly have not had the confirmation on workers’ rights. We have not been told if they are being retained.

[Mr Jones]

Q Have you actually requested comfort from those senior officials on the issue of workers’ rights? Have you asked for assurances?

Tim Sharp: I do not think anyone has been able to tell us anything about what decisions have been made.

[Mr Jones]

Have you asked for assurances?

Shantha David: I am unclear how that would assist—

[Mr Jones]

You are clearly concerned that there may be a wholesale scrapping of workers’ rights as a consequence of this Bill. Have you asked for any reassurance from the officials to whom you have spoken?

Shantha David: Can I—

[Mr Jones]

Sorry, I thought you had not met any officials.

Shantha David: No, but I am allowed to have an opinion, I think. I do meet officials from time to time.

[Mr Jones]

No, can Mr Sharp answer this? He is the person who has had the meeting.

Tim Sharp: We have met BEIS officials as the TUC. Have we asked for assurances? We have asked for information on what is planned on workers’ rights, and we have not been given any information on what is intended.

[Mr Jones]

Q It seems to me that you have not asked for any assurances, including in this evidence today. Frankly, you are raising hares that are completely illusory, and you know full well, don’t you, that there is no way that the Government would scrap the rights that you are concerned about?

Tim Sharp: It would be lovely to think that the Government will retain the rights as they are, but even in this benign scenario—it would be great if it happened—we are still going to have great chaos. Let us say that all the regulations are restated. We still have all the interpretive principles and the case law falling away. It has taken years of litigation to work out what entitlement workers have to carry over sick leave, for example. We do not know what the position might be after this Bill is passed. If you are a worker or a rep in a workplace, you do not want to be going to tribunal and to court to settle all these matters again, which is effectively what this Bill does. You want to be able to have a conversation—

[Mr Jones]

Do you not think a simple conversation might assist? You have not had it.

[The Chair]

I think you have pressed far enough on this, David. I would like to hear from Shantha.

Shantha David: Thank you very much. I am just going to remind Mr Jones that the equality impact assessment does identify that the removal of laws will have a detrimental effect. I am not sure that that is an assurance, because it is not. Beyond that, I do not know what help we have. I do not have access to Ministers in that way. It takes a while to get an answer.

Much like Mr Sharp was saying, the only way to clarify legislation as we go along and to get certainty in the law—we will not have it if provisions are sunsetted—is via litigation. That is something I am able to talk about. Litigation is costly, and pursuing appeals in the Senior Courts will take a long time because of the delays I mentioned. Given that tribunals and lower courts will no longer be bound by retained EU law, there is also the question of how long-established principles of precedent would work, and whether referrals would have to be made from tribunals and lower courts to the Senior Courts, which is what is envisaged in the Bill—either to go to the Courts of Appeal in Scotland, Northern Ireland and England and Wales, or to go directly to the UK Supreme Court. We are not aware—there is nothing mentioned in the paperwork, which is the only thing we have to work on—that that will be resourced in any way. We already know that it takes at least a year to get to the UK Supreme Court. There are only 11 justices. I am unclear as to who will make those decisions around interpretation.

Post Office: Compensation for Horizon Scandal

David Jones Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this matter and I think the interim payments are his constituent’s concern. If Horizon is deemed not to have been the main driver of what happened—the Post Office contested that—his constituent would not be entitled to the interim payments, but that does not stop them applying for compensation.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), I commend the Minister for his personal dedication to this cause. It is outstanding and I am sure that a lot of postmasters around the country appreciate it. The cost of the settlement that he has announced will fall on the public purse. In due course, it should be possible to seek indemnity in whole or in part from the companies—I suggest Fujitsu, most notably—that are responsible in whole or in part for this issue. What steps is he taking to ensure that they are made aware that, in due course, such indemnity will be sought?

[Paul Scully]

I think that all parties who will be in front of the inquiry will know exactly that. I do not want to pre-empt anything that we may do, but as my right hon. Friend says, the taxpayer clearly should not have to foot the bill. However, we want to make sure that we get all the answers before we take further steps.

Low-carbon Off-gas Grid Heating

David Jones Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of low-carbon off-gas grid home and business heating.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating today’s debate, which I hope will give hon. Members the opportunity to discuss the options available to the owners of rural homes and businesses that are not connected to the gas grid to decarbonise their properties. I hope to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister how that might be done, always bearing in mind the principles of choice and fairness.

One of the clear outcomes that emerged from the Climate Assembly that was commissioned by Select Committees of this House was that the path to net zero must be fair to people who live in different parts of the UK. Hon. Members will be aware of the need to phase out boilers using fossil fuels in all homes to meet the net zero challenge, and it is the Government’s aim to ban replacement natural gas boiler installations from 2035. Most homes are connected to the natural gas grid, and the debate continues as to whether those homes may eventually be powered by hydrogen or whether they will have to resort to electric heat pumps, but little attention has been paid to rural homes and businesses that are not connected to the gas grid. The primary solution proposed by the Government appears to be electric heat pumps, which are very costly and disruptive to install, or biomass boilers, which come with air pollution concerns.

Over 4 million people live and work in our rural communities. Many rural homes and business properties, such as hotels and pubs, tend to be old and draughty; 47% of such homes were built prior to 1949. According to figures from the Office for National Statistics, only 3% of off-gas grid homes achieve an energy performance certificate rating of band C, and many rural homes need significant energy efficiency investment if they are to be suitable for electrified heating: for example, they may require replacement hot water tanks and additional radiators, and some homes will need to be rewired or have external wall insulation to accommodate heat pumps. Electricity grids in rural areas will also need to have their resilience improved and built up as heating and transport become increasingly electrified in future.

It is therefore surprising that the Government apparently intend to pursue a “rural first” approach to the roll-out of heat pumps, committing to ban the installation of replacement fossil fuel boilers in rural homes from 2026 and in larger businesses from 2024. By contrast, they aim to start phasing out replacement installations in on-grid homes from as late as 2035. Given the extra cost and disruption of installing heat pumps compared with existing boilers, rural homeowners will quite reasonably wonder whether this is fair. Under the proposals in the heat and buildings strategy, homeowners off the gas grid will not be permitted to replace an existing fossil fuel system with a new one after 2026. For rural businesses, changes will start even earlier: in 2024—only two years away—for larger business premises over 1,000 square metres, and from 2026 for many rural small and medium-sized enterprises, including those in the hospitality and agricultural sectors. I hope that in his reply, the Minister will explain why rural homes and businesses will be required to switch from fossil fuel so much earlier than their on-grid counterparts.

We should remember that nearly 2 million rural off-gas grid properties will be impacted by these proposals very soon. Most rural off-gas grid homes are heated by oil, which historically has been the cheapest fuel, although hon. Members will be aware of the current price spike. There are hundreds of suppliers of heating oil across the country, enabling consumers to shop around for the best price. There are also liquefied petroleum gas suppliers for those who wish to use gas for home heating and cooking, with some homes using electric panels as well as solid fuels such as peat and coal, but oil is the most commonly used fuel for heating. It will be a significant undertaking to replace oil-fired systems in the normal boiler cycle unless affordable alternatives are available to those who use them. Indeed, I wonder whether the Government have seriously underestimated the scale of the challenge that they have set themselves.

According to the heat and buildings strategy, the current cost of a heat pump for the average off-gas grid home is £12,000. A further £2,000 may be required to fit cavity wall insulation, loft insulation and draught proofing to upgrade a home so that it is heat-pump ready. Rural household incomes are, on average, smaller than urban ones. Although some rural householders will receive limited Government support in the form of the boiler upgrade scheme and the home upgrade grant, many will not be able to afford the cost of heat pumps and the associated energy-efficient retrofit work that is required for them to work efficiently. Put simply, the cost of installing a heat pump could be out of reach for many, and the associated disruption will be extremely inconvenient.

There is a significant policy gap in the heat and buildings strategy in relation to the so-called “able-to-pay” households, which may not qualify for any Government assistance. Many such households may lack the savings and income to pay for a heat pump. The Government are considering using the mortgage market to improve the EPC scores of such homes, and requiring homeowners to make changes at the point of sale of their property or, alternatively, to increase their mortgages to cover the cost of installing a heat pump. However, it would be deeply unfair to saddle homeowners with more debt as interest rates rise, as indeed they have done today.

Some able-to-pay households may receive a £5,000 grant, via the boiler upgrade scheme, towards their air-source heat pumps or biomass boiler installation. However, a maximum of just 90,000 households will be helped under that scheme, which applies to both on and off-grid properties. That simply does not cover the boiler replacement cycle in off-grid homes. There is no support for energy efficiency improvements in able-to-pay households, and it is not clear how they will afford the transition—especially if they are required to change their boiler at short notice—or accommodate the significant disruption and time taken for a heat pump to be installed. Notably, the strategy contains very little detail on the Government’s position on the cost-effectiveness of the measures they propose.

A study by Gemserv found that 44% of rural off-gas grid homes that currently use heating oil can be considered hard to treat when the cost of transition is taken into account, and heat pumps are not the cheapest low-carbon heating option for them. The Federation of Master Builders suggests in its national retrofit strategy that hard-to-treat homes should be last to be retrofitted rather than first, to allow the energy efficiency industry to drive down costs and increase its skill base to meet the challenge.

The Government also appear to assume that the cost of heat pumps relative to traditional boilers will halve by 2025 and reach cost parity by 2030. That is ambitious. The heat-pump market is already at a mature stage of development—many thousands are manufactured each year—so it is hard to see where those cost reductions will come from. Delta-EE, the independent analyst and Government adviser, recently published a paper stating that even in an ambitious scenario, reductions of only 34% could be achieved by 2030. That means that rural homeowners will be required to pay a significant premium to decarbonise their heating unless extra support and a more affordable range of choices are provided.

What do rural homeowners themselves think of the proposed measures? According to the Calor rural attitudes tracker, they are not very happy with them: 59% think that it is unfair that off-gas grid homes will see their traditional boilers phased out earlier than those connected to the gas grid; 69% do not think that it will give them enough time; and 83% cited cost, and 64% cited technical constraints, as the main barriers.

Last year, the Prime Minister wrote in The Sun, “Boiler Police are not going to kick your door in & seize your trusty combi”. That is a reassurance and it may well be true, but it appears that the only option available for off-grid households after 2026 will be a heat pump. I would suggest that a greater range of affordable, low-carbon heating options will be required if rural homes are to decarbonise fairly and affordably, so how can the Government make the transition fairer for rural off-grid consumers?

First, they should reconsider the 2026 deadline and bring the deadline in line with their plans to phase out all fossil fuel boilers by 2035. The Government should adopt a “heat-pump ready first”—not a “rural first”—approach. All homes from post 1970, both on and off grid, should be targeted first, not just the more challenging, off-grid homes. That will help the Government’s ambition of 600,000 annual heat pump installations by 2028 to be achieved and will reduce the risk of negative installation experiences for rural householders.

Secondly, the Government should provide a choice, not a mandate, on the heating system that may be used. Heat pumps should be installed because householders want them, rather than because they are forced to have them. The Government should also give greater support to other technologies, such as hybrid heat pumps. These run alongside traditional boilers, which, in times of high heat demand, will allow more difficult-to-heat rural homes to use the traditional boiler element to keep those homes warm. The Government should also incentivise the development of alternative renewable fuels, including bioliquids and biogases such as BioLPG and HVO—hydrotreated vegetable oil. BioLPG is already on the market, but its uptake is hindered by a lack of policy support and by the fact that it is not currently recognised in building standards. These fuels, if adopted, would allow existing central heating systems to reduce their emissions significantly and could see hard-to-treat homes decarbonised more affordably.

I hope that the Government will pause for thought as to how they treat rural homes and businesses in the transition to lower-carbon heating. It is essential that the principle of fairness should be upheld. The Government should give rural homeowners and businesses access to a full range of options to decarbonise their homes and premises. The extent of the challenge is great indeed—too great to rely on heat pumps alone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Jones]

It has been a valuable and interesting debate. As the Minister has correctly pointed out, we heard from colleagues from all parts of the United Kingdom—united, indeed, in that we come from rural constituencies full of houses lived in by people who are feeling the cold and are worried about feeling the financial cold at some time in the future.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his reply. I take some heart from him saying that the Government are not going to fossilise heat pumps as the only solution to the problems we are living through at the moment. This is a period of transition, and periods of transition are always difficult, but I hope that the Government will bear in mind the concerns of people living in rural areas who are concerned about potentially very high costs to replace existing boilers with heat pumps.

One point I take from the Minister’s reply that gives me considerable heart is that the Government continue to look at alternatives to heat pumps. He mentioned particularly biomass and biofuels, which I think offer a solution to this problem in the future. I hope that his Department will continue to look carefully at those solutions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of low-carbon off-gas grid home and business heating.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

Since 2003 successive Governments have provided innovation funding of £175 million to wave and tidal sectors, and there has been £80 million since 2010. We are strong supporters of tidal stream. The Prime Minister was explicit from the Dispatch Box yesterday, reiterating his support. What we now need to do is work with the sector to demonstrate cost reductions and the potential for this technology.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

Like nuclear, tidal range has the capacity to deliver predictable large-scale generation with none of the problems of intermittence associated with other renewable technologies. The proposed Colwyn Bay tidal lagoon would have a generating capacity of more than 2 GW. There is considerable local support for the project, and the proposed developers are anxious to proceed. Is my right hon. Friend willing to meet with me and my hon. Friends the Members for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) and for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies), who also have an interest in the project, to discuss a way of taking it forward?

[Greg Hands]

I would be delighted to have the opportunity to meet my right hon. Friend and his colleagues. I am always delighted to see so much energy in north Wales when it comes to questions of energy. I remind him that, when I say that we need to demonstrate cost reductions, the most recent reckoning on prices is that tidal stream is around £220 per MWh, wave is about £280 per MWh, and offshore wind is only about £40 per MWh. With scaling up and investment in the technology, we would expect those costs to come down, but I stress the current disparity between those sectors.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

David Jones Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns). As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) pointed out, all the events of COP26 are proceeding in Glasgow as we speak, which reminds us forcibly of the need to reduce still further greenhouse gas emissions from our energy-generating sector. While recent years have seen a notable increase in energy from renewable sources such as wind and solar, it must be recognised—as many hon. Members have—that such forms of generation are intermittent, so other sources must be pursued to produce the reliable, predictable baseload of generation that a modern economy needs.

Hon. Members have pointed out other technologies that can produce reliable baseload generation. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) mentioned pumped storage, and of course the Dinorwig pumped storage scheme in north Wales is an exemplar of such technology. Similarly, there are proposals for a large-scale tidal range lagoon in Colwyn Bay in my constituency, which, with a projected installed capacity of more than 2 GW, would be a major generating station by any standards. However, we must recognise, as my right hon. Friend the Minister did in opening the debate, that the most proven technology is nuclear, and we should certainly pursue that, too.

While I was at the Wales Office, I devoted much of my personal energy to trying to secure the construction of the Wylfa Newydd nuclear station on Anglesey. I echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) for all her efforts in trying to revive that project. It was a happy day in November 2012 when Hitachi announced its purchase of the Horizon operating company. There was no doubt about its enthusiasm for the project. I visited the Hitachi construction factory in Hitachi city in Japan and spoke to a senior nuclear engineer. He told me that Wylfa was the very best location he had seen anywhere in the world for a nuclear power station, so it was not anything wrong with the site that saw off Wylfa Newydd; it was the contracts for difference financing model. The strike price that was offered was too low and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan pointed out, even an equity deal between the British Government, the Japanese Government and the operators could not make it work. The Government are therefore entirely right to look for a different funding model.

The regulated asset base model has a good track record of funding major infrastructure projects; it was successfully used to fund both Heathrow terminal 5 and the Thames tideway tunnel. Importantly, as other hon. Members have pointed out, it is a model that can be used to attract private funding, making the need to rely on foreign sources of funding less likely and, it is to be hoped, obviating the need to look to companies directly or indirectly controlled by foreign Governments, some not entirely friendly, to develop our new nuclear fleet.

The Bill will be welcomed in north Wales. I mention north Wales in particular because it has a long history of expertise in the nuclear industry. Not only does the Bill put the potential of developing Wylfa back on the agenda, but it offers hope of providing a funding model for a new fleet of small modular reactors. There has for some time been a call for a pathfinder SMR project at Trawsfynydd, where the old reactor has for many years been in a state of decommissioning. The local authority, and the Welsh Government too, support the development of SMRs at Trawsfynydd. This is the opportunity for Her Majesty’s Government to take the lead in an exciting new project that could establish the United Kingdom as a leader in the technology, as well as provide a new centre of excellence in a location that has established nuclear expertise.

I welcome the Bill, which provides the opportunity for a new funding model and the prospect of a revived nuclear industry in north Wales. However, I wish again to echo the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan. The question of potential cost overruns is a significant issue. It is important that the Government make a very careful assessment of the likely costs. It has been pointed out by commentators that pension funds may be reluctant to invest in such projects unless they can be assured that the costs will be kept under control, so that is key. Otherwise, I fully welcome the Bill and look forward to supporting its Second Reading.