Retained EU Law: Trading Standards

Debate between David Linden and Lord Spellar

Thursday 12th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

I am immensely grateful to the hon. Member. He is spot on. We have had a bit of a taster from this Government as to what they want to do with environment standards and workers’ rights. This afternoon, we have been having that debate on the environment, and there were plenty of questions at Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions this morning about sewage spilling into rivers. We have the UK Government saying that Brexit was about taking back control and strengthening rights, but the only thing they have done so far on employment legislation is to table the immoral Bill that would reduce the fundamental human right of workers to withdraw their labour. I suspect that what the Government are doing with workers’ rights and environmental rights is just a taster of what they intend to do.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

There is also what the Government are doing in areas such as intellectual property rights and copyright, particularly as that affects the music industry, which is an enormously important industry for the country in terms of employment and exports, but also in creating an attraction for the UK from around the world. The proposals to dramatically reduce copyright in favour of the internet giants is clearly undesirable but, irrespective of the regulations, is this not also about some of the regulators, which seem gripped by an out-of-control free market approach?

[David Linden]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) was good enough to send me the briefing from the music industry, which hits on that point. I thank the industry for its interest and for continuing to campaign. It is a body of evidence that the Minister should be considering in the context of this debate.

We also have the risk of losing the interpretive effects of EU case law, which could no longer be applied in UK cases. The overarching issue is that, if nothing proactive is done to retain any EU law, modified or otherwise, it will simply disappear from the UK statute book. Some—I would not disagree with them—are going as far as to call this a bonfire of regulations. The British Government are complicit in lighting the flames of that bonfire, and they will be held responsible for melting the very instruments that our trading standards officers rely on every day to protect us.

Countless organisations have come forward with worries about the proposed timetable for the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. Just before the debate, I was discussing with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North that there are, I think, 18 pages of amendments for consideration on Wednesday night, and that is just from the Government. Clearly, we are not going to get through all the legislative scrutiny in a considered manner, let alone the civil servants.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Spellar]

Is it not also the case that, apart from dramatic cases such as that, ordinary businesses need to be able to plan their work? There are so many uncertainties normally, and even more at the moment if they are not able to plan against a fixed set of regulations. Those regulations may need to be improved and changed. We should not just be stuck on certain regulations, because some of them need changing. Businesses need some degree of certainty so they can plan and invest.

[David Linden]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am sceptical, but it may well be the case that the UK Government want to strengthen the regulations. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let us not rush this; let us make sure we get it right. He is spot on.

If we have no standards, we have no way of protecting people from potentially catastrophic injuries. That is why trading standards matter, and that is why the Government cannot—indeed, must not—proceed with the repeal of these regulations in the timescale outlined.

I have other concerns about the decline in the workforce of trading standards officers and the ticking time bomb that exists, with nowhere near enough TSOs coming into the workforce. Councils all across these islands have, over many decades, seen their trading standards departments practically hollowed out. In many respects, removing from statute the regulations they enforce would, I fear, be the final nail in the coffin.

To recap, Members across the House, trading standards experts and a coalition of charities have all said that that the timetable is unachievable and dangerous. In fact, trading standards officers have said that changes to legislation would affect their ability to carry out their enforcement work, which, in turn, would affect ordinary people and businesses right across these islands. If Brexit was about taking back control, frankly, I do not see how sacrificing the safety standards and regulations that protect us and our constituents delivers on that promise.

The public have also made clear that this should not be the Government’s priority; instead, they should be focusing on the multitude of crises they face, not least the cost of living crisis. Instead of listening, the British Government appear to have their fingers in their ears, and they are kidding themselves on that this near impossible task will be completed by the end of this year. That will be the legacy of Tory Britain: an isolationist, populist, short-term thinking Government who would rather rush ahead with their dangerous plans than adopt a careful and considered approach.

In his response, I want to hear the Minister acknowledge the concerns, if not mine then certainly those of the experts, who are genuinely fearful of a bonfire of trading standards legislation. If the electric scooter story tells us anything, it is that a bonfire of these regulations will only result in many other things needlessly catching fire, and that, I would humbly suggest, is not taking back control.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Debate between David Linden and Lord Spellar

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

rose—

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

rose—

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between David Linden and Lord Spellar

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[John Spellar]

Briefly, several of the factors that the Minister outlined were blindingly obviously after 2015 as well. The population in this country was going up and there had been a referendum to leave the European Union. Was it not, frankly, the shallowness of David Cameron and the stubbornness of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) that meant that the Government have had to make the change now that they could have made before? We would then have been here representing different constituencies. There is no shame in saying that the former leadership of the party—it is probably unwise to attack the current leadership—got it wrong and that is why they have done a U-turn.

[David Linden]

Can I say what a pleasure it is to see clause 5 in the Bill? I spent about 30 sittings of my life in the last Parliament on the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill Committee, brought forward by the wonderful hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan). On that Committee were me, the Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry North East, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood and the hon. Member for City of Chester, with whom I have grown incredibly close over this issue and through the armed forces parliamentary scheme. It is a genuine delight to be on the Committee.

I used to trot along the corridor every Wednesday morning to come and argue that there should be 650 seats. At the time, the Minister, only six months ago, was resolutely opposed to that. So it is with a degree of glee that I hear her talk about that 5% population growth. I know that, on the Committee, I, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood and the Minister have had children, but I can safely say that we have not contributed 5% population growth in the last six months. Therefore, the U-turn is quite remarkable.

There is also an argument based on Britain leaving the European Union. I accept that. It will be a travesty and bad for Scotland, which is probably why people in Scotland voted against it, but if we follow to its logical conclusion the argument about losing 73 MEPs who used to go to Brussels and debate and legislate on our behalf, and all those laws coming back to the UK Parliament—by and large they are coming back to it as a result of a power grab by the UK Government who are not devolving the powers on to institutions such as the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament—presumably we should increase the number of seats, commensurately with MPs’ increased workload. Like the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood I am perplexed that the number remains at 650.

I want to pick up on the Minister’s point about cutting the cost of politics. One of the things that I tried to bring up in those enlightening Wednesday morning Committee sittings—with more ease some weeks than others—was that the Government’s argument that they are cutting the cost of politics is problematic because of the other place.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between David Linden and Lord Spellar

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[John Spellar]

I say this in no way disparagingly, but the hon. Gentleman, who represents a seat in Scotland, may not be aware of the enormous changes that have taken place in the electoral register in England. Contrary to the old situation—this shows that the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell is living in the past a bit—more than half of the largest 10 or 20 seats are urban seats in conurbations. He gave a very dated view, but I am not surprised.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to right the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I would miss these Bill Committees.

At the risk of going down a large rabbit hole, I will confine my remarks on this group to one other point relating to line 11 of clause 1 and evidence received from Professor Curtice. I refer the Committee to our evidence hearing on Tuesday, particularly question 181, which was asked by the hon. Member for City of Chester. I want to probe the Minister on this point. I know it came in the afternoon, when hon. Members were probably feeling a bit tiresome.