Draft Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (Revocation and Sunset Disapplication) Regulations 2023

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 18th September 2023 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. Indeed, we have very good north-west representation in the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester, who is making her first outing as an Opposition Whip. I am pleased to see her in her place. We served together on a local authority for many years, and I am sure that she is delighted to have the opportunity to hear me speak again.

This is an important moment in the operation of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central and I had the pleasure of spending many months scrutinising throughout its passage in the House of Commons. We now have the opportunity to see whether the theory that was propounded by the Act’s advocates is matched by the practice.

It is fair to say that the passage of the Act was a rollercoaster ride, not just because we saw an ever-changing line-up of Ministers on the Treasury Bench but because of the way the legislation ended up operating. On the personnel, I congratulate the Solicitor General on what must be at least his fourth consecutive appearance on this issue. That is no doubt a reflection of his ability but perhaps also reflective of the chaotic approach of his predecessors. It has not gone unnoticed that since the Secretary of State for Business and Trade found herself the centre of attention following an urgent question off the back of a written statement that heralded the U-turn on the operation of the Act, nobody from the sponsoring Department has appeared on the Treasury Bench to deal with the outstanding issues associated with the Act. Has the Solicitor General found himself in a Red Adair troubleshooting role for the Department? Or has the operation of the legislation moved to the law offices?

The Opposition welcome the opportunity to debate the regulations, because we would have been starved of that altogether had the Government pressed ahead with their original plan for the wholesale bonfire of retained EU law at the end of the year. I am glad that the Government finally listened to all the legal experts, the campaigners and, if I may say so, the Opposition when we pointed out that that approach would be an unmitigated disaster. It is clear that from the outset the Government have approached the issue completely the wrong way round. They have had an ongoing ambition to act on the relevant laws and reach a place where we will be free from EU regulations, but the destination was in mind well before they knew what they wanted to do with the new-found freedom, or what the best way to get there was without causing, at best, uncertainty—and at worst, chaos.

I know the Government were under pressure from unhappy Back Benchers who were disappointed by the pace of change following Brexit, so they presented the retained EU law Bill in the forlorn hope that having an unachievable deadline would somehow force Departments to come up with answers to the questions. It was a bit like cramming for an exam the night before. Belatedly, that approach was discovered to be completely unworkable. Now we are in a situation where the Government have announced only a handful of areas where the revocation of or amendments to retained EU law amount to a substantial policy change, and even then there is not always a direct relationship with our leaving the EU.

One example is the “Smarter regulation to grow the economy” policy paper, published in May, which promised to diverge away from some EU-derived employment law. Even that, however, was bulked out by a review of non-compete clauses in employment contracts, which have never been derived from EU regulations. It is hard to see why those things were lumped together, unless the Government wanted to create the impression that they were doing more than was actually the case with the new-found Brexit freedoms.

Maybe we have seen so little substantive policy change because, despite the legislation having been around for a year now, Departments still have not got their heads around what they want to do with all that law. One notable exception was the recent decision to try to revoke the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 via the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—although that was at odds with what was said throughout the passage of the retained EU law legislation.

[The Chair]

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman, and other Members when they speak, to stick to the subject before us, which is the statutory instrument, not all the surrounding legislation.

[Justin Madders]

I of course understand the point, but it is important to give the context for why the regulations are before us today. We are faced with a piece of legislation that, to quote the written statement from the Minister for Industry and Economic Security, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), is

“redundant and therefore does not reflect policy change”.

In the same statement, the Minister said it was “only the beginning”. Why is it only the beginning? How many more of these instruments do we have left? We left the EU seven years ago. A Bill was presented to Parliament almost exactly a year ago that proposed to do away with every piece of unnecessary EU regulation by the end of this year, but now we are told that this is just the beginning.

Is it a symptom of the chaos of the last seven years that explains why the Government still do not know what laws they want to get rid of? Is it because nothing was done until the Bill was drafted last year, and once the work began it became apparent that it could not be done in the timescale set out? Or is it actually because quite a lot of the rules are worth keeping? I suggest that the Government are literally making it up as they go along.

As the Solicitor General said, more than 90 laws are being revoked via the instrument, which means, according to the retained EU law dashboard, that there are still 3,263 pieces of law that are unchanged. At the current pace, we are going to need at least another three years to get through everything, although that presumes that the actual volume of retained EU law will remain static. According to the dashboard, the Government are still discovering more pieces of retained EU law. In fact, the dashboard suggests that the vast majority of instruments being revoked by these regulations have only recently been discovered. Some 77 out of the 93 instruments being revoked were completely absent from the dashboard only a few weeks ago, so I hope the Solicitor General will be able to provide some explanation of how it can be the case that, a year after the dashboard was first unveiled to much fanfare, regulations are still being added to it.

On top of that, the dashboard happens to say:

“Future updates to the Dashboard will take place throughout 2023.”

I hope we get some kind of explanation as to how many more additions we can expect and why we still do not know which laws have derived from the EU. For all the talk of “getting Brexit done”, it appears that there has been very little action to untangle those laws from our statute book. Will the Minister confirm whether work is still being carried out to identify more uncaptured retained EU law and whether more has been found since the publication of the regulations? Will there be a cut-off date by which he can confidently assert that no more EU regulations will be found? I hope it is before 31 December, given that that was the date by which everything would have automatically fallen had the Bill remained.

Let us look at the substance of what is being revoked, because it is a far cry from the rallying comments made by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg), in his June 2022 ministerial statement, in which he claimed that the Government would seize on the opportunities offered by Brexit to lift

“red tape to secure greater freedoms and productivity”.—[Official Report, 22 June 2022; Vol. 716, c. 868.]

Instead, the Government are using their time to focus on removing deadwood.

Take the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (Application to Armed Forces etc) Regulations 1994, which appear on the first page of schedule 2 to the regulations. I agree that it is a completely outdated instrument, given that its provisions were included in the Equality Act 2010, which was in part a consolidation of a number of existing elements of equality law, including laws relating to sex discrimination. But that is the point: it was already superfluous when Brexit was just a twinkle in the eye of the right hon. Member for North East Somerset. Far from making the most of the opportunities afforded by Brexit or allowing the country to be more competitive, what we are doing with this SI is effectively a bit of housekeeping and chucking out excess bits of scrap paper.

Looking at the schedule, I can see at least half a dozen references to regulations having been superseded by UK legislation already, so they have nothing to do with our leaving the EU. However, there could be more. I have no problem with tidying things up, but let us not pretend that removing essentially duplicate pieces of legislation is some great unleashing of the country’s potential. Will the Solicitor General tell us how many regulations are in that category and are actually being revoked in name only?

This situation perfectly encapsulates how the Government have approached this issue the wrong way round from the beginning, working on the basis of a headline and of being seen to be ditching red tape and not worrying about the detail. Surely we should have debated the matters of principle and policy first. Once we had identified the areas of meaningful policy to be retained or amended, attention should have turned to the redundant pieces of retained EU law.

The way the Government have approached this matter seems to be to pick off one or two areas from which to diverge, and to treat the rest of it as a tidying-up exercise. It might keep Back Benchers happy for a while if Ministers can say they have removed 600 or so regulations from the statute book, but I do not think they envisaged that the majority of this exercise would be akin to clearing out junk from the garage. The contrast between the rhetoric and the reality was summed up by the current Secretary of State for Business and Trade in a written statement on 10 May 2023, when she said that the Government were

“proposing a new approach, one that will ensure that Ministers and officials are enabled to focus more on reforming retained EU law and doing so faster.”—[Official Report, 11 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 438.]

When will we see the fruits of that labour?

If we take the Government’s word that the regulations covered in schedule 2 are redundant, it might assist the Committee if there was a bit more detail underpinning the list. It is important for Members to hear details of the impact of the revocation of the regulations, if there are any, and for that to be included in an impact assessment, but the Government have decided against publishing one alongside the regulations. It may be that there is no impact in any of these revocations, because they are simply reproduced elsewhere or relate to us no longer legally being part of the EU or associated organisations, as we have left, but we do not know the answers because we have been provided with a one-sentence explanation for most of them. It might be enough in many instances, but I hope the Committee will not mind me sounding a note of caution, given that, as the Solicitor General pointed out, the regulations contain seven instruments that will be reassimilated or unrevoked—I am not quite sure what the correct legal terminology is. The seven regulations were previously identified by the Government as being redundant. We must ask: how many of the 587 instruments to be revoked at the end of the year will it transpire are still needed after all?

I am sure the Solicitor General will not be surprised at me wanting some more information on that and on how this legislative hokey-cokey came about in the first place. I would not be surprised to hear that there has been an investigation into why this has happened. Any conclusions that the Solicitor General could share would be of great interest. Just as importantly, we want to hear what measures will be put in place to stop such mistakes happening again. Have any further checks and balances been put in place to ensure that regulations are not revoked unnecessarily? Or are we just relying on hope that it will not happen again?

I appreciate that some of the unrevocations relate to laws specific to Northern Ireland. Given that there is no functioning Executive or sitting Assembly, I quite understand why that decision has been taken, but the situation is not a new one. It has been the case for well over a year. Indeed, for the whole lifetime of the 2023 Act that brought in these regulations the Executive has not been functioning, so I must ask the Solicitor General why, given that that was the case, the Northern Ireland regulations were included in the first place.

Even if we give the Government the benefit of the doubt on that, there are still four other instruments in the regulations that the Government say are suddenly no longer dispensable. That raises serious questions about how much of a grip they have on this process. It certainly vindicates our position that the original cliff edge in the legislation was unrealistic and dangerous. We could have lost laws that needed to stay on the statute book had someone not double-checked and produced these regulations.

Perhaps more concerning is the fact that the power being exercised under the regulations to prevent the revocation of instruments expires at the end of October. What happens if more are found after that date? What happens if the Government suddenly decide that an instrument found in these regulations does not need to be revoked? If we take the same margin of error from schedule 1 to the original Act and extrapolate it to this instrument, we can expect at least one regulation in schedule 2 to have been mistakenly revoked.

Looking at the set of blanket explanations for the revocations, I wonder about the level of detail in the consideration of the implications of some of the revocations. The explanations include statements such as:

“This legislation is unnecessary because the UK is no longer an EU Member State”

and:

“This regulation relates to a requirement/scheme/agreement which is no longer in operation, or is no longer relevant to the UK”.

Those are understandable, and I see many such types of statements provided next to the instruments. However, given that the decision to leave was taken more than seven years ago, and we knew then that we would no longer be part of the EU, I am left wondering why it has taken until now for these particular instruments to have been identified.

There are other statements that need further explanation. For example, there is, on the face of it, a similar explanation for the removal of the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013 from the statute book, relating as they do to the Dublin III regulation, which does not apply to the UK. However, the explanatory note says that the revocation is subject to savings for ongoing cases so that the provision of legal aid can continue in those cases. I have picked that one out as an example as it falls within the Solicitor General’s bailiwick. Can he advise the Committee how many ongoing cases that would relate to and whether there is, as a result of the removal of the measure, a question of access to justice? If he cannot answer in detail tonight, he can of course write to us, but I would make the point that that is the sort of thing where an impact assessment might have proved useful.

I will conclude. Tonight, we have heard various examples of problems that remain in the Government’s approach to and delivery of removing retained EU law from our statute books. Of course, that is a vital task that will potentially impact everyone in the country. We support, and have always supported, the need to remove legacy EU laws that are no longer relevant, so we will not vote against the regulations tonight, but the way that the process has been handled does not engender confidence on the Opposition Benches that the Government have a grip on this process at all. We still do not know whether the Government have identified all the relevant EU-derived laws, let alone decided what they want to do with them. With some regulations, they appear to have changed their mind on them altogether. It is a muddled, confused mess and I am afraid that that is shorthand for the Government’s approach to governing more generally.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. He is absolutely right. As a distinguished former Solicitor General, he took through a number of pieces of legislation, as all Solicitor Generals do. It is always a pleasure to appear on Committees such as this one. The hon. Member for Glasgow North asked whether it would happen again and if it does, and if it is me, I look forward to it very much.

[Justin Madders]

Could we get some clarity? Which Department is now responsible for the passage of these regulations?

[The Solicitor General]

The Department has not changed; I took the legislation through ping-pong with the Lords, and I am still here. I look forward to being here again in the future. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agree to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (Revocation and Sunset Disapplication) Regulations 2023.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Justin Madders Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Knowing him, he will develop those points in due course. He agrees with what my noble Friend Lord Callanan said in the other place, that this is not about additional scrutiny so much as about preventing Parliament from acting.

It is right to say that Lords amendment 42D has been given serious consideration, as were other iterations previously before this House. It is disappointing and hardly conducive to constructive conversation or detailed debate to resort to insulting hon. and right hon. Members, as unfortunately happened in their lordships’ House yesterday. Apart from my noble Friend Lord Callanan, their lordships have not grappled with the provisions already in the Bill for a sifting committee, the detail of which is found in schedule 5, and which will result in significantly more scrutiny than EU law had when it was first introduced into our law.

On Lords amendment 15D, I have little to add to what has been said many times. We have repeatedly made commitments, at every stage of parliamentary passage, that we will not lower environmental protections. Our environmental standards are first class: the Agriculture Act 2020, the Fisheries Act 2020 and the landmark and world-leading Environment Act 2021.

The Labour party has a choice, both in this House and in the other place. Will it choose to frustrate this necessary post-Brexit legislation, this natural next step that was always going to have to happen? Will it continue to delay the delivery of the significant opportunities that await us? The Government want to get on with the job. Enough is enough.

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

We are back once again, and maybe it will be third time lucky, although it does not sound like it will be. The House will no doubt be familiar with our position, that the Bill, as originally drafted, was reckless, unnecessary and undemocratic. The Government talked about a bonfire of regulations when the Bill first came before the House, but I would instead describe it as a scorched earth policy that made for a good headline but completely failed to grasp the scale and complexity of the task before us. That the approach has been at least partially reversed is of course welcome, but concerns remain. The Lords amendments before us will deal to some extent with some of the outstanding issues, and we therefore intend to support them.

I turn, first, to Lords amendment 15D. I pay tribute to Lord Krebs for showing maximum flexibility in trying to find something that will gain Government support. I fear that it sounds as though his efforts will be in vain, because although he has taken the approach that the Government’s problem with his previous amendment was its wording rather than its substance—on the basis of the Government’s claim not to want to water down environmental protections—I think he was hoping that reasoned argument and compromise might see a resolution to this endless game of ping-pong. The sad reality is that he has been looking for reason where none exists.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. A number of constituents have written to me in recent weeks to set out their concerns and point out that we are in a climate emergency. They believe it is essential that the current level of protection for the environment is not weakened. In addition, they are concerned as we have a responsibility to not just ourselves, but future generations. Does he agree on that?

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I agree with it, which is why we are continuing to support the Lords on this amendment.

The Minister has referred to the conditions of previous iterations of this amendment as both “burdensome” and “unnecessary”. It is of course complete nonsense that something can be both of those things at the same time. A burden would be an additional requirement, but the Government also consider such amendments unnecessary. That implies that these are things they intend to do in any case, yet in their eyes they somehow remain a burden. I am sorry to say that I have yet to alight on any rational explanation for that stance, and poor Lord Krebs has stripped away his amendment to the bare minimum now in the futile search for common ground. His new version of the amendment has just two elements, instead of the four in the previous version. The remaining ones are non-regression on environmental protections and consultation with relevant experts; he has dropped the requirements for compliance with international obligations and transparency in reporting on expert advice. I would have thought that the two dropped conditions ought not to have been considered too troublesome for a Government committed to maintaining environmental protections, but we are where we are.

The Lords amendment therefore simply puts in the Bill what the Government say they intend to do in any event, yet the objections remain. We should be mindful of what the Government’s own watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, said in its evidence on this Bill, which was that it

“does not offer any safety net, there is no requirement to maintain existing levels of environmental protection.”

I find myself both bemused and alarmed by the Government’s intransigence on this issue. When they are not listening to their own watchdog and instead present arguments that disintegrate on the barest of examinations, it is right that we should continue to press for this amendment. If everything that was said at the Dispatch Box became law, we would not need legislation, but I am afraid the longer this goes on and the more unreasonable the objections become, the stronger the case becomes for putting in the Bill the protections the Government say they want to see.

The confidence that the public have in this place has been severely tested in recent years. If our democracy is to work, and if we want people to engage and participate in the democratic process, what a Government say has to be honoured and has to be seen through, otherwise we risk forever losing trust in the political process. Once that trust has died, it cannot be brought back to life by magic or by good intentions. So I say to Conservative Members: think very carefully about how you vote on this Lords amendment. If they trust the Government to keep their word and can find a way to reconcile that blind faith with the Government’s refusal to put those promises in law, they should vote down the amendment. But if that word is broken, they should not ever expect anyone to trust the Conservative party to stick to its promises on the environment or any other matter, ever again.

Lords Amendment 42D tackles one of the most controversial clauses in the Bill, clause 15, which the Hansard Society called the

“‘do anything we want’ powers for Ministers.”

I remind Members that the Hansard Society is a body whose opinion ought to mean something. It describes clause 15 as that because, as has been extensively covered previously, it empowers Ministers to revoke regulations and not replace them; replace them with another measure that they consider

“appropriate…to achieve the same or similar objectives”;

or to “make such alternative provision” as they consider “appropriate”. Those are extremely broad powers covering broad areas of policy.

If this Bill has taught us anything, it is that the reach of EU regulations permeates every aspect of life and covers many important issues that most people would expect Parliament to have a say over: consumer rights; public health; the environment; and, of course, employment rights. These regulations cover many things that many people would want to see protected, and many more things that nobody said would be removed or watered down back in 2016.

I pay tribute to Lord Hope for trying to find a compromise that the Government can accept. I fear that, as with Lord Krebs, his efforts will be in vain. In short, this latest amendment would see a Committee of this place sift regulations made under the clause, following an explanation by the relevant Minister as to why that particular regulation is required or desirable. It should be noted that Lord Hope made it clear in the other place that this Committee would be a Commons one only; how ironic that an unelected Lord is the one pushing an amendment to give the elected Commons more say in how our laws are decided, and that the Commons is resisting this move. Perhaps he, at least, understands what taking back control was meant to be about.

The Lords amendment further provides that once the Committee has considered the Minister’s explanation, it can, if it wishes—it is not required to—draw special attention to the regulations in question, following which the Minister must arrange for them to be debated on the Floor of each House. The Minister must then have regard to any resolution of either House and may, but is not required to, amend their proposal in the light of what has been resolved. The Committee can also recommend that the proposal should not be proceeded with, but, in the true spirit of taking back control, this House will get the final say on that. Is this not what the true spirit of Brexit was really about: the democratically elected Members of this House asserting influence and passing our laws?

I am sure that we will hear, once again, the fallacious arguments that because these laws were passed in the first place without proper democratic involvement, that means, by some twisted logic, that it is fine now to hand all the power over these laws to Ministers, without any reference to Parliament. Those arguments do not wash because they come from a place that says that anything that originates from the EU is bad and we therefore do not need it. Tell that to the millions of people enjoying paid holidays for the first time, to the disabled passengers who were given priority on transport for the first time and to the millions of people who have kept their job because of TUPE protections. I do not believe anyone who voted to leave the EU voted to dispense with those rights. If it is the Government’s intention to change any of those protections, or the thousands of others that our citizens enjoy, it is only right that this place has a say in that.

I am afraid the lack of transparency that this Bill represents, and the sidelining of genuine scrutiny, show up all those arguments that were made back in 2016 about sovereignty for what they are: a fig leaf for a select few to shape and determine the future of this country without reference to Parliament, and certainly without reference to the people they are supposed to represent. Democracy in the 21st century does not die in one swift act, but erodes over time, bit by bit. This Bill is another example of that, and until this Government restore basic democratic principles, we will do all we can to oppose it.

[Sir William Cash]

I have read with great interest the record of the proceedings yesterday in the House of Lords, noting some extremely wise and democratically well judged comments by those such as Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Hamilton of Epsom. I note, however, that Lord Clarke of Nottingham, with whom I have crossed swords a few times in the past, to say the least, was conspicuous in his support of Lordusb Hope of Craighead’s amendment, as were a number of others I do not have time to mention, although their appearance in the Division list was entirely predictable.

I wish to add that the wise words of the Lord Hodgson and Lord Hamilton reflect not only a question of parliamentary sovereignty in relation to the elected House, but the elected will of the people, both in the referendum in 2016, the anniversary of which is almost upon us, and in the general election of December 2019, where there was a massive majority to get Brexit done. It is therefore also a manifesto commitment, clear and unequivocal, which invokes the Salisbury doctrine. The Government have stood firm in these proceedings; I was extremely glad to hear my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General yet again showing the degree of diligence and determination that is necessary, and I know he will continue to do so in this matter of retained EU law. I also speak as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, whose report was unequivocal on the subject. I am glad to say that the Government supported the amendment I proposed, which is part of this exchange between the Lords and the Commons.

Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Pannick are on the same page with regard to what they term a “constitutional principle”. I note the judicial and legal enthusiasm for the amendment they have put forward, which demonstrates the issue of parliamentary sovereignty. Indeed, Lord Hodgson rightly referred to “parliamentary sovereignty” when he read out what I had said in the House of Commons on the subject the other day, about the Lords’ “intransigence” in this matter. The amendment is a matter of democracy, as well as constitutional principle, because it involves the elected House and its majority view.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Justin Madders Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Here we are again. It has been nearly nine months since the Bill was introduced, during which time five different members of the Government have spoken in support of the Bill from the Front Bench, most of them making one appearance before never being seen again. I congratulate the Solicitor General on making it back for a second appearance.

Although, of course, the question of retained EU law needs to be addressed, our main contention is that the way in which the Bill attempted to do that was reckless, unnecessary and undemocratic. To some extent, we have seen an end to that kamikaze approach, which is of course welcome, although it does not mean that all our concerns have been dealt with.

[Mr Perkins]

The point that my hon. Friend makes light-heartedly is actually very relevant. The truth is that we have seen chaos on the Government Benches. We have seen Ministers speak extremely boldly about the Bill’s powers, only to water them down when they come face to face with reality. Does not the farcical way in which this Government have conducted their affairs give people real concern, including about what is in this Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful for that intervention. I note that, again, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade is not here to defend the Bill in its current form. We have consistently been told by businesses throughout the Bill’s passage that it is so chaotic that nobody can possibly plan ahead. How can any business prepare for the future if it cannot understand what the rules will be six months hence, never mind 12 or 18 months into the future.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Many of my Slough constituents are concerned, because they feel that non-regression, upholding international treaties and consulting experts should be wholly uncontroversial. Does my hon. Friend feel that, with the Government’s approach, we will merely have more watering down of our high environmental standards, and that such watering down must be blocked at every opportunity?

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, as he sets out what this amendment is attempting to secure, which is a bit of security.

I shall make some progress, as I am aware that a number of people wish to speak. As we have heard, Lords amendment 15B seeks to introduce conditions on some of the powers in sections 12, 13,15 and 16 relating to the environment. As my hon. Friend says, it stipulates that any regulations made may not

“reduce the level of environmental protections”

or

“conflict with any…international environmental agreements to which the United Kingdom is party”.

It also sets requirements on consultation. Given that the Government are supposedly committed to maintaining the highest environmental standards, one might think that those conditions are uncontroversial; they are the actions I would expect any Government committed to maintaining high standards would want to undertake. That view is shared by a range of experts, including, but certainly not limited to, the Government’s own watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection. Its written evidence submission endorsed all three of those suggested conditions, with its chair, Glenys Stacey, remarking:

“Worryingly, the Bill does not offer any safety net, there is no requirement to maintain existing levels of environmental protection.”

The Government are not listening to their own watchdog and have instead chosen to refer to those conditions as “burdensome” and “unnecessary”. I have yet to hear any rational explanation as to how the conditions in the Lords amendment can be both of those things at the same time; if these steps are, as the Government tell us, things that they would be doing in any event, how can they possibly be an additional burden as well? When we are met with illogical and unconvincing arguments such as that, we are right to be concerned. I note the assurances given at the Dispatch Box on this and previous occasions, but, as we have seen with this Bill in particular, Ministers come and go, and if we were to rely on everything said at the Dispatch Box as having the same weight as actual legislation, Acts of Parliament might be half the length that they are. There is a reason we do not do that.

Of course, we can all imagine what might be said by the public if the worst was to happen and environmental standards were to slip as a result of this Bill. We would say to our constituents, “But we were promised this wouldn’t happen” and our constituents could point to the 40 hospitals not having been built, Northern Powerhouse Rail not having been started, the ditching of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill or any number of other broken promises, and they would call us naive at best. So we are right to insist that these protections stay in the Bill.

Lords amendment 42B tackles one of the most controversial clauses, the one that the Hansard Society referred to in its written evidence as the “do anything we want” powers for Ministers. The Hansard Society is not prone to exaggeration and its comments have merit. As we know, clause 15 empowers Ministers to revoke regulations and not replace them; replace them with another measure which they consider appropriate

“to achieve the same or similar objectives”;

or

“make such alternative provision as the…national authority considers appropriate”.

In the face of such untrammelled concentrations of power in the Executive, Lords amendment 42B seeks to put a democratic check on the use of those powers. Actually requiring a Minister who wishes to use these powers to set out their proposals before each House is entry-level transparency that should have been part of the procedure to start with. Allowing a Committee of this House to consider them seems a fairly uncontroversial suggestion, even if some people now think that Committees cannot act in a bipartisan way. Of course, giving a Committee the power to request a debate on the Floor of the House will be reliant on its making the judgment that such a debate is necessary, but this does secure a degree of scrutiny over ministerial decisions. It also hands at least some power back to Parliament, which was, of course, for some, what Brexit was all about.

[Stella Creasy]

Does the debate about the Bauer and Hampshire judgments not make the case that my hon. Friend is making? I hope Mr Speaker will forgive me here, but the Minister said that I was wrong and that is perhaps unparliamentary. Let me read into the record what the shadow Minister and I heard in Committee. The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) said:

“the Department for Work and Pensions does not intend to implement the Bauer judgment through the benefits system…The Hampshire judgment is a clear example of where an EU judgment conflicts with the United Kingdom Government’s policies. Removing the effects of the judgment will help to restore the system to the way it was intended to be.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2022; c. 168-69.]

If Ministers are changing their minds now about using the powers in this Bill to revoke these protections for the pensions of our constituents, it is only because they have been caught out doing it and using the powers in this Bill. Does this not make the case—

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I remember that exchange very well, not least because it was on my 50th birthday. It certainly shows the importance of having proper scrutiny and transparency about ministerial decisions, which has been one of our main critiques of this bill throughout. I remind hon. Members that it was said in 2016 that we needed to reassert parliamentary sovereignty and that that was what taking back control was all about. However, I said in Committee, “we” does not mean

“Ministers sitting in rooms on their own, answerable to nobody, and under no requirement to explain their actions”.––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2022; c. 126.]

“We” means this place.

I know that the oft-repeated and erroneous argument, which we have heard again today, that those laws were passed without proper democratic involvement in the first place has been offered as a reason why we should not follow such a process now. To make a pithy comment on that, two wrongs do not make a right. I would have expected those who were shouting the loudest about our sovereignty back in 2016 to be with us today.

The lack of transparency and desire to bypass scrutiny that are the hallmark of this Bill demonstrate a lack of confidence from the Government in their own programme. It is clear that either they do not know, or they do not want to tell us what they intend to do with the powers conferred by the Bill. Even the addition of a schedule listing regulations to be revoked does not really offer any clues about how the Government plan to approach the bulk of retained EU law.

In her recent appearance before the European Scrutiny Committee, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade referred to that list as merely containing regulations

“that are redundant, rather than things that are holding us back”,

meaning that we still do not know what the substantive changes will be. Maybe one day we will find out what exactly it is that has been holding us back.

If the Government cannot tell us what they intend to do with the powers they hand themselves under this Bill, and they clearly do not want the light of scrutiny shone on their intentions, it is even more important that this amendment is passed. It also suggests that this Government are not confident about what the public or indeed Parliament will have to say when their intentions become clear. That is why as many safeguards and as much transparency as possible should be injected into this Bill.

In closing, I refer again to the evidence given by the Secretary of State to the European Scrutiny Committee, because if anything sums up the shambolic approach to this Bill by the Government it is her comment:

“The retained EU law Bill became a process of retaining EU law. That is not what we wanted.”

I do not know whether to laugh or cry at such comments. What I can say for sure is that, if anything sums up just what a tired, out-of-touch and broken Government we have, that is it.

[Sir William Cash]

I have a strange sense of déjà vu about the speech I have just heard from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). I am afraid that he does not quite get it. I have made the same point with regard to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins); the fact that I happen to rather like him, and always have done—I come from Sheffield—does not alter the fact that I fundamentally disagree with him.

The way the House of Lords has dealt with these amendments demonstrates that the Lords are determined to try, by hook or by crook, to obstruct the House of Commons, which is the democratic Chamber in these matters as far as the electorate is concerned, in pursuance not only of the referendum on leaving the European Union, but also of the Bill as a whole—which I do support, as it has moved forward. I had some reservations in the past, but we have made a lot of progress.

I congratulate the Minister very much on his calm common sense and the way he has approached the subject. I also agree with the tweet he referred to. Parliamentary counsel are rather like holy priests, if I may say so, and they have their own particular way of wanting to deal with something. I would not want in any way to criticise the way they have gone about this, because it comes to exactly the same thing that I proposed when the Government adopted my own amendment.

Coming to the question of parliamentary scrutiny, the new clause introduced by Lords amendment 42B places a prohibition on the making of regulations under section 15, unless

“a document containing a proposal for those regulations has been laid before each House of Parliament”.

It goes on to say that the document is to be

“referred to, and considered by, a Committee of the House of Commons”.

That sounds suspiciously as if it might fall within the remit of the European Scrutiny Committee. If it does not, that creates a problem with our Standing Orders for a start. It is not defined, so what on earth that Committee will do, and how it relates to the functions of the European Scrutiny Committee and/or to any other Committee of the House of Commons, is so completely vague and impossible to understand. That, in itself, condemns that new clause.

The amendment goes on to say:

“a period of at least 30 days has elapsed after that referral”.

When it turns to the next question, it says:

“If the Committee—

the Committee of the House of Commons—

determines that special attention should be drawn to the regulations in question, a Minister of the Crown must arrange for the instrument to be debated on the floor of each House”.

They “must”; there is no option on that.

Suddenly, we move into a completely new dimension for each House. If the Committee—my own Committee, were it to be the Committee in question—makes a decision about special attention, that is then thrown to the mercy of each House of Parliament. We know from everything that we have heard over the last few weeks on the Bill that there is an intransigence—a stubbornness, if I may say so politely—from our noble Friends in the House of Lords in the face of any attempt to get rid of retained EU law in the way in which we are proposing, through revoking or reforming it.

By taking that particular course in the clause, all the Lords are doing is saying, “We want to take back control. We want to put this whole procedure into a cul-de-sac that will be effectively controlled.” I would go so far as to say that, by the sounds of it, the House of Lords will try, to use that hallowed expression, to “take back control.” They will try to take back control of this to the House of Lords. That is what this is all about, and we are not so stupid that we will fall for this one, let me assure the House.

Let me come to the question of regulations and statutory instruments, and the way in which they areb made. I have spent a lot of time on that, as I have said before. I am most grateful to you and others, Mr Speaker, for referring to the fact that I will retire from the House of Commons at the next election, but I have a lot of work to do between now and then. This debate is part of that, by seeing the Bill brought to a conclusion through its elimination of the supremacy of EU law and the opportunity to diverge and create economic growth and competitiveness. All these matters are part of that.

I find it really astonishing that the Lords do not seem to understand—it is as if they are trying to take us for fools, which I can assure the House we are not. I have sat on the European Scrutiny Committee since way back in 1985. Day in, day out, every single week, regulations and statutory instruments were brought in to implement decisions made behind closed doors in the Council of Ministers, as I said to the hon. Member for Chesterfield. Those decisions were made by majority vote of the other countries—there used to be fewer but then the number went up to 27—and without even a transcript. I challenge any Labour or SNP Member to get up and say that they think that is a very good idea, and that they would love to tell their constituents that they should be governed in that way, with all their laws for made for 50 years by that method of completely closet operation and without a transcript. It is unbelievable.

What are we doing here other than having a debate in this Chamber? I challenge Opposition Members to go out and say to their constituents: “We want to have you governed in that manner, behind closed doors and without a transcript.”

[Justin Madders]

indicated dissent.

[Sir William Cash]

It is no good the shadow Minister shaking his head, because he will not ask that question and nor will the hon. Member for Chesterfield, because their constituents would very quickly turn around and tell them to get lost.

[Justin Madders]

I just point out to the hon. Gentleman that my constituents would wonder why we are rehashing the arguments from 2016 when we have this Bill before us today.

[Sir William Cash]

I am so delighted that the hon. Gentleman asks that question. It is very simple: we had a general election that gave us a massive majority on the basis of getting Brexit done—and this gets Brexit done. We are doing exactly what so many of his constituents voted for, even though, I am sure, he got a reasonable majority. There are people who are now not in this House and were driven out because they did not respect the views of the people in that referendum. That is a very simple and straightforward answer to his point.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)]

I absolutely can confirm that. I know how important any kind of mobile coverage still is in some parts of the country. My hon. Friend will have heard the earlier answer about the shared rural network. It is still being negotiated, and the exact sites that will benefit first will be negotiated by the mobile networks themselves, but I would welcome the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend and talk about where we can benefit her constituents most.

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

Since the Glazers took over Manchester United in 2005, more than £1 billion has been taken out of the club, which they are using as a personal cash cow. Does the Minister agree that that model of ownership is not what we want for our football clubs?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Football clubs such as Manchester United are at the heart of local communities. They have unique social value, and many of them have a great history. We have committed ourselves to a fan-led review of football governance, which will include consideration of the owners and directors test, but, as the hon. Gentleman says, it is very important for us to ensure that our game is protected for the fans.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

The UK is committed to human rights. The fact is that our EU exit does not change that; the UK will continue to champion human rights, at home and abroad—it is part of who we are as a people. We practised human rights before the 1998 Act and we will continue to do so. We are committed to upholding the rule of law. The UK is a beacon in this area around the world, and leaving the EU does not change that.

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

10. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the correlation between the level of CPS resources and its ability to comply with its disclosure obligations.

[The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)]

The proper disclosure of unused material is vital if there is to be a fair trial, which is in the interests of the complainant, the accused and the whole community. There has been unprecedented joint commitment and focus from the police and the CPS on finding solutions to the problem of getting disclosure right. The £85 million investment in the CPS, to which I have alluded, will enable the CPS to respond effectively to the expected increase in case load resulting from the recruitment of 20,000 new police officers.

[Justin Madders]

It is pretty clear that currently justice is not being done. Does the Solicitor General accept that that fund is simply not going to be enough to get the justice that this country deserves?

[The Solicitor General]

No, I do not accept that. In fact, the £85 million that was given to the CPS recently was the largest sum, pro rata, given to any Government Department. It is right that it is a priority for the Government to deal with criminal justice robustly, which is what the Government are going to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Stewart Malcolm McDonald. Not here. Oh dear, where is the feller?

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

10. What assessment she has made of the access working-class people have to the arts.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)]

We seem to have moved on very quickly, Mr Speaker.

The Government are committed to ensuring that the arts are accessible to everyone, regardless of their background, and not just to the privileged few. That is why the Government’s culture White Paper, which was published a year ago this month, sets out a range of commitments to increase access and participation, including a new cultural citizens programme for young people.

[Justin Madders]

Will the Secretary of State read the report on access to the professions by the all-party group on social mobility, which I chair? During our evidence sessions, we heard a great deal about how many young people are completely denied access to the arts and media because they are not prepared, or cannot afford, to take a series of unpaid work placements. That is really limiting access, so will the Secretary of State seriously consider the report’s recommendation of banning unpaid internships lasting more than one month?

[Karen Bradley]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work on the all-party group; I will look carefully at the points that he has made. This Government have done much to change the culture of unpaid internships. I for one have never taken on an unpaid intern; I have always made sure that there is fair recompense for people who make a valuable contribution to my office.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 14th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

I remind the hon. Lady that this Government have done more for disabled people than any Government before us. [Hon. Members: “Rubbish!”] I have just outlined the amount of money that this Government are spending. Under this Government, there are more than 3.2 million disabled people in employment. Employment helps people to have more fulfilled lives. We do not give up on people, unlike the Opposition parties.

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

14. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Justice on the effect of the introduction of employment tribunal fees on access to justice for women who have experienced discrimination at work.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a post-implementation review of the introduction of fees in employment tribunals. That will consider, so far as is possible, the impact the fees have had on those with protected characteristics who use employment tribunals, as well as the types of case they bring.

[Justin Madders]

The review has apparently been on the Minister’s desk since February, so I hope we get to hear the outcome soon. According to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, less than 1% of maternity discrimination claims now proceed to an employment tribunal. That means that 99 out of every 100 women who are discriminated against because of their pregnancy have no legal redress. Is he proud of that record or ashamed?