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

Debate between Justin Madders and Peter Grant

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the Minister for providing an explanation of the technical nature of the amendment. It actually quite an important amendment for the Government if they are to have any chance of meeting their self-imposed deadline in a year’s time. Being able to link together different instruments that require different procedures will, as the Minister said, be a helpful tool to limit the amount of parliamentary time taken up, although that may come at the cost of scrutiny. I am, however, encouraged by the Minister’s confirmation that the affirmative procedure will be used in those circumstances. It is almost as if there will be levelling up of regulations so that the higher standard of scrutiny will apply.

Will the Minister tell us whether there has been any assessment of on how many occasions it is anticipated that the amendment will be used? It is worth saying, once again, that if the Government had not created this artificial cliff edge and put themselves up against the clock so steadfastly, the amendment would not be necessary.

[Peter Grant]

I will not oppose the amendment, but I need to put on record that the fact that such a detailed technical amendment is needed is clear evidence that the people who draft legislation do not always get it right first time. Is it not lucky that we have a Bill Committee, so that errors, omissions and oversights in the drafting of the Bill can be put right before it comes into force? The 4,000 or so—at the latest estimate—bits of legislation that the Bill will tear up and throw in the fire will be replaced by things that we will not get a second chance to put right in Bill Committee.

When, as will almost certainly be the case, the Government end up repealing bits of legislation that nobody knew existed, we will not have a Bill Committee to put things on hold in order to correct any mistakes. The fact that the Government have already had to table this and so many other amendments and we have no idea what else they will have to introduce on Report or in the House of Lords does not represent a criticism of those who drafted the legislation. It is simply an illustration of an uncomfortable fact: no matter how good we are at drafting legislation, we do not get it right first time. If this Bill passes in the form in which the Government are determined to pass it, there are potential catastrophic impacts from Parliament repealing legislation that it did not even know existed.

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

Debate between Justin Madders and Peter Grant

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am possibly anticipating what will be said later, but for clarification will the hon. Member confirm that retaining all this EU legislation in domestic law does not in any way prevent the Government from deciding that they want to legislate for a greater level of workers’ rights or environmental protection than is currently the norm throughout Europe? They would only need to repeal this law if they intended to weaken those protections.

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Member is exactly right. If there is no intention to do away with these laws, the Government simply have to accept the amendment with no further question or debate about it. We will be very pleased to be able to report to our constituents that their rights are protected.

We are sceptical about some of the intentions of the Conservative party. The right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), the architect of the Bill, has gone on the record with what can only be described as a Victorian attitude to workers’ rights, with such classic lines as “there is no moral right to annual leave.” There were reports in The Times only a couple of months ago that he was planning to scrap both the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the Agency Workers Regulations 2010. Amendment 76 would protect both measures, putting the issue beyond doubt. The Minister does not need to the follow the right hon. Member’s lead any more; she can act today to show that she is on the side of workers, that she understands the value and importance of workers’ rights and that she can do the right thing by supporting the amendment.

When discussing these amendments it is important to acknowledge that there will almost certainly be a disproportionate impact on women if these laws are scrapped, as many of them have been of great benefit to women in the workplace. Fifty years after this country legislated for equal pay between men and women we still have not quite got there. Women face far greater challenges of discrimination at work. Let us not make an unacceptable situation any worse by reducing some of the measures that protect them.

The Bill’s own impact assessment recognises that it contain threats to equality, particularly in paragraphs 11, 25 and 41. Unison has said that the Bill will

“deliberately wipe the slate clean and create confusion around the principle of precedent that UK common law is premised on. It places ideological principles above the lived, practical needs of the UK.”

Perhaps the Minister will tell us, as the right hon. Member for Clwyd West has already suggested, that we are being melodramatic, and that the Government do indeed intend to honour their manifesto commitments to improve workers’ rights. We know what we need to do if that is the case.

As I say, I am a little suspicious about what is going on with the Bill and why it has been drafted in such a way to squirrel away debate and discussion about workers’ rights. If the Government truly intended to maintain these rights, they could have put something in the Bill along the lines of the amendments from Labour or the SNP. Better still, as we have touched on, they could have done the Bill the other way round, so that we knew what was going to be removed. The fact that they have not done that raises concerns.

When the review of retained EU law commenced, Lord Frost said that the Government were in the position to ensure that retained EU law could be revoked, replaced, restated, updated and removed or amended to remove burdens. Of course, he could have added to those comments and said that, while we want to do that with retained European law, we respect and support workers’ rights and do not need to change them. Instead, we have the language of attack—of revocation, of removing burdens—not the language of a Government intent on upholding workers’ rights.

I urge Members to consider what the Minister’s colleague, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, said on Second Reading on the subject of workers’ rights:

“In line with the UK’s track record, we will seek to modernise our regulations, including on workers’ rights, ensuring that unnecessary burdens are minimised”.—[Official Report, 25 October 2022; Vol. 721, c. 252.]

I am not sure what he meant by “modernise”, given that the Government have yet to implement the vast majority of recommendations from the Taylor review that sought to bring in new regulations to protect workers in the gig economy, but it is the latter part of that sentence that I want to examine further.

We hear far too often from those on the right of politics that employment rights are an unnecessary burden on businesses. Of course, for many, the visceral hatred of workers’ rights was a huge motivating factor for wanting to leave the EU. However, I would say that workers’ rights are not a burden, but an essential ingredient of a civilised society. If we want our citizens to play an active role in the country moving forward and in future economic growth, our citizens have to be rewarded fairly and treated fairly. Security and respect at work are the cornerstone of any success we may have as a nation. A secure and happy workforce is a productive workforce. Giving people dignity, certainty and fairness in the workplace is not a burden on businesses, but is what good businesses want to do, what good businesses will see the fruits of, if they implement it properly, and what we as Members of this House should want to see in every workplace.

We view the Government’s approach to the amendment with scepticism. I urge all members of this Committee not to pass up the opportunity that this amendment gives them to say to those who may see the Bill as a chance to weaken workers’ rights that we are not going to let that happen: these rights are not up for grabs, they are non-negotiable and they will not be dumped at the end of 2023.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

It is not taking back control, is it? Anyone who has read the Bill will understand that Parliament’s role will be severely restricted, and that is why the Opposition are worried about what will happen. The Minister cited a long list of measures that strengthened employment rights, many of them introduced under a Labour Government of course. Not all of them came from Europe—the minimum wage is not derived from European law. We want to see such rights protected.

I think the Minister is sincere in her desire to support equality, but her exact words were that there is no intention to remove any necessary equality law. I just question whose definition is used to decide what is necessary or unnecessary. What does that mean? That is why it is so important that we have a proper scrutiny process. If it is decided that no equality laws are unnecessary, they should be removed from the terms of the Bill all together.

[Peter Grant]

I will ask question that the Minister chose not to hear. The Bill runs to 37 pages, and we do not know how long the Government have taken to put it together, but we know that they had a month between First and Second Reading. In that time, at least 15 mistakes were identified in the Bill, because the Government themselves have tabled 15 amendments to correct mistakes in a Bill of 37 pages. The items of legislation subject to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment run to something like 360 pages. The legislation relating to this amendment alone is nearly 10 times as long as the Bill we are currently considering, yet the Government have so far identified 15 amendments that are required to the Bill. What confidence can we have that 360 pages of revoked legislation will have been properly gone through and assessed, and all properly put back into law in just over a year from now?

[Justin Madders]

We do not have a lot of confidence. The hon. Member is right to point out the amount of legislation to which just this amendment relates. We are trying to do the Government a favour by attempting to remove various legislation from the Bill. The Minister spoke about an over-bureaucratic process, and we can help with that by removing some regulations from the Bill so that they are retained in law. There is therefore no need to go through any bureaucratic exercise.

The Minister spoke about modernising health and safety law. To me, modernising can mean any number of things, and it does not always mean that law will be improved or rights increased. As we know, the Bill specifically prevents an increase in the legislative burden, and I think a lot of people may say that health and safety is a burden, although I certainly do not think it is; I think it is an absolute essential, but we know how it is characterised in some quarters.

I want to address head-on the claim that we are scaremongering, worrying people and causing anxiety by raising the issue. In order to remove such anxieties, the simple answer is to vote for the amendment, because then there would no question about those rights being protected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

The Minister’s clarification in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute’s questions has been about as clear as mud. On the basis of that response, I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend will stick to his guns, move his amendment and push it to a vote. Either the Minister genuinely does not get devolution, or she gets it and is trying to roll it back, because the whole point of devolution is the recognition that there are four distinct identities, at the very least—four distinct sets of needs and priorities—within the four nations of this Union. Arguably, England could be split into several autonomous regions as well if the people of those parts of England so desired.

I think the fault line is that the Minister continually expects the people of Scotland to be reassured when she says, “This is not what the Government intend to do with this new power. This is not what the Government intend to do with this new legislation.” I mean nothing personal against this particular Minister when I tell her that the people in Scotland do not trust this Government. The people in Scotland have never trusted a Tory Government and never will, so if the reassurance that the Minister wants to give my constituents and constituents of other colleagues in Scotland is “We promise you that although we’ve got this power, we will not do it to you”, that will not be enough. The one way to make that promise credible is to say, “We are so determined not to do this to you that we are not going to take the power that would allow us to do it. We are going to make a law that would prevent us from doing that.”

The Minister still has not answered my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute’s questions, so maybe I can ask them in a different way. Who does she believe should have the right to decide whether chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-injected beef should be allowed to be sold in shops in Scotland? Is that a decision that rightfully belongs with the Parliament of Scotland, or does it belong to this place?

[Justin Madders]

To follow on from what the hon. Member for Glenrothes has said, I think the Minister misunderstands the point of devolution if her main argument against these amendments is that we cannot have different deadlines and laws in different jurisdictions. The whole point of devolution is that each devolved nation is able to decide the laws that sit within its devolved competence. I will not push our amendment to a vote, but the answers we have received this evening are pretty inadequate.

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

Debate between Justin Madders and Peter Grant

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Justin Madders]

We have some sympathy with amendment 68. From what we can determine, it tries to equalise the approach to the current anomaly whereby under clause 1(2) the power to remove the sunset is granted both to Westminster and to devolved authorities, but the power to extend the sunset under clause 2(1) is just for Ministers in Westminster. I do not know the reasons for the difference in that approach.

I suggest that the evidence sessions did not reveal a particular state of readiness in the Scottish Parliament for the administrative burden that the Bill will leave it with. That is not, by the way, a criticism of the Scottish Parliament; it is a reflection of the timescales that we face. The current powers in the Bill leave the Scottish Parliament in a position in which it would have to remove the sunset entirely, whereas perhaps an option could be for it to extend the sunset for reasons of capacity. That would be a much more measured approach.

[Peter Grant]

My recollection, which may help the hon. Member on his first point, is that Angus Robertson said they had not had a chance to begin to quantify the amount of legislation. He was saying not that it was because there was not very much but because there was so much of it. Can the hon. Member be clear as to what Labour’s current position is? If a piece of retained EU law related exclusively to one of the devolved competences—either the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or the Northern Irish Assembly—is it Labour’s position that that retained law should be removed from the devolved legislatures only with their explicit consent, or does Labour support the Government, who think this Parliament can legislate away in fields of devolved competence without the consent of the devolved Administrations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I have a great deal of sympathy with amendment 90, but amendment 91 seems to be telling the devolved Administrations how to do their job. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that if we want to allow the devolved Administrations to decide whether to vote for a particular piece of retained EU law, we should also leave it to them to decide the process by which they do it?

[Justin Madders]

If the hon. Member does not think that doing proper consultations is the way the Scottish Parliament wants to go, that is a matter for him, but we would like consistency of approach across all Departments and nations of this United Kingdom. Subsections (2C) and (2D) in amendment 91 would effectively create a failsafe so that any attempts to frustrate the will of the devolved nations cannot be made by the inaction of a recalcitrant Secretary of State. I hope the hon. Member can at least take some reassurance from that—any exercises of the devolved nations would, under the amendment, be honoured by Westminster.

We have already heard arguments that some of these laws were not brought into force in a truly democratic manner. Therefore, they do not need the same level of scrutiny that would ordinarily be afforded to other laws passed by this Parliament. Frankly, I find that argument nonsense. It is like saying, “I object to my neighbour planting leylandii in their garden, so I am going to do exactly the same.” If the complaint is that the level of accountability and scrutiny was insufficient when the laws were brought in, surely those making that argument would want accountability and scrutiny when those laws are reviewed. Is taking back control not about us—this Parliament—having a fuller role in the legislative process?

As it happens, I do not accept that characterisation of how these laws were introduced in the first place. In its written evidence, the Bar Council said that

“the EU legislative process, whilst certainly capable of much improvement, contains a number of democratic checks and balances: for the vast bulk of EU subordinate legislation, the co-legislators, both of whom must adopt the final text by (normally weighted) majority, are the Council, comprised of elected Ministers from the Member States, and the European Parliament”,

which is democratically elected, of course, and whose membership included until 2020 Members who were democratically elected from the UK. It continues:

“Important Commission legislative proposals are preceded by impact assessments and so-called roadmaps, and often accompanied by Staff Working Documents, all publicly available and setting out the policy intent. In addition, public consultations and stakeholder meetings are frequent features of the process, whether concerning binding or non-binding measures.”

I do not know whether the criticisms of this process are about the quality of representation that we had over there. A number of former MEPs are now Members of these Houses of Parliament, and they all seem pretty capable people to me. Let us not forget that once the EU issued its directives, we in this place had the European Scrutiny Committee and other Select Committees to examine any proposals. It is simply wrong to say that our politicians, stakeholders and policymakers did not have ample opportunity to exert influence on the development of EU policy and secondary legislation.

There are many examples where EU legislation was supported, and even promoted, by the UK Government of the day. One example—I am sure you will remember this, Sir George—was the social chapter. That was clearly telegraphed by the Labour party as something it would introduce if it got into power back in the 1990s; it was in the manifesto. Of course, Labour won that election and those laws were introduced, including rights on parental leave and working hours. Nobody can say those rules were forced on us without our consent. It should therefore be a matter of agreement for everyone who wants to see democracy prosper that the replacement legislation under this Bill should be made by Parliament after proper consultation, public debate and scrutiny, not simply a ministerial decision—or, as the case may be, ministerial non-decision.

The best idea we have at the moment regarding how the Government intend to approach this mammoth task is a statement from Lord Frost, who said the policy intention was

“to amend, replace or repeal all retained EU law that is not right for the UK.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 September 2021; Vol. 814, c. 1533.]

“Not right”—is that the best we can do? This centuries-old Parliament, taking a historic decision to wrestle back control from those unelected Brussels bureaucrats, finds itself in the ludicrous position of having another unelected person tell us that laws will be changed if they are “not right”. Surely the Minister can see that could mean absolutely anything. That is the equivalent of a dictator waking up one morning and saying, “I don’t think it’s right that people in my country are allowed to wear hats, so from today we will outlaw that.” Clearly that is an extreme example, but that is the consequence of having a Government who have the power to dispense with laws with no consultation or scrutiny because they do not think those laws are right. Surely as a Parliament we can do better than that. Surely we should hold ourselves to a high standard when we want to change legislation. We should not legislate on a whim, and Parliament should not hand powers to Ministers that enable them to do just that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I note that the hon. Gentleman’s incredulity is almost as great as mine with respect to a Minister who a minute ago said that we can deal properly with 4,000 bits of legislation in just over a year, but then said that the Government cannot take stuff from their own dashboard and transpose it somewhere else.

Am I correct to think that, essentially, the purpose of the amendment is to give the Government some insurance cover to prevent them from revoking useful legislation by mistake? What does it say about the arrogance of a Government that they refuse to accept such an offer of help and prefer to see legislation that could have unintended damaging consequences, rather than simply having the humility to accept such a proposal, which they seem to reject purely because of where it comes from, rather than any benefit it might contain?

[Justin Madders]

I hope the Minister will learn that I always try to be helpful with my amendments. We are genuinely trying to get the Bill into some kind of shape whereby it might restore faith in parliamentary democracy. We will not be the ones to bear the consequences of accidental omissions; it will be our constituents. They will rightly ask, “What were you doing? Where were you when the Bill was passed?” It will be clear that we raised our concerns and pointed out the terrible potential consequences of not doing this correctly.

Taxes on Motor Fuel

Debate between Justin Madders and Peter Grant

Monday 23rd May 2022 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for her excellent introduction, which she delivered with panache, as always. I am sure she pleased the people who signed the petition by covering many of the issues they want to raise.

This is an important debate for my constituency. We have made vehicles in Ellesmere Port for more than 50 years, and we have one of the few remaining oil refineries in the country. Most importantly, people in my constituency overwhelmingly depend on private transport to get to work. Some 78% of people in Ellesmere Port and Neston use a private motor vehicle to get to work, which is about 15% above the national average. That is not just a reflection of our proud industrial heritage; it is probably more to do with the lack of a regular and affordable public transport service in the area.

Although fuel duty and VAT are the same at whatever pump in the country someone fills up at, their impact differs depending on where they live and what they do for a living. Shift workers are far less likely to be able to use public transport to get to work. To be honest, people with jobs that finish after about 6 pm in my constituency are lucky to find a bus to take them home. If a person has children they need to place in childcare or school on their way to work, or pick up them up from afterwards, they may well need a car. If they are in a job that requires a large amount of driving, that of course makes a huge difference to how much they have in their pocket at the end of the week. Taxi drivers are a particularly affected group, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) said, so are care workers. Of course, the Minister will have some reflections on that from her previous role.

Nor should we forget about the impact that fuel has on other costs that we as taxpayers have to meet, including police cars, ambulances and school transport. There are literally millions of miles travelled every day that end up paid for by the taxpayer. The cost is quite often met by local councils, which do not have a say in the amount of fuel duty raised in the first place. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) rightly pointed out, fuel costs also play into wider inflationary pressures, particularly on food and other services that are delivered.

What someone does, and where they live, can make a huge difference to the impact of fuel duty, and I am afraid that that extends to some inexplicable variations in the price at the pump up and down the country. It might only be a couple of pence most of the time, but that can quickly add up, and I wonder why the average price is a couple of pence more around Ellesmere Port than it is in various other parts of the country, given that we are on the doorstep of a refinery.

On a related point—this is something my hon. Friend the Member for Gower mentioned earlier—the RAC Foundation has said that the 5p cut in fuel duty, which was introduced by the Chancellor in March, led to an average fuel price reduction of 3.3p per litre for unleaded and 2.6p per litre for diesel. In their defence, the representative bodies for the retailers claim that their members passed on the cut in full, but that prices were rising at the time. It might not be right to lay the blame entirely at the door of the retailers, but it is very difficult to get the level of transparency we need.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the other issue is that retailers often have no choice as to which distributor or wholesaler they go to? If the wholesaler does not take any of the 5p duty cut off the wholesale price of fuel, the retailer is given a double whammy: they cannot cut the price, but they get flak from drivers who expect to see 5p coming off a litre of fuel.

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Member is right, and it goes to my point about needing greater transparency. It can often be difficult to know exactly where the 5p has disappeared to, but I think it beyond contention that our constituents are not seeing the full benefit of the fuel duty cuts. The key question that we need to ask is how these measures will help to put cash back into people’s pockets. The reason this debate is so important at the moment is because we have the biggest squeeze on living standards in a generation, and the steps that the Government have taken so far are woefully inadequate.

The rise in prices across the world is obviously largely out of our hands, so it is inevitable that people will look at what the Government can change to ensure that there is some respite for people, and that help reaches those who need it most. We have already discussed the windfall tax at length in this place, so I will not repeat the arguments on that, but it is the fairest and most effective way to get help to those who need it most in a fairly quick manner. As we have seen already, although reducing the cost of fuel can help, there is a risk that such a reduction might not be passed on in full, and that it will benefit only those who have a car in the first place. In the context of wildly fluctuating oil prices, those savings may not be felt by people at all.

On fluctuating oil prices—or, to be more accurate, increasing oil prices—we should remind ourselves that higher prices at the pump mean that the Government have an increased income from VAT. Research has indicated that because of the rising oil price this year, the Government’s VAT receipts on pump sales have gone up by an average of 7p per litre for petrol and 9p per litre for diesel, which is far more than the 5p per litre that has been taken off. Fuel duty cuts might be a sleight of hand that creates a good headline and the illusion that the Government are taking decisive action, but it could be that those cuts are being made up for by increased revenue elsewhere—revenue that comes out of the pockets of the same people who are meant to benefit from the cut in the first place.

This debate cannot really happen in isolation and away from the influence of the Treasury, and we must be realistic and acknowledge that it will always be the primary driver of these decisions, given the huge amount of revenue that fuel duty brings in. Sooner or later, however, the debate must move on from whether we take off 2p here or add 2p there, because if we are to meet our net zero targets and move away from reliance on fossil fuels, we must also move away from reliance on taxing those fuels that we currently tax. At the heart of this is a complicated dilemma about moving to a similar fuel duty system for electric vehicles, which may disincentivise people to change. If instead we decide to tax people by the mile—I know that has been suggested in some quarters—that may disproportionately impact some communities, as well as removing one of the major reasons for investing in an electric vehicle in the first place.

There is also the question of whether the infrastructure is in place to make reliance on electric vehicles realistic. I certainly see that in my area there is a long way to go in order to get a comprehensive charging structure in place. We know that many properties—some say at least one third, and possibly even higher—are not, and never will be, suitable for home charging. With the differential VAT rate for charging at home and at a filling station, that is a major inequality that needs addressing. I would suggest that it needs addressing now, before the tax taken from it becomes so high that it becomes impossible for us to wean ourselves off that too.

Those are debates for the future, however, and we now need more effective and rapid ways of putting more money into the pockets of those who need it the most. As I have said, the best proposal I have heard so far is the windfall tax, and with this being a debate on the cost of living crisis, it is very disappointing that not one Government Back Bencher has come to speak about this issue. It shows, I am afraid, just how out of touch the Conservative party is.