Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 11th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we begin the urgent question, I note that it is highly regrettable that the Government decided not to offer an oral statement on this matter yesterday, given the importance of the announcement. On such matters, full engagement with Parliament and its Committees is essential. Before I call the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, I remind the Government that we are elected to hear it first, not to hear it in The Telegraph, and a written ministerial statement is certainly not satisfactory for such an important matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)]

I am very sorry, Mr Speaker, that the sequencing that we chose was not to your satisfaction. I was—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is totally not acceptable—

[Kemi Badenoch]

It was not the right procedure.

[Mr Speaker]

Who do you think you are speaking to, Secretary of State? I think we need to understand each other. I am the defender of this House and these Benches on both sides. I am not going to be spoken to by a Secretary of State who is absolutely not accepting my ruling. Take it with good grace and accept it that Members should hear it first, not through a WMS or what you decide. These Members have been elected by their constituents and they have the right to hear it first. It is time this Government recognised that we are all elected—we are all Members of Parliament—and used the correct manners.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Mr Speaker, I apologise. What I was trying to say was that I am very sorry that I did not meet the standards that you expect of Secretaries of State. Forgive my language. I have been trying to make sure that I provide as much clarity as possible, so I am actually very pleased to have come to the House to speak on this issue.

I have published a written ministerial statement to explain that yesterday we tabled an amendment to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill that amends the operation of the sunset in clause 1. It is a technical change that introduces to the Bill a schedule of retained EU law that will be revoked on 31 December 2023. The schedule includes around 600 pieces of legislation provided by nearly all Departments, and spans a huge number policy areas. We tabled the amendment in response to concerns raised in this House, and it will provide the legal clarity and certainty that has been called for.

I reassure my hon. Friend the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee that the 600 pieces of legislation in the schedule are not the limit of our ambition—neither the beginning nor the end—but over the past year, as Whitehall Departments have been working hard to identify retained EU law to preserve, reform or revoke, it has become clear that time constraints have led to the programme becoming more about preserving EU laws than prioritising meaningful reform. That is why we are proposing a new approach. Had I known the intense excitement that the House would feel about this issue, I would have come running to make sure that the technical details could be investigated by all and sundry.

As I have said, we are 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. I am pleased to say that the Government have already reformed or revoked more than 1,000 pieces of REUL. In addition to the list of about 600 revocations in the schedule to the retained EU law Bill, about 500 further pieces of REUL will be repealed by the Financial Services and Markets Bill and the Procurement Bill, which means that we will have repealed not 600 but more than 2,000 pieces of REUL by the end of the year.

We are committed to lightening the regulatory burden on businesses and helping to spur economic growth, and our Edinburgh reforms of UK financial services include more than 30 regulatory reforms to unlock investment and boost growth in towns and cities across the UK. Our regulatory reform announcement yesterday set out a long-term plan to improve UK regulation over the coming months. As a down-payment on that commitment, we announced changes that will reduce disproportionate EU-derived reporting requirements and could save businesses about £1 billion a year. That is just the first in a series of announcements that the Government will be making on reforming regulations to drive growth, and in addition to the schedule the powers in the Bill will still enable us to revoke, replace and reform any outdated EU laws that remain on our statute book by 2026. This new approach will provide space for longer-term and more ambitious reforms. Members will no doubt be pleased to hear that it will also mean that fewer statutory instruments will be required to preserve EU laws that are deemed appropriate to be maintained.

I want to reassure my hon. Friend that we will still fully take back control of our laws and end the supremacy and the special status of retained EU law by the end of 2023. That will ensure that we are ending the shadow statute book and the inappropriate entrenchment of EU law concepts in domestic statute.

[Kemi Badenoch]

My hon. Friend has asked many questions, and I will endeavour to answer them. I think he knows that he has heard the answers before, but I am nevertheless happy to respond on the Floor of the House.

My hon. Friend and I have had many private conversations in which we have discussed retained EU law. He wrote to me about attending the European Scrutiny Committee, and I replied that until the policy was settled I could not attend the Committee but instead could have engagement with colleagues, which is what I have done. I should, of course, be delighted to attend the European Scrutiny Committee. I attend numerous Select Committees in my role not just as Secretary of State for Business and Trade but as Minister for Women and Equalities, and I should be very happy to speak to the Committee, but—no doubt you will sympathise with this, Mr Speaker— there is no point having to talk about policy on the Floor of the House before we know exactly what is settled.

My hon. Friend claims that this is a change of policy, but it is a change of approach. The policy is still the same: we are ending EU supremacy, and we are ending interpretive effects. What we are changing is the way in which we are doing that. We could have ended up with a programme of 450 statutory instruments to preserve EU law. What I have done is respond to businesses in particular, but also to the parliamentarians—including many of those who are chuntering on the Opposition Benches—who have raised concerns with me about how we can have clarity and some transparency. I have shown exactly what we are doing. I have listed all the laws that we are removing. There is a key point to make here. We left the European Union not just to delete EU law from the statute book, but to make our economy better. To do that, we have to reform the laws. If we delete the laws from the statute book, we will be starting from scratch in bringing in the reforming primary legislation. This is a better approach. It was my suggestion to the Prime Minister. I am very pleased that he accepted it. I am very proud to be standing at the Dispatch Box showing that those of us who are Brexiteers can be pragmatic and do what is right for the British people. That is why I am very pleased to be explaining this change on the Floor of the House today.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

What an absolute shambles. I think that the Secretary of State is the sixth different Government representative at the Dispatch Box on this Bill, and unfortunately for her she is the one who will have to hear from us the words that no Government Minister wants to hear: we told you so. We did, repeatedly, as did the Institute of Directors, the TUC, the Bar Council and a host of other organisations.

It has to be asked: why did not the Government listen to those experts in the first place? It was completely unrealistic, reckless and frankly arrogant to think that they could strike 4,000 laws from the statute book in the timescale set out in the Bill. It is no use blaming the blob, the anti-growth coalition or the BBC. This humiliating U-turn is completely down to Government hubris that has found them crashing up against reality, so will the Secretary of State apologise to the entire House, and to all the trade unions and business, legal and environmental groups that were told by the Government that they were wrong?

Will the Secretary of State also apologise for announcing this policy change not to the House but to her friends—or should I say now her former friends—in the European Research Group and to the press? Can she tell us at what point the Government decided on this change of course and on what basis they have chosen the 600 regulations to be removed—or is it 2,000 now, because she mentioned that in her statement as well?

Although we welcome the humiliating climbdown that sees the cliff edge go, the Bill still gives enormous powers to Ministers and at last the cat is out of the bag about what they want to do with them. We are concerned that, although the mode of delivery has changed, the destination has remained the same. That is revealed in the “Smarter regulation to grow the economy” paper released yesterday, which contains a clear plan to water down TUPE and working time rights. We have warned time and again of the threat to workers’ rights in the Bill and in response the Minister said:

“The Government have no intention of abandoning our strong record on workers’ rights, having raised domestic standards over recent years to make them some of the highest in the world.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2022; c. 144.]

Well, we can strike that from the record, as we can strike the Secretary of State’s leadership hopes. How can a Government elected on a manifesto promise to

“build on existing employment law”

justify an approach that will water down workers’ protections? It just goes to show that you cannot trust the Tories with workers’ rights.

[Kemi Badenoch]

One of the things that I have found most illuminating about this process is how little those on the Opposition Front Bench understand what we are doing. They simply stand up and repeat their usual talking lines. We have made repeated commitments that we are not watering down workers’ rights in this House. If the hon. Gentleman actually read and understood what we have written, he would understand that we are maintaining workers’ rights but reducing the bureaucracy. That would save £1 billion and is something that both workers and employers want. I know that it is really tough and there are lots of words in it, but the truth is, I say to those on the Opposition Benches, that I can explain it but I cannot understand it for them.

This is a very simple change in approach. We are having the exact same effect that we were always going to have. We are removing more than 2,000 pieces of EU legislation. It is delightful to see those on the Labour Front Bench and the ERG on the same side for once, as they claim to be. If I am upsetting people on both sides, I am probably taking the pragmatic middle ground and I am pleased to be doing so.

There is so much opportunity we can take on EU law reform and that is what this programme is about.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

May I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that I am not upset? Her description of this change of approach is useful, and it meets many of the criticisms of the unamended Bill. I hope it is successful, and I hope people on both sides of the House and in industry make sure we keep the right bits and drop the bits that are useless.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are taking an approach that works for everybody, not just for a particular group. We have to do what is right for business, we have to do what is right for consumers and we have to do what is right for the entire country. I voted to leave, and this is exactly the sort of reform I thought we would make when we left the European Union. I am very pleased to be able to take this through the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

I confess to being a wee bit conflicted this morning. I led for the SNP during our consideration of the Bill, and my key phrase was, “If you must do this damn silly thing, don’t do it in this damn silly way.” I am at least glad to see that we are doing this in a less damn silly way than we were, although I still disagree with it.

I share the anger that we have heard from Conservative Members. I respect their principle, even though I disagree with it. I do not like what the Bill is trying to do. I voted to remain, I enthusiastically committed to Scotland’s path back into the European Union and I want to see the UK have a close relationship with the EU, but I accept the majority view of this House. The Prime Minister made this commitment and he has questions to answer, because to describe this as a change of direction and a minor technical thing is to miss the point. This is a gross betrayal of the promises made to secure his election, and it is a key part of his personal manifesto. I do not think that betrayal should pass without consequence.

I am glad to see the end of sunsetting, which is a pragmatic change about which I should be glad, but I still do not like the Bill. It can still overrule the Holyrood Parliament on retained EU law, which is democratically offensive. We should also consider the costs of this exercise. What assessment have the Government made of the direct cost to the taxpayer of the work done thus far and now abandoned? I will be tabling parliamentary questions on this, but what wider assessment has been made of the costs to organisations such as the National Farmers Union of Scotland and others in dealing with this uncertainty?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

We can always discuss amendments. The ones I am supporting are the Government amendments, which provide the certainty and clarity that Members in both Houses have asked for. What I am doing is a more transparent process that provides a lot more clarity. The fact that everyone can now see all the laws on the dashboards and the things that we are removing shows that we are coming to this process in good faith. I would appreciate Opposition Members doing the same.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

This is very bracing for a Thursday morning, and there is nothing I enjoy more than a good bunfight with a Secretary of State. I say gently that although many of us would have a great deal of sympathy with what the Secretary of State has outlined, it is important to make the point that the manner, tone and approach taken not just by her at the Dispatch Box now, but generally, is much improved, and the House tends to be much more receptive to it, when proper processes are followed and invitations to attend Select Committee are readily accepted. I urge that gently as a lesson that might be drawn from this. If she was at all concerned by the volume of statutory instruments that might be descending upon us, the attendance this morning proves that there are plenty of willing volunteers for such Committees.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I do not disagree with that, but the statutory instruments that I would want us to be focused on in this House should be the ones that are repealing EU law; all those hundreds of statutory instruments that would have come through were for retaining and preserving EU law. That is not what we said we were going to do, which is why this approach is better. It is faster and it accelerates us towards reform. I do not think anyone in this House can accuse me of shying away from Select Committees, questions or the Dispatch Box. I am always happy, no matter how difficult the questions are, to take the questions here.

[Mr Speaker]

In fairness, I have had to put the urgent question on.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Despite this screeching U-turn, the Bill still includes a power grab over environmental protections. Living in a nature-depleted country, it really concerns me that the Secretary of State can still change thousands of environmental laws at will, through secondary legislation, without scrutiny. Many of those laws relate to sewage that can be dumped into our rivers and chalk streams and on to our beaches. Will she make a firm commitment at the Dispatch Box today that the Government will not repeal or change any environmental law without due scrutiny by this House?