Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Marcus Fysh Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th January 2023 Commons Chamber

To conclude, the Bill is an undemocratic power grab that gives Conservative Ministers the power to eliminate vital pieces of legislation. There is no comprehensive list of legislation that will be affected by the Bill, and Parliament has no say over its scope. The Liberal Democrats will vote against the Bill. It is unnecessary and unrealistic, and it will serve only to cause more uncertainty while potentially eliminating or watering down key protections for our constituents. At the very least, I urge the Government to accept amendment 36 to increase the transparency of the laws that are impacted by the Bill and ensure that Parliament is not sidestepped in such an important process.

[Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

I voted for the independence that we gained from leaving the EU, as did many of my constituents. But they and I want to see us take advantage of the flexibility to make our own law that that independence gives us. That is the point of Brexit, and I think that one of the frustrations for people around the country has been in not seeing that taken to its logical conclusion.

The Bill is an overdue but welcome part of that. It is necessary because we are looking to streamline our systems and give them precision and certainty through a full framework of UK law-making, not EU judge-led interpretation and code. We need the Bill for the flexibility and agility that it will give us in being able to promote competitiveness and law that is appropriate to our conditions in these islands, and focus on the things that are important to our constituents. We need those laws to be accountable to them. We need the Bill for practicality and pace in achieving that. We do not need the process of engaging with the review of our retained EU law to be hamstrung by the House of Lords, or for the order paperOrder Paper to be commandeered by interest groups and Opposition Members.

We need to establish this common law framework by which our law can evolve. We do not want it to be subject to enduring purposive confusion and obstruction by European Court of Justice judgments, which inevitably affect the interpretation of law that originated from EU sources. We need the Bill to focus on those things. We need it not to be confused on these matters by arguments from the other, unelected, House. As people have mentioned, there are extensive powers in the Bill to provide that there are no lacunae in our laws by virtue of the revocation and the sunset. There are powers to restate and remake our law should those lacunae appear.

Overall, the Bill is essential to send a clear message to the government machine that it needs to apply itself now and finish the work that it has started. I am confident that it can and will do that. The civil servants whom I have seen working on these things are extremely dedicated and absolutely able to achieve that. After we pass the Bill, we need Ministers in every Department to step up and lead. They absolutely can do that, and they can do it well—there is time, but it will require a coherent process. They need to be focused on triage and prioritisation, with assistance from, at the centre, the Brexit opportunities group in the Cabinet Office, about which we have heard. That group can commission outside counsel to help with that process, to drill down into the most important things to achieve and to achieve them efficiently, and to set up common law frameworks for the evolution, clarification and elaboration of our principles in common law on all these matters.

It is also very important that that process involves practitioners from industry. Sometimes, we listen too much to the CEOs of big companies and the heads of various industry bodies, who often are political in their outlook, rather than thinking about the practicalities of getting from A to B and coming up with proposals that would make a genuine positive difference to how our laws and regulations evolve. We need to ensure that we have those mid-level practitioners present in these discussions to ensure that the practical avenues are taken up.

In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), one thing that Ministers might like to think about is whether, in these things wherechoosing to bring to the Floor of the House those matters that we can make a big practical difference, they might choose to bring those matters to the Floor of the House on, so that we can examine them more, help to champion them and celebrate what we are doing. That might be a thing something that we could all agree on. I am confident that if we pass thisthe Bill unamended, we can together bring more precision and clarity to how our law evolves. The Bill will be of tremendous advantage to all the United Kingdom.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of amendments 18, 19, 21, 24 and 36. What is clear from the Government is that this Bill is ideologically driven, lacks common sense, avoids parliamentary scrutiny and puts rights and protections that we have had for many years at risk of being revoked and deleted. In short, thisthe Bill plays Russian roulette with our rights and protections, and the Government cannot even tell us how many or give us an exhaustive list of which ones. When the Government unite groups ranging from the RSPB to the Law Society in opposition to the Bill, they should take note. This Bill creates uncertainty and is careering at great speed towards the edge of a cliff on 31 December 2023.

If the Government want to ensure that workers’ rights and environmental protections are not lost, they will have no problem in accepting amendments 19 and 21, which would exclude those rights and protections from the 31 December sunset clause and stop them from falling off a cliff edge. The Government have adopted 31 December as the date for the sunset clause, but they have not told us why. If they cannot even provide a definitive list of all the EU retained law that will be revoked in time for that date, surely that suggests we need more time to get the list ready.

Considering the wide range and extent of the rights and protections that we know about, surely having a longer sunset clause will help the Government to give greater certainty, which we were told was one of the reasons for thisthe Bill. The Government should therefore have no problem at all in accepting amendment 18, which extends the sunset clause to 2026. It would also allow the Government greater opportunity to bring Bills for primary legislation, allowing greater scrutiny by thisthe House in replacing the retained law that they propose to delete.

The Minister has continually failed to answer the question of exactly how many retained EU laws will be revoked under the sunset clause, and I do not understand why that is a problem. Surely all the retained EU law is there before us, and we should be able to find out exactly which regulations need to be retained and which will be deleted? There is no excuse. No new EU law has come about since we left the European Union, so that retained law should be easy to find. I cannot understand why we do not know which laws will be revoked under this Bill.

Amendment 36 requires the Government to publish an exhaustive list of every piece of legislation that is to be revoked under the sunset clause. Parliament should not be asked to vote on the revocation of these laws when we are not aware of which laws or how many there are. We need to be told, because that is one of the very points of having this Bill before us.

On the Henry VIII powers that the Bill gives to Ministers, which are designed to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, what are the Government afraid of? We should have parliamentary sovereignty; we should be the ones to decide which laws we want to retain and to revoke. Primary legislation should be brought for the laws that are revoked. There is no excuse for the clause to be there. Do the Government deny that there is a need for primary legislation? There will be laws revoked for which there will need to be legislation. Which ones are they and why can they not be put into a Bill and brought before this House? That would be give the House greater scrutiny and allow us to ensure that we do not accidentally lose certain laws.

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

Marcus Fysh Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir George, as indeed I believe it will be throughout the Bill Committee. I am sure that we will have a wonderful and detailed discussion. Government Members are laughing about that idea. Maybe that is the irony about all of this, because, when we were told that Brexit should happen, it was about “taking back control” for this place. Well, let us give some control to this place in the proper scrutiny of this legislation. I support the comments of my Front Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and of the hon. Members from further north than me—the hon. Members for Glenrothes and for Argyll and Bute—on these amendments.

Amendments 26 and 28 are critical. Let us start this debate by being absolutely clear; this Bill has nothing to do with Brexit. Brexit has happened. It may be continuing to cause many problems, but it has actually happened. However, the Bill is not what Brexit was about, because the Bill is a process and it has everything to do with a knee-jerk obsession with the idea that something with the word “Europe” in must be bad. That obsession will cause catastrophic devastation for our constituents, because the process that the Bill brings forward is incredibly destructive.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, it is a deadline in search of a headline. That seems a rather poetic attempt to say something simpler, which is that nobody quite understands why the Government are doing it in this way. After all, when we look at the amendments that have been tabled, and at the evidence that has been given, not a single piece of evidence has been provided in support of this approach. That is a startling thing to recognise. Nobody knows why these particular laws are up for abolition, all in one go, apart from the fact that they contain “Europe” at some point in their titles.

That knee-jerk reaction is incredibly dangerous because it means that we will delete things that we did not even know were on the statute book, as things stand. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of serving in a Delegated Legislation Committee—I suspect that we will have thousands more if this legislation goes through—where the Ministers were not aware of the foundations of the laws that they were trying to amend. They were technical amendments, they said, to do with pollutants, rooted in European legislation.

Now, that is not a case for staying in the European Union; as I said, we have left. I would take up the challenge of the right hon. Member for Clwyd West, who talked about other laws we would want to change. Of course, there are laws we want to change in this place; nobody ever says that the statute book is the preserve of being correct, apart from Governments who are frightened of scrutiny.

The amendments have a simple, pragmatic basis: what this Government are trying to do is too big to do in one year. It is a very simple proposition, and we want to hold the Government accountable for the consequences of trying to delete everything all at once. One might look at the amendment paper and think that there are 50 ways to leave the European Union using this legislation, given all the different amendments that have been tabled. I prefer to think of Warren G, and his debate around “Regulate”, because this Bill is ultimately about the regulations that we have in this country—everyday rules that make such a massive difference to the people of this country.

I know we will come on to those, Sir George, so I will not test your patience by listing them, but that is why this sunset clause matters. When the Government are putting up for grabs people’s rights not just to a paid holiday or maternity rights, but to compensation, to not have cancer-causing chemicals in their cosmetics, to be able to watch the Olympics free of charge, or around compensation if they are artists—thousands and thousands of regulations that have been part of the social fabric of this country for generations—it is right to ask whether deleting all of them in one year, with no guarantee about what will come next, is the right way to approach the matter.

The debate we had yesterday in a Delegated Legislation Committee on the Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022 was a classic example of what the folly is. Not only was it not clear to the Minister which amendments would be deleted by the legislation we are debating, which then underpinned the Statutory Instrument that the Minster was presenting, but she could not clarify what would come next. She made a strong case about the importance of protecting us and protecting against the ways in which pollutants might be used within the chemical industry, but if we do not amend the legislation, that case will fall in a year’s time—by the sheer fact that the very legislation which underpinned the proposals, the technical amendments the Minister was trying to make, will also fall, because the Government are deleting absolutely everything.

During the passage of the Bill, let no one say that the concerns being raised are about whether Brexit should have happened. Brexit is done. This is about the folly of hitting “delete”, “control” and “alt” at the same time—then hoping we can remember what was taken out and that in a single year everything can be replaced. Six hundred statutory instruments were introduced during the Brexit process and anyone who was here at the time—I know that not everyone was—will remember the hours we spent in Committee Rooms. Here we have five times the number in a single year.

Some may suggest that Members of Parliament are lazy, that they do not do very much. Some even suggest that Ministers—current or former—might have time to go into a jungle. I know, however, that no one thinks it really feasible that we will have 167 days of non-stop Delegated Legislation Committees, yet that is exactly what this legislation will require if we stick to this particular sunset clause for everything. At the moment, given the way in which the Bill is drafted, it does indeed cover everything—and that is without beginning the process of what we want to keep and what we want to get rid of. The point of all this is that there are things the Government want to change. Those of us who are democrats believe that the Government ought to set out what regulations they intend to remove, because that is what taking back control really meant. Again, if we have only one year in which people are to understand quite how the Government wish to change their rights to paid holiday, it seems not unreasonable to expect the Minister to give us some idea of the direction of travel before we hit delete—but, again, we have nothing.

The amendment is simply about setting a calmer course of action. I think we owe that to all our constituents. I do not think there is a single member of the Committee who in recent weeks and months has not dealt with constituents who are terrified about the status quo, terrified about what is happening now and worried whether they will get through Christmas. It is not unreasonable to say that our primary focus is stabilising the economy and we will not do anything that would undermine that. Whether someone is a passionate believer that Brexit still brings opportunities—and I say good luck to them, and also, “We all know of a good therapist”—or whether they were worried at the time that this was a high risk to take, recognition that the pace of change is best tackled in a measured and orderly fashion is something I am sure we can all agree on. The amendment is about the pace of change, not the change itself. It is about recognising that in an economy that is struggling, we cannot rip up every single regulation, not provide any clarity about what comes next in under a year, then expect Parliament to find the time to write all those regulations—or, indeed, to find all the regulations; we will come on to the question of whether we know about everything that is going to be deleted. Yesterday, Ministers from DEFRA certainly did not; and the Whips even suggested that it was a problem for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy rather than for DEFRA. I am sure it was news to the Minister in that Committee that she is now responsible for persistent organic pollutants on top of everything else.

I urge Government Members not to see this as about stopping Brexit, because Brexit has happened; but, rather, to see this as the best course of action to show that Brexit could work for this country. That means taking a simple proposal about how best to look at the legislation and its rubric. If we are going to find 4,000 hours of parliamentary scrutiny for delegated legislation, what are Ministers not going to be able to do? If we are going to find the civil servants to be able to deal with all this legislation, what else are they not going to be able to do? Are we confident that the next year will not bring further crises that will require our time, effort and energy? Are we confident that what is happening in Europe right now will not lead to further challenges that we would be better off putting our time, effort and energy towards?

I know that Government Members want to believe that the amendments are about opposing Brexit, but they are about opposing chaos. Government Members will have to explain to people how we will find parliamentary time, let alone find all the regulations. I note that the Minister said she would tell us what other regulations would be affected after we had passed the legislation, which does not inspire massive confidence. If not today, I hope that Government Members will reflect, and perhaps use the opportunity of those press reports to urge a calmer course of action. I think that all our constituents would thank us for it at a later date.

[Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

On a point of order, Sir George. The hon. Member for Walthamstow mentioned at the beginning of her speech that Government Members were laughing. That was not true. I wonder whether we could ask the Hansard Reporters to strike that from the record.

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

Marcus Fysh Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Stella, you have asked a lot of questions. We are moving on, and we will come back to you if there is time.

[Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

Q Would it be a good idea to have, within each Department, where there might be cross-cutting issues between them, particular taskforces established by Ministers, including practitioners in the area, to look at how things can be made more competitive within those areas by this process of assessing what retained EU law is out there and how it might be replaced? Should regulators be involved in that process, given that it might be necessary to take a practical approach to getting these things done, and to get expertise from outside the Government and the civil service to accelerate the process and get it done in the time available?

Tom Sharpe: The general point is very well made, if I may say so. It seems to me that that type of exercise—that kind of inclusive thinking about making the country more efficient and getting rid of silly regulations—would be valid even if we were not dealing with the Bill.

One of the problems with the Bill is that it is a framework Bill, and I can see a quite compelling case for eliminating some of the opacity that surrounds the Government’s intentions. It is early days, and the Bill is just a Bill. I do not think it would be enhanced by Ministers detailing in fine print exactly what is to be done, but there is a case for some ministerial guidance as to where the priorities should lie.

As for doing away with dud regulation, I find it amusing to read the submissions to Government. This is an important point about consultation. My understanding is that there have been thousands of responses to the dashboard—I think I am right in that. That is an element of public consultation. It is amusing to me to see that so many bodies that campaigned remorselessly against some of the EU legislation that we had no control over now resolutely do their best to try to preserve it. With a little more honesty, they would have been more compelling, I think.

[Mr Fysh]

Q This is a follow-up question to Martin Howe. Would it be possible for those taskforce processes also to involve parliamentary scrutiny through the various Committees in the Lords and the Commons, which might help to look at this prioritisation and emphasis?

Martin Howe: That is helpful and it sounds like a good idea. Whether it ought to be spelled out in the Bill is a different question, because there needs to be a certain amount of flexibility over these processes. Certainly, involving outsiders in looking at these issues, as opposed to doing it as a purely internal measure within Departments, strikes me as beneficial.

[The Chair]

Gentlemen, thank you for your evidence. Our time is now up. Thank you once again for being with us.

Examination of Witnesses

Mark Fenhalls KC, George Peretz KC and Eleonor Duhs gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I have three questions to get in before 11.25 am, so let us have quick questions and quick answers, please.

[Mr Fysh]

Q Is it not the case that the people of the UK have given Ministers the responsibility to sort this legislation out now, in this Parliament? Are you not simply trying to frustrate that because you never voted for Brexit in the first place and you hate it with every fibre of your beings?

Mark Fenhalls: That is a political accusation that could not be more unfair. That is not the case at all. The short answer to your question is no. Parliament, rather than Ministers, should be making the decisions. That is the democratic point, if I were to engage with you on a democratic level. It does not matter what I did or did not want; I have said to you, and I mean it, that I have no difficulty with change—absolutely none whatsoever.

[Mr Fysh]

Q You just do not want it to happen now.

Mark Fenhalls: I want it to happen on the basis of evidence and—

[Mr Fysh]

Do you want to make it happen under a different Government?

[The Chair]

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

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

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

Marcus Fysh Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We have 15 seconds, Marcus.

[Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

Q Quickly, I wondered whether there were any alternatives in legislation—through evolution of the Interpretation Act 1978, for example—that could be used in addition to or other than reworking clause 7(3) to achieve more certainty.

Barney Reynolds: Yes, I think we should look at reinstating the Interpretation Act 1978, which spells out the UK method of interpretation. That would mean all lawyers could understand what existing EU provisions will mean on the basis of the words on the page, with very limited delving beyond that, and would probably lead to greater certainty than trying to move slowly from one to the other, case by case.

[The Chair]

Thank you. I am afraid our time has run out, and we are under strict time limits. I thank all three of you for your expert evidence. It has been very helpful for the Committee.

Examination of Witnesses

Sir Jonathan Jones KC and Dr Ruth Fox gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

Q Sir Jonathan, a similar question to you: what impact does that have on the ability of Departments to operate and, indeed, on Parliament’s ability to scrutinise, if it is not clear what legislation is effective? For example, the dashboard does not currently contain the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, but that is a piece of European retained law that will have an impact on environmental concerns. In your experience, what is the impact on civil servants being able to advise Ministers and to provide information to Parliament? I note that Ministers told me that the dashboard is an authoritative but not comprehensive list of laws to be affected. What impact might those absences and omissions have on the ability of civil servants to do their job for us?

Sir Jonathan Jones: I am not in the civil service, as you know; I am on the other side, advising clients about what the effect of the Bill will be on their businesses and so on. This was always going to be a very complicated exercise, including for the civil service. We are leaving one legal order and, in one sense, we are out of it—we are free—but the legal constitutional consequences of that were always going to be very complicated, because we had this huge body of law that over decades had been integrated into UK law. We were not keeping a running tally throughout that time of the laws that we might one day want to change, because they had come from a particular source. They were enmeshed it all sorts of different ways with UK law.

As soon as we left, we had to begin the process set out in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which was about identifying what retained EU law needed to be changed in order for it to work operationally and technically. That was the process that was done with the 2018 Act, and it involved, as I think you have heard, many hundreds of sets of regulations to cure deficiencies in the language of that legislation. That was complicated enough, and it is possible that things were missed. There are certainly examples of some changes having to be made multiple times because they were not got right the first time.

That was complicated enough but at least, if something was missed, the law did not fall away altogether; it could be corrected later. What was being done then was an essentially technical exercise to keep the pre-existing law and to make it work as far as possible, in a way that provided continuity and certainty for users. What we are talking about now is an exercise of a completely different order. This is about changing policy, potentially getting rid of some laws and, in some cases, deciding what replaces them.

This is an immensely more complicated exercise even than the one that has already been done, and the civil service will not have started with a pre-existing list, however authoritative they are trying to make it. There is therefore a risk that as Departments perform an audit, or as the National Archives help with that process, additional laws will be found. There must be a risk that some will be missed altogether. If that is so, again as you have heard, the consequence of the Bill is that the law will fall away altogether on the sunset date, and you will not have the option of making a correction. Ministers, if they wanted to, would have to come back to Parliament with a Bill to replace or change the law. That is the complexity of the exercise.

[Mr Fysh]

Q I am very much in favour of injecting urgency into the process of transition from one order to the other, as you have described, and I am well aware of the complexity involved in that, which is one of the reasons why I have been making the argument for taskforces that involve more than just civil servants and Ministers in the process. I encourage Ministers to get very good advice from outside—from practitioners, and so on.

I have two questions. First, how else could you inject such urgency to get this done quickly, other than through what has been proposed? Secondly, we have heard a lot about the permanence of the falling away—this is your contention—of the laws because of the sunset, but is it not the case that in various clauses, such as clause 2(1), and clauses 12 and 13, there are powers for a restatement or reproduction of different things up until 2026 should it become necessary? Is that not an adequate safeguard mechanism should there turn out to be something that the taskforce approach, which should be very competent, has missed?

Dr Fox: On the latter point, yes—there is provision to extend the sunset through, as you say, to 2026, but that applies to the piece of retained EU law that you know about and are saving and assimilating, and that you will then have the option to amend later. The concern is that if you have not identified and saved it, it could fall away and you could then have that problem. There is also the prospect that you end up with a patchwork quilt of sunset dates, because it could be before 2026.

There are issues about at what point in that process, prior to December 2023, the Government would identify what they intend to do, either with the individual pieces of retained EU law or sections of retained EU law, which will introduce uncertainty. What we have proposed is to do that in a slightly different way: that is, take away the cliff edge where everything falls away—unless you choose to save it—and use Parliament as an ally in that process.

I completely understand the concern about internal inertia, particularly in the final two years of a Parliament and in these current socioeconomic conditions, where there are lots of capacity pressures. However, it seems to me that you could use Parliament as an ally by, instead of having cliff edge dates where legislation and law falls away, having dates in the process, possibly linked to your taskforces, where there are statutory reporting requirements to Parliament by Government Ministers and Departments and where Select Committees could be engaged in that process by scrutinising those reports.

You could set out what you want the Government to report on—what are their plans, what is their implementation timetable, what progress are they making, as with the EU withdrawal Act process for the statutory instrument programme; you could engage the National Audit Office in monitoring implementation of that; and you could have reporting. One of the things that wakes up permanent secretaries and others in the civil service is the possibility of having to appear before a departmental Select Committee and report on a lack of progress, or the fact that their plans are failing. Your model of taskforces to ensure consultation, coupled with statutory reporting requirements, through to a deadline of 2026 or 2028—whatever you choose—would be a better approach, because you could still achieve what you want to achieve but reduce the risk of missing something.

[The Chair]

Thank you. I have got a few more questions to get in before five minutes past. It was the first or second question, Marcus, which perhaps Sir Jonathan could answer, if you can remember it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Fysh]

It was whether there are in fact powers to bring back things that have been sunsetted, such as in clause 13.

Sir Jonathan Jones: The short answer is that the powers to extend and save do not work if an instrument has been missed altogether by the time you get to the sunset date.

[Mr Fysh]

Clause 13 is about the reproduction of sunsetted retained EU rights, powers and liabilities. Is that not—

Sir Jonathan Jones: I do not think it works if an instrument has been missed altogether.

[The Chair]

Thank you. David Jones, followed by Alex Sobel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

Q In terms of my specific question, it seems we would be going down to 12 days. Could an employer challenge the right of an employee to take a bank holiday if the Government do not rewrite this piece of legislation?

Shantha David: I think it is worse than that, actually; we will not have the 20 days at all. We will have the eight days of bank holiday only if they are taken out of the current regulations, presumably, and put somewhere else. If the regulations go altogether, regulation 13A, which talks about the bank holidays, will go with them.

[Mr Fysh]

Q I am quite sure that the Government and their Ministers will be keen to ensure that the rights that people have enjoyed thus far are preserved. I cannot personally imagine a scenario in which they would not be careful about those things. I point out again that under clause 13(8), should anything inadvertently go that was not meant to go or have effects that were really bad, there is a power that could be used by a future Government to reproduce anything that was retained EU law in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I just wanted to share my strong belief that that is not where the Government would go. I cannot speak for them, because I am not a member of the Government, but I would be amazed if there was anything different.

Shantha David: It would be helpful, though, if that were in writing. I am grateful for your words, but as a lawyer it would be helpful to have a full list of what is included. If that piece of legislation, say, is sunsetted and introduced at a later date, there will be workers who do not have access to those laws. That is a breach of access to justice as well.

[Mr Fysh]

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

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

[Mr Jones]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Marcus Fysh has the final question.

[Mr Fysh]

Q Would you be willing to be part of a taskforce organised by Ministers to try to ensure that, in the replacement of the EU-derived law, the rights that are put in place by Ministers as a part of English common law or UK law are drafted in a way that will give you the comfort that you want? That would mean that they would not have to be litigated up and down through different courts because they would be clear enough and good enough for what we all want for our constituents and for your members?

Shantha David: We would be more than happy to help.

Tim Sharp: Absolutely; trade unions would want to engage in such a process. I am not sure that it would stave off the scenarios we see, as the exact meaning of different rights would still end up being litigated. Even in that scenario—great, we would love to have those conversations, as it is really crucial that workers’ voices are heard, but the Bill will still cause immense confusion and costs to business and workers.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much indeed for your evidence. We now move on to our next set of witnesses. We will slightly change the language and tone of proceedings, as we will be discussing the environment, which is an ever important issue.

Examination of Witnesses

Ruth Chambers, Dr Richard Benwell, David Bowles and Phoebe Clay gave evidence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Marcus Fysh Excerpts

Monday 4th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to support businesses during the covid-19 outbreak.

[Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to support businesses during the covid-19 outbreak.

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to support businesses during the covid-19 outbreak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend is quite right. We are absolutely committed to net zero and will continue to support the development of clean energy. The fourth round of allocations for contracts for difference will take place next year, bringing forward new renewable electricity projects and creating further demand for the many businesses across the UK that supply them. The unprecedented package of support for businesses, which was mentioned earlier, will help ensure that businesses in the clean energy sector can contribute to driving economic recovery after this pandemic.

[Mr Fysh [V]]

Will the Government please give local authorities and local enterprise partnerships real-time access to sector-level information about the furloughs and redundancies, and back ambitious enterprise and incentive schemes for them to help businesses to recover and transform after the virus?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point: the flow of information is key to dealing with the crisis. I am happy to meet him to discuss the specifics of his constituency businesses, and I will raise access to specific data with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Marcus Fysh Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The renewables strategy that we have set out has been remarkably successful in bringing down the price of onshore wind and creating jobs, including in Scotland. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have discussions with the Scottish Government, which have resulted in the remote islands policy that we have adopted. I will continue to have those discussions with his colleagues.

[Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

T3. Does the Minister agree that retaining full sovereign control of our regulation is essential to getting the most out of our economy, 88% of which does not relate to the EU?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)]

Sound regulation is crucial to businesses, workers and consumers. Approximately 1.4 million small and medium-sized enterprises export directly or indirectly to countries in the EU, and they will have a keen interest in the outcome of our trade negotiations.

International Investment

Marcus Fysh Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I will indeed, and I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is the constituency Member for the Bombardier Shorts plant in Belfast. No part of the United Kingdom could have a more vigorous representative of the interests of its constituents than his constituency. He and his colleagues have played an important role in this process. The reaction of Boeing is clearly a matter for that company, but I have been clear that as long as that unjustified and unmerited complaint is being pursued, we will vigorously defend it. We think that the complaint is without merit. As I said when I last updated the House, it is in everyone’s interest that the complaint should be withdrawn so that the relationship that Boeing seeks to have with this country should not be marred by the unjustified action that it is taking. My hon. Friend has my commitment on this.

[Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s attention to this area. I note that research and development in areas of critical national security often occur in the small and medium-sized enterprise sector. Has my right hon. Friend given any thought to how these proposals might impact on the propensity of people to invest in that sector?

[Greg Clark]

It is important that investors, especially those starting up a firm for the first time, should reflect on the fact that the UK is the best place in the world to establish new scientific and technological companies. They can invest with confidence. The ability to scrutinise investments should not put anyone off establishing a firm in this country. It is often possible to deal with security concerns through conditions and undertakings, and getting that framework clear and in place will give confidence to investors in the future.

Industrial Strategy Consultation

Marcus Fysh Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am interested to hear this observation from my hon. Friend. We are talking about a consultation. It is important to participate in the new industries, so that through our research and development and scientific expertise we can take our place in that respect, but of course a lot of our existing industries make an important contribution to our economy and to employment, and we want to make sure that they can prosper, too.

[Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

I welcome these proposals and note that in all 10 of the areas of focus, the Yeovil area and its aerospace cluster present outstanding and crucial opportunities to optimise our potential. Will my right hon. Friend visit my constituency and help me to promote a local centre of excellence, an institute of technology, to build local skills and actively to encourage inward investment from the likes of Boeing, so that in partnership with great local companies such as Leonardo, we can deliver the skills and jobs of the future and maintain our strategic abilities in helicopters?

[Greg Clark]

In my tour of the country—from Orkney to Somerset, it now seems—I will be delighted to look at the aerospace cluster in Yeovil. Companies reinforce each other by their presence, and as we know from experience across the world, when we have several companies all in the same sector, it is a source of resilience to local economies.

South-west Growth Charter

Marcus Fysh Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I feel like I ought to go like a train, Sir Roger, in the time limit, but not like the trains that were running out of the south-west yesterday, which were not going at all. I sometimes feel like I am the Boadicea of the north of the south-west region, and that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), who so gallantly brought this debate to the House, is like the Alan Sugar of the south of the region, but in between, we have a myriad of talent. We are a talented force and we are joining forces and working together for our region.

We should not be underestimated. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) said, the south-west Conservative MPs won the election—to get political about it. There are 51 of us and we should not be underestimated. We came into this House on a manifesto promise to increase productivity in the south-west, and we are determined to do that but we cannot do it without the right framework behind us. We already have so much going in the south-west; we are achieving a lot. We have a lot of top-quality businesses and companies, but we could do more with the right framework, so I urge the Minister to listen and not to take us for granted.

One must always have a plan and a strategy, and we do. We have the south-west growth charter, and we also have our local enterprise partnerships working. We have a really solid framework from which to work. We are not working individually—although we all have our individual bids—but as a team, particularly on infrastructure and our particular asks.

In the time I have I will focus on just a couple of areas: skills and infrastructure. As I said, we already have some top-quality companies in my constituency. I must mention the Claims Consortium Group, with its Investors in People gold standard, the Ministry of Cake, Peter Brett Associates, Albert Goodman, Francis Clark, and Viridor, which is under the Pennon banner. There are so many of them, all doing great work, but they could all do more. So often, we find it difficult to attract the right talent and keep it in our region, and that is something we need to concentrate on. I applaud the Government’s apprenticeship scheme—I think it will work well—but we need to work more. I have the first nuclear apprenticeship degree in my constituency, being run through Bridgwater and Taunton College, and, as has been said, we need to build on the nuclear strength we have in the south-west.

We need to build on health, aerospace, textiles and marine —the things we are really good at and strong in already—but it is important that we work with the region as part of the Government’s industrial strategy. We must ensure that we do not miss out on any designations that are being handed out under the strategy outlined in the Green Paper. We need to be part of the bidding process but we need to win, and we must not be hampered if we do not happen to have signed a devolution deal yet. We are already doing good work and we must not be hampered, or even penalised.

I will just mention AgustaWestland, as many people who live in my constituency work there. I had a very good meeting with the company. It employs 17,500 people across the south-west. It particularly urges innovation and investment in science and technology, with which I think we would all agree.

[Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

I will give way to my hon. Friend, because the company is in his constituency.

[Marcus Fysh]

Yes, that is a wonderful industry and we need to focus on it and raise its skill levels. Investing in infrastructure is absolutely fundamental to what we are trying to achieve in the area.

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend is right. The company stressed to me that it is not just about wanting engineers to build helicopters but about attracting young people into the area to be those engineers. The industry is inspirational and is going somewhere. We need the seed-corn money from business, and grants for medium and small companies so that they can start to do research in that field. We can do that in the south-west; we can build on it and we can all take advantage of it.

I just want to throw in that we need a university. We are warm-hearted in Somerset, but we are a cold spot where academia is concerned. I would like to speak to the Minister about how we ease the numbers game so that we can apply to be a university.

I will sum up on the infrastructure note. We all agree that we have lots of ideas but the Minister needs to bring it on. We want to see the spades in the ground. I want to see the A358 come to fruition before the next election. We have to have junction 25 upgraded, we have to have the A303, and we have to have the road to Barnstaple done. They all work together. I ask the Minister to put some money back into growth deal 3. It was almost in the bag, but the bag seems to have been opened and the money has been let out. Please can we have that, devolution or no devolution?

We can do it in the south-west. Give us the tools and we will deliver, but do not destroy our beautiful environments at the same time. We are a spectacularly stunning region. We can make the economy work but we can also make it work in a glorious environment.

Backbench Business

Marcus Fysh Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members who have spoken already.

I want to support the millions of customers all over the land who rely on the Post Office service in many remote areas as well as in towns. A post office recently closed in my village, East Coker, so I understand how important that is to a community; but it is true even in big towns such as Crewkerne, where the town centre post office recently closed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Wilson (in the Chair)]

Because we donated 15 minutes to the Division, we will now finish at 4.45 pm. I want to bring in the Front Benchers at a quarter past 4. I reiterate that if people limit the time that they take, everyone should get in. I call Marcus Fysh to continue his speech.

[Marcus Fysh]

Thank you, Mr Wilson. I was saying that it is often only when a community faces the loss of its post office that it realises what a wonderful service the post office system provides. I speak in support of not just the customers but the postmasters who provide that service.

Post offices are often owned by hard-working families who constantly look for ways to improve their flagging profitability and get more footfall. Postmasters run 97% of the country’s 11,500 post office branches, but they lack any meaningful union membership or collective voice. They are represented only by the National Federation of SubPostmasters, a trade association that is funded in part by Post Office Ltd. NFSP chief executive George Thomson recently said that “without serious changes” to the Post Office Ltd business,

“there may not be a network to fight for in the future.”

Successive Governments have spent billions subsidising Post Office Ltd. Some £2 billion of taxpayers’ money has been used on the latest network transformation programme, which has not yet proved able to make the network sustainable and profitable. The Post Office has halved its losses in the last financial year, but that seems to have been done at the expense of postmasters’ pay and increasing branch closures and redundancies. The front-line service has suffered: the queues remain and extended opening hours are sometimes inconsistent and quite unpredictable. We must ask why. In many cases, postmasters are struggling to staff and operate their branches on the money that the Post Office now pays. The reduced revenues from core services simply make many things that post offices do unprofitable, and I know from speaking to postmasters up and down my constituency that they are genuinely concerned about whether they will be able to keep going with those things.

Hon. Members have made several useful proposals during the debate, and I urge the Government to consider them carefully, because Post Office Ltd itself does not seem to have any obvious plans to introduce new services or increase revenue in a way that could help. A growing number of post office branches are up for sale—there are currently more than 730 advertised on the Daltons Business website alone.

One of the key issues with the franchise model that we need to look at is that the computer system on which the whole network relies is well and truly overdue for replacement. It is, in fact, at the centre of an ongoing High Court action. Thousands of postmasters have been blamed for losses that may in fact have been caused by the use of that computer system. Some of those postmasters have been convicted and some have been made bankrupt by the Post Office, and losing that court action may pose a major solvency problem for the Post Office itself. I call on the Government to look into that with some urgency.

In that context, it should not be a major surprise that the unions are taking action, although the Post Office’s move away from a defined-benefit pension scheme is possibly not the right point to complain about, given that there has been a major move away from such schemes in almost every other walk of life in recent years. We need to look at the Post Office; it is in danger of running out of control and its governance issues require serious work and attention. I urge the Government to take an active role in that, because postmasters and their customers up and down the land really depend on the Post Office.