European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Mary Creagh Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I will be joining my colleagues in the Lobby tonight to vote against this Bill, because of the unprecedented Henry VIII powers that will transfer power away from Parliament and give it to Ministers. In some ways, these powers will turn the Prime Minister into a female version of Louis XIV, the sun king, who, as he lay on his deathbed in the palace of Versailles, said, “L’état, c’est moi.” That is what she is doing with the Bill, but as representatives of the British people, sent here with a democratic mandate, we say, “L’état, c’est nous.” We are the legislative force in this country; no sun king or sun queen will be created on our watch, and we will not give up our parliamentary democracy without a fight.

It is perfectly possible to recognise and respect the result of the referendum without sacrificing hard-won economic, social and environmental rights and freedoms. As we have heard, at the general election the people declined to give the Prime Minister the majority she sought. Through the general election, the people have already rejected a hard Brexit, so the question before us tonight is: who governs Britain—this Parliament, or a Prime Minister reliant on some hard-liners in her party and on the Democratic Unionist party, which she is paying whatever it demands to get her laws through?

Clause 9 would allow Ministers to introduce regulations to make any provision that can be made by an Act of Parliament, including modifying this legislation, a huge power that will last right up to exit day. It is therefore the great power grab Bill, which will create an infinite legislative loop: the powers can be extended infinitely to amend laws, through delegated legislation, with no scrutiny. The fact that the power to amend this Act lies within it means that the Bill can eat itself; it is like a constantly regenerating loop in some science fiction nightmare, providing new powers ad infinitum at the whim of whichever Government are in place at any given moment.

We have seen this before, because the Government have form. They did not want to give this place a vote on article 50, or on the final deal. They fought at every turn to frustrate this House in overseeing what they are doing, and frustrate us in our duties and responsibilities to our electors. The powers in clause 9 will end on exit day, but the Bill allows exit day to be set by Ministers, so those powers could continue for many years—indeed, there could be several exit days. That is not how we make laws in this country. We also have money and Ways and Means motions before us tonight that mean that Ministers can spend any sum or raise any tax as a result of this Bill. As well as being a legislative blank cheque, the Bill is therefore a literal blank cheque for the Government. That is not how we make laws in this country.

All these new laws made by delegated legislation can be amended by delegated legislation. The Government say that there will be opportunities for scrutiny, but they want a majority of one on all Delegated Legislation Committees, so that they can rubber-stamp the delegated legislation, despite failing to win a majority at the general election. That is not how we make laws in this country. The Bill can create new criminal offences under the negative resolution procedure of things such as food adulteration or trading illegal chemicals. New criminal offences will be made with no parliamentary scrutiny. That is not how we make laws in this country.

This Bill should protect our hard-won social, environmental, political and economic rights. In fact, it guarantees nothing of the sort. Even if those rights are somehow replicated in the future, the Bill is silent about remedies, and it is the remedies, not the rights, that are the spur to action. The threat of EU fines led to us taxing waste that goes to landfill, which kick-started the recycling industry in this country. The threat of massive fines for filthy air pollution has led to the Government publishing not one, not two, but three clean air plans. The threat of fines under the water framework directive has led to UK water companies cleaning up our filthy beaches and rivers. Those environmental improvements and industries were created because the threat of financial penalties focused the minds of Ministers and civil servants. If there is no remedy for the citizen, the right that the law confers is toothless.

The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said on Second Reading that the Government would introduce proposals. Why are they not in the Bill? How many rights that we currently enjoy are threatened by the Bill? Francovich will not apply to the individual, so future rights will be removed from citizens. The acquis communautaire, which we have adopted, refers to the environment, but a third of it cannot be neatly cut and pasted into UK law.

[Helen Goodman]

Is my hon. Friend concerned that the replacement of the European Environment Agency by national bodies with massive powers would also be handled in that way?

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We will not simply be able to cut and paste chemicals measures. REACH is the big regulation on registering, evaluating and authorising chemicals. It protects the public and the environment from hazardous substances and it is vital to British jobs, growth and investment. Our chemical industry is the second largest exporter to the EU after cars, selling £15 billion of chemical exports to the EU every year. Leaving REACH could cause market freeze and supply chain disruption to the industry. The Environmental Audit Committee heard from techUK and the defence industries how incredibly concerned they were about that. One in five UK chemicals companies represented by the Chemical Business Association are not waiting for regulatory certainty from the Government, and are already investigating opportunities to set up shop in other EU countries, harming jobs, investment and growth in this country.

The Bill does not protect the citizen and it does not incorporate either the principle of EU law that the polluter pays or the precautionary principle. For those reasons, for the vast destruction of our environmental and social rights, I shall vote against the Bill.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 15th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is not just about the fact that they can go only up; if we are in the EU, we can actually have an influence on the other 27 member states, as we have done on many issues, not least that under discussion, and make sure that animal welfare is improved not just in our own country but right across the EU28.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the ban on neonicotinoids would not have taken place were it not for years of sustained campaigning by environmental groups and scientific research by the European Commission? It stated that we should invoke the precautionary principle to protect our bees from those potentially toxic chemicals, but the precautionary principle will no longer be in place when the Bill is enacted.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Lady neatly brings me on to the next issue that I want to address. She is absolutely right to say that there is real concern about what will happen to those vital principles as a result of the Bill. Her new clause 60 aims to address precisely that by ensuring that, after withdrawal, the environmental principles embedded in EU law are fully retained as part of UK law. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has a planned consultation on the principles, but I am worried about the timescale, because we need the outcome to be meaningful and to know what it is before the Bill finishes its passage through both Houses of Parliament. I hope that the Secretary of State will be in listening mode, because so many people are deeply and rightly concerned about what will happen to those principles as a result of the Bill as it stands.

The environmental law that the Bill rightly sets out to transfer into UK law is composed of not only specific legal obligations such as the prohibition on certain chemicals, but a broad and comprehensive framework in which those obligations are embedded. That framework includes a number of environmental principles—including the precautionary principle, the “polluter pays” principle and sustainable development—and they underpin and aid the interpretation of those legal obligations. That assists Governments, agencies and courts to understand and correctly interpret the aims and objectives of EU environmental law.

Currently, those environmental principles are set out in the EU treaties, and they have been instrumental in decisions such as the EU ban on imports of hormone-fed beef, the moratorium on neonic pesticides and the control of the release of genetically modified organisms in the EU. To give just one example of how that has benefited environmental protection in the UK, the “polluter pays” principle states that the polluter should bear the expense of carrying out pollution prevention and control measures. The EU’s water framework directive, which drives the sustainable management of the UK’s waterways, has led to enormous improvements in the quality of our drinking water and it is specifically based on the “polluter pays” principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I really do not understand the hon. Lady, because we have done it—it has been done. All the fears that we might not be able to do it because of EU law have been absolutely shot down by the fact that we have done it. It has been recognised—done; over; finished; kaput.

[Mary Creagh]

The Environmental Audit Committee had a very interesting meeting this morning at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with its Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who is in the Chamber. We look forward to the statutory instrument that will ban the manufacture of microbeads from 1 January and their sale—hopefully—from 1 July. I hope it will be laid before the House very shortly and that we are all able to sit down and pass it very swiftly.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that helpful update. There are many myths about what the EU prevents us from doing, so it is useful to get that clarification.

I was just explaining the different areas in which we need these environmental principles to apply. My concern is that the Bill delivers on only the first: the interpretation of retained EU environmental law. Clause 6(3) states that general principles of EU law will be retained in UK law, and that the courts will be able to interpret EU-derived law in accordance with the retained general principles of EU law, but it is not yet clear whether the environmental principles will be considered to be general principles of EU law. Neither the ECJ nor the treaties have defined “general principles”. The concern is that if the Bill does not explicitly recognise environmental principles as general principles, they could be lost altogether. Even if they are retained, as they should be, the Bill explicitly limits how they could then be applied in two ways: first, UK courts will not be able to overturn decisions or challenge actions that do not conform to the principles; and, secondly, there will be no compulsion on public bodies or businesses to refer to the principles in future actions and decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

First, I am confident that this Secretary of State will be here for rather longer than some other Secretaries of State have been recently. I welcome that, because I think he is a very, very fine Environment Secretary. Secondly, I am not saying that it is inconceivable that there could be two pieces of legislation, but I think it rather inelegant to legislate in a slightly awkward way, and then to repeal that legislation in a Bill that would probably start its passage before the passage of this Bill has been completed. I would prefer it to be done properly, although opinions may differ.

[Mary Creagh]

We have had three Environment Secretaries in two years, and we have all been waiting for the famed environment plan for two and a half years. A 25-year environment plan will be a 22-year environment plan by the time it is actually published. What gives the right hon. Gentleman the confidence to assume that an environment Act, which would have to be underpinned by the environment plan, will be in place by the time we leave the EU, especially if we end up leaving without a transitional deal and crashing out in March 2019?

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

What gives me the confidence is that I think it is perfectly doable, and I think the Secretary of State intends to do it. I am in a slightly odd position—the Secretary of State has to nod each time I say these things, because I cannot speak for him—but I assure the hon. Lady that I really am very confident about that. Let us proceed for a moment, however, on the assumption that that is indeed going to happen. That gives us a place in which to do things, although of course it does not solve all the problems.

My second point is that, unlike the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, I think that a national policy statement is an ideal vehicle for the translation of these principles into something much more solid and much more determinate. A national policy statement is not just something that a Minister dreams up and issues like a piece of confetti. It comes before the House of Commons and is subject to resolution by the House of Commons, and it is therefore debated. It is exposed in draft, and it is discussed by the green groups.

There will of course be considerable debate about the exact terms of a national policy statement that seeks to turn those principles into something much more concrete, but I think there is ample scope for turning it into something of which we could be really proud. It would also have a huge advantage over mere principles when the courts came to judge the actions of the state and measure them against it—for that is exactly what would happen. A national policy statement is a policy statement by Ministers. If Ministers do not follow that policy, they are, by hypothesis, acting irrationally and in a Wednesbury unreasonable way, and can therefore be judicially reviewed. When they are judicially reviewed, the courts will look at the policy statement and compare it with their actions. If the policy statement is properly debated, properly exposed and properly expressed, those actions can be measured against it in a very determinate and careful way, and we can end up with a much more solid environmental protection than we would ever have got out of the principles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Mary Creagh]

rose—

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I will give way to both hon. Ladies shortly, but first I want to come to a further point that is an important part of the architecture.

I do not personally believe that even the combination of an environmental protection Bill and an NPS emerging from it and under it would be sufficient. This exactly answers the last point of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion. I accept that it is difficult for campaigners and others to use the vehicle of judicial review, which is why I and some of my hon. Friends have advocated what we have proposed, and why we have agreed with the Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

In a word, yes, because this body will be able to take the Government to court, and the courts have the power to injunct, and if the Government fail to observe an injunction, results follow. The body must have that capacity.

I am not envisaging—and I know the Secretary of State is not envisaging—anything remotely like the Environment Agency or Natural England, which are part of the DEFRA family, if I can put it that way. This agency will not be an agency of the state, carrying out the Government’s operational objectives; rather, it will be independent of the Government and will continuously be judging the Government’s actions, taking on board the complaints of others, and using the expertise.

Finally, before I give way again, let me say that I hope the hon. Lady will take some comfort from the fact that ever since I began to propose this with some of my hon. Friends, and started discussing it with the Secretary of State, those who most disagree with her and me about these things have been sticking pins in voodoo images of people like me, because they are afraid that this body might be very effective. I take some comfort from that, and hope the hon. Lady will, too.

[Mary Creagh]

I am interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman develop the ideas around this new body to fill the commission-shaped hole, which was what the Secretary of State described to our Committee, but I want to press the right hon. Gentleman on the point of remedy, because there is no such body. The CCC sets out goals, but does not have any remedy against Government if we fail to meet our targets; it only has the power of its authority in saying that we are missing the fourth carbon budget, or the fifth carbon budget, and so forth.

Secondly, on judicial review, the Ministry of Justice proposed to increase the fees charged to individuals and environmental groups in clear breach of the Aarhus convention, which guarantees access to environmental justice through European law for everybody and caps the costs. The only reason why that proposal was overturned was a judicial review brought by big charities such as the RSPB, not because the Government were aware of the principles.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Dominic Raab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of clause 4 and to respond to today’s second group of amendments. I also appreciate the constructive tone of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook).

The two strategic objectives of the Bill are to take back democratic control over our laws, and to do so in a way that ensures a smooth Brexit. Clause 4 helps us to deliver on both aims. Before talking about the amendments and the application of that clause, it is worth briefly explaining the value of clause 4, which is a sweeper provision. Clause 2 retains UK implementing legislation deriving from EU instruments, and clause 3 incorporates direct EU legislation. Clause 4 picks up the other obligations, rights and remedies that would currently have the force of UK law under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. In particular, it will ensure that we retain, on day one of exit, general principles of EU law and all directly effective rights. That means rights deriving from EU treaties that are sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional that they do not require separate bespoke implementing legislation. Instead, to date, they are relied on as national law without reference to any separate implementing legislation.

[Mary Creagh]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dominic Raab]

I am going to make a little progress; I am mindful of your strictures, Mr Streeter. I will take interventions on the amendments, but let me just explain the relevance of clause 4.

I will give just a flavour of the kinds of rights or obligations captured, which would include the EU-derived rights to equal pay and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality. In the context of something like competition law, it would include the prohibition on the abuse of a dominant position. The explanatory memorandum gives further illustrations. Ultimately, given that the criteria for directly effective rights are determined judicially, the scope of such rights must be for UK courts to determine. That is why it would not be right for us to draft our own definition or definitive list.

Clause 4 only converts rights as they exist and are recognised immediately before the date of exit. It serves as a snapshot of EU law on the date of exit, and guarantees a smooth legal transition out of the EU—in respect of everything of value, importance and significance—for businesses and citizens up and down the country.

[Dominic Raab]

I will come to the precise application shortly, but I am happy to take another intervention if my right hon. and learned Friend does not think I have answered his question sufficiently by the end.

[Mary Creagh]

rose—

[Dominic Raab]

I give way to the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.

[Mary Creagh]

The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) has raised this point: the rubber does not hit the road in this clause when it comes to procedures, such as when we legislate for chemicals. There is no body in this country that legislates, monitors and enforces chemicals; it is all done at a European level. There is no body extant in this country to do that on exit day.

[Dominic Raab]

There are bodies that deal with these kinds of things, such as the Health and Safety Executive, but I will come to that when I deal with the sector-specific applications of this principle.

[Dominic Raab]

I am going to make some headway because I am mindful, Mr Streeter, of your guidance about interventions. I want to ensure that those who tabled the amendments get a chance to make interventions about their amendments.

I want to turn now to the amendments themselves. We certainly support the sentiment behind new clause 30 and the related amendments, but I am afraid we cannot accept it. Let me briefly try to explain why.

Article 13 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union places an obligation on the European Union when developing certain EU policies and on member states when developing and implementing those EU policies to have full regard to the welfare requirements of animals. The intention of the new clause is to replicate—I am not sure whether it is replicate or duplicate—that obligation in domestic law when we leave the EU.

The reference to animals as sentient beings is, effectively, a statement of fact in article 13, but even though it is, in effect, declaratory, I can reassure the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that it is already recognised as a matter of domestic law, primarily in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. If an animal is capable of experiencing pain and suffering, it is sentient and therefore afforded protection under that Act.

We have made it clear that we intend to retain our existing standards of animal welfare once we have left the EU and, indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made clear, to enhance them. The vehicle of this legislation will convert the existing body of EU animal welfare law into UK law. It will make sure that the same protections are in place in the UK and that laws still function effectively after the UK leaves the EU.

In this country—we should be proud to say this—we have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and we intend to remain a world leader in the future. Leaving the EU will not prevent us from further maintaining such standards; in fact, it will free us in some regards to develop our own gold-standard protections on animal welfare. Animals will continue to be recognised as sentient beings under domestic law, in the way I have described. We will consider how we might explicitly reflect that sentience principle in wider UK legislation.

To tack on to the Bill the hon. Lady’s new clause, which simply refers to article 13, would add nothing, however, and she was fairly honest in her speech about the limited practical impact it would have. Given that it is ultimately fairly superfluous, it risks creating legal confusion. Obviously, if she wants to propose improvements to wider UK legislation—I am sure she will, knowing her tenacity—she is free to do so, but this new clause is unnecessary, and it is liable only to generate legal uncertainty. Having addressed some of her concerns, I hope that she will withdraw the new clause, having powerfully and eloquently made her point.

I want to turn now to new clause 60, in the name of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), who is the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, to new clause 67, in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and to the related amendments dealing with environmental principles.

The UK has always had a strong legal framework for enforcing environmental protections, and that will continue after we leave the EU. The Bill—this legislative vehicle—will convert the existing body of EU environmental law into UK law, making sure that the same protections are in place in the UK and that laws still function effectively after exit.

The Bill will directly preserve these important environmental principles, because they are hardwired into existing directly applicable EU environmental regulations and case law. Just to take two examples, the precautionary principle is included in the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals regulation of 2006 and the invasive alien species regulation of 2014, so it will be preserved by the Bill. I hope that I have gone some way to reassuring the hon. Lady, given what she said earlier.

With the inclusion of judgments on the application of the precautionary principle, EU case law on chemicals, waste and habitats, for example, will also continue to apply and will be preserved by the Bill as a matter of UK law.

[Mary Creagh]

I am thrilled the Minister has come back to chemicals, because we spent about three months of our lives looking into the issue. The point is not whether these things exist in our law; the point is that the body that enacts the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals will not exist on exit day, and the registrations that British companies will have paid a quarter of a billion pounds for will fall. That is one of the big problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

There are various different aspects to what right we will have to pursue court cases and judicial review once this law comes into effect. We discussed some of those when we talked about the role of the European Court of Justice, the governance gap and the fact that if breaches of the law are not enforced, monitored and measured, it can be very difficult to bring court cases as well.

There is real concern about how the Government are restricting legal aid for environmental judicial review cases. Community groups really rely on this law—it is not just for groups such as ClientEarth, which is well supported and has been able to take the Government to court on air pollution three times and has instigated other proceedings. There is also a real issue about what this means for local people who want to challenge the Government—we may cover that in a different debate.

[Mary Creagh]

We heard in the Environmental Audit Committee session with the Ministry of Justice officials that the number of cases brought since the cap on costs was removed has fallen from 16 to 11 cases a month. The change is happening before we have even left the EU.

[Kerry McCarthy]

My hon. Friend is quite right. It is about the removal of the cap on costs as well, and the fact that local people bringing these cases might find themselves liable to a huge financial burden if they are not successful.

Amendment 93 removes clause 4(1)(b), which restricts rights in clause 4 to those which are

“enforced, allowed and followed accordingly”.

Amendment 94 removes clause 4(2)(b), which excludes rights arising under EU directives that have not been adjudicated by the courts before exit day. There is no explanation as to why only rights that have been litigated on or enforced are carried over. The Minister may dispute this, but my interpretation is that the result will be that contentious aspects of law will be retained, but those that have never been litigated, perhaps because they are really obvious and incontrovertible and no one has seen the need to challenge them—the ones that everyone accepts—will be the ones at risk, which seems a little bizarre.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith]

My right hon. Friend has a closer experience of this issue than I do.

The solution presented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reflects a consensus reached between parliamentary colleagues and between his Department and the main representatives of Greener UK, who by and large have publicly welcomed the policy. I invite Members to look through the Twitter accounts of some of this country’s leading environmental campaigners and lawyers to see that, generally speaking, there is a high level of enthusiasm for the Secretary of State’s promises.

I agree very strongly with the sentiments behind many of the amendments that have been tabled, and to which hon. Members have already spoken. I am delighted the amendments were tabled, because they have had the effect of sharpening and focusing minds. I found them useful in my discussions with the Secretary of State, but I hope it will at least be acknowledged, particularly by Opposition Members, as it has been by the key pressure groups, that the amendments have already done their job.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not in his place at the moment but, if he is listening, I put on record my very sincere thanks to him for stepping up and giving nature the voice that it so badly needs.

[Mary Creagh]

I rise to speak to new clause 60, which was tabled in my name, and to support the amendments tabled by other right hon. and hon. colleagues.

I voted against the Bill on Second Reading because it puts sweeping powers in the hands of Ministers, sidelines Parliament and waters down our legal rights and protections, particularly environmental rights and protections. When we were asked to vote in the EU referendum, nobody voted for dirtier beaches or dirtier air.

The Environmental Audit Committee has undertaken three inquiries into the effect of leaving the EU on the UK’s environmental policy. We found that our membership of the EU has been overwhelmingly positive for our environment. We went from being the dirty man of Europe in the 1970s to bathing on cleaner beaches, driving more fuel efficient cars and, as colleagues have said, holding the Government to account on air pollution. I do not subscribe to the Panglossian view of the world that says everything will be awesome when we leave. Everything is not awesome, most particularly in the case of air pollution and seabird censuses. We are still a member of the EU and we are not meeting the laws to which we have collectively contributed and collectively signed up under successive Governments.

Eighty per cent. of UK domestic environmental laws are shaped by Brussels, so few areas of policy will be more affected by the decision to leave. Fully one quarter of the EU acquis, which the Bill is trying to cut and paste into UK law, is related to DEFRA—our beaches, rivers, coastlines and marine reserves. We have talked about the gaps in the Bill, and my amendment seeks to close those gaps because with this Bill we are running a risk that environmental law will no longer be monitored, enforced or updated and that on exit day we will be left with zombie legislation.

What we have heard from Ministers today has not reassured me, because they have outlined a path of managed divergence, which is very bad news when it comes to giving certainty to Government, businesses or investors looking to invest in this country. That is why my Committee called for a new environmental protection Act before we leave the EU. The laws are effective only if we have strong institutions to enforce them. As the Secretary of State said when he gave evidence to the Select Committee two weeks ago, there is currently a Commission-shaped hole in the Bill’s proposals.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leslie]

My hon. Friend makes the point well. We can all imagine circumstances in which the Government could be in part responsible for failures to comply with various legal obligations—as she says, it might well include failure to comply with air quality directives—and those who suffer harm as a consequence of those Government failures may no longer have the right of redress. Those rights exist not only in environmental legislation but in, for instance, equal opportunities legislation. I can foresee circumstances in which a same-sex couple seek retroactively to claim their right to pension arrangements that might not have existed in the past so that they can accrue their pension rights, but they would not have redress to do so under the proposed arrangements.

The other big one is competition law, which relies very much on the right to challenge the Government, particularly on procurement arrangements. Companies that say they did not get a contract for such and such a reason may well feel that it was partly because they were unfairly treated by Government. Under the Francovich arrangements we have protections so that contracts can be let fairly, be it for house building, transport infrastructure or anything else we can name. A number of protections need safeguarding there.

Perhaps the biggest one that has not been addressed by Ministers and where Francovich may still be required is the protection of the rights of EU nationals after Brexit. A number of EU nationals will continue to reside in the UK after Brexit, but what will happen if their residency rights or definitions change, if their children are affected by changes of arrangements with the Government, or if rights to claim various tax reliefs or other things change in an unfair way for them, as EU nationals? There should be some level of redress against malfeasance by Government in that respect, so at the very least we need to hear from Ministers a better justification for the deletion of this Francovich protection.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. His amendment on Francovich echoes my own, although mine is slightly different on time limitation. Does he agree it is unthinkable that a Government who throughout this Bill have said, “All rights and protections would be guaranteed,” are now seeking to remove the ability to sue the state for imperfect administration, mostly of directives, at a time when they are about to incorporate hundreds if not thousands of pieces of EU law into our UK law? They are saying, “If anything goes wrong with any of that, you’ve got no right to sue us in the future.”

[Mr Leslie]

My hon. Friend is correct about that and she has tabled a very good amendment on this issue. Ministers need to do better and explain why they would seek to wrench out of the protections for our citizens this potential right-to-redress arrangement, particularly as it may well affect malfeasances and the need for redress that takes place before exit day. This is not just saying that this rule will not apply to situations that occur after exit day; its drafting would prevent that right to redress, even if the claim itself relates to an occasion prior to exit day. All hon. Members, regardless of political party, should therefore think of their constituents, the cases we pick up and the surgery discussions we have with people who ask what they can do. The Government are a large and powerful organisation—many Conservative Members often make that point about the size and power of the state—and individuals need rights in order to protect themselves in some of those circumstances. This is something that really should transcend the normal party political issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leslie]

I have been in Parliament since 1997, on and off, and I find that amendments can often be rebutted for a number of reasons but when people say there is a technical deficiency that tends to be the last refuge of the Minister. There may well be arguments that say that we need to cut and paste the charter of fundamental rights or the Francovich provisions, but to do so having regard to changes in the language to take account of new circumstances. Everybody can recognise the need for consequential or supplemental amendments to the legislation sometimes, but let us not kid ourselves: we are talking about some far bigger principles here. I hope the hon. Gentleman would not diminish the importance of the charter of fundamental rights and those myriad legal rights and protections we have that are so essential for the specific and general reasons I have given in this debate.

[Mary Creagh]

rose—

[Mr Leslie]

I will give way one more time but I want to make sure that other Members have a right to speak today as well.

[Mary Creagh]

I am in violent agreement with the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) on the issue of Francovich, and I will be speaking to those points in more detail when I come to talk to my amendment. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that certain rights in the charter such as environmental rights, consumer rights and the rights of the elderly in particular, which are not highly developed in UK case law or in any other sort of legislation, are gently being thrown out with the bathwater in this removal of the charter of fundamental rights?

[Mr Leslie]

That is an exceptionally important point. Our legal system is one of the finest in the world. It is a dynamic legal system and is not simply reliant on statute; it can relate to cases as they evolve. The charter of fundamental rights, which could equally be a charter within the UK law, according to this Bill, if it were transposed, could help to maintain that dynamism and the protection of rights to fill the gaps when those unforeseen circumstances arise. We do not know what issues our constituents will bring to us from one week to the next, but we may well have a constituent who has found that their rights have been deprived unfairly and who needs redress to protect them from the Government or others. In our surgeries and discussions, what will we say to our constituents in such circumstances? What will we say when they say, “But you had the opportunity to transpose and retain the protections under the charter of fundamental rights”? Will we say “Oh, well, it was a very busy day. I didn’t really notice what was going on in the Chamber. There were lots of complex things going on to do with Brexit”?

This really matters. I am delighted and proud that many Members from all parties in this House are voicing their concerns and are not prepared to see these rights just swept away on a ministerial say-so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

That could be a solution, but even if we do not have time to move to that and to have the necessary debate—as we highlighted in the question about the statutory instrument powers that the Government are taking to change law—some comfort and reassurance might be provided with the fact that there are some categories of EU-derived law that could do with at least the assurance that they would require primary legislation to change them. That might go some way to providing reassurance to some of the perfectly worthy organisations that have been writing to us that there is no malevolent intent towards this important area in which rights have developed.

[Mary Creagh]

The general principles of European law do not cover the principles of environmental law. That was made clear to us in terms from the Dispatch Box last week. The charter does guarantee those environmental rights. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that environmental principles are one area in which this Bill is deficient and in which our rights will be lost?

[Mr Grieve]

I agree that environmental law is an area that could do with the scrutiny that I have just outlined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that it does make sense to look at this category of rights, whether in this Bill or more widely; it is something the House should consider.

Where is the balance to be struck on article 8, which relates to the protection of personal data? My view, for what it is worth, is that I should own my own data and decide what happens to it. It is my own data about me, so I should not have the Government or big businesses saying, “No, it belongs to us.” That is a debate that we should have as a country. This Bill is probably not the right mechanism for that debate, but we need to consider where the balance should lie.

Article 41 sets out the right to good administration. The Minister will say, “Well, of course we administer correctly; we are honourable men”—so are they all. But it is important that, as a matter of principle, every person

“has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies”

and that the right includes

“the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken”.

It seems to me that these rights are self-evident and true, and that we ought to ensure that they are written into our codes, from the point of view of executive action, if they are not already. They include

“the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality”

and

“the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions.”

Those things, it seems to me, are self-evident and basic about what we are and should be about. These are rights that are not written into our system fully and properly, but I think that there is a strong case that they should be. I have of late had reason to ponder such matters in more depth, and the House should consider them to ensure that we execute such things properly in our system, our way of life and the values that we hold dear. The House should take back control to ensure that the rules of law and of executive action apply to each and every person in this nation and that we strike the right balance as we take on the great responsibility of restoring sovereignty to our sovereign Parliament.

[Mary Creagh]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). I voted against this Bill on Second Reading due to the powers that it puts into Ministers’ hands and the fact that it sidelines Parliament in many of these moments of incorporation. We have heard Government Members waxing lyrical about putting things back into the hands of this sovereign Parliament, but the Bill puts into the hands of Ministers the power to pass or strike out almost any law, and that point has been missed in this debate.

I am not a legal expert. I am not a barrister. I do not have a law degree. What I have is a semester spent studying Government law and policy at the London School of Economics as part of my master’s in European studies, and I have a massive book by Craig and de Búrca, which is still on the shelf in my office. As I was reading through the Bill, I noticed “Francovich” and that rang a little bell in the reptilian core of my brain. I thought to myself, “Ooh, that is one of those really important cases that I learned about 20 years ago,” and it turns out that that master’s has been the best money that I ever spent.

Francovich is one of the areas where the Government break their promise to cut and paste the whole body of EU law into UK law. Schedule 1 is their get-out-of-jail-free card and includes the things that they do not like and are not going to incorporate. There are a lot of words about why things will be difficult, why judges will be confused and why everyone will be getting themselves into a twist, but it is a rights grab and it must not be allowed to stand. We must not allow schedule 1, which is essentially a list of the ways in which the Government are curtailing legal rights and remedies that we have enjoyed as a result of our membership of the EU. Admittedly, however, some of those rights and remedies did not exist when we joined and have evolved over time through European Court of Justice jurisprudence and through the treaties.

For the last 25 years as EU citizens, we have enjoyed the right to state compensation when the Government fail to implement EU law correctly and an individual suffers a serious loss as a result—that goes back to my big green textbook. The rule was established after Andrea Francovich took his Government to court for failing to protect his rights at work. He worked for an electronics company in Italy, but he was paid only sporadically, and he was still owed pay when his employer went bust. The insolvency protection directive gives workers the right to be paid if their employer goes bust and they are owed wages, but Italy had failed to implement the directive, and the European Court of Justice ruled in 1991 that the Italian Government must make good the pay owed to Mr Francovich and, presumably, his colleagues. Since then, if an EU member state has failed to fulfil its obligations that come with membership of the EU, citizens can obtain compensation if they suffer damages as a result. I think the reason why that stuck in my mind was that the EU case law was relatively fresh 25 years ago.

How did the ruling apply in the UK? There is a particularly sad case that any one of us could have had as constituency MPs: the case of Ben Byrne. Since 1984, the second motor insurance directive has required member states to provide compensation arrangements for victims of untraced drivers and that the protection must be equivalent to that which is available for victims of insured drivers whose identities are known. In 1993 the then three-year-old Ben Byrne was hit by a car while crossing the road with his father. The driver sped off and was never found. Ben’s parents were not aware of his right to claim compensation until eight years after the accident.

We get such difficult, knotty cases in our constituency surgeries, with people being unaware of their rights and remedies under the law. Many of us will have held the hand of a constituent in terrible cases to ensure that they get justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

There is genuine concern across this House about this matter, because it cannot be right that people cannot raise a claim on EU law “retrospectively”, as the hon. Lady puts it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) has raised this problem, so I hope the Government will examine it and come up with proposals that will satisfy this concern from right across the House.

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention. Often the simplest sentences raise the biggest alarm bells, because things can be missed if we blink, and substantial rights are engaged in this. The Brexit Secretary said in his speech to UBS last week that the UK would remain

“in all the EU regulators and agencies”

during the transitional period. That leaves us with a further conundrum, because transitional rights are mentioned in the European Commission’s negotiating paper and it says that the ECJ will continue to be able to decide, presumably on Francovich, during any transitional period. The issue of the transitional period is stretching the elastic limits of the Conservative party and of the Cabinet at the moment in terms of which wing of the party is going to succeed, but from the point of view of economic stability and job stability in this country I certainly want to see a transitional period. This Bill raises questions about the loss of those rights if there should be, as we all hope there will be, a transitional period.

The problem is that those rights start to erode as exit day looms, because the incentive to follow the EU directives will be diminished for the Government as they will be let off the hook, given that there will be no retroactive right to sue under Francovich.

Schedule 1 therefore fails the basic test of fairness. For example, if the Government are in breach of an air quality directive, perish the thought, and people are suffering a substantial loss as a result, only those who start legal proceedings before exit day would be entitled to those damages. My amendment 139 would ensure that the right to sue the state and to obtain a remedy under Francovich is still available for those who have suffered that loss or damage before the UK exits the EU. This would allow the victims of a Government failure to uphold their rights that took place before exit to obtain those damages. It would bring fairness to this process, as well as, crucially, legal continuity and legal certainty. Brexit must not be used as an excuse to abolish citizens’ rights and protections under the law. In the referendum my constituents did not vote to reduce their rights, and I hope the Committee will be able to test the matter this evening.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I have considerable sympathy with the points just made by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). Exactly at which point to create which cut-off when dealing with Francovich is a knotty issue, but the idea that people whose rights already exist and who are damaged before exit should be prohibited from pursuing causes that they would have been able pursue now had they had the wit to start them now is pretty offensive to natural justice, and I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will come forward with some adjustment to paragraph 4 of schedule 1.

I mainly wish to dwell on the two other issues that have been raised in this interesting debate, which has been much more of a genuine Committee stage debate than some of the debates, or some parts of them, that we have had in the previous two days’ consideration. The first is on the charter of fundamental rights, where I thought the argument was largely being won by those who argued that it was not productive to have the general principles in that charter brought into UK law, provided that we could satisfy ourselves that case law and statute between them would cover off all the material and substantive rights contained within the charter. I was therefore extremely heartened to hear the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), say that there was going to be a full analysis, which I hope will be sufficient to persuade us all that all the rights are covered off in some other way. If they are, the points that were made about the dangers of judicial activism, which is positively invited by the charter of fundamental rights, would outweigh any advantage to the charter’s incorporation.

Before I come to the main point I want to make about paragraph 3 of schedule 1, I wish to observe, as a slight qualification to some of the things that have been said in Committee, that an element of judicial activism will not only be made possible but actually be required by the Bill, because it refers repeatedly to retained principles and it is impossible for judges to engage in the application of principles without their engaging in judicial activism that goes beyond simply reading the plain face of statutes and the like.

This is all a very grey area. With that in mind, I come to amendment 10, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), and paragraph 3 of schedule 1. His amendment refers to paragraphs 1 to 3, but in my view it refers mainly to paragraph 3. There is currently a great oddity in the way the Bill is cast. I very much hope that not too long from now my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General will come to the Dispatch Box and resolve this problem, but it is important to set out the nature of the problem.

Clause 5(2) clearly establishes the principle of the supremacy of EU law so far as the past is concerned. It spells it out in awesome terms, by including the

“disapplication or quashing of any enactment or rule of law”—

if that phrase has any meaning—

“passed or made before exit day.”

Clause 6(3)(a), which we discussed on a previous day, makes it entirely clear, at least in relation to the ordinary operation of the lower courts—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and I are still discussing with Ministers on the Treasury Bench the vexed question of the Supreme Court—that not only retained case law but

“any retained general principles of EU law”

are to be applied by the courts.

It is therefore a strange state of affairs that if we look at schedule 1, we discover that no court or tribunal will be able do the very things that the combination of clauses 5(2) and 6(3) require. No court or tribunal will be able to apply the general principles of EU law to quash or be supreme over any existing UK law. We can have a Bill that says one thing or we can have a Bill that says the opposite, but we cannot properly have a Bill that says in one part of it one thing and in another part the opposite of that thing, so some change is required. That much is, I think, simply a matter of analytical fact.

My preference, which I hope the Solicitor General is going to reflect in his remarks, is for a change of the kind that has come up in various exchanges this afternoon. It is considerably more modest than the rather uncharacteristically complete, sweeping amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. I would simply amend paragraph 3(2) of schedule 1 in such a way as to ensure that it refers to general principles of EU law other than retained principles. At that point, it seems to me, rationality would re-enter the scene, because we would then be saying that after exit day a court in the UK could not use later principles developed by the CJEU—or indeed, while we are at it, any charters or other documents produced by the EU—to overrule English statute, which would of course be a natural and proper consequence of our leaving the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I do accept that that needs to be looked at. The problem with the sovereignty of Parliament is that we always get to the point where the Parliaments of the future can change and erode these rights. I agree with my right hon. Friend’s earlier suggestion that in due course the Human Rights Act ought to be amended to include the broader category of rights. We are seeing an evolution and a change in our rights, and it is important to reflect that in that Act.

[Mary Creagh]

The hon. Lady is making some excellent points. Several of her Conservative colleagues have argued that some of the rights contained in the charter are otiose—one of them being, perhaps, the right not to be subjected to forced expulsion. That is, thankfully, not something that we have seen in this country, but it was a persistent feature in 20th century Europe. We are now at a stage where the Home Office is sending out letters to EU nationals threatening them with deportation. Although some of those individuals may yet have recourse to their rights under the European charter, they will not be able to exercise them after we leave.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

The hon. Lady does my colleagues a great disservice. The rights that my colleagues described as otiose were, for example, the right to petition the European Parliament or the right to stand in EU Parliament elections. I think she is also being unfair to the Home Office, which has made it very clear that the letters to which she refers were sent out by mistake and did not accurately reflect the position.

Nothing that the hon. Lady has said takes away from the point that the charter of fundamental rights contains a third category of rights that may not have protection. I am encouraged that the Government are going to undertake the exercise that has been mentioned, which they need to do, before Report. It is important that the Committee takes very informed decisions about where the gaps are. For that reason, I very much support amendment 10.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Committee: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leslie]

Exactly. People voting in the referendum might have been moved by that slogan “take back control”, but I do not honestly think many voters thought that that meant taking back control from a European Executive and handing it to Ministers of the Crown, outwith the powers and scope of Parliament to do much about it, yet that is effectively the proposal in clause 7.

I want to emphasise that this is not simply an exercise in transposing technical and necessary measures. The Government have extended the scope of the Bill into policy-making capability, which brings in the question of divergence. We have heard a lot recently about concepts of full alignment and this notion of diverging from rules and policies. The way clauses 7 and 9 have been drafted would allow Ministers, by order, through negative statutory instruments that we rarely get the chance even to vote on in this place, to make policy changes that could affect policy functions and the rights of our constituents—perhaps as part of a deregulating agenda—if that is indeed what the Government of the day sought to achieve.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend, like me, will have read in the newspapers about the Cabinet split opening up on divergence, with various Cabinet Ministers backing divergence and others not. How does he think this squares with the Prime Minister’s promise to our European partners and the Government of the Republic of Ireland that we will stay in full regulatory alignment after we leave?

[Mr Leslie]

I suspect that the European Commission and the Republic of Ireland Government saw the phrase “full alignment” and thought that full alignment meant full alignment. It turns out from the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday that full alignment does not quite mean full alignment. She said it only meant aligning the areas in the Good Friday agreement protocol, but of course that predates the notion of our leaving the single market and the customs union, so the Good Friday agreement did not cover such narrow issues—I say that sarcastically—as goods and manufacture trade. The list of issues that she thinks full alignment covers does not include trade in goods, which is a staggering thing, because of course if we do not cover trade in goods, we end up with that hard border, which is absolutely the point we have got to.

[Mary Creagh]

rose—

[Mr Leslie]

I do not want to digress at this stage. I want to focus particularly on the powers that Ministers are taking in clause 7, if my hon. Friend will allow me to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leslie]

The offer from the Government has been a binary yes or no motion at some point when we see the withdrawal agreement, and then—potentially after the fact, post-signature by Ministers—a Bill later on down the line. That is obviously not good enough, but we will come to many of those issues in tomorrow’s debates. For now, there are further deficiencies in the way clause 7 has been drafted to be addressed.

Clause 7(5) talks about the functions and public services that the regulations can amend. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield has spotted in amendment 5, as I have in amendment 61, that these powers could allow Ministers to sweep away a public service function currently undertaken by an EU agency without making alternative provisions; Ministers have talked about a function being not only “replaced” or “modified”, but “abolished”. Ridiculously, Ministers have snuck in this phrase, under which by order they can abolish a whole area of public service activity through the powers they are granting themselves in subsection (5). That could affect lots of obscure and small areas of public policy that do not matter to all our constituents but will certainly matter to some, including chemical safety certification, medicine risk assessment activities, aircraft airworthiness, preparedness for disease prevention and control, aeronautic research, energy market trading, and maritime pollution.

There are lots of functions that EU agencies currently fulfil. Some Members might say that they should be fulfilled within the UK, which is a perfectly good argument, but clause 7 would allow Ministers to abolish those functions entirely by order. I do not believe that is appropriate, and that is why I think amendment 61 and certainly amendment 5 are necessary.

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend has talked about the many agencies that we currently rely on to regulate all manner and aspects of our national life, but he has neglected to mention the regulatory and enforcement functions carried out by the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. Does he share my concern that, particularly in the environmental sphere—which I will talk about in my speech—removing the Commission as an enforcement body could be very detrimental to standards in all areas of regulation?

[Mr Leslie]

My hon. Friend has done important work as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee on some of these questions. These are not small matters; they are important functions that over the years we have developed and grown to expect. Some of them are provided by EU agencies, but they should not be able to be abolished simply by order—by the sweep of a ministerial pen—without reference to this place and without the House of Commons having some ability to decide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Mary Creagh]

rose—

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I will give way to both hon. Ladies, but I will just say one last thing in case they were going to make this point. Many people have raised the question of whether all this work will be done in time—I see the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) nodding and I suspect that she will want to raise that point—and I see that if there was doubt about whether it was, that would be a reason for legislating here, as opposed to waiting for a proper new statute. I am delighted to say that we have talked sufficiently to Ministers to be confident that they will be bringing forward both the consultation and the legislation in time to ensure that it is in place before we exit the EU. Of course, I would also want to wait until January to see the consultation to ensure that that engagement is fulfilled, and I am sure that the other place will want to look at what is said in the consultation and to assure itself that the new statute is coming forward before it consented to allow this Bill to proceed without the amendments that are being proposed. I believe that the right way to do this is in separate legislation. It is not about this business of Brexit; it is about trying to get the right answer for the environment. It is much better that we should do that in a fully fledged Bill that will be properly debated and contains all the relevant provisions and powers, which will never shoehorn into this Bill. I genuinely believe that that is the best way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I do not suppose that I will succeed now in persuading the hon. Lady. I do not wholly disapprove of the idea of her and others pursuing aggressive amendment tactics here and in the other place to ensure that the Government continue to respond effectively and rapidly. Once the consultation paper emerges and the Secretary of State has made further statements about this, and once legislative time has been allocated in the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee, assuming it is still called that, we will have that confidence. I would prefer to rest on that, because it would be at the least inelegant and possibly positively damaging to pass one piece of legislation and then introduce another that repealed or amended it. That sounds to me like a recipe for confusion.

Should we become sceptical at a later date about whether the Government will bring separate legislation forward, it would be open to the House of Lords to table amendments in the other place, which would come back to us. I, for one, would want to see those amendments made if the Government did not intend to put something in place before EU exit day. I am currently confident that they will, and that is the only basis on which I will not be voting for the new clause this evening.

[Mary Creagh]

I do not share the right hon. Gentleman’s confidence that all this will be done in time, and I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). We have been waiting two and a half years for a 25-year environment plan, which will be a 22-year plan by the time it is published. We have had promises of legislation on fisheries and the common agricultural policy, and today a draft animal sentience and animal welfare Bill has been published. There is already a legislative logjam in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as a result of the decision to leave the EU, and at the moment there is a reporting gap. Although there may be a new body in the future to do some of the enforcement, I do not believe that it will be up and ready at the point of leaving, when all our reporting obligations, which currently rest with the European Commission, will fall.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

There are quite a lot of bits to unpack in that. If we were to leave without an agreement and hence without a transition period, there would be some merit in her observation, although the gap would be short if the new body had been legislated for by the time we left. If the Government’s plan succeeds and there is a transition period, we will no doubt be bound by the current rules during that period so there would be two full years in which to establish the new body. It is not likely that the hon. Lady’s concern on that front will be realised in practice, although I admit some theoretical possibility of it.

The hon. Lady adduces a legislative logjam in DEFRA. I accept the facts that she presents, but I see them exactly the other way round. We have a Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who is probably the most powerful one we have had for a long time, for various reasons of which hon. Members on both sides are acutely conscious. He is probably more committed to this agenda than any we have seen in recent times in either Administration—[Interruption.] I am conscious that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) will inevitably cavil slightly at that, and I respect his record. I genuinely believe that the current Secretary of State is even more devoted to the environment than he was.

An awful lot of DEFRA legislation will inevitably have to be brought to the House before exit. No Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary and no Government could resist it. One cannot exit the EU without solving the problems of the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy so there is a natural legislative slot, and this powerful Secretary of State will be more than capable of bringing before the House the relevant statutory provisions. They will not be simple; they will require mature deliberation in both Houses. I am sure we all agree that it is incredibly important that we get the provisions exactly right. We need to make sure that it is a genuinely watertight system, with a set of policies that apply, that the court will enforce and that can be brought to court by an independent body. We need to ensure that the independent body is genuinely and completely independent of the Government, that it can bring Ministers to court, that it is properly funded and staffed and that it looks at the way in which the principles are applied through the policy statement in practice.

I believe that if all that can be done in a proper statute, it would be not just a replication of where we have been, which is now much lauded but was in practice very imperfect, but a huge advance on that. We would have a more comprehensive enforcement of a better environmental legislative framework than any country on earth. That is a goal worth striving for in a proper Act, instead of trying to shoehorn into this Bill a set of new clauses and amendments that are well intentioned but cannot perform the same purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am happy to take that on board. I learn more about Government environmental policy from the right hon. Gentleman than I do from his Front-Bench colleagues, so I happily stand corrected.

[Mary Creagh]

What the Secretary of State announced to the Environmental Audit Committee on 1 November was the beginnings of an idea. During that evidence session, the one new environmental body morphed into four potential environmental bodies, which have yet to morph into a consultation, which has yet to be published. At the moment, we are chasing chimeras—I do not know whether I have pronounced that correctly. [Interruption.] I thank the genius of the group, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), for helping me with my Greek pronunciation. What I have described stands in stark contrast to the hop, skip and jump on the animal sentience legislation that has been rushed out before Christmas—the triple jump on animal welfare legislation. The issues relating to devolution are further complicated by the promise to the Republic of Ireland on full regulatory alignment on agriculture, water and waste, which is now going to continue regardless.

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend makes a series of good points. I do not take the Government’s commitment in this policy area lightly and I do not take issue with it. What is at issue is the scope and powers of the watchdog and the timing. I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about whether the new watchdog will be up and running in time and whether it will have the powers necessary to carry out the same functions as the institutions and agencies that currently exist.

New clause 63 would ensure that robust new domestic governance arrangements for environmental standards and protections were in place before exit day. It would also ensure that the body tasked with filling the governance gap was established by primary legislation before that date and that its scope, powers, functions and institutional design were shaped by public consultation.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The scope of new clause 63 is for the environmental watchdog in England, as we have already said. There would have to be agreement between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government about whether they choose to take the same approach.

[Mary Creagh]

One point that my Committee has specifically made on the devolution settlement is that business does not want to deal with four regulators setting up four different sets of rules and regulations on waste, on water and on chemicals. It wants one set of regulations to deal with, and it has made it consistently clear that the set of rules that it would like to continue to abide by is that set by the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

On that point, does the right hon. Gentleman think that the draft Animal Welfare (Sentencing and Recognition of Sentience) Bill, which was published today, is a technical measure or something that merits scrutiny on the Floor of the House—and, ditto, the new environmental body that has been proposed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?

[John Redwood]

As I understand it, that decision has been made for me. I have not yet had the advantage of reading the draft Bill, so I cannot give the hon. Lady my personal view, but the Government’s view is that it is primary legislation. They think that even though that Bill is reaffirming practices in European law, because the Government think that it is going a bit further than European law, they have quite properly said, “We must make this primary legislation.” The example makes my case rather well that the Government are being cautious because they are trying to reaffirm and go a bit further than European law, probably in a direction that most people in the House would be entirely comfortable with. But the House will have the benefit of going through the full processes of primary legislation. I hope that there will be other examples like that, where Ministers recognise that there could be changes of substance that will warrant either primary legislation or a statutory instrument.

I do not want to take up too much time because many people wish to speak, but I would like to pick up on something that the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), started to mention and which I found very interesting. He drew our attention to the way in which we handle statutory instruments in the House in general. There are occasions when it is a weakness of our procedures that we cannot amend a statutory instrument, and we need to think about this for the future. This issue does not arise just from the transfer of European law; it goes to the fundamental business of how we generally exercise control and ensure that legislation works.

I remember being on a statutory instrument Committee under the previous Labour Government for an SI to regularise a series of payments to councils because the Government had been a bit late in giving themselves the legislative permission to make the payments—there was a surprise. I realised as soon as I read it that somebody had put in the statutory instrument the full amounts of money involved, and someone else had come along and put, “£millions” across the top of the table, so we were actually invited to vote six extra noughts on every figure going to the councils.

I am a generous man, but I thought that that was a bit excessive because it meant that the sums were probably bigger than the GNP of the country. If not, they were certainly approaching the GNP of the country in a rather alarming way. I was regarded as a bit of a nuisance for pointing this out because there was absolutely no way of correcting the figures. The Committee just had to sit and enact the statutory instrument as it was, even though it was clearly laughable, giving far too much cover for payments and not acting as a proper control. That is a minor example, but it shows that there are occasions when Ministers make mistakes and when it would be quite helpful if there were some kind of correcting procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

Indeed so. There is always the danger that some of the policies that Government may wish to get through, and would run aground were they to try to introduce them through primary legislation, may be sneaked through the back door in a salami-style way. We do not know. The point is that we are being invited to give Ministers the power whereby these things could happen.

[Mary Creagh]

I understand and sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s point on deficiencies. Does he agree that over the weekend we have seen varying interpretations of the meaning of full regulatory alignment, which seems to mean all sorts of different things to different people as the Cabinet tries to have its fudge and eat it?

[Tommy Sheppard]

Indeed. While I am tempted to digress into a debate on what happened with the phase 1 agreement and regulatory alignment, I think I had better stick to the subject in hand.

With regard to defining “deficiencies” properly, amendment 264 calls on the Government to provide reassurance by bringing forward clear definitions of what they might mean by “deficiencies”. If we had that, we might be better able to consider whether to give them these powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

That would be a very sensible course of action. As I say, the burden is on the Government to show some common sense and inventiveness in how they approach this. My understanding is also that, as was mentioned earlier, the committee will not have a Government majority—

[Mary Creagh]

Eight and eight.

[Mr Grieve]

Indeed. To that extent, it will, as I understand it, have sufficient flexibility and will, I hope, also be able to command enough confidence. These are difficult issues, but, as I say, I am mindful of the fact that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, having been asked to consider this, have gone and done it in a conciliatory and sensible spirit. For that reason—we were talking earlier about trust—this is one matter on which I have trust in the way that they have responded and that this will be sufficient for the work we have to do.

In the longer term, this issue will not go away, and I feel strongly that this House ought to be thinking about how it can assert itself again to take a better system of scrutiny than that which we have at the moment. Heaven knows, I have sat through enough of these Committees to know their deficiencies. It is also noteworthy that, although some jurisdictions have specialist committees linked to each of their select committees to consider legislation, we do not—something I have always found mystifying. I also served for four years on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It was a very interesting Committee, but, again, it did not really have the necessary bite to correct what were sometimes egregious howlers, of the kind that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham pointed out.

I turn now to the other way this matter can be looked at: by trying to constrain the powers the Government are taking. Of course, the vast majority of the amendments I have tabled along with my right hon. and hon. Friends concern constraining those powers. For example, amendment 2, which has been mentioned, would use a process first introduced in 2006 in seeking to constrain the powers set out by applying the concept of reasonableness and proportionality. Another example is my amendment 1, which would leave out the words

“(but are not limited to)”,

and so limit the deficiencies to the list of powers and functions set out in clause 7(2).

The Government have here an enormous menu of options by which the powers in clause 7, and indeed elsewhere in the Bill, can be constrained. I do not want to repeat some of the things we have said in earlier sittings of this Committee. The question for me is: how will the Government respond? There is a legitimate argument from the Government, which I have heard and listened to, that they ought to go away and consider the variety of amendments—mine are not the only ones; a great range of amendments have been tabled from across the House, and each, in my judgment, is valid. The Government have to come up with a response on how they can constrain the powers set out. At the moment, my opinion is that these powers are far too stark, far too great and not necessary. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), to whom I also always listen very carefully on these matters, approaches this matter from a slightly different angle, so I was interested to hear him say that he thought the powers were excessive and unnecessary—I hope that I do not paraphrase him wrongly.

In those circumstances, the Government have to think again. I do not want to be particularly prescriptive, because it seems to me that there are a range of ways in which this could be done. I want to hear from Ministers this afternoon broadly how they will respond to the amendments and give some thought to coming back on Report with a constraint on the powers set out. There are probably two ways this can be done—indeed, we could do both. The first is to accept some of the amendments. On my amendment 1, for example, I continue to be bemused that, in view of the extensive nature of subsection (2)(a) to (g), it is in fact necessary to provide a further power. I think that there are excessive jitters within Departments. Somebody ought to have the courage to say, “Find me some examples that fall outside the scope,” and if they can, they should add those to the list and take out the unlimited nature of the powers at the top of the clause.

I accept, picking up something that was said earlier in Committee, that the word “deficiency” provides some constraint. I take the view that if an attempt were made to extend the use of the powers outside of correcting a deficiency, it could be challenged in court, but we do not want to end up with court challenges. I say to Ministers that that would be the worst possible place to end up in January 2019—the clock ticking and people claiming the Government have used excessive powers. That would contribute to chaos rather than certainty, so the issue needs to be addressed.

The second issue, which has been highlighted by some of the other Members who have spoken, is whether the Government can sensibly identify areas of particular concern to the House, such as children’s rights, environmental law or equality rights, that can be safely cordoned off—or, in the case of children’s rights, specifically inserted—to reassure the House that these powers will not be used for a purpose other than that which was intended. That seems to me to be the challenge.

For those reasons, I am going to listen very carefully. I want to avoid putting any of my numerous amendments to the vote, but that will depend first on the answer that I receive from the Dispatch Box this afternoon and secondly on whether the answer is sufficiently clear and shows a willingness by the Government overall—we have debated this on previous days—to go away and consider the matter properly, and then come back with a sensible proposal on Report. I should be happy to wait until then, because that is exactly what the process of legislation is about—waiting to see what the Government come up with—but I put them on notice that if what they come up with is inadequate, the debate on Report will allow us to re-table amendments, or table them in a slightly different form. If necessary, we will vote on them, and I will vote to ensure that the powers are not as they currently appear. That is the challenge to the Government, and I expect a response. Provided that I receive that response, I will sit on my numerous amendments this afternoon.

Let me say one more thing, about a matter that has not been much touched on. My new clause 82 deals with tertiary powers. This is a little bit technical, but I do not like tertiary powers. I do not like them one little bit. They are, of course, powers that ultimately do not come to this place at all. I want to find out this afternoon what tertiary powers are actually for, and I want the Government to give some examples to justify their appearance in the Bill. I confess that I found it slightly difficult to see why they had crept in. One or two people have suggested some possible reasons, but I should like to hear rather more this afternoon; otherwise, again, I put the Government on notice that I shall return to this matter on Report. I do not think that the world would come to an end if they were to disappear from the Bill, although my hon. Friend the Minister may persuade me otherwise. As a result of the Government’s approach, we have already made great progress on triage. I am grateful to them for that, because it is exactly how the Bill should be dealt with. However, I want to see some progress on constraining the powers and making them less extensive, because I think that they are unnecessarily broad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). If he is concerned about tertiary legislation, I invite him to co-sign my amendment 291, which will be taken on day 8 of our consideration of this Bill, and which would require all tertiary legislation made under powers under these regulations to be subject to parliamentary control. That would go some way towards addressing some of the concerns he and I have about tertiary legislation.

I rise to speak to new clause 62 and amendment 138, tabled in my name. This Bill poses a severe risk that environmental legislation on exit day becomes zombie legislation, no longer updated or enforced, and vulnerable to being watered down or dropped entirely. Amendment 138 seeks to prevent environmental protections from being watered down, and new clause 62 would require the Government to come up with a solution to the governance gap.

That is important because 80% of the UK’s environmental protections come from EU law. This Bill will have to deal with swathes of environmental law, and we do not want it tampered or fiddled about with in any way if we leave. Those laws have brought us a very long way since the 1970s when we were seen as the dirty man of Europe, but they are neither self-executing nor self-policing. They set air quality targets, climate change targets and water quality standards, and the rules and regulations affect almost every aspect of our waste management industry. It was interesting that the Prime Minister said yesterday that waste, water, food and agriculture would all be subject to continued regulatory alignment; we wait to see what that means in practice. Those laws mean we bathe on cleaner beaches, drive more fuel-efficient cars and can hold the Government to account on air pollution.

We are part of a global gold standard in chemicals regulation, and the chemicals and pharmaceuticals industry yesterday wrote to the Environment Secretary stating in terms that it wishes to stay in the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals regulation. On a previous day’s consideration of this Bill, the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, told me in response to my concerns on REACH that it is directly applicable in UK law, but he fundamentally misunderstands what REACH does. It creates a body—the European Chemicals Agency—which regulates, evaluates, authorises and enforces that law. We do not have such a body in UK law, so although that directive may be directly applicable and be valid in UK law, there is no body to carry out its functions. As we go through this Bill we are going to find that that is the case. There may be a body that the Minister thinks he can dump those functions on through a duplication of legislation, but that is not a perfect or elegant solution. Today, we are a world leader in environmental standards, and, crucially, we are able to hold this Government to account. That certainly focuses Ministers’ minds when there is the threat of infringement or infraction proceedings.

Leaving the EU means we lose those governance, enforcement and accountability mechanisms, and new clause 62 requires the Government to ensure that environmental law is enforced after exit day. That is why my Committee called for a new environmental protection Act. The Government have said that that will not be necessary, so since they have refused to introduce such an Act, amendment 138 aims to preserve retained EU environmental law. Much of this environmental law will need technical corrections, and the unpicking of 40 years of legal ties to EU institutions and agencies is the biggest administrative and constitutional task that this country has faced since world war two.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the fact that at least half of the approximately 42 EU agencies that exist offer no provision for the participation of third countries? Could she perhaps ask Members on the other Benches how the Government can possibly build the necessary capacity when we are unable to participate in those agencies?

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend raises an excellent point, which has also been raised by the European Chemicals Agency. Those registrations, which will have cost our businesses £250 million, will fall on exit day. I know that that particular agency does allow third countries to participate, but when I tabled a parliamentary question to various Departments about the work they had done to prepare to duplicate the work of those regulatory agencies, I got a series of flannel-type replies that essentially said, “We don’t know how much it is going to cost, we don’t know what the system is going to be and we haven’t really started the work.” That is simply not good enough. Businesses and citizens deserve certainty. We are going to need between 800 and 1,000 statutory instruments before exit day to correct retained law. In a letter to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in September, the Environment Secretary said that there were 850 pieces of legislation relating to his Department that would no longer work after exit day unless they were corrected. That is an absolutely huge body of law.

Clause 7, as we have heard, gives Ministers powers to make regulations that they believe are appropriate—again, I dispute what “appropriate” might be—to

“prevent, remedy or mitigate…any failure of EU retained law to operate effectively”—

again, how do we know what the full scope of this clause will cover? This is a huge amount of law—

“or…any other deficiency in retained EU law”

where this arises from exit. The Bill’s explanatory notes contain a worrying and rather brazen example of what this means. They use the example of the UK having to obtain an opinion from the EU Commission, stating:

“In this instance the power to correct the law would allow the Government to amend UK domestic legislation to either replace the reference to the Commission with a UK body”—

should the Government decide to have one—

“or remove this requirement completely.”

Once we start to see the removal of reporting and enforcement requirements, we get to the heart of the Bill, which is that Brexit is a deregulators’ charter. This is about taking rights away and about ensuring that environmental and social rights are lost to our citizens. I do not want to see Ministers making those sweeping changes with no scrutiny in this place.

In part 1 of schedule 7, paragraph 3(2) waives the affirmative procedure for regulations where the Minister is of the opinion that

“by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make the regulations without a draft being so laid and approved.”

That basically says that the Government will not consult this House if the matter is urgent. They have said that they will accept the amendments tabled by the Procedure Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), but those provisions could be waived if a Minister was of the opinion that the regulations were urgent. The Government want to pass 800 to 1,000 statutory instruments, 850 of which are in the environment sphere. Can anyone tell me which of those regulations will not be urgent, given that they need to be passed before exit day?

[Mr Baker]

May I reassure the hon. Lady that it is the made affirmative procedure that is available for urgent instruments, so the instrument would have to be laid before both Houses.

[Mary Creagh]

But that would still be the negative procedure—

[Mr Baker]

No, it is set out in the schedule. It is the made affirmative procedure, which means that once the instrument has been made, it must be laid for a resolution of both Houses.

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the Minister for that clarification.

What could possibly be watered down? The Environmental Audit Committee asked the Transport Secretary for a guarantee that air quality standards would not be watered down after Brexit, but he refused to give us that guarantee, saying that he found it

“hard to believe that any Minister is going to stand before this House and argue for a reduction in air quality standards.”

He is right. No Minister will have to stand before this House and argue for that, because the Bill does away with that requirement. We saw the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union’s mask slip once before during his statement to this House on the White Paper, when he said:

“This is about reversing—well, not reversing but amending—and dealing with 40 years’ accumulated policy and law.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2017; Vol. 620, c. 1220.]

That was a Freudian slip that I return to time and again. We have also seen that from the Environment Secretary. Paeans have been heaped on his head, but in April, between his visiting Donald Trump in January and his rehabilitation to the Cabinet, he railed against the habitats directive, which he now somehow wants to protect from himself. He talked about homes in his constituency being governed by the habitats directive and how onerous it was for developers to have to offset their projects with green spaces. There is obviously more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, but he was a deregulator before his damascene conversion. He is now deeply penitent, spending his day listening to the experts, and has since acknowledged that the environment needs to be protected from

“the unscrupulous, unprincipled, or careless”.

I wonder which of his colleagues he had in mind and who may yet succeed him at DEFRA.

How might Ministers go about watering down EU standards? The 2008 classification, labelling and packaging regulation or CLP regulation—CLP means something quite different in Labour terminology—is an example of direct EU legislation under clause 3, which will become retained EU law under clause 6. The CLP regulation aligns the EU’s system of classifying, labelling and packaging chemical substances. It enables chemical products to be traded in the European single market while protecting workers, consumers and the environment. It is why drain cleaners—the sulphuric acid that has been used in the terrible acid attacks—and paint strippers bear the red diamond hazard signs, with which we are all familiar. The regulation will need to be corrected after exit day, but the corrections proposed in the Government’s delegated powers memorandum show how the CLP regulation would be dramatically watered down.

The draft statutory instrument proposes to omit article 46 of the CLP regulation. Article 46 obliges the Government to enforce the safety standards in the regulation and to report on how well those standards are being enforced. In that draft SI, the Government say that because the Commission does not exist, they do not need to report to the Commission, and because they do not need to report, they do not need to enforce. This is a granular and detailed amendment, but that is the sort of thing that the proposed sifting committee will have to consider with an electron microscope to get to the heart of every single deficiency, some of which—with the best will in the world—will not appear until there is a legal challenge. We do not want the labelling and packaging of dangerous chemicals not to be enforced and not reported to any body. Some hon. Members may not be as sceptical as I am about Ministers’ intentions, but none of us can predict the future. We have had three Environment Secretaries in as many years.

Amendment 138 would protect retained EU environmental law, requiring Ministers to certify that they are satisfied that regulations made under clause 7 will not remove or reduce any environmental protection provided by retained EU law. That certification—similar to that created by the Human Rights Act—would be justiciable, meaning that it can be challenged in a court of law. An individual or group could apply for a judicial review if they felt that regulations made under clause 7 had removed or reduced environmental protection. That would not delay leaving the EU, but it would provide a vital check on the powers in clause 7, and it protects the protections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I associate myself with the comments of the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I agree entirely with her on this, as well as on a great many other things. I take the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) as my inspiration: if I cannot get what I want, I will just wait 40 years—saying the same thing—and it may come around again.

I will speak to amendment 385 and new clause 77, which are in my names and those of right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as right hon. and hon. Members from other parties. In the White Paper published earlier this year, the Government committed to continuing to work with the EU to preserve European security, to fight terrorism and to uphold justice across Europe, yet no mention at all was made of plans to continue the work, post-Brexit, with their European partners to protect women and girls fleeing violence. I need not really point to the lack of a certain sort of Member of Parliament—those with a certain chromosome—in the Brexit team or among those currently on the Treasury Bench as to why that was the case.

This omission is stunning given the current state of affairs in the UK. An estimated 1.3 million women in England and Wales experienced domestic abuse last year alone, while 4.3 million women will have experienced domestic abuse at some point since the age of 16. In addition, about one in five women will experience stalking or sexual assault at some point in their lifetime. Despite that desperately worrying state of affairs, the Government have so far failed to guarantee that such survivors of violence will enjoy the same legal protections post-Brexit as they do now.

Amendment 385 would at least retain one aspect of this protection. In February 2016, history was made in the Hammersmith specialist domestic abuse court, when the first European protection order was issued in England and Wales. This enabled the survivor to move to Sweden, enjoying protection in both the UK and Sweden. In the same year, another survivor was issued an EPO, allowing her to move to Slovakia safely. The UK has also recognised a number of EPOs issued by other EU member states in 2015 and 2016, meaning that these survivors were protected on entry to the UK. According to data provided by the European parliamentary research service, Britain makes disproportionate use of the framework, accounting for almost half of all orders granted in 2015 and 2016.

[Mary Creagh]

Does my hon. Friend think that the fact that we are disproportionately represented in that way reflects the UK’s status as both a transit point and a destination for people trafficking? It would be abhorrent if the process of leaving the EU afforded less protection to such survivors.

[Jess Phillips]

Absolutely. I cannot give with any real certainty the exact reason why Britain uses the orders more than anywhere else, except for the fact that—I can definitely say this—our human trafficking rates are much higher compared with other European countries. The issue that worries me is that British Governments of many colours over many years have prioritised domestic violence services and protection orders in relation to human trafficking, and it would be a real stain on what is not a bad reputation for this Government—certainly on human trafficking—if we undid some of the protections that we rely on very heavily in the realm of human trafficking.

While the number of EPOs granted since their inception is still quite small, because the framework is very young—let us say that, in its infancy, it is the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley compared with the hon. Member for Stone—there is no telling how the uptake may increase in the future. We must certainly not deprive survivors making use of the orders of what they have been guaranteed so far, otherwise they will continue to be vulnerable and to be abused. Amendment 385 would ensure that, at the very least, UK courts continued to recognise EPOs issued by EU member states.

There are a great many other ways in which the UK co-operates with the EU on issues such as human trafficking, female genital mutilation and forced marriage. Such issues are prevalent in many parts of the country. For example, in 2010, up to 900 schoolgirls across Birmingham were at risk of FGM. One in five children in Birmingham will have experienced or seen domestic violence before they reach adulthood, and at least 300 forced marriages take place in the west midlands every year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his robust support, and I shall certainly watch out for my lead.

Our approach is to provide for the greatest possible scrutiny and transparency of the statutory instruments as they come forward. We began that process of providing transparency in the delegated powers memorandum accompanying the Bill, and in recent days we have published further information on how clause 7 would be used, including yesterday two draft SIs in the key area of workers’ rights, but there is more we can do to provide for scrutiny and transparency, which brings me to amendments 391 and 392 to 398, which will come before the Committee for a vote tomorrow.

I am pleased to repeat that the Government intend tomorrow to accept amendments 392 to 398, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, who is not here, but who nevertheless is a great champion of Parliament against the Executive, as he has demonstrated on multiple occasions. The Procedure Committee, which he chairs, agreed the amendments unanimously. I pay particular tribute to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, whose report informed the Committee’s work, I understand. If his amendments are not moved separately, the Government will be happy to move them formally at the appropriate moment.

The amendments will establish a sifting committee in the House to look at instruments made under the power in clause 7 and two other key powers in clauses 8 and 9. I draw the Committee’s attention to the draft Standing Orders that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has published to establish a new Select Committee to consider the negative instruments in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne proposes. The amendments draw on the expertise of the Procedure Committee, and the Government believe that they offer a solution that will give transparency to the House over the Government’s choice of procedure and ensure that the House can recommend that any negative instrument under clauses 7 to 9 instead be debated and voted upon as an affirmative instrument.

The Government have also tabled amendment 391, which will place our commitments to transparency in the Bill and require that explanatory memorandums relating to each statutory instrument include a number of specific statements. The amendments are aimed at improving the scrutiny and transparency of the SIs that are to come. If the House accepts them, they will together be more than the sum of their parts. The combination of the proposals of the Committee and the Government will mean that any deficiency the Government identify in retained EU law will be transparent to the House. In the light of this information, or any other concerns, the House will have a mechanism to propose a negative instrument for the increased scrutiny provided by a debate and a vote in the House.

I particularly noted what my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said about the political costs of not complying with the Committee’s recommendation. She nods; I am grateful. I am confident that, given that this proposal is in harmony with the way in which other Select Committees work in relation to the Government, it will provide an adequate means of holding Ministers to account on the choice of procedure.

[Mary Creagh]

In the absence of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), whose proposal this is, does the Minister envisage introducing the enhanced sift procedure—the mechanism for informing other Select Committees or Members with a particular interest in a subject—on Report?

[Mr Baker]

The hon. Lady has put her point on the record, but what we are doing is accepting the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. I also draw her attention to the Standing Orders.

A number of Members have referred to the general need for a reform of the scrutiny of statutory instruments. I spent a very informative weekend reading the Hansard Society’s book “The Devil is in the Detail”, which I recommend to any Member who wishes to be fully apprised of the case for the reform of delegated legislation, but I must add that this is not the moment for a complete reform of secondary legislation. What we need to do is accept the amendments from the Procedure Committee, and to move forward.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I hope that the Minister’s intervention will satisfy some of my colleagues.

Let me end by saying that I will be supporting the Government this evening. In my view, it is time for us to grit our teeth and simply get on with it.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I rise to speak about my amendments 293, 294 and 295, which deal with the issue of who decides exit day, but rather than making the speech that I originally prepared, I will keep my remarks brief and broad.

The Prime Minister’s decision to set the exit date and to write it into law is another panic move, and it puts her into a self-tying straitjacket. It is a sop to the hard Brexiteers, and it creates a rod for the negotiators’ backs. It weakens, rather than strengthens, the UK’s position in the crucial nine months that are left for us to negotiate a good deal. Eighteen months after the referendum, we have seen the bluff and bluster on the withdrawal agreement. The Foreign Secretary has gone from telling our European partners to go whistle to being little Tommy Tucker singing for his supper to the tune of £40 billion. We have seen a tug of war take place on EU citizens’ rights, and a deal on no hard border with Ireland taking place in frantic late-night phone calls—a deal that the Brexit Secretary later undermined by calling it a mere “statement of intent”, which has caused all sorts of problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leslie]

I hope that countries do, and we will need them to, otherwise we will literally be planting carrots in our back gardens. If we do not have trade deals with the rest of the world, we will have to produce more domestically, rather than having the living standards we have previously enjoyed. I am a very pro-trade Member of Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman should know where I stand on many of these questions. That is why I am asking what the consequences will be not just if we move away from the trade arrangements we have—the finest, frictionless free trade agreement of anywhere in the world that we have right now with the single market and the customs union—but if we then rip up the free trade agreements with non-EU countries that we have enjoyed by virtue of our EU membership. That is another 12% of our exports. Some 50% of our exports are with the EU through our existing trade arrangements, and then there is another 12%—actually, there is another 14% because there are other territories of those non-EU countries as well. That is a big chunk of our trade. I am very concerned about how effectively we can carry out the grandfathering of those FTAs with the rest of the EU.

We must also bear in mind that there are 164 members of the WTO, and they have rights of veto and objection on many occasions. In fact, we recently tried to lodge a suggestion on dividing tariff-rate quotas. This is getting technical, but that is basically dividing up the EU’s share of low or zero-tariff allowances when countries such as New Zealand or Australia try to import lamb. Amazingly, Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America have lodged an objection to the British divvy-up of those tariff-rate quotas. Of course, apparently America should have been knocking on our door, as we were at the front of the queue, supposedly, but it still lodged an objection to our very first relationship with the WTO.

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend rightly raises the issue of these countries objecting to any changes to quota, because they will first and foremost seek to protect their own economies, not our economy. In the event that we get a percentage of the EU quota but for whatever reason—customs barriers; non-tariff barriers; the withdrawal of purchasing power—that quota of goods cannot be sold into the UK, those countries’ flexibility to then sell those goods to the EU is lost. That is why they are digging their heels in so early on this issue.

[Mr Leslie]

That is a real worry. This will not get media attention or airtime, but it is a big chunk of our economic footprint. It is not just a trade issue with the EU; it is a trade issue in respect of all the free trade agreements with the rest of the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)]

It has been a pleasure to listen to this wide-ranging debate and to hear some of the speeches, not all of which seemed to be specifically about clause 8. I compliment my opposite number, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), who very accurately described the clause.

[Mary Creagh]

I do have a speech on clause 8 and I would like to raise some specific points, but I am slightly concerned that the Minister might now be about to speak for 15 minutes, in the tradition that he started yesterday, and I am worried that he will not be able to respond to my specific points.

[Mr Walker]

I am very happy to do my best endeavours to ensure that the hon. Lady does get five minutes to make her speech; she often has interesting points to bring to these debates. Let me discuss briefly, therefore, what clause 8 is for.

As we leave the EU, it is essential that the Government can ensure that we do not breach any of the UK’s international obligations. These international obligations stretch from our promises to other nations, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), to those we have undertaken as a sovereign and responsible participant in international organisations such as the Council of Europe and global ones such as the WTO. This need to prevent breaches of our international obligations is the reasoning behind the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

I am happy to give that confirmation. As I said to the House of Lords Constitution Committee earlier today, no one has any intention to amend the Good Friday agreement.

[Mary Creagh]

By regulation.

[Mr Walker]

At all—by regulation or in any other way.

I will turn briefly to the amendments and respond to new clause 20 in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham East. My Department is leading cross-Government work to assess and act on the international agreements for which, as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, arrangements will need to be made to ensure continuity for businesses and individuals. Any that require implementing legislation or parliamentary scrutiny before ratification will go through the appropriate, well-established procedures. We are working with our international partners to identify the full range of our agreements that might be impacted by our exit from the EU, and we will be taking their views into account. It would not be appropriate at this stage to publish the type of assessment proposed in new clause 20. Doing so would prejudice the outcome of these discussions and how any action would be put into practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

We will be coming forward with more information on this front in due course. However, a lot of the hon. Gentleman’s speech was specifically about trade issues, and we have a Trade Bill that deals specifically with those issues. If I might gently say, a lot of what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) talked about related to the content of the Trade Bill rather than this Bill.

We do recognise the need to promote stability for businesses and individuals, and we will aim to transition agreements as seamlessly as possible. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Swansea West—I am afraid he is no longer in his place—and I would like to reassure him that this clause has nothing to do with future trade agreements. It is purely to do with our existing international commitments and how we make sure we continue to meet them in the context of leaving the EU.

Clause 8 is a very specific power, which will be available only where a breach of our current international obligations arises from the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. It ensures that we will be able to continue to honour international obligations, which might otherwise be affected by our withdrawal, and it is key to ensuring that we can take our place on the global stage as a fully independent nation. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Members for Nottingham East and for Swansea West will consider not pressing their amendments.

I want to address amendment 345 in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. It is well intentioned but unnecessary. The power in clause 8 has a narrow and specific purpose, and can be used where our international obligations might be breached as a result of leaving the EU. World Health Organisation guidelines are not international obligations; they are used to inform air quality standards in international and EU legislation, but they do not, of themselves, form an obligation to be complied with.

The UK has a strong track record on protecting our environment, and in leaving the EU, we will safeguard and improve on that. The whole purpose of this clause is to ensure that we leave the EU with maximum certainty, continuity and control, and that, as far as possible, the same rules, laws and international obligations apply on the day after exit as on the day before.

Of course, some of the existing mechanisms that allow scrutiny of environmental targets and standards by Governments will not be carried over into our law, and that is why the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced on 12 November our intention to consult on a new, independent statutory body to advise and challenge Government, and potentially other bodies—

[Mary Creagh]

rose—

[Mr Walker]

I am going to give the hon. Lady a chance to speak, so I hope she will wait.

That body will also potentially advise and challenge other bodies on environmental legislation, stepping in when needed to hold them to account and to enforce standards. The Government will consult on the specific scope and powers of that body early next year.

We have a number of amendments—from the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and the hon. Member for Wakefield, whom I will do my best to give a chance to speak—that seek to place further restrictions on the use of the clause 8 power, beyond those already in the clause. These amendments give me another opportunity to restate our firm commitment to ensuring that environmental protections and the rights of individuals—particularly EU citizens resident in the UK—are maintained as we bring EU law on to the UK statute book. This commitment will be reflected in the use of this clause to ensure that, from day one of withdrawal from the EU, the UK is able to comply with its international obligations.

As we stressed during yesterday’s debate on clause 7, the defence and security of the realm is always the first duty of Government, and the Government are absolutely committed to national security and securing the right future arrangements for security with the EU. I would like to take the opportunity to reassure the Committee that we cannot see that anything that damages our national security would be an appropriate way to ensure continued compliance with international obligations. The same would be true of any change to equalities legislation.

All these amendments are well intentioned, but we have been clear in previous debates that we will preserve rights through this Bill, and not reduce them. In those earlier debates, we also set out that, by giving no definition of what, for example, an environmental protection is, or how one might judge that such a protection was being weakened, amendments along these lines risk unnecessary litigation, undermining the certainty that this Bill aims to create.

In the specific context of clause 8, which is about upholding our international obligations, it is very difficult to see how that could do anything other than require us to preserve rights and protections. Parliament has already approved the UK being party to a number of international conventions and international organisations, such as the World Trade Organisation. We are committed to these international relationships. A key part of that is ensuring that we fully comply with our international obligations. Leaving the customs union and the single market may alter the way in which the UK complies with some of these obligations, specifically with regard to the treatment of WTO most favoured nation status.

Amendment 292 in the name of the hon. Member for Wakefield—I know that she wants to speak to it—does not acknowledge these changes in respect of taxation, or the fact that there will not always be a clear choice about how to comply with such obligations in future. Clause 8 gives Ministers the flexibility to make those changes. Of course, however, we will listen to what she has to say. I understand the honourable intentions behind these amendments, but we believe that this clause is well drafted to continue to meet our international obligations.

The UK is a nation whose word is its bond. This Government introduced the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill to ensure a smooth and orderly exit from the EU. Our desire to leave the EU in this way applies both to the actions we take domestically and to our actions in relation to international partners. Clause 8 is key to delivering that, and I commend it to the Committee.

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the Minister for rushing through his speech so that I get the chance to have my five minutes to talk about amendment 292.

Clause 8 allows Ministers to make any regulations to prevent or remedy any breach in our international obligations as we leave the EU, but it also contains a Henry VIII power allowing for those regulations to do anything that an Act of Parliament can do. That includes amending or repealing any Act of Parliament ever passed. It is the most extraordinary and unusual power. I was going to raise the Northern Ireland Act 1998, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) for getting the Minister on the record on that.

The Government have been very scant on the details about the sorts of international obligations that may be affected. They have also been unable to say—I was listening carefully to the Minister—why regulations under clause 8 can impose or increase taxation. We do not want to end up in a situation where the Government can raise tax-like charges by statutory instrument. That gives away the supremacy of this place on taxation. The “appropriateness” test is too broad, and it undermines the supremacy of Parliament. We cannot have taxation by the back door.

Crucially, I did not hear the Minister say anything about tertiary legislation. We have focused a lot on SIs—the secondary stuff. Tertiary legislation enables a new public body that needs to be set up, such as a chemicals body, to charge fees. This may not be controversial at first, but there may come a time when such bodies want to increase the fees, as happened when the Ministry of Justice wanted to increase probate fees by, I think, 1,500%. Why is there a double standard in clause 8 as regards secondary and tertiary legislation? We want tertiary legislation to be given the same parliamentary control and the same time limits as secondary legislation. My amendment 292 seeks to restore the supremacy of the House on financial matters.

I want briefly to deal with the environmental regulation that the Minister talked about. The Government currently have a “one in, three out” rule. Many of our environmental regulations come from international mixed agreements signed and ratified, as he said, by the UK and the EU; some are bilateral and some are multilateral. The Environmental Audit Committee has been looking at our progress in reducing fluorinated gases. These are very powerful greenhouse gases with a global warming potential 14,000 times more harmful than carbon dioxide. They are in commercial refrigeration systems, in our car air-conditioning systems, and in 70% of the 60 million asthma inhalers that we use in this country every year. Targets for reducing those gases are set and monitored by the European Union, but we are also a signatory to the UN framework, so it is a mixed agreement. We have just ratified the Kigali amendment to reduce F-gases by 85% by 2036. That agreement is monitored by the EU, so the Bill will convert the regulation into UK law and we will need new regulations.

The explanatory memorandum states that the new regulations may be subject to the Government’s “one in, three out” rule. We cannot have the Government making hundreds, if not thousands, of new regulations that get caught under that absurd administrative rule, so I want the Minister to assure the House that it will be scrapped. I have written about that as the Committee Chair, and Lord Henley has said that there is no clarity about it and no decision has been made. That has to change.

[Mr Leslie]

This is an incredibly important series of discussions. We need more information on the 759 international treaties that may fall on exit day, and I am glad that the Minister indicated that more information would be forthcoming. I want to vote for new clause 22 on the European economic area and the single market, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 22

EEA Agreement

“(1) No Minister may, under this Act, notify the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EEA Agreement, whether under Article 127 of that Agreement or otherwise.

(2) Regulations under this Act may not make any provision that would constitute a breach of the United Kingdom’s obligations under the EEA Agreement.

(3) Regulations under this Act may not amend or repeal subsection (1) or (2).”—(Heidi Alexander.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Committee: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leslie]

Yes, and we all presumed that some of the £3.7 billion of preparations money would be spent on tarmacking fields around those areas in preparation for lorry parks and the overflow from the possible queues on the motorways.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are failing to understand the deep complexity of supply chains in the EU? He is talking about the finished product of a car, but there are also many automotive components that go backwards and forwards between the UK and mainland Europe. Sometimes within a single company, one part is made on mainland Europe, fixed into a car in this country and then exported back out to Europe. I also believe that the planning application for the lorry park was rejected because the council failed to carry out an environmental impact assessment.

[Mr Leslie]

We will have to see what happens there. I think that about 2.5 million lorries a year go through the port of Dover; just think about the volume of traffic we are talking about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That is the sort of detail we need. We have to understand all the different arrangements that are there that will work and suit our country, and I beg right hon. and hon. Members to look at them. The solutions are there. We are not going to get a bespoke deal, but arrangements are there on the shelf. We can grasp them, sort out Brexit, move on and do the right thing by our country and our constituents.

[Mary Creagh]

I begin by expressing my condolences and those of all Members to our friend and colleague Mr Deputy Speaker. He has suffered such a grievous loss, and we hold him in our hearts and prayers this Christmas season.

It is a pleasure to follow such interesting, well-informed speeches. I will discuss new clause 61 and amendment 291, which are in my name. We have heard much from the Minister today and from the Prime Minister, but my concern is that the blandishments and reassurances that we have been given actually contain more fudge than I hope to find in my Christmas stocking on Monday. As we look forward to the phase 2 negotiations, I am clear about one thing: there is no free trade agreement that we can negotiate that will be as comprehensive as the one we have with the EU now. New clause 61 recognises both that and the importance of the UK chemicals industry.

The Bill attempts to cut and paste EU law into UK law, but it cannot do that for the chemicals industry, which is vital to this country. We export almost £15 billion-worth of chemicals to the EU each year. Some 60% of all our chemicals go to the EU, and 75% of all our chemical imports come from the EU. We no longer make some basic chemicals due to that close relationship, which is really important for the pharmaceutical industry. Chemicals are our second largest export to the EU after cars, and the industry provides half a million jobs, both directly and indirectly. However, the regulatory uncertainties around Brexit—this hokey-cokey on whether we are going to be is the single market or the customs union or have a free trade deal—are sending shockwaves through the chemicals industry.

The industry is concerned that the UK will no longer participate in the EU’s regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals or REACH, and new clause 61 would require us to remain in that arrangement. REACH covers over 30,000 substances and pharmaceuticals that are bought and sold in the single market. It also covers products—everything from the coating on a non-stick frying pan to flame retardants in sofas, carpets and curtains, to gases, fertilisers, plastics, speciality adhesives, rubbers, paints and dyes—and hazardous substances. It seeks to protect human health and the environment, particularly following the disastrous chemical leak in the Italian town of Seveso.

If a UK business wants to sell a chemical product into the EU or to Switzerland, South Korea or Norway, it must be registered with and authorised by the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki. Membership of REACH is essentially a passport to the global chemicals marketplace. The Environmental Audit Committee has conducted all sorts of inquiries into the arrangement, but it cannot simply be transposed into UK law because it involves data sharing and co-operation. We do not have a domestic UK agency to carry out the same function, so the Bill will put our trade in chemicals at risk. Without an agreement to the contrary, the European Chemicals Agency has said that all UK companies’ registrations will be non-existent after exit day, which I cannot stress strongly enough. That would mean no access to the database and no legal obligation in this country to have a national helpdesk to give advice to companies. The arbitrary red lines on membership of the single market and customs union are the source of those risks, and the situation could be disastrous. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs tweeted about maximum divergence from the EU, but he is effectively putting a stake through the heart of the UK chemicals industry.

The Chemical Business Association told my Committee that 20% of its members are investigating moves out of the UK as a result of Brexit uncertainties. The Chemical Industries Association wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs this month, urging the Government

“to do all it can to remain within or as close as possible”

to the EU’s rules. Its chief executive, Steve Elliott, said in his letter that leaving REACH

“would seriously bring into question 10 years of investment, as registrations and authorisations that permit access to the EU single market would suddenly become non-existent on exit day”.

That could have upstream effects on dialysis machines and solar panels, and all sorts of other industries would be affected.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Mary Creagh Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: Second Day: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

New clause 12, which stands in my name and those of a number of other Members, seeks to guarantee our management of environmental protection after exit day. The environment has been in the news quite a lot recently. The members of the Cabinet all had reusable coffee cups following their meeting yesterday, although I think we shall need a little bit more from the Environment Agency than bamboo cups if we are to protect our environment after Brexit. I was delighted to receive your letter today, Mr Speaker, saying that the House of Commons Commission and the Administration Committee will be looking into how Parliament can reduce its plastic usage. Last Thursday the Government published their 25 Year Environment Plan. They were very clear about what they wanted to achieve, but there was absolute silence on how that was to be done.

A third of the acquis communautaire which applies in the UK is related to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—it has brought us huge environmental improvements—and 80% of our environmental protections originated in the EU. A third of those protections cannot simply be cut and pasted. The aim of new clause 12 is to prevent us from ending up with “zombie legislation”, no longer updated or enforced, and vulnerable to being quietly dropped at the stroke of a Minister’s pen. The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, called for a new environmental protection Act more than a year ago, and the new clause does the same today: it calls for legislation setting up a strong environmental protection agency to monitor and enforce standards, replacing the European Commission. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told my Committee in November that such a body would be needed. We await his proposals, but this must be done quickly.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

What my hon. Friend has said is important for another reason. Environmental protection means development, and, as she will know, that means development jobs in towns such as Coventry. There is, for example, the electric car.

[Mary Creagh]

Absolutely. I was thrilled to learn that the electric black cab is being made in Coventry. It is great that Carbodies has a future.

It is important to drive that great innovation, that green growth, across the country. Let us take the example of waste. Twenty years ago we sent almost half our household waste to landfill; now we recycle almost half of it because of the EU’s waste framework directive. We will have no recycling targets after 2020 unless we adopt the EU’s target of 60% by 2030. We need that new environmental protection Act to set out waste targets: that will drive the innovation that we need in reprocessing.

We need reprocessing capacity urgently. As a result of the Chinese ban on the import of contaminated UK waste, 3 million tonnes of paper and 280,000 tonnes of plastic will no longer go to China, and we will have to do something with it on this island. A hard Brexit means that we could end paying tariffs on our waste exports, so exporting our waste to faraway countries will no longer be an option. The Environmental Services Association told my Committee that the industry had invested £5 billion in new infrastructure in the past five years, and could do so again, given the right policy environment. At present, however, there is the risk of a vacuum.

We hear the same story when it comes to cleaning up our beaches. The bathing water directive ended the discharge of untreated sewage into the sea and drove investment in the replacement of lead pipes. The European Investment Bank is the largest debt investor in the UK water industry, holding 13% of gross outstanding debt. There is a risk that, if we cannot gain access to EIB capital, there could be higher borrowing costs for water companies and higher water bills for consumers.

As for air quality, the EU has set out the targets that we should meet in the ambient air quality directive. We are currently missing those targets. I have been through the 58 impact assessments, and air quality does not feature in any of them, although it is one of the most pressing market failures that we face. There is no air quality industry, which is why it is neglected. We have had our final written warning from the Commission. The danger is that when we leave the EU we will not set ourselves stringent standards. There is no agency to set those standards, no agency to monitor them, and no agency to enforce them. The Prime Minister launched the environmental plan last week. She says she wants to phase out unnecessary plastics by 2042. I can tell her now that I am not waiting until I am 75 to clear up our environment. This House needs a vote on a strong environmental protection Act, and a strong environmental protection agency to make sure we pass on a decent environment to our children and grandchildren.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Time is short so I shall make just two brief comments.

First, I support amendment 59 and thank the SNP on taking the initiative on pulling that together. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) made a compelling speech on the importance of remaining inside the single market and customs union, and I join him in appealing to Labour Front Benchers even at this eleventh hour to support it. As he and many other Members have said today, the Government have no mandate for the kind of extreme Brexit they are pursuing. The irony in the Labour Front-Bench position is that the NHS crisis or the inequality crisis or the housing crisis are all far harder to tackle if the UK is outside the single market and customs union.

My second point is to commend the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) on her speech on her new clause 12. I agree entirely with what she said. She says the environmental plan lacks a “how”. That is true, but, crucially, it also lacks a “when,” and a key question at the heart of my new clause 18 is about timing. The Government are in theory at least committed to bring forward this new domestic environmental regulator, which is supposed to set out the way in which environmental legislation will be enforced once Brexit happens, if it happens. I am concerned that there is nothing to guarantee that that new body will be in place by Brexit day.

We have had positive written statements. For example, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs explained in a written statement last week that the Government’s 25-year environmental plan will be underpinned by what he says is

“a comprehensive set of environmental principles”

to “ensure strong governance”. He also talks about consulting on setting up

“a world-leading environmental watchdog, an independent, statutory body, to hold Government to account for upholding environmental standards.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 12WS.]

That is all very well, but what is not addressed is the question of timing, which is why my new clause 18 is so important.

We need to make sure that there is no so-called governance gap, and there is still a very real risk that, after Brexit day but before this new body comes into place, we will have a governance gap where environmental legislation that might well have been brought across from the EU to the UK still will not be enforceable. We will still not have that replacement for the Commission and the ECJ. We will end up with what has been called zombie legislation.

This new clause 18 is vital; we must not be left with that legal gap. We need legal certainty. That is what this provision will provide, and I urge the Government to think again about supporting it.