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

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Monday 18th September 2023 General Committees

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I will start with the way that the Solicitor General described the statutory instrument. Perhaps he did it for the benefit and excitement of his Back Benchers, because he said, “First, it revokes yet more European law, and then, secondly, it retains a few slightly important clauses.” But, actually, it is schedule 1 that does the retention, so the first thing that it does is retain, and then the second thing that it does is revoke. That might be slightly pedantic, but I think it is quite an interesting way of trying to present exactly what the Government are up to here, because I think, as suggested by the Labour spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, an awful lot of the entire process under the retained EU law Act has been window dressing and completely unnecessary.

We passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which created the concept of retained EU law. That meant that everything that needed to be on the statute book was on the statute book, and it was up to the Government, at their liberty, through primary legislation, to introduce new laws to undo whatever hated European policies they might have inherited. That provided us with a stable statute book, and the Government could have gone on and delivered whatever they thought the benefits of Brexit were. But, of course, that is not what has happened. We have tied ourselves up; we have created new distinctions, clauses, sequences and procedures, and none of it is delivering what the Government proposed or said that Brexit would do in the first place.

I also want to echo the points made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston about exactly where ownership of the retained EU law Act lies. It was introduced by the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg)—it was only really ever his personal hobby-horse—and then the hon. Member for Watford, who graces us with his presence today, found himself moving it on Second Reading. But, by the time we got to Committee, we had the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) and the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) taking it through Committee, Report and Third Reading. Then, by the time that it came back from the Lords, it had fallen to the Solicitor General. However, the statement on the European convention on human rights, which, of course, is not without irony, is in the name of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade. The statement about the guidance note itself is from a Minister in the Department for Business and Trade, and yet we have the Solicitor General, a Minister from the Attorney General’s office, which is a separate Government Department, speaking for the Government today. We know that the Government speak with one voice, but I do start to wonder whether Ministers are generally quite embarrassed about everything that has happened, and perhaps the Solicitor General’s reward will in due course therefore be great in heaven, or, at the very least, in the House of Lords.

I am also intrigued by the further analysis that has been conducted to identify the various statutory instruments as not obsolete and therefore as needing to be preserved. How long has that analysis been going on for? During the passage of the Bill, Ministers were at pains to assure us that all the mapping exercises, dashboards and all the rest of it meant that everything was under control, and that provision to bring forward such statutory instruments was just for emergencies or unforeseen circumstances. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, is that analysis still ongoing? Will further statutory instruments and Delegated Legislation Committees need to be established to preserve even more regulations and retained EU law before the end of the year?

The revocation point is also important. The explanatory notes state:

“These Regulations also revoke further obsolete and inoperable pieces of legislation listed in Schedule 2…helping to further modernise our statute book and improve its clarity for businesses and consumers alike.”

The first statutory instrument that the draft regulations revoke is the Alcoholic Liquor (Amendment of Units of Measurement) Order 1992. The main effect of that order is to amend the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 as follows:

“In section 24(3) (restriction on carrying on of other trades by distiller etc) for the words ‘2 miles’ there shall be substituted the words ‘3 kilometres’.”

The order then does the same for section 69(2) of the Act. So there we are. If I understand correctly, the effect of the draft regulations will be that the 1992 order is revoked, and everyone can go back to reading the 1979 Act as saying “2 miles” instead of “3 kilometres”. We will all sleep easier in our beds tonight, knowing that that is the benefit for which Brexit was rolled out. This is what they fought so hard for. This is what taking back control really means: expunging the hated metric measurements and reinstating glorious imperial units. What an incredible achievement. I can see the Brexiteers on the Government Benches weeping with joy—I am sure that it is joy and not boredom.

Except that it appears from the tracker on legislation.gov.uk—I might not have been following it properly—that section 24 of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 was itself repealed by the Finance Act 2006. The draft regulations therefore revoke a statutory instrument passed in 1992, which amends a section of an Act passed in 1979 that was itself repealed in 2006. Is this what the Brexiteers fought for when they demanded that we take back control? Is this what they thought it would look like—tying ourselves up in legislative knots, devoting thousands of hours and millions of pounds of officials’ time and resources to track down amendments to laws that do not even exist any more? Well, good luck with all of that.

I suspect that this is not a one-off; this is not the last time a DL Committee will have to be established to keep the retained EU law Act grinding away. As I said at the start, the Government at any time could have brought forward primary legislation to rewrite entire areas of public law and policy that had once been the purview of the European Union. Meanwhile, the statute book would have continued functioning under the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Instead, the hated Brussels bureaucrats have been swapped out for the Whitehall mandarins, and instead of Parliament taking back control, the Executive are using sweeping delegated powers and hoping that nobody notices.

In some ways, I congratulate the Solicitor General for fronting up and taking ownership of something that no one else in Government seems to be prepared to take ownership of. I suspect that that means we will have the pleasure of seeing him yet again, the next time the Government have to bring forward a statutory instrument under the retained EU law Act.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

This House has been asked these questions before and twice this House has said no, with an overwhelming majority. We are asked to consider, for a third time, two amendments, neither of which is radically different from the amendments we have already rejected. It will come as no surprise to anyone in this Chamber that I invite the House, once again, to disagree with the Lords amendments.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Will the Solicitor General give way?

[The Solicitor General]

Because the hon. Gentleman asks with a smile every single time, of course I will give way.

[Patrick Grady]

I congratulate the Solicitor General on his consistency at the Dispatch Box, which was lacking throughout most of the rest of the Bill’s progress, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), the Labour Front Bencher, said last time we were here. The selection list says:

“Environmental protection; Parliamentary scrutiny

Govt motion to disagree…Govt motion to disagree”.

That sums it up, doesn’t it? The Government disagree with enhanced environmental protection and they disagree with enhanced parliamentary scrutiny. That was the whole point of Brexit for the Government, wasn’t it?

[The Solicitor General]

I am delighted to have given way to the hon. Gentleman, not least because I like him a lot and because of his smile, but also because of his warm welcome for the Government’s position. I entirely disagree with him; he is wrong. On the last occasion he intervened, he did not hear the whole debate. I invite him to do so this time because, when he does, he will see precisely what the Government’s position is.

I make it clear that we are not rejecting these amendments out of hand. As I stressed in our last debate on the Bill, and as acknowledged by Baroness Chapman in the other place, we have listened to their lordships’ views. We have worked collaboratively on a number of issues and made fundamental changes to the Bill. There has also been significant collegiate working on the reporting requirements that will provide robust scrutiny. Parliament will be able to examine the Government’s plans for reform up to six months ahead of the legislation being tabled, thanks to the regular reporting brought in by that amendment.

Lords amendment 42D is based on the process contained in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, which is a very different beast from a very different Bill designed for a completely incomparable power. A legislative reform order is capable of operating on any statute, including Acts of Parliament, whereas the relevant regulation-making power here is limited to secondary retained EU law, which is not primary legislation.

Further, I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord Hope when, in the other place, he described the process in his amendment as “light touch”, not least because of the fundamental issue of time, which is crucial when we consider how long parliamentary processes can take. Lords amendment 42D envisages up to 60 sitting days for Parliament to consider and debate proposals for statutory instruments, and potentially time after that for further scrutiny before an SI can be made. By adding such significant time for additional scrutiny, this amendment would place in doubt the effective use of the repeal and replace powers before they expire.

Perhaps that is the intention. This is the additional friction that was so neatly alighted upon by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) during one of our previous debates. Additional, deliberate friction, as my noble Friend Lord Callanan said in the other place

“is not about additional parliamentary scrutiny; this is actually about stopping Parliament acting in this area.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2023; Vol. 831, c. 117.]

It is perhaps worth noting that, since 2008, only 35 LROs have been brought forward.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for her work in this area over a long number of years. I hope her work continues and that we can encourage her to suggest regulations that need scrapping or reforming and, frankly, those that have worked and that we need to hold on to. When I come to the Government amendments, I hope she will be reassured that our approach adopts exactly what she has envisaged.

I turn to the amendments. It is clear that we are fully taking back control of our laws and ending the supremacy and special status afforded to retained EU law by the end of 2023. We are ending the inappropriate entrenchment of EU law concepts in domestic statute. For centuries, our legal systems have developed through common law and case law principles. Indeed, the UK is home to perhaps the most respected legal jurisdictions in the world, not least thanks to our strong judiciary and, crucially, our world-renowned common-law legal system, which is clear, fair, predictable and based on precedent.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is great to see that so many Ministers have taken an interest in this Bill during its passage. The Government and this place were already supposed to have the power to do everything the Solicitor General outlines, by taking back control from Brussels. Everything he says could be done through primary legislation, without needing the sweeping powers the Bill grants, much as my Glasgow North constituents welcome the removal of the cliff edge, about which the Solicitor General’s predecessors were repeatedly warned at previous stages.

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but the fact is that this framework Bill will end the supremacy and special status of retained EU law. The reason why so many Conservative Members are sitting on the Government Benches today is because we welcome the fact that the supremacy and special status afforded to retained EU law will end with the passage of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his work in this area. He will have heard the Secretary of State’s call for greater scrutiny and for a breadth of experience, which she is determined to draw upon. I am sure that she will draw upon my hon. Friend’s experience too. He is right. We are committed to reducing burdens on business and unlocking economic growth. I ask all right hon. and hon. Members to support amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment 16.

Lords amendment 6 undermines a fundamental plank of the Bill—namely, ending the special status of retained EU law on our statute book by repealing section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The matters saved by section 4 consist largely of retained rights, obligations and remedies developed in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The vast majority of those rights overlap with rights that we already have. Those overlaps can cause confusion and legal uncertainty. By not repealing section 4, and instead replacing it with unclear parliamentary procedures, the Lords amendment would create the very legal uncertainty that was previously criticised.

This is the point: the Bill should end the situation where, to understand and enforce their rights, citizens must decipher the implications of a high-level legal principle giving effect to an ill-defined right or set of rights. Lords amendment 6 does the exact opposite.

[Patrick Grady]

rose—

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Gentleman, I know, will forgive me because I have been a very long time and I must make some progress. It perpetuates a situation that is unacceptable to the Government and, I would hope, unacceptable to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

As my hon. Friend knows, I pay enormous deference to those experienced in the law—not least to him, as long-standing Chairman of the Justice Committee—but he heard my response: the Government’s concern is that Lords amendment 6 would replace clause 3 with unclear parliamentary procedures and, in my submission, create the very legal uncertainties that have been previously criticised. That is why I suggest that it is should be unacceptable not just to the Government, but to the House as well, and that the amendment proposed would actually muddy the waters.

[Patrick Grady]

rose—

[The Solicitor General]

Having given way to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee, of course I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Patrick Grady]

I think I can help the Minister out here, because from everything he has just described, it appears that what the Government are trying to achieve is that, instead of its being called “retained EU law”, it will now just be called “the law”.

[The Solicitor General]

I sort of agree—although that is a little bit of a facetious way to put it from the hon. Gentleman, but there it is. To deliver clarity, to remove the principle of supremacy in international law, the House must remove this amendment and restore the original clause to the Bill.

Rule of Law

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Wednesday 7th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Hollobone. Would it be okay if I stayed here while my colleague makes his introductory speech?

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Yes, that is fine.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Report stage: First Day: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Lady and I have known each other for a long time, and having now had overall responsibility for intergovernmental relations and devolution in the United Kingdom for seven days, I am happy to undertake to make it a priority to have that conversation with her to ensure that her views are properly heard.

Government amendments 26 and 27 will replace the current requirements for devolved Ministers to seek the consent of the United Kingdom Government when exercising the correcting power in specific ways with requirements instead to consult the United Kingdom Government. That achieves the same effect as Committee amendment 169, which was proposed by the Scottish and Welsh Governments and tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). Having discussed the matter with those Administrations and having listened to the debate in Committee, we have agreed to accept that proposal, with the addition of extending the change to the power by conferring it on the Northern Ireland Executive.

The United Kingdom Government have a vital role in considering the broader consequences for other parts of the UK where devolved Ministers legislate under these powers, and we think this change is justified. It remains important that, in using the conferred power, no action is taken that inadvertently places us in breach of EU law while we are still a member state or that would prejudice or pre-empt the outcome of negotiations; but on reflection, we consider that the devolved Administrations consulting with the UK Government before legislating in these specific circumstances relating to our negotiations will provide a sufficient safeguard and will preserve the autonomy of the devolved Administrations in correcting their laws.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but there are a lot of amendments in this group and I want to try to do justice to them.

Government amendments 25, 28 and 29 tackle a technical but important issue by allowing the devolved Administrations to use the powers conferred on them by schedule 2 to modify directly retained EU legislation in areas where a common framework is not needed. While we work with the devolved Administrations on where frameworks are or are not needed, we are maintaining existing common approaches to provide much welcomed certainty. To aid that, direct EU legislation that currently applies uniformly across the UK will be corrected at UK level in the first instance to avoid the risk of early, unhelpful divergence in areas where it may ultimately be determined that a common approach should apply. We have listened to the views of Opposition Members, my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Scotland and Wales, the devolved Administrations and Committees in the devolved legislatures.

Given that the UK Government are committed to making swift progress on the frameworks, we agree that, where a matter is released from the clause 11 competence arrangement, the powers in the Bill should be fully available to the devolved Administrations to modify retained direct EU legislation, and we intend that that will be in the majority of areas. We and the devolved Administrations continue to make good progress in those framework discussions. We intend to agree as many areas as possible where frameworks are not needed in advance of exit day, so that those areas may transfer directly to the devolved Administrations without the need for an intervening period in which to operate the holding pattern described in the clauses.

Like my hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) and for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson), I am disappointed that we have been unable to reach agreement with the Governments of Scotland and Wales to make amendments to clause 11 on an agreed basis. That remains the Government’s ambition. When I spoke to the Deputy First Minister of Scotland and the First Minister of Wales a few hours after being appointed to my new responsibilities last week, I emphasised that I was instructing our officials to work with theirs even more intensively to try to achieve that agreement.

The discussions so far have revealed a great deal of common ground between us. For example, we are all agreed that common UK frameworks will be required in some areas even after we have left the EU. That was also recognised in Committee and reflected a shared understanding about protecting the internal UK market, managing common resources and meeting international obligations. But this is a complex area and we need to get it right, and we do not believe that amendments 3, 6 and 13 would achieve that. It is our assessment that in only a minority of cases will we require a legislative framework, in whole or in part.

I can confirm today that the Government will shortly publish our analysis of the areas where frameworks will and will not be needed, so that we are transparent about this progress as our discussions on both clause 11 and frameworks move into greater detail. I also wish to acknowledge the co-operative approach of both the Scottish and Welsh Governments and their officials in working with us towards the right outcome. I have full confidence that we will deliver this Bill with the legislative consent of both the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.

Let me turn to the Opposition amendments. Amendment 3, from the Opposition Front-Bench team, and amendments 6 and 13, standing in the names of the hon. Members for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) and for Arfon (Hywel Williams), relate to the temporary arrangements established by clause 11, so that we might determine where and how frameworks would operate. The trouble with these amendments is that they would strip away certainty in areas where our citizens and our businesses rely on having common approaches across the UK, and they would pre-empt our framework discussions. They would risk our ending up when we leave the EU with unchecked divergence where common approaches were in place, with no guarantees of if and when they might be re-established. That is simply not good enough. I do not think it right to accept such amendments, which would inadvertently risk creating new barriers to living and doing business right across the UK, however well-intentioned they might be.

European Convention on Human Rights: UK Membership

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I understand my hon. Friend’s position very clearly. He is right, of course, that that record of protection of, and respect for, human rights, and indeed of fighting on behalf of those whose human rights may be being infringed, is a proud and long-standing one. That will not change.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Article 3 of protocol 1 of the ECHR states:

“The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.”

Given that the majority of legislators in this country are unelected—that is, the Members of the House of Lords—is the Attorney General satisfied that the UK Government actually comply with that protocol, or is that another reason why they want to withdraw?

[The Attorney General]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to give some legal advice in the Chamber, which I must not do. I am grateful to him, however, as what he has just read out is the part of the convention relied upon by the Strasbourg Court to suggest that prisoners should have the vote. I did not detect any reference to prisoners’ having the vote anywhere in the text that he just read. I maintain the view that that is for this Parliament to decide.