Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Simon Hoare and Stella Creasy

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

Bromley and Chislehurst.

[Stella Creasy]

That’s it—apologies. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) talked about unintentional deletions. Again, that is absolutely right. The Bill is not just about direct EU regulations; it is also about direct effect cases. It is a piece of case law that protects our constituents’ right to 50% of their pension pot that is being deleted without any parliamentary scrutiny of the process. That is the challenge.

According to the dashboard, those pieces of direct effect law that Lords amendment 6 would require the Government to set out, in the same way they have set out the EU regulations that they are going to delete, make up just 0.5% of retained EU law. It should not be difficult to at least tell us what case law is going to be deleted. For example, they are going to delete the direct comparator law that protects people in discrimination cases, so when our constituents come to us because they have been victims of discrimination in the workplace, basic protections that we might encourage them to look at and talk to their lawyers about will no longer exist. Again, they will ask us, “What did you do to make sure that this piece of law, whether or not it was a good idea, was scrutinised properly?” Amendment 6 would at least allow us to point to the place where it was deleted.

Lords amendment 15 is about Ministers who keep telling us that they do not want to water down any environmental regulations, whatever their colleagues who clearly have a vendetta against seals may think. It is simply a way of holding them to account, and this goes to the broader issue: whether or not Members agree with the habitats directive—whether or not they think there is room for change—surely it should be this place that deals with it, through a clear process.

I would wager that across the House, we would probably want to retain many of these pieces of legislation—again, I go back to airline safety and seatbelt rules. I am pleased that the Government have already said that they are going to retain those rules. Lords amendment 42 and other Lords amendments would pull together a Committee of both Houses that would do the sifting. It could simply say, “Yes, fine. Press on with using an SI Committee, those 15 people who have been hand-picked by the Whips, to nod it through and crack on with it.” However, where there is change—where Ministers are doing something for which we will be held to account by our constituents—it would bring in amendable SIs. It worries me that Ministers do not know that amendable SIs already exist in our constitution. The Hansard Society has supported that proposal. No statutory instrument has been voted down in this place since 1979, so it is simply not the case that using an SI Committee, whether under the negative or the affirmative procedure, would be democracy.

Brexiteers and remainers alike have supported the Lords amendments, because they recognise that taking back control ought to be about us doing our job. If Ministers and MPs vote down the amendments tonight, we will be voting ourselves out of a role. It may not take effect yet, but our constituents will not forgive us for removing their voices from this place. I urge Government Members, wherever they were on that debate, to at least abstain and indicate to Members in the House of Lords that there is a willingness to look at these processes and get them right. All of us who value democracy will be the stronger for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

I do not know who is going to sit down first out of shock, but I fundamentally agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I have to say that that is possibly a first. He is absolutely right that that would be political suicide. On any casual analysis or audit of our inboxes or mailbags, or of people coming to our surgeries or stopping us in the street, he is absolutely right. People are not pressing for a race to the bottom, and they are not talking about a degradation of environmental standards. He is absolutely right, and any party that advocated that would quite rightly be consigned to the electoral dustbin. There would be no recycling of that party; it would be totally incinerated, and rightly so. He is right to make that point.

[Stella Creasy]

Does the hon. Member recognise that the way the Bill is currently drafted, with or without the sunset clause, still transfers a direct power to Ministers to use statutory instruments to make legislative changes to those 5,000 laws? Doing so might be electoral suicide, but it is possible, and the sunset clause is not what would stop it; it is just the date at which it would happen. That is the distinction we are making. Nobody is saying what might or might not happen; the point is the democratic deficit this will create.

[Simon Hoare]

There is more that unites the hon. Lady with my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, because they are both tilting at windmills that do not exist. Any Government might do something—of course they might. I will come to the main thrust of what I want to say, but me deal with “anybody might.” Anybody who passes a driving test and owns a car might lose control of the vehicle and might run somebody down. Anybody who buys rat poison might give it to their cat and kill the cat, so do we not sell rat poison? Surely the hon. Lady is not suggesting that because, reductio ad absurdum, people might do something, we should not allow things. With the usual checks and balances of this place, in a bicameral system and with a transparent free media and an independent court system, surely to goodness we have not reached that nadir of political trust in this place between Back Benchers—whether on the governing side or on the Opposition Benches—and the intentions of His Majesty’s Government, from whichever party that might happen to be made up.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend—[Interruption.]. Yes, I will give him a tip. He makes a similar point to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). That is, in essence, which party worth its salt, seeking some form of re-election, will knock on doors and attend church and parish meetings to say, “The great thing that we’ve achieved—the great jewel in our crown—is that we’ve removed your holiday entitlement and your statutory sick pay. Please vote for us, because that’s just the start. You wait until we’ve finished—we are going to have boys up chimneys and limbs lying on the factory floor because we will repeal the Factories Act”? Where does that end? It is utter nonsense.

The direction of travel in the mindset of this country, like, I would suggest, in most advanced civilised democracies, is for a more protective system for the individual, a safer working environment and a cleaner, greener environment. The idea that any party with a sensible prospectus for government would try to fly in the face of that and buck the trend in the interests that it might be quite interesting to see a four-year-old shoved up a chimney with a brush, is for the birds. But, unfortunately, there are one or two people out in the country who will believe that, and this place does no service to our constituents by setting those entirely spurious, false, bogus and misleading ideas in the public mind. It might make a Facebook click, and it might make some sort of Twitter advert with somebody saying something or another, but it is not serious politics, and it demeans this place.

But—[Interruption.] This is a but, because I want to deal with this seriously.

[Stella Creasy]

That’s rude.

[Simon Hoare]

It is not rude at all.

[Stella Creasy]

No. That is what your colleagues are doing.

[Simon Hoare]

It might be hyperbolic, but it is not rude. I say to the hon. Lady and others—this is a point that Government Members must face up to—that, as I said in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, I have, as many do, huge sympathy with the idea that this great canon of work should have been far more progressed than it has been, but for reasons that we do not need to dwell upon, I am afraid that last year, in terms of delivering political process, was a wasted year. We all know, understand and have some frustration with that, but we are where we are. The decision that the Government bravely and sensibly took was to say that the arbitrary date that previously—but still, I suggest, theoretically and unrealistically—we thought was in grasp for this huge and important piece of work, now is not. When the facts change the circumstances must change. This is not a U-turn: this is the Government saying that the important work of reviewing to check on appropriateness —whether something is appropriate or inappropriate, or should be upgraded or changed to bring it into a UK arena—will still be done, but it will be done in a more sensible timeframe to ensure that we get it right.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Simon Hoare and Stella Creasy

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

I hope that the hon. Member for Devizes is at dinner, because after having made that speech, I am sure he needs something to eat. I simply say that that was not what Winston Churchill stood up for—as those of us who have served on the Council of Europe and read his speeches in detail know—let alone subsequent Conservative Governments. Those Governments were part of the development of the Council of Europe, where we did not just scrutinise the judges but helped appoint them and vote for them: we had a direct role in choosing them. That does not accord with what the hon. Gentleman was arguing, which was that this is out of kilter. Every single step of the way, the United Kingdom has been part and parcel of developing the European Court of Human Rights—and rightly so, frankly, because the libertarian in me speaks up for the Court. If given the temptation to be overbearing, without scrutiny and without the courts to keep them honest, Governments of all colours will do things that none of us think right.

[Simon Hoare]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Stella Creasy]

I will happily give way, and then I do want to come to a conclusion.

[Simon Hoare]

Is it not an unassailable truth that the fundamental principles that drove Churchill, the Conservative party and this place to support these initiatives remain as true today as they did those years ago? Of course, it has been a living, iterative, organic process, but the fundamental underpinning principles that established it still remain true, and if Churchill were here today, he would be making precisely that point.

[Stella Creasy]

I think we have all expounded quite clearly on how that the interpretation that the hon. Member for Devizes sought to set out of what Churchill thought might not be an entirely complete representation of what that gentleman—he made sure that we were among the first signatories to the European Court of Human Rights, and he continued to campaign and lobby for it and its development and evolution up until his death—would in fact have thought.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Bill

Debate between Simon Hoare and Stella Creasy

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 24th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

The hon. Lady has raised an important point. That court judgment in June 2018 held us all to account for what we were doing about human rights. It was simply because the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was not a direct victim of that policy that the policy could not be enacted. We learnt today that Sarah Ewart, an incredibly brave woman, is continuing the court process, because there is no other form of redress and remedy at present.

As the Government have previously said, these are matters on which the Assembly, were it to be functioning, should be able to act; but, as we said at the start, the Bill constitutes a recognition that the Assembly is not functioning, and is unlikely to be functioning soon. What, then—this is the human question—do women like Sarah Ewart do? What, then, do people who love each other do when their politicians fail them? What do the public do? The new clause asks that question in a way that none of us can ignore. It asks the Secretary of State to take on the responsibility of reporting on what she will do.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Stella Creasy]

I will happily give way, but I do want to make some progress, because I know that other Members want to speak.

[Simon Hoare]

Surely, in those circumstances, one just changes the politicians through the ballot box.

[Stella Creasy]

With respect, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has read the legislation on which we are voting today, because it constitutes a recognition that there will not be an election in Northern Ireland any time soon to make that possible. So I repeat my question to him: what do the women do who need that help now, who deserve that respect and equality when it comes to control over their own bodies, and who might be in that dreadful position that involves a fatal foetal abnormality? What do they do now?

What those women do now is look to this place to be able to assist them. They look to the Secretary of State, and to the piece of legislation that she is creating, and they can look to the new clause to hear the call from this place that we will not ignore them. We will hold ourselves to account, and will hold Secretaries of State to account, for the incompatibility in human rights that the continued existence of those two pieces of legislation represents in their lives. That is what this incredibly reasonable new clause does. It does not create a new law, but it does not shy away from recognising the impact of those existing laws either. In that sense, it is entirely within the spirit of the Good Friday agreement.

Twenty years ago, our predecessors in this House, alongside their colleagues from the Irish Government, swore to uphold the human rights of the Northern Irish communities. They swore in the Good Friday agreement to make sure that there was an equivalency of rights. Every single month that passes, that promise comes into stark relief, because when we look at the Republic where same-sex marriage is legal and look at that historic referendum this year when abortion became legal in the Republic, we can see that that request not to have different rights is becoming tested.

The Good Friday agreement also required this House and UK politicians to act alongside their Irish counterparts, and that is what this new clause can do, while respecting our shared desire to see the Assembly up and running. So it is a very simple amendment, and I am sorry that it has come to this point and the Secretary of State does not feel able to accept it, and I am proud that it has cross-party support, because that respects and recognises that upholding human rights cannot be something we simply talk about doing abroad but do not recognise on our own doorstep.

I also think there has to be some honesty here. There are some Members of this House who do not believe that women anywhere should have bodily autonomy; there are some Members of this House who do not believe we should be able to marry the person we love. But I make a simple plea to those people: “Be honest with the people of Northern Ireland that your objection is that, and do not use devolution as a decoy for a denial of their human rights.”

Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Simon Hoare and Stella Creasy

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th January 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Simon Hoare]

I am the father of three young daughters of eight, six and four. The moment I am dreading is when they start asking what we used to call “those questions”. I am rather hoping my wife will be on hand. I am sure she will then promise to give me some sex education after she has dealt with the children.

This is such a complex and complicated issue, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow set out. I rise to make a few remarks against the backdrop of having attended a faith school and as a practising Roman Catholic. My wife is a member of the Church of England, but my children are Catholics. I very much support what lies behind the hon. Lady’s new clause. I see nothing contradictory in being a practising Christian and wanting to ensure our next generation is equipped with as much resource and education as possible for the challenges that face modern youth—challenges that I, as a 47-year-old, could never have envisaged when I was 14, 15 or 16.

I remember the acute embarrassment—teenagers like to do this to their teachers—when we had a spinster nonconformist Methodist biology teacher in a Catholic state school who was asked by a friend of mine during this biology lesson—one where we had those pictures that were never quite clear anatomically—“Miss, what does a man do if he wants to have sex, but they do not want to have a child?” He knew full well what the Catholic teaching was on artificial contraception, but it threw this nonconformist spinster into an absolute tailspin and her answer was, “I think you should go to talk to the school chaplain”—she did not know how to answer. So it is as much about educating the educators as it is educating those who need the information.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow has been in this place longer than I, and I am reluctant to give her any advice about it—the new clause, that is, not anything else—[Laughter.] Before my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent chips in with anything slightly “Carry On Laughing” or whatever, I think there are some omissions between 2 (a) and (e). For example, it is important to have something about transgender. Likewise, while the hon. Lady said at the start of her remarks that this was not solely about digital, given its huge impact on perception, the curriculum should include an element on digital and the internet.

We have all bandied statistics around, but I remember reading that today most teenage boys that have accessed pornographic websites, just out of interest and teenage curiosity, actually believe that most women do not have pubic hair. That is a direct bit of education from the internet that affects the mindset and changes how we think about ourselves and our potential partners in a relationship.

I also notice—and it slightly belies what has actually been support from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle and I hope, certainly in theory, from the Minister—that the new clause is tabled solely in the name of Labour Members of Parliament who all happen to be women. This is an issue that should command cross-party support and certainly representation from both sexes. A father, a husband and a boyfriend have as much interest in ensuring a high quality of PSHE as women do. The hon. Member for Walthamstow might want to think about that point, which is why I hope that she will not press this new clause to a vote today but instead think about some proactive cross-party working on Report. That is not to kick the issue into the long grass; it would just help to create a better base.

Some wording—some form of protection—is needed for those who run faith schools, all faiths, to make the position absolutely clear. I have little or no doubt that I will receive emails from constituents who happen to read my remarks. They will say that this is all about promotion, and this or that religion thinks that homosexuality—or another element—is not right. So to provide a legislative comfort blanket, for want of a better phrase, the new clause needs to include a clear statement that we are talking not about promotion, but about education, and where sex education is delivered in a faith school environment, those providing the education should not feel inhibited about answering questions such as “What is the thinking of our faith on this particular aspect of sexuality?”

[Stella Creasy]

The hon. Gentleman has touched on an incredibly sensitive issue. I do not want to misinterpret his remarks, but he should be aware that many of us are concerned about children who are same-sex attracted in faith schools. One of the things that is important about getting this right is making sure that every school is acknowledging those children. Can he just clarify what he means by inhibition?

We did try to work in a cross-party way on this, and I continue to do so—and cross-gender, as well. I agree with him that this is not an issue for women; it is an issue for all of us. We are where we are with the new clause, but it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could spell out what he is talking about. Specifying religious inclusiveness and recognition of different religious perspectives is not the same as allowing a religious perspective to inhibit what we might teach young people. We need to give every young person, whether they have relationships with the same sex or different sex, the right education and support to have healthy relationships and to feel good about themselves as well.