Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

May I express exactly the same sentiments as you, Mr Speaker? I know that the hon. Lady’s campaigns will continue outside the Chamber, and I know that she will have plenty to offer between now and the election in any event, not least during this debate. However, I disagree with what she has said, not just because the procedures are novel, although they are. I followed the debate in the Lords very closely, and it is fair to say that it is accepted that these are new measures, but they are also unnecessary, and this is why.

The amendment would unreasonably and unnecessarily delay our important reforms. It would introduce what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) termed “extra friction” during our previous consideration of Lords amendments. He was right to say that, and right to say that the amendment would delay the meaningful reforms that can now be achieved as a result of Brexit. I do not believe that the public would accept those delays, and nor, in my view, should we.

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

Will the Solicitor General give way?

[The Solicitor General]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, because that will give her an opportunity to apologise for getting the Government’s position on pension reforms so wrong.

[Stella Creasy]

I hope that the Solicitor General will speak to his colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade, who made it clear in Committee on, I believe, 22 November that they were intending to abolish the Bauer and Hampshire judgments. Perhaps he will ask his colleagues to amend that, rather than suggest that I was misleading the House.

I also note—and it is welcome—that the Solicitor General now accepts that there is a parliamentary precedent for amendable statutory instruments. He talks about “friction”. Another way of describing that would be Members of Parliament holding the Government to account if they come up with proposals that their constituents do not like. When Ministers were in front of the European Scrutiny Committee, they seemed to think that it was an impertinence for MPs to have concerns and questions about what might be on the list of measures to be deleted. Is this another name for what we are calling parliamentary sovereignty?

[The Solicitor General]

No, not at all; the hon. Lady is wrong, I am afraid. I will come in a moment to the detail of the parliamentary scrutiny that is already inbuilt in the Bill and the schedule to the Bill. The hon. Lady’s comments over the weekend about pension reform were also wrong, and that is important because people will have been scared by what she said. The Hampshire case clarified that all scheme members should receive at least 50% of their expected benefits in the event of the employer’s insolvency. The Secretary of State has been crystal clear on this and we have announced our intention to retain the Hampshire judgment beyond the sunset clause. The hon. Lady was wrong on that and she is wrong on the provisions in the Bill. I will explain why in a few moments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, as he sets out what this amendment is attempting to secure, which is a bit of security.

I shall make some progress, as I am aware that a number of people wish to speak. As we have heard, Lords amendment 15B seeks to introduce conditions on some of the powers in sections 12, 13,15 and 16 relating to the environment. As my hon. Friend says, it stipulates that any regulations made may not

“reduce the level of environmental protections”

or

“conflict with any…international environmental agreements to which the United Kingdom is party”.

It also sets requirements on consultation. Given that the Government are supposedly committed to maintaining the highest environmental standards, one might think that those conditions are uncontroversial; they are the actions I would expect any Government committed to maintaining high standards would want to undertake. That view is shared by a range of experts, including, but certainly not limited to, the Government’s own watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection. Its written evidence submission endorsed all three of those suggested conditions, with its chair, Glenys Stacey, remarking:

“Worryingly, the Bill does not offer any safety net, there is no requirement to maintain existing levels of environmental protection.”

The Government are not listening to their own watchdog and have instead chosen to refer to those conditions as “burdensome” and “unnecessary”. I have yet to hear any rational explanation as to how the conditions in the Lords amendment can be both of those things at the same time; if these steps are, as the Government tell us, things that they would be doing in any event, how can they possibly be an additional burden as well? When we are met with illogical and unconvincing arguments such as that, we are right to be concerned. I note the assurances given at the Dispatch Box on this and previous occasions, but, as we have seen with this Bill in particular, Ministers come and go, and if we were to rely on everything said at the Dispatch Box as having the same weight as actual legislation, Acts of Parliament might be half the length that they are. There is a reason we do not do that.

Of course, we can all imagine what might be said by the public if the worst was to happen and environmental standards were to slip as a result of this Bill. We would say to our constituents, “But we were promised this wouldn’t happen” and our constituents could point to the 40 hospitals not having been built, Northern Powerhouse Rail not having been started, the ditching of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill or any number of other broken promises, and they would call us naive at best. So we are right to insist that these protections stay in the Bill.

Lords amendment 42B tackles one of the most controversial clauses, the one that the Hansard Society referred to in its written evidence as the “do anything we want” powers for Ministers. The Hansard Society is not prone to exaggeration and its comments have merit. As we know, clause 15 empowers Ministers to revoke regulations and not replace them; replace them with another measure which they consider appropriate

“to achieve the same or similar objectives”;

or

“make such alternative provision as the…national authority considers appropriate”.

In the face of such untrammelled concentrations of power in the Executive, Lords amendment 42B seeks to put a democratic check on the use of those powers. Actually requiring a Minister who wishes to use these powers to set out their proposals before each House is entry-level transparency that should have been part of the procedure to start with. Allowing a Committee of this House to consider them seems a fairly uncontroversial suggestion, even if some people now think that Committees cannot act in a bipartisan way. Of course, giving a Committee the power to request a debate on the Floor of the House will be reliant on its making the judgment that such a debate is necessary, but this does secure a degree of scrutiny over ministerial decisions. It also hands at least some power back to Parliament, which was, of course, for some, what Brexit was all about.

[Stella Creasy]

Does the debate about the Bauer and Hampshire judgments not make the case that my hon. Friend is making? I hope Mr Speaker will forgive me here, but the Minister said that I was wrong and that is perhaps unparliamentary. Let me read into the record what the shadow Minister and I heard in Committee. The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) said:

“the Department for Work and Pensions does not intend to implement the Bauer judgment through the benefits system…The Hampshire judgment is a clear example of where an EU judgment conflicts with the United Kingdom Government’s policies. Removing the effects of the judgment will help to restore the system to the way it was intended to be.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2022; c. 168-69.]

If Ministers are changing their minds now about using the powers in this Bill to revoke these protections for the pensions of our constituents, it is only because they have been caught out doing it and using the powers in this Bill. Does this not make the case—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am not going to have this private debate carrying on. You have put it on the record and the Minister has put it on the record, but people can be accidentally wrong. I do not need a lecture on what is wrong and what is not. In the end, you have put the case, and we have a lot of people who want to speak in the debate, including yourself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

With respect to the question of how the laws are made in the first place, that is what I am saying. The reason the Bill is so important is the need to overtake and, effectively, deal with the mistakes made in the past, over that 40 or 50-year period, whereby the laws were made in the way that I have described—and they were. They were done by consensus, because everybody knew before they walked into the room that the majority vote would work against them. I have spent a lot of time scrutinising such things—I was going to say a lifetime, and I almost have—and all that I can say is that nobody would seriously doubt that that is how the system operated at that time.

We are talking about these laws because we want to revoke or modify them. We are not going to get rid of all of them—we will modify some and revoke others, and that will be by a simple test. That test will not be whether or not it was decided by 27 other countries to which we were subjugated by law—[Interruption.] We did that in the European Communities Act 1972, which was a great mistake. We have moved to a situation as the result of a general election in this country, the result of which is that we are allowed to make our own laws here in this House on behalf of our constituents. I think that is a very reasonable position. It is not only reasonable but absolutely essential, because it is about democracy and sovereignty and self-government. That is what the people decided in the referendum.

[Stella Creasy]

rose—

[Sir William Cash]

I always give way to the hon. Lady.

[Stella Creasy]

And I thank the hon. Gentleman for it. I note his comments, although I also note that the legislation already provides for a Committee to look at the statutory instruments generated by the Bill. That is not a novel procedure. He says that it will be this House that determines matters, but it will only be this House reflecting what Ministers bring to us in a Delegated Legislation Committee, will it not? Unless Lords amendment 42B is passed, MPs will not be able to influence the content of an SI. The hon. Gentleman says that he did not like that in the European Parliament, so why does he want to take back control to Downing Street rather than to this Chamber with a process whereby, when changes are substantial, MPs have influence over them?

[Sir William Cash]

First, I did not say the European Parliament; I actually said the European Council of Ministers. There is a big difference and I am sure that she understands that, because that is where the law making is done. Secondly, with great respect, it is a bit disingenuous to suggest that this will all be decided by the Committee. I think it would be my Committee that would do this, but if we leave that aside the real point is that the amendment goes on to say that even if that Committee

“determines that special attention should be drawn to the regulations in question, a Minister of the Crown must arrange for the instrument to be debated on the floor of each House and voted on”.

That is the point. In other words, the lock is created by the House of Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

No, it is not.

[Sir William Cash]

Of course it is. If I may say so to the hon. Lady, with the greatest of respect, that is the intention that lies behind it. I know that she is quite obsessive about this point, but, with the greatest respect, she does not seem to quite understand how it is— [Interruption.] I am trying to be factual about this. The fact is that when the original regulations were made, they were made as statutory instruments implementing the laws made in the way I have just described, behind closed doors and so on.

Those regulations came in that way and it is perfectly legitimate, in the light of the fact that those laws were not made in the manner in which we would traditionally expect them to be made and, constitutionally, should be required to have them made, which is by this House, these Members of Parliament—including current Opposition Members of Parliament if they are in government—and for those decisions to be taken democratically on behalf of our electorate, who happened to say that they wanted to leave the European Union and endorsed it with a general election in 2019. The position is perfectly clear: what we are doing in this Bill is not only completely legitimate, but constitutionally correct. That is a big difference. Robin Cook once said to me, “Legitimacy is one thing, Bill; constitutionally, it is quite another matter.” That is not a constitutional way of doing things. What came into this Parliament and affected the voters of this country for 40 or 50 years was done in a manner that was completely, totally and utterly objectionable in democratic terms, because those laws were not made by our voters and our Members of Parliament representing those electors in this House.

I will simply say that I am not going to buy into this at all. I think I have probably made myself pretty clear but, having said that, I recognise the way in which the Minister has handled the Bill. I am extremely impressed and grateful to him for not only his comments, but the fact that he has handled the Bill so well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Buckland]

Well, answer that! I entirely agree with the hon. Member. There is no evidence at all that this Government seek to take a different course from their stated aim of protecting world-leading environmental protection and food standards. Therefore, we have to ask what the purpose of Lords amendment 15 is. It seems to me that many parts to the amendment would give rise to a significant amount of litigation. I do not think that is at all what the drafters of the amendment want, and it certainly does not help with regard to clarity of the law.

That brings me to new Lords amendment 16C, which, with absolute candour, seems to me to be a step back by their lordships from the previous iteration of that amendment. It is now narrowed down just to clause 15. I understand the concerns that the noble Lords have about the use of the power in clause 15 because it is, on the face of it, a dramatic power that the Government would have. On one level, the power of revocation seems to me to be welcome. I note within it particular caveats about the creation of new functions, particularly the creation of criminal offences. There has been a long-established convention about the use of such powers, and we all have a concern about the creation of criminal offences that are more serious than ones they seek to replace or, indeed, are serious new offences. I note the taxation and public authority restrictions as well, so a lot of the normal restrictions are built into the provision, which are welcome.

What the noble Lords are asking for is more reassurance about the process. I do not criticise them at all for that, because it does not seem unreasonable to me that there should be at least some process, particularly when new regulations are being created. I would gently press the Minister to consider that discrete point. It may well be, in response to anything that I or other hon. Members say, that he has an opportunity to enlarge on that. It does seem to me not unreasonable to ask for that further check and balance. I do not think it is the sort of unwelcome additional bureaucracy that perhaps he and others are concerned about. Fundamentally, we have a duty as parliamentarians to protect the role of this place in particular in the scrutiny of the passage of important new regulations, whatever form they may take.

If we take Brexit out of this and take the temperature right down, I do not think that is an unreasonable point at all. I do not accept the characterisation that a number of noble Lords are embarking upon some mission here to frustrate the approach that the Government are taking in the Bill. It is a Bill I have supported, and a Bill I have said is absolutely necessary as a special mechanism to deal with retained EU law. We all agreed that this was a particular area of law that needed to be held in suspense and then looked at carefully in its individual parts. Lords amendment 16C does seem to me to reflect that and respect that. The other two matters I have dealt with, and I am more than satisfied with the Minister’s response to that, but I do press him on that particular aspect and that particular amendment. I will not trouble the House any further.

[Stella Creasy]

Getting any detail out of this Government about what they intend to use the powers in the Bill for has been like pulling hens’ teeth. Even now, with the Bill before us today, about to be passed imminently, we still do not know the full effect it will have. I will make a few brief comments.

The right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) talked about the Government’s recognition that we need to know not just the regulations but the direct effect cases that are being deleted. In the other place last week, the Government said they

“will add Section 4 rights to the dashboard as identified at least as frequently as every six months, as per the reporting requirement clause that is already in the Bill.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 June 2023; Vol. 830, c. 1263.]

Nothing has changed since last week, so we still do not know what legal judgments the Government intend to delete—legal judgments that cover multiple rights including employment rights and environmental standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am sure the hon. Lady knows what she did; please withdraw any accusation of dishonesty.

[Stella Creasy]

Of course I withdraw that; I meant to say “open”. I want the hon. Member for Stone to be open, but he has not even bothered to have the courtesy to read Lords amendment 42B. If he had, his objection to the idea of a Statutory Instrument Committee looking at these amendments—[Interruption.] Well, I am sure he has made complaints to the Government, who have already written to the other European statutory instruments scrutiny Committee to say they will be doing exactly that. He opposes the idea of a report about what impact a statutory instrument might have. In any other language that is called an impact assessment; we get them on all sorts of pieces of legislation, but not on this.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Stella Creasy]

I have listened to the hon. Gentleman. I listened to him tell us at length about the European Union, but he has failed to tell us why he is opposing an amendment that gives this Chamber primacy over what happens when legislation changes. As the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon says, it matters.

The hon. Member for Stone opposes the Lords being able to come back with SI amendments. Actually, this House would be able to override them under Lords amendment 42B. If he had bothered to have the courtesy to look at what the Lords had said, and bothered to listen to a former parliamentary Clerk of the House who helped draft it—not a great remainer by any means, but somebody who cares passionately about parliamentary democracy—he would recognise that this is about trying to make the process better. He would recognise that our constituents deserve better than a simple email saying, “We have no idea what’s being deleted and we could not stop it anyway,” because that is the point about SI Committees.

I am done with being lectured that this is somehow about Brexit and that those of us who have concerns about parliamentary democracy in 2023 should look at the 1972 Act, because I can see what could happen in 2024 and 2025, and my constituents deserve better than this. We cannot have a legislative process that simply says we have to trust the chaps and chapesses who are Ministers and in Downing Street to do the decent thing. If the hon. Gentleman had sat in his own Committee and listened to Ministers dismiss his own concerns, he would know the folly of such a position.

Conservative Members will vote down these amendments yet again, and they will go back to their constituents and tell them not to worry, but the truth is that they should be worried because we do not know what rights will be affected. As far as I can see, given that Ministers committed to abolishing them, the only reason why the Bauer and Hampshire judgments are now being kept is because they have been caught red-handed using a Bill to override something they know our constituents would want us as MPs to speak up about. We must never let anybody on the Conservative Benches or who said they were speaking up for democracy through Brexit tell us ever again that Brexit was about taking back control. It is taking back control to Downing Street, not this place, and our constituents deserve to know that truth.

[Several hon. Members rose—]