Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Colleagues, welcome to this interesting Committee, as we get stuck into this important Bill. We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. I have taken my jacket off, so feel free to disrobe in any way that you feel is appropriate. I have a few preliminary announcements. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes, if they exist, to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. When I was first elected, we never had to say such things, as we did not have emails. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.

We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and, if we need to, a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take those matters without debate. I call the Minister to move formally the programme motion in her name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

The Committee will therefore proceed to line-by-line consideration of the Bill on Tuesday 22 November at 9.25 am.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Copies of written evidence that the Committee receive will be made available in the Committee Room and circulated to Members by email.

The next motion relates to deliberating in private. We may not need to move this motion, colleagues. My suggestion is that I will start every panel by turning to the Labour lead to ask the first questions. We will then go across the Committee. Indicate to me if you wish to ask a question to the particular witness, bearing in mind that the knives are absolute; we have 15 or 20 minutes, or whatever, with each group of witnesses, and we cannot go beyond that.

It would be helpful, if you are asking a question, and if there is more than one witness at the time—particularly if we have witnesses on Zoom and witnesses in person—to indicate who in particular you would like to answer the question, or whether you would like them all to answer. That would be quite helpful, but you will probably forget that after about 10 minutes. Are we happy to proceed on that basis without going into a private session to agree how we will ask the questions? If everyone is happy, that is that.

This is a serious moment, colleagues. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interests in connection with the Bill? No. In that case, we will now hear oral evidence from Sir Stephen Laws, former First Parliamentary Counsel, who is waiting patiently for us on Zoom. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For the first witness, we have until 9.50 am.

Examination of Witness

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Will the witness please introduce himself for the record?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Good morning, Sir Stephen. My first question is quite overarching. The Bill is set up to remove EU law by omission, in essence, rather than by a positive decision to retain it; if there is not a decision by a Minister between now and the end of 2023, it automatically falls away. Do you think that is the most sensible way to proceed with more than 2,500 statutory instrumentsQ ?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Q Are there adequate safeguards for scrutiny of the way in which this legislation will proceed?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Q You referred to there being ways to identify politically salient pieces of legislation. How do you see that happening if the Bill becomes law?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Q Would you accept that we do not actually know what the Government’s plans are at the moment?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

I have a feeling that that might happen.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

Q Good morning. Now that we have left the European Union, is it right that the influence of retained EU law should be reduced in statute and in the courts?

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

Q Do you agree that the Bill strikes the right balance between providing for legal certainty and allowing the Government to seize the opportunities of no longer being tied to EU law?

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

Q You have already talked about the conflict between domestic law and laws made to harmonise across Europe, but, for the record, does not the fact that the EU legislates in a very different way from the UK create tensions between retained EU law and other domestic law?

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

Good morning, Sir Stephen. One of the things that we were told about leaving the European Union was that it would return powers to Parliament. What does this Bill do to the balance of powers between Parliament and MinistersQ ?

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

Q You said that Parliament enacted all this legislation because it had to. Is it not the case that, for every single piece of legislation that we are talking about in the Bill, a United Kingdom Government Minister was present at the time that the legislation was agreed in Europe?

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

Q You say that Parliament did not agree. Is not it the case that the European Scrutiny Committee, which existed throughout the time that we were members of the European Union, had the power to call in Ministers and put a stop on ministerial approval of European Council decisions until the Committee, and therefore Parliament, were satisfied that it was the right thing to do? Whether or not Parliament exercised that authority, is it not the fact that there was a Committee of Parliament that could prevent Ministers from acting against the will of Parliament?

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

Q If enacted as drafted, what difference will the Bill have on the application of EU law in Northern Ireland, in particular in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol and the Good Friday agreement?

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Good morning, Sir Stephen. The Bill abolishes the principle of the supremacy of retained EU law. Do you think that that is the right courseQ ?

Alex Sobel (Labour/Co-operative, Leeds North West)

In your initial response, you said that we should replace the laws quickly. In your view, with 2,100 or so regulations, how quickly can Parliament include those laws in UK lawQ ?

Alex Sobel (Labour/Co-operative, Leeds North West)

Q At the moment, it is important for business and the finance sector to have clarity in the law, which to an extent we get from retained EU laws. With the sunset clause and the lapsing of so many regulations, the concern is that there might be a lack of certainty, so that people are unclear what they will get when they invest. That is particularly the case in my area as shadow Minister with responsibility for nature and the environment. Is that a concern we should take on board?

Alex Sobel (Labour/Co-operative, Leeds North West)

Q Even if the Bill has an extremely smooth run, we will have less than a year between Royal Assent and the sunset clause coming into force at the end of 2023. What are the implications of that? Should we not consider having a sunset clause that takes effect further down the line than the end of 2023?

Saqib Bhatti (Conservative, Meriden)

Thank you for your evidence, Sir Stephen. In 2016, a key reason for leaving the European Union was to re-establish the sovereignty of Parliament. Does the Bill help us to achieve that aim?Q

Saqib Bhatti (Conservative, Meriden)

Q There have been comments about safeguards and scrutiny. Is Parliament capable of creating law that we legislators can scrutinise, and are sufficient safeguards in place when it comes to creating law?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

There is time for one quick question, if anyone is bursting to ask one. Ah! I call Stella Creasy.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Thank you, Chair. I apologise; I am afraid a very grumpy toddler would not let me come in. On the subject of grumpy toddlers, our witness has just suggested that the Bill will allow for scrutiny of laws in “a parliamentary forum”. Can he explain how statutory instruments introduced by Ministers allow for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny? Is that not giving a lot of power to Ministers, rather than Parliament taking back controlQ ?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

You have 30 seconds, Sir Stephen.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Thank you. That is a high note on which to finish, Sir Stephen. Thank you for the clarity of your evidence.

Examination of Witnesses

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

We will move on to oral evidence from Professor Catherine Barnard, professor of European and employment law at the University of Cambridge, and Professor Alison Young, Sir David Williams professor of public law at the University of Cambridge. Both witnesses are joining us via the magic of modern technology. For this session, colleagues, we have until 10.25 am. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record? Professor Barnard, would you like to go first?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Thank you for being with us. We have a plethora of questions for you. The first is from Justin Madders.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Q Morning, professors. My first question is for Professor Barnard. You have said in your written evidence that there is a serious risk of mistakes with the EU dashboard. Have you—or has anyone, to your knowledge—done a comprehensive audit of whether everything is on the dashboard that should be?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Q Thank you for that news; I was not aware that there are another 1,400 pieces of legislation. I hope that the National Archives will send that information to the Minister, if not the whole Committee. It highlights one of our concerns about the Bill. Your report recommends the Bill making it clear which pieces of legislation are subject to the sunset clause; and/or the Government could exempt certain policy areas from the sunset clause. Could you explain to the Committee why you think that would be a good idea?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Q Obviously, the vote to leave was over six years ago. Would it be reasonable for the Government to have said by now which laws they intend to retain, and which they intend to remove?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Professor Young, did you want to add anything?

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

Q I am not sure whether anyone ever has a normal political year any more; I am afraid it is what it is. My first question is to Professor Barnard. Thank you so much for your evidence this morning. It has been said that the principle of the supremacy of EU law is

“alien to the UK constitutional system”.

As a creation of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it

“sits uncomfortably with established constitutional principles”

in the UK now that we have left the EU. Is it inappropriate for a non-EU country to still have instances where EU law takes precedence over its law?

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

Q Professor Young, when you gave oral evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee in its inquiry on retained EU law, you explained that EU law is drafted differently from UK law, and needs to be interpreted in the light of what type of retained EU law it is. What challenges do these drafting differences pose to both amending and interpreting retained EU law?

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

Q Good morning to both witnesses. Professor Barnard, as we heard, this Bill sets an automatic date by which several thousand pieces of legislation will disappear off the statute book unless they are specifically left on. The number of such pieces of legislation, as we have just heard, is about 1,400 more than we thought this morning. Are you aware of any previous incident, either in the UK or elsewhere, where that approach has been taken successfully with such a large amount of legislation at once?

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

Professor Young, I saw you nodding. Is there anything you want to add? Do you agree with Professor Barnard?

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

Q Thank you. I do not know whether you heard Sir Stephen Laws’s evidence immediately before you came on screen. He suggested that the concerns raised about the uncertainty that the Bill might create can be partly explained by the traditional resistance of the legal profession to change of any kind. He said it is wrong to assume that changing the law makes it less certain. Professor Young, how do you respond to that?

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

Q Thank you. Professor Barnard, the concern about uncertainty was a significant element of your written submission to the Committee. Is there anything that you want to add?

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

Thank you.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Q We have talked a little bit about the content, but could we talk a little about the process? You have just highlighted that there are actually another 1,400 pieces of legislation affected. The process then gives ministerial—not parliamentary—control about what happens next. Could you give us your reflections on that process and the scrutiny of it, and some of the practicalities? For example, which Ministers will retain responsibility for which pieces of legislation?

It would be quite helpful to know, with the extra 1,400, who has drawn the short straw? Are they all in one particular Department or across the Departments? A previous witness claimed that there would be adequate parliamentary scrutiny, and if Parliament did not like what Ministers were doing, it would intervene. What would this process mean for our ability to influence the content produced as a result of the Bill?

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Professor Young, do you want to add anything?

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Q We know that the last time the Commons overturned a negative statutory instrument was in 1979, and that the Lords has not done so since 2000.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

In your opinion, then, the ability of parliamentarians, as opposed to Ministers, to influence what laws come next, if they are enacted at all, is limited. Can you suggest, or are there examples from your experience, how parliamentary scrutiny could be strengthened in this Bill?

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Q To clarify that point, obviously all of that requires a Minister to bring forward a proposal for any parliamentary scrutiny.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Q So in your reading of the legislation, to confirm our reading of it, if a Minister chooses not to bring forward a replacement to a piece of legislation, there is no parliamentary scrutiny of that decision in and of itself at all?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Thank you. I call Alex Sobel.

Alex Sobel (Labour/Co-operative, Leeds North West)

Q First of all, as a shadow DEFRA Minister, we were expecting 570 regulations. I would like to know whether we will have any more, but that is an aside. As I said to Sir Stephen Laws, I am concerned about the amount of time that we will have between now and the sunsetting at the end of 2023. You gave a very good explanation of how thousands of regulations will likely fall because of the lack of time, but much retained EU law will have implications for the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol, which I understand is within scope of the sunset. What is your view on the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol, if we go ahead and, as expected, hundreds or possibly even thousands of regulations are automatically revoked at the end of 2023 because of the lack of parliamentary, ministerial and civil servant time to effectively replace them?

Alex Sobel (Labour/Co-operative, Leeds North West)

Q I wanted to put this question to Sir Stephen Laws, but I will put it to both of you. He talked about the fact that, were regulations sunsetted and not replaced, people would just carry on doing what they did before, but the regulations create a legal floor. Many DEFRA environmental regulations in particular create environmental floors, so people may not do what they did before. They will lower their standards because the regulations will go. Do you think that that is a real danger with the sunsetting and the revocation of the regulations?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Thank you. Colleagues, any further questions? Stella Creasy.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Q I just want to follow up on that. Clause 15(5) specifies that no replacement legislation can increase the burden on businesses. That looks very much like it is locking in lower standards as one can only secure either parity or something reduced. Is that a correct interpretation or could burden be rewritten to allow us to have the higher standards that we were promised if we left the European Union because we could set our own standards? Professor Young, you looked like the one who was nodding most vociferously.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Q That is where the lawyers make their millions. In your interpretation of burdens, the TCA talks about us not using changes in our regulatory processes to undercut each other. So is there a risk in that interpretation that we may affect the TCA itself? How do you feel that this legislation interacts with those other forms of legislation?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Final question to Justin Madders.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Q Just following up on the burdens issue, obviously lawyers can argue all day what a burden is. For us parliamentarians, whose opinion is it that this is reducing a burden? How would we as parliamentarians establish the basis upon which that decision has been made?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Professor Young, you look like you are about to burst forth.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Professor Barnard, did you want to add anything in 20 seconds?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Thank you very much, both of you, for the clarity of your evidence. We are now moving on to our next group of witnesses. Thank you to those from Cambridge.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

We are now moving on to hear more evidence in person, from Martin Howe KC of 8 New Square chambers and Tom Sharpe KC of 1 Essex Court chambers. In this session, we have until 10.55. Please introduce yourselves for the record; Martin, would you like to go first?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Thank you very much. We will turn first to Justin Madders.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Q Good morning, gentlemen. May I ask a rather specific question? I am presuming that you have read the Bill. Under clause 4, there is a reference to removing references to sections 183A to 186 of the Data Protection Act 2018. If you do not know why it is there, that is fine, but are you able to provide an explanation?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Are you seeking free legal advice, Justin?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I am indeed. It is the best type.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Q That is fine. I will refer back to that. I seek some free legal advice in relation to subsections (3) and (4) of clause 7, which are about the criteria for departing from retained law. The criteria are slightly different. Could you set out your understanding of the rationale for why that is the case?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Yes.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

Q Good morning. There has been a lot of discussion about whether the Bill should be happening now and whether it should happen at all. My question is this: is now the right time for Government to reduce the influence of retained EU law in the UK statute books, as the Bill intends? I will turn to Mr Sharpe first.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

Q Mr Howe, I will ask a supplementary, because I know you are eager to answer the question as well. We have heard a lot, especially from the critics, saying that the Bill is not needed because the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 saved all the relevant EU law, and it has been suggested that the Act took a maximalist view on retaining EU law as, at the time, our future relationship with the EU was not yet known. What is your view on whether the Bill is necessary, and why?

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

Q I assume, then, that you agree that the Bill allows for sufficient opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

Q Thank you. Returning to Mr Sharpe, does the Bill, as drafted, strike the right balance between providing safeguards and enabling the removal of outdated retained EU law from our statute books?

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

Q The evidence submitted by the Bar Council, which I assume you are familiar with, says very firmly that it has profound concerns about the Bill, and that its preference would be for the Bill to be withdrawn in its present form. Why has the Bar Council got it so wrong?

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

Q Mr Sharpe, do you have anything to add?

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

Q You suggested that if a Minister gets out of hand, Parliament can act. You will recall, though, that quite recently a Secretary of State was found by an inquiry to have been guilty of severe bullying of civil servants, and nothing happened to her because a Prime Minister did not want her to lose her job.

To go back to the comments you made earlier about the difference between primary and secondary legislation, when was the last time Parliament amended a piece of secondary legislation?

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

Q Does that not mean there is significantly less opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny if all that Parliament is allowed is: we do this or we do not do it? Does that not mean that, almost by definition, there is less opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny with secondary legislation than there would be with a Bill?

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Q Martin, I was interested to hear you talk about how you were happy with the scrutiny mechanism in the Bill, because I note that in your evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee you argued for the need to have a delegated power to revise retained law and then suggested a commission to propose what should be done. That would be much more scrutiny than you are talking about now. What made you change your mind about the requirement for scrutiny that you previously advocated? I thought that the argument you made before was compelling.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Q Are you disappointed that there is no scrutiny mechanism in the legislation, as you floated?

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Q You made quite a strong argument, did you not, that there was a case for being able to look? You were advocating the superfluity of some of this legislation, but now the Bill contains none of that. Are you disappointed?

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Q You felt it was naive to know what we were revising.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Q You also said that there were limited respects—and gave two examples from your own practice—where you thought it was a good idea to retain EU law over pre-Brexit legislation. Do you accept that there might be other areas of law where it might be a good idea to retain some of those laws? In which case, would that not be helpful to us as parliamentarians? Your colleague dismissed the idea that the Bill will lead to slash and burn, but it has slash-and-burn powers within it. Surely it would be good practice—as you have argued—to know what it is that we are slashing and burning, and to have some process of exploring that as parliamentarians, if we are to be taking back control for this House?

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Q But we do not have powers to press them; we only have a negative resolution procedure. You made such a compelling case and argued in your previous evidence for several areas of law where you think we should retain. What has changed now?

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

You make a case for being able to change your mind yourself and having a process for changing your view on this legislation. Would it not be beneficial for this place to have powers to change the minds of Ministers? Like you, Ministers may make decisions that they come to regret.Q

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Apologies, but you did propose—

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

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

Marcus Fysh (Conservative, Yeovil)

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

Marcus Fysh (Conservative, Yeovil)

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

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

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

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

We will move on to our final group of witnesses for this morning. Of course, we have a long afternoon ahead of us. We will now hear oral evidence from Mark Fenhalls KC, chair of the Bar Council. I wonder whether he was listening to the previous panels.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Excellent.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

I am sure you will do a great job. George Peretz KC of the Bar Council’s working group on retained EU law is joining us via Zoom. We also have Eleonor Duhs, partner and head of data privacy at Bates Wells, here in person—I hope that was the correct pronunciation of your name.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

For this session we have until 11.25 am. George Peretz is not here yet, but if he does appear we will ask him questions as well. We turn to Justin Madders to start.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Thank you for giving evidence today.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Q This is probably a question primarily for you, Mark. At the moment we are in a position where we know several thousand laws will be automatically sunsetted at the end of 2023. We do not know which ones they will be or why the Government will retain, remove or amend particular laws. As we have heard today, it appears that the Government do not even know themselves which laws will be covered by the Bill. Do you see any risks with this approach?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Q Following on from that, if the Government adopted the approach you are suggesting, how feasible would it be for there to be a considered and properly democratic approach to this before the end of 2023?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I see that George Peretz has joined us. I do not know whether he wanted to respond to any of the questions first of all.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Yes, Mr Peretz, welcome. Did you hear the questions that were asked?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Q I have one further question for Mark. There was correspondence between the previous Secretary of State—the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)—and the Justice Committee over engagement with the judiciary in respect of the Bill, particularly the effect of clauses 7 to 9. Can you tell us what kind of dialogue there has been? Do you foresee any issues with the application of those clauses?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

That is fine.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

Q Good morning, Mr Fenhalls. You talked about scrutiny quite a bit. Most retained direct EU legislation has not been through a UK parliamentary scrutiny process, but you keep going on about scrutiny. How much oversight did the UK Parliament have over laws that came into effect under section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972?

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

Mr Fenhalls, you said you are not hostile to change, but you have been nothing but negative about the Bill. You also mentioned a democratic process. There was another democratic process in 2016—just for the record.

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

Q Good morning. In your submission from the Bar Council, Mr Fenhalls, you suggested that the Bill should be withdrawn. You have also accepted that we need to do something about the huge volume of retained EU law that we still have. What would be a better way to deal with all that law, rather than the way it is being dealt with in the Bill?

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

For the record, there are two lawyers sitting behind you who quite clearly do not share the view that you just expressed about the various lawyers you have spoken to. Some of us think that lawyers argue with lawyers all of the time; that is what they are there for.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Before we continue, I think Mr Peretz wanted to come in on that point.

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

Q This question is for all three witnesses. Would the Bill be less of a concern if there was not a sunset clause, or if the sunset clause was later than the end of 2023? Are your concerns partly about how little time there is for the process to be completed?

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

Q Mr Peretz, do you want to comment on my previous question? How much of the concern about the Bill is simply down to the very short time provided by the sunset clause? If we moved that clause further back, would it ease your concerns?

Alex Sobel (Labour/Co-operative, Leeds North West)

Q I will put this question to you, George, as it is something of a follow-up. You just gave a qualitative response about the sunset-clausing, but this is more of a quantitative question. I was not aware until Catherine Barnard and Professor Young pointed it out earlier that 1,400 additional pieces of legislation have been found. I have now found the article in the Financial Times, which states that

“A plan…to review or repeal all EU laws on the UK statute book by the end of 2023 has suffered another setback after the discovery of 1,400 additional pieces of legislation.”

We were aware of 2,100 pieces of legislation, but that is another 1,400, so we are now seemingly aware of 3,500, with a sunset clause at the end of 2023. Is that the end of it? Will it be 3,500 pieces of legislation or could there be more? How are we going to find and define all these pieces of legislation so that we know what law we are acting under? You have just described qualitatively how pieces of legislation will fall under the negative resolution procedure because they are going to be sunset-claused out. Quantitively, where do you think we are going to end up by December 2023?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

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

Marcus Fysh (Conservative, Yeovil)

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

Marcus Fysh (Conservative, Yeovil)

Q You just do not want it to happen now.

Marcus Fysh (Conservative, Yeovil)

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

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

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

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Q I want to come back to Ms Duhs on her point about the supremacy of retained EU law. As a consequence of the referendum in 2016 and all the legislation that has been introduced since then, this country has recovered its sovereignty. Do you not think it repugnant to that sovereignty to have a state of affairs whereby the laws enunciated by a foreign jurisdiction and applied by a foreign court continue to have supremacy in this country?

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Q I will just say that we are all free to take advice from competing lawyers, but I do not think we are free in this place to treat our witnesses with contempt, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with what they have written.

All the lawyers have talked this morning about the approach of working with businesses and whether a regulatory burden could be created, which clause 15(5) is designed to avoid. We do not have any business witnesses coming forward, but we have heard that businesses are talking about risk being a drag on growth. Can you give us some examples of where you have worked with businesses with legal uncertainty? You have all talked about uncertainty, but can you explain what it could do to your clients?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

I am afraid we have 40 seconds left.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Forgive me, Mr Peretz, but I have to cut you off because we have reached 11.25 am. It is an existing law that we have to honour. Thank you to our three excellent witnesses. We appreciate your time and thank you for being here in person and for contributing online. Colleagues, we will meet again at two o’clock this afternoon for more fun.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Colleagues, this is just a reminder: we are sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast, so best behaviour is required at all times. We will now hear oral evidence from Barney Reynolds, of Shearman & Sterling; Sir Richard Aikens, of Brick Court Chambers; and Jack Williams, of Monckton Chambers. We are delighted to see that all of them are with us in person, and we have until 2.35 pm for this part of the sitting. Could our witnesses begin by introducing themselves for the record, starting with Sir Richard?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Thank you very much. The first question will be asked by Justin Madders.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Good afternoon, Sir Gary, and good afternoon, gentlemen. You all have a great deal of experience in advising people. You will be familiar with clause 7 in particular and the impact on domestic law. Could you say a little about how significant or insignificant you feel that is going to be in terms of creating certainty, and what the impact will be on the legal systemQ67 ?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Q Does that mean that, in essence, developments will be dictated by what case law comes before the courts?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Do you want to come in on that question, Mr Reynolds?

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

It is hard to hear you. I wonder whether it is because you are between two microphones. I am sorry.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Q As an aside, when I quoted Hansard when I was in practice, I usually felt that that was because I did not have much else to go on. I go back to what Sir Richard said about the cost to parties of litigating these references. A lot of the EU regulations are consumer or employment rights-based. Unless you are a member of a trade union or have legal expenses insurance, you are not likely to have the resources to litigate cases upwards. Will that create an issue regarding access to justice if some of these issues get taken up?

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

Q I apologise for my phone ringing; I have switched it off. Mr Reynolds, the evidence in front of me suggests that you know a lot about business, and you have commented on the issue for a while. As someone who works with business all the time on regulatory affairs, do you think the Bill will add unnecessary additional costs and uncertainty, as others have claimed, or do you consider any such risks to be manageable or even beneficial?

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

Q Thank you. I have a question for Sir Richard Aikens. The Government have made it clear—although I do not think it helps when the Government “make it clear”, because everyone assumes we are doing the opposite—that the intention of the Bill is not to remove rights and protections but to safeguard them by assimilating them into UK law and to sunset the laws that are unnecessary. Does the Bill deliver in that aim?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

I call Stella Creasy.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Thank you, Sir Gary. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon as much as it was this morning. This is a very interesting discussion about how we make law. You are talking about how case law then informs outcomes for our constituents. I am struck by the picture that you paint of the powers that might then fall to judges by default, without clear ministerial or parliamentary direction.Q

Perhaps Abu Dhabi, as part of an authoritarian state, is not the best example for us democrats of how we might wish to proceed. I wonder if you could talk a little bit more about some of the barriers created in the Bill for judges because of the lack of parliamentary scrutiny, and if there are other examples of legislation that you have seen that may offer us a way forward. Perhaps we start with Jack, as you look most interested by the question, then go across the panel.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Order. I have three colleagues bursting to get in and we have only about seven minutes left, so short answers to short questions, please.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I will ask you about the principle of the supremacy of EU retained law, on which we had some conflicting evidence this morning. As you know, the Bill abolishes that principle. Do you think that it is a good thing that it does so, or are there any dangers inherent in thatQ ?

Alex Sobel (Labour/Co-operative, Leeds North West)

My question follows on from what Jack was talking about earlier: the lack of parliamentary scrutiny and how it will be up to Ministers to make decisions on what we now understand might be as many as 3,500 individual pieces of EU legislation. Jack, what would you deem to be an appropriate level of scrutiny? The negative procedure for statutory instruments really means no parliamentary scrutiny at all—I think Stella mentioned that 1979 was the last time we managed to overturn one of those in the House. What would be an appropriate way, considering the number and importance of some of the regulationsQ ?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

We have 15 seconds, Marcus.

Marcus Fysh (Conservative, Yeovil)

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

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

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

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

We move on to more experts. We have with us in person Sir Jonathan Jones KC, former Treasury Solicitor, and Dr Ruth Fox. Please take your seats. We have until 3.05 pm for this session. Please could the witnesses introduce themselves for the record?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Thank you. We will start, as usual, with our shadow spokesman, Justin Madders.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Q Good afternoon. I start with a question for you, Dr Fox. The Hansard Society report described this Bill as flawed. Would you like to expand on why you say that is the case?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Q You referred in your report to the withdrawal of the scrutiny powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in clause 11. Could you explain what that refers to and why it is a concern?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Q Could you set out what would make a proper scrutiny process for this legislation?

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

Q I feel that this is the right time to correct the record, because I am sure that Dr Fox would not want to say anything inaccurate on the record. Earlier, you referenced a National Archives story in the press, Dr Fox. We do not often talk about leaks, but I think you said either that it was “uncovered” or that it was “discovered”. For the record and for the Opposition’s understanding, the Government commissioned the National Archives to investigate whether anything else needed to be explored, and the number of the laws still in force has not been verified. I do not think it is appropriate to continue to use misleading language about a story that has not yet been verified, or to leave people in doubt about where the work came from.

Dr Fox and Sir Jonathan, you are not comfortable with what the Bill proposes, but I get the feeling that you are probably just not comfortable that we are trying stop EU law continuing to sit on the UK statute books for ever without us having any power to amend it. Is that the case, or do you see a time in the future when it would be appropriate to move EU laws off the UK statute books? I will come to you first, Dr Fox.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Q Another question we could ask is whether it is reasonable for Parliament to ensure that Ministers know the consequences of their legislation. What the National Archives work shows is that that is possibly not the case with the Bill.

I say that as someone who this week received something I had never, ever received before—I wonder, Dr Fox, whether you can advise me if this is common: a ministerial correction to an answer to a written question. The written question was to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the application of the legislation to the Avian Influenza and Influenza of Avian Origin in Mammals (England) (No 2) Order 2006. Originally, Ministers told me that the order was not made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 and therefore did not fall within the scope of clause 1 of the Bill, but they issued me with a ministerial correction to admit that it did. Have there been other instances of Ministers not knowing the consequences of their legislation? What impact do you think that has on our ability to scrutinise legislation as parliamentarians?

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

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

Marcus Fysh (Conservative, Yeovil)

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

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

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

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

Marcus Fysh (Conservative, Yeovil)

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

Marcus Fysh (Conservative, Yeovil)

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

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Thank you. David Jones, followed by Alex Sobel.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Q Dr Fox, you postulated earlier that sifting committees might be established to assess whether individual pieces of retained EU law should be retained or dispensed with. Given the volume of retained EU law that we are aware of—and given that there may well be more—how long a process do you think that would be, and do you not think it would take up a huge amount of parliamentary time?

Alex Sobel (Labour/Co-operative, Leeds North West)

Q I could get into a debate about the numbers, but we have explored that quite a lot. I have a number of concerns about clause 15 and the sort of power grab that it makes. Ministers debated Henry VIII powers at length during the Brexit legislation and the EU Act. I am also concerned that clause 15 says that Ministers should not “increase the regulatory burden” when changing retained EU law. Last night, I was at a rewilding reception where the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer)—he must get a lot of outings in this Committee—said that sometimes they will improve regulatory arrangements. But clause 15 says that they cannot. Can they or can they not? If a Minister tells the sector informally that he can do that—perhaps we should ask a written question to see if he will say it formally—it creates uncertainty in the minds of non-governmental organisations, businesses and everyone else about the direction of travel in certain areas where it is intimated that the regulatory burden could be increased. My reading of clause 15, however, is that Ministers cannot increase the regulatory burden.

Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Sir Jonathan, you talked about the difficulty for civil servants simply in identifying all the laws that might be affected. Drawing on your experience as a Government lawyer, how do you think that the civil service will be able comprehensively to review and revise all the laws that they can identify by next DecemberQ ?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Thank you very much. I see no further questions, but I think a point of order is about to come.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

On a point of order, Sir Gary. With reference to the Minister’s clarification earlier in respect of the story about the National Archives, from what she said I understand that that was work commissioned by the Department. I seek your guidance on a process by which the Committee will have the full information about that report and, in particular, on whether more laws will be covered by the ambit of the Bill. The situation is unusual, but a written statement by the Minister or a letter to the Committee might be appropriate as a way ahead.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

That is not a point of order for the Chair. I know the Minister—a very helpful Minister—will have heard the point, and I am sure something positive will be forthcoming.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

indicated assent.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Nodding is going on. I thank the witnesses for their expertise and advice.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Colleagues, we have until 3.35 pm for this session. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Thank you. I am sure that some of the questions—perhaps even some of the early questions—will draw that out from you. I call Justin Madders.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Indeed. That seems a nice point to start. Could you set out your understanding of which employment laws will be covered by the Bill? Could you explain what some of the effects might be on certain groups?Q

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

That was a point very strongly made.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Q I want to return to one point you mentioned, which was interesting because it contradicted what some of the witnesses said earlier on. They said that one reason we do not need to worry too much about parliamentary procedure for removing these rights is because we did not have proper parliamentary procedure in the first place—it was imposed on us by the EU. You gave the good example of the eight days’ holiday pay, which was a decision by the UK Government. That was not actually imposed by the EU. Are there other examples of UK Government decisions or enhancements to EU regulations that will be lost as a result of this Bill?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Q On that point, Mr Sharp, with the TUC being the umbrella body for trade unions, you will be having discussions with not only everyone in the trade union movement, but employers. What conversations are taking place about what the legal landscape will look like after 2023?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

It is a good time to turn to the Minister.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

Q Ms David, did you mention eight bank holidays?

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

Q So we are going to lose our bank holidays. Are we going to lose the one we get for the coronation of the King?

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

Q But you are speculating that we are. I am anxious about this constant speculation and the fear that it is creating. People on the Government side, and in the Opposition as well, have done a huge amount of work to ensure that women and vulnerable people are protected at work, so I have struggled with your evidence today and references to us falling back to the 1970s and 1980s.

The UK is leading in a number of these aspects. We were the first to introduce two weeks’ paid paternity leave in 2003; the EU has only just legislated for this. We have the highest minimum wage if you compare us to France, Germany and Japan. We are leading on paid bereavement as well. We have far more maternity leave with over a year; the EU has just 14 weeks. In April 2019 we quadrupled the maximum fine for aggravated breaches of workers’ rights, so the assumption that we are somehow going to fall into the 1970s, creating an atmosphere of insecurity, is not healthy.

I am sorry; I will get to the point and ask my question. The Government have stated many times in the past few years that we will not reduce rights and protections as we leave the EU, and the Bill contains powers that enable the Government to preserve and codify the REUL in a way that will incorporate it fully into UK law. What basis is there to be fearful of those rights diminishing? I do not want to hear speculation—we do not have enough time. I want to understand what basis there is.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Minister?

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

That is all.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

I call Stella Creasy.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Q I thought the Minister helpfully set out a whole range of employment protections that are rooted in retained EU law when it comes to women’s rights. Removing the foundation of those laws that have been applied in UK law creates the legal uncertainty that you alluded to. The answer is therefore a commitment, clarity and a confirmation to all those who depend on these laws that, as the Government say, they are going to be retained. But exactly which ones are going to be retained? What is the point of this legislation if we are just going to delete everything and start again? Have you, the organisations that work on employment rights, had any confirmation or commitment about these specific pieces of legislation?

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Q Just so we are clear, the reason why that bank holiday entitlement exists in UK law is because EU legislation required it, and we have written proposals for bank holidays into law on the basis of EU legislation. If we remove that basis and that law is not retained, could an employer challenge the right of an employee in the next year to take a bank holiday?

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

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

Marcus Fysh (Conservative, Yeovil)

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

Marcus Fysh (Conservative, Yeovil)

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

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

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

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I do not think that that necessarily precludes you.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

What about you, Mr Sharp?

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Q So you have presumably raised your concerns about the issue of protecting workers’ rights and the potential impact of the proposals in the Bill?

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Q Have you actually requested comfort from those senior officials on the issue of workers’ rights? Have you asked for assurances?

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Have you asked for assurances?

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

You are clearly concerned that there may be a wholesale scrapping of workers’ rights as a consequence of this Bill. Have you asked for any reassurance from the officials to whom you have spoken?

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Sorry, I thought you had not met any officials.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

No, can Mr Sharp answer this? He is the person who has had the meeting.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Q It seems to me that you have not asked for any assurances, including in this evidence today. Frankly, you are raising hares that are completely illusory, and you know full well, don’t you, that there is no way that the Government would scrap the rights that you are concerned about?

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Do you not think a simple conversation might assist? You have not had it.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

I think you have pressed far enough on this, David. I would like to hear from Shantha.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Q You are obviously a lawyer after my own heart, Ms David. Unless it is there in black and white, it is not worth a penny, is it? We have heard lots of assurances from various people who accept that they are not in a position to speak on behalf of the Government. Is it not the case that unless we get positive action from Ministers and things in black and white, these rights will automatically fall at the end of next year? The question is: would it not be much simpler if we put in this Bill a clause that said, “These pieces of legislation—these employment rights—will not be sunsetted”?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

I feel an amendment in Committee coming on.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Q I appreciate that this is something that people feel strongly about, because they are concerned for their constituents. Can the representative of the trade unions tell us what it was like when the Beecroft report came out? It talked about some of these issues, so if there is a concern to get not just a promise but a commitment in writing to protect these rights, would such an amendment be welcome? Would that be enough, given that Beecroft shows a direction of travel that this Government have previously considered?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Let us not stray too widely into Beecroft, because we are considering this Bill, but an answer would be helpful if it is relevant to this.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

But it is relevant as an element of employment rights.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Marcus Fysh has the final question.

Marcus Fysh (Conservative, Yeovil)

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

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

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

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Thank you very much to our next set of witnesses. We are starting three minutes early, but we expect a Division at about 4.15 pm. If that is the case, we will try to end our session when the Division bell rings. Will you please all introduce yourself for the record?

Alex Sobel (Labour/Co-operative, Leeds North West)

Q These regulations cover huge areas in the DEFRA brief, including habitats regulations, environmental protections, and animal welfare and standards. First, I would like to hear your assessments of the Bill’s implications. Secondly, during Brexit a huge number of staff had to be drafted into DEFRA from the Environment Agency, Natural England and other Government agencies—leaving a vacuum in those agencies—to support the Department on those issues. Now we will have the EU retained law. Does DEFRA have sufficiently qualified staff to examine laws across animal diseases, air pollution, water quality, chemical safety, the habitats regs and all the rest of it to cope with what is coming? As Link, the Green Alliance and others have said, we are looking at 570 regulations, although it might be more now, given the work of the National Archives; maybe we will get up to four figures. What is your assessment and can DEFRA civil servants cope? I will start with Richard.

Alex Sobel (Labour/Co-operative, Leeds North West)

Q Ruth, do you have a view on assessment and capacity on behalf of your members of the Green Alliance?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

I just want to intervene before the other witnesses give their answers. This is all very good stuff, but the answers will need to be quite a bit shorter or we will run out of time.

Alex Sobel (Labour/Co-operative, Leeds North West)

Q Do you want to come in on the animal welfare aspect, David?

Alex Sobel (Labour/Co-operative, Leeds North West)

Q That is quite stark, isn’t it? We are talking about 10 months—maybe 11 if we are lucky—to look at 44 pieces of legislation just for animal welfare, as well as all the devolution issues. Ruth, you were involved in this last time— albeit with far fewer SIs—so who else should be consulted for that process? It affects a huge number of different organisations, including yours, vets, businesses, the National Farmers Union, the farming community, academics and so on, and then there are the agencies—the Environment Agency, Natural England or Forestry England or whatever it may be—which may or may not be pulled into DEFRA to deal with this. Who else needs to be pulled in, and what level of support and capacity would those organisations have for such a big programme? Perhaps you could talk about your organisations first before talking about others.

Alex Sobel (Labour/Co-operative, Leeds North West)

Q Phoebe, your organisation is used to doing this sort of work. What is your capacity and what do you think?

Alex Sobel (Labour/Co-operative, Leeds North West)

Q I want to delve down with an example—particularly as I am a shadow DEFRA Minister—and also declare my interest as the parliamentary champion for white-clawed crayfish. One of the regulations we are going to have to look at is the Invasive Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order 2019. I am sure you are all well aware of that; Richard is nodding his head, so I will come to him first. That order sets out and underpins the enforcement regime for invasive species such as the American signal crayfish, which threatens my crayfish; pennyworts; killer shrimps; and so on. We dealt with that in the EAC and I think that Richard was present at that hearing. That order is the only piece of current legislation that prevents the introduction of invasive species, and it is part of retained EU law. I want to ask Richard how many of our important regulations that support nature and animal species are supported purely through retained EU law? If that order, and others, are sunsetted and we do not have the capacity or time to get to them before December 2023, what will then happen in terms of our ability to stop invasive species coming in, and what other effects could there be?

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Thank you. We turn to the Minister now.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

Q It was good to hear recognition of the UK’s long legacy of environmental and animal welfare protections. Often we have higher standards here than the EU does, so I struggle to understand the argument that we need to keep environmental laws that were introduced by the EU just because it was the EU, and that we cannot trust the UK Government, which introduced the Environment Act 2021. I cannot understand why you cannot trust your own elected officials here in the UK, who are accountable day in, day out.

My question is for Ruth Chambers. The review of the substance of retained EU law has uncovered more than 500 pieces of retained EU law owned by DEFRA. Many of those pieces of legislation relate to environmental regulations and protections dating back 20 years. Surely there is merit in reviewing the totality of those regulations, as the Bill provides for, to see whether they can be consolidated. Do you agree or disagree?

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

Q It is good that you agree with most of what the Bill is trying to achieve, compared with Dr Richard, who does not want the Bill at all, because it provides us with an opportunity to enhance the protections that we have. You shake your head, Dr Richard, but you are very clear that you do not want the Bill to be around at all. I love the way that you are representing a coalition, as it were, but fundamentally you are also an active Lib Demmer who campaigns to get elected all the time, so the neutrality of your evidence should be taken into account.

Ms Phoebe Clay, previously your organisation has accused the Bill of threatening to interrupt the Government’s target to halt the decline of nature in England by 2030. Can you set out how you consider that the Bill could interrupt a legally binding target that has been established by the Environment Act? We have a lot of lawyers this morning, and we want to contrast their evidence with yours.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

I think it is only fair to give Dr Benwell a chance to come back on the issue of neutrality, very briefly.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

May I respond to the response that was given a moment ago, to get clarity?

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.