Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 24 November 2022.

Clause 3 - Sunset of retained EU rights, powers, liabilities etc

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir George. The clause is a vital part of the Government’s retained EU law reform programme and will make sure that EU rights, obligations and remedies saved by section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 cease to apply in the UK after 31 December 2023.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Sir George. Members will note that I am a little hoarse —please do not give me a sugar cube. I hope that means I will not be quite as lengthy as I was on Tuesday.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

We can try.

I want to say a few words about the clause, which will fit in with the discussion we will have on the following clauses. All these clauses pertain to the future of our law after the removal of the legal effects of EU law. I will try not to repeat myself and to focus specifically on the terms of this clause.

I begin by stating the obvious: as we untie ourselves from the European Union, we will clearly need a new settlement of legal principles. Nevertheless, we ought to treat the clause with some scepticism and scrutinise the impact it will have on our country’s legal system. In doing so, we must consider why it was decided to take a snapshot at the end of 2020 in the first place.

When the country entered the transition period for leaving the EU, the potential for a legal vacuum to emerge rapidly became apparent, as the process of preserving EU legislation and EU-derived legislation made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 began. Section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 was therefore designed to prevent such a legal vacuum once the 1972 Act was repealed, by catching everything that might have been missed and its legal effects.

I am saying that to highlight an important feature of the 2018 Act, which has been to maintain the smooth operation of our legal system while we formally left the EU. Clearly, it still has importance. Unless the Government are able to use the powers in clauses 12 to 15 to replace the effects of EU law exactly—although it is clear that they do not want to do that—we face the prospect of a legal vacuum.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, does she agree that section 4 of the EU (Withdrawal) Act has provided an important function over the previous years in creating stability and certainty? Secondly, does she recognise the risk of a legal vacuum opening after 2023, and can she provide any assessment the Government have made of that risk?

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Good morning, Sir George. I rise to support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. I also think that the debate on the clause sums up some of the practical challenges with the legislation. The retained EU law dashboard has identified just 28 pieces of directly effective retained law under section 4 of the EU withdrawal Act—a mere amuse-bouche of laws that will be affected by the Bill overall. Given that the number is so small in comparison with the at least 2,500 that have been identified, and the possible 4,000, why could the Minister not show us what will happen next? After all, our debates on Tuesday were all about what would happen if we deleted every piece of legislation. There are no guarantees about what would happen next. Rather than assuming that all these pieces of legislation should go at the end of 2023, surely Ministers could commit to reviewing the 28 now and showing us the way ahead—whether some will be retained, amended or indeed abolished. Then the clause would not be required.

All of this does make a difference. For example, on Tuesday the Government gave their very first commitment on what will happen to one of the 4,000 pieces of legislation—the Bauer and Hampshire judgments about pensions. To remind Government Members, who may well have constituents coming to them about this, those are the requirements—the pieces of case law—that mean that if a company goes bust, people are entitled to at least 50% of their pension fund. The Government committed on Tuesday to abolishing those pieces of legislation, but they are affected by the clause.

The 28 pieces of legislation are not insubstantial; they could be the way forward for the Minister. Instead of requiring the clause, she could say, “We’re going to look at the 28 and tell you what we’re going to do with them,” so that people can have confidence that we have an administrative process for these pieces of legislation and the suggestion that there has been scaremongering can be put aside. She could say, “Here are 28 examples of what we’re going to do, and the fact that they are rights under section 4 of the EU withdrawal Act helps us to contain them as a piece of work.”

The Intellectual Property (Exhaustion of Rights) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are another of the 28. Given that the Government are getting rid of the Bauer and Hampshire judgments, thereby affecting the pension rights and protections of our constituents, could the Minister set out what might happen on that one? She was very kind on Tuesday to set out an example of what will happen to one of the 28. It would be incredibly helpful for us as a Committee to understand the impact of the legislation and to perhaps start, if not to allay our concerns—I think Opposition Members are concerned when people’s pension protections are being not just watered down but, frankly, abolished—then to understand what the Government’s intentions are in using these powers.

I simply ask the Minister to use the clause stand part debate to explain why the 28 pieces of legislation could not have been dealt with in advance of the Bill, given that they stand on the EU withdrawal Act, and to tell us a bit about what will happen to them, to give us an indication of what horrors are to come or perhaps to reassure us. Government Members want to use the term “scaremongering”. I use the term “accountability”. I am looking forward to what the Minister has to say.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

It is curious that Opposition Members say they do not want to prevent Brexit or accept the supremacy of EU law, but then they come up with every which way to stop these things actually being delivered.

The matters saved by section 4 of the EU withdrawal Act consist largely of rights, obligations and remedies developed in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Many of those overlap with rights already well established by domestic law, and those overlaps can cause confusion. The Bill allows the Government to codify any specific rights that may otherwise cease to apply if they consider it a requirement.

A question was raised about whether we are ending section 4 rights; that is not the case. Section 4 of the EU withdrawal Act incorporated the effect and interpretation of certain rights that previously had effect in the UK legal system through section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972. Section 4 rights largely overlap with rights that are already available in UK domestic law, and it is domestic legislation where they should be clearly expressed. This Bill seeks to rectify that constitutional anomaly by repealing section 4 of the 2018 Act. That does not mean the blanket removal of individual rights; rather, combined with other measures in the Bill, it will result in the codification of rights in specific policy.

Ministers in each Department, which will be responsible for their own elements of the Bill, will work with the appropriate bodies to ensure that they share what they will be assimilating, repealing and updating. All of that will provide additional clarity, making rights clearly accessible in UK law. That is why I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Abolition of supremacy of EU law

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 5 and 6 stand part.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I rise to speak to new clause 8, but before that I will address clauses 4, 5 and 6.

Clause 4 is a Ronseal clause: with regard to abolishing the supremacy of the EU, it does exactly what it says on the tin. However, unlike putting a coat of varnish on a fence, it will not be a case of simply walking away once it is done. It is inevitable that courts will need to consider case law that we have previously regarded as settled, because that law was settled when EU law was supreme, and it no longer will be. The reality is that none of us know where this clause is going to take us.

Most lawyers practising today know no other legal environment. The world has moved on in the last 50 years in ways that we could not have foreseen, and the law has moved with it, so any reinterpretation of the law needs to be done carefully. It must strike a balance between making changes where appropriate, based on our new position outside the EU, and maintaining some consistency and predictability for businesses and individuals who are trying to conduct their working and private lives within the ambit of the law. That is why some of our other amendments have attempted to create stability in terms of what the Government can control with these regulations, because we recognise that not even this Government can control the courts and which issues are litigated.

Section 5(2) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 stated that the principle of the supremacy of EU law will continue to apply

“so far as relevant to the interpretation, disapplication or quashing of any enactment...passed or made before exit day.”

That means that retained EU regulations would take precedence over pre-existing domestic legislation that is inconsistent with them. It also makes it clear that this does not apply to anything passed after 31 December 2020, so to some extent, supremacy of EU law has already entered history. What analysis has been done on the legal consequences of retrospectively altering the relationship between retained EU law and domestic legislation passed before 31 December 2020? Have the Government have done any analysis of this, and can they anticipate which areas will be prone to more legal challenge on the issue of supremacy?

I suspect that it will be impossible for any of us to say whether the consequences of removing the principle of supremacy would reduce the clarity of the law or change its effect in any particular case. However, the overall effect is that there will be a reduction in certainty and a risk of unpredicted—and perhaps entirely undesirable and unjust—consequences. What assessment has been made of the impact of the new level of uncertainty on business investment?

It is to the Government’s credit that they have recognised that there is a risk of unjust or unintended consequences and have retained the power in clause 8 to, in essence, retain the supremacy of EU law over domestic legislation for any EU legislation up to 23 June 2026, but that prompts the question of what happens to any undesirable case law that emerges after that date—indeed, whether there will be any case law at all before that date is an open question, given the current state of court backlogs. There are also important questions about how the powers in clause 8 will be exercised, but we will save those for that clause. Suffice it to say that we do not think things will be quite as straightforward as the clause implies.

Clause 5 raises serious questions about how the abolition of the general principles of EU law will impact on any retained EU law, as it will now inevitably throw into doubt the meaning of all retained European Union law. This will also affect primary legislation that was intended to implement EU obligations and that would have been interpreted in the light of the general principles of EU law and the rights and duties flowing from the EU. Let us remind ourselves what the terrible, unconstitutional principles of EU law are: legal certainty, equal treatment, proportionality and respect for fundamental rights.

I would be interested to hear from the Minister why the Government feel that they can no longer support any of those principles in UK law. Can she also tell us how many pieces of primary legislation will be affected by the clause? What elements of that legislation will be affected, and which Departments are likely to have to reconsider and possibly redraft primary legislation as a result of judicial interpretation? Have any steps been taken at all to assess the effect of the provisions? Again, will we see increased uncertainty and reduced investment, but richer lawyers, as a result of the clause?

I will not ask the Minister how many cases over the last 50 years have been decided in line with the principles of EU law, as I do not think that anyone could reasonably be expected to put a number on that, but she ought to be able to explain how the Bill will affect our constituents. We are talking about half a century of case law being replaced by a vacuum that, because of the way the Bill is drafted, can only be filled by litigation. The lawyers really will be the ones who benefit from the Bill.

Decisions that have been interwoven into our legislation and that affect key workplace rights and protections will now be open for question—for example, protections around discrimination, equal pay, and maternity and paternity have developed a whole line of case law over time. Separating out the decisions that have been made on such pieces of law on the basis of EU-derived principles will have consequences that I believe the Government should look to address. To give one example, the removal of the ability to make claims for equal pay for work of equal value that is done by different sexes is a well-established principle that is at risk as a result of the clause. Of course, the new figures released at the weekend show just how far we still have to go in resolving the quest for equal pay.

How will the Government address those questions? Are they content for the law to be reshaped organically by the courts instead of by Parliament? That will inevitably lead to more delays, as more and more test claims are brought in a court system already beset by backlogs. The Government will need to clarify the law, and such cases will be pursued at a cost to the individuals bringing the claims, along with very high legal fees—running to thousands of pounds—to bring appeals to the appeal courts. In practice, that will mean that the reshaping of the law will be driven by those with the deepest pockets, not those with the most just arguments. That is not the way we should look to reshape our law.

I understand the idea that, if we have the left the EU, the principles of EU law should no longer apply, but if we decide as a Parliament that those are good principles and worth keeping, and that we value factors such as legal certainty, we should be saying that as a Parliament. By tabling new clause 8, we are trying to get some sense of order into all this.

Many of the legal experts we heard from during the evidence sessions spoke about the impact of the Bill. They almost spoke in chorus about the abnormality of, and their concern about, how little opportunity there was for parliamentary scrutiny and consultation. Some of the most knowledgeable people in the country are raising concerns about the impact of providing the Executive with such unchecked powers and about the huge vacuum that the Bill will create. We should listen to those concerns. I wish to move new clause 8 to rectify the lack of scrutiny and consultation in the use of powers afforded by clauses 3, 4 and 5.

We now have nearly less than a year to deal with these crucial matters, which is testament to a weak Government that do not have the confidence to address the practical, legal and various political consequences of our disentangle-ment from the EU. The most salient question is: why would the Government want to jeopardise important legal precedents in the UK’s case law by rushing to remove them without adequate levels of scrutiny or due consideration of the impact?

The terms of the new clause are simple. After stating in subsection (1) that the new clause will place requirements on the proper use of clauses 3, 4 and 5, subsection (2) begins by detailing the conditions on which powers can be legitimately used. In particular, the subsection states that the Government must consult

“organisations and persons representative of interests substantially affected by, or with expertise in the likely legal effect of”

the Government’s use of clauses 3 to 5. It mandates that a report from the consultations be produced and laid before both Houses and include the relevant Minister’s view on

“the likely advantages and disadvantages of bringing that section into force”,

with a particular focus on basic protections for consumers, workers, businesses, and the environment and animal welfare. We have heard already in Committee that there does not seem to be a great deal of support for maintaining those protections.

The report must also focus on legal certainty in terms of clarity and predictability of law, and the operation of the trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and EU, as well as the effect on the exports of goods and services to the European economic area. It must also consider the operation of the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland in the EU withdrawal agreement. I hope Government Members recognise that those are all important matters that will impact on our constituents’ lives and the prosperity of the whole nation for years to come. The Government should want to know the consequences of the Bill before they enact it.

I cannot see why there would be any objection to taking such a sensible step. Perhaps there will be some grumbling or concern about administrative costs or burdens. Admittedly, there will be some costs in terms of laying reports before both Houses, but it stands to reason that any credible Government would have already carried out such assessments, or at the very least planned to do so in the very near future. Besides, the small costs associated with placing such assessments into the public domain are no doubt good value not just for the sake of transparency, but for the confidence it will instil in businesses about where the future legal landscape will lie.

Neither should there be opposition to the principle of conducting such scrutiny. It is simply due diligence. We are embarking on a process that will completely alter how the law operates in our country. The new clause simply reintroduces a level of scrutiny in the form of consultation and, in later subsections, parliamentary oversight over how the UK’s legal system will be altered.

Returning to the point of scrutiny that I began with, and that we have talked about many times, it is one of the more concerning elements of the Bill. We are expected throughout the Bill to submit to unchecked ministerial power in good faith. New clause 8(4), (5) and (6) attempt to address that. Subsection (4) deals with the necessary timeframes. To ensure that there is ample time to understand the implications of the reports laid before the House, subsection (4) states that the reports must stay in Parliament for a period of 60 days when it is sitting. That will not only give both Houses enough time to study the impact of the Government's plans, but will help prevent the Government from using the sunset as a means to rush through unsatisfactory changes—a problem not limited to the use of the powers here.

New clause 8(5) and (6) introduce the parliamentary approval that the Bill severely lacks throughout. Once the 60-day period has been completed, both Houses will have to approve a resolution to bring the relevant subsections (3), (4) or (5) into force. Crucially, under the new clause, if either House finds the subsection to be unsatisfactory, it will simply not come into force. If that is the case, both Houses will need to pass a resolution that includes a recommendation to amend the subsection so that their concerns are addressed to secure approval. The Minister would then need to act on such a recommendation. I believe that that is a reasoned approach. It has been guided by the evidence that we have heard, and would utilise the wealth of knowledge and experience contained within both Houses on the impact of such dramatic changes. We want to ensure that all eventualities have been considered and have gone through the proper channels of consent, especially on an issue as crucial as our law.

This new clause would achieve that, and the only additional cost would effectively be parliamentary scrutiny time. Rather than giving ministerial authority, it would make the decisions more transparent and more accountable. It would see that issues that are important to all of our constituents, such as consumer rights and workers’ protections, are at the forefront of our discussions and debates.

Of course, it would also ensure, as we have said many times, that Parliament actually takes back control of the process and does not give it away, not just to Ministers but to lawyers and judges, who will pursue cases in the interests of their clients. There is nothing wrong with that, but it risks a lopsided development of the law and could bring forward legal principles and developments that we cannot foresee and certainly cannot control.

Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I wish to make a relatively brief point, anticipating what the Minister might say on the basis of her response to comments on clause 3. It is worrying, when we are trying to have a serious consideration of the Bill, that serious questions either from our Front Bench or from my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow are met with the suggestion that we are, in some way, trying to deny Brexit.

I think we need to be clear on this: we campaigned to remain in the European Union; the majority of Conservative Members campaigned to remain in the European Union; but we lost and we left. There is no going back; none of us is arguing for it—no rejoining the EU, no rejoining the single market, no rejoining the customs union. But there are choices in the way that we manage our future outside of the EU. That is what we are trying to deal with, because we want to make the right choices, and are worried that the Government are not.

I have come to this session from a meeting of the UK Trade and Business Commission, which is a cross-party, cross-industry body looking at the trade opportunities and trade implications of our departure from the European Union. Both the British Chambers of Commerce, which gave evidence to us this morning, and the TUC expressed huge concern about the uncertainty created by the provisions in clauses 4 to 7 and the potential for businesses and workers to get lost in a legal quagmire from which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston says, only the lawyers will benefit. Given the current backlog of such cases in our courts, that uncertainty will last for some time.

Will the Minister address the concerns that were raised by the Bar Council, whose evidence I know she will have read? It warns about,

“creating uncertainty as to the meaning and status of such REUL by removing established principles by which it is to be interpreted, altering its status vis-à-vis other law, and nudging the courts towards departing from EU case-law that interprets it.”

I hope that the Minister will respond to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, because the evidence then says:

“We detect no sign that any assessment has been done as to the legal effect of those changes on the regulations concerned (despite their importance) and can therefore detect no policy rationale for those changes whatsoever.”

I hope that, in her remarks, the Minister will address those points.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central is absolutely right. This is not about whether Brexit has happened. We all know that Brexit has happened. We have left the European Union, and, frankly, it reflects an intellectual insecurity about the legislation if that is the only response that the Government can come up with—if they cannot actually engage in defending their proposals but try to take us on to a completely different debate.

That matters because millions of people across the country are dealing with the consequences of Brexit on a daily basis, none more so than our friends and family in Northern Ireland. I rise to ask the Minister to put aside the constant talk about, “Well, if you disagree with this, if you want to ask these questions, it’s cos you didn’t agree with Brexit,” and to do justice to the people of Northern Ireland.

On Tuesday, we talked very briefly about the Schleswig-Holstein dispute and the fact that it was a dispute between Denmark and Germany about a territory. History is littered with such instances, whereby people suffer, whereby there are refugees and whereby such disputes define political and geo-diplomatic discourse for generations to come.

In Northern Ireland, there is an incredibly difficult balance, which we know has been unbalanced since Brexit happened. We also know that one of the things that is causing real pain to people in Northern Ireland is having to maintain dual systems, because it is not clear to businesses in Northern Ireland which pieces of legislation they have to follow.

Supremacy, which this clause attacks, is one of the ways in which that situation is resolved. Government Members can dismiss everything that we have to say, but they need to look our friends and neighbours in Northern Ireland in the eye and say, “We are doing everything we can to make sure the peace holds and to uphold the Good Friday agreement.” I say that because supremacy is particularly important when it comes to the Good Friday agreement and given that this clause abolishes supremacy of EU law in Northern Ireland as well, we need to understand from the Minister—if she does not answer this question, that would be very serious—what impact the clause will have on the protocol, because the protocol at the moment is obviously under pressure and is clearly a matter that has some real consequences for the lives of people in Northern Ireland.

If the Government are hoping to tear up the protocol, that would be an extraordinary moment in the history of Northern Ireland, so the Minister owes us the justice of a serious response to a set of serious questions, not only about legal uncertainty but about supremacy and how the clause will operate in Northern Ireland. I hope that she will respond with courtesy and dignity. Whatever disagreements and debates we may have had about Brexit—as I say, Labour Members are now perfectly content that that has happened; the argument has been lost and we are moving on—doing the people of Northern Ireland the justice of answering questions about, and engaging directly with, this concept of supremacy and saying what it means for Northern Ireland is important, so that they can start to have some of the certainty about what their future will hold that they desperately require.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

Before I call the Minister to respond, the hon. Lady prayed in aid the Schleswig-Holstein affair. Without interfering in the politics of the debate, I think that a more appropriate comparison might be Zollverein in Germany or Risorgimento in Italy, which were all about the assertion of the rights of nation states.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

This is turning into a very interesting morning indeed, Chairman.

I rise to resist new clause 8. This new clause seeks to set conditions on the commencement of clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill. I will explain to the right hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston why we are making the changes in these clauses.

Each clause is vital to this Government’s programme to reform retained EU law. That there are still circumstances where retained EU law takes precedence over UK law is not consistent with our status as an independent nation. The principle of EU supremacy must be ended without delay. These amendments would add further delay by requiring the Government to write reports on items to which we have already committed. As set out already, the Government have committed to ensuring that the necessary legislation is in place to uphold the UK’s international obligations, which includes maintaining the UK’s obligations under the trade and co-operation agreement or the Northern Ireland protocol. We will come on to consider an amendment that will allow us to spend more time discussing that issue.

This Bill will not lead to legal uncertainty—to have perfect legal certainty would mean that we would forever keep the same laws. Our approach is to improve accessibility and legal clarity by codifying, where necessary, rights and principles expressly into domestic statute.

With regard to the delegated powers in the Bill, the Government are committed to ensuring robust scrutiny for the secondary legislation made under these powers while ensuring the most effective use of Parliamentary time; I believe, Chairman, that we spent many hours discussing this issue just on Tuesday. This means that legislation made using the delegated powers in the Bill will be subject to either the negative or draft affirmative procedure, depending on the legislation that is being amended and the power used. A sifting procedure will also apply to regulations to be made under the power to restate, which affords additional scrutiny of the use of power.

Clause 4 ends the principle of supremacy of retained EU law in so far as it applies to pre-2021 legislation. The clause establishes a new priority rule, which ensures domestic legislation prevails over retained direct EU legislation where there is a conflict. Thanks to the clause, an Act of Parliament will once again be the foremost law in the land. Clause 5 ensures general principles of EU law will no longer be part of the UK statute book from the end of 2023. Clause 6 establishes that after the end of 2023 all retained EU law preserved from the sunset provisions will be known as “assimilated law”.

In response to some of the questions raised, I put on the record once again that the rulebook does not seek to remove rights. In most instances, those rights already operate and are available in domestic legislation. The rulebook contains provisions to enable the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to safeguard the rights and protections of citizens of the United Kingdom. The Bill includes a restatement power so that Departments can codify rights into domestic legislation.

On Tuesday, we spoke at length about scrutiny, the sifting process and the role that Parliament will play, so I am not sure what further response I can make today. That programme has been made clear. The Government recognise Parliament’s significant role in scrutinising statutory instruments to date and are committed to ensure appropriate scrutiny of any secondary legislation made under the Bill’s delegated powers.

Changes in the law can give rise to litigation—that is normal—but we would never change the law if people wanted no change whatsoever. The risk will be mitigated in areas where Departments use the Bill’s powers to maintain the effect of our current law, if necessary, for desired policy outcomes. In other cases, proactive management of the removal of retained EU law will allow a controlled and positive introduction of a new legal regime that seeks to mitigate any risks posed by increases in litigation. For instance, the Bill contains powers allowing the Government to retain the current legislative hierarchy between specified pieces of legislation. The effects of repealing supremacy will only be considered relevant to matters arising after the enactment of policy. The change is not retrospective, and cases that have already been concluded will not reopen. Upon finding that pre-2021 domestic law is incompatible with retained EU law, courts may place conditions in the incompatibility order to mitigate the effect of that finding.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I did posit in my opening remarks the principles of EU law that will be jettisoned. In the example of legal certainty and equal treatment, does the Minister consider that those principles should no longer be part of UK law?

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

That assumes that we would not be treating people equally and fairly, and that is not the case when we legislate in the UK. I do not buy the idea that without EU law we are incapable of governing fairly in the UK. We are all elected to Parliament to represent our constituents, and we want to go home and tell our constituents, regardless of who they are and where they are from, that we are legislating fairly for everybody.

Why are we removing the principle of EU supremacy? That principle means that pre-2021 domestic law must give way to some pieces of retained EU law when the two conflict. That ensured legal continuity at the end of the transition period, but it is constitutionally anomalous and inappropriate, as some domestic laws, including Acts of Parliament, are subordinate to some pieces of retained law. That is the nub of the issue. We either accept the supremacy of the EU or accept the supremacy of this place. We can go round and round, but only one can prevail, and the Government believe that this Parliament should be supreme.

On the protection of fundamental rights and the equality principle, the principle of fundamental rights is generally not the exclusive preserve of the EU. We are proud of the history of the UK legal systems in which common law principles and legislation are well established to protect fundamental rights. For example, the principle of equality before the law is rooted deeply in British law. It was in 1215 that Magna Carta first acknowledged that British people had legal rights and that laws could apply to kings and queens too. The Equality Act 2010 has, to date, brought together more than 116 pieces of legislation into a single Act—a streamlined legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and to advance equality of opportunity for all. There is no equivalent to that Act in EU law, which shows how important it is that we are able to express principles such as equality before the law in a UK statute rather than relying on principles of EU law.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Does my hon. Friend not agree that a particular strength of our domestic legal system is the principle of stare decisis, whereby there is a strict rule that cases are followed in terms of precedent, which does not apply in the case of EU law?

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

Exactly. My right hon. Friend is incredibly knowledgeable on all those issues, and I am more than happy to defer to him; he is absolutely right. We reject new clause 8.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I will first address the intervention of the right hon. Member for Clwyd West. The point of clause 4 is that it removes the ability of the courts to refer to precedents from any decisions that have been taken in accordance with EU law, so it is worrying that the right hon. Member makes such comments.

The Minister said that we must decide whether we accept the supremacy of Parliament. We absolutely do, which is why so many of the amendments that we have tabled are about giving Parliament back control, not handing power to Ministers or, in the case of this clause, handing power to lawyers and judges to decide how our law moves forward.

I thank the Minister for promoting me to a right hon. Member—that was very kind of her. She also said that new clause 8 would delay matters. It will not. If the Government are on top of things, which I would like to think they were, they should be doing this work anyway. They should be doing this analysis in a way that enables Parliament to scrutinise the effect of the Bill.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the Minister did not utter the words “Northern Ireland”, and did not at all address the question of how supremacy will be resolved in Northern Ireland, which follows both EU and UK legislation? I see that she is being given a note, so perhaps she can do us the courtesy of responding to that question.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

rose—

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I can allow the Minister to intervene on me.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

On a point of order, Sir George.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

The Minister might care to intervene on the hon. Member who is speaking. That does not require a point of order.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

The hon. Member for Walthamstow was inaccurate. Hansard will show that I did mention Northern Ireland; I made that clear. An amendment that we will consider later today will allow us to do justice to the issue.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

I am grateful to the Minister for the clarification.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

We will be returning to Northern Ireland, as the Minister says. She said that the Bill will not add legal uncertainty. I am afraid that that is exactly what it will do, and it is exactly what the bulk of evidence from every legal representative who has contacted the Committee shows. By abolishing principles that have been in formation for half a century, we will be in a new era and will have to develop new legal principles. That can only create uncertainty.

Clause 7 - Role of courts

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

I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 7, page 4, line 32, at end insert—

“(d) the undesirability of disturbing settled understandings of the law, on the basis of which individuals and businesses may have made decisions of importance to them;

(e) the importance of legal certainty, clarity and predictability; and

(f) the principle that significant changes in the law should be made by Parliament (or, as the case may be, the relevant devolved legislature).”

This amendment adds further conditions for higher courts to regard when deciding to diverge from retained EU case law.

I will not speak for as long as I did on Tuesday, when I recited many different chemicals and species. I will also disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow by not mentioning killer shrimp. My contributions from now on will be pointed, seeking clarity from the Minister.

Through amendment 79, for which we are indebted to the Bar Council, we seek to expand clause 7 to make clear the important legal and constitutional principles that will be taken into account by the courts. The amendment directs higher courts, when deciding whether to depart from retained EU case law, to consider the well-established and, we hope, uncontroversial principles of legal certainty and regulatory stability. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether she and the Government accept those legal principles and, if so, whether she agrees that higher courts should have regard to them when deciding whether to depart from retained EU law.

The amendment aims to safeguard the important constitutional principle that a significant change to the law, including a change to established case law, should be made by Parliament or the relevant devolved legislature. Again, does the Minister accept that fundamental constitutional principle and, if so, that it should guide the courts’ decisions under clause 7? She may not be in a position to accept the amendment, but I hope that she can make a simple and straightforward statement that she and the Government agree that the three legal constitutional principles set out in it must be maintained and respected by the courts.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

I rise to resist amendment 79, which puts in place too high a bar for UK courts to depart from retained case law, including judgments made and influenced by the EU courts. Clause 7 will free our courts to develop case law on retained EU law that remains without being unnecessarily constrained by the past judgments of these new foreign courts. The clause introduces a new test for higher courts to apply when considering departure from retained EU case law. The test gives higher courts greater clarity on the factors to consider, and greater freedom to decide when it is appropriate to depart from retained EU case law. The amendment, however, would reinforce the excessive influence of the European courts and judgments on our domestic courts, and limit judges’ ability to decide to depart from retained EU case law, as should be their right and responsibility. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

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

We will not push the amendment to a vote, but the Minister did not give us sufficient clarification. I am sure that when we progress we will continue to hear the opinions of other bodies in relation to retained case law. That is really important as the Bill progresses through the House and into the other place.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

The Government might not listen to Opposition Members, but they might listen to the Office for Environmental Protection, which, after all, they set up. It said:

“In making it easier for courts to depart from environmental retained case law, the Bill is likely to lead to uncertainty as it will be unclear whether long-established precedents will continue to be followed. This could result in unnecessary, costly legal proceedings. Consideration should also be given to whether this could also result in a reduction in environmental protection (where protections have been established through case law) and how this will be addressed.”

Does my hon. Friend agree that those critical points need to be addressed?

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

Absolutely. Agencies such as the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Office for Environmental Protection use these regulations and case law all the time. They have evolved over time in many areas—water, nature and so on. There is now a real danger to those provisions, so I hope the Minister will consult with her colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and ensure we are not unable to undertake regulatory and enforcement action on the environment.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

The hon. Gentleman mentions the danger of departing from precedent, but is that not substantially mitigated by clause 7(2)?

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

Having seen the opinions of different agencies—my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow mentioned the Office for Environmental Protection—and heard the evidence of the Bar Council, I am not sure that is the case.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I hesitate to intervene again, but it is specifically provided for in clause 7(2) that, although precedent may not apply in the case of European decisions, it does in the case of domestic decisions. Of course, European courts are not bound by precedent, so we have a significant safeguard in clause 7(2) against the risks that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

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

I know from my brief in the shadow DEFRA team that some very important enforcement actions are extrapolated from European case law, because we were under the aegis of the European Court of Justice for a very long time. It is important that we are mindful of that.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Obviously the Bill also enshrines the idea that protections can only be watered down, because it says that nothing can be brought in that increases burdens. Of course, courts are free to set new precedents, but when this Bill is enacted only precedents that reduce protection can be set. That is why the Office for Environmental Protection is concerned.

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

I fear we may be straying into future debates. I will not take much longer—I take your lead, Sir George. We will have further discussions about burdens and regression, so I will not labour that point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Brendan O'Hara (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 7, page 5, line 39, after “court)” insert

“in England and Wales or Northern Ireland”.

This amendment, together with Amendments 39 to 47 and (a) to Amendment 5, would remove the Scottish courts and Scottish law officers from the case law reference procedure provided for by new sections 6A, 6B and 6C of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 39, in clause 7, page 5, line 42, leave out from “Court,” to the end of line 2 on page 6.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 38.

Amendment 40, in clause 7, page 6, line 35, after “court)” insert

“in England and Wales or Northern Ireland”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 38.

Amendment 41, in clause 7, page 7, leave out lines 4 and 5.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 38.

Amendment 42, in clause 7, page 7, line 19, leave out from “Court,” to the end of line 21.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 38.

Amendment 44, in clause 7, page 8, line 40, leave out

“, the Advocate General for Scotland”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 38.

Amendment 45, in clause 7, page 9, line 2, after “court”, insert

“in England and Wales or Northern Ireland”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 38.

Amendment (a) to Government amendment 5, in line 4, leave out “(b) the Lord Advocate”.

Amendment 46, in clause 7, page 9, leave out lines 10 and 11.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 38.

Amendment 47, in clause 7, page 9, line 11, after “legislation” insert

“, or to the retained functions of the Lord Advocate (within the meaning of section 52(6) of the Scotland Act 1998)”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 38.

Brendan O'Hara (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Anyone sufficiently interested in knowing the list of amendments I am addressing can read them in Hansard. As we have heard, clause 7 seeks to relax domestic rules on judicial precedent, which will make it easier for appellate courts across the UK to depart from retained case law. The clause also delivers a mechanism by which courts of first instance can depart from otherwise binding retained case law. I therefore very much welcomed the Labour party’s amendment 79, and supported its efforts to tidy up this section of the Bill. Labour Members are right to point out that the Government’s proposals are driven by ideology, and that they have not considered the legal uncertainty and complications that will now almost certainly prevail.

We heard from Professor Catherine Barnard in an evidence session, who warned that:

“The way in which the legal system has worked and has run successfully over the decades is on the basis of incremental change rather than this really quite remarkable slash and burn approach proposed”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 15, Q26.]

That is exactly what this is: slash and burn. It is another example of how the now-departed brains behind this whole operation were moving with undue haste, total disregard for the consequences of what they were doing, and the obvious fear that a more considered approach would reveal the multitude of problems that will come with this plan.

Indeed, Alison Young, professor of public law at Cambridge University, warned us of the extreme uncertainty that could come from these new legal arrangements, saying:

“Those carrying out business and trade need legal certainty, so that they have an understanding of the rules, now and going forward.”

She added that

“the issue is that those carrying out business will not necessarily be 100% sure whether things will be retained in the long term. If so, how they will be retained? Has everything that might be revoked been listed? They are not 100% sure whether it has been revoked or not.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 14, Q25.]

That is a recurring theme throughout these proceedings.

It is against that backdrop that we have tabled these amendments, which, although plentiful in number, are all intended to do the same thing: remove Scots law wholly and entirely from this part of the Bill. I make no apology for repeating that this is not our Brexit. Scotland did not vote for Brexit. We did not vote for this reckless piece of legislation and, quite simply, we want nothing to do with it.

Government amendment 5 is another example of the UK Government completely failing to understand Scotland or our legal system. Although I welcome the amendments in so far as they go to repair the poorly drafted first version of the Bill, with the Lord Advocate now having his or her proper place in the functions of it, it pains me that Scotland has been dragged into this mess at all. Indeed, so great is the concern about the impact of the Bill on Scots law that I understand our amendments have been directly communicated to the Secretary of State by the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, Angus Robertson. I hope that, in that spirit, the Government will now accept them.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

There is too high a bar for UK courts to depart from retained case law, including judgments made and influenced by EU courts, so I rise to resist amendments 38 to 42 and 44 to 47. Clause 7 will free our courts’ developed case law and retained EU law that remains in force, without being unnecessarily constrained by the past judgments of these foreign courts. The clause will introduce new tests for higher courts to apply when considering whether to depart from retained EU case law and retained domestic case law. Lower courts will also be given greater freedom. They will be able to refer points of law relating to retained case law to higher courts for a decision, which, if successful, could result in the lower court departing from retained case law where it would otherwise be bound by it, enabling a faster and more dynamic evolution of our domestic case law away from the influence of EU law.

The clause also provides UK Government Law Officers and Law Officers of the devolved Administrations with the power to refer points of law arising on retained case law to the higher courts where proceedings have concluded. It will give Law Officers the power to intervene in cases before the higher courts and present arguments from them to depart from retained case law. This will ensure the appropriate development of the law as we move away from the influence of EU case law and the rules of interpretation.

The amendments would remove the Scottish courts and Law Officers from the lower to higher court reference procedure and from the Law Officer reference procedure. However, consistent with EU exit legislation, these measures in the Bill will apply to the whole UK. This will give courts in all four of our great nations greater freedom to develop case law unimpeded by the excessive influence of the European courts. In addition, amendment 47 would give Law Officers of the devolved Administrations the power to intervene in reserved matters, which is not constitutionally appropriate.

Proposed new section 6C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, established in clause 7 of the Bill, gives Law Officers the power to intervene in cases before the higher courts and present arguments for them to depart from retained case law following the new tests for departure in the Bill. These provisions are framed so that Law Officers may exercise the intervention powers on behalf of their respective Governments in cases where other Ministers or the Government as a whole have a particular view on the meaning and effect of relevant pieces of retained EU law for which they are responsible.

In the light of a new test for departure from retained case law, the powers will allow the Law Officers to bring such matters before a higher court for a decision after hearing the relevant Government’s view on the correct interpretation of relevant retained EU law. Consequently, it is right that the intervention power is not available in relation to points of law that concern the retained functions of the Lord Advocate as a prosecutor. Those functions concern legislation that is reserved to Westminster. The structure of the Law Officers’ powers is consistent with the established position of the Lord Advocate within the Scottish Government, as in other contexts the structure rightly allows the Lord Advocate to represent the Scottish Government’s views on the interpretation of devolved legislation, but not legislation that is reserved to Westminster.

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

It is clearly not for me to comment on the best way for a Department for domestic English affairs to rule on what English courts and English Law Officers can do and must do. Equally, it is not for anybody here, including those of us from Scotland, to change the rules on what the Law Officers and courts of Scotland can do and must do—that is exclusively for the Parliament of Scotland.

Given the importance that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland repeatedly attached yesterday to the need for consensus when considering any change to the relationship between our two nations, will the Minister confirm that the consensus principle works in both directions, and that no changes will be made to the powers and responsibilities of Scotland’s Law Officers or Scotland’s courts without the explicit consent of the Scottish Government?

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

As I just said, the structure of the Law Officers’ powers is consistent with the established position of the Lord Advocate within the Scottish Government, as in other contexts the structure rightly allows the Lord Advocate to represent the Scottish Government’s views on the interpretation of devolved legislation, but not legislation that is reserved to Westminster. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute to withdraw the amendments.

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

I do not know whether the Minister fully understood the significance of my question. We have not tabled the amendments because we think that the power is being given to the domestic Law Officers and courts of England—that is not for us to comment on. It is not even that we think that what is being proposed is wrong for the domestic Law Officers and courts of Scotland. However, what is completely wrong is for the domestic Parliament of England to legislate on the legally separate legal system of Scotland against the clear objections of the domestic Parliament of Scotland, which speaks on behalf of the sovereign people of Scotland.

If the Minister is convinced that what is proposed in the Bill is in the best interests of justice in Scotland, and if she can persuade the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Law Officers that that is the case, there is no question but that the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament will legislate on those terms. However, on the day after the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland insisted that the relationship between our nations must be based on consensus, the Minister is proposing to drive a coach and horses through that consensus by insisting that this Minister and this Parliament have the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of another nation in this Union. That is a serious breach of the guarantees contained in article 19 of the Treaty of Union, and it is not acceptable.

I invite the Minister to come back, should she so wish, and advise the Committee. In preparation for the Bill, has she had any advice whatsoever on the application of article 19 of the Treaty of Union? Does she know what it says?

Brendan O'Hara (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I absolutely associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes. It is for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Law Officers to decide what they can and cannot do and it is not for this place to impose that. I have always imagined that, in a partnership of equals, each partner has their voice listened to and their opinions respected. Clearly, the Union is not the partnership of equals that we have been led to believe it is. Scots law has always been independent, and it ill behoves the UK Government to try to ignore the democratically elected Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Law Officers, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Brendan O'Hara (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 7, page 7, line 4, leave out

“, if the point of law relates to the meaning or effect of relevant Scotland legislation”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 36, modifies the points of law on which the Lord Advocate may make a reference under the new section 6B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 so that it is not restricted to points of law which relate to the meaning or effect of relevant Scotland legislation.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 37, in clause 7, page 7, line 5, after “legislation” insert

“, or to the retained functions of the Lord Advocate (within the meaning of section 52(6) of the Scotland Act 1998)”.

This amendment modifies the points of law on which the Lord Advocate may intervene under the new section 6B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 so that the power to intervene may be exercised in relation to points of law which concern the retained functions of the Lord Advocate.

Amendment 36, in clause 7, page 8, leave out lines 8 to 21.

This amendment, which is consequential to Amendment 35, modifies the points of law on which the Lord Advocate may make a reference under the new section 6B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, omitting the definition of “relevant Scotland legislation” from section 6B.

Amendment 93, in clause 7, page 9, line 10, leave out

“, if the argument relates to the meaning or effect of relevant Scotland legislation”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 48, modifies the arguments in legal proceedings on which the lord Advocate may intervene under the new section 6C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 so that that section is not restricted to arguments which relate to the meaning or effect of relevant Scotland legislation.

Amendment 48, in clause 7, page 9, line 22, leave out “relevant Scotland legislation,”.

This amendment, which is consequential to Amendment 93, modifies the arguments in legal proceedings on which the Lord Advocate may intervene under the new section 6C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, omitting the definition of “relevant Scotland legislation” from section 6C.

Brendan O'Hara (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I will speak briefly about the amendments, which will remove any restraint the Bill would place on Scotland’s Lord Advocate in making reference to retained EU law.

As it stands, the Bill restricts the Lord Advocate’s power to make reference only to points of law that relate to the meaning or effect of relevant Scottish legislation. There is no corresponding restraint on the power of any other UK Law Officer regarding the law of England or Wales on matters that are reserved. Again, I understand that the message has been communicated directly to the Government by the Scottish Government. On the basis that we take the issue so seriously, I ask that the Government accept our amendments.

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

The comments I made in relation to the last group of amendments are equally, if not more, applicable here. I appreciate that many members of the Committee would not have thought that the submission from the Law Society of Scotland was relevant to the interests of their constituents, nor should it be. The legal systems of the two nations are entirely separate. They are required to be in perpetuity by the Treaty of Union. That is not my favourite piece of legislation, but while it is there it is incumbent on this Parliament to comply with it.

The Law Society of Scotland wanted the whole of proposed new section 6B to be deleted in its entirety. It raised a number of serious concerns in principle, many of which will apply to the application of the legislation to English courts and Law Officers as well. Proposed new section 6B changes the way in which some civil law can be challenged in the courts without changing the way in which other civil law can be challenged in the courts, so the concept of the unity of a single body of civil law starts to be weakened. The legal profession will be extremely concerned about that.

The legal profession is also concerned about the idea that after a civil case has been concluded, when the time for any appeal has passed and the case is settled, Law Officers who are not a party to the case can then intervene, effectively to act as an appellant in a case in which they have no direct interest. That process rightly applies in relation to criminal law, because almost every criminal prosecution involves the Law Officers acting in the name of the Crown on behalf of the public interest.

In fact, in Scotland nobody but the Law Officers is allowed to take a prosecution in the public interest. Bodies such as the Post Office and the Health and Safety Executive are not allowed to prosecute cases in Scotland’s criminal courts. After a case has been concluded, it is perfectly in order for the Law Officers to appeal against the leniency of a sentence, for example, because they were an interested party in prosecuting the case in the first place. That does not apply if it is a civil case, so there is a legal precedent created here that the Law Society of Scotland has raised serious concerns about, as well as very possibly the Law Society of England and Wales.

The clause again threatens compliance with the Treaty of Union—that is how serious it is, Mr Howarth. Passing the clause threatens to be in breach of article 19 of the Treaty of Union, because it makes the Law Officers of England superior to the Law Officers of Scotland. It makes the domestic courts of England superior to the domestic courts of Scotland. Why do I say that? It explicitly allows the Law Officers of England to step in and interfere in a civil case that applies only in Scotland, between two parties who are resident in Scotland and subject to the law of Scotland, where a case has been considered through due process in the domestic courts of Scotland and settled with finality as a matter of Scottish law. At that point, the Law Officers of England are allowed to wade in and interfere in a legal system that has nothing whatsoever to do with them—not on a matter of reserved legislation or one that is within the remit of domestic law in England.

The equivalent power does not apply to the Law Officers of Scotland. There are no circumstances in which Scotland’s senior Law Officers can come in and interfere in a civil case that has been heard in English courts. However, there are circumstances in which the Law Officers of England can interfere after the event in a domestic case in Scotland’s court. That is not equal treatment of the two legal systems. That is not recognition of the right of the Scottish legal system to operate independently of interference from this place. I will take advice on that and I will be interested to hear if the Minister has. That would appear to me to be a deliberate breach of one of the articles of the Treaty of Union. As many will be aware, when one article of a treaty is broken, either party has the right to consider the treaty to have been brought to an end.

I expressed my concerns in the previous sitting of the Committee that the Minister might be about to accidentally repeal hundreds of bits of legislation by mistake. I am tempted to say that we should not interrupt our opponents when they are making a mistake. If this place wants to take the risk of repealing the Treaty of Union by mistake, I will not stand in its way. However, I think I should bring it to hon. Members’ attention so that at least they cannot afterwards say they did not know what they were doing.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

I will try to address all the points raised because I know how seriously they are taken by Opposition Members. The Committee should reject amendments 35, 36, 37, 48 and 93 as they would give Law Officers of the devolved Administrations the power to intervene in reserved matters, which is not constitutionally appropriate.

Amendments 35, 36 and 37 concern proposed new section 6B, established by clause 7 of the Bill, which provides UK Government Law Officers and Law Officers of the devolved Administrations with the power to refer points of law arising from retained case law to the higher courts, when proceedings have concluded, for consideration against the new test for departure set out by the same clause.

Amendments 48 and 93 concern new section 6C, which gives Law Officers the power to intervene in cases before the higher courts and present arguments for them to depart from retained case law following the new test for departure in the Bill. It is right that references and interventions by the Lord Advocate are restricted to the points of law within the devolved competence of the Scottish Government. The provisions are framed so that Law Officers may exercise the reference and intervention powers on behalf of their respective Governments in cases where other Administrations have a particular view on the meaning and effect of a relevant piece of retained EU law for which they are responsible.

The powers allow Law Officers to bring the matters before a higher court, in the light of the new test for departure from retained case law, for a decision after hearing the relevant Government’s view on the correct interpretation of a relevant retained EU law. That will allow Law Officers and the Lord Advocate to ensure an appropriate development of the law as we move away from the influence of EU case law and the rules of interpretation. It would consequently be inappropriate for the Lord Advocate, on behalf of the Scottish Government, to exercise the reference and intervention powers where the points of law relate to reserved legislation. That includes points of law that concern the retained functions of the Lord Advocate as a prosecutor, as those functions concern legislation that is reserved to Westminster.

We consider the structure of the Law Officer powers to be consistent with the established position of the Lord Advocate within the Scottish Government. As in other contexts, the structure rightly allows the Lord Advocate to represent the Scottish Government’s views on the interpretation of devolved legislation but not legislation reserved to Westminster. For those reasons, we ask the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute to withdraw his amendment.

Brendan O'Hara (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes for his very thoughtful contribution. Again, that goes to the heart of the Bill and the bonfire that the Government are setting if they get it wrong, time and again. There are dangers in treating this state as one country—that is what happens when one does not consider the devolution settlement properly. But on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 7, page 9, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert—

“(2) The following are entitled to notice of the proceedings—

(a) each UK law officer;

(b) the Lord Advocate;

(c) the Counsel General for Wales;

(d) the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.”

This amendment and Amendment 6 leave out the definition of “devolved law officer” from subsection (5) of new section 6C of EUWA and instead mention each devolved law officer in subsection (2) of that section.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 6.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

I will be brief. Conservative colleagues will be keen to know that we are accepting amendments 5 and 6, which will remove references to a “devolved law officer” and replace them with the specific titles of the law officers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland where appropriate. This is a policy-neutral change requested by the Scottish Government and tabled by this Government in the spirit of collaboration and co-operation.

Brendan O'Hara (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 7, page 9, line 33, at end insert—

“(11) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament an assessment of the impact of this section on the commitment of the UK enshrined in article 2(2) of the Northern Ireland Protocol.”

This amendment has been tabled in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes. A recurring theme with this Bill has been a lack of attention to detail to either the drafting or to fully understanding the consequences—unintended or otherwise—for great swathes of the UK’s Governments, the economy and wider society. It is breathtaking. The impact of the massive changes that will be brought about by the Bill has been at best an afterthought, and at worst completely ignored. It is reckless, and some could reasonably argue that it is a dereliction of duty on the Government’s part.

This lack of attention to detail will be most acutely felt in Northern Ireland, and in the impact that clause 7 could have on the protocol. Given that the primacy of EU law will be removed by this Bill, but it has been retained and reaffirmed in the Northern Ireland protocol, will the Minister explain how the two pieces of legislation are expected to interact with each other? The Government have committed to there being

“no diminution of rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity”

in Northern Ireland.

What mechanisms have been established to assess and monitor how that is working? The very least that the people of Northern Ireland deserve is a thorough and detailed assessment of the Bill’s exact impact on the protocol. That is why we ask the Secretary of State to, within three months of the Bill passing,

“lay before both Houses of Parliament an assessment of the impact”

that the Bill has had

“on the commitment of the UK enshrined in article 2(2) of the Northern Ireland Protocol.”

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

The Government have already committed to ensuring that the necessary legislation is in place to uphold the UK’s international obligations, including the Northern Ireland protocol. The UK is committed to ensuring that rights and equality protections continue to be upheld in Northern Ireland. I therefore ask the Committee to reject this amendment.

Article 2’s reference to

“no diminution of rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity”

demonstrates the UK Government’s commitment to ensuring that the protections currently in place in Northern Ireland of the rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity provisions set out in the relevant chapter of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement are not diminished as a result of the UK leaving the EU. The provisions in the Bill enable the Government to ensure that the retained EU law that gives effect to article 2 of the protocol is preserved beyond the sunset, or that an alternative provision is created to meet such requirements. The restatement power will also allow the UK and devolved Governments to codify case law and other interpretative effects where it is considered necessary to maintain article 2 commitments.

Clause 7’s provisions concerning case law do not apply in relation to obligations under the protocol. Section 6(6A) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act continues to apply, so that our new test for departing from retained EU case law is subject to the rights and obligations in the protocol. The House already has its usual robust and effective scrutiny processes in place to hold Ministers accountable in relation to the Government’s commitments under the Northern Ireland protocol. In addition, these are bespoke arrangements in relation to the EU Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee where the UK and EU jointly oversee each other’s implementation, application and interpretation of the withdrawal agreement, including the Northern Ireland protocol—for example, the publication of the annual report of the Joint Committee to aid Members’ scrutiny.

Adequate processes are already in place, and the introduction of a new statutory reporting requirement is not an appropriate use of Government or parliamentary time. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute to withdraw the amendment.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

It would be incredibly helpful if the Minister could clarify what she said about bespoke arrangements for Northern Ireland. Under article 2 of the protocol we have an obligation to uphold the institutions, including the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. Is she therefore saying that there are instances in which EU law will be retained because of the Northern Ireland protocol? Is she committing to upholding EU law where those institutions propose that it is part of upholding the Good Friday agreement? She said they were bespoke arrangements. Can she clarify that? It is quite an important point.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

The preservation and restatement powers in the Bill or other existing domestic powers, such as section 8C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, will ensure that retained EU law that gives effect to article 2 rights is either maintained beyond the sunset or the alternative provision is created to meet such requirements. The delegated powers in the Bill, particularly the restatement powers, will provide the ability to recreate the effects of secondary retained EU law, including the interpretative effects of case law and general principles of supremacy where it is necessary to uphold article 2 rights. That provides a mechanism through which national authorities might implement article 2 obligations. As I said earlier, I asked the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute to withdraw the amendment.

Brendan O'Hara (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I will not push the amendment to a vote, but we will return to it on Report. I remain completely unclear, given the timeframe, how EU law will be removed by the Bill, but be maintained and reaffirmed in the protocol. I am unclear how that actually works.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

The hon. Member is making a fair point. The people of Northern Ireland deserve some clarity because, if the Bill takes away the supremacy of EU law, as we discussed earlier, but the Government are committing that there will be instances in which article 2 rights will be upheld, it would be helpful to understand what those instances are and what the process is. Who will determine what EU law can be retained? The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, for example, could be part of that, but it is not clear how the process works. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we owe it to the people of Northern Ireland to set out that process now?

Brendan O'Hara (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. Such muddled thinking and the unintended consequences of pushing it through so quickly go to the heart of the Bill. There are consequences to setting a ridiculously unachievable sunset clause. The thinking time that should have gone into the Bill has not happened. Although I will not push the amendment to a vote now, I strongly urge the Government to work on it to be able to explain on Report exactly how the measure will work. It is far too important to the people of Northern Ireland to let it wither on the vine and hope it does not come back. This is hugely important, but I will not press it a vote.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

The bar for the UK courts to depart from retained case law in the judgments of EU courts is too high, and there continues to be an overriding desire for our judicial decisions to remain in line with the opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Clause 7 will free our courts to develop case law and retained EU law that remains in force without being unnecessarily constrained by the past judgments of these now foreign courts.

Clause 8 - Compatibility

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

It is a privilege to spend the afternoon with you in the Chair again, Sir George.

In certain areas of legislation, for example on data protection, it is likely necessary to specify that certain effects of the existing legislative hierarchy are maintained, to ensure the continuation of the legal regime. The clause therefore establishes a new power to maintain intended policy outcomes by specifying the legislative hierarchy between specific provisions of domestic legislation and provisions of retained direct EU legislation or assimilated direct legislation to maintain the current policy effect.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I have only a couple of questions. As I said, the Opposition consider the clause to be sensible, but will the Minister outline whether any assessment has been done as to what circumstances it is likely to be used in? What steps will the Government take to preserve the intent of the measure after 23 June 2026, when regulations made under the Bill will expire?

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

The hon. Gentleman asked about assessment. The REUL reform programme has been under way for more than a year. Departments have been engaged as to the effect of removing EU law principles—such as that the EU is the only one that can create principles and legislation—which is what we are working on. The work will continue to take place.

On the evidence about changing interpretation rules under clause 4, in specific cases—data protection regulation and competition law—removing the principles of interpretation as set out in the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will cause unintended policy consequences as a result of the way that the legislation has been written. The compatibility power will ensure that the relationships between individual pieces of domestic legislation going forward are maintained. We intend that to ensure that our domestic law operates as the UK Government want it to. Each Department will of course be responsible for REUL elements within their portfolio.

Clause 9 - Incompatibility orders

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

I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 9, page 10, line 36, at end insert—

“(4A) Within 28 days of the making of an incompatibility order, a Minister of the Crown must, by written statement, set out the Government’s view on the incompatibility. The statement must include consideration of the impact the incompatibility order has on rights of and protections for consumers, workers, and businesses, and protections of the environment and animal welfare, and whether the Government intends to produce regulations to revoke, amend or clarify the law in light of the order.”

This amendment requires ministers to set out, through a ministerial statement, their position on an incompatibility order that includes a consideration of the impact it will have on the rights of people.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

With this it will be convenient to consider clause stand part.

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

The amendment would require Ministers to report to Parliament with a written statement in the event that a court made an order to declare that EU law and domestic law are incompatible. As we explained in relation to previous amendments, the Bill could impact on many fundamental rights of citizens in multiple areas of daily life. It could also interfere with important existing environmental protections, which I have explained at length in previous amendments.

The clause might have the effect of a court setting aside laws that guarantee such rights and protections, without giving Parliament any opportunity to ensure they can continue in place. In the interests of transparency and proper scrutiny, the amendment is designed to ensure that Parliament is alerted if that happens, enabling us to scrutinise the court decision and to consider whether we should exercise our rights to legislate to ensure that there is no confusion about Parliament’s intentions. It is not my intention to press this amendment to a vote, but I would like the Minister to explain how we can ensure proper scrutiny when such clashes inevitably occur.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

The clause gives the judiciary powers in connection with the ending of the supremacy of EU law. It requires a court or tribunal to issue an incompatibility order where retained direct EU legislation cannot be read consistently with other pieces of domestic legislation. It gives the judiciary broad discretion to adapt the order to the case before it. That includes granting remedies to the effect of the incompatibility.

Courts generally have wide discretion to grant remedies that they may grant in a given case, and the clause is consistent with that principle. Where the court considers it relevant, the order could set out the effect of the incompatible provision in that particular case, delay the coming into force of the order, or remove or limit the effect of the operation of the relevant provision in other ways before the incompatibility order comes into force.

The clause is a matter of judicial process. It grants powers to the courts but does not change any rights or protections in and of themselves, which is a matter for Parliament in the scrutiny of this Bill. We do not need to create a new scrutiny process for incompatibility orders. A process of “declaration of incompatibility”, similar to that set out in clause 9, exists under the Human Rights Act 1998, and no new scrutiny procedure, such as the one proposed by this amendment, has been deemed necessary. Similar court orders could also be made under the European Communities Act 1972, where conflicts arose—again, with no such scrutiny procedure.

Once again, the hon. Member for Leeds North West raised environmental regulations. To repeat myself, we will not weaken environmental protections. The UK is a world leader in environmental protection and, in reviewing our retained EU law, we want to ensure that environmental law is fit for purpose and able to drive improved environmental outcomes. We are committed to delivering our legally binding target of halting nature’s decline by 2030. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

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

I take on board what the Minister says, although that last comment on the environment is slightly galling considering that on 31 October the Government were meant to bring forward, under their own domestic post-Brexit legislation—the Environment Act 2021—targets on a whole range of areas, including air quality and water quality. It is now 24 November and we still have no targets. If I am a little concerned about the Government’s performance here, she should not be surprised, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 10 - Scope of powers

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 10, page 11, line 12, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) for sub-paragraph (2), substitute—

(2) Power may only be exercised by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) if—

(a) a written statement explaining the modification has been published by the Secretary of State,

(b) the Secretary of State has made an oral statement on the modification to both Houses of Parliament, and

(c) the Secretary of State has published an assessment of the impact of the modification.”

The intention of the amendment is to do what Brexit was supposed to do: restore some parliamentary oversight to the way in which the Government make and change legislation in this place. The amendment is pretty self-explanatory. It is not ideal that Ministers are giving extensive powers to chop and change laws as they see fit. If, in exceptional circumstances, it is necessary for them to have those powers, the very least Parliament should expect is that Ministers will be held to account and will explain to Parliament—ideally beforehand, but certainly afterwards—why they have done what they have done and what the impact has been.

If the Minister genuinely believes in improving accountability in this place, she will accept the amendment. In saying that, it is clear that all Ministers—nothing against this Minister—in all Public Bill Committees are under instruction not to accept anything from the Opposition. If we moved an amendment that said, “Today’s Thursday”, the Government would keep talking until it was Friday and then vote it down.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

I recognise that none of that was directed at me personally, but rather collectively at all Ministers. I beg hon. Members to reject the amendment. The Government recognise the significant role that Parliament has played in scrutinising instruments to date and we are committed to ensuring the appropriate scrutiny of any secondary legislation made under existing delegated powers. We must end the restriction that some existing powers may only be used to amend retained direct principal EU legislation or rights under section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 if they are also capable of amending domestic primary legislation.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes suggests that a written ministerial statement made by a Secretary of State is accompanied by an oral statement when an existing power is exercised. I remind him that all statutory instruments that are subject to parliamentary procedure must be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum. These memorandums provide Parliament with the information and explanations required. When powers are exercised by virtue of paragraph 3(1) to schedule 8, explanatory memorandums would be laid as appropriate. Any statutory instrument that reforms retained direct EU legislation made under existing delegated powers will be subject to the proper processes for impact assessments. However, a blanket requirement for impact assessments is not appropriate as some reforms could fall below the de minimis threshold set out in the “Better regulation framework” guidance.

Now that we have left the EU, it is only appropriate for retained direct EU legislation that was not scrutinised or approved by Parliament to be treated in the same way as domestic secondary legislation, which is amendable by existing delegated powers that this Parliament has approved. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

The difference, of course, is that any secondary legislation—even if it is done by the affirmative procedure—goes through a Delegated Legislation Committee in which, at best, three or four of the parties in this House are represented. For the last seven and a half years, the Scottish National party has been represented in those Committees because of the exceptional level of support that it enjoys in our country, but there are Members of Parliament, who collectively represent the interests of a lot of constituents, who never get on to Delegated Legislation Committees. The only chance they get to question the Minister about secondary legislation is if the Minister makes an oral statement before the House. Publishing something is all very well, but Members of Parliament who are not in one of the big three or four parties do not get the automatic right to question Ministers on a written statement—they do get the automatic right to questions Ministers on an oral statement. It is quite clear which way this is going, so I will not detain the Committee by pushing the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Brendan O'Hara (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 10, page 11, line 18, leave out from “paragraph 3” to the end of line 23 and insert

“may not be so made, confirmed or approved unless a draft of the legislation has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, (as the case may be) both Houses of Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

The amendment is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes. As we have argued since the date of publication, the Bill not only undermines the devolution settlement, but puts at risk workers’ rights, product safety, food labelling, the future of the agricultural sector, and the natural environment. Clause 10 allows for all that to happen with the bare minimum of parliamentary scrutiny, allowing everything to be dealt with via secondary legislation, and thereby conveniently avoiding the intense parliamentary scrutiny that these measures most certainly require. Clause 10 would make it easier for the Government to remove our rights and protections by using delegated powers, and therefore circumvent parliamentary scrutiny, avoid transparency and evade accountability to all Members of Parliament. This is the Executive power grab people have been talking about since the day the Bill was published.

When the Bill was published, the Government told everyone who would listen that this was all about the United Kingdom taking back control and asserting the sovereignty of this Parliament, as opposed to—in their words—shady deals being agreed in small committees in Brussels, but it does not feel like that. Who exactly is it that is taking back control here? It is not this Parliament, and it is not Members of this House, because the Government have already gleefully announced that when it comes to retained EU law,

“the amount of parliamentary time that is required has been dramatically reduced.”

It seems that for the Government taking back control means putting a group of hand-picked party loyalists on to a Delegated Legislation Committee—a Committee that, as we know, has a built-in Government majority—which will bulldoze through change after change after change, as instructed. The history of DL Committees is not particularly encouraging; in the past 65 years, only 17 statutory instruments have been voted down by a DL Committee—and that has not happened since 1979.

Although there is certainly a role for DL Committees, I do not believe that that extends to them making wholesale, fundamental changes to vast swathes of the law—on matters covering everything from the environment, nature and consumer protection through to workers’ rights, product safety and agriculture—just to help the Government avoid proper parliamentary scrutiny. The reason they are avoiding parliamentary scrutiny is that, in their fervour to get rid of any lingering European influence, the wide-eyed zealots at the heart of this dysfunctional Government have arbitrarily imposed a sunset clause for December next year. This is not just the view of the Opposition; it is a widely-held view. Professor Catherine Barnard warned against the lack of parliamentary scrutiny afforded, saying:

“Although there is a process for parliamentary oversight, it will be difficult in the timeframe to ensure that that oversight can be exercised in a manner that enables Parliament properly to scrutinise the measures as they come through.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 16, Q27.]

In his evidence, George Peretz KC warned,

“One of the problems with the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny is that although one hears that Parliament has powers… the background against which it is being asked to approve legislation means that if it votes against that legislation, the sunset clause will apply and regulations disappear completely, rather weakening Parliament’s ability to do anything.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 32, Q61.]

Amendments 50 and 51 seek to avoid that situation by obliging the Secretary of State to deliver both a written and an oral statement, as well as an impact assessment, before exercising any powers to repeal any legislation. How many times over the course of the first two sittings of this Committee did hon. Members raise concerns that, even now, just 13 months out from the date of revocation, the Government are still finding pieces of EU-related legislation? Indeed, 1,400 have been found in the last couple of weeks alone.

There is an almost terrifying inevitability that, in their desire to pile on the bonfire anything and everything that is remotely related to the European Union, mistakes will be made, things will be missed, consequences not thought through and impacts not understood. With the utterly reckless haste of the Government, that is going to happen. Amendment 50 would put a brake on that ideological runaway train, and force the Secretary of State to deliver both a written and an oral statement, as well as an impact assessment.

Amendment 51 should not be problematic to the Government given how much we have been told in the last 24 hours how valued and important Scotland is to this Union. If that is the case, make us an equal partner and let us decide when we want to use legislation to remove laws—and extend the courtesy of affirmative procedure to those other valued and equal partners in the Parliaments in Belfast and Cardiff too—before anything can be scrapped.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

I ask hon. Members to reject the amendment. Clause 10 ensures that appropriate parliamentary scrutiny is applied to the use of existing delegated powers when they are used to amend retained direct EU legislation or section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 rights. It is this Government’s view that the appropriate procedure applied when amending retained direct EU legislation should be the same as the procedure applied to domestic secondary legislation. Any additional procedure, such as that proposed by the hon. Member, would be disproportionate given the type of legislation retained direct EU legislation is composed of.

It would be wholly inappropriate if, for example, updating individual provisions adding cheese and honey to the simplified active substance list required the approval of both Houses of Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Parliament. Making it easier to use pre-existing powers to amend assimilated retained direct EU legislation, while ensuring it receives the most suitable level of parliamentary scrutiny, will ensure our regulations can be kept up to date, supporting growth across the whole UK.

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

The Minister referred to domestic secondary legislation. Does she not understand that if a piece of secondary legislation relates exclusively to, for example, a devolved power of Senedd Cymru, as far as this place is concerned that is not domestic law—it is somebody else’s domestic law—and this Parliament should keep out of it?

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

I think we have covered the point of domestic law, law in Westminster and the role of Attorneys General. At the moment, we are forced to treat some retained direct EU legislation as equivalent to an Act of Parliament when amending it. It is no longer appropriate for retained direct EU legislation to keep the status of primary legislation when most of it has not had anywhere close to the same level of UK parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute to withdraw the amendment.

Brendan O'Hara (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I will withdraw the amendment, but it is something that we will return to on Report. This is an Executive power grab; it is a weakening of the role and influence of Members of Parliament in favour of the Executive. It is intolerable, and I hope that, when we do get to discuss it on Report, we will have the combined support of the Opposition. This is a dangerous road that we do not want to go down, and something we should avoid at all costs. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

With this it will be convenient to debate that schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

Hon. Members are already aware that clause 10 modifies powers contained in other statutes that can be exercised to make secondary legislation amending former directly effective EU law. Schedule 1 makes related amendments with similar effect to alter the procedural requirements in relation to other powers to amend retained direct principal EU legislation in line with the changes made in clause 10 to schedule 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Schedule 1 also contains amendments that are consequential on the changes to the EU withdrawal Act in clause 10. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 11 - Procedural requirements

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I beg to move amendment 81, in clause 11, page 13, line 26, leave out subsections (1) and (2).

This amendment removes the subsections that omit and replace paragraphs 13, 14, and 15 from the European Withdrawal Act 2018, and thereby leaves intact the existing scrutiny procedure for instruments which amend or revoke subordinate legislation made under s2(2) of the ECA 1972.

Good afternoon, Sir George. In essence, the amendment would remove the subsections that omit and replace paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of schedule 8 to the EU withdrawal Act and leave intact the scrutiny procedure inserted for instruments that amend or revoke subordinate legislation made under the European Communities Act 1972.

If Ministers wish to revoke retained EU law, they are currently subject to what I would consider to be an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny, with mandatory explanatory statements, mandatory periods of prior parliamentary scrutiny and the mandatory use of draft affirmative procedures. Those enhanced provisions were inserted during the passage of the EU withdrawal Act in 2018 because Parliament considered such enhanced scrutiny necessary and proportionate, given the vast and varied nature of retained EU law and the potential impact of changes that we have debated at length over the past few days. We are talking about important environmental rights, workers’ rights and consumer rights. As we can see from the submissions made to the Committee, it appears that social media platforms are also at risk of being inadvertently switched off as a result of the Bill. We therefore think that this enhanced scrutiny is required.

I gather that the Government’s response as to why the requirements from the EU withdrawal Act can be watered down is that they believe those procedures have brought no tangible benefit. However, it is difficult to see what the rationale is for reducing the level of scrutiny when Parliament as a whole obviously thought that they were important enough to place in the Act just a few years ago. Could the Minister set out why she considers that a lower level is now appropriate?

I hear what the Hansard Society said about these procedures not having been used extensively thus far, but we are, of course, talking about something of an entirely different order to what we have seen to date. The procedures have mainly been used to maintain the status quo, but we are on a different and possibly uncertain trajectory now. It is clear from the Government’s refusal to accept any of our amendments to protect any pieces of regulation that there are going to be dramatic changes as a result of the Bill. Removing the requirement for the affirmative procedure will, once again, see a significant erosion of Parliament’s ability to scrutinise and hold Ministers to account when they amend the law. Why should parliamentarians not have greater involvement in the process set out in the Bill?

I have said this a number of times, but we really should aim to do better in the Bill. We should ensure that we are confident that, when changes are made, both Houses are able to scrutinise Ministers’ decisions. We will probably be presented, yet again, with arguments as to why we do not need such levels of scrutiny because these laws were foisted on us against our will in the first place, but that is essentially a way of saying that two wrongs make a right. I do not accept that. As I explained extensively on Tuesday, there has been a great deal of involvement on the part of UK politicians and representatives in the development of EU laws. I just do not accept the characterisation of these laws as having been foisted on us as correct.

I am not going to rehash all the arguments at the length I did the other day. I merely reaffirm that scrutiny is important, and when we, as parliamentarians, are faced with such a ministerial power grab, we should be concerned about trying to restrain it in some way. That is what this amendment seeks to do.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

I call the Minister.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

rose—

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

Sorry, I call Stella Creasy.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Apologies, Sir George, I was waiting for an affirmative action—in the same way I am waiting for an affirmative version of scrutiny from this legislation.

I rise to support amendment 81 because it is the nub of the issue, isn’t it? This is exactly what taking back control was supposed to be all about. It was about giving this place the powers that it was claimed had been cruelly taken from us by being part of the European Union. It is a while now, if we are honest, since we had the Brexit debates, but I do not recall a single leaflet that said, “Taking back control to Downing Street. Taking back control to a civil service office that would advise a Minister to pass an SI.” Yet, that is exactly what this piece of legislation will do on thousands and thousands of laws that our constituents care about because they have depended on them existing for generations.

I totally understand the challenge for Government MPs. Whether they were elected in 2019 or before, their experience of this Government has been of stability—of confidence in every decision and every piece of legislation that has been introduced. So they have never felt the need to question things or to have a mechanism whereby they could have a voice. What I often hear them loudly saying is, “In Downing Street we trust”—

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Whoever is in it this week.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Whoever is in it at any point—this week, next week, come what may.

The point is that parliamentary scrutiny is not a bad thing. Those of us who are democrats think it is quite a good and healthy thing.

Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does she recognise the way this procedure contrasts with the way these laws were originally made? Obviously, under the co-decision making in the European Union, laws are not made only by the Commission, which is characterised as the bureaucrats. They can be passed only with the active engagement and approval of the Council of Ministers, consisting of elected representatives from each member state, and the European Parliament, consisting of directly elected Members. Does it not appear that, when Government Members talk about taking back control, the democratic deficit that they once spoke of, pointing their fingers at Brussels, will now be pointed out here?

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

My hon. Friend has alighted on the fundamental challenge here. Obviously, it is a case of Council of Ministers—bad; individual Minister—no problem whatever. That seems to be what this Bill is doing and the process that MPs are setting up. As somebody who is hopeful that—not too long from now—Labour Members will be sitting on the Government side of this room, I still think it is a good idea for Back-Bench MPs to be able to raise questions, to table amendments and to have a voice. I thought taking back control was very much about saying that we did not trust Ministers when they joined a Council, but we did trust them when they had to face parliamentary scrutiny and to be in front of MPs who could ask them questions—difficult or otherwise, approved by the Whips or not. I know that my Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside, will catch my eye at this point. Amendment 81 would restore the scrutiny powers that we all agreed to in the EU withdrawal Act in the end and that were part of a process of giving people in this place more opportunity to influence what would happen next.

There is a practical challenge here. If we have all accepted that we do not even know which laws will be covered, because the dashboard will not be updated until next year, will all of us on this Committee be completely confident when a constituent comes to us and says, “You did X, but your Parliament did Y. Tell me the reason for that. Did you vote for that? Where were you when laws were passed that led to Facebook stopping working in the UK? Where were you when laws were passed that led to pension protections being deleted? What did you say? Did you vote for it? How did you represent me in that process?”—and answer there comes none, because the powers were entirely with Ministers, and the power of scrutiny, which MPs in this place could have saved and given to colleagues, was abandoned?

It is very concerning to see the Government try to delete paragraph 15, which simply requires them to explain why they thought it was necessary to revoke a piece of legislation. I return to the discussion we had on Tuesday about the Bauer and Hampshire judgments. Some might argue that, because one of those judgments went against the Government, judgments about pension protections were no longer required, but making the Government explain why they have chosen not to retain a piece of legislation that has been part of our pension protections for a number of years does not seem unreasonable. This is the sort of issue that our constituents might well raise if they are directly affected by it. If we multiply that by 4,000, we have 4,000 questions about why we chose to revoke laws.

Paragraph 15 simply asks the Government to set out why. Are we in a place now where Ministers are so worried about being held to account that they cannot even tell us why they are not doing things, let alone why they are doing things? It is one thing to come up with alternative legislation, but given that the Bill will give Ministers powers to change laws by not bringing forward legislation, it is entirely reasonable, in a parliamentary democracy, to ask them to account for why they are not doing things, as well as for why they are.

Government Members may have complete faith and confidence in the ability of current Ministers to make good decisions, and if those Ministers no longer wish to have a piece of legislation, Government Members will not need to question that. If they are confident about that 4,000 times and rising and confident about laws that they do not even know will be affected, so be it. But if they are not—if there is one scintilla of doubt about the fact that their constituents might want them to at least ask a question or seek clarification—the amendment is the mechanism that would allow that to happen. Members—on both sides of the House—give up these controls and parliamentary mechanisms at our peril. Just as courts keep Governments honest, parliamentary scrutiny keeps MPs on their toes, and that can only be a good thing.

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

I stand to speak in favour of the amendment, although, at best, all it seeks to do is take an entirely unacceptable clause and make it slightly less unacceptable. Clause 11 is about a Henry VIII power; it is about removing protections for this House that were, ironically, forced on the Government by Members of the other House. I am not a great fan of unelected legislatures anywhere—I certainly do not want my country even partly ruled by one—but I have to say to Conservative Members that when the House of Lords is keener on protecting the rights of this House than Government Back-Bench and Front-Bench Members are, the Government really do need to look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves: are we a democratic Government or are we not?

I support the limited improvements to the clause, but if the amendment falls, I will seek to divide the Committee to exclude clause 11 in its entirety.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

I ask hon. Members to reject the amendment. Unless I was in a different Committee Room, or on a different planet, I think Opposition Members have had every opportunity to raise their voices, because we have heard much from them today and on Tuesday, and we have had much scrutiny as well. Our constituents know exactly what we are doing because it is all noted in Hansard.

The amendment would render clause 11 without purpose. Subsections (1) and (2) ensure the removal of additional parliamentary scrutiny requirements, established in the EU withdrawal Act, in relation to the amendment or revocation of secondary legislation made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. Subsections (1) and (2) will ensure that when secondary legislation made under section 2(2) ECA is being amended or revoked using other delegated powers, the only parliamentary scrutiny requirements that will apply are those attached to the power being used. These delegated powers have their own parliamentary scrutiny procedure attached, which has been approved by Parliament, ensuring suitable scrutiny will continue to occur.

It is imperative that additional scrutiny requirements are removed, because it is clearly inappropriate that legislation created solely to implement our obligations as a member of the EU enjoys this privileged status. What is more, no tangible benefit has been identified as a result of these scrutiny requirements; as was mentioned, that was referenced in the evidence session by Dr Ruth Fox of the Hansard Society. In practice, they add a layer of complexity that makes it difficult to make amendments to legislation containing section 2(2) ECA provisions.

Removing these requirements reflects the main purpose of this Bill, which is to take a new approach to retained EU law, removing the precedence given in UK law to law derived from the EU that is no longer considered fit for purpose.

Brendan O'Hara (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Minister said that we get our voices heard, including in this Committee, and that may well be true for the Government, the official Opposition and SNP members. However, we have heard a lot today about Northern Ireland. When is the voice of the Democratic Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party going to be heard? We have heard a lot about the environment, but where is the voice of the Greens? Where is the voice of Plaid Cymru? Where is the voice of the Liberal Democrats? They will not be heard in a Delegated Legislation Committee. We are not talking about the voice of Parliament, but the voice of a DL Committee, which is very restricted.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

The hon. Member is not being wholly honest. The level of scrutiny of any piece of legislation, not only in Committee but on the Floor of this House and the Floor of the other place, takes place for all items of legislation.

The hon. Member will be well aware of the evidence session we had just a few weeks ago, when we had a number of people from environmental agencies who previously had Green credentials or who were previously Green or Lib Dem candidates. So it is not as if those voices are not heard.

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

rose—

Brendan O'Hara (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

rose—

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

I therefore ask the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston to withdraw his amendment.

Brendan O'Hara (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

rose—

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

I know you were trying to intervene. Do you want to make a speech?

Brendan O'Hara (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

No, I was trying to intervene on the Minister.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

I call Justin Madders.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I think the irony is noted: the Minister says that everyone has their opportunity to speak and then does not give way to interventions.

Luke Evans (Conservative, Bosworth)

On a point of order, Sir George. I think it is fair to say that the Minister has given way numerous times. It is a little churlish to suggest that she has not, and I would like Hansard to observe that.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, it is not up to me to decide whether a Minister, or anyone else, should give way during a speech. So, strictly speaking, it is not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

The convention is of course that Ministers give way when asked to in Bill Committee, because that is the point of a Bill Committee—that we have the opportunity to scrutinise legislation and question the Minister on its intent. I think the record will show that that has not been possible on every occasion.

That is why this amendment is so important, because the Government are obsessed with keeping power for themselves. The idea that the decision to leave the EU was about taking back control was not about the people of this country; it was about Ministers in Parliament making decisions that they do not have to address the elected representatives of this country on and that they do not have to justify. They are hiding away from proper accountability. That is not what taking back control is about.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said it is clear that Government Members have no scintilla of doubt about the intentions of the Government and are confident that nothing untoward will happen. Well, if the last scintilla of doubt has ridden out of town for them, it is certainly very much in the high street for us, because we are concerned about the Government’s intentions. We have plenty of reasons to be concerned that they will not maintain laws that we want maintained and that our constituents expect to see maintained. So we want to push this amendment to a vote.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite worrying that the Minister is conflating scrutiny of the Bill, and Opposition Members raising concerns about the process set out in it, with scrutiny of the subsequent statutory instruments that will be laid by Ministers under the Bill to address the 4,000 pieces of legislation that will be deleted by it? The Committee is scrutinising the Bill itself, not its impact. That the two are being conflated—the idea being that no further scrutiny should be required—is troubling. We do not know what impact the Bill will have, only the powers that it asks for. Does my hon. Friend agree that separating out those two things is important in taking back control?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I agree, and I hope that by the time the Bill reaches its conclusion we have clearer answers on how Parliament will be able to properly scrutinise many of the powers that the Government are awarding themselves in the Bill. I will press the amendment to a vote.

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

I oppose the inclusion of clause 11, as I indicated earlier. I will give the Minister credit and assume that she just got confused. She has attempted to justify removing the requirement for full parliamentary consideration of a Bill to revoke European legislation and turning it all into secondary legislation. Not content with insisting on a sunset clause that means that if that secondary legislation does not get approved, nothing gets approved, she then attempted to justify removing the requirement to use the affirmative process for the vast majority of that legislation and instead use the negative process, which we all know is an even weaker form of parliamentary scrutiny. She completely missed the point. In fact, I think she confused the status of a Public Bill Committee such as this with that of a Delegated Legislation Committee, which she thinks is an adequate way for some of these important regulations to be considered.

The reason this Public Bill Committee exists is that the legislation was approved—not unanimously, by any means—by the House of Commons. The only requirement that anybody had to speak and vote on Second Reading was that the people of their constituency chose them to represent them in Parliament. Every member of the Committee is here because our party Whips chose to put us here. We were not elected to it by our people. We had to be elected to be in the Chamber of the House of Commons, but it is the Whips who decided who got to serve on this Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute has said, Northern Ireland Members never get the opportunity to have their voice heard on a Delegated Legislation Committee, though they do have a voice on Second and Third Reading. There is also no automatic right for Wales to be represented. Wales is represented in this place by four political parties, but there is only one voice from Wales on this Committee. That did not have to happen; the Whips could easily have put someone else on it instead.

Only one of the many parties in this House from Scotland is represented on the Committee. As the other parties keep reminding us, the SNP speaks for a significant number of people in Scotland but not for the whole country. There are Lib Dem and Conservative MPs and one Labour MP from Scotland who for speak for their people, as well.

The process that the Minister and her party claim is adequate is a very weak process. At one point she suggested—unintentionally, I think—that legislation does get properly scrutinised and that is what this Public Bill Committee is about. But that is the core point, is it not? If these changes were being made through secondary legislation, there would be no Public Bill Committee and no opportunity to amend the provisions. That is another crucial difference, especially when looking at tonnes of complex legislation.

In a Delegated Legislation Committee, the choice is to take it or leave it. There is no process by which any Member of Parliament can amend delegated legislation once it is brought to Committee. Even if 649 out of 650 Members of Parliament decided on the day that they wanted to amend it, they would not be allowed to that. All we can do is vote down such legislation and pray to God that the Government have the time and inclination to bring a better version back.

And then we have December 2023 hanging over us like the sword of Damocles. It would be a very high-risk strategy indeed for any DL Committee to vote down any of the legislation that the Government intend to bring forward under this Bill, because there would then be a very high risk that inadequate, insufficient protective legislation would be replaced by nothing whatsoever. That is what is at stake here. It is not just a matter of semantics as to which kind of Committee decides these things in a Committee Room of the House of Commons.

If we are talking about bringing back control to Parliament, Parliament does not have full control over consideration of statutory instruments. That is, first of all, the reserve of the Government. Such scrutiny as takes place is inevitably restricted to a very small number of Members of Parliament, representing a relatively small number of the political parties represented in this place. As I say, an entire nation of the United Kingdom will never get to be represented on a DL Committee, even if the legislation almost exclusively relates to that nation of the UK. It is not an acceptable way for major legislation to be introduced and considered, and it is certainly not an acceptable way for major legislation to be approved.

Luke Evans (Conservative, Bosworth)

If Scotland were to be independent and part of the EU, the European Council uses majority voting so members have to like or lump whatever they are given at the end of the vote. At the end of the day, someone has to make a decision and Government have to decide. How would that fit if Scotland were independent?

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

I cannot speak about what decisions the Scottish Parliament will take after we are independent, but I look forward to seeing that day before any of us are very much older. I am confident that it is a modern, democratic Parliament with much improved scrutiny procedures. For example, in the Scottish Parliament it would have been impossible for us to have two changes of Prime Minister without the explicit approval of the Parliament. Nobody can become a Minister of the Scottish Government without being approved by the Scottish Parliament. There is much greater parliamentary accountability for the Executive than there is ever going to be here.

My confident expectation is that when an independent Scotland goes back into the European Union, the Scottish Parliament will have a much greater role in scrutinising the actions of our Ministers, acting on our behalf, at the European Council than this Parliament has ever had. As I have said to the Committee before, the problem with lack of accountability and scrutiny of European legislation is not because the European Union’s processes are flawed, but because parliamentary accountability in this place is fundamentally flawed.

If I intended to be part of this establishment for much longer, I would be attempting to improve its processes in order to bring it into line with proper democratic Parliaments, such as the one in Scotland. Given that neither I nor any of my colleagues from Scotland are likely to be here for very much longer, I will have to leave it to those who remain to sort out the mess of a Parliament that they have created.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

Our objective is not to remove power from Parliament. Our objective is to ensure that amendments or revocations made to subordinate legislation made under other existing powers receive the most appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. Fundamentally, people need to accept the Brexit vote and appreciate that we have to have sovereignty here. I do not think we are going to win that argument—we are too far apart.

When the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 was agreed, additional parliamentary scrutiny requirements were agreed in relation to the amendment or revocation of secondary legislation made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. It is clearly inappropriate that legislation created solely to implement our obligations as a member of the EU enjoys that privileged status. We therefore seek to remove those requirements. This reflects the main purpose of the Bill—removing the precedence given in UK law to EU-derived law—which is no longer fit for purpose now that the UK has left the EU. I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - Power to restate retained EU law

Brendan O'Hara (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 12, page 15, line 1, leave out subsection (3).

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 8 and 9.

Amendment 54, in clause 12, page 15, line 13, leave out subsection (7).

Clause stand part.

Government amendments 10 to 13.

Clause 13 stand part.

Brendan O'Hara (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I will speak to amendments 53 and 54 on behalf of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes. Members will be aware that clause 12 is about the mechanism that will allow UK Government Ministers, or Ministers in the devolved Administrations, to restate or protect current retained EU law so that it does not fall away automatically at the end of 2023.

Thanks to the insidious Internal Market Act 2020, there is, as with so much of this Bill, huge confusion about which areas are devolved and which areas remained reserved. That problem was recognised by Charles Whitmore from the school of law and politics at Cardiff University when he gave evidence. He highlighted the issues surrounding restatement powers, particularly for the devolved Governments, taking into account the role of the Internal Market Act. He told the Committee:

“If you start thinking about the different uses that might be made of the restatement powers, and which parts of the UK might take different approaches to supremacy and the general principles, the level of uncertainty really does start to get quite extreme.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 85, Q141.]

Of course, Mr Whitmore was absolutely right to make that assessment, but it is just one of multiple problems with the clause, because it allows Ministers the freedom to decide exactly how much EU law they want to restate or protect. It lets the Government view the existing statute book as something of a smörgåsbord, whereby they can pick and choose which parts of the law they wish to keep and which parts, simply by their inaction, they will allow to disappear in December next year. For example, they could brazenly announce that they have decided to protect workers’ rights by restating them, when in reality they will have saved only the bare minimum of regulations—the ones that suit them, rather than the whole suite of laws that combine together to provide what we currently understand to be workers’ rights.

Another huge problem with the clause—indeed, it is a problem that runs throughout the Bill like the writing through a stick of rock—is that it has yet another one of those self-imposed, utterly unachievable and ideologically driven sunset clauses. It is no surprise that the clause has been criticised by the Law Society of Scotland’s Michael Clancy, who warned in his evidence to the Committee that there was a real danger that the restatement provisions contained in the clause could create further uncertainty. He said:

“There is also a lack of clarity about what comes afterwards. It will be difficult for citizens and businesses to deal with even the provisions about replacement, restatement and the creation of the new category of assimilated law in a short—apparently very compressed—period of time, and without the adequate consultation that one would expect when this sort of law is changed.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 84, Q141.]

Clause 12(3) declares that should a piece of legislation be restated and an extension be granted beyond December 2023, the legislation cannot be regarded as retained EU law. That appears particularly petty, if not vindicative, and it reflects the almost irrational hatred and loathing of anything connected to the European Union, however loosely. Our amendment 53 would remove subsection (3), meaning that the retained EU laws that the UK, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish Governments wish to restate will still be what they are: retained EU law.

Amendment 54 would remove the arbitrary deadline of 31 December 2023 proposed in subsection (7). As we have heard numerous times, that impossibly tight deadline is only there for narrow ideological reasons and is a disaster waiting to happen. Amendment 54 would remove the dangerous cliff edge by deleting subsection (7) entirely.

As we have said throughout, we will help to improve the Bill, which is a truly awful piece of legislation, wherever we can, and that is what amendments 53 and 54 are designed to do. We want to make the Bill a little less damaging to the statute book and, more importantly, to those whose lives and livelihoods depend on there being robust law and regulation in place.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

The overarching aim of the Bill is to define retained EU law as a legal category, and the power to restate such law must be viewed with that in mind. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute said that he wants to help the process, even though he is fundamentally trying to block it. The power to restate has been designed to allow the Government to restate domestic law where it is considered appropriate for the UK in a post-Brexit setting. However, the resulting legislation will no longer be retained EU law, as subsection (3) makes clear. The restated legislation will be ordinary domestic UK legislation that is subject to traditional domestic rules of interpretation. In particular, the supremacy of EU law will no longer apply, and section 4 rights and the general principles of EU law will cease to be read into the legislation.

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

Will the Minister give way?

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

If I can make a bit of progress, I will give way later.

The power will enable the Government to clarify, consolidate, codify and restate REUL to preserve the effect of the current law, while removing it from the category of REUL. It will be used selectively and is not a way to simply continue the broad concepts of EU law. Retained EU law was never intended to sit on the statute book indefinitely, although I believe that hon. Members wish it did. It is both constitutionally anomalous and politically challenging. Subsection (3) is therefore a crucial part of clause 12, and is necessary to ensure that the Government can deliver on the overarching aims of the Bill.

Let me turn to amendment 54. The power in this clause will expire at the end of 2023, with good reason. The Bill will sunset the majority of retained EU law, so that it expires on 31 December 2023. Following that date, all retained EU law will have either sunsetted or been preserved and assimilated into the domestic statute book. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the power to restate REUL should expire at the same time as the sunset of retained EU law. Following that date, there will no longer be any secondary REUL for this power to operate on. The power in this clause will give way to the power outlined in clause 13, which will allow for the similar restatement of assimilated law up until 23 June 2026.

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

Can the Minister explain the difference between restating and amending? At what point does a restatement of a piece of legislation become either an amendment or a completely new piece of legislation? Who will be the arbiter of that? Will the courts decide?

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

I did not hear the end of that question, but each Department will be in charge of the Bills in its portfolio. We have the Brexit opportunities department helping as well. I have already mentioned the processes in place to ensure that scrutiny happens, and how Ministers will work to ensure that we assimilate, amend or update.

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

I am sorry if the Minister did not understand my question. I am talking not about the political, democratic scrutiny, but about the legal interpretation of restated legislation, which will fall to the courts. My question is: who decides whether what has been done under clause 12 is simply a restatement of EU retained law or an amendment to law, which requires a different process?

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

I hope I am not failing to understand the question. As I mentioned, each of the REUL Bills is assigned to a Department, and it will be for the Ministers responsible for the REUL Bill to make a decision on whether they need to assimilate, repeal or update.

I ask the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute to withdraw his amendment. I ask the Committee to accept the Government amendments. They are simple clarificatory amendments that ensure that the restatement powers in clauses 12 to 14 cannot be used to bring back EU law concepts, such as the principle of supremacy, or general principles that the Bill aims to sunset.

Brendan O'Hara (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Minister is right. As we have said from day one, we oppose the Bill, but if it has to pass—history and the numbers in the room tell us that it will pass—it will do so without our support. As we have said, we have a duty not to ignore the most egregious parts of this legislation. Where we think that it will hurt people, affect businesses or leave holes in the statute book, or is ideologically driven folly, we will oppose it, and point out the problems to the Government, so that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes said, there cannot come a time when the Government say, “We didn’t know. Nobody told us this was happening.” Our role here is to oppose every step of the way, but also point out in as much detail and with as much clarity as we can where this dreadful piece of legislation is almost inevitably headed. We will pick the matter up, I am sure, on Report, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 13 - Power to restate assimilated law or reproduce sunsetted retained EU rights, powers, liabilities etc

Clause 14 - Powers to restate or reproduce: general

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

I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 14, page 16, line 18, at end insert—

“(1A) No regulations may be made under section 12 or 13 unless all the following conditions have been satisfied.

(1B) The first condition is that the relevant national authority has consulted on a draft of the regulations with organisations and persons representative of interests substantially affected by, or with expertise in the likely legal effect of, those regulations.

(1C) The second condition is that, after that consultation has concluded, the relevant national authority has laid a report before each House of Parliament (or, as the case may be, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru, or the Northern Ireland Assembly) setting out—

(a) the authority’s view as to whether the proposed regulations make any change in the rights of and protections for consumers, workers, and businesses, and protections of the environment and animal welfare, and the reasons for that view;

(b) whether in making the regulations the national authority has considered using its discretion under section 12(6), section 13(6), or subsection (2), (3) or (4) of this section, and if so, the reason why it does or does not intend to exercise that discretion.

(1D) The third condition is that a period of sixty days has passed since that report was laid, with no account to be taken of any time during which Parliament (or, as the case may be, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru, or the Northern Ireland Assembly) is dissolved or prorogued or during which it was adjourned for more than four days, and where they were laid before Parliament, paragraph 8(11)(a) of Schedule 3 shall apply in determining the commencement of that period.”

This amendment requires the national authority to consult on a draft text of “restatement” regulations, and to set out its reasoning on the choices made when drafting those regulations to Parliament or the relevant devolved legislature.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 83, in clause 14, page 16, line 26, at end insert—

“(3A) A restatement may not be made unless such consultation with relevant stakeholders as the relevant national authority considers appropriate has taken place on whether the conditions set out in subsection (3) are met.”

This amendment ensures that relevant stakeholders are consulted to ensure that the conditions for the exercise of the power to restate set under clause 14(3) are met.

Government amendment 14.

Amendment 56, in clause 14, page 16, line 32, leave out subsection (5).

Government amendment 15.

Amendment 55, in clause 14, page 17, line 2, at end insert—

“(9) Regulations under section 12 or 13 may not be made unless the relevant national authority has consulted all parties that authority considers relevant.”

Clause stand part.

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

Our amendments 82 and 83 require the national authority to consult on a draft text of restatement regulations, and to set out to Parliament or the relevant devolved legislature its reasoning on the choices made when drafting the regulations. I am sure the Minister will want to earnestly reassure us that national authorities are bound to consider those decisions carefully. It follows that she should readily accept that their reasoning should be published.

On consultation, the Bar Council’s written evidence refers to clauses 12 to 15 and schedule 3 granting Ministers enormous power to legislate at will to replace or update retained EU law, without any requirement to consult anyone, on matters of enormous importance to business, consumers, employees and the environment. There is no requirement for any parliamentary vote; there will be only the minimal scrutiny afforded by the affirmative procedure.

Furthermore, Parliament may well be confronted with Hobson’s choice: either agree in full to unsatisfactory replacements for retained EU law, or vote out the whole lot. As a result, as we heard earlier, fundamental rights such as paid bank holidays or environmental protections to stop air or water pollution could simply disappear completely, perhaps through mistake or oversight, with little or no opportunity for public debate.

We agree with the Bar Council that important changes to our law should be made by Parliament after proper consultation, public debate, and scrutiny, not by ministerial fiat. The rushed and uncertain process for replacement or removal of REUL and the deliberate creation of legal uncertainty will seriously damage the UK’s hard-won reputation for regulatory stability, predictability, and competence, on which growth-promoting investment in critical sectors of our economy depend.

The Bar Council points out that the complete absence of any requirement to consult those affected by the exercise or non-exercise of Ministers’ powers under the Bill is incomprehensible, given that we are talking about often complex legislation, and that errors or omissions can have serious adverse consequences for business as well as consumers, workers and others. Businesses can have no confidence that they will have any ability to comment on or influence, or even any prior notice of, legislation that can profoundly affect them—a gap that, in the Bar Council’s view, which we share, would be a serious deterrent to investment.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

I call—[Interruption.] Oh, the hon. Member for Yeovil is leaving.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

I have a horrible feeling that it is because of something I am about to say. I rise to support amendment 82. To go back to the theme of this afternoon, if we are taking back control, then surely control should rest with this place. That means that this place needs the relevant information and powers to do its job. Amendment 82 would require consultation on any restatement of retained EU law, including on whether it affects rights and protections.

The right hon. Member for Clwyd West will find that amendment 82 finally satisfies his concern that we are all scaremongering. If we are scaremongering, it should not be a big deal for Government to restate and confirm that the laws they are replacing will not change any protections; that will reassure those of us who might otherwise trouble vulnerable people.

Amendment 82 does two things. First, it helps with the reality, which is that no Government—shock, horror!—is perfect. No Government get everything right all the time, so sometimes, with the best will in the world, and the best grace in the world, corrections need to be made. We have all sat on Delegated Legislation Committees to do that.

Consultation on draft regulations will help identify minor issues, unintended consequences and drafting errors before a law comes into force; that ensures that it is better legislation before parliamentary time is committed to it. We agreed on Tuesday that this would take 4,000 hours of parliamentary time—267 days, if we sat 24 hours a day. The Minister looks surprised at that; I hope she has done some maths on how we will pass all these SIs before the deadline in the Bill. It will require some parliamentary time, at least.

Consultation can be incredibly helpful. It can identify quirks, and experts come up with points. We might have strong views on workers’ rights, but SIs will come up regarding standards, and there are experts out there who spend their lives being obsessed with electrical standards. Surely asking them to double-check what we have written down would be good.

Restatements are subject to less scrutiny, because they should not make substantive changes to regulations. That takes me to my second point, and the more substantive—dare I say it, “conspiracy, rather than cock-up”—moment in all this. It would be simple and straightforward for the Government to affirm that there will be no change in protections or rights if they did not intend to use the powers in the Bill to water down workers’ rights; to reduce environmental protections that we all believe are important; or to reduce fundamental consumer protections that resolve knotty problems, such as whether, at this time, when everyone is trying to book a train, we will get compensation from Avanti. We live in hope. Why would the Government not commit to doing that, and reassure us all? All amendment 82 does is hold the Government to the pledges that they are making, and ensure that every single time a piece of legislation is brought before the House, it does what it says on the tin. I have forgotten the name of the company I am thinking of. It is not Dulux; it is the other one—the one that has to do with paving.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Ronseal.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

Ronseal, that’s it; I am showing my age. This should be a Ronseal moment—it does what it says on the tin. I have a horrible feeling that the Minister will reject the amendment. I hope that she recognises that the concern comes in when the Government reject relatively benign proposals, such as the suggestion that they should simply say, “Yep, this legislation is like-for-like; it does not water down protections.”

As we saw on Tuesday, the Government have already started to decide, in private, which pieces of EU retained law they will not continue with, so we know that some things will change. Some legislation will fall, and we understand that; the whole point of leaving the European Union was to have the power to reject things. Knowing what will or will not be taken out is surely the epitome of taking back control. Each of us should be able, in our constituency surgeries, when we are inevitably asked about a piece of legislation and its impact, to say, “Ah, yes. Well, that is where this decision came from, and this is what we were told at the time.” Parliamentary scrutiny, done well—even done at all—is taking back control, so let us see some of it in this Bill, for a change.

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

I rise to speak to amendments 55 and 56 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute. This is an attempt to, once again, restrict the Executive’s power grab and to limit, to some small extent, the extent to which the Government are taking powers away from this Parliament and for themselves. It is an attempt to limit the use of Henry VIII powers.

First, the amendments seek to remove subsection (5) to clause 14. I make no apology for raising this point every time I see such a provision in any legislation. It is a bad idea to allow a Minister of the Crown to change any Act of Parliament that they fancy without having to present a Bill in the House of Commons that amends it. The whole House should need to approve the change, after giving it appropriate consideration, and after every single Member has had a chance to comment on it. Subsection (5) essentially seeks to do that. Interestingly, its text is now fairly standard in Bills featuring the Henry VIII powers that the Government are putting through. At some point, the Government spotted something that worries them. They have discovered a part of an Act of Parliament that they are terrified a Minister could ever change, so they have tabled Government amendment 14 to stop that happening.

The Government are quite happy for Ministers to be allowed to change any Act of Parliament that protects the rights of workers, environmental rights, or high standards of public safety and animal welfare. That can be entrusted to the Minister. However, they cannot allow a Minister to do anything that might produce a piece of legislation tainted with the smell of the European Union. Government amendment 14—if hon. Members can work their way through the gobbledegook, especially in subsection (4B)—says that the one thing that Ministers cannot do under the Henry VIII powers is anything that might look like it originated in the European Union. It is what we might call the 55 Tufton Street amendment.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

The Government recognise the importance of ensuring legislation undergoes appropriate scrutiny and consultation, and I will set that out shortly. However, I ask that hon. Members reject amendments 82, 83, 55 and 56.

It is right that we ensure that any amendments to retained EU law or assimilated law receive appropriate scrutiny and are subject to the proper processes for consultation. That is why we have sought to ensure that the Bill contains robust scrutiny mechanisms, including for the powers to restate under clauses 12 and 13. First, the draft affirmative procedure will be applied where the powers to restate are being used to amend primary legislation. Secondly, the sifting procedure will apply to clauses 12 and 13 for the regulations that are proposed to be made under the negative procedure. The sifting procedure largely corresponds with the sifting procedure under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and will provide for additional scrutiny of the legislation being made. Parliament can then scrutinise instruments, subject to sifting, and make active decisions regarding the legislation. It is our expectation that Departments will follow the standard procedures regarding consultation during policy development.

On amendment 56, let me be clear that the powers are not capable of restating any REUL or assimilated law that is primary legislation. Work is already ongoing across Whitehall on a REUL statutory instrument programme, which will continue after the Bill’s Royal Assent. The inclusion in the Bill of a consultation requirement for the powers, which is what the amendments seek to achieve, would build further time into the SI programme. That would disempower Departments, hindering their ability to pursue the REUL reform that they judged to be necessary. For the powers to restate in particular, that would delay the opportunity for Departments to use the powers to maintain the existing policy effect of their REUL in cases where that was judged to be necessary, by reproducing certain EU principles of interpretation that will cease to apply after the sunset.

Given that the powers to restate have been designed to enable Departments only to provide for substantially the same policy effect, when that is considered desirable and appropriate for the UK in a post-Brexit setting, the inclusion of a requirement to consult—both on the regulations proposed to be made and the purposes for their use—seems particularly unnecessary. As such, I ask the hon. Member for Leeds North West to withdraw the amendment.

The Government’s simple clarificatory amendments will ensure that the restatement powers in clauses 12 to 14 cannot be used to bring back the EU law concepts—such as the principle of supremacy or general principles—that the Bill aims to sunset, in general terms.

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

The Minister talked about both an appropriate level of scrutiny and robust scrutiny, but then went on to talk about sifting. We know that there are upwards of 4,000 regulations. That is exactly the concern we have about how much scrutiny there will be across those regulations. The Minister’s main objection seemed to be that the provision would create too lengthy a procedure for the SI programme. Our point is that it would otherwise be rushed through within a matter of months, until the 2023 sunset date, without the proper scrutiny. That is why amendments 82 and 83, and the SNP amendments 55 and 56, are necessary. I will press amendment 82 to a Division.

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

Sorry, but have amendments 55 and 56 been disposed of?

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

Does the hon. Gentleman want to press those amendments to a vote?

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

I had intended to press both to a Division, Sir George, but to save time, and given that the Government Whip already has her great big no vote ready to hang up to make sure that Conservative Back Benchers know what they are supposed to do, there is clearly no point. We know the result already, so to save the Committee time, I will not press either amendment.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We would have been in a bit of muddle otherwise.

Clause 15 - Powers to revoke or replace

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

I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 15, page 17, line 30, at end insert—

“(4A) No regulations may be made under this section unless the conditions set out in section [Conditions on the exercise of powers under section 15 and 16] have been complied with.”

This amendment ensures that the powers to revoke or replace would be subject to restrictions as laid out in NC9.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 85, in clause 15, page 17, line 31, leave out subsections (5) and (6).

This amendment will remove the restriction on the replacement of EU law that states it must not add to the regulatory burden.

Amendment 94, in clause 15, page 17, line 37, at end insert—

“(6A) No provision may be made under this section unless the relevant national authority considers that the effect of the provision will lead to an increase in levels of environmental protection.

(6B) The relevant national authority must consult its environmental governance body before making any provision under this section.

(6C) The relevant national authority must publish any advice it receives from its environmental governance body, as well as the authority’s response and reasons for any departure from this advice, and lay these documents before the relevant parliament or assembly.

(6D) No provision may be made by the relevant national authority under this section until the final version of its policy statement or statutory guidance on

(6E) The relevant national authority must consult persons or bodies representing the interests of those likely to be affected by the provisions before making regulations under this section.

(6F) No provision may be made under this section by a Minister of the Crown until the legally binding targets required under the Environment Act 2021 have been published, and the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a statement setting out how the provision is compatible with the delivery of these targets.”

This amendment sets a number of conditions which must be met before provision under this clause revoking or replacing retained EU law may be made.

Amendment 86, in clause 15, page 18, leave out lines 1 to 7.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 87, in clause 16, page 18, line 27, at end insert—

“(3) No regulations may be made under this section unless the conditions set out in section [Conditions on the exercise of powers under section 15 and 16] have been complied with.”

This amendment would ensure that the power to update would be subject to the restrictions laid out in NC9.

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

I am afraid we are back to the Homeric length of speech that I regaled everyone with on Tuesday.

This wide range of amendments is designed to do three things. First, amendments 84, 87, new clause 9 and amendment 94 require proper consultation before the revocation, replacement and updating powers in clauses 15 and 16 can be exercised. Secondly, amendments 85 and 86 remove a prohibition in clause 15(5) against the relevant national authority using powers in a way that would “increase the regulatory burden”. Thirdly, amendment 94 adds a new subsection to clause 15 to ensure that the use of powers to revoke or replace retained EU law is made subject to compliance, in addition to consultation, with the environmental governance framework established by the Environment Act 2021. I will consider each of those three considerations in turn.

First, on consultation, as we have already discussed when considering other amendments, many worried stakeholders have voiced deep concerns about the unchecked powers that clauses 15 and 16 in particular place into the hands of Ministers. The Hansard Society has commented that clause 15 includes, with just a few caveats, “Do anything we want” powers for Ministers. I will not denigrate them by calling them Henry VIII powers. The Hansard Society's written evidence says the blank-cheque powers allow Ministers to act without having to observe the same oversight provisions—for example, a requirement to consult—that were required by the very legislation they are replacing.

Clause 15 also permits sub-delegation, the creation of a criminal offence or the imposition of a monetary penalty providing that any new regulations “correspond” or are “similar to” the original retained EU law. What such terms as “appropriate”, “correspond” and “similar” mean in practice is left entirely up to Ministers—“Do anything you want.” The duty to consult those bearing the brunt of the changes should be one of the most basic to a Government who have now been in power for more than 12 years. Carrying out such a process should not be viewed as burdensome; it is, or should be, a basic requirement of good and proper governance.

Our new clause 9 would remedy that defect by setting out a proper, good governance process of consultation. After consultation, Ministers would need to report to Parliament on the comments and representations made, and explain their objectives, their reasons for accepting or rejecting comments and any differences between the proposed and original regulations, in terms of protections for consumers, workers, businesses, the environment and animal welfare. They would be required to explain what burdens are reduced or increased as a result of the new regulations and to list the anticipated benefits they expect from the revocation or replacement, state whether the revocation or replacement is compatible with the trade and co-operation agreement, explain the likely effect on UK trade with the European Economic Area and, finally, set out the likely effect on the Northern Ireland protocol.

I hope the Minister agrees that those are all perfectly reasonable things to consider. If so, I hope she will either accept our amendments or, if she prefers, could make a commitment now that that will be part of the Government’s process.

Secondly, there is the whole vexed issue of the so-called regulatory burden. Although the rest of clause 15 amounts to “Do anything you want,” it places one limit on ministerial discretion. Subsection (5) prohibits Ministers from using the clause 15 revocation or replacement powers to increase regulatory burdens or impose obstacles to trade or innovation, increase financial costs and administrative inconveniences, impose obstacles to efficiency, productivity or profitability, or impose sanctions that affect the carrying on of lawful activity. The clause thus imposes what amounts to a regulatory ceiling, which is very apt. We can see that it may well have originated with the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg).

The Minister and her colleagues have repeatedly sought to reassure the Committee that there is much retained EU law that is not fit for purpose, as they put it, and that they are eager to make lots of improvements. They seem to claim that they will improve standards, rights and protections far faster and to a much higher level than those we have enjoyed as an EU member state. We have been able to cite numerous examples of critical standards, rights and protections that are at risk of being lost, so it is strange that so far the Minister has not yet given us examples of the many improvements that Departments are queuing up to make as soon as the Bill is passed.

Perhaps I can help the Minister with some examples. Our ethical understanding of the impact of human activities on animals is constantly evolving and developing. As a result, we have vastly improved the conditions in which farmed animals are kept, such as by moving on from battery cages and sow stalls. We need to ensure that our UK standards for animal welfare continue to move in line with advances in our understanding of animal welfare. Potentially, we could do that ahead of EU standards. Will the Minister explain how that can be achieved in a way that would not fall foul of the clause 15 ban on increasing the regulatory burden? Those two things seem to be in conflict.

The Minister might attempt to explain that clause 16 is there to allow such regulatory improvements, but it refers only to changes in technology or developments in scientific understanding, neither of which seem to cover ethical advances. Furthermore, as the Hansard Society pointed out, it is left to ministerial discretion to decide whether a change in technology or a development in scientific understanding has occurred. Additionally, changes to the law would have to take account only of technological and scientific developments.

Also, clause 16 can be exercised indefinitely. Unlike other powers in the Bill, it is not sunsetted. Added to that, the negative scrutiny procedure means that changes will not require active parliamentary approval. Yet again, it is a case for Ministers of “Do anything you want.”

On amendment 94, the Minister sought to reassure the Committee in the debates on our earlier amendments that there was no need to carve out critically important environmental protections from the Bill. She claimed that the Bill will have no impact on UK REACH—registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—policy and sought to pass on assurances from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that it is working on a model that will somehow magically reduce costs to business while maintaining human health and environmental protection. She did not mention that the work on REACH is itself running substantially behind schedule.

The Minister said:

“Retained EU law reforms will not come at the expense of our high environmental standards”

because:

“Our Environment Act has strengthened regulation”.––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2022; c. 159-160.]

But she also accepted that there is “no doubt” the Bill requires

“a considerable amount of work” ––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2022; c. 158.]

right across all Departments. When it comes to DEFRA, that is precisely the problem, because of the vast quantity and range of environmental, food, air, water and animal welfare protections and standards that are covered by retained EU law. The considerable amount of work created by the Bill comes on top of the Department’s extensive work programme, which was already lagging years behind schedule even before the right hon. Member for North East Somerset dreamed up the Bill that we now have to drag though. The problem is that 12 years of Conservative chaos have left DEFRA mired in delay and missed deadlines. It is not surprising that we lack confidence that it will be able to save key environmental protections from the 2023 cliff edge, 13 months from now.

The chair of the newly created Office for Environmental Protection wrote to the Secretary of State when it became clear that the Department would fail to meet the legal deadline of 31 October to set long-term targets for air quality, water, biodiversity, species abundance, resource efficiency and waste reduction. The letter says:

“as I wrote to your predecessor, failures to meet environmental law deadlines undermine the recently enacted framework and delay measures to drive environmental improvement…a failure to meet this deadline presents a significant risk of a knock-on effect of delaying the first review of government's Environmental Improvement Plan due by 31 January 2023…We therefore see it as imperative that the targets are in place by the end of this calendar year at the very latest. Further delay risks unduly the implementation of important environmental policies so much needed to fulfil government’s commitments to environmental protection.”

The OEP chair’s letter has a long list of other missed deadlines and delays across the Department, including in respect of waste water, river basin management, environmental impact assessment and air pollution—I could go through them all. They are a legacy of years of intense consultations followed by missed deadlines and a lack of action.

This week, the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), wrote about the missed targets deadline, and included even more examples of what his letter called a

“culture of delay in the Department”.

I remind Conservative Members that he, too, is a Conservative. He wrote:

“The dire state of rivers in England requires urgent action, and the delay in establishing a new statutory target does not augur well for the current administration’s resolve to tackle this issue. We hope that the full suite of statutory targets can be published before the opening of the second stage of COP15, the United Nations biodiversity summit, which is to take place in Montreal next month.”

I think the first day is 5 December. Those are the words of the Select Committee Chair.

The Select Committee Chair went on to give a further long list of policies

“where progress appears to have stalled”,

including producer responsibility for packaging waste, which is now delayed until 2024; the statutory environmental principles policy statement; the chemicals strategy and UK REACH; the national action plan for pesticides; and the deposit return scheme for drinks containers. I remember the deposit return scheme first being consulted on in 2019, and we have had perhaps six consultations on it.

The Select Committee Chair’s letter concluded:

“In view of what appears to be endemic delay in making progress on important environmental policies, the Committee has asked me to request, by return, a clear timetable giving the dates by when each of the documents listed in this letter are now expected to be issued.”

Given such a depressing record of endemic delay and of blithely ignoring legally required deadlines, we feel it is necessary for the Bill to be clear that no action can be taken to revoke or replace existing environmental protections until DEFRA has at least completed the work it already has on its overloaded plate. Amendment 94 would therefore require any revocation or replacement to lead to an increase in environmental protection; for the OEP and equivalent devolved bodies to be consulted, and any advice published; for no revocation or replacement to be made before the statutory policy statement on environmental principles has been laid before Parliament or the relevant devolved legislature; and for no revocation or replacement to be made until the legally binding targets required under the Environment Act 2021 have been published. Those targets are now, by my count, 25 days late and counting.

Stella Creasy (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow)

We come to the rub of the matter. When Brexit happened, we were told that we wanted to make our own laws. Any of us who were concerned that that might lead to a reduction in standards or protections were told we need not worry: being out of the EU, which was holding us back from making our own laws, was also holding us back from having higher standards.

Fast forward to 2022 and clause 15, and we know the truth. The clause writes the obsession with deregulation into law. If the Bill passes in its current form, all that our constituents can look forward to is the slow trickle of their rights being watered down and washed away—all in the name, allegedly, of reducing burdens on business. Let us be very clear: business does not want a no-regulation environment. That is a recipe not for competition, creativity and entrepreneurship, but for bad actors running riot over well-established industries and ruining entrepreneurship and creativity. Business wants better regulation. It wants good regulation.

When a law talks of a “regulatory burden”, we know that it does not speak to our economy; it speaks to an ideology that is holding this country back. At a time of economic boom, that would not be a sensible measure. At a time of economic crisis, it is genuinely destructive. Clause 15 means that all the things we were told during the Brexit referendum about higher standards were not true. It means that the promises that environmental protections would be better if we left the European Union will not be kept.

For the avoidance of doubt, that is not an argument about returning to the European Union or undermining the referendum, and nor is it saying that we should not have left the European Union—that debate has been had. It is an argument for holding to account all who claimed during the referendum campaign that somehow things would be better. The Bill demands that they must not be, because it insists that a regulatory burden cannot be created, and what it defines as a regulatory burden is a better standard.

The amendments in this group are therefore designed not just to hold to account all those Brexiteers who made such rash claims, but to protect the right of the British public to have the standards that they want, especially when it comes to the environment, workers’ rights or consumer protections. On Tuesday, Ministers spent much of the time telling us about their record of improving our legal standards and the rights of our constituents. Indeed, the Minister said:

“The UK regime sets some of the highest standards of consumer protection in the world, and this will continue to be the case.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2022; c. 168.]

This clause means that that is not necessarily the case.

The clause says that we cannot improve our consumer protections. Indeed, we have already seen that from how the Government have reacted since we left the European Union. The European Union tried to bring in various regulations about sustainability of goods—frankly, about ensuring that if someone is sold something, it is not tat. Our Government have refused to implement those regulations. Indeed, if the Bill is passed as drafted, we could not introduce them. In this brave new world, we could be sold as much tat as we like and not know that it is tat, all because the Government are determined that deregulation is what the country wants. Again, that is not something I ever saw on the leaflets that came out during the referendum campaign.

Amendment 85 deletes the ratchet provision, and amendment 86 is consequential to it. Between them, the amendments would allow Ministers to replace existing retained EU law with more stringent measures to allow us to have the higher standards that we all say we want on environmental issues, so that we can protect and conserve our precious species—dare I say it, even the killer shrimp. That would help to make the promise a reality.

The Minister might suggest that new burdens should not be pushed through without consultation, and that the minimal parliamentary scrutiny given the potential impact is not a problem, but deregulation is not value-neutral. The loss of a protection can and will create as much of a burden for businesses as not having a burden would do. When we open the door to lower standards, we open the door to bad actors. Good legal protections for workers’ rights, consumer rights and environmental rights help to ensure that the market is fairer. They give businesses certainty and encourage creativity, because they allow people to plan without worrying that they will be undercut.

Given that, the Minister needs to be clear about the definition of a burden in what the Government are doing. For example, is it a burden for a business to pay new parents during their parental leave, regardless of how long they have been employed? In that case, is it deemed undesirable? Is it a burden to have to record whether any materials known to be harmful to human health are involved in a cosmetic product, and therefore is it something undesirable? Are rules governing how many hours employees are allowed to take off possibly a burden? Is reporting on the ethnicity pay gap in an organisation a burden, and therefore something deemed undesirable by the Bill?

If we are reviewing all retained law—it is debatable whether we even have the time to do so in the timetable set out by the Government—we should use the opportunity to usher in the higher protections that Ministers have assured us are the Government’s ambitions. They are things that my and all our constituents deserve. Here are some of the places where, without subsections (5) and (6), Government regulations could improve rights and standards in the UK.

We could have stronger protections for agency workers, many of whom work in the creative industries and have been hit hard by covid and the cutting of our ties with the European Union. That is something that many musicians, actors and performers would benefit from.

We could have higher standards on equal pay. I was born shortly after the equal pay legislation was introduced in this country, and it is a source of shame for many of us that we still do not have equal pay. However, we could finally use the freedom that comes from taking back control to do that. The Government have fallen behind on their own commitments, and that is nothing to do with retained EU law—they failed to publish a report on the gender pay gap, which we were promised. We could use this gap and the fact that we are abolishing all the existing laws to bring in higher standards. On Tuesday, the Minister spoke passionately on how she has been supporting those campaigns.

We could bring in the legislation sponsored by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), and ensure that pregnancy and maternity discrimination does not happen in this country.

We could improve monitoring of the use of hazardous materials in cosmetics, and we could raise those standards. Indeed, we could raise standards on animal testing, and that would mean something to many people. We could have higher standards on energy efficiency. We will all be trying to tell our constituents how to save £1 here or £10 there in their use of electrical goods, so let us set higher standards for electrical goods and help them to save that money.

There are many ways that we could use the so-called freedom that comes from being out of the European Union to raise standards, but not if clause 15 remains. These amendments would enable us to do so. The Minister spoke of the world-leading Environment Act. Requiring any regulations under this Bill to comply with the legally binding targets mandated by the Act will not happen if the clause goes through unamended. The Government could choose to use this mechanism not to remove protections, but to ensure that we follow best practice. This programme could happen, but we cannot do it if we are determined that any change to improve standards is a burden. The Minister could accept amendment 92 as an opportunity to equal or even better the EU in our environmental regulations, but they have not yet said whether they will do so.

New clause 9 goes back to the theme that we talked about earlier: our ability to debate, discuss and learn from industries about how we can make better regulation and drive up standards. The new clause would require any consultation on the revocation, replacement or updating of retained law to be made with both Houses and devolved Administrations.

Clause 15 drives a coach and horses through the sunny uplands that the Brexit debate always promised to our constituents, but our constituents deserve sunny uplands—they deserve higher standards. The Minister would find support across the House for revising clause 15 to remove the push for deregulation and instead bring in better regulation. The Opposition amendments would help to lead her toward that. If she accepts and recognises that and works with us all, at least one of the challenges of this legislation—that it forces one-way traffic towards deregulation—could be removed.

I know that Conservative Members want to be able to tell their constituents that they will bring in better standards now that we are free from the yoke of the European Union. If they vote for clause 15, as unamended, that would not be the right thing to say, because it would not be the truth about the Bill. I hope that even if amendments are not made to clause 15 now, they will be in the other place, to take away that push and that threat.

Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes)

A long time ago now, it seems, I was a member of my local planning authority for a number of years. We used to get dozens and dozens of planning applications for consideration, and there was often a lot of discussion about whether councillors who were uncomfortable with an application should attempt to draft conditions that had to be honoured before the application could be approved. A lot of those conditions were perfectly reasonable; we would put in conditions to ensure that housing development was road-safe, for example. An important piece of national guidance that certainly applied in Scotland—I do not know if there was an equivalent in England—was that if someone had to burden a planning application with a huge, complex set of conditions in order to make it acceptable, the application should be refused and the applicant invited to come back later with a better one. That is where we are with clause 15. The official Opposition clearly feel that the only way to make clause 15 even vaguely acceptable is to restrict it in so many ways, and with so many amendments, that it would effectively tear the heart out of the clause.

Although I certainly will not oppose any of the amendments that the hon. Member for Leeds North West wants to press to a vote, we will oppose clause 15 when the question on it is put, whether it is amended or not. It is an utterly dreadful piece of legislation. Can Members imagine any circumstance in which it could be considered good governance to give an individual or a national authority the right to repeal 4,000 pieces of legislation, knowing perfectly well that they have no intention of bringing anything forward to replace them? That is what clause 15 effectively aims to do.

As the hon. Member for Walthamstow pointed out earlier, subsection 5 of clause 15 gives the lie to the entire argument about why the Tories wanted to be allowed to regulate for themselves. It was never about being allowed to have better standards of employment law than the rest of Europe, and it was never about being allowed to apply better standards of environmental protection, consumer protection, animal welfare or anything else. It was always about pandering to what my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute has described as the wide-eyed enthusiasts of the European Research Group, and those who are so far to the right of the ERG they cannot even get elected to this place. In clause 15, and particularly in subsection (5), theirs is the agenda we are being asked to follow.

I am really interested to hear the Minister explain why she feels it is necessary to have an Act of Parliament that potentially allows a national authority to tear down 40 years of protective legislation, with the intention of replacing it with nothing, and with the extreme risk that we will run out of time to replace it with anything. We should remember that we have barely a year from now, never mind from when they start to tear apart the legislation.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Wealden)

I beg that the Committee rejects amendment 84 and does not press new clause 9 or amendment 87.

It may surprise the Committee that English is not my first language—I was not born in this country—but it has never occurred to me that the words “regulation” and “standards” are the same. Members can look them up in a dictionary, but they are definitely not the same.

Clause 15 is about ensuring we have the right regulations in place, by removing those regulations that are unduly burdensome, outdated or not fit for purpose in the UK. How about swapping them for proportionate, high-quality and agile regulations that help the UK economy, and all of us who work in it, to be nimble and competitive?

I remind the Committee that Departments will be able to maintain the current level of regulation where it is considered appropriate. Only where existing regulations are considered to be unnecessarily burdensome and not fit for purpose may a lower level of regulation be introduced. I will validate that in a moment.

The concerns of hon. Members regarding the scope of the Bill’s powers are unfounded, as the powers to revoke or replace are important cost-cutting enablers of retained EU law reform. The dashboard has identified more than 2,500 pieces of retained EU law, and it is therefore right to have a power of this scope that is capable of acting on a wide range of REUL covering a variety of policy areas. The powers have several safeguards that mitigate their use, namely any legislation made under clause 15(2) that recreates a delegated power or a criminal offence present in REUL is subject to the affirmative procedure. Legislation made under clause 15(3) is specifically subject to the affirmative procedure, which will ensure that changes to policy objectives can be actively approved by Parliament. In addition, a sifting procedure will apply to legislation where Ministers choose to use the negative procedure.

The clause 16 power is intended to facilitate technical updates to retained EU law, to take account of changes in technology or developments in scientific understanding. This ongoing power is not intended to bring about significant policy change. It is instead designed to ensure the UK keeps pace with advances in science and technology over time.

The amendments would add a significant amount of time to the process and, ultimately, could risk Departments being unable to maximise the use of their powers to revoke or replace retained EU law across all policy areas, until such powers sunset. The Bill has been drafted to ensure that legislation made under these powers is subject to robust scrutiny procedures that are proportionate to the scope of the powers, as highlighted above.

I ask the Committee not to press amendments 85, 86 or 94. As I mentioned, the Bill is an enabling Act. Amendment 94 would place a number of environmental requirements on UK Ministers or devolved authorities when they intend to use the powers to revoke or replace, irrespective of the policy area. This amendment would therefore preclude Departments making reforms in policy areas unrelated to the environment, which would significantly impact the opportunity to use these powers.

On amendments 85 and 86, we have sought to ensure that the powers to revoke or replace cannot be used to add to the overall regulatory burden on this subject area. In her evidence to the Committee, Professor Alison Young noted that combining

“a number of earlier burdens, turn them into one burden with a higher standard, that is also not increasing the burden.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 19, Q33.]

The requirement not to add to the overall regulatory burden has been drafted to allow the relevant national authority to determine how best to achieve the desired policy outcome. For example, removing regulations or administrative requirements that are deemed unnecessary or unsuitable will make it possible to add new regulations with a higher standard—shock, horror—where it is deemed necessary or desirable, provided that the overall regulatory burden is not increased. The reforms that these powers will enable are vital to allow the UK to drive genuine reform and seize the opportunities of Brexit.

We had a repeat of the debate about animal welfare. As I mentioned the other day, the Government remain focused on how best to deliver the “Action Plan for Animal Welfare” published in 2021, which builds on our existing high animal welfare standards. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Leeds North West to withdraw the amendment.

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

The Minister and Conservative MPs expect us to trust them, when they have repeatedly voted against our attempts to preserve the most basic legal rights and protections for consumers, workers and the environment in Committee so far. In fact, no Government should be trusted with the sweeping powers that this Bill will grant, with minimal parliamentary oversight or scrutiny. Instead of wasting time debating their trustworthiness, our amendments were designed to move beyond the trust that the Government have failed to earn and allow for greater transparency. I will push amendment 85 to a vote, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 84.

Written evidence to be reported to the House