Not specified in the provided text - Clause being debated not specified, but related to 'Assimilated law': consequential amendments

The specific arguments supporting the amendment or clause are not provided in the given text, but Nusrat Ghani moved that the clause be read a Second time.

Argued that the Bill's approach to changing EU law would have a damaging effect on legal certainty and business confidence, despite accepting the need for reassimilation of EU law into domestic law. Suggested that wide-ranging powers without proper scrutiny are contrary to the aim of providing legal clarity.

Rebutted the concerns raised by Bob Neill, stating that the Bill provides legal certainty by creating a single set of laws within the country instead of relying on EU principles for interpretation. Emphasised that this approach enhances rather than detracts from legal clarity.

She expresses concern about the amount of work required by DEFRA to handle policy changes impacted by the Bill within a short timeframe.

He supports an earlier deadline for leaving the EU fully, questioning when those who oppose it want the process to end and suggesting that they should have left years ago. He implies that extending timelines indefinitely is counterproductive.

Argued that the UK had established laws on consumer rights and paid holidays before joining the EU, suggesting no need for EU-derived laws. Raised concerns about lack of clarity in the legislation regarding which existing laws would be affected.

Emphasised that due to unclear foundation of UK laws derived from EU, people are concerned about loss of protections like maternity rights and employment rights. Criticised the Government for not being transparent about their intentions.

Suggested that the Government's actions indicate a determination to dismantle workers' rights post-Brexit, questioning their commitment to maintaining high standards.

Expressed concern that despite Government rhetoric about keeping high standards, the Bill includes a clause stating provisions cannot increase regulatory burden, seen as an ideological attack on safety and environmental protections.

Asserted that taking back control was meant to return power to the British people and their sovereign Parliament, expressing disappointment that some do not have confidence in this Parliament.

Received numerous contacts from constituents concerned about the protection of workers' rights and consumer rights. Criticised lack of scrutiny on proposed changes.

Argued that the Environment Act 2021 provides reassurance for environmental protections under DEFRA, with all laws being either retained or improved.

Warned that without proper scrutiny and time to review thousands of pieces of EU-derived legislation, important protections could accidentally disappear. Called the Bill's provisions 'ridiculous'.

Noted concerns from constituents about lack of proper scrutiny and democratic process in dealing with thousands of pieces of legislation derived from EU laws.

Raised pragmatic concerns over potential delays and poor decisions due to lack of time, urging for an open door policy for discussions on extending deadlines.

Questioned Labour's commitment to parliamentary scrutiny by pointing out their lack of participation in relevant committees.

Suggested that UK led on workers' rights protections during EU membership, questioning why they should not be trusted to enhance these rights post-Brexit.

Clarified that the Government has no intention of abandoning workers' rights, questioning whether the Labour MP's concerns were justified.

Ms. Hobhouse questioned the relevance of Mr Cash's speech to the specific clauses under debate, suggesting that speeches should focus on amendments rather than general discussions.

Mr. Gale defended the appropriateness of Mr Cash's speech by asserting that if it were out of order, he would have been ruled out of order by the Deputy Speaker.

Smith argues against the Bill on philosophical and practical grounds, emphasising the negative economic impact of Brexit and highlighting issues with parliamentary scrutiny and legislative certainty. He also raises concerns about devolution and the UK Internal Market Act.

Asked how leaving the European Medicines Agency came back to haunt the country, despite claims of freedom for investment in vaccine creation.

Responded strongly against the suggestion of avoiding procedures whereby these laws were made, emphasising issues beyond their origin and focusing on the manner of procedure operation.

Asked his hon. Friend’s thoughts on powers being called in by a Minister, rather than this House.

Agrees with the commonality of approach and concerns shared between Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. He highlights constraints on local civil service capacity, particularly in Northern Ireland.

Ms. Abrahams raises concerns about trust regarding significant changes in existing provisions, suggesting that bringing back such legislation to the House would restore confidence.

Mr. Cash clarifies that the Online Safety Bill is not retained EU law and does not relate to EU regulations, supporting the Government's stance on the bill.

Mr. Shannon agrees with Mr. Russell while emphasising the need for the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill to ensure equal rights for people in Northern Ireland.

Mr Whittaker supports the Bill but raises concerns over its implementation. He highlights unintended consequences in the trade mark sector, noting that changes made after Brexit have led to a surge of PO box companies exploiting the system for their own benefit. This undermines legitimate businesses and increases costs. Mr Whittaker asks for safeguards to address such issues swiftly.

Amendment 36 is necessary to ensure transparency and accountability in the revocation process of retained EU laws. It addresses concerns about the scope, costs, and potential impact on constituents' rights such as paid annual leave and environmental protections.

The SNP wishes to maintain sovereignty for Scotland but feels that by leaving the EU, it is handing its authority over to Brussels. The Bill forces measures on Scotland against its will, making it necessary for further legislation to align with EU standards despite a desire not to do so.

The speaker opposes Clause 15 as it poses a risk of revoking up to 1,000 laws without proper resources or time for review. He argues that DEFRA lacks capacity to ensure environmental protections are maintained, and there are no guarantees from the Government regarding retention of existing laws. The amendment seeks to retain all regulations and laws as minimum standards in this country.

Supports the principle of reviewing EU retained law to ensure it fits UK needs, noting that not every element is perfect. Acknowledges consumer protection but advocates for reducing unnecessary costs passed on to consumers. She emphasises the need to protect important protections and supports transparent regulation processes with consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.

Raises concerns about revoking retained EU law, citing environmental organisations. Argues that rushing to repeal legislation without proper consideration undermines environmental protections such as habitats regulations, water framework directive, and plant protection products regulations. Criticises government for not knowing how much legislation is involved or what might be lost in the process.

Agrees with the aims of the Bill to take back control from EU but criticises its execution. Argues that the lack of democratic process, unclear impact on rights and protections, and insufficient parliamentary scrutiny undermine the bill's purpose. Supports revising key regulations through proper parliamentary debate rather than rushed implementation.

Amendment 36 would ensure that Parliament has oversight on the revocation or reform of EU-derived laws. The speaker argues against the Bill due to its potential for deregulation and lack of parliamentary scrutiny, which could harm environmental protections, workers' rights, and create economic uncertainty.

The speaker supports the Bill as it provides flexibility in law-making and allows for a focus on UK conditions. He argues that the Bill is necessary to streamline systems and ensure clarity, precision, and accountability. He also mentions the need for practical involvement from mid-level practitioners.

This Bill restores parliamentary sovereignty by delivering on the promise of Brexit. It ensures Britons live under British law, free from EU interference. Amendments 36 are an attempt to dilute and delay the process of removing EU hangovers through democratic mechanisms. Ministers will be held accountable in various ways within this House.

Argues that the Bill undermines parliamentary sovereignty by giving untrammelled powers to Ministers without scrutiny. Raises concerns over democracy in Scotland with examples such as the Scotland Act 1998 and the lack of consent from devolved legislatures.

Supports the measures in the Bill, stating they are necessary for maintaining legal equilibrium post-Brexit. Highlights that about 3,800 items of retained EU law need review and removal or assimilation into domestic systems to ensure practical utility. Emphasises the role of Ministers who will be answerable to Parliament.

Argues that the majority of her constituents voted to leave the EU, highlighting frustration over continued discussions on EU laws. She supports swift action to deliver sovereignty and cautions against delaying Brexit further. Lia criticises opposition for spreading fear about bonfires of rights and questions their motives.

Supports amendments aimed at protecting devolved competencies, highlighting the UK Government's undermining of devolution through funding cuts and legislative vetoes. He emphasises Plaid Cymru’s backing for amendments to safeguard workers’ rights. Hywel also expresses concern over financial implications and administrative burdens on Welsh government, advocating for comprehensive scrutiny.

Expresses concern over the Bill's requirement to revoke all EU legislation by year-end, arguing it is unrealistic and risks poor quality lawmaking. Highlights DEFRA’s struggle with reviewing 600 pieces of legislation within the proposed timeframe. Emphasises the potential negative impact on environmental protection, consumer rights, and business investment due to uncertainty.

Critiques the Bill for threatening hard-fought-for protections from EU law. Warns against the Government's attempt to remove scrutiny of legislative changes by MPs, highlighting concerns over 4,000 pieces of legislation at risk and potential chaos in regulatory oversight.

Disagrees with the notion that the Bill asserts parliamentary sovereignty uniquely. Claims it represents a power grab from the House and devolved institutions, while highlighting protections offered by EU retained law. Supports amendments aimed at protecting devolved powers in Scotland.

The Bill places sunset provisions on retained EU law, causing the majority of it to expire at the end of 2023. This affects areas like environmental protection, food safety, health and safety, employment rights, parental leave, intellectual property, product safety, biosecurity, private pension protections, vehicle standards, noise pollution. The Government's power to discard legal protections is shocking; decisions about UK law should be made in Parliament, not by Ministers. I support amendments 36, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24 and 25 to safeguard these areas.

Losing environmental protections was a major concern for those who opposed Brexit. This Conservative Government is letting environmental protections fall on the bonfire of regulations due to the volume and complexity of retained EU law instruments. Amendment 21 would exempt certain environmental protections from the sunset clause, crucial for legislation like the National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2018 which regulate emissions and air pollutants. Amendment 36 would provide parliamentary oversight by requiring the Government to publish a list of every piece of legislation being revoked under the sunset clause.

Describes the Retained EU Law Bill as 'the second shameful bit of legislation' that risks a bonfire of fundamental rights and protections, both at work and for the environment. He argues that civil servants do not have enough time to review all retained EU laws by the end of the year, which could lead to the abolition of important rights and protections. Davies highlights air quality issues in the UK, with 63,000 premature deaths annually due to poor air quality, costing £20 billion. He also mentions food poverty, worker shortages, environmental problems such as marine pollution, and democratic control issues, arguing that this Bill undermines these areas.

Noted that he is not imposing a time limit on the next speaker's speech, essentially giving him extra speaking time as a Christmas gift.

Supports various amendments to the Bill which include publishing a list of laws affected by it, giving more debate time and protecting workers’ rights, environmental protections, and consumer rights. He expresses concern over the lack of full understanding of the scale of changes involved in the Bill, arguing that it has a 'devastating impact on legal certainty'. Rodda highlights the sweeping powers given to ministers to push through these changes without proper scrutiny, urging the Minister to reconsider this approach. He also mentions receiving emails from various civil society organisations expressing deep concerns about the Bill.

[INTERVENTION] Asked her hon. Friend whether there would be a guarantee that asbestos controls will not be watered down as part of the changes proposed by the Bill.

[INTERVENTION] Asked his hon. Friend to give way for further discussion on asbestos controls.

Asked if any assessment has been made of potential damage to the UK's GDP from regulatory divergence, expressing concern over economic impacts.

Questioned the Minister about product safety regulations and specifically asked for guarantees regarding the precautionary principle and asbestos regulation.

Asked the Minister to clarify the number of undefined, un-public regulations that would be granted power under the Bill, questioning transparency and accountability.

Argued that the proposed amendments will allow for improved regulation in national interest and accountability to Parliament, rejecting claims of deception by opponents.

Recalled past warnings against Brexit (Project Fear) and questioned the current state of affairs, suggesting that previous negative predictions were unfounded.

Emphasised the need to reduce unnecessary red tape for small businesses, advocating for streamlined regulatory processes.

Asked the Minister to confirm that business laws will be communicated clearly and that consumer legislation would remain protected.

Asked if the Scottish Parliament's consent should be respected, questioning the Bill’s impact on devolved powers.

Noted that EU laws often become stagnant due to difficulty in changing them across 27 or 28 countries, suggesting a need for review and adaptation.

Opposes Clause 38 due to lack of clarity, certainty, and appropriate legislative approach. Argues that legislating for a sunset clause on retained EU law is absurd without detailed information from the Government. Emphasises uncertainty caused by frequent changes in Prime Ministers and Business Secretaries.

Supports Clause 38 as a way to restore British law with common law replacing European law. Describes the Bill as tidying-up legislation of great constitutional importance, emphasising its completion of Brexit and reclamation of democracy.

Opposes Clause 38 as bad law that will do a bad thing badly, potentially harming the UK and devolution settlement. Argues for better legislative approaches rather than this 'damn silly' way of removing laws.

Expresses gratitude to British electorate who voted to leave the EU and endorses the Government's effort in fulfilling Brexit promises. Supports Clause 38 as a step towards sovereignty and freedom.

Argues that removing pieces of legislation via this Bill will have far-reaching consequences. Calls for debates on individual laws rather than blanket removals and warns about potential political repercussions.

Supports Clause 38 as a step towards fulfilling Brexit promises. Emphasises trust in elected Parliament to make laws for the common good, dismissing fears expressed by opponents.

Claims that Clause 75 does not assert parliamentary sovereignty but hands power over to the Executive. Argues it is unworkable and unnecessary, potentially leading to a climbdown in the other place.

Calls for hearing voices of campaign groups who argue there is a better way to take back control. Urges all in the House to uphold parliamentary sovereignty by working together across parties.