Commons Sense

House of Commons · Bill Debate

Environmental Protection (England) Bill - Schedule 4 - Regulations: Procedure

24 May 2023 · 10 other contributors

Opened by Andrew Jones Con Harrogate and Knaresborough

BrexitParliamentary ProcedureEnvironment

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Andrew Jones raised concerns about environmental protection (england) bill - schedule 4 - regulations: procedure in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.

Key points

  • Mr Jones argues that the bill maintains democratic oversight contrary to misinformation in the debate.
  • The European Statutory Instruments Committee evaluates legislative changes post-Brexit based on criteria like technical nature and political importance.
  • Mr Jones criticises Labour for lack of participation in the Committee.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Andrew Jones Con Harrogate and Knaresborough

Mr. Jones argues that the bill does not undermine democratic oversight, contrary to misinformation circulated during the debate. He explains that the European Statutory Instruments Committee scrutinises legislative changes post-Brexit using criteria such as technical nature, extent, scope, legal concerns, and political importance before deciding on the appropriate procedure for scrutiny. The committee has upgraded 18% of instruments from negative to affirmative procedures since its establishment. Mr. Jones criticises Labour's lack of participation in the Committee.

Other contributors (10)
  • Bim Afolami Con Hitchin and Harpenden

    Although not directly quoted, Bim Afolami is acknowledged by Mr. Jones for speaking 'wisely' about democratic oversight.

  • Sammy Wilson DUP East Antrim

    Intervened to point out the irony that some argue against giving Ministers powers without scrutiny, yet Royal Assent was given to Acts designed to protect workers' rights.

  • Alison Thewliss SNP Glasgow Central

    Intervened to suggest that the Government could be doing more to give a sense of trust about the process, noting that private Members' Bills were brought forward due to the absence of a Bill from the UK Government on workers' rights.

  • Jonathan Reynolds Lab Co-op Stalybridge and Hyde

    Intervened to mock Mr. Jones for criticising Labour's lack of participation in the Committee, noting that he is not yet a right hon. Member.

  • Robert Buckland Con South Swindon

    Supports the Bill's laudable aims and the need for regulatory reform. Critiques the risk of 'repeal by accident' if regulations are hastily repealed without proper evidence-based decisions. Advocates for dynamic cost-benefit analysis to ensure effective regulation aligns with policy objectives.

  • Brendan Clarke-Smith Con Bassetlaw

    Clarke-Smith supports the Government's proposals for retained EU law. He emphasises the need to take back control following Brexit, recognising it as a process rather than an immediate switch. He highlights the importance of addressing the practicalities and delivery issues related to repealing laws by 31 December 2023. Clarke-Smith expresses support for his colleague's ambitions while acknowledging the complexity of the task.

  • Danny Kruger Reform East Wiltshire

    Kruger endorses the Bill as a fulfilment of the Brexit promise to bring control over laws back to Parliament. He acknowledges the tension within the Tory tribe regarding different visions for Brexit, but supports the current Government's approach. Kruger defends the process of revoking EU law via statutory instruments, stating it is appropriate and will ensure UK law supremacy. He regrets changes made in the House of Lords but praises constructive engagement thereafter.

  • Stella Creasy Lab Co-op Walthamstow

    Ms Creasy questions the government's approach and seeks clarity on direct effect cases, which she believes are crucial for transparency in legislation.

  • Sammy Wilson DUP East Antrim

    Mr Wilson supports tailoring laws to suit Northern Ireland’s circumstances post-Brexit but expresses doubt about the fairness of applying changes given Northern Ireland's unique position.

  • Bill Cash Con Stone

    Mr Cash emphasises that much of the legislation came in through statutory instruments, which he views as an undemocratic process. He supports Lords amendment 6 for transparency and clarity.

Get updates like this by email
▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy