European Union (Withdrawal) Bill - Lords amendment 6, Lords amendments 1, 15, 16, and other related amendments

Mrs. Eleanor Laing discusses Lords amendments 1, 15, and 16 in conjunction with the Government's approach to discarding retained EU law. She outlines the Government's commitment to a comprehensive review process.

Mr. John Baron supports the Government’s approach, questioning if it is robust in ensuring each piece of EU legislation undergoes examination before being discarded.

Ms Caroline Lucas questions the removal of the principle of non-regression, challenging whether the Government intends to weaken environmental and food standards. She expresses concerns over potential weakening of existing protections.

Ms Theresa Villiers acknowledges practical difficulties with meeting tight deadlines but supports the Government's stance, emphasising the importance of continuing regulatory review and reform.

Mr. Patrick Grady criticises the Bill’s sweeping powers and expresses scepticism about the Government's ability to deliver regulatory review without such extensive measures.

Mr. John Redwood enquires whether increasing VAT thresholds for small businesses could be considered alongside the proposed legislation, suggesting a focus on business liberation and expansion.

Ms Stella Creasy argues that removing scrutiny powers will limit MPs' ability to challenge proposed SIs, expressing concerns about the lack of oversight and accountability.

Mr. Bill Cash inquires about the interaction between the European Scrutiny Committee and the Bill's implementation, seeking assurances regarding future scrutiny processes.

Mr. Simon Hoare seeks reassurance from the Solicitor General that regulatory reform will proceed in a calm and measured manner, addressing constituents' concerns about rapid change.

Mr. Robert Buckland addresses the Solicitor General on potential risks of cut-and-paste operations in regulatory reform, seeking guarantees against substantial changes without proper scrutiny.

Mr. Bim Afolami refers to the Regulatory Reform Group’s proposals on improving regulatory accountability and responsiveness, linking this to broader regulatory system reforms.

Ms Victoria Prentis supports the Government's approach in removing the sunset clause and implementing a revocation schedule for retained EU law.

Mr. Bob Neill questions whether the Government’s alternative mechanisms will ensure proper scrutiny of substantial legal changes without relying on Delegated Legislation Committees.

The Opposition believes the Bill is unnecessary, unrealistic and undesirable. It does not address Brexit but questions who should control significant changes to the law. The Government's initial approach was seen as legislative vandalism, risking hard-won rights, employment law, environment and consumer protections. Amendments in the House of Lords seek to protect Parliament’s role and constituents' voices, ensuring no backroom decisions are made without parliamentary say-so.

Expressed satisfaction over the end of supremacy of EU law, support for deregulation remaining, and welcoming his own amendment being selected for discussion to ensure proper listing and implementation.

He argues that the amendment is necessary to list provisions of retained EU law for revocation or reform, ensuring relevance and national interest. He criticises the current schedule as containing mostly irrelevant regulations and highlights the importance of an experienced tsar or commander in chief for efficient delivery.

Expresses gratitude for Bill Cash's work and asks if there are assurances that ideas on repeal and improvement of EU law will be implemented. He emphasises the importance of accountability and progress.

Presses Bill Cash about cleaning up redundant or trivial regulations while ensuring strategic reform for national interest. He supports the Secretary of State's proposed timeline and approach.

Recalls past experiences where laws were negotiated due to lack of veto power, emphasising that collective memory should recall unwanted laws as well. He questions why people only remember laws they want to keep.

Intervened to point out that while in the EU it was impossible to repeal European law due to section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, now Parliament has the power to do so.

Clarified that the Bill allows Parliament to repeal EU laws and is not a matter of malice but using powers taken back from Brussels. The Bill does not add new powers; it merely ensures the House can manage legislation as desired.

Argued that the Bill enables the Government to bypass scrutiny by Members of Parliament and their views, contrary to democratic principles. The Prime Minister's stance is about an elected Government taking decisions rather than this Chamber.

Asked if rejecting the amendments would be in favour of the House conducting its normal legislative work. Also questioned whether amendment 6 should apply to both devolved and retained competences.

Agreed with Alyn Smith's reading that the amendment leads to withholding consent only in devolved areas but noted it could be open to different interpretations, raising concerns about clarity and precision.

Reinforced the point that section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 does not specifically refer to devolved matters, questioning the clarity and potential risks of amendment 6.

Mr. Jeremy Wright supports the Government’s new approach outlined in amendment (a), which lists specific EU laws to be repealed unless further action is taken before a certain deadline, thereby avoiding unnecessary scrutiny and procedural delays. He argues that this method provides better clarity and reassurance compared to the original approach of automatically repealing all retained EU law by default.

Intervened to express concern about the impracticality of a Joint Committee mechanism as proposed in Lords amendment 1, suggesting it would not effectively address the issues at hand.

Argues that existing Joint Committees can serve as models for scrutiny, and suggests that two wrongs do not make a right, implying that while pre-Brexit processes may have lacked scrutiny, new mechanisms should be designed to improve parliamentary oversight.

Acknowledges the need for clarity and suggests that further assurances might be necessary from the Government regarding the level of scrutiny without resorting to the proposed Joint Committee mechanism, which he finds clunky.

Expresses support for Government amendment (b), which calls for regular updates on retained law that could be revoked or reformed. She emphasises the need for clarity and suggests this amendment provides a solution to address concerns about scrutiny.

Blake criticises the bill for undermining environmental protections, worker rights, and equal rights. She mentions the impracticality of the dropped 'sunset clause' and expresses concern over how the Bill hands power to Ministers to rewrite essential laws. Blake argues that this is contrary to democratic principles, especially regarding climate action where community input is crucial.

Evans intervenes to suggest that the debate should focus more on specific amendments rather than general opposition to the bill. This implies a stance in favour of engaging with the specifics of the legislation.

Eustice counters Blake's argument by asserting that the Environment Act 2021, which came after leaving the EU, provides sufficient powers to improve the environment and sets new targets making legacy EU ones redundant.

Mr. Hoare acknowledges the arguments presented by Mr. Rees-Mogg but asserts that the chaotic environment of political instability and change last year made it challenging to implement substantial reforms as suggested.

Mr. Eustice expresses sympathy with Mr. Rees-Mogg's concerns but suggests prioritising addressing contentious and harmful regulations over trivial ones, arguing that removing some minor laws could cost businesses more than leaving them in place.

Mr. Duncan Smith highlights the taskforce report recommending regulatory reform based on common law, advocating for a shift from process-based regulation to an outcome approach.

Argues that the Bill's original provisions would have undermined environmental protections, citing concerns from constituents about workers' rights and environmental safeguards. Supports Lords amendments 15 and 42 to ensure parliamentary oversight of future changes to retained EU laws.

Intervenes to support Layla Moran's arguments, citing his experience on the Bill Committee. Emphasises the importance of retaining environmental regulations, such as the Bathing Water Regulations, and ensuring that future government actions cannot weaken these protections.

Supports Lords amendment 1 as it provides certainty to businesses and legal clarity, ensuring that regulations are clear on which laws will be removed from the statute book. Emphasises the importance of revoking unnecessary EU regulations inherited over the last 50 years. Supports Lords amendment 6, stating that codified rights under the Bill provide certainty and enhance them in domestic law. Endorses Lords amendment 16 for transparency and reporting on progress made in revoking or reforming retained EU law.

Ms Creasy argues that the Bill removes democratic principles and undermines accountability. She cites examples where statutory instruments were used to push through unpopular changes, including student loan charges and welfare reforms. She emphasises that the Bill gives ministers unfettered power over 5,000 areas of regulation without proper checks.

Minister Eustice interjected to point out that tertiary legislation from the European Union, often using section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, could amend domestic primary legislation without scrutiny. He argues that this historical context is important when considering the current amendment.

Questions whether Ms Creasy's party would hand back powers to Parliament if they won the next election, implying that Labour might use the same powers for their own purposes.

The Bill, as amended, fulfills the manifesto commitment of making UK laws reflective of national interests. The amendments prevent unintentional revocation of important laws and ensure that scrutiny continues with regular reporting.

Supports the Government's approach to reviewing and updating EU law after Brexit in a more realistic timeframe. He argues against the notion that the Government is planning to weaken environmental and employment protections, stating such claims are unhelpful and not representative of public sentiment or political reality.

Agrees with Simon Hoare's stance that any Government attempting to dismantle employment and environmental protections would face electoral consequences. His intervention reinforces the argument against the notion of deregulation.

Raises concerns about the potential for Ministers to use statutory instruments to make legislative changes to 5,000 laws without a sunset clause. She argues that the Government's approach creates a democratic deficit.

Defends the Government’s record on workers’ rights and emphasises evidence of new protections introduced by the Government, such as extensions to flexible working and maternity rights. He argues against claims that the Government wants to deregulate in a way harmful to workers.

Afolami opposes the Lords amendments, particularly Amendment 15, which he views as adding unnecessary delay and bureaucracy. He argues that elevating the Office of Environmental Protection to impose regulations is not what it was designed for and represents regulatory creep. Afolami supports improving scrutiny and the regulatory system but believes the current process should proceed without delaying tactics.

Wilson intervenes to express concern that removing the sunset clause could lead to a lack of continuous review and oversight by the Government, potentially undermining their commitments to regulatory reform.

Hoare intervenes to support Afolami's stance, suggesting that Wilson’s concerns are unfounded and aligning with the view that the amendment is not necessary.