← Back to House of Commons Debates
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill
11 May 2023
Lead MP
Kemi Badenoch
Debate Type
Ministerial Statement
Tags
EconomyBrexitParliamentary ProcedureStandards & Ethics
Other Contributors: 28
At a Glance
Kemi Badenoch raised concerns about retained eu law (revocation and reform) bill in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Government Statement
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade announced a change in approach to the revocation and reform of retained EU law, moving from a plan that would have required 450 statutory instruments to preserve EU law to listing all laws that will be removed. The policy remains the same: ending EU supremacy and interpretive effects. However, the way this is being implemented has changed to ensure clarity and transparency for businesses and parliamentarians. This change involves removing over 2,000 pieces of EU legislation instead of striking them from the statute book immediately. The aim is to reform laws in a way that makes the economy better without having to start from scratch with new primary legislation.
Question
Under the Standing Orders of this House, the European Scrutiny Committee is specifically charged with examining EU legislation. The amendments published today are not accompanied by any explanation to the House despite clear reversals in policy. Why has the Secretary of State failed to attend the European Scrutiny Committee and produce a Command Paper explaining these changes?
Minister reply
The Secretary of State explained that until policy was settled, she could not attend the Committee but instead engaged with colleagues through various means. She confirmed her willingness to appear before the Committee if invited. The change in approach is described as pragmatic to ensure clarity and transparency for businesses and parliamentarians.
Justin Madders
Lab
Ellesmere Port and Bromborough
Question
The Government's unrealistic and reckless plan was criticised for attempting to strike 4,000 laws from the statute book within a short timeframe. Why did not the Government listen to experts who warned against this approach? Will the Secretary of State apologise to the House and various organisations, including trade unions and business groups, for announcing the policy change to friends in the press rather than to Parliament?
Minister reply
The Minister defended the change as pragmatic and essential for clarity and transparency. She stated that while the mode of delivery has changed, the destination remains the same, aiming at reducing bureaucracy without watering down workers' rights.
Question
Does my right hon. Friend agree that her description of this change in approach is useful and meets many criticisms of the unamended Bill?
Minister reply
The Minister agreed with her Hon. Friend, highlighting the approach works for everyone by ensuring clarity and transparency without compromising on reform goals.
Alyn Smith
SNP
Na h-Eilean An Iar
Question
I am conflicted about the Bill and while I appreciate the change of direction, I still disagree with it. The SNP voted against this due to its impact on Scotland's relationship with the EU. What assessment has been made regarding the costs to taxpayers and organisations like the National Farmers Union of Scotland?
Minister reply
The approach is about certainty for people and not a betrayal. No work was wasted, as civil servants identified laws that needed reforming or repealing. The Bill will end the supremacy of EU law by December 2023.
Mark Francois
Con
Rayleigh and Wickford
Question
The Bill passed Second Reading with a Government majority, why are we changing course now?
Minister reply
I have looked at the detail and decided this approach is best to deliver on promises. The aim is to repeal and reform by December 2023.
Stella Creasy
Lab/Co-op
Walthamstow
Question
Even with changes, the Government retains power over 4,000 areas of public policy. Will you accept an amendment that gives this place final say on laws being revoked or reformed?
Minister reply
The current approach provides clarity and transparency. The process is about repealing laws and providing a clear view on what needs to be removed.
Question
While I agree with the Secretary of State's outline, the manner in which it was handled could have been better. There are willing volunteers for Select Committees.
Minister reply
The focus should be on statutory instruments that repeal EU law rather than retain them. The approach is faster and accelerates reform.
Daisy Cooper
Lib Dem
St Albans
Question
Despite the U-turn, the Bill still includes power grabs over environmental protections. Will you make a firm commitment to not repeal or change environmental laws without scrutiny?
Minister reply
The schedule lists all regulations being repealed; if there are concerns about specific ones, they can be addressed.
Question
Is this abdication to the House of Lords due to civil service idleness or a lack of ministerial drive?
Minister reply
Civil servants have been working hard on preservation, not repeal. This new approach allows for reform.
Karin Smyth
Lab
Bristol South
Question
The scrutiny process is ill-prepared and flippant; what lessons are you learning about the involvement of this place in treaty scrutiny?
Minister reply
The CRaG process for international treaties was brought in by a Labour Government. We are using parliamentary procedure and will not apologise.
Dominic Raab
Con
Esher and Walton
Question
Recognises the balance struck by Kemi Badenoch on EU regulations, suggests publishing a Department-by-Department analysis of identified regulations for scrutiny. Urges resistance to claims that further revisions cannot be done.
Minister reply
Agrees with Dominic Raab, mentions the publication of the dashboard showing laws identified for revision or repeal.
Kirsten Oswald
SNP
East Dunbartonshire
Question
Critiques the Government amendment as anti-democratic and damaging; suggests that an independent Scotland within the EU is a better future.
Minister reply
Mocks the SNP's inability to manage Scotland effectively, criticising them for their lack of technical competence.
Desmond Swayne
Con
New Forest West
Question
Questions if there remains urgency without a sunset clause.
Minister reply
Clarifies that the process will still provide urgency and reform, noting the same number of measures are targeted for revision or repeal.
Clive Efford
Lab
Eltham
Question
Charges Kemi Badenoch with avoiding scrutiny; questions if the Bill takes back sovereignty to Parliament as promised during Brexit.
Minister reply
Defends her approach as pragmatic and delivering on promises made, criticising Labour for scripted criticisms.
David Jones
Con
Clwyd West
Question
Invites Kemi Badenoch to appear before the European Scrutiny Committee, accepting an invitation made by the Chairman this morning.
Minister reply
Agrees to appear but is unavailable next week due to engagements in Switzerland and the Middle East.
Fleur Anderson
Lab
Putney
Question
Questions the estimate of £1 billion for business savings; suggests businesses have faced rising costs and less investment because of uncertainty.
Minister reply
Defends the amendment as providing clarity, criticising Labour for failing to adapt their criticisms accordingly.
Bob Neill
Con
Bermondsey and Old Southwark
Question
Asks if the Bill provides legal certainty for businesses; questions a flaw in drafting that did not identify what would be revoked.
Minister reply
Agrees with Bob Neill on providing clarity and certainty, emphasising the benefits of reforming retained EU law.
Carol Monaghan
SNP
Glasgow North West
Question
Challenges Kemi Badenoch's explanation as patronising; questions if changes would prevent U-turns on workers' rights.
Minister reply
Defends the approach as not taking away workers’ rights, criticises Labour for fearing reform.
Lichfield
Question
Questions if the new methodology will repeal laws in the same timeframe; praises pragmatism but questions interest in changes.
Minister reply
Asserts that the number of laws to be repealed remains consistent, defends her decision as a Brexiteer.
Alison Thewliss
SNP
Glasgow Central
Question
Requests clarity on the Work at Height Regulations 2005; asks if these will be included or protected.
Minister reply
Offers to review specific concerns raised by Alison Thewliss, clarifying that bureaucracy around reporting is being changed.
Martin Vickers
Con
Brigg and Immingham
Question
As a committed Brexiteer, I want to see the benefits of Brexit delivered as soon as possible. However, businesses in my constituency express concerns. Could you assure me that if I or any Member bring forward recommendations for measures to include in the list, you will make those changes as quickly as can be arranged?
Minister reply
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and confirm that this approach is intended to generate suggestions from businesses. We need to find things holding Britain back rather than deleting them without a reason. Speaking with businesses may provide many suggestions for reforms.
Pete Wishart
SNP
Perth and Kinross-shire
Question
The right hon. Lady is doing herself no favours this morning with her patronising and arrogant manner, not just to Opposition Members but also to her hon. Friends. Is it the case that in their haste to create a hard Brexit utopia, reality has caught up with them? Does it look like the Conservative party—this fragile Brexit coalition—is now starting to fragment into its constituent parts?
Minister reply
No, this is complete nonsense. The hon. Gentleman talks about what he hopes and wishes would happen rather than the reality.
Greg Smith
Con
Mid Buckinghamshire
Question
I respectfully disagree with my right hon. Friend that this is a technical change, given the different status that retained EU law has in our system. Can you give an assurance that not one jot of the concessions given in the House of Lords over this Bill are anything to do with upholding any commitment made in the negotiation of the Windsor framework?
Minister reply
I am very happy to say that I was not involved in negotiations on the Windsor framework, and it is my plan. This approach will allow us to get rid of about 2,000 pieces of legislation by the end of this year.
Christine Jardine
Lib Dem
Edinburgh West
Question
May I respectfully say that colleagues on both sides understand the amendment? We simply do not agree. Does she agree that a situation where the House feels there will not be an opportunity to debate something as important as this and scrutinise it properly is unacceptable?
Minister reply
I disagree because we have debated it already. The intent has not changed, only how we are listing the regulations. We will continue to emphasise that this amendment does what it says.
Luke Evans
Con
Hinckley and Bosworth
Question
What is the message for my constituents who now have concerns that this could be reneged on, given that they voted for Brexit?
Minister reply
I can tell your constituents that the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Business and Trade are committed Brexiteers. We will deliver this on time to show the benefits of Brexit.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Question
It seems there can be movement regarding decisions on EU laws when this Government sees fit. Can you outline whether this symbolises a change in policy that will enable final work on getting the protocol solutions finalised?
Minister reply
This is not a change in policy but a change in approach using a schedule to list exactly what we are removing. This helps conclude by the end of this year and focus on reform.
Bob Blackman
Con
Harrow East
Question
Between 2016 and 2019, the Procedure Committee heard about thousands of statutory instruments that had to be translated into UK law, repealed or reformed. Will taking pressure off this timetable cause concern among Members as to what happens after the sunset clause kicks in?
Minister reply
This change allows us to continue beyond the end of this year and creates a mechanism for continuing reforms rather than preservation.
Shadow Comment
Bill Cash
Shadow Comment
The shadow responder criticised the Government for not adhering to Standing Orders and failing to appear before the European Scrutiny Committee when asked three times. He questioned why no explanation was provided to the House despite a fundamental reversal of policy. Bill Cash demanded an immediate deferral of the Bill’s Report stage in the House of Lords, requested the Secretary of State to attend the European Scrutiny Committee next week, and insisted on producing a Command Paper before that stage.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.