← Back to House of Commons Debates
Environmental Protection (England) Bill - Schedule 4 - Regulations: Procedure
24 May 2023
Lead MP
Andrew Jones
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
ClimateBrexit
Other Contributors: 10
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.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
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.
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 Critiques the risk of 'repeal by accident' if regulations are hastily repealed without proper evidence-based decisions.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.
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.
▸
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.