Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill Consideration of Lords
message After Clause 16 Environmental protection 2.12pm The
Solicitor General (Michael Tomlinson) I beg to move, That this
House disagrees with Lords amendment 15D. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr
Nigel Evans) With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords
amendment 42D, and Government motion to disagree. The Solicitor
General This House has been asked these questions before
and...Request free trial
Retained EU Law
(Revocation and Reform) Bill
Consideration of Lords message
After Clause 16
Environmental protection
2.12pm
The Solicitor General ()
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment
15D.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment 42D,
and Government motion to disagree.
The Solicitor General
This House has been asked these questions before and twice this
House has said no, with an overwhelming majority. We are asked to
consider, for a third time, two amendments, neither of which is
radically different from the amendments we have already rejected.
It will come as no surprise to anyone in this Chamber that I
invite the House, once again, to disagree with the Lords
amendments.
(Glasgow North) (SNP)
Will the Solicitor General give way?
The Solicitor General
Because the hon. Gentleman asks with a smile every single time,
of course I will give way.
I congratulate the Solicitor General on his consistency at the
Dispatch Box, which was lacking throughout most of the rest of
the Bill’s progress, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and
Neston (), the Labour Front Bencher,
said last time we were here. The selection list says:
“Environmental protection; Parliamentary scrutiny
Govt motion to disagree…Govt motion to disagree”.
That sums it up, doesn’t it? The Government disagree with
enhanced environmental protection and they disagree with enhanced
parliamentary scrutiny. That was the whole point of Brexit for
the Government, wasn’t it?
The Solicitor General
I am delighted to have given way to the hon. Gentleman, not least
because I like him a lot and because of his smile, but also
because of his warm welcome for the Government’s position. I
entirely disagree with him; he is wrong. On the last occasion he
intervened, he did not hear the whole debate. I invite him to do
so this time because, when he does, he will see precisely what
the Government’s position is.
I make it clear that we are not rejecting these amendments out of
hand. As I stressed in our last debate on the Bill, and as
acknowledged by in the other place, we
have listened to their lordships’ views. We have worked
collaboratively on a number of issues and made fundamental
changes to the Bill. There has also been significant collegiate
working on the reporting requirements that will provide robust
scrutiny. Parliament will be able to examine the Government’s
plans for reform up to six months ahead of the legislation being
tabled, thanks to the regular reporting brought in by that
amendment.
Lords amendment 42D is based on the process contained in the
Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, which is a very
different beast from a very different Bill designed for a
completely incomparable power. A legislative reform order is
capable of operating on any statute, including Acts of
Parliament, whereas the relevant regulation-making power here is
limited to secondary retained EU law, which is not primary
legislation.
Further, I respectfully disagree with the noble when, in the other place, he
described the process in his amendment as “light touch”, not
least because of the fundamental issue of time, which is crucial
when we consider how long parliamentary processes can take. Lords
amendment 42D envisages up to 60 sitting days for Parliament to
consider and debate proposals for statutory instruments, and
potentially time after that for further scrutiny before an SI can
be made. By adding such significant time for additional scrutiny,
this amendment would place in doubt the effective use of the
repeal and replace powers before they expire.
Perhaps that is the intention. This is the additional friction
that was so neatly alighted upon by my right hon. and learned
Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir ) during one of our previous
debates. Additional, deliberate friction, as my noble Friend
said in the other place
“is not about additional parliamentary scrutiny; this is actually
about stopping Parliament acting in this area.”—[Official Report,
House of Lords, 20 June 2023; Vol. 831, c. 117.]
It is perhaps worth noting that, since 2008, only 35 LROs have
been brought forward.
(Stone) (Con)
My hon. and learned Friend is making some excellent points. He
has just referred to Parliament as a whole but, in this
particular context, a difficulty arises in subsections (6) to
(8), which confer a power on the House of Lords to, let us be
honest, effectively block proposals if it decides so to do. That
is an inherent objection.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Knowing him, he will develop
those points in due course. He agrees with what my noble Friend
said in the other place,
that this is not about additional scrutiny so much as about
preventing Parliament from acting.
It is right to say that Lords amendment 42D has been given
serious consideration, as were other iterations previously before
this House. It is disappointing and hardly conducive to
constructive conversation or detailed debate to resort to
insulting hon. and right hon. Members, as unfortunately happened
in their lordships’ House yesterday. Apart from my noble Friend
, their lordships have not
grappled with the provisions already in the Bill for a sifting
committee, the detail of which is found in schedule 5, and which
will result in significantly more scrutiny than EU law had when
it was first introduced into our law.
On Lords amendment 15D, I have little to add to what has been
said many times. We have repeatedly made commitments, at every
stage of parliamentary passage, that we will not lower
environmental protections. Our environmental standards are first
class: the Agriculture Act 2020, the Fisheries Act 2020 and the
landmark and world-leading Environment Act 2021.
The Labour party has a choice, both in this House and in the
other place. Will it choose to frustrate this necessary
post-Brexit legislation, this natural next step that was always
going to have to happen? Will it continue to delay the delivery
of the significant opportunities that await us? The Government
want to get on with the job. Enough is enough.
(Ellesmere Port and Neston)
(Lab)
We are back once again, and maybe it will be third time lucky,
although it does not sound like it will be. The House will no
doubt be familiar with our position, that the Bill, as originally
drafted, was reckless, unnecessary and undemocratic. The
Government talked about a bonfire of regulations when the Bill
first came before the House, but I would instead describe it as a
scorched earth policy that made for a good headline but
completely failed to grasp the scale and complexity of the task
before us. That the approach has been at least partially reversed
is of course welcome, but concerns remain. The Lords amendments
before us will deal to some extent with some of the outstanding
issues, and we therefore intend to support them.
I turn, first, to Lords amendment 15D. I pay tribute to for showing maximum flexibility
in trying to find something that will gain Government support. I
fear that it sounds as though his efforts will be in vain,
because although he has taken the approach that the Government’s
problem with his previous amendment was its wording rather than
its substance—on the basis of the Government’s claim not to want
to water down environmental protections—I think he was hoping
that reasoned argument and compromise might see a resolution to
this endless game of ping-pong. The sad reality is that he has
been looking for reason where none exists.
(Wirral West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important point. A number of
constituents have written to me in recent weeks to set out their
concerns and point out that we are in a climate emergency. They
believe it is essential that the current level of protection for
the environment is not weakened. In addition, they are concerned
as we have a responsibility to not just ourselves, but future
generations. Does he agree on that?
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I agree with it,
which is why we are continuing to support the Lords on this
amendment.
The Minister has referred to the conditions of previous
iterations of this amendment as both “burdensome” and
“unnecessary”. It is of course complete nonsense that something
can be both of those things at the same time. A burden would be
an additional requirement, but the Government also consider such
amendments unnecessary. That implies that these are things they
intend to do in any case, yet in their eyes they somehow remain a
burden. I am sorry to say that I have yet to alight on any
rational explanation for that stance, and poor has stripped away his amendment
to the bare minimum now in the futile search for common ground.
His new version of the amendment has just two elements, instead
of the four in the previous version. The remaining ones are
non-regression on environmental protections and consultation with
relevant experts; he has dropped the requirements for compliance
with international obligations and transparency in reporting on
expert advice. I would have thought that the two dropped
conditions ought not to have been considered too troublesome for
a Government committed to maintaining environmental protections,
but we are where we are.
The Lords amendment therefore simply puts in the Bill what the
Government say they intend to do in any event, yet the objections
remain. We should be mindful of what the Government’s own
watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, said in its
evidence on this Bill, which was that it
“does not offer any safety net, there is no requirement to
maintain existing levels of environmental protection.”
I find myself both bemused and alarmed by the Government’s
intransigence on this issue. When they are not listening to their
own watchdog and instead present arguments that disintegrate on
the barest of examinations, it is right that we should continue
to press for this amendment. If everything that was said at the
Dispatch Box became law, we would not need legislation, but I am
afraid the longer this goes on and the more unreasonable the
objections become, the stronger the case becomes for putting in
the Bill the protections the Government say they want to see.
The confidence that the public have in this place has been
severely tested in recent years. If our democracy is to work, and
if we want people to engage and participate in the democratic
process, what a Government say has to be honoured and has to be
seen through, otherwise we risk forever losing trust in the
political process. Once that trust has died, it cannot be brought
back to life by magic or by good intentions. So I say to
Conservative Members: think very carefully about how you vote on
this Lords amendment. If they trust the Government to keep their
word and can find a way to reconcile that blind faith with the
Government’s refusal to put those promises in law, they should
vote down the amendment. But if that word is broken, they should
not ever expect anyone to trust the Conservative party to stick
to its promises on the environment or any other matter, ever
again.
Lords Amendment 42D tackles one of the most controversial clauses
in the Bill, clause 15, which the Hansard Society called the
“‘do anything we want’ powers for Ministers.”
I remind Members that the Hansard Society is a body whose opinion
ought to mean something. It describes clause 15 as that because,
as has been extensively covered previously, it empowers Ministers
to revoke regulations and not replace them; replace them with
another measure that they consider
“appropriate…to achieve the same or similar objectives”;
or to “make such alternative provision” as they consider
“appropriate”. Those are extremely broad powers covering broad
areas of policy.
If this Bill has taught us anything, it is that the reach of EU
regulations permeates every aspect of life and covers many
important issues that most people would expect Parliament to have
a say over: consumer rights; public health; the environment; and,
of course, employment rights. These regulations cover many things
that many people would want to see protected, and many more
things that nobody said would be removed or watered down back in
2016.
I pay tribute to for trying to find a compromise
that the Government can accept. I fear that, as with , his efforts will be in vain. In
short, this latest amendment would see a Committee of this place
sift regulations made under the clause, following an explanation
by the relevant Minister as to why that particular regulation is
required or desirable. It should be noted that made it clear in the other place
that this Committee would be a Commons one only; how ironic that
an unelected Lord is the one pushing an amendment to give the
elected Commons more say in how our laws are decided, and that
the Commons is resisting this move. Perhaps he, at least,
understands what taking back control was meant to be about.
The Lords amendment further provides that once the Committee has
considered the Minister’s explanation, it can, if it wishes—it is
not required to—draw special attention to the regulations in
question, following which the Minister must arrange for them to
be debated on the Floor of each House. The Minister must then
have regard to any resolution of either House and may, but is not
required to, amend their proposal in the light of what has been
resolved. The Committee can also recommend that the proposal
should not be proceeded with, but, in the true spirit of taking
back control, this House will get the final say on that. Is this
not what the true spirit of Brexit was really about: the
democratically elected Members of this House asserting influence
and passing our laws?
I am sure that we will hear, once again, the fallacious arguments
that because these laws were passed in the first place without
proper democratic involvement, that means, by some twisted logic,
that it is fine now to hand all the power over these laws to
Ministers, without any reference to Parliament. Those arguments
do not wash because they come from a place that says that
anything that originates from the EU is bad and we therefore do
not need it. Tell that to the millions of people enjoying paid
holidays for the first time, to the disabled passengers who were
given priority on transport for the first time and to the
millions of people who have kept their job because of TUPE
protections. I do not believe anyone who voted to leave the EU
voted to dispense with those rights. If it is the Government’s
intention to change any of those protections, or the thousands of
others that our citizens enjoy, it is only right that this place
has a say in that.
I am afraid the lack of transparency that this Bill represents,
and the sidelining of genuine scrutiny, show up all those
arguments that were made back in 2016 about sovereignty for what
they are: a fig leaf for a select few to shape and determine the
future of this country without reference to Parliament, and
certainly without reference to the people they are supposed to
represent. Democracy in the 21st century does not die in one
swift act, but erodes over time, bit by bit. This Bill is another
example of that, and until this Government restore basic
democratic principles, we will do all we can to oppose it.
I have read with great interest the record of the proceedings
yesterday in the House of Lords, noting some extremely wise and
democratically well judged comments by those such as and . I note, however,
that Lord Clarke of Nottingham, with whom I have crossed swords a
few times in the past, to say the least, was conspicuous in his
support of Lordusb Hope of Craighead’s amendment, as were a
number of others I do not have time to mention, although their
appearance in the Division list was entirely predictable.
I wish to add that the wise words of the Lord Hodgson and Lord
Hamilton reflect not only a question of parliamentary sovereignty
in relation to the elected House, but the elected will of the
people, both in the referendum in 2016, the anniversary of which
is almost upon us, and in the general election of December 2019,
where there was a massive majority to get Brexit done. It is
therefore also a manifesto commitment, clear and unequivocal,
which invokes the Salisbury doctrine. The Government have stood
firm in these proceedings; I was extremely glad to hear my hon.
and learned Friend the Solicitor General yet again showing the
degree of diligence and determination that is necessary, and I
know he will continue to do so in this matter of retained EU law.
I also speak as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee,
whose report was unequivocal on the subject. I am glad to say
that the Government supported the amendment I proposed, which is
part of this exchange between the Lords and the Commons.
of Craighead and are on the same page with
regard to what they term a “constitutional principle”. I note the
judicial and legal enthusiasm for the amendment they have put
forward, which demonstrates the issue of parliamentary
sovereignty. Indeed, Lord Hodgson rightly referred to
“parliamentary sovereignty” when he read out what I had said in
the House of Commons on the subject the other day, about the
Lords’ “intransigence” in this matter. The amendment is a matter
of democracy, as well as constitutional principle, because it
involves the elected House and its majority view.
2.30pm
Coincidentally, it is also a matter that, at bottom, is about
judicial difference of opinion at the very highest level. That
was expressed by one of the greatest jurists of modern times,
namely of Cornhill, in his
magisterial essay, “The Rule of Law and the Sovereignty of
Parliament”, in his book, “The Rule of Law”. In fact, glanced at
that point in his remarks and—it is more than merely interesting
to note, most unusually, but driven by deep frustration—he
criticised of Craighead by name, I am sure
with the greatest respect, along with , for their views
on the issue of parliamentary sovereignty and the courts. I note
the clause we are debating is entitled “Parliamentary scrutiny”,
which involves parliamentary sovereignty and the overriding role
of the elected House of Commons in particular, as regards
subsections (6), (7) and (8).
The essay is well worth reading. In a pertinent passage, describes what is at stake and
why he, for his part, could not accept, I am sure respectfully,
the views of of Craighead as being correct. It
is a very much a question of attitude of mind, which is a
parallel and intertwined issue, regarding the sovereignty of the
House of Commons as the elected House, by contrast to the
unelected constitutional position of the House of Lords, not to
mention the judiciary. The Bill demonstrates an intransigence,
with a failure to appreciate the importance of the role of the
elected House.
invokes the words of Professor
Goldsworthy, whom he regards as the magisterial authority on
matters relating to parliamentary sovereignty and its derivation
from democratic decision making by the electors. What Professor
Goldsworthy says, and which says he agrees with, is:
“What is at stake is the location of the ultimate decision-making
authority—the right to the final word.”
In the case of the Bill, the final word must be with the House of
Commons as the ultimate decision-making authority, particularly
in the context of ping-pong.
At that point, Professor Goldsworthy is referring to related
matters, but he might as well be referring to ping-pong between
the Lords and the Commons. He identified the importance of the
doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty as ultimately belonging to
the House of Commons, in respect of that final word, and he
emphasises the fact that on the attitude and view of some judges,
it would be their word, other than Parliament’s, that would be
final.
Goldsworthy goes on to say:
“this would amount to a massive transfer of political power from
parliaments to judges”.
I would argue it could equally apply to a transfer of political
power of the same order to the House of Lords. Moreover, he
states:
“it would be a transfer of power initiated by the judges to
protect rights chosen by them rather than one brought about
democratically by parliamentary enactment or popular
referendum.”
He adds:
"it is no wonder that the elected branches of government regard
that prospect with apprehension”.
Personally, I could not agree more and it is significant that
Professor Goldsworthy’s words echo down the decades on this
subject, as well as Lord Bingham’s agreement with them.
Ultimately, it is about the same question and it is specifically
related to the very words he chooses, namely legislation
“brought about democratically by parliamentary enactment”,
therefore by the House of Commons, rather than the House of
Lords.
The words he chooses are “democratically” and “popular
referendum”. In this context—now, in the present day—they refer
to the outcome of the popular referendum of Brexit, the
anniversary of which we will celebrate in two days’ time. This is
the constitutional principle that must prevail, and the manifesto
that goes with it from the general election. The final word on
ping-pong should be determined by that principle.
(Stirling) (SNP)
Here we are again—plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. I
always remember that nobody ever criticised a speech for being
too short, and I think I can excel myself this afternoon.
Our position, like the Government’s, has not changed in relation
to the Bill. We think the Bill is unnecessary. Retained EU law
became law when we left the European Union. The special status
that we have heard so much about does not, I believe, stand any
sort of academic analysis. It is open to the Government to
retain, repeal or change any measure on the statute book without
this provision. We think this provision augments the powers of
the Executive in relation to this body of law, not on the basis
of what the law does, how effective it is or how up to date it
is, but on the basis of where it came from. That is a poor
premise.
I find myself in the strange position of backing the Lords
amendments. The SNP does not send Members to the House of Lords
because we have issues with the democratic legitimacy of the
place, but I am glad of their work on this. Where I say this is a
bad Bill, and where I fear it will be bad law, I would also put
on record my appreciation of the very hard-working Clerks and
others who have got it to where it is today. I disagree with the
politics of this, not their work.
On amendments 15D and 42D, the environmental non-regression
clause, that is taking Ministers at face value. If Ministers do
not want to regress, then let us put that on the face of the
Bill, which would reassure an awful lot of people.
Scrutiny measures are foreseen within the Bill. We acknowledge
that, but we do not think they are enough. This is a new set of
powers for the Government and I think it needs a new set of
scrutiny powers for this place and for the House of Lords, to
make sure that there are brakes on what they might do with those
powers so given.
The legislative consent motions have been denied by the Holyrood
Parliament and the Welsh Senedd. That should give any Unionist in
this place cause for concern about the Bill, both in the way it
is being taken forward and the attitude that it shows to the
devolved settlement. So we are against the Bill and we are
backing the Lords amendments to make the Bill a little less bad.
I am weary of our entrenched position and a dialogue of the
death, so I draw my remarks to a close.
Sir (South Swindon) (Con)
In another attempt to recreate complete déjà vu, I follow the
hon. Member for Stirling () again, as I did some weeks
ago. I will not repeat the point I made to him about his remarks
on devolution, in an otherwise beautifully constructed speech,
with which I respectfully completely disagree.
We are left with two issues. The first issue can be dealt with
fairly swiftly. I do not see the need to put on the face of
primary legislation a non-regression clause. The Government have
been crystal clear about their approach to environmental
standards and I know from my own inbox experiences, and from
those of many other right hon. and hon. Members, that the British
public just will not have a regression from high environmental or
food safety standards. They are the sort of standards where we
have led global opinion about regulation. With respect to , I do not see the need for that
amendment.
However, I will press the Solicitor General, my hon. and learned
Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (), on amendment 42D. While
I accept that in its detail there might be some further work, I
think 60 days is a long time. In effect, that would mean 60
working days, so if one started in late July, the matter may not
be resolved until October or November. I can see that is an
issue, but I pray in aid what the noble Lords said about the need
to disaggregate this issue from the issue of Brexit. It does not
matter about the source of the law or where it comes from; this
is a question of the ability of this place—Parliament—to
scrutinise the operations and decisions of the Executive.
I am always interested to listen to the careful words of my hon.
Friend the Member for Stone ( ). I thought that his
exposition of Lord Hope’s position on parliamentary sovereignty
was a fair one. He and I actually agree quite strongly about
parliamentary sovereignty and the need to avoid the trend in the
noughties—before the current Supreme Court—to downplay the role
of parliamentary sovereignty to suggest that, somehow, we have
moved on from the age of Dicey, and the role is no longer
unqualified. I think he and I agree on that—we are both defenders
of sovereignty—but to pray in aid an argument about ceding powers
of the judiciary is rather odd bearing in mind the context of the
amendment. The amendment is all about giving more power to this
place and, indirectly, I accept, to the other place.
I made a very careful distinction. I appreciate the point that my
right hon. and learned Friend is trying to make, and accept, of
course, that of Craighead is a very
distinguished judge and a member of the Supreme Court. I thought
that it might just be relevant to draw attention to the fact
that, in the context of parliamentary sovereignty, used some quite trenchant
words with regard to the judgments that he had observed both from
Lady Hale and from . That was all.
Sir
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s analysis. I think that we
are on the same side on this. I have always been extremely
vigilant in observing, scrutinising, criticising and making my
own comments in lectures outside this place about the dangers of
going down that road and of not understanding that, far from
being mutually contradictory, the rule of law and parliamentary
sovereignty are both sides of the same coin. If we do not have
strong parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law itself is
undermined. The rule of law is a political concept rather than
the law itself, and, I think, that that is sometimes
misunderstood. It is the duty of Conservatives, from my hon.
Friend right through to me, to remind this place and other places
about the importance of these principles. We agree on that, but
that is not the precise context of this amendment. The amendment
is legitimately and properly seeking to make sure that this place
has a role in the scrutiny of the revocation of legislation.
I do not accept the arguments that there is an attempt, certainly
by the mover of this amendment or of some of the others who spoke
in the debate, to try to frustrate the purpose of this important
Bill, which I support. We are at a stage now where, with the
greatest respect to my hon. Friend, we should not concern
ourselves with the Salisbury Acts, because the Lords have given
us a Second and Third Reading, and that convention relates to the
commanding heights of a Bill, but we are now down to the dirty
detail, and that is what we are talking about. Therefore, it is
important that we lean into this process in as sensible a way as
possible to see whether there is a potential compromise—either by
a reduction in the number of days, which I would agree with, or,
indeed, by looking again at the precise role of the other place
with regard to the approval or otherwise of any regulation. That
is what I would be seeking to do if I were in my hon. Friend’s
place, because I detect that there is, if not a head of steam, a
determination by the noble Lords to press the Government on this
particular issue.
As I have said before, if we start to take the “B” word out of
this issue and look at it on the basis of parliamentary scrutiny,
then perhaps we can take the heat out of the debate and have
something far more considered and reasonable.
My right hon. and learned Friend may be just ducking an issue,
which is that, actually, it is not about the “B” word or Brexit
as such; it is about parliamentary democracy and sovereignty, the
general election and the referendum as well. We are talking about
a massive amount of law. I am glad to note that the Government
accepted my proposal that we should examine the list and have a
proper list. However, having said that, I am afraid that I do not
agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. He is doing his best
to find a compromise, but I do not think that a compromise is
legitimate in these circumstances.
Sir
I listened with care to my hon. Friend. Although he and I are on
other sides of the argument, we have always had, I think, a very
strong mutual regard for each other’s position and the way in
which we put our arguments. I am afraid that I do not agree. It
is absolutely right to pray in aid the democratic decisions that
have been made by the British people and this House, but we are
also here, I think, as guardians of this place. It is important
to note that, when we created retained EU law, which he and I
were heavily involved with, we said at the time, either
explicitly or implicitly, that we would, in good order, look
carefully at the body of retained EU law, and that we would get
rid of what we do not need—I am absolutely up for that, as it
would be good, tidy law-making and doing service to the statute
book—but at the same time we would retain what we regard as
important safeguards or regulations that underpin particular
activities. That is good for the rule of law and good for
certainty, and we should remember that. I do not think that the
bulldozer approach is the right one; the scalpel surely should be
applied to these regulations, so that we get it right.
Therefore, in closing, I ask my hon. and learned Friend the
Solicitor General to consider carefully whether, through further
amendment and change, we can strike the right balance between the
need to fulfil the objectives of this important Bill and to make
sure that this place is not lost in the rush to revoke or amend
regulations. There may be a time, even with sunsetting, that we
will no longer be the party of government and we need to remember
that we should be here to defend the position of this House
irrespective of who might sit on the Treasury Bench. On that
note, I urge my hon. and learned Friend to think again about
amendment 42D, but, otherwise, I am in full support of his
remarks.
2.46pm
(Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for
South Swindon (Sir ). I have much sympathy for
him and his attempts to speak to deaf ears.
We are back dealing with the renegade masters of this Government
and their ill behaviour—the arrogance they have yet again
expressed towards the concept of parliamentary scrutiny. People
watching these proceedings —few, I am sure, on a lovely Wednesday
sunny afternoon—will understand what is being said: “Our way, or
no way at all.” The amendments are a reasonable way of trying to
address the loss of parliamentary scrutiny—the ministerial power
grab—that this Bill represents.
It is seven years since we were told that Brexit was all about
taking back control; seven years that we have been waiting for
any kind of benefit at all; and seven years in which our
constituents have certainly seen the damage that has been done.
The only benefit that the Bill will bring is to Downing Street.
It takes back power not to the people, but to the Prime Minister.
That is why thousands of people have been writing to their MPs,
begging and pleading them to look at the damage that the Bill
would do to the powers in this place and to their voice in that
process. Following the logic of the hon. Member for Stone ( ), we could call anything
Brexit. He wants to say, “Well, we had a referendum, so this
piece of legislation, as it is currently written, must go through
this place unamended.” Well, I would quite like all the money
that we were promised for the NHS also to go through this place,
but we cannot always get what we want. My constituents are
concerned about democracy; that is why people writing to us; that
is why there is a concern about the process that the Bill would
set up. The powers that it gives, that continue way beyond any
sunset date at the end of this year, are over consumer rights,
environmental standards and employment rights.
Let us be honest: in a week when the reputation of Parliament
could not get much lower, any attempt to restore the ability of a
Member of Parliament to represent their constituents, propose
amendments or participate in scrutiny—not just shout at Ministers
about something that they will pass without challenge—cannot be a
bad thing. I welcome their lordships having stood up for the role
we could play. We have seen a week in which some MPs would rather
have gone to watch the cricket than come to Westminster to do
their job, but some of us still think that there is a job worth
turning up for and that we should do that job.
Sir
rose—
I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees. I have
never seen him at the cricket. I will gladly give way.
Sir
Some of us, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stone ( ), love cricket, but we can do
both, and that is why we are here.
In fairness to the hon. Member for Stone, I recognise that he was
here on Monday and is here today. On the powers of this Bill, he
is like the Earl of Lucan—leading his cavalry into the charge of
the Light Brigade—because he has already seen the arrogance of
Ministers in responding to his concerns. I will never understand
why he is giving away the power that he has as a Back-Bench MP to
challenge for things—things that I might disagree with, but that,
in a democracy, I would stand up for his right to argue for—but
he is doing that today and he has done so consistently because he
thinks this Bill is Brexit. It is not.
This Bill is a complete break-up of our parliamentary system,
because it gives Ministers powers over 4,000 areas of
legislation, using statutory instrument Committees with
hand-picked groups of MPs to wave through any changes that
Ministers want to make. And what has the hon. Gentleman got out
of the process? He has got a list of the things that are not
going to be deleted that he would like to see deleted. What a
glorious victory that is. Little wonder the Earl of Cardigan
would be looking at him—
Will the hon. Lady give way?
With the greatest respect, I have listened at length to the hon.
Gentleman and I am conscious of time. I simply recognise the
parallel with the charge of the Light Brigade in that, at first,
the cavalry was lauded, and only later did we see the damage and
destruction and only then did the British people hold them
accountable. It will be the same when he argues against the very
principle of ping-pong, which is about scrutiny.
The hon. Gentleman matches the arrogance of the Minister, who
first of all challenged the proposals put forward by the Lords on
the basis that they were a novel process—they were not; they were
based and rooted in parliamentary expertise from a former
parliamentary Clerk, who had plenty of experience of the
different mechanisms of scrutiny that can be brought to bear—and
now complains that the Lords, having listened to the debate in
this place and tried to find a compromise, have come forward with
another proposal. That is not good enough for him either.
Yet, all along, the Minister wants to claim that the Government
have listened, while the Government have failed to table a single
alternative proposal or to make a single suggestion to reassure
those of us concerned that, if we give up 4,000 areas of
legislation to Ministers to use SI Committees, we may as well all
go home, because we will be bystanders to the parliamentary
process. It is sheer arrogance to suggest that scrutiny is
additional friction; it is called asking questions. Even
Back-Bench Conservative MPs would think that that is a good idea,
because it is a mistake to think any Government get it right all
the time. That is why we have scrutiny and a process of trying
and testing legislation.
“Computer says no” speaks to the real truth behind Brexit and
behind this legislation, which is that the Government never
intended to listen to the British people at all, because they
never intended to give powers to the people who represent them.
That is why it is an insult to democracy to see all this.
Constituents across the country will be deeply concerned about a
Bill that will allow the Government to revoke or water down
legislation without any scrutiny at all, beyond possibly waving
it through a five-minute Committee sitting.
People are concerned about environmental standards, which is trying so hard to protect,
and which the Government say they will protect—yet they will not
write that down. That should be very telling, because we shall
see that that becomes a developers’ charter. We shall see, for
example, people trying to develop Holton Heath, which I am sure
the Minister is well aware of, a site of protected heathland in
his own constituency. Development was refused for that site on
the basis of the special protection areas and special areas of
conservation—both regulations that will be abolished under the
Bill, unless the Government write them back in.
That development attempt was rebuffed, but the Minister’s
constituents can have no confidence that development will not be
proposed on that site again if we lose those pieces of
legislation. The fact that Ministers will not write in the Bill
that that absolutely will not happen, and the fact that we have
not had that clarity over those pieces of legislation, should
give his constituents pause. It would certainly give my
constituents concerns about somebody seeking to develop the
Walthamstow wetlands, for example.
The proposals before us today reflect the Lords listening and
trying to find a way forward. They are talking about a
non-binding form of legislative scrutiny, whereby the Commons
could suggest amendments to a statutory instrument. The
Government could even refuse to accept those amendments, but it
would be a process of scrutiny and accountability—the mildest
form we have seen—and yet, still, computer says no.
The Minister might think it is acceptable to be this arrogant
about the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. Conservative
Members might shake their heads and say, “The good chaps and
chapesses of this Government could not possibly do anything
wrong. Of course they will be sensitive to the electorate.” I am
not sure the electorate think that that is the case. If the only
opportunity for challenge and scrutiny is at a referendum or
election, our capacity to make good laws—the whole point of this
place—is gone.
I am sure, based on what he just said, that the hon. Member for
Stone will now be leading the campaign for the abolition of the
House of Lords—or at least for an elected House of Lords.
Certainly I presume he will not take up a seat in the other place
when he leaves the Commons. But that is the point, is it not? Our
time here might be fleeting but, if we start unpicking the
strands of parliamentary scrutiny, the processes that exist and
our capacity to speak up for our constituents when their rights
are affected, the damage will be everlasting.
The Minister might dismiss people such as me, still looking for
those elusive benefits of Brexit seven years on, but he cannot
dismiss the concerns of thousands of constituents. I hope he will
finally engage in a serious process with the Members of the House
of Lords and stop dismissing them, because they come with the
very best of intentions. If we are absent at work and not doing
our job of defending democracy, somebody else must do so. I hope
that this House will support Lords amendments 15D and 42D,
because our environment and our parliamentary democracy deserve
better.
The Solicitor General
With the leave of the House, I thank all right hon., right hon.
and learned and hon. Members for their contributions to this
debate. I was going to say I need not go into the fine details
but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South
Swindon (Sir ) mentioned the “dirty
detail”, perhaps I can touch on one or two of them.
I thank the shadow Minister for his engagement, as always, and
for giving a welcome to the change of approach—although not a
full welcome, of course—during today’s debate. I am grateful to
him for his words. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone
( ) for reminding us about
parliamentary sovereignty and the wise words of . I know that his words will be
studied carefully. I always enjoy listening to the hon. Member
for Stirling () during the course of these
debates; he is right that he is consistent, as the Government
have been consistent throughout the process.
I disagree fundamentally with what the hon. Member for
Walthamstow () says. She reminds us of the
charge of the Light Brigade, which my right hon. and learned
Friend the Member for South Swindon first introduced to the
debates on this Bill some two debates ago. She mentioned friction
and made a complaint about Back Benchers, but the suggestion of
friction came from a Back Bencher, as I mentioned in my opening
speech.
The hon. Lady says there is a failure to listen, but I disagree.
There is a lot of listening and there is a disagreement. It is
not the same. One can listen and one can still disagree; I
disagree, having listened to what she says. One thing I am
grateful to her for, though, is bringing cricket into this
debate. That is always a welcome subject of distraction, so I am
grateful to her for that and I look forward to reading it
back.
If I may engage directly with my right hon. and learned Friend
the Member for South Swindon, I am grateful to him for his words.
I agree with him that the example he gave, of 60 sitting days
starting in July, is a significant period of time. I am afraid he
and I will not agree entirely on that, and he will not be
surprised by that. I encourage him to look at schedule 5 and the
sifting Committee. I know he understands the point and he heard
my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (), who explained two debates
ago the detailed work that his European Statutory Instruments
Committee does. He diligently gets on with that work—he described
it as dry work, but it is important work and I know he will
continue that work with his Committee.
I was delighted to see agreement between my hon. Friend the
Member for Stone and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member
for South Swindon; it was similar to the agreement between my
hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for North Dorset () and the right hon. Member for
East Antrim ()—a rare moment, but an
enjoyable one nonetheless. I simply repeat to my right hon. and
learned Friend the Member for South Swindon that our concern with
the approach is that, by adding such a significant amount of
time, the amendment would place in doubt the effective use of the
repeal and replace powers before they expire, and that is an
important part of the Government’s programme for smarter
regulation.
It is vital that we bring this most important Bill to Royal
Assent as quickly as possible. This House has made its view clear
twice before and I ask that it makes its view clear for a third
time. I encourage their lordships to take note of the strong view
from this House and the fact that the will of this House should
be respected.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment
15D.
[Division 264
The House divided:
Ayes
277
Noes
208
Question accordingly agreed to.
Held on 21 June 2023 at
2.59pm](/Commons/2023-06-21/division/189D2340-B018-4ACC-B93B-9BF3E9DEB412/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
3.13pm
More than one hour having elapsed since the commencement of
proceedings onthe Lords amendments, the proceedings were
interrupted (Programme Order, 24 May).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question necessary for the
disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing
Order No. 83F).
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with
Lords amendment 42D—(Solicitor General.)
[Division 265
The House divided:
Ayes
275
Noes
209
Question accordingly agreed to.
Held on 21 June 2023 at
3.13pm](/Commons/2023-06-21/division/432858D3-C808-49E8-97F6-FC243A2A646B/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
Lords amendment 42D disagreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.
83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be
assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments;
That , , , , , and be members of the
Committee;
That be the Chair of the
Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(.) Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and
communicated to the Lords.
|
