Hansard

The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill does not, in itself, make any major policy changes directly. It is a framework bill that provides extensive powers to ministers to decide whether to amend, retain or revoke any of at least 2,471 pieces of retained EU law. However, a sunset provision means that any piece of retained EU law will be revoked by default at the end of December 2023, unless ministers actively decide to save it by that point. That flags up major dangers for the quality of standards in the UK.

The Hansard Society says that the Government’s approach to retained EU law—or REUL—in the bill is fundamentally and irresponsibly flawed. In its briefing, it focused on five areas in which it highlights problems with the bill. It is worth restating those issues in the debate. The briefing says:

“1. Acceptance of the automatic expiry (sunset) of REUL will be an abdication of Parliament’s scrutiny and oversight role;

2. It will introduce unnecessary uncertainty—legal, economic and political—into the REUL review process;

3. The broad, ambiguous wording of powers will confer excessive discretion on Ministers;

4. Parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of the powers will be limited; and

5. There are potentially serious implications for devolution and the future of the Union.”

Despite all the attacks in this place by the Scottish Tories when we discuss independence, the UK Tory party seems to be determined to do all that it can to undermine the devolution settlement and, indeed, to undermine the very fabric upon which the UK is constituted.

The Hansard Society goes on to say:

“The Bill ... Sidelines Parliament because it proposes to let all retained EU law expire on the sunset deadline, unless ministers decide to save it, with no parliamentary input or oversight.”

So, the bill is not just about undermining democracy here; the Tories clearly want to undermine democracy across the UK, particularly in Westminster.

The society also says:

“The Bill ... Provides Ministers with a series of broad ‘blank cheque’ powers to amend or replace retained EU law—including to make ‘alternative provision’ that they ‘consider appropriate’—across policy areas as diverse as animal welfare, consumer rights, data protection, employment, environmental protection, health and safety, and VAT, and all subject to only limited parliamentary oversight.”

It is a power grab, but it is a power grab by the executive in Westminster that threatens much of everyday life for us here and across the UK.

The society goes on to say that the bill gives no indication of

“What internal review process will be adopted by the Government to assess 2,417 pieces of retained EU law and how much resource this will require”

or of

“the timescale for decision-making by ministers about whether to let a piece of retained EU law fall away, or whether to amend or save it.”

That detail is just not there. The society also points out that the bill does not say

“How Ministers propose to use the powers to alter policy, other than the intention to move in a de-regulatory direction”,

treating retained EU law

“as a regulatory ceiling rather than a floor.”

Finally, the society warns that

“The potential for dispute in areas of devolved competence risks undermining the Union. There are significant complexities involved, not least in relation to divergence and the operation of the UK internal market.”

We can see that, for the Tories, Brexit is a race to the bottom, with major risks to all aspects of environmental laws and protections, food standards and much more.

To be clear, the bill is yet another attack on devolution. All of us who support devolution and who would support this Parliament having far greater powers should be prepared to stand up and fight such attacks by a Tory party that seems hell bent on destroying the very fabric upon which the union is built.

There is widespread opposition to the bill. It has been opposed by the groups as wide-ranging as the Institute of Directors, the Trades Union Congress and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Roger Barker, director of policy and governance at the Institute of Directors said:

“Getting to grips with any resulting regulatory changes will impose a major new burden on business, which it could well do without”.

So, business is speaking out against the party that claims to be the party of business and is saying that the bill should be ditched.

TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady described the legislation as “a recipe for chaos”, and said:

“This bill has been rushed through with no consultation and no real thought for the impacts on workers, businesses, consumers and the environment.”

She added that it

“must be withdrawn before lasting damage is done”.

Tony Danker, director general of the Confederation of British Industry, said that the Government should instead focus on improving its trading relationship with the EU.

The UK Government’s Regulatory Policy Committee described the impact assessment of the effects of the bill on the economy as “not fit for purpose”.

The consumer rights group Which?, the National Farmers Union of England and Wales and the British Safety Council have all called for the bill to be delayed or scrapped.

The Tories at Westminster have managed to unite most of the country in saying that the bill is wrong and that it would be bad for the country. I hope that our Tory colleagues in this Parliament will join us in standing up for Scotland and demanding that the bill be scrapped.