The Bill to revoke retained EU law, or to allow Ministers to re-write it at will, and without reference to the public or Parliament, has been continuing its progress through House of Commons Committee.

Here is an extract from those debates in Committee on 22 November 2022, discussing Labour amendments trying to get the government at least to set out a list of which pieces of legislation would be subject to the scope of the Bill’s sunset clause and cliff-edge revocation.

Stella Creasy MP (Labour – Walthamstow)

“...I do not think that in 12 years—that makes me a grandee in Labour terms at this rate—I have ever seen a piece of legislation where we as the Opposition have to ask for the extent of its impact. I want to warn Government Members: some day this may well happen to them. I know that must seem a gross insult, but they too will want Governments who are able to explain what they are intending to do, even if they do not agree with it, because they would then be able to go and tell their constituents why they do not agree with it. It is a reasonable proposition.

Amendment 90 asks the Government to set out a comprehensive list of retained EU law. After all, it is on the face of the Bill that that is what this legislation does. I apologise, Sir George, because I am now laughing. I am laughing at the absurdity of our being at a point where we have to ask the Government to set out what they are going to do. There is the concept of an “authoritative but not comprehensive” list—those words are worthy not just of “Yes Minister” but of “Blackadder” in their pomposity and stupidity. It is stupidity because it is incredibly dangerous to give the Government powers that they do not know what they are going to do with. Let me be clear that I am talking about the stupidity of the legislation, not the people. ...

On Second Reading, the previous Minister—not the Minister in front of us, to be clear—tried to claim that I should not be worried that this legislation would have an impact on airline safety, as that was a matter contained in primary legislation, so not subject to the sunset. In reality, we have now replaced that provision of civil aviation legislation with a range of secondary legislation, meaning precisely that airline safety is up for grabs and we will need to find time to rewrite that legislation.

If the Ministers responsible for this legislation do not themselves know its extent, how can we expect all those civil servants—who the Minister cannot clarify are working on this legislation—to know the full extent, let alone the colleagues she cannot name who are working on it? What will happen when a Minister is suddenly presented with a piece of legislation that has been abolished, which was not on the dashboard, not identified and not set out in the legislation? A Minister presented with that scenario will have no recourse—it will have happened, unless we pass amendments that give everybody clarity and confidence. It is not unreasonable to want to set out a workload for Government so that they know what they are doing.

Amendment 91 allows us to work out how the amendments happen. Again, I am laughing at the absurdity of our being in a position where we have to set out an understanding of how things might be changed and who we might want to talk to—perhaps industry experts. ...

What about standards regulations—those incredibly technical but incredibly dull pieces of legislation that, if we are all honest, we have not spent a lot of time looking at, but we look to industry experts to be able to tell us about? How is it unreasonable to set out a process by which those people will be consulted? What have we got against experts in this country? Frankly, at this point in time, some expertise on legislation, given that the Government have to admit they do not know the full extent of the Bill, would be welcome. “

All of these amendments were voted down by the government majority in the Committee.

Meanwhile, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Department’s own Regulatory Policy Committee published an assessment that the Bill’s Impact Assessment was “not fit for purpose”, as no individual impact assessment had either been carried out, or was proposed, for the wide ranging revocations and revisions within the Bill’s scope –

“The Bill proposes sunsetting more than 2,400 pieces of retained EU legislation (REUL) on 31 December 2023, unless, before then, a departmental review proposes retention of, or changes to, the legislation, or delays the sunset until 2026. No impacts for changes to individual pieces of REUL have been assessed at this stage. We asked the Department to commit to assessing the impact of changed and sunsetted legislation, for RPC scrutiny in the future, but the Department has not made a firm commitment to do so.”

Meanwhile, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, the Rt Hon. Therese Coffey MP, appeared before the House of Lords Environment & Climate Change Committee on 30 November 2022. She was asked how many pieces of environmental legislation were affected by the Bill’s sunset clause, and what capacity the Department had to consider it. She replied that –

There were “probably””about” 1,100 pieces of legislation to review, although “about” 140 had already been revoked;
Her “default” would be to retain these laws (despite the default in the actual Bill being to revoke them) but they would be individually reviewed to avoid bureaucracy and where necessary re-written as UK law (applied consistently across the different departments this approach would simply render the entire exercise and Bill unnecessary and pointless) – she added that other Secretaries of State could take a different view (so for say, transport, or workers rights, the relevant Minister could simply sit back and watch the provisions being revoked);
The Water Framework Directive was ‘targeted’ by the Environment Agency for revision - see my separate article on the Environment Agency’s CEO’s proposals to lower water quality standards –
https://www.wyesideconsulting.com/news/environment-agency-ceo-proposes-lower-water-quality-standards
“An internal Star Chamber will be held within the Department in February or March to see where we can make changes” – (Ministers are without irony, the Star Chamber being the judicial arm of the King’s Council, and an exercise in denial of participatory democracy);
She confirmed that the government’s express intention was to enhance environmental protections, but specifically did not commit to any amendments to address the clause of the Bill that requires that regulatory burdens, and presumably environmental standards, can only be diminished;
Asked to identify specific benefits to the environment from the legislation, the Secretary of State confirmed that these might include some greater freedoms for small abattoirs, and clearer definitions of the scope of air pollution on the A40.

The list of individuals and organisations expressing opposition to the Bill continues to grow, see for example The Wildlife Trusts’ post of 28 November 2022 –

“Large parts of civil society are united in opposition to the Retained EU Law Bill - it’s time the UK government listened.”

https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/blog/joan-edwards/retained-eu-law-bill-its-time

The Bill has serious impacts on devolution legislation, which is one reason why the Welsh and Scottish governments have withheld legislative consent. It will gravely complicate the already fraught situation in Northern Ireland, where there is no Executive ready to take the decisions that the Bill requires.

Leading academics, leading practitioners, the Trades Union Congress, the Institute of Directors and groups representing many millions of members concerned with the environment, wildlife and conservation have all called for the Bill to be withdrawn or postponed. They cannot all be caricatured as simply opposed to Brexit. Law reform should not be carried out by individual Ministers or their internal Departments’ Star Chambers. It ought to involve both Parliament and people.