Bill Esterson
MP for Sefton Central · Labour · United Kingdom
“As the Prime Minister said on Tuesday, our energy supply and our energy security are not a question of having either oil and gas, or renewables; they are about both. It is a great pity that proper process was not followed in 2022 or 2023. [ Interruption.”
“I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to continuing Britain’s global leadership on climate action, including by going to COP31. I also welcome his focus on breathing space for people and businesses, but, as he said, it will take a lot more than that to deliver the growth and reindustrialisation that he is so committed to.”
“Last week the Committee heard from Claire Dykta, the director of strategy and policy at NESO, who told us: “Operational decisions are taken by authorised, trained personnel only.” Her comments were confirmed by Alastair Martin, the chief strategy officer at Flexitricity, who, in the same session, said: “I do not think the idea that the he…”
“As the Minister has just said, new nuclear is essential for energy security. It is also essential as an alternative career for workers in oil and gas.”
“Paul and Susan Robinson each worked for the Health and Safety Executive for more than 40 years. They have not been able to plan for their retirement since finishing work last year; they have been living off their savings and the small loan that they have had. They are typical of the dozens of constituents who have contacted me.”
“Hudson primary school in my constituency does a brilliant job. It is a family hub, it specialises in support for children with SEND and autism, and it has a nursery, but its building, which is 80 years old, suffers from a high water table that brings damp, mould and structural problems for the building—as does occasional flooding.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,882 lines we hold for Bill Esterson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 41 of 98.
“The Minister spoke about filing by businesses in the UK and in the EU, and she said that EEA businesses would have two additional filings as a result of the changes. She also said that if the regulations were implemented as a result of a no-deal Brexit, EEA and non-EEA companies would be treated the same. Companies have three months to implement the changes that the regulations set out, and that does not sound like a long time to ensure that every affected company finds out. Can the Minister tell the Committee what plans the Government have to make sure that every single company affected by the regulations is aware of the changes that it needs to make to be compliant with UK law? If companies are not made aware of the changes, there will be significant consequences for them.”
“Secondary legislation ought to be used for technical, non-partisan and non-controversial changes because of the limited accountability it allows. Instead, the Government continue to use it as a vehicle for pushing through contentious legislation with high policy content. As legislators, we have to get this right. The regulations represent real and substantive changes to the statute book and, as such, they need proper, in-depth scrutiny. As I said at the start of my response to the Minister, there is no certainty or clarity for business—or anybody else—if we leave without a deal, which is ultimately what the regulations are about. In the light of that, we put on record our deep concern that the process surrounding the regulations is not as accessible and transparent as it should be.”
“On each occasion, my Labour Front-Bench colleagues and I have spelled out our objections to the Government’s approach to secondary legislation. The volume and flow of such legislation is deeply concerning for accountability and proper scrutiny. In this case, it appears that dozens and dozens of regulations are being changed. They are set out in detail in paragraphs 6.1 to 6.6 of the explanatory memorandum. I shall not go through them all, but Members can count up for themselves to see whether my description is right. The Government have assured the Opposition that no policy decisions are being taken. That is a very odd thing to claim, because establishing a regulatory framework inevitably involves matters of judgment and raises questions about resourcing and capacity, which are surely policy matters.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. At the end of the Minister’s speech, I was taken by her remark about “certainty and clarity” when we leave the EU. Oh, my word—nothing could be further from the truth. I do not know whether she was trying to find out whether anybody was listening to her speech. Perhaps it was a test. I heard her, and I can only assume that that was said in a moment of great irony and humour, because it is the last thing that will happen if we leave without a deal, which is what a lot of the regulations are about. Once again, the Minister and I are here to discuss a statutory instrument that makes provision for a regulatory framework after Brexit in the event that we crash out without a deal.”
“I am happy to help. Paragraph 7.8 says: “This measure applies to very few companies, but transitional provisions have nevertheless been provided that will allow sufficient time for impacted companies to consider the impact of the change on their operations and take appropriate action”. My question was about how many companies she means by the phrase “very few companies”, which refers to: “Investment companies that only have shares admitted to an EEA market”.”
“The Government’s deal was rejected by a record vote in the House. Business leaders in Scotland and across the UK want the Government to rule out any prospect of no deal, and the Chancellor told business leaders that that was possible, so why have the Government not ruled out any prospect of no deal?”
“T5. The Liverpool city region is one of the poorest in the country, yet its councils have faced some of the biggest cuts. The Secretary of State knows that services cost more in more deprived areas. Is not the only conclusion to be drawn from this targeting of cuts at the poorest areas that this Government simply could not care less?”
“I will not go through the entire way in which the EU carries out its impact assessments; it does things rather differently. Those of the Committee who were here on Monday will have heard me read them out on that occasion. It is on the record and I do not need to do it again. The Minister may refer to it and I would have hoped she would have done so before today’s meeting.”
“R3 also noted how much money is recovered as a result of UK insolvency actions. One of its case studies was Nortel, which entered insolvency proceedings in 2009. A total of £1.5 billion was returned to creditors as a result of the work carried out by insolvency practitioners and their agents, where the insolvency was based in the UK. That compares with a total of £4 billion a year returned to creditors in the UK, including to the UK Government through HMRC. I therefore find it quite remarkable that the Government say there is no business impact worthy of an impact assessment—that they regard the impact as below the de minimis level. My calculation is that £4 billion is a little more than the £5 million de minimis level. Yet again, a regulation has a significant business impact but the Government do not carry out an impact assessment.”
“I would be grateful if the Minister addressed exactly what progress has been made towards overcoming the lack of mutual recognition. As ever in Delegated Legislation Committees, there are matters of consultation and impact assessment to consider. I understand that there has been informal discussion, and having spoken to people in the sector, I think it is fair to say that they are as happy as it is possible to be—in this case, if not in all cases—with what is being proposed in the event of no deal. However, they stress that the draft regulations are only a stopgap. As the insolvency body R3 stated in its 2017 Brexit recommendations, it is extremely important that a mechanism be put in place as quickly as possible that provides the same benefits as the European insolvency regulation and the recast Brussels regulation.”
“As paragraph 2.14 notes, “the UK will no longer be an EU member State.” What are the implications for employees of companies that operate in more than one jurisdiction, or where there is foreign ownership of a UK subsidiary? That may be a relatively easy question but, again, I did not quite get a sense of the answer from the Minister’s speech. Paragraph 3.7 refers to the main thrust of the draft regulations: “the lack of reciprocity after exit day.” That is an argument for preventing no deal at all costs, but there is real concern about the fact that we can continue to offer recognition of EU operations in insolvency but we cannot require member states to recognise UK insolvency judgments. The explanatory memorandum sets out the challenge clearly.”
“I urge the Minister to address that point when she answers my question about the progress made towards achieving mutual recognition. Further to paragraph 2.10 of the explanatory memorandum, will the Minister explain the implications of the draft regulations for the Pension Protection Fund? What is changing? I did not entirely get a sense from her speech of what assurances are in place to protect employees. Sadly, in recent years there have been some very high-profile cases that have made a significant call on the fund—the BHS insolvency springs readily to mind. Clearly we need to ensure that the fund is not undermined in any way, shape or form by what is happening, and that the draft regulations will protect workers in the event of a no-deal exit.”
“Maintaining confidence in it is extremely important to our economy as a place for businesses to come to restructure, and for creditors in insolvency cases to recover what they are due effectively and successfully. It is important that we avoid a long-term shift away from a lot of that work being based in the United Kingdom, so those guarantees from the EU are extremely important. A point made to me by people in the profession was that some people in the insolvency profession across the continent of Europe may see an opportunity to increase the amount of work that they can obtain at the expense of the UK profession. They may not be particularly concerned about reciprocity or about getting the EU to continue mutual recognition.”
“What indications has the Minister had from the EU about its intentions to maintain the status quo and to reciprocate what she proposes in the regulations, which is that we will continue to recognise the appointments and jurisdiction of EU courts in insolvency proceedings? Has she had an indication that that arrangement will be reciprocated in the event of no deal? What discussions have her officials had with EU Governments or the Commission? As far as I understand it, the SI enables the Government to remove automatic recognition of foreign practitioners and recognition of court decisions. We have an extremely well regarded, strong and economically successful insolvency regime in the United Kingdom, and it is important that we continue to do so.”
“The Minister referred to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments’ concerns about the clarity of the regulations, potential defective drafting and the fact that they deliver broad powers rather than narrow ones. She gave various examples of what could happen without the kind of mutual agreement that I referred to. I think the Joint Committee, like the Opposition, would call for every effort to be made to achieve mutual recognition as soon as possible. Can the Minister say what work has been carried out to try to establish that mutual recognition in the event of no deal? Such work is effectively what the sector is calling for.”
“We often do the same in Committees such as this one, but we recognise what would happen in the event of no deal. People in the profession have made the point to me that the Government have the power to create a level playing field for the UK profession if they are unable to obtain the deal that they are looking for. The SI is not a mechanism for maintaining the current system; it deals only with problems that could arise from not having a mutual recognition deal. I urge the Minister to take on board their point that in the event of no deal the Government should try to re-establish mutual recognition as quickly as possible so that the provisions in the SI will never be needed.”
“I thank the Minister for her analysis of the regulations’ effects. She got quickly to the point that mutual recognition between the UK and the EU is not guaranteed if we leave with no deal. Under the terms of the withdrawal Act we would be giving one-way recognition of EU appointments and judgments. The statutory instrument would give our Government the opportunity, should they need it, to withdraw that recognition. I will tease out one or two points surrounding that intention. People in the profession do not want the Government to have to use the power—I dare say that the Government do not want to use it either. They want the Government to secure a deal so that the existing system of mutual recognition continues, and they argue that no deal should be avoided.”
“I await with interest her response, in particular on the work that is going on to ensure that mutual recognition carries on as seamlessly as possible, to support the very important part of our economy that is our insolvency sector.”
“My dear and hon. Friend the Whip is extremely grateful that I will not repeat myself in full. The point is that the EU looks at the wider impact on the economy of similar regulations when the EU implements them. The Government’s very narrow interpretation of an impact assessment is shown in all its inadequacy by the comparison of that £4 billion per year with the £5 million de minimis level. We will not oppose the statutory instrument; the Minister has given satisfactory answers, including to the concerns raised by Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. We must hope that we do not end up having to apply this instrument or numerous other regulations we have dealt with recently; I know the Minister shares that hope.”
“For example, North African countries want to sell their oranges and olive oil to us in far greater quantities than is allowed by the EPAs with the EU, which protect southern European producers. In the Trade Bill debate in the Lords yesterday, the Minister conceded that the Department had no idea how many countries were ready to roll over their free trade agreements, how many would not, how many would have to adjust their constitutional arrangements, and how long that might take. Will the Minister for Trade Policy confirm that his colleague was right to say so? The Secretary of State is busy socialising in Davos. Is that not a reminder of the incompetence and overconfidence that he has shown over the past two and a half years?”
“Will he confirm that, without new agreements in place, we could, in the absence of a deal with the EU, have no basis of trade with these countries after 29 March, and would fall back on World Trade Organisation rules? That is an argument for taking no deal off the table if ever there was one. Will the Minister confirm that many of the terms of those agreements will need to be amended, and could be changed substantively as countries seek to improve on the terms that they have with the EU? Will he also confirm that agreements with countries that have economic partnership agreements are often regarded as being not fit for purpose and are alleged to have been signed under economic duress? The Minister will do well to listen to some of this, as this is the reality of what is going on in his Department.”
“My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) asked a very simple and sensible question. The Minister’s long and rambling answer had a simple summary—clearly, it was no. The Secretary of State repeatedly told us that it was a simple matter to roll over deals on trade with approximately 70 countries, which constitutes 13% of our exports and 12% of our imports—it would be a cut-and-paste job. The Government would be ready on day one after Brexit, he told us. That was never true, was it? Those deals are entirely separate and independent from any deal that we may have with the EU. If we leave with no deal, can the Minister confirm that these arrangements with third-party countries will fall away, as we have consistently warned?”
“The draft regulations are very good news for lawyers, but not much use for businesses, consumers or workers.”
“However, legal advice has been given to the sector that such legal action could last several years and hold up a final decision. There is nothing in the SI to state whether EU case law will continue to apply to maintain the arrangements that the Minister said he wants in the event of no deal. The question is what would happen in the situation in question. The problem would be that competitors could challenge each other, imports could be held up, and all sorts of problems and delays could arise, leading to significant concern and difficulty for businesses and consumers in this country. In the House of Lords debate, Lord Stevenson described the draft regulations as creating a “dripping roast” for lawyers. Having looked at that debate and at the representations I have been given, I am afraid I have to agree.”
“That is the case law currently relied on for this country’s arrangements, as it is in the other EU27 and EEA member countries across the continent of Europe. Significant concerns have been raised in the sector, and by the Alliance for Intellectual Property, about the potential for legal challenge under the draft regulations, and about whether EU case law will continue to be relied on once we have left the EU. Those concerns relate to leaving with or without a deal. However, the draft regulations are about leaving with no deal. The potential for such legal challenges raises concerns about the continuation of arrangements. A competitor could try to import a product and say that EU case law no longer applies. I know that the Government’s intention is that the situation should not cause a problem.”
“Those arrangements are at present in the area of EU trade where IP protection within the EU has ended or been exhausted. The Minister set that out fairly, I thought. Products from anywhere in the EU can be traded across the EU without restriction once IP protection has ended. That so-called regional exhaustion applies within the EU but not to products from outside. EU case law largely uses an example from 1999 relating to an Austrian company called Silhouette, which produced sunglasses. Older designs from the company were sold to Bulgaria, which at the time was outside the EU. Another Austrian company chose to import those older models back into Austria and sell them at substantially lower prices than the current models were being sold for. After lengthy legal consideration, the European Court decided that that contravened EU regulations.”
“Frankly, if she wants to work across the parties, that is exactly what she will do, and she will find a majority in this Parliament for an alternative to no deal, if and when she eventually does that. [ Interruption. ] More muttering from a sedentary position. How strange, again. The SI raises a number of issues and challenges. It raises the prospect of the import of cheap products that would undercut domestic producers and drive a coach and horses through our consumer arrangements in the event of no deal. Reasons abound for ruling out no deal, and that is one of them. I shall go through some of the points that were debated at great length in the House of Lords. The draft regulations say that in the event of no deal, existing arrangements will continue.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. We now know what the £171,000 an hour is being spent on. I wonder how much the Committee will contribute towards that sum and whether we will get as far as an hour’s worth. The draft regulations are yet another example of a no-deal preparation SI, which the Prime Minister could rule out at any time she wanted by announcing that she was taking no deal off the table. [ Interruption. ] I am being interrupted from a sedentary position, Mrs Moon. How strange. The Prime Minister could have ruled out no deal in her statement earlier. I just checked what she said, and yet again she has chosen not to. It seems that the Chancellor and the Business Secretary are keen on doing so, and why on earth the Prime Minister cannot is beyond me.”
“I hope that the Minister will reflect on the challenges for importers and exporters, and on the undesirability of such uncertainty for the whole economy. I hope that he will take urgent steps to address the shortfall—an exhortation that is coming not just from my words, but from the sector, which I think is putting forward a very important case about the need for far greater certainty in these draft regulations.”
“It will send shivers down the spine of the community we are talking about here. I know this because it has been telling me so. They need the full protection of the law in defending their intellectual property, and they are contributors to one of the most productive areas of our economy, on which Opposition Members certainly pin great hopes as part of an industrial strategy. The Government say they do, too, but without the certainty of the arrangements that should have been put in place, had proper consultation been carried out, and had those discussions taken place earlier, it is difficult to see how this will work in the event of no deal. We need certainty so that we can create a climate for those creative industry specialists working with intellectual property and seeking to export, but the prospects now seem extremely damaging.”
“The lack of symmetry in the arrangements is bound to cause a big problem. There have been significant changes. There is a suggestion, by the way, that we go back to relying on case law from about 40 years ago, before we were in the Common Market. But times have moved on. It would take years to establish reliance on such case law, and business practices have changed. The overwhelming use of online sales in retail is a significant change in the nature of business, and it would be very difficult to compare two such different eras in relying on case law. Those are points that have been put to me about the difficulty in dealing with such a difference. The pinning of all our hopes on a deal that may be negotiable in the future, which is what the Minister is proposing, is not a satisfactory business proposition.”
“It seems that that consultation came about only where the sector approached the Intellectual Property Office, which drew up the explanatory memorandum. There was no formal request for consultation before the draft regulations were drawn up. Had there been, the feedback about the need for a provision on the use of EU case law may well have come back from the sectors. What they are saying now is that a further SI may well be needed. This could have been avoided with proper consultation. I think that the Minister confirmed in his opening remarks that consultation will take place as a new exhaustion regime is developed in time, but we will see the problems I have outlined in the event of no deal and these draft regulations being necessary. There are real problems with one-way agreements like this one.”
“What a comprehensive description of how an impact assessment could, should and might have been carried out by this Government on these draft regulations and on so many others. I remind the Minister again: those who know what they are talking about and who are experts in this field believe that there is a serious and very comprehensive impact to be experienced as a result of the draft regulations. I know that the Minister will not agree. Perhaps that is because so many on his side of the House do not like the fact that this is being done by the EU. Anyway, having looked at how the EU carries out its impact assessments, we can see that it is somewhat different. Perhaps we can look forward to an improvement in future. I mentioned consultation. Again, we had only informal consultation on the creation of the draft regulations.”
“This ISG may be chaired by the lead DG or by the Secretariat-General for politically important files. A 12-week internet-based public consultation covering all of the main elements of the IA as part of a broader consultation strategy to target relevant stakeholders and evidence. The draft IA report must be presented to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board for its scrutiny. A positive opinion of the Board is necessary before formal interservice consultation can be launched. The RSB will generally only issue two opinions. The IA report must be complemented by a 2 page executive summary sheet available in all languages.” Presumably—three of my colleagues today are Welsh—that would include the Welsh language. What a good idea.”
“The report must also include “a clear description of who will be affected by the initiative and how”, as well as “impacts on SMEs following the ‘SME test’” in what the EU describes as its “toolbox”, “impacts on competitiveness; and…a detailed description of the consultation strategy and the results obtained from it.” Lack of consultation is another gap in the way in which the draft regulations have been brought before us, which we will return to. The outline goes on: “Initiatives supported by an impact assessment (IA) must have a validated entry in Decide, an inception impact assessment published for stakeholder feedback.” I understand that Decide is the EU’s process for making decisions. The outline continues: “An interservice group (ISG) must also be established to steer the preparation of the IA.”
“IAs must compare the policy options on the basis of their economic, social and environmental impacts (quantified costs and benefits whenever possible) and present these in the IA report. Certain elements must be included in the final IA report. These include…a description of the environmental, social and economic impacts and an explicit statement if any of these are not considered significant”— There’s an idea.”
“I thought I would discuss how impact assessments might be carried out, and how such an assessment might have been done for the draft regulations we are considering. When regulations are introduced in the EU, an impact assessment is carried out, and the process is described in this way: “IAs must set out the logical reasoning that links the problem (including subsidiarity issues), its underlying causes, the objectives and a range of policy options to tackle the problem. They must present the likely impacts of the options, who will be affected by them and how. Stakeholders must be able to provide feedback on the basis of an inception impact assessment which describes the problem, subsidiarity related issues, objectives, policy options and an initial consideration of relevant impacts of these policy options.”
“Yet we are told yet again: “A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen.” Such statements accompany every such set of regulations, although they all have significant impacts. The Government are reluctant to produce assessments of the impact on businesses, consumers and workers. They argue that it is only the narrow, direct and immediate effect of such regulations that is relevant. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that. It would not be the first time I had heard a Minister say it. In reality there will be a massive impact on businesses and the economy, because implementing the draft regulations will have wider consequences. The legal challenges will last for years.”
“That point was covered at length in the Lords and I do not think a satisfactory answer was given to Lords from across the Chamber. I believe that the Minister in the Lords was going to write to Members there to answer some of their questions. Perhaps the Minister will tell the Committee whether that letter was written, and whether we might have a copy. That brings me to a topic that we have discussed quite a lot in some SI Committees—impact assessments, or the lack of them. Incidentally, when I was discussing the matter this morning with a member of the Alliance for Intellectual Property, I asked what he thought the financial impact of the draft regulations would be, should they ever be needed. He answered that it would be in the hundreds of millions of pounds at least, because it is so important to so many businesses.”
“Secondly, even if the case-law does fall within the definition of retained EU case-law under the Withdrawal Act, it is only relevant to retained EU law which is unmodified on or after exit day. Arguably, the retained EU law on exhaustion of rights will be materially modified on exit day, as a result of the amendments in the Exhaustion SI because the government is changing an EEA-wide exhaustion regime of which the UK is currently part, to a one-way exhaustion regime only.” AIP’s concern is that the arguments would be tested at length and at great expense in the UK courts, should we leave with no deal, which would lead to huge uncertainty for anyone who relies on intellectual property protection for their business and products.”
“AIP continues: “Where an imported product replaces the sale of a domestic product, the brand owner loses revenue and thereby the ability to invest in innovation, quality, choice, reputation, salaries, jobs, etc.” Those are all real concerns, raised by businesses for which intellectual property protections and reliance on the existing system are of great importance. I mentioned the Silhouette case, the key European Union case law on which we currently rely. The legal opinions that the Alliance for Intellectual Property relies on suggest that the Silhouette case will not “necessarily become retained EU case-law under the EU Withdrawal Act 2018 (‘Withdrawal Act’) and therefore the UK Courts will not have to apply it when interpreting retained EU law on exhaustion of rights.”
“Where products do not meet consumer expectations, which might be due to slight differences in the product, deterioration during transit or poor customer service support, it undermines trust in a brand. We have a very high level of regulations and highly regarded brands in this country. As AIP state, undermining that brand quality affects not only “the competitiveness of the products in the UK market”, but our ability to sell overseas, because if the UK brand is undermined, one of the reasons why people like to buy British is likely to be lost.”
“It sounds very attractive—we all want cheap goods—but until that legal situation is resolved, there are real concerns about compliance with UK regulations. I have been given information on this subject by the Alliance for Intellectual Property, which points out that cheaper prices for goods do not necessarily reach the consumer and are often “swallowed up by traders, wholesalers and retailers.” Even if there are cheaper prices, the cost is “not borne by the importer”, which leads to other consequences and lower regulatory enforcement. AIP notes: “Products may not comply with UK regulation (eg languages on labels; sector regulations (eg cosmetics). This increases the costs of enforcement…by Trading Standards”.”
“Again, that could take years to resolve, there is nothing in the draft regulations or the withdrawal Act, and there are serious implications for the withdrawal agreement. I come back to the comment my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth made in his intervention: there is no protection there against that kind of activity. The likely consequences are that a pharmaceuticals firm would then stop providing lower-cost medicines in a developing country, which would be a loss for people who need cheaper drugs and a loss for that company, with consequences for its production and workforce here. That could apply in a number of other sectors, too. There are serious implications for consumers of goods being sold cheaply here.”
“The Minister’s colleague in the Lords was not able to say in great detail what it would mean for our exporters if the EU did not reciprocate the arrangements that the Government propose to put in place. Perhaps the Minister has had time following the Lords debate to come up with an answer. What will those costs be? What is their likely scale? On trade outside the EU, it has been drawn to my attention that pharmaceutical companies in this country, for example, sell drugs to developing nations significantly below the price charged in the EU, so there is a problem with parallel trading. Without the certainty of EU case law as a protection, a parallel trader may buy up the stock of medicines and sell them back within the UK, thereby directly competing with the producer of those medicines.”
“About 15 years ago, Tesco chose to import cheap Levi’s jeans. It was challenged, and because those Levi’s were produced outside the EU, it was required to withdraw them from sale because they disrupted Levi’s arrangements in the EU. Under the draft regulations, in the absence of clarity about the applicability of EU case law, a case where someone wanted to import from outside the EU could take years to resolve. I do not know whether Tesco has plans to take a similar approach—I certainly do not make that accusation of it—but no doubt someone may want to try their luck in the absence of certainty in the draft regulations. In paragraph 12.2 of the explanatory memorandum, the Government describe the prospect of “some costs” for exporters.”
“That is exactly right. This is a challenge for all sectors, and it is a particularly big problem for smaller firms in the creative and digital sectors, for the reasons my hon. Friend gives. There is a real absence of guidance—the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is silent on the issue, and the withdrawal agreement is, too—and I am afraid the lack of clarity in the SI leaves open the real problem of whether EU case law will apply. As he said, that is a problem with regulations right across the economy and Departments. It affects many of the regulations we have considered in the past weeks and months, and those we still have ahead of us while no deal remains an option. At present, brands have protection against cheaper imports from outside the EU. I had an example of that drawn to my attention, which Members may remember.”
“The legal opinion demonstrates exactly what the problem is. The Minister said, “until the Supreme Court or Parliament decides otherwise”. Perhaps he will acknowledge that he has confirmed that this can be challenged or changed, and that we cannot just rely on retained EU case law. Perhaps he could comment on the request by one of the Lords for a sunset clause to time-limit the period during which he and his colleagues develop alternatives.”
“The Minister has read out a comprehensive note. From reading Lords Hansard , it appears to me that the only person who had spoken to the IPO was a member of the Grand Committee. The feedback I have had suggests that there has been engagement only when people have taken the initiative and called the IPO. The Minister made the extraordinary comment that there should not be public consultation on the SIs because of sensitivities—that is what I heard him say. However, without proper consultation, how can the SI be accurate? How could it have been drawn up in a way that ensures that the draft regulations do the job they need to do? Perhaps that explains why the problem of EU-retained case law is so prominent and has been criticised so much in the Lords and in the correspondence that I have received.”
“The 300 extra officers announced have been welcomed, including by constituents of mine from Northern Ireland, but they are for Brexit planning. As my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said, the number of officers is still below the number recommended for the PSNI. In the Secretary of State’s conversations with the police and security services, how many more police officers do they say they want to deal with the ongoing security threat?”