Ms Stella Creasy
MP for Walthamstow · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“I thank the Foreign Secretary for his clear-sighted commitment not only to talk about a two-state solution, but to actually try to act to achieve it, as the only foundation of a safe Israel and a free Palestine.”
“Could he reassure the House that we will not acquiesce and bend to such pressure, and that the only action that could ever be acceptable to us to make us contemplate reversing this ban would be a halt on the E1 development and a permanent end to settler violence?”
“I start by paying tribute to the new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for all the work she did on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on these issues. I know that she will do a brilliant job in this role.”
“I do not really understand the technology, but I know that he does, and I understand and share his fear accordingly. We come here today to debate this Bill because we all know that trust is a bygone issue in our politics.”
“We would welcome her having that conversation, which might be more illuminating than whether she is concerned about Zach Goldmsith’s leaflets. I add my support to the amendments tabled by my hon.”
“From today, if we do not take a stand with this Bill to tackle the ways that money has infiltrated our politics, the risk is that they will think we are acting in the interests of our own back pockets.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,976 lines we hold for Ms Stella Creasy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 31 of 100.
“The pension protection fund itself would not disappear, because that is part of UK legislation, but the challenge is that the Bauer and Hampshire judgments set out what that fund can do. The issue is not that there would not be someone to whom we could refer our constituents, but let us be clear: if we delete the relevant legislation and do not replace it, that organisation will start to query what it can do to help our constituents. That may mean that they end up with a lower level of compensation. It could be the same when it comes to people having their flight or train delayed. The Delay Repay claims have given most people a level of certainty and confidence about their travelling, and I think we all want to see that reinforced—we all think people should have a fair deal.”
“I would certainly be happy to refer them to any consumer champion, because I think they would have a very strong case that they were not getting compensation in reasonable time and in a reasonable format, which is obviously what the Consumer Rights Act—it is a piece of UK legislation, but it echoes the requirements—does. There are other things on the list, which is not comprehensive but is authoritative—after all, we have been told that that is acceptable—about the sorts of things that surely we should all want to put beyond doubt, such as when people’s pensions are at risk. We have all had cases in our constituencies of pensioners whose pensions were put at risk. They may have worked for companies that went bust, and now they need protection. I absolutely want to take up the challenge about not frightening vulnerable people.”
“Friend therefore agree that at least now we have seen why we should all be so worried by this legislation?”
“Given that the Minister would not let me intervene on her earlier, I want to clarify that she appeared to give us our first piece of evidence about what the Government intend to do with this Bill, when she said that they do not intend to continue with the Bauer and Hampshire judgments, which require pension protection funds to pay out half the value of people’s pension if their employer goes bust. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have finally seen, for the first time today, what the consequences of this legislation are? That is why we are all so worried: because protection for employees is being withdrawn by this Government. The Minister has just confirmed that—perhaps she wants to intervene to say that that is not the case, although that is what she said, and she does not look like she is about to get up. Does my hon.”
“If the Minister could take questions, she could probably reassure all of us on these questions. I do not think they are unreasonable ones to ask—she has raised the point.”
“The Minister is not allowing questions, so will she provide clarification? It is absolutely normal to have amendments to legislation, but it is not normal to delete all the legislation and then try to amend in a lacuna. Will she clarify whether she recognises that these amendments need to be put forward because the legislation, as currently drafted, is not correct? She will know of other legislation that has had to be drafted—indeed, statutory instruments have come forward. What provision—what backstop or safety net—is in place, should something be deleted and should a change need to be made by this legislation in that absence? Will that law remain on the statute book, or will we simply see potentially thousands of amendments needing to be made but no legislation to be amended?”
“Will she set out for us how that may affect this SI, which relies on those regulations? If they are not listed, does that mean that the Government are, in fact, hoping to retain them? After all, you, as a Government, have just put before us this SI, which refers to those regulations. I raise these questions not to give the officials a headache, but simply to flag that we are—”
“Of course, that is not the only question that this SI raises about the EU dashboard and the deletion of 4,000 pieces of legislation. This SI also allows the use of decaBDE under the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2012. Those regulations were made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, but they do not appear on the EU dashboard. I know that Ministers and officials from DEFRA have been looking at that closely. We know from press reports that the number of pieces of legislation expected to be deleted overnight by the REUL Bill is closer to 800 than to the original estimate of 500. Can the Minister at least confirm that the Government have identified that the 2012 regulations should be on the dashboard, because they are affected?”
“These regulations allow the use of decaBDE—I hope I am pronouncing it correctly, because I am sure that will make a difference for the officials when they look up what I mean—when making electronic equipment. I think we all recognise that there may be circumstances in which people want to use these toxic substances. Use of decaBDE was covered by regulation EU 2018/858 of the European Parliament, which is also listed on the Government’s dashboard, so I am sure the officials in DEFRA are aware that it is up for consideration for deletion. If it is deleted, what happens to this statutory instrument and the use of decaBDE in our communities? For example, if local businesses use these chemicals—they might be involved, as the Minister says, in the production of spare parts for cars, or for electrical goods—will these regulations still apply?”
“This House will be debating the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, starting tomorrow in Committee, because of the Government’s demand to delete 4,000 pieces of legislation overnight. That will affect thousands of laws, including this one. My questions for the Minister are about how this SI will interact with those proposals. Before us we have regulations that are affected by the Retained EU Law Bill. Let me set out for the Minister and her officials precisely what I mean. These regulations edit regulation EU 2019/1021, which is retained EU law. As such, can we therefore presume from the fact that the Government have introduced this statutory instrument that they will not be abolishing that regulation at the end of 2023, as the REUL Bill provides?”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Mr Hosie. I support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West has said about this matter, and I hope that the Minister can offer us some reassurance and clarification about this SI and how it fits into the broader remit of management of toxic substances. After all, many of us across the Committee are concerned to assure our constituents that we are not letting persistent organic pollutants pop into their lives unpleasantly or unnecessarily. The Minister sets out that this legislation was required because several things were written in error. That matters, because she will be aware that, as the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill mentioned, this is retained EU law.”
“If she would like the details of the retained EU law that is not yet on the dashboard—law that her colleagues at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy perhaps have not yet identified—I am happy to give her those details. All of us want legislation that is sensible, and all of us recognise that a toxic approach to Brexit will create a hazardous substance for us all.”
“I hope that now the Minister has had some notes from those invisible people who are charged with dealing with the consequences of a piece of legislation that has been described as being as destructive to our legislative process as the previous Chancellor’s Budget, she will be able to answer those questions. The Minister said that the draft regulations simply make technical changes to maintain existing regulatory standards. That is only the case if those other pieces of retained EU law remain on our statute book, and at the moment the Government have made no commitment at all to replace any of this legislation. Like these chemicals, might this SI go up in a pop of smoke if we do not have that other legislation? I hope that the Minister is able to answer these questions.”
“But like the toxic substances that we are talking about, they are incredibly important—I am sure you would agree, Mr Hosie. I raise these questions because I think it is important before we pass such a piece of legislation that we are all confident that it rests on stable legislative foundations. Given the destructive nature of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which comes before Parliament tomorrow—there are no amendments to it that I am aware of, as a member of the Bill Committee, that might address these concerns and therefore address the question whether this statutory instrument will remain in standing after 2023—these seem to me to be fair questions.”
“The Minister does not quite recognise the seriousness of the questions that I ask if she thinks that it is scaremongering to ask them. She said that she is going through the Bill, so can she confirm that the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2012 and Regulation (EU) 2018/858 should both be on the dashboard? One is and one is not, but both are affected by this SI. Ministers should not confuse being scared of answering these questions with being asked to be accountable for the detail of the consequences of their actions.”
“Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s intention to replace the relevant regulations—which I cited—that this SI depends on? Yes or no? It would be incredibly helpful if she could clarify that, as it would mean that this SI was rooted in a firm piece of legislation.”
“What discussions has the Minister had already with his Home Office counterparts about providing sanctuary to those people, who we recognise are being persecuted and do not wish to leave languishing in hotels?”
“The Minister is right when he says that there is universal condemnation across this House, where we have today talked powerfully about human rights abuses and the persecution of the people of Iran, particularly the women fighting for their most basic freedoms. Does he agree that if we are to learn the lessons from our suffragette foresisters about deeds not words, government needs to join up? Some 11,000 Iranians are making an application for asylum in the UK and only 98 such applications were granted last year. Iranians are the third largest group of people in the channel-crossing boats. In the previous urgent question today, people felt that the very same people whose persecution we are now talking about should be penalised.”
“Let this be the point where no one is ever told again, “Open your windows and the problem will be solved.” May I caution the Secretary of State against relying solely on the housing ombudsman as the best mechanism for our constituents to seek redress? RSLs such as Clarion and London and Quadrant have, when doing repairs, left residents in hotels miles away from where they live. Residents are getting heavily into debt and languishing because the RSLs are not doing the repairs properly. Residents do not have the weeks and months it takes to secure redress. The companies will use their insurance policies to cover the cost of doing the repairs on those properties. Will he give tenants a right to access that money, so we can concentrate the minds of those social landlords to treat those people with the dignity they deserve?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you might be able to advise me on a slightly more sombre subject. In a question earlier today, the Immigration Minister responded to a concern raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith)—I have been trying to find him to say that I was going to raise this issue—regarding the absconsion of a gentleman who it subsequently transpires from press reports has been accused of a very serious assault of a young refugee child in my constituency. The Minister said he would investigate the matter and come back to the hon. Member. Can you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I can ensure that, given that the matter took place in my constituency—we were not aware at the time—I get an update on the issue as well?”
“I know the Minister shares that concern, but we need to set out on the record what we are going to do about it. If she wants to find cross-party agreement on the need to go further, faster in closing those gaps, she will find it in this place.”
“Many of the cases involved former Soviet states, so we know the connection to what we are talking about today. My hon. Friend set out some strong questions, and I will add to them. What conversations has the Minister had with the overseas territories about this SI and about the need for a comprehensive designation of all these companies so that there is nowhere to hide money in the way in which we see right now, which undermines the sanctions regime that we are all trying to strengthen? What progress has been made on public company registers in those Crown territories? We all want to see a speedy end to the conflict in Ukraine. We stand firmly with President Zelensky, but we cannot do that if we turn a blind eye to the gaps in our current legislation that allow companies to flourish and money to be diverted.”
“She will have heard my colleague on the Front Bench talk about the Crown dependencies, where many of the cracks and fissures in the sanctions regime can be found, and it is important that we see action taken. It is in the secrecy of ownership in the Crown dependencies that the Russians have found the friends that they do not find among ourselves and other nations on the world stage. It is worth looking at just how big those gaps are. A piece of work by Transparency International last year discovered 237 large-scale corruption and money laundering cases that involved six out of the 14 UK overseas territories—countries in which we have direct control and influence. That amounted to £250 billion-worth of funds diverted from some of the world’s poorest people to these entities by around 1,200 different company measures.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr McCabe. I rise to speak in support of the comments made by my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, on the importance of addressing the gaps that might exist. These measures are welcomed across the House; there is strong support for sanctions against Russia and for cracking down on what had previously been a stain on our international reputation. The challenge for all of us is in the gaps that many companies and entities use to undermine the sanctions. I am struck by the fact that the Minister talked strongly about things we could do in the UK.”
“We now know of at least four sexual assaults on children who have been left in these hotels for months because of the backlog. In a meeting with MPs last week, the Home Secretary’s officials committed themselves to providing details of the safeguarding requirements for private contractors if Ministers gave them permission. If the Home Secretary is so confident that she is doing everything she can to fulfil the duty of care for these vulnerable children, will she give that permission and will she publish those details?”
“I think we all agree that life and progress cannot stop for people in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State says he will take powers over public service delivery. He will recall the statement he made on 24 October, in which he accepted responsibility for ensuring that women in Northern Ireland can access their human right to a safe, legal and local abortion. He said it was for the Northern Ireland Executive to fund that service. Women in Northern Ireland have now had three years of various Secretaries of State exchanging letters, rattling and saying that, somehow, this is going to happen, yet it has not happened. Given that the Secretary of State has these powers, can he now tell us the date on which a woman in Northern Ireland, if she so chooses, will be able to access a safe, legal and local abortion?”
“Q Thank you, Chair. I apologise; I am afraid a very grumpy toddler would not let me come in. On the subject of grumpy toddlers, our witness has just suggested that the Bill will allow for scrutiny of laws in “a parliamentary forum”. Can he explain how statutory instruments introduced by Ministers allow for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny? Is that not giving a lot of power to Ministers, rather than Parliament taking back control ?”
“We know none of that, and we know none of the detail about whether there will be any consultation with external stakeholders, which is particularly important in the field of agriculture, where a large number of stakeholders are affected.”
“Jacob Rees-Mogg himself said that his own Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy had identified that it needed 400 civil servants to be working on the 300 or so pieces of legislation that had then been identified. Presumably, now they have discovered an extra 1,400 that number will increase. It is a huge amount of civil service time. The issue is even more acute in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is the Department most affected by retained EU law. The question is, what is the internal process? Even if the Secretary of State in DEFRA decides that he or she wants to retain all the legislation because it is so important in different forms, what happens? Does it go to the Cabinet? Is there some sort of star chamber that looks at what is being proposed by the Departments?”
“What would this process mean for our ability to influence the content produced as a result of the Bill? Professor Barnard: On the first point, as you rightly point out, there are provisions in the Bill to allow Ministers, by regulations, to keep retained EU law, which will eventually be called assimilated law, but what is not at all clear is the process by which the Minister decides to engage in that process. Remember, if the Minister decides to sit on his or her hands, the default kicks in, which is that those all those provisions will go. In reality, we understand that Government Departments have a reasonable idea of the law in their area, and civil servants will need to go through that law statutory instrument by statutory instrument. There is a real issue about capacity in Government Departments.”
“Q We have talked a little bit about the content, but could we talk a little about the process? You have just highlighted that there are actually another 1,400 pieces of legislation affected. The process then gives ministerial—not parliamentary—control about what happens next. Could you give us your reflections on that process and the scrutiny of it, and some of the practicalities? For example, which Ministers will retain responsibility for which pieces of legislation? It would be quite helpful to know, with the extra 1,400, who has drawn the short straw? Are they all in one particular Department or across the Departments? A previous witness claimed that there would be adequate parliamentary scrutiny, and if Parliament did not like what Ministers were doing, it would intervene.”
“There is an ability to bump that up to the affirmative resolution procedure, but it will be very difficult for Parliament necessarily to keep track of all this, because so much is coming through. As I am sure you are all aware, it is very difficult for either of the Houses to actually pass a resolution to say that they disagree with a particular provision. Because of the demands on parliamentary time, it will be even more difficult when you have so many provisions coming through. Although there is a process for parliamentary oversight, it will be difficult in the timeframe to ensure that that oversight can be exercised in a manner that enables Parliament properly to scrutinise the measures as they come through.”
“Professor Young, do you want to add anything? Professor Young: We also have to think about how ministerial Departments will liaise with each other, because those different Departments might be looking at the same statutory instrument that might regulate bits that fall within the ambit of their respective Departments. Something will also be required in Government to keep track of that and to work out what the process should be. With regard to parliamentary scrutiny, under the Bill the default position would be the negative resolution procedure. Obviously, there are some exceptions, for example, if a measure is used to modify primary legislation, to create a power to enact subordinate legislation or to create a criminal offence in certain circumstances.”
“Q We know that the last time the Commons overturned a negative statutory instrument was in 1979, and that the Lords has not done so since 2000. Professor Young: Exactly.”
“First, we need to think about what is the appropriate procedure that enables parliamentarians to have adequate scrutiny and we also need to think about how we ensure that parliamentarians have sufficient time to perform that scrutiny. That is why you accurately quoted the information relating to the last time that either the House of Commons or the House of Lords voted against a particular resolution. Perhaps that shows the very great difficulty of actually achieving the time to get that on the parliamentary agenda.”
“In your opinion, then, the ability of parliamentarians, as opposed to Ministers, to influence what laws come next, if they are enacted at all, is limited. Can you suggest, or are there examples from your experience, how parliamentary scrutiny could be strengthened in this Bill? Professor Young: Obviously we have elements that we saw under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which allowed for aspects of enhanced scrutiny in certain circumstances as well as the ability to exercise the affirmative resolution procedures. There can be procedures that you can use whereby you put forward drafts of delegated legislation and allow parliamentarians to scrutinise them. Obviously it is difficult to set that up and to have the time to do so. I think we need to think about two issues.”
“Q To clarify that point, obviously all of that requires a Minister to bring forward a proposal for any parliamentary scrutiny. Professor Young: Yes.”
“Professor Barnard: If I may just put a footnote to your questions, of course if Parliament did decide to vote by resolution against a statutory instrument, that risks running out of time. Therefore the default kicks in and the sunset kicks in, so you lose a measure all together.”
“Q So in your reading of the legislation, to confirm our reading of it, if a Minister chooses not to bring forward a replacement to a piece of legislation, there is no parliamentary scrutiny of that decision in and of itself at all? Professor Young: That’s it; absolutely. The only way perhaps to get around that would be to ensure that different departmental Select Committees could go away and look at the area of their law, and perhaps write reports to propose that there should be changes or provisions should be retained or revoked. Obviously, that would only be a report and not necessarily something that a Minister would have to follow in any way, shape or form.”
“However, that is going to leave these particular measures open to potential legal challenges because people will argue “This has increased my burden in these circumstances.” That, in turn, could add to legal uncertainty.”
“The difficulty is what would or would not be increasing burdens in these circumstances. On the one hand, you are right; this is incentivising a reduction in these burdens and the potential follow-on we would see is a reduction in standards, particularly because it is looking at obstacles to trade or obstacles to efficiency, productivity and profitability. Another way of potentially reading it is to say that if I take a number of earlier burdens, turn them into one burden with a higher standard, that is also not increasing the burden. The difficulty is that the clause could be quite ambiguous, which could, in some senses, perhaps alleviate some of the risk that that might incentivise towards removing burdens.”
“Q I just want to follow up on that. Clause 15(5) specifies that no replacement legislation can increase the burden on businesses. That looks very much like it is locking in lower standards as one can only secure either parity or something reduced. Is that a correct interpretation or could burden be rewritten to allow us to have the higher standards that we were promised if we left the European Union because we could set our own standards? Professor Young, you looked like the one who was nodding most vociferously. Professor Young: The problem with that particular provision is that it is that element of not reducing burdens, which includes elements of administrative inconvenience, as well as obstacles to trade or innovations or obstacles to efficiency, productivity or profitability.”
“In respect of the so-called rebalancing dimension in the level playing field, the retaliation is brutal, quick and immediate.”
“Q That is where the lawyers make their millions. In your interpretation of burdens, the TCA talks about us not using changes in our regulatory processes to undercut each other. So is there a risk in that interpretation that we may affect the TCA itself? How do you feel that this legislation interacts with those other forms of legislation? Professor Barnard: Yes, you are absolutely right. That is one of the reasons we proposed carving out, for example, environmental law and employment law, because those are the two areas that are subject to the so-called level playing field provisions in the trade and co-operation agreement. We are free to lower our standards—that is our choice—but if we do and, depending on the provision, that materially affects trade between the UK and the EU, the EU can start the dispute mechanism in the TCA.”
“Q Martin, I was interested to hear you talk about how you were happy with the scrutiny mechanism in the Bill, because I note that in your evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee you argued for the need to have a delegated power to revise retained law and then suggested a commission to propose what should be done. That would be much more scrutiny than you are talking about now. What made you change your mind about the requirement for scrutiny that you previously advocated? I thought that the argument you made before was compelling. Martin Howe: The argument I was putting forward was for a practical way to speed up the process. Frankly, it was a suggestion that I floated, a possible—”
“Q Are you disappointed that there is no scrutiny mechanism in the legislation, as you floated? Martin Howe: What I was then proposing was not so much a scrutiny mechanism as a sort of motor to get the process going—”
“Q You made quite a strong argument, did you not, that there was a case for being able to look? You were advocating the superfluity of some of this legislation, but now the Bill contains none of that. Are you disappointed? Martin Howe: No, because the main thing—the important thing—is to get the job done. What I am disappointed about is that I published a paper in July 2016, a month after the referendum, arguing that we should start a systematic process of review of European Union laws. I naively suggested that that would be with a view to revising what we needed to revise by the time of exit two and a half years later—”
“Q You felt it was naive to know what we were revising. Martin Howe: No. I was naive to think that the process of revision would be started. I share Tom’s view that it would have been better had this process been started earlier, but it does need to be done.”
“Q You also said that there were limited respects—and gave two examples from your own practice—where you thought it was a good idea to retain EU law over pre-Brexit legislation. Do you accept that there might be other areas of law where it might be a good idea to retain some of those laws? In which case, would that not be helpful to us as parliamentarians? Your colleague dismissed the idea that the Bill will lead to slash and burn, but it has slash-and-burn powers within it. Surely it would be good practice—as you have argued—to know what it is that we are slashing and burning, and to have some process of exploring that as parliamentarians, if we are to be taking back control for this House? Martin Howe: Well, it is a matter for Parliament as to what you press Ministers on with regards to their plans and intentions.”
“Q But we do not have powers to press them; we only have a negative resolution procedure. You made such a compelling case and argued in your previous evidence for several areas of law where you think we should retain. What has changed now? Martin Howe: To be clear, I was not suggesting that they be retained in the long term. Those areas need revising and converting into coherent UK-based law. Elements of EU law should not be retained into the indefinite future.”