Justin Madders
MP for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough · Labour · United Kingdom
“Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard asked about, will consider the points raised in this debate and whether any of them can be put into future updates to guidance. As was mentioned, good passenger information is central to standards.”
“As the roads Minister, I of course recognise the importance of bus stops and the important effect they have on the streetscape. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard made clear that she is passionate and informed about the importance of bus journeys to everyone.”
“Where responsibility for highways or individual assets sits elsewhere, close and effective working between the relevant authorities is essential. We expect local plans to join up services, infrastructure and passenger information, rather than treating them as separate issues. That will no doubt be music to the ears of my hon.”
“Our guidance encourages authorities to take a strategic approach to stops and interchanges, including keeping an inventory of infrastructure, identifying priorities for investment and setting locally appropriate standards for facilities and maintenance.”
“She is absolutely right that the quality of a bus stop is about more than accessibility, although of course accessibility is vital. Passengers notice whether a stop is easy to find and use, whether it offers shelter or seating where appropriate, whether it is clean, whether the surroundings feel safe and well maintained and, as we have di…”
“That approach reflects a simple principle: local transport authorities know their areas and are best placed to plan improvements across the whole local bus network. That is why the Department’s vision for buses, within an integrated transport system, puts local transport authorities at the centre of delivery.”
The complete record
Every one of 8,481 lines we hold for Justin Madders, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 65 of 170.
“We can try. I want to say a few words about the clause, which will fit in with the discussion we will have on the following clauses. All these clauses pertain to the future of our law after the removal of the legal effects of EU law. I will try not to repeat myself and to focus specifically on the terms of this clause. I begin by stating the obvious: as we untie ourselves from the European Union, we will clearly need a new settlement of legal principles. Nevertheless, we ought to treat the clause with some scepticism and scrutinise the impact it will have on our country’s legal system. In doing so, we must consider why it was decided to take a snapshot at the end of 2020 in the first place.”
“Have the Government have done any analysis of this, and can they anticipate which areas will be prone to more legal challenge on the issue of supremacy? I suspect that it will be impossible for any of us to say whether the consequences of removing the principle of supremacy would reduce the clarity of the law or change its effect in any particular case. However, the overall effect is that there will be a reduction in certainty and a risk of unpredicted—and perhaps entirely undesirable and unjust—consequences. What assessment has been made of the impact of the new level of uncertainty on business investment?”
“Section 5(2) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 stated that the principle of the supremacy of EU law will continue to apply “so far as relevant to the interpretation, disapplication or quashing of any enactment...passed or made before exit day.” That means that retained EU regulations would take precedence over pre-existing domestic legislation that is inconsistent with them. It also makes it clear that this does not apply to anything passed after 31 December 2020, so to some extent, supremacy of EU law has already entered history. What analysis has been done on the legal consequences of retrospectively altering the relationship between retained EU law and domestic legislation passed before 31 December 2020?”
“It must strike a balance between making changes where appropriate, based on our new position outside the EU, and maintaining some consistency and predictability for businesses and individuals who are trying to conduct their working and private lives within the ambit of the law. That is why some of our other amendments have attempted to create stability in terms of what the Government can control with these regulations, because we recognise that not even this Government can control the courts and which issues are litigated.”
“I rise to speak to new clause 8, but before that I will address clauses 4, 5 and 6. Clause 4 is a Ronseal clause: with regard to abolishing the supremacy of the EU, it does exactly what it says on the tin. However, unlike putting a coat of varnish on a fence, it will not be a case of simply walking away once it is done. It is inevitable that courts will need to consider case law that we have previously regarded as settled, because that law was settled when EU law was supreme, and it no longer will be. The reality is that none of us know where this clause is going to take us. Most lawyers practising today know no other legal environment. The world has moved on in the last 50 years in ways that we could not have foreseen, and the law has moved with it, so any reinterpretation of the law needs to be done carefully.”
“I did posit in my opening remarks the principles of EU law that will be jettisoned. In the example of legal certainty and equal treatment, does the Minister consider that those principles should no longer be part of UK law?”
“If the Government are on top of things, which I would like to think they were, they should be doing this work anyway. They should be doing this analysis in a way that enables Parliament to scrutinise the effect of the Bill.”
“I will first address the intervention of the right hon. Member for Clwyd West. The point of clause 4 is that it removes the ability of the courts to refer to precedents from any decisions that have been taken in accordance with EU law, so it is worrying that the right hon. Member makes such comments. The Minister said that we must decide whether we accept the supremacy of Parliament. We absolutely do, which is why so many of the amendments that we have tabled are about giving Parliament back control, not handing power to Ministers or, in the case of this clause, handing power to lawyers and judges to decide how our law moves forward. I thank the Minister for promoting me to a right hon. Member—that was very kind of her. She also said that new clause 8 would delay matters. It will not.”
“Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 Role of courts”
“The letter warns that the Bill “would upend ‘decades-worth of case law’ and create ‘a huge risk of poor or potentially detrimental law entering the statute book’”. We should be listening to these people; they know what they are talking about. They have looked at the effect of the Bill and believe it will not do what some think it will. It will not be a rerun of 2019, although the Conservatives would like us to go back to 2019, because they were ahead in the polls then. We have left the EU. This legislation is about how we move forward, but I am afraid that there has been a complete failure to address the consequences of its provisions. We will be coming back to the issue for years to come, because there has been a shocking lack of forethought about the Bill’s implications. I will press new clause 8 to a vote. Question put and agreed to.”
“We will be returning to Northern Ireland, as the Minister says. She said that the Bill will not add legal uncertainty. I am afraid that that is exactly what it will do, and it is exactly what the bulk of evidence from every legal representative who has contacted the Committee shows. By abolishing principles that have been in formation for half a century, we will be in a new era and will have to develop new legal principles. That can only create uncertainty. It is worth reflecting on the letter to which I referred earlier, which is reported in the Financial Times today. It was sent by about a dozen organisations, including the Trades Union Congress and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, that have a huge interest in ensuring that the law is fair and certain.”
“I have only a couple of questions. As I said, the Opposition consider the clause to be sensible, but will the Minister outline whether any assessment has been done as to what circumstances it is likely to be used in? What steps will the Government take to preserve the intent of the measure after 23 June 2026, when regulations made under the Bill will expire?”
“I merely reaffirm that scrutiny is important, and when we, as parliamentarians, are faced with such a ministerial power grab, we should be concerned about trying to restrain it in some way. That is what this amendment seeks to do.”
“I have said this a number of times, but we really should aim to do better in the Bill. We should ensure that we are confident that, when changes are made, both Houses are able to scrutinise Ministers’ decisions. We will probably be presented, yet again, with arguments as to why we do not need such levels of scrutiny because these laws were foisted on us against our will in the first place, but that is essentially a way of saying that two wrongs make a right. I do not accept that. As I explained extensively on Tuesday, there has been a great deal of involvement on the part of UK politicians and representatives in the development of EU laws. I just do not accept the characterisation of these laws as having been foisted on us as correct. I am not going to rehash all the arguments at the length I did the other day.”
“I hear what the Hansard Society said about these procedures not having been used extensively thus far, but we are, of course, talking about something of an entirely different order to what we have seen to date. The procedures have mainly been used to maintain the status quo, but we are on a different and possibly uncertain trajectory now. It is clear from the Government’s refusal to accept any of our amendments to protect any pieces of regulation that there are going to be dramatic changes as a result of the Bill. Removing the requirement for the affirmative procedure will, once again, see a significant erosion of Parliament’s ability to scrutinise and hold Ministers to account when they amend the law. Why should parliamentarians not have greater involvement in the process set out in the Bill?”
“As we can see from the submissions made to the Committee, it appears that social media platforms are also at risk of being inadvertently switched off as a result of the Bill. We therefore think that this enhanced scrutiny is required. I gather that the Government’s response as to why the requirements from the EU withdrawal Act can be watered down is that they believe those procedures have brought no tangible benefit. However, it is difficult to see what the rationale is for reducing the level of scrutiny when Parliament as a whole obviously thought that they were important enough to place in the Act just a few years ago. Could the Minister set out why she considers that a lower level is now appropriate?”
“If Ministers wish to revoke retained EU law, they are currently subject to what I would consider to be an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny, with mandatory explanatory statements, mandatory periods of prior parliamentary scrutiny and the mandatory use of draft affirmative procedures. Those enhanced provisions were inserted during the passage of the EU withdrawal Act in 2018 because Parliament considered such enhanced scrutiny necessary and proportionate, given the vast and varied nature of retained EU law and the potential impact of changes that we have debated at length over the past few days. We are talking about important environmental rights, workers’ rights and consumer rights.”
“I beg to move amendment 81, in clause 11, page 13, line 26, leave out subsections (1) and (2). This amendment removes the subsections that omit and replace paragraphs 13, 14, and 15 from the European Withdrawal Act 2018, and thereby leaves intact the existing scrutiny procedure for instruments which amend or revoke subordinate legislation made under s2(2) of the ECA 1972. Good afternoon, Sir George. In essence, the amendment would remove the subsections that omit and replace paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of schedule 8 to the EU withdrawal Act and leave intact the scrutiny procedure inserted for instruments that amend or revoke subordinate legislation made under the European Communities Act 1972.”
“Friend the Member for Walthamstow said it is clear that Government Members have no scintilla of doubt about the intentions of the Government and are confident that nothing untoward will happen. Well, if the last scintilla of doubt has ridden out of town for them, it is certainly very much in the high street for us, because we are concerned about the Government’s intentions. We have plenty of reasons to be concerned that they will not maintain laws that we want maintained and that our constituents expect to see maintained. So we want to push this amendment to a vote.”
“The convention is of course that Ministers give way when asked to in Bill Committee, because that is the point of a Bill Committee—that we have the opportunity to scrutinise legislation and question the Minister on its intent. I think the record will show that that has not been possible on every occasion. That is why this amendment is so important, because the Government are obsessed with keeping power for themselves. The idea that the decision to leave the EU was about taking back control was not about the people of this country; it was about Ministers in Parliament making decisions that they do not have to address the elected representatives of this country on and that they do not have to justify. They are hiding away from proper accountability. That is not what taking back control is about. My hon.”
“I agree, and I hope that by the time the Bill reaches its conclusion we have clearer answers on how Parliament will be able to properly scrutinise many of the powers that the Government are awarding themselves in the Bill. I will press the amendment to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“That just creates more uncertainty and confusion, and uncertainty for businesses that are trying to invest. In conclusion, we support the amendments because 2023 is a deadline in search of a headline. It is not a serious proposition and it should be rejected. Parliament legislated, as we were preparing to leave the EU, to avoid a cliff edge. It seems illogical and reckless in the extreme to be now deliberately creating one when we are so close to the precipice.”
“Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), did not take his own advice on that issue before he drafted the Bill. When he was Leader of the House, in response to the Committee’s report into the frequent use of skeleton Bills during the period of the pandemic, he said that it did not “necessarily provide a model example of how Parliament would like to see legislation brought forward”, and that he would be “encouraging them to minimise the use of delegated powers where possible”. However, here we are today. Finally, I will respond to the argument that there is already provision in the Bill to address the sunset. The problem is that that can apply to laws only if we know about them in the first place. There is also the prospect that we end up with a potpourri of sunset dates, because it could be any time between now and 2026.”
“The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee raised concerns about primary legislation and said that “where little of the policy is included on the face of the bill” but where Parliament is asked “to pass primary legislation which is so insubstantial that it leaves the real operation of legislation to be decided by ministers”, this reduces any parliamentary scrutiny to a bare minimum, and we are left only with “delegated legislation which Parliament cannot amend but only accept or reject, with rejection being a rare occurrence and fraught with difficulty.” That Committee further warned that “the abuse of delegated powers is in effect an abuse of Parliament and an abuse of democracy”. It is a shame that the former Secretary of State, the right hon.”
“However, when the House of Commons voted on them, Ministers would say, ‘You may not like these revised regulations very much, but if you do not vote for them, the alternative is that we will not have any regulations at all.’ That weakens Parliament’s ability to control the exercise of ministerial power.” –– [ Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 32, Q61.] I do not want to be back here in a year’s time faced with a choice between accepting a reduction in the number of days of paid holiday that people are entitled to from, say, 28 to 10, and the alternative—people having no right to paid holiday at all—because we have been forced up to a precipice due to the timescale set out in the Bill. That is not Parliament taking back control. I am not alone in my concerns.”
“One of the problems with the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny is that although one hears that Parliament has powers—in some cases via the negative or affirmative resolution procedures—the background against which it is being asked to approve legislation means that if it votes against that legislation, the sunset clause will apply and regulations disappear completely, rather weakening Parliament’s ability to do anything. To take an example, if Ministers decided to keep the working time rules but rewrite them to make them less favourable to employees, and came up with the new regulations in November 2023, those rewritten regulations would probably be introduced under the affirmative procedure.”
“A lot of areas also have several pieces of amending legislation… There may be huge policy changes under this legislation, and the end of 2023 is simply not a realistic timeframe for the process.” –– [ Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 29, Q56.] There is plenty of evidence of concern out there, indicating that we should look again at the sunset. If Members are reassured that there is departmental and civil service capacity to handle all that in the time required, perhaps they should also consider the scrutiny aspects of the sunset, and whether Parliament will be able to fulfil its role properly in the time available. As George Peretz said in the evidence session: “the sunset clause does interrelate with the question of Minister’s powers.”
“Eleonor Duhs also told us in the evidence session: “In order to get the statute book ready for Brexit, which was in some ways a much more simple task than this, it took over two years and over 600 pieces of legislation. The reason I say it was a simpler task is that we were essentially making the statute book work without the co-operation framework of the EU. We were taking out references to the European Commission and replacing them with ‘Secretary of State’—that sort of thing. That was a much simpler task than what we have here, and that took over two and a half years.”
“This is a politically generated deadline that is going to cause problems, but if the Committee needs further persuasion, I also refer to the written evidence of the Bar Council, which raised the alarm when it said: “The setting of an arbitrary, and in all the circumstances, impractical sunset date, with the consequent and entirely unnecessary risk of the disappearance of rules of critical importance to business, consumers, employees and the environment (some of which, due to their sheer numbers, may only be missed once lost) without adequate consideration or any consultation, and conferring an entirely unfettered and unscrutinised discretion to Ministers to disapply or delay the sunset provision or not; as well as the attendant risk of rushed replacement legislation”.”
“I remind the Committee what Mark Fenhalls of the Bar Council said in the evidence session: “I am no expert in how much civil service time exists, but I would be astonished if it were remotely possible to cover but a fraction of this. I do not know why it is set up as anything other than a political problem.” –– [ Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 28, Q56.] That is the nub of the issue.”
“I refer to a newspaper report in the Financial Times , which said that Government officials are considering whether to press ahead with the 2023 sunset clause. I do not know if that is news to the Minister, but it is hot off the press. According to the article, Government officials have said that the Prime Minister and the Business Secretary have “yet to decide whether to stick to the 2023 deadline or push it back.” No. 10 said, “It’s too early to say.” I am afraid it is not too early to say because we are debating it right now. If the Government have plans to push back the sunset, it will be useful to hear. If the Minister is able to comment on that report when she responds, I would be obliged.”
“What does that mean if we extrapolate it across the whole of Government? How many extra staff will be needed overall in anticipation of the Bill? The Financial Times also reported that “Whitehall insiders”—I never quite know who those people are, but they obviously have sufficient insight to talk to the press—are saying that “reviewing the majority of retained EU law by 2023 would present a massive bureaucratic burden. One senior Whitehall official estimated that between 1,000 and 1,500 statutory instruments would be required in order to convert retained EU law that was deemed necessary on to the UK statute book.” No wonder the impact assessments are silent on the issue of the sunset date. The Regulatory Policy Committee has made clear that it believes the analysis of that sunset date is inadequate.”
“It will be in half the time, as well. Let us assume for now that the Government press on with the Bill—although there is still some doubt about that, I believe—and it gets to the Lords early next year. There will probably be a bit of to and fro, given the significant constitutional elements this legislation contains, so it will not get Royal Assent until well into the spring. At best, that gives the Government six, seven or eight months to restate all the laws that will be covered by the Bill, so will the Minister tell us how many extra staff each Department has been assigned to deal with the additional workload? Have they been given any deadlines to work to? As we know, the Financial Times reported on 27 October that the Minister’s Department, with 300 pieces of EU law, would need an extra 400 staff to review the body of retained EU law.”
“Let us look at the numbers for a moment—although, of course, the numbers are something of a moveable feast. If we accept the newspaper reports that 3,800 statutory instruments will come within the ambit of the Bill, and presume—because we have not heard anything to the contrary—that the Government want to keep the majority of them, more statutory instruments would need something doing to them as a result of the Bill than were passed in the whole of last year. Of course, we had many extra regulations in that year due to covid, and plenty of people think the scrutiny of those particular instruments was not at the required level, so even under the most generous interpretation, we are looking at possibly doubling from last year the number of statutory instruments, if everything is to be passed before the end of next year.”
“The Regulatory Policy Committee has said that setting a deadline is not enough, and that a stronger argument is needed for choosing that particular date, and I agree. The truth is that there is no better reason for that date having been chosen than the Prime Minister of the day, or the week, being able to say, “We will have put an end to all unnecessary EU burdens by the end of next year”—never mind that the Government cannot tell us what those burdens are, or why the end of 2023 is better than the end of 2024, 2025 or 2026. What we can say for certain, though, is that there will not be sufficient capacity in the civil service for a genuinely effective appraisal of the regulations that the Bill seeks to remove. The case for the cliff edge is incredibly weak; the arguments for removing it and putting the date back are much stronger.”
“That is a fantasy, because whenever a Department is asked to identify which regulations it no longer wants, all we hear is silence. We are told that we must hurry along and free ourselves of the 2,400 or 3,800 regulations—or however many they turn out to be—that are holding us back. The best I have heard any Government Minister say so far is something about vacuum cleaner power, but given the chaos of the past few months I am not sure anyone can seriously say that the reason for our current economic mess is that we do not have sufficient control over our hoovers. I do understand the need to have a finite date. I understand the importance of having a target to work towards, but the date has been plucked out of thin air, seemingly at random, and we should not accept it unless a compelling and rational case is put forward.”
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir George. I will start by echoing the comments of the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. We do not think the Bill is fit for purpose. We will try to help the Government to improve the Bill with the amendments we will be moving, but fundamentally we think its approach is flawed, not least the subject of this amendment—the unnecessary and entirely artificial cliff edge, which is driven by political considerations, not practical ones. I have yet to hear any justification for the deadline of 31 December 2023, other than the belief—seemingly rooted in fantasy—that unless we free ourselves of the shackles of these regulations by that date, we can never prosper as a country.”
“I am grateful for the Minister’s references to my special day, which will now be recorded forever more. She mentioned the Brexit opportunities team. Who is the Minister responsible for that team?”
“This is a very important piece of work, as the Minister has outlined. There must be a Minister who is responsible for it. Who is that? Who can we ask and speak to about this issue, because this is clearly a matter of important scrutiny?”
“The current powers in the Bill leave the Scottish Parliament in a position in which it would have to remove the sunset entirely, whereas perhaps an option could be for it to extend the sunset for reasons of capacity. That would be a much more measured approach.”
“We have some sympathy with amendment 68. From what we can determine, it tries to equalise the approach to the current anomaly whereby under clause 1(2) the power to remove the sunset is granted both to Westminster and to devolved authorities, but the power to extend the sunset under clause 2(1) is just for Ministers in Westminster. I do not know the reasons for the difference in that approach. I suggest that the evidence sessions did not reveal a particular state of readiness in the Scottish Parliament for the administrative burden that the Bill will leave it with. That is not, by the way, a criticism of the Scottish Parliament; it is a reflection of the timescales that we face.”
“We do not know which laws are covered, because there is no list anywhere. We just have the dashboard, but that does not give us any clues as to which pieces of regulation are considered to be within the devolved nations’ competence. Can the Minister justify the power to extend the sunset having to reside only in Westminster when it deals with matters of devolved competence? Can she also explain what the process will be in Government with the Brexit Opportunities Minister, when appointed, for identifying the laws that are within devolved competence, and the procedure to be followed for resolving any disputes about ownership of those pieces of legislation and which authority has competence?”
“I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think we start from the point that this should be a matter of logic. If an issue is within devolved competence, it should be for the devolved Administration to determine, but I wait to hear the Minister’s explanation for leaving that proposition to one side for the purposes of the Bill. We suspect the Government have done this because of the political imperative that Ministers will be able to say they have got rid of everything they do not want by the arbitrary deadline of 31 December 2023. If this amendment is accepted and it is something the Government accept is a valid argument, we would expect similar measures to come forward for Wales. Another consideration is that we do not actually know at this stage which laws are within the competence of Scotland.”
“I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert— “(1A) Schedule [the Definitive List] sets out a complete list of instruments to be revoked by subsection (1) (referred to as the ‘Definitive List’). (1B) The Secretary of State must by regulation add all relevant instruments referred to in subsection (1), so far as they are known to the Secretary of State at that date, to the Definitive List within 14 days of the date of Royal Assent to this Act.””
“I will come to that later point in due course, because before we get to the substance of what the Government intend to do with the Bill, let us first have an agreed baseline for what is covered by it.”
“For good measure, the Marine Conservation Society has said that the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) (England) Regulations 2015, the REACH Enforcement Regulations 2008 and the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 are all absent from the dashboard but are retained EU law. Those are just a few of the known unknowns, so we find ourselves in the unacceptable position of setting up a framework for the removal of laws, but we do not know which laws it will apply to. It is now six and a half years since the country voted to leave the EU. Surely the Government should know by now which laws are EU-derived and which ones they want to junk.”
“Friend the Member for Walthamstow told us in an evidence session, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs issued a ministerial correction to a written answer about the application of the Avian Influenza and Influenza of Avian Origin in Mammals (England) (No.2) Order 2006. Originally, it said that the order “was not made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, and therefore it does not fall within the scope of Clause 1 of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill”, but the ministerial correction confirmed that it did. Those actions hardly inspire confidence that that Department—or, indeed, any Department—has adequately identified the regulations that will be classified as retained EU law.”
“The former Minister also told us in response to a written question on 21 October that “we anticipate over 100 additional pieces of legislation will be added to the REUL dashboard.” We now know that it may well be considerably more than that. Even if just 100 pieces of legislation are missing, that will make that dashboard neither authoritative nor comprehensive. In that same answer, the former Minister also told us: “Government officials are currently working to quality assure this data and any amendments to the data will be reflected in an update of the dashboard this Autumn.” The position is that the dashboard may be updated at some point in the not-too-distant future, but it is certainly not comprehensive or authoritative at the moment. With this Bill, we do not even know what we are allowing the Government to change. As my hon.”
“The critical point, as she wrote in her letter in respect of further legislation that may be identified by the National Archives, is: “This number has not yet been verified by the Government.” We still do not know what the Bill covers. The former Minister, the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell), told us in response to a written question on 24 October: “The dashboard presents an authoritative, not comprehensive, catalogue of REUL. Therefore, there may be some legislation that is covered by clause 1 of the Bill that is not yet captured in the dashboard. The Government will continue to identify additional REUL and update the dashboard on a quarterly basis to reflect this.” I am sure that I am not the only person struggling to understand how something can be authoritative but not comprehensive.”
“It is also important as a matter of democratic principle—as well as ensuring that replacement legislation in areas of great importance to business and the wider public is effective in achieving its goals—that replacement legislation be carefully considered and properly scrutinised before it is enacted.” We certainly agree with that as a starting proposition. It is clear that the Bill as currently drafted does none of those things. The first thing to do is to identify and agree on what is covered by the Bill, but I am afraid that has not been forthcoming so far. I am grateful to the Minister for writing to us on 11 November to set out her understanding of the position following reports in the Financial Times that another 1,000 or 1,400 laws that have been identified do not appear on the dashboard.”