In Politics

Withdrawal Agreement Bill in Westminster

Withdrawal Agreement Bill (WAB) was published
The WAB debate time frame was rejected by MPs
WAB was not passed

This week the fabled Withdrawal Agreement Bill (WAB) was finally published by the government.

We have been calling for WAB to be published for months. Back in March, we wrote to the Secretary of State for DExEU asking for the government to publish the bill in draft so that effective scrutiny could be carried out by all stakeholders.

Instead of publishing months in advance, as they could and should have, the government published the 115-page bill at 8pm on Monday evening and then proposed to push the bill through the Commons on an incredibly short timetable of just a few days. This angered many MP’s who rightly thought that scrutiny of a 115-page bill, that would fundamentally change the UK’s constitutional arrangements, should take place over a normal schedule rather than a deliberately truncated one. A sentiment we shared.

This led to two key votes. The Second Reading of the bill (a vote on whether the Commons generally agreed with the thrust of the bill and that it should be debated in detail) and then a vote on the programme motion (a vote on the proposed timetable to debate the bill).

The Second Reading passed with a majority of 30. This included all 285 remaining Conservative MPs, 19 Labour MPs, and 25 Independent MPs (a lot are the from the group of 21 ex-Conservative MPs). This vote is symbolic for two reasons. First, it is the first time in a while that the Commons has signalled a majority for a deal of some form exists. Secondly, Second Reading is a largely symbolic vote to allow the principle of the bill to continue its passage and these MPs are not likely to support the deal later on in its passage.

The second vote, on the programme motion, was defeated with a majority of 14 on the basis that the extremely limited time to scrutinise a bill of major constitutional significance was unacceptable. When this vote defeated the government, the PM decided to pause the bill.

What next? Westminster is waiting to see what extension to Article 50 the EU will propose. Johnson will then decide whether to push WAB again, and hope to get it over the line, or to go for a General Election before Christmas. Wait and see in other words.

Could the bill pass? It is very close. The FT, at the time of writing, have a majority of 3 for the PMs deal. That is incredibly tight and it is entirely possible as more information about the impacts of the bill comes out that this majority disappears.

General Election?

Westminster waiting for EU Article 50 extension
Potential general election vote in the Commons next week
WAB may return to Commons in near future

Since the programme motion of WAB was defeated in Parliament the Prime Minister has decided to request that Parliament vote for an election next Monday. It is unclear how he will ask, either through the Fixed Term Parliament Act which requires a ⅔ majority of MPs to vote for it or a simple one-line bill declaring the date of the next election, which requires a simple majority but could be heavily amended.

It is not clear if Johnson will get the election he wants. First, he needs an extension of Article 50 to be approved by the EU. This is currently under discussion as to how long they will approve one. That should be clarified by early next week.

Meanwhile, the Opposition wants him to rule out an accidental no-deal Brexit, essentially requiring another version of the “Benn” Act stating that the PM will request and extension again (after the potential extension the EU are currently discussing) before they will vote for a General Election.

Further to all this the PM has said if an extension to 31st January is granted he will bring back WAB with the intention of getting that passed before November 6th when Parliament could dissolve for the election. This has caused opposition parties concerns as they feel this could give Johnson both the Brexit and election he wants.

Ultimately we are waiting on the EU for an extension and the results of a vote in Parliament on an election. All of which are currently uncertain and not likely to become known until early next week.

In Policy

WAB: Rights, Standards, Devolution and Transparent Law-making

Contains wide delegated powers with few safeguards
Entire Northern Ireland Protocol to be implemented by secondary legislation with few details spelt out in the bill
Lacks proper protection of workers’ rights and environmental standards
The limited time for scrutiny would also leave no time for devolved administrations to consider legislative consent to the bill

The Withdrawal Agreement Bill (WAB) is the legislation that needs to be passed to ratify into law the deal the PM has agreed with the EU. If it is not passed the deal does not become law. Institute for Government explainer here.

The full bill can be found here and the Withdrawal Agreement (the deal) can be found here

Below we explore what this major piece of legislation means for transparent law-making, the Northern Ireland Protocol, rights and standards and devolution.

Transparent law-making
The bill sets out that central parts of the Agreement will be implemented through secondary legislation, with details to be filled out by ministers on a later date. Almost all of the provisions covering citizens’ rights would be implemented via secondary legislation- a process which receives far less parliamentary scrutiny. This includes, as Alliance member, the Public Law Project has pointed out, appeal rights for all applicants to the EU settlement scheme. The incredibly short timeframe for scrutiny means that Parliamentarians would not be able to properly consider whether all the powers in the bill are needed, what safeguards need to be put in place and whether the government needs to include more detailed provisions in the actual bill. The 3milion rightly said that just three days of scrutiny for a bill that will have huge implications for EU citizens’ is unacceptable.

The Northern Ireland protocol
The WAB gives UK ministers wide powers, with very few limits to implement the revised Ireland/ Northern Ireland Protocol. The bill fails to set out the details for the consent mechanism agreed in the revised deal, which sets out that the NI Assembly can consent to Northern Ireland’s continuing relationship with the EU. Instead, it leaves UK ministers with broad powers to change the provisions relating to the Petition of Concern and cross-party consent mechanism in the Northern Ireland Act with minimal oversight. As Kevin Hanratty, director of the Human Rights Consortium said: “In addition to deep concerns about the lack of time to properly scrutinize laws that are of profound constitutional significance, we are concerned that the entire protocol on Northern Ireland is to be given effect by secondary legislation”. Read the briefing from the Human Rights Consortium on the WAB here.

Rights & standards
The WAB worryingly does not make a single reference to maintaining environmental standards, despite the UK government saying it wants to preserve the high environmental standards post-Brexit. On workers’ rights, the bill, as Marley Morris, Associate Director (Immigration, Trade and EU relations) at IPPR has said: “The bill simply ensures that the government reports to MPs on whether future Bills will maintain or weaken EU workers’ rights. While Parliament will also have the option of considering whether to mirror future EU rules on workers’ rights, there are no guarantees that the UK will either maintain or keep pace with EU law”. Read more from Alliance member, Unison on the lack of protections for workers’ rights here and Equally Ours here.

Devolution
The limited time for scrutiny would also leave no time for devolved administrations to consider legislative consent to the Withdrawal Agreement Bill. Schedule 1 of the bill sets out the powers for the devolved authorities, which makes it clear that powers in respect of social security coordination, recognition of professional qualification and equal treatment cannot be used outside of devolved competence as it presently stands. Read more from the Commons Library on what implications WAB will have for the devolved institutions. Also, see this explainer from Cytûn here.

These are just some of the many issues in the bill that parliamentarians, civil society, business and individuals will need time to scrutinise. Parliament should insist on being given proper time to scrutinise a major piece of legislation that will have huge constitutional, political and legal implications.

In Politics

In Policy

Recommended Reading