Welcome back to the Brexit Civil Society Alliance’s weekly bulletin. The Conservatives are now in government with a 80 majority which means the first phase of the Brexit deadlock is over. The week we look at what this means for Brexit legislation and scrutiny under this new government.
Enjoy,
Jacob
In Politics
General Election Results and Implications
Conservatives have a majority of 80
Brexit Bills will pass
Scrutiny harder than ever
The Conservative government has a majority of 80 as a result of the December general election. This means the parliamentary gridlock over Brexit that has characterised recent years of politics, is over.
The immediate consequence is that Prime Minister Johnson will pass his Withdrawal Agreement Bill. The side effect of his majority size means that he can push the bill through in a short time span, whereas before the election he was defeated over doing this.
The consequence of this truncated timescale is that scrutiny will and has indeed already suffered. This is because the Government has limited the bill to 5 days in the Commons- by contrast the EU Withdrawal Act 2018 had 36 days of parliamentary scrutiny. As the Institute for Government writes here, just because the Government has a comfortable majority does not mean it should treat Parliament as a rubber stamp, ‘it will suffer down the line if bad legislation makes it onto the statute book’. Further, the recent election has removed experienced rebellious MPs and replaced them with loyal inexperienced MPs. Labour MPs are also preoccupied with electing a new leader of the Labour Party further reducing the scrutiny from MPs.
This lack of scrutiny is likely not limited to the Withdrawal Agreement Bill. If Johnson carries on governing as he has done so far he is likely to continue avoiding full and proper scrutiny of his legislation throughout his premiership. This is concerning, especially over the next 12 months as the future relationship is negotiated, as many key policy issues will be decided soon and require proper scrutiny for effective policy.
In Policy
Withdrawal Agreement Bill Passes the Commons with a Comfortable Majority
Withdrawal Agreement Bill passes Commons with a majority of 99
Different bill to October, dropping rights protections
Focus moves to Future Relationship
The Withdrawal Agreement Bill is back again.
Before the Christmas break the Bill passed its second reading by 358 to 234 with a majority of 124. This week it passed its third reading by 330 to 231 a majority of 99.
This version of the Bill is different to the version put to the Commons back in October before the General Election.
They key changes include:
The complete removal of the limited procedural protections for workers’ rights
The removal of the Government's obligations to child refugees (the Dubs amendment)
The addition of a clause that could cause legal uncertainty over retained EU case law. This includes rulings over holiday pay and what is subject to VAT
An added power to the Secretary of State to transfer the the functions of the Independent Monitoring Authority to another public authority or even abolish it. The IMA is an important safeguard for the rights of EU citizens and the EU has already raised concerns about the government’s change to the Bill
The House of Commons Library goes into greater depth to all the changes made here.
These changes are concerning as they remove the non-regression protections that were in the bill protecting the current levels of rights and standards. There continues to be nothing in the bill to guarantee the non-regression on environmental standards either. The Government has however said environment protections will be in an environment bill published at a later date.
It was disheartening to see a nearly empty chamber as the Bill was debated in the House of Commons this week. Amendment after amendment was rejected by a comfortable majority, however sensible. Many of these amendments would have gone a long way in securing proper parliamentary scrutiny of the delegated powers, ensured non-regression of rights and environmental standards and secured Parliament a central role in the negotiations on the future relationship.
Further amendments would have delivered on the promise the 2016 Leave Campaign gave to EU citizens- an automatic right to stay in the UK after Brexit. They would also have delivered on promises made in the Conservative manifesto to enhance environmental standards and workers rights.
However, Brexit is far from done, the negotiations on the future relationship is not just a formality and things like the level playing field will be an important part of the negotiations. As Laura Bannister from the Trade Justice Movement writes here, a free trade agreement with the EU ‘could reach into areas of our lives we think of as distant from ‘trade’, like the way that NHS services are provided and the protection of our rights and environment’. It is critical that the future relationship ensures there isn’t a regression of key rights and protections and that the government is held to account on its promises.
As the bill has now passed the Commons it makes its way to the Lords. This is a brief opportunity for Lords to scrutinise some of the details and pass amendments. However amendments passed by the Lords are likely to be rejected by the Commons. The bill will spend six days in the Lords starting Monday 13th.
Delegated Powers Used to Make Policy Changes
Government passing huge numbers of Brexit Statutory Instruments (SIs)
Many are deeply problematic
Parliamentarians struggling to scrutinise
The excellent Alexandra Sinclair and Joe Tomlinson have published a concerning piece on the use of delegated powers by the UK Government since the passing of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EUWA). Find the full piece here.
They highlight three key concerns:
The SIs that have been laid weaken standards and make substantive policy changes rather than merely correcting deficiencies arising from exiting the EU
Many SIs contain errors which are spotted by organisations and parliamentary committees other than the government
The Government has not been providing impact assessments of the changes with the SIs
The findings of the work Alexandra and Joe have done are deeply concerning for civil society. During the passage of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018, the Government repeatedly promised not to use delegated powers for substantive policy changes. However, there are a number of statutory instruments laid under EUWA 2018 which does indeed make for substantive policy changes rather than merely correcting ‘technical deficiencies’. These include weakening environmental standards, ending UK membership of programmes such as the Rights, Equality and Citizenship programme which funds 17 projects in the UK and removed access to online dispute resolution for UK consumers.
Their piece further highlights “The Plant Protection Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 removed a provision which contained a blanket ban on hormone disrupting chemicals in pesticides. After ChemTrust wrote to the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, the Department reinstated the prohibition on endocrine disrupting chemicals.” This demonstrates that the Government is making substantial policy change through SI, and due to capacity Parliamentarians are not able to pick up the errors.
Sadly the Withdrawal Agreement Bill also includes wide ranging delegated powers for Ministers further deepening this growing problem. This is poor governing, and arguably governing through the backdoor attempting to push changes through without anyone noticing.
In Events
BCSA is Hiring an Intern!
We want someone who is interested in Brexit policy, EU settlement scheme and civil society.
Do you know someone who has and wants to develop:
Research skills
Organisation skills
Enjoys policy analysis
Let them know we are hiring an intern for 2 days a week for 6 months on the London Living Wage.
Application deadline is 23:59 on 19th January 2020 with interviews held week beginning 27th January 2020.
Full application details are on our website here.
Recommended Reading