You Are What You Trade.

 
 
 

Good afternoon,

This week the Government voted against Lords amendments that would require the UK’s current food standards to be maintained in trade deals, leaving them at risk. There is a new report out by the Public Law Project detailing how delegated legislation has been used during the Brexit process. Their findings include the use of statutory instruments increased; which were longer, and contained more mistakes. 

We also look at key events next week, including what's happening in Parliament. As usual we have recommended reading for your Friday.

Enjoy,
Jacob

Got 1 minute? Read the bullets
Got 15 minutes? Read the analysis
Got 45 minutes? Read the links

In Politics

Food Standards Protection Amendments Defeated

  • Government defeats Lords amendments which would have ensured current food standards in trade deals

  • 14 Conservative MPs rebelled against the Government

  • Leaves UK high standards at threat from lower standards elsewhere

On Monday, MPs voted down the Lords amendments that would ensure the protection of current food standards in future trade deal negotiations. Amendment 16 from the Lords, that inserted “Requirement for agricultural and food imports to meet domestic standard” was defeated by the Government 332 to 279 votes, despite rebellions from Conservative backbenchers.

This was a key amendment, among several, that would have protected the UK’s food standards and animal welfare from threat in future trade deals. The issue which the amendment sought to address, is that the UK has a relatively high level of food standards, including animal welfare, compared to other countries. However it is expensive to maintain these standards. If the UK signs trade deals with countries that have lower standards, and therefore have lower costs, UK food producers might be unable to compete. This could lead to a shrinking of the agricultural industry and lower food standards for UK consumers.

Those who voted for the amendment included MPs from a wide variety of parties in the Commons. In total 14 Conservatives rebelled against the Government and included Scottish Conservative Leader Douglas Ross, Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee Caroline Nokes, and backbencher Roger Gale among others. Seven DUP MPs voted for the amendment, whereas three voted with the Government.

During the debate, Victoria Prentis, a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, led the Government's argument. In speaking against amendment 16 she stated “We have high standards in this country, of which we are justly proud, and there is no way the Government will reduce those standards. Our clear policy, in fact, is to increase them” a position the Government has said before but provided little legislative backing.

Further on in her argument, the Minister went on to argue that the amendment could “jeopardise the 19 currently unsigned agreements that we are seeking to roll over” further emphasising the argument the Government has made that it would tie negotiators hands and limit the potential for trade deals. 

This defeat for the Lords amendments comes after a campaign by food and animal welfare organisations, and celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, to enshrine the protection of food standards in future trade deals in UK legislation. In our podcast episode on trade deals Kath Dalmeny, CEO of Sustain and chair of the Future British Standards Coalition, explains why this is important and how trade deals affect our food. Listen here, or search “This Is Important” in your podcast app, to learn more.

The Agriculture Bill will now return to the Lords, with consideration of the Commons amendments and reasons to take place on the 20th October. As the Commons has voted against these amendments it is unlikely that the Lords will vote to put them back in the Bill.
 

In Policy

New Report on Delegated Legislation

  • Public Law Project have published a new report on the use of delegated legislation during Brexit here

  • Findings include that the use of statutory instruments increased; which were longer, and contained more mistakes

New research by Alexandra Sinclair and Dr Joe Tomlinson from the Public Law Project, details the “tsunami” of delegated legislation that has been used  through the Brexit process, as the UK Government has relied heavily on it to put its policy into practice.

Delegated legislation, also often known as secondary legislation, is made by a Minister or an official who has been “delegated” to do so by a previous Act of parliament (primary legislation). These statutory instruments (SIs), comprisong orders, regulations, and rules, are used to make minor technical policy and law rather than significant policy change. Their justification is that it is impractical and lengthy to use the full legislative procedure in the Houses of Commons and Lords for implementing minor changes to policy. For example an Act of parliament could make it law that weddings only be allowed in registered premises, but the requirements to become registered and the process for doing so (for example paying a fee) are technical details which should take up limited time and resources in the House. 

However there has been criticism that the Government has relied too heavily on the use of regulations, and have been using them in places where real input from Parliament would be justified. Statutory Instruments cannot be amended and are subject to a very limited yes/no voting procedure. This enables the Government to make changes without meaningful parliamentary scrutiny 

During the 2017-19 parliamentary session a total of 1,835 statutory instruments were laid. 34% of those were for Brexit, with the average page length of these statutory instruments being 18 pages long. For context this length is double the average length of a statutory instrument in the 2015-16 parliamentary session.

This large volume makes what little scrutiny does exist even more difficult. In fact the Government used the urgency procedure 30 times to give statutory instruments immediate effect, bypassing debate. 

It is important to note that the number of mistakes increased too: when scrutiny cannot happen, poor quality laws get passed. Before Exit Day, when the UK left the EU, 97 statutory instruments were laid in Parliament to fix mistakes of earlier pieces. During the 2017-19 parliamentary session the proportion of statutory instruments needing to be fixed more than doubled. 

This is a form of lawmaking that has been used increasingly often during Brexit, and again now for the passage of Coronavirus regulations, governing restrictions and lockdown which provides little to no scrutiny, excluding MPs, peers, and voters from the legislative process. 

The 30 page report details how SIs have been used during the withdrawal process; the issues with delegated legislation; and possible reform that could be made of the process. To read the full report and understand the impact governing by delegated legislation has, download the report here.

In Parliament

Watch Commons, Lords, and Committee sessions free on parliamentlive.tv

House of Commons

Monday 19th
Consideration of Lords amendments - Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Wednesday 21st
Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union - Oral evidence - Progress of the negotiations on the UK’s Future Relationship with the EU - 9:00am to 11:30am

Friday 23rd
Private Members' Bills - European Citizens’ Rights Bill: Second Reading - Christine Jardine

House of Lords

Monday 19th
Legislation - United Kingdom Internal Market Bill - second reading (day 1)

Legislation - United Kingdom Internal Market Bill - second reading - motion to regret - Lord Judge

Legislation - United Kingdom Internal Market Bill - second reading - motion to regret - Lord Cormack

Tuesday 20th
Legislation - United Kingdom Internal Market Bill - second reading (day 2)

Legislation - Agriculture Bill - consideration of Commons amendments and reasons 

Wednesday 21st
Legislation - Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill - consideration of Commons amendments

In Events

The EU Settlement Scheme across the UK: challenges ahead

As we approach the end of the transition period and thereafter the deadline to apply to the EU Settlement Scheme, the Brexit Civil Society Alliance are excited to bring you our next event looking at the functioning of the scheme and future EU migration across the devolved nations. To do so we are bringing together frontline, expert, and political representatives from Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland. 

Our speakers will be:-
From Northern Ireland,  Úna Boyd, the Immigration Project Coordinator at the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ); and Claire Hanna MP for Belfast South.
 
From Scotland, Noelia Martinez, Project Coordinator, Citizens Rights Project Scotland; and Dr Sarah Kyambi, independent immigration expert who led the Migration Policy Scotland Project and is currently focussing is on the impact of Brexit on immigration.

From Wales,  Hayley Morgan, Service Coordinator, TGP Cymru; and Bethan Bateman, Head of Migration within the Welsh Government, EU Transition Team. 

In this exciting event our speakers will explore problems with the scheme, different experiences and issues across the four parts of the UK, and what challenges and opportunities lie ahead. After a panel discussion we will open the floor to questions from the audience.

Recommended Reading