The Retained EU Law Bill was introduced into Parliament on 22nd September this year by the then-Business Secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg. He announced the bill would “reform and revoke hundreds of laws that have their origins in policies from the European Union.”
Since then, Mr Rees-Mogg has lost his job and the new Prime Minister has made significant u-turns to undo many of the damaging policies proposed by the Truss government. From scaling back investment zones to reigning in tax cuts, Rishi Sunak has sought to undo the most egregious elements of Truss’ deregulation agenda. Unfortunately, the REUL Bill has not been added to this list and continues to make its way through the Commons. Later this month it will return to the main chamber for report stage where all MPs can debate the bill.
When we talk about retained EU law, it creates the impression that this legislation was created by an outsider and imposed upon the UK – but this is misleading. Most EU laws were developed in a series of Directives. These Directives were transposed into domestic legislation by UK governments over the 47 years we were in Europe, with a process in place to interpret them for the UK context, so they were more appropriate for our domestic agenda. These laws have become part of the way we run our society, covering issues like nature protection, working conditions and food safety. Now that we have left Europe there is no link between this domestic law and the EU - but these laws do still enshrine your right to paid annual leave, food labelling for allergens, equal pay for men and women, and minimum food hygiene standards, as well as imposing bans on cosmetic testing on animals and trading goods that may be used abroad for capital punishment.
Many retained EU laws also provide vital environmental protections for our air, rivers and wildlife. They helped remove the UK’s 1970’s reputation of being the ‘dirty man of Europe’ by cleaning up our waters and keep our most precious natural sites safe from damage. No matter our views on Brexit, changing these laws entails extensive procedural change with little benefit for nature, and could lead to more litigation and greater costs for both developers and conservationists. If retained EU legislation is replaced with weaker alternatives, our natural environment will be left unprotected from those who prioritise profit over protecting the planet.
The problem with the REUL is that, no matter what verbal assurances we receive from government, it will give ministers sweeping powers to review, reform and revoke laws. This process will remove democracy from the legislative process, allowing ministers to decide whether to scrap or save legislation behind closed doors, with no scrutiny from Parliament. At the same time, it will likely bring Whitehall to a standstill, as civil servants plough through over 2400 EU-derived laws that need to be reviewed by the end of 2023. The former head of the UK Government’s legal department, Jonathan Jones, has warned that the REUL Bill risks causing legal chaos with no certainty over which laws will be kept and which will go. Similarly, the Public Law Project warns the bill may give rise to unnecessary law suits due to added uncertainty in regulations.
The UK Government’s own interactive dashboard of retained EU law notes that not only does it already include over 2400 pieces of REUL, but this does not represent a final list – civil servants are still doing the work to identify how much REUL is on the statute books. This indicates the scale of the task ahead simply to assess all this legislation in little over a year.
Opposition to the Bill has come from civil society across the UK, with groups from Unison to the RSPB highlighting the potential impact on our rights – including workers’ and environmental rights. In fact, it is hard to find anyone in favour of the REUL Bill. Along with the Trades Union Congress, law groups, human rights organisations and others, we have jointly urged ministers to withdraw this harmful legislation. If Rishi Sunak wants to signal a new period of safe and stable government, he must scrap the REUL Bill.
Calls to scrap the REUL Bill are coming in thick and fast. Below are statements made by organisations across sectors and society asking for the bill to go:
- The independent advisory watchdog – the Regulatory Policy Committee – judged the Retained EU Law (Revocation & Reform) Bill 'not fit for purpose' and gave it a red rating (the lowest possible) because key impacts had been ignored or not assessed.
- The Office for Environmental Protection has told the House of Commons’ REUL Bill Committee that the short timescales proposed for the review of Retained EU laws could put environmental protection and improvement at risk.
- Organisations including the Trades Union Congress, the Institute of Directors, Greener UK and the Public Law Project have written to Business Secretary Grant Shapps urging him to withdraw the REUL Bill.
- The House of Commons’ Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has written to Environment Secretary Therese Coffey identifying a “culture of delay” within Defra. This will only be exacerbated by the workload of the REUL Bill.
- Listen to Unison, Unchecked, UK in a Changing Europe and The Wildlife Trusts discuss concerns about the REUL Bill in our recent WildLIVE
- The Trades Union Congress published a statement urging ministers to withdraw the REUL Bill. This was co-signed by the Human Rights Consortium, the Civil Society Alliance, the RSPB and Unchecked.
- The Hansard Society has highlighted five key problems with the REUL Bill including its creation of unnecessary uncertainty, lack of scrutiny, and its serious implications for devolution.
