Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Written evidence submitted by Sharon Leclercq-Spooner, public affairs practitioner (REULB90)

I write in a personal capacity as a British citizen and practitioner in public affairs with over 30 years of experience working with American and European business invested in the UK and EU. Inter alia, I currently chair the EU-UK task force of the American Chamber of Commerce to the EU and have past experience serving on their board, and chairing trade and Wider Europe committees.

I believe that passage of this REUL bill will further undermine business confidence in the UK. I therefore hope that the necessary steps will be taken to reject or amend this bill to make the UK more business and citizen friendly.

No to bonfire of regulations

Legal certainty is as important for business as it is for citizens. However, this bill creates huge uncertainty:  a sword of Damocles hovering above thousands of regulations covering a vast range of sectors and activities impacting business, workers, consumers, citizens and the environment.  Hundreds of civil servants would be tasked with reviewing all these regulations by the end of 2023 or possibly 2026, and regulations will be revoked by default unless a decision to keep or adapt them is taken.  REUL decisions will not only affect trade with the EU, e.g. through divergence creating further barriers to trade, but will create unwarranted uncertainty for business and citizens across the UK with respect to a vast array of protections, rights, responsibilities and standards jointly initiated and developed by the UK and its European partners as EU and UK law. Many of these derive from internationally agreed standards and norms to which the UK remains a party. With arbitrary deadlines and lack of due process, uncertainty is compounded by the risk of unintended consequences both domestically and internationally following the sunset deadline.

While some speculators may benefit from such uncertainty, the vast majority of business cannot afford to go through another cliff edge experience like that of the Brexit negotiations: legal uncertainty, confusion, lost time, extra red tape and compliance costs, only to result in a relative decline in trade with the EU and no substantial, evident compensating Brexit benefits now or on the horizon.

 

Good democratic governance is as important for business as it is for citizens. However, this bill gives sweeping powers to ministers to decide the fate for each of these regulations without proper consultation of stakeholders and Parliament.  It provides no time for impact assessment. No time to assess what is or is not "appropriate for the UK".   Regulations that have been developed over decades through due democratic process could be changed or dropped without due democratic process or understanding of the impact of the change. Countless businesses, consumers, workers and citizens will be affected. Business in the UK - or considering investment in the UK - cannot afford yet more legal uncertainty. Consequences of covid, war, climate change, inflation and recession are already more than enough challenges to deal with!

Yes to better regulation

Previously it was understood that the UK would review retained EU law, which is perfectly reasonable in the light of Brexit. A desire to further ‘anglicize’ EU rules and processes of legal recourse is also understandable.  However, this expiry by default approach to doing so undermines legal certainty, stability and good governance principles that are in the interests of all, and will ultimately harm the social, democratic and economic health of the UK.

Legal changes should be made in such a way as to respect the principles of good governance including transparency, stakeholder consultation, impact assessment and democratic accountability. This bill fails to provide for this. 

Reviews of laws are to be welcomed to ensure that they serve society well, however, they should be done with due process and focus on the real needs of society today. If such a bill is nevertheless to be passed:

1. Shouldn’t the principle be retention by default, rather than expiry by default? 

2. Shouldn’t reviews be prioritized to firstly cover rules where problems have been identified, rather than swamping civil servants and concerned stakeholders with endless paperwork?

3. Shouldn’t the review process for each piece of law respect the principles of good governance, notably transparency, stakeholder consultation, impact assessment and democratic accountability?

November 2022