The Brexit Freedoms Bill, or to give it its proper title, The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, passed through the House of Commons with a healthy majority. Since when it has been given fairly rough treatment in the Lords.
When we exited the EU we retained all EU laws to provide a period of continuity and stability. It also afforded us the time to examine each of them in detail to see if we wanted to keep them, amend them or remove them. The Bill gives ministers the power to do this with a default setting that they will lapse, if not specifically retained, by 31st December this year.
It is vital to our productivity that we remove this ball and chain of red tape that holds us back from experiencing the economic benefits of having left the EU.
The principal argument that has been made against the bill is that the procedure allowing ministers to make these decisions about what to retain and what to discard, lacks democratic accountability and that Parliament should debate each one of the 4000 pieces of legislation.
As I said in this column of 26th April Frost in Morocco (desmondswaynemp.com) this would effectively delay the process for years. In effect it would be a wrecking measure.
I rather suspect that it owes more to a determination to keep us close to the EU regulatory orbit, in the hope that one day we may re-join, than it does to a fastidious preference for parliamentary scrutiny.
As for democracy, the reality is that these laws were made in the EU Council of Ministers by qualified majority voting and in secrecy – not even a transcript of the deliberations. The swifter we review them the better.
I hope I am mistaken, but I suspect that ministers are beginning to get cold feet. There is a very significant volume of work to be done. Officials will have to go through all the legislation and offer ministers advice on the options. It will be hard work.
Is it achievable whilst officials work from home?
Will some in Whitehall resist on the basis of their ideological objections to the whole concept of completing Brexit?
I think the Prime Minister needs to appoint someone from the business world with a track record of successful delivery to grip this entire endeavour, which is in danger that it just isn’t going to get done. Perhaps another Tsar?
*
As a postscript, I see that the civil service unions want to negotiate a four-day week with no loss of pay, such will be their claimed increased productivity.
I once worked for a firm that retained the 3 Day week, imposed during the miner’s strike in 1973, for a couple of years afterwards because of their very real increased productivity. Alas, they ended it because it didn’t work for their customers who wanted contact 5 days per week.
This will prove the rub for the public who need the services provided.
Much of the work of my office is spent contacting public sector organisations on behalf of constituents who have had difficulty making contact themselves. There is no doubt that this has become so much harder and more frustrating since the arrival of ‘working from home’.
I don’t believe we should even consider the possibility of a shorter working week until they are all back in the office and we can actually measure their productivity.