European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — New Clause — Enhanced Protection for Certain Areas of EU Law — 13 Jun 2018 at 19:43

The majority of MPs voted not to restrict, and not to increase scrutiny of, the powers of ministers to amend European Union law retained as United Kingdom law following withdrawal in specified broad areas including employment, equality, health plus consumer and environmental standards.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill[1].

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

  • That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4.

Lords amendment 4[2] sought to add a new clause titled: Enhanced protection for certain areas of EU law beginning:

  • (1) Following the day on which this Act is passed, a Minister of the Crown may not amend, repeal or revoke retained EU law relating to—
  • (a) employment entitlements, rights and protection,
  • (b) equality entitlements, rights and protection,
  • (c) health and safety entitlements, rights and protection,
  • (d) consumer standards, or
  • (e) environmental standards and protection,
  • except by primary legislation, or by subordinate legislation made under any Act of Parliament insofar as this subordinate legislation meets the requirements in subsections (2) to (5).

The explanatory notes to the Lords amendments to the Bill[3] stated, in respect of the rejected amendment:

  • Lords Amendment 4 would limit how delegated powers (including those contained within this Bill) can amend, repeal or revoke retained EU law relating to (a) employment entitlements, rights and protection, (b) equality entitlements, rights and protection, (c) health and safety entitlements, rights and protection, (d) consumer standards, or (e) environmental standards and protection. As these terms are not defined, this amendment could potentially apply to a very broad range of legislation.
  • The amendment would require the Government to design an enhanced scrutiny procedure process which any regulations that amend, repeal or revoke this category of legislation would be subject to. This would include requirements for a draft of the regulation to be laid before Parliament and be approved by resolution of both Houses, and include a period of consultation with relevant stakeholders.
  • The enhanced scrutiny procedure would also require a Minister of the Crown to produce an explanatory statement under paragraph 22 of Schedule 7 and include a declaration that the regulation does no more than make technical changes to retained EU law in order for it to work following exit.
  • The amendment is unclear as to what would qualify as "technical changes to retained EU law in order for it to work following exit", and so where the Government believed it could be argued that the changes are not "technical", those changes might instead have to be made through primary legislation.

==

Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Con308 (+2 tell) 3098.7%
DUP10 00100.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 20100.0%
Lab0 247 (+2 tell)095.8%
LDem0 11091.7%
PC0 40100.0%
SNP0 33094.3%
Total:318 301097.2%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Kenneth ClarkeRushcliffeCon (front bench)no
Dominic GrieveBeaconsfieldCon (front bench)no
Anna SoubryBroxtoweConno

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

TWe're working on updating the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive