Shantha David, Unison’s head of legal services, told a parliamentary committee examining the EU Legislation (Withdrawal and Reform) Bill that these rights would “no longer survive” if they were automatically removed through the “sunset clause” which would sweep EU laws unless actively saved by a minister on 31 December 2023. The committee was getting input from lawyers, unions, environmentalists and government officials as it emerged that the National Archives found another 1,400 laws in addition to the 2,400 the government has already identified as falling within the scope of the bill. David told MPs she was concerned that laws protecting employees could “disappear overnight” as a result of the sunset clause, including equal pay for workers and paternity leave. “Given the lack of information we have, it’s not clear what will survive and what will face the problem,” he said. Her comments came after weeks of criticism that the government is waging a “smash and grab” operation to get rid of EU law for reasons of ideology rather than best practice. But her claims that the government would punish entire swathes of workers’ rights angered Business Minister Nusrat Ghani, who accused her of fear-mongering. Ghani told MPs she “struggled” with David’s analysis. “I am concerned about this constant speculation and the fear it creates,” he said, before listing a range of rights the UK has led the world in, including paternity leave, fines for serious breaches of workers’ rights and paid bereavement leave. David responded by saying that the government’s dashboard listing which EU laws fall within the scope was “the most incomprehensible piece of equipment” for people to understand which laws the government is targeting. Tim Sharp, senior policy officer for employment rights at the Trade Union Confederation, said it was “good news for bad bosses”. In a second showdown with union leaders, it was left to Conservative backbenchers Marcus Fish and David Jones, prominent Eurosceptics, to give the government the assurances they were seeking. “I’m sure the government and its ministers will be very keen to ensure that people’s rights are upheld. I can’t personally imagine a scenario in which they wouldn’t be very careful with these things,” Fysh said. “There’s no way the government is going to take away these rights you’re talking about,” Jones added. The committee was taking input from experts and stakeholders as part of a consultation process following the second reading of the bill, first tabled by former business secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg in September. Government dashboard showing sector-by-sector retained EU legislation Photo: Office dashboard, October 2022 Ghani also clashed with environmental groups, who said they had been led to believe there were 835 laws that could be disabled by the bill, far more than the 570 listed on the government’s dashboard. Richard Benwell, chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, called on the government to withdraw the bill, claiming it was flawed and “irredeemable”. Ghani disputed the neutrality of his evidence, saying he was a Liberal Democrat who had run for public office. Archie Bland and Nimo Omer take you to the top stories and what they mean, free every weekday morning Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online advertising and content sponsored by external parties. For more information, see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. But Ruth Chambers, senior fellow at the Green Alliance, said she agreed with Benwell. It wasn’t that environmental groups opposed the change in laws, he said, but the mass removal the government was planning. Earlier, the committee heard from a number of prominent barristers, some of whom supported the bill, including Martin Howe KC and Tom Sharpe KC, who said they believed the government would do the right thing. Retired Justice Sir Richard Aikens, a former Lord Court of Appeal, said the law was an “invitation to appeal” and an “invitation to appeal” by those seeking to protect workers’ rights. Earlier on Tuesday, the Scottish Government tabled a legislative consent memorandum recommending that the Holyrood parliament withhold its consent to the bill. The Welsh Government did so last week when the general counsel for Wales, Mick Antoniw, described as “constitutionally unacceptable” clauses allowing UK ministers to act in devolved policy areas without the consent of the devolved administration. In a letter to Grant Shapps, Scottish constitutional secretary Angus Robertson echoed this concern, warning that the bill represents “a significant further undermining of devolution”, adding that the speed with which the legislation is being pursued is “nothing less than reckless.” . Both Scottish and Welsh ministers point out that while the bill includes an extension mechanism for the end date to 2026, the exercise of this power is limited to UK government ministers. David Bowles, head of public affairs and campaigns at the RSPCA, said he was concerned that of the 44 laws governing animal welfare, 31 were “likely to be devolved”. Aikens said it was “an almost impossible task” to revise 2,400 laws by next December and was “pessimistic” it could even be done by 2026, an alternative date within the bill. More generally, he predicted that judges would approach cases very conservatively and be reluctant to wade into areas of public policy.
