An article late last week in the Financial Times points to a potential scrapping of the 31 December 2023 sunset clause for up to 4,000 EU laws: ‘UK Government to U-turn on plan to scrap or revise all EU law’ -https://on.ft.com/3HjOY4d.  It suggests the Government is starting to recognise the damage and chaos that could result for engineering services, product standards, chemicals, the environment, health and safety, and many other sectors if laws are revoked at an arbitrary date without allowing time for expert scrutiny.  What are your thoughts on this mooted change?

Non-paywall link here: https://www-ft-com.ezp.lib.cam.ac.uk/content/ce458b68-b0ea-453f-8730-a174256e7c4e

mmmm still coming up against a paywall for the Financial Times website I'm afraid.  However the Guardian are covering the story too: 

I think, if we cannot manage that expert review  of a few thousand laws that are the retained EU law  within the 5 years since the 2018 European Union (Withdrawal) Act in effect created the concept, we are probably never going to - it suggests the appetite  to be independent is simply not there.

Realise this although 4000 documents to review sounds a lot, and it is for one person, in terms of parliamentary output it is not so much. Consider  that there have been over 300 completely new statutory instruments generated, and many more started at draft in 2023 already (that figure of was as of end of April), and at least on paper we are all supposed to be keeping up with these - or at least ignorance is no defence if we are found to break one.

Mike

The 4000 laws in question are highly detailed and complex in nature, and cover more ground than the 300 Statutory Instruments.  It’s concerning that the laws would be reviewed without the expert scrutiny of industry and academia.  It’s also worrying that the review process would need to be completed by an arbitrary deadline of 31 December 2023, after which the laws would be sunset – even if their merits hadn’t been evaluated.  This would be very damaging for engineering and technology sectors, and for many other areas as well.  It risks putting industry at odds with standards in force in Europe or elsewhere.  At best this implies duplication of effort and cost; at worst it risks damaging the competitiveness of UK industry, the rights and safety of individuals, and the economy of UK PLC as a whole.

The 4000 laws in question are highly detailed and complex in nature, and cover more ground than the 300 Statutory Instruments.  It’s concerning that the laws would be reviewed without the expert scrutiny of industry and academia.  It’s also worrying that the review process would need to be completed by an arbitrary deadline of 31 December 2023, after which the laws would be sunset – even if their merits hadn’t been evaluated.  This would be very damaging for engineering and technology sectors, and for many other areas as well.  It risks putting industry at odds with standards in force in Europe or elsewhere.  At best this implies duplication of effort and cost; at worst it risks damaging the competitiveness of UK industry, the rights and safety of individuals, and the economy of UK PLC as a whole.

Perhaps, but even if so, why have the supposedly concerned  technical bodies only woken up to Brexit now, and not started that review earlier, say in 2019 or 2020? I think really it shows no one can be bothered - and anyway  how many were initially introduced without such scrutiny? Most I'll wager.

If you do not impose deadlines stuff drifts for ever, avoiding that is the whole point of sunset clauses - personally I think more legislation both national and EU wide should have them.

Mike

All bills undergo extensive scrutiny in both the Commons and the Lords.  That is deliberately so to ensure robust legislation.  The Regulatory Policy Committee is a Government body whose role is to assess the quality of evidence and analysis that informs Government regulatory proposals.  Their own report into REUL (ref: RPC-CO-5223(1) ) on 18/11/22 rates the Bill as 'not fit for purpose' (sic).  Please review it for yourself. Parliament's role is to make and review legislation as the need arises.  It is not helpful for engineering, for society at large and for the UK economy for sound legislation simply to be removed at an arbitrary date, without expert review and replaced with ... nothing.  That's a recipe for industrial confusion and chaos that benefits no-one.

Oh I would agree, but much of this is about technical matters, for technical people, and too important to be left to politicians.  However, not all legislation is technically sound, nor is the extensive review at implementation always by folk who know what they are looking at. 

There are two problems, and they are distinct.

One relates to how much standardization is desirable or an un-necessary straight jacket on innovative engineering. This relates to appetite for risk versus possible reward. (You can after all make open frame nuclear power plants, but you cannot go near them once running and probably should not make them, but they are very light and very convenient. Similarly we probably need food standards and agreed shoe sizes. We may not need to force all cars to be the same colour. )

The second relates to actually making Brexit work properly, and deciding how much we want to change things . Much as  those of us who make stuff that is sold to the US check the kit meets meet their Milstd instead of Defstan, or nema code for domestic stuff, one can make things for the EU market or not, that meets those standards or not, without the rules applying here - it is not just folk like the Chinese who manage this feat just fine and have done so for years !

Mike.

Yes but...this doesn't affect exporting to the EU (which is still covered by EU legislation whatever we do)? This is about living and working in the UK, and whether we believe that by December it will be possible to review 3,745 pieces of legislation covering everything from food standards to fertilisers to sickness benefits to architects to airport slot regulations to radio frequency band allocations to the requirements to wear seat belts to etc etc etc

It really is worth having a look down the list, it's extraordinary https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1132834/REUL_Data.csv/preview

by December it will be possible to review 3,745 pieces of legislation

Any of those where the process of drafting a UK equivalent has not already started, I suggest the answer is 'no', or at least 'not very well' . Those organizations that started thinking properly before or even shortly after Brexit was confirmed, which I fear is not as many areas as it should be, are probably OK.

But, seatbelts and food, the UK wireless telegraphy act and modifications, and the frequency plan will not cease to exist, even if the legislation behind harmonsing those is indeed on the 'we did not believe Brexit had happened and could not be bothered to get started drafting our own' list. Actually I suspect those specific examples are too high profile and are not examples where the thought process has not begun. 

Some legislation may of course vanish, but it will be the small beer stuff that is not replaced, and  existing kit and activities will not cease in December, if indeed that deadline does not move. There is already at least one  proposed modification to kick it all out another 5 years.

I agree this is a mess, I disagree that confronting it is a problem.

Mike

Ministers to ditch deadline to scrap retained EU laws - BBC News

I'm glad and relieved that the Government has decided to drop the arbitrary 31 December 2023 sunset clause.  Now there can be a proper process for the review of particular laws, consulting with industry and academic experts to ensure any amendments to legislation meet the needs of the UK, its people and its economy.

mapj1 said:

I agree this is a mess, I disagree that confronting it is a problem.

Hi Mike,

Apologies for the late reply, I got distracted by some engineering...I agree absolutely that it's worth reviewing these laws, what I strongly disagreed with (past tense following today's news) was setting an arbitrary and unachievable date by which they would be scrapped if not reviewed. I believe (as a number of pretty responsible organisations also believed) that at least one of two scenarios would occur: importing legislation into UK law would be rushed through and mistakes would be made, and / or legislation would get scrapped with no review. I'm afraid I don't share your optimism that the important bits of legislation are already being reviewed - remember that other than this bill there is currently no reason to review them. 

The revised proposal, to identify which of these regulations may be superfluous, or "bad law", or potentially simply not wanted in the UK, and then to review those, seems a very sensible approach.

Thanks,

Andy