Policy reality has finally prevailed over political rhetoric with the admission from the government that it cannot proceed with the Retained EU Law (REUL) Bill in its current form.

Business and trade secretary Kemi Badenoch, who has inherited the poisoned brief from her gung ho predecessors – most notably Jacob Rees-Mogg and Lord Frost – has agreed to ditch the sunset from the bill and instead provide parliament with a list of all REUL the government intends to repeal. Given that no one knows how much REUL there is (the numbers have gone up from 2,400 to nearly 5,000), the change avoids the immediate risk of oversights and mistakes, and gives a degree of certainty. However, MPs will still find it hard to engage substantively with the long list of rules to be scrapped which Badenoch has just unveiled. Many may be nugatory – but some may have wider implications. The race will be on for the massed ranks of lobby groups to work out where the dangers lie before parliament passes the bill.

Badenoch claimed to parliament – where she was forced to answer an urgent question from the European Scrutiny Committee chair – that this was just a technical change; the aim of the bill was unchanged but the government was achieving its aims in a different way. Her backbench critics have sought to pin the blame on foot-dragging civil servants. Badenoch claimed the reverse was true – that the deadline was inducing a rush to retain/preserve law as risk averse civil servants (and possibly also their risk averse political bosses) dumped swathes of EU law in the ‘keep’ box. But, in truth, the Badenoch decision was a consequence of facing up to the administrative consequences of ludicrous deadlines set in the heat of a political battle. Badenoch's decision is victory for less bad government, not for the 'blob'.

A targeted approach to reform makes much more sense

The Badenoch statement also suggests a much more sensible approach to regulatory reform – with words such as “proper assessment and consultation” making a welcome appearance. That provides a degree of comfort over concerns that a rush to meet the arbitrary deadline would allow for neither. Badenoch also highlights the approach taken in the Financial Services and Markets Bill where the government has introduced primary legislation to implement its reforms. It would be good if that approach, with the opportunity for proper parliamentary involvement, was the approach adopted in other areas.

There are still further improvements for the Lords to make

However, while the Lords have forced government to address the unrealism and risks of its self-imposed deadline, there are still big question marks over the amended approach. Badenoch was at pains to point out that the bill still stuck to the original intention of “sunsetting” EU law supremacy and EU interpretive principles on 31 December 31 2023....

more at IfG