Brexit Facts4EU.Org Summary

Key excerpts from the questioning of Kemi Badenoch MP, Business Secretary

NOTE: A link to the full video is below.

1. The basics – Sir William Cash MP, opening the proceedings

WC: “During the passage of the Bill, the government's policy in effect changed from one where retained EU law is revoked unless specifically saved to one where retained EU law is saved unless specifically revoked. So, Secretary of State, why did you change this approach?”

KB : “So I took on this responsibility in February and I think as a Secretary of State, it's really important to get under the skin of regulation … and follow whatever advice was given and I looked at the process. I looked at the intention of the Bill and what I realised was that the law of unintended consequences had reared its head.

KB : “And the reason why I say that is that the purpose of the Bill was to remove legislation really that we did not need. But the way the Bill was drafted, and the sunset [clause] meant that all of the work was being done to look for things that needed to be kept. And my view, especially as someone who voted leave but also as an engineer looking at how to get the actual outcome rather than just perhaps a linear analysis of what to do, what we needed to do, given that we did not want to change the sunset. That was something I was very clear on was to focus the attention on reform - what needed to be reformed and what we knew would already be repealed anyway and create a power to continue to repeal so that we would not lose the opportunity.”

2. The main thrust – the Rt Hon David Jones MP, former Brexit Minister

“Secretary of State the Bill completed its passage through the Commons in January, and it it was unamended and as you've acknowledged. … Did a 180 degree turn [happen] when it arrived in the Lords? You've explained that you decided on the change of approach. When did you decide to make those amendments in the Lords?”

KB : “… The Retained EU Law Bill became the process of retaining EU law. That is not what we wanted, and so I don't agree that it's 180 degree. … It is not the bonfire of regulations. We are not arsonists. I'm certainly not an arsonist.”

“But isn't it the case that a bonfire of unnecessary regulations is precisely what the Commons voted? … What the Commons voted for was a bonfire of unnecessary regulations to get rid of all those… You made the decision to change the approach. Fairly shortly after you were appointed to your present position.”

KB : “The intention of the bill we would not have even ended up with a bonfire of regulations, as you say, which I don't think would have been right anyway. People need to see what it is we're doing. They need to have clarity or transparency. We would have had an elongated retained EU law process and that's not what people voted for."

“But you've actually departed completely from the approach of your predecessor, haven't you?”

KB : “I well, I don't think I have departed completely. … but this was a bill that was brought in in September under a different Prime Minister and a predecessor who was there for 44 days. I spent a lot longer than that looking at the Bill, and I did what I thought was the right thing to do in order to make sure that the Bill passed but delivered on its intentions. That is my job as Secretary of State. My job as Secretary of State is not just to do what my predecessor did. It is to do the right thing, and that's what I was doing.”

“But of course, the Bill met with the complete approbation of the House of Commons, didn't it, in its original form?”

KB : “No. Well, I don't think so.”

“No, let's go back. Before it goes to the Lords the Bill went through the House of Commons unamended, didn't it?”

KB : “Are you... Are you suggesting that we should not make any changes to any? I I I just answered it.”

“No, no, I'm just asking you a question, which I'd be grateful if you would answer.”

KB : “But I I I I don't. I don't understand whether you're asking why any change should be made to any Bill at all, is that the question you're asking?”

“What I'm finding difficult to understand is that when a bill passes through the House of Commons unamended and therefore clearly has the complete approbation of the House of Commons, you then change your approach completely. You don't tell the Commons that you're changing your approach. You don't have the courtesy to come before this Committee so that this Committee can scrutinise the changes that you're proposing, and then you come back to the Commons, it having gone through the Lords, presenting the Commons effectively with the fait accompli. Do you think that's disrespectful of the House of Commons?”