EU (Withdrawal) Bill- Committee stage

EU (Withdrawal) Bill- Committee stage The Law Society represents, promotes, and supports solicitors, publicising their unique role in providing legal advice, ensuring justice for all and upholding the rule of law 1. Introduction This briefing outlines the views of the Law Society on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. We welcome the Government's ambition to provide legal certainty and increase business confidence through this bill. We have focused on safeguarding the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, the use of delegated legislation and powers and the need for transitional arrangements. Attached to this briefing, at Annex A, is a list of amendments which the Law Society supports. The Law Society supports the following: Amendments NC16, 46, 8 and 139 as set out in Annex A to ensure the Bill does not lead to the diminishing of the rights of UK or EU citizens nor override the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Amendment 58 as set out in Annex A to limit use of delegated powers set out in clauses 7 and 9 to ensure they are only used as far as necessary. Amendment NC1 and draft amendments LS1, 3 and 4, as set out in Annex A, that place further limits to clauses 7(6) and 9(3) increasing scrutiny of statutory instruments. Amendments 55 and 6 which enable the Government to put in place effective transitional arrangements or implementation periods. Amendments NC14, 95 and NC21 as set out in Annex A to ensure judges and lawyers can properly interpret EU laws which are transferred onto the UK statue books 2. Rights of citizens As Parliament scrutinises the Bill, it should ensure that it does not lead to the diminishing of the rights of UK or EU citizens nor override the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. For example, the Government should seek to ensure that protections under the EU Fundamental Charter of Human Rights should be maintained or strengthened for EU retained law. To do so we would recommend amending the Bill to: Require the Government to conduct and publish an impact assessment of removing the EU Fundamental Charter of Human Rights Ensure that the Fundamental Charter still applies to EU derived law Protect the right to damages which result from the Government breaching EU law before exit day. In order to achieve these changes, we support amendments NC16, 46, 8 and 139 as set out in Annex A, Section 1. 1

3. Converting EU law into domestic law We agree with the Government s broad approach of introducing a mechanism which preserves the secondary legislation that has implemented EU directives (clause 2) and converting direct EU legislation, including regulations into domestic law (clause 3). We also broadly agree with the Government s approach of aiming to have the same rules apply on exit day, where operable. However we are concerned that clauses 2, 3 and 4 have been drafted very broadly and could lead to uncertainty. In particular it seems that they have been drafted to bring existing pieces of UK legislation into the scope of the delegated powers in clause 7 to 9 rather than there being any need for them to be incorporated into UK law (as they already are). 3.1 Clause 2 Saving for EU-derived domestic legislation In particular clause 2 seems to be drafted to bring UK Acts of Parliament into the scope of the delegated powers. Whilst we agree that secondary legislation that has implemented EU directives need to be brought into EU retained law, clause 2 does not need to refer to Acts of Parliament, whose status under UK domestic law is not cast in doubt by UK withdrawal. We would therefore recommend that clause 2 s scope is limited. It should only preserve the status of secondary legislation under Directives (under section 2(2) of the 1972 Act) and no broader. 3.2 Clause 3 Incorporation of direct EU legislation Clause 3(3) will convert EU law into domestic law only in so far as a relevant instrument has entered into force and applied before exit day. However EU legislation is often produced on wide policy areas with a number of pieces of legislation implementing change. Within this group of EU legislation there are often different times for them to come into force and transitional provisions are regularly used. The current drafting of clause 3 and its specific cut-off date is likely to mean that some parts of a group of legislation could come into force but not the whole package. This could mean some of them are not workable or have unforeseen consequences. Currently the Bill does not seem to have a mechanism for Ministers to bring in any measures into UK domestic law that are part of a package of EU legislation (that the UK will have inputted in as an EU member state). We would recommend that Ministers are given powers to bring in certain types of EU legislation into UK domestic law if it forms part of a package. This will reduce the impact of the strict cut off caused by clause 3(3) stopping all direct EU legislation from operating immediately after exit day. 3.3 Clause 4 Saving for rights under s2(1) of the European Communities Act Clause 4 gives a legal basis for parts of EU law that currently have effect in the UK due to section 2(1) of the European Communities Act, but are not covered by the above, and the Government has noted that this includes the four freedoms within the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. However, the Law Society questions how this would maintain the four freedoms in the absence of the 2

reciprocity that membership of the EU entails. The Law Society calls on the Government to provide further clarity on the form in which these will be protected. More generally clause 4 provides little information about the sources of EU lawthat are preserved by this provision or how they will be identified. The Law Society would call for clarity on the face of the Bill about what sources will be saved or how they will be selected. There will also need to be more clarity in what form they will be saved. To do so we would recommend amending the Bill to make it subject to post-legislative scrutiny. In order to achieve these changes, we will be seeking to introduce an amendment to the Bill at Committee Stage in the House of Lords. 4. Powers within the Bill 4.1 Use of delegated powers There will be a significant number of areas where the preserved and converted legislation will not be operable or efficient following exit day. We agree that the Government will need a way to deal with such deficiencies arising from the withdrawal. However, we have some concerns about the scope of the powers the Government is proposing to deal with these deficiencies, as currently set out in clause 7. We share similarly concerns on the scope of the delegated powers for complying with international obligations (through clause 8) and implementing the withdrawal agreement (through clause 9). Due to the likely scale of the changes, the Government will need to be able to make changes to the EU law that is converted into domestic law through secondary legislation. The Law Society believes that: There should be an overall principle that the powers set out in the Bill are only used as far as necessary. The changes that can be made through clause 7 should be limited further than set out in subsection 6 (and similarly for clauses 8 and 9 through subsection 3 for implementing the withdrawal agreement). Parliament should be given sufficient opportunity to scrutinise the secondary legislation. It is crucial that the powers set out in the Bill are to be granted in the exceptional circumstances of Brexit only. Therefore, the Law Society particularly welcomes the two year sunset clause on the powers set out in clause 7 as outlined in clause 7(7). 3

To do so we would recommend amending the Bill to: Replace the word appropriate with necessary as the determining factor for Ministers to exercise delegated powers. Limit the circumstances under which Ministers can make legislation using delegated powers without it being subject to parliamentary scrutiny before coming into effect. Limit the wider power for ministers to make regulations without parliamentary approval by reason of urgency to only by reason of emergency which is where there is immediate risk to human health, life, property or environment. In order to achieve these changes, we support amendment 58 as set out in Annex A. We have also drafted amendment LS4 which we are seeking to introduce at Committee stage in the House of Lords. 4.2 Further limits to clauses 7(6), 8(3) and 9(3) The Law Society welcomes the existing restrictions set out in the Bill included in these clauses. We are supportive of the House of Lords Constitution Committee s recommendation of a general provision that states that delegated powers granted by the Bill should be used only in the following circumstance to be put on the face of the Bill so far as necessary to adapt the body of EU law to fit the UK s domestic legal framework; and so far as necessary to implement the result of the UK s negotiations with the EU. We believe that the Bill should also replicate the arrangements made in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. Clause 7(6), 8(3) and 9(3) should limit the use of secondary legislation to circumstances where: (a) the policy objective intended to be secured by the provision could not be satisfactorily secured by non-legislative means; (b) the effect of the provision is proportionate to the policy objective; (c) the provision, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it; (d) the provision does not remove any necessary protection; (e) the provision does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise; (f) the provision is not of constitutional significance. We would also recommend the following additional limits to the delegated powers in clauses 7(6), 8(3) and 9(3) are added to the Bill: Ability to amend or repeal the Government of Wales Act 1998, schedule 8 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 or the Scotland Act 2010 The Equalities Act 2010 The EU (Withdrawal) Bill itself. 4

If the ability to amend the Bill itself through secondary legislation is not restricted then the limits on the delegated powers outlined in clauses 7(6), 8(3) and 9(3) become limited in use. To do so we would recommend amending the Bill to: Replicate the arrangements in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. Put restrictions on the use of delegated powers on the face of the Bill including: o Remove the ability to create criminal offences which attract a penalty less than a custodial sentence of 2 years. o Prevent delegated powers in the Bill being used to modify this legislation, the Equalities Act or the Acts which devolve powers to the Scottish and Welsh governments after it has received Royal Assent. In order to achieve these changes, we have drafted amendments LS2 and LS3 as set out in Annex A which we are seeking to introduce at Committee stage at the House of Lords. We will also be drafting amendments to put limitations on delegated powers on the face of the Bill and replicate the arrangements in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. 4.3 Scrutiny by both Houses of secondary legislation on appropriateness and procedure Parliamentary scrutiny of these changes should be at the centre of the legislation. Delegated powers in clauses 7 and 9 will lead to a significant increase in the volume of delegated legislation, and Parliament will need to prepare for this. This includes increased scrutiny of secondary legislation. Schedule 7 of the Bill states that secondary legislation related to the Bill would be approved under the negative procedure unless the provision falls into categories outlined in schedule 7(1)(2) 1 and schedule 7(6)(2) 2. The schedule sets out that the affirmative procedure would have limited use, such as to establish a public authority or creates/widens the scope of a criminal offence. The Law Society believes that Parliament should agree the procedure for secondary legislation after assessing the scope of the changes that the statutory instruments are seeking to make. Under schedule 7 and clause 9 as currently drafted, even a statutory instrument regarding the reciprocal arrangements for UK and EU citizens in the withdrawal arrangement would not be subject to the affirmative procedure. Instead, the Law Society calls for the Government to publish the statutory instrument in draft and indicate what scrutiny procedure it thinks should apply. The existing Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee could look at whether the Government s procedural recommendation is appropriate and advise the Houses on what pieces of secondary legislation need further attention. This would allow enhanced scrutiny procedures, such as Legislative Reform Orders, to be used where appropriate. 1 for clause 7 powers to correct EU retained law 2 for clause 9 powers to implement the withdrawal arrangement 5

Where it is recommended that the secondary legislation needs further attention, the current Commons select committees could establish sub-committees which would scrutinise the legislation from their relevant departments. The six EU Lords Committees could undertake a similar function in their relevant areas. An alternative model would be for six joint policy scrutiny committees to be set up, mirroring the current Lords EU Committees, dividing legislation by policy area for scrutiny. Where there are procedural concerns they could write to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee about an instrument (which would retain its current function). We recognise that this process may cause more short term uncertainty and delays, however it is important to provide transparency and scrutiny over the Government s actions in such a wide transfer of power. To do so we would recommend amending the Bill to: Create a triage committee in the House of Commons to look at delegated legislation and help determine the level of scrutiny required. Allow the House of Commons to hold effective votes on secondary legislation and be able to effectively pray on a piece of secondary legislation. Restrict the circumstances under which Ministers can use powers under clauses 7 and 9. Limit the circumstances under which Ministers can make legislation using delegated powers without it being subject to Parliamentary scrutiny before coming into effect. In order to achieve these changes, we support amendment NC1 and have drafted amendments LS1, 3 and 4 as set out in Annex A which we are seeking to introduce. 5. Legal certainty and interpretation (Clause 5 and 6) The Law Society believes that the Bill needs to provide as much certainty as possible. Part of this is ensuring that UK lawyers and judges can properly interpret EU laws which are transferred onto the UK statute books. For EU law to function properly, the Government must be able to correct it where it has improperly transferred into UK law, or rendered inoperable by changes to other areas of the law. The amendments we support aim to ensure that EU laws which are retained or transferred can be properly interpreted. The Law Society has some concerns about the uncertainty created by bringing in the principle of the supremacy of EU law within clause 5. We think it could lead to legal challenges on key principles of EU law set out in EU case law as it is not clear that clause 5 brings them into EU retained law. This could lead to cases where UK parties look to re argue questions that are settled parts of EU law. Similarly, the current drafting of clause 6 causes some concerns. The Government has stated its intention to ensure that the Court of Justice of the European Union is not binding on UK courts once we leave the EU. However the current form of clause 6 goes further than necessary to do this. The UK courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, are used to looking to rulings in foreign courts or international rulings to assist their interpretation. Clause 6(2) does not reflect the way in which UK 6

courts currently interpret rulings from foreign courts or international courts. We support the Bar Council s proposed amendment to clause 6. We would therefore recommend that Clause 6(2) should be deleted and that Clause 6(1) should be amended to read: A court or tribunal- (a) may take account of but is not bound by any principles laid down, or any decisions made, on or after exit day in respect of EU law by the European Court or another EU entity, (b) cannot refer any matter of EU law to the European Court on or after exit day. Similarly, we believe that Schedule 5, Part 2, paragraph 3, should be amended to treat rulings of the CJEU and other EU member state courts as issues of fact rather than questions of law. This is usually how the decisions of foreign courts are treated, and means that they are not legally binding on the court but that the judges can take into account the decisions when interpreting retained EU law. To do so we would recommend amending the Bill to: Ensure that where EU law which has been transferred into UK law needs to be corrected, it can be. Require clarity about how EU derived law is interpreted during transition periods. Ensure that the Government provides a plain English interpretation of the EU derived law being retained or converted. Ensure that uncertainty created by the current drafting in clause 6 is removed. In order to achieve these changes, we support amendments NC14, 95 and NC21 as set out in Annex A. 6. Devolution As noted we believe that the delegated powers in sections 7-9 should not be allowed to amend the Government of Wales Act 2006. We recommend that the scope of the delegated powers are restricted so this is not able to happen. We are also concerned that the devolved administrations have been given significantly reduced delegated powers to amend EU derived law which is within devolved competence compared to those set out in clauses 7-9 for the UK Government. We would recommend that they have similar powers and procedural processes to the UK Government derived secondary legislation. We are supportive of a number of amendments proposed by the First Ministers which would bring the powers of devolved ministers in line with those of UK ministers (subject to the restrictions on the UK ministers powers outlined in section 4 of this briefing). These include: Proposed amendments 9, 13 and 16 - These remove the restrictions preventing the powers being used to confer a power to legislate, bringing the powers into line with those being given to UK Ministers. 7

Proposed amendments 10, 11, 14, 17 and 18 These remove the restrictions placed on the Scottish and Welsh Ministers ability to amend directly applicable EU law incorporated into UK law, again bringing the powers into line with those being given to UK Ministers. Proposed amendments 12, 15 and 19 These replace requirements imposed on Scottish and Welsh Ministers to seek UK Ministers consent in certain circumstances with a requirement to consult UK Ministers before making certain types of provision. Clause 11 amends the three devolution settlements so that modification of retained EU law will fall outside of devolved competence even in areas which are devolved, e.g. agriculture. The Government s approach to maintaining common frameworks for the whole of the UK in some areas currently covered by EU law will restrict the legislative powers of the devolved administrations. The Law Society calls for: Discussions about where common frameworks will remain and their scrutiny should include the Welsh Ministers and the National Assembly in respect of Wales. A formal procedure to take account of the role of the National Assembly in scrutinising the legislation for creating common frameworks whatever form they take. 7. Transitional arrangements and timings in the EU (Withdrawal) Bill As Parliament scrutinises the Bill, it is important that it does not limit the Government s ability to put in place effective transitional arrangements or implementation periods. We are opposed to amendments 117 and 119, tabled by Caroline Lucas MP, which would set Exit Day and the period for which delegated powers could be used as 29 March 2019 and two years, respectively. We consider this would create unnecessary risk of a cliff edge and restrict the possibilities for transition and implementation periods. To do so we would recommend amending the Bill to: Require publication of, and the tabling of legislation to give effect to, the agreement between the EU and UK before exit day can be set. In order to achieve these changes, we support amendment 55. We are also seeking advice about whether the Bill is compatible with the full range of options for transition and implementation which could be put in place. More broadly, we are pleased that the Government will publish separate legislation to implement transitional arrangements. A transition agreement will play a crucial role in ensuring certainty as the UK leaves the EU. Such an agreement would be essential in a case where the terms of the UK's exit from the EU are agreed, but more time is needed to negotiate the terms of the UK-EU future relationship. In this context, a transition agreement would provide for a phased approach to the UK's exit from the EU, 8

and would likely entail continued UK participation in all current legal frameworks and involvement in all existing EU projects and agencies. However, even if the UK and EU have agreed on withdrawal terms and established the details of their new relationship before March 2019, a transitional period would likely be required so that UK Government, EU member states, businesses and individuals could adapt to their new legal rights and obligations as set out in the new agreement. An early agreement of a transitional arrangement would give businesses confidence to retain operations in the UK. Without such reassurances, businesses, including law firms, may consider implementing contingency plans in 2018, as they will need over a year to restructure their business based on a potential no deal. Procedurally, it would be desirable for the transitional agreement to fall under the framework of Article 50 TEU, which, as explained above, requires only a qualified majority of votes in the Council as well as approval by the European Parliament. This leaves two possible alternatives: A transitional arrangement agreed between the EU and the UK, which severs the UK s EU membership, but does not introduce any other changes to Treaty rights and obligations. This would provide for a maximum amount of legal certainty, as it would replicate, in so far as is possible, the current legal and regulatory framework. In this scenario, the UK would need to agree with the EU on alternative institutional arrangements, in order to ensure that the UK is involved in the EU legislative processes. A commonly-agreed enforcement system would also be necessary. This point is explained in further detail below. It is important to note that this agreement would be subject to political approval from the 27 other EU member states and the European Parliament. Article 50 provides for the possibility of extending the two-year negotiating period, which would mean the UK could remain a full member of the EU until a final agreement on the future relationship has been reached. While this would be the most straightforward means of securing a transitional agreement from an institutional perspective (i.e. the UK's institutional relationship with the EU would not change), Article 50 sets out that a unanimous vote of the Council is needed for this extension to be secured. It is highly unlikely, from a political perspective, that this would be achieved, particularly as any extension would involve the UK taking part in the 2019 European Parliament elections. We recognise this is not politically satisfactory for the UK. For further information please contact: Rebecca Goshawk (Public Affairs Manager) T: 020 7316 5631 / M: 07854 968970 E: rebecca.goshawk@lawsociety.org.uk 9

Annex A general amendments to the Bill supported by the Law Society 1. Rights of citizens NC16 To move the following Clause Charter of Fundamental Rights Government Report (1) Within one month of Royal Assent of this Act, HM Government shall lay a report before both Houses of Parliament reviewing the implications of removing the Charter of Fundamental Rights from domestic law after exit day as set out in section 5(4) of this Act. (2) The report under subsection (1) shall set out the policy of Her Majesty s Government specifically in relation to the fundamental rights of (a) dignity, the right to life, to freedom from torture, slavery, the death penalty, eugenic practices and human cloning, (b) freedoms, the right to liberty, personal integrity, privacy, protection of personal data, marriage, thought, religion, expression, assembly, education, work, property and asylum, (c) equality, the right to equality before the law, prohibition of all discrimination including on basis of disability, age and sexual orientation, cultural, religious and linguistic diversity, the rights of children and the elderly, (d) solidarity, the right to fair working conditions, protection against unjustified dismissal, and access to health care, social and housing assistance, (e) citizens rights, the rights of citizens such as the right to vote in elections and to move freely, the right to good administration, to access documents and to petition Parliament, and (f) justice, the right to an effective remedy, a fair trial, to the presumption of innocence, the principle of legality, non-retrospectivity and double jeopardy. This new clause would require Ministers to produce a report reviewing in full the implications of removing from UK law the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the rights for UK citizens which it has help to guarantee. 46 Clause 5, page 3, line 20, leave out subsection (4) This amendment would remove the exclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights from retained EU law. 8 10

Clause 5, page 3, line 20, leave out subsections (4) and (5). To allow the Charter of Fundamental rights to continue to apply domestically in the interpretation and application of retained EU law. 139 Schedule 1, page 15, line 29, at end insert except in relation to anything occurring before that day. This amendment, together with amendments 140 and 141, would restore the right to obtain damages after exit day in respect of governmental failures before exit day to comply with European Union obligations. 2. Delegated legislation and powers 58 Schedule 7, page 45, line 23, leave out urgency and insert emergency This amendment would remove the wider latitude currently allowing Ministers to make regulations without Parliamentary approval by reason of urgency and instead only allow such executive action by reason of emergency. An emergency is a situation that poses an immediate risk to human health, life, property, or environment. NC1 To move the following Clause Scrutiny Committee (1) For the purposes of this Act a scrutiny committee refers to either (a) the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, or (b) a Committee of the House of Commons which is established to perform the specific functions assigned to a scrutiny committee in this Act. (2) The scrutiny committee referred to in subsection (1)(b) shall be chaired by a Member who is (a) of the same Party as the Official Opposition, and (b) elected by the whole House. 11

This new clause establishes the principle that there shall be a Commons triage committee which works alongside the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to determine the level of scrutiny each statutory instrument shall receive. LS1 (Law Society draft amendment) Schedule 7, page 43, line 19, at end insert or if the Government has not provided time on the floor of the House for a debate and vote on a prayer against the statutory instrument signed by 80 Members of the House of Commons. Explanatory statement: This would mean that if 80 members of the House of Commons were to sign a prayer against an SI that was subject under Schedule 7 to the negative procedure, the Government would have to provide time for a debate and a vote on the floor of the House or lose the SI. At present there is no such provision in the House of Commons. LS2 (Law Society draft amendment) Clause 7(6)(c), page 6, line 10 delete relevant Explanatory statement: This would prevent a Minister of the Crown from creating a criminal offence which could result in a sentence of up to 2 years imprisonment. LS3 (Law Society draft amendment) Clause 7(6), page 6, line 19, add (g) amend or repeal the Government of Wales Act 1998, Schedule 7 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 or the Scotland Act 1998. (h) amend or repeal the Equalities Act 2010. (i) amend or repeal this Act. Explanatory statement: This would prevent a Minister of the Crown from using delegated legislation to change: the devolution arrangement with the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly, the EU (Withdrawal) Bill itself and the Equalities Act 2010. LS4 (Law Society draft amendment) Clause 17, page 13, line 34, leave out subsections (1) to (4) 12

Explanatory Statement: This would limit the powers delegated to Ministers of the Crown to make regulations to the circumstances set out in 17(5) to (7). These provisions focus on transition and ensuring functionality in existing law. 3. Legal certainty NC14 Interpretation of retained EU law during transitional period Within one month of Royal Assent of this Act the Secretary of State shall lay a report before Parliament setting out how the interpretation of retained EU law provisions in section 6 shall operate in the event of a transitional period being agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union ahead of the implementation of a withdrawal agreement. This new clause would ensure that Ministers must set out in detail how the provisions in clause 6 would apply during a transitional period before the United Kingdom fully implements a withdrawal agreement. 95 Clause 4, page 3, line 9, at end insert (4) Where, following the United Kingdom s exit from the EU, no specific provision has been made in respect of an aspect of EU law applying to the UK or any part of the United Kingdom immediately prior to the United Kingdom s exit from the EU, that aspect of EU law shall continue to be effective and enforceable in the United Kingdom with equivalent scope, purpose and effect as immediately before exit day. (5) Where, following the United Kingdom s exit from the EU, retained EU law is found to incorrectly or incompletely transpose the requirements of EU legislation in force on exit day, a Minister of the Crown shall make regulations made subject to an enhanced scrutiny procedure so as to ensure full transposition of the EU legislation. New subsection (4) deals with a situation where the UK has incorrectly implemented a directive. In cases of incorrect implementation, reliance on the EU directive may still be necessary. New subsection (5) ensures that where the UK has not correctly or completely implemented EU law, prior to exit day, there will be a statutory obligation on Ministers to modify UK law to ensure that the relevant EU legislation is correctly and fully implemented. 13

NC21 Plain English summary of retained direct EU legislation HM Government shall ensure that the publication of copies of retained direct EU legislation as set out in the provisions of section 13 and schedule 5 is accompanied wherever possible by a summarising explanatory document setting out in terms that are readily understandable the purpose and effect of that retained direct EU legislation. This new clause would require Ministers to publish copies of retained direct EU legislation accompanied by plain English and readily understandable summarising explanatory documents. 32 Clause 7, page 5, line 43, at end insert, apart from amending or modifying this Act This amendment would remove the proposed capacity of Ministers under Clause 7 to modify and amend the Act itself via delegated powers. 4. Transitional arrangements 55 Clause 9, page 7, line 9, at end insert or until the withdrawal agreement has been published and legislation proposed in the 2017 Gracious Speech in relation to customs, trade, immigration, fisheries, agriculture, nuclear safeguards and international sanctions has been published. This amendment would ensure that powers to Ministers to make regulations implementing the withdrawal agreement cannot be exercised until such time as the withdrawal agreement has been published along with the publication of associated legislative proposals on customs, trade, immigration, fisheries, agriculture, nuclear safeguards and international sanctions. 14