The government is under attack for its post-Brexit power hoarding ambitions

The most compelling message of the Leave campaign was a three word slogan: “Take Back Control”. On 31 December, a huge swathe of responsibilities will finally come back to the UK. But the government has failed to offer a coherent plan on how those responsibilities should be exercised once transition ends. Much of the debate has focused on the rows with the devolved administrations about their powers after Brexit, but the government is also under pressure in parliament, and from outside interests, to limit its power grab.

The government has been forced to backtrack on trade and agriculture

Over the weekend, the National Farmers' Union claimed victory in its campaign to make sure there are more robust safeguards against the possible lowering of UK animal welfare and food standards in future trade deals. The government had argued that it could be trusted to make good its promises not to bargain away existing UK standards – and argued that parliament’s role in trade deals offered adequate protection – but people were quick to point out that the UK parliament had a much lesser role in scrutinising trade deals than its European counterpart.

The government had already established a Trade and Agriculture Commission (TAC) on an ad hoc temporary basis to advise on implications of trade deals on agriculture. It has now laid an amendment to the Agriculture Bill to make it permanent, meaning it would require new legislation for ministers to get rid of the TAC. The government has also committed to laying TAC reports on the implications of any new free trade agreement for agriculture when it puts those agreements to parliament for approval. While this might provide reassurance on one specific aspect – an important but far from the only subject covered – of trade deals, it does nothing to put parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals more generally on a less flimsy basis. 

But changing the status of the TAC has prompted further demands to widen what is currently a producer-orientated membership. The government is facing calls from consumer and environmental groups to be included if the new body is to have a bigger, more permanent role. That would make the body reflect wider concerns and give it added authority.

The government faces challenges on its new Office for Environmental Protection

The government is facing a battle on another legislative front as the committee stage of the Environment Bill resumes. Leaving the European Union exposes what environmental campaigners have described a “governance gap” on the enforcement of environmental commitments. When Michael Gove was environment secretary, the government proposed a powerful environmental watchdog to fill that gap – the new Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) in England (and Northern Ireland). 

There has always been a gap between the government’s rhetoric on the OEP and the reality. Last week the government tabled its own amendment to the bill to enable it to guide the OEP how to use its enforcement powers – something jumped on as undermining its independence from the start. Since the government will itself choose the people in charge of the OEP – the chair and the board – this suggests it has little faith in those being appointed. It looks unnecessary.

Indeed, if the government really wants to reassure on the OEP’s independence then it should not just withdraw this amendment, but also accept a Labour one which picks up a recommendation, made in pre-legislative scrutiny, to give MPs a veto over the appointment of the OEP chair. This was one of the moves the Treasury made back in 2010 to establish the Office for Budget Responsibility as an independent credible actor. Indeed, the Treasury went even further: the chancellor can only remove the chair and the other two members of the Budget Responsibility Council with the consent of the Treasury Select Committee. That is a model the government should consider if it wants to allay fears that it wants a supposedly feared watchdog to be its obedient poodle.

The government is facing a war of attrition over its plans to hoard power after Brexit

The common theme that emerges is of a government that wants the fewest fetters on its discretion to exercise power.

The problem is that it does not have the trust of MPs (even its own backbenchers), the devolved administrations and many interest groups to exercise that power in a reasonable way. It is a government that makes promises of independence, transparency and parliamentary involvement – but then balks at putting these promises into practice.

This is why trench warfare over the details of post-Brexit governance has broken out. The result will be a messy patchwork of powers and responsibilities, missing the opportunity to put a clear and convincing regime in place.