The government is preparing legislation that would allow ministers to bring parts of UK law into line with future European Union rules through secondary legislation, according to reports, opening a fresh political battle over parliamentary scrutiny and the limits of Labour’s post-Brexit reset with Brussels.
The proposed measure, expected to be included in the King’s Speech on 13 May, would create a “dynamic alignment” mechanism for sectors covered by last year’s UK-EU reset agreements, including food and drink trade, emissions trading and access to the European electricity market. A bill has not yet been published.
Under the plan, ministers would be able to use statutory instruments rather than pass a new Act of Parliament each time the EU updates rules in agreed areas. The powers, commonly known as “Henry VIII clauses”, allow ministers to amend or repeal primary legislation through secondary legislation.
Government sources have said the mechanism is needed to implement the reset more quickly and reduce post-Brexit trade friction. Downing Street has previously said the agrifood, emissions and electricity package agreed at the Lancaster House summit in May 2025 could add £9bn to the UK economy, including a food and drink deal worth £5.1bn a year.
Ministers insist the proposals would not mean rejoining the EU single market or customs union. Their argument, as reported this week, is that Parliament would debate and approve the main bill, while later regulatory changes would be made through secondary legislation only where alignment was judged to be in the national interest.
Critics say that would still leave MPs and peers with limited control over future rule changes. Andrew Griffith, the shadow business secretary, said Parliament risked being “reduced to a spectator while Brussels sets the terms”. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has said the UK would be left in the “worst of both worlds” if it followed EU rules without a formal say over them.
Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, described the reported plans as “a backdoor attempt to drag Britain back under EU control”. The Liberal Democrats, while broadly supportive of closer ties with Europe, have also called for stronger democratic safeguards. Munira Wilson said the government should not bypass proper parliamentary oversight.
Supporters of closer alignment say the approach is a practical way to manage a trade relationship in which access depends on keeping pace with shared standards. Richard Kilpatrick, head of campaigns at the European Movement, said on Thursday that aligning with EU standards was “exactly what many UK businesses have been calling for” and argued that secondary legislation was the most flexible way to do it. He also said ministers should strengthen scrutiny rather than resist it, including by reinstating a dedicated Commons committee on European matters.
The question of scrutiny is central because statutory instruments can usually be approved or rejected, but not amended. Where the affirmative procedure applies, ministers must secure approval from Parliament, but MPs and peers cannot rewrite the measure. Critics say that creates a risk of wide-ranging regulatory changes being nodded through with little room for detailed challenge.
The row has been sharpened by the fact that similar powers were used extensively to deliver Brexit itself. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 gave ministers broad authority to revoke, replace or restate large areas of EU-derived law by secondary legislation, prompting repeated warnings from House of Lords committees about the shift of power from Parliament to the executive. Narrower powers to track EU rules in product standards were later included in the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025.
The wider scrutiny architecture has also changed. The Commons European Scrutiny Committee was abolished after the 2024 general election, removing Westminster’s specialist body for monitoring EU-related documents and developments. Last month the House of Lords European Affairs Committee launched an inquiry into dynamic alignment, asking for evidence on its constitutional impact, how Parliament should oversee it and what it could mean for devolved administrations.
The sectors most clearly in scope are sanitary and phytosanitary rules covering food safety, animal and plant health, animal welfare and pesticide standards, alongside emissions trading and electricity market regulation. Reports have also suggested that further alignment could eventually be explored in areas such as chemicals, medical devices and manufacturing standards, though ministers have not published the final scope of any bill.
Business groups have argued that closer alignment in agrifood rules would reduce checks, paperwork and delays at the border, especially for small exporters. Logistics UK has said UK exports to the EU fell by about 23 per cent between 2017 and 2024. The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that Brexit will reduce long-run UK productivity by around 4 per cent and cut both exports and imports by about 15 per cent compared with remaining in the EU.
The government has also made an energy and climate case for the policy. Linking the UK and EU emissions trading systems could reduce the risk of British exporters being hit by the bloc’s carbon border charges, while closer integration with the EU electricity market is intended to ease trade across interconnectors and lower costs. Reports have said disputes under the new arrangements would be handled by an independent tribunal, though the final governance model has yet to be set out in legislation.
With Labour’s Commons majority, any bill introduced next month would be expected to clear the House of Commons. But it is already shaping up for closer examination in the House of Lords, where peers and constitutional experts are likely to press ministers for tighter limits on delegated powers, clearer sectoral boundaries and a stronger system for scrutinising future alignment with EU law.