One of Theresa May’s new ministers has claimed the UK’s plan to drop the EU charter of fundamental rights after Brexit would help avoid an “extra layer” of human rights, contradicting the government’s assurance that no protections would be lost.

Suella Fernandes, who was promoted to the Brexit department last week, had warned in November that transposing the “flabby” charter into British law would give UK citizens additional protections on issues such as eugenics, personal data and collective bargaining.

In an article written for the Telegraph she said the government was right not to copy the charter into the EU withdrawal bill because otherwise “lawyers will love the extra layers of rights and the fees that they bring, and it’s also a core part of the Brussels project too”.

Her comments directly undermine the government’s claims that it was only refusing to accept the EU charter of fundamental rights because the document was already covered by British law.



Paul Blomfield, the shadow Brexit minister, said it also proved Labour’s argument that UK citizens would see their human rights reduced when the government abandons the charter.

“Suella Fernandes has blown the Tories’ cover,” he said. “Ministers have repeatedly told us that the charter is just a catalogue and doesn’t contain any new rights. But the new Brexit minister has admitted that that is not the case.

“She has made it clear that the Tories’ plan is to use Brexit to abandon the charter, reduce the rights of UK citizens and leave a gaping hole in law.



“Tory MPs who don’t want to see the clock turned back on human rights should reject the government’s approach and back Labour’s amendment to protect these rights for UK citizens.”

Jeremy Corbyn has cited the government’s refusal to accept the charter as one of the reasons why Labour cannot vote for the EU withdrawal bill at its next stage in parliament.



But a spokesman for the Department for Exiting the European Union continued to insist that the charter simply reaffirms existing rights in EU law.



“The UK has a longstanding tradition of ensuring our rights are protected and our departure from the EU does not change that,” he said. “The charter of fundamental rights was never the source of rights in the UK – it simply reaffirmed rights that already existed in EU law. This was reinforced in our published analysis of the charter, which shows where these rights can be found in UK law and how they will be protected.

Quick Guide What is the EU withdrawal bill? Show What is the EU withdrawal bill? The EU Withdrawal Bill – once known as the Great Repeal Bill – is going through the House of Commons to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and transpose all existing EU legislation into domestic UK law, which will avoid a 'cliff-edge' change on the day after we leave the EU. Parts of the bill have been highly controversial, and MPs have tabled hundreds of amendments to try and change its wording, including a significant number of Conservative rebels. Some of the key controversies include its use of so-called Henry VIII powers, which will give government ministers the power to tweak the wording of laws to make sure they make sense in UK legislation - but those changes could take place without having to go through parliament. MPs have called this a "power grab" by the government. The government estimates around 800 to 1,000 measures called statutory instruments will be required to make sure the bill is applied correctly. Other concerns include the government's decision not to include the EU charter of fundamental rights in the law being transposed. Other amendments are attempts to affect the Brexit process, including legislating for a transitional period and giving MPs a binding meaningful vote on the deal secured by Theresa May, before the deal is finalised.

“Under the withdrawal bill those rights existing in EU law will be transferred into UK law and, additionally, it’s our intention not only to uphold equalities legislation after we have left the EU but to seek opportunities to enhance the protections we already have.”

The EU withdrawal bill is returning for debate on Tuesday and it is expected to be voted through the House of Commons this week, before it passes to the House of Lords.

Before that point a cross-party group of about 20 backbenchers will try to pass an amendment forcing the government to reveal its legal advice on whether article 50, and therefore Brexit, is revocable.

Leading supporters of the Open Britain campaign, led by Labour’s Chris Leslie and Chuka Umunna, said there have been a number of legal opinions so far showing that article 50 could be overturned.

The government refuses to say what its lawyers believe, but maintains that article 50 will not be revoked as a matter of policy.

Leslie, the former shadow chancellor, said: “This amendment is designed to provide transparency, so that MPs and our constituents know all the facts about article 50. If the government have been told that the article 50 notification can legally be revoked, they should be upfront with the public about it.”