Comments like those of Suella Fernandes increase the likelihood of a backbench rebellion against the Government's proposal not to transpose the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights into UK law.
Remember that the SSExEU, at Second Reading, explicitly stated that ‘the absence of the charter will not affect the substantive rights available in the UK’, and committed to produce a report detailing how the individual rights protected by the Charter will be preserved elsewhere in UK law post-Brexit. That report was published on 5 December - but suffice to say it has not satisfied (or silenced) those who consider rights will be lost.
Remember too that, on Day 3 of the Committee Stage of the Bill, a rebellion by Tory backbenchers was prevented by the Government making concessions in respect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (https://www.bdb-law.co.uk/blogs/great-repeal-bill/27-great-repeal-bill-change-good/ ). The Solicitor General, Robert Buckland, said that the government was willing to work with Dominic Grieve MP to see how rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights would be protected after Brexit, and that the Government would introduce its own amendment to this effect later in the bill’s passage. Grieve said this was sufficient reassurance for him and that he would not press for a vote on his amendments.
There is clearly potential for a rebellion to materialise at Report stage (today and tomorrow - https://www.bdb-law.co.uk/blogs/great-repeal-bill/33-great-repeal-bill-going-back-border/ ) if the government’s response is considered inadequate.
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”.