Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Baroness Fox of Buckley and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard

Report stage
Monday 15th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin. His historical point is completely correct: the period of maximum EU legislation was during the delivery of the single market programme, which was based on the Cockfield White Paper and the agreement between Prime Minister Thatcher and President Delors. That legislation came through mainly in the early 1990s, and some of it is in the schedule—it has probably been overtaken by something else. It is simply not true that it was all imposed on us.

I support Amendment 76, which is essential. I can explain my reasoning by reminding the House of what Clause 16 says. It is a bit presidential; one might almost say “dictatorial”. Clause 16(2) says:

“A relevant national authority may by regulations revoke any secondary retained EU law and replace it with such provision as the relevant national authority considers to be appropriate and to achieve the same or similar objectives”.


In the phrase “considers to be appropriate”, “appropriate” is a very presidential word rather than a parliamentary word. Okay, there is still the saving caveat that it has

“to achieve the same or similar objectives”,

but here comes Clause 16(3), which uses almost exactly the same wording:

“A relevant national authority may by regulations revoke any secondary retained EU law and make such alternative provision as the relevant national authority considers appropriate”.


Here there is no saving caveat about achieving the same or similar objectives, so under Clause 16 the Executive may, by regulations, do whatever they well choose. That seems to me to make it absolutely essential to have the parliamentary scrutiny for Clauses 13, 14 and 16 that would be delivered by the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, is certainly correct that no legislation was forced on the UK by the EU. Indeed, many Ministers from all parties were happy to take advantage of laws made in Brussels, which they sometimes even suggested, by coming back to the UK and reading out the legal text from the EU Commission—and then, if there was any objection, they blamed the EU. But what was removed from that equation was the scrutiny and accountability of the electorate. They were the people who were told that they could not change the law; it was ring-fenced away from them. That is what voters rejected in 2016.

I will be clear on what this Bill is all about by quoting the European Commission, because I know that so many noble Lords trust it and not me. In October 2021 the EU Commission stated, in relation to a dispute with Poland:

“EU law has primacy over national law, including constitutional provisions … All rulings by the European Court of Justice are binding on all Member States’ authorities, including national courts”.


That is no longer the case for the UK, and we are now trying to untangle how we deal with that.

In relation to the Bill, it is, in my opinion, not the case that Brexit was an act of reclaiming sovereignty, a blueprint for saying exactly what laws we would keep or retain, or a means of just getting rid of EU law as an end in itself, as it were. Rather, it was about putting the responsibility for choosing which laws to prioritise, reform or even improve in the hands of the Government and Parliament, who are answerable to the British people—the electorate. I have listened carefully to a lot of the very thoughtful amendments put forward to try to ensure that too much power is not put in the hands of the Executive or Whitehall, as opposed to an accountable Parliament, but I get anxious about how the arguments are posed sometimes, so I will query some of the amendments in this group.