Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 12th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 274B in my name. I draw attention to my interests in the register.

I will speak briefly about community energy but let me just say that I absolutely support the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I also very much support the noble Lord’s words, especially about what this measure is going to do to Britain’s reputation, and his reminding us of where this country was just a couple of short years ago as the leaders of COP, playing a proud role on the world stage; that seems to be in tatters right now.

Community energy is wildly popular in the country—it is extremely popular with all sorts of people. I find it puzzling why the Government are not bending over backwards to make this easier and simpler for people. I do not want to get into the arguments about onshore wind, but surely one way to mitigate communities’ concerns about renewable energy is to give people a stake in it so that it is about not just a bit of money but owning something. My sister has lived on a small island in Denmark for 60 years. The people there are completely energy independent. It was the first place I knew of that had wind farms everywhere. Everyone knows how much electricity is coming in and what it is doing. They have ownership and share prices—that is just the way it has been done, and it is kind of brilliant. Why can we not say, “The local energy we produce off that hill heats my towel rail all year round”? They can report, “I co-own it”, “It has paid to put solar panels on the roof of the community hall”, or “It has paid for energy efficiency advice and deals for the other homes in our village”.

In fairness to the Government, they have acknowledged this, but we seem to have spent an incredible amount of time hand-wringing about the difficulties rather than finding the easy, appropriate ways of supporting it. All that the sector wants is a deal comparable with all the other renewable energy that we have in this country, via a guaranteed minimum price. This gives communities the certainty that they need to raise the funds to go ahead. This is true across so much of the alternative energy sector.

I supported the establishment of the £10 million community energy fund but, quite honestly, that is not very much. If you look in the Evening Standard, you find that you can buy a flat for £10 million within about 100 yards of here. It is not going to go far enough. We need real reform, so the commitment made by Andrew Bowie in the other place

“to consulting on the barriers the sector faces when developing projects”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/9/23; col. 281.]

was particularly welcome.

That is why I have come up with this compromise amendment, which I hope that the Minister feels able to accept. It would give the industry a boost to know that there was something coming down the tracks on an agreed timeframe. A problem that we have seen before is consultations which do not receive a response—or do but with serious delays. That is all that I am trying to avoid with this amendment in lieu, which sets a generous timescale of 18 months for a consultation and a further six months for bringing forward proposals to remove the barriers to community energy schemes. This times nicely with the end of the two-year community energy fund and would avoid a potential cliff edge.

I believe that the Minister will appreciate the need for clarity for the sector and the need to reassure over 300 MPs, including 147 Conservative MPs, who backed the original Local Electricity Bill, which recognised the barriers to community energy and proposed remedies. I therefore ask him to give this house more clarity on timescales, or I may be required to test the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I rise extremely briefly to support very strongly the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lady Boycott. Regarding the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Boycott, it is crazy that we have barriers inhibiting the development of renewable energy by community energy schemes. This amendment is a very modest proposal to ensure that those barriers are removed within a reasonable timeframe. I hope that all sides of the House can support these three amendments, but I have particularly spoken to that tabled by the noble friend Lady Boycott.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register and record my gratitude to the Minister for the Ofgem amendment. In much more elegant language, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said that it was a no-brainer. It absolutely is, and Amendment 187A is equally a no-brainer. However, before I say why, I add my support to those amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. Particularly in the latter we have a compromise which would really boost a sector of the energy industry that is of great benefit.

In terms of benefits, no one—including the Government —fundamentally challenges the benefits of improving the energy efficiency of Britain’s old, cold, leaky housing stock. They recognise the benefits for individuals and families in terms of health and reduced bills, but it goes beyond that. There are benefits for the UK because improving energy efficiency reduces demand, helps towards our net-zero target and improves our energy security. It is also potentially of benefit to the taxpayer in reducing the huge expense that the Government take on board when energy prices spike. We have seen how much the Government have spent on heating homes and that money going out of the window because of the state of the housing stock. There are also benefits in stimulating the retrofitting industry, which is a national industry. It goes across all parts of the country and helps with the training and then the providing of secure and sustainable jobs.

We have debated this—I will not say ad nauseam, but certainly at length—not only on this Bill but on the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, because of the issues that I was talking about, such as employment and the fact that the poorest people suffer most from the worst homes, in terms of energy efficiency and their health.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 20th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, makes a very strong case that the House of Commons is dealing with this as a matter of politics rather than of principle. I draw precisely the opposite conclusion to that of the noble Lord: it is precisely for that reason that we should send the matter back. We should emphasise, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, did, that this is a matter of constitutional principle. It is not a matter of whether you support Brexit or you do not support it. It is not a matter of politics, and we should respectfully invite the other House to focus on what we see as the real constitutional issues that lie behind the Motion proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, but in doing so I want to put on record, as a former member of the Delegated Powers Committee, my objection to the Government’s rejection of Amendments 42 and 42B, which proposed a very reasonable process, enabling both Houses of Parliament to debate, vote and make amendments to regulations, but only if those regulations involved a substantial change to the law. The Government’s reaction to Amendments 42 and 42B is yet another example of their determination to bypass Parliament as far as possible and enable substantial law changes to be made by Ministers through delegated powers without the ability of Parliament to make any amendments.

The new amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is very modest indeed: it applies only to draft Clause 15 regulations, the broadest delegated powers in the Bill. Also, although Parliament will be able to recommend amendments to the regulations, it does not enable Parliament to amend those regulations, only to accept or reject them. Justice takes the view that the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is a proportionate and necessary compromise, and should be supported.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to my noble friends on these Benches, particularly my noble friend Lord Hodgson. I have the opposite conclusion from the one at which he arrived. My noble friend suggests that it could be game over if we vote once again to ask the Commons to think again. As far as I can see, if we agree to this, it could be game over for us anyway. The Government’s arguments are that if we do not accept their position, these changes will delay the repeal of retained EU law and have also argued that sufficient scrutiny measures are already in place. We know that is not the case.

Giving almighty powers to Ministers to bypass Parliament upends the norms that have governed our country and given us the international reputation we have built. The possibility of allowing any Minister to revoke secondary legislation, just because it happens to emanate originally from the EU, confuses the issue of leaving the European Union with the issue of parliamentary democracy. A Minister could make, change or repeal laws or rules that they consider appropriate, according to this legislation, regardless of Parliament’s view and regardless of whether that Minister even has any expertise in the areas so well outlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, such as public health, agriculture, fisheries and blood safety.

The noble and learned Lord’s amendment gives the House of Commons the last word. This is an existential issue beyond politics, and I urge noble Lords to think beyond this Parliament too. If we set this precedent now for this Government, presumably nothing can stop that precedent being used against these Benches, or in some other unacceptable manner, in the future. That could happen if we give up the idea that Parliament must make the rules, rather than Ministers.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 15th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I ask noble Lords who support Amendment 2 how it is that they now wish to involve Parliament and our democracy in getting rid of these laws when they were perfectly happy to see them imposed in a wholly anti-democratic process. I describe it as such because all the laws which the Government now wisely wish to cancel were proposed in secret in the European Commission. Their national interest was then negotiated in secret in the Committee of Permanent Representatives, after which they were signed off in the European Council and Parliament, which could not change them. Our Select Committees could indeed scrutinise a tiny sample of them, or even recommend them for debate in the Commons or Lords, but, once those debates, which could not change them, had taken place, they became our law. So why do the proposers and friends of Amendment 2 now wish to subject the process of their abolition to our democratic processes? And, talking of which, what do they say about the fact that the Bill has already been through the Commons?

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I want to make a single point. In his opening remarks, the Minister referred to the affirmative procedure as though it is a perfectly satisfactory way of dealing with these very substantial ministerial powers to deal with retained European law. As a former member of the Delegated Powers Committee, I want to say that that is absolutely not the case. Under the affirmative procedure, Parliament has no power to amend any proposals coming from Ministers. It is therefore absolutely essential that this House approves Amendment 2 in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and others. I very much hope that it does so.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am sure that the House will approve Amendment 2. I am not sure that the noble Baroness grasped the point I was trying to make, so, if I may, I will finish it.

I accept that the Government were in danger of biting off more than they could chew with their original proposals but those now seem eminently achievable, especially if our civil servants rise to the occasion in identifying the EU laws that we might want to retain—very few, I submit, so the effort should not exhaust them too much. But perhaps the Daily Telegraph was right in its headline on 10 May, which read:

“Whitehall ‘blob’ thwarts bonfire of Brexit laws”.


I support the whole Government wholeheartedly in their endeavours.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his chair.

Amendment 1 is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Collins. This amendment is agnostic about what is thought about the legislation’s purpose; you might support its intentions or you might reject them, and there are groups coming up after this one that will give your Lordships a chance to have that debate. This amendment revolves around what you think of Parliament and its role in making important laws that affect people in a big way. I will explain that briefly.

The central focus of the Bill is to establish legally binding minimum service levels for a range of services, some of which are delivered via the state and some of which are delivered via private companies. You will hear arguments later about how this is designed to work, but suffice to say the key element of the Bill is what constitutes a minimum service level that should be expected during a strike. The nature and quantum of this is critical to determining how many workers are effectively compelled to go to work on a strike day. The service levels are critical, and yet Parliament is effectively sidelined in the process of their development.

In the Commons, that celebrated supporter of the labour movement, Jacob Rees-Mogg, called the Bill “badly written” and an

“extreme example of bad practice”.

He criticised the lack of detail and said that it should instead

“set out clearly what it is trying to achieve”.

He added:

“This Bill is almost so skeletal that we wonder if bits of the bones were stolen away by wild animals and taken and buried somewhere”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/1/23; cols. 89-92.]


Your Lordships will have seen the less colourful response from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which makes a similar plea for more detail in this primary legislation.

Despite this being a Bill that deals with minimum service levels during strikes—that is what it says on the cover—there is nothing in it to say what those minimum service levels are, or indeed the nature of what a minimum service level is. That is left to the Secretary of State. The vital details will follow the enactment of the Bill, when the Secretary of State makes regulations. The DPRRC describes this as “small comfort to Parliament”. The Government say that the detail required to set the level of service for each relevant service is not appropriate for primary legislation. However, the DPRRC notes that

“the Memorandum does not explain why setting out any detail on the face of the Bill would be inappropriate. Parliament”—

as we know—

“is not allergic to matters of detail, particularly where it relates to an important matter such as the right to strike”.

Instead, the process of adding flesh to this skeleton is left to as yet unspecified regulation. The additional irritant to the scrutiny of the Bill has been the absence of a coherent or comprehensive impact assessment.

This amendment seeks to bolster Parliament’s oversight. It would require a consultation to be carried out and reviewed before the powers in new Section 234B for the Secretary of State to specify minimum service levels can be used. The amendment would insert three new conditions. First, proposed new subsection (5) would mandate proper consultation on the potential impact of the use of minimum service levels to be carried out, published and reviewed by a committee of each House of Parliament. Next, proposed new subsection (6) would ensure that the consultation includes all those involved; covers the potential impact of the minimum service regulations on the rights of workers to strike and the effectiveness of relevant services, and the impact on the wider public; and takes into consideration service levels outside of strike days. Finally, the amendment would insert new subsection (7), which would ensure that the results of the consultation and the reviews by the committees are published in a report, and that the Secretary of State lays a copy of it before Parliament. The Minister will say that extensive consultation is under way, but it is non-binding and bypasses Parliament.

In conclusion, this is a modest amendment that in no way impedes the purpose of the Bill. It is about democratic process—something your Lordships have often had to defend. Amendment 1 seeks to bring Parliament back into this process at the expense of undemocratic executive action. I beg to move.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, very briefly, I support this amendment. It seems to me that we have seen Bill after Bill in which this Government have chosen to bypass Parliament and leave too many decisions to Secretaries of State. Therefore, for me, as a former member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the most important aspect of this amendment is the requirement, following consultation, to present these matters to committees of both Houses of Parliament. I do not want to say any more; the case has been made very clearly. However, I would like it noted that I support this amendment very strongly.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I too will be brief in strongly supporting this amendment. Whatever your Lordships’ views about the state of industrial relations in this country, we should all agree, across this House, that a rushed process which puts power over making laws into the hands of Ministers without proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight is simply not right. I appeal to all Members of the House to support Amendment 1.

As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said in the debate on his committee’s report,

“when laws are passed without proper parliamentary scrutiny, they cease to be just technical, as they threaten the rights and freedoms of the individual”.—[Official Report, 12/1/23; col. 1532.]

That is absolutely true when it comes to this Bill. There is no clear understanding of the form that minimum service levels are likely to take or of the impact on workplace relations and services to the public.

I draw noble Lords’ attention to the excellent briefing from NHS Providers, which is responsible for managing the NHS and 1.4 million staff. It says that the Bill

“risks damaging relationships in the NHS between trust leaders and their staff, and between trust leaders and local union representatives at a particularly fraught time, without addressing any of the issues underlying current strike action or providing a useful alternative approach to managing service provision during periods of strike”.

Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 134 and 135, so ably led by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I had hoped that my name would be added to them, but something happened along the way.

It is true that everybody is saying that there is real importance in community energy, but the proof of the pudding has to be in the eating. After that initial burst of schemes that the feed-in tariff encouraged, we have really not seen any major growth and the government measures that have been put in place simply have not worked. The amendments are important for two reasons. First, they would enable improved financial predictability and viability for community energy schemes, because, at the moment, there are a number of hurdles that such schemes have to cross. If financial viability and predictability are not there at the start, they lose heart very rapidly in approaching the other hurdles. The second is the issue that has already been touched on: that is the whole business of community “joie de vivre” around energy generation schemes. A surefire way of not having local schemes is where there is a scenario of “all pain and no gain”—where there is a bit of local environmental disruption and a little adjustment to the view. Local communities very rapidly turn off those schemes if they do not see any value for themselves. That is happening more and more at the moment. Local community generation schemes are not very popular since there is landscape blight and no direct benefit. In fact, the figures show that more solar farms were turned down in 2020 at planning stages than had been turned down in the previous four years.

The presence of a local community scheme may even lead to dialogue locally about increased uptake of energy efficiency measures. People become interested in both energy efficiency and demand-side and supply-side issues. That is exactly the sort of community engagement we need if we are really going to see net zero hit. Indeed, Chris Skidmore in his much-quoted net-zero review urged the Government to produce a community energy strategy and to break through the current regulatory and legislative funding barriers. He supported the provisions of the Local Electricity Bill, which these amendments have largely reproduced.

As has been said, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, assured us in Committee, in his letter of 22 December and in subsequent meetings that the Government want to see more community energy schemes. We are really asking him what in effect will be done, as, so far, government measures have not worked. To echo the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, we are not seeking subsidy; we are looking for a fair price varied by government, as advised by Ofgem—an increased price, perhaps, where schemes need to be encouraged and a reduced price, perhaps, if scheme growth is going gangbusters. It is about a guaranteed floor price, similar to the contracts for difference from which other renewable sectors benefit.

I thank Octopus and other major suppliers for tackling some of these issues. The reality is, however, that they are not creating the volumes that are required. It is quite a telling fact that Octopus, through Unity, its subsidiary, is now responsible for one-third of all the community energy sector schemes. If one company, busting a gut, can actually be involved in one-third of the community energy sector, it seems to imply that it is not moving very fast. We are not seeing the volume of schemes being created. Other barriers need to be tackled, particularly access to the grid, lack of early-stage feasibility funding and planning complexities, but to accept these two amendments would go a long way to encouraging the community energy sector and to removing the most fundamental barrier, which is the economic one.

It would also be good if the Minister could tell us what the latest timescales are for the review of the electricity market arrangements, because that is another area where the whole business of how renewable energy competes is going to be fundamental. Can the Minister tell us today—if he is not going to accept these amendments, as I am sure he will not do—what the Government are going to do that will be effective in getting the community energy sector off its knees, where it is at the moment?

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I will not take the time of the House to repeat comments that have already been made. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and others have made a very powerful case for these amendments. It is ludicrous for us not to be enabling community energy production when this does not involve a subsidy and when it could create additional energy sufficient for something like the 2.2 million homes mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. This is a completely neglected area; it can be resolved as set out in these amendments in a straightforward way. The main thing is that these community energy projects need to be able to sell their energy to big suppliers in the locality—those with more than 150,000 customers was the figure quoted, I think. So there is very strong support for these amendments and I hope the Minister will be able to accept them. I cannot see any reason why not: it is not going to cost the Government anything.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches I welcome particularly the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I will not detain the House except to say that it is quite clear that community schemes have not operated effectively for many years. I should declare that I am an insignificant shareholder in a local community scheme in my own home area, which was set up under the feed-in tariffs. The schemes as put forward are not a kind of feed-in tariff regime: they are really looking for stability of price and are not around subsidy. I just say to the Minister that the Government’s overall target is decarbonisation of the grid by 2035: let communities play a big part in that, because one thing that is really important here is that community schemes allow for communities, individuals, households, families and small businesses to participate in the decarbonisation of our economy and net zero. They can be a part of it and that is why these amendments are so important.

On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, it is indeed very important that local authorities are involved and are movers in this area. All I can say is that I have to learn from him: he has the ear of the Government and the Minister far more than I do, and perhaps I could have some lessons afterwards about how to be successful in getting amendments into Bills.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 6th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I would agree with my noble friend if we knew which bits of REUL were being repealed, which were being revoked and which were being reformed—but, as we speak, we do not. As we know, many devolved measures are simply not on the dashboard at the moment, which makes that time even more unacceptable.

Amendment 115 requires a “relevant national authority” or “Minister of the Crown” to consult those who may be affected by regulations under Clause 15(2) before making them. All relevant national authorities will be required to publish the results of this consultation. The idea is to oblige the Minister of the Crown to consult the devolved Administrations before making regulations that concern them.

Amendment 116 makes similar provisions under Clause 15(3), so the same comments apply there. Amendment 122 also extends the statutory deadline from 23 June 2026 to a similar deadline of 31 December 2028, allowing more time than permitted under the present deadline to ensure that all legislation which will be encapsulated will be covered through a consultation, and to allow time for consulting and analysing the results of such a provision. Amendments 124 and 125 are simply consequential to that.

I do not know if the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, will speak to Amendment 141 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, but I conclude by saying that I support his amendment, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, has added her name. I welcome the fact that the

“amendment modifies the powers conferred on Ministers of the Crown when making regulations in devolved areas under this Schedule so that the power may only be exercised with the consent of the Scottish or Welsh Ministers.”

I hope that my noble friend the Minister, when summing up, will look favourably on those amendments in this group.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I will follow the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. I have added my name to the question on whether Clause 10 should stand part of the Bill. As noble Lords know, my view is that the Government really have a responsibility to withdraw the entire Bill; they should take it away and have civil servants work up all the policy developments that are assumed in it. As it stands, decisions on all these policy areas will simply be left to Ministers to make through delegated legislation; that is not acceptable at all. I was strongly supported by my noble friends Lord Wilson and Lord Lisvane and many others when I made this point in an earlier debate.

Clause 10 transfers powers wholesale from the EU to Ministers, who will then decide which regulations to propose. It includes extensive amendments to Part 1 of Schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. In omitting sub-paragraphs (1) to (5) of paragraph 4, the Government are further reducing the power of the UK Parliament with respect to retained EU legislation, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, with particular respect to retained direct EU law. The Government justify that on the basis that retained direct EU law did not have as much parliamentary scrutiny as other parts of retained EU law, but that was because the UK was bound to comply with retained direct EU law under the treaty of Rome. We are now not in the EU—we are in an entirely different situation—and the UK Parliament needs to take over responsibility for this area of law, which represents at least 50% of retained EU law.

As noble Lords know, we parliamentarians cannot amend secondary legislation. It would be extremely difficult in this context for Parliament to reject the secondary legislation involved, and therefore Parliament will have no option, in my view, but to accept the delegated powers we are talking about here. Surely this is entirely unacceptable. Ministers’ regulations across a vast range of policies will affect the entire UK population very considerably.

Clause 10 radically changes the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, affecting a huge transfer of powers from Parliament to Ministers. This is in conflict with stated government policy and the Government’s Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill. Clause 10 should not stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher; I agree with everything she said. I also very much agree with the previous speakers, including my noble friend Lady Ludford.

I will make a point in response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, when he questioned the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on whether her amendments would delay the process and whether that would be a problem. The fundamental problem we have is set out very clearly by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in paragraph 35 of its 25th report, which quotes from the RDEUL memorandum:

“Overall, the change in status will make it possible to amend or repeal a greater amount of RDEUL using secondary legislation, which will enhance the ability for amending RDEUL more quickly without the need for primary legislation. This is a more proportionate status for RDEUL, as when made it was not subject to the same degree of UK Parliamentary scrutiny as an Act of Parliament or even domestic secondary legislation.”


However, the committee goes on to say that

“RDEUL has a special status because much of it is of considerable significance in policy terms.”

Once again, we have spent most of the last three Committee days discussing issues relating to policy and asking for clarification on when that will be nailed down and understood and when Parliament can look at it before final decisions about the Bill are made.

I return to the question I asked on the first day of Committee: at what point will the dashboard be frozen? After it is frozen, how long will it be before it comes into law? Will it be 31 July, October or 30 December? How do Ministers respond to the issue that Parliament will have to give up a significant role in key policy terms, which is normally part of primary legislation, and which would be moved into secondary legislation under this clause? At the moment, we still do not have an answer as to when Parliament will be able to look at the detail of the dashboard to make decisions on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I appreciate that I have not been in the Chamber for all of that time, although I have been here a fair few hours, one way and another, and I have read everything that was said in previous discussions. I do not feel as though I am just wandering in to make this point.

I have also talked to people outside this House about their understanding of this discussion and I am trying to draw attention to that—

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords—

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

The Minister says that it is self-evidently right that we should give that guarantee now that the law on seat belts will be retained, and that she can give a cast-iron guarantee on that today. I genuinely do not understand why she cannot do the same for workers handling asbestos, for example, which seems equally important. On what basis is she making that judgment: that she can give that guarantee, which is very welcome, on seat belts but not on incredibly important health and safety legislation derived from the EU—and, indeed, case law —that workers rely on?

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me. I have put my name down to the Clause 1 stand part debate and various other things, but I have a family crisis and I have to go. I just want to make a few brief points a little out of sync.

My noble friend Lady O’Neill—a highly intelligent woman—just said to me that this is the most chaotic debate she has ever heard in this House. This House is being expected to have a serious debate on individual amendments that are terribly important: seat belts for kids, aviation and so on. The problem with the Bill—as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, whom I support 100% in what he said—is that there is nothing in it. There is no information in it. There is a wholesale sunset clause and wholesale referral for Ministers to decide what to retain, what to reform and, if so, how, and what to do with each and every policy area covered by this enormous Bill. As for the idea that Clause 1 should stand part, it seems fairly obvious to me that you cannot just sunset all this at the end of the year, but that clause makes way for Clause 15, where the wholesale referral of all matters to Ministers is set down.

I have appealed, and I will just say it once more, and I will not say it again, I promise—forgive me, your Lordships—that I hope the Government will have the self-respect to withdraw the Bill, go away and do the work that needs doing, because an enormous amount of work needs to be done, and then bring back a Bill which can be debated by Parliament. I just want to make again the constitutional point: Ministers have consistently said, during the passage of the Bill in 2018, the memorandum to this Bill and so on, that the purpose of this Bill and what became the 2018 Act was to shift policy-making power from the EU to the UK Parliament, to make the UK Parliament central to our policy-making. The Government have not done what they say they want to do; they have transferred all power to Ministers. I therefore appeal to Ministers to do what they apparently want to do. I do not expect the Labour Party to intervene on this: I feel this is a matter for the Government, and I just say, “Please, Government, do what I think you all know you need to do”.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think the noble Baronesses for their interventions and understand their depth of feeling. I should explain that this is a framework Bill, and it has been presented as such. The regulatory process will be gone through, and this House will then get a chance to look at the SIs.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

I make a very short but rather strong point. I speak as a former member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, who has had the privilege of reading counsel’s note on this Bill to the committee. I have been on that committee for years and have never seen a counsel’s opinion on a Bill as devastating as this counsel’s opinion on this Bill. I wanted to add my name to Clause 1 stand part, but unfortunately there are already four names on it. We are attempting to have a debate on this Bill when the counsel made clear that you cannot even call this a skeletal Bill because it is not that there is a little bit of information and too much is left for delegated powers; there is no information in this Bill—nothing—about what Ministers want to do across a massive swathe of policies.

Your Lordships’ wonderful House is attempting to have this debate based on zero information. Counsel is recommending to the committee that Clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill, nor should Clauses 10, 12, 13 or 15. In other words, the Government need to take the Bill back and realise that you cannot delegate all power across a whole swathe of policy without giving Parliament any powers in the matter at all. As we know, the government policy until this point was to transfer powers from the EU to the UK Parliament. The Government’s own memorandum made clear that the aim of the Bill is to ensure that the UK Parliament is the sole arbiter of UK law. I am sorry, but the Bill does not do that; it takes all power away from the UK Parliament.

I interject because it is important that we decide how to deal with the Bill. Either we go to the Clause 1 stand part debate, relate that to these other clauses and try to get the Government to withdraw the Bill early, or we spend weeks debating this bit and that bit with no knowledge upon which to have those debates. With that, I wish your Lordships well.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, on the issue of timing, bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and my noble friend Lady Andrews said, I and I am sure other noble Lords are increasingly hearing that we are not talking about 31 December as the sunset; we are talking about October. If December as the cut-off date for civil servants to find all this law is bad enough, October is disastrous. We may be replacing EU law with our own versions, but I am told by a senior civil servant that the fail rate for SIs is 10%. Therefore, the replacements will not be perfect and many will have to be looked at again once they have been published.

My noble friend Lady Andrews is right that the dashboard is a mess. Again, from talking to people close to the dashboard, they were not sure when asked whether they were talking about one directive or one directive plus the four SIs that come from it for each devolved authority. Really and truly, we must think very carefully about signing up to this sunset.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I very much accept that. It might be that we want to discuss later in the Bill whether or not any of the issues that devolved Administrations have a view on, or have responsibility for, ought to be dealt with in a different way, because the devolved Administrations, as of today, are deeply concerned about the way that the Government are proceeding. So I very much agree with the noble Lord’s point.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, may I just respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman? She said that we just need to know whether the Government want to retain the protections in terms of health, PPE and food labelling, or whether they want to change it or reform it and so on, and that that is all we need to know. It is unbelievable to me that we are having that sort of discussion in this House, rather than requiring it to be very clearly specified in the Bill in relation to these incredibly important issues, and indeed the thousands of other important issues, exactly what the Government’s policies are in terms of retaining, reforming—and, if so, what reform—and the rest of it.

This takes me back to the comments from much earlier made by my noble friend Lord Wilson, when he said that this is lazy government and an unacceptable failure to prepare the policy for this Bill before bringing it. It has already gone through the House of Commons like a flash without any proper discussion. As he would say, there is a reason that we have democracy and the UK Parliament; it is in order for the British people to be consulted, to understand and to be able to anticipate and know what their Government are doing and why. So we are having these debates—as I said earlier, I do not want to repeat myself—but it just takes me back to asking what on earth we are doing, rather than saying, “Government, O Government, please take this Bill back; do the homework, prepare your policies in relation to this Bill and then set out your policies in the Bill; and let us see whether Parliament will pass it.”

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

What an extraordinarily old-fashioned way of looking at how to run a country. The idea that the Government Minister would be required to stand here, in front of your Lordships, and explain what the Government intend to do—I have never heard of such a thing.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, was absolutely right to say that this is lazy government. It is lazy, but the reason that the Minister is about to stand up and give some sort of platitudes or vague assurances is because the Government do not know what they want to do. We saw this with the Schools Bill and with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. I am sure we have seen it with many other Bills which I have not been quite so closely involved with, but this is a pattern—a pattern which I think the public have got ever so slightly wise to. I would sincerely advise the Minister, whom I hold in utmost respect, not to try to fob this Committee off with some kind of vague assurance. We do want specifics, and we do want to know what the Government are planning to do.