All 1 Debates between Baroness Whitaker and Lord Beith

Wed 7th Mar 2018
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Lords Chamber

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Whitaker and Lord Beith
Baroness Whitaker Portrait Baroness Whitaker
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s Amendment 82. Yet again it is the issue of using secondary legislation under Clause 7 to make changes, in this case to the Equality Act 2010 or to subordinate legislation made under that Act, or to reduce rights or remedies under EU retained law,

“in comparison with the position immediately before exit day”.

Your Lordships’ Committee made its views on the abuse of Clause 7 abundantly clear during the earlier debate. Surely the same reasoning applies.

Lord Beith Portrait Lord Beith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I follow my noble friend Lady Ludford in querying what is intended by Clause 7(3) and hope that the Minister will be able to draw on his limited stock of examples to provide me with one—indeed, with something that fulfils this definition:

“There is also a deficiency in retained EU law where the Minister considers that there is … anything in retained EU law which is of a similar kind to any deficiency which falls within subsection (2)”.


In that case, why does it not fall within subsection (2)? Can the Minister give me an example of something which subsection (3)(a) would provide for but which subsection (2) has not provided for?