Draft Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (Revocation and Sunset Disapplication) Regulations 2023

Debate between Justin Madders and Michael Tomlinson

Monday 18th September 2023 General Committees

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. He is absolutely right. As a distinguished former Solicitor General, he took through a number of pieces of legislation, as all Solicitor Generals do. It is always a pleasure to appear on Committees such as this one. The hon. Member for Glasgow North asked whether it would happen again and if it does, and if it is me, I look forward to it very much.

[Justin Madders]

Could we get some clarity? Which Department is now responsible for the passage of these regulations?

[The Solicitor General]

The Department has not changed; I took the legislation through ping-pong with the Lords, and I am still here. I look forward to being here again in the future. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agree to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (Revocation and Sunset Disapplication) Regulations 2023.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Justin Madders and Michael Tomlinson

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Knowing him, he will develop those points in due course. He agrees with what my noble Friend Lord Callanan said in the other place, that this is not about additional scrutiny so much as about preventing Parliament from acting.

It is right to say that Lords amendment 42D has been given serious consideration, as were other iterations previously before this House. It is disappointing and hardly conducive to constructive conversation or detailed debate to resort to insulting hon. and right hon. Members, as unfortunately happened in their lordships’ House yesterday. Apart from my noble Friend Lord Callanan, their lordships have not grappled with the provisions already in the Bill for a sifting committee, the detail of which is found in schedule 5, and which will result in significantly more scrutiny than EU law had when it was first introduced into our law.

On Lords amendment 15D, I have little to add to what has been said many times. We have repeatedly made commitments, at every stage of parliamentary passage, that we will not lower environmental protections. Our environmental standards are first class: the Agriculture Act 2020, the Fisheries Act 2020 and the landmark and world-leading Environment Act 2021.

The Labour party has a choice, both in this House and in the other place. Will it choose to frustrate this necessary post-Brexit legislation, this natural next step that was always going to have to happen? Will it continue to delay the delivery of the significant opportunities that await us? The Government want to get on with the job. Enough is enough.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

We are back once again, and maybe it will be third time lucky, although it does not sound like it will be. The House will no doubt be familiar with our position, that the Bill, as originally drafted, was reckless, unnecessary and undemocratic. The Government talked about a bonfire of regulations when the Bill first came before the House, but I would instead describe it as a scorched earth policy that made for a good headline but completely failed to grasp the scale and complexity of the task before us. That the approach has been at least partially reversed is of course welcome, but concerns remain. The Lords amendments before us will deal to some extent with some of the outstanding issues, and we therefore intend to support them.

I turn, first, to Lords amendment 15D. I pay tribute to Lord Krebs for showing maximum flexibility in trying to find something that will gain Government support. I fear that it sounds as though his efforts will be in vain, because although he has taken the approach that the Government’s problem with his previous amendment was its wording rather than its substance—on the basis of the Government’s claim not to want to water down environmental protections—I think he was hoping that reasoned argument and compromise might see a resolution to this endless game of ping-pong. The sad reality is that he has been looking for reason where none exists.