Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Baroness Altmann

Report stage
Monday 15th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

May I clarify something? In his initial remarks, the noble Lord suggested that the problems he believes this Bill is designed to address stem from the fact that laws were imposed on this country. Whether or not one agrees with that statement, his proposal is that laws were imposed on this country without parliamentary scrutiny, and therefore without democratic accountability. If one accepts that that is the case, how is it then right to perpetuate that wrong by trying to get rid of those laws through a process that is itself without parliamentary scrutiny? The amendments are trying to impose parliamentary scrutiny; indeed, one of the reasons for our departure from the EU was to take back control to our Parliament, which is what these amendments seek to do.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Baroness Altmann

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, across my whole career, I have worked with other women and admired the work of trade unions trying to help the employment protections for women in general, mothers with young children or women with other caring responsibilities, by helping them to keep working and to build their economic and financial resilience. This includes parental leave, the protection of pensions in TUPE and the other areas we discussed in the first group, but it also includes the worker protections for part-time workers, which have resulted in improved working conditions and protections for men, disabled workers and minority groups, not just for women. For those reasons, I wholly support Amendment 2.

Quite frankly, the fact that the regulations and laws which are the subject of the Bill derive from the EU seems to be a red herring. As my noble friend the Minister said, this is an enabling Bill, which will allow Ministers to retain, amend or revoke our laws and public safeguards. That these protections originated from the EU is just not the point: in reality, as my noble friend said, we have higher standards, so, had they not been introduced by the EU, the implication must be that we would have introduced them ourselves. In reality, my noble friend is saying that the fact that they were introduced as a result of EU measures, and were not objected to when they were introduced, is because Parliament itself would have chosen to have them. So we should not be here debating the fact that, because they originated in the EU, we have to tear them up or to assume that they are somehow bad. Vast swathes of long-standing and hard-won protections are under threat—

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that they are bad to the extent that they never went through the House of Commons, the House of Lords or any of our democratic procedures? This legislation was imposed on us by Brussels and there was nothing we could do about it, so why are we fussed about removing it?

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

I am afraid I absolutely do not agree with the noble Lord on that point. The fact that they came from the EU was because that was the way the law worked at that stage. They were fed into by our own elected representatives there, and the principles being introduced were supported by our Parliament. It is a red herring that they came originally from the EU. Are we saying that we, as a civilised country, would not have had these protections anyway? The idea that this word “regulations” is a negative in some way—and, if it is associated with the EU, it is an even worse negative—is not the point; “regulations” is another word for “protection” or “safeguards”, and we must not forget that.

These hard-won protections are under threat, and our constitutional principles are being undermined—as are, potentially, the rule of law and parliamentary democracy itself. When or if our laws need to be changed, surely that must be approved and debated in Parliament, and not just handed to the Minister of the day, who may have no expertise in the area and who may be under the influence of a lobby group. Giving Parliament no proper say or role in changing the law exposes millions of citizens to harms that our normal constitutional safeguards are there to protect us from.

I fear speaking this way from these Benches and I hope that my noble friend will understand that this is not a direct criticism of this Administration or of this Government. It is a comment and a deeply expressed concern about the potential harms that could result from this legislation and the way in which it is being introduced. The Government may not intend this, but we may have another Prime Minister and a whole new range of Ministers soon. Given recent experience, it is not about whether or not we trust the current Government; it is about the way in which our country operates.