Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 6th March 2023 Lords Chamber

Before I turn to the clause stand part notices, I shall just add one extra thing to the case I was making for the Government earlier. I failed to add a further point the Government could legitimately argue: this time, Ministers will at least be looking at this legislation and, therefore, something is happening now that did not happen during the days when we were in the European Union. I concede that extra point to the Ministers, because I think it is fair to do so. But to go back, it is quite plain from the way Clauses 12 and 13 are drafted, relating not just to secondary legislation but to secondary legislation that has become assimilated into primary legislation, that this is just sweeping everything under the carpet. This is not satisfactory and that is why I suggest that we oppose the continued existence of Clauses 12 and 13.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in particular, for her speech. She said a lot of the things that I was going to say, and noble Lords should all be grateful to her, because she has saved them listening to me. We agree that we have real problems with Clauses 12 to 14. Our concerns about Clauses 12 and 13 are mainly about the extent of the powers that are going to be held by Ministers for national authorities, and the lack of consultation. I also want to mention Amendment 103 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, because it seems appropriate, on the face of it, for the devolved Administrations to have rather more involvement than these clauses, as currently drafted, seem to allow for.

In Clause 12, it would be good to get a bit more clarity from Ministers on this issue of restatement. I am not entirely clear what is meant by restatement. It is rewriting, I think, because if it were not some sort of rewriting, it would just be “retain”; we would not be having another category called “restate”. Can the Minister define what is meant by “restate”? Obviously, it means that the language can be changed, which could change the meaning, the scope, the power of the law. It could be altered, maybe inadvertently or perhaps intentionally; so who is going to check that the restatement has the effect that Ministers would want, that the devolved Administration would want, that those who are subject to the law would want, or that Parliament would want? I understand if it is about wanting to bring different pieces of law together, perhaps, or to resolve some sort of ambiguity, but how is the Minister going to determine that something is ambiguous? If it is ambiguous, by definition that must mean that there is more than one way of interpreting this piece of law; if there was not, it would not be ambiguous. So how are they going to determine what the right answer to that should be?

The DPRRC is very helpful and clear about this. Apart from anything else, it says that both Clause 12 and Clause 13 should be removed from the Bill—we think it is completely right—because they “inappropriately” delegate legislative power and give

“Ministers powers to legislate to achieve effects that ought instead to belong to Parliament and be achieved in … primary legislation.”

But they also refer to restatement, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, drew to our attention. We are concerned that that could take the Government somewhere they perhaps do not intend to go. Given the pressures on time, which we have already discussed at length—do not worry, Minister, I am not going to go through all of that again—restatement could have a different outcome from that intended. That is before we even get to the powers to revoke, which in some ways might be more concerning. That is a real problem for the Government, and it would be good to know whether they have recognised that potential issue and if so, what measures they have put in place to help prevent any undesirable outcomes that may arise.

I will leave it at that because we will probably come on to similar arguments in the next group. We are very concerned. We do not generally have clause stand part debates, but we are very worried about these two clauses in particular.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and I will do my best to assuage the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. The main objective of this Bill is to end REUL as a legal category, as we have said many times. We view the powers to restate as critical to ensuring that the Bill delivers this vital objective, while at the same time ensuring that UK legislation is clear, accessible and improves legal certainty.

I will start by addressing the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, spoke to. Clause 12 is critical in ensuring that the UK and, crucially for the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, who I do not think is in the Chamber any more, devolved Ministers—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

112: Clause 15, page 18, line 31, at end insert—
“(1A) Before making regulations under subsection (1) a relevant national authority must consult with any person who may be affected by the proposed regulations.(1B) If a Minister of the Crown proposes to make regulations under subsection (1) which concern devolved matters the Minister must before making the regulations consult with the relevant national authority.(1C) A relevant national authority and, where subsection (1B) applies, a Minister of the Crown must publish the results of any consultation conducted under subsection (1A) or (1B).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires a relevant national authority or a Minister of the Crown to consult with those who may be affected by regulations under subsection 15(1) before making them. All relevant national authorities are required to publish the results of the consultation.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I am happy to briefly introduce Amendment 112 on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. It is a pleasure and I thank her for inviting me to do so. Amendment 112 would require a relevant national authority or a Minister of the Crown to consult with those who may be affected by regulations under Clause 15(1) before making them. All relevant national authorities would be required to publish the results of the consultation.

We have been discussing Clause 15 on and off since we started. It is about the power to revoke and has caused a great deal of interest among noble Lords as we have gone through this. We have tabled Amendment 113, which would remove some important measures from the scope of Clause 15. We went for what we thought were the least controversial topics imaginable, so we have the Cocoa and Chocolate Products (England) Regulations 2003, some regulations on toy safety, regulations on the control of asbestos—which we discussed at length on day one—and the Civil Aviation (Denied Boarding, Compensation and Assistance) Regulations 2005.

What we are trying to get at here is this issue of desired policy effect. Repeatedly, we have been assured by Ministers that we have nothing to worry about; every time we raise a particular measure, we are told, “No, that’s all fine; we are going to keep that one.” If that were the case, then an amendment such as Amendment 113 would pose no threat to Ministers because they would be able to back up their assurances with something within the Bill that would mean something.

Not anticipating that that is about to happen, I thought that I should explain a little further why we are quite so concerned about this. Clause 15(2) talks about the right of the relevant national authority to

“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.”

It is quite a broad power to be able to revoke a law and replace it with something else that the national authority thinks is appropriate—never mind what anybody else, this House or the other place might think. Achieving similar objectives is all very well, but the Bill does not say that the replacement law must have the same effect, which is very different. The DPRRC draws our attention to this as well. In fact, the committee says:

“Clause 15 is the most arresting clause in the Bill for its width, novelty and uncertainty,”


which is pretty strong language for this kind of report. This is something that we will definitely want to come back to at a future stage.

I find Clause 15(3) to be the most concerning thing. It states:

“A relevant national authority may by regulations revoke any secondary retained EU law and make such alternative provision”,


but it does not say what the desired policy effect would have to be. The Government do not set out anywhere what their policy outcomes are intended to be, so we cannot challenge the Government by saying that their replacement law is or is not going to meet their policy objective.

We have touched before on the issues raised by Clause 15(5). Ministers know that we are very worried about the last part of that subsection, which says that any changes must

“not increase the regulatory burden”.

A law can be revoked and replaced, but the regulatory burden must not be increased. When we have touched on this previously, we have been told that our understanding is not quite correct, because we were talking about categories of law and the burden must be the same in total across a category of law; a particular measure may result, on its own, in an increase in burden. The “burden” is defined as a financial cost; an administrative inconvenience; an obstacle to trade; an obstacle to efficiency, productivity or profitability; or a sanction, criminal or otherwise. That seemed very odd to us. We are not clear what a “category of law” is and, as far as I can see, it is not stated anywhere in the Bill. This would seem an appropriate set of amendments where the Minister might further explain exactly what is intended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are taking huge powers in the Bill to abolish EU legislation and are asking us to believe the promises they have made; for instance, on environmental law, that they will not decrease environmental protection. I entirely accept those promises. This is a well-run Government who are capable of controlling what they do and living up to their promises. In that case, what is the problem with just saying, “And we’re not going to increase the regulatory burden”? We would say, “Okay, we believe you; we don’t need you to have a power to stop yourselves doing that”. What kind of Government need to legislate to stop themselves behaving well?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

This clause has got to the guts of the Bill. It is a real mistake for the Government to be quite so certain in their position on this and to not give even the slightest indication that they want to consider some of the suggestions made by noble Lords in this debate. I think the Government may come to regret batting things back without really taking on board the very serious and well-considered points that have been made. This is certainly something we will return to on Report.

I have worked on a lot of Bills—not as many as others in this place—but never one where nobody has turned up to support their Front Bench on the Government side on anything.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I have!

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Even the support there has been has been heavily caveated, and it has hardly been what you could describe as overwhelming and unquestioning support. I would say it has been very questioning support. I think that noble Lords on all sides are looking for a bit more from the Government on this clause in particular, but the same applies to most of the groups we have debated on all four days. Your Lordships might say that I rush to criticise the Government sometimes; I do not think I do. Other people are much more reluctant to do so, but their criticism is there none the less. I genuinely think that Ministers ought to reflect on this.

We are very disappointed with the failure of the Government to engage with the DPRRC on any of its findings and to recognise that the power in Clause 15(3) is very wide. This issue about categories or subject areas and that the regulations must be “similar”—whatever that means—is going to have to be looked at again. If we need to force the Government to do that through votes in this place, we would be very happy to work with noble Lords on all sides to work out the best way to do that.

The Minister said a couple of times that there would be no carve-outs but there is a carve-out for financial services and it looks like judges are getting one for their pensions. It is interesting to think about how the Government set priorities for themselves when these issues are being exempted but the environment and consumer protection are not. It is no wonder that noble Lords are a little reluctant to take all this on trust. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, says—I am sure he is a Minister who says everything with the utmost sincerity—there is no default position for Defra of retention. That is not possible in this Bill. It is a real shame that a basic understanding of what is going on here seems to be being overlooked, perhaps wilfully, from time to time.

We are disappointed. We are going to come back to this issue. I urge Ministers to have some further thoughts and deliberations, and perhaps come back with something a bit more sensible on Report.

Amendment 112 withdrawn.