Read Bill Ministerial Extracts
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateLord Harlech
Main Page: Lord Harlech (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)Department Debates - View all Lord Harlech's debates with the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberI apologise if I am interrupting the Minister before he has finished; I think he is replying to Amendments 85 and 88, although he did not specifically refer to them. He dismisses the need for the factors introduced in those amendments because he says the courts can have regard to them anyway. Why have the Government prescribed several elements themselves if the courts can have regard to them? Our whole argument is that the courts can have regard to factors they want to have regard to. The impetus behind Amendments 85 and 88 was that the Government were being partial and pushing in a certain direction for the three elements they will allow the courts to consider—the argument for adding the extra elements, the consequences of disturbing the settled understanding of the law and the importance of legal certainty, clarity and predictability—and to try to re-establish the balance that the authors of the amendments felt was lacking.
If I may say so, I find the Minister’s reply so far extremely puzzling. He has, correctly, given a paean of praise to our courts and the common law, saying that they have perfected the art of creating this mosaic—
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateLord Harlech
Main Page: Lord Harlech (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)Department Debates - View all Lord Harlech's debates with the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberCould the noble and learned Lord deal more fully with the amendment provision? It is a most interesting provision because hitherto my understanding has always been that statutory instruments cannot be amended. What is proposed in new paragraph 8A(3) in Amendment 76 is a power to amend a statutory instrument. I would like to know—
My Lords, could I ask my noble friend to turn around and address the House?
I am so sorry. Being rather deaf, I have to listen to what the noble and learned Lord is saying by turning towards him. I apologise. I would like to know—[Laughter] I am doing it again. I would like to know what the procedure is. Is it precedented, or is it a new concept that the House is being asked to contemplate—namely, the power to amend statutory instruments?
My Lords, if I might briefly comment on the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, about amendments—
My Lords, the guidance in the Companion states that, on Report, Members are asked to make their reflections once.
But I asked a question; I did not make a speech before. The question is one that I want to emphasise now.
Time and time again, this House has had to address the ability of Parliament to amend statutory instruments. The explanation given by the noble and learned Lord, and by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, makes it plain that on the question of amendments, we have to rely entirely on the good faith and discretion of the Minister. What in fact was being said by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane—I am grateful to him—is that the House, by a Motion, can express a view but the ability to change the statutory instrument depends on—