Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Lord Hope of Craighead and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Report stage
Monday 15th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and other noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, to all the extensive and useful debates we had in Committee, and—this is important—for the useful engagement that has taken place on the devolutionary aspects of the Bill.

The Government have listened carefully to the concerns raised both in the debates in Parliament and by the devolved Governments and have tabled the government amendments in this group in response. Amendments 52 and 53 extend the power to make consequential provision under Clause 20 for the devolved authorities. Amendment 58 extends the power to make transitional, transitory and savings provisions under Clause 23 to the devolved authorities. These amendments will make the consequential power and the power to make transitional, transitory and savings provisions concurrent powers. This will enable UK Ministers and the devolved Governments—or both acting jointly—to exercise the powers in devolved areas.

The remaining government amendments, Amendments 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72 and 77, are consequential. They will remove the requirement for the devolved Governments to request the UK Government to make such changes on their behalf. Furthermore, these amendments will align these powers with the other powers in the Bill, which are also conferred concurrently on the devolved Governments.

I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is a meaningful change to the Bill that demonstrates the UK Government’s commitment to working collaboratively with the devolved Governments—which we talked about in Committee—and ensuring that the Bill works for all parts of the UK. Amendment 71 is a further technical amendment that I think everybody is happy with.

Amendment 17, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, is to Clause 7. As we have now extended the power to make consequential provision under Clause 20 on devolved authorities, he is right that it is no longer necessary.

I turn to Amendments 35, 37, 39 and 75, which relate to powers under Clauses 13, 14 and 16 and Schedule 4. Amendment 35 requires that the power to restate REUL cannot be used to restate it in areas of devolved competence unless the relevant parliament has provided legislative consent for the retained EU law to be restated. Amendments 37 and 39 place similar requirements on the power to restate under Clause 14, and on the powers to revoke or replace under Clause 16.

In essence, these amendments would carve out regulation within areas of devolved competence in the absence of legislative consent. As has been said, Amendment 75 similarly seeks to impose a requirement for a Minister of the Crown to seek legislative consent when using the powers on legislation within areas of devolved legislative competence. These amendments are unnecessary. The UK Government are committed to ensuring that the provisions in the Bill, including its powers, are consistent with the devolution settlements and work for all parts of the UK. Indeed, the majority of the powers in the Bill are conferred concurrently on the devolved Governments, which will enable them to make active decisions regarding their retained EU law.

It is not necessary to limit the use of the powers within areas of devolved legislative competence by requiring UK Ministers to obtain legislative consent. Rest assured, the concurrent nature of the powers is not intended to affect the devolution settlements, nor to influence decision-making in devolved Governments. Rather, it is intended to reduce additional resource pressure on the devolved Governments by enabling the UK Government to legislate on behalf of a devolved Government where they do not intend to take a different position.

Let me move on and address Amendments 41 and 46, eloquently spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. Her amendments would restrict the exercise of the powers to revoke or replace and the power to update. They require that any replacement instruments could not effect substantial policy change relating to human rights, equality or environmental protection that has effect in Northern Ireland. The Government intend to maintain the UK’s leading role in the promotion and protection of human rights, equality, the rule of law and environmental protections. We are proud of our long and diverse history of freedoms. The Government do not intend to undermine our hard-won human rights, equality and environmental legislation through the exercise of these powers. I should perhaps add that we are committed to ensuring the UK’s compliance with our international obligations, such as our human rights obligations. I therefore do not judge that the proposed restrictions to this clause are necessary.

Amendment 61 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, is no longer necessary in the light of the amendments that the Government have tabled in relation to Clause 23.

Finally, I turn to the noble and learned Lord’s latest amendment, Amendment 72A. It relates to Amendment 76, which we discussed in the previous grouping and which seeks to insert a new paragraph in Schedule 4 to the Bill. As Amendment 76 has fallen away, this amendment is now redundant.

Let me say that we have come a long way on this part of the Bill, as has been acknowledged on all sides. For all the reasons I have outlined, I ask that these amendments be withdrawn or not pressed.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this debate; I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, for her very kind words.

I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I am grateful for her assurance that Amendment 17 is not required; that was my impression, so it is nice to have confirmation of that from her.

As far as the other amendments are concerned, I take the point that increasing pressure on resources is something that we should try to avoid. I see the value of joint working, which is really what the Minister described to us in her reply. I recognise that the Government have gone a long way in their amendments in this group, for which I am extremely grateful; I am sure that all others who care about devolution would say the same.

I will not press the amendments, but I hope that the message is still powerfully in the mind of the Government that continued co-operation and easing of the pressures round about to achieve a consensus across the board is the way to proceed if we possibly can. I think that the signs behind the scenes are that that can be achieved. I am grateful for that. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

List of Ministers’ Interests and Ministerial Code

Debate between Lord Hope of Craighead and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Since the noble Lord mentions the former Deputy Prime Minister, I remind the House that he made an important contribution to the country, not least by his work during the pandemic. On a personal note, he supported me and indeed the Bench opposite on justice for retail workers facing harassment. He felt obliged to resign following the Tolley report, and I respect his decision. The noble Lord may have seen the letter to the former Deputy Prime Minister from the Prime Minister. It said,

“it is clear that there have been shortcomings in the historic process that have negatively affected everyone involved. We should learn from this how to better handle such matters in future”.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, the Tolley report, which looked into the matter in great detail, referred to intimidation rather than bullying as the cause of the conduct which led the former Deputy Prime Minister to resign. There is a difference between intimidation and bullying, and that should be recognised.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do not think I have a great deal to add to the Prime Minister’s reply, other than to underline the point that has been made about how we learn to better handle such matters in future. The points that noble Lords have made are, of course, relevant to that.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Lord Hope of Craighead and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I will try to answer my noble friend’s question. Defra has a programme looking at all this. It needs to decide what to preserve and what might need to be amended. I think the Bill has some scope for extension from 2023 into 2026. Perhaps I could now move on to Amendment 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

Before the Minister moves to Amendment 17, Amendment 4 raises the issue of common frameworks. I can well understand the Government’s wish to have a fresh look at standards overall, but it is a massive task, and if the Government are adhering to the structure of the common frameworks, that cannot be done without consultation with the devolved Administrations. Are we dealing with common frameworks in the area that Amendment 4 is concerned with and, if so, how do the Government propose to handle it? Are they proposing to adhere to the mechanisms in the common frameworks? If so, can the Government assure us that they can achieve what is necessary before the sunset date?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I was going to respond at the end on common frameworks, partly to say what our hope is, and partly to say that this may well come up under future amendments on the Bill in the next few days. I wanted to be reassuring. Obviously, our ambition is that government departments and devolved government counterparts work together to agree their approaches to individual pieces of REUL. The delegated powers in Bill could then be used to preserve, extend, amend or repeal REUL as required via statutory instrument. Of course, as has been said, the devolved Administrations also have statutory instruments that they need to look at.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hope of Craighead and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Monday 11th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I return to Amendment 37 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. He made the point that the words at the end of Clause 10(1),

“except in accordance with this Act”,

are a hostage to fortune. The words range right across the whole of this complicated Bill and of course a disaffected client will invite his lawyer to search through all the provisions to find some flaw in the way in which the procurement exercise was carried out, which he can then attack.

I wonder whether the words

“in accordance with this Act”

are wider than they need to be. First, Clause 10 contains a prohibition, but Clause 10(2) contains a definition of procurement and Clause 10(3) tells you that

“a contracting authority may only award a public contract in accordance with”

the four matters set out there.

In my mind, that raises the question of whether the words at the end of Clause 10(1) should really be

“except in accordance with this”

section, the purpose of which is to describe the framework or scope of the power, before Clause 11 tells you that that power must be exercised in accordance with the procurement objectives set out there. It would make sense if Clause 10 simply said what may be done in accordance with that section. If I am wrong about that, the Minister might like to reflect on whether the words

“in accordance with this Act”

go further than they need to.

Choice of words, as I say from time to time, is always very important and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raises an important point. What he wishes to put in place at the end of Clause 10(1) is already in Clause 11 and will have to be complied with. I understand that the Minister may be reluctant to go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has invited him to go, but he has raised an important point. That is why I suggest that the word “section” might be a more sensible and less dangerous word to use than “Act”, at the end of Clause 10(1).

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who is always so brief and makes such constructive suggestions. The more I listen, the more I feel that this Bill in many respects strikes the wrong note. It is overregulatory and calls for a rethink, which I hope the Government will be thinking about.