Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill Third Reading Relevant
documents: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny
Committee, 25th and 33rd Reports from the Delegated Powers
Committee, 13th Report from the Constitution Committee 3.20pm
Motion Moved by Lord True That the Bill be now read a third time.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) My Lords, I have it in command from
His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His
Majesty,...Request free trial
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill
Third Reading
Relevant documents: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation
Scrutiny Committee, 25th and 33rd Reports from the Delegated
Powers Committee, 13th Report from the Constitution Committee
3.20pm
Motion
Moved by
That the Bill be now read a third time.
The Lord Privy Seal ()
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to
acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the
purport of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, has
consented to place his interest, so far as it is affected by
Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the
Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy
Security and Net Zero () (Con)
My Lords, I am disappointed to inform the House that both the
Scottish Parliament and the Senedd Cymru have voted to withhold
consent for the REUL Bill.
Noble Lords
Hooray!
(Con)
I am sure we are all shocked to hear that. We acknowledge the
concerns of both Parliaments regarding the Bill and the potential
impacts on devolved areas. However, it is right and
constitutionally appropriate that the REUL Bill applies UK-wide.
This will ensure that the benefits of Brexit can be realised by
citizens and businesses throughout the whole United Kingdom. The
Government therefore intend to proceed with the Bill without
their consent. As noble Lords will be aware, the ongoing absence
of the Northern Ireland Executive and the Assembly means that it
has not been possible to seek legislative consent from the
Northern Ireland Assembly on this Bill.
I reassure the House that it was never our intention to proceed
with the Bill without consent in place. Our preference would have
been to secure legislative consent Motions from the devolved
legislatures. The Government have sought to engage proactively
with the devolved Administrations on the REUL Bill since March
last year. We have listened to their concerns and sought to make
meaningful changes to the Bill in response. This includes the
amendment to the sunset and the conferral of the powers to make
consequential and transitional, transitory and savings provisions
to the devolved authorities and devolved Ministers.
The decisions of the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd, while
regrettable, will never mark the end of our engagement with the
devolved Administrations on retained EU law. We remain committed
to supporting sustained engagement with them on the REUL Bill and
the REUL reform programme going forward.
Amendment 1
Moved by
1: After Clause 17, insert the following new Clause—
“Retained EU law dashboard and report(1) The Secretary of State
must within the period of 30 days beginning with the day after
the end of each reporting period—(a) update the retained EU law
dashboard;(b) publish and lay before Parliament a report on the
revocation and reform of retained EU law.(2) The report must—(a)
provide a summary of the data on the retained EU law dashboard
(as updated under subsection (1)(a));(b) set out the progress
that has been made in revoking and reforming retained EU law
during the reporting period to which the report relates;(c) set
out His Majesty’s Government’s plans to revoke and reform
retained EU law in subsequent reporting periods.(3) The reporting
periods are—(a) the period beginning with the day on which this
Act is passed and ending with 23 December 2023; (b) the period of
12 months beginning with 24 December 2023;(c) the period of 12
months beginning with 24 December 2024;(d) the period of 6 months
beginning with 24 December 2025.(4) If the Secretary of State
does not meet the requirements in subsection (1) in relation to a
reporting period, the Secretary of State must—(a) explain why in
a statement made in writing, and(b) publish the statement and lay
it before Parliament.(5) In this section—“retained EU law
dashboard” means the database on retained EU law maintained and
made publicly available by the Secretary of State;“revoke” has
the same meaning as in section 14.(6) In subsection (2), “reform”
includes “replace”.(7) In relation to the report under subsection
(1)(b) in respect of the period ending with 23 June 2026, ignore
subsection (2)(c).”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the Secretary of State to update the
retained EU law dashboard and report on the revocation and reform
of retained EU law in periods up to 23 June 2026.
(Con)
My Lords, Amendment 1 introduces a new clause after Clause 17.
Amendments 2 and 3 in this group are consequential.
I am grateful to my noble friend for adding his name to the
amendments and I am even more grateful to my noble friend’s
officials, who have produced these amendments at great speed in
response to the less elegant amendment which I moved on Report
last week. It is a great privilege to be given the opportunity to
table these amendments in my name.
The underlying concept behind these amendments is transparency
about the progress that the Government are making in dealing with
retained EU law. This Bill now revokes only a portion of that
law, but it will remain an important task for the Government to
decide what to do with the rest of the laws on our statute book
and ensure that they support the needs of the UK economy and our
citizens. It represents a once in a generation opportunity to
achieve significant regulatory reform.
Amendment 1 builds on the retained EU law dashboard, which pulls
together all retained EU law and shows progress in reforming that
law. While some have criticised the dashboard because the number
of items of retained EU law continues to increase, the core
information that it contains, including visual representation of
progress, has been a great achievement. Subsection (1) of the
proposed new clause places an obligation on the Secretary of
State to update the dashboard. It also requires the Secretary of
State to publish and lay before Parliament reports on the
revocation and reform of EU law.
These reports will do three things: they will summarise the
dashboard; they will set out progress that has been made in
revoking and reforming retained EU law; and, importantly, they
will set out the Government’s plans for revocation or reform.
Information on the Government’s plans does not currently get
reported in a comprehensive way, and so this should be a valuable
data source both for parliamentarians and for those outside
Parliament. The first report will be for the period up to 23
December this year, and there will be three more reports, the
first two covering the years to 23 December 2024 and 23 December
2025 and a final one for the six months until 23 June 2026. The
end date is, of course, the 10th anniversary of the great
referendum vote and coincides with the final expiry of the powers
in this Bill to reinstate or revoke EU law.
I know that noble Lords support effective accountability of the
Executive to Parliament, and I believe that this new clause will
improve Parliament’s ability to oversee how well the Government
are delivering on their Brexit promises. I very much hope that by
the time of the final report, 23 June 2026, if not earlier, the
Government will have demonstrated that all retained EU law has
been dealt with, whether by a positive decision to keep it intact
or by revocation or reform. Last week the noble Baroness, Lady
Chapman, and the noble Lord, , were less than enthusiastic
about my amendment on Report. It is perhaps wishful thinking to
think that this new and improved version will result in a change
of heart, but none the less I commend it to them. I beg to
move.
of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, this amendment, which I fully understand, places a lot
of emphasis on the capacity of the retained EU dashboard, but
there are some important deficiencies in its capacity, the most
important of which is that it does not contain any
post-devolution legislation. That can be demonstrated by looking
at the schedule that has just been introduced into the Bill.
There is not a single item of post-devolution material on it.
When the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a
member, invited some officials who work on the dashboard to
address us and explain how it works, we asked them whether there
was any post-devolution retained EU law on the dashboard. They
told us that there was not, that devolution material was not
there. We asked whether it was the intention that it should
include post-devolution material and they said that it was not
and that it was not designed to do that.
So there is a question I would like to ask, and I think it is
fair to ask the Minister, about what the position truly is on
this. I do not think he has ever fully acknowledged, at least in
this Chamber, the fact that the dashboard does not contain
post-devolution material at all. Is it intended that the
dashboard should be updated, as is the obligation in the
amendment, to include post-devolution material? If so, when will
that be done and is it clear that the devolved Administrations
are able to do that in time to meet the first deadline, which is
the end of this year? They have a great deal to do already with
the amount of work which is required of them by the Bill, and to
have to work on updating the dashboard as well might be beyond
their resources. This is a very important issue. I am not trying
to undermine the amendment, but I want to understand its capacity
to do what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, told us it is
intended to do.
3.30pm
(Con)
I re-echo and endorse entirely the comments of the noble and
learned Lord, . I also echo the regrets that the
Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly have withheld their
consent. Quite a broad area of retained EU law will remain by
default on the statute books, which I welcome. However, following
the comments of my right honourable friend the Environment
Secretary over the weekend—particularly those relating to
retained EU law and the wine sector—there remains a huge lack of
clarity which, regrettably, the amendments in the name of my
noble friend Lady Noakes and my noble friend the Minister do not
address.
The fact that Defra will be able to revoke and amend large
swathes of retained EU law—probably the bulk of outstanding
retained EU law, as this relates to the Department of
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—poses great uncertainty for
practitioners as well as the businesses that they are trying to
advise. So I echo the question put by the noble and learned Lord,
, which I too have asked on a
number of occasions, as to the up-to-dateness and
comprehensiveness—particularly as regards devolved legislation—of
the dashboard. Also, regarding the legal status of the dashboard,
is it just a signpost or does it have greater significance than
that?
I am sure that my noble friend will share my concern as a
Minister in his department that there is, regrettably, a great
lack of clarity for practitioners and business going forward as
the Bill leaves the House today.
(CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, introduced Amendment 1 by saying
that it is designed to promote transparency and accountability.
Who could possibly disagree with those objectives? They are vital
to this Bill. It seems to me that subsection (1) is modest in its
requirements: the updating of the dashboard and the publication
of a report. My question to the noble Baroness and, indeed, the
Minister is: why, then, is it thought necessary to include in
Amendment 1 subsection (4), which provides that:
“If the Secretary of State does not meet the requirements”—
that is the basic requirements—in subsection (1), then certain
consequences follow?
It is, I would suggest, very unusual to include in an important
provision of a Bill a set of obligations on Ministers but then
recognise in another clause of the same provision that they may
well not satisfy the important requirements that the noble
Baroness rightly suggests should be imposed on them. Should we
understand from this that the Minister contemplates that there is
a real possibility that Ministers do not intend to comply with
the very obligations that this amendment imposes? If they are
going to comply with these obligations, surely we do not need
subsection (4).
(GP)
My Lords, I am afraid that a few amendments will not improve this
Bill. It is a disastrous Bill, and not because of the laws that
are being taken out this time—those few hundred do not seem
significant. The big problem is the power grab by Ministers; that
is really quite unnerving. I wonder what will happen when the
Labour Party forms a Government. Will the Conservative Opposition
go into trauma every time a Minister decides something?
When I voted for Brexit and taking back control, I did not mean
taking back control for a small number of Ministers, who may or
may not have their own ideas of what democracy is or what is
appropriate for the people of Britain. The fact is that this is a
bad Bill. It gives powers to Ministers that they ought never to
have, and now, of course, it raises problems with the devolved
authorities.
(LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on
persuading the Minister—though I am not sure how much persuasion
was required—to incorporate the spirit of her amendment, and I
congratulate the Minister on making it more elegant. The noble
Baroness, Lady Noakes, has invited me to like it; I will do my
best, but I do not think I will manage that.
The most interesting thing about the amendment, in my view, is
not what happens to the list but what is on the list. The nature
of the Bill has been turned on its head. At one point, being on
the list was essential to try to avoid being revoked. Now, being
on the list makes a law a target to be revoked. So we are in a
world that has revolved 180 degrees; we have passed through the
looking-glass.
I have two questions for the Minister, and I ask the noble
Baroness, Lady Noakes, to excuse me but I suspect it is the
Minister who can answer them. First, to pick up on the point made
by the noble and learned Lord, , which I was also going to make,
is it the Minister’s understanding that no post-devolution
legislation will now get put on to the list? We do not have
legislative consent from the devolved authorities. They are
apparently the authorities that would put post-devolution
legislation on the list—if they had access to the database,
although there is some question over whether they do. Can we
assume that there will be no post-devolution legislation on the
list?
Secondly, when will the list be fixed for these purposes? Is work
still under way in all the departments of government in order to
add new things to the dashboard, or is that it?
of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, commented that we were
rather less than enthusiastic when we discussed this issue last
week. I can see why we have got to the position where this
amendment has been agreed between the noble Baroness and the
Government, and I am very happy for her that she feels satisfied
with the movement that the Government have made in getting here.
I am afraid that the concerns we have had throughout this process
are a long way from being satisfied by the amendment. We do not
oppose it particularly, but we are not particularly in favour of
it. It does not really do all that much to the substance of what
we have been disagreeing about during the passage of the Bill.
However, if it helps with some internal political management on
the government Benches, that is something that the Minister is
entitled to attempt to do.
(Con)
Well, my Lords, if the Opposition are not enthusiastic about my
noble friend’s amendment, I am.
Before I address the amendment, I shall deal with some of the
points that Members have raised. First, on the point made by the
noble and learned Lord, , the noble Lord, , and my noble friend Lady
McIntosh about post-devolution rule, that is rule for the
devolved Administrations. The reality is that they have not
wanted to add anything to the dashboard, and of course we are in
no position—and do not wish to force them—to do so. If they wish
to add some of their rule to the dashboard then they can, but for
now it is just rule made by Her Majesty’s Government. It of
course contains UK government legislation that has been made post
devolution—just not the rule made by the devolved
Administrations.
To answer my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s point, the dashboard
has no legal status as such; it is just a list of retained EU
law.
Moving on to the main points about my noble friend Lady Noakes’s
amendment, the Government have already reformed or revoked over
1,000 pieces of retained EU law, but that is not the limit of our
ambition. Departments will continue to review the rule that is
not already revoked, reformed or planned for revocation this year
in order to identify further opportunities for reform, and we are
committed to reducing the burdens on businesses and unlocking the
economic growth that will flow from that. As a down payment on
our commitment to deliver meaningful reform, the 10 May policy
paper Smarter Regulation to Grow the Economy set out our
intention to reform regulations and remove burdens on
businesses.
We announced changes that will reduce disproportionate EU-derived
reporting requirements and could save businesses around £1billion
a year. This will just be the first in a series of announcements
that the Government will be making in the coming months on
reforming regulation in order to drive growth. In addition to the
revocation schedule, the powers in the Bill will still enable us
to revoke, replace or reform any outdated EU laws that remain on
our statute book right through until 2026. This new approach will
provide the space for longer-term and more ambitious reforms and
the Government intend to do just that. It will also mean that
fewer statutory instruments will be required to preserve EU laws
that are deemed appropriate or necessary to maintain.
The Brexit Opportunities Unit, spearheaded by the Secretary of
State for Business and Trade, has been pivotal in driving the
development and delivery of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and
Reform) Bill and the wider associated retained EU law reform
programme. These efforts are being supported by specialist legal
expertise from outside government. Parliament will be able to
easily monitor government progress on REUL reform, as we update
the dashboard every quarter. That answers the point made by the
noble Lord, : we will continue to update the
dashboard.
(GP)
Did I understand the Minister correctly? Has he just boasted that
there will be less parliamentary scrutiny and that we can look it
up online?
(Con)
You can look up progress online, but of course there will be
parliamentary scrutiny. If we propose to make any changes to
retained EU law using the powers in the Bill, they will come to
Parliament in the normal process of the examination of secondary
legislation.
The Brexit Opportunities Unit drove the aforementioned 10 May
regulatory reform announcement, setting out a long-term plan to
reform UK regulation over the coming months. Furthermore, we have
committed to future announcements on how we will reform
regulations to reduce the cost of living, deliver choice to
consumers, establish trailblazing regulation to catalyse
innovation and make the UK a science superpower, and remove
obstacles to building world-class infrastructure.
However, it is crucial that Parliament and the public are able to
hold the Government’s feet to the fire and ensure that our
momentum continues with regard to the retained EU law reform
programme. I am therefore delighted to support Amendments 1, 2
and 3, tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, to which I have
added my name. These amendments insert a new clause into the Bill
requiring the Secretary of State to update the retained EU law
dashboard and to report on the revocation and reform of retained
EU law in periods up to 23 June 2026, at which point, of course,
the main powers in the Bill will sunset, and the vast majority of
retained EU law reform will have been completed. The reports will
summarise the REUL dashboard data, provide an update on whether
and how REUL on the dashboard has been revoked and reformed, and
detail future plans for further revocation and reform.
I thank in particular my noble friend Lady Noakes for her
collegiate engagement in preparing the amendments that she has
tabled today. I also extend my thanks to my noble friends , Lord Jackson and Lady Lawlor
for their valuable engagement on this matter. These amendments
will hold the Government to account in providing the additional
transparency both Parliament and the public need to scrutinise
the Government’s progress and future plans on retained EU law
reform. I therefore hope the House will join me in supporting
these amendments.
(CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has just told us
that these amendments will hold Parliament to account. If
Parliament is not satisfied with the account it is given under
these amendments, what advice would he give to Parliament as to
how Ministers can be prevented from carrying out what they have
tried to do?
(Con)
Well, they will hold the Government to account. Of course,
Parliament is able to hold the Government to account in many
different ways, but particularly, with the reform programme,
there would be an extensive programme of statutory instruments.
Parliament would be able to debate and accept those instruments
or not, as it usually does.
(Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
I thank my noble friend in particular for answering
the points raised on devolution. I do not think he answered the
points raised by the noble Lord, , on subsection (4), which is a
useful addition because it means that if a report is not laid, we
get another opportunity to be told that it has not been laid, and
thereby to trigger any accountability mechanisms. I regard it as
an important additional subsection, and I shall certainly be
using it as a precedent in amendments to other Bills in
future.
Amendment 1 agreed.
Clause 22: Commencement, transitional and savings
Amendment 2
Moved by
2: Clause 22, page 24, line 28, leave out “17” and insert
“(Retained EU law dashboard and report)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential upon Baroness Noakes’ new
Clause.
Amendment 2 agreed.
Schedule 2: “Assimilated law”: consequential amendments
Amendment 3
Moved by
3: Schedule 2, page 99, line 31, at end insert—
“(3A) In section (Retained EU law dashboard and report) (retained
EU law dashboard and report), for “retained EU” (in each place it
appears, including the heading) substitute
“assimilated”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential upon Baroness Noakes’ new
Clause.
Amendment 3 agreed.
3.45pm
Motion
Moved by
That the Bill do now pass.
(Con)
My Lords, this Bill is crucial in ensuring, as I said earlier,
that we can seize the regulatory reform opportunities of Brexit.
It is the next step in reasserting the sovereignty of Parliament
and untangling the United Kingdom from nearly 50 years of EU
membership. Through the Bill we will improve legal certainty,
removing confusion from our statute book where EU principles of
interpretation overlap with those of UK domestic principles. This
fulfils an important constitutional objective: that our law is
clear and accessible, so that citizens can understand it and
regulate their conduct accordingly.
There is a long list of people whom I wish to thank for their
help on the Bill. Let me start with my noble friend Lady
Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist. Sadly, my noble friend is leaving
the Front Bench and she will be missed by us all. My chances of
getting to the Chamber on time are greatly reduced without the
hurry-up texts from my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, who has kept
me right many times in this Chamber and when we have debated
statutory instruments in the Grand Committee. I am hugely
grateful for all the help and support that she has given to me; I
am sure other members of the Front Bench feel the same. She will
be a great loss to the Government.
Let me also thank my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and , and my noble and learned
friend , for their support during the
Bill’s passage. I fear I would have continuously sat on this
Bench for a great many days in addition to those when I did
without their help and support, which has been greatly
appreciated.
Let me also give my thanks to the Bill team. All the Bill teams I
have worked with have worked extremely well and tirelessly, but I
can tell the House that this Bill team in particular has gone
above and beyond the call of duty. I said this when there were
some frankly ill-considered remarks about the Civil Service while
we were on Report, but many of them really did work all weekend
to get the explainer out for the benefit of noble Lords when we
were discussing the schedule. Their assistance has been great and
their legal advice superb. If there were legal errors in anything
that I said, I can assure noble Lords that it was not their
fault. The fault was entirely mine, as they did a great job in
trying to explain some of these complicated concepts.
I also thank members of the Opposition, including the noble
Baroness, LadyChapman, the noble and learned Lord, , my noble friend Lord Hodgson—who
is of course not a member of the Opposition but is on our own
Benches and played a big role in the Bill—and the noble Lord,
, among many others who
contributed to its passage. We did not always agree on many parts
of it, of course; I apologise if, from my point of view, I
sometimes expressed a little bit of irritation with some of the
speeches that were made. Nevertheless, I do accept that it is the
job of the House to scrutinise the Government, to look at our
legislation closely and to propose amendments. If we could
perhaps have a bit more constructive opposition sometimes, I
would appreciate it.
Noble Lords
Oh!
(Con)
Nevertheless, the contributions are appreciated.
The Government have of course sought to address the concerns
raised, notably around the sunset and courts provisions. We
listened to the points made in the House and addressed those
concerns via the amendments that we brought forward on Report. I
hope that the House recognises how significant a move this was
from the Government and takes that movement in the spirit in
which it was intended. We really did try to alter the Bill to
take account of many of the concerns that were addressed.
The House has also made its views known on some other areas of
the Bill on which the Government do not agree, including the
reform and repeal powers we believe are crucial to the ambitions
we have in this space. Our work in producing the retained EU law
dashboard highlighted that there are many defunct laws on our
statute book relating to activities that the UK does not conduct,
such as my famous example of regulating reindeer herdsmen in
Lapland. Now that we have taken back control of our statute book,
it is appropriate to update it by amending, repealing or
replacing REUL that is no longer fit for the UK.
I do not think there is much argument on all sides of the House
about the list of measures we have produced that deserve to be
repealed. This will allow us to create new pro-growth,
high-standard regulatory frameworks that give businesses the
opportunities and confidence to innovate, invest and ultimately
to create jobs. This Bill delivers, in addition to providing
clarity and certainty. It provides the powers for the Government
to make legislative changes that will benefit all of us in the
United Kingdom. With that, I beg to move that the Bill do now
pass.
(LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his speech. His answer to the
question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, indicates why
what I will call the Hope-Hamilton amendments are so important. I
hope it is clear to the Minister that your Lordships’ House
considers these to be very important and that they should be
retained rather than reversed when they head to the other
place.
Any Commons reversal of Amendment 48 will be seen as a show of
intention by the Conservative Party on environmental legislation.
Again, it would not be wise, given the very good reassurance we
have had from the noble Lords, and , on retaining that
legislation. Pushing out Amendment 48 would be moving things in
the opposite direction.
Overall, the work of this House has achieved a major change and a
U-turn. As I said before, it has achieved a reverse in the
polarity of this Bill, and noble Lords should be very proud of
that. It has been a fraught debate at times. I owe a mea culpa to
the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. In the hubbub I misrepresented her
use of the term “blob”, and I am happy to put the record
straight—so apologies there. During that debate there was also a
to and fro, which was very important. The Minister is right to
say that that is the role of this House.
I thank the Ministers—the noble Baronesses, Lady Bloomfield and
Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lords, and Lord Bellamy—for their hard
work in trying to bring us along; they have not often or always
succeeded, of course. The Bill team, when we have met, have
always been very helpful and courteous; they are a credit to
their service. I hope that, for those of the team who want to
visit the Cheshire salt mines, I have in some way helped them
head that direction.
His Majesty’s Opposition have been a pleasure to work with: I
thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, the noble Lord, Lord
Collins, and of course the team in their Whips’ Office. Many
Cross-Benchers and other noble Lords across the House have
participated fully. It would be difficult to mention them all,
but for his virtuoso display during Report, the noble and learned
Lord, , deserves the full gratitude of
your Lordships’ House.
Quite a few Liberal Democrats have participated in the Bill, not
least those who were mobilised over the weekend to try to review
600 laws and work out what they did. I am not going to name them
all, but I thank them for their support. I will name my noble
friend Lady Ludford, who unfortunately cannot be here; she has
been able company for me on the Front Bench. Finally, I thank
in our Whips’ Office,
whose grasp of this Bill has been beyond compare.
of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we have never argued with the Government’s right to
want to find a way to assimilate fully some EU-derived pieces of
legislation and to revoke or restate others. We have never had
cause to fall out over the Government’s stated aims, but the Bill
has been the definition of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I
am quite sure that Ministers regret having attempted to undertake
this task in this particular way. I am also very sure that the
Minister is glad to see the back of the Bill, having sat through
hour upon hour of deliberation in this place.
The Bill was designed to appeal to a group of people with a
certain perspective, and as we have said repeatedly—I say it
again—that is not the right way to initiate legislation; the
Government have learned that lesson very publicly. It is slightly
surprising to hear the Government say that they wish the
opposition to the Bill had been more constructive, given that we
were pleased to see the Government accept the substance, if not
the letter, of our amendment on the sunset, which we tabled at
the beginning of Committee. The Government moved substantially on
that issue; we recognise and welcome that, and we give them
credit for it.
We thank all noble lords who have contributed to our
deliberations on the Bill. The noble Lords, Lord Hamilton and
, and, in
particular, the noble and learned Lord, , deserve our thanks and
recognition for the work they have done to improve parliamentary
scrutiny and oversight. These amendments are vital to the Bill,
and I hope the Government welcome them and will support them in
the other place. I do not believe that anyone thinks the new
amendments tabled today are adequate responses to the concerns we
have raised, so we hope that our concerns are protected as the
Bill proceeds.
Having said that, I very much thank the Minister for his constant
patience, charm and warmth across the Dispatch Box—it is never in
doubt—and I look forward to many such exchanges in the future. I
also acknowledge the sterling work the noble Baroness, Lady
Bloomfield, has done throughout the passage of the Bill. I echo
what the Minister said about wishing her well in the coming
months; I hope she has a wonderful summer. We value very much the
work she has undertaken on the Bill. I also thank the noble
Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, the noble Lord, , and the noble and learned
Lord, , who were all corralled in as
part of the support act on the Bill; they all did their best, did
they not?
On these Benches, I especially thank my noble friend Lord
Collins, who has been an absolute star; he has supported
everything we have tried to do on these Benches throughout and
has made some fantastic contributions. I also thank my noble
friend Lady Hayman, who brought her experience and expertise on
the environment to our deliberations; we have benefited hugely
from her contributions.
I also thank the Opposition Bill team. , and Dan Stevens provided expert
advice and have been extremely helpful in helping us prepare
amendments. I thank both the Government Whips’ Office and my own
Whips’ Office.
We are glad that the Bill leaves this place in slightly better
shape than when it arrived. We hope the Government are able to
receive in good grace the amendments we have made and will retain
them, and that we do not need to consider the Bill further.
Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.
|
