Motion A Moved by Lord Callanan That this House do not insist on
its Amendment 15B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their
Reason 15C. 15C: Because the Commons do not consider the Lords
Amendment necessary in order to maintain environmental protection.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy
Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con) My Lords, with the
leave of the House, at the same time as moving Motion A I will
speak...Request free trial
Motion A
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 15B, to which the
Commons have disagreed for their Reason 15C.
15C: Because the Commons do not consider the Lords Amendment
necessary in order to maintain environmental protection.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy
Security and Net Zero () (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, at the same time as moving
Motion A I will speak to Motion B.
The retained EU law Bill has once again returned to this House
from the other place. I am pleased to say that the other place
has accepted the final drafting change to Amendment 16, so that
matter is now closed. This amendment significantly adds to the
scrutiny that Parliament can conduct on this Bill.
However, the House of Commons has now been very clear, for the
second time, that it is firm in its position on the remaining two
amendments. Noble Lords asked the Commons to think again, and it
has reached exactly the same conclusion. Indeed, the
Solicitor-General noted the many ways in which the Government
have already moved on the Bill to reflect the thoughts and
concerns of this House. Therefore, today I propose Motions to
accept the Commons position on the Bill and accede to the wishes
of the elected House.
With regard to the other Motions in front of us today, Amendment
42D looks to be loosely based on one of the scrutiny provisions
of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. However, its
use in that Act relates to the legislative reform order power,
which is much broader. It can act on any piece of legislation,
including Acts of Parliament, whereas the revoke and replace
power in this Bill can operate only on secondary retained EU
law—in other words, retained EU law that is not primary
legislation. We have taken steps to make clear what this retained
EU law is by publishing and updating the retained EU law
dashboard, and we will be reporting regularly to Parliament on
our intentions to reform it. This will allow Parliament a
substantial amount of time to scrutinise and report on reforming
legislation, if Parliament wishes to do so. As such, these powers
are clearly not comparable in terms of scope.
Furthermore, the legislative reform order process is not
time-limited. It is still ongoing and available after 17 years,
whereas this power will expire three years and three days from
today. This is crucial when you consider how long parliamentary
processes can take. Amendment 42D envisages up to 60 sitting days
for Parliament to consider and debate proposals for statutory
instruments, and potentially time after that for further scrutiny
before the SIs can be made. We have supported and encouraged the
initiative, which started in this House, to maximise transparency
around the Government’s plans for retained EU law reform via
regular reports to Parliament. In our view, this additional
60-day pre-scrutiny period is simply not required.
Therefore, the Government cannot accept a requirement that would
place such a significant time restraint on the usage of the
power. Doing so would substantially reduce the time available for
the power to be used, which is clearly not an appropriate balance
between scrutiny and reform. The clause currently provides for
this balance in a much more sustainable way; the third limb of
the power already requires the affirmative procedure by default,
and the second limb is automatically pushed to the affirmative
procedure under specific circumstances. For all other
circumstances, the sifting committee exists to recommend
upgrading the scrutiny procedure, if Parliament judges it
necessary. For all these reasons, the Government cannot accept
the amendment.
On Motion A1, of the noble Lord, , I am once again clear that
Amendment 15D is unnecessary. I and many other Ministers have
committed to uphold our environmental protections. Equally, the
consultation part of the amendment is also irrelevant, as the
Government remain committed to consulting on major policy
changes, in line with usual practice. We take Dispatch Box
commitments very seriously as a Government and will not shirk
away from the commitments we have already made during the passage
of this Bill.
This amendment is therefore unnecessary. The Government are clear
that we have set a strong direction of travel on environmental
regulation with our actions across this Parliament, and nothing
in this Bill will change that. I therefore ask noble Lords to
support Motions A and B on the Order Paper today. I beg to
move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Moved by
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 15D in lieu—
15D: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Environmental protection
(1) Regulations may be made by a relevant national authority
under section 12, 13, 15 or 16 only if the relevant national
authority is satisfied that the regulations do not reduce the
level of environmental protection arising from the EU retained
law to which the provision relates.
(2) Prior to making any provision to which this section applies,
the relevant national authority must seek advice from persons who
are independent of the authority and have relevant
expertise.””
(CB)
My Lords, I will be brief, because we have debated this many
times before. I will simply explain why I found it necessary to
come back yet again with an amendment on environmental
protection.
In the previous round of ping-pong, on 6 June, the Minister, in
urging your Lordships to reject a previous version of my
amendment, said:
“we have substantive concerns that this amendment, in the way
that it is worded, would actually make it more difficult to
uphold those environmental commitments”. [Official Report,
6/6/23; col. 1271.]
When I heard this, I was puzzled. It appeared that the Minister
was saying that the problem was with the wording of the
amendment, rather than the substance. I wondered which bit of the
wording would make it more difficult for the Government to ensure
that their policies do not lower standards of environmental
protection.
Was it the non-regression element, requiring the Government to
commit to not lowering standards if and when retained EU law is
changed? Was it the requirement to consult relevant experts
before making changes? We know from the past record that, when
experts were not consulted, mistakes were made. Back in 2019,
when Defra removed a protection under EU law relating to
endocrine-disrupting pesticides, and it was pointed out that it
had made a mistake, Defra quickly corrected its mistake and
re-introduced the regulation. Was it the requirement for
transparency—the need to publish the reasons for any change, and
the advice received? Or was it, fourthly, the requirement to
comply with international environmental treaties to which the UK
is a signatory?
None of these four requirements seems to me to stand in the way
of the policies designed to protect the environment, so I decided
to try to find out. I requested a meeting with Ministers to help
me understand how a change to the wording of the amendment would
achieve my objective of ensuring that environmental standards are
not lowered, without making it more difficult to achieve this
end. However, I regret to say that Ministers were not prepared to
discuss this with me or to come up with an alternative form of
words. Therefore, I have redrafted the amendment to make it even
simpler than before, in the hope that I have succeeded in
overcoming the objection the Minister raised last time
around.
3.30pm
The new version of the amendment has just two elements instead of
the four that were in the previous version: non-regression on
environmental protection and consultation with relevant experts.
I have left out the other two elements of the previous version,
which were compliance with international obligations and
transparency in reporting on expert advice. I have conceded a
great deal since my original amendment was passed on Report. In
making these compromises, I am trying very hard to make this
amendment acceptable to the Government. I am not making a
partisan point; I am simply trying to ensure that our
environmental protections are not weakened. I am not arguing
against future changes to retained EU law. My amendment would
simply put in the Bill what the Government say they wish to do in
any case—the Minister said it just a few minutes ago—which is not
to lower environmental standards. If that is what the Government
want to do, why not put it in the Bill? It is not adding any
burden or obstacles. As the Minister said, the Government already
consult experts, so this is simply saying “Yes, that is what we
will do”.
As I said in the previous round of ping-pong, when my amendment
passed with a majority of 54, the Government’s watchdog, the
Office for Environmental Protection, said that the additional
insurance provided by this amendment is essential, especially
bearing in mind the parlous state of our environment. I had
unexpected support today. It is the first time in my life that I
have been supported by the Daily Express—in an opinion piece by
former England cricket captain David Gower, who expressed support
for this amendment, so it is not just a narrow interest group
that I represent. I hope that, in spite of what has been said by
the Minister, this time around the Government will accept my
stripped-down version, but if not, I will wish to test the
opinion of the House. I beg to move.
(GP)
My Lords, I am going to take the liberty of speaking on this
amendment because the last time I spoke on an amendment tabled by
the noble Lord, , he said that he liked me
speaking because I made him look more reasonable, so I will do my
best now. The Minister said that the Commons is very clear on
this. I would like to make a couple of points. First, I very much
doubt whether any of them knew what they were voting on, because
they do whatever the Whips tell them. Secondly, if it is so
obvious that the Government are going to do this, why not just
accept the amendment? Given that this has been brought back
twice, it is clearly something this House cares very much about.
Lastly, if the other end is stupid, it is our job to make it
clear that it is being stupid and that we think this is a very
important amendment to make to the Bill. Obviously, the Greens
will be voting for it.
(LD)
I rise briefly to add our Benches’ support, if the noble Lord,
, pushes this to a vote. His
amendment is a canary in a coal mine—perhaps a Cumbrian coal
mine. You put a canary down a coal mine when you want to test
whether essential resources that you rely on are about to be
lost, to be snuffed out. This is what this is. It is about not
just the essential protections for our much-depleted nature, but
the essential protections that we as humans rely on: water, air
quality and all the ecosystem services that nature provides.
I use that analogy for another purpose, as well. You do not see
the canary in the coal mine, but if you talk to the general
public about puffins and other wildlife, and all the things they
care for when they see them on TV programmes, they know that they
want them protected, and they want the Government to act. But we
are here at the coalface, mining through the amendments, and we
can see the damage that this will do to the protections for
people and the animals and wildlife they care for. We are here to
bring that canary to the surface. We should do that and press the
matter again.
of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, Motion B1, in my name, raises an issue that has been of
great concern to many in this House from the outset in our
examination of the Bill: parliamentary sovereignty. The clause
that causes particular concern, and to which my Motion is
addressed, is Clause 15, headed “Powers to revoke or replace”.
All the powers that it contains are exercisable by statutory
instrument alone, with no provision for active or meaningful
scrutiny by either House. That amounts to what the noble Lord,
Lord Anderson, described when the issue was before us two weeks
ago—without any exaggeration, I think—as a delegated
superpower.
It is worth taking a moment to think about the key words that are
used to describe the extent of the powers conferred on a relevant
authority by this clause. For our purposes, the relevant
authority is a Minister of the Crown. Clause 15(2) states that
the Minister
“may by regulations 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”.
Clause 15(3) states that the Minister
“may by regulations revoke any secondary retained EU law and make
such alternative provision as the relevant national authority
considers appropriate”.
The subsection (2) power extends not just to achieving the same
objectives but to achieving objectives that the Minister
considers to be similar. The decision as to whether they are
similar or appropriate, about which there may reasonably be more
than one view, is left entirely to the Minister.
Subsection (3) goes even further: it extends to the making of
such alternative provision as the Minister considers appropriate.
There is no limit here to the objectives that are to be achieved.
They do not need to be similar—there is no limit to that
extent—so they could be different from those of the secondary
retained EU law that is being revoked. Again, there could
reasonably be more than one view as to whether the alternative
provision, whatever it may happen to be, was appropriate.
It is worth reflecting for a moment on the subject matter of what
is open to revocation and replacement in the exercise of these
powers. This is not simple, routine stuff for which delegated
legislation is unquestionably appropriate. It extends to, among
other things, major instruments of policy. It extends to
fundamental rules relating to public health, trade and the
environment, which were handed down to us by the EU and with
which we have lived for several decades. It includes, for
example, agricultural support, blood safety, fisheries
management, food composition standards, nutrition, resources and
waste, and the control of ozone-depleting and radioactive
substances. Those are just some examples.
Your Lordships might consider it rather strange, given the nature
and extent of what is involved, that neither House of Parliament
can play any kind of active role in the scrutiny of these
regulations. It really is a take-it-or-leave-it system dictated
to Parliament by the Executive. The objections to this, which I
need not repeat, have been set out many times, and that is what
my amendment seeks to address.
I recognise that the previous amendments, which were moved first
by me and later by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, proposed a
system that the Minister was right to describe as novel and
untested. What I am now proposing is based on a system, as the
Minister has pointed out, known as the super-affirmative
procedure, which was enacted by Section 18 of the Legislative and
Regulatory Reform Act 2006. I shall explain briefly what this
involves.
It applies only to regulations made under Clause 15. It proposes
a Commons committee—not a Joint Committee, as previously
suggested—to sift regulations made under the clause in the light
of an explanation by the Minister as to why the regulation is
considered appropriate. If, but only if, the committee reports
that there are any regulations to which special attention should
be drawn, the Minister must arrange for them to be debated on the
Floor of each House. The Minister must then have regard to any
resolution of either House and may, but is not required to,
propose a revised proposal in the light of what has been
resolved. The procedure for approval in both Houses thereafter is
the affirmative procedure. Finally, the committee may recommend
that the Minister’s proposal should not be proceeded with, but
the House of Commons has the last word, as it can reject that
recommendation. If it does that, the regulations may be laid.
This is a relatively light-touch procedure, which gives
Parliament some measure of oversight of what has been proposed. I
offer it as a compromise, in the hope that the Minister, despite
the remarks he made at the outset of this debate, will feel able
to give it serious consideration. At the heart of it all is an
issue of principle, which is of basic concern to this House and
the other on their entitlement to take an active part in the
major exercise proposed. It is in that spirit that I propose to
test the opinion of the House, if necessary, when the time
comes.
(Con)
My Lords, I would like to detain the House for no more than a
minute on this issue. I have spoken about it many times in the
past.
I support what the noble and learned Lord, , has said on the principle of
what we are looking at. It is very important we remember that my
noble friend the Minister said, as a defence of the government
position, that the House would have a chance to look at these
instruments by means of the affirmative procedure —unamendable,
as we know—and that it would have the appropriate back-up
information. One of the things that has moved on from the days of
just framework Bills is the increasing reluctance of the
Government to produce the back-up information—impact assessments
and Explanatory Memoranda—in time for the House to do its job
properly. The spat we had last week about the Public Order Act
regulations was the result of this very question of overcasual
behaviour.
My noble friend will say that of course we will have absolutely
similar treatment—this is the Government’s argument—for
affirmative resolutions as we do for primary legislation. I have
the greatest respect for my noble friend on the Front Bench—for
his patience, courtesy and diligence—but how he can say that with
a straight face absolutely beats me. I am sure that the noble and
learned Lord, , has done a very important
service for Parliament—this House and the other House—in bringing
back this issue for us to consider today.
But then we get to the politics—and politics does come into this.
The reality is that the reforms that the noble and learned Lord,
, many other Members of your
Lordships’ House and I would like to see come about will take
place only if they are led by the House of Commons. If that does
not happen, the Government will immediately say that this is the
unelected House trying to tell the elected House how to do its
job. That, I am afraid, will be game over. That is why I voted
against the fatal amendment in the name of the noble Baroness,
Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The House would be unwise, within one
day of the Commons having passed a resolution, to immediately
pass a fatal amendment.
The brutal truth is that we have been unable to get Members of
Parliament in the House of Commons in sufficient numbers to
understand what we are driving at: that it is not to do with EU
law but is about parliamentary sovereignty, as the noble and
learned Lord has said. There are stirrings there but they are
only stirrings.
The case before us is further complicated by the fact that this
is all going into the Brexit meat-grinder. In the debate in the
House of Commons on 12 June, said:
“The way the House of Lords has dealt with these amendments
demonstrates that the Lords are determined to try, by hook or by
crook, to obstruct the House of Commons, which is the democratic
Chamber in these matters as far as the electorate is
concerned”.
Later in the same speech he said:
“We know from everything that we have heard over the last few
weeks on the Bill that there is an intransigence—a stubbornness,
if I may say so politely—from our noble Friends in the House of
Lords in the face of any attempt to get rid of retained EU law in
the way in which we are proposing”.—[Official Report, Commons,
12/6/23; col. 34.]
3.45pm
The House will realise from those quotes, which were not
contradicted by the Solicitor-General when winding up the debate,
that the issue of parliamentary sovereignty has now become
irretrievably mixed up and commingled with Brexit, and indeed the
last attempts to ask the House of Commons to think again were
rejected by a majority of 65 in one case and 67 in another. I
believe that the struggle between the Executive and the
legislature, so elegantly and wittily explained by the noble and
learned Lord, , in his lecture, “The King’s
Prerogative”, will go on.
I hope, but I do not have much hope, that my noble friend will
still have a chance to think again when he comes to wind up, and
he will be able to accept, or go some way towards accepting, what
is proposed by the amendment tabled by noble and learned Lord,
. If not, I fear that this
particular battle is lost, and as regards this vital principle of
parliamentary sovereignty and involvement, I fear we may risk
traducing it by continued referrals back, particularly when the
issue concerned is the volatile and fiercely fought issue of
Brexit. We need to encourage the uncommitted Members of the House
of Commons to look beyond Brexit to the issue of parliamentary
sovereignty and the relative power of Parliament and the
Executive.
I hope my noble friend will still be able to make some
concession, but in the meantime I am concerned about our
continued actions in this regard, and although I entirely support
the principle put forward by the noble and learned Lord, , it is with a heavy heart that,
for this reason, I am not sure I will be able to support him in
the Lobby if he chooses to divide the House.
(CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, makes a very strong case
that the House of Commons is dealing with this as a matter of
politics rather than of principle. I draw precisely the opposite
conclusion to that of the noble Lord: it is precisely for that
reason that we should send the matter back. We should emphasise,
as the noble and learned Lord, , did, that this is a matter of
constitutional principle. It is not a matter of whether you
support Brexit or you do not support it. It is not a matter of
politics, and we should respectfully invite the other House to
focus on what we see as the real constitutional issues that lie
behind the Motion proposed by the noble and learned Lord, .
(CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord,
, and the noble and learned Lord,
, but in doing so I want to put on
record, as a former member of the Delegated Powers Committee, my
objection to the Government’s rejection of Amendments 42 and 42B,
which proposed a very reasonable process, enabling both Houses of
Parliament to debate, vote and make amendments to regulations,
but only if those regulations involved a substantial change to
the law. The Government’s reaction to Amendments 42 and 42B is
yet another example of their determination to bypass Parliament
as far as possible and enable substantial law changes to be made
by Ministers through delegated powers without the ability of
Parliament to make any amendments.
The new amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, , is very modest indeed: it
applies only to draft Clause 15 regulations, the broadest
delegated powers in the Bill. Also, although Parliament will be
able to recommend amendments to the regulations, it does not
enable Parliament to amend those regulations, only to accept or
reject them. Justice takes the view that the amendment tabled by
the noble and learned Lord, , is a proportionate and necessary
compromise, and should be supported.
(Con)
My Lords, I apologise to my noble friends on these Benches,
particularly my noble friend Lord Hodgson. I have the opposite
conclusion from the one at which he arrived. My noble friend
suggests that it could be game over if we vote once again to ask
the Commons to think again. As far as I can see, if we agree to
this, it could be game over for us anyway. The Government’s
arguments are that if we do not accept their position, these
changes will delay the repeal of retained EU law and have also
argued that sufficient scrutiny measures are already in place. We
know that is not the case.
Giving almighty powers to Ministers to bypass Parliament upends
the norms that have governed our country and given us the
international reputation we have built. The possibility of
allowing any Minister to revoke secondary legislation, just
because it happens to emanate originally from the EU, confuses
the issue of leaving the European Union with the issue of
parliamentary democracy. A Minister could make, change or repeal
laws or rules that they consider appropriate, according to this
legislation, regardless of Parliament’s view and regardless of
whether that Minister even has any expertise in the areas so well
outlined by the noble and learned Lord, , such as public health,
agriculture, fisheries and blood safety.
The noble and learned Lord’s amendment gives the House of Commons
the last word. This is an existential issue beyond politics, and
I urge noble Lords to think beyond this Parliament too. If we set
this precedent now for this Government, presumably nothing can
stop that precedent being used against these Benches, or in some
other unacceptable manner, in the future. That could happen if we
give up the idea that Parliament must make the rules, rather than
Ministers.
(CB)
My Lords, over the years I have sat in this House, I have become
increasingly concerned about the powers which have been taken by
successive Governments, particularly this Government, to the
detriment of both Houses of Parliament. It seems extraordinary to
me that the House of Commons has not yet appeared to realise the
extent to which it, quite apart from us, is being marginalised.
This is a very concerning matter. It goes, as my noble friend
said, far beyond the politics;
this is a constitutional issue about the rights and powers of
both Houses. This is just one example—the latest and one of the
most disturbing—which this House has seen over a number of
years.
I support both amendments, but particularly the amendment of my
noble and learned friend . We really have to remind the
House of Commons, the other place, what is happening to it as
well as to us.
(Con)
My Lords, I totally agree with the sentiments of the noble
Baroness, Lady Meacher, my noble friend Lady Altmann, and the
noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. However, at the
end of the day, the House of Commons is the elected House, and it
has the right, as the elected House, to be wrong. I am afraid we
have to accept that.
If we go on throwing this back, saying it should think again—and
the House of Commons thinks again and comes up with yet another
quite substantial majority in favour of the status quo—all we are
doing is antagonising the other place unnecessarily. I cannot
understand why the other place is giving away the powers that it
is—in the way that it seems happy to let the Executive take over
everything—but that is what it has decided to do. It is the
elected House and we should live with it.
(LD)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow so many wise speeches. I am
not going to attempt to lengthen this debate or trump that
wisdom. In the various iterations of this discussion, we have
benefited from having either the noble and learned Lord, , or the noble Lord, Lord
Anderson; today, we have both of them in their places. Although I
associate myself with my noble friend Lady Parminter’s comments
regarding the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, , I will speak to the amendment
in the name of the noble and learned Lord, .
I want to make just two points. First, the objection in the
Commons largely and often dwelt on the unprecedented nature of
the amendment that was being brought to them by your Lordships
last time. In this case, the noble and learned Lord, , has dealt with that issue. This
is not an unprecedented situation. It speaks a little to the
point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton: it is not that we
are bringing back the same amendment, rewritten in different
ways. Your Lordships are being asked to re-present a different
proposition to the one that was presented last time. The Leader
of the House can shake his head but, if he reads the amendments,
he will see that they are fundamentally different; I am sure that
he knows that in his heart. We are asking your Lordships not to
be stubborn, in the words of William Cash, but to offer the
Commons a different alternative. Stubbornness is doing the same
thing over and over again. This is not the same thing; it is
markedly different.
The other point that I want to address, which no one else has
addressed, is the one made by the Minister about how much time
this would take. I accept that it may take time, but we have to
look at what we are doing. First, we are doing important things
that Parliament should retain an ambit over. Secondly, the things
that we are dealing with are things that we have lived with for
many years—indeed, decades. This is not a burning platform; it is
stuff that already exists. We are co-existing with it. It is not
something that has a blue light on and must be rushed down the
road as fast as possible. The argument about time does not count,
in my view.
It is clear from what I and my colleagues have said that we
support this amendment and will certainly vote for it when the
noble and learned Lord, , presses it.
of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly because I agree with everything
that the noble Lord, , just said. We are grateful to
the Minister for what he said in his introduction to this debate
and to all noble Lords who have contributed and engaged with this
Bill since the beginning. However, we on these Benches think that
the Government should join us in insisting on Lords Amendments
15B and 42D, as they now are. We agree with noble Lords that
their amendments in lieu are sensible compromises and remain
deeply concerned by the potential for the protection of our
environment, in particular, to be watered down without such
protection on the face of the Bill. It seems slightly odd that
the Government have compromised on the fundamental purpose and
shape of this Bill in removing the sunset, which was a huge thing
for them to do. It is strange that they are now determined to
hold out on these two relatively minor outstanding issues, which
are about improved scrutiny and environmental protection.
The proposal from the noble and learned Lord, , is a proportionate and necessary
compromise. The noble Lord, , is correct to highlight the
inadequacy of the verbal commitment offered by the Minister,
which obviously may not stand the test of time. These are
important principles. Should the noble and learned Lord and the
noble Lord wish to test the opinion of the House, we on these
Benches will support them.
(Con)
My Lords, we have had this debate numerous times now, so the
House will be delighted to know that I can keep my response
fairly brief. I have responded to all the points made previously
because noble Lords have repeated many of the points that they
made in earlier debates.
Interestingly, the one person who did not repeat the points that
he made in earlier debates was the noble Lord, ; I was surprised to hear him say
that he will support the Anderson/Hope amendment because, in the
previous round, in response to a similar point about endless
ping-pong made by my noble friend Lord Hamilton, the noble Lord,
, said:
“I respectfully suggest that we are not proposing”
endless ping-pong but that
“we are proposing one more ping and one more pong”.—[Official
Report, 6/6/23; col. 1262.]
Unlike some of the sceptics behind me, I have faith in what the
Liberal Democrats say. I am absolutely certain that, because that
is what the noble Lord, , said last time, he will join us
in the Lobby this evening. We have hope yet; I am sure that the
Liberal Democrats would not want to go back on their word.
4.00pm
On Amendment 42C, while I respect the noble and learned Lord,
, on this point, I think he is
pushing his luck slightly now, if I may say so, respectfully. I
think he knows this is adding unacceptable time into the debate,
and the Government cannot accept a procedure as unwieldy as what
he has proposed. It would also cut the amount of time for the
powers to be used by up to a third, which is an unacceptable
limitation on the reform programme. I think the noble and learned
Lord knows this is not about additional parliamentary scrutiny;
this is actually about stopping Parliament acting in this area.
The reform programme is a crucial part of the Government’s
agenda, and it is not an appropriate balance between scrutiny and
reform to restrict it in such a manner.
Turning to Amendment 15C, I will repeat the arguments that I have
made previously and that the House of Commons has supported. The
noble Lord’s Motion proposes to insert additional measures into
the Bill on environmental protection. I do appreciate the
sentiment, but the noble Lord also knows very well the
Government’s position on this and the importance we attach to
maintaining environmental standards. We do not believe that this
amendment is necessary, and in light of the many commitments we
have made in this House and the other place, I hope noble Lords
will reject both.
(CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have contributed to the
debate on my amendment, as well as on the amendment of my noble
and learned friend of Craighead. A key word that was
mentioned in the contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman
of Darlington, was “compromise”. When my amendment passed at the
last round of ping-pong, I asked Ministers whether we could talk
about it and try to find a compromise wording that would satisfy
the Government and the majority of Members of this House who
supported the previous amendment; but no compromise was
forthcoming. I thought that when you have a disagreement among
reasonable adults, you talk it through and try to reach a
compromise. That is not what the Government are trying to do, so
I am left with little option but to test the opinion of the
House.
I would also briefly like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones
of Moulsecoomb, for fulfilling her duty of making me look
reasonable, so I thank her for that. I also thank the noble
Baroness, Lady Parminter, for reminding us of the important fact
that protecting our environment is of huge public concern. I am
sure there will be noble Lords who will want to vote against my
amendment, and I would like them to ask themselves whether they
would be prepared to stand up in front of a television camera and
explain to David Attenborough why they think it is not necessary
for this Government to maintain our current standards of
environmental protections. I wish to test the opinion of the
House.
[Division 1
Division on Motion A1
Content
232
Not Content
187
Motion A1 agreed.
Held on 20 June 2023 at
4.04pm](/Lords/2023-06-20/division/750835E5-8F39-4FF5-8CDC-5FB038C1AC17/LordsChamber?outputType=Names)
4.15pm
Motion B
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 42B, to which the
Commons have disagreed for their Reason 42C.
42C: Because the Commons consider the scrutiny procedure imposed
by the Lords Amendment to be inappropriate.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Moved by
of Craighead
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 42D in lieu—
42D: After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
“Parliamentary scrutiny
(1) This section applies to all regulations proposed to be made
under section 15 by a Minister of the Crown which revoke any
secondary retained EU law and –
(a) replace it with such provision to achieve the same or similar
objectives, or
(b) make such alternative provision,
as a Minister of the Crown considers to be appropriate.
(2) Regulations referred to in subsection (1) may not be made
(under the applicable provisions of paragraphs 7 and 8 of
Schedule 4) unless a document containing a proposal for those
regulations has been referred to a Committee of the House of
Commons, together with a statement by the Minister of the Crown
which explains why the Minister considers the replacement or the
alternative provision proposed, as the case may be, is
appropriate, and the other requirements of this section have been
met.
(3) If the Committee reports that special attention should be
drawn to the proposed regulations in question, then subsections
(4) to (8) apply.
(4) A Minister of the Crown must arrange for the proposal for the
regulations to be debated on the floor of each House within the
relevant period referred to in subsection (5).
(5) The relevant period is a period of 60 days beginning with the
day on which the proposal and the corresponding statement were
referred to the Committee, not including any period during which
Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or either House is adjourned
for more than four days.
(6) The Minister making the regulations must have regard to any
resolution of either House and to any recommendations by the
Committee made during the relevant period.
(7) If, after the expiry of the relevant period, the Minister
making the regulations wishes to make an instrument in the terms
of the proposal (under the applicable provisions of paragraphs 7
and 8 of Schedule 4), the Minister may do so only if the proposal
for those regulations is approved by a resolution of each House
of Parliament.
(8) If, after the expiry of the relevant period, the Minister
making the regulations wishes to make an instrument in the terms
of a revised version of the proposal (under the applicable
provisions of paragraphs 7 and 8 of Schedule 4), the Minister
must lay before Parliament a document containing the revised
proposal for the regulations together with a statement of the
changes proposed and may make an instrument in the terms of the
revised proposal only if the revised proposal is approved by a
resolution of each House of Parliament.
(9) The Committee may, at any time before the regulations are
laid in draft or made (under the applicable provisions of
paragraphs 7 and 8 of Schedule 4), recommend that they should not
be proceeded with.
(10) Where a recommendation is made by the Committee under
subsection (9), the regulations may not be laid in draft or made
unless the recommendation is rejected by a resolution of the
House of Commons.””
of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke to my Motion
B1. I have only one comment to make, which is that the noble Lord
attributed to me a state of knowledge that I simply do not
recognise. It is not my intention to frustrate the intentions of
the Government in any way; my amendment is all about the issue of
principle to which the noble Lord, , referred—it is a crucial
instrument. That being the point, I beg to test the opinion of
the House.
[Division 2
Division on Motion B1
Content
241
Not Content
181
Motion B1 agreed.
Held on 20 June 2023 at
4.16pm](/Lords/2023-06-20/division/0536D7A5-57F1-4BEF-B009-8BFE30306050/LordsChamber?outputType=Names)
|
