Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill - Clause 15, Lords amendment 42B; Amendment 15B

Speaks about procedural matters, acknowledges the resignation of Caroline Lucas and interjects to clarify points made by other MPs.

Argues that novel procedures are necessary for improving parliamentary effectiveness. Questions the legitimacy of objections based on novelty alone, emphasising the importance of parliamentary sovereignty and holding government to account.

Challenges the Solicitor General on his position regarding Bauer and Hampshire judgments, highlighting inconsistencies in government statements. Emphasises the need for parliamentary scrutiny to uphold environmental standards.

Raises concerns about lack of promised parliamentary scrutiny post-Brexit and highlights chaos on government benches, emphasising the need for stronger parliamentary checks.

Supports Lords amendment 15B, arguing that it provides necessary conditions to maintain environmental protections and uphold international agreements. Criticises the government's chaotic approach and lack of commitment to high standards.

Mr Madders briefly interjected, suggesting that rehashing old arguments from the Brexit referendum is unnecessary given the current bill's context.

Mr Williams pointed out during an intervention that the proposed amendment suggests a Committee should examine regulatory matters, and he highlighted that such committees in this place meet in public.

Argued that the European Council of Ministers, not the European Parliament, makes laws in a non-democratic manner. Proposed creating a 'lock' to ensure parliamentary scrutiny on regulations generated by the Bill and emphasised the constitutional correctness of doing so in light of the UK's democratic mandate to leave the EU.

Challenged Bill Cash, noting that legislation already provides for a Committee to scrutinize statutory instruments. She questioned why MPs would not have influence over changes unless Lords amendment 42B is passed.

Expressed regret for the Bill, arguing that targeting laws based on their origin rather than content or effectiveness is poor governance. Emphasised concern over lack of consent from Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd, stating that the Bill could undermine devolution settlement.

Mr. Buckland supports the bill and the return of powers from Brussels to Westminster, dismissing characterizations of it as a power grab from devolved administrations. He agrees with Lords amendment 16 for an authoritative dashboard to prevent accidental repeal by law and supports minor improvements to Lords amendment 16C for better scrutiny processes without adding excessive bureaucracy.

Mr. Heald agrees with Mr. Buckland that laws passed in Europe often represent a compromise among 27 countries, and the UK has an opportunity for deregulation beneficial to Scotland as well.

Mr. Cash interjected briefly to indicate that he does not wish to engage in a discussion on the specific intervention made by Mr. Heald.

Mr. Shannon raises concerns about environmental protections potentially being weakened under the bill as currently drafted, questioning whether the Minister will deliver on commitments to protect vital laws for nature's recovery.

Ms. Creasy criticised the Government for their lack of transparency about what legal judgments will be deleted from EU law, emphasising that developers could use this legislation to overturn planning decisions. She supported Lords amendment 42B which would give Parliament primacy over legislative changes, arguing that constituents deserve better than a simple email saying 'we do not know what is being deleted'.

Ms. Olney welcomed the amendments and expressed concerns about the removal of around 600 EU-era laws by the end of the year, with a further 4,000 potentially being scrapped by 2026 without parliamentary consultation or vote. She highlighted risks to workers’ rights and environmental protections. She supported Lords amendment 15B which seeks to prevent reductions in environmental protection levels and ensure that UK law does not conflict with international agreements.

Ms. Lucas emphasised the need for scrutiny of Executive powers, noting that Lords amendment 42B would prevent an undemocratic power grab by ensuring proper legislative process on any changes proposed under the Bill. She also questioned why the Government was not putting environmental protection safeguards into statute.