My Lords, this amendment relates to the remaining sunsetting clauses. It is important to state at the outset that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said in moving his Amendment 2, a number of sunset clauses revert. I also take the opportunity to seek clarification regarding something my noble friend Lord Callanan said, as Minister in charge of the Bill: that under Amendment 14, all existing water directives and regulations will remain in place. I press him for an assurance that all those statutory instruments, regulations, assimilated law, retained EU law—whatever we are going to call them—that relate to Defra, which I understand are the bulk of all the retained law that was passed following the EU withdrawal agreement, will by default remain on the statute book. Is that going to happen automatically, or is my noble friend saying that statutory instruments will have to be put forward by Defra, following the passage of the Bill, on which we will subsequently vote? I would like my noble friend to address at the outset of his concluding remarks on this little group of amendments what exactly the legal position is, for our better understanding.
In preparing the amendments in this group, Amendments 3, 36, 38, 42, 43 and 44, I am immensely grateful to Michael Clancy and the Law Society of Scotland, who share the concerns that I have about the remaining sunset clauses and the impact they will have in this regard, as they relate to the Bill going forward. The purpose of Amendment 3 is to give greater clarity about the extension, and to extend the date from that proposed in the Bill, the end of 2023, to 11:59 pm on 31 December 2028. There is serious concern about the proposed statutory deadline being the end of 2023 as, for reasons that pertain also to the debate we had on the first group, it does not appear to allow sufficient time to enable a review of all the remaining European law to be completed properly, following what I would deem to be proper consultation with the devolved Administrations and all the relevant interested parties, including the UK parliamentary and devolved legislation committees.
I would argue that the additional time is needed to enable a more thoughtful and comprehensive approach to amending or repealing the remaining REUL under the Bill. I believe that the choice of date should be made on the application of good legislative practice, including considered analysis of the legislation involved and consultation with those who will be affected by the variation or revocation proposed by the regulations in question. Therefore, the later date I have set out in Amendment 3 would allow that to happen. It would enable better law to be passed, and I believe that Parliament is here to make good laws, not laws to which we have to return later. I hope my noble friend will look favourably on that. Does he believe in all honesty that there is sufficient time for this?
In his reply to me when I tabled a similar amendment in Committee, my noble friend stated that it would not be a cliff edge:
“Firstly, the 2023 sunset date was chosen because it is the quickest and most efficient way to enact retained EU law reform. It will allow us to swiftly remove retained EU laws that are no longer appropriate and are not in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers”.—[Official Report, 28/2/23; col. 232.]
Having dispensed with the sunset clause in the government amendments we have adopted or are about to adopt, there is a good argument for pushing back the sunset clause, as I set out in Amendment 3.
5.15 pm
If my noble friend the Minister is not minded to support my amendment, will he alternatively set out a timetable or plan giving specific details of which government departments are involved in the exercise, and which retained EU law is involved for each government department and devolved Administration? Will he set out this afternoon what consultation will be undertaken by each department or Administration, and how many instruments will need to be passed by the UK Parliament or the devolved Governments? There needs to be much more transparency regarding the remaining sunset clauses in order to provide certainty for businesses and individuals that will be affected by the sunsetting of retained EU law, and for those such as the Law Society of Scotland, the Bar Council of England, the Law Society of England and Wales, and indeed the Faculty of Advocates, of which I am a non-practising member, to give them enough time to adapt.
Amendment 36, in a similar vein, is concerned with the power to restate retained EU law. In it, I ask that we push back the deadline to 31 December 2028, because when the Bill is given Royal Assent there will not really be sufficient time to deal with these measures. We need more time, given that there are many hundreds of measures in the revocation schedule we have just considered, and there are thousands more, some of which we are as yet unaware of.
Similarly, Amendment 38 would give a power to restate assimilated law or to reproduce sunsetted retained EU rights, powers and liabilities, et cetera. In that amendment, I ask for a similar extension, from 23 June 2026 to 31 December 2028. The date of 23 June seems very arbitrary; I do not know if the department is going to close up on 24 June 2026, but I am asking for an extension in relation to Clause 14 as well. Similarly, Amendment 42 seeks an extension to the deadline in Clause 16 of 23 June 2026 for the power to revoke or replace EU law. Again, I hope the Government will be minded to accept that.
Finally, Amendments 43 and 44 seek a similar extension to secondary assimilation of law. Failure to allow more time may be an additional argument for triggering the procedure referred to during consideration of the first group of amendments, so I think there are very good reasons why the Government should commit to the extension.
I call on the Minister to explain, first, why these sunsetting clauses remain in the Bill; secondly, whether the Government agree that there could be insufficient time to consult not just interested parties but the devolved Assemblies, and to allow them to consult; and thirdly, to confirm whether he accepts that the dashboard still does not include all the retained EU law—in whatever form—that has been passed by devolved Assemblies.
Given that the vast majority of the remaining retained EU law relates to Defra, will it be retained by default or will Defra have to pass a number of statutory
instruments to secure it? Moreover, what is the position regarding the Minister’s own department, and others, in respect of which there will be a lot of retained EU law secondary legislation to which these sunset clauses apply? With those introductory remarks, I beg to move.