113: Retained EU Law: Parliamentary ping-pong

Following our previous blog post, which detailed the Government’s U-turn on the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the Bill), there have been additional amendments debated and considered by both Houses of Parliament through the Parliamentary process known as ‘ping-pong’.

On 24 May 2023, the House of Commons (HoC) debated the Lords’ amendments to the Bill, with amendments 6, 15 and 42 being rejected and 1 and 16 being further amended. Amendments 2-5, 7-14 and 41-43 were agreed to. The Commons’ amendments were to be considered in the House of Lords (HoL) on 6 June 2023. This blog post addresses the latest status of amendments, following this consideration.

Amendments discussed

Amendment 1

The original amendment was to require a Joint Committee to consider the revocation list and arrange debates in both Houses with respect to anything that represented a change in the law before the legislation on it could be revoked. In the HoC, Michael Tomlinson, Solicitor General, described this amendment as ‘unprecedented, unnecessary and unacceptable’. In the HoL, Lord Callanan noted that the Lords who sponsored this amendment were no longer pushing for it.

Amendment 6

This amendment was to give Parliament and the devolved legislatures, rather than the Government, the final say on whether retained EU rights, powers, liabilities etc were to be revoked. This was said to undermine ‘a fundamental plank’ of the Bill and create the ‘legal uncertainty’ that should be avoided and that this amendment, in fact, strived to provide. In the HoL, it was deemed by Lord Callanan that this amendment would no longer be necessary. Amendment 6 sought to clarify that the new clause ‘Retained EU law dashboard and report’, inserted by Amendment 16, would include the rights, powers and liabilities referred to within Section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 201. These will, nonetheless, be included in future dashboard updates and accompanying reporting, without express inclusion in Amendment 16.

Amendment 16

As referred to above, Amendment 16 sought to strengthen reporting requirements and ensure the Government keep Parliament informed of their progress on using powers within the Bill and regularly update Parliament on their forthcoming plans. The Motion was simply to tidy the drafting, rather than pushing for any substantive changes.

One more ping…?

Particular concerns of the HoL appeared to be steadfastness and thoroughness. Lord Hamilton referred to the amendment process as a game of ‘endless ping-pong’, which Lord Fox noted was not desirable or, in fact, proposed. Lord Fox stated that the HoL were ‘proposing one more ping and one more pong’, which does not appear to be disproportionate to the scale of the powers held by the Bill. Lord Callanan, nevertheless, concluded that there are already ‘strong provisions [for Parliament] to scrutinise any legislation’ brought forward under the Bill and that the ‘appropriate balance between the need for scrutiny and the need for reform has been struck’. The drive of these discussions was to narrow the remaining issues in respect of the Bill as much as possible.

The outstanding amendments which were considered by the HoC on 12 June 2023 were:

1. Lords Amendment 15B in lieu of Amendment 15, which has been disagreed with by the HoC;
2. Lords Amendment 16C
   1. This was to be an amendment to Lords Amendment 16 in lieu of Commons Amendment 16A (Commons amendment 16B is agreed);
   2. The HoC did not insist on its Amendment 16A and agrees with the HoL in their Amendment 16C in lieu of Common Amendment 16A;
3. Amendment 42B in lieu of Amendment 42, which has been disagreed with by the HoC.

With these outstanding points of dispute remaining, the Bill remains in the consideration of amendments stage and has not yet progressed to Royal Assent. There is no future stage currently scheduled for this Bill.

If you have any queries about the information in this blog, please contact Aaron Nelson or Rebecca Bridson.