Lords division · 20 Jun 2023 · No. 2

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead moved Motion B1, as an amendment to Motion B, at end to 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.””The House divided:

The Contents have it

Majority 60

Contents: 241 Not Contents: 181

At a glance The Contents won by a margin of 60 votes. The Government's position was Not Content, and it lost.

How the parties voted

Contents

Labour	111
Liberal Democrat	58
Crossbench	51
Non-affiliated	13
Bishops	3
Conservative	2
Green Party	2
Plaid Cymru	1

Not Contents

Conservative	157
Non-affiliated	12
Democratic Unionist Party	5
Crossbench	5
Lord Speaker	1
Ulster Unionist Party	1

The party breakdowns are our own analysis of the official voting records (recorded votes only; they do not describe the formal whip). How we work this out.

Peers attend divisions ad hoc, so there is no did-not-vote list. Tellers are counted in the Content and Not Content totals, unlike in the Commons.

Tellers: Lord Hope of Craighead (Content), Lord Patel (Content), The Earl of Courtown (Not Content), Baroness Williams of Trafford (Not Content).