Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill completes passage through Parliament

The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill will enable the government to implement policies in its Benefits of Brexit report, dated January 2022, allowing it to repeal or assimilate retained EU law (REUL) and remove its supremacy in the UK legal system by the end of 2023, including its usage by the courts and small businesses.

What's happened so far?

Consideration of amendments

The bill was considered by the House of Lords between 19 January and 22 May 2023, before returning to the House of Commons.

On Monday 26 June, members of the Lords discussed two amendments twice rejected in the House of Commons.

Environmental protection

During report stage, members of the Lords inserted a new clause which required the government to take steps to ensure environmental protection standards and food safety standards are not adversely affected by the new law.

The House of Commons later removed this clause on the grounds it was not needed in order for those standards to be maintained.

In response to this, on Tuesday 6 June, Lords members agreed to a new version of the clause, which focused solely on environmental protection and not food standards.

MPs in the Commons again removed the new clause, reaffirming the government's stance that the amendment is unnecessary.

On Tuesday 20 June the Lords considered a reduced version of the clause, which:

• retains rules on non-regression of environmental protection
• amends requirements regarding consultation with relevant experts
• removes elements relating to compliance with international obligations.

Members voted 232 in favour and 187 against, so the change was made and the revised clause inserted into the bill.

With the Commons again rejecting the clause, Lords members considered a final version on Monday 26 June which reduced the scope of the amendment even further.

Following a debate on the floor of the House of Lords, the amendment to insert the new clause was withdrawn and the Commons rejection agreed to.

Parliamentary scrutiny

Also in report stage, members of the Lords agreed to a new clause which ensured the government cannot enact their new powers relating to retained EU law without prior scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.

When this clause was later rejected in the House of Commons, Lords members considered a revised clause on Tuesday 6 June which changed the requirement for a Joint Committee to a Commons-only committee.

MPs once again removed the clause, with the government arguing that the scrutiny procedure was inappropriate.

In response, on Tuesday 20 June the Lords considered a new version of the clause, which retains the Commons-only committee, but elaborates on its remit and government expectations, including the amount of time a minister has to lay regulations brought to 'special attention' by the committee before both Houses of Parliament for approval.

Members voted 241 in favour and 181 against, so the change was made and the expanded clause inserted into the bill.

MPs in the House of Commons once again rejected this new clause, and so on Monday 26 June Lords members considered one final version.

This new version sought to require the government to heed recommendations of parliamentary screening committees to change statutory instruments made under the law from the 'negative' procedure to the 'affirmative' procedure, meaning they need to be approved and debated by both Houses.

This final amended version of the clause was also withdrawn without a vote and again the Commons rejection was agreed to.

Reporting to Parliament

Earlier in 'ping pong', members agreed to a Commons change to a Lords amendment to require reporting to Parliament on the revocation and reform of retained EU law. The Commons agreed to the Lords proposal on reporting and suggested changes to increase the frequency of reporting and length of time it will be required.

Catch up

• Read the list of Commons reasons (PDF)
• Watch the Parliament TV  recording: 6 June, 20 June and 26 June
• Read the Lords Hansard transcript: 6 June, 20 June and 26 June

Third reading: Monday 22 May

Third reading is the chance for members to ‘tidy up' a bill, making small changes to ensure it is effective.  

A number of housekeeping amendments were put forward by members and agreed to without a division. Members also discussed the passage of the bill at the conclusion of its Lords stages.

Catch up

• Catch up on Parliament TV  
• Read the Lords Hansard transcript

Report stage day two: Wednesday 17 May

Report stage is a further chance for members to closely scrutinise elements of the bill and make changes.  

Members speaking on day two of report stage put forward amendments (PDF) (changes) to the bill on subjects including reporting on the effect of modifications made to retained EU law and powers of devolved authorities.

Lords divisions  

There was one division (vote) on proposed changes to the bill. 

This vote was on amendment 76, which allows for significant changes from preceding retained EU law to be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses enabling Parliament to differ from the Executive and express its own view as to their contents.

Members voted 231 in favour and 167 against, so the change was made.

Get involved

• Catch up on Parliament TV
• Read the Lords Hansard transcript

Report stage day one: Monday 15 May

Members speaking on day one of report stage put forward amendments (PDF) (changes) to the bill on subjects including revoking retained EU laws and powers of ministers. 

Lords divisions

There were four divisons (votes) on proposed changes to the bill.

Sunset clauses

The first vote was on amendment 2, which would require the sunsetting of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation to be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, and if a substantial change to current UK law has been noted, a debate in both Houses should take place.

Members voted 245 in favour and 154 against, so the change was made.

Decisions on retainment

The second vote was on amendment 15, which would remove clause 4 from the bill and insert a new clause to enable Parliament and the devolved legislatures to have the final decision as to whether or not rights, powers and liabilities retained by section 4 of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 should be revoked at the end of 2023. 

Members voted 222 in favour and 154 against so the change was made and the new clause added.

Environmental protection and food standards

The third vote was on amendment 48, which would add a new clause to create additional conditions to be satisfied when the subject matter concerns law relating to environmental protection or food standards.

Members voted 142 in favour and 132 against, so the change was made and the new clause added.

Worker protections

The final vote was on amendment 50, which required that certain EU laws are not revoked or replaced without consultation to ensure the regulations do not reduce the level of protection for workers.

Members voted 130 in favour and 131 against so the change was not made.

Catch up

• Catch up on Parliament TV (part one and part two)
• Read the Lords Hansard transcript (part one and part two)

Committee stage day five: Wednesday 8 March

Members speaking on the fifth and final day of committee stage put forward amendments (PDF) (changes) to the bill to be discussed on subjects including: 

• application of Common Frameworks Agreements 
• maintaining environmental standards
• extent of powers granted to ministers to revoke EU laws.

Catch up

• Catch up on Parliament TV (part one and part two)
• Read the Lords Hansard transcript (part one and part two)

Committee stage day four: Monday 6 March

Members speaking on day four of committee stage put forward amendments (changes) to the bill to be discussed on subjects including: 

• a requirement for ministers to analyse the effect of removing retained EU laws
• payments for farmers carrying out green practices
• application of retained law by domestic courts.

Catch up

• Catch up on Parliament TV (part one and part two)
• Read the Lords Hansard transcript (part one and part two)

Committee stage day three: Thursday 2 March

Members speaking on day three of committee stage put forward amendments (changes) to the bill to be discussed on subjects including: 

• restricting 'sunsetting' of EU legislation under the responsibility of devolved administrations
• extent of parliamentary scrutiny 
• data protection regulations.

Catch up

• Catch up on Parliament TV (part one and part two)
• Read the Lords Hansard transcript (part one and part two)

Committee stage day two: Tuesday 28 February

Members speaking on day two of committee stage put forward amendments (changes) to the bill to be discussed on subjects including: 

• protections for customers buying package holidays
• powers of the UK's devolved administrations
• parliamentary scrutiny of retained and revoked EU laws.

Catch up

• Catch up on Parliament TV 
• Read the Lords Hansard transcript.

Committee stage day one: Thursday 23 February

Members speaking on day one of committee stage put forward amendments (changes) to the bill to be discussed on subjects including: 

• safety requirements of personal protective equipment 
• food safety regulations
• european qualifications for health and social care professions.

How to follow

• Catch up on Parliament TV (part one and part two)
• Read the Lords Hansard transcript (part one and part two).

Second reading: Monday 6 February

During second reading, members discussed the main issues in the bill and drew attention to specific areas where they think amendments (changes) will be needed. 

Topics covered during the debate include:

• the range of ministers' powers to amend legislation created by the bill
• workers rights, food standards and environmental protections
• the level of scrutiny over the original EU legislation
• the timetable for repeal of retained EU law.

Members speaking

Lord Callanan (Conservative), Minister for Business, Energy and Corporate Responsibility, opened the debate and responded on behalf of the government. 

Members speaking in the debate included: 

• Lord Balfe (Conservative), former MEP and UK delegation member to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
• Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat), former member of the Lords EU Energy and Environment Committee
• Lord Frost (Conservative), former Chief Negotiator for Exiting the European Union
• Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench), former Permanent Representative to the EU
• Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench), advisory board member and former vice president of the European Policy Centre, Brussels
• Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat), former MEP and Lords Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Exiting the European Union
• Lord Monks (Labour), former General Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation
• Lord Whitty (Labour), former chair of the National Consumer Council.

Baroness Bray of Coln (Conservative) and Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour) made their maiden speeches in the House of Lords during this debate.

Motions to regret

Members also considered two regret motions against the bill.

The first motion, in the name of Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat), vice President of the German-British Chamber of Industry & Commerce, regretted that the bill:

• weakens the scrutiny role of Parliament and gives unparalleled delegated powers to government ministers
• does not respect the constitutional role of the devolved administrations
• sets an arbitrary deadline for the repeal of numerous laws that protect the UK's environmental standards, safety standards, employment rights and consumer rights
• creates uncertainty for businesses and individuals.

Following a debate on the floor of the House, the motion was withdrawn.

The second motion, in the name of Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour), Director of Politics in the Opposition Leader's Office, also raised concerns regarding ministers' powers and the timetable for repeals. It also raised the impact the draft law would create, highlighting it may cause uncertainty and did not have the consent of the devolved administrations of the UK. It was also withdrawn.

If agreed, these motions would not have stopped the bill, but would have put on record the House's regret at the draft law for the specified reasons.

Catch up

• Catch up on Parliament TV - part one and part two
• Read the Lord Hansard transcript - part one and part two

Image: Rocco Dipoppa / Unsplash

Explore further information

Read background on the bill in the House of Lords Library Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill briefing.