header-logo header-logo

LNB NEWS: Lords put amendments back to Commons on REULRR Bill

09 June 2023
Categories: Legal News , EU , Brexit
printer mail-detail
On 6 June 2023, the House of Lords debated Commons amendments to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (REULRR Bill). 

Lexis®Library update: The government was defeated on two motions, with a majority of Lords making revised amendments to send back to the Commons. These relate to environment protection, and to Parliamentary scrutiny. Continuing the ‘ping pong’ process, consideration of the Lords amendments in the House of Commons is scheduled for 12 June 2023.

The following motions were passed by the House of Lords:

• Motion A: Commons amendment 1A to Lords amendment 1 was agreed to

• Motion B: Lords amendment 6 was not insisted on

• Motion C: The Lords did not insist on their amendment 15 but Lords amendment 15B in lieu, proposed by Lord Krebs, was agreed to. In putting amendment 15B to the Commons, the Lords are seeking to ensure that any changes to retained EU law do not dilute environmental protection or breach relevant international environmental agreements, ensure that expert advice is sought and ensure transparency by requiring the publication of an explanation of how any changes do not reduce environmental protection and how expert advice supports this

• Motion D: Commons amendment 16A was disagreed to, Commons amendment 16B was agreed to, and Lords amendment 16C in lieu of Commons amendment 16A was agreed to

• Motion E: The Lords did not insist on their amendment 42, but Lords amendment 42B in lieu, proposed by Lord Anderson, was agreed to instead. In putting amendment 42B to the Commons, the Lords are seeking to ensure that the proposed revocation or replacement of secondary retained EU law with alternative provision must first be considered by a sifting committee of the House of Commons

 To view the Lords non-insistence, disagreement, agreement and amendments in full, see: Lords Non-Insistence, Disagreement, Agreement and Amendments in Lieu

To view the Bill as amended prior to Commons consideration of the Lords amendments, see: Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (as amended on Report).

To view the transcript of Lords consideration of the Commons amendments, see: Hansard, House of Lords, 6 June 2023 – Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, Consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons

What’s next?

Consideration of the Lords message in the House of Lords is scheduled for 12 June 2023.

For Bill Tracker updates, see: Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.

Source: Hansard, House of Lords, 6 June 2023 – Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, Consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons

This content was first published by LNB News / Lexis®Library, a LexisNexis® company, on 8 June 2023 and is published with permission. Further information can be found at: www.lexisnexis.co.uk

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll