Oh, she is! I apologise to the noble Baroness. She was sat somewhere else earlier.

My point is that devolved Ministers would also have this power and are able to clarify, consolidate, codify and restate any secondary retained EU law to preserve the effect of the current law, while removing it from the category of retained EU law. Removing this power will remove the ability of departments to restate retained EU law to preserve the effects of retained EU-derived principles of interpretation in order to maintain the existing policy effect where it is considered appropriate for the UK in a post-Brexit setting.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, queried whether restatements were just bringing back principles removed by the Bill. I can understand why she might think that, but other parts of the Bill are clear that supremacy and general principles are being abolished and Section 4 of the EU withdrawal Act is being reprieved. These principles or rights will not be recreated in general terms; rather, this power is limited to restating specific individual effects of these principles in particular case law. Indeed, this power will, I submit, provide greater legal certainty to the UK statute book by enabling Ministers—both UK and devolved Ministers—to restate REUL and codify the effects of retained EU case law or EU-derived interpretive effects in a clear and more accessible way.

On the query from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, the general legal definition of “restate” is to articulate the principles of REUL for a specific area of law—which is in fact what these powers do. I submit that there is no need to remove this clause from the Bill.

Turning to Amendment 102, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, I assure her that we have sought to ensure that the Bill contains robust scrutiny mechanisms, including for the power to restate under Clause 12. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, cited the comments from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I reassure her that the restatement power—I think this also goes to the heart of the query from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman—can be used only to retain a current policy effect of specific individual implications of interpretive effects or retained case law; that is, it maintains the policy status quo, so there would be no changes to the underlying policy.

Regarding consultations, our expectation is that departments will follow the standard procedures with the devolved Governments during policy development. The UK Government are, as always, committed to respecting the devolution settlements and the Sewel convention. Indeed, as I said earlier, the majority of the powers in the Bill—including the powers to restate under Clauses 12 and 13—are indeed conferred concurrently on the devolved Governments. We will of course continue discussions with the devolved Governments moving forward to ensure that the most efficient and appropriate approach to REUL can be taken in a way that provides certainty for all parts of our nation. Therefore, we do not consider that adding a requirement to consult on the face of the Bill is necessary.

Amendment 103 would prevent the power to restate from being able to operate fully on devolved REUL. It is pivotal that there are no impediments or delays in delivering this much-needed REUL reform. I recognise the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, made. Indeed, she may have concerns about the potential impacts of the power to restate within areas of devolved competence. However, I will endeavour to convince her that her concerns are unfounded. None of the provisions in the Bill, including the power to restate REUL, affects the devolution settlements, nor is the Bill intended to restrict the competence of either the devolved legislatures or the devolved Governments.

I turn now to amendments relating to Clause 13 and the powers to restate assimilated law, starting with the Clause 13 stand part notice; the noble Lord, Lord Fox, cannot be here, so the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, spoke to it. Clause 13 is critical to ensuring that the Government are able to reproduce the effects of retained case law and EU-derived principles on the body of law that was REUL and becomes assimilated law at the end of 2023. This is essential to ensure that a consistent approach to the UK statute book can be taken following the sunset by enabling Ministers to exercise this power on former retained EU law that has not been revoked by the sunset and which remains on the UK statute book as assimilated law.

On Amendment 105, I reiterate that this Government recognise the importance of ensuring that legislation undergoes the appropriate level of scrutiny and consultation, and we are committed to working collaboratively and constructively with the devolved Administrations. Therefore, we do not consider it appropriate or necessary to add a requirement to consult to the Bill, because doing so would limit the ability of departments to use the power before it sunsets on 26 June 2026.

Amendment 106, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, would require legislative consent to be sought from the devolved legislatures before a UK Minister makes regulations under the power to restate assimilated law in areas of devolved competence. I reassure the House again that none of the provisions in the Bill, including the power to restate assimilated law, affects the devolution settlements, nor is the Bill intended to restrict the competence of either the devolved legislatures or the devolved Governments. The majority of the powers in the Bill, as I have said, will be conferred concurrently on the devolved Governments. This will enable them to make active decisions regarding their retained EU law or assimilated law within their areas of devolved competence, and it will provide them with greater flexibility to decide how to regulate those areas currently governed by REUL within their competence.

I will move on to Amendment 107. As I have said, we are committed to devolution and to working collaboratively and constructively. We are committed to continuing discussions with the devolved Governments moving forward to ensure that the most efficient and appropriate REUL can be taken to every situation in a way that provides certainty for all parts of the UK.

Amendment 108 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh would change the expiry date of the power contained in Clause 13 from 23 June 2026 to 31 December 2028. I recognise that many noble Lords have concerns around the timelines in the Bill but we are confident that the power to restate assimilated law can be exercised on all the necessary legislation by 23 June 2026. We therefore do not see it as necessary to limit this power and for it to cease to be available on this date.

Amendment 109 again seeks to change the reference date within the definition in Clause 13 of

“retained general principles of EU law” to align with the proposed new sunset date of 31 December 2028 in accompanying Amendments 70, 74 and 75. This amendment would prevent general principles being preserved, given that Clause 5 establishes that remaining effects of general principles of EU law are removed from the UK statute book at the end of 2023 so that there would be no remaining general principles to preserve at the end of 2028.

Secondly, extending the assimilation date to the end of 2028 would be irrelevant given that, should Amendments 70, 74 and 75 be approved, there would be no assimilated law until after 2028, upon which the power within Clause 13 can act. Therefore, amending the definition of

“retained general principles of EU law” within Clause 13 is simply unnecessary.

I turn now to the amendments relating to Clause 14, starting with Amendment 110. Clause 14 outlines the general parameters and limitations of how the restatement powers may be used. This includes enabling restatements to be placed in primary legislation where it is appropriate. Clause 14(7) makes that expressly clear by stating that regulations may be made by “modifying any enactment”. Let me be clear to the Committee: the powers are not capable of restating any REUL or assimilated law that is primary legislation. However, we recognise that it may be appropriate in a limited number of circumstances for a restatement of secondary retained EU law or assimilated law to be placed in primary legislation.

For example, when codifying retained case law that relates to REUL in primary legislation, it is more appropriate to place such a codification alongside the law it relates to. Furthermore, although the powers to restate can be used to make changes to REUL or assimilated law, they cannot be used to change the function of the legislation, nor will they be able to introduce substantive policy change; that goes to the heart of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. In addition to this, where the powers in Clauses 12 and 13 are used to amend primary legislation, they will of course be subject to the affirmative procedure.

On Amendment 111, it is right that we ensure that any amendments to retained EU law or assimilated law will follow the standard procedures for consultation and impact assessment where it is undertaken. This is why we have sought to ensure that this Bill contains robust scrutiny mechanisms, including for the powers to restate under Clauses 12 and 13. First, the draft affirmative procedure will be applied where the powers to restate are being used to amend primary legislation. Secondly, the sifting procedure will apply to Clauses 12 and 13 for those regulations that are proposed to be made under the negative procedure. This sifting procedure will provide an additional level of scrutiny to the legislation being made. It will give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise instruments and make active decisions regarding this legislation. As I have said before, work is already ongoing across Whitehall on a REUL statutory instrument programme.

I hope that this provides noble Lords with clarity for the reasons behind taking the powers provided for in Clauses 12 to 14 and the scrutiny procedures that would be applied. I therefore hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not press their amendments.