My Lords, I shall speak first to Amendment 1 and then to Amendments 116 and 117. The Bill gives the Ministers and regulators power to shape our financial services regimes, but it does not allow for any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny of the changes that Ministers and regulators may introduce into law. This is another very clear example of what the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Blencathra, and their committees, warned about—the significant and continuing shift of power from Parliament to the Executive. The DPRRC report says in its introduction:

“We have concluded that it is now a matter of urgency that Parliament should take stock and consider how the balance of power can be re-set”.

It goes on to highlight the problem of what it calls

“Legislative sub-delegation of power: where ministers can confer powers on themselves or other bodies”,

which is precisely what this Bill is about. The report, called Democracy Denied?, goes on to say:

“we conclude that conferring legislative sub-delegation of power is potentially a more egregious erosion of democratic accountability than a simple delegation to a minister”.

The Minister is aware of these concerns. In our previous discussions, she has noted, by way of compensation no doubt, that there will be opportunities for Parliament to be consulted and for post-hoc accountability reviews. Neither of those things, desirable though they may well be, is a substitute for meaningful legislative scrutiny. This scrutiny is what Amendment 1 proposes to introduce, and I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Lisvane, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for adding their names to the amendment.

The amendment is based on the Amendment 76 of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, to the REUL Bill, which your Lordships agreed to on 17 May by 231 votes to 167. This amendment was discussed at ping-pong in the Commons 10 days ago, and was rejected by the Government on three grounds. The first was that the Government do not accept the principle that Parliament should be able to amend statutory instruments. The second was that the scrutiny proposed would take up too much parliamentary time. The third is the really rather astonishing and disappointing view of the reach and capability of our Joint Committees. I shall not comment on that last point, except to say that it is obviously mistaken, as many of us here could attest.

The objection against taking up too much parliamentary time seems pretty odd, as scrutiny is obviously the essence of our role. In any case, that objection may, if one is charitable, have some force in the case of the monster that is the REUL Bill, but surely has none in the case of this much shorter and more coherent Bill.

As for the Government’s not accepting the principle that Parliament should be able to amend statutory instruments, that surely needs qualification. We have heard that qualification discussed in the preceding business. There are two examples of Acts of Parliament containing provisions for the statutory instruments that they generate to be amended—the Census Act 1920 and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Both those Acts allow for SIs to be amendable in the way that our Amendment 1 proposes, only by agreement of both Houses. There are no free-standing or wide-ranging powers.

The Government seem to be sticking to this rather confected set of objections to parliamentary scrutiny. Noble Lords who were here for the preceding ping-pong on the REUL amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, will have heard the repeated resistance to parliamentary scrutiny. That is despite the SLSC’s calling for the REUL Bill to contain

“an enhanced scrutiny mechanism that enables Parliament to decide that an instrument makes changes of such policy significance that the usual ‘take it or leave it’ procedures—even if affirmative—relating to statutory instruments should not apply but that a further option should be available, namely a procedure by which the Houses can either amend, or recommend amendments to, the instrument”.

The Bill before us is essentially a financial services carve-out from the REUL Bill and it suffers from the same lack of effective scrutiny provisions. What was necessary for parliamentary scrutiny of the REUL Bill is also necessary for this. Our Amendment 1 responds to the SLSC’s call. It brings in a sifting process. It allows a Joint Committee discretion over what constitutes substantial change to preceding retained EU law. It requires a debate on the Floor of each House if the Joint Committee makes a finding of substantial change or that there has been insufficient public consultation. It also allows SIs generated by the Bill to be amended if, and only if, both Houses agree. This is not a prescription for frequent and casual intervention but a narrowly drawn means of altering SIs on those rare occasions when both Houses find the case compelling.

The amendment returns a measure of meaningful parliamentary scrutiny to the Bill. It allows careful parliamentary scrutiny of proposed changes to our critically important financial services regime. Without it, there would be none; Ministers and regulators would decide, and Parliament would be bypassed yet again.

I turn to Amendments 116 and 117. These amendments, taken together, would allow either House to insist on an enhanced form of scrutiny for SIs it deemed likely to benefit from more detailed examination and debate, as well as from recommendations for revision. The usual SI procedures, as we all know, do not allow this and do not constitute parliamentary scrutiny in any meaningful sense: we cannot amend and we do not reject. The super-affirmative procedure set out in Amendment 117 would allow a measure of real, detailed scrutiny, a means of hearing evidence and a means of making recommendations to Ministers. It would not allow the amendment of SIs: that power remains exclusively with the Minister.

Identical amendments were debated in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who is not in her place, added her name to the amendments and spoke in support; so did the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, also not in his place, commented:

“If a piece of legislation is proposed and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, you have to think that it is pretty wide-ranging—in fact, close to impossible”.—[Official Report, 23/3/23; col. GC 329.]

I think he meant that as a compliment, but it is not entirely clear.

The super-affirmative procedure is appropriate here because, for example, Clause 3 allows for very significant policy changes to be made that could be significant in the context of the restatement of EU law, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, noted in the debate. The Minister thinks that the super-affirmative procedure is unnecessary and promises instead that

“the Government will seek to undertake a combination of formal consultation and informal engagement appropriate to the changes being made”.—[Official Report, 23/3/23; col. GC 331.]

That is not even a real commitment, with the phrase “will seek to undertake”, and it is certainly nothing close to meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. We need the super-affirmative procedure, and I commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move Amendment 1.