European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

1 (1) The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (as amended by this Act) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 5 (exceptions to savings and incorporation), in subsections (A2) and (8), for “retained direct EU” substitute “assimilated direct”.

(3) In section 6 (interpretation of retained EU law)—

(a) in the heading for “retained EU” substitute “assimilated”;

(b) in subsection (3)—

(i) for “retained EU” substitute “assimilated”;

(ii) in paragraph (a) for “retained” (in the first place it appears) substitute “assimilated”;

(c) in subsections (4) to (5ZA), for “retained” (in each place it appears) substitute “assimilated”;

(d) in subsection (6), for “retained EU” substitute “assimilated”;

(e) in subsection (7)—

(i) before the definition of “higher court” insert—

““assimilated case law” means—

(a) assimilated domestic case law, and

(b) assimilated EU case law;

“assimilated domestic case law” means any principles laid down by, and any decisions of, a court or tribunal in the United Kingdom, as they have effect immediately before IP completion day and so far as they—

(a) relate to anything to which section 2 or 3 applies, and

(b) are not excluded by section 5 or Schedule 1,

(as those principles and decisions are modified by or under this Act or by other domestic law from time to time);

“assimilated EU case law” means any principles laid down by, and any decisions of, the European Court, as they have effect in EU law immediately before IP completion day and so far as they—

(a) relate to anything to which section 2 or 3 applies, and

(b) are not excluded by section 5 or Schedule 1,

(as those principles and decisions are modified by or under this Act or by other domestic law from time to time);

“assimilated law” means anything which, on or after IP completion day, continues to be, or forms part of, domestic law by virtue of section 2 or 3 or subsection (3) or (6) above (as that body of law is added to or otherwise modified by or under this Act or by other domestic law from time to time);”;

(ii) omit the definitions of “retained case law”, “retained domestic case law”, retained EU case law” and “retained EU law”.

(4) In section 6A (references on retained case law by lower courts or tribunals), for “retained” (in each place it appears, including the heading) substitute “assimilated”.

(5) In section 6B (references on retained case law by UK or devolved law officers), for “retained” (in each place it appears, including the heading) substitute “assimilated”.

(6) In section 6C (interventions on retained case law by UK or devolved law officers), for “retained” (in each place it appears, including the heading) substitute “assimilated”.

(7) In section 6D (incompatibility orders), in subsection (1)(a) and (b), for “retained direct EU” substitute “assimilated direct”.

(8) In section 7 (status of retained EU law)—

(a) in the heading for “retained EU” substitute “assimilated”;

(b) in subsection (4A) for “Retained direct EU” substitute “Assimilated direct”;

(c) in subsection (5)—

(i) for “retained EU” (in each place it appears) substitute “assimilated”;

(ii) in paragraph (b), for “retained” (in the first place it appears) substitute “assimilated”;

(iii) in paragraphs (e) and (f), for “retained direct EU” substitute “assimilated direct”.

(d) omit subsection (6).

(9) In section 20(1) (interpretation)—

(a) before the definition of “Charter of Fundamental Rights” insert—

““assimilated direct legislation” means any direct EU legislation which forms part of domestic law by virtue of section 3 (as modified by or under this Act or by other domestic law from time to time, and including any instruments made under it on or after IP completion day);

“assimilated direct minor legislation” means any assimilated direct legislation which is not assimilated direct principal legislation;

“assimilated direct principal legislation” means—

(a) any EU regulation so far as it—

(i) forms part of domestic law on and after IP completion day by virtue of section 3, and

(ii) was not EU tertiary legislation immediately before IP completion day, or

(b) any Annex to the EEA agreement so far as it—

(i) forms part of domestic law on and after IP completion day by virtue of section 3, and

(ii) refers to, or contains adaptations of, any EU regulation so far as it falls within paragraph (a),

(as modified by or under this Act or by other domestic law from time to time);”;

(b) in the definition of “enactment”, in paragraph (h), for “retained direct EU” substitute “assimilated direct”;

(c) omit the definition of “retained direct EU legislation”;

(d) in the definition of “subordinate legislation” for “retained direct EU” substitute “assimilated direct”.

(10) In section 21(1) (index of defined expressions), in the table—

(a) after the entry for “Article (in relation the Treaty on European Union or the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)”, insert—

(b) omit the entries for “Retained case law”, “Retained direct EU legislation”, “Retained direct minor EU legislation”, “Retained direct principal EU legislation”, “Retained domestic case law”, “Retained EU case law” and “Retained EU law”.

(11) In Schedule 1 (further provision about exceptions to savings and incorporation), for “retained EU” (in each place it appears) substitute “assimilated”.

(12) In Schedule 4 (powers in connection with fees and charges), in paragraph 7(1)(b) (power to modify pre-exit fees or charges), for “retained EU” substitute “assimilated”.

(13) In Schedule 5 (publication and rules of evidence), in paragraph 4(5) (definition of “relevant matter” for power to make provision about judicial notice and admissibility), for paragraph (a) substitute—

“(a) assimilated law,”.

(14) In Schedule 7 (regulations)—

(a) in the italic heading before paragraph 9, for “retained EU” substitute “assimilated”;

(b) in paragraphs 21, 23 and 28, for “retained EU” (in each place it appears) substitute “assimilated”.

(15) In Schedule 8 (consequential etc provision)—

(a) in the italic heading before paragraph 1, for “retained direct EU” substitute “assimilated direct”;

(b) in paragraphs 3(1), 8(2), 11A(2), 11B(2) and 12(2)(b), for “retained direct EU” (in each place it appears) substitute “assimilated direct”;

(c) in paragraphs 7, 16(3)(b) and 45(2)(b)(i) and (ii), for “retained EU” substitute “assimilated”;

(d) in paragraphs 11A(3), 11B(3) and 30—

(i) for “retained direct minor EU” (in each place it appears) substitute “assimilated direct minor”;

(ii) for “retained direct principal EU” (in each place it appears) substitute “assimilated direct principal”.

This Act

2 (1) This Act is amended as follows.

(2) In section 8 (compatibility), for “retained direct EU” (in each place it appears) substitute “assimilated direct”.

(3) In section 14 (general provision about powers to restate or reproduce), in subsection (9)(a) for “retained direct EU” (in each place it appears) substitute “assimilated direct”.

(4) In section 21 (interpretation)—

(a) in subsection (1), in the definitions of “enactment” and “subordinate legislation”, for “retained direct EU” substitute “assimilated direct”;

(b) in subsection (2), for “retained direct EU” (in each place it appears) substitute “assimilated direct”.”—(Ms Ghani.)

This new schedule makes amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the Bill that are consequential on the renaming of bodies or types of law by NC1.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

Third Reading

King’s consent signified.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I wish to thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed today. It has been a long day, but this Bill has been around for a whole year and I wish to thank everybody who has been working on it for a year. In particular, I wish to thank the Bill team, Lorna, Janet, Ryan, Jenna, Mahsa, Sam, Sagar and Sol; and the policy team, Fergal, Lizzie, Walter, Zach, Rachel, Nikoli, Jess, Hannah, Anita, Jon, Miranda and Ruth. I also wish to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bosworth (Dr Evans), for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) and for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) for doing such fantastic work behind the scenes.

I know that a few Members wish to speak, so I shall be brief. I just want to thank all Members for their contributions as regards the constitutional importance of the Bill—ending the supremacy of EU law and restoring Acts of Parliament as the highest law in the land is, of course, of paramount importance. I am proud that this Bill will build on the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and ensure, by default, that no Act of Parliament is subordinated by the retained EU law any longer.

I call the Shadow Secretary of State.

As we move to Third Reading, may I thank all colleagues, Ministers, civil servants and Clerks of the House for their work on this Bill. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend Justin Madders for leading on it for the Opposition, and for the strength and clarity of the arguments he has put forward, and the diligence of his work to try to improve the Bill at all stages. I also wish to recognise my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for their work, and my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) for their work in the Bill Committee.

We opposed the Bill on Second Reading on the basis that it was not a serious or appropriate way for the Government to address the matter of retained EU law, and nothing that has occurred since has changed that view. This is not and never has been about Brexit. It is about how the law should be changed, and the certainty and clarity the Government need to give when they do that. Legislating for a Sunset clause on a huge body of legislation, the scale of which the Government have themselves struggled to identify, has appalled businesses, charities and the public. The fact that we now know on Third Reading that 1,600 additional Laws, on top of the ones disclosed in the dashboard, are affected, without the Government being able to tell us what they are, is frankly absurd.

The Government are asking us trust them on a whole range of laws, covering employment rights, consumer protection, environmental standards and more, but how can anyone trust this Government? They are hardly a model of stability. Between First Reading and Third Reading we have had a completely different Prime Minister and a completely different Business Secretary. So who knows who may be in charge by the time it finishes in the other place? We have still not heard a compelling answer as to why the Government cannot address the body of EU retained law on a sector-by-sector basis, putting forward their replacement proposals in the same way as we legislate for everything else. After all, this is the Government’s own approach, which they have taken with the Financial Services and Markets Bill in the area of financial regulation.

This Bill is a charter for uncertainty, confusion and the regression of essential British rights. We cannot and will not stand for that. The Labour Party will therefore vote against the Bill’s Third Reading tonight, in the national interest, and I urge all colleagues to do the same.

First, may I congratulate the Minister for Industry and Investment Security, my hon. Friend Ms Ghani, on her brilliant performance today and on taking on this Bill and driving it through? I will now confess to this House that a year ago, as Leader of the House, I thought it was going to be impossible to get this Bill done, written and ready for Parliament. I know I am not meant to mention people in the Galleries, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I hope you will indulge my saying that some of the Bill team are there and they were fabulous. They made the impossible happen and they deserve great thanks, because this is about restoring British law, with the common law replacing European law.

The Bill is a tidying-up law, but it is of great constitutional importance. It has been sent from this House with technical amendments from the Government but no fundamental Amendment. I hope that the other place will note that carefully; the Bill goes with a strong democratic mandate and a wind behind it. It is one of the really important completions of Brexit and the people who oppose it are, in their hearts, the ones who opposed Brexit all along. The Bill is a reclamation of democracy, of parliamentary sovereignty and of our proper law.

I call the SNP spokesman.

I will be brief because we have had a long discussion today. The SNP opposes the Bill. We believe that Scotland’s best future is independence in Europe, but it is not about that tonight. I also, simultaneously—as a friend of the UK—do not want to see this place pass bad law, and we believe that this is bad law. It is possible to do a bad thing well, but I fear that the Bill will do a bad thing badly. As I said earlier in the debate, if Government Members must do this damn silly thing, please do not do it in this damn silly way. The Bill will have real consequences and real problems for the UK Government and the rest of us, and for the devolution settlement alongside. The SNP will oppose it.

After 38 years in this House, I simply say a profound thank you to the British electorate—the 17 million who voted to leave the European Union in the referendum and endorsed that in the General Election of 2019. I congratulate the Government, the Ministers and all the people in this House who have supported the idea of leaving the European Union. Above all else, I thank the British electorate.

I am sure that many other Members have said this already, but this has nothing to do with Brexit. These are all pieces of legislation that are in British law. If the Conservatives want to remove them, they should come to this House and debate each and every one of them on an individual basis. Removing these pieces of legislation will have far-reaching consequences. Unfortunately, I believe that consequences will be brought to bear on Conservative Members at the next election. If you are not thinking about the destruction to our democracy, you should at least think about your constituents—

Order. The hon. Lady must not keep using the word “you.” She must speak through the Chair. I think that she has made her point.

Fear, doubt and guilt have bedevilled politicians and politics for too long in this country, but the British people are not so fearful of their freedoms, not so doubtful about their sovereignty, and not so nervous about the journey that we have now embarked on to a free future, where this country, through its elected Parliament, can make Laws in the national interest for the common good. We have had a lot of fears expressed today. We have heard about bonfires and cliff edges, but the people know that they can trust in the people that they choose, from all parts of this House, to do the right thing by them. If we do not believe that, then what on earth are we doing here? It is absolutely right that we have fulfilled the promise from the 2016 election and taken back control. This Bill—I congratulate Ministers on bringing it before the House today—is the next step on our path to sovereignty, freedom and success.

The Minister would not take an Intervention, but I think Mr Rees-Mogg is going to be pretty disappointed. I suspect it will, ironically, fall to the unelected House to look at the amendments that the Government rejected this evening and decide that perhaps they have a place in the Bill after all. At that point, the climbdown will have to begin and the Bill team, who no doubt have worked extremely hard, will have to work even harder, because they will have to find a compromise and a way to explain why everything the Minister said at the Dispatch Box about how necessary and workable this Bill is was completely and utterly incorrect. In reality, the Bill is totally unworkable and totally unnecessary.

The right hon. Member for North East Somerset and his Brexiteer friends wanted to take back control to this House. They wanted parliamentary sovereignty. This Bill does not assert parliamentary sovereignty; it hands it over to the Executive to pass thousands of Laws, or to get rid of thousands of laws, by Executive diktat. That is not parliamentary sovereignty. The people in Scotland can see exactly what is happening, and it will not be long before they reclaim their popular sovereignty.

I put on record my thanks to all the civil servants who have answered our questions on this Bill, to all the members of the Committee and the Minister for taking questions—I think in years to come her diaries will be a revelation about what she really thinks of this legislation.

We should make a pledge tonight, because this House has started to hear the voices of the British public, who recognise that legislation like this is us not doing our job. It is us taking away the job and putting power in the hands of the shadowy elite behind the back of Downing Street. It is not parliamentary sovereignty. We will make a pledge tonight in this House to keep hearing their voices—to keep hearing the many campaign groups who have spoken with one voice and said, “There is a better way to do this,” to hold all of us to account, to work with our colleagues in the other place to ensure that we truly do take back control to this place and uphold parliamentary sovereignty.

Those of us on the Opposition side know how valuable that is to our democracy, and we invite all those on the Government side who recognise that to join us. A sinner that repenteth is still a sinner that repenteth.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 238.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.