DOCSLIB.ORG

House of Lords Official Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Vol. 799 Thursday No. 350 3 October 2019 PARLIAMENTARYDEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT ORDEROFBUSINESS Questions Brexit: Divergence from EU Standards ........................................................................1773 Inequality .....................................................................................................................1775 British Citizenship ........................................................................................................1778 Brexit: Parliamentary Processes....................................................................................1780 Business of the House Timing of Debates.........................................................................................................1782 Review of Investigative and Scrutiny Committees (Liaison Committee Report) Motion to Agree............................................................................................................1783 Services, Procedure and Selection Committees Membership Motion ......................................................................................................1804 Deputy Chairmen of Committees Membership Motion ......................................................................................................1806 House of Lords Commission, Services, Liaison, Procedure and Selection Committees Communications Committee Social and Economic Impact of the Gambling Industry Committee Science and Technology Committee Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments Liaison Committee Membership Motions.....................................................................................................1807 Offender Management and Treatment Motion to Take Note.....................................................................................................1808 Brexit: Negotiations Statement......................................................................................................................1848 Human Rights: Future Trade Motion to Take Note ....................................................................................................1867 Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office. No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report of their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the Daily Report, which, with the column numbers concerned shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of the Daily Report. This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet at https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2019-10-03 The first time a Member speaks to a new piece of parliamentary business, the following abbreviations are used to show their party affiliation: Abbreviation Party/Group CB Cross Bench Con Conservative DUP Democratic Unionist Party GP Green Party Ind Lab Independent Labour Ind LD Independent Liberal Democrat Ind SD Independent Social Democrat Ind UU Independent Ulster Unionist Lab Labour Lab Co-op Labour and Co-operative Party LD Liberal Democrat LD Ind Liberal Democrat Independent Non-afl Non-affiliated PC Plaid Cymru UKIP UK Independence Party UUP Ulster Unionist Party No party affiliation is given for Members serving the House in a formal capacity, the Lords spiritual, Members on leave of absence or Members who are otherwise disqualified from sitting in the House. © Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2019, this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 1773 Brexit: Divergence from EU Standards[3 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit: Divergence from EU Standards 1774 House of Lords Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con): Does my noble friend agree that the freedom to diverge from European Thursday 3 October 2019 regulations is, as the Prime Minister said, one of the important reasons for leaving the EU, although this 11 am will probably apply more to future regulation in evolving technologies such as fintech? Does he also agree that while, like any third country, such as the United States, Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle. we have to observe EU regulation when we sell into the EU market, when we sell into our own market or trade with each other it is a matter for the UK Parliament? Brexit: Divergence from EU Standards Question Lord Callanan: As always on these matters, my noble friend speaks great sense. I agree with the points 11.06 am that he has made. The ability to set our own regulations and to adopt a nimble and flexible approach to regulations Asked by Lord Wallace of Saltaire on future technologies would be one of the great To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they advantages of leaving the EU. intend to inform Parliament of their priorities and objectives in the areas in which they wish to diverge Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab): My Lords, does the from European Union standards by way of United Minister agree that the previous Conservative Kingdom regulations. Government, before the recent change, said that they would keep up with the changes to minimum standards? Is he saying that there has been no change in policy The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the since that time or that there has been a change in European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con): The UK already policy since that time? goes beyond EU minimum standards in a number of areas, such as working rights and environmental protections. Our high regulatory standards are not Lord Callanan: I am saying that one of the great dependent on EU membership. After leaving the EU, advantages of our new, upcoming independence will we will be free to set our own laws and the Government be the ability to set our own regulations and standards, will continue an ambitious and flexible approach to determined in this House. I am really not sure why the make smarter and more efficient regulation. Any future Opposition want Jean-Claude Juncker to determine changes to regulations will be subject to the appropriate our environmental standards rather than the British parliamentary scrutiny. people and the British Parliament. Lord Fox (LD): My Lords, during proceedings on Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD): I thank the noble the international trade Bill, your Lordships’ House Lord for that Answer, which tells me exactly nothing. I spent a lot of time talking about regulations and am even more confused than when I put this Question standards. The Minister at the time made a lot of down, because I see in the various documents that we undertakings about maintaining or, indeed, exceeding had yesterday that we are now about to have, current standards. That Bill has now been summarily “continued regulatory alignment for a potentially prolonged period scrapped. Meanwhile, the Secretary of State, Liz Truss, across the whole island of Ireland”. talks about having a low-regulation economy. That is That suggests that, if we are going to keep Northern why we on these Benches are concerned about the Irish and British standards the same, we will not issue. Who is right: those on your Benches who talk diverge. The Written Statement in the noble Lord’s about high standards or the Secretary of State, who name says that, talks about a low-regulation economy? “we will be negotiating a revised Political Declaration”. I assume that that is about divergence of regulations, Lord Callanan: We believe in having high standards among other things. Are the Government trying to say and we believe that we should determine these matters different things to different audiences? I think that for ourselves. I can give the Liberal Democrats some they are. Are we planning to go back to what happened examples. On maternity entitlement, the UK standard before Margaret Thatcher developed the European is 39 weeks, whereas the EU standard is 14 weeks. On single market, which was to move towards adopting annual leave, the UK has 5.6 weeks, whereas the EU US regulations? Or are the Government simply not has four. We have higher environmental standards on going to tell us what we are doing? greenhouse gas emissions: we were the first in the world to legislate on that. We already exceed the EU Lord Callanan: I am not sure why this is such a minimum requirements.Weare a high-standards economy difficult concept for the Liberal Democrats to grasp. and proud of it. We should be able to determine these There are EU minimum standards. In most of these things for ourselves. areas—whether it be holiday pay, maternity entitlement, annual leave or emissions standards—the UK goes Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con): Will my beyond those standards as a matter of our sovereign noble friend answer a simple question? When we leave choice. Why do the Liberal Democrats not have any the European Union on 31 October, we leave the confidence in our ability to determine our own standards? jurisdiction of the European Commission to apply 1775 Brexit: Divergence from EU Standards [LORDS] Inequality 1776 [BARONESS MCINTOSH OF PICKERING] Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab): My Lords, any environmental standards, but the Government over the past nine years we have seen a huge rise in the have not yet established the office for environmental number of food banks across the United Kingdom. protection. Which body will decide which environmental The Trussell Trust’s figures on this are just frightening. standards apply? If the Government truly wanted to end the widening
Recommended publications
  • The UK in the European Union: in Brief

    The UK in the European Union: in Brief

    The UK in the European Union: in brief Standard Note: SN/IA/7060 Last updated: 15 December 2014 Author: Vaughne Miller Section International Affairs and Defence Section The European Economic Community (EEC) was established by the Treaty of Rome in 1957 and the UK joined the EEC in 1973. This Note looks at some of the main events of the UK’s membership of the EEC/EC/EU. This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a substitute for it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is required. This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public. Contents Introduction 3 1951– Treaty of Paris 3 1955 – Messina Conference 3 1957 – Treaty of Rome 3 1959 – UK joins European Free Trade Association 3 1961- UK bid to join EEC 3 1967 – French veto of UK EEC membership 3 1969 – Third UK application 3 1973 – UK joins the EEC 4 1975 – UK Referendum on EU membership 4 1977 – First UK Presidency 4 1979 - European Monetary System 4 1981 – EU enlargement 4 1984 – UK Budget Rebate 4 1986
  • Brexit the Constitutional Endgame and the Need to Act Now Brexit: the Constitutional Endgame and the Need to Act Now

    Brexit the Constitutional Endgame and the Need to Act Now Brexit: the Constitutional Endgame and the Need to Act Now

    BREXIT THE CONSTITUTIONAL ENDGAME AND THE NEED TO ACT NOW BREXIT: THE CONSTITUTIONAL ENDGAME AND THE NEED TO ACT NOW Service of notice under article 50 of the Treaty on European Union will fire the starting gun on the formal process leading to the UK’s departure from the EU. The High Court will decide in October the much-debated question of whether the Government can choose on its own to give notice under article 50 or whether it needs legislative approval first. But the legal complexities are not confined to this initial stage. The end of the lengthy withdrawal process will also bring with it considerable uncertainties, as well as practical complications. These issues in the endgame influence, perhaps even dictate, what the UK needs to be doing now to prepare the UK for life outside the EU. The sooner legislation is brought forward to lay the groundwork for withdrawal and to remove the uncertainties, the easier it will be. Article 50(1) of the TEU requires a member state uncertainties as to what is required to end the that has decided in accordance with its process. After the UK has given its withdrawal constitutional requirements to withdraw from the notice, article 50(2) states the EU “shall negotiate EU to notify the European Council of its decision. and conclude” a withdrawal agreement with the What the UK’s constitutional requirements are for UK. This agreement should “set... out the this purpose will be the subject of court cases in arrangements for [the UK’s] withdrawal, taking England in October, R (on the application of Miller) account of the framework for its future v Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, coupled with relationship with the Union”.
  • Easing Legal and Administrative Obstacles in EU Border Regions

    Easing Legal and Administrative Obstacles in EU Border Regions

    Easing legal and administrative obstacles in EU border regions Case Study No. 4 Business Trade-related obstacles faced by businesses along the border (Ireland – United Kingdom) Written by H. Martinos February 2017 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy Directorate D: European Territorial Co-operation, Macro-regions, Interreg and Programme Implementation I Unit D2: Interreg, Cross-Border Cooperation, Internal Borders Contacts: Ana-Paula LAISSY (head of unit), Alexander FERSTL (contract manager) E-mail: [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels EUROPEAN COMMISSION Easing legal and administrative obstacles in EU border regions Case Study No. 4 Business Trade-related obstacles faced by businesses along the border (Ireland – United Kingdom) Annex to the Final Report for the European Commission Service Request Nr 2015CE160AT013 Competitive Multiple Framework Service Contracts for the provision of Studies related to the future development of Cohesion Policy and the ESI Funds (Lot 3) Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 2017 EN Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). LEGAL NOTICE This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).
  • Article the Empire Strikes Back: Brexit, the Irish Peace Process, and The

    Article the Empire Strikes Back: Brexit, the Irish Peace Process, and The

    ARTICLE THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK: BREXIT, THE IRISH PEACE PROCESS, AND THE LIMITATIONS OF LAW Kieran McEvoy, Anna Bryson, & Amanda Kramer* I. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................610 II. BREXIT, EMPIRE NOSTALGIA, AND THE PEACE PROCESS .......................................................................615 III. ANGLO-IRISH RELATIONS AND THE EUROPEAN UNION ...........................................................................624 IV. THE EU AND THE NORTHERN IRELAND PEACE PROCESS .......................................................................633 V. BREXIT, POLITICAL RELATIONSHIPS AND IDENTITY POLITICS IN NORTHERN IRELAND ....637 VI. BREXIT AND THE “MAINSTREAMING” OF IRISH REUNIFICATION .........................................................643 VII. BREXIT, POLITICAL VIOLENCE AND THE GOVERNANCE OF SECURITY ..................................646 VIII. CONCLUSION: BREXIT AND THE LIMITATIONS OF LAW ...............................................................................657 * The Authors are respectively Professor of Law and Transitional Justice, Senior Lecturer and Lecturer in Law, Queens University Belfast. We would like to acknowledge the comments and advice of a number of colleagues including Colin Harvey, Brian Gormally, Daniel Holder, Rory O’Connell, Gordon Anthony, John Morison, and Chris McCrudden. We would like to thank Alina Utrata, Kevin Hearty, Ashleigh McFeeters, and Órlaith McEvoy for their research assistance. As is detailed below, we would also like to thank the Economic
  • CONTENTS 1 in Summary

    CONTENTS 1 in Summary

    Vol 32 No 3 April 2020 CONTENTS 1 In summary 2 New legislation Order in Council Taxation (Use of Money Interest Rates Setting Process) Amendment Regulations 2020 Tax Administration (Direct Credit of Refunds of Excess Financial Support and Student Loan Payments) Order 2020 4 Legislation and determinations 2020 International Tax Disclosure Exemption ITR31 10 Interpretation statement IS 20/01: Income tax – treatment of the receipt of lump sum settlement payments 18 Standard practice statement SPS 20/02: Loss offset elections between group companies 24 Legal decisions – case impact statement Court of Appeal decides forgiveness of debt can be a charitable gift qualifying a taxpayer for donation tax credit 27 General article Check out beta version of Tax Technical site now ISSN 1177-620X (Online) Inland Revenue Department Tax Information Bulletin Vol 32 No 3 April 2020 YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT Inland Revenue regularly produces a number of statements and rulings aimed at explaining how taxation law affects taxpayers and their agents. Because we are keen to produce items that accurately and fairly reflect taxation legislation and are useful in practical situations, your input into the process, as a user of that legislation, is highly valued. You can find a list of the items we are currently inviting submissions on as well as a list of expired items at www.ird.govt.nz (search keywords: public consultation). Email your submissions to us at [email protected] or post them to: Public Consultation Tax Counsel Office Inland Revenue PO Box 2198 Wellington 6140 You can also subscribe at www.ird.govt.nz/public-consultation to receive regular email updates when we publish new draft items for comment.
  • FED National Education Consultation Report 2021

    FED National Education Consultation Report 2021

    foundation for education development National Education Consultation Report 2021. Building forward together. Building forward together. Contents. 3 Executive Summary. 4 Foreword. 6 Introduction. 7 Definitions and scope. Why we need a long-term plan for our education system. 8 – Inside the English education system. – Short-termism prevents our education system from addressing its big issues. Dealing with the consequences of COVID-19. 13 – Being ready for the big challenges of the future 16 How has the FED gone about its work so far? 17 Summary findings from 2019-2021 consultation events: 20 Next steps. Appendices. 21 a. Organisations who have engaged with the work of the FED b. Findings from the initial round of consultations (Dec 2019-March 2020) c. FED Advisory Council & Trustees d. FED Education Leaders Council e. FED National Ambassadors f. FED Events and Videos 2019 – 2021 Where you see this symbol, remember to click to view video evidence. 2 National Education Consultation Report 2021. Executive Summary. This short report makes the case for education to Without a long-term plan, our education system is be one of the key driving forces for the long-term prevented from addressing its big issues and from economic and social success of our country. being ready for the big challenges of the future: There is a widely held view that urgent work must be • The Future World of Work undertaken to ensure that the foundations of our • Productivity; Climate Change education system allow all children, young people and • Globalisation vs localism lifelong learners of the next decade to flourish. A long- • Increased Global Competition term vision and plan for the English education system • Post-Brexit Britain is now seen as a priority if our education system is to successfully recover from the impact of COVID-19.
  • Explanatory Notes to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

    Explanatory Notes to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

    EUROPEAN UNION (WITHDRAWAL) BILL EXPLANATORY NOTES What these notes do These Explanatory Notes relate to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill as introduced in the House of Commons on 13 July 2017 (Bill 5). ● These Explanatory Notes have been prepared by the Department for Exiting the European Union in order to assist the reader of the Bill and help inform debate on it. They do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by Parliament. ● These Explanatory Notes explain what each part of the Bill will mean in practice; provide background information on the development of policy; and provide additional information on how the Bill will affect existing legislation in this area. ● These Explanatory Notes might best be read alongside the Bill. They are not, and are not intended to be, a comprehensive description of the Bill. Bill 5–EN 57/1 Table of Contents Subject Page of these Notes Overview of the Bill 3 Policy background 4 Legal background 12 EU laws and legislation 12 The general principles of EU law 15 The Charter of Fundamental Rights 15 The principle of supremacy of EU law 16 The interpretation of EU law 16 EU law in the UK legal system 16 Territorial extent and application 19 Commentary on provisions of Bill 20 Clause 1: Repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 20 Clause 2: Saving for EU‐derived domestic legislation 22 Clause 3: Incorporation of direct EU legislation 22 Clause 4: Saving for rights etc. under section 2(1) of the ECA 24 Clause 5: Exceptions to savings and incorporation 26 Clause 6: Interpretation of retained EU law 27 Clause 7: Dealing with deficiencies arising from withdrawal 29 Clause 8: Complying with international obligations 32 Clause 9: Implementing the withdrawal agreement 32 Clause 10: Corresponding powers involving devolved authorities 32 Clause 11: Retaining EU restrictions in devolution legislation etc.
  • The Legal and Constitutional Nature of the New International Treaties on Economic and Monetary Union from the Perspective of Eu Law

    The Legal and Constitutional Nature of the New International Treaties on Economic and Monetary Union from the Perspective of Eu Law

    P-с \<L Ka ¿^ ļ/s ^ ^—T> . _ _Λί_- ΛνΛ.1^-^<Λ-\,?_--^/V" p/ Jk*, Focus THE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL NATURE OF THE NEW INTERNATIONAL TREATIES ON ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF EU LAW Rose M. D'Sa LL.B. (Hons), Ph.D (University of Birmingham, UK) Barrister at Law (MiddleTemple, non-practising) Consultant in European Union Law Member, European Economic and Social Committee (EESC, Brussels) Introduction This article1 discusses, in particular, two proposed Treaties of an "inter-goverrimental" nature (i.e. Treaties governed by International Law rather than European Union Law). The first is the Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (hereinafter referred to as the "TSCG") and the second, theTreaty on the European Stability Mechanism ("TESM"or ESM Treaty). The analysis focuses inter alia on the issue of whether the creation of these instruments is, of itself, legal and constitutional within the framework of the EU Treaties, their future relationship with the existing EU legal framework and whether their objectives could or should, as a matter of law, have been achieved within the framework of the latter. It takes account of the texts of relevant legal instruments as they stood on February 2, 2012, though some limited reference to later events has been possible. In particular, the TSCG was formally signed on March 2, 2012. The most recent alterations to its text include a new focus on growth, but otherwise appear minor. European politics in recent years and months has become increasingly focused on the economic, financial and sovereign debt crisis, created in part by the situation in Greece.
  • Britain's European Question and an In/Out Referendum

    Britain's European Question and an In/Out Referendum

    To be or not to be in Europe: is that the question? Britain’s European question and an in/out referendum TIM OLIVER* ‘It is time to settle this European question in British politics.’ David Cameron, 23 January 2013.1 Britain’s European question It came as no surprise to those who follow the issue of the European Union in British politics that David Cameron’s January 2013 speech on Europe excited a great deal of comment. The EU is among the most divisive issues in British politics. Cameron himself drew on this to justify his committing the Conservative Party, should it win the general election in 2015, to seek a renegotiated position for the UK within the EU which would then be put to the British people in an in/out referendum. Growing public frustrations at UK–EU relations were, he argued, the result of both a longstanding failure to consult the British people about their country’s place in the EU, and a changing EU that was undermining the current relationship between Britain and the Union. As a result, he argued, ‘the democratic consent for the EU in Britain is now wafer-thin’. Cameron’s speech was met with both criticism and praise from Eurosceptics and pro-Europeans alike.2 In a speech at Chatham House backing Cameron’s plan, the former Conservative prime minister Sir John Major best captured some of the hopes for a referendum: ‘The relationship with Europe has poisoned British politics for too long, distracted parliament from other issues and come close to destroying the Conservative Party.
  • Section 1.14.08.02

    Section 1.14.08.02

    Dimensions 2002 Annual Update of CAFs Top 500 Fundraising Charities Cathy Pharoah Dimensions 2002 Update of CAF’s Top 500 Fundraising Charities Cathy Pharoah © 2002 Charities Aid Foundation Published by Charities Aid Foundation Kings Hill, West Malling, Kent, ME19 4TA Tel +44 (0) 1732 520000 Fax +44 (0) 1732 520001 Web address http://www.CAFonline.org Editor Andrew Steeds Design and production Big Picture Interactive ISBN 1-85934–140-3 All rights reserved; no part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by mimeograph or any other means, without permission in writing from the publisher. The CAF research team Cathy Pharoah Catherine Walker Liz Goodey Michelle Graley Andrew Fisher Tel +44 (0) 1732 520125 E-mail [email protected] The author would like to thank Susan Jones and Fraser Wilson for collecting and preparing the data for this report. CAF’s top 500 fundraising charities 1999–2000 Cathy Pharoah The millennium bonus for charities? The evidence from this 1999–2000 set of top charity fundraising tables shows that charities may well have received a remarkable millennium bonus. Both the voluntary income and total income of CAF’s top 500 fundraising charities showed impressive real-terms increases, as people marked the end of the century through many special fundraising events and campaigns such as Children’s Promise. If this increase is indeed due to a wave of public sentiment at the turn of the century, it is clear today that the millennium would not be alone in riding a tide of public- spiritedness. Recent events have shown that, in times of disaster or public grief, people turn again and again to philanthropy as a way of expressing their feelings.
  • Northern Ireland and the EU Referendum

    Northern Ireland and the EU Referendum

    House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee Northern Ireland and the EU referendum First Report of Session 2016–17 HC 48 House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee Northern Ireland and the EU referendum First Report of Session 2016–17 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 25 May 2016 HC 48 Published on 26 May 2016 by authority of the House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Northern Ireland Office (but excluding individual cases and advice given by the Crown Solicitor); and other matters within the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (but excluding the expenditure, administration and policy of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Northern Ireland and the drafting of legislation by the Office of the Legislative Counsel). Current membership Mr Laurence Robertson MP (Conservative, Tewkesbury) (Chair) Tom Blenkinsop MP (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) Oliver Colvile MP (Conservative, Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) Mr Nigel Evans MP (Conservative, Ribble Valley) Mr Stephen Hepburn MP (Labour, Jarrow) Lady Hermon MP (Independent, North Down) Kate Hoey MP (Labour, Vauxhall) Danny Kinahan MP (Ulster Unionist Party, South Antrim) Jack Lopresti MP (Conservative, Filton and Bradley Stoke) Dr Alasdair McDonnell MP (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South) Nigel Mills MP (Conservative, Amber Valley) Ian Paisley MP (Democratic Unionist Party, North Antrim) Gavin Robinson MP (Democratic Unionist Party, Belfast East) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No.
  • The Status of "Retained EU Law"

    The Status of "Retained EU Law"

    HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY BRIEFING PAPER Number 08375, 30 July 2018 The status of "retained EU By Graeme Cowie law" Contents: 1. Current status of EU law 2. Effect of repealing the European Communities Act 1972 3. What is retained EU law? 4. EU- derived domestic legislation (section 2 EUWA) 5. Direct EU legislation (section 3 EUWA) 6. Otherwise retained EU law (section 4 EUWA) 7. Limits on retention of EU law (section 5 and Schedule 1) 8. Interpretation of retained EU law (section 6) 9. Transition www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 The status of "retained EU law" Contents Summary 4 1. Current status of EU law 6 1.1 Implementation of EU treaties in the UK 6 1.2 Supremacy of EU law generally 7 1.3 Current relationship between EU law and the UK constitution 8 Parliamentary sovereignty 8 European Communities Act 1972 9 Factortame and disapplication of incompatible domestic law 10 Constitutional statutes and implied repeal 11 European Union Act 2011 12 2. Effect of repealing the European Communities Act 1972 15 2.1 Repealing the 1972 Act 15 2.2 Retaining law arising from the 1972 Act 16 2.3 When is exit day? 16 3. What is retained EU law? 17 3.1 Definition 17 3.2 Exceptions 17 3.3 Omissions 18 3.4 How retained EU law might change 18 4. EU-derived domestic legislation (section 2 EUWA) 19 4.1 What is it? 19 4.2 Examples of what it will include 20 4.3 How can EU-derived domestic legislation be changed? 20 5.