I think that my right hon. and learned Friend has answered his own point. Without paragraph (2), clause 5(2) becomes rather difficult to apply. I want to get to the nub of his concern, however, which is paragraph (3) of the schedule. We recognise the strength of the views that he and other Members on both sides of the Committee have expressed on this issue, many of whom have spoken this afternoon. We are listening, and we are prepared to look again at this issue to ensure that we are taking an approach that can command the support of the Committee.
Simply removing paragraph (3) in its entirety, however, is not something that we could agree to. It would result in an open-ended right of challenge based on the general principles of EU law, however they are defined, after exit. It would mean that domestic legislation, both secondary and primary, rules of law and Executive action could be disapplied or quashed if found to be incompatible with those actions. Currently, the general principles apply when a member state is
“acting within the scope of EU law”,
so after exit the circumstances in which the general principles could be relied upon would not be clear.
Allowing courts to overturn Acts of Parliament, outside of the context of EU law, on the basis of incompatibility with these principles would be alien to our legal system and would offend against parliamentary sovereignty.