header-logo header-logo

Beware the Brexit power grab

15 January 2020
Issue: 7870 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail
A committee of Peers has raised serious constitutional concerns about ministerial powers granted by the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

The primary source of concern is clause 26(1) of the bill, which gives ministers powers to require courts and tribunals to deviate from retained EU case law and, instead, apply ministerial guidelines. In a report published this week, the House of Lords Constitution Committee branded the cl 26(1) powers ‘inappropriate’ and ‘constitutionally significant’,and called for their removal from the bill.

In contrast, the previous version of the clause―s 6(1) of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018―provided that retained EU law would be interpreted by courts and tribunals in line with case law applicable on or before exit day.

In the report, the committee agrees that ‘it is inappropriate for courts other than the Supreme Court and the Scottish High Court of Justiciary to have power to depart from the interpretations of EU case law’.

Second, the government’s proposal to consult with senior judges on the applicable tests for departures ‘is not an adequate substitute for the determination of such issues in adversarial proceedings in open court, open to interventions and with the assistance of counsel’.

Third, the committee said there ‘is no case for such broad and constitutionally significant regulation-making powers, the effect of which may undermine legal certainty’.

Baroness Taylor, chair of the committee, said: ‘The government should reconsider the implications of cl 26 and the potential for significant legal uncertainty if lower courts are to be given the power to depart from previous European Court of Justice case law and previous domestic interpretations of retained EU law.’

The committee also recommends the government reinstate provision for parliamentary oversight of negotiations and allow greater scrutiny of Henry VIII powers and other delegated powers.

Meanwhile, the Institute for Government has warned the government only has time to agree a goods-only free trade agreement in the 11 months before the end of the transition period. In a report published this week, ‘Getting Brexit Done’, it said the Northern Ireland Protocol, on regulatory and customs checks, ‘is almost certainly undeliverable’ by December 2020.

Issue: 7870 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll