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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll