header-logo header-logo

15 January 2020
Issue: 7870 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Beware the Brexit power grab

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll