Addressing the constitutional flaws in the EU Withdrawal Bill: The view of the Constitution Committee

25265

Today sees the start of two days of debate in the House of Lords as the EU (Withdrawal) Bill has its second reading stage. Ahead of that debate, the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords has produced a report on the legislation. In this blogpost Baroness Taylor, who chairs the committee, explains that the Bill as currently constituted has major flaws that could cause serious constitutional problems if left unamended.

Brexit presents an unprecedented constitutional challenge for the UK. In order to achieve a smooth departure from the European Union, it is essential that there is legal certainty and continuity on exit day. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (the Bill) is the government’s attempt to achieve this. It attempts to deliver certainty by preserving existing EU law as it currently applies in the UK and converting it into domestic law. This is a legal undertaking of a type and scale that is unique and it poses significant challenges for both parliament and the government.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee gave early consideration to these challenges in its ‘Great Repeal Bill’ and delegated powers report and its interim report on the Withdrawal Bill itself. We are disappointed that the Government has not addressed our earlier concerns and recommendations and, as it stands, the Bill raises a series of profound, wide-ranging and interlocking constitutional concerns. The Committee’s latest report, published yesterday, explores the constitutional deficiencies of the Bill in detail, and offers a number of constructive solutions to improve this essential legislation.

At present, the Bill risks fundamentally undermining legal certainty in a number of ways. The creation of ‘retained EU law’ (existing EU law in a new domestic form) will result in problematic uncertainties and ambiguities as to what it contains and how it relates to other domestic law. The Bill fails to give sufficient clarity and guidance to the courts as to how retained EU law is to be interpreted after the UK leaves the European Union and it seeks, unsuccessfully and erroneously, to perpetuate the ‘supremacy’ of EU law post-Brexit. Continue reading

The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill: constitutional change and legal continuity

The long-awaited ‘Great Repeal Bill’, to be known officially as the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, was published last Thursday. The bill is a complex mix of constitutional change and legal continuity. Jack Simson Caird highlights some of its main elements.

Nine months after Theresa May first announced that there would be a ‘Great Repeal Bill’, and three and a half months after triggering Article 50, the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (EUW Bill) was published on 13 July 2017.

Constitutional change

The EUW Bill repeals the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA) (clause 1). The ECA provides the ‘conduit pipe’ through which EU law flows into the UK, and represents a central component of the UK’s current constitutional architecture. The key provisions of the EUW Bill replace the ECA with a new constitutional framework. The main constitutional changes in the EUW Bill include:

  • the creation of a new distinct body of law known as ‘retained EU law’;
  • broadly-framed delegated powers for government to alter this body of law;
  • new instructions to the courts on how to interpret retained EU law; and
  • amendments to the legislation that underpin devolution.

Legal continuity

The government’s position is that the primary purpose of the bill is to provide a ‘functioning statute book’, ensuring legal continuity after exit day. The bill’s most-far reaching provisions, in terms of their direct legal effect, are those which retain existing EU-derived law (clause 2) and convert most directly-applicable EU law (clause 3). However, the continuity provided by these provisions must be seen in context of the reality that leaving the EU will also require major constitutional and policy changes in a relatively short, and currently uncertain, time frame.

Balancing continuity and change

Since the announcement of the intention to convert the acquis (the entire body of EU rights and obligations) ‘wholesale’ through this bill, the government has claimed that the general rule is that the ‘same rules and laws’ will apply on the day after Brexit. While a significant proportion of EU law will be able to be preserved, this general position masks the complexity of legislating for Brexit:

  • the delegated powers in the bill will be used to amend retained EU law in significant ways, notably to reflect the withdrawal agreement;
  • a proportion of EU law will no longer apply once the UK is outside the EU;
  • the government is bringing forward a number of bills to make substantive policy changes in areas currently covered by EU law; and
  • preserved EU law will function differently as retained EU law than it did as EU when the UK was an EU member state and subject to the full force of EU law.

Continue reading

Ask the Experts: Legal and Constitutional Implications of Brexit

On 13 June UCL Public Policy and the House of Commons Library jointly hosted an ‘Ask the Experts’ event on the legal and constitutional implications of Brexit. The panel consisted of specialists from both institutions. Marc Phoon reports.

The possible economic and social consequences of Brexit were central features of the referendum debate and continue to be discussed widely. However, of equal importance are the legal and constitutional implications of Brexit, which may very well underpin the long term outcomes of the Brexit negotiations. ‘Ask the Experts: Legal and Constitutional Implications of Brexit’, an event jointly hosted by UCL Public Policy and the House of Commons Library on 13 June, aimed to provide some clarity on this matter.

The panel consisted of staff from both the House of Commons Library and UCL. Vaughne Miller is the Head of International Affairs and Defence at the House of Commons Library and an EU law specialist. She was joined by two of her colleagues, Arabella Lang, a treaty specialist and Jack Simson Caird, a constitutional law specialist and UCL alumnus. Ronan McCrea, a Senior Lecturer from the Faculty of Laws and Christine Reh, Reader in European Politics from the Department of Political Science, both based at UCL, completed the panel. Meg Russell from the Constitution Unit chaired the event. In introducing the panel, she emphasised the high-quality, reliable and digestible briefings publicly available from the House of Commons Library, as well (of course) as the materials available from the Constitution Unit, the UCL Brexit Hub and other UCL experts.

Vaughne Miller

Vaughne Miller kick-started the discussion by offering an overview of the differing approaches taken by the EU and the UK government ahead of the Brexit negotiations. The EU, through the European Commission and European Council, has already set out its priorities for the negotiations. It is particularly concerned with issues related to EU citizens’ rights post-Brexit, the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and the so called ‘divorce bill’ – i.e. the financial settlement between the UK and the EU. She noted that the EU has a clearer position than the UK government because of the EU’s laws on transparency, which mean that the majority of the negotiation guidelines coming from the EU will be publicly available.

Miller went on to explain that it is not yet clear how the UK parliament is going to be kept informed about the progress of Brexit negotiations. The government has indicated that the UK parliament will be kept at least as informed as the European Parliament. Nevertheless, MPs have signalled their expectations on this matter through a report published by the European Scrutiny Committee. Furthermore, because of the general election and summer recess, there are concerns about whether there will be adequate parliamentary scrutiny of the early stages of the negotiations. Notably, select committees in the Commons which scrutinise government departments are not likely to be properly established until September this year.

Continue reading

Taking back control? Initial thoughts on the Great Repeal Bill white paper

In the newly published Great Repeal Bill white paper, the government makes much of the theme ‘taking back control’. But the paper’s content does little to alleviate the fear that it is the executive, not parliament, that will benefit from the Great Repeal Bill process. The Hansard Society’s Ruth Fox has five initial questions raised by the white paper.

1/ When will the parliamentary votes on any Brexit deal be held?

The white paper seems to reveal confusion in the government’s position regarding the timing of the votes that it has promised both chambers of parliament on the Brexit deal. In the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech and at the start of the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill second reading debate on 31 January the government said that the votes would be held before the deal ‘comes into force’. By the second day of the bill’s committee stage on 7 February, the government said that it would bring forward a motion to approve the deal ‘before it is concluded’. In the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday and her foreword to the white paper today, she reverted to the original ‘before it comes into force’ position. But paragraph 1.19 of the white paper reintroduces ‘before it is concluded’. This may be carelessness, but the two phrases could mean very different things. Parliament now needs urgently to clarify with the government when exactly in the process it plans to put any final Brexit deal to the vote.

2/ Is the government’s description of the delegated legislation process accurate?

On page 23 of the white paper, the government states that parliamentary procedures allow parliament to scrutinise as many or as few statutory instruments as it sees fit, and notes that parliament can and regularly does both debate and vote on secondary legislation.

What the white paper omits to mention, however, is that secondary legislation subject to the negative scrutiny procedure (the majority of this type of legislation) can only be debated if an MP ‘prays’ against it via an Early Day Motion (EDM). Even then, whether it is debated lies in the hands of the government, not parliament. Paragraph 3.21 states that under the negative procedure members of either chamber can ‘require’ a debate and if necessary a vote. In fact, they can ‘request’ these, but they cannot ‘require’ them. The government controls the parliamentary timetable in the House of Commons, and it must therefore agree to grant the time for any debate. In the last parliamentary session, MPs debated just 3 per cent of the 585 negative instruments laid before them. And although the Leader of the Opposition and his front bench colleagues tabled 12 prayer motions for a debate, just five were granted.

Sometimes the government doesn’t prevent a debate but runs down the clock and builds in delays that minimise the ability of MPs to revoke a regulation. In the last week alone, the opposition had to secure an emergency debate under Standing Order 24 in order to debate the new Personal Independence Payment Regulations. 179 MPs from eight different parties prayed against the SI via an EDM, but the government only scheduled a debate for 19 April, 16 days after the ‘praying against’ period would have expired. This makes revocation difficult. The emergency debate was a means to air the issues before the annulment period came to an end, but it had no force, as there was no substantive vote on the regulations.

Continue reading

Why parliament needs a ‘good Brexit’

brigid-fowler

There are two scenarios for the way in which parliament’s handling of Brexit affects its position in the UK’s democratic system – one in which Brexit strengthens the executive, and one in which parliament emerges enhanced. Which of these prevails could have an effect long after the UK leaves the EU, writes the Hansard Society’s Brigid Fowler. If parliament has a ‘good Brexit’, it could strengthen its standing in relation to both the executive and the public.

The UK’s vote to leave the EU was ‘a vote to restore … our parliamentary democracy’, the Prime Minister declared in her January 17 Brexit speech. Theresa May suggested that the UK’s possession of ‘the principle of parliamentary sovereignty [as] the basis of our unwritten constitutional settlement’ was among the reasons the country decided it cannot continue to operate inside a supranational framework. And yet this reaffirmation of the traditional role of the UK parliament, delivered as part of one of the most important prime ministerial policy announcements in a generation, was delivered in a building managed by the Foreign Office, not at Westminster.

The irony has not been lost on many politicians and commentators reacting to Mrs May’s speech, including the Leader of the Opposition. The disjunction seemed to encapsulate one of the central tensions in the Brexit process, namely its potential to either expand or undermine the role of parliament in the UK’s democratic system. Especially now that the arguments about process that surrounded the Prime Minister’s speech have been followed by the Supreme Court’s ruling on the scope of the government’s prerogative powers, they have refocused attention on the implications of Brexit for the legislature.

Regardless of positions on Brexit, and the type of Brexit the Prime Minister has now said she will pursue, the EU referendum and withdrawal process represents a significant challenge to the UK’s traditional system of representative democracy. The UK is now embarked on one of the most consequential policies of its post-1945 history without this ever having been the policy of a government formed as a result of a general election. Before the referendum, EU withdrawal was the official policy of only two of the ten parties represented in the House of Commons (not counting Sinn Féin), mustering nine MPs between them (eight DUP and one UKIP). Taking Conservative, Labour and UUP splits into account, only 158 of 650 MPs – 24% – are reckoned to have backed ‘Leave’. The proportion of peers backing Brexit was probably even lower.

Continue reading