Category: Legislation and Law-Making

A look at Keir Starmer’s proposal for a “Taking Back Control” Bill

5th January 2023

Today the leader of the main opposition party in the United Kingdom gave a speech.

You can read a version of Keir Starmer’s speech on the Labour party website.

One part of it which seems possibly interesting from a legal perspective is a proposal for a “Taking Back Control” Bill.

This is what the speech said:

“So we will embrace the Take Back Control message. But we’ll turn it from a slogan to a solution. From a catchphrase into change. We will spread control out of Westminster. Devolve new powers over employment support, transport, energy, climate change, housing, culture, childcare provision and how councils run their finances.

“And we’ll give communities a new right to request powers which go beyond this.

“All this will be in a new “Take Back Control” Bill – a centrepiece of our first King’s speech. A Bill that will deliver on the demand for a new Britain. A new approach to politics and democracy. A new approach to growth and our economy.”

*

This call for de-centralisation and devolution will face the two fundamental problems every such call has faced since the nineteenth century.

*

The first problem for de-centralisation and devolution is the doctrine of the supremacy of the Westminster parliament.

This doctrine, which in good part was a Victorian innovation not known to earlier jurists, tells that all legislative power in our polity rests with the Crown-in-Parliament.

This means that no other body in the United Kingdom can legislate other than to the extent permitted by the Westminster parliament.

Recently this doctrine was illustrated by the Supreme Court decision on a reference by Scotland’s Lord Advocate.

In effect, the Scottish parliament is merely another statutory corporation, subject to the rule of ultra vires.

The Westminster parliament will not easily forego this legislative supremacy and – if we adhere to the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy – it may be impossible for the Westminster parliament to do so.

This means that any de-centralisation and devolution is at the Westminster parliament’s command: Westminster can grant this seeing autonomy, and Westminster can easily take it away.

*

What we do have are numerous devolution and local government statutes, all defining and limiting what various authorities can and cannot do.

There is no real autonomy – even for the Scottish parliament.

No ability to do things despite what the Westminster parliament would like an authority to do.

Ambitious projects by local authorities – such as when the Victorian town of Birmingham (not even yet a city) went and bought and operated its own gas and water industries – would be impossible now.

That is real de-centralisation and devolution – doing things the centre cannot stop.

*

The second problem for de-centralisation and devolution is in respect of policy and administration, rather than law.

It is the sheer dominance of HM Treasury in Whitehall and the public sector more generally.

For example, HM Treasury has a monopoly in respect of almost all fiscal and financial – that is, tax-raising and borrowing – powers.

(Even the Scottish parliament has limited autonomy to vary income tax rates and the Scottish government power to borrow money.)

And no public body has complete fiscal autonomy – and, indeed, many public bodies rely on central government for grants and financing.

It is unlikely that Whitehall will happily allow regional authorities and devolved administrations absolute power to raise taxes and borrow money.

*

And now back to the word “control”.

Unless regional authorities and devolved administrations have absolute power to raise taxes and borrow money, or to make rules and mount ambitions problems, then they do not have “control”.

Instead, “control” will stay – as it always does – with Westminster and Whitehall.

Westminster and Whitehall can extend the leash, but they can pull the leash back.

That is not “control”.

*

Looking more closely at Starmer’s speech, it is not clear to whom this “control” is to be actually given.

Consider the following passages (emphases added):

“…the Britain that Labour can build. A fairer, greener, more dynamic country with an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top. And a politics which trusts communities with the power to control their destiny.”

“Giving communities the chance to control their economic destiny. The argument is devastatingly simple.”

“It’s not unreasonable for us to recognise the desire for communities to stand on their own feet. It’s what Take Back Control meant. The control people want is control over their lives and their community.”

“We need to turbo-charge this potential, but Westminster can’t do that on its own, it can only do it with communities. That’s why Labour will give them the trust. The power. And the control.”

And so on.

There is noting specific here as to who will get this supposed “control”.

Will it be existing local authorities or new regional bodies?

Will it be new legal entities smaller than existing councils?

And – most importantly if this really is about “control” – what will happen if those “communities” want to do something which Westminster and Whitehall do not want them to do?

*

Starmer did list some of the topics where there could be devolution of powers: “employment support, transport, energy, climate change, housing, culture, childcare provision and how councils run their finances”.

But devolution is not granting “control”, as there will be limits to what even the most ambitious local authority will be able to do in the face of any opposition from Westminster and Whitehall.

And there is also a respectable argument – which you may or may not endorse – than on issues such as transport and housing, there needs to be far less local autonomy, not more, so for us as to escape the ongoing blight of NIMBYism.

*

Starmer insisted in his speech that the “Take Back Control” will be turned from “a slogan to a solution”.

And it we missed the import of that rhetorical turn, Starmer then said it will be turned from “a catchphrase into change”.

(This is reminiscent of his predecessor Tony Blair’s wonderful statement once that “[a] day like today is not a day for soundbites, we can leave those at home, but I feel the hand of history upon our shoulder with respect to this, I really do.”)

But there is nothing in this speech which does go beyond slogans and catchphrases.

There is no substance to the supposed “controls” which are to be given “back”.

And there is nothing specific as to whom or what those “controls” are to be given.

*

You may have Very Strong Opinions on de-centralisation and devolution.

You may welcome Starmer’s speech as a good and welcome signal of change.

You may oppose it as it may mean impediments to policies which may need to be directed at the national level.

But what one cannot say is that it tells us much, if anything, about how de-centralisation and devolution is to work in practice.

And it says nothing about how – at least in England – local authorities can break free from the real controls of Westminster and Whitehall.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

How the campaign to stop the United Kingdom government from making it more difficult to prosecute war crimes was won

16th December 2022

Sometimes legal things do not always end badly.

Two years ago, in 2020, I did a video for the Financial Times on how the United Kingdom government was then making it more difficult for former United Kingdom service personnel to be prosecuted for war crimes.

The government was in 2020-21 using a Bill to make it more difficult for any historic civil or criminal legal action to be brought against former service personnel and – for some reason – torture and war crimes would be among those offences that would be made more difficult to prosecute.

Whatever that reason was, it was not a good reason.

There are certain offences so grave that there should not be formal or effective immunity for those who commit those crimes.

And this was not about battlefield or front line operations, but about the treatment of civilians or captives.

*

Many – including serving and former military personnel – were deeply unhappy with this proposed immunity.

And the fine people at Freedom from Torture and at other campaign groups put together an impressive and persuasive campaign against the proposed legislation:

The pressure mounted, and the Bill’s progress through Parliament was getting trickier.

And then, in April 2021, the government capitulated:

And so the Bill passed into law with the following exemptions:

*

Two years later, as this blog set out yesterday, a full statutory inquiry has now been announced into illegal actions by service personnel in Afghanistan,

For such an inquiry to be announced there must be some significant prima facie evidence which has come to light, even if that evidence is not conclusive about any wrongdoing.

Yet just two years ago, the United Kingdom government was anxiously seeking to legislate so as to make it far more practically difficult for any historic war crimes to be prosecuted.

Thanks to the campaigners at Freedom from Torture and elsewhere, that legislative proposal was checked.

As the post on this blog also averred yesterday, it is difficult – legally, politically, culturally – for our armed services (and security services and police services) to ever be held to account for possible wrongdoing.

And the fact that there is sufficient information now available to trigger a full statutory inquiry (and this can be said without prejudice to that inquiry’s conclusions) means that those who campaigned against the exemption for war crimes were entirely right to do so.

***

These law and policy posts are also crossposted on my new “law and lore” Substack – and I would be grateful if you can click and subscribe (for free) at my Substack, which will soon have exclusive content.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

Today 71 Members of Parliament supported a Bill that would have allowed the government to break international law on asylum seekers

14th December 2022

Earlier today, 71 Members of Parliament supported a Bill that would allow the government to send asylum seekers back to the countries from where they had most immediately come from, regardless of international law.

The Asylum Seekers (Return to Safe Countries) Bill is here.

You will see in the Bill there is this clause one:

It is not a well-drafted Bill.

Look at that clause one again, and see if you can spot the term “asylum seeker”.

You will not find it in the substantive and operative text, but only in the title of the clause.

Nonetheless, clause four of the Bill defines “asylum seeker” as follows:

(This is therefore a shoddy bit of legislative drafting: defining a term and then not actually using it in the substantive and operative provision is a howler.)

But let us pretend that the drafter of the Bill had got it right and included the defined term in the substantive and operative provision, rather than just in a title of a clause.

*

As it stands, my understanding is that whether an asylum seeker has come from a “safe country” may affect the credibility of an asylum application:

This means it is a factor that goes to the exercise of the discretion of the decision maker on the asylum application.

But.

The Bill presented today goes beyond such issues of credibility, and requires that provisions be made for the asylum seeker’s immediate removal if they have arrived from a “safe country” – even if that is not where from where they are ultimately fleeing.

If you look at the scheduled list of “safe countries” you will see that it is unlikely for any asylum seeker to have arrived here – at least by boat – without coming from one of those listed:

Ireland, Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Iceland – and all other geographically close countries – are “safe countries”.

And so if today’s Bill was passed into law, then any asylum seeker – even if they were fleeing from Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere – would be returned to the “safe country” from which they had most immediately left to get to the United Kingdom, regardless of the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

The United Kingdom’s obligations under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees apply regardless to the route by which the asylum seeker has reached our shores.

Even the current law sets out that a route here via “safe countries” only goes to credibility.

*

Some may want to dismiss today’s vote – perhaps even scoff at it.

But it is significant.

I remember back in October 2011 the scoffing at the 111 Members of Parliament who voted against the government for a referendum on the European Union.

We are not scoffing now.

Similarly, 71 is not a trivial number of Members of Parliament.

And despite the government not supporting today’s Bill, the 71 Members of Parliament voted so as to enable the government to break international law anyway.

*

There is something worrying with the readiness of Members of Parliament to support legislation that expressly enables the government to break its international legal obligations, whether it is the Northern Irish Protocol Bill or today’s Asylum Seekers (Removal to Safe Countries) Bill.

Yes, the Bill’s supporters lost – today.

But as in 2011, such a rebellion is perhaps a sign of things to come.

Today’s vote is not a good sign.

Brace, brace.

***

Thank you for reading: posts like this take time and opportunity cost, and so for more law and policy posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box (above), or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

These law and policy posts are also crossposted on my new “law and lore” Substack.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

What is going to now happen with the Bill of Rights?

9th December 2022

You really would need a heart of stone not to laugh like a drain:

This blog has previously compared Dominic Raab’s quest to repeal the Human Rights Act with Captain Ahab’s quest to get Moby Dick.

And it would appear that Raab is going to fail, again.

It looks likely that his “Bill of Rights” – which was to repeal the Human Rights Act and to make it more practically difficult to rely on the European Convention on Human Rights  – will be dropped.

As it is, there has been no legislative movement on the Bill since 22 June 2022, which is now almost six months ago:

The Human Rights Act 1998 will still be there, and Dominic Raab may soon not be.

*

But.

Those generally supportive of the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights should not be tempted into complacency by the apparent dropping of the Bill.

There are many ways a canny government can subvert human rights protections – subtle, hidden ways.

All that has failed here is a loud and clumsy frontal attack.

In a way, such performative proposals are the easiest to deal with, as they often collapse from their own absurdity.

The Home Secretary Suella Braverman is also no friend of the European Convention on Human Rights, but she and her Home Office of lawyers will come up with less obvious proposals in upcoming legislation.

The convention itself is fairly safe as part of our domestic law, as the Good Friday Agreement expressly requires convention rights to be directly enforceable in the courts of Northern Ireland.

There is thereby little-to-no chance that the convention will be taken out of our domestic law.

And there now seems little chance that the Human Rights Act, which gives effect to the convention in our domestic law, will itself be repealed.

But in the two or so years before the latest date for the next general election – January 2025 – there is a great deal ambitious ministers can do try to do with more focused legislation.

So while we can afford a moment at this festive time of merriment to have a hearty cheer at the apparent failure of the Bill of Rights, we must stop the cheering when the Christmas decorations come down.

And be braced, braced for the new year.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

How three Bills now before Parliament tell us the story of Brexit

7th December 2022

Here is a story about three Bills.

The Bills are not chaps called William, but legislative proposals placed before the Westminster parliament by the government of the United Kingdom.

Taken individually – and especially taken together – these three Bills tell a tale.

They tell the story of Brexit.

*

The first Bill is the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.

This is a proposal that would enable the government of the United Kingdom to break the exit agreement it signed with the European Union.

This agreement was signed in a rush, so as to “get Brexit done”.

This was the agreement which, if you recall, was promoted by the-then prime minister Boris Johnson as an “oven-ready deal”.

And this was the agreement which sought to square the rushed Brexit with no commercial border in the island of Ireland.

(An alternative way of addressing the same problem, with the “backstop”, was rejected when Theresa May was prime minister.)

The current Bill is an attempt to somehow unwind this solemnly agreed position.

Many think this Bill has no good purpose – indeed, many regard the Bill as having no purpose other than to placate some government supporters.

And it certainly is a rum thing for any government to so openly proclaim its lack of good faith in entering international agreements.

The Bill, therefore, tells us about the lack of thought and preparation of the government of the United Kingdom in how it approached Brexit.

*

The second Bill is the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.

The Bill shows us that the government of the United Kingdom, having got Brexit done, does not know what to do with it.

This is the proposed legislation promoted by Jacob Rees-Mogg which would automatically repeal all European Union law still in force.

It does not matter whether that law is useful – or even essential.

It does not matter if the law was negotiated by the United Kingdom and serves to protect certain public interests.

The retained law is going to be repealed automatically anyway.

There is no good reason for this silly Bill.

The only reason it exists is to show that the British government is doing something – anything – with the supposed “Brexit opportunities”.

And as no concrete, discrete opportunities have been identified, it is doing this daft and potentially dangerous thing instead.

This second Bill, therefore, tells us that not only did the government rush through Brexit without proper preparation, but it also has no idea what will follow Brexit.

(In this, this second Bill is akin to the rushed and disadvantageous “international trade agreements” which were also signed so as to show “Brexit opportunities”.)

*

The third Bill is the Bill of Rights Bill.

This legislation is not directly about the European Union, but it tells us everything about the need for there to be new “European” courts and laws for the government to attack.

Brexit was simply not enough, and so the next target is the European Convention of Human Rights.

This third Bill shows the need for Tories to have a perpetual war with “Europe” (even if not the European Union) that has been unsatisfied by Brexit.

The Bill itself is not a good piece of legislation, and it has been roasted by judges and Conservative politicians.

It seeks to repeal the Human Rights Act, and to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to rely in domestic courts on their rights under European Convention of Human Rights.

This third Bill, therefore, tells us that Brexit was not really about the European Union, but about trying to satisfy (but failing to satisfy) the endless demand of some government supporters for confrontation and retreat with something European.

*

If Brexit was worthwhile, then it would take only one good government Bill to show the benefits of Brexit: for the United Kingdom government to show what it could do with its new autonomy from the European Union.

But there is no such good Bill.

Instead there are these three misconceived and illiberal Bills, each trying to do something pointless or needless.

Each in their way, and when taken together, telling us all we need to know about Brexit: that the exit was rushed and botched, that the exit has provided no practical benefits, and that that the exit will never be enough for many of those who supported it.

***

Posts like this take time and opportunity cost, and so for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box (above), or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

These posts are also crossposted on my new “law and lore” substack – please subscribe there if you can.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

We are not only in the age of easy answers but also in the age of easy-to-avoid questions

28th November 2022

Somebody over on Twitter thoughtfully dug up something I wrote back in 2017:

https://twitter.com/sunildvr/status/1595914638109048832

I think the piece – which links Brexit with the Iraq invasion and other follies – holds up well.

But I also now think the problem identified is only part of the problem.

This because “easy answers” are only possible when hard questions are easily evaded.

For example, one of the most depressing features of contemporary political discourse is the frequency of answers that begin with “I will take no lectures from…”, “I give no apologies for…”, “what people want to know is…”, “what the public expects is….”, and, of course, “let me be absolutely clear….”.

These non-answers render almost all political interviews – and many parliamentary questions – pointless.

Few questions can land, and accountability is brushed off.

And what is most depressing: those watching and listening do not seem to care.

*

This blog has previously averred that the problem is not so much that politicians lie but that voters do not seem to care about being lied to.

And so, until and unless voters care about being lied to, then politicians will get away with their dishonesty.

Similarly, until and unless voters care about politicians not answering questions, then politicians will get away with their evasions.

Often this is not the fault of the interviewer or other questioner.

There are some cracking questions asked of politicians.

But there are not many cracking answers.

*

There is a fundamental disconnect about accountability in our politics.

At law, of course, a witness will be under pain of perjury.

(And the professional advocate asking the questions will be under their own rules about what questions can be properly put.)

There is an attractive notion that ministers, for example, should also be put under pain of perjury for their answers.

Attractive – but misguided.

The solution to the failure of accountability in parliament is not, in my view, to make parliament more like a court.

It is to make those in and watching Parliament care more about the standard of answers.

As it stands, neither the Speaker nor anyone else is personally responsible for ensuring that questions are properly answered in Parliament.

Instead, as with the investigation into Boris Johnson, it is left to a committee some months later to make a determination or not.

*

Rather than some paper reforms or legislative changes, it is the culture of Parliament which is most urgently in need of reform.

Members of Parliament, on both sides of the House of Commons, need to care more about the answers they are given, and to be less tolerant of evasions – even if the questions are from political opponents.

For when questions have purchase – where questions cannot be deflected – then non-answers and easy answers have no hiding place.

Politicians showing leadership on this matter makes it more likely that the public will come to care more about what they are told – and what they are not told.

And that is the real answer to the hard question of how political accountability and scrutiny is made more effective.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

The one big problem with House of Lords reform

22nd November 2022

As today is a palindrome day – 22/11/22 – here is another palindrome: 111.

One hundred and eleven.

That is, the number of years since this statute was passed:

And if you read the preamble above, you will see that Act was only intended to be temporary, until there was a second chamber constituted on a “popular” basis.

But one hundred and eleven years later, the House of Lords is still there.

For reform is easy to announce, but hard to accomplish.

And in the House of Lords there are still ninety-one hereditary peers – and even twenty-six bishops from the Church of England (which, remember, is the established church in only one of the four constituent nations of the United Kingdom).

There are also several hundred life peers, each of whom is the beneficiary of some sort of patronage, or closed selection process, and none of whom are elected or in any meaningful way politically accountable.

*

Of course, the House of Lords should be reformed or replaced.

Of course.

But how?

And here is a big problem about the House of Lords in our constitutional arrangements.

We need to first understand what a second chamber is for.

*

Any reform of, or replacement for, the House of Lords has to be carried by the government of the day with the support of the House of Commons.

And neither the government of the day nor the House of Commons will usually want to strengthen the power of a second chamber.

This means that any reform or replacement is likely to strengthen both the government or the House of Commons, or both.

You may be think that would be a good thing, and perhaps it is, but as it stands the House of Lords provides a check and and a balance to any government that commands the House of Commons.

*

The House of Lords cannot veto any legislation.

And the House of Lords will not (by convention) delay any legislation for which there is a mandate at a general election.

But for legislation which has been forced through the House of Commons with little or no scrutiny, the House of Lords currently provides an essential function, despite its lack of democratic legitimacy.

How can this function be maintained – even enhanced – with reform or replacement?

*

This problem is why any fundamental reform of, or replacement for, the House of Lords really needs to be complemented by fundamental reform of the House of Commons.

For, as it stands, the House of Lords currently saves the House of Commons – and government ministers – from themselves.

Repeatedly, routinely, almost daily.

*

Replacing life peers with elected politicians seeking re-election will removed the independence and expertise that provides the merit of the House of Lords.

Using some other basis of election – by regions or otherwise – may create a chamber with an equal claim to democratic legitimacy, thereby creating logjams, rather than revision.

As with the Crown, one useful feature of the House of Lords is not so much the power it has, but the power it prevents others in the polity from having.

So any serious discussion about reform or replacement should be preceded by anxious consideration of function and purpose: what is the House of Lords or new other chamber to do?

What is it actually for?

And then we should work backwards from that so as to see how it should be comprised.

By putting the question of composition before the question of function and purpose, one is perhaps putting the state coach before the horses.

*

It is to be welcomed that the Leader of the Opposition, who has a real chance of being Prime Minister after the next general election, is openly discussing doing something with the House of Lords.

The first term of a left-of-centre government is usually the only time we will ever get a programme of constitutional reform – for example in 1945-50 or 1997-2001.

There are certainly a number of smaller reforms which could be made, including excluding the bishops and remaining hereditary peers, and reducing the scope of patronage by existing and exiting prime ministers.

All easy, quick wins.

But anything more significant requires there to be a balancing exercise, between the new chamber and the House of Commons and the executive.

And that balancing exercise should not be rushed.

Though, of course, we should not have to wait another one hundred and eleven years.

***

Please subscribe to this blog – each post will then be delivered to you by email.

(This may be useful if and when Twitter is no more)

***

Please also sponsor this blog, if you can.

Posts like this take time and opportunity cost, and so for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box (above), or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

Of “echo chambers” and “preaching to the converted”

10th November 2022

Some places – like courts and legislatures – have shared rules for discourse.

But courts and legislatures are not “echo chambers”.

Certain things are not readily said, and certain hard things are to be said softly.

This is not because there are not disputes – and some differences may be fundamental and life-changing.

It is because shared rules for discourse enable constructive engagements and facilitate important exchanges.

*

But.

For some on the internet, the slightest suggestion that there can be shared rules for discourse triggers (ahem) the instant accusation that you want to be in an “echo chamber” or that you “want to preach to the converted” or want to be in “a bubble”.

These phrases – clichés – are usually substitutes for thought.

Yet so accustomed are many to the shoutiness and rancour of internet exchanges that the merest suggestion that there can be shared rules for discourse is seen as some sort of assault on “free speech”.

Shared rules are not, however, undermining of dialogue – they instead make meaningful dialogue possible.

Shouting at people – either in real life or on the internet – is a form of monologue, especially if it inhibits the other person from engaging, or saying something they would like to say.

As such the real echo chambers and preached at choirs are not platforms where there are shared rules, but places where such rules are disdained.

Places like Twitter.

*

On this blog I will write things which a number of readers will disagree with: Brexit (where I am ultimately neutral in principle, though critical in practice), codified constitutions (where I am sceptical), electoral reform (where I am wary), and so on.

And the commenters on this blog – many of whom provide comments that are better quality and more informed/informative than my head post – will engage, often with other perspectives.

You can then form your own view.

Pre-moderation and my “irksome” rule prevents comments derailing the discussion.

(And, in practice, few comments are not published.)

As such, I do not think this blog is an “echo chamber”, or that I am “preaching to the converted” (though I sometimes wish I could convert more of you to my idiosyncratic views).

*

In practice, accusations such as “echo chamber” and “preaching to the converted” can be rhetorical devices to shut down unwanted forms of discourse.

The important thing is that if you want a platform that suits you then you should be free to use a platform that suits you.

And do not be afraid of comments such as “echo chamber” and “preaching to the converted”.

Removing all the European Union law in the United Kingdom may be a practical process on which the sun will never set

8th November 2022

Back in August 2016, a month-or-two after the Brexit referendum, I wrote the following at the Evening Standard:

“So extensive are the EU ties which bind the UK that they take at least a political generation to untangle. Gus O’Donnell, the former head of the UK civil service, has pointed out that it took Greenland, with a population less than Croydon and with only the issue of fish, three years to leave the old EEC. And in the Eighties the EEC was a far less complicated entity than the modern EU.

“Thousands of UK laws — nobody knows exactly how many — are based on EU law. Many of these laws only have effect because of the European Communities Act, which would need repeal or substantial amendment. Some of the laws have effect without any UK-implementing measure.”

The phrase I want to emphasise here is “nobody knows how many”.

Six years later, still nobody knows how many laws of the United Kingdom are based on the law of the European Union.

*

This situation has to come to prominence because of the daft notion of the current government that somehow all the laws of the United Kingdom are based on the law of the European Union can be identified and replaced at speed.

The entire exercise is ludicrous, as well as probably impossible.

The idea can only have been conceived by someone with no real idea of how entangled domestic and European Union law was by 2016 (or 2019-2020, when we actually departed in practice).

It is not a question of simply going to a database and using the right search terms – say to find all the regulations made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.

Even with those regulations many were revoked or amended other regulations –  so that, without considerable time, you would never know the full extent of the entanglement.

Regulations were also made under other statutes, and much European Union law took effect without needing any local enactment at all.

And the important thing to note is that at the time – 1973 to 2016 – nobody ever thought the whole thing would need to disentangled, and so nobody thought to keep any track of it.

This is why, with the hurried departure of the United Kingdom after the referendum, the whole problem was kicked into the the future with the notion of “retained European Union law”.

Such a disentanglement could not be done at speed before departure, and for the same reason the disentanglement cannot be quickly done now.

It matters not that some politician confidently asserts that “something needs to be done” by some artificial “sunset” date.

And to the surprise of nobody who knows about European Union law, entire tranches of European Union law are still being found:

*

It will take a long time – perhaps decades, perhaps never – to unwind all the European Union law that had effect in the United Kingdom and replace or revoke it.

That is not a pro- or anti- Brexit statement, but the simple fact of the matter.

Some of these laws were championed by the United Kingdom when a member state of the European Union.

Some of the laws were hard-fought triumphs by United Kingdom ministers and officials.

Some of the laws are good and beneficial, and some are not good and need removing.

But this can only be done on a slow, methodical law-by-law basis.

As I averred back in August 2016: it may take at least a political generation.

The moment this is realised and accepted by the current government then we may be moving into a practical rather than an ideological understanding of our post-Brexit predicament.

That realisation, however, may itself take a political generation.

It is even likely to be a process on which the sun will never set.

***

Thank you for reading – and this blog needs your support to carry on doing these posts.

Posts like this take time and opportunity cost, and so for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above (suggested donation £1 to £5), or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

The comments policy is here.

What does the Home Secretary mean by “taking legal advice into account”?

All Souls Day, 2022

What does it mean for a home secretary to “take legal advice into account”?

*

This question is prompted by statements by the home secretary to the House of Commons in respect of the escalating problems at the Manston asylum processing centre.

On Monday she told members of parliament:

“…I have never ignored legal advice.

“As a former Attorney General, I know the importance of taking legal advice into account.

“At every point, I have worked hard to find alternative accommodation to relieve the pressure at Manston.”

*

So whatever “taking legal advice into account” means, it does not – for her – mean “ignor[ing]” that advice.

The home secretary herself makes that distinction and juxtaposition.

*

The home secretary also said in her prepared statement:

“As Members will be aware, we need to meet our statutory duties around detention, and fulfil legal duties to provide accommodation for those who would otherwise be destitute.

“We also have a duty to the wider public to ensure that anyone who has entered our country illegally undergoes essential security checks and is not, with no fixed abode, immediately free to wander around local communities.”

Note that “also”.

*

Those quotations are from her prepared statement, but in response to an opposition question she then also stated:

“I have not ignored or dismissed any legal advice with which I have been provided.

“I cannot go into the details of that legal advice because of the Law Officers’ convention.

“That is part of the decision-making process that all Ministers go through.

“We have to take into account our legal duties not to leave people destitute; I have to take into account the fact that I do not want to prematurely release hundreds of migrants into the Kent community; I have to take into account value for money; I have to take into account fairness for the British taxpayer.”

*

Again the distinction is made with ignoring advice, but you will also see that taking into account legal advice is now set against other (competing?) things for her to take into account: “the fact that I do not want to prematurely release hundreds of migrants into the Kent community; I have to take into account value for money; I have to take into account fairness for the British taxpayer.”

These factors are presented as being alongside – and perhaps of at least equal importance to – “tak[ing] into account our legal duties not to leave people destitute”.

*

The home secretary in another reply said:

“I confirm that I have not ever ignored legal advice.

“The Law Officers’ convention, which I still take seriously, means that I will not comment on the contents of legal advice that I may have seen.

“What I will say is this: I am not prepared to release migrants prematurely into the local community in Kent to no fixed abode.

“That, to me, is an unacceptable option.”

The impression one gets from this further reply is that her not being “prepared to release migrants prematurely into the local community in Kent to no fixed abode” is not merely a factor to consider alongside any legal advice, but is actually the determining factor.

She seems to see that as the “unacceptable option” to which all other factors presumably, including legal advice, must yield.

If so, this accords with the “also” passage in her prepared statement.

*

On Sunday, the day before that commons statement, the well-connected political journalists at the Sunday Times reported:

“Suella Braverman has been accused of failing to act on legal advice that the government was illegally detaining thousands of asylum seekers. The move could cost taxpayers an expensive court action.

“The home secretary received advice at least three weeks ago warning that migrants were being detained for unlawfully long periods at the Manston asylum processing centre in Ramsgate, Kent. According to five sources, Braverman, 42, was also told that the legal breach needed to be resolved urgently by rehousing the asylum seekers in alternative accommodation.

“Two sources said she was also warned by officials that the Home Office had no chance of defending a legal challenge and the matter could also result in a public inquiry if exposed.

“A government source said: “The government is likely to be JR’d [judicially reviewed] and it’s likely that all of them would be granted asylum, so it’s going to achieve the exact opposite of what she wants. These people could also launch a class action against us and cost the taxpayer millions.””

*

On Hallowe’en, ITN reported this further information:

If this ITN report is correct – and it is certainly plausible – this would explain why so many home office “sources” are aware of this issue.

As this blog has mentioned before, it is a significant but not unknown step to go to the Treasury Devil – James Eadie, the government’s senior external legal adviser – for an opinion, especially before any actual litigation.

(You may recall that the Devil was invoked in another matter involving the current home secretary when she was attorney general.)

For the Devil to be invoked and for the advice just to come back as reinforcing the internal home office advice would have been rather the setback for the home secretary.

It would have meant that not only did she have advice before her which was unwanted from internal lawyers, but that the unwelcome advice had been upheld by the most senior external lawyer available to the government.

*

If so, what is a home secretary to do?

One thing a home secretary can do is to comply with legal advice,

That is what is expected by the ministerial code and, indeed, by the principle of the rule of law.

Of course, there will be situations – especially in respect of exercises of discretion in individual cases – where legal views may legitimately differ, and so a minister can take a view in respect of litigation risk.

But that latitude is not there in respect of compliance with general statutory duties.

The only option with a statutory duty for a government department is to comply with that duty.

*

Now we go back to what the home secretary said, and what she did not say.

The home secretary said that she did not “ignore” legal advice.

And the home secretary said that she took legal advice and legal obligations “into account”.

But the home secretary has not said – expressly – that she complied with the legal advice.

If the home secretary had complied with the legal advice she could simply say “I have complied with the legal advice”.

But she has chosen not to do so, and has used what seems to be evasive wording instead.

The most plausible explanation for this is that she has not complied with the legal advice.

Given the nature of statutory duties, it is not clear how this can be done.

They tend to be legally binary: you either comply or you do not comply.

They are not an item in a basket with other items.

*

In the house of commons today, an opposition politician said:

“The Prime Minister promised integrity, professionalism and accountability in Government. His Home Secretary has leaked information, is overseeing chaos in the Home Office and has broken the law. What will she actually have to do to get the sack?”

[An earlier version of this post wrongly attributed this quote to the leader of the opposition. This was not the case, and I have amended this post accordingly. I apologise for this error.]

She would not have said “broken the law” lightly.

Perhaps she was referring to something else (and please let me know in the comments below if you think that was the case) but the impression I formed was that she was referring to the Manston situation.

The leader of the opposition then asked the prime minister:

“Did the Home Secretary receive legal advice that she should move people out—yes or no?”

When this question was not directly answered, he then said:

“I think the answer to the question of whether the Home Secretary received legal advice to move people out of Manston is yes.”

*

Presumably the legal advice to which the leader of the opposition was referring is the same legal advice which was provided by the Devil and internal legal advisers.

If so, then it seems that that the home secretary has placed a non-legal factor above compliance with the law.

She has decided that the non-legal factor prevails.

In doing so, the home secretary presumably thinks that this weighing exercise means that she has not “ignored” the legal obligation.

Instead, she has seemingly given less weight to that factor than to another factor.

If this interpretation is correct then it accords what she told the house of commons on Monday and it also accords with what the home office “sources” are saying to reporters.

I cannot think of any other interpretation that accords better with the available information.

(If you can, please do set it out below.)

The problem with this position would be that the relevant legal obligations are not just another item in a basket.

Instead, it is the breaking of those legal obligations that should be the “unacceptable option” to any home secretary, and indeed to any minister or official.

But this home secretary appears to think there is an option that trumps such compliance.

*

For the reasons set out above, it seems that the home secretary was advised to comply with the law and she has chosen not to do so, maintaining that “taking account” of the law in such a situation is somehow not to “ignore” the law.

That would be a remarkable position for the home secretary to adopt and, if so, one would expect the courts to take a different view if the matter is actually litigated.

***

Thank you for reading – and this blog needs your support to carry on doing these posts.

Posts like this take time and opportunity cost, and so for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above (suggested donation £1 to £5), or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

The comments policy is here.