JUSTICE has briefed MPs on the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (“the Bill”), providing written evidence to the Public Bill Committee and briefing all MPs ahead of report stage.
Much EU law is still in force in the UK, as it was preserved after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. This Bill now proposes several ways to deal with that retained EU law (“REUL”) still in force.
JUSTICE is concerned that the current Bill prioritises speed and executive control of the task, rather than prioritising accountable, considered and transparent law-making.
For this reason, JUSTICE opposes the Bill proceeding and urges Government to reconsider the Bill’s skeletal approach to reforming REUL. We outline our concerns with the Bill as a whole, including:
- the Government’s decision to draft a “skeleton” Bill, in which there is little policy on the face of or accompanying the Bill, whilst ministers are given extensive delegated powers beyond robust scrutiny of Parliament;
- the lack of clarity in the full extent of law in scope, and the Government’s incomplete REUL Dashboard;
- the undemocratic sunset clause, which imposes an unnecessary deadline and an unprecedented unilateral deletion of law by 31 December 2023; and
- the unconstitutional impact of the Bill on devolved administrations and areas of law
Notwithstanding our overall concerns, in our briefings, we have highlighted three elements of the Bill that should be subject to change:
- First, we call for the sunset clauses (Clauses 1, 2, and 3) be removed from the Bill.
The sunset imposes unnecessary deadlines, placing an unnecessary strain on Government resources and poses an unnecessary risk to individuals and businesses.
- Second, the broad delegated powers contained in Clause 15 and 16 must be restricted
These clauses empower the executive to significantly change the objective, substance and impact of the law, with very little parliamentary scrutiny and no transparency or consultation with the public.
- Third, courts should not be given unbalanced mandatory factors to consider when determining whether to overturn case law.
The Bill gives courts three mandatory factors to consider when considering case law, all of which promote the overturning of EU case law and none of which recognise the importance of legal coherence, clarity and certainty. Judges should either be left to exercise their judgment on overturning case law, which we consider sufficient. Or be given a balanced set of mandatory factors to consider, including legal certainty at a minimum.
House of Commons Public Bill Committee
Read our written evidence here (November 2022)
House of Commons Report Stage Briefing
Read our briefing here (January 2023)
House of Lords – Second Reading
Read our briefing here (January 2023)
House of Lords Committee stage
Read our briefing on amendments to clauses 1, 2 and 3 (February 2023)
Read our briefing on amendments clauses 7 and 12-16 (March 2023)
House of Commons – Consideration of Lords’ amendments
Read our briefing here (May 2023)
House of Lords – Consideration of Commons amendments and reasons
Read our briefing (June 2023)
House of Lords – Further Consideration of Commons amendments and reasons
Read our briefing (June 2023)