The Law Society has published a joint briefing with the Bar Council on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, highlighting ‘significant concerns’ and urging the removal of clauses 41 to 45, for several reasons:
The clauses would enable ministers to derogate from the UK’s obligations under international law in broad and comprehensive terms and prohibit public bodies from compliance with such obligations, thus representing ‘a direct challenge to the rule of law’.
The significant risk of violation of the UK’s international law obligations, including the principle of good faith and sincere cooperation in the Withdrawal Agreement.
Damage to the UK's reputation as a country with which to do business, particularly in the context of negotiations with the EU and other countries. ‘The slightest threat could damage the rule of law and the perception of the UK as a credible and predictable trade partner, as well as the UK’s position as a centre for international legal practice and dispute resolution, and the global use of English law’.
Negative consequences on the continuing co-operation with other jurisdictions in relation to civil judicial co-operation and enforcement of judgments.
The provisions could raise significant conflict between the courts and executive with regard to judicial review (see also ‘The Internal Market Bill: through the looking glass’ (George Peretz QC), Tax Journal, 18 September 2020).
Similar points have been addressed to the Lord Chancellor in a letter from the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which raised questions over the government’s proposals during the consultation period before the Bill was published. As well as noting concerns with the legal and constitutional impact of the Bill, citing the significant legal and practical risks of breaching international law, the Constitution Committee highlights that the provisions are at odds with the Ministerial Code, which places a duty on ministers and civil servants to comply with the law and uphold the administration of justice.
The Bill passed committee stage in the House of Commons on 22 September with the ‘Bob Neill’ amendment to clause 54 requiring approval of the House of Commons before clauses 42, 43 or 45 are brought into force (in other words, House of Commons approval is required to authorise a breach of the law). Report Stage has been scheduled for 28 and 29 September 2020.
The Law Society has published a joint briefing with the Bar Council on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, highlighting ‘significant concerns’ and urging the removal of clauses 41 to 45, for several reasons:
The clauses would enable ministers to derogate from the UK’s obligations under international law in broad and comprehensive terms and prohibit public bodies from compliance with such obligations, thus representing ‘a direct challenge to the rule of law’.
The significant risk of violation of the UK’s international law obligations, including the principle of good faith and sincere cooperation in the Withdrawal Agreement.
Damage to the UK's reputation as a country with which to do business, particularly in the context of negotiations with the EU and other countries. ‘The slightest threat could damage the rule of law and the perception of the UK as a credible and predictable trade partner, as well as the UK’s position as a centre for international legal practice and dispute resolution, and the global use of English law’.
Negative consequences on the continuing co-operation with other jurisdictions in relation to civil judicial co-operation and enforcement of judgments.
The provisions could raise significant conflict between the courts and executive with regard to judicial review (see also ‘The Internal Market Bill: through the looking glass’ (George Peretz QC), Tax Journal, 18 September 2020).
Similar points have been addressed to the Lord Chancellor in a letter from the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which raised questions over the government’s proposals during the consultation period before the Bill was published. As well as noting concerns with the legal and constitutional impact of the Bill, citing the significant legal and practical risks of breaching international law, the Constitution Committee highlights that the provisions are at odds with the Ministerial Code, which places a duty on ministers and civil servants to comply with the law and uphold the administration of justice.
The Bill passed committee stage in the House of Commons on 22 September with the ‘Bob Neill’ amendment to clause 54 requiring approval of the House of Commons before clauses 42, 43 or 45 are brought into force (in other words, House of Commons approval is required to authorise a breach of the law). Report Stage has been scheduled for 28 and 29 September 2020.
