On 12 September, the day after the EU (Withdrawal) Bill received its second reading in the House of Commons, this major one-day public event brought together leading parliamentarians and legal and constitutional specialists from across the UK to discuss the critical issues raised by the Bill and its prospects in the UK’s parliaments and assemblies.
Listen to the event in full
Video recordings of all the panels
are available on the UK in a Changing Europe website.
9.00 Registration and coffee
9.30 Welcome and introduction
Professor Anand Menon, Director, ESRC UK in a Changing Europe
9.35 The EU (Withdrawal) Bill: Overview
The Government’s approach
- Daniel Denman, Director, Legal Advisors, Department for Exiting the EU
Legislating for Brexit: the issues
- Professor Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, Anniversary Chair in Law, Queen Mary University of London
10.45 Delegated Powers
- Chair: Dr Ruth Fox, Director and Head of Research, Hansard Society
- Michael P. Clancy OBE, Director, Law Reform, Law Society of Scotland
- Professor Mark Elliott, Professor of Public Law, University of Cambridge; Legal Adviser, House of Lords Constitution Committee
- Lord Lisvane, Member, House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee; former Clerk of the House of Commons
13.00 Rights and Enforcement
- Chair: Marie Demetriou QC, Brick Court Chambers
- Professor Catherine Barnard, Professor of European Union Law, Cambridge University, and ESRC UK in a Changing Europe
- Martha Spurrier, Director, Liberty
- Chair: Professor Dan Wincott, Professor of Law and Society, Wales Governance Centre, Cardiff University
- Professor Colin Harvey, Professor of Human Rights Law, Queen’s University Belfast, and ESRC UK in a Changing Europe
- Dr Jo Hunt, Reader in Law, Cardiff University, and ESRC UK in a Changing Europe
- Professor Stephen Tierney, Professor of Constitutional Theory, Edinburgh University, and ESRC UK in a Changing Europe; Legal Adviser, House of Lords Constitution Committee
15.30 Parliamentary Perspectives
- Chair: Professor Richard Rawlings, Professor of Public Law, University College London, and Honorary Distinguished Professor, School of Law and Politics, Cardiff University
A panel (subject to parliamentary business) including:
- Hilary Benn MP, Chair, House of Commons Committee on Exiting the EU (Labour)
- Sir Bill Cash MP, previous Chair, House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee (Conservative)
- Joanna Cherry QC MP, Member, House of Commons Committee on Exiting the EU (SNP)
- Dr Stephen Farry MLA, Deputy Leader and Brexit spokesman, Alliance Party
- Eluned Morgan AM, Baroness Morgan of Ely, Member, National Assembly for Wales External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee (Labour)
The event is funded by the ESRC UK in a Changing Europe initiative, and co-convened by Cardiff University’s Wales Governance Centre and the Hansard Society.
Enjoy reading this? Please consider sharing it
The end of the transition period is likely to expose even more fully the scope of the policy-making that the government can carry out via Statutory Instruments, as it uses its new powers to develop post-Brexit law. However, there are few signs yet of a wish to reform delegated legislation scrutiny, on the part of government or the necessary coalition of MPs.
Parliament’s role around the end of the Brexit transition and conclusion of the EU future relationship treaty is a constitutional failure to properly scrutinise the executive and the law. As the UK moves to do things differently after 1 January, MPs must do more to ensure they can better discharge their responsibilities regarding the making of UK treaties.
The EU (Future Relationship) Bill is to be considered by both Houses in just one sitting day. How unusual is such an expedited timetable and how much time will parliamentarians really have to look at the Bill? How will MPs participate in proceedings given Covid-19 restrictions? And how will proceedings, particularly the amendment process, work on the day?
The debate about remote participation in House of Commons proceedings raises critical questions about what constitutes a ‘good parliamentarian’, what ‘fair’ participation looks like, and who gets to decide. As things stand, the exclusion from much parliamentary business of pregnant women, among others, undermines equality of political representation.
The Coronavirus pandemic has added to the questions surrounding the nature of the Parliament that should emerge from the Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal programme. But, with concerns over the programme’s governance and public engagement rising, the report arising from the current review of the programme will not now be published this year.
Disputed parliamentary election results – often taking months to resolve – were a frequent feature of English political culture before the reforms of the 19th century. But how could defeated candidates protest the result of an election, and how were such disputes resolved?