Constitutional Change Taskforce

Brexit

How will Brexit affect you?

The impact for clients will vary depending on the sector and markets they operate in. Our Brexit: hub has been designed to assist clients across a wide range of sectors and markets to assess the "Brexit effect" on them whether they be from Life Sciences, Financial Services, Media, IP and Communications to Capital Markets. It also looks at the legal and commercial implications on contracts, employment, data, privacy and competition among other issues.

@HLBrexit.

Join the conversation - #brexiteffect

Brexit:hub

When law, policy and politics converge, you need advisors who do not see Brexit through a narrow lens. You need advisors who see the big picture but don't miss the details.

Visit our Brexit: hub to find out more:

UK Constitutional Change

"English votes for English laws": On 22 October 2015, the House of Commons approved the Government’s plans to allow MPs, representing English constituencies, to block legislation that only affects England. Read more in our blog: Focus on Regulation.

Further devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and greater powers for England's cities: Following the Scottish referendum and the subsequent publication of the Smith Commission report in 2014, the future of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish devolution settlements, as well as possible future devolution of power to local government in England, has been subject to much debate. In September 2014, the Hogan Lovells Constitutional Change Taskforce alerted clients to the legal mechanics which would be involved in separating Scotland from the United Kingdom. We continue to monitor such developments.

House of Lords reform: The Conservative Party's 2015 General Election manifesto stated that reform of the House of Lords was "not a priority in the next parliament". However, since the election, a number of high profile defeats of Government policy in the House of Lords (most notably in relation to tax credits) led the Government to announce a "rapid review" of the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament, led by Lord Strathclyde. The Strathclyde Review was published on 17 December 2015, which called for a statutory procedure to regulate the process by which the House of Lords can invite the Commons to think again when there is disagreement between the two Houses. The Government has not yet responded to the Strathclyde Review.

Voter reform: In December 2015, the Government ended the transition to individual electoral registration a year earlier than expected, meaning that anyone not registered to vote individually by the end of 2015 was removed from the register. In addition, further voting reforms are currently under consideration, including "votes for life" for British overseas citizens and prisoner voting rights.

Freedom of Information: On 1 March 2016, the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information, chaired by Lord Burns, published a report reviewing the functioning of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commission was tasked with considering whether the Act gets the balance right between the need to maintain public access to information and the burden of the Act on public authorities. In summary, the report's recommendations include:

	(a)		the introduction of statutory time limits of 20 working days for public authorities to answer requests, other than in certain exceptional circumstances;
	(b)		strengthening of the prosecution powers of the Information Commissioner ("IC");
	(c)		that the statutory exemption in respect of government policy formulation be redrawn and more weight be given to the need to protect collective cabinet responsibility;
	(d)		that legislation by Parliament be introduced to clarify that the Government has the final veto over the release of information and can overturn decisions of the IC;
	(e)		the removal of the First Tier Tribunal appeal stage; and
	(f)		that no upfront charges should be introduced for Freedom of Information requests.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Rule of Law

The Conservative Party's 2015 General Election manifesto included a proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British bill of rights, with the stated intention to "break the formal link between the British courts and the European Court of Human Rights and make our own supreme court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK".

The Government has not yet published a detailed proposal, but has announced that a consultation on a draft bill will take place "soon". Therefore the implications of the possible repeal of the Human Rights Act and its replacement by a British bill of rights cannot yet be evaluated in detail. However, the Government's proposal raises fundamental questions about:

(a)

whether it will ultimately weaken or strengthen human rights protection in the UK,

(b)

whether it can achieve the Government's political objectives in the event that the UK remains within the European Union and/or the Council of Europe, and

(c)

how it would interact with current and planned devolution arrangements within the UK.

The Government's long-awaited proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act, coupled with repeated (and vigorously opposed) attempts to limit judicial review, has raised concerns about the stability of our rule of law and its reputation in the world. Any such impact on our rule of law, or its reputation, has direct implications for business and for individuals.

The House of Lords EU Justice Select Committee published its report: "The UK, the EU and a British Bill of Rights" on the Government's proposal to introduce a UK Bill of Rights on 9 May 2016. The Committee says the evidence they received makes "a forceful case" for the Government to think again on the policy.

ECHR External Resources

House of Lords EU Justice Select Committee Report

The House of Lords EU Justice Select Committee published its report: "The UK, the EU and a British Bill of Rights" on the Government's proposal to introduce a UK Bill of Rights on 9 May 2016. The Committee says the evidence they received makes "a forceful case" for the Government to think again on the policy.