Thread by @Raphael_Hogarth

This is an odd argument, in my view. As we argued in recent @instituteforgov paper, there were arguments in favour of using primary legislation rather than the CCA, but I don't think they were legal ones, and it does create scrutiny issues.
(brief thread)
instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/p…

https://twitter.com/CommonsPACAC/status/1255503246220722176

Gove says that the legal advice was that the government could only use the CCA in response to a "bolt from the blue" and, if they used it when they had time to pass primary legislation instead, it was open to legal challenge.

I can't see much support for that.

The CCA does say that where *existing* legislation gives you the powers you need, you must, if there's time, use those rather than the CCA.

It doesn't say that where it doesn't, you must bring forward *new* legislation rather than use the CCA.

In this paper, we noted in the gvt's favour that the decision not to use the CCA meant the legislation was subject to some scrutiny and amendment *before* it passed. It also ruled out any possible concerns about judicial review increasing certainty.
instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/…

But, the gvt should have put scrutiny provisions in the bill which were equivalent to those in the CCA. Instead, it put in much weaker ones. Some of these differences are set out in this passage of the paper:

So we argue that the government must try to replicate the CCA safeguards after the fact. That means
- Take reports to MPs seriously and let them vote on changing the law sooner than 6-month mark
- fill gaps in devolved scrutiny
- react constructively to human rights challenges.

There is more detail in our paper, which @CommonsPACAC and @michaelgove are welcome to peruse.

/ends

instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/p…