Good piece. My own suggestion would be that immigration should be removed from the security-focused Home Office and put into a new Department of Employment, along with training, employment law, and other labour force issues.
Having immigration run by a Department focused on attracting skills and talent rather than on keeping as many people out as possible would be a major improvement.
Like the @instituteforgov, which has also suggested getting immigration out of the Home Office, I’m generally sceptical of machinery of government changes.
But like them, I think this would be the right change here, given the need for profound cultural change in our immigration control system.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The opening rhetoric (“protect the judiciary from being drawn into political questions”) is the standard cover for those whose real motive is to protect the executive from being held to account for the lawfulness and fairness of its decisions.
But let’s look at the detail (while remembering that that opening may foreshadow other things).
Why didn’t the current government do more to get a better deal in the TCA? My theory: taboos against going anywhere near mobility of people (very linked to services); and against asking the EU for anything for fear of having to make concessions in return.
It’s important that general political commentators like @peston get to grips with precisely what is at issue here, and don’t shove it off to legal correspondents as a technical legal matter.
Effective judicial review is about ensuring that government decisions - from small planning decisions to decisions to close down half the economy - are within the powers we (through Parliament) have given them and meet the standards of fairness and thoughtfulness that we expect.
Effective judicial review is not anti-democratic: rather, it is a vital mechanism to ensure that those whom we elect (and their officials) comply with the rules debated and set by Parliament and the standards we want them to live up to.
The Scotland Act 1998 says that legislation is outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament if it “relates to reserved matters”.
See section 29(3) in the above quote for some help as to what “relates to” means. You look at the purpose of the legislation at issue and its effect in all the circumstances.
Worth reading this response by the Administrative Law Bar Association to the current government’s latest consultation on “reform” to judicial review. adminlaw.org.uk/wp-content/upl…
(Disclosure: I had a very minor hand in it - but not in any of the paragraphs I’m going to quote.)
Opening salvo. The current government’s description of the findings of the independent review is simply false, in critical respects.
In the context of imaginative proposals to put the Union on a solid footing, it is worth reading this letter from Lord Salisbury to party leaders on the @ActofUnionBill proposal, here reaction.life/constitution-r…
There is a lot in the Bill to chew on: but its vision of a Union between the four nations, set out on a basis that limits the powers and functions of the Westminster parliament seems to me to be along the right lines.