Absolutely. And read @jillongovt’s piece below. If Case was asked to take on this role, he should have refused (he may well have been bounced into it, of course).
At the very least, he should have insisted on getting someone from outside to do the digging and ask the awkward questions - a sort of Counsel to the Inquiry (eg a retired senior police officer or criminal law QC.)
To use the traditional phrase, no one is going to - or should - believe that the Cabinet Secretary could investigate the matter “without fear or favour”.
Worth noting Frost’s express admission that the current government’s chosen relationship with the EU places “burdensome”arrangements on GB businesses and has a “chilling effect” on trade and investment.
And that “regulatory burdens” on GB/EU trade will “get worse” as the current government succeeds in promoting divergence.
Worth noting, when claims are made about UK capacity to take swifter regulatory decisions outside the EU. NB, for those fascinated by the Protocol’s impact in medicines, that this means that the position is that in NI 5-11 year olds can have the vaccine while in GB they can’t.
(Of course, dangerous to generalise about regulatory capacity on the basis of one or a few cases, which may have various complexities. But that knife cuts both ways: and there are grounds for concern about MHRA resourcing after it lost a lot of income and work after Brexit.)
In the longer term - a point I and others have made - there is a real dilemma here post-TCA with no good options. Rough sketch of those options: -
A couple of thoughts about this proposal, floated in today’s Times, for an annual “‘Interpretation Bill’ to strike out findings from judicial reviews with which the government does not agree”. thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-…
As written, that sentence raises more questions than it answers. What is meant by a “strike out a finding”?
If “finding” means “a ruling about what the law is” and “strike out” means “change the law” than that is not exactly revolutionary. If judges rule that legislation means “X” but Parliament doesn’t like X, then Parliament can change the law. (This happens all the time in tax law.)
Thinking about this in terms of pleading a case, what the current government is essentially doing is “non admission”: refusing to make a positive or negative case on the core factual issue (“was there a party in No 10 on 19/12/20?”).
However, non-admission isn’t sustainable in litigation if the person taking that line holds all the relevant evidence and is in a position to know whether the allegation is true or false.
As is the case here: the minister’s complaint about “rumour” doesn’t (and can’t) land because the government knows the facts and is able to confirm or refute the rumour.
And this is good on a central problem that the TCA fails even to begin to address in any adequate way: the classic FTA model is, compared to single market membership, wholly deficient in dealing with regulatory and services barriers. Net result: *more*, not less, red tape.