The effect of this would be two-fold. First, courts will be unable to strike regulations down on the basis that they are incompatible with the Human Rights Act (for example by removing rights to damages conferred by the WA - a quite probable breach of A1 of Protocol 1 ECHR). https://twitter.com/woodstockjag/status/1309425658725101577

All a court could do would be to declare the regs incompatible with the HRA. And the government could just ignore that. (Though the European Court of Human Rights could then award damages, if it agreed there was a breach of the ECHR.)

Question: does Alok Sharma still consider that the Bill is compatible with the ECHR (as per his statement at the front of the Bill)?

Second point. The amendments seek to preclude a Boddington situation: a case where the invalidity of secondary legislation is raised as a defence to legal proceedings reliant on that legislation.

Essentially, the aim is that after 3 months no court can entertain any argument that the regs are invalid.

The problem with that is of course that those affected by the regs won’t know who they are until the regs are actually used and relied on. By the time they know, it will be too late.

This is another serious rule of law concern now raised by a Bill already deeply troubling from a rule of law perspective.

Question for @neill_bob: is it still, really, enough of a response to those profound rule of law concerns for the coming into force of these provisions to be subject to a whipped Commons vote?

As usual - a far more thorough analysis by @ProfMarkElliott here. https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2020/09/25/one-step-forward-two-steps-back-judicial-review-and-the-governments-amendments-to-the-internal-market-bill/