header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
16 February 2018 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7781 / Categories: Features , Brexit
printer mail-detail

The House of Lords & The EU Withdrawal Bill (Pt 1)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7781_zander

Michael Zander considers the Constitution Committee’s report on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

  • The committee believes the Bill ‘is fundamentally flawed from a constitutional perspective in multiple ways’ and proposes changes to make it ‘more fit for purpose’.

The respected House of Lords Constitution Committee issued a highly critical report on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill on January 29—the day before the House began its Second Reading Debate.

The committee is chaired by Baroness (Ann) Taylor, Leader of the House of Commons under Tony Blair. Its 12 members include former Lord Chief Justice Lord Igor Judge, Lord (David) Pannick QC, and political scientists Professor Lord Morgan and Professor Lord Norton of King’s College London and University of Hull respectively. The members are four Conservatives, four Labour, two Liberal Democrats and two crossbenchers. The 80-page report (2017-18 HL Paper 69) was unanimous.

In its Interim Report on the Bill, published 7 September 2017, the Committee concluded that the Bill raised ‘a series

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridgestrengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll