header-logo header-logo

09 March 2017
Issue: 7737 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU
printer mail-detail

Peers offer some cheer to Brexiteers

Lords back amendments to Brexit Bill & warn government about taking legal shortcuts

Peers have created further Brexit headaches for the government, backing two amendments to the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. One amendment gives Parliament a further vote on the Brexit deal and the other protects the rights of EU citizens living in the UK.

Meanwhile, a committee of Peers has warned the government not to use delegated powers in the “Great Repeal Bill” as a “shortcut” to change the law without proper parliamentary scrutiny.

In a report this week, The House of Lords Constitution Committee, which rarely considers government bills before they are published, predicted the Bill will include wide-ranging delegated powers and use of secondary legislation, and require exceptional scrutiny measures. This is partly due to the tight deadlines imposed by the timing of Brexit, the sheer number of changes needed and uncertainty over the process of converting EU law into UK law. The Peers point out that the government will also need to amend the law at short notice to take account of the Brexit negotiations.

They said if the government wants to change the law in areas that currently fall under the authority of the EU, for example, on immigration, then it should do so via primary legislation subject to full Parliamentary scrutiny.

Lord Lang, Chairman of the Committee, said: “The ‘Great Repeal Bill’ is likely to be an extremely complicated piece of legislation. Scrutiny must not be side-lined. There must be: a clear limit on what the delegated powers in the Bill can be used to achieve; a requirement for ministers to provide Parliament with certain information when using those powers; and enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of those powers.

“Use may need to be made of sunset clauses to ensure that after Brexit the laws brought over from the EU are reviewed and, if necessary, amended without undue delay rather than being left to drift into permanence.”

The Committee’s report recommends enhanced scrutiny processes, including that ministers sign a declaration for each statutory instrument affirming that it does no more than necessary to translate EU law into UK law. Accompanying explanatory memorandums should explain what the EU law currently does, the effect of any amendment and why such amendment is necessary.

Issue: 7737 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
back-to-top-scroll