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

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers to be joined by leading family law set, 4 Brick Court, this summer

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Real estate and construction energy offering boosted by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Firm bolsters real estate team with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
A wave of housing and procedural reforms is set to test the limits of tribunal capacity. In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold charts sweeping change as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 begins biting
Plans to reduce jury trials risk missing the real problem in the criminal justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, David Wolchover of Ridgeway Chambers argues the crown court backlog is fuelled not by juries but weak cases slipping through a flawed ‘50%’ prosecution test
Emerging technologies may soon transform how courts determine truth in deeply personal disputes. In this week's NLJ, Madhavi Kabra of 1 Hare Court and Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers explore how neurotechnology could reshape family law
A controversial protest case has reignited debate over the limits of free expression. In NLJ this week, Nicholas Dobson examines a Quran-burning incident testing public order law
The courts have drawn a firm line under attempts to extend arbitration appeals. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed of the University of Leicester highlights that if the High Court refuses permission under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, that is the end
back-to-top-scroll