header-logo header-logo

Peers offer some cheer to Brexiteers

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

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll