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: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll