header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
31 March 2023 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 8019 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , EU , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Taking back control over retained EU law (Pt 4)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
117268
Opposition on all sides: Michael Zander KC reports on the House of Lords Committee stage of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill
  • The House of Lords Committee stage on the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill saw multiple peers on all sides highlighting their concerns, with the majority of objections aimed at clause 1 of the Bill.

The House of Lords Committee stage on this much-criticised Bill took no less than 29 hours spread over five days. Well over 100 amendments were moved. After being debated, each amendment was withdrawn by its proposer. Not one was put to a vote. Voting to challenge the provisions of the Bill will take place when it returns for the report stage—likely to be sometime in the second half of April, after the Easter recess.

There was virtually no support for the Bill, even from Conservative peers. Lord Cormack called it ‘a lousy Bill’. Lord (Kenneth) Clarke was one of several peers who urged

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
Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll