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

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll