LEGISLATION to allow the UK to choose which bits of European Union law it keeps after Brexit must not be rushed through Parliament like the bill to authorise Theresa May to trigger exit negotiations, a parliamentary committee has said.
The House of Lords Constitution Committee said it recognised the “political imperatives” that lie behind the fast-tracking of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill.
But it warned the accelerated timetable, with less time allowed between different stages in the Commons and Lords, should not set a precedent for the so-called Great Repeal Bill, which will transpose all EU law into UK law, giving Parliament the power to decide which bits to keep.
The EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill was tabled after the Supreme Court ruled last month the Prime Minister must get authority from MPs and peers before triggering Article 50 to begin Brexit negotiations.
It was first debated by MPs on January 31 before being fast-tracked through the Commons.
The chairman of the Lords Constitution Committee, former Scottish secretary Lord Lang of Monkton, said: “The European Union Withdrawal Bill is undeniably of significant constitutional importance.
“Usually we would be concerned about the fast- tracking of constitutional legislation, particularly when the justification for doing so depends on a political, rather than constitutional, deadline.
“However, we recognise the political imperatives that underlie this Bill. We have made clear, however, this should not set a precedent for future constitutional legislation.”
Ministers are considering a concession to peers, who are threatening to inflict a defeat on the Government over giving Parliament a “meaningful vote” on the final Brexit deal.
A Downing Street spokesman said: “We will bring forward a motion on a final agreement that will be approved by both Houses before it is concluded.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here