header-logo header-logo

08 December 2020
Categories: Legal News , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Commons rejects amendments to Internal Market Bill

On Monday the Commons rejected 22 amendments to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill made by the House of Lords

Amendments  included: removal of the greatly criticised clauses in Part V that would permit a breach of international law by allowing the Government to override parts of the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement as well as  ouster clauses to prevent recourse to the courts; clauses to require adherence to the Common Framework devolution programme; clauses removing the delegated powers of Ministers  to make regulations regarding market access, instead requiring primary legislation; clauses to separate the Office for the Internal Market (OIM) from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA); removal of the provisions giving the Government the power to provide financial assistance to any part of the United Kingdom and making subsidy control a ‘reserved competence’ under the devolution arrangements.

Lords consideration of Commons amendments and ‘ping-pong’ between the two Houses was scheduled for the afternoon of Wednesday December 9. It was anticipated that the Lords would stand firm and send the Bill back to the Commons in regard to the provisions permitting a breach of international law. Mr Michel Barnier warned on Monday that if those provisions remained in the Bill there would be no deal with the EU. It was not clear whether the Lords would stand firm more than once.

A statement issued by No.10 before the debate on Monday offered an olive branch: ‘If the solutions being considered in those discussions are agreed, the UK government would be prepared to remove clause 44 of the UK Internal Market Bill, concerning export declarations. The UK government would also be prepared to deactivate clauses 45 and 47, concerning state aid, such that they could be used only when consistent with the UK's rights and obligations under international law.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Firm awards training contracts to paralegals through internal programme

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Private client disputes specialist joins commercial litigation team

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Cumbria firm appoints new head of residential property

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
back-to-top-scroll