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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll