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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll