header-logo header-logo

Commons rejects amendments to Internal Market Bill

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

Payne Hicks Beach—Craig Parrett

Payne Hicks Beach—Craig Parrett

Insolvency and restructuring practice welcomes new partner

Muckle LLP—Phoebe Gogarty

Muckle LLP—Phoebe Gogarty

North East firm welcomes employment specialist

Browne Jacobson—Colette Withey

Browne Jacobson—Colette Withey

Partner joins commercial and technology practice

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has restated a fundamental truth, writes John Gould, chair of Russell-Cooke, in this week's NLJ: only authorised persons can conduct litigation. The decision sparked alarm, but Gould stresses it merely confirms the Legal Services Act 2007
The government’s decision to make the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) the Single Professional Services Supervisor marks a watershed in the UK’s fight against money laundering, says Rebecca Hughes of Corker Binning in this week's NLJ. The FCA will now oversee 60,000 firms across legal and accountancy sectors—a massive expansion of remit that raises questions over resources and readiness 
The High Court's decision in Parfitt v Jones [2025] EWHC 1552 (Ch) provided a striking reminder of the need to instruct the right expert in retrospective capacity assessments, says Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell in NLJ this week
Paige Coulter of Quinn Emanuel reports on the UK’s first statutory definition of SLAPPs under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Sophie Houghton of LexisPSL distils the key lesson from recent costs cases: if you want to exceed guideline hourly rates (GHR), you must prove why
back-to-top-scroll