header-logo header-logo

The UK Internal Market Bill: Yea for the House of Lords

08 January 2021 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7915 / Categories: Features , Brexit , EU , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail
34762
Michael Zander on the last stages of the UK Internal Market Bill

The parliamentary debates on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill came to a surprising harmonious ending on the evening of Tuesday 15 December.

The purpose of the Bill, as its title indicates, is to regulate the UK single market after the ending of the Brexit transition period. Most of the many hours both Houses spent debating the Bill were devoted to two topics. One was Part 5 of the Bill with its notorious clauses 44, 45 and 47 allowing ministers to issue regulations that the Government admitted would be in breach of international law. Part 5 of the Bill provoked uproar.

On November 9, the House of Lords, led by former Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, voted to remove the whole of Part 5 by the crushing majority of 433 to 165. The 44 Conservative peers who voted against the Government included the Party’s former Leader, Lord Howard of Lympne,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll