header-logo header-logo

21 October 2020 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7907 / Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Withdrawal (dis)agreement (Part 3)

29899
A Bill for the birds? Michael Zander on the UK Internal Market Bill’s rough ride in the Lords

In brief

  • The Government had no doubt expected strong criticism from Labour, Liberal Democrats and Crossbenchers, but not that almost half the 35 Conservative peers who took part in the debate this week would speak against the Bill.

The Lords gave the Internal Market Bill a right drubbing during the Second Reading debate this week. Seven hours of debate on Monday was followed on Tuesday by closing speeches and, unusually for a Second Reading debate, a vote. The amendment moved by former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, regretting that ‘Part 5 of the Bill contains provisions which, if enacted, would undermine the rule of law and damage the reputation of the United Kingdom’, was carried (on a remote vote) by an overwhelming 395 to 169.

The Government had no doubt expected strong criticism from Labour, Liberal Democrats and Crossbenchers. It may not have expected that almost half the 35 Conservative peers

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll