Internal Market Bill’s proposals are illegal
I REFER to the Internal Market Bill and thank you and your reporters for the coverage of this proposed law. Any consideration of the various sections shows that the government claims of minor changes and tidying up are pure fiction.
The bill under part 5 (clauses 40-45) attempts to rewrite the Northern Ireland Protocol by removing trade arrangements, mutual recognition and trade standards from EU control in Northern Ireland in accordance with the provisions of the Protocol. Furthermore, sections 42-45 attempt to remove any level of authority from the EU and European Court for trading provisions between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK as set out in the Protocol.
In no way are these changes minor, as they pose a direct challenge to the provisions of the Protocol. As was seen last week this has caused much strong reaction from the EU and other governments.
The other cause for serious opposition comes from the devolved governments, whose existing responsibilities are being taken over. These details are found under Part 6 (Financial Assistance Power) which aims to provide UK Government funds for economic development, infrastructure projects (including housing), cultural activities, education and sport.
This is another example of a direct challenge to existing legislation. The broadly drawn clauses under sections 46 and 47 attempt to allow the UK Government to proceed with such schemes.
One explanation given by UK ministers is to the effect that these provisions will only replace existing EU provisions.
Such statements are definitely not true, because the EU provided the funds for approved projects and national governments and devolved authorities carried out the schemes with the appropriate legal powers.
For example, neither the European Commission nor UK government (with a few exceptions) holds the legal powers of compulsory purchase necessary to implement such infrastructure schemes.
That power currently rests here in Wales with Welsh Government.
The Internal Market Bill makes no mention of appropriate procedures for acquisition and any attempt to do so is a direct challenge to existing devolution law.
In short, it can clearly be seen that this bill constitutes an attempt to break an international agreement and is a direct challenge to existing devolution legislation.
The proposals can only be described as illegal.
Edward Perkins Goodwick