Welsh Government takes Westminster to court over Internal Market Act

Counsel General for Wales Jeremy Miles is asking the High Court to give the go-ahead for a full challenge to the Interal Market Act.
Jeremy Miles
PA Archive
Sam Tobin16 April 2021

The Welsh Government is taking legal action against the UK Government over the Internal Market Act, which it says “severely curtails” the powers of the Senedd

Counsel General for Wales Jeremy Miles is trying to bring a full High Court challenge over the Act, which he argues could prevent the Senedd from making laws on food or environmental standards.

Announcing the legal action in January, Mr Miles said the Act was an “attack” on the powers of the Senedd, and also includes “wide Henry VIII powers” which UK ministers could use to “cut down the devolution settlement”.

Lawyers representing Mr Miles are seeking declarations that the Act “must be interpreted so that it does not impliedly repeal areas of devolved competence”.

The Senedd in Cardiff Bay
PA Archive

They also want the High Court to declare that the so-called Henry VIII powers do not allow Westminster to make “substantive amendments” to the devolved powers of the Welsh Government.

At a hearing in London on Friday, Mr Miles asked the High Court to allow the case to proceed to a full hearing later this year.

But the UK Government argues that the claim is “hypothetical”, and that “nothing in the Internal Market Act alters the devolved competence of the Senedd”.

Helen Mountfield QC, representing Mr Miles, said the Act appeared to give the UK Government “broad powers … to modify the Internal Market Act itself, devolution legislation and other primary legislation”.

She told the court: “At least on one reading, these provisions so severely curtail the competence of the Senedd, formerly the Welsh Assembly, to legislate in areas which are not reserved to the Westminster Parliament … as to impliedly remove those areas from Senedd competence.”

Ms Mountfield added that the Act appeared to “enable the Secretary of State to amend the very scope of the devolution settlement in wide and unspecified future ways”.

She argued that the Internal Market Act meant that “any attempt to impose different or more rigorous standards in one nation will be interpreted as a barrier to trade between the nations of the UK and consequently void”.

Ms Mountfield said that “effectively the Welsh Government cannot make new environmental standards at all”.

The Houses of Parliament
PA Archive

She also said the “ongoing uncertainty” about the scope of the Act “renders the scope of the devolution settlement … incoherent, unstable and unworkable”.

However, Sir James Eadie QC – representing the UK Government – said in written submissions: “The Act plainly and expressly applies across the entirety of the United Kingdom, to legislation of the devolved legislatures and administrations, and to secondary legislation made by a UK minister, where it would affect the UK internal market.”

He added: “Parliament was entitled to make specific provision in respect of the UK internal market … and Parliament’s legislative and drafting choices may not be called into question by the back door, as the claimant seeks to achieve.”

Sir James also said: “Nothing in the Act alters the devolved competence of the Senedd – the subject matters of the areas in which legislative competence exists is unaffected.

“But the Act does prevent legislation having effect in a manner which purports to restrict in a prohibited manner goods or services produced in, or provided from, a different part of the United Kingdom, so as to preserve the internal market.

“There is no ambiguity in what the Act does and the claimant is not entitled to invite the court to question the approach taken by Parliament.”

At the conclusion of the hearing on Friday afternoon, Lord Justice Lewis – sitting with Mrs Justice Steyn – said: “Because this is important for Wales, and for Scotland and England too, and Northern Ireland – all of us – we are unusually going to reserve our judgment.”

The judge added that the court would deliver a written ruling “as quickly as possible”.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in