Minister vows ‘improvements' to Internal Market Act
Mr Alexander however made clear that ministers have not considered scrapping the Internal Market Act (IMA), with the Scottish Government branding the results of the Westminster review 'completely unacceptable'.
Angus Robertson, the Scottish Government's Constitution Secretary, insisted the legislation – which Holyrood has twice voted against – 'undermines' the Scottish Parliament.
Mr Alexander however said the UK Government has 'been explicit about the need for businesses to have certainty', saying this is 'why the review has not considered repeal of the Act or any of its provisions'.
He said the UK Government has instead 'pledged to explore improvements in the way the Act's provisions operate', adding 'very real concerns' have been raised.
Following the UK's departure from the European Union, the then Tory UK government introduced the IMA in order to create a single market across the four nations of the UK.
The legislation however caused difficulties for the Scottish Government when it attempted to introduce a deposit return scheme for empty cans and bottles ahead of the rest of the UK.
In the wake of the review, the UK Government is promising changes, including the introduction of exclusions to the legislation, that have been agreed by all governments within a common framework.
As well as considering economic impacts, issues of environmental protection and public health will also be looked at for exclusions – with the UK Government saying this ensures a 'balance of factors is considered'.
Mr Alexander stressed the importance of having a 'well-functioning UK internal market' as part of the Government's 'ambition to improve economic growth for the benefit of businesses and people in all parts of our country'.
He added: 'Latest figures show that trade between the four nations of the UK is valued at £129 billion and that it is particularly important to the economies of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.'
But Mr Robertson insisted the IMA had been introduced by the previous Conservative government 'without the consent of any devolved government or Parliament'.
Speaking about the legislation, he added: 'It undermines the ability of the Scottish Parliament to use its powers to pursue devolved social and economic objectives in Scotland for the people to which it is accountable.
'It introduces radical new uncertainty as to the effect of laws passed by the Scottish Parliament and effectively provides a veto to UK ministers.
'Nothing set out in the UK Government's response to the review changes this position, which is completely unacceptable.
'The conclusion of the review falls well short of our stated position of repeal and replace the Internal Market Act, and indeed short of the legislative change required to mitigate the most damaging aspects of the operation of the IMA.
'It is important also to note that the Scottish Parliament has twice voted to repeal the Act – since it is fundamentally misconceived and incompatible with devolution.'
While he said the Scottish Government welcomes the UK Government's intention 'to address some of the most egregious issues with the function of the IMA exclusions process', he added that SNP ministers 'remain concerned that there is no clear vehicle to give meaningful effect to these changes, which work against our shared interests to promote growth, protect jobs and ensure seamless trade across the UK nations'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
19 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Will Labour's backbencher purge have unexpected concequences?
BRIGHTON, ENGLAND - SEPTEMBER 22: Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott addresses delegates in the main hall of the Brighton Centre on the second day of the Labour Party conference on September 22, 2019 in Brighton, England. Labour return to Brighton for the 2019 conference against a backdrop of political turmoil over Brexit. (Photo by) There are five fewer Labour MPs as this week closes than there were when it started. Four MPs – new intake serial rebels Chris Hinchliff, Brian Leishman and Neil Duncan Jordan, plus 2015 intake critic Rachael Maskell – had the whip removed on Wednesday. On Thursday, following a radio interview in which she defended the controversial 2023 letter that saw her suspended from the Labour Party, Diane Abbott is once again an independent, rather than Labour, MP. The question of who, exactly, gets to be a Labour candidate or a Labour MP has been a very live one in the last few years. The selections that took place in advance of the general election were tightly controlled. I remember being genuinely surprised in 2022 when Maurice Mcleod, a councillor considered a strong candidate in the Camberwell and Peckham selection, was blocked from the longlist (I wasn't the only one; well liked moderate MP for Vauxhall Florence Eshalomi said she thought Mcleod should have been able to put himself in front of members). By the time of the general election, there had been many such cases of candidates not making the cut (most dramatically and acrimoniously in Broxtowe, a series of events surely not unrelated from the fact that many of the local councillors have now gone independent). I can't pronounce on the reasonings behind each of these, and the party was very clear that it was merely interested in high quality candidates. Taking a step back, however, it was possible to discern a very distinct factional direction. I flippantly took to telling people that the average 2019 era Labour candidate was a public sector worker with some questionable tweets, and the average 2024 candidate was a lobbyist with a good half marathon time. The instincts for control that guided Labour's selection processes have continued into its party management (along with some of the same personnel). The opposition that was quick to block or ditch candidates is now a government quick to suspend the whip. In this regard it's vastly more trigger happy than the last Labour government. There are, however, a number of problems with this approach. Vet as hard as you like, it is just not possible to create a completely, always and forever, loyal PLP when you win so many seats and you are trying to push through legislation – like the welfare bill – unpopular with your base. Let's consider Chris Hinchliff. Labour did not put resources into winning his North East Hertfordshire seat, and the selection process (he was picked after the election was called) did not receive the scrutiny that Labour's pick in, say, Camberwell and Peckham did. But on the day they did win it – and almost certainly won't hold it. No favours owed for selection, no realistic possibility of resource in future, or promotion – there's not much to motivate Hinchliff to follow the party line rather than his conscience. The same applies to Neil Duncan-Jordan, who was a Unison official before becoming the Labour MP for Poole last year with a majority of just 18. When he was suspended earlier this week, he said that he 'couldn't support making disabled people poorer' and that 'although I've been suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party today, I've been part of the Labour and trade union movement for 40 years and remain as committed as ever to its values'. In short, Duncan-Jordan is just a normal Labour guy and he, like the membership of the party as a whole, didn't like the proposed PIP cuts. When you win seats like Poole and North East Hertforshire, you end up having selected a whole bunch of normal Labour types (and you probably made their activists go elsewhere at the election, creating a sense that they owe less to the party than more caressed candidates). And in truth, my glib line about lobbyists and half marathon times has proved ungenerous: on the whole, the PLP is more interesting than I might have expected a year ago. Let's also think about Diane Abbott. Her decision to re-litigate her 2023 letter is a harder to defend bone of contention than the general rebelliousness that has seen the other ejected, but she also has status the others don't, as an icon of the party and a genuinely famous person. She was the first black woman MP; she has been a regular on television and radio for decades; she ran to be Labour leader and was shadow home secretary. Fundamentally, lots of people know who Diane Abbott is and not very many know who Chris Hinchliff is. In the last election I knocked on the doors of people many miles from her constituency who said they wouldn't vote Labour because of how she had been treated; it's not a comment on his merits to say I struggle to imagine Brian Leishman provoking this response. This Labour Party's instinct for control and a church that can be broad as long as it's quiet about it is longstanding. When the world changes, however, you need to change with it: there is now a space opening up to the left of Labour, and an overall move from the two party system to something more complicated. Independents, Greens, and whatever ultimately emerges from Zarah Sultana's recent announcement all now present real threats to Labour – and will presumably want to court the newly un-whipped MPs. Whether or not they're successful (I think people often under-rate the emotional connection politicians have to Labour, so would be hesitant to predict any concrete defections), it's not an ideal position. Keeping so many troops in line is a genuinely difficult proposal. The party are unlikely to reconsider its heretofore very decisive view on whether it is in fact better to have your opponents in your tent pissing out than outside pissing in – but perhaps they should. [See also: A day out with Jeremy Corbyn's new party] Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Related
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
My part in Britain's illegal immigration crisis
Illegal immigration – and how to respond to it – has transformed British politics over the last few years. It is why Reform is leading in the polls and why Labour and the Conservatives are both facing an existential crisis. What is less often considered is how our personal spending decisions are driving that illegal immigration. It is all well and good to bemoan what is happening in the abstract, but we then spend our cash with the food delivery companies and at the barber shops and nail bars which pull undocumented, illegal workers to our shores. This reality was brought home to me last weekend when I tried to do what I have done on countless occasions – order a beer at Royal China on Baker Street in London's West End. Royal China serves perhaps London's most sublime dim sum – not the most cuisine-y or original, but certainly leagues above most of the capital's establishments. My opinion on this is not an esoteric one. At weekend lunchtimes, its entrance and the street outside is thronging with people waiting to be called when a table is ready. And, best of all, you can still have a lunch for four without drinks for around £100, something of a bargain in London. I must have eaten at this restaurant, and the others in its group, hundreds of times over nearly 30 years and have a sentimental attachment to them. When the first branch opened in Queensway in Bayswater (now closed) in the mid 1990s, I was in my early 20s and used to go on Sundays with my mother after walks in Hyde Park. She was in and out of hospital at the time with the cancer that went on to kill her. When I was running a think tank and a magazine in Marylebone, I dragged our authors there – with little regard to whether they had a fondness for Chinese food. My two teenage sons have been going for longer than they can remember. What was different this time is that I was informed that the restaurant no longer serves alcohol, but I was welcome to bring my own drink. Corkage is now charged which, on my visit, ranged from £3 for unlimited beers to £50 for a bottle of whisky. Why the change? After a raid by immigration officials, the restaurant lost its alcohol licence last August when it was found to be employing nine members of staff who were here illegally. It was also fined £360,000 by the Home Office. This was the third time the restaurant had fallen foul of the law, having already had to pay penalties totalling £110,000. All the fines were swiftly paid, and other branches of the restaurant in Canary Wharf and Harrow, as well as its more upmarket Michelin-guide listed sibling, Royal China Club, a hundred yards or so further north on Baker Street, are not accused of similar breaches and are still merrily serving alcohol. The output of council staff is not usually written to entertain, but the City of Westminster's submission on Royal China makes for quite some reading. Of their 2018 raid, the report states: 'Upon officers parking the vehicles, one worker at the rear of the restaurant ran inside and warned the other workers that immigration officers were present, officers… could see staff running through the restaurant and discarding their uniform. 'There were 28 staff members encountered in total, nine members of staff were found to be working illegally and arrested. 'During the visit the fire alarm was set off… In the commotion one Chinese female who had admitted to entering the United Kingdom illegally managed to escape. The fire brigade attended and informed the officer in charge that there had been no fire and that the fire alarm had been pressed by someone inside the restaurant.' And the record of last year's raid is similar: 'Upon officers entering the front of the premises they were asked by the staff member behind the bar to wait for the manager to arrive. 'Whilst officers were waiting, eight staff members attempted to escape from the premises via a lift at the rear loading area, another two members of staff fled via a rear staircase. Nine members of staff were arrested by the officers positioned at the rear and one male escaped. 'There were 29 staff members encountered in total, this time nine more illegal workers were found. The illegal workers consisted of six Indonesian males who had overstayed their visas, two Malaysian males who had overstayed their visas and one Chinese female who was working in breach of her visit visa conditions. The workers were arrested and escorted off the premises. 'One worker reported that they worked washing dishes 11 hours per day, six days per week and earning £400 a week, (around £6 per hour compared to the minimum wage of £11.44 per hour).' Royal China is not an obscure establishment on some backstreet. If somewhere so public-facing in so prominent a location has flagrantly abused its position, what is going on elsewhere? One must assume, after being fined a total of £470,000, it is now compliant with the law. My attempt to satiate a lunchtime craving for a beer has caused me to ask: has my fondness for dim sum, in however small a way, contributed to Britain's illegal immigration crisis?
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Anti-Semitism rife in UK schools
Anti-Semitism is rife in the UK's schools, with more than half of Jewish teachers reporting abuse. Jewish teachers have reported increasing instances of swastika graffiti and chants of 'free Palestine' and 'f--- the Jews'. One Jewish teacher said: 'On multiple occasions, students have shouted 'free Palestine' at me. On another occasion, someone shouted 'f--- the Jews' outside a meeting of Jewish students.' The findings were revaled in a survey of Jewish teachers by the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT), which has more than 300,000 members. It comes after a Government-backed report found that anti-Semitism has been normalised in middle-class Britain. The survey found that 51 percent of Jewish teachers had experienced anti-Semitism in their schools since May 2023. A total of 44 per cent reported swastika graffiti appearing at their school since May 2023, and 39 per cent have witnessed or been subject to Nazi-related comments. Jewish teaching staff reported being told 'it's not racist to say Jews are rich – it's just a fact', while others have faced assumptions that they are Israeli and not British citizens. The rise in the abuse is being fuelled by 'dangerous' rhetoric from the far-Right and misinformation on social media, according to Matt Wrack, the acting NASUWT general secretary. But the union's response has been criticised for failing to address anti-Semitism from far-Left or Islamist groups in the aftermath of the Oct 7 Hamas terror attack on Israel.
