Just now the UK Parliament is considering a government bill to ‘regulate the internal market’. Interesting stuff no doubt for constitutional lawyers and of considerable concern to the devolved governments but what is its relevance to wild mammals and the environment generally ?

The stated aim of the act is to create legally binding ‘Market Access Commitment’. This is intended to ensure a level playing field for business across the UK. If a business feels that the regulations of one of the constituent countries are unfavourable to it then it can complain. Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have building, agricultural and wildlife regulations that are substantially different to those of England. Some would say they were better and most would agree that they are stricter. Businesses could argue that having to abide by those regulations currently in force or subsequently brought in, cause them to expend time and money that would be unnecessary in a less strictly regulated part of the UK. As an example the manager of a driven grouse moor might argue that controls on moorland burning or trapping in one country have caused his business difficulties that he would not have encountered elsewhere. Should he be required to obtain a licence to run his business in one country or indeed be banned from carrying it out altogether he might also complain. If one country decided to issues licences to kill previously protected species to improve grouse yields that it might well be a problem if the other countries did not follow suit.

Clearly the chances of disputes are fairly high and there needs to be a system to resolve them. The one being pushed by the government is that these matters will be decided by ministers in Westminster. This combined with the current moves to limit access to judicial review of government decisions and the government’s stated intention to break international law albeit ‘in a very specific and limited way’ should set alarm bells ringing even for those whose interest in constitutional law has previously been somewhat limited. This is a huge appropriation and concentration of powers in a few hands with no checks or balances and has rarely been tried since Henry VIII issued the Statute of Proclamations in 1539 enabling him to rule by decree without parliament.

Ministers assure us that they will not use these massive powers recklessly but then they would say that wouldn’t they?