Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid) 07 October 2020
The bill emerged from a hurried white paper in the summer, and it is being blasted through Westminster at high speed. The bill exists to smooth a trade deal with the United States of America. It gives UK ministers the power to sweep away objections from devolved Administrations on matters such as food safety and environmental safety.
I have been astonished to hear UK ministers say that the Northern Ireland protocol was done in haste and so cannot be relied upon. Those very same ministers are rushing through this legislation at breakneck speed and with a strong-arm guillotine and they do not even blush.
I was very interested in the evidence that expert witnesses gave to the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee. Professor Michael Dougan wrote in a submission that
“many trade systems that rely on mutual recognition ... also incorporate multiple safeguards into its application”.
There are none in the bill. Professor Michael Keating pointed out in his evidence that most systems with “internal markets” are “federal”, such that each Administration within it has a say. This bill gives power to one secretary of state.
I would prefer joint ministerial committees to be up and running, with a dispute-resolution process to keep the internal market moving. With frameworks agreed by all four Administrations, their detailed implementation can be left to the individual Administrations, who would be safe in the knowledge that the fundamentals of the internal market were protected.
My committee colleague Beatrice Wishart asked about fire safety standards, pointing out that
“Peter Drummond—a senior member of the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland—said that Scotland’s more robust fire safety regulations could fall foul of the bill”
and noting that, if we wanted
“to change or toughen its existing standards, the bill would appear to come into force against it.”
She further noted that, in response to Mr Drummond’s concerns, the UK Government had said
“that the Scottish Parliament will continue to be able to set its own regulations.”
However, as Professor Dougan pointed out,
“Technically speaking, the UK Government is correct, but only if we totally ignore the bill that we are talking about.”—[Official Report, Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee, 24 September 2020; c 19.]
We might have thought that someone would have to be a pretty high-ranking office holder of the Boris Johnson fan club to think that this is an honest piece of legislation, but it seems that we have a number of those individuals in the chamber today. That is before we get to the brazen admission that the bill will break international law. So much for the party of law and order: the Scottish Conservatives still stand by the bill.
The bill is unnecessary. It is rushed. It is ill conceived. It will undermine the United Kingdom partnership, put power in the hands of just one minister and break international law. The Scottish Parliament should reject the legislative consent motion and the UK Government should withdraw the bill without delay.
17:25