Hansard

Indeed. That is yet another reason why the bill should be consigned to the dustbin of history. I will come back to the Labour amendment, which I very much welcome, later in my remarks.

The bill means that already stretched officials across the four home nations will waste time assessing thousands of pieces of legislation, just to make sure that they do not disappear next year. That is the point that we just heard from the Labour benches. It means uncertainty for businesses in Scotland that are already suffering from trade barriers due to Brexit, which now find themselves desperately wondering what standards they will have to adhere to, come January 2024.

What was a slow murmuring of dissent in the summer has risen in recent weeks to a loud chorus of opposition, uniting businesses, trade unions, the environmental lobby and constitutional lawyers, to name but a few. Indeed, only last week, a joint letter from 14 organisations was sent to the UK Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Grant Shapps, calling on him to do exactly what the Scottish Government has been calling for since the bill was introduced: namely, to withdraw the bill. The letter is signed by the Trades Union Congress, the Institute of Directors, Greener UK, the Employment Lawyers Association, the Civil Society Alliance, the Wales Civil Society Forum—I could go on. The point is that we would be hard pressed to find anyone—literally anyone—who is in favour of the bill.

Earlier this year, the UK Government declined to share with us its impact assessment for the bill. It is not surprising that it was being coy. Last week, the UK’s independent regulation watchdog, the Regulatory Policy Committee, which has seen the report, described the impact assessment for the bill as “not fit for purpose”. There has been zero consultation with businesses and zero concern about the impact that the bill will have on them. The risk to standards and the risk of the sunset are cause for great concern to the RPC.

I turn to how the powers in the bill will undermine devolution and limit scrutiny by all four UK legislatures. UK Government ministers want to give themselves powers to intrude into devolved matters without any need for our consent. The Scottish Government has accepted that there can be circumstances in which UK or Great Britain-wide secondary legislation may be the most appropriate way to legislate. That was particularly true when faced with the volume and time constraints of legislation as a result of Brexit. Pragmatically, we were therefore able to accept “concurrent powers”, as they are known in Brexit legislation, when accompanied by understandings that allowed this Parliament to scrutinise the exercise of those powers. Unfortunately, as committees in this Parliament have pointed out, such concurrent powers are becoming more and more common in UK Government legislative proposals.

The bill also sidelines Parliaments across the UK, concentrates powers in the hands of the executive and exposes the fallacy of the Brexiteers’ “taking back control” narrative. That is totally unacceptable. The bill shows an utter disrespect for devolution, the role of the Scottish ministers and the role of the Scottish Parliament. It undermines democratic accountability and responsibility for devolved matters. However, unfortunately, that is the new norm when it comes to the UK Government. To it, the Sewel convention involves merely a need to seek consent from the devolved Governments and legislatures, which can then be ignored, whereas, for nearly 20 years, the convention was understood as involving a requirement for such consent.

In my conversations with UK Government ministers, they have repeatedly assured me that the Sewel convention will be respected, but actions speak louder than words and the evidence is there for us all to see. Since 2018, the Scottish Parliament has on seven occasions withheld consent for a UK Government bill; it has been ignored six times. All signs point to the process on the retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill being number 8.

It is clear that the foundations on which devolution is operated are increasingly fragile. UK ministers attempt to conceal the lack of a requirement for consent by dressing the bill up as an opportunity for the devolved Governments. They say that devolved ministers will have new powers to preserve or amend retained EU law as we wish, and that devolution is in fact being enhanced. That is misdirection, plain and simple.

In the bill, devolved ministers are given powers to preserve retained EU law, but UK ministers can, even before the 2023 sunset, choose to revoke legislation in devolved areas—again, without our consent. Devolved ministers can amend retained EU law, but the bill states that any new or replacement legislation may

“not increase the regulatory burden”,

so standards can only go down; they cannot go up.

Ministers can do all that with minimum or no further scrutiny by Parliament. The great promise that Brexit would “take back control” does not appear to involve any of the UK’s Parliaments having any control over thousands of pieces of legislation. As the chair of the Bar Council, Mark Fenhalls KC, told the House of Commons,

“we are being told to trust Ministers to see what will happen, and we have no idea what they will do. We have no idea what is being left or what will be changed.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 22; c 30.]

Clearly, Scottish Government ministers are not the only ones who are concerned: our colleagues in the Welsh Government agree. Last week, Mick Antoniw, Counsel General for the Welsh Government, and I wrote jointly to the Financial Times in support of the many organisations that have written to that publication, criticising the bill and calling for its withdrawal. Our letter was published in yesterday’s issue.

I noted that, in a recent debate on the impact of Brexit on devolution, several members suggested that the solution to differences of opinion between the Scottish and UK Governments regarding the Sewel convention is for more dialogue between the two. I am open to constructive dialogue with anyone, but the problem here is one side’s refusal to acknowledge the detrimental impacts that its actions are having.

I twice met the previous Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Jacob Rees-Mogg, to discuss the bill. It came as no surprise to him that we were fundamentally opposed to it and that our preference was for it to be withdrawn. However, I also offered proposed changes to the bill that would reduce the damage that it would do to Scotland. They were ignored and the bill remains unchanged. Grant Shapps has now replaced Mr Rees-Mogg as the minister in charge of the bill. I have written to him twice since he took office. Again, I have stated our proposed changes—this time in the form of amendments to the bill. I have heard nothing from Mr Shapps and the bill remains unchanged.