Hansard

Today’s debate is timely, because today is also the day on which the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill begins its committee stage in the House of Lords. I thank the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee for its report on the bill. It is clear that the committee shares the significant concerns that the Scottish Government has raised since the bill’s introduction. There is simply not enough time for me to list those concerns in full, but I will highlight three.

First, the bill includes a cliff-edge sunset provision. The inclusion of such a provision is a deeply irresponsible way to manage the statute book.

Secondly, the bill risks deregulation and divergence from the high standards that the people of Scotland experienced and benefited from when the United Kingdom was a European Union member state. That will introduce unwelcome uncertainty for business and for trade.

Thirdly, the bill includes powers for UK ministers to act in areas of devolved responsibility without the consent of the Scottish ministers and without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. I make it clear that conferring powers on UK ministers in devolved areas without requiring the consent of the Scottish ministers or the Scottish Parliament for the exercise of those powers strikes at the heart of the Scotland Act 1998. Democratic oversight and good governance are clearly at risk if UK ministers sideline in that way the Scottish ministers, who are accountable to this Parliament.

The combined assessment of the committee’s 18 expert witnesses was overwhelmingly negative and reflects the astonishing level of opposition to the bill across sectoral and political boundaries. Despite that, the UK Government refuses to withdraw the bill or—as it should do, at the very least—amend it. I again call on the UK Government, as I did in November, when the Parliament previously debated the bill, to see sense and to withdraw the bill.

I will restate the position of the Scottish Government: the only way to eradicate the dangers that are posed by the bill is for it to be scrapped. That remains our position. Nothing during the bill’s parliamentary passage so far has alleviated my initial grave concerns. Indeed, those concerns have been compounded following my conversations with Welsh Government ministers and with peers in the House of Lords.

I am alarmed that the hard Brexit negotiated by the UK Government could become harder, with signals from Europe that the trade and co-operation agreement could itself be at risk because of the divergent and deregulatory UK agenda that informs the bill.

It is highly regrettable that our proposed amendments were not considered by two previous secretaries of state. A third is now in post and two weeks ago, I wrote to her to urge her to respect devolution and the role of the Scottish Parliament. I am yet to receive a reply. The amendments to the bill that we have proposed to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade would ensure that this Parliament would be given its proper scrutinising role. I will continue to urge the secretary of state to consider those amendments.

Much will depend on the further passage of the bill. I have instructed my officials to work closely with the parliamentary clerks here to find an agreeable way forward and I commit to keeping the Parliament updated on our proposals. We must be under no illusion that either devolution or the Sewel convention will be respected in connection with this legislation. Since 2018, the Parliament has withheld consent for a UK Government bill on seven occasions—six times, the UK Government has ignored that. Should this Parliament express a similar view today, I can offer no comfort that the UK Government will listen.

I conclude by drawing members’ attention to just some of the continued opposition to the bill. The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee criticised it as being “hyper-skeletal” in allowing ministers to act with little parliamentary scrutiny. The UK Government’s own watchdog, the Regulatory Policy Committee, called the impact assessment for the bill “not fit for purpose,” and Wildlife and Countryside Link described the bill as

“an economic and environmental wrecking ball”

that could cost the UK £82 billion over 30 years.

A clear swathe of informed observers understand the danger of the bill. The Welsh Government understands it; the Scottish Government understands it; this Parliament’s constitution committee understands it. I urge the Parliament as a whole to join that list today and to vote in favour of the motion to withhold consent.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees with the recommendation in the Scottish Government’s Legislative Consent Memorandum to withhold consent for the UK Government’s Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.