Hansard

I sincerely thank everybody who took part in this short debate. I will briefly feed back on those contributions.

Clare Adamson, the convener of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, highlighted the overwhelming strength of evidence to the committee about how damaging the bill is.

Donald Cameron, from the Conservative front bench, suggested that it was premature to decline legislative consent. I have to say to him, however, that, given everything that we know about the bill so far, and the evidence that has been presented to the committee, I do not agree with him that the Parliament should give the UK Government a blank cheque to continue.

He called on the UK and Scottish Governments to work together, ignoring the fact that the UK Government has ignored all amendments that were supported by the Scottish and Welsh Governments. Again, that is a reason why, even at this late stage, the Conservatives should reconsider their opposition to granting legislative consent.

Sarah Boyack began by pointing out, in an eminently sensible way, how an alternative course of action could have been proceeded with, were there pieces of retained EU law on the statute book that needed to be sunsetted in any way. That was perfectly possible; however, the UK Government has turned the whole process on its head, forcing every piece of European legislation—devolved, reserved and in between—to face sunsetting. I very much welcome the Labour Party’s opposition to the giving of legislative consent.

To Willie Rennie and the Liberal Democrats—a party that now accepts and is prepared to live with Brexit—I say, as I have said to him before when he has appealed for the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government, that I have done so. I have written repeatedly to the UK Government on this issue. We have published amendments that were supported by colleagues in the Welsh Government, but none of those has been accepted. I reject his suggestion that there is an issue of equidistance in critique. Notwithstanding that, I welcome the support of the Scottish Liberal Democrats for the withholding of legislative consent.

In the short time that I have left, I will draw attention to a number of things. One question that has been raised is whether, given that the Scottish ministers will get powers to preserve and amend retained EU law, the concern about UK ministers acting in devolved areas without consent is overstated. No—it is not overstated. The bill gives devolved ministers powers to preserve, revoke and amend REUL, but UK ministers are able to revoke REUL in devolved areas at any time, prior to and after the 2023 sunset, with no requirement for consent. How can we possibly grant a blank cheque to the UK Government in those circumstances? Moreover, only UK ministers have powers to extend the sunset date to 2026. The balance of power is unequal.

All that could have been solved in the House of Commons or the House of Lords, where the bill is at present, if the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party was prepared to make the case to the UK Government. Who knows? Perhaps it would be listened to. However, we have heard none of that from the Conservative members today.

Sarah Boyack has repeatedly raised the issue of timescale and decision making, and she is absolutely right on that. No preservation or other instruments can be made under the bill unless and until it has received royal assent and is in force, which is expected to be around May 2023. Once that has happened, the Scottish Government would intend to lay secondary legislation to seek to ensure that laws are not lost at the end of 2023. I would be content to come back, in a further and extended debate, to talk through how that may work and, I hope, to provide the assurances that Sarah Boyack requires.