Hansard

I agree with Mark Ruskell that the UK Government is planning to use the schedule to the bill to scrap existing reporting requirements on air pollution. It has agreed to discuss a replacement, but nothing has happened. I am happy to update Mr Ruskell and the Parliament on that issue of concern.

Since the Brexit vote, time and time again, this Parliament has debated legislation that has been prepared by Westminster, only for our views to be overridden. Nine times, Westminster has ignored the views of this Parliament—nine times since 2018. Today, we are again debating the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. Later this month, I expect to add the bill to that list of Westminster shame. It is not acceptable that seeking the views of this Parliament on devolved matters is optional, or for those views to be ignored.

To illustrate my point, let me describe the ridiculous manner in which the UK Government sought consent for its amendments to the bill. On 10 May, UK ministers tabled amendments to the Government’s original unworkable sunset clauses. That U-turn was, at least, welcome, and I will have more to say about it in a few moments. However, the process of seeking this Parliament’s consent is instructive in what it tells us about the UK Government’s lack of respect for or interest in devolution.

First, it was the view of the Scottish Government that the amendments triggered the requirement for the UK Government to seek legislative consent. Secondly, the UK Government initially did not share that view. Thirdly, however, I then received a letter from Nusrat Ghani, one of the Commons bill ministers, on the afternoon of Friday 19 May, which did indeed seek consent for the latest amendments. However, fourthly, less than eight working hours later, on Monday 22 May, the Lords bill minister, Lord Callanan, said that the UK Government intends to proceed with the bill without the consent of the Senedd or the Scottish Parliament. Clearly, any acknowledgement of due parliamentary process in respect of devolution is performative only.

I turn to the substance of the UK Government’s amendments. It is clear that the UK Government has carried out a major U-turn on the bill, which removes the risk of retained EU law being wholesale or unknowingly removed from the statute book at the end of this year. So why do we continue to recommend that consent be withheld in the supplementary legislative consent memorandum?

Previously, when we debated the bill in the Parliament, I outlined three main objections. The first is that it confers powers on UK ministers to act in areas of devolved responsibility without the consent of Scottish ministers or this Parliament. That is, quite simply, nothing but an assault on devolution. 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. Secondly, the bill risks deregulation and divergence from the high standards that the people and businesses of Scotland experienced and benefited from when the UK was an EU member state. Thirdly, the cliff edge sunset is an irresponsible way to manage the statute book.

The Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee previously highlighted

“deep and wide ranging concerns”

about the bill. Those objections never represented pick and mix optional improvements to the bill. Removing only one of them still leaves a bill that is fundamentally flawed in its design and intention.

I will finish by being crystal clear about the UK Government amendments and our sustained opposition. The UK Government’s U-turn means that only retained EU law that is specified in a new schedule that is attached to the bill will be revoked at the end of this year. There are currently 587 specific instruments in that schedule. All other retained EU law will remain on the statute book and will be subject to future reform by secondary legislation.

Our supplementary legislative consent memorandum indicates that there are 148 instruments listed in the schedule with some devolved provisions. Our assessment is that 139 are obsolete. However, we have concerns about up to nine of the instruments that are due to sunset, because they may not be redundant. Further analysis and consultation on the schedule are under way, although the UK Government is unlikely to alter it before royal assent.

The amendments confer on Scottish ministers the power to remove instruments that are within devolved competence from the application of the schedule up until 31 October 2023. However, UK ministers have such a power in relation to removing any instrument by that same date. How the UK Government intends that to work is far from certain, but we should be absolutely clear that, under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, where a veto for devolved actions remains in Westminster, the ability of devolved Governments to set their own regulatory standards is constrained.

In November last year, in this chamber, I called on the UK Government to withdraw the bill. I repeated that in February this year, when the Scottish Parliament voted to withhold legislative consent for the bill. I repeat it now. This is a damaging bill in its own right. It is damaging to high standards, damaging to protections and damaging to businesses—but it is also damaging to devolution and to the Scottish Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the UK Government amendments to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, tabled in the House of Lords on 10 May 2023, do nothing to alter the view expressed in the Scottish Parliament in its vote on 29 November 2022 calling for the Bill to be withdrawn, or its vote on 23 February 2023 that concluded that the Scottish Parliament should withhold consent for the Bill, and considers that no amendment to this Bill can be viewed in isolation from the risks of the overall Bill, or will be sufficient in removing the dangers attached to it.