Hansard

The Scottish Government’s position on the supplementary legislative consent memorandum should be of no surprise to any member who has read the evidence from the 18 expert witnesses to the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. Rarely has such evidence been so overwhelmingly negative, reflecting the astonishing level of opposition to the bill across sectoral and political boundaries. Rarely, too, do we see the kind of sustained and broad criticism of legislation that we have witnessed from peers of all stripes in the House of Lords in their opposition to the bill.

However, I will briefly address issues that members have raised here. First, Clare Adamson, speaking as convener of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, highlighted very real concerns about air quality and targets, which are issues that Mark Ruskell also raised in an intervention. We will, no doubt, come back to the matter. She also highlighted the lack of consultation by the UK Government of the devolved Administrations and asked why that has been the case. I look forward to reading the reply from the UK Government. She asked whether the Sewel convention is under strain, to which the answer is—to put it mildly—yes. That view is shared by the Welsh Government.

I should note—the point was made in passing by Neil Bibby—that two days ago the Welsh Senedd voted on the very same issue of legislative consent in relation to the bill and did as I hope we will do this evening, in refusing consent. We are working extremely closely on the issue with colleagues from another political party that leads the Welsh Government.

I turn to Donald Cameron’s contribution. The Scottish Government is recommending that consent be withheld because of conferral issues, not solely because of the schedule. He should know and understand that, but he did not mention it at all in his contribution. Officials have been told that it is “extremely unlikely”—the word “extremely” is underlined—that the schedule can be altered before royal assent, so meekly allowing the UK Government to press ahead would be a mistake.

I also note that Donald Cameron was not prepared to answer or defend whether it is credible or acceptable for the UK Government to overturn a request for consent with only eight working hours left. It is clearly not credible or acceptable, and we should certainly not allow the UK Government to proceed with that.

I turn to the Opposition political parties that have signalled that they will vote with the Government. First, I express my appreciation to the Scottish Labour Party for having stated its position that it will support the Scottish Government’s motion. Neil Bibby spoke about the “reckless” approach of the UK Government and said that it is trashing conventions, among other things. Many of those issues were also reflected in the speech by Willie Rennie.

I reflect, however, as we move forward, that I often hear from some other parties in the chamber the notion that there is equidistance between the Scottish Government and the UK Government with regard to this issue, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and all the rest of it. I hope that the motion makes it absolutely clear that there is zero equidistance whatsoever on the issue. It is the UK Government that is acting recklessly in proceeding with the bill, as it is doing on so much else to do with devolution at present.

The bill that we have been discussing this afternoon is about trying to take back control at Westminster, as if other sources of legislation or legal rules such as the EU or the European Court of Human Rights, or indeed this Parliament, are illegitimate and must be excised. Ironically, however, rather than empowering Westminster, the bill mainly gives powers to UK ministers to legislate, but with only limited parliamentary control. Indeed, if any accepted practice still exists around the Sewel convention, it appears to be that the views of the devolved Governments and legislatures are to be ignored, not respected. That is not how to conduct intergovernmental relations in an orderly way, and it is not how devolution is supposed to work. We have control of our own affairs in name only if the UK Government can ride roughshod over this Parliament’s authority whenever it sees fit to do so.

The concession by the UK Government might remove risks relating to the 2023 sunset cliff edge; however, significant issues remain around consent for UK ministers acting in devolved areas and the impact on Scottish Parliament proceedings. The Scottish Government remains fundamentally opposed to the bill and will continue to press for its withdrawal, which is also the position of the Welsh Government.