Hansard

I thank members for their contributions. The strength of feeling about the bill is obvious to anyone who is watching the debate.

It is clear that, although the effects of the bill are felt in relation to decisions that might be taken about relatively technical public procurement and investment matters, it provokes a range of views about issues of the utmost importance, including the current situation in the middle east. As I hope my opening remarks made clear, I do not think that a half-hour debate on legislative consent is the place to do justice to those issues.

The Government’s view on those issues is well known, and I do not propose to go into detail on it again here. Indeed, the current constitutional settlement means that the consent of the Scottish Parliament is needed only in relation to the inclusion of the Scottish ministers in the scope of the bill and to the limitation of executive competence as a result. However, although we might recognise that there is a range of views on those matters, a recognition that there might be a range of views is precisely what the bill fails to achieve. It would, by force of law, prevent the Scottish ministers from even publishing a statement saying that it would do things differently were it not for this UK Government bill. I will state that again: it would, by force of law, prevent the Scottish ministers from even publishing a statement saying that it would do things differently were it not for this UK Government bill. It would also allow the secretary of state to investigate, issue compliance notices and even levy fines on the Scottish ministers if they did not comply. That cannot be acceptable.

The nature of parliamentary democracy means that there will inevitably be some members who think that the Government should be doing more in relation to a given issue in its procurement and investment decisions. Inevitably, there will be some members who think that the Government should be doing something differently or not at all. The effect of the bill is to remove the ability of the Scottish ministers to take those views into account and to make decisions on them in relation to what are devolved matters.

The bill will also remove the ability of this Parliament to hold the Scottish ministers to account for those decisions, because the Scottish ministers will be unable to act or, potentially, even to explain why they have not acted. The Scottish ministers would be allowed to take disapproval of foreign state conduct into account in procurement and investment decisions, such as we have done in relation to Russia, only if the UK Government had first permitted that by way of regulations. If members will forgive the understatement, I am not sure that it is optimal to always have to rely on sound judgment from the UK Government on such matters.

However, that is not the point. The point is that, on devolved matters such as public procurement, devolved ministers must be able to make the decisions that they see fit, albeit always in compliance with international obligations and international law. The bill will row back devolution, and we must stand firm against that. Let us not forget those international obligations. They already prevent boycotts, they already give bidders from Israel and elsewhere the right to bring legal action against discrimination, and they were put into domestic law by the Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament.

The limitation of executive competence that the bill seeks to impose on the Scottish ministers is unacceptable. It is disproportionate and unnecessary, and it runs contrary to the basic principles of democracy and devolution. I therefore ask members to agree the motion and to send a message to the UK Government that its proposal is deplorable.