The first First Minister of this Parliament stated:
“There shall be a Scottish Parliament.”
He followed that by saying, “I like that.” If the bill that became the Scotland Act 1998 were to be drawn up today by a Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland, I wonder whether they would be able to say the same.
At the weekend, our second First Minister, Henry McLeish, was reported as saying that
“Tory ministers will use a ‘power grab’ to ‘trample over Scotland’ and strike trade deals with Donald Trump.”
That is the President Trump that Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson was cooing over last weekend as he tried to encourage the UK to ditch what he described as
“the lunar pull of Brussels”.
Boris Johnson also described one of the trade options that the UK Government was considering as “crazy”.
We can see why the UK Government would rather have powers over areas such as fishing, farming and the environment, to name just a few of the devolved areas. It would like to be able to make new deals with others, including President Trump, thereby raising the ugly prospect of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership on a global scale. We can also see why Dr Kirsty Hughes and Dr Katy Hayward, eminent scholars in their fields, said:
“Devolution has been seen more as an irritation than as a central concern in planning Brexit.”
The former clause 11, which is now clause 15, skews the power balance between the Scottish and UK Parliaments to a degree that is just not acceptable. Members on this side of the chamber see it as a power grab that undermines the Scotland Act 1998, while the Secretary of State for Scotland sees it as
“preserving the current boundaries of devolved competence”,
by which he means, “Know your place and don’t reach for anything more.”
We need a level playing field. We need the trust and open communication that the two institutions should have between them, and that can be achieved only if there is a balance of power between them. In a poor attempt at a compromise, the UK Government has given a political commitment—that phraseology is important—that it will “not normally” use the clause 15 regulations without the consent of the devolved Parliaments. Frankly, that means nothing. That commitment by the UK Government would be voluntary, and it has been repeated so many times at committee that it has almost become the norm. The new clause 15 would place a statutory constraint on the Scottish Parliament while the commitment to wield that power wisely would be only a voluntary vow, especially if it were to be used for something that we disagreed with. We all know how reliable vows are.
The secretary of state, David Mundell, does not want
“an administration in one part of the UK to effectively have a veto on issues that affect the whole of the UK.”
He said that without a hint of irony. He does not recognise that that is exactly what the UK Government is doing to Scotland and Northern Ireland with Brexit. It is also glaringly clear that the UK Government is using the withdrawal bill in the same way that a sledgehammer might be used to put in a nail.
Crucially, the secretary of state has repeatedly refused to rule out overruling a decision of this Parliament if it decides to withhold consent. It is clear that he does not want to indulge in speculation on a hypothetical scenario. However, by 5 pm tonight, it will no longer be a hypothetical scenario, as we will know exactly where this Parliament stands on the issue. The secretary of state will then have to tell Scotland what he and his Government will do next.
Every member will welcome the work that has been done to improve the UK Government’s withdrawal bill. Every member wants the bill to be fixed so that this Parliament can sign up to it and so that we can work in the best interests of our constituents over the next couple of years, given the huge uncertainty and anxiety that are being caused by Brexit. The fact that the Conservatives in this Parliament stand alone in their position is telling. They have a Government in London that they must adhere to instead of representing their constituents.
The two reports that were published by Scottish Parliament committees last week were positive contributions to the debate. Last Tuesday, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee produced a well-balanced report. I refer members to paragraphs 96, 97 and 98. Paragraph 96 states:
“This report has been agreed at a time when there continues to be uncertainty about which bill or which combination of bills will be relied upon.”
The Finance and Constitution Committee was sometimes divided in its “Report on European Union (Withdrawal) Bill Supplementary LCM”, with the Conservatives ploughing a lonely furrow or being “utterly isolated and exposed”, as Adam Tomkins might have said. However, the report’s position is clear, particularly in paragraphs 30, 75, 83, 96 and 97. The committee unanimously agreed paragraph 30, which highlights that
“the UK Government has given a political commitment that it will not normally use the clause 11”—
now clause 15—
“regulations without the consent of the devolved parliaments.”
The call in paragraph 75 for clause 11—now clause 15—to be removed from the bill is therefore understandable, and it is disappointing that the Conservatives disagreed with that position, which was taken to defend this Parliament.
Paragraph 83 highlights the committee’s unanimous view that
“the Committee remains deeply concerned about the lack of any statutory provision ... for UK Ministers to seek the consent of Scottish Ministers or the Scottish Parliament to legislate in devolved areas”.
Given that unanimous view of a parliamentary committee, how can the Parliament place any trust in UK ministers doing the right thing by this Parliament?
The UK population heard the “strong and stable” mantra about Brexit, but it is clear from what has happened since the referendum that the Brexit process is anything but “strong and stable”: it is more fast and loose. How can this Parliament, therefore, place any trust in a political commitment?
Harold Wilson once stated:
“A week is a long time in politics.”
The Brexit process is proving to be a saga of epic proportions, with an ending in sight but yet to be written. Further, politicians come and go, so a political commitment given now might become different when the Westminster political actors change, as they surely will.
I urge all members to trust this Parliament, to support this Parliament and its powers, to reject the power grab that is in play and to please support the motion in the minister’s name.