Thank you very much, convener. I want to say a word or two about the Trade Bill, which requires the consent of the Scottish Parliament. However, as I said last week to the Finance and Constitution Committee, the events around legislative consent for the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 have in effect overturned 19 years of constitutional convention and practice. The UK Government sought the Parliament’s consent on that occasion; it was refused, but the UK Government proceeded with its legislation.
We are therefore seeking urgent discussions with the UK Government on how to strengthen and protect the Sewel convention, and will be looking again at how we can embed the requirement for the Scottish Parliament’s consent in law, and strengthen intergovernmental processes.
In the meantime, we have made it clear that we will not introduce further legislative consent motions on Brexit bills. We will work with the UK Government to develop the Trade Bill to ensure, as far as we can, that Scottish interests are protected, but we will not invite the Parliament to consider consent legislation if the UK Government reserves the right to set aside our view on all bills for Brexit.
The Trade Bill is designed to operate alongside the withdrawal act to help ensure continuity in the UK’s existing trade and investment arrangements. Clause 1 provides powers for UK and Scottish ministers to make regulations. Clause 2 provides powers for UK and Scottish ministers to make regulations to implement qualifying international trade agreements. The UK Government has said that, in most cases, the implementation of any obligations within existing international trade agreements will be dealt with through the EU withdrawal act, but it has identified certain circumstances where that will not be possible and the provisions in clause 2 of the Trade Bill are intended to bridge that gap.
The legislative consent memorandum that we submitted last December set out our concerns about the bill as introduced. Since then, I am pleased to say that some changes have been made and the bill that will be considered in the House of Lords later today is better than the one that was introduced.
However, we still have significant concerns in two areas that were set out in correspondence between Derek Mackay and Liam Fox before recess; I think that you have had access to that letter. The first is a direct read-across to section 12 and schedules 2 and 3 of the withdrawal act that, among other things, gives the Scottish ministers powers to fix retained EU law. As things currently stand in the Trade Bill, as with the withdrawal act, the Scottish ministers will have the power to amend direct retained EU legislation in areas that are otherwise devolved, but not where section 12 framework regulations have been made by the UK Government.
Our other concern is in relation to the trade remedies authority. The TRA will have an important role in the development of UK trade policy. It will undertake trade remedy investigations across the UK, which will inevitably touch on devolved areas or areas of significance to Scotland. Its decisions could have a substantial impact on businesses and consumers, yet despite repeated representations from us and from the Welsh Government, the Trade Bill still does not provide a role for the devolved Administrations, for example in relation to the appointment of board members. We will therefore continue to press for the bill to be amended to address those points.