Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have one final question. You have referenced Dr Whitten’s excellent report for the committee. In it, she has highlighted the potential for passive divergence, particularly with tertiary law—that is, the implementation of European Union law. Have you made a commitment to that tertiary law?

I am sure that we will come back to that when we receive the Government’s response to that piece of work.

Obviously, the bigger question is the retained EU law bill and how that stakeholder engagement can realistically happen, given the immense scope and nature of the work that will potentially have to take place over the next 12 months. Do you have further thoughts on how you can engage stakeholders in thematic areas as we potentially approach that black cliff edge? Obviously, in Europe, that process is happening the whole time, because there is on-going stakeholder engagement. At this point, how do you reach out to groups and stakeholders on the totality of that EU law?

I have a couple of follow-up questions. In relation to the public consultation on the annual report, I presume that, if people have concerns about the decision that was made on EVs—or anything else that is in the detail of the report—they can make submissions to that consultation. Is that right? Are you looking for active engagement on the Government’s decisions through the consultation, or does it have a different focus? What happens to the responses that come in? Do they get passed to the relevant cabinet secretary? What is the process for stakeholders?

I join other members in welcoming the debate, and the excellent report informed by expert and learned opinion, which come at a point when the full horror of Brexit is really just beginning to unfold.

None of the Brexit outcomes thus far have been surprising in any way. The UK Government repeatedly warned itself about the economic implications of leaving the single market and ending free movement and about the sectors of the economy that would be damaged by a hard Brexit, the businesses that would take flight and the risk of recession.

What I find ironic is that the UK was so influential when it was a member of the EU, but so bad at explaining the benefits of that influence at home. It also saddens me that the UK was such a champion for the rule of law in the EU but it is now so willing to disregard the rule of international law when it comes to the TCA and the Northern Ireland protocol.

The arguably very British value of respect for the rule of law is now clearly being championed by others, including the Irish, in the EU. I, like more than half the members of this Parliament, hope that Scotland will be able to join Ireland as an independent state within an interdependent European family of nations and that, in time, the rest of these islands will follow in our footsteps and rejoin the most successful project for peace and prosperity in world history.

The British contribution to the acquis of European law and policy has been immense, so it would be an enormous act of self-harm if the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill results in a Brexit bonfire of the very laws that we wrote. There are so many protections and rights that we rely on, which, unless saved, will fall off the cliff edge in December next year. Laws on issues from equal pay to nature protection must be saved and retained.

If the UK Government lights the bonfire, there will be a desperate scrabble to save laws from the engulfing flames. It will put huge pressure on every democratic institution, every Government department and every minister and parliamentarian in every Parliament across the UK. It is clear that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill should be scrapped and individual laws should be prioritised for reform.

For example, Governments urgently need to change the energy performance certificate system to deliver a step change in green heating. The Energy Performance of Buildings (Scotland) Regulations 2008 come from the EU directive on the energy performance of buildings, but when the UK left the EU it did so without putting in place any way to change the regulations, which has left the Scottish Government now desperately trying to find a legislative route through a Brexit mess.

Therefore, there is work to be done, but it must be careful work, not a slash and burn spurred on by ideology—otherwise, we will see yet another epic failure of statecraft from the UK Government.

We are in anything but normal times, but there needs to be respect between the UK and the devolved Governments. The Sewel convention, which a number of members have mentioned, has, in effect, been abandoned. Prior to that, it had been used 140 times at Holyrood to obtain consent, which was withheld on only one occasion. However, it is clear that it has now become merely an obligation to seek consent of this Parliament, rather than actually to obtain it. Despite any contrary view that Holyrood might have, the box always get ticked and the UK Government carries on regardless.

Parliamentary oversight is a cornerstone of our British democracy, yet post-Brexit legislation is coming before both Parliaments and the Senedd with broad, sweeping ministerial powers that have a strong focus on secondary legislation. A feast of Henry VIII powers is now ready for UK ministers; even the powers to amend primary legislation itself without consent are now on the menu.

With much of that post-Brexit legislation, there is absolutely no clarity about how secretaries of state would use the powers—it is anyone’s guess what the powers are for and what the policy objective is. Meanwhile, stakeholders fear a regulatory race to the bottom; businesses are unsettled; and certainty has eroded even further at a time when we really need stability.

For us parliamentarians, that makes scrutiny nearly impossible. However, Tory MPs should be very wary in what they ask for, because when they take their turn in opposition, there will be very few powers for them to use to challenge Government policy under these Brexit bills. Such a lack of scrutiny rarely makes for good decision making, regardless of who is holding the ministerial pen at the time.

I will not let the Scottish Government completely off the hook in the debate either, because we, as a Parliament, need to see our Government step up and realise the keeping pace commitment totally transparently. The Government should set out regularly what it will align with in both legislation and policy, and it needs to set out its approach to forthcoming EU legislation and the European Commission work programme as early as possible.

The role of Parliaments in holding their Executives to account has never been more important. There is a need for Parliaments across these islands to work together even if their Governments currently struggle to do so. We may have lost the European Union machinery that strived to build consensus among its decision makers and stakeholders, but the European values of openness and democracy are now more important than ever and we should uphold and defend them in this Parliament.

Thank you. I put the same question to Martyn Gray.

What specifically would such involvement look like, Gordon? Is there a particular phase in the development and procurement of a new vessel in which you could provide input? You have talked about the initial specification. Is there good practice on that from elsewhere? Can you tell me what that input would look like for your members?

That was helpful. Martyn, do you want to respond?

That was very useful. Any further detail that you have on the just transition work will be of particular interest to this committee. I agree with your point that workers need to be at the heart of the conversation on such a transition.

My final question is about the road equivalent tariff, and I will go back to Gordon Martin to ask it. In your submission, Gordon, you stopped short of saying that RET should be scrapped, but you made quite a good case for that to happen. Some people in island communities might agree with you on that, given RET’s impact on demand and so on. Is that your position? If it is, should the Government consider something different from RET that could do the same thing but in a slightly different way and without the unintended consequences? I am interested in fleshing out whether you have a fixed view on RET.

In answer to a previous question, Gordon, you said that you felt that unions and ferry workers have been cut out of the procurement process. Do you want to say more about that? Has there been no engagement at all with workers and unions, or has engagement been ineffective or badly handled? I will bring in Martyn Gray after you have responded.