Cross-party talks over Brexit bill

SCOTTISH ministers are to hold cross-party talks to decide what, if anything, can be salvaged from Holyrood’s emergency Brexit Bill after key parts of it were ruled unlawful.

The UK Supreme Court said more than 20 sections of the Continuity Bill passed by MSPS in March were no longer competent because of subsequent legislation at Westminster.

The SNP accused the UK Government of stalling the Bill with a legal challenge and then “changing the rules of the game midway through the match” to invalidate much of it.

Cabinet secretary Michael Russell called it “an act of constitutional vandalism”.

MSPS passed the Bill to avert a perceived Brexit “power grab” over devolved areas such as fishing by Westminster, and it was designed to embed repatriated EU law into Scots law.

Holyrood’s Presiding Officer (PO) said he considered the Bill beyond the powers of the Scottish Parliament as it strayed into EU law.

However the Scottish Government’s top law officer, the Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC, said it did not, and in a first for devolution MSPS passed it in defiance of the PO’S advice.

The UK Government challenged its legality, referring it to the Supreme Court in April.

In a unanimous verdict delivered by President Lady Hale, the Court said the Bill, with the exception of one section which encroached on Westminster, had been within Holyrood’s powers at the time it was passed.

However, crucially, it also said that the subsequent passing of the EU Withdrawal Act at Westminster in June had put key sections of the Scottish Bill outside Holyrood’s remit.

These included sections related to the transfer and modification of devolved EU law, the incorporation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights into Scots law, and sections concerning animal welfare, financial matters, and environmental protection. The Withdrawal Act had changed the “legal landscape”, and because it was “protected from modification” by Holyrood, it rendered parts of the Scottish Bill ultra vires.

The Lord Advocate later told MSPS that some sections of the Bill remained unaffected, such as those on international relations and keeping pace with EU law after Brexit.

He said his view had been vindicated, but the EU Withdrawal Act had affected the powers of the Scottish Parliament and so sections of the Bill could “not now become law”.

He said the Government accepted the judgment in its entirety and would consider its carefully, with Mr Russell holding “discussions with all parties across the Parliament before determining the way forward”.

However the First Minister’s official spokesman admitted “time was tight” before Brexit if the parliament did decide to try and advance the surviving parts of the Bill.

Tory MSP Adam Tomkins said the judgment had “eviscerated the Bill, leaving it in tatters” and Holyrood should “bin it”.

Mr Russell, the Constitutional Relations Secretary, said: “For the first time ever, UK law officers delayed an act of the Scottish Parliament from becoming law by referring it to the Supreme Court.

“Then the UK Government, for the first time ever, invited the UK Parliament to pass a Bill which they knew would cut the powers of the Scottish Parliament without its consent.

“The UK Government changed the rules of the game midway through the match.”

Scottish Secretary David Mundell said the verdict showed the legal challenge had been “the right thing” for the UK Government to do.

He said: “The Supreme Court has provided much-needed legal clarity that the Continuity Bill goes beyond the powers of the Scottish Parliament. This demonstrates clearly that it was the right thing for the UK Government to refer the Bill to the Court.”