Hansard

Thank you, convener. I apologise if I called you “Presiding Officer” earlier. That was an inadvertent promotion on my part and one that I am not yet permitted to make. There are 12 amendments in this group, all of them from members of the Scottish Conservative Party and 10 of them in my name. Collectively, the amendments in the group seek to make the bill subject to the withdrawal bill that is, as we know, currently going through the House of Lords, having already been passed by the House of Commons. In each of my 10 amendments in the group, I seek to do that with a provision that “corresponds”—the word that is used in the Scottish Government’s explanatory notes, which accompany the bill—to the provisions in the withdrawal bill. The purpose and, I hope, the effect of my amendments in the group is to ensure that that correspondence is watertight. Partly in defence of the indefensible way in which this Parliament has been invited to scrutinise the bill, the minister, Mr Russell, said to the Finance and Constitution Committee on 7 March: “A great deal of work has gone into ensuring that the bills complement each other”— that is to say, the continuity bill and the withdrawal bill— “so that there is a workable solution.”—Official Report, Finance and Constitution Committee, 7 March 2018; c 43. On 27 February, in the chamber, Mr Russell said: “In drafting the bill, we have had to mirror the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill as closely as possible to make them fit together.”—Official Report, 27 February 2018; c 66. I am taking Mr Russell at his word in this instance. I am accepting that there is a desire on the part of the Scottish Government to mirror the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and to make sure that the withdrawal bill and the continuity bill work together as closely as possible. I am accepting that there is good will on the part of the Scottish Government to make the two pieces of legislation fit together as closely as possible and that there is a desire on the part of the Scottish Government to ensure that the bills complement each other so that there is a workable solution to the undoubted problem of fixing the statute book—both the reserved and the devolved—so that it coheres, hangs together and makes sense after exit day. The force of each of my amendments in the group is to help the Government to achieve what it has said—in its explanatory notes, in evidence to the committee and in the chamber—is its policy ambition. I will explain what each of my amendments does. Amendment 71 is an amendment to section 2, which is on “Saving” in Scots law of “devolved EU-derived domestic legislation”. That is a mouthful, but it is not my mouthful. That provision in the bill corresponds to clause 2 of the withdrawal bill. Amendment 71 seeks to ensure that the operation of section 2 of the continuity bill is subject to the withdrawal bill so that there is full and complete correspondence between the two, which is the Government’s stated policy ambition. Amendment 77 is an amendment in like terms to section 3, which provides for the incorporation of devolved direct EU legislation. It corresponds to clause 3 of the withdrawal bill. Again, my amendment 77 seeks to ensure that the operation of section 3 of the continuity bill is subject to the withdrawal bill so that there is full and complete correspondence between the two pieces of legislation, which is what the Government says its policy intention is. Likewise, amendment 84 is an amendment in identical terms to section 4 of the bill, which is concerned with the saving for devolved rights under section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972. It corresponds to clause 4 of the withdrawal bill, and my amendment 84 seeks to ensure that the operation of section 4 of the continuity bill is to be read and given effect subject to the withdrawal bill to ensure, again, full and complete correspondence. This is all designed to make the bill more workable than it would otherwise be. 19:30 My amendment 106 is an amendment to section 7. That section contains provision on future legal changes to the validity of retained devolved EU law, and it corresponds to paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the withdrawal bill. Amendment 106 seeks to ensure that the operation of section 7 should “be read and given effect subject to” paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the withdrawal bill—again, in order to give effect to the Government’s stated policy ambition of ensuring that the two pieces of legislation correspond exactly with one another. Amendments 132 and 133, which I will deal with together, would amend section 11 of the continuity bill, which corresponds to clause 7 of the withdrawal bill and provides for a whole suite of ministerial powers, which we will discuss in substance later, that would enable Scottish ministers to deal with deficiencies in the statute book arising from UK withdrawal. Again, my amendments seek to ensure that both section 11 of the continuity bill and any future regulations made under it should “be read and given effect subject to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”— as it soon will be—and to any competent regulations made by UK ministers under that legislation. Amendments 146 and 147, which are also in my name, relate to section 12 of the continuity bill—clause 8 is the corresponding clause in the withdrawal bill—which is the power of Scottish ministers to comply with international obligations. Given that international obligations and relations are reserved to the UK Parliament, it is particularly important that any provision in the continuity bill that gives effect to the power of Scottish ministers to comply with international obligations is subject to and read compatibly with the equivalent power in the withdrawal bill, which is what my amendments 146 and 147 seek to ensure. Amendment 201, which is in my name, is an amendment to section 19: “Power to provide for fees and charges”. It is the equivalent of paragraph 1 of schedule 4 to the withdrawal bill. Again, the amendment seeks to ensure that there would be no incompatibility between the two bills by sewing them up together. In case that is not enough and, in my desire to help the Government to ensure that the legislation is compatible and not incompatible with the withdrawal bill, I have inadvertently overlooked a provision in the bill, I have proposed the addition of a new section through amendment 226. It provides: “This Act and any regulations made under it are to be read and given effect subject to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and any regulations made under that Act.” You might describe that as a belt-and-braces approach. The minister might accept amendment 226, in which case we could consider whether we would need to press amendments 71, 77, 84, 106, 132, 133, 146, 147 and 201, although I make no commitment in that regard. My final point in support of the amendments in my name in this group is, again, a quote from the Government’s policy memorandum, which, in some respects, is a very helpful document. Paragraph 12 states: “The scale of the task that is required to ensure a functioning statute book means that governments across the UK need to work closely together to ensure effective withdrawal arrangements that reflect the interests of all.” Again, I find myself in complete agreement with the Scottish Government. The amendments in my name in this group seek to ensure that that is done in law and not just claimed as a matter of political rhetoric. I move amendment 71.