 Felly, rydyn ni'n gael ei ddweud eich cyfnodd gennymau ar y ddechrau ddechrau eingymell, ond y Pethau Unigol Ligol Disponidol y Gwlad Ganflydd, arfermwad i'r Ad corrections general a Fethau General i'r perlunio diolch ar y Cwlad Ddweud eu Sup. Felly, y Pethau godd honno ar y ddechrau ddechrau ar gyfer, rydyn ni'n gael ei ddweud eich ddweud wedi i gweithio ar gyfer y ddweud ei ddweud eich ddweud i'r cydweud eich I will call the Lord Advocate. The Supreme Court handed down its judgment on the UK withdrawal from the European Union legal continuity Scotland bill. Members will recall that I made a statement to this Parliament on the introduction of the bill, setting out the Government's analysis of it and answered questions on it. I am happy to appear again today and to make a statement on the judgment. The bill was introduced to ensure that, on any scenario, the Scottish Government and this Parliament would have the tools necessary to prepare Scotland within their devolved responsibilities for the legislative consequences of leaving the European Union. It was passed by this Parliament on 21 March. On 17 April, the UK Government's law officers referred the bill to the Supreme Court. That reference meant that the bill could not be presented for royal assent and accordingly could not become law until the reference was determined. On 20 June, while the reference was pending before the Supreme Court, the UK Parliament passed the EU withdrawal act 2018, and that act received royal assent on 26 June. That act imposes new limits on the legislative competence of this Parliament. In particular, it imposes a new limit that has the effect that an act of the Scottish Parliament cannot now modify the EU withdrawal act itself. The UK act is now what is called a protected enactment. The provision that made that change in the law took effect when the withdrawal act received royal assent on 26 June. As a result of this sequence of events, the Supreme Court has had to address two issues. First, whether the continuity bill was within the competence of this Parliament when it passed the bill. Second, whether the position has been affected by the changes that were made to the legislative competence of this Parliament after it passed the continuity bill and, in particular, the new limit that prevents an act of this Parliament modifying the EU withdrawal act itself. On the first issue, the court has concluded that, at the time when this Parliament passed the continuity bill, that bill was, with the exception of section 17, within the competence of this Parliament. In reaching that conclusion, the court has confirmed the constitutional analysis, which I, along with the other devolved law officers, advanced in our submissions to the court. It has affirmed that this Parliament's power is subject to the limits on its competence to prepare the statute book against the UK's withdrawal from the European Union. The court has rejected all of the submissions that were advanced by the UK Government's law officers on the first issue, with the exception of one argument in relation to section 17. Section 17 would have required the consent of Scottish ministers before certain subordinate legislation made by ministers of the Crown could take effect in Scotland. The court has concluded that this section would modify section 28.7 of the Scotland Act 1998 and would, for that reason, not be within the legislative competence of this Parliament. On the second issue, the court has rejected the submission by the UK Government's law officers that the coming into force of the EU withdrawal act means that the whole continuity bill would now be outwith the competence of this Parliament. However, the court has concluded that as a result of the new limit on the legislative competence of this Parliament, which has been imposed by the EU withdrawal act, certain provisions of the continuity bill may not now become law. This was a new limit on this Parliament's competence imposed after the continuity bill was passed and contained in the EU withdrawal bill, a bill to which this Parliament did not consent. The court has concluded that the following provisions of the continuity bill would modify provisions in the EU withdrawal act and, for that reason, cannot now become law. Subsection 2, section 5, parts of section 7, subsection 8, 2, sections 9A and 9B, parts of section 10, section 11, certain other provisions, as far as they apply to or refer to section 11, section 26A, subsection 6 and parts of section 33 and schedule 1. Had the continuity bill become law before the EU withdrawal act received royal assent, all of those provisions would have survived. Of those provisions, members will note in particular section 5, which would have preserved the charter of fundamental rights in domestic law, and section 11, the power to fix deficiencies in retained devolved EU law. As a result of the new limits imposed on this Parliament by the EU withdrawal act, neither of those provisions can now become law, at least in their current form. The Scottish Government will consider ways in which the values reflected in the charter of fundamental rights can continue to be given effect in Scots law should the UK leave the European Union. As members are well aware, the Scottish Government is fulfilling and will continue to fulfil its responsibilities to ready the statute book against withdrawal from the European Union using the powers in the EU withdrawal act. On the other hand, provisions of the continuity bill, which can become law now that we have the Supreme Court's judgment, include the powers in section 12 in relation to international obligations, the powers in section 13 to keep pace with EU law after exit day and the provisions of section 26A on environmental principles, except that part of subsection 6, which deals with the approach to interpretation of those principles. The Scottish Government accepts the judgment of the Supreme Court in its entirety. The Government will wish to consider the terms of the judgment carefully, and I understand that the Cabinet Secretary for Government, Business and Constitutional Relations intends to have discussions with all parties across the Parliament before determining the way forward. The Lord Advocate will now take questions. We start with Adam Tomkins before by Neil Findlay. Adam Tomkins. I thank the Lord Advocate for early sight of his statement, and I look forward to the discussions between the parties with the Cabinet Secretary that the Lord Advocate just referred to. Today's Supreme Court ruling, Presiding Officer, is a clear, unambiguous and, of course, unanimous judicial vindication for those of us who considered the SNP's so-called continuity bill unlawful. As one, the Supreme Court has today ruled that it would be contrary to law for the bill as passed by this Parliament to proceed to royal ascent. During the passage of the continuity bill through this Parliament, numerous Scottish Conservative amendments, some in my name and some in the names of my colleagues on these benches, sought to amend the bill so that it would be compatible and not an unlawful modification of the EU withdrawal act. Those amendments were rejected by this Parliament, and as such, the UK Supreme Court today has eviscerated the bill, leaving it in tatters. Everything in this bill that is incompatible with the EU withdrawal act, page after page after page, has been removed by the Supreme Court. So, Presiding Officer, what's left is it not the case, Lord Advocate, that all that remains of this always unnecessary legislation are provisions that simply and wholly needlessly repeat or replicate provisions of the withdrawal act. As such, it is not the case that there is no need for this Parliament to reconsider any of this legislation. What Parliament should do is bin it. Lord Advocate. Presiding Officer, I will confine my remarks to the legal aspects of the question and I will leave political comment to others. As I explained in my statement, it is important to look at this bill in two stages, just as the Supreme Court has done. It is clear that, at the time when this Parliament passed the bill, it was in its entirety, with the exception of one section, within the competence of this Parliament. In the reference, the UK law officers mounted a whole-scale attack on the bill, with the exception of that single argument, that attack was comprehensively rebuffed. Before this Parliament passed the bill, a bill that had it then come into force would, with the exception of section 17, have been entirely within the competence of this Parliament. The UK Government invited the UK Parliament to pass the EU withdrawal act. That was an act to which this Parliament did not give its consent. That act contains new limits on the powers of this Parliament and, in particular, makes the act itself a protected enactment. That particular provision came into force on royal ascent as a result of an amendment that was made to the EU withdrawal bill at report stage. As a result of that particular limitation, certain provisions of the bill can no longer now come into force. That leaves important provisions, including the keeping pace power, the environmental principles, the provisions in relation to international obligations and, because that is not an important constitutional judgment, important, the constitutional analysis that I advanced along with the other devolved law officers in relation to the devolution settlement was comprehensively sustained by the Supreme Court. Before we proceed—I am conscious, Lord Advocate—you have been caught on a bit of a crossfire. If SNP members are going to heckle the questions, it is difficult for me to stop the Lord Advocate being heckled in return. I am sorry to the cabinet secretary. The two cabinet secretaries at the front row are amongst the worst offenders here. You are having a dialogue over the Lord Advocate's spoken comments to the front bench of the Conservative Party. Can I ask if we would have a better exchange if we allow the questions to be asked and the answers to be given? I will try. I live in hope. Neil Findlay. As always, I will conduct myself impeccably, Presiding Officer. After the week that the Tories have had, I would have thought that Mr Tomkins would have been better with some humility in his approach rather than his arrogance. I thank the Lord Advocate for the sight of his statement. Scottish Labour, along with the Liberals and the Greens, worked with the Scottish Government on the continuity bill. We shared the ideas that we put forward in amendments to improve the bill, all that was done constructively, positively and in good faith. We will do so again to try to bring about the best outcome from that ruling. As a result of the subsequent legislation, we now see that the courts have ruled out important elements of the continuity bill. Can the Lord Advocate advise what action the Government proposes to take to make the legislation compliant and, crucially, what timescale is there for doing so? No-one certainly not me questions the integrity of either the Lord Advocate or the Presiding Officer. However, in light of that ruling, has the Government been advised whether the office of the Presiding Officer intends to make a statement regarding the advice that he was given and which subsequently was given to Parliament? Last week, the UK Government was held in contempt of Parliament for failing to publish legal advice. It received on an issue of huge constitutional significance. The Cabinet Secretary's party supported very vocally the call for that publication. In light of that, will the Lord Advocate and the Cabinet Secretary now support a statutory commitment that, in areas of major constitutional change, legal advice to the Government is published so that the public are made aware of it and can see and scrutinise it? I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary and his party would not wish to be accused of double standards or hypocrisy in that regard. Thank you. I am grateful to Mr Finlay for his question. He was right to acknowledge the outset that, in this case, the rules by which competence are judged changed after this Parliament passed the bill. I understand that the cabinet secretary who is sitting next to me intends to enter into discussions with parties next week on the way forward. As a matter of the Parliament's standing order, it is open to the member to bring the bill back to this Parliament for reconsideration with a view to bringing it into compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling. Whether that is the right way forward, standing all the things that have happened since the bill was passed by this Parliament, or whether another way forward is the right thing to do, is something that the cabinet secretary will wish to discuss with other parties. On the final question in relation to legal advice, members of this Parliament are, of course, well aware of the long-established principle that legal advice is not normally published. However, the cabinet secretary will be happy to speak for him, but I understand that he will be happy to discuss that further with the member. The Scottish Parliament, unlike the UK Parliament, decided to keep the charter of fundamental rights after EU exit. Doing so, an order that human rights protection would not suffer because of Brexit. Is my reading of the judgment correct, and I think that you have just confirmed that in your statement, the Supreme Court has decided that we were entitled to do just that. However, by passing the EU withdrawal act, the UK Parliament has overridden that decision, and as a result has struck down those bits of the continuity bill, are struck down, as I have just said, particularly the issues in regard to the charter or fundamental rights, which I think is an absolute disgrace that we are in that situation. The member's analysis is, I think, correct. At the time when this Parliament passed the continuity bill, the provision that preserved the effect of the charter and domestic law was within the competence of this Parliament, as a result of the provision in the UK act, which is to the effect that the charter shall not form part of domestic law on withdrawal from the EU. That provision in this Parliament's bill can no longer take effect. Donald Cameron, to be followed by Keith Brown. Thank you. I refer to my register of interests as a member of the Faculty of Advocates. The Lord Advocate made reference in his statement to comments about the new limit on legislative competence imposed after the continuity bill was passed. Was the Scottish Government aware that, at the time the UK act was introduced in the UK Parliament as a bill on the 13 July 2017, it contained a clause specifically amending the Scotland Act 1998 and inserting the UK bill as a protective provision? As a result, does he agree that the intentions of the UK Government were open, explicit and clear in relation to this point from July 2017? When the UK Government's withdrawal bill was introduced to Parliament, it contained such a provision, but it was a provision that, in the state of the bill at that time, was to come into force by virtue of a commencement order. The Scottish Government in bringing forward the continuity bill proceeded on the basis that, if the Parliament withheld its consent from the withdrawal bill, the conventional approach reflected in the fuel convention would be applied. At a late stage in the passage of the withdrawal bill, I think at report stage in the House of Lords on 2 May 2018, the Advocate General for Scotland moved what he described as a series of very complex and extensive amendments to the bill. Those included the provision that brought the particular provision into force on royal assent. It was coming into force of that provision on royal assent, which was the critical change to the limits of legislative competence, which led to the decision of the Supreme Court this morning. Keith Brown, to be followed by James Kelly. While it is possible to look and wonder and laugh at the verbal contorsions of barric room lawyers who questioned the competency of the bill and are now trying to pretend that the vindication is given by the Supreme Court, it has serious implications. Can I ask the Lord Advocate in relation to the point that was raised by Bruce Crawford on human rights, but also in relation to the programme of statutory instruments that the Parliament is considering? Is there any implication from the ruling in relation to that work that is currently going on? He will be aware that we are having to agree, for example, statutory instruments without seeing the content of them in advance. Does the ruling have any implications on that process? It is a direct impact. As the member and all members will be very well aware, the Government has been, as any responsible Government requires to, carrying out work with a view to readying the statute group against withdrawal from the European Union and has been using powers in the EU withdrawal act to that effect and where appropriate cooperating with the UK Government to that end. That work has been on-going and will continue, and so the decision of the Supreme Court, I do not see having any immediate impact on that programme of work, unnecessary programme of work. James Kelly, to be followed by Patrick Harvie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. One of the difficulties for parliamentarians at the outset of parliamentary consideration of the continuity bill was that, in terms of legal competence, a different view had been taken from the Presiding Officer and the Lord Advocate on behalf of the Government. Has there been any consideration given to learning the lessons from that in terms of a review of processes, communications between the two legal teams to try to avoid a situation where the Parliament and the Lord Advocate on behalf of the Government come to different legal opinions in the future? Lord Advocate. I am grateful to Mr Kelly for that question. As I said in the statement that I made when the bill was introduced, it is important to recognise that the Presiding Officer and I have separate and important constitutional functions in relation to the introduction of any Government bill, and it is important that each of us approaches those functions with care. I know that the Presiding Officer in this case approached the issue with great care and integrity. As I said during the course of the discussion on that statement, the legal issues with which we have been dealing, were dealing in relation to this bill, were ones on which reasonable legal minds could disagree. The Presiding Officer formed our judgment, as he is required to do by statute, and I formed my judgment, as I am required to do by statute. In the normal course of events, there are discussions between the parliamentary authorities and lawyers for the Scottish Government about any Government bill that is introduced to identify any issues and to consider whether those can be resolved. I think that Parliamentarians may take some comfort from the fact that, as far as I know, this is the first time in the history of this Parliament that we have had a situation where the Presiding Officer and the Government have taken a different view on the competence of the bill. That is a process that works well and routinely. It was followed in this case. In this case, the difference of view was not resolved. That, from time to time, is bound to happen when, as we do, we are dealing with difficult legal questions. Patrick Harvie needs to be full by Tabish Scott. Thank you. Given the UK Government's actions and its intentions, which in my view were not only clear but also clearly malign intentions, I think that this Parliament has a responsibility to try to give effect to the improvements that were made to this bill during its scrutiny and passage. In particular, we need the Lord Advocate's advice on how best that can be achieved. In relation to the environmental principles, section 26a survives the judgment, with the exception, as the Lord Advocate said, of subsection 6. However, it is that subsection that is the only link to the environmental principle that is set out in EU treaty and the interpretation of those principles by the European Court. Will it be possible, in the Lord Advocate's view, to replace that link in some other way, to restore that link, because, if we cannot, we risk having an environmental principles section of the legislation that could be as vague and woolly as that in the UK-EU withdrawal bill. As I said in my statement, the Government will be considering the terms of the judgment carefully and will wish to discuss with all parties across the chamber the way forward. I saw the judgment for the first time this morning, as other members did. I hope that the member will forgive me for not offering a snap legal opinion on the particular and interesting question that he has raised. I thank the Lord Advocate for the statement as well this afternoon. The judgment confirms that the Scottish bill as a whole would not be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament when we voted it through. What's more, the difference between the situation before and after passage of the UK act gives weight to the view that the UK reduced the powers of this Parliament. Does the Lord Advocate agree that the UK Government needs to learn from this and make sure that, if Brexit does indeed go ahead, the devolved Administrations are fully involved in developing UK-wide frameworks with proper dispute resolution mechanisms? Will he confirm that section 13 to keep peace with EU law can be implemented without the other sections of the bill that the Supreme Court said had been overtaken by the UK act? On the first point, the Government's position is on record. As a law officer, I'm obviously concerned that the constitutional arrangements under which this Parliament and this Government operate are followed. It is satisfying that the constitutional analysis that was put forward by the three devolved law officers has been accepted by the Supreme Court in this judgment. The member is correct that the keeping peace power would not be out with competence were it now to become law. Lord Advocate, the Presiding Officer ruled that the continuity bill was out with the competence because the Parliament is, and I quote, bound to act with act compatibly with EU law until such point as the treaty ceased to apply, and further said that this prevents the Parliament from exercising legislative power now, even though it assumes that it will be legally able to act in the future. Lord Advocate, did the Supreme Court judgment agree with the Presiding Officer's ruling? As I said a moment ago in answer to another question, and as I acknowledged when we met in February, the question upon which the Presiding Officer and I disagreed was one upon which reasonable legal minds could disagree. As both of us acknowledged in our respective statements, only the Court could finally and authoritatively decide that issue or the other legal issues that arise in relation to this bill. The Supreme Court on that particular issue has preferred the arguments that I advanced. That should not be taken as a criticism of the Presiding Officer, who has a responsibility to exercise his judgment on the legal issues that arise in the context of bills such as this one. Jamie Greene, to be followed by Stuart McMillan. Today's ruling not only vindicates your own decision making to question the competency of this bill or parts of it, but it should also serve as a reminder to all of us, as legislators, that when we rush legislation through this Parliament, this is where we end up. If I may, the Lord Advocate has stated that the Scottish Government will accept the judgment in its entirety and in answer to a previous question that there is a possibility that it may be brought before us again in some shape or form. If that is the case, does the Lord Advocate believe that this should go through the normal and robust three-stage process with due scrutiny that every bill that goes through this place deserves, rather than via the emergency procedure that rushed it through this Parliament in March of this year? As I said earlier in these exchanges, when this Parliament passed this bill, it was, with the exception of one provision, within the competence of the Parliament. The rules changed after this Parliament passed the bill. As to the process that should be followed in any reconsideration or in any future process, that is entirely a matter for the parliamentary authorities. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on it. As Stuart McMillan is to be followed by Pauline McNeill. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As mentioned on a couple of occasions, the Lord Advocate protected enactment and the amendment that took place on 2 May. I would be grateful if the Lord Advocate could clarify that, did the UK Government make it clear at a time what the effect on the continuity bill would be or did it wait until they were in Supreme Court? When this amendment was made to the EU withdrawal bill, it formed one of a number of amendments that were presented to the House of Lords as a series of very complex and extensive amendments to the bill. The particular issue that the member identified was not specifically drawn to the attention of the House of Lords. Pauline McNeill, to be followed by Willie Coffey. Does the Lord Advocate agree that it is largely an important decision for devolution in this Parliament that had the continuity bill but, for those sections and the withdrawal bill, would have survived? In fact, as a judgment says, rejected all of the UK Government law officers except for section 17. Would he agree that that is an important constitutional point for devolution? However, in relation to section 12 on international obligations, I wondered if the Lord Advocate could provide some preliminary review of whether that would provide some scope for the replacement of section 5, which, of course, as has been mentioned, referenced to the charter of fundamental rights and domestic law, without which it has a losing effect to many people who have substantial rights flowing from that. Could section 12 provide an alternative, and is there one to that? Lord Advocate? On the member's first point, I agree that this is an important legal judgment for the devolution settlement. It has a lot in it, which will be important for this Parliament and, indeed, for both this Government and the UK Government going forward in terms of the fundamental analysis that the court has identified. On the specific point in relation to section 12, again, I hope that the member will forgive me if I do not give a snap view on the point. What I can say, as I said in my statement, is that the Scottish Government will consider ways in which the values that are reflected in the charter can continue to be given effect in Scots law should the UK leave the European Union, and there may be various ways in which that might be done. Willie Coffey, to be followed by Mike Rumbles. The UK Government has lost the Miller case over triggering article 50. It has lost the case brought by Scottish Parliamentarians over the revocability of article 50, and now this case over whether the Scottish Parliament can choose its own path through the mess of Brexit. Could the Lord Advocate confirm that the UK Government has effectively lost three important pieces of Brexit litigation? I think that the record speaks for itself in terms of the decisions of the various courts that have ruled on issues arising from Brexit. What is undoubtedly true is that the withdrawal from the European Union has thrown up a number of difficult, important and serious constitutional issues that have found their way into the courts, and the courts have issued the rulings that they have. The Supreme Court has said that section 17, the key section of the bill, is outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament and always was. That means that the bill could not have received royal assent on this point alone. We have a politically independent Presiding Officer in our Parliament who, on legal advice, ruled that the bill was not competent. Does the Lord Advocate not accept that it was a mistake to ignore the Presiding Officer's competency ruling and advise the Government to press on with the bill, nonetheless, without amendment? The question of the significance or otherwise of section 17 is obviously a matter upon which opinions could differ. It certainly does not go to the heart of the bill in terms of the securing legal continuity. Indeed, the remainder of the bill stands in its entirety without that section. What can be said is that, in reference, the UK law office has mounted a whole-scale attack on the bill in its entirety. With the exception of that single argument in relation to that single section, the attack has been rebuffed. The point of order of Stuart Stevenson Presiding Officer, Mr Findlay said correctly that, for all bills, you provide a point of view as to whether the bill that has just been discussed falls within or without the competence of this Parliament. I am confident that, in reaching your conclusion on the bill, you would have taken appropriate advice. At paragraph 7 of the judgment, it says that, Presiding Officer, a point that the Scottish Parliament could not seek to exercise competence before that competence had been transferred to it. At paragraphs 82 and 83, in those two paragraphs, respectively, lays out the positions of the UK Government and of the Lord Advocate. At paragraph 85, it says that there is prospective legislative provision for the consequences of the repeal of the 1972 act, which has no legal effect until such repeal tells no modification of that act. The challenge under section 29 to say of the Scotland Act therefore fails. Given that that has been the judgment of the Supreme Court, Presiding Officer, that we may, in future, legislate for foreseeable events, are you going to consider—I think that you will not wish to respond immediately, Presiding Officer—because it is probably a complex issue, but are you going to consider whether, in future, it is appropriate to take advice that may potentially lead to a different conclusion on another occasion? I thank Mr Stevenson for his point of order. In fact, I am interested to note that Mr Stevenson both asked the question and answered it as well, which is very helpful. Yes, Mr Stevenson is right. The advice that I offer is offered to all members. It is not offered in either support or opposition to a bill. It is taken impartially. It is there. It is not a court ruling. The court ruling has been made by the Supreme Court. As Mr Stevenson accurately points out, it will be for myself and officials to consider this matter in some depth, which we will do. I thank the member for the point of order. I thank all members and the Lord Advocate for their statements and questions. We will now move on to the next item of business. We will take a short pause for the minister and members to change seats and, in fact, for the Presiding Officer to do so.