Yes. Thank you, convener.
The UK Government’s Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill aims to achieve three things. First, it aims to end freedom of movement and to bring European Economic Area nationals and their family members under UK immigration control. Secondly, it aims to protect the status of Irish citizens in UK immigration law once their European Union free movement rights end. Thirdly, it aims to create powers for UK ministers, Scottish ministers and the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland to amend, by regulation, retained EU law that governs social security co-ordination. It is the proposed conferral of that power to Scottish ministers that triggers the convention that UK ministers should seek the consent of the Scottish Parliament.
The social security co-ordination provisions can be viewed as a logical extension of the statutory instruments that were considered by the committee in January. The committee will recall that those instruments made the necessary technical fixes to allow retained EU co-ordination rules to operate effectively in a domestic setting. That means that people who are entitled to benefits by virtue of those rules will be protected in a no-deal scenario. However, the instruments were made under a single-use power, which means that the rules are frozen, with no mechanism to allow for revisions or updates. The powers that are proposed in the bill address that, and would allow the retained rules to be adjusted for future policy development and to keep pace with any reforms of co-ordination at the EU level.
The bill proposes that, in addition to UK ministers, Scottish ministers and the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland get such a power for matters within devolved competence. Although having such a power might be a useful tool, we have no plans to exercise it. The UK Government’s approach to co-ordination has been broadly positive—to the extent that it has committed to honouring the rules even in a no-deal scenario. The political declaration on the future relationship also makes reference to the desirability of on-going co-ordination in the future.
Therefore, in normal circumstances, the Scottish Government might have been minded to propose a consent motion. However, we do not live in normal circumstances, and fundamental constitutional issues are at stake here. The UK Government’s decision to ignore the will of the Scottish Parliament and proceed with the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill has undermined trust in the Sewel convention. As the 2018-19 programme for government makes clear, until such time as the convention can be strengthened in a way that restores trust, the Scottish Government will bring consent motions only in the most exceptional circumstances.
As the memorandum explains, the powers that are proposed in the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill might well be useful at some undetermined point in the future, but the bill is not in any way essential to the delivery of the devolved social security programme. Therefore, the bill cannot be considered to present exceptional circumstances.
I close by saying a few words about the provisions that seek to end free movement. The memorandum acknowledges that the provisions fall within reserved competence, so they are not strictly relevant to the question of legislative consent. However, the evidence is unequivocal: ending free movement will profoundly harm Scotland’s economy, its communities and its global reputation as a welcoming and progressive nation. Just one example of that harm is the already significant fall in the number of EU students at our universities.
It is also objectionable that the ending of free movement is presented in an EU withdrawal bill as though it is a necessary consequence of EU exit. As the alternatives that have been proposed by the Scottish Government make clear, that is simply not the case. The referendum result is being used as political cover for misguided and deeply damaging policy choices. This Government would therefore be failing in its duty to the people of Scotland, particularly those who are EEA nationals, if it allowed the provisions to pass without comment.
I am happy to answer questions.