 The next item of business is a debate on motion 9.375 in the name of Angus Robertson on retained EU law, revocation and reform bill, UK legislation. I would invite members who wish to participate to press the request-to-speak buttons now as soon as possible and I call on Angus Robertson to speak to and move the motion. Cabinet Secretary, around seven minutes please. Presiding Officer, it was seven years ago this month that the referendum campaign on the UK's membership of the European Union was reaching its final stages and the result of that referendum was a clear and overwhelming vote for remain in Scotland. As we all know that result and the wishes of the people who live here was ignored by the Conservative Government at Westminster to make matters worse. The Tories not only took Scotland out of the European Union, they decided to impose a hard breakfast, a hard Brexit, removing us from the European single market, which by population is seven times the size of the United Kingdom out of the customs union and putting an end to freedom of movement, which is of such value in so many ways to our country. So it's with some sadness that we now see Labour supporting that hard Brexit position today. In today's debate, I hope that we can reach some measure, however, of consensus to do what we can to protect our Parliament and to make clear that we reject a deregulatory agenda that threatens the high standards that we benefited from as an EU member. Since the Brexit vote, yes, of course. Can I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way? He may be aware that Scotland's environmental watchdog, ESS, has raised concerns about UK Government's proposed ditching of national air quality laws, saying that Scotland would have no national programme on long-term air quality targets. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the Tories are now the polluters party and that they are having scupper deposit return scheme this week? They are now cancelling action to protect our lungs as well. I do agree with Mark Ruskell. The UK Government is planning to use the schedule to this bill to scrap existing reporting requirements on air pollution. They have agreed to discuss a replacement, but nothing has happened yet. I will be happy to update Mr Ruskell in Parliament on that particular issue of concern. Returning to my comments, since the Brexit vote, time and time again, this Parliament has debated legislation prepared by Westminster only for our views to be overridden. Nine times, Westminster has ignored the views of this Parliament, nine times since 2018. Today, we are again debating the retained EU law bill and, later this month, I expect to add this bill to that list of Westminster shame. Presiding Officer, it is not acceptable that seeking the views of this Parliament on devolved matters is optional or for those views to be ignored. To illustrate my point, let me describe the ridiculous manner in which the UK Government sought consent for its amendments to this bill. On 10 May, UK ministers tabled amendments to its original unworkable sunset clauses. That U-turn at least was welcomed, and I will have more to say about that in a few minutes. However, the process of seeking this Parliament's consent is instructive in what it tells us about the lack of respect or interest the UK Government has for devolution. Firstly, it was the view of the Scottish Government that those amendments triggered the requirement for the UK Government to seek legislative consent. Secondly, the UK Government initially did not share that view. Thirdly, however, I then received a letter from Nusrat Ghani, one of the common's bills ministers, on the afternoon of Friday 19 May, which did indeed seek consent for the latest amendments. Fourthly, less than eight working hours later—eight hours. On Monday 22 May, the Lord's Bill Minister, Lord Calamann, said that the UK Government intends to proceed with the bill without the consent of the Senate and without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Clearly, any acknowledgement of due parliamentary process in respect of devolution is performative only. Turning now to the substance of the UK Government's amendments, it's clear that the UK Government have carried out a major U-turn on the bill. This U-turn removes the risk of retained EU law being wholesale or unknowingly removed from the statute book at the end of this year. Why do we continue to recommend consent be withheld in the supplementary legislative consent memorandum? When we debated this bill here previously, I outlined three main objections. Firstly, it confers powers to UK ministers to act in areas of devolved responsibility without the consent of Scottish ministers and without the consent of this Parliament. That is quite simply nothing but an assault on devolution. Democratic oversight and good governance is clearly at risk if UK ministers sideline in this way the Scottish ministers who are accountable to this Parliament. Secondly, the bill risks deregulation and divergence from the high standards the people, the businesses of Scotland experienced and benefited from in the United Kingdom was a member state of the European Union. Thirdly, because the cliff edge sunset is an irresponsible way to manage the statute book. Indeed, the constitution committee previously highlighted and I quote, deep and wide ranging concerns about the bill. These objections never represented pick and mix optional improvements to the bill. Removing only one still leaves the bill that is fundamentally flawed in both design and intention. Let me finish by being crystal clear about the Government amendments in our sustained opposition. The UK Government U-turn means that only retained EU law specified and a new schedule attached to the bill will be revoked at the end of this year. There are currently 587 specific instruments in that schedule. All other retained EU law will remain on the statute book and subject to future reform by secondary legislation. Our supplementary legislative consent memorandum indicates that there are 148 instruments listed in the schedule with some devolved provision or provisions. Our assessment is that 139 are indeed obsolete. However, we have concerns for up to nine of the instruments due to sunset because they may not be redundant. Further analysis and consultation on the schedule is under way, although the UK Government is unlikely to alter it before royal assent. The amendments do confirm on Scottish ministers the power to remove instruments within devolved competence from the application of the schedule up until 31 October 2023, but UK ministers have such a power in relation to removing any instrument by that same date. How the UK Government intends this to work is far from certain, but we should be absolutely clear that under the Internal Market Act, where a veto for devolved actions remains in Westminster, the ability for devolved Governments to set their own regulatory standards is constrained. In November last year, in this chamber, I called on the UK Government to withdraw this bill. I repeated that in February this year when the Scottish Parliament voted to withhold legislative consent for the bill. I repeat it now. This is a damaging bill in its own right. It is damaging to high standards, it is damaging to protections, it is damaging to business but it is also damaging to devolution and to the Scottish Parliament. I move that motion in my name. The cabinet secretary has covered much of the background and timescales to this supplementary legislative consent by random. I shall focus my remarks on the three areas covered by my committee's report at the Constitution, Europe, Exxon, Aversion and Culture Committee. The sunset, revocation, schedule and preservation powers, the second being the powers to restate, revoke, replace, update retained EU law and, thirdly, the reporting requirements. The removal of the automatic sunset addresses the concerns that we had with regards to the cliff edge of that clause. Instead, only rules specified in schedule 1, shall now be attached to the bill, will be revoked at the end of this year. As the cabinet secretary has outlined, it provides 587 instruments that are to be revoked and the Scottish Government suggests that 148 of those instruments impact on devolved areas. The Government has also stated that nine cannot yet be said to be obsolete and therefore opposes the sunset as laid out by the cabinet secretary. As convener of the Constitution, Europe, Exxon, Aversion and Culture Committee, I have written to the relevant subject committees highlighting the timescales for possible removal of instruments from the schedule. We have noted concerns expressed by Environment Standards Scotland, who wrote to us on Monday to draw attention to two out of those nine instruments, noting that, quote, based on some of our current analytical work on air quality standards and targets in Scotland, we have shared their correspondence with the net zero energy and transport committee. However, there is also a wider issue here, one that concerns the complexity of how devolution is operating outside of the EU. The committee considers that the common frameworks were the agreed process by which the Government should work together to provide clarity, certainty and deliver an effective regulatory environment, and in doing so respecting the devolution settlement. However, the UK Government does not appear to have consulted with the Scottish Government on the amendments that are tabled on 10 May 2023 or to explain the extent to which they impacted on devolved competence. The committee will be writing to Kemi Baddanoch, the UK Minister in charge of the bill, asking why this appears to be the case, and in particular in relation to the instruments in schedule 1, which at least in part fall within devolved competence. The committee has previously found that the sole convention to be under strain and the cabinet secretary gave the examples of how often this has happened since the UK's departure from the EU. We have previously written to both the Scottish and UK Governments for their views on whether they agree that the sole convention is under strain and how it could be strengthened in law and be subjected to judicial review or whether and how it can be strengthened in a non-statutory basis. If I could turn now to the powers to restate, revoke, replace and update rule, the Scottish Parliament ought to be able to effectively scrutinise the exercise of all legislative powers within devolved competence. The committee considers this to be a fundamental constitutional principle. There are concurrent powers to amend rule in the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018. In 2018, the UK Government gave a non-statutory commitment that it would not normally use these powers in areas of devolved competence and not without the agreement of the relevant devolved administrations of the UK. The committee will also be writing to Ms Badanock to ask why a similar commitment has not been given with the retained EU law revocation and reform bill. We note that there is also a lack of clarity into how common frameworks are operating, both generally and in relation to rule. There needs to be much greater transparency and accountability and an opportunity for the committees of this Parliament to scrutinise both Governments when decisions are being taken in devolved areas. We invite the Scottish Government to provide us with detailed response on the effectiveness of the common frameworks, including how they are being used in relation to rule. We extend the same invitation to the UK Government. My final theme relates to reporting requirements. For Scottish ministers, they should be, as a minimum, equivalent to the requirements for UK ministers. Once the requirements are most settled, the committee shall invite our officials and those of the Scottish Government to look at how that can work in practice. That scrutiny of powers to do state, revoke, replace and update rule should not, in the committee's opinion, be conflated with the Scottish Government's policy commitment to align with EU law. I take an opportunity to thank the Parliament officials and those of the Scottish Government for all their work on this supplementary LCM. Time-priced outiding officer has not been on our side as the timescales on reporting on the LCM have been challenging as also led out by the cabinet secretary. We note the commitment of the Scottish Government to provide further updates as required. Donald Cameron for in five minutes, Mr Cameron. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I refer to my register of interests as an advocate. This is the third time that we have debated the retained EU law bill in the chamber. The constitution committee has reported at length on the initial LCM to the bill. It is worth noting that today we unanimously agreed a report on the supplementary LCM that the convener of the committee has just spoken about. Much has changed since we last discussed this. The bill returns to the House of Commons on Monday. It is still not in its final state. The UK Government has made meaningful changes in response to a number of concerns raised across the UK by devolving Governments and Parliaments by the civil service and by stakeholders working across many sectors, including of course here in Scotland. I have in earlier debates on this bill set out my own personal misgivings about various aspects of the bill and in particular the very real concern that existed around timeframes. I am very glad to see that those concerns have now been answered by the removal of the sunset. Now only the retained EU law specified in the schedule of one of the bill will be revoked at the end of the year. That means, in effect, that the existing corpus of retained EU law will remain and will not be sunsetted. I would say that that even more than before, that clearly allows the Scottish Government to follow its own stated policy of keeping pace with EU law. It enables that policy, because the Government can now choose to keep on the statute book any EU laws that it sees fit, as is the primary or secondary legislation, without fears of a cliff edge whereby that law would have disappeared automatically. That, I think, is why it is all the more disappointing, Deputy Presiding Officer, that the Scottish Government continue to withhold consent. The Cabinet Secretary has argued that he cannot support the supplementary LCM because of the nine instruments in schedule 1 that cannot yet be said to be obsolete in his view and therefore opposes their removal. However, I have to say, Deputy Presiding Officer, that upon closer scrutiny of that list of nine, while each of course is important, this is not insurmountable. In addition, the Cabinet Secretary's own officials made clear in evidence to the committee last week that discussions are on-going with the UK Government to have those nine removed from the schedule, and there remain two deadlines to do so before Royal Ascent later this month and again by 31 October this year. I would argue that it is disproportionate, therefore, to withhold consent for the bill for the sake of those nine instruments, whose removal may yet be agreed by both the Scottish and UK Governments before those timelines expire. Of course, the Scottish Government now has the power to do this itself by identifying items to place on the schedule or remove from the schedule where they fall within devolved competence. I refute the argument just made that that is a threat to the devolution settlement because, of course, the UK Government has quite clearly set out that this is a device designed to save the Scottish Government time in removing retained EU law that is now obsolete. As we said in our report today, it is intended to reduce additional resource pressure on the devolved Governments by enabling the UK Government to legislate on behalf of the devolved Government where they do not intend to take a different position. That is a quote from the UK Government. In conclusion, as I made clear in my opening statement, the UK Government sought consent on Friday 19 May and within eight working hours confirmed that they were going to override that principle. Does Donald Cameron and the Conservative Party in this Parliament believe that to be credible or acceptable? I simply point to the evidence given by the cabinet secretary's own officials, which he said that both Governments are working towards agreeing that the issues around those nine items are currently on the schedule and that agreement is perfectly possible if the officials that gave evidence to us and the UK Government officials can work together to achieve that. I believe in conclusion that the dangers of this bill continue to be overplayed by the Scottish Government. The UK Government's amendments, particularly the removal of the sunset and the now much narrower planned removal of obsolete instruments set out in schedule 1, means that the most significant concerns levied at this bill have been removed. Discussions, as I have said, are on going between the two Governments with regard to the nine instruments. There is a possibility that they can be removed before either of the deadlines are mentioned, which is why I believe that Parliament should give its consent to the supplementary, to the LCM, to the amended bill and why we will vote against the motion at decision time. Thank you, Mr Cameron. I now call Neil Bibby around four minutes. I rise to speak for Scottish Labour in this debate and to support the Scottish Government motion in the name of the cabinet secretary to have whole consent from the UK Government's retained EU law bill. I thank the officials from the Constitution, Culture, Europe and External Affairs Committee for their assistance in turning around a very quick report on this issue. At decision time today, I suspect that Labour will join with every party bar 1 in this chamber to refuse consent to reaffirming our opposition to the retained EU law bill. Whilst recognising that there have been amendments, we can also recognise that the subsequent amendments that have followed since we last discussed this matter are inadequate. That unity across four of the five parties here as well as across the devolved nations with the Welsh Government taking the same approach should encourage reflection on part of the UK Government and be enough for them to ditch their reckless assault on environmental food, health and workers rights contained within this bill. However, history tells us how unlikely that is. UK Government ministers' approach to leaving the EU has been arrogant and disrespectful to have trash conventions, ruin governmental relations and tarnished Britain's reputation on the world stage and for what. This disastrous bill carries little confidence for the certainty in law that it generates and has already been rejected once by this Parliament, as well as the Welsh Senate. For the UK Government to march on, I think demonstrates just how out of touch they are. As the cabinet secretary has said, the amendments from the last month were constructed to such a tights timescale that proper scrutiny has been avoided and re-emphasises our concern with the approach that the bill fosters. The Labour Party has repeatedly called on the Government to remove the automatic sunset clause, both here and at Westminster, which would have seen hundreds of laws drop off the statute book at the end of the year. We therefore welcome the significant new turn, which flips that original approach on its head, assimilating all EU law into domestic law, with exception to those written in to schedule one of the bill. However, as we have heard already, concerns remain. The cabinet secretary's evidence to the committee outlined that there are nine areas where concurrent powers between the Scottish and UK ministers could mean that the Scottish Governments—indeed, this Parliament's aims—are frustrated where UK ministers have a different policy objective in those areas. That amounts to uncertainty and a potential encroachment on devolved competencies. It is essential that we see more co-operation working forward to ensure the possible areas that the agreement is avoided. When the bill, when doubted, receives royal sent, we must ensure that we have as much transparency in how it is operated. Amendments to the bill mean that UK ministers will be expected to produce a progress report to MPs every six months. Given the vast broadening of executive power contained within the bill, it would be appropriate for the Scottish Government to follow suit and ensure that we, in this Parliament, are updated on the actions of Scottish ministers too as regularly as possible. I do not believe that the current commitment to doing so annually is good enough in an area where there are likely to be many developments across the year. I agree with what the convener has said on that matter. I acknowledge what the cabinet secretary said to me in committee in that regard, and I hope that we will see progress on that matter. Labour will vote with whole consent to the bill tonight. Pressing head, is the wrong approach that the bill poses a significant and serious threat to devolution? It will mean a large-scale deregulation, and a race to the bottom and its enactment will result in a weakening of rights awarded through 47 years of EU membership. Businesses, trade unions and campaigners, both in Scotland and across the UK, have called for it to be stopped. This Parliament, the Welsh Senate and many MPs agree that those warnings must not be ignored, and that legislation should be scrapped before it is too late. I now call Willie Rennie around four minutes, Mr Rennie. It is ironic, is it not, that the House of Lords have been the great defenders of democracy and accountability standards and protections? They have stood firm resolute against this bill. In response, the Government did some serious backpeddling, watered down the bill and removed the cliff edge. Reports of the subsequent battle between different groups of Brexit-ears and the Conservative Party have been glorious to observe. I am a Conservative, not an arsonist, claimed Kimmy Baddanoch, the current minister. Presumably, the last minister, Jacob Rees-Mogg, I am sure he was the last minister, was an arsonist. Again, the Lords defied the Government on the second round of ping pong to reassert two amendments, the first looking to provide additional environmental protections and the second to increase parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. Amendment 48 was a cross-party amendment signed by the Liberal Democrat Environment spokesperson in the House of Lords, Baroness Parmenter. We voted for this amendment and the Government was defeated. The amendment ensured that, where ministers seek to use their powers under the bill to restate, revoke or replace the retained EU law saved by the Government's amendment to clause 1, the proposed changes cannot reduce levels of environmental protection or of food safety standards. It also ensures that they cannot conflict with relevant international environment agreements to which the UK is party. That seems eminently sensible. We also supported amendments 2, 15 and 76 in the House of Lords that would ensure that the Houses of Parliament would have proper scrutiny of any significant change to the law and joined with others to defeat the Government three further times and impose restraint on huge powers that Government ministers have taken to themselves in the bill. That is significant. Lord Krebs of Whitham, an eminent cross-bencher, who was the chairman of the Food Standards Agency, led on amendment 48 saying this. Food and environment are crucial to this bill, as between them they account for approximately half of the 4,900 regulations. Those two areas are also crucial because of public concern. You have to think only of sewage and rivers, outbreaks of foodborne illness or GM foods to realise that those areas, environment and food, resonate with the public. Unfortunately, the Government in the House of Commons was able to overturn all of those victories. Despite the watering down, the bill itself, nevertheless, remains completely unnecessary. It is not required. It threatens environmental protections and lacks parliamentary oversight. The Government changes haven't proved matters, but they still haven't answered all of our concerns. We will vote with the Government for the motion at decision time. Thank you, Mr Rennie. I now call on Angus Robinson to wind up the debate, Cabinet Secretary, for around four minutes please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The Scottish Government's position in the supplementary legislative consent memorandum should be of no surprise to any member who's read the evidence of the 18 expert witnesses to the Constitution Committee. Rarely has such evidence been so overwhelmingly negative, reflecting the astonishing level of opposition to the legislation across sexual and political boundaries. Rarely, too, do we see the kind of sustained and broad criticism of legislation as a way of witness from peers of all stripes in the House of Lords and their opposition to the bill. May I briefly address issues raised by members in this chamber? Firstly, Clare Adamson is speaking as a convener of the Constitution Committee. She highlighted very real concerns around air quality and targets that were raised in intervention by Mark Ruskell. That is something no doubt that we will be coming back to. She raised the lack of consultation by the UK Government in relation to devolved administrations and asked why that is the case. I look forward to reading the reply of the UK Government. She asked, is the sole convention under strain to which the answer, putting it mildly, is yes. That is a view shared by the Welsh Government. I should note, and it was made in passing by Neil Bibby two days ago that the Welsh Senate voted on this very same issue of legislative consent in relation to this piece of legislation and did, as I hope, we will do this evening and refused consent as well. We are working extremely closely with colleagues of another political party leading the Welsh Government on this issue. In turning to Donald Cameron's contribution, the Scottish Government is recommending that consent is held because of conferral issues, not solely because of the schedule. He should know and understand that. He did not mention it at all in his contributions. Officials have been told that it is extremely unlikely, underlined, extremely unlikely that the schedule can be altered before royal assent, so meekly allowing the UK Government to press ahead would be a mistake. I also note that Donald Cameron was not prepared to answer or defend whether it was credible or acceptable to overturn a request for consent with only eight working hours by the UK Government. Clearly it is not credible, it is not acceptable and it is certainly not something that we should allow to proceed with. To the opposition political parties who have signalled that they will vote with the Government, first they are appreciation to the Scottish Labour Party in stating in position that they will support the Scottish Government motion. Neil Bibby spoke about the reckless approach of the UK Government that it was trashing conventions among other things. Many of those issues were reflected also by the contribution by Willie Rennie. Just reflect as we go forward with those types of issues because often I hear in this chamber from some parties the notion that there is an equidistance between the Scottish Government and the UK Government when it relates to this issue, the internal market act and all the rest of it. I hope that this makes absolutely clear that there is zero equidistance in this issue whatsoever. It is the UK Government that is acting recklessly in proceeding with this as they are doing with so much else with devolution at the present time. The bill that we have been discussing this afternoon is trying to take back control to Westminster as if other sources of legislation or legal rules such as the EU or the European Court of Human Rights or indeed this Parliament are illegitimate and must be excised. Ironically, however, rather than empower Westminster, the bill mainly gives powers to UK ministers to legislate with limited parliamentary control. Indeed, if any accepted practice still exists around the sole convention, it appears to be for the views of the devolved Governments and legislatures to be ignored, not respected. That is not how to conduct into governmental relations in an orderly way and it is not how devolution is supposed to work. We have control of our own affairs in name only if the UK Government can ride roughshod over this Parliament's authority whenever it sees fit to do so. The concession by the UK Government may remove risks relating to the 2023 sunset cliff edge. However, significant issues remain around both consent for UK ministers acting in devolved areas and the impact on Scottish parliamentary proceedings. The Scottish Government remains fundamentally opposed to the bill and continues to press for its withdrawal, as is the position of the Welsh Government. I move that motion in my name. Cabinet Secretary, that concludes the debate on retained EU law, revocation and reform bill UK legislation. There will be a brief pause before we move on to the next item of business to allow front-bench use to change.