 The next item of business is debate on motion 3124, in the name of Ivan McKee, on professional qualifications bill, UK legislation. I would invite members who wish to participate to press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible, and I call on Ivan McKee to speak to and move the motion for around seven minutes, please minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The UK Government announced its professional qualifications bill in the Queen's speech on 11 May last year, and announced it in the Lords the following day. The extent of the bill is UK-wide, and the bill does not make separate provision for devolved and reserved professions. The bill applies to all regulated professions, whether their regulations are reserved or devolved. The bill defines a regulated profession as a profession that is regulated by law in the UK or a part of the UK. There are three main categories of profession captured under the bill. First, reserved professions such as architecture, vets and medical practitioners. Secondly, those that are devolved for Scotland include solicitors, advocates, school teachers and social workers. Finally, there are those professions for which there is a mix of reserved and devolved responsibility. The regulation of the majority of healthcare professional groups is reserved, however the regulation of new groups of healthcare professionals and those that are regulated since the Scotland Act 1998 is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. For example, the UK-wide health and care professions council is a regulatory body for the devolved professions of operating department practitioners and practitioner psychologists, and the general dental council for dental nurses, dental technicians, clinical dental technicians and orthodontic therapists. Clearly, Presiding Officer, this is a complicated landscape. As well as providing continuity in the provision of an information centre like the one that is required by the EU, the bill covers the implementation of professional qualification aspects of trade agreements and would enable regulators who do not currently have the power to do so to enter into agreements with overseas counterparts. That latter power is already in place for key Scottish regulators. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland, for example, has entered into a mutual recognition of professional qualifications agreement with its USA counterpart that is not replicated across the UK. Those aspects of the bill are not contentious, however the actions that are available to a national authority under the bill go much further, and I know that the other devolved administrations have raised concerns about the scope of the bill. The UK Government has sought legislative consent for the bill, but, as it stands, the bill would confer concurrent powers on UK ministers, allowing them to act in devolved areas without a provision requiring the consent of Scottish ministers. As such, the bill, as introduced to the House of Lords, could, for example, allow the UK Government to require Scottish regulators to enter into international agreements or accept qualifications from other countries as equivalent without the agreement of Scottish ministers and without any form of scrutiny by the Scottish Parliament. Those concerns were also reflected as the bill progressed through the laws from committee stage on 9 June to 3 reading on 17 November. In that debate, responding to the opposition, Baroness Blake said that there is a belief that there remains much work to do on the bill in relation to devolved authorities. Just last week she said that the minister promised to continue to explore amending the bill to alleviate the justified concerns of the devolved administrations. The UK Government introduced amendments to improve the protection of the autonomy of regulators under the bill and the requirement to consult regulators before a national authority, in other words, the UK or a devolved Government, depending on the circumstances, takes actions under the bill. Scottish ministers would support those amendments as a step in the right direction, but they do not go far enough. The underlying issue of the exercise of concurrent powers by UK Government ministers without consent was then raised in the Commons by opposition MPs, as has been consistently raised by Scottish Government officials and ministers in meetings with the UK. It is as yet unresolved. Despite officials working to reach agreement with the UK Government and various ministerial meetings emphasising our position, no agreement has been reached. Officials have analysed the issue in detail. Assuming that future UK Governments will use the bill in a reasonable and sensible manner, we have not identified a single example where Scottish ministers would wish to withhold consent. Given that, it is unclear to me and my officials why, for this bill, the UK Government would not respect the devolution settlement and include a consent provision in respect of the devolved professions. Is it that the UK Government wants to offer to lower professional standards to secure free trade agreements? Is it a power grab or do the current Government simply not respect the institutions of devolution? Two Scottish parliamentary committees have reported on the bill. The reports from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Economy and Fair Work Committee both concluded that the Scottish Parliament should have the opportunity to scrutinise the exercise of all legislative powers within its competence effectively and that the use by the UK Government or powers and devolved areas should require the consent of Scottish ministers. The Welsh Senedd has debated the bill and will also not be recommending consent to the bill as it stands. When respected by the UK Government, the CEO convention has served devolution well. As Scottish ministers and officials have made clear, we would like to be able to recommend consent to the bill, but as it stands, we cannot. If the Parliament does not give its consent to the bill, the CEO convention requires UK ministers either to amend the bill or to exclude devolved matters from it. So far, there is no sign of either. From Brexit to Seoul to the proposals to rip up the human rights act, the UK Government's lack of respect for Scotland's devolution settlement is clear and deeply troubling. In more than 20 years of devolution, the convention has been breached four times, all in relation to Brexit and three of those under the current Prime Minister. I hope that the bill will not end up being the fifth time. The mutual recognition of professional qualifications, MRPQ, is important, and that is reflected in its inclusion in our vision for trade. MRPQ allows professionals to export professional services and gain valuable experience in other countries, and professionals qualify elsewhere to settle and contribute in Scotland. However, that should not lead to Scottish ministers losing their responsibility to govern in devolved areas or this Parliament losing its role in scrutinising those areas. The bill, as it currently stands, would mean just that if legislative consent were given. I move that the Parliament backs the motion, refuses legislative consent to the bill as it stands, and backs our request for a suitable amendment to be made to the bill that respects this Parliament's role in scrutinising the regulation of devolved professions. I am pleased to contribute to the debate as convener of the Economy and Fair Work Committee. After considering the initial LCM on professional qualifications built on 29 September, we published our report on 22 November 2021, while recognising that the Scottish Government was working to secure amendments to address the shared concerns. In that report, we shared the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, agreeing that the Scottish Parliament should be able to scrutinise the exercise of legislative powers within devolved competence. Under the current bill, there is no means for the Scottish Parliament to do so when regulations are laid by the UK Government that fall within devolved competence. That is proving to be a recurring issue. In our report on the initial LCM, we were also concerned that the combined effect of the UK Internal Market Act and this legislation means that it is possible that, in some cases, the Scottish Parliament may not even be aware of regulatory changes in another part of the UK that would be affecting devolved areas. Under our scrutiny of the initial LCM, we appreciated the health and social care and sport committee sharing concerns with us regarding the potential for unintended consequences around health and social care workforce planning should regulations be made by the UK ministers, which contradict or interfere with the Scottish Government strategy. We share that concern and agree that a scrutiny role for the Scottish Parliament is vital, including the ability to track regulatory changes being made in relation to the health and social care workforce in Scotland. That is relevant to other professions. Following the publication of our report on the initial LCM, we were anticipating a supplementary LCM from the Scottish Government, given the amendments at Westminster. Although the Scottish Government was aware of amendments that had been agreed, requiring a supplementary LCM in November 2021, a supplementary memorandum was not lodged until 27 January 2022. It is regrettable that that gave the committee a very short time to consider the issues and formulate a position. Although important, the Government's initiation of today's debate further reduced the time available for the committee's scrutiny, which is again regrettable. The truncated time that has been given to committees to scrutinise LCMs is an issue that I intend to raise with the convener's group. Although the challenging timescales have been involved, the committee did publish a report yesterday on the supplementary memorandum. The committee does welcome the amendments made to the bill, which address issues in relation to regulatory autonomy and regulatory consultation. However, substantive concerns remain. There are five key recommendations from our report on the initial LCM that are still not addressed. That is a requirement that should be on the face of the bill to obtain the consent of Scottish ministers before making regulations in areas of devolved competence. There should be a scrutiny role for the Scottish Parliament in relation to health and social care workforce planning to avoid unintended consequences for regulations that are made by the UK Government that may impact, even inadvertently, upon Scottish Government policy and devolved areas. The Scottish Government should demonstrate how it will track and keep this Parliament informed about regulatory changes being made in other parts of the UK that affect areas of devolved competence. A process should be put in place to ensure early notification and opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny of intra-government communications. The issues raised by the Delegated Powers Committee in relation to the appropriateness of delegating the powers in clauses 1 and 3 should be pursued. I recognise that the UK Government says that it does not intend to make regulations in areas of devolved competence without the agreement of the relevant of all the Administrations. The committee, however, shares the concerns raised by the Scottish Government. That commitment is not on the face of the bill. That results in no mechanism to enable the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise UK ministers' regulations under the bill, which are within the Scottish Parliament's competence. A consent requirement would give this Parliament its appropriate place in the process. The view of the economy and fair work committee is that the legislation should require the UK Government to obtain the consent of the devolved Administrations in areas of devolved competence. If that is truly the UK Government's intention, then surely there is nothing to prevent including a consent mechanism. The UK Government's professional qualifications bill aims to create a new legislative framework for recognising professional qualifications gained outside the UK. This framework will replace existing EU-derived law in this area with more than 200 professions regulated by law in the UK. That is a significant undertaking. Feedback from regulators such as the Law Society of Scotland suggests that the bill has been improved during its passage in the UK Parliament and that constructive engagement has taken place with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy during the amending stage, when proposed changes were rigorously debated. The Scottish Government's supplementary legislative consent memorandum rightly emphasises that many aspects of the bill are not contentious. While the SNP chief whip in Westminster stated during the bill's second reading that the SNP is not against the principles of the bill, it is clearly not the policy intention of the bill that the Scottish Government opposes but the process through which its provisions are implemented. The reason why the legislation is required in the first place I will address each of these points in turn. On the issue of process, it is important to recognise at the outset that the Sewell convention was engaged and that the UK Government has been negotiating extensively with the devolved administrations to find consensus on areas of divergence. That point was specifically made by Ivan McKee in his evidence to the Economy and Fair Work Committee on 29 September 2021, highlighting that there is ongoing engagement at official level and that the minister was in contact with Gerry Grimstone, the relevant UK minister. It was also made in Ivan McKee's letter of the 23 November to the committee, which referred to continuing discussion with Bays. The main point of contention for the Scottish Government is outlined in paragraph 20 of the supplementary legislative consent memorandum, namely concerns around the exercise of concurrent powers and the definition of appropriate national authority and issues relating to consent. On concurrent powers, this approach has been taken by the UK Government to ensure that professions that fall within devolved legislative competence but are regulated on a UK-wide basis can be dealt with effectively and appropriately under the bill by the relevant and appropriate national authority. To address the concerns of the Scottish and Welsh Governments, the UK Government suggested putting a duty to consult on the face of the bill. That would require the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor to consult with the devolved administrations before making regulations under the bill that fall within devolved competence and to publish a report on the consultation. There has therefore been significant movement by the UK Government which would preserve the balance of the devolution settlement while maintaining a coherent approach across the UK. This proposal would also mitigate some of the concerns raised by the economy and fair work and the delegated powers and law reform committees. Given the SNP concerns that the bill impinges on devolved competence, it is worth pointing out that the Scottish Government was content with the operation of the former system on the recognition of qualifications under EU law with the UK making decisions as the member state. Turning next to the reason why this legislation is required, the UK's withdrawal from the EU, the SNP seems to agree with the principles of the bill, yet it expresses opposition, at least in part, because of Brexit. MSPs had this argument many times in the chamber but it bears repeating. The UK, which Scotland voted to remain part of in 2014, voted to leave the EU two years later. That outcome was a source of sadness and regret for many but they have nevertheless accepted it as a democratic process. Two final points, Presiding Officer. The first being technical in nature. The Scottish Government's motion today references the economy and fair work committees report published on 22 November 2021, a report that concluded in paragraph 58 that the committee was not in a position to take a view on the LCM at the time. The member talks about the lack of respect. The member says that scrutiny is important. I am glad that the committee's report on the supplementary legislative consent memorandum published yesterday raised concerns about the amount of time that the Scottish Government took to lodge a supplementary LCM, which was more than two months overdue. Along with the Scottish Government's timetabling of today's debate, the committee felt that these factors limited its ability to conduct detailed scrutiny. Presiding Officer, we believe that the bill provides stability for qualifications and that it prevents a divergence of professional qualifications regulations within the UK. We note the extensive engagement between the UK and the Scottish Government to date regarding the bill's provisions and that the Scottish Government is supportive of the general principles. Overall, we are in favour of consenting to the bill and we will vote against the motion at decision time. Thank you, Ms White. I now call on Martin Whitfield for around five minutes, please, Mr Whitfield. I'm very grateful, Presiding Officer, to speak in this debate. We find ourselves in an unusual position where, following our departure from the European Union, where over decades regulations and rules were brought about driven by professions across Europe to ensure that the recognition of the skills, competencies, honesty and otherwise of various professions was reflected across the European Union. The purpose of this was, of course, so that people could ply their trade where they chose to be, but it also came at a time when recognition of devolved professions was also coming to the fore. With the devolution settlement, and even before that, here in Scotland we had a distinct and separate group of professions, and I would like to take the short time that I have this afternoon just to discuss two of those professions. The first is, obviously, the legal profession and the second one, which is very close to my heart, education and schools through the General Teaching Council of Scotland, which I had a pleasure to serve on as a council member some while ago. It is fascinating that, within this bill that is making its way through the Parliament at Westminster, these two groups came to advocate for their own identity and their own professional competencies. It was interesting to listen to Tess White, and I'm slightly sad that she was unable to take my intervention when she talked about the assurances that the Westminster Government, Tory Government, have given to the devolved nations. It doesn't seem a large step from saying, we will talk to you, we promise, to actually putting that on the face of the bill so that the people of the devolved nations can look and say, there's the respect that we are due. In turn, those devolved governments would take and consult with those professions that, within their ambit, regulate themselves, I think of the Law Society for Scotland and the General Teaching Council for Scotland. But to turn to some very specifics in the short time that I have left, with regard to teaching, there was a consultation put out by the Government, and indeed the General Teaching Council of Scotland responded to it. They have responded to a number of these items in seeking to protect access to the profession for those people who are properly qualified, because we are very proud in this nation to have a graduate profession or graduate equivalent profession that empowers those people to teach our youngsters. Indeed, in the consultation to the Government, they stated that they actively participated in the discussion of new legislation, including the internal market bill and the professional qualifications bill, which we deal with today. GTC Scotland is strongly opposed to any proposal that could erode or dilute the integrity of the register of teachers through changes to qualification requirements or similar, and that is where the fear in this Bill lies, that there is a change made in the south that will affect them, and it will be made without proper and full consultation. And it is for this Chamber, and it is for our Government here to represent our independent bodies, like GTCS, to defend their position. Again, with regard to the Law Society of Scotland, mention was made of their support for this Bill, and it is right to say that they supported, in the main, the provisions of the Bill, but they did specifically draw attention to article 7, which is this organisation, this group that information can be sought from by people who want to practice their profession in the United Kingdom from elsewhere in Europe, or indeed those professionals from within the United Kingdom who want to practice abroad. And the reason that the Law Society of Scotland raised issue with this is not because it's not a good idea, but there is a vital importance that proper consultation should take place with the various professional bodies across the United Kingdom so that the correct information is made. I do have some concerns, which are perhaps on a technical level about the cost and the finance implications of that centre, but they're perhaps for another day. To come to the heart of it, and we've heard from speakers this afternoon, is this a constitutional argument about should or should not this chamber and this Government be consulted? I think that it's something more fundamental than that. This Bill had to be rushed through because of a choice made in a referendum, and then the vehicle of that choice pursued by the Conservative Government down south, and confronted the United Kingdom with a problem of how professionals are going to apply their trade across the European Union. It was an opportunity for Westminster to hold out their hand, to listen, to discuss, and then to reflect those discussions on the face of the Bill, not on side-by-side letters and promises that were made. It is right that, both in Wales and in Scotland, there is dismay at the approach that's been taken, and that is a disappointment. I support the Government's motion today, and honestly I feel that the Westminster Government could have done a lot better. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you very much, Mr Workfield. I now call on the Minister to wind up the debate for around three minutes or so. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thanks to members for taking part in the debate today, short as it has been, but a very important issue, as Mark Whitefield has clearly outlined, is impacting on many of the professions across Scotland. I welcome the support that's been shown by him and by the Scottish Parliamentary Committees for the Government's position on this very important issue. As I said in my opening statement, MRPQ benefits skills Scottish workers looking to work abroad and helps us to attract the skilled labour that our businesses and public services need, and that is something that we want to encourage to enable Scotland to continue to grow and prosper. It is true that it can sometimes be appropriate for UK Government ministers to act on Scotland's behalf, and we have seen that on numerous occasions over the past couple of years, but it should always be with the consent of Scottish ministers. In this Parliament, we must have the opportunity to scrutinise actions that are taking using powers in devolved areas. That underpins devolution, and indeed consent has been given to Brexit-related UK statutory instruments in relation to MRPQ where they touch on devolved issues. I hope that the Parliament will agree with me and the recommendation for not giving consent to the bill as it currently stands. I feel that if the bill was given consent in its current form, it would set a dangerous precedent for future bills with concurrent powers, where the UK Government would seek to act and devolve areas without the consent of Scottish ministers. That is not something that we can or should agree to. I know that this view is shared by our colleagues and ministers in both Wales and in Northern Ireland. Members have heard today that we will do everything that we can to protect devolution and Scotland's interests. We will continue to engage and work with the UK Government to try to convince it to include an appropriate consent mechanism on the face of what would otherwise now be an uncontentious bill. It is very interesting to note the complete disrespect for devolution emanating from the Conservative benches on this matter. It informs our opinion of the position that it takes with regard to its attitude to this Parliament, to devolution in its entirety and indeed to Scotland, something that the voters of Scotland are increasingly coming to recognise. I move that this Parliament backs in motion, refuses legislative consent to the bill as it stands, and backs our request that the UK Government lodge a suitable amendment to the bill that respects Scottish ministers and this Parliament's responsibilities in respect of devolved professions. Thank you very much. Minister, that concludes the debate on professional qualifications bill UK legislation. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. There will be a brief pause before we do so.