 The next item of business is a statement by Angus Robertson on retained EU law. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Angus Robertson, cabinet secretary, up to 10 minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I wish to make a statement on the UK Government's so-called Brexit freedoms bill, which has a profound and, sadly, damaging impact on this Parliament and on Scotland as a whole. People of Scotland rejected Brexit by a margin of 24 per cent, and there was a majority for remaining in the EU in every single local authority area in Scotland. Nevertheless, in February this year, the UK Government published a document that is stalling what they called the benefits of Brexit. At the time, I noted to members of the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs Committee the profound absence of Brexit benefits for people and for businesses in Scotland. Indeed, the disbenefits were all too evident. Polling shows that 75 per cent of people in Scotland have a negative opinion about whether the UK has benefited from Brexit, and only 2 per cent believe that Boris Johnson has delivered a good deal. Five months on, and with the Brexit freedoms bill potentially imminent, we find ourselves in an even more desperate situation. We are in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. The think tank UK in a changing Europe says that Brexit has led to a 6 per cent increase in food prices. The Centre for European Reform reports that the UK economy was 5 per cent, or £31 billion, smaller than comparator economies at the end of last year, primarily because of Brexit. Scotland's total trade with the EU was 16 per cent lower in 2021 than in 2019, with food exports down by £68 million. Now, with the UK in real danger of entering recession, and in the middle of the cost-of-living crisis, the Tory Government Westminster seems intent on provoking a trade war with the European Union by tearing up an international agreement that the Prime Minister himself hailed as a fantastic moment. Despite much searching by the UK Government's so-called Minister for Brexit opportunities, the only thing to have changed since February is that the disbenefits of Brexit are now more pronounced. Whilst Mr Rees-Mogg has been on his feet this afternoon in the House of Commons, hopefully providing the clarity that we have not yet received, the UK Government is declined to share the Brexit freedoms bill instructions with us, or provide any settled certainty of its policy intentions. Regardless, we should be under no illusions about the risk that this legislation presents to Scotland. We understand that the bill will end the supremacy of European law and repeal or reform regulations on business. The danger of a hard Brexit-inspired race to the bottom is now greater than ever. Beneath the froth of crown marking on pint glasses and the adoption of imperial weights and measures, the UK Government's intention to turn away from EU laws should trigger real concern for businesses, for members of this Parliament and all those who hold dear the standards that the EU has helped to embed in our society. Over 2,000 pieces of legislation, 2,000 pieces of legislation, carefully influenced, possibly even proposed by the UK Government as a member state over 50 years of EU membership, must be made to go through a legislative process or, according to media reports, will simply sunset and fall away from the statute book entirely. There is no understanding in Whitehall about how much of that legislation falls within devolved competence. I have had a look at Jacob Rees-Mogg's statement. He makes no mention whatsoever about the devolved consequences of his announcement. There is no desire to understand the consequent implications for devolved powers or legislation. Apparently those changes are to be done by 2026 or 2030. Dates whose sole rationale is that it makes good PR as an anniversary of the Brexit referendum or the end of the transition period, not driven by the magnitude or importance of the task, not driven by the availability of time in this Parliament or that of the Senate or Stormont or indeed of Westminster, and taking no account of the fact that there is no executive in place in Northern Ireland as a direct consequence of the hard Brexit that the UK Government has chosen to prosecute. Instead, yet again, the bill is driven by the same blind ideology that caused so much damage to Scotland in the first place. The truth of the matter is that the pace of this exercise threatens parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary workloads. The UK Government is tilting at the windmills of EU standards when it would be better advised to cease undermining the Northern Ireland protocol, an action that blocks implementation of the trade and co-operation agreement and causes our continued exclusion, for example, from the Horizon Europe research programme. There is little to no appropriate consideration of the impact of this bill, intended or otherwise, of doing away with the regulations and case law that has driven the high standards across Europe and from which we benefit. The UK Government has said that it wants the Brexit freedoms bill to, and I quote, utilise regulatory freedoms by, I again quote, lightening their burden on UK business. Its main purpose appears to be to give the UK Government the freedom to abandon the legislation that has protected Scottish interests for almost 50 years. The bill will create uncertainty for business and threatens to fire the starting pistol in a race to the bottom in standards on food, the environment, animal and plant health, and workers' rights. That is a threat to devolution. Taken alongside the powers of the internal market act, devolved competencies will be disastrously exposed and undermined by the UK Government searching for an answer to the self-inflicted pain of Brexit. Our policy of aligning with EU standards will be at risk. The common frameworks process, which is designed to manage divergence and alignment, looks to be sidestepped or ignored completely. Sensible standards and regulations will only be kept if they are re-enacted through this parliament and then only temporarily protected if the internal market act is directed to undercut them. We do not yet know the exact implications for the legislative programme for this parliament, as we have not been provided with the necessary detail, but we do know that, if we want to maintain the legislation, we will have to find a great amount of government and a great amount of parliamentary time. When I met the minister for so-called Brexit opportunities, I was assured by him that the Sule convention would be respected. If that commitment is to be honoured, it would mark a departure from the UK Government's approach during the Brexit process when it has repeatedly legislated on devolved matters despite this parliament refusing its consent to do so. An approach that sunsets EU law, which would see legislation automatically fall if unamended by a fixed deadline, takes no account of our priorities or our interests in keeping aligned with EU legislation. It is unacceptable that the UK Government seems ready to unveil sweeping measures that could have profound consequences for Scotland with such little discussion or, indeed, respect for Parliament, the Scottish Government or, indeed, the people of Scotland. That makes a mockery of the UK Government's recent commitments to reset relationships with the devolved Governments. I said at the beginning that the minister of so-called Brexit opportunities has been searching for the benefits of Brexit since at least February. That has included the attempt to crowdsource ideas from the public via the media, presumably in the absence of suggestions from Whitehall departments. The disaster of Brexit is becoming ever more apparent and the attack on this Parliament by a UK Government that was comprehensively rejected by the people of Scotland is gathering pace. The question for all of us here is whether we are prepared to put up with this unfolding catastrophe that is being imposed against the wishes and interests of Scotland or whether we say enough is enough and forge a better future for everyone who lives here. Thank you. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions after which we will move on to the next item of business. It would be helpful if those members who wish to ask a question were to press the request-to-speak button now. I have sat through many ministerial statements, many full of details and statistics, many with policy announcements, many with something as an opposition MSP to get one's teeth in two, but I have never sat through a statement so thin, so devoid of detail, so empty of substance as this one. No new information has been imparted today. It is essentially one long complaint about Brexit, and that's it. There is no UK bill. It hasn't been published yet. The cabinet secretary has no idea what it contains. He does know that discussions between devolved Governments and Cabinet officials are ongoing, and it is at the discretion of devolved Governments to decide how they deal with retained EU law that is devolved. However, the Scottish Government might have waited for the UK Government to set out its position, publish legislation and then come to the chamber with the Scottish Government's response properly researched, argued and underpinned by the facts. Let me ask him this. He speculates that the bill will create uncertainty for business. Does he agree that what is really creating uncertainty for business and for people across Scotland is his Government's own blind ideology to use his phrase, their obsession with independence and another divisive polarising referendum? I disagree with much of what the Conservative spokesman has said on this issue, but I can agree with him on one thing. The sharing of information by the UK Government on a measure that will have a profound impact on this Parliament and how its ability to deal with business has been profound. I have had one meeting with Jacob Rees Mogg on this subject. He travelled all the way to Edinburgh, asked to meet me and could not be bothered to make the last 200 metres of the journey to come to Scottish Government office buildings to discuss what was being planned. He could not even tell me how many of the laws that he was planning to, as the media reported, sunset by some arbitrary deadline, will impact on the devolved settlement. In that respect, Donald Cameron is absolutely right. The amount of information that has been shared with the Scottish Government has been woeful. It follows an all-too-familiar pattern from the UK Government, little to no detail on proposed legislation beyond what could be gleaned from the media, broad assurances that devolution will be respected, with nothing on how that will be ensured, performative engagement rather than a genuine attempt to engage on policy substance, or a willingness to adjust proposals to reflect the Scottish Government's concerns. I would have thought that that should concern every member of this Parliament in all parties. It is disappointing that it is not to be found on the Conservative benches. I would remind all members who wish to ask a question to please check that they have pressed the request to speak button. I call Sarah Boyack. Can I also thank the cabinet secretary for advance notice of his statement? I am equally disappointed at the ideology behind Brexit and the thoughtlessness and dishonesty from the UK Government, the Tory Government on its impact on people in Scotland and right across the UK. We do need to protect the Seoul Convention and to protect our devolution settlement. There is an irony that we have two Governments promoting their ideologies and seeking to divert from their failures and the lack of support for our constituents who are experiencing a massive cost of living crisis. Scottish Labour supports aligning with our EU neighbours, protecting our labour, consumer and environmental standards, and enabling trade with our neighbours. Points we made in their recent debates on the continuity act and the internal market act. Cabinet secretary, as you have admitted, the statement is light on content. As you say, there will be hard work to ensure that we do everything we can to protect our constituents and businesses from the damage and uncertainty that is created by Brexit. I ask the cabinet secretary what he is doing now to identify how we use our Parliament's devolved powers to the max, to protect labour standards, incentivise our businesses to produce products that protect consumer rights, meet standards of health and safety and deliver the environmental standards that we need. Although it will involve a huge amount of work, as the constitution committee acknowledged, we need to monitor and track both at the EU level and now it appears at the UK level what is happening in terms of alignment with the EU. Those are the practical things that I would like to hear from the cabinet secretary in terms of his action plan. Can I thank Sair Barwick for her questions in the positive way in which he has put them this afternoon? I welcome the commitment from the Labour party to wish to seek to protect the Sule convention and to protect standards. I think that Sair Barwick is absolutely right that we look at all means at our disposal to be able to protect these safeguards. She will understand that, given the positive information that we have had from the UK Government, it is safe for the mention of the quantum of the legislation that is being envisaged at over 2,000. Let's say for sake of argument that this Parliament agrees that it will decline to give legislative consent for this UK Government measure. Unfortunately, our experience thus far in the Brexit context is that UK Governments override the Sule convention, in which case we will have to use a lot of parliamentary time to find out ways of being able to protect and maintain the safeguards that have existed through European Union legislation. We are right at the beginning of that process, but I say to Sair Barwick that she is absolutely right to highlight that this is the key challenge for all of us. We have been trying to find our way through, together with colleagues in the committee, about how we have been able to do that thus far in terms of remaining aligned with the European Union. This is of an order of magnitude far beyond that. There is a lot of work that is going to have to go into that, and I look forward to working across the chamber to make sure that we can use all the powers that are disposed of as a Parliament and as Government to make sure that we can retain the benefits that the safeguards that have been legislated for in a European Union context can be protected. I call Christine Grahame to follow by Sharon Dowie. The cabinet secretary refers in his statement on this bill impacting on devolved issues, but without any prior discussion. I quote from the UK Government to lighten the burden close quotes on businesses. Does the cabinet secretary share my concerns that this translates into undermining workers' rights and protections? Does employment law is not to devolved? How can the Parliament ensure that those remain protected? Christine Grahame is absolutely right to home in on the specifics of different aspects of European Union law that we have enjoyed and we value as a society. We have the European Union to thank for some of our most cherished employment rights, including basic fundamentals such as written terms and conditions and equal pay. Those rights are now at risk as a consequence of the UK Government's reckless drive to heap yet more misery on millions of working families across this country. Creating the conditions for our citizens to secure safe, fairly paid work is not red tape. It is an essential requirement of every responsible Government. Of course, we simply do not know at this stage what the UK Government intends to do with employment rights in the future, as it has not told us and clearly has not told the Conservative front bench in this Parliament either. However, we do know that the Minister for Brexit Opportunities, or I should always take the opportunity to say so-called Brexit opportunities, has said today that he may wish to retain only dozens of 2,400 laws it has identified. So there is, of course, a very real risk that protections for workers may be undermined by the powers provided to UK ministers through the Brexit freedoms bill. When it comes to gene editing, the SNP has shown that they are perfectly capable of diverging from the UK standard and potentially the future EU standard unnecessarily and unfairly punishing Scotland's farmers for no good reason, even their former chief scientific adviser agrees. Will the cabinet secretary agree that she should have a serious rethink of the situation and stop holding back Scotland's farmers? Presiding Officer, frankly, that has absolutely nothing to do with the statement that I have just given to Parliament, so I am sure that I would be rebuked for going down highways and byways that have nothing to do with this. Cabinet Secretary, I think that if you extract this kind of general point being made and respond to that and perhaps briefly that would be... Well, the general point is that the questions being asked has got absolutely nothing to do with the bill that has been proposed by the UK Government today. Well, I was up to the chair really to determine that, cabinet secretary, and I had felt that in broad brush something could be extracted, but I think that the cabinet secretary has responded to the member in the way that he considers appropriate. We will now call Ruth McGuire, who is joining us remotely, to be followed by Katie Clark. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Brexit freedoms, getting Brexit done, levelling up. Does the cabinet secretary feel the same frustrations as many of my constituents at the UK Government's list of empty post-Brexit slogans? Is the Scottish Government dismayed, as I am, by the potential damage that will be done by such heavy-handed keeping legislation despite its light title? The title given to this bill would be laughable if its potential impact were not so deadly serious. The only freedom and offer here is that of being worse off, more polluted, less safe as a consumer, customer or employee. While all this untold damage has been inflicted at breakneck speed, all to meet an artificial PR-driven deadline, this Parliament will have no freedom whatsoever to pass the measures that your constituents and mine actively want to see. Frustration and dismay are just two of the many words, some more colourful, I would use to describe our reaction. The negative impact of Brexit on Scotland and indeed the whole of the UK is clear. As is the Conservative Government's failure to work with all of the devolved institutions, can the cabinet secretary outline what he can do to ensure that legislation is brought before this Parliament on areas such as agricultural subsidies where it is clear that there is devolved responsibility as soon as possible? Can he outline what work is being done on how, for example, public procurement will be affected and what legislation this Parliament can enact? I thank Katie Clark for the positive way in which she has asked the question again. It mirrors the point that was made by her Labour front bench colleague. We are going to have to ascertain which among the UK Government's proposed list of 2,400, incidentally, apparently, has gone up by 700 in the course of the last week. Pieces of legislation that may impact or may not, depending on how the UK Government decides to treat the Sewell convention. I should say incidentally, if the UK Government wanted to take devolution seriously it could legislate and it could limit the scope of its legislation to England or to England and Wales only, in which case retained legislation could remain on the statute in Scotland. I give a commitment to her and any of her colleagues who have a close interest in particular policy areas that we can discuss over the months ahead what needs to be done to protect safeguards, the most appropriate way of doing it, to protect the Parliament's ability to better understand the proposals that are being made, whilst at the same time having a conscious understanding of the scale of the potential job at hand given the way in which the UK Government is planning to go forward with this measure. As the Scottish Government begins setting out the progressive, hopeful vision for a wealthier, happier, fairer Scotland in the European family of nations, the UK Government, instead, continues to drag the devolved countries through a regressive and damaging Brexit, epitomised by the disastrous proposal of the so-called Brexit freedoms bill. Does the cabinet secretary believe that now, more than ever, the people of Scotland must be given the democratic choice for which they have repeatedly voted for, a referendum on our independence and a decision on Scotland's future? Yes, and the one lesson that can be safely drawn from this episode is that, for as long as Scotland is misgoverned by Westminster, the UK Government will continue to inflict on the people of Scotland, the long-running psychodrama that is Brexit and its dire unfolding consequences. The real freedom that we need to be talking about is for the people of Scotland to be free to make their own choice about the future of their own country. This bill will merely serve to make it more obvious which choice the people of Scotland should and will make. Brexit is a disaster. The Tories are terrible at government, but none of that is new. Whilst it is always worth repeating in my mind, I am not sure that this statement of endless speculation moves us any further forward. I support the keeping pace powers, but the lack of co-operation reflects badly on both Governments. Both the Scottish and UK Governments are responsible for this terrible relationship. What steps is the cabinet secretary going to take to improve that relationship so that he does not have to make another speculative statement to this Parliament? First, let me identify the thing that we agree on—that is a good way to start. Willie Rennie said that he supported keeping pace powers, so I think that what he is trying to say is that he supports the Scottish Government's position on safeguarding European legislation and retaining pace with those. If that is what he meant, I welcome that. On the equivalence in his questioning of criticising the state of relations with the UK Government and the Scottish Government, I say to him that there is no equivalence in that. In this specific case, I have already informed Parliament and told him that when the Scottish Government tried to have a conversation with the UK Government and asked specific questions about it, the minister responsible was not even prepared to come and meet in person. Please do not, when being aware of the facts, please do not propagate a false equivalence. The Scottish Government has asked for the information and has not received the information. There is no point in shaking one's head. I am telling Parliament the facts. I asked the questions, I did not receive the answers. I asked to meet the minister in question, he was not prepared to do so. Those are the facts. If Willie Rennie takes them to heart, he will end the false equivalence that he speaks about so often in this chamber. I have four more members who wish to ask a question. In order to get all four in, I would appreciate short and succinct questions and answers. Retained EU law has been a buffer for Scotland against the damaging and far-reaching effects of a hard Tory Brexit. Now that the UK Government is seeking to sweep aside these safeguards, does the cabinet secretary believe that the Scottish Government's firm commitment to continuity within European law will be undermined and made more difficult by the obsessive Brexit's freedom bill? As members will be aware, this Parliament passed the continuity act with the express purpose of providing Scottish ministers the powers needed to ensure that Scotland can keep pace with future developments in EU law where appropriate. Those EU laws have set high standards, for example, for our environment and for air and water quality. They have upheld workers' rights and employment law. They have protected animal welfare, plant health and biosecurity. Those are far from trivial matters. They are the very substance that underpins what we recognise as important to our society and our environment. I very much hope that Parliament can work together across the parties to do everything that we need to do to safeguard those safeguards in our public life, in our national legislation and maintain the alignment that Scotland has had over the decades with the rest of the European Union in these important areas of life. Thank you. Jacob Rees-Mogg is so desperate to find a benefit of Brexit that is outsourced to search to the sun and the far right daily express. This is clearly intended to advance the Tory's decades-long campaign for British workers to have the weakest rights and protections in Europe. Does the cabinet secretary agree therefore that with little prospect of workers' rights being devolved to the Scottish Parliament within the UK, the only way to protect those rights is through independence in the European Union? Ross Greer, of course, is correct. Ultimately, the only safeguard that we have of being a part of the European Union's legislative framework is by being in the European Union, and that is exactly where Scotland shall be. That is exactly the choice that people should be able to have given that we live in a democracy. In the meantime, we need to do everything that we can in this Parliament to make sure that we do not have the rug pulled from underneath us by taking safeguards off the statute book but also acting in a way that will deluge this Parliament by having to find precious time to be able to legislate to retain the safeguards, something clearly that Conservative members don't take particularly seriously. Maurice Golden, to be followed by Willie Coffey. The cabinet secretary suggests a race to the bottom on the environment, but the opposite is true. The UK Government is going further than the EU on the environment, such as targeting a 68 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 versus just 55 per cent for the EU or ending sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2030 versus 2035 for the EU. Does the cabinet secretary recognise the actions of the UK Government simply do not match his rhetoric? No, I don't, but perhaps we can find some common ground in this question. If it is the case that the member and his colleagues are happy to see EU standards as a minimum, then no doubt he and his colleagues will be happy to impress on the UK Government that they will respect the Sewell convention and respect the decision that is made in this Parliament in relation to legislative consent. If the UK Government then wants to go on and legislate for matters that are devolved—so not in terms of Scotland—take the praise for it, why don't we work in partnership on that as a challenge and make the UK Government proceed for England and let the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government work on the standards based on the safeguards of European legislation that we agree should be retained? I look forward to that. Excuse me, I get all those sedentary commentary. I call Willie Coffey, thank you. Thank you. In the lead-up to the European Union referendum, Brexit-year, Tories insisted they weren't seeking a race to the bottom on food, on environmental standards and on workers' rights, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Now we're seeing undeniable proof of our standards and rights being eroded with dodgy trade deals and the UK internal market undoing decades of progress within the European single market, which is ten times bigger. Does the cabinet secretary believe that the UK Briggs at Freedom's Bill, whenever it appears, will accelerate those politically motivated downward spiral in trade standards? I think that Willie Rennie has every reason to be concerned. We warned during the passage of the internal market act that it would open the door to lower standards across a range of areas where EU laws used to apply. We're already seeing this threat being played out in relation to trade deals and the threat of products entering the country that do not meet the EU's rules on say animal welfare or food standards. The internal market act means there's little we can do to stop these goods entering Scotland, whatever the views of this Parliament or the people of Scotland. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes the statement. There will be a very short pause before we move on to the next item of business, to allow front bench teams to change positions should they wish.