 The next item of business is a debate on motion 3389 in the name of Claire Adamson on behalf of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee on UK internal market inquiry. I would invite members who wish to participate to press their request to speak buttons or place an hour in the chat function, and I call on Donald Cameron to speak to and move the motion for around seven minutes, Mr Cameron. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am speaking on behalf of the committee, and if I can begin by passing on the apologies of the convener, Claire Adamson, who is currently self-isolating. Can I take this opportunity to thank her in her absence for her work on this inquiry and report, and also thank other colleagues on the committee for their constructive and consensual approach to this important area of work? I see many of them here in the chamber today, and I look forward to hearing their contribution. In the committee's consideration of the UK internal market, the committee identified three significant and interrelated tensions arising from and or exacerbated by the UK leaving the EU. First, tension between open trade and regulatory divergence. Second, tension within the devolution settlement. Third, tension in the balance of relations between the executive and the legislature. In this opening speech, I intend to concentrate on the first and second of these tensions. With regard to the first, one of the main themes of our inquiry is the tension that can exist between open trade and regulatory divergence within the constituent part of an internal market. The committee's view was that in resolving this tension, it is essential that the fundamental principles that underpin devolution are not undermined. At the same time, the committee recognises the significant economic benefits of the UK internal market and open trade. The committee believed that it would be regrettable if one of the consequences of the UK leaving the EU is any dilution in the regulatory autonomy and opportunities for policy innovation, which has been one of the successes of devolution. The UK internal market act seeks to address the tension between open trade and regulatory divergence. That act creates two market access principles, the mutual recognition principle and the non-discrimination principle. All devolved policy areas are potentially impacted by those principles, although some exemptions are provided in the act. The committee recognises that the principles do not introduce any new statutory limitations on the competence of the Scottish Parliament or Scottish ministers. However, they can automatically diso-apply Scottish legislation. While the act may not affect the Scottish Parliament's ability to pass a law, it may have an impact on whether that law is effective in relation to goods and services that come from another part of the UK. The committee also recognises that there are significant differences between the market access principles within the UK internal market act and principles operating within the EU single market. In particular, the list of exclusions on public interest grounds from the application of the mutual recognition principle are much narrower within the UK internal market act. There was a clear consensus within the evidence that the committee received that the UK internal market act places more emphasis on open trade than regulatory autonomy compared with the EU single market. The evidence that we received suggests that the UK internal market act in seeking to resolve that first tension that I described has shifted the balance within the devolution settlement away from regulatory autonomy through privileging market access. We have therefore as a committee written to the UK Government inviting ministers to explain how the act will provide, and I quote, as a minimum, equivalent flexibility for tailoring policies to the specific needs of each territory, as is afforded by current EU rules. At the same time, the committee recognises that the common frameworks programme provides an opportunity to manage the tension between regulatory divergence and open trade on a consensual basis. The committee notes that the published common frameworks do not generally provide for minimum standards or for common approaches as set out in the JMC principles. Rather, they appear to be technical documents that provide for ways of working for Government officials, which might include agreeing UK-wide or GB-wide minimum standards or a common approach. The published documents, in our view, are therefore limited in improving public awareness and understanding of policy areas where a UK or GB-wide approach is likely, and they are also limited in providing information on minimum standards. The committee is therefore concerned that the published documents have not provided the certainty and clarity that businesses, consumers and other stakeholders expected frameworks to provide. The committee believes that there is a risk that the emphasis on managing regulatory divergence at an intergovernmental level may lead to less transparency and ministerial accountability and tension in the balance of relations between the executive and the legislature—something that I hope to explore in my closing speech in this debate. Our report demonstrates that an understanding of how the UK internal market act affects policy and legislation needs to be embedded within the Scottish Parliament's scrutiny processes and procedures. Equally, an understanding of how common frameworks impact on policy and legislation is also essential. The convener discusses with colleagues on the convener's group last week. A key issue that was considered was the importance of inter-parliamentary working in addressing parliamentary oversight and stakeholder involvement in intergovernmental relations. That was one of the main issues considered at the very first meeting of the inter-parliamentary forum, which I attended with the convener last Friday in the House of Lords. That forum agreed terms of reference, which includes ensuring appropriate levels of respective ministerial accountability and transparency in a range of areas that, in many cases, may require new scrutiny processes. Initial priorities for that forum will include oversight of intergovernmental relations, including agreeing a joint annual report on addressing common scrutiny challenges. We look forward to continuing that work with colleagues from the House of Commons, the House of Lords, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Welsh Senate. Finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, and as a general observation on our report, we found that there is, as illustrated by our report, a deal of complexity in the post-EU regulatory environment within Scotland. That presents a huge challenge for policymakers, legislators and those seeking to influence the policymaking and legislative process. Can I move the motion in the convener's name? Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am delighted to follow on from the Deputy Convener and will, both in my speech and in summing up, directly speak to some of the points that he has raised in his opening remarks. First of all, I begin by thanking Clare Adamson for wishing her a speedy recovery and to pay tribute to all members of the committee. I am a regular attendor at the committee. I know how much work all its members undertake. In a unicameral parliamentary system, the role of committees is absolutely vital in ensuring that the oversight and interworking between members of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government works as efficiently and effectively as it can be, and that we learn, especially when we are dealing with complex issues as we are with this, about the options going forward. Scottish Government is going to take time to study the wide-ranging conclusions and recommendations and will provide a full response to the committee in due course. For today's short debate, I want to concentrate on a few key points, just as the Deputy convener did. I would like to start with what is perhaps the most important point in this and other related debates, namely that people in Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain within the European Union. Scotland has been forced out of the EU, and worse, forced into a hard Brexit outside the single market and the customs union against the will of the majority of people in this country. Such a democratic outrage was damaging effects that should never be normalised or ignored, and the passage of time does not make it any more acceptable. Therefore, the report and the debate would not be happening if the democratic wishes of people in Scotland mattered in any way to the Conservative Government at Westminster. The fact that the internal market act drives a coach in horses through the devolution settlement further demonstrates the contempt that Westminster has for those wishes. The committee report discusses trade links between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Under any constitutional future, those links will continue to be important, and the rest of the UK will of course continue to be Scotland's closest of friends and neighbours. However, it is also interesting to note that over its years of EU membership as an independent country Ireland, it has diversified its trade into Europe and has become less dependent on the UK. The more it has diversified and grown its trade with the EU, the wealthier it has become. One of the many self-inflicted wounds of this UK Government's hard Brexit is that we have left the rules and institutions of the European Union, a single market that protected the powers of the devolved institutions, while ensuring that there were no unnecessary barriers to trade across those islands or, indeed, the European Union. The European single market, the world's most advanced, most sophisticated internal market, is based on co-operation, co-decision and equality between member states and offers a model of how to balance market efficiencies with the ability to set rules at a local level. The first tension that Donald Cameron spoke about, of course, is delighted to give way to Willie Rennie. Does the minister not think that there are some lessons in here for those in the nationalist movement that breaking up long-term economic partnerships is damaging and protracted and bad for business? Shouldn't he learn the lessons rather than trying to repeat them? I am sorry that Willie Rennie did not listen to what I said immediately before he intervened on me in relation to Ireland's experience. It has become wealthier and has exported more, unfortunately. Willie Rennie wishes to maintain dependency on one single market, which is significantly smaller than the larger one that we have just been forced out of. How different, Presiding Officer, I want to make some progress, from the fundamentally flawed internal market regime ushered in by the UK Government's internal market act, an act imposed on this Parliament without its consent, an act imposed on the people of Scotland despite the overwhelming rejection of Brexit in Scotland, an act that, at its heart, sees devolution as a problem to be fixed in a UK conceived of as a unitary state and to be controlled by Westminster rather than a voluntary political association of nations. The Scottish Government warned from the outset that it represented a fundamental change to the devolution settlement that people voted for in 1997, a change achieved by stealth, a chipping away at the powers and the responsibilities of this Parliament. The committee recognises unanimously across all political parties that the act can automatically diso-ply Scottish legislation. This is an extraordinary, a serious and alarming situation for anybody who cares about Scottish democracy. Laws passed in this Parliament by democratically elected members of the Scottish Parliament can be radically undermined by the act, as the committee puts it, again I quote, while the act may not affect the Scottish Parliament's ability to pass a law, it may have an impact on whether that law is effective. Surely that cannot be acceptable to any member of this Parliament, regardless of party, but it is not just the Scottish Government and the committee raising these concerns, the overwhelming weight of evidence from across Scottish society and the near unanimous views of legal experts and constitutional academics supports this view. Witnesses to this inquiry have laid bare the negative impact of the act. Deputy Presiding Officer, if I may, let me quote just a couple of examples briefly, identified by the committee itself. The clear consensus within the evidence which the committee received that the act places more emphasis on open trade than regulatory autonomy compared to the EU single market. The animal protection charity one-kinds view that the United Kingdom internal market act, and I quote, undermines devolution and will limit the ability to the Scottish Parliament and Government to improve farmed animal welfare standards. The cabinet secretary is beyond his time already. I'm beyond my time already. Forgive me, Deputy Presiding Officer. May I move on to my peroration briefly? That's very kind. Time constraints prevent me from touching on all the issues raised by the committee report from the interactions of the continuity act to the increasingly complex challenges that the Parliament faces in fulfilling its scrutiny function. I look forward to responding and writing to the committee on all of these matters. The central issue, however, remains the one that I've focused on today. The profound damage that the internal market act is doing to the devolution settlement. It is an internal market regime that has been imposed on its constituent members without their consent. It is democratically unsustainable and unjustified, and it should be repealed. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I'd like to thank the clerks, witnesses and colleagues for their working putting together this important report. First of all, it's right to acknowledge that the UK's internal market is of vital importance to the Scottish economy. Trade with the UK represents 60 per cent of Scotland's export markets. Protecting Scotland's ability to trade freely and fairly with the rest of the UK is essential, and the UK internal market bill is designed to do exactly that. It also prevents the emergence of new trade barriers, given the potential for increased regulatory divergence between different parts of the UK and enshrines the market access principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination in law. One SNP argument is that the UK internal market bill act will provide a green light for the UK Government to help progress in setting of regulations and standards, and it in turn may effectively prevent the Scottish Government from setting regulations and from keeping pace with emerging EU legislation. That is, of course, one of the SNP's main arguments for the introduction of the continuity bill. In reference to the continuity bill, Mike Russell said that, and I quote, proposals on environmental principles and governance will also help us to maintain high standards in line with the EU in Scotland. Let's look at the evidence. In the area of environment and climate change, that was allegedly of great concern to the SNP. It told us that, at the earliest possible opportunity, the UK Government would roll back environmental targets and regulations and seek to diverge from the EU. The evidence shows that the UK Government did, indeed, take the first possible opportunity to diverge from the EU in regard to environmental targets, but they increased them, making the UK more ambitious. The UK have set a 68 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030. The EU's target is only 55 per cent, and if we were still in the EU, we have also signed up to 55 per cent. The UK plans are happy to. Thank you, Maurice Golden for taking the intervention. Would Maurice Gordon agree with me that the EU targets are minimum targets and there is absolutely nothing to stop other European countries to go above and beyond those targets? In some areas, there would be restrictions and an inability to meet our targets and help to meet net zero. I will give you one example. The UK Government is legislating for England and has diverged significantly on agriculture policy since Brexit, only possible because of Brexit. It is going considerably further than the EU when it comes to supporting sustainable agriculture and farming practices, all of which should accelerate the move towards net zero, which would not have been possible if the UK had still been in the EU. I would like to make some progress. I have just answered a member. In addition, the UK plans to end the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2030. The EU's target is 2035. There has been no rollback on regulations. In fact, what we have seen in areas such as the environment is even firmer commitments from the UK than from the EU. Meanwhile, here in Scotland, the SNP continually fail to meet environmental and climate change targets and look to diverge from the EU targets despite their policy position being to align. In terms of protecting the devolution settlement through the implementation of the UK internal market act, the UK Government is committed to working with devolved administrations on the principle of respecting the reserved powers of each devolved Government. In short, mutual respect and trust. The recently published review of intergovernmental relations sets out new structures and ways of working, which provide a positive basis for productive relations, facilitating dialogue where views are aligned and resolution mechanisms where they are not. Through existing common frameworks and the introduction of new ones, if required, any tensions within the devolved settlement can be resolved by managing regulatory divergence on a consensual basis. At some point in the future, there will no doubt be situations where constructive dialogue is required. If the SNP wants to act in the best interests of Scotland, it will engage constructively. If the SNP wants to sow division, cause conflict and take the opportunity to promote its separate cause, it will not engage constructively, but that would be to the detriment of Scotland's economy and its people. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Galden. I now call Fosal Toghry to speak for around six minutes, Mr Toghry. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is a pleasure to open this debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. I would like to thank the committee and its member for this report. It is in depth and considered to look at the topic with many strands, and the committee has done well to pull them all together. I would also like to thank the many witnesses who contributed to the committee's inquiry. The shared breadth of expertise is impressive and has provided us with considerable resources as we consider this matter in future. The UK Internal Market Act has clearly been something of a watershed moment. Its passage not only signalled the effective end of the immediate Brexit process, but also inaugurated a new and uncomfortable era in which we in the devolved parliaments and assemblies of this country now find ourselves. The committee's report does a good job in highlighting the tensions that are now at play between the devolved institutions and Westminster and provides some constructive commentary on how they may be mitigated in the future. I think that it is necessary to briefly look back at how we go into this situation. It was clear to everyone when the UK left the European Union that certain powers would be perpetuated. It would have made sense given that situation for the UK Government to engage with the devolved Governments and institutions in order to arrange how this would work with the devolved settlement. The fact that they did not do so, and we are now in this situation of considerable tensions within the devolution settlement, illustrates that devolution work best when Westminster and the devolved nations work together rather than apart. I hope the future Governments learn the rights lesson for these experiences. It is unfortunate that we find ourselves in this situation where this act of the UK Parliament has been passed notwithstanding the withholding of legislative consent by both Scotland and Wales, but we are where we are. Scottish Labour remains committed to devolution and allowing devolution to work well, and so I shall move the tensions at the heart of this report and the suggestions for how they may be resolved in the future. On the tension between free trade and regulatory divergence, the committee's view appears to be that the UK Government has got the balance very wrong. We in Scottish Labour agree. We agree that there needs to be room for Scotland to innovate both in policy and its economy, and that the UK Government has instead fallen to harshly on the side of being productive about what must be done in devolved areas. We are concerned that the act in effect enforces the Tory free market view of the world, stiffening Scotland's ability to set its own standards through public procurement practice. Thanks to the emphasis of non-discrimination and mutual recognition, Scottish businesses, particularly the agricultural sector, could be put at risk if the Tories pursue their regulatory worst instinct and insist on lowering the standards that we have been used to over the last few decades. I am however pleased to see that examination, distension, the committee has also underscored the importance and economic benefit of open trade across the UK. I note that the committee heard evidences from example of complete or near complete integration in supply chains within the UK. It is surely there to follow that the imposition of trade barriers with Great Britain, as would inevitably happen under the Scottish Government's plan for independence, would cause a significant disruption of those supply chains and to the wider economy. Certain members may not like to hear it, but it is the logical consequence of having such a depth integration within our economy. The committee reports also makes it clear that there is a room within the common framework to work through some of the tensions that have been caused to the devolution settlement by this act, but crucially highlights the power imbalance, the risk causing between executive and legislative explorers of the UK. It is perhaps not surprising that it is committees like those of this Parliament and House of Lords and Westminster, which are highlighting this tension and the distinct lack of transparency in the intergovernment system. Put simply, we in this Parliament and legislator across UK need to be able to see and comment upon the process that go on the common framework to the other stakeholders in the economic and regulatory environment. We cannot possibly repair the confidence in our devolved settlement if all the work to do so is done in the dark, away from the eyes of those with interest in the system and how it is supposed to function. I am grateful to the committee for all its work in bringing this concern to the Parliament, and we on the benches look forward to engaging with the on-going work in addressing this matter in future. I commend the committee for their hard work and for Donald Cameron stepping in at the last minute to make what I thought was a very considerate speech setting out the three tensions that clearly exist within this debate. However, the debate is still dragging on six years after we voted to leave the EU, and two years after we left, I think that there is further evidence that breaking up long-term economic partnerships is hard to do and damaging. It is not just a lesson for those who are advocates of Brexit, but for those who are advocates of independence, who somehow think that breaking up the EU, sorry, UK, would be an absolute breeze in comparison. The truth is the opposite. The sooner the nationalists understand that, the better will be off. I am pleased that the committee recognises the economic benefits for businesses and consumers in ensuring open trade across the EU, because those who are trying to speak just now reject the significance of the UK market and believe that the EU market is somehow on the contrary essential. However, that ignores the fact that 21 per cent of domestic expenditure on goods that originated in another part of the UK are part of Scotland's economy. The agricultural exports to the UK are worth £855 million in 2018, and the highly integrated supply chains across the United Kingdom are incredibly important. The truth is that both markets were important, but you do not compound the chaos of leaving the EU with the chaos of leaving the United Kingdom. The minister spent most of his speech advocating independence rather than addressing the content of the report, and I am not going to make that mistake. I think that the committee is correct to highlight the regulatory innovation tension with devolution. Also, often the policy developed here is adopted elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and vice versa, take smoking in public places, for example. There was a consensus in the committee, and among the witnesses to the committee, that there is a tilt towards market access over regulatory differentiation compared with the EU experience. Perhaps that is because the United Kingdom is anxious about its ability to secure good trade agreements compared with the European Union. Perhaps the hand of the United Kingdom has been weakened now that it is no longer part of a wider union with the European countries. That is another lesson for nationalists in this Parliament. Professor Armstrong put it succinctly. The act places too much emphasis on market liberalisation over local rights to regulate. We do not want a suffocating straight jacket that snuffs out that difference. That not all the common frameworks have been agreed is bad for business and a poor reflection on our ability of our two Governments to work together. People expect our Governments to work in partnership to fix problems, not to pontificate endlessly about their different constitutional positions. However, I sometimes think that our two Governments prefer nothing more than a good rami to justify their own existence. That is why I think that we need a featherless solution to resolve the differences between the different constituent parts of the United Kingdom. When there are disagreements, it should not be the United Kingdom Government that has the final say. We need a partnership in the form of say qualified majority voting or something similar. We need to entrench the principles of co-operation and partnership and federalism at the heart of the common frameworks and the trade and co-operation agreement governance committees. I agree with the committee that our inter-parliamentary forum to mirror the inter-governmental arrangements would help with the scrutiny of any agreements and public awareness. The committee did briefly explore the UK subsidy control bill, the successor to the EU state aid rules. I will certainly do that, which is currently in the House of Lords, but I think that we need to return to this major piece of work, because it will have a big impact on the way that this country operates. I commend the committee for its work, and I look forward to the rest of the debate. I also wish to put on record my thanks to those who gave evidence to the SEAC inquiry, the clerks and my fellow committee members. I also wish to clear Adamson a speedy recovery. I agree that there is a great deal of complexity in the UK Internal Market Act. Professor Jo Hunt, in her evidence, indicated that the UK Internal Market Act views devolution as an obstacle and potential irritant to the economic integration of the UK, but we live in a devolved UK. For Scotland, economic integration, driven by the needs of London and the southeast of England, isn't what we need. As Johnnie Hall, National Farmers Union Scotland, said, it is vital that the Scottish Government is able to continue to support Scottish farmers and crofters in a way that it is most appropriate for Scottish circumstances to deliver the outcomes that we want around food production, climate, biodiversity and so on. I recognise this assessment from meeting with my crofting and farming constituents in Argyll and Bute. As the cabinet secretary has said, Scotland was pulled out of the EU and the single market, the world's largest and most successful example of economic integration, to join the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, the arrangements for which have been described as idiosyncratic by Professor Wetherall in his evidence. There are three main ways in which Echema differs from the European internal market. Firstly, we heard evidence that EU rules are more generous, allowing for relaxation of laws for non-economic public policy reasons. In our first session, concerns were raised that this may impact more widely than trade in products, with policies on animal welfare, wildlife protection and the environment all possibly being chilled as a result of Echema. The cabinet secretary said of Westminster, what is not right is for them to tell us that we cannot legislate in areas in which we have competence and to use the internal market act to prevent us from doing so. Secondly, principles of subsidiarity and proportionality also govern the EU internal market, not just those of mutual recognition and non-discrimination. Professor McEwen and colleagues said that Echema arguably creates a powerful disincentive to engage in legal reform or policy innovation in response to changing social and economic preferences. Thirdly, the EU single market is underpinned by a level playing field, where member states implement co-determined regulations or environmental standards. However, that is not the case with Echema, where anisimetry is built into the legislation, making the act protected within the devolution statutes. Professor McEwen said, there is nothing that you or your colleagues—that is us—can do about that in your lawmaking capacities to make any amendments. The Westminster Parliament is not constrained in the same way. If, in principle or in theory, it was found that that was a frustration for the UK Government's ability to pursue and fulfil its policy objectives, it could change that in a way that you cannot. For Scotland, the UK internal market act does not work to our advantage and does not help to enrich the lives of our citizens. That means that the economic policies that Scotland needs to defeat poverty, advance equality and promote wellbeing for all are seen by Westminster as an obstacle and a potential irritant. There is good news for the UK Government. There is a way to remove Westminster's obstacles and irritants—that is Scottish independence. Only then will Scotland get the economic and social policy that it needs and wants. Only when our economic needs are not viewed through the distorted lens of Westminster, only when Scotland is free to make its own decisions and run its own economy can the human and material richness of our nation be harnessed for the good of all. In recent years, I have sat through quite a number of debates relating to internal market legislation. Like many across the chamber, I never wanted Brexit to happen, but I did support the need for legislation. That is largely because the common frameworks designed to navigate the UK's post-Brexit pathways did not provide the legal instruments that would provide the necessary legislation safeguards. Safeguards regarding open trade across the UK complemented by the provision for regulatory divergence and for more effective parliamentary scrutiny. I note from the committee's report that there is cross-party agreement about the benefits of the UK internal market with Scotland, rightly so for exactly the reasons that Mr Rennie cited. Open trade across the UK is absolutely essential. Scotland trades one and a half times as much with the rest of the UK as it does with the whole of the EU and the rest of the world put together. That trade with the UK is four times as much to Scotland in comparison with what the EU single market provided. For those reasons, it is absolutely essential that the post-Brexit era does not pose any new barriers to trade across the UK. That is very much an agreed conclusion of the committee report. Members will know from previous debates in this chamber that I harbored some concerns about the initial internal market bill on the basis of some of the concerns from stakeholders about the potential impact on devolution, similar to the ones that the cabinet secretary spoke about in his speech. I could understand that we were not careful with the legislation. There was scope for the UK Government to undermine the devolution settlement and that was certainly not something that was acceptable. To avoid that in it absolutely has to be avoided. It was essential that the legislation protected the right of the devolved Administrations to protect their very genuine policy differences, for example something like minimum unit pricing for alcohol. Those policy differences, which reflect different national and regional circumstances, are absolutely what devolution should be about. Should the UK Internal Market Bill Act 1998 curtail any of that, then that was obviously going to undermine those differences, and that would be a very serious issue. At the time, it was my former colleague Adam Tompkins who said that it was the importance of the doctrine of proportionality with its roots in common law that had a relevance here. He's right because not only does that doctrine govern the legislation but also put in place the opportunity to ensure that it is fair, independent and a trusted adjudication of whether the legislation is delivering on its stated objectives. Those objectives in relation to the internal market are agreed across both Scotland and the UK, and it's in everyone's interest to aspire to economic growth, to better investment, to a greener economy job opportunities, to the development of innovation and enterprise. Anything that disrupts the UK internal market would obviously be contrary to both Scotland and the UK. A point that was very well made by Bruce Crawford when he was convener of the previous Finance and Constitution Committee, which brings me to the current situation, which we will be debating later this afternoon. That's about the shared prosperity funds and the way that the EU funds absolutely have to be replaced, and that's, as I said, for the next debate. However, there are other issues here, and that is about the concern over the Scottish economy and the difficulties that it faces when it comes to ensuring that it has all the advantages that we would expect it to have, whether it had been in the EU or whether it is part of the United Kingdom. I'll finish on that point. There is one reason why the internal market is so important, and that is to help Scotland to flourish in the way that we all want to see. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I welcome this committee debate, which reminds us again of what we have lost from leaving the EU? Not only did we leave the world's most successful peace project, but we also left the world's most successful free trade project, a union quite literally forged in post-war reconstruction. The Schuman Declaration in 1950 gave birth to the European Coal and Steel community, starting the long process of dismantling barriers to commerce. However, as we grew closer together as a bloc, our differences in terms of geography and politics did not become barriers to trade or barriers to regulatory innovation. Subsidiarity ensured that within the EU internal market, a level playing field of common rules could still be flexible enough to meet the needs of individual nation states. As Europe grew and movements of citizens won new rights to protect their lives and their environment, the EU found ways to involve them directly in the development of laws to protect people and the planet. That is what we had and what Scotland was forced against our will to give up. The internal market act as a central part of the post-Brexit landscape threatens the laboratory of devolution that has been so successful in ratcheting up progressive policies across the UK in recent years. The committee heard wide-ranging concerns for witnesses that the act, for example in the words of Professor Weatherhill, contains a structural bias in favour of market access and against local regulatory culture. Other academics stated that the act arguably creates a powerful disincentive to engage in legal reform or policy innovation in response to changing social and economic preferences. Meanwhile, NGOs working in the environment and public health fields laid out concerns that the act could lead to a race to the bottom rather than a race to the top in standards. While the NFUS raised concerns that even moves to buy local could be challenged and struck down, something that would have been absolutely unthinkable under our membership of the EU common agricultural policy. I fear that much of the subsidiarity and trust that we had as part of the EU has now been replaced by tension. As the committee report lays out, we have not just the tension in the devolution settlement but a fundamental tension between open trade and regulatory divergence. As a result of that, a growing tension between parliaments and their executives should become lost in opaque common framework negotiations. On that point, much of that is still really uncharted territory for us as parliamentarians. We may know that 26 common frameworks exist, but only four of them have actually been scrutinised by this Parliament and eight have yet to be published. In the area, for example, the waste and circular economy, we know very little about the position of the UK Government in relation to a Scottish ban on single-use plastics, whether the ban could be challenged and how the common framework in this area is actually working in practice. Parliaments' founding principles are really important here, sharing of power between the people of Scotland legislatures and the executive, and also that the executive should be fully accountable to the people and that, to achieve that, the Parliament itself should be accessible, open, responsive and participatory. It is clear that parliaments across the UK are going to have to work harder to hold all of their governance to account by learning and collaborating together. Presiding Officer, I think that we have barely begun to account the cost of leaving the EU, but there is over 40 years of progress still to defend. The internal market act should concern all those who value the powers and the work of the Scottish Parliament and the value of the devolution settlement. I now call on Alasdor Allan, after which we will move to the closing speeches. By consensus, our committee agreed that the UK Internal Market Act has raised some troubling questions for the devolution settlement. Our report concludes that the UK Internal Market Act has increased tension within the devolution settlement arising from the UK leaving the EU. The act has been rejected by the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government, and by the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senate and Northern Ireland Assembly as imposing limitations on devolved competence without consent. I am glad that, despite our differing individual political perspectives as a committee or as committee members, we were able to draw attention to those facts clearly and unambiguously. Like Mr Cameron, I appreciated the way in which we were able to work together to that end. I realised that committee debates are supposed to concentrate on such consensus where it exists, and I will therefore keep persevering my best on that front for some moments yet. We have heard in this debate about how we should find ways in which Scotland can give consent to shared areas of working with the UK. However, the fact remains that we are talking today about an act of the UK Parliament to which we, as the Scottish Parliament, have indicated our dissent. Many of those who gave evidence to us as a committee were very direct about their view on that. The Cabinet Secretary for Constitutional Affairs and Culture told us that the Scottish Government have argued from the outset that the act represents a fundamental change to the devolution settlement, but other witnesses—for instance, FEDRA, an environmental charity—indicated us their support for the implementation of environmental policy across the UK, but pointed out that it was nonetheless vital that devolved Administrations retained the ability to champion new and progressive legislation within their own areas of responsibility. They highlighted the ban on plastic stemmed cotton buds and the single-use carrier bagchard as two useful examples of policy being developed and implemented at the devolved level and subsequently implemented elsewhere in the UK. Others came to the committee to express concerns about what the act would have meant for minimum-unit alcohol pricing were we to try to legislate in that area today. As Mr Ruskell alluded to, NFU Scotland pointed out that the so-called non-discrimination principle in the act could, in fact, constrain both us and its own industry. It cited the example of how we of Scotland were to legislate on local procurement and the intention to buy local. The UK Internal Market Act was quite likely to run up against our Parliament's legislative intentions, meaning, in the NFU's view, that Scotland would simply have to allow products to be allowed to compete on price in the market for public procurement rather than being exclusive about it. We are all agreed about the importance of trade across the UK. That is not really contentious. What is contentious and what Scotland's elected Parliament cannot and has not consented to is a power that allows the UK Government to constrain our ability to act whenever we dare to be different. As members are aware, there was a time until, quite recently, when UK acts of Parliament that touched upon the powers of this Scottish Parliament were not, quote, normally passed without this Parliament's consent. It is pretty clear, either that this polite convention simply no longer applies or that the word normally has become bleached of any meaning in these abnormal political times. That goes to the heart of the matter, because, as numerous witnesses to our committee pointed out, the UK Internal Market Act effectively reduces our room for manoeuvre as a Parliament. It represents a step by Westminster into explicitly devolved areas. It seeks, Presiding Officer, to clip Scotland's legislative wings. That is probably one of the most important debates that we will have in the Parliament. I thank our clerks, all the organisations who sent us their views and analysis to the committee and to the witnesses who shared their expertise and answered our questions. I think that the work of this committee is a start on what will be a significant scrutiny going forward, not just by us but by other parliamentary committees as well. The first thing to say is that Brexit is only just over a year old yet has had a massive negative impact on businesses, farming and food producers, those in the haulage industry and our cultural sector. The Conservative Government's ambition is to create an internal market to lower standards must not throw us into reverse in terms of the devolution settlement, our food and environmental standards or the labour market. At the same time, we need an effective internal market, which is crucial to our future. With the statistics that have also been referenced, Scotland's imported goods and services to the rest of the UK are worth over £51 billion, 60 per cent of our exports. We need to have an internal market that works for us in Scotland. That has been a good debate. It has flushed out the disagreements and they are issues that we need to deal with. We need to focus on the recommendations to manage tensions between Governments and ensure that the principles of underpinning devolution are not undermined. Life after Brexit was always going to be a challenge, so ensuring the transparency and enabling all those with an interest to enable our internal market work but to make sure that our businesses across Scotland are not disadvantaged is crucial. Common frameworks are clearly an important means by which the UK Government and the devolved Governments are able to work together. It gives those in Government the opportunity to decide how they can manage the tensions in the internal market and ensure that whether there are strong arguments for divergence and different approaches that they can be enabled and understood. However, while inter-governmental working is crucial as it has been agreed across the chamber, the Law Society of Scotland was clear that the current arrangements lack sufficient transparency and accountability. We need to have the inter-parliamentary work and the work in our Parliament to make sure that we get that transparency so that our citizens and businesses can both see what is coming down the track but they can also understand the timetables, what the frameworks will cover and that we have public consultation on where significant changes are being proposed. That is why the committee calls for clarity, regular updates to each Parliament across the UK and for Governments to highlight upcoming proposals so that people can plan ahead. We recognise the economic benefits for businesses and consumers in having trade across the UK but, given that a fundamental principle of devolution was to decentralise power so that we can meet our local needs and local circumstances, we have to accept the importance of innovation and regulatory learning that has come about. That is why we think that both the Scottish Government and our local councils should be able to set standards through public procurement, whether it is in terms of food procurement or in terms of the deal in terms of fair work. This is not the time to reject previously high standards, particularly in the aftermath of the ambitions that we all agreed at at COP26. Our committee was concerned that the internal market act and the subsidy control bill cut across the devolution settlement and it was expressed very effectively. One kind expressed concerns that the act limits our ability to improve farmed animal welfare standards. Professor Weatherill has been reported and said that the bill was the act has too much emphasis on liberalisation in markets versus local rights to regulate. Professor McEwen and her colleagues argued powerfully that the act gives a powerful disincentive to engage in legal reform or policy innovation. Scottish Environment linked expressed concerns about the lowering of environmental standards in relation to air, water and soil quality, which we should be worried about. We need greater transparency and we need to have effective inter-governmental work, but, as both Faisal Chowdry and Donald Cameron observed, we have also got to have inter-parliamentary debate, too. We had an excellent briefing on our committee report this morning. One of the things that I think comes across clearly is that we need an independent secretariat to resource and monitor common frameworks, a clear traffic light system so that citizens, businesses, campaign and stakeholder groups can also monitor common frameworks and alert us as MSPs to their interests and concerns, so that their issues can be raised and debated. There will be times when we want to diverge and innovate and we should be able to do that, but there will also be times when we want to align. That needs to be a debate conducted in public, not behind closed doors. Whether it is keeping pace or with the internal market, what must drive us is the principles of what we are trying to achieve. Environmental standards, quality products, support for our local economies and fair labour market standards. We need to see the subsidy bill enable strong public procurement that gets us not just value for money but is not a race to the bottom. We need innovative strategic government intervention, both by our Government in Scotland but also by our local authorities, where there is a strong case for action. I think that the UK Government needs to listen to the concerns that have been raised by our committee. Our report was unanimous. That is not something that we always get on a controversial or an issue where in the chamber we have had differences of opinion, but I want to come back to that point. Our committee was unanimous. I want the UK Government to listen to our recommendations. I want them to act and there is an issue about treating our parliaments across the UK with respect. The free passage of goods between the four parts of the United Kingdom, our largest and fastest growing export market, is not only desirable but essential for the economic wellbeing of Scotland and I think that we can all broadly agree upon that. However, I can understand why some members may have concerns about how all this is going to work. It is a complicated subject, as many of us have been finding out, and it does not look lightly that it will be simplified any time soon. Firstly, I think that it is important to clear up a couple of myths. In regard to the Sule convention, we have heard many claims that devolution is under assault, that the Sule convention has been violated and so on, but the clue is in the name. It is a convention, not an act or a set of regulations, and the Law Society of Scotland noted in their submission that there should be no inference drawn that the Sule convention has in any way been diluted. On the subject of policy divergence, there is plenty of room still for Scotland to choose its own way. In a blunt letter to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the previous cabinet secretary suggested that the eukema would threaten policies, such as the ban on smoking in public places, tuition fees and minimum unit pricing. That could not be further from the truth. As was well reported at the time, a mechanism now exists to create exemptions for policy divergence, providing a path for devolved Governments to choose their own way. Today, I would mainly like to focus on scrutiny. That is a matter that has come up time and time again in the committee, so I found it a little puzzling that it received such a brief mention in the report, totaling less than 1 per cent of the document. We have a huge weight of EU law coming into force each year. In 2020 alone, 1,562 different acts were adopted or amended by the EU. All that must be considered, particularly given the Scottish Government's decision to align to EU law wherever possible, regardless of how it interacts with UK policymaking. An appropriate independent Scottish monitoring service needs to be established. The divergence tracker made available to the committee is a good start, but it is not Scotland specific. The committee agrees, noting that robust guidance should be agreed between Government and Parliament on how transparent and meaningful scrutiny can be delivered. The message is clear. Parliament cannot be sidelined and neither can stakeholders. We must know when, why and what the Scottish Government is aligning with, or perhaps even more notably, when it is diverging from EU law. That decision-making process must be open and transparent, particularly when it comes to the keeping-pace power. To conclude, the keeping-pace power concerns me for a number of reasons, least of all the circumstances in which it would be used and how it would be used. Scrutiny of this provision is nearly impossible, with there only being an annual requirement to inform Parliament of when it has been used. Other than that, the only guide we have to its use is the policy statement and the comments of the cabinet secretary. That is simply not enough detail to go on, so I would call on the Scottish Government to implement a more transparent reporting process for this Parliament's peace of mind. My commendations to all members on all sides of the chamber for their contribution, I listen very closely to all of them. To the deputy convener who spoke on behalf of the convener, who we all wish a speedy recovery, he highlighted the three tensions in relation to open trade versus regulatory divergence, the impact on the devolution settlement and tensions between executive and legislature. I think that he is absolutely right. In a moment to speak about common frameworks, I ran out of time before being able to reach any comments in my opening contribution on that. Maurice Golden in his contribution, he talked about the importance of the UK market. I agree, but I do not agree with dependence on it. We are part of a far bigger trading world and we should not put all our eggs in one basket. No doubt we will be debating that in the months and the years to come. Faisol Choudra, on behalf of the Labour Party, praised the report, describing it as a watershed moment in terms of governance post Brexit and highlighted the tensions between devolved institutions and the UK Government. Willie Rennie slightly surprisingly told the chamber that we voted for Brexit. I can tell Willie Rennie that we most certainly did not vote for Brexit in this country. We voted to remain within the European Union and it is our intention to rejoin the European Union as a priority. Jenny Minto highlighted evidence that the Scottish Parliament can be overridden by Westminster. Yes, it can and that is not acceptable. Liz Smith again spoke oddly about being in favour of being economically dependent on the UK market and that we should constrain our ambitions to that, which frankly is somewhat limiting. Mark Ruskell highlighted the threat to devolution. Incidentally, I think that there was remarkable unanimity across the chamber recognising that that is the case in terms of the operation of the UK internal market act. He talked about frameworks and parliamentary accountability and a number of members of the Parliament have talked about this afternoon. I agree that we are going to have to get right. Sarah Boyack in her summing up on behalf of the Labour Party drew attention to the massive negative impact of Brexit and that transparency and accountability when it comes to intergovernmental relations is also important. I agree with her on that. Alasdair Allan, like other members of the committee, highlighted the increasing tensions to devolution because of the impact that the operation of the internal market act will have. Who can disagree with that? I was slightly confused about Sharon Dowey's point about reflecting only 1 per cent of the report. Scrutiny seems to me to be pretty important to most of the way through the report, and we in the Scottish Government take that extremely seriously. In summing up, the report considers the implications of the internal market act for the successful implementation and operation of common frameworks. I recognise the committee's frustration at the pace at which those are being rolled out, but it is important to recognise the damage that the act has done to the development of those alternative models for managing policy divergence based on equality, respect and progress by agreement. Most provisional frameworks have now been published or shared in confidence with committees ahead of parliamentary scrutiny, but I must stress that the only work of the UK Government is committed to making the work. I would like to emphasise, in conclusion, that work is under way to monitor and engage the act's impact on devolved policy. We continue to work closely with our colleagues in the other devolved administration, and we are working with the committee and the Scottish Parliament to address the complex post-Brexit landscape that the act is a part of. Thank you very much indeed, cabinet secretary. I now call on Donald Cameron to wind up the debate for around five minutes, Mr Cameron. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and of course closing for the committee. Can I just note that this has been a useful and informative debate, which will be extremely helpful in informing the committee's further considerations of the issues raised in our report? I appreciate the general favourable view that this report has had in the chamber this afternoon. Before responding or noting some of the excellent contributions from colleagues across the chamber, can I briefly outline the third tension that we identified in our inquiry, namely the tension between the executive and the legislature rising from a shift towards inter-governmental working in policy areas previously within EU competence? A significant risk for this Parliament is that the level of transparency and ministerial accountability that existed while the UK was a member state of the EU is either intentionally and or unintentionally diluted post exit. The committee has previously highlighted the need for increased transparency and ministerial accountability in relation to the Scottish Government's policy commitment to align with EU law. The committee recognises that transparency on the one hand and the need for confidentiality on the other can be a difficult circle to square when seeking to improve the scrutiny of inter-governmental relations. While recognising the challenge of vote, the committee nevertheless agrees with Professor McEwen that the recent IGR review by the four executives within the UK offers very little in improving transparency. The committee's view is that there is a need to reexamine the UK Government's approach to inter-governmental relations within the context of common frameworks. The committee is concerned that if the operation of these frameworks is viewed as being solely inter-governmental, it might undermine the Scottish Parliament's commitment to being accessible, open and responsive. The word that Mark Ruskell used was the potential for common frameworks to be opaque, and I was struck by that description. It might also undermine its ability to develop procedures that make possible a participative approach to the development, consideration and scrutiny of policy and legislation. The committee recommends that, to address those concerns, consideration needs to be given to opening up the common frameworks process to allow opportunity for public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny in significant policy areas prior to inter-governmental decisions being made. At the first meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Forum last week, we recommended that resolving the tension in the balance of relations between executive and legislature should be an immediate priority. The committee's view is that enhanced inter-parliamentary working is important in delivering more robust scrutiny of inter-governmental working, including common frameworks. I will briefly attempt a canter through the various contributions that were made by members. Maurice Golden spoke about the importance of trade within the UK, and he spoke about environmental targets at UK and EU level. Faisel Choudhury spoke about tensions within devolution and the need for future Governments to learn lessons. He also noted that the UK Internal Markets Act proceeded without the consent of either the Scottish Parliament or the Senate. Willie Rennie spoke about the importance of both the EU market and the UK market. He spoke about the two Governments, Scottish Government and UK Government preferring a ramming rather than trying to solve problems. Jenny Minthe spoke about the complexity. She said that economic integration was driven by London and the south-east, and that was not what was needed. In that regard, she quoted the NFUS and spoke about her experience talking to farmers and crofters in her constituency. She also made an important point about the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality that exist in the EU but do not exist in the UK internal market act framework, where there is a very different and more restrictive environment in her view. Liz Smith spoke about the significance of the UK internal market and of her initial fear about the devolution settlement and the need to protect regulatory differences. Mark Ruskell made an excellent speech in which he reminded us that, in his view, this debate reminded us of what we lost in leaving the EU. He noted the role of the EU in protecting people and the planet. He used the phrase that the UK internal market act, in his opinion, threatened the laboratory of devolution and said that the principles of subsidiarity and trust had been replaced by tension. Alasdair Allan spoke about environmental policy. He quoted FIDRA, one of the witnesses to the committee and the need for policymaking to be developed at a devolved level and then replicated in the UK. Like others, he concentrated on the issue of consent or lack thereof from the Scottish Parliament, and he finished by saying that the internal market act seeks to clear Scotland's wings. Sarah Boyack in closing spoke about focus on recommendations about intergovernmental working and clarity that is needed in people who have to be able to plan ahead and also wanted greater transparency. Sharon Dowie spoke about the free passage of goods being desirable and the complexity here and the difficulty in simplifying matters. She took a different view of the Sewell Convention and quoted the Law Society. Finally, the Cabinet Secretary, and I'm grateful for his acknowledgement of the issues that are raised by this report and I welcome his commitment on behalf of the Government to consider at length and in a measured way the issues that we've raised, and he reiterated views of the Scottish Government in relation to many of the matters therein. Finally, can I just conclude that we welcome the reception that this report has had, and I'm grateful for the constructive turn of this debate. No doubt it is a subject that we will revisit in due course. Thank you. That concludes the debate on UK internal market inquiry. Before I move on to the next item of business, can I remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place and that face-covering should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus?