 The next item of business is a debate on motion 6, 7, 3, 2, in the name of Claire Adamson on behalf of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee on the impact of Brexit on devolution. I would invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request-to-speak buttons. I call on Claire Adamson on behalf of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee to speak to and to move the motion. Around nine minutes, please, Ms Adamson. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. May I first thank my committee clerks, our advisers and all those who gave evidence and submission to our inquiry for their interest in support. Presiding Officer, there shall be a Scottish Parliament. Six simple words, but almost exactly 24 years ago, the Scotland Act, the statutory underpinning of our Scottish Parliament, became law. First lines of legislation are seldom memorable, but I would suggest that this is the exception. The most recent Scotland Act enacted in 2016 was intended, in the words of Prime Minister David Cameron, to deliver one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world. However, the impact of Brexit, as well as UK legislation following the UK's withdrawal from Europe, cannot be overstated. The conventions that underpin devolution are coming under strain. That was the key message from our inquiry. A report into the impact of Brexit and devolution was informed by evidence sessions that were aimed at legislative consent, by which the devolved legislature indicates that it is content for the UK Parliament to pass law on a devolved area. The UK-EU trade incorporation agreement, the TCA, implementation of the protocol on Northern Ireland and retained EU law, a bill that is currently passing through the Commons, and inter-governmental relations that runs through all of those topics. We chose to focus on three areas—regulatory divergence, the sole convention and delegated powers, which my deputy convener will cover in his summing up. While technical in nature, our report is about how we legislate and what we regulate. There are implications for our everyday lives, including in how we do business, how we protect the environment and how we ensure the safety of both the products on our shelves and the food on our plates. Our earlier report, published in February, highlighted the tension that can exist between open trade and regulatory divergence. In that report, we looked at the extent to which regulatory divergence is limited both within the UK internal market and between the UK internal market and the EU single market. We addressed the possibility of different policy and legislative priorities within the four nations of the UK and the extent to which devolution needs to evolve to allow for that. When the UK was a member of the EU, options for divergence within the UK and devolved policy areas within EU competence were minimal. The statutory obligation was on the UK to comply with EU law. Of course, that obligation no longer applies, except in the case of Northern Ireland, although the protocol bill currently being passed through the UK Parliament may change that, too. We should also note that the policy of both the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government is to keep pace with Europe. It is now possible for a much higher level of regulatory divergence both within the four parts of the UK and between the UK and the EU. There are commitments to non-regression in environmental standards, labour rights and social responsibility in the TCA. In that way, the TCA seeks to establish a level playing field between the EU and the UK on trade and investment. However, it is important to note that divergence is allowed under the TCA. Professor Catherine Barnard spoke of active and passive divergences. The former can arise from a deliberate policy choice, the latter due to EU-level decisions that the UK no longer needs to follow. However, our businesses must comply with EU law to be able to sell into Europe. We do not know the extent to which a non-regression principle and the level playing field provisions might therefore limit regulatory divergence. Did the committee come up with any actual examples of practical divergence that is causing harm right now? I cannot really find any great examples of that, so the whole exercise seems to be rather futile. I would suggest not, Mr Rennie, but in terms of the examples, they were in the evidence that was given to the committee, and I would refer them to that evidence. Also, the fact that this is an extremely fast-moving situation, and almost as we are looking at these issues, other things come on the table, such as the Northern Irish protocol bill. It is a technical bill, but it does lay out the challenges that may face us ahead in this situation. The Northern Irish protocol negotiated in Brexit settlement is a further complicating factor. Dr Lisa Clair Whitten told us that the UK must keep Northern Ireland aligned with any changes made in the EU legal instruments, including within the scope of the protocol. That has been described as dynamic alignment. To date, that has involved 300 instruments and suggests UK-EU divergence leading in time to divergence between the Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. The fundamental question that has been asked is the extent to which devolution settlement can accommodate that divergence. Dr Whitten suggests that the Scottish Government's commitment to align with EU law, where appropriate could mean potentially opting into the same divergencies trajectory as Northern Ireland under the protocol. John Thompsons and Sons at Belfast-based Business said that the challenge for Scotland is how do we follow EU regulations when we are under the UK single market rules. During a visit to Brussels in June, we had first hand of the EU's concerns for the integrity of the single market, whether divergence could impact safeguarding in the public in areas such as animal health or food safety, which brings me to the retained EU law bill. I won't say too much about that here, given that we are taking evidence on the legislative consent memorandum next week in our committee. To quote the Welsh Government, any proposals to deregulate in a way that could reduce the important social and environmental protections and high product standards that consumers and workers in Wales have come to expect are not acceptable. Clearly, there is a substantive difference between the UK Government and the devolved Scottish and Welsh Governments, and that raises questions concerning the capacity of the UK to potentially accommodate four different regulatory environments within a cohesive internal market, while complying with international agreements. Whether existing institutional mechanisms are sufficient to resolve differences or disputes between the four Governments and how devolution should evolve to address those. If I could turn to the Sule Convention, the Sule Convention would be the mechanism for obtaining the consent of a devolved legislature where the UK Parliament intends to pass primary legislation in a devolved area. Sule Convention established that the UK Parliament would quote not normally legislate in areas that are devolved without the agreement of the devolved institutions. The Institute for Government observed that, prior to 2018, consent had been withheld by one or other of the devolved legislatures on just nine occasions and in Scotland's case, only once. The UK Parliament had never passed legislation without consent when the relevant provisions fell within the scope of Sule. Since 2018, there have been six Brexit-related brils passed at Westminster without the consent of the Parliament. Dr Chris MacOrkendale, the committee's adviser, noted that pre-Brexit, the convention was understood to have both a policy and constitutional arm, was respected as a constitutional rule that protected devolved autonomy and facilitated shared government, that any decision to withhold consent was an exception rather than the rule, and legislation in devolved areas would only be made when it was felt necessary in the part of the UK Government or invited by the Scottish Government. In Professor Nicola McEwan's view, the paradox of the Sule convention is that it only functioned as a principle and process that fostered culture and cooperation as long as its limits were less untested. We believe that there is clearly a need for public debate about those issues, and our committee has lodged a call for evidence to encourage businesses and civic society in the wider public to join that debate. I welcome this debate this afternoon, and I move the motion in my name. Thank you, Ms Adamson. I now call on Neil Gray, minister to speak, and around eight minutes, please, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Scottish Government welcomes this thoughtful and important unanimous report from the committee, and I join the convener, Claire Adamson, in thanking the members and the clerks for their work in this important report. The report clearly demonstrates that the impact of Brexit on devolution has been entirely negative, or in the committee's words, I quote, there are fundamental concerns that need to be addressed by the Scottish Parliament in relation to how devolution works outside the EU. The causes for these concerns are clear. The Sewell convention has been undermined. The views of this Parliament have been ignored. The UK Government ministers have given themselves powers to intrude into devolved matters without any need to for our consent, but none of that is surprising. After all, the slogan of the Brexit campaign was to take back control. It was always going to be hard to believe that the UK Government would take back control from its imagined subservience to the EU, only to share powers and decision making with the devolved Governments. Devolution was always going to suffer from the instinct to hoard power in Whitehall, combined with the continued claim of unlimited parliamentary sovereignty of Westminster. It is crucial that these consequences of Brexit are widely understood. The Scottish Government therefore fully supports the committee's recommendation that, I quote, there needs to be a much wider public debate to address the fundamental questions arising from the impact of Brexit on how devolution works. In those remarks, I am going to concentrate on the two areas of particular concern identified by the committee, the Sewell convention and UK ministers' power to act in devolved areas. First, the report lays out clearly the damage that has been done to the Sewell convention since Brexit. Until the 2016 referendum, the Sewell convention had been observed consistently by UK Governments and Parliament since 1999. The convention was therefore functioning as intended, protecting the competence of this Parliament and the Scottish Government from unwanted actions by the UK Government using the still unlimited powers of Westminster on areas of responsibility vested here. That has not been the case since 2016, as the report sets out. On six occasions, the UK Government sought the consent of this Parliament and then ignored our views. On each of those occasions, after this Parliament has refused its consent, the UK Government has claimed that circumstances are not normal so that it can proceed with its preferred route, set aside our inconvenient disagreement. However, the circumstances of those bills are precisely what the convention was intended to prevent. To take the most prominent and damaging example, the UK Internal Market Act, legislation that was in no way necessary to implement Brexit, that act changed the competence of this Parliament indirectly through the market access principles and directly by reserving subsidy control. Those are exactly the kinds of changes to our competence that the Sewell convention was designed to prevent. The view of the Scottish Government is that the convention can have no force if it can and is set aside by the UK Government on the grounds that it wants to impose its preferred policy approach on the Scottish Parliament against our express wishes. The convention can provide no meaningful protection for this Parliament if the UK Government can decide circumstances are not normal retrospectively after the Scottish Parliament has made its decision and refused consent. I give way. I am very grateful to Neil Gehrig to give way. Does he agree with me, although the power does not lie in this place, that the need for a legislative consent motion should appear far more fully at the front of a bill in Westminster, so that all members of the Parliament down the road are aware of the need to seek the consent of the devolved authorities? Martin Watfield speaks with some authority, having served in that house down the road. I agree with him that that would be a very useful measure to bring attention to colleagues down the road as to the implications of what the debate is and deciding. I think that that would be a very novel prospect for colleagues down the road to consider. However, I do not hold my breath as to that coming about given the disrespect to this place and the other devolved Governments and Parliaments since Brexit in particular. The UK Government has therefore downgraded the convention from a constitutional role as a convention should be into an optional process that it might observe if it wishes. We are now faced with the retained EU law bill, which will repeal important regulations and safeguards built up through 47 years of EU membership. This Parliament has made clear its desire to align with the high standards of the EU, and we have passed our own continuity bill. There must be severe doubts to say the least that the UK Government will change the bill to exclude devolved matters, whatever the view of this Parliament or businesses and people across Scotland. The process of Brexit has therefore done severe damage to the sole convention as the committee's report makes clear. However, we should be clear that it is not Brexit itself, disastrous though Brexit is for Scotland that has enabled this constitutional damage, it is the fundamental design of the UK system that allows the UK Government and Westminster to oppose and overrule in this way. I give way to the world. I am a strong supporter of the keeping pace powers, but there are thousands of legal instruments going through Europe on a regular basis. How many have involved keeping pace through the Scottish Parliament process? We want to make sure that we continue to align with the European Union as closely as possible. Unfortunately, the actions of Westminster have made it very difficult for us to be able to do that in all cases, but we will always seek, as far as possible, to ensure that we can maintain high standards of EU regulation in spite of the fact that we are expecting a bin fire of regulation coming from Westminster. I hope that Willie Rennie would support that purpose in spite of the fact that his UK colleagues support Brexit and are not returning into the EU as yet. That was a deliberate choice of the UK Government. It could, in the 2016 Scotland Act before Brexit—four prime ministers, I believe—have set out binding legal safeguards for Seoul and this Parliament, as recommended by the Smith commission. It chose not to, but to enact a much weaker form of safeguard that provides no legal protection at all. Wherever colleagues stand on the question of Scottish independence, and there is, of course, a majority for independence in this chamber, as elected by the people of Scotland, that should concern us all. I am also grateful to the committee for highlighting the growing issue of UK ministers' power to act in devolved areas. The Delocated Powers and Law Reform Committee has also done important work on the subject, particularly on the UK's professional qualifications bill that I set out in the report. Like the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland, the Scottish Government opposes Brexit, which has been imposed upon us. However, given that imposition, there are practical legislative matters that need to be addressed. In our approach to Brexit, which Brexit legislation would clearly rather not have, we have accepted that there can be circumstances in which UK or GB-wide secondary legislation may be the most appropriate way to legislate. That was particularly true when faced with the volume and time constraints of legislation as a result of Brexit. Pragmatically, we were therefore able to accept concurrent powers in Brexit legislation when accompanied by understandings that allowed this Parliament to scrutinise the exercise of those powers. However, as the report sets out, such concurrent powers are becoming more and more common in UK Government legislative proposals. It is crucial that any such powers have the right statutory protections for the Scottish Government and this Parliament. Again, the retained EU law bill will be an important test of the UK Government's willingness to take account of the views of this Parliament and indeed the Senate. The bill contains extensive powers for UK ministers to act in devolved areas without the need for consent. That is completely unacceptable and leaves soul in absolute tatters. The best course of action would be to scrap this bill altogether, but failing that, it must be amended to prevent any further undermining of this Parliament. Back in 2016, the UK Government promised that the powers of this Parliament would be enhanced and expanded because of Brexit. Like all the promises made about leaving the EU, that has proved to be the opposite of the truth. Far from enhancing this Parliament, Brexit has seen the UK Government and Westminster undermine and constrain our powers and responsibilities. The wishes of the people of Scotland have been ignored and Brexit has led to the end of the Sule convention as a reliable and binding rule of the constitutional order. It has led to UK ministers taking powers to act in devolved areas without consent. It has demonstrated that the UK is no voluntary union of equal partners. The Scottish Government believes that there must be a wide public debate on all those matters in Scotland and seriously consideration of the best future for our country, including independence, as the only way by which we can overturn the damage of Brexit, the democratic deficit and undermining of this Parliament by Westminster. Therefore, we welcome this report and support its recommendations for such a debate. As a member of the constitution, Europe, external affairs and culture committee, can I first start by extending my thanks to the clerks and all those who have provided evidence to enable the committee to produce the report impact of Brexit on the devolution settlement? As exemplified in the report, the evidence provided has covered a wide range of emerging, legislative and constitutional developments brought about since Brexit. The report and the evidence presented to the committee highlights that the devolution settlement has faced a number of challenges as a result of the UK leaving the EU and as we continue to transition to a new legislative framework and new constitutional arrangements, it is critical that we keep the devolution settlement central to the decision making process and continue to develop and evolve it to best reflect the interests of Scotland's people and its two governments. Throughout the evidence received by the committee, it is clear that the best option for respecting the devolution settlement and developing it is through dialogue, consensual working and mutual respect. The Scottish Government must work closely with the UK Government and the UK Government must work closely with the Scottish Government in order to achieve this. I first of all welcome Maurice Golden's comments around the importance of the devolution settlement being respected, but can he advise colleagues how he expects that respect agenda to be continued if Westminster Governments continue to ignore the Scottish Parliament with the Senate, turning down legislative consent in areas of devolved responsibility? First of all, from personal experience, when I was chief whip during the Brexit period, my Opposition number Graham Day was regularly briefed by the UK Government and I was kept in the dark. He used to inform me about what legislation was progressing through, and I think that shows the respect between the two Governments. I will need to make some progress just at the moment. Throughout the evidence received by the committee, it is clear that the best option for us to date has been strains that have tested elements of the devolution settlement, take the sole convention that the Minister just raised. Since Brexit, its application and interpretation has clearly been tested in a new way. The recent review of intergovernmental relations undertaken jointly by the UK Government and the devolved Administrations recognises those challenges, but through dialogue and conversation, those strains can be resolved, and the introduction of new intergovernmental machinery for engagement is designed to promote collaboration and avoid disagreements. Where disagreements still exist, a new dispute resolution mechanism has been put in place to address those disagreements, and a number of witnesses providing evidence noted the importance of this new process as a mechanism that could address any future disagreements between Governments. Much has been made by the SNP of the impact of the UK internal market bill on devolution, but through its implementation, the UK Government is clear that it wants to protect the devolution settlement and work with devolved Administrations on the principles of mutual respect, trust and respecting the reserved powers of each devolved Government. The SNP claimed that the UK internal market act would, and I quote, greenlight the UK Government to halt progress in setting of regulations and standards, but to date, there has been no rollback on regulations in areas such as the environment. In fact, the UK is making even firmer commitments than the EU. Since Brexit, I am happy to Jenny Minto. I thank Maurice Golden for taking an intervention. Is it fair to say, Mr Golden, that the EU sets a minimum and, as a member of the European Union, we could expand our environmental targets? Maurice Golden? The reality is that the UK Government is going further than the EU requires. In fact, that is what the opposite of what the SNP has suggested. The reality is quite different. Since Brexit, the Scottish Parliament has received powers over a whole host of new competencies, and it will be at the discretion of the Scottish Government to decide how it deals with retained EU law that is devolved and where and when it might want to align to EU law. That, in turn, could create regulatory divergence between Scotland and the rest of the UK, but to date no major tensions have arisen. That might be largely because the Scottish Government has chosen not to align with newly introduced EU law, despite it being its stated default policy to do so. However, at some point in the future, there will no doubt be situations where constructive dialogue is required. Through existing common frameworks and the introduction of new ones, if required, any tensions within devolved settlement can be resolved by managing regulatory divergence on a consensual basis. The evidence that the committee has heard on the Northern Ireland protocol bill highlights a number of challenges regarding the devolution settlement, but, again, progress is being made on the issue. The Prime Minister's stated position on the subject is to find a negotiated settlement with the EU, and he is confident that, with goodwill and pragmatism, a breakthrough can happen in negotiations over the protocol. It is clear that it is taking time for Scotland's two Governments to come to terms with the new constitutional and legislative arrangements that have arisen as a result of Brexit, and that is work in progress. Critically, work is progressing. As we move forward, legitimate issues regarding the impact of Brexit on the devolution settlement still exist. Those are surmountable, but parties will have to want to work together to resolve those issues. The UK Government has a clear incentive to ensure that, as a result of Brexit, the devolution settlement is protected, but can the same be said of the SNP Government? Their actions and rhetoric regarding Brexit show that they will take every opportunity to sow division for their own political grandstanding. There is a clear choice for the SNP to act in their own political interests and their obsession with separation, or to act in the interests of the Scottish people and engage in the process constructively. I also want to add my thanks to all those who gave evidence to our committee and to the work of the committee clerks in the vital work that they do. To start off by saying that many of us did not want to be here in this place, dealing with the consequences of the UK's departure from the EU, and the current workload of our key act committee demonstrates the on-going fallout, which is the result of actions by the UK Conservative Government, whether intentionally or by accident, the impact of Brexit on the UK's constitutional settlement was not taken into account and was not considered by them during Brexit or since. I hope that Maurice Golden's optimism is informed, because it is not what you say, it is what you do. There were two broad areas in the committee's inquiry regulating divergence and the sole convention. There has been some good debate this afternoon about the sole convention, which I want to follow up with, but we have voted unanimously to condemn the Northern Ireland protocol being proposed by the UK Government. That was in June this year, and it was due to our collective concerns about trade, international law and the integrity of the Good Friday agreement. However, it is just one of the pieces of legislation introduced by the Tories at Westminster that not only challenges trade and cohesion, but also, as Clare Adamson said, our constitutional settlement. I will take an intervention in Mr Martin Whitfield. I'm very grateful to Sarah Boyack for taking that point. She mentions the Good Friday agreement. Does she agree with me that one of the strengths of that was that it was, in essence, an international agreement reached with co-operation across a number of countries, a number of interested parties? One of the challenges of Brexit is that we appear now to have a wall about discussing with our neighbours the solutions to problems that we have. That is absolutely right. I think that it is incumbent on the Conservative Government to acknowledge that and accept it. That is why we need change. It is ensuring parliamentary accountability and transparency. It is not just people in this Parliament that I would say to my colleague Martin Whitfield that are concerned. If you look at the work that has been done in the House of Lords, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, one of the reports was called, Governed by Dictat, and the other one was called, Democracy Denied Question Mark. There is concern across the UK and Stella Crease's powerful speech on the Northern Ireland protocol bill actually brings it to life that there is not just us in this chamber. In fact, securing unanimity in this report tells you something about the cross-party work that we are doing in this Parliament, but it is not just the cross-party work that we are doing. We also need work from the Scottish Government. Willie Rennie's point was really important. We were discussing this very morning the need at our committee for open and transparent reporting from the Scottish Government on the use of the keeping-pace powers, but critically also where the keeping-pace powers are not used. It does require work. I want to follow up the comments that have been made by colleagues about the Sewell Convention. Its origins were in the passage of the Labour Government's Scotland Bill in 1998, when Lord Sewell said that the UK Parliament would not normally legislate and devolve matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. What is interesting is how successful that has been since 1999, but it has been since 2018 where the number of occasions where Parliaments refused its consent is on the increase. Previous to that, we had a mechanism for dialogue between the UK and Scottish Governments, both at ministerial and official level, enabling shared policy objectives and enabling them to be achieved as quickly as possible. The work that was done putting the convention in the Parliaments Standing Orders in 2005 following the procedures committee report in the convention, I think, was constructive. As others have said, the evidence is clear. Professor Eileen McHard pointed out that the convention has been searly tested by the Brexit process and its on-going legislative aftermath. We have had the experience of people working together across party, the Kalman and the Smith commissions, both changed the powers of the Parliament, but there has been a constitutional failure to respect the devolution settlement after the passage of Brexit. Things cannot be allowed to go on as they are, so we need action. I was not surprised when the minister said that independence is the only solution, but as we all know, independence is Brexit times 10, so let's focus and change what we can deliver now that would make the difference. We need to increase transparency and accountability, not just between the Governments but to enable our Parliaments in Scotland, Wales, UK and Northern Ireland to hold our Governments to account. We published a paper over the summer, Scottish Labour, to require a duty to co-operate, because, increasingly, there are policy areas where we need to work together. For example, we suggested a governance council on energy to give a joint approach between the powers that we have on planning and the reserved powers in the grid to make sure that we can deliver the low-carbon, affordable renewables that we all aspire to, replacing the House of Lords with the directly elected Senate of House and Regions. We need to send a clear message to the Tory Government. We have had a unanimous committee report, there lack of respect is unacceptable and we need urgent action to deliver transparency, accountability and scrutiny. I would also like to see the Scottish Government doing the heavy lifting at the ministerial and government level. We need to work hard and it will be right across our committees to hold our Scottish Government but also the UK Government to reflect on where we want to align with the EU but to debate where we do not. Our constituents, our businesses and our environmental campaigners need to see that transparency. It is up to people across the chamber to work and to send a clear message that change is needed and it is needed urgently. I probably thought that I was being critical of the committee's report. Far from it, it was Brexit, I was calling, futile but also incredibly damaging. We have seen some of the facts, the evidence that has emerged within the last few months. Europe's largest stock market is now in Paris, not London, for the first time since records began. The Centre for European Reform did a study and looked at the impact of the UK's economy of Brexit and comparing that with other countries of similar economic records. The conclusion was sobering. The final quarter of 2021, GDP was 5.2 per cent smaller. Investment was 13.7 per cent lower. The good trade was 13.6 per cent lower. GDP investment, good trade, all lower than what they would have been if the UK had remained in the EU. Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of England, said in 2016 that the British economy was 90 per cent the size of Germany's. Now it is less than 70 per cent. He went on that devaluation that was associated with that did not bring an upside because it was sabotaged by the barriers that we put up at the borders preventing those improvements in exports. Michael Saunders, who recently left the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee, said that the UK economy as a whole has been permanently damaged by Brexit. What is interesting is that those problems have been created because of trade barriers, restrictions on immigration and also low confidence, rather than divergence. We are talking primarily today about the consequences of divergence, but my point is that I think that the damage that has been done so far is not through divergence but because of all those other factors. What is striking about the devaluation aspects is that this debate does not seem to have moved on in three years. It is still the same issues that we were discussing three years ago and many years before that as well. We are still at the stage of discussing possibilities rather than firm problems that may look like could have littered throughout the report. However, the hyperbole, on both sides I have to say, is as striking as it was three years ago. On the one hand, it is claimed that there is massive ramifications for devaluation and on the other hand, Brexit freedoms will free the United Kingdom. Neither have materialised or taken intervention in the minister. Thank you. I thank Willie Watt-Rennie for giving way. Does he not accept though that there has been a clear impact on devaluation? Given the six areas that we have already talked about where the legislative consent has been refused by this Parliament and yet the Westminster Government has continued to progress and the probability of them continuing to do so on the upcoming retained EU law bill? Willie Watt-Rennie can give you the time back. My main point is that we have not really had debates about substance on divergence. I understand that there are technical issues and I understand the real problems of the sole convention. I get all that, but there are issues around about divergence that have not materialised in the way that has been claimed. The reasons are pretty clear because if you look at the pressures that are being applied to the United Kingdom, they are quite significant. We have not really had the benefits of the Brexit freedoms if you look at what George Eustace has said this week when he condemned the Australia deal. There is no massive benefits from Brexit, as was claimed. We have only done three trade deals. One was with Europe, the TCA, one was with New Zealand and the other one with Australia. We have not really gained much more. In fact, it is more restrictive than what we had obviously with Europe. Australia and New Zealand are hardly models for success. My point is that we have not really benefited from those apparent Brexit freedoms, but neither have we had the degree of divergence that was talked about as well. When I challenged the minister about how many times the keeping-pace powers has been used, he was not able to really tell me, even though thousands of instruments are going through the European Commission frequently. He was unable to tell me that. We have not really got a work-out process that shall return to later on. I have opposed Brexit. I have been very clear about that. I believe that it was in an interconnected world that theoretical independence was a complete folly. It has introduced bureaucratic and physical barriers at ports that have slowed down and often prevented trade, not because of any divergence issue but because that really has not happened yet, as far as I can see. The reality is that powerful forces drive the United Kingdom, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the EU into alignment, whatever the actual constitutional arrangement. The first and most powerful is the need to trade. The EU is a massive market for United Kingdom's goods, vice versa 2. Manufacturers are not going to produce two production lines in order to trade separately with UK standards and European standards. They are going to meet the best standard and sell into both. That is pretty clear, the report highlights that. The second is that Northern Ireland is a dynamic alignment, which means that the UK will be constantly conscious of the regulations as they impact Northern Ireland and therefore as they impact the United Kingdom. Finally is the non-regression arrangements in the trade and co-operation agreement, which means that there is a degree of pragmatic alignment between the EU and the UK. Those irresistible forces mean that divergence, although it is theoretically possible—yes, it is theoretically possible—may turn out not to be as traumatic as first feared. Brexit is still incredibly damaging. I have already highlighted that. When they even got started on diversion, if it ever does happen. Equally, Brexit freedoms are unlikely to be as dynamic and beneficial as first promoted too. It begs the question, why do we bother with all of this? What was the point of doing Brexit if we are actually not going to get any of the benefits, none of the benefits? Equally, the argument about using Europe to drive towards independence is equally folly, because we should not be using European issues to drive independence. We should be learning the lessons of Brexit, the chaos that it has already caused in terms of trade and economic damage. Equally, it is futile. I think that the whole process is futile. The fact is that we still do not really know, and the report highlights this, we do not really know how much divergence there has actually been. If we do not actually know, does it really affect our daily lives? I am not even sure that it really does. I hate politics sometimes, because it is all bloody fabricated. The whole thing is just inflated. The inflated arguments and hyperbole do not really help the argument. What do we need to do? I may need to save you from yourself, Mr Rennie, but if you could be getting winding up, that would be very grateful. I will conclude. My answers to all of this, as you would expect, is featherlism, an agreement between the nations and regions of the UK to agree and work together, to continue to push towards alignment with Europe, to make sure that we work together to remove the trade barriers so that we can all grow together and, for goodness sake, let us not go down the path of independence. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Rennie. We now move to the open debate. I call Jenny Minto to be followed by Oliver Mundell for a generous six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would also like to put on record my thanks to those who took part in our round-table discussions and submitted evidence, the clerks for their diligent work and my fellow committee members for leaving party allegiances at the committee room door to allow us to scrutinise this important subject, the impact of Brexit on devolution. As Sarah Boyack has said, we really did not want to be here. If I may convener, I am going to slightly stray into the committee's evidence session last week on the retained EU law. Bill, I asked about the practical impact of this legislation on the normal person in the street. How would they be affected? Perhaps Mr Rennie would like to listen to what Dr Kirsty Hood KC said. She noted that EU legislation is woven into so much of our law over the past 47 years. She said that it is difficult to imagine a sector or area of the law in which there has not been an impact of some kind, although that impact might not always be obvious to people during their daily life or daily business. I believe that the same can be said for Brexit on our devolved settlement. Each decision around Brexit is related. Each piece of legislation is related. Those have or will impact on our devolution settlement. As our convener laid out in her introduction, we gathered evidence on legislative consent, implementation of the TCA and Northern Ireland protocol, retained EU law and inter-governmental relationships. During our evidence session on the TCA, I was struck with a response from Professor Ian Forrester to a question about collaboration and co-ordination between the Governments of the Four Nations of the UK. He suggested, and took a slightly different view from that of Maurice Golden, that there was perhaps an elephant in the room, suggesting that there is a difficulty in the UK Government's approach to relationships with other countries, which, I quote, hinders the resolution of daily problems that neighbours have to confront. Reading the report and reviewing some of the evidence that we heard, I reflected that setting the right tone and building constructive relationships, whether between the EU and the UK or across the devolved nations, was key to making the best out of a bad situation. Perhaps we need to confront that elephant in the room. I am very grateful to Jenny Minto for giving me on what I think is a really essential element of this discussion, which is about relationships. Would she agree with me that perhaps it is for the Parliament rather than the Governments to try and build these relationships in particular to get over the challenges of legislative consent? I thank the member for that intervention. As I said earlier, there has to be better relationships or stronger relationships between Governments, but I also thank the Parliament, and as I will touch on later in my speech. That is true for economic reasons and for political ones. As our report says, some of our witnesses highlighted the impact of the UK economy of divergence from EU regulatory standards. The EU is the largest single market in the world. 2019 data shows that the value of Scotland's manufactured goods exports to the EU and the rest of the world was higher than the value of exports to the rest of the United Kingdom. Businesses in Scotland therefore need to be aware of any divergences as they may in effect stop goods and services getting into the EU market. Dr Zuleig told us that, as long as there is an economic relationship, what is decided in Brussels matters hugely to the UK economy and UK businesses. As I would argue, as long as Scotland is part of the UK, what is decided in London matters hugely to the Scottish economy and Scottish businesses. For example, as Willie Rennie has already mentioned, the UK's flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is not an example of global Britain at its best, but is not actually a very good deal according to the former Environment Secretary George Eustace. Many of us have known this for a long time, but now that a former Conservative Environment Secretary has fessed up, there can be no credible dispute about it now. The admission in a week where the London stock market was eclipsed by Paris is Europe's largest, not the Brexit bonus the people of Scotland were promised. However, Professor McEwen did highlight the Scottish Government's productive relationship with DEFRA compared to the more strained relationship with the Department for Business, Enterprise and Innovation. I find this inconsistency in the UK Government's departments' relationships with Scotland very concerning. How can that lead to the best decisions being made? The committee heard that both the Scottish and Welsh Governments have raised concerns in recent legislative consent memorandums about the lack of meaningful engagement prior to the introduction of UK bills. For example, in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol bill, the Welsh Senate notes that the lack of engagement plainly breaches the principle in the intergovernmental relations review that sets out how the UK and devolved Governments should work with each other. We took evidence on the operation of the Sewell Convention as has been discussed and debated earlier. I would also comment on Martin Whitfield's intervention earlier that the House of Lords Constitution Committee believed that it would be desirable for all efforts to be taken to resolve substantive disagreements on legislative consent matters before a bill is introduced to Parliament. In its view, that could be achieved through the more robust arrangements for joint working, including the new dispute resolution process agreed as part of the review of intergovernmental relations. I began by suggesting that the elephant in the room was the state of relationships between legislators across the UK and the UK Government's relationship with the European Union. I am pleased that, in our conclusions, the committee has acknowledged that and has already shared and discussed the report at the recent Inter-Parliamentary Forum in Cardiff, but also, importantly, is extending the discussion more widely and will launch a significant committee inquiry that will allow businesses, civic society and the wider public in Scotland to engage in those very important issues. I would normally start a speech like this by saying what a pleasure it is to have the opportunity to speak in the debate, but the hours wasted in the previous session listening to Michael Russell ranting about Brexit continue to traumatise me. Never in the history of devolution has so much full outrage and grievance been shoehorned into the same contribution, and I mean the same contribution because members who will present for present will know that it was literally the same speech under a slightly different debating title delivered on a near weekly basis. I make this point for a serious reason, as I believe it highlights what was a major missed opportunity for this Parliament and, indeed, the Scottish Government to influence the detailed and practical realities of leaving the EU. Instead of working constructively in Scotland's interest as part of Team UK, the strategy, as so often was the case, is to stoke maximum grievance. I actually find Oliver Mundell's comments astounding because I am old enough to remember because I was sat in the House of Commons at the time when the Scottish Government put forward its suggestions of a compromise that was rejected out of hand by Theresa May right before she set out her statement at Lancaster Houts, which set out her self-defeating red line. So what basis could Oliver Mundell suggest that the Scottish Government didn't approach the perspective from a constructive basis and was just disrespected by the UK Government? Presiding Officer, because the Scottish Government's approach was to block Brexit, it wasn't about making the best of a situation, albeit I accept that it didn't want. It was about blocking and disrupting the process throughout. It was working behind the UK Government's back with EU politicians and officials, and it was about trying to stoke grievance and promote independence rather than build consensus in the UK. I think that that is very disappointing. I think that it is disrespectful to the people of Scotland and I think that we continue to see that now as we seek to try and build and rebuild trust to improve inter-governmental relations. The truth is that it is the same bad faith actors, albeit minus Michael Russell, who retained their seat at the table. Scotland's interests are represented by a Scottish Government that not only doesn't want Brexit to work but doesn't want the UK to work. It is led by a First Minister who doesn't believe in devolution. All of that is against the backdrop where the wider political debate is poisoned by a toxic nationalism that tries to tell us that leaving the EU has been disruptive, while simultaneously telling my constituents that border checks on their doorstep would be nothing to worry about. Those are the same people telling us that recent financial turmoil could have been avoided, whilst promoting a half-baked currency plan for an independent Scotland. Talk about hypocrisy. From a sedentary position and right on cue, some people may be asking why does this matter? How does this relate to today's debate? The truth is that it is exactly why we find the mechanics of our constitution and inter-parliamentary workings under strain. I am not trying to deny that Brexit has added to this, but I think that it would be wrong to ignore the far more significant tensions at play. I am firmly of the view that these find their route in the uncharitable and undemocratic way in which senior leaders in the SNP refuse to accept the decision of the 2014 referendum, rather than setting our country on a course of unity. Instead, we got more division. Alasdair Allan. I am not sure if at any point he intends to turn his attention to the report that we are debating, but I just want to ask him if he acknowledges that the report that we should be talking about is not merely the views of politicians. It is the views of people like the law society, it is the views of people like the Hansard society who gave us evidence, who talked about a number of the UK Government's constitutional developments of late as representing something close to a constitutional crisis. Oliver Mundell. I do not deny evidence that the committee has received, but I think that our job is to work out how we got to this point and what is causing the problem. I think that we can't have an environment of meaningful and constructive co-operation when you have one party in those negotiations and discussions whose sole aim, whose reason for existing, is to try and make sure that those do not work. I recognise the committee of putting in considerable effort to bring the report forward and to identify areas for further exploration, but that does not in itself deliver the political will or environment to take them forward. While, like other members, and I believe the vast majority of Scots, I want to see both Scotland's Governments working together to make this Parliament and devolution work well. I recognise the reality that some members will be more interested in next week's Supreme Court ruling than in following through on the hard work that it will take to make the recommendations in this report real. In this environment, what hope do we have? The saddest thing is that I do not believe that my constituents expect anything to change anytime soon. Although the SNP continues to put its own narrow political interests and its desire to divide our communities first, nor do I. Like others, I would like to begin today by thanking all those who made the committee's report possible, including all fellow committee members, committee clerks and the many experts who, as I mentioned, gave evidence to us. While I will not be so unwise as to attempt to speak for all committee members today, I do think that it was creditable that we managed to, largely, reach consensus in our conclusions. Although I will try to restrict my comments to the areas that are covered directly by the report, it is worth adding some context by way of update. As we have heard, the committee has more recently taken evidence on the UK Government's retained EU law bill, which is likely to have dramatic effects both on the statute book in Scotland and on who now gets to amend many parts of it. It was difficult for us to find any legal or constitutional commentators who viewed this piece of legislation with anything other than polite but evident astonishment. The bill involves repealing, via sunset clause 4, perhaps 5,000 extant UK laws over the next 12 months. The exact number of laws up for the acts is not clear, as the UK Government recently admitted that they had only just discovered 1,400 more that they had forgotten all about. Whatever the number, a great, if presently unidentified number of those laws covered the devolved areas. Many laws in devolved areas will now be amendable by a UK minister rather than by this elected parliament using proposed so-called Henry VIII powers. That is a name that does not injustice if such a thing is really possible to a man who thankfully never managed to legislate in Scotland himself. However, to quote our report, the committee's view is that the extent of UK ministers' new delegated powers in devolved areas amounts to a significant constitutional change. We have considerable concerns that this has happened and is continuing to happen on an ad hoc and iterative basis without any overarching consideration of the impact on how devolution works. Or, as noted by the committee's own adviser, Dr Chris McOrkindale, Brexit has posed a number of significant challenges to the effective functioning of the UK constitution. In his view, territorial tension has been exposed and exacerbated by the relatively weak constitutional safeguards for devolved autonomy. All of that means that Brexit is testing constitutional norms, including those that undoubtedly exist, even in a state so bizarrely lacking a written constitution as the UK. It is testing such norms to the point of destruction. Those conventions were, of course, under significant strain already at a political level, given that UK ministers, however brief their tenure, have publicly stated that their aim has been to ignore Scotland's Government. Others will, no doubt, speak today about the various areas that we cover in our report. The UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement, the protocol in Ireland and Northern Ireland, the change in concept of retained EU law and broader inter-governmental relations, but let me in concluding concentrate on one particular area and that is the matter of legislative consent. As the committee convener has set out, there was a time when the Sewell Convention, the assumption that the UK Parliament would not normally seek to legislate on devolved matters without the Scottish Parliament's consent, went virtually unchallenged as an idea. Since the Brexit referendum, however, there has been a complete breakdown of the convention. Notwithstanding the convention's former political importance as one of the principles behind evolution, the UK Parliament has now begun regularly and routinely to ignore this Parliament whenever we refuse to consent to being legislated for. Among the most notable examples of that are such enormously far-reaching pieces of legislation as the EU withdrawal act, the European Union future relationship act, the subsidy control act and the professional qualifications act. Most controversially, and as has been alluded to, the United Kingdom internal market act was likewise passed without this Parliament's consent. Now the UK Government shows similar signs of disdain for this Parliament's view on the retained EU legislation bill, despite the potentially enormous implications of it on the question of who makes many laws in devolved areas. Whether the Sewell convention still means very much is now open to question. Indeed, many of our witnesses expressed their doubts about that. One hopes that it still has a more binding force than other conventions that exist only in the sphere of the UK Government's ministerial code, or perhaps the locally varying conventions around when to wave to other motorists on single-track roads. Professor McHarg pointed out to us that the Sewell convention has been severely tested by the Brexit process and its on-going legislative aftermath. The institute for government's view, even more directly expressed, is that Brexit has exposed the convention's limitations as a guarantee of devolved autonomy. That is not a trivial observation or question, and it is not just the many of us who spent our youth's campaigning for a parliamentary democracy in Scotland who are troubled by it. As our committee report makes clear, those fundamental concerns about Westminster's legislative intentions with regard to Holyrood and the powers that Holyrood has in law to stop them are questions on which we would all do well as parliamentarians to reflect. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to congratulate the committee on its report, which, as the convener says, is technical in nature. I agree with their assessment that there are fundamental concerns that need to be addressed by the Scottish Parliament as to how devolution works outside the European Union. As Sarah Boyack and Willie Rennie said, the negative impact has been considerable, particularly to the economy. The Institute of Government has argued that Brexit has opened up a new space for disagreement in many policy important areas previously subject to European Union law. However, I have to say to Oliver Mundell that, if his party were going to put a referendum on European Union membership to the people, it should have had a plan for Brexit. Their failure to take responsibility for the position that we are in, or indeed the tens of billions of pounds that it has cost the economy, is why we are having this debate today. The approach of the EU Government following Brexit could not be said to be one that was supportive of the devolution settlement, although many of the most controversial aspects of the internal markets bill were defeated at Westminster. The internal markets bill was an audacious attempt at a land grab, as is being said by Alasdair Allan. There are concerns now that the retained EU law bill could give UK ministers unprecedented powers to scrap European laws, including in devolved areas, and that this Parliament will be unable to have sufficient input or scrutiny. I would be happy to take an intervention. I am very grateful to Katie Clark. Does she, off the back of what she has just said, just because something has not happened yet does not mean to say that it could not? It is this could that is the problem. There could be a problem and it is our duty to make sure that there is no ambiguity at all and there is certainty. I hope that I will go on to address that later on in my contribution. I think that she is indeed correct to say that we need frameworks that require co-operation in the way that Sarah Boyack was talking earlier on to address those issues. Frankly, whether we are a member of the European Union or not, we have to work with Europe. Whether she ever gets away and we leave the United Kingdom, we will have to work with other countries within the nations of the UK. We need co-operation agreements and we need to get those agreements in place, because the current situation is not tenable and not acceptable. In the short time available to me, I would like to focus on one particular area and the policy in relation to procurement. The approach that the Scottish Government is taking is quite unlike, for example, the approach that is being taken by the Welsh Government in relation to the procurement bill, which is currently going through the Westminster Parliament. The overall approach from the Scottish Government, as outlined in the committee report, seems to be that the default position will be to align with European Union law. In relation to procurement, £1 out of every £3 of public money spent is on public procurement. Public contracts represent a significant part of the economy and there are significant issues in terms of labour and environmental standards, direct awards, state aid and the ability of public bodies to set their own procurement policies, for example, to buy locally or to insist on trade union recognition or good terms and conditions of the workforce with organisations that they are contracting with. In the TUC report, levelling up the UK, the role of state aid, that report outlines the choice that Governments within the UK now have on state aid and procurement policy and whether those choices will be ones that support industrial policy, industrial strategy, local jobs and businesses and the promotion of high employment and environmental standards. The Procurement Reform Scotland Act 2014 is stronger than the regulations in force in England and Wales. It is clear from the committee report that the issue of divergence is a live issue in terms of the discussions taking place. In the past, the European Union cabotage regulations were used as a reason for the tendering of the CalMac ferries services. Presumably, the tendering process, which took place leading up to the award of the ferry contracts to Ferguson Marine, took place because the Scottish Government felt unable to make a direct award. The debate highlights the technical issue of many of the issues that we are discussing. That is clearly highlighted in the report that we are debating, but it also highlights the huge potential for us to look at wider issues because those issues impact on people's lives and the decisions that this Parliament makes day in, day out. Yes, there needs to be improved into Government co-operation. The Scottish Government needs to set high standards through public procurement, food procurement, labour and environmental standards and indeed a wide range of other areas that the Scottish Government has responsibility for. I believe that this debate is an important one. It is important that we get the frameworks and issues right, but the reason that it is important is in terms of what we can deliver as a Parliament. I very much hope that we are able to flesh out some of those real challenges that we have to ensure that we deliver for working people and the people that put us in this Parliament as we go forward. I now call Collette Stevenson to be followed by Mark Ruskell, again a generous six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank my colleague Claire Adamson and others on the committee for their work on this important report. The impact of Brexit in Scotland's economy, democracy and society is stark. There is no group of people or sector of the economy that the Tory Government is not willing to sacrifice on the altar of Brexit. As members will be aware from businesses in their areas, the challenges arising from the Tory's hard Brexit are huge. Earlier this week I visited the East Kilbride premises of NXP semi-conductors with the business minister Ivan McKee. They do lots of great work, including making microchips and creating high-skilled jobs in the process. However, their workforce is 10 per cent down on where they could be, with Brexit blamed for the EU applicants falling off a cliff edge. As I raised with the European Minister yesterday, the loss of freedom of movement is also affecting staffing in our health and social care services. Post-Brexit, there are massive challenges for our businesses and care services, as well as for our EU nationals living in Scotland. As the committee report sets out, a fundamental consequence of Brexit is the threat that poses to the devolution settlement, with the UK Government ignoring, disrespecting and overriding this Parliament. The Tories' UK Internal Market Act was a keystone of their intention to ride roughshod over the devolution settlement. Brexit has ripped Scotland from the good governance of the EU single market and into a chaotic UK internal market, which cannot accommodate differences between the four nations. The internal market act was one of just six major pieces of Brexit-related legislation that this Parliament rejected and Westminster imposed. That showed yet again their disdain for the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland. When I was reading the committee's report paragraph 49 jumped out at me, I will read the quote from the Boris Johnson and Liz Truss backing former Minister Jacob Rees-Mogg, for the benefit of other members. In a statement to the House of Commons, he said, as we maximise the benefits of Brexit and transform the UK into the most sensibly regulated economy in the world, we must reform the EU law that we have retained on our statute book. He added that this will allow us to create a new pro-growth, high standards regulatory framework that gives businesses the confidence to innovate, invest and create jobs. I am sure that all members can agree that the main growth in the UK has been that of inequality and that there has been nothing sensible about British economic policy recently. Furthermore, this talk of high standards is nothing but rhetoric from the UK Tory government whose actions paint a different picture. The UK Government is ploughing ahead with the retained EU law, revocation and reform bill, which, if passed, would see the removal of thousands of pieces of EU legislation that have been modified and incorporated into domestic law. The Scottish Government is opposed to the bill because it will put standards at risk, including rights for pregnant women at work, environmental standards and requirements to label allergens in food. I welcome the committee's call for views, which will allow businesses, civic society and the wider public to have their say on how devolution should evolve post-Brexit to meet the challenges and opportunities of the new constitutional landscape. I encourage stakeholders in the school bride and right across the country to have their say. For now, we need to make the most of where we are, dealing with the challenges created by a hard Brexit that Scotland did not vote for and implemented by a Government that Scotland did not vote for. Not only have the wishes of the people of Scotland being ignored by both the Conservatives and the Labour Party who endorse Brexit, but the role of this Parliament is being diminished by power grabs. Those are yet more examples of the cost of Westminster control. Faced with the grim reality of Brexit Britain, only independence offers Scotland a way to rejoin our friends and neighbours in the European Union and the chance to retain EU-wide protections on the environment, food standards and workers rights. I look forward to the people of Scotland exercising their democratic right next year and choosing the fairer greener future that independence will bring. I now call Mark Ruskell to be followed by Gillian Martin, a very generous six minutes. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I join other members in welcoming this debate and the excellent report informed as it is by expert and learned opinion, which is coming at a point when the full horror of Brexit is really just beginning to unfold. None of the Brexit outcomes have this far been surprising in any way at all. The UK Government repeatedly warned itself about the economic implications of leaving the single market and ending free movement. It warned itself about the sectors of the economy that would be damaged by a hard Brexit, the businesses that would take flight, the risk of recession. But what I find ironic is that the UK, of course, was so influential when it was a member of the EU but was also so bad at explaining the benefits of that influence at home. It also saddens me that, while the UK was such a champion for rule of law in the EU, it is now so willing to disregard the rule of international law when it comes to the TCA and the Northern Ireland protocol. That arguably very British value of respect for rule of law is now clearly being championed by others, including the Irish in the EU. I hope, like over half of the members of this Parliament, that Scotland will be able to join Ireland as an independent state within an interdependent European family of nations. That, in time, the rest of these islands will follow in our footsteps and rejoin the most successful project for peace and prosperity in world history. The British contribution to the key of European law and policy has been immense, so it would be an enormous act of self-harm if the retained EU law bill results in a Brexit bonfire of the very laws that we wrote. There are so many protections and rights that we rely on, which, unless saved, will fall off the cliff edge in December next year. From equal pay to nature protection, laws must be saved and retained. If the UK Government lights the bonfire, there will be a desperate scrabble to save laws from the engulfing flames. It will put huge pressure on every democratic institution, every Government department, every Minister and Parliamentarian in every Parliament across the UK. It is clear that the retained EU law bill should be scrapped and individual laws prioritised for reform. For example, Governments need to urgently change the energy performance certificate system to deliver a step change in green heating. However, the 2008 regulations come from the EU directive on energy performance of buildings. When the UK left the EU, it did so without putting in place any way to change the regulations, which has left the Scottish Government now desperately trying to find a legislative route through a Brexit mess. There is work to be done, but it is careful work that is needed over time, not a slash and burn spurred on by ideology. Otherwise, we will see yet another epic failure of statecraft from the UK Government. We are in anything but normal times, but there needs to be respect between the UK and the devolved Governments. The SEAL convention, which a number of members have mentioned already, has been effectively abandoned since 2015. Prior to that, it had been used 140 times at Holyrood to obtain consent, which was withheld on only one occasion. However, it is clear that it has now become merely an obligation to seek consent to this Parliament, rather than to actually obtain it. Despite any contrary view that Holyrood might have, the box always gets ticked and the UK Government always carries on regardless. Parliamentary oversight is a cornerstone of our British democracy, and yet we see post-Brexit legislation coming before both Parliament and the Senate with broad sweeping ministerial powers, with a strong focus on secondary legislation. It is a feast of Henry VIII powers, now ready for UK ministers, and even the powers to amend primary legislation itself without primary consent is now on the menu. With much of this post-Brexit legislation, there is absolutely no clarity about how secretaries of state would use the powers. What are the powers for? What is the policy objective? It is anyone's guess. Meanwhile, stakeholders fear a regulatory race at the bottom, businesses are unsettled, certainty is eroded even further at a time when we really do need stability. For us Parliamentarians, it makes scrutiny nearly impossible, but Tory MPs should be very wary of what they ask for, because when they take up their turn in opposition, there will be very few powers to challenge government policy under these Brexit bills. And this lack of scrutiny rarely makes for good decision making, regardless of who is holding the ministerial pen at any time. I am not going to let the Scottish Government off the hook completely in this debate either, because as a Parliament we need to see our Government step up and realise the keeping pace commitment in a way that is totally transparent. The Government should regularly set out what it will align with, both in terms of legislation and policy, but it also needs to set out its approach to forthcoming EU legislation and the commission's work programme as early as possible. The role of Parliaments in holding their executives to account has never been more important. There is a need for Parliaments across these islands to work together, even if their Governments are currently struggling to do so. We may have lost the machinery of the European Union that strives to build consensus amongst its decision makers and stakeholders, but it is those European values of openness and democracy that are now more important than ever, and we should uphold and defend those values in this Parliament. Thank you very much, Mr Roskell. We now move to Gillian Martin, who will be the final speaker in the open debate, after which, for closing speeches, I would expect everybody who has participated in the debate to be here in the chamber. Gillian Martin, again, a generous six minutes. I welcome this report, which drills down into the reality of Brexit for devolved Parliaments like ours. As someone who convened the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee at the time where we exited from the EU, the committee was swamped by last-minute statutory instruments and LCMs from the UK Government with no detail on their implications and next to no time for scrutiny on any of the common frameworks proposed. I knew then that devolution and the role of this Parliament was either by design or by lack of regard and grave danger have been seriously diminished. I suspect the latter more than the former, but the consequences are the same. The consequences are the dilution of our ability to manage devolved affairs. I have raised both as the convener of that last session at session 5, and now as the convener of Health, Social Care and Sport Committee in this session that lack of a statutory requirement in UK bills to seek the consent of Scottish ministers when legislating in devolved areas, but also the lack of opportunity for Scottish Parliament Committee scrutiny and the inability to make recommendations in relation to those decisions. In the Environment Committee's case, this was made even worse by repeated invitations to then minister to today's coffee to come and answer our questions. We have been ignored. We never saw her once during her tenure despite those invitations. I want to bring the somewhat procedural aspects that are all mentioned in the report, which can, no offence, seem dry to the onlooker into sharp focus in one particular area that affects my constituents. That is food standards and the arrangements around regulatory alignment, or otherwise, with the EU outlined in recommendation 54 of the report. The withdrawal from the EU has had disastrous consequences for growers in Scotland, and some of those with immediate and remaining effect have proved that Scotland's Government and Parliament lack of involvement in the exit deals and the subsequent legislation that were done as they relate to agriculture. The report made clear that there are substantive differences between the views of the UK and Scottish and Welsh Governments with regard to future alignment or divergence from EU law. However, I want to drill further into one particular set of issues. There are no divergence standards, but there are massive problems in the trade and co-operation agreement, which is around seed potatoes. It is fair to say that seed potato farmers in particular have had the ground swept from under them by Brexit. Before Brexit, Scotland exported around 20,000 tonnes of seed potatoes, worth close to £13 million, to 18 EU countries. Quite a lot of them came from my constituency. The 2020 trade and co-operation agreement with Europe failed to agree equivalence on seed potatoes, and the Scottish Parliament and Government had no say in the matter. Seed potato farmers have since taken huge losses, and it is fair to say that they are extremely angry over this enormous oversight by those who are negotiating on behalf of the UK Government. However, the importance of seed potatoes from the EU to the UK were made possible with death for permitting the importation and, effectively, crowding out of Scottish farmers from their own domestic market. After huge pressure from the sector, the arrangement was not renewed after six months, it was just allowed to lapse. However, not before doing massive financial damage to our farmers. We were told by Brexiteers that there would be huge benefits to agriculture. I say to those Brexiteers, tell that to the Linde family that three generations of seed potato growers working in my constituency to keep their business alive after it has been subjected to massive losses. The ramifications of significant prohibitions of Scottish seed potatoes to the EU have created a vacuum where our seed growers have lost massively, with that trade being picked up by Irish growers, despite Scottish seeds conforming to the same grades and the same disease tolerances as demanded by the EU. In fact, the seed potatoes from Scotland are actually more than demand, particularly from Eastern European farmers. They actually have better quality. The neglect of the seed potato sector represents just one part of a Brexit trade agreement that Scotland had no say in and no opportunity for scrutiny on. Westminster's failure to include an agreement on equivalence for the sector in the co-operation agreement with Europe at the end of 2020 was in the mission that has cost Scottish growers dearly. It did not need to happen. That is the worst of it. If the involved Scottish ministers and Scottish committees this might not have happened. I want to make a particular reference and record my support to the sterling work of Martin Kennedy and Andrew Conan of NFUS, who continue to demand that the UK Government sort this out. I sense growing frustration every time I meet the pair of them, not least this summer in the tour of show, where I had a small window of opportunity to ask to make the same demands to the UK minister responsible for farming, fisheries and food, Victoria Prentice, who I might add is no longer in post. She simply blamed it all on the EU. I have to say that this did not go down at all well with north-east farmers in the room. If you have ever been in a room with north-east farmers who are angry, you certainly know about it. A great number of Brexit-related bills have been passed at Westminster without the consent of one of the devolved legislators. The EU exit agreements have all been reached without consideration for devolved competencies. I welcome the committee's report, which laid bare the myriad ways in which Brexit could erode devolution. As I said, in agreement with Katie Clark, we should always be mindful of could. Just because the worst has not happened does not mean that the constitutional arrangements of Brexit between Westminster and the devolved nations could not give rise to it. That is what we are here to sort out. We all need to be around the table with consent obtained before decisions, never, never after the fact. Thank you very much, Ms Martin. We now move to closing speeches. I can advise the chamber that we have got a fair amount of time in hand, so interventions are certainly encouraged. With that, I call Faisal Choudhury for a generous six minutes, Mr Choudhury. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is a pleasure to close this debate for Scottish Labour. I would like to thank the committee and its staff for the work that has gone into this report on a complex subject. I would also like to put on record my thanks to those who gave evidences to the committee to allow them to produce this report for the parliament's benefit. Their contribution are much appreciated. We've heard from my colleague Sarah Boyack how the Sewell Convention has in recent years come under threat and is in urgent need of further clarity, particularly regarding secondary legislation. The committee report is clear that Brexit has been a significant shock to the relationship between Westminster and the devolved nations. The witnesses here by the committee paint a picture where the initial cases of breaking the Sewell Convention for reasons of urgency have an effect made it easier for the convention to be broken down. But as the report also makes clear, the convention was built on unstable ground to begin with. The phrase, not normally, was perhaps always destined to end up as the subject of contention. But it is Brexit and its associated legislation which has provided the pressure that has shaken this convention. Alistair Allyn made that point very well. If our devolved nations are to function together again after these strained recent years, renormalising this relationship is a requirement. Sarah Boyack has already highlighted some of the ways in which Scottish Labour believes this could happen. But as she noted, there needs to be greater transparency in how intergovernmental relationship happens, or we are just substituting devolved parliament for devolved executive supremacy. As the committee has highlighted in this and other recent reports, the common framework between the devolved nations need to be reinforced, but crucially also need to be answerable to the devolved parliament. This is going to be particularly important as the nations diverge. I recognise Willie Rennie's optimism about the lack of divergence, but my colleague Katie Clark has highlighted how it could happen in procurement. But as a current example, the First Minister attended the inaugural Prime Ministerial and Health of Devolved Governments Council on 10 November. What has been said about that in this Parliament? What has been said in the meeting by the Scottish Government on behalf of the Scottish people? Do they not deserve to know? Do we not deserve to know? I have said before that this in this Parliament cannot operate in the dark, but we are again being asked to do so. While this is not an inevitable consequence of Brexit, it is Brexit that has fostered that development of this cultural of executive secrecy. But as Martin Whitfield and Jenny Minto have suggested, we as a parliamentarian should have a form of solidarity with our colleagues in the other devolved parliaments and the Westminster Parliament. I am grateful to Jenny Minto for highlighting recent engagement through the Interparliamentary Forum. It is in all our interest that these meetings and discussions do not take place behind the veil of secrecy. We are elected to represent our constituents' interests, and it is in our constituents' interests not only that those common frameworks operate effectively but that discussion affecting them are transparent and open. The public will only be able to have faith in the devolved settlement if they are able to see how it functions. I sincerely hope that both the UK and the Scottish Government will take this to heart in the coming years, as we try to find the best way to navigate through our new international context. Thank you very much, Mr Togey. I now call on Sharon Dewey again for a very generous six minutes. I am pleased to bring this debate to a close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. While I have not had the pleasure of being able to sit through the evidence sessions in the SEAC committee, as the committee report shows, the impact of Brexit is very complex, and this debate only focuses on one small part of it, the impact on devolution. We would like to highlight some of the points that have been raised across the chamber today. Maurice Golden talked about the strains that have tested elements of the devolution settlement. He mentioned the Sewell Convention and how its application and interpretation have clearly been tested in a way that had not before Brexit. Oliver Mundell talked about the need to put political differences aside and work constructively together to find solutions. Sarah Boyack The thing that struck me about your colleagues' contribution was that it was incredibly negative. The main thing that I was looking for was him to suggest how he thought the UK Government could change its practice now, both as a Government leading the way on Brexit and listening to the concerns in our report, which were unanimous and coming up with some solutions that would remove some of the horrendous tensions that Brexit has created and try to get us to that point where people around the chamber could agree on things like environmental standards, food safety and the use of chemicals. It is an opportunity, but it needs to be seized rather than just saying that it is all too difficult. Sharon Dowie I can give you all of that time back. Brexit has definitely brought challenges, but there will be opportunities there, but I do not think that we have seen them yet. It definitely needs both Governments to come together and talk, but what my colleague was saying was the negative narrative that we get in the chamber. To be honest, I have been here for a year and a half. Every time we get to portfolio questions, the questions that we get are always negative towards the UK Government, so it needs all of us to work together to get solutions. We need solutions to Brexit, so we do need to get solutions. I am not saying that there has not been challenges, but we all need to work together because we were elected in here for the people of Scotland. We should be solving the problems that are in our gift to go and solve, which is justice, education, health and given all words, sorry. Alice The Rallan I thank the member for giving way. She lists the areas that are within our control. Does she appreciate that the reason that many of us are angry here today is that the areas within our devolved control that the UK is seeking to override by legislating in? The one thing that we need is dialogue between both Governments. I do not see that happening. It takes two people to talk and these two people to go to the table and be constructive and be able to make compromise to get a solution to the problems. Can I make a wee bit more progress? I know that I am getting my time back, but I am way over time now. There were lots of good contributions. Sarah Boyack has said about the need for change, transparency and accountability. She mentioned keeping the powers and the need for a mechanism for dialogue between parliaments, and I totally agree with that. Willie Rennie has spoken about the fact that the debate has not moved on in three years, and we need to move on. Jenny Minto spoke about the normal person in the street and how Brexit was affecting that. She also spoke about the good relationship or intergovernmental relationships with DEFRA, and I definitely think that that is something that we need between more governmental departments between this place and in Westminster. I will move on now to my contribution because I am running out of time. The two key points that I am going to touch on are the keeping pace power and scrutiny. The Scottish Government's decision to align with EU law wherever possible is not without its consequences. As noted in the report, Professor Katie Hayward indicated that there is a lack of consideration in the Scottish Government's policy statement on alignment with EU law regarding the practical consequences of alignment for Scottish producers. That is specifically the case for those exporting to England and Wales. She goes on to say that that specifically relates to the economic impact of the UK Government's intended divergence from EU laws in areas that are highly regulated and subject to detailed legislation in the EU, namely food safety, plant and animal health. Her view is that it should be made clear that the more its closest market diverges from the EU, the more difficulty there will be for Scotland if it seeks continued alignment with EU law. That is a key point of how do civic Scotland and other relevant stakeholders know where, how and when the Scottish Government is aligning or not and why it is choosing to align or not. That creates unnecessary uncertainty and it means that working to a different standard for production in Scotland may negatively impact businesses' ability to compete within the UK internal market. That would cause severe damage to the Scottish economy and businesses, given that about 60 per cent of Scottish exports go to the rest of the UK. Last year, the director of policy at NFU Scotland said, if we were just to pick up and paste into Scotland the EU's current agricultural policy, that would be extremely detrimental to Scotland. That would stretch agricultural businesses to breaking point. As it stands, there is only an annual requirement to inform Parliament of when it has been used, which makes it difficult to scrutinise. It is worth recognising that the Cabinet Secretary gave evidence to the Constitution Committee and only one piece of EU legislation was actively considered for alignment and, in fact, the Scottish Government chose not to align. I think that we are entitled to question why the Scottish Government is pursuing this policy at all. We also need to ensure that we have effective scrutiny. In written evidence, the public law project noted that abroad Henry VIII power for the UK executive to make law in any area of former EU competence would be constitutionally inappropriate. The recommendation from the Institute for Government that the UK Government shares draft bills and legislation with devolved Governments is something that I agree with. I think that we all desire Governments to work together constructively, but in order to do that, we must be prepared to enter negotiations with the willingness to compromise, otherwise we end up with confusion and uncertainty. The public law project also commented that the lack of scrutiny also produces poorer quality laws and policies. However, the SNP Government should also be doing that in the Scottish Parliament as well. There are examples of the Scottish Government using Henry VIII powers 2. What applies to the UK Government also applies to the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government must give the Scottish Parliament enough time to fulfil its oversight function rather than rushing through legislation. The GRR bill is one example. Rushing things through does not allow us, as parliamentarians, to scrutinise things thoroughly. In conclusion, I believe that it is in everyone's best interest for all Governments to work together. The Scottish Government must work closely with the UK Government to ensure that the retained EU law bill works for Scotland. Despite our political differences, we must all work together for the benefit of the United Kingdom. I call on the minister to respond on behalf of the Government for a generous 10 minutes or so. I appreciate your generosity. I will look to cover as much as what has been said in the debate as I can in order to fulfil the time requirements that have been set upon me. I set out the Scottish Government's views on the important issues identified in the committee's report on Brexit and devolution. In those closing remarks, I want to reflect on the wider issues raised by the report on Scotland's place in the UK. I will also return to the issue of the retained EU law bill and what that will tell us about the attitude of the UK Government to the issues raised today. First, I want to respond to some points raised in the debate. I think that it has been certainly from most contributions that there was a wide consensus on the need for the respect of devolved powers and a return to the respect of the console convention, which, as many colleagues referenced in their contributions, has been ripped up since 2016. Sarah Boyack made a very strong contribution and said quite rightly that it is not just what you say but what you do is important. We will certainly be looking closely at what the UK Government does with regard to the retained EU law bill, the procurement bill, the trade, the Australian New Zealand bill, the levelling up and regeneration bill, the energy bill and the retained EU law bill that all will require some form of legislative consent from this Parliament. One area that I do not agree with Sarah Boyack on is her comments on independence. We now know from her leader at Westminster and the Liberals that they do not want to return to the EU. Regardless of the next UK Government's composition, the damage of Brexit that she rightly outlined will continue. Independence is the only route back to the EU, which will be uncomfortable for Sarah Boyack and Willie Rennie, given their otherwise excellent speeches about the permanent costs of Brexit to Scotland. Also inconvenient for Willie Rennie is his plea not to link Brexit to independence, given that the people of Scotland are doing just that and no wonder 70 per cent plus in recent polling regret Brexit and given an even greater number that voted to remain. I'll give way to Sarah Boyack and then I'll happily come back to Willie Rennie. My point was about a Brexit times 10, so the minister hasn't acknowledged that point in my speech and it is about the disruption, the dismantling. If you think that the 47 years as the cabinet secretary informed us of being in the EU is a long time, the 400-odd years have been in the UK, massive disruption. I want to particularly make that point about the difference between a Labour Government and the current Conservative Government. You would not have people like William Rees-Mogg in power making things worse. You'd have a constructive, co-operative approach with a Government that was aimed at working with our EU neighbours, not just to fall out with them at every single opportunity and be honest about where we could work together collaboratively, constructively, promote trade, promote high environmental standards and deliver the fantastic transformation that we need in our economy through green and sustainable development, which I think was mentioned in several speeches today, the importance of environment. We would bring all of that and I think that that would be transformative. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To be clear, I have more in common with Sarah Boyack than in some cases on the areas that I am about to talk about that Sarah Boyack will actually have with her own Labour colleagues. However, the inconvenient truth for Sarah Boyack is that the Labour Party wishes to maintain Brexit. I take it granted that we want the back of the Tories and I want to see their defeat at the next general election. However, the Labour proposition is to maintain Brexit. It is also to do further damage to the Scottish economy by imposing even tougher immigration rules than the Tories currently do, as evidence in recent interviews by Rachel Reeves, which is why we share more in common in Scotland with our Labour colleagues than perhaps some will do with their colleagues down the road. Independence is the only route by which we can get back into the European Union to enjoy the benefits that that gives Scotland, and that is why I am not surprised to see that public opinion is so supportive of a return to the EU and the linkage that there is there with the independence debate. Jenny Minto was also right—sorry, I forgot. Willie Rennie. Although the minister has been in a reasonable mood, I hope that I can persuade him to agree with me, is it not the case that, as the SNP now is proposing with its new currency arrangement, that it will be both outside the UK and the EU for at least 10 years, and because the SNP is now admitting that there will be checks at the border, is it not the case that the SNP is the new Brexiteers? Willie Rennie offered for me to be reasonable, and I think that he then came forward with a rather unreasonable and inaccurate intervention. I do not recognise the characterisation that Willie Rennie gave in the first part or the latter part of his contribution. Yes, there will be an opportunity for us to break down 27 borders with our EU neighbours in relation to trade, which, of course, is an opportunity that independence offers us and that Brexit has put up borders to our trade. Clearly, there are opportunities there. I am happy to, at any stage, have a discussion with Willie Rennie around the economic paper and the proposals that we have regarding independence so that we can make sure that the public is fully informed of the opportunities that come forward from our prospectus. Jenny Minto quite rightly recognised the elephant in the room about UK Government relations with the EU, but also relations within the UK. She is absolutely right. The UK Government's approach to Brexit has meant that the devolved Governments have actually become stronger and more closely aligned and worked together on far more areas because of the lack of respect of the devolved Governments. There are a number of areas within my own responsibilities, including on Ukraine, where previously there was very good working relationship, sadly of late, both myself and my Welsh counterpart have not had the constructive engagement of which we would want to see. It is a permeation not just on Brexit and Brexit-related issues, but it is now moving much further than that in terms of a lack of respect of the devolved Governments. I am very grateful to Neil Gray to give way on that point. Jenny Minto agreed that it should be passably for the Parliament to solve—in particular, I will choose the problem of legislative consent motion. Will the Scottish Government give the support to the Parliament to seek that solution? I am happy to hear the proposal that Martin Whitfield would look to put forward on how that could be brought forward. I am happy to take it offline in terms of how he feels that that could work, of course. Katie Clark, in another excellent speech, was absolutely right to challenge and to say that there is a need for dialogue with the EU and when Scotland is independent with the rest of the UK. I would say that it will be better for that to happen on the basis that independence gives us the opportunity to do so and the partnership of equals as opposed to what we have at the moment. She was also quite right to challenge Oliver Mundell of the lack of any plan for Brexit by those who supported Brexit, such as Mr Mundell and the then Tory UK Government. I will also collect Stevenson's right about the intentions of the—of course. There were various solutions put forward to the House of Commons around how we would leave the EU. I wonder if the member wanted to explain why he was not able to vote for a permanent and comprehensive customs union if he was going to criticise other people for not engaging seriously about what Brexit might look like. It is an inconvenient truth for Oliver Mundell that the Scottish Government at the time put forward a compromise position to the UK Government in spite of the fact—notwithstanding the fact that we did not want Brexit to happen—how there could be compromise that respected the fact that Scotland voted to remain in the EU. The UK Government chose to ignore that. I think that I have answered the point comprehensively that we put forward a compromise solution. The UK Government chose to ignore that, and we are now in the situation that we are, where the UK Government continues to ignore the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, which is why the committee has had to come forward with the report that it has. Also excellent contributions from Collette Stevenson, from Mark Ruskell, Gillian Martin as well, and it just serves to highlight the importance of this debate that so many strong contributions were made. I think that it is important in considering Brexit and devolution to recognise three underlying points. First, Brexit has been imposed on the people of Scotland against their will and has been hugely damaging. Secondly, it was not inevitable that the damage of Brexit would lead to further centralisation of power in Whitehall, nor a weakening of devolved responsibilities. That was a deliberate choice by the UK Government. Thirdly, there is nothing in the UK's constitutional arrangements that could prevent any UK Government doing the same thing, either for something as significant as Brexit or for any other reason. I am old enough to remember, as I have highlighted to Oliver Mundell, that I was an MP at Westminster at the time in December 2016, when then Prime Minister Theresa May apparently agreed to give devolved Governments a role in establishing a UK as opposed to a UK Government Brexit negotiating position. Sadly, it became clear very quickly that Mrs May had no intention of following those commitments. There was no genuine engagement with the Scottish Government's proposals for a less damaging form of Brexit, either for Scotland or for the UK as a whole. She chose to ignore Scotland and unboxed herself in with her self-defeating red lines. The only negotiations that would be relevant were between various wings of the Conservative Party. The hard Brexit that we have since endured was not inevitable and the more damaging effects on devolution were entirely avoidable. I commend the remarks from Gillian Martin on the impact that this has had. The lack of UK Government engagement has had on the farmers in her constituency and across Scotland. Now we have the retained EU law bill. Again, the UK Government proposes to impose—no, I think that I am pretty pushed for time now, Presiding Officer, I believe. We have a little time in hand. I am happy to. Oliver Mundell. I thank the Minister for Giving Way. What would he say to farmers in my constituency who have extra money in their pocket as a result of the flexibility on LFASS that leaving the EU brings? Have they to give that money back? Given what Gillian Martin has outlined, I would imagine that the sentiments are similar in the farming communities across Scotland about the impact that there has been since Brexit on our food producers. In conclusion, the Scottish Government's view is clear that only independence can guarantee Scotland's democracy. Our place is an equal member of the family of nations. Others have different views, but as this report and today's debate has shown, we can all see the problems in the relationships that there are between within the UK and with our neighbours in Europe as a result of the UK Government's positions. It is much harder to see any solutions for as long as Scotland remains under Westminster control. Therefore, I am grateful for the committee for its important work so far. I look forward to proceeding with the further inquiries that are identified to which the Scottish Government will make a full contribution. I call on Donald Cameron on behalf of the Constitution, Europe External Affairs and Culture Committee to wind up the debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is a great pleasure to close for the committee and reiterate thanks already expressed to the clerks, the witnesses, those who gave written evidence and to colleagues on the committee and others who have taken part this afternoon and contributed in a constructive manner. I hope that what we have highlighted in the committee's report may have resonated with colleagues. However, esoteric and technical, some of these matters might seem, and Gillian Martin said that they were dry. For my part, Phil, no need to apologise for dryness when it comes to issues of the devolution settlement, and I do not think that she needs to either. It is also important to acknowledge that the issues in the report are relatively narrow. That is not to diminish the importance of them, however. However, the report concerns the effects of Brexit on devolution, not the effects of Brexit per se. Of course, Brexit has had a profound impact across Scotland on various different sectors and industries, on academia, on learning, on culture, on agriculture and many other aspects of life. We have heard very divergent views on many sides this afternoon. However, our report is more specific than simply a question about the consequences of Brexit. It is about the impact on devolution, among other things, on the working of the devolution settlement, on relations between the UK Government, on the one hand, and the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, more than Ireland Executive, and, of course, the relationship between the legislatures within the UK. Issues of delegated powers exercised at UK and Scottish Government level are also some of the issues that we considered. That is significant, because the committee is about to embark on a wider inquiry on those matters, which will follow that focused remit. Before I respond to some of the contributions in the debate, I would like to add some detail to one aspect of the inquiry that was touched on by the convener in her opening remarks. That being the matter of delegated powers, a key theme from our report is that there has been a step change in the approach to the use of delegated powers. When the Scottish Parliament was established, the powers of UK ministers to make secondary legislation in devolved areas were transferred to Scottish ministers, with only a few exceptions. We have, as a committee, identified two areas of contention. First, the scope of delegated powers being conferred on UK ministers in devolved areas, and on Scottish ministers where those powers are concurrent. Secondly, the Sewell Convention does not apply to secondary legislation. The then secretary of state for levelling up housing and communities stated in a letter to the DPLR committee that powers for the UK Government to make statutory instruments in devolved areas are not new and have been used across a wide range of policy areas since the advent of devolution. However, prior to the UK leaving the EU, UK ministers would principally make secondary legislation in devolved areas that implemented EU obligations and did that with the consent of Scottish ministers. The UK Government did not generally apply powers to make secondary legislation in devolved areas, although some argue that the UK Government does nevertheless have the ability to do so. With that said, there is a difference between delegated powers to deliver a legal obligation to comply with EU law and delegated powers in the same policy areas without that particular constraint. The committee's view is that the extent of UK ministers' new delegated powers in devolved areas amounts to a significant constitutional change. Concerns have been raised that that is happening on an ad hoc and iterative basis without any overarching consideration of the impact on devolution. Given what he has said, does he share my concern that that constitutional change, which is impacting on the devolved settlement and on the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, will be made even worse with the passage of the retained EU law bill? I think that I am speaking on behalf of the committee. The committee is certainly concerned at what has happened so far. The committee is also, I think, the convener references, the committee is also about to take a lot of evidence on retained EU law, where that issue will be very much front and centre. In our report, we raise a range of questions that are in need of further scrutiny, which we have outlined in our report. They include whether it is appropriate for UK ministers to have considerable new delegated powers in devolved areas without any consideration of the impact on devolution, to what extent is there a risk in the Scottish Parliament's legislative and scrutiny function from the post-EU increase in size and use of delegated powers at both a UK Government level but also by Scottish ministers. Can I make a bit more progress, please? How the post-EU limitations of the Sewell Convention as covered by the convener earlier need to be addressed and considering the effectiveness of consent mechanisms when it comes to secondary legislation? Presiding Officer, I briefly want to turn to some of the many contributions made during the debate. If I could canter through those as quickly as possible, Maurice Golden spoke about the need to evolve the devolution settlement in the interests of Scotland and the need for dialogue and mutual respect. Sarah Boyack has ever made the point about the importance of transparency and accountability, as she rightly always does. Willie Rennie spoke about hyperbole on both sides. The fact that we have not had a debate on the substantive issues at stake here, his view was that divergence has not really happened but neither have we seen the benefits of Brexit that were promised. Jenny Minto spoke about the impact of EU law. She quoted evidence that we heard last weekend committee and spoke about the importance of good relations. Oliver Mundell spoke longingly for the Mike Russell era and, nostalgically, spoke about his memories of those debates. His view, which is important to note, was that the Scottish Government did not approach this constructively, that they disrupted Brexit in his opinion and stoked grievance and promoted independence, and that is what he said has damaged relations and why tensions exist. Alasdair Allen also spoke about the retained EU law issues and the sheer amount of legislation that that will involve. He, like many others, concentrated on legislative consent. Does Sewell have any residual force? Katie Clark spoke about the need for co-operation. She mentioned the area of procurement and that there are choices to be made now where divergence could happen. I think she approved of the ability to divert. She will correct me if that is wrong, but she certainly approved of the need for this Parliament to look at and debate the issues properly. Collette Stevenson spoke about, in her view, the UK Government ignoring, disrespecting this Parliament. Again, she concentrated on the Sewell convention and argued that the Scottish Parliament had been undermined. Yes, very quickly. Can I thank the member for taking intervention? I realise that he is getting near the end of his time. Will he accept, as Deputy convener, that it might be helpful if we had a UK minister prepared to come and visit our committee? It is constructive, it is cross-party, and although we are asking difficult questions to make devolution work and be successful? Mark Ruskell spoke about the irony of the UK being so influential in the EU, but yet so bad in his view at explaining the benefits of membership. He spoke about the respect for the rule of law subject here to my heart and the urgency of action that is required. Gillian Martin is a very interesting contribution about her experience as convener of two committees, dealing with the practical day-to-day issues that arise when legislative consent motions come to a committee and the ability of this Parliament to scrutinise decisions of the UK Government. I think that one of the finest speeches this afternoon for his childry spoke about the history of the convention, the Sewell convention, and how it was built on unstable ground and that the words not normally were always going to be contentious. He argued, like many others, for a renormalisation of relations. Sharon Dowey, the need for compromise and engagement that it takes to talk about parity is important, and what applies to the UK Government also applies to the Scottish Government in her view. Finally, the minister who made many points about the centralisation that Brexit has caused about the issues arising from Sewell and the fact that his experience as an MP in the Brexit years from 2016 onwards was so important. He was standing in for the cabinet secretary very ably. The cabinet secretary, of course, who told us in the constitution committee that he is in London meeting the UK Government. He is an example of the Scottish Government and the UK Government co-operating. We can all celebrate. To conclude, there are fundamental questions about how devolution works outside the EU. We believe that we need a wider debate on the varied and complex issues raised by our report, not just for Governments and Parliaments but for businesses, stakeholders, civic society and the wider public. We hope that today's discussion has contributed to that wider debate. Can I support the motion in the convener's name? That concludes the debate on the impact of Brexit on devolution. It's now time to move on to the next item of business. There's one question to be put as a result of today's business, and that question is that motion 6732, in the name of Claire Adamson, on behalf of the Constitution, Europe External Affairs and Culture Committee, on the impact of Brexit on devolution, be agreed? Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time, and I close this meeting.