Creative Scotland funding reaches individuals, organisations and projects across the whole country, in each of the 32 local authority areas, through its regular and project funding streams, with particular flexibility being provided through its place partnership programme.

EventScotland provides funding to a diverse portfolio of arts, cultural and sporting events and festivals that deliver strong social and economic benefits across Scotland. Its national events programme has been designed specifically to support events outwith the local authority areas of Edinburgh and Glasgow to ensure representation across Scotland’s local authorities.

I agree with Willie Rennie that it is a good thing for communities, localities and regions to work together to promote and develop their local culture and arts sector. He will appreciate that there are very good reasons why our national arts organisation and funding body, Creative Scotland, operates at arm’s length from Government.

I strongly encourage Willie Rennie and the culture sector in Fife to continue working with Creative Scotland and, wherever it is appropriate for me to do so, I will support local initiatives to ensure that culture and arts reach their full potential throughout Scotland, including Fife.

I think that Rhoda Grant would acknowledge that the allocation of funding by Creative Scotland is a matter for Creative Scotland. I encourage her and colleagues throughout the Highlands and Islands who believe that there should be a different method of allocating that funding to make their views heard.

This Government is very keen to support multi-annual funding solutions for arts organisations, including the regularly funded organisations in the Highlands and Islands. Rhoda Grant mentioned Eden Court, which is one of the jewels in our artistic sector. I agree that we need to make sure that the entire country has the level of support that is appropriate for the culture and arts sector. If she wants to make any input to Creative Scotland, I would be grateful if she would copy me in.

I agree with Mark Ruskell that the UK Government is planning to use the schedule to the bill to scrap existing reporting requirements on air pollution. It has agreed to discuss a replacement, but nothing has happened. I am happy to update Mr Ruskell and the Parliament on that issue of concern.

Since the Brexit vote, time and time again, this Parliament has debated legislation that has been prepared by Westminster, only for our views to be overridden. Nine times, Westminster has ignored the views of this Parliament—nine times since 2018. Today, we are again debating the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. Later this month, I expect to add the bill to that list of Westminster shame. It is not acceptable that seeking the views of this Parliament on devolved matters is optional, or for those views to be ignored.

To illustrate my point, let me describe the ridiculous manner in which the UK Government sought consent for its amendments to the bill. On 10 May, UK ministers tabled amendments to the Government’s original unworkable sunset clauses. That U-turn was, at least, welcome, and I will have more to say about it in a few moments. However, the process of seeking this Parliament’s consent is instructive in what it tells us about the UK Government’s lack of respect for or interest in devolution.

First, it was the view of the Scottish Government that the amendments triggered the requirement for the UK Government to seek legislative consent. Secondly, the UK Government initially did not share that view. Thirdly, however, I then received a letter from Nusrat Ghani, one of the Commons bill ministers, on the afternoon of Friday 19 May, which did indeed seek consent for the latest amendments. However, fourthly, less than eight working hours later, on Monday 22 May, the Lords bill minister, Lord Callanan, said that the UK Government intends to proceed with the bill without the consent of the Senedd or the Scottish Parliament. Clearly, any acknowledgement of due parliamentary process in respect of devolution is performative only.

I turn to the substance of the UK Government’s amendments. It is clear that the UK Government has carried out a major U-turn on the bill, which removes the risk of retained EU law being wholesale or unknowingly removed from the statute book at the end of this year. So why do we continue to recommend that consent be withheld in the supplementary legislative consent memorandum?

Previously, when we debated the bill in the Parliament, I outlined three main objections. The first is that it confers powers on UK ministers to act in areas of devolved responsibility without the consent of Scottish ministers or this Parliament. That is, quite simply, nothing but an assault on devolution. Democratic oversight and good governance are clearly at risk if UK ministers sideline in that way the Scottish ministers, who are accountable to this Parliament. Secondly, the bill risks deregulation and divergence from the high standards that the people and businesses of Scotland experienced and benefited from when the UK was an EU member state. Thirdly, the cliff edge sunset is an irresponsible way to manage the statute book.

The Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee previously highlighted

“deep and wide ranging concerns”

about the bill. Those objections never represented pick and mix optional improvements to the bill. Removing only one of them still leaves a bill that is fundamentally flawed in its design and intention.

I will finish by being crystal clear about the UK Government amendments and our sustained opposition. The UK Government’s U-turn means that only retained EU law that is specified in a new schedule that is attached to the bill will be revoked at the end of this year. There are currently 587 specific instruments in that schedule. All other retained EU law will remain on the statute book and will be subject to future reform by secondary legislation.

Our supplementary legislative consent memorandum indicates that there are 148 instruments listed in the schedule with some devolved provisions. Our assessment is that 139 are obsolete. However, we have concerns about up to nine of the instruments that are due to sunset, because they may not be redundant. Further analysis and consultation on the schedule are under way, although the UK Government is unlikely to alter it before royal assent.

The amendments confer on Scottish ministers the power to remove instruments that are within devolved competence from the application of the schedule up until 31 October 2023. However, UK ministers have such a power in relation to removing any instrument by that same date. How the UK Government intends that to work is far from certain, but we should be absolutely clear that, under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, where a veto for devolved actions remains in Westminster, the ability of devolved Governments to set their own regulatory standards is constrained.

In November last year, in this chamber, I called on the UK Government to withdraw the bill. I repeated that in February this year, when the Scottish Parliament voted to withhold legislative consent for the bill. I repeat it now. This is a damaging bill in its own right. It is damaging to high standards, damaging to protections and damaging to businesses—but it is also damaging to devolution and to the Scottish Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the UK Government amendments to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, tabled in the House of Lords on 10 May 2023, do nothing to alter the view expressed in the Scottish Parliament in its vote on 29 November 2022 calling for the Bill to be withdrawn, or its vote on 23 February 2023 that concluded that the Scottish Parliament should withhold consent for the Bill, and considers that no amendment to this Bill can be viewed in isolation from the risks of the overall Bill, or will be sufficient in removing the dangers attached to it.

The Scottish Government’s position on the supplementary legislative consent memorandum should be of no surprise to any member who has read the evidence from the 18 expert witnesses to the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. Rarely has such evidence been so overwhelmingly negative, reflecting the astonishing level of opposition to the bill across sectoral and political boundaries. Rarely, too, do we see the kind of sustained and broad criticism of legislation that we have witnessed from peers of all stripes in the House of Lords in their opposition to the bill.

However, I will briefly address issues that members have raised here. First, Clare Adamson, speaking as convener of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, highlighted very real concerns about air quality and targets, which are issues that Mark Ruskell also raised in an intervention. We will, no doubt, come back to the matter. She also highlighted the lack of consultation by the UK Government of the devolved Administrations and asked why that has been the case. I look forward to reading the reply from the UK Government. She asked whether the Sewel convention is under strain, to which the answer is—to put it mildly—yes. That view is shared by the Welsh Government.

I should note—the point was made in passing by Neil Bibby—that two days ago the Welsh Senedd voted on the very same issue of legislative consent in relation to the bill and did as I hope we will do this evening, in refusing consent. We are working extremely closely on the issue with colleagues from another political party that leads the Welsh Government.

I turn to Donald Cameron’s contribution. The Scottish Government is recommending that consent be withheld because of conferral issues, not solely because of the schedule. He should know and understand that, but he did not mention it at all in his contribution. Officials have been told that it is “extremely unlikely”—the word “extremely” is underlined—that the schedule can be altered before royal assent, so meekly allowing the UK Government to press ahead would be a mistake.

I also note that Donald Cameron was not prepared to answer or defend whether it is credible or acceptable for the UK Government to overturn a request for consent with only eight working hours left. It is clearly not credible or acceptable, and we should certainly not allow the UK Government to proceed with that.

I turn to the Opposition political parties that have signalled that they will vote with the Government. First, I express my appreciation to the Scottish Labour Party for having stated its position that it will support the Scottish Government’s motion. Neil Bibby spoke about the “reckless” approach of the UK Government and said that it is trashing conventions, among other things. Many of those issues were also reflected in the speech by Willie Rennie.

I reflect, however, as we move forward, that I often hear from some other parties in the chamber the notion that there is equidistance between the Scottish Government and the UK Government with regard to this issue, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and all the rest of it. I hope that the motion makes it absolutely clear that there is zero equidistance whatsoever on the issue. It is the UK Government that is acting recklessly in proceeding with the bill, as it is doing on so much else to do with devolution at present.

The bill that we have been discussing this afternoon is about trying to take back control at Westminster, as if other sources of legislation or legal rules such as the EU or the European Court of Human Rights, or indeed this Parliament, are illegitimate and must be excised. Ironically, however, rather than empowering Westminster, the bill mainly gives powers to UK ministers to legislate, but with only limited parliamentary control. Indeed, if any accepted practice still exists around the Sewel convention, it appears to be that the views of the devolved Governments and legislatures are to be ignored, not respected. That is not how to conduct intergovernmental relations in an orderly way, and it is not how devolution is supposed to work. We have control of our own affairs in name only if the UK Government can ride roughshod over this Parliament’s authority whenever it sees fit to do so.

The concession by the UK Government might remove risks relating to the 2023 sunset cliff edge; however, significant issues remain around consent for UK ministers acting in devolved areas and the impact on Scottish Parliament proceedings. The Scottish Government remains fundamentally opposed to the bill and will continue to press for its withdrawal, which is also the position of the Welsh Government.

As I made clear in my opening statement, the UK Government sought consent on Friday 19 May and, within eight working hours, confirmed that it was going to override that principle. Do Donald Cameron and the Conservative Party in the Scottish Parliament believe that to be credible or acceptable?

Seven years ago this month, the referendum campaign on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union was reaching its final stages. The result of that referendum was a clear and overwhelming vote for remain in Scotland. As we all know, that result and the wishes of the people who live here were ignored by the Conservative Government at Westminster.

To make matters worse, the Tories not only took Scotland out of the European Union but decided to impose a hard Brexit, removing us from the European single market, which is by population seven times the size of the United Kingdom; taking us out of the customs union; and putting an end to the freedom of movement that was of such value, in so many ways, to our country.

It is with some sadness that we now see Labour supporting that hard Brexit position. However, I hope that, in today’s debate, we can reach a measure of consensus that we will do what we can to protect our Parliament and make it clear that we reject a deregulatory agenda that threatens the high standards that we benefited from as an EU member.

The Eden Court theatre in Inverness is the largest arts venue in the Highlands. It includes two theatres, two multi-purpose studios, two cinemas and three art galleries. That underscores its importance, which Edward Mountain rightly raises in the chamber. Eden Court receives regular funding from Creative Scotland of £500,000 a year. It also received support as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, including £242,000 in recovery funding.

It is also worth mentioning that the Eden Court youth theatre provides dance and theatre classes to young children aged five to eight years and invites schools across Scotland to theatre workshops. It is well known for its work right across the Highlands and Islands, not just in Inverness.

I totally agree with Edward Mountain about the importance of the Eden Court theatre and of the support that the Scottish Government and Creative Scotland give it, and I hope that that continues long into the future.

Last year, the Scottish Government commissioned an independent report to advise on the establishment of a peace institute. Scottish ministers have endorsed the report’s proposed path to establishing a fully fledged peace institute, and the Scottish Government remains committed to that ambition.

However, since the report’s release, in June 2022, the financial situation that Scotland and the Scottish Government face has deteriorated and is the most challenging since devolution. In difficult economic times, difficult decisions require to be made, and ministers have reluctantly agreed to delay further work on the peace institute until later in this parliamentary term.

Creative Scotland provides a range of support for cultural activities and organisations across all regions of Scotland through its network of regularly funded organisations, the open fund and its various other funding streams. In the financial year 2022-23, 8.7 per cent of Creative Scotland’s total funding awards were allocated to projects in the Highlands and Islands.