I shall continue. Colin Smyth’s colleague in the Norwegian Labour party, Andreas Bjelland Eriksen, the State Secretary for—

I have to assume that the member is not aware the statistic was used by a Conservative-led United Kingdom Government. That is a statement of fact. It is also a statement of fact that statistics need to be updated, and that is exactly what will happen. I hope that he and everybody else in the chamber will use that to promote Scotland at home and abroad.

The Scottish Government, the UK Government and I are no longer using the statistics that have been overtaken by developments. However, it is really important not to inadvertently create the impression that Scotland is not a nation with significant renewable resources. It has immense natural resources. When projects that are awaiting construction, are under construction or are already operational are added to the current reported potential pipeline, the total potential capacity reaches over 40GW, which is the equivalent of producing enough electricity annually to power every home in Scotland for 17 years or every home in the UK for over a year and a half.

That was an interesting speech rather than a question, was it not? I will say again for the benefit of the member, who was just keen to read out what he had clearly written before he arrived in the chamber, that the statistic that the member highlighted has been used by the UK Government and the Scottish Government. It is now considered to have been overtaken by developments. [Interruption.]

The massive potential of Scotland’s renewable energy is recognised internationally, especially among our northern European neighbours. [Interruption.]

I am sorry that Colin Smyth is not interested in this because his colleague in Norway most certainly was. I met him in Tromsø at the beginning of the month and he and his colleagues are extremely keen to co-operate with Scotland because they recognise that our countries have so much renewable energy potential.

I agree that we want statistics to be as up to date as possible, and I hope that Colin Smyth will join me in using them to promote the potential of renewables, the investment and the jobs that they will bring, and to make our contribution to combating the climate crisis.

I point out to the Liberal Democrats that the UK Government used that statistic. I think that I am right in saying that that Government included Liberal Democrats.

The member is absolutely right that we should aspire to the best statistics that we can have. That is what we are working towards. I hope that he and the representatives of other parties will do everything that they can to promote renewables around Europe and the rest of the world rather than trying to undermine Scotland’s reputation.

No—I cannot think of any advantages, either. Before the European Union referendum, the Scottish Government warned that Brexit would cause significant economic and social harm to Scotland, and so it has proved. The fact is that there are no benefits to be had from Brexit, which was imposed on us against our democratic will. That is one reason why Scotland needs to be able to choose its own future in an independence referendum.

Today’s debate is timely, because today is also the day on which the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill begins its committee stage in the House of Lords. I thank the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee for its report on the bill. It is clear that the committee shares the significant concerns that the Scottish Government has raised since the bill’s introduction. There is simply not enough time for me to list those concerns in full, but I will highlight three.

First, the bill includes a cliff-edge sunset provision. The inclusion of such a provision is a deeply irresponsible way to manage the statute book.

Secondly, the bill risks deregulation and divergence from the high standards that the people of Scotland experienced and benefited from when the United Kingdom was a European Union member state. That will introduce unwelcome uncertainty for business and for trade.

Thirdly, the bill includes powers for UK ministers to act in areas of devolved responsibility without the consent of the Scottish ministers and without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. I make it clear that conferring powers on UK ministers in devolved areas without requiring the consent of the Scottish ministers or the Scottish Parliament for the exercise of those powers strikes at the heart of the Scotland Act 1998. 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.

The combined assessment of the committee’s 18 expert witnesses was overwhelmingly negative and reflects the astonishing level of opposition to the bill across sectoral and political boundaries. Despite that, the UK Government refuses to withdraw the bill or—as it should do, at the very least—amend it. I again call on the UK Government, as I did in November, when the Parliament previously debated the bill, to see sense and to withdraw the bill.

I will restate the position of the Scottish Government: the only way to eradicate the dangers that are posed by the bill is for it to be scrapped. That remains our position. Nothing during the bill’s parliamentary passage so far has alleviated my initial grave concerns. Indeed, those concerns have been compounded following my conversations with Welsh Government ministers and with peers in the House of Lords.

I am alarmed that the hard Brexit negotiated by the UK Government could become harder, with signals from Europe that the trade and co-operation agreement could itself be at risk because of the divergent and deregulatory UK agenda that informs the bill.

It is highly regrettable that our proposed amendments were not considered by two previous secretaries of state. A third is now in post and two weeks ago, I wrote to her to urge her to respect devolution and the role of the Scottish Parliament. I am yet to receive a reply. The amendments to the bill that we have proposed to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade would ensure that this Parliament would be given its proper scrutinising role. I will continue to urge the secretary of state to consider those amendments.

Much will depend on the further passage of the bill. I have instructed my officials to work closely with the parliamentary clerks here to find an agreeable way forward and I commit to keeping the Parliament updated on our proposals. We must be under no illusion that either devolution or the Sewel convention will be respected in connection with this legislation. Since 2018, the Parliament has withheld consent for a UK Government bill on seven occasions—six times, the UK Government has ignored that. Should this Parliament express a similar view today, I can offer no comfort that the UK Government will listen.

I conclude by drawing members’ attention to just some of the continued opposition to the bill. The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee criticised it as being “hyper-skeletal” in allowing ministers to act with little parliamentary scrutiny. The UK Government’s own watchdog, the Regulatory Policy Committee, called the impact assessment for the bill “not fit for purpose,” and Wildlife and Countryside Link described the bill as

“an economic and environmental wrecking ball”

that could cost the UK £82 billion over 30 years.

A clear swathe of informed observers understand the danger of the bill. The Welsh Government understands it; the Scottish Government understands it; this Parliament’s constitution committee understands it. I urge the Parliament as a whole to join that list today and to vote in favour of the motion to withhold consent.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees with the recommendation in the Scottish Government’s Legislative Consent Memorandum to withhold consent for the UK Government’s Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.

I sincerely thank everybody who took part in this short debate. I will briefly feed back on those contributions.

Clare Adamson, the convener of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, highlighted the overwhelming strength of evidence to the committee about how damaging the bill is.

Donald Cameron, from the Conservative front bench, suggested that it was premature to decline legislative consent. I have to say to him, however, that, given everything that we know about the bill so far, and the evidence that has been presented to the committee, I do not agree with him that the Parliament should give the UK Government a blank cheque to continue.

He called on the UK and Scottish Governments to work together, ignoring the fact that the UK Government has ignored all amendments that were supported by the Scottish and Welsh Governments. Again, that is a reason why, even at this late stage, the Conservatives should reconsider their opposition to granting legislative consent.

Sarah Boyack began by pointing out, in an eminently sensible way, how an alternative course of action could have been proceeded with, were there pieces of retained EU law on the statute book that needed to be sunsetted in any way. That was perfectly possible; however, the UK Government has turned the whole process on its head, forcing every piece of European legislation—devolved, reserved and in between—to face sunsetting. I very much welcome the Labour Party’s opposition to the giving of legislative consent.

To Willie Rennie and the Liberal Democrats—a party that now accepts and is prepared to live with Brexit—I say, as I have said to him before when he has appealed for the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government, that I have done so. I have written repeatedly to the UK Government on this issue. We have published amendments that were supported by colleagues in the Welsh Government, but none of those has been accepted. I reject his suggestion that there is an issue of equidistance in critique. Notwithstanding that, I welcome the support of the Scottish Liberal Democrats for the withholding of legislative consent.

In the short time that I have left, I will draw attention to a number of things. One question that has been raised is whether, given that the Scottish ministers will get powers to preserve and amend retained EU law, the concern about UK ministers acting in devolved areas without consent is overstated. No—it is not overstated. The bill gives devolved ministers powers to preserve, revoke and amend REUL, but UK ministers are able to revoke REUL in devolved areas at any time, prior to and after the 2023 sunset, with no requirement for consent. How can we possibly grant a blank cheque to the UK Government in those circumstances? Moreover, only UK ministers have powers to extend the sunset date to 2026. The balance of power is unequal.

All that could have been solved in the House of Commons or the House of Lords, where the bill is at present, if the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party was prepared to make the case to the UK Government. Who knows? Perhaps it would be listened to. However, we have heard none of that from the Conservative members today.

Sarah Boyack has repeatedly raised the issue of timescale and decision making, and she is absolutely right on that. No preservation or other instruments can be made under the bill unless and until it has received royal assent and is in force, which is expected to be around May 2023. Once that has happened, the Scottish Government would intend to lay secondary legislation to seek to ensure that laws are not lost at the end of 2023. I would be content to come back, in a further and extended debate, to talk through how that may work and, I hope, to provide the assurances that Sarah Boyack requires.