The Scottish Government will continue to set out, through the “Building a New Scotland” prospectus series, what could be done with the full powers of independence. That reflects our 2021 programme for government commitment to provide the people of Scotland with the information that they need to make an informed decision on Scotland’s future.

I like Donald Cameron personally, but politically I find it a bit difficult to be lectured by the losing party in the last Scottish Parliament election on what people did or did not vote for.

I have received no response from Grant Shapps, the secretary of state who is responsible for the bill, despite writing to him on two occasions. In a letter on 8 November, I set out the Scottish Government’s rationale for recommending that the Scottish Parliament withhold consent for the bill. I wrote to him again on 15 November, calling for the bill to be withdrawn but proposing amendments to limit the damage to Scotland, should it proceed.

I have been assured by the UK Government on several occasions that the Sewel convention will be observed in respect of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, yet the minister has not replied and our proposed amendments were voted down in the House of Commons.

My understanding is that the issue has been fully addressed and that there are no current health issues of the type that the member outlined. If the member wishes Neil Gray to reply to her with greater detail about the case, I will be happy to ask him to do so.

In this kind of context, it is important that unwarranted fears about health or any other issues are not raised. The provision of health and other support services to people in times of need and duress are very sensitive matters. My understanding is that there are no current health concerns of the type that the member outlined, but I will make sure that Neil Gray writes to her, so that she is fully assured on the matter.

It is clearer than ever that Scotland is not considered an equal partner under the current devolution settlement. No matter how we vote or whether we elect Parliaments that support certain policies, we can be overruled or simply told no by the United Kingdom Government. Since Brexit, the Westminster Tory Government has taken back powers from Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament, and the trend continues.

I met the Foreign Secretary two weeks ago and urged the UK Government to seize the current window of opportunity to re-engage in good faith with our European partners, seek sustainable shared solutions on the Northern Ireland protocol and withdraw the bill without delay. The bill risks violating international law and sparking a trade conflict with our European Union neighbours in the middle of a cost of living crisis, with potentially disastrous consequences for Scotland and the whole of the UK. That is simply indefensible.

It would indeed be far better for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government to be able to make decisions in that area.

In general terms, people in Scotland have made a clear decision to be offered a choice about this country’s future in a referendum, and we call on the United Kingdom Government to respect that decision and to open discussions with the Scottish Government on a change to the Scottish Parliament’s powers so that it can give effect to the mandate of the people of Scotland that was obtained in last year’s Scottish Parliament elections. The easiest route to doing that would be through a section 30 order.

In my opening remarks, I set out the Scottish Government’s view on why the UK Government’s retained EU law bill is reckless legislation. In closing, I will reflect further on the bill as an example of Westminster’s attitude to devolution since Brexit. First, however, I will respond to points that have been made during the debate.

For context, I note that the really important and widely known fact that has been missing, in particular from Conservative members’ speeches, is that right now in Westminster consideration is being given by the new UK Government, the new UK Prime Minister and the new minister with responsibility for the bill to whether it should go forward as planned. That makes our consideration, as a Parliament, a first-order issue. I appreciate that members want committees of inquiry to continue with their work, but in no way does their doing so mean that this Parliament cannot or should not take a view on a matter that is so timeous and pressing, and on which there is an opportunity to change the UK Government’s course of action.

Donald Cameron, in opening for the Conservative Party, suggested that the debate is about a “short-term, tactical hit”. He is totally wrong: the issue is live and current, so now is the time to press with the strongest unified opposition that includes not only the Scottish Government, but the variety of third sector and representative bodies that we have heard about, and voices from across this chamber.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I await with interest the report by the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, and look forward to providing evidence to the committee in December. The Government has lodged a legislative consent memorandum, so I am more than prepared to return to the chamber to debate the bill when the committee issues its response.

However, such is the potential damage that will be caused by the bill that it is the Scottish Government’s view, as set out in today’s motion, that the legislation should be entirely and immediately withdrawn. The very existence of the bill is causing concern and uncertainty for businesses, employers and employees alike, and it must be withdrawn. Incidentally, this is a Scottish Government debate, not an LCM debate and, because we are not recommending consent, we will not be lodging a legislative consent motion. We are therefore not breaching standing orders in respect of the issue.

I welcome Sarah Boyack’s opening speech and the Labour amendment. She asked for assurances about the legislative process in relation to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill and about the reaction of the Scottish Government. I give her all the comfort that I can give that I will keep her informed about the process once we have made progress on the scoping work to protect EU standards and legislation. I think that she understands the scale of the challenge that we face. We are in a unique situation, so I give her the commitment that I will happily meet her and discuss the matter, as we go forward.

Willie Rennie made a great start to his speech. It was a fantastic and strong start, in which he described the UK Government as “cavalier”. Sadly, after signposting the risks of it turning into a “processy” speech, he did exactly that and made a processy speech. He said how important it is that we find a federal solution. Incidentally, I think that we were promised a federal solution in the run-up to the 2014 independence referendum, although we have had neither sight nor sound of that since. I am sure that Mr Rennie will want to talk about that at great length when we have more time for debate, but I point out to him I am still looking forlornly for one single workable model of multinational federation in which 85 per cent of the population lives in just one part of the federation. There has never been one.

Mr Rennie made a point about common frameworks, but blithely glossed over the reality of the common frameworks that we now have and their interrelationship with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. There is a sadly disappointing equivalence with the Lib Dem amendment, which does not take the opportunity to stand up for our devolved institutions.

I turn to other contributions. Jenni Minto, in focusing on the environment, gave examples of the deregulatory risks that are posed by the UK Brexit agenda and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.

Jim Fairlie gave real-life examples of challenges to the agriculture and food and drink sectors, and of the undermining of Scottish democracy and decision making.

Alex Rowley, speaking for the Scottish Labour Party, made a fantastic speech on deregulatory risks to devolution, highlighting the particular dangers that are posed by the sunsetting provisions and the power grab by the Westminster Government. Probably for the first time, I heard Alex Rowley quote the Trades Union Congress, and the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors. I say that half in jest and half in seriousness, because it underlines the point that opposition to the bill, in Scotland and across the UK, goes right across the spectrum. Those voices should be listened to.

Kaukab Stewart told us about the dangers to quality-assurance measures and to the devolved settlement in Scotland.

Stuart McMillan highlighted the concerns of civic society, business and trade unions, and reminded us of the importance of the European Union, especially of EU nationals, to our life in Scotland. He was correct to describe the Tory amendment and contributions as deflections, because that is exactly what they have been today.

We heard from Maggie Chapman from the Scottish Green Party about the risk to the highest standards, because that is what EU standards are, and about the challenge to public administration and governance. How on earth are we, as a Parliament, supposed to ensure that potentially thousands of pieces of legislation go through Parliament with maximum scrutiny by the end of next year, as her party’s front-bench members suggest is required? We do not even know exactly what legislation will be in play, although we know that a great proportion of it relates directly to devolved governance. Maggie Chapman said that it is right for us to emphatically state our opposition to the damaging bill; we will have the opportunity to do so at decision time.

Michelle Thomson pointed out that there had not been a single contribution by a Tory back-bench MSP in the debate. Even the Tory back benchers know that the UK Tory Government’s proposal is utterly indefensible, which is why they did not take part. To be frank, that is a more credible explanation for their unwillingness to deal not with the substance but with synthetic process points, which are aimed at avoiding immediate action.

Bob Doris talked about the potential damage to business and the workforce at this difficult economic time.

Colin Beattie made the important suggestion that we need to work together with colleagues in other devolved nations—indeed, that is what we are doing. In the letter in yesterday’s Financial Times that was signed by me and my Welsh opposite number Mick Antoniw MS, who is Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution in the Welsh Government, we wrote:

“The bill will cause significant confusion and disruption for businesses, working people and those seeking to protect the environment. It will bring uncertainty to established legal principles and has the potential to disrupt trade with the EU.”

We stated that the

“bill allows UK ministers to take decisions in policy areas that are devolved to the Welsh senedd and the Scottish parliament and to do so without consultation or the need for their consent. Convention requires the UK government to adjust legislation to reflect the will of elected representatives of the devolved parliaments.”

I and my Welsh Government colleague ended by saying that

“We urge that the UK government withdraw the bill.”

It should do that now—not in a few weeks or a few months, but right now. That is why it is really important that the Scottish Parliament take a view now on the bill and its withdrawal.

I turn to the summing-up speeches from the other parties. Willie Rennie reminded us, helpfully, why we will not be supporting the Liberal Democrat amendment. In contrast, Martin Whitfield made a sensible contribution on the dangers of the bill. They were in keeping with the sensible Labour amendment, which we will support this evening.

From Maurice Golden, we heard a reassertion of the novel but unsustainable position that Parliament cannot take a view on a pressing matter while a committee is conducting an inquiry. At least that gave him the opportunity to say nothing about the bill. We cannot sit idly by and miss the opportunity to bury the bill once and for all.

The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill poses concrete risks to a swathe of protections and standards in Scotland. Its practical effect on our day-to-day lives alone is reason enough for this Parliament to make it clear that it should be withdrawn. I argue that when we add to that the bill’s pernicious effect on devolution, which exposes the true attitude of Westminster towards Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it is clear that this Parliament should agree to the motion and agree that the UK Government must withdraw the bill.

I would like to return to the Brexit freedoms bill, which was last discussed in the chamber on 22 June. At that time, I said that the bill would have

“a damaging impact on this Parliament and Scotland as a whole.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2022; c 36.]

Although the United Kingdom Government has quietly and perhaps unsurprisingly withdrawn its misnamed position of so-called minister for Brexit opportunities, the legislation still threatens to cause havoc and significant harm. The Scottish Government’s position has therefore not changed. We have since recommended that the Scottish Parliament withhold consent to this bill. Although I await with interest the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee’s report on the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, as it is now called, such is its potential damage that it is the Scottish Government’s view, as set out in the motion, that the legislation should be withdrawn entirely and immediately.

I will structure these opening remarks by focusing first on what the bill seeks to do. Members will see that opposition to the bill is now broad and firm. Secondly, I will focus on how the bill will be delivered. Members will see that the power that is invested in UK ministers and the absence of parliamentary scrutiny are extremely concerning.

I will start by making sure that we are all clear on what the bill seeks to do. The UK Government has started a countdown clock for approximately 4,000 pieces of retained EU law. I say “approximately”, as the UK Government has irresponsibly brought forward the bill without knowing the actual figure. When the clock times out, on 31 December 2023, those pieces of legislation will disappear or “sunset” from the UK statute book. That means that the default position of the UK Government is that most of the body of laws and protections that was developed while we were a member state of the European Union should be retired, with the rules affected being retained only by exception.

Blind Brexit ideology is throwing out the baby, the bath water and the bath. Ministers and officials across all four nations will have to assess each and every piece of retained EU law affected in order to save them from the sunset. The scale and pace of that arduous task is reckless in the extreme.

Retained EU law may sound dry, but its disappearance or amendment by a UK Government that is intent on pursuing its deregulatory agenda will affect the food that we eat, our rights at work, our natural environment and much more besides. Vital protections that were gained as part of our membership of the European Union, which have made the people of Scotland’s lives better, and which the people of Scotland overwhelmingly wish to maintain, are at risk.

I will give some examples of what that means. Pregnant women and women on maternity leave could no longer be protected from discrimination at work. The trade union Unison has called the bill

“an attack on working women”.

Requirements for food to be labelled for allergens could be removed. Food Standards Scotland said that the bill poses

“a significant risk to Scotland’s ability to uphold the high safety and food standards which the public expects and deserves.”

The EU habitat regulations, which protect threatened habitats and species, may be revoked. The Maritime Conservation Society warns that, if passed, the bill will

“lead to catastrophic regulatory and environmental failures”.

Those are not archaic or abstract pieces of legislation. They affect our everyday lives, and we should be outraged that they are even being put at risk of vanishing from the statute book. All those examples, and many more besides, can disappear due to the ministerial powers in the bill. What is worse is that the sunset clause means that they will do so automatically on 31 December 2023, unless specifically saved.

Why the need to create that cliff edge? There are literally no businesses, no environmental organisations and no civil society groups clamouring for a review of all retained EU law by the end of next year. It is an arbitrary date, plucked out of thin air to pander to the disdain for the European Union on the part of the hardest of Brexiteers.

Indeed. That is yet another reason why the bill should be consigned to the dustbin of history. I will come back to the Labour amendment, which I very much welcome, later in my remarks.

The bill means that already stretched officials across the four home nations will waste time assessing thousands of pieces of legislation, just to make sure that they do not disappear next year. That is the point that we just heard from the Labour benches. It means uncertainty for businesses in Scotland that are already suffering from trade barriers due to Brexit, which now find themselves desperately wondering what standards they will have to adhere to, come January 2024.

What was a slow murmuring of dissent in the summer has risen in recent weeks to a loud chorus of opposition, uniting businesses, trade unions, the environmental lobby and constitutional lawyers, to name but a few. Indeed, only last week, a joint letter from 14 organisations was sent to the UK Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Grant Shapps, calling on him to do exactly what the Scottish Government has been calling for since the bill was introduced: namely, to withdraw the bill. The letter is signed by the Trades Union Congress, the Institute of Directors, Greener UK, the Employment Lawyers Association, the Civil Society Alliance, the Wales Civil Society Forum—I could go on. The point is that we would be hard pressed to find anyone—literally anyone—who is in favour of the bill.

Earlier this year, the UK Government declined to share with us its impact assessment for the bill. It is not surprising that it was being coy. Last week, the UK’s independent regulation watchdog, the Regulatory Policy Committee, which has seen the report, described the impact assessment for the bill as “not fit for purpose”. There has been zero consultation with businesses and zero concern about the impact that the bill will have on them. The risk to standards and the risk of the sunset are cause for great concern to the RPC.

I turn to how the powers in the bill will undermine devolution and limit scrutiny by all four UK legislatures. UK Government ministers want to give themselves powers to intrude into devolved matters without any need for our consent. The Scottish Government has accepted that there can be circumstances in which UK or Great Britain-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”, as they are known in Brexit legislation, when accompanied by understandings that allowed this Parliament to scrutinise the exercise of those powers. Unfortunately, as committees in this Parliament have pointed out, such concurrent powers are becoming more and more common in UK Government legislative proposals.

The bill also sidelines Parliaments across the UK, concentrates powers in the hands of the executive and exposes the fallacy of the Brexiteers’ “taking back control” narrative. That is totally unacceptable. The bill shows an utter disrespect for devolution, the role of the Scottish ministers and the role of the Scottish Parliament. It undermines democratic accountability and responsibility for devolved matters. However, unfortunately, that is the new norm when it comes to the UK Government. To it, the Sewel convention involves merely a need to seek consent from the devolved Governments and legislatures, which can then be ignored, whereas, for nearly 20 years, the convention was understood as involving a requirement for such consent.

In my conversations with UK Government ministers, they have repeatedly assured me that the Sewel convention will be respected, but actions speak louder than words and the evidence is there for us all to see. Since 2018, the Scottish Parliament has on seven occasions withheld consent for a UK Government bill; it has been ignored six times. All signs point to the process on the retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill being number 8.

It is clear that the foundations on which devolution is operated are increasingly fragile. UK ministers attempt to conceal the lack of a requirement for consent by dressing the bill up as an opportunity for the devolved Governments. They say that devolved ministers will have new powers to preserve or amend retained EU law as we wish, and that devolution is in fact being enhanced. That is misdirection, plain and simple.

In the bill, devolved ministers are given powers to preserve retained EU law, but UK ministers can, even before the 2023 sunset, choose to revoke legislation in devolved areas—again, without our consent. Devolved ministers can amend retained EU law, but the bill states that any new or replacement legislation may

“not increase the regulatory burden”,

so standards can only go down; they cannot go up.

Ministers can do all that with minimum or no further scrutiny by Parliament. The great promise that Brexit would “take back control” does not appear to involve any of the UK’s Parliaments having any control over thousands of pieces of legislation. As the chair of the Bar Council, Mark Fenhalls KC, told the House of Commons,

“we are being told to trust Ministers to see what will happen, and we have no idea what they will do. We have no idea what is being left or what will be changed.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 22; c 30.]

Clearly, Scottish Government ministers are not the only ones who are concerned: our colleagues in the Welsh Government agree. Last week, Mick Antoniw, Counsel General for the Welsh Government, and I wrote jointly to the Financial Times in support of the many organisations that have written to that publication, criticising the bill and calling for its withdrawal. Our letter was published in yesterday’s issue.

I noted that, in a recent debate on the impact of Brexit on devolution, several members suggested that the solution to differences of opinion between the Scottish and UK Governments regarding the Sewel convention is for more dialogue between the two. I am open to constructive dialogue with anyone, but the problem here is one side’s refusal to acknowledge the detrimental impacts that its actions are having.

I twice met the previous Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Jacob Rees-Mogg, to discuss the bill. It came as no surprise to him that we were fundamentally opposed to it and that our preference was for it to be withdrawn. However, I also offered proposed changes to the bill that would reduce the damage that it would do to Scotland. They were ignored and the bill remains unchanged. Grant Shapps has now replaced Mr Rees-Mogg as the minister in charge of the bill. I have written to him twice since he took office. Again, I have stated our proposed changes—this time in the form of amendments to the bill. I have heard nothing from Mr Shapps and the bill remains unchanged.