From listening to the evidence and reading the submissions, it feels as though the decision cuts across four of the five key principles of the BBC charter. It seems to go in the opposite direction to the idea of the BBC working across the United Kingdom, which is meant to be one of the core principles of its operation. In addition, it does not deliver on the two high-level ambitions in the annual plan.

Do you think that the decision was not thought through? If there is no production on the ground, in communities in Scotland, it will not matter which radio programme the music is on: something will be lost. Has the BBC not thought through the detail? Is there any acknowledgement that the decision does not deliver what the BBC is meant to deliver as a public broadcasting company?

I take it that everybody agrees with that.

That is helpful—thank you.

The BBC is also very big on digital and BBC Sounds. I am totally up for that, but there is still a need for productions that can be put on BBC Sounds. It feels as though the decision was not thought through.

You have talked about the impact on the core areas of education and accessibility. If the changes happen, it seems that there will be no pipeline through to live performance in pipe, classical and jazz, which are three key areas of Scottish musical culture. That is a critical disconnect. We will speak to the BBC next week. It would be useful to be able to reinforce the point that there will be a major impact on those three areas if that pipeline does not exist. Has that been acknowledged?

That is helpful.

Will the cabinet secretary commit to providing us with an update on the conclusions of the review, particularly on issues such as modular housing, co-ordination and delivery on the ground of safe and secure housing?

The First Minister will be aware of reports that the projected costs of the new Edinburgh eye pavilion have jumped by £10.5 million to £123 million. Given her Government’s shaky commitment to this vital project in the past, can she reassure patients across the Lothians and south-east Scotland that the new eye pavilion will be a priority for the Scottish Government, and that it will be delivered by 2027?

It is important that we can get that as soon as possible. If the cabinet secretary could refer to the references in the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee’s report, that would be very helpful.

Scottish Labour has been clear that we do not support the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. I start by thanking all those who gave evidence to the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee on the bill’s implications, and our clerks for their hard work in helping us pull together our report.

My view is that the bill joins a long list of mistakes made by the UK Conservative Government over the Brexit process, demonstrating an obsession with deregulation and destroying our relationships with our nearest neighbours without thinking through the damaging consequences.

The bill delivers a legal cliff edge. Its impact has not been thought through and it would mean that the UK Government would have to consider literally thousands of pieces of legislation and identify the ones that it wants to keep. That would be a massive diversion from the current issues facing our economy and our people.

I note Donald Cameron’s suggestion that our two Governments work together, which I of course agree with, but surely there is a better approach. This bill will create massive uncertainty, and there is a real danger that important legislation will be forgotten about and will disappear overnight.

The Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee report, which was published last week, highlights important concerns about disease control and implications for people’s health. It was suggested in evidence that we will see the impact of the bill when food standards drop and animal welfare is undermined. As the RSPB has highlighted, the bill puts at risk air and water quality, species and habitats protections and protections around pesticide and chemical levels in food and water. Surely, therefore, it would have been far better to consider which EU laws we would rather not have; consult with stakeholders, so that they were able to get involved; carry out risk assessments; ask lawyers about the legal implications; speak to producers and businesses; and discuss with campaigners and trade unions.

We should not only have discussed the laws that need to be retained; we should have thought about the global climate crisis that we are in and how we can accelerate our pace of change. I have to say that this is the worst possible time to be deleting legislation that protects the environment.

It is absolutely striking that stakeholders are deeply worried about the bill. Roger Barker, director of policy and governance at the Institute of Directors, said:

“Getting to grips with any resulting regulatory changes will impose a major new burden on business which it could well do without.”

The legislation will undermine workers’ rights, and the then Trades Union Congress general secretary, Frances O’Grady, described it as “a recipe for chaos”. Further, the Confederation of British Industry said that the Government should focus instead on improving its trading relationships with the EU. I totally agree. We should be rebuilding our relations with our nearest neighbours, not trashing them further.

Let us be clear: this bill is bad for business, the economy, trade, workers’ rights, health and safety and the environment. Critically, it also undermines devolution. It is another example of the Tory Government riding roughshod over devolution. That is not acceptable.

I hope that, as the bill progresses to the UK Parliament, there will be a rethink. By refusing to give consent, I hope that our Parliament will play a role in bringing about that rethink.

We cannot forget that the transfer of power from the legislature to the executive in this bill also extends to our Parliament. It is absolutely vital that we have parliamentary transparency and accountability. I would therefore be keen for the cabinet secretary to publish his Government’s plan for alignment and for ensuring that our stakeholders and our Parliament’s committees are consulted. Clare Adamson was absolutely right to say that we needed more comprehensive debate on this issue. Our stakeholders and our communities need certainty, accountability and transparency, not the legal cliff edge and bad government that this bill will deliver.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I refer members to my entry in the register of interests.

I also want to speak in solidarity with the people of Ukraine. It is indeed rare that all of us will support a Scottish Government motion without proposing an amendment to it. That is significant, because, as a democratic institution, we do not always agree on everything—let us just put it like that.

On 24 February 2022, Putin’s Russian forces launched an invasion of Ukraine. There are not words to describe the shock, anger and deep sadness as Ukrainians have suffered, and are suffering, the consequences of a cruel, unjustifiable attack, which the whole world witnessed. I put on record my welcome to the Ukrainian consul who has been able to join us in Parliament during this debate.

As Sir Keir Starmer said on his recent visit to Kyiv, the UK’s support for Ukraine is not party political, and a Labour Government would continue support for Ukraine.

It is true to say that Russia could end this war today by withdrawing its troops. Until that happens, we and Ukraine’s other democratic allies must continue to support Ukraine as it defends its sovereign territory. That is absolutely crucial.

This is not the only discussion of Ukraine that we have had in Parliament this week; there have been several. We had the incredibly emotional Postcards from Ukraine celebration, when it was heartening to hear the choir. It is difficult to pass on the emotion of the event. We had a round-table meeting on the risks and mitigation of human trafficking of Ukrainian refugees. We have not discussed that issue in today’s debate, but we need to acknowledge that vulnerable people who escape the horrors of war potentially face the risks of trafficking, exploitation and abuse. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has spoken about the need to support women and children, as they constitute the overwhelming majority of those who have fled Ukraine for neighbouring countries. They are vulnerable people who have escaped the horrors of war and now face the risk of trafficking, exploitation and abuse.

Like other colleagues have said, it is very rare that I stand up to agree with everything that Neil Gray says, so this is probably a first and it may be a last; I may also be agreeing with Donald Cameron for possibly the first and the last time. That is in line with the principle of standing in solidarity. The war in Ukraine has enabled us to show our compassion and humanity as an international community.

In Scotland, I am proud of the people who have become hosts to Ukrainians, the people who have volunteered for or donated to charities, the organisations that are supporting people in Ukraine, and our local authorities. Last year, representatives from the magnificent medicines to Ukraine campaign briefed MSPs. Their work is impressive. They continue the sourcing of specialist medicines, the logistical work and the safe delivery of those medicines to where they are most needed by Ukrainians who are experiencing health issues as a result of Putin’s invasion.

I also thank the Disasters Emergency Committee and all those across the UK who have given generous donations to its fantastic work delivering support to people on the front line.

I also welcome the minister’s announcement of additional funding. This is an unfolding crisis, and Scotland has a key role to play.

There are still thousands of people who hold a visa and may still come to Scotland, and there are people arriving from Ukraine every day.

We are a democracy, so I am allowed to ask our Government to go a bit further, to go a bit faster and to do more. That is one of the privileges of being in an elected democracy. You can say what you think without consequence. You do not have to worry about being locked up or about a journalist who reports you being put into jail, so let me use my voice today. There is more that we could be doing.

When we had a presentation from the Ukrainian consul at the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee the other week, we got some incredibly helpful feedback from the front line in Scotland about the things that we could be doing better, in particular providing more support for Ukrainian displaced people with English language classes and childcare. The presentation provoked us to think about the challenges and about the vulnerability that people who have come from Ukraine feel, particularly people who now have jobs and have children in our schools but are potentially not in long-term permanent accommodation, even if it is for three years. Therefore, there is more that we could be doing to support our local authorities and the third sector organisations that have really stepped up to the plate in recent months. That is something that I think we can be utterly proud of, but I would like us to do more.

We need more long-term and, in particular, medium-term planning to support Ukrainians who have come to Scotland. Although I very much welcome the 750 available houses that the minister referred to, I would like to see all of that £50 million fund spent. I would like to see it spent across Scotland and, as an MSP for Lothian, where we have a housing crisis on top of a housing crisis, I am very keen to see that investment coming forward as soon as possible. There are still people living in temporary accommodation and we need to do much more to support them. It is an issue not just for my area of Edinburgh and the Lothians, but across Scotland. I know from talking to colleagues in Glasgow that they are quite nervous about what happens next for people leaving the cruise ship.

There is so much more that we can do. We need to make sure that we step up to the mark, because Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has left key areas of infrastructure in Ukraine absolutely decimated, so we know that those Ukrainians who have come to Scotland will need our support for the long run. We need to think, at a UK and Scottish level, about how we can plan and build long-term commercial links with Ukraine to ensure that reconstruction efforts are successful and sustainable. There will be so much more that we can do, so our warm welcome has to be backed up with actions.

As I said at the start of my contribution, we are here to stand together in solidarity and our focus has to be clear—we are here because of Putin’s actions. Yesterday, we had another important debate, on the need for a special tribunal to hold Putin, and those who have launched aggression on the people of Ukraine, to account for the estimated 65,000 registered incidents of war crimes. It was an emotional debate and an important one.

We need to continue to support Ukrainians and defend Ukraine’s identity and integrity. That means stepping up and making sure that sanctions are effectively implemented and that we send a clear message of solidarity and support. I want our UK and Scottish Governments to do more, to spend more, to give that practical daily support to Ukrainians who have come here.