The next item of business. Point of order. I would seek your guidance in respect to this afternoon's Government debate, which on the face of it would appear to cut across an inquiry as to the consenting or not to a legislative consent motion that is currently before a committee of this Parliament. The guidance that I seek is in regard to rule 6.2 in the functions of all committees, which gather together in a one, suggests that the role of the committees is to hold the Scottish Government to account with regard to policy and administration and also to deal with proposals for legislation to which the legislative consent motion I believe falls under. My concern is that the motion on which we will be asked to vote preempts an opinion from the committee to which the chamber would rightfully look for advice on how to vote later on that legislative consent motion. I would seek your guidance on this apparent anomaly that has occurred. I thank Mr Wittfield for his point of order. There have been instances where the Parliament has debated matters that are the subject of committee scrutiny prior to committee reports being published, and I can confirm that there are no procedural limitations on the Parliament debating this topic today. This afternoon's business was agreed by the bureau and then voted on by the Parliament last week. The member may be interested to know that the Scottish Government has confirmed its intention to bring forward a debate following the conclusion of the committee's consideration. We will move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion 6984, in the name of Angus Robertson, on EU retained law. I would be grateful if members who wish to speak were to press their request to speak buttons now. I call on Angus Robertson to speak to and move the motion. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I formally move the motion that stands in my name. I would like to return to the Brexit freedoms bill that was discussed in the chamber here on 23 June this year. At that time, I said that the bill would have a damaging impact on this Parliament and on Scotland as a whole. Whilst the UK Government has quietly and perhaps unsurprisingly withdrawn the misnamed position of so-called Minister for Brexit opportunities, the legislation still threatens to cause havoc and significant harm. The position of the Scottish Government has therefore not changed. We have since recommended that the Scottish Parliament withhold consent for this bill. Whilst I await with interest the constitution, European external affairs and culture committees report into the retained EU law, revocation and reform bill, as it is now called, such as its potential damage, it is the view of the Scottish Government as set out in today's motion that the legislation should be withdrawn entirely and it should be withdrawn immediately. I will structure the opening remarks by focusing first on what the bill actually seeks to do. You will see that opposition for this bill is now broad and it is firm. Secondly, I will focus on how it will be delivered. Again, you will see that the powers invested in UK ministers and the absence of parliamentary scrutiny are extremely concerning. Let me start by making sure that we are all clear 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 the legislation forward without knowing the actual figure. When the clock times out on December 31, 2023, those pieces of legislation will disappear or sunset from the UK statute book. What that means is that the default position of the UK Government is that most of the body of laws and protections that were developed while we were a member state of the European Union should be retired with the rules affecting 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 this complex and arduous task is reckless in the extreme. Retained EU law may sound dry, but its disappearance or amendment by a UK Government intent on pursuing its deregulatory agenda will affect the food that we eat, our rights at work, our natural environment and much, much more besides. Vital protections gained as part of our membership of the European Union that have made the people of Scotland's lives better and which they overwhelmingly wish to maintain are at the risk. Some examples for what that actually 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 and I quote from them an attack on working women. The requirement for food to be labelled for allergens could be removed. The food standard Scotland said the bill poses and I quote, a significant risk to Scotland's ability to uphold the high safety and food standards which the public expects and deserves. The EU habitats regulations protecting threatened habitats and species may be revoked. The maritime conservation society warns the bill if passed, will and I quote them, lead to catastrophic regulatory and environmental failures. These 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 of those examples and many, many more besides can disappear due to the ministerial powers in the bill. What's worse, the sunset clause means that they will do so automatically on December 31, 2023 unless specifically saved. Why the need to create this 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 hardest of Brexiteers' disdain for the European Union. It means that I'll be happy to give way yet. I'm very grateful to the member giving way. Would you also agree with me that there is the potential by that cliff edge of not even knowing regulations that cover this that will go and no one is aware of them until they probably appear in court at some later date? Yet another reason why this bill should be consigned to the dustbin of history, and I'll come back to the point and indeed I will come back to the Labour amendment, which is very much welcome later in my remarks. It means that already stretched officials across the four home nations, literally wasting time assessing thousands of pieces of legislation just to make sure that they don't disappear next year. This is the point that we just heard from the Labour benches. It means uncertainty for businesses in Scotland already suffering from trade barriers due to Brexit. They 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 allowed chorus of opposition uniting businesses, trade unions, the environmental lobby, constitutional lawyers to name but a few. Indeed, only last week a joint letter from 14 organisations was sent to the UK business secretary Grant Shaps calling on him to do exactly what the Scottish government has been calling for since this bill was introduced, namely to withdraw the bill. The letter is signed by the trade union congress, it's signed by the institute of directors, it's signed by greener UK, the employment lawyers association, the civil society alliance, the Wales civil society forum, I could go on. The point being that you be hard pressed to find anyone, literally anyone who is in favour of this bill. The UK government earlier this year declined to share with us its impact assessment for the bill. No surprising that it was being coy last week the UK's independent regulation watchdog, the regulatory policy committee, who have seen the report described the impact assessment for the bill as quotes not fit for purpose. Zero consultation with businesses, zero concern about the impact that will have on them and the risk of standards and the risk of the sunset are caused for great concern by themselves. Let me turn now to how the powers in this bill will undermine devolution and limit the scrutiny of 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 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, as 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. That bill also sidelines Parliament 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 Scottish ministers and the role of the Scottish Parliament. It undermines democratic accountability and responsibility for devolved matters, but that is unfortunately the new norm when it comes to this UK Government. To them, the Sule Convention is merely a need to seek consent from the devolved Governments and legislatures, which can then be ignored when, for nearly 20 years, the Convention was understood as a requirement for consent. In my conversations with UK Government ministers, they have repeatedly assured me that the Sule Convention will be respected, but actions speak louder than words and the evidence is there for us all to see. Since 2018, this Parliament has on seven occasions withheld consent for a UK Government bill. This Parliament has been ignored six times. All signs point to the retained EU law bill being number eight. It is clear that the foundations upon which devolution is operated are increasingly fragile. UK ministers attempt to sell 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. That devolution is in fact being enhanced. This is misdirection, plain and simple. Devolved ministers are given powers to preserve retained EU law in this bill, 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, but they cannot go up. Ministers can do all of this with minimum or no further scrutiny from Parliament. The great promise of Brexit to 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 Fernholtz, who 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 has been left or what will be changed. Clearly, Scottish Government ministers are not the only ones who are concerned. Our colleagues in the Welsh Government agree, and last week McAntony, council general for the Welsh Government and I, wrote jointly to the Financial Times in support of many organisations who have written to them criticising the bill calling for its withdrawal. Indeed, it was published in yesterday's Financial Times. I noted in the recent impact of Brexit on devolution debate that several colleagues suggested solution to the differences of opinion between the Scottish Government and the UK Government regarding the Sewell Convention is for, quote, more dialogue between the two. I am open to constructive dialogue with anyone, however the problem here is one side's refusal to acknowledge the detrimental impacts that their actions are having. I met twice with the previous Secretary of State, Jacob Rees-Mogg, to discuss the bill. It came as no surprise to him that we were fundamentally opposed to it and our preference was for it to be withdrawn, but I also offered proposed changes to the bill to reduce the damage that it would do to Scotland. They were ignored and the bill remains unchanged. Grant Shaps has now replaced Mr Rees-Mogg as 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 actual amendments to the bill. I have heard nothing from Mr Shaps and the bill remains unchanged. Of course, I am happy to give way. I think that it would be very helpful to know what suggested changes you would make to the bill, just so that we could get some proper transparency from this Government and, of course, from the UK Government. Indeed, which is what we have already done. These are amendments that have been tabled in committee, and I am grateful for the support of Labour members on that committee. I will be happy to forward Sarah Boyack's copies of those amendments. I do believe that the suggested changes have also been published prior to their amendment at the committee stage in the House of Commons, but I am happy to share them. I put that on record that there are different parties that have been supporting those amendments. I should say and underline that throughout this process, in close working relationship with our colleagues in the Labour-led Welsh Government. I go back to my point about the solution being more dialogue to the deteriorating state of devolution, requiring the UK Government to listen to the devolved Governments. I sincerely hope that Mr Shaps chooses to do so. It will be a departure for normal practice. I will finish by returning to the bill and its significance as an example of an ideology that Scotland wants no part of. Scotland is committed to maintaining alignment with the European Union. We wish to benefit from the high standards that we gained as a member state. Alignment is, of course, a point of principle and conviction, and Scotland's attachment to the European Union has been demonstrated at the ballot box time and time again. If the latest polls are to be believed, that desire to remain close to Europe is doing nothing other than increasing. With UK legislation like the retained EU law bill, the people of Scotland can see what is at stake and understand the devastating effect that Brexit is having on our country. Rejecting this bill is rejecting a race to the bottom on standards, rejecting a reckless approach to policymaking and scrutiny, and rejecting an approach that ignores and undermines the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. Thank you. I now call on Donald Cameron to speak to and move amendment 6984.1. Presiding Officer, thank you. Can I move the amendment in my name and refer also to my register of interests as a member of the Faculty of Advocates? It's not often that I get to my feet in this chamber with reluctance or a sense of feeling heavy-hearted. I always enjoy the cut-and-thrust of debate in this place, the battle of ideas, the two-and-fro with colleagues, sometimes as friends and sometimes as opponents, but not today. Today represents a low point because I am afraid to say that it is an example where the ability of this place as a legislature to scrutinise the executive as it is meant to do has been utterly undermined. To recap, the Constitutional External Affairs and Culture Committee is conducting an inquiry into the rule bill, if I could call it that. As per chapter 9B of Standing Orders, it must report on the LCM in due course. That is established parliamentary process mandated by law. Our committee has just initiated this inquiry and we have begun to take evidence. A week or so ago, we have other evidence sessions to come, for instance, from the cabinet secretary. We have also invited a UK Government minister, and given that this is a UK Government bill, it might be thought important, imperative even, that we allow the UK Government the opportunity to give evidence. The DPRR committee is also looking at the bill. Notwithstanding the significant work that has just been started on this topic by both committees, the Scottish Government has scheduled this debate on the matter at short notice. Last week, all that Parliament had noticed of was a debate on EU-retained law—just a reference to a corpus of law—nothing more, nothing less. It was only after that had been agreed by Parliament that discussions in committee and with the Scottish Government last Thursday revealed to me what the real purpose of the debate was. I am most grateful to you, Mr Cameron, for giving way, Presiding Officer. Of course, the parliamentary proceedings that have been ruled by you will continue. I recall that, during the 2016 referendum on EU membership, a substantial majority of Conservative MSPs were remainers—in fact, staunch remainers—and many of them said so in public and volubly. Are we now to take it, Presiding Officer, that there are no remainers remaining on the Tory porirud benches? Is the case that, in Scotland, the remainers have, if you like, been remandered by Rishi? I am not quite sure of the purpose of that intervention, but I voted to remain on record. I am not naive to the politics of the debate. The cabinet secretary will know who in the Scottish Government had informed the committee clerks of the debate, but the fact remains that it is occurring on a subject where MSPs and parliamentary staff on two separate committees are midway through extensive scrutiny of evidence and in the process of compiling detailed reports on the bill in line with an obligatory process of this Parliament for LCMs. It is clear that this debate is plainly premature—I have taken it in the intervention—and contrary to the principle of proper and objective scrutiny by this Parliament. By holding this debate now, the entirety of that scrutiny process has been undermined. What is the purpose of our committee continuing to look at this bill when, by 5 p.m. tonight, Parliament will have expressed a simple view on the matter? That has caused upset and frustration on many levels. The staff of our committee are placed in a very difficult position of effectively having their carefully organised timetable and work interrupted at WIM. They have spent weeks organising witnesses in preparation for writing a very difficult and technical report, as they are obliged to do in line with standing orders. The approach from the Scottish Government is an insult to them and their hard work. It renders later evidence sessions very difficult, as they will be coloured by the political contributions of any committee MSP participating this afternoon. We hear two frequent refrains in this chamber. First, that the UK Government does not send ministers to give evidence to our committees, and more widely, the UK Government does not respect the Scottish Parliament. How much less plausible, less effective are those charges now? The lack of respect comes from one Government alone, and it is the one sitting on those benches. Why would a UK Government minister give evidence to the committee when the Parliament will, by 5 p.m. tonight, have debated this issue and expressed a view on a UK Government bill? Why would they come? Moreover, how could they expect a fair hearing from an objective committee in the light of a prior parliamentary debate when MSPs on the committee will be on record voting and calling for the bill to be scrapped? There are other witnesses to think about too. We have six witnesses due to give evidence on Thursday. Six witnesses who have submitted written evidence and six witnesses who have taken time out of their schedules to prepare for and attend the committee. Why should they bother? Parliament will have expressed a view on the bill. If the Scottish Government motion passes, Parliament's view will be that the entire bill should be scrapped—end of story. Anything they say now is rendered pointless. What room is left for nuance, for subtlety, for the balance of opinion, or to be taken into account in our committee report? It also makes life very awkward for the convener. She has to chair the upcoming evidence sessions on the bill in a neutral manner and thus is unable to speak in today's debate when she would, of course, have much to contribute, as she always does. This debate puts her in a very difficult position. As deputy convener, it is less difficult for me, but if for whatever reason I are to substitute for her, how can I do so in an objective capacity? We are placed in a wholly invidious position of being forced to debate the bill whilst, at the same time, trying to hear evidence and come to a collective view as a committee in our LCM report, as we are obliged by law to do. The Constitutional Committee has somewhat remarkably given its title and the subject matter that it engages with achieved consensus on a wide variety of topics so far this session. It is one of the best committees that I have sat on as an MSP. Every member brings different insights and experiences to our discussion. Even in the most difficult of circumstances, we have somehow managed to find a word, formal words to agree on. However, how on earth do we draft a consensual report when the Scottish Government has blown a hole through this inquiry with a debate like this? The proper process would have, of course, been to allow a debate after the evidence sessions have finished. We did that with the Northern Ireland protocol bill. We could have done it with this bill. To those who say that Parliament sometimes debates matters which are the subject of on-going committee inquiries, my answer is this. This is a legislative consent process. It is a defined procedure, not least because the subject matter is UK legislation, not Scottish Government legislation, and involves a subject area that is not prima facie within the remit of this Parliament. It is very different territory. That is why, when it comes to LCMs, the standing orders are so clear, providing that a motion seeking the Parliament's consent to a UK bill shall not normally be lodged until after the publication of the lead committee's report. That rule is there to protect the integrity of the committee, its members and, perhaps more importantly, its staff, who are the ones working so hard in the compiling of that report. We might not technically be within the letter of those rules, but we are quite plainly within the spirit of those rules. I have no objection whatsoever to debating the rule bill. I heard the whisper of the cabinet secretary saying that I was frightened of debating this. I have no objection, but only at the proper time. I want to hear the evidence. It is an important piece of legislation that requires a full and rigorous debate. I can remind the cabinet secretary that, as counsel, I acted for the Scottish Government, for his own Government in the European Court of Justice just a few years ago. EU law is my meat and drink, and there is nothing I would like to do more than debate the substance of this bill. In fact, I would go further. I have some misgivings about certain aspects of this bill as drafted. The real tragedy of what is transpired today is that there might have been an opportunity for the Parliament to speak as one on this bill with every party in agreement, but any good will that might have existed in that regard has vanished. In pushing for a short term tactical hit, the Scottish Government has rendered that impossible. This is not about semantics, it is about the scrutiny of the executive by the legislature. With every passing day, this Parliament feels weaker and weaker as an institution, and what a sadness. I think that we are now on our third Tory prime minister who is seeking to find some sort of benefit from this mess, but it is only achieving an increasing uncertainty for workers and businesses. At the outset of the debate, I want to put on record my frustration that we have the debate in front of us today by the Scottish Government. The bill absolutely should be debated by MSPs and the Parliament, but I think that the points that are made by Donald Cameron about the fact that our Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee is in the middle of carrying out or inquiring this very bill, were very well made and that there is also work being done by the DPLR Committee. I certainly agree that the bill undermines devolution and our capacity to hold our Government's account. It is based on the assumption that it will be all right on the night, but Tory ministers have fundamentally misunderstood and misunderplayed the risks that this bill creates. It was initially thought that there would be 2,500 pieces of legislation to be considered, but it turns out that there are more than 4,000 pieces of legislation, and we know that they are not all on the dashboard, which has meant to enable people to monitor the process. I am disappointed that we are having the debate today, because I think that it shows disrespect to the committee and the Parliament by not waiting for our committees to have been able to consider the evidence that was submitted and to report formally. I hope that we still get engagement not just from the Scottish Government ministers to come to our committee but from the UK Government to come to our committee, because there is something absolutely fundamental about legislatures holding ministers to account. The other point that I will say is that the work that is done by members on our committee across party is that it will not just be about the party politics, as Donald Cameron put it. We all have to do our jobs as individual committee members as well. On this legislation in particular, we need to do heavy lifting, because there is a huge amount of scrutiny required. I would say to the minister for business that I am glad that he has joined us. We do not want a short token debate in this place, we need a proper debate. The irony of the Scottish Government treating our Parliament with disrespect when the debate is about the disrespect that is shown by the Tory Government is a glorious irony. Scrutiny of parliamentarians holding ministers to account is absolutely vital. Taking evidence from key stakeholders is not just about getting the newspaper headlines that is fundamental to our work as MSPs. I hope that our committee continues with its inquiry, the evidence thus far is on the record that it has been powerful. Let us look at the bill. It was introduced by Jacob Rees-Mogg, then a minister in Liz Truss is appalling, but thankfully short-lived government. The bill has not been dumped as the budget was dumped, the Liz Truss quasi-quarteng budget, even though it will also damage businesses and hard fought workers' rights. I think that the comments by the cabinet secretary about the failures of the bill in relation to its impact assessment were well made. It is not just the headlines that are wrong, but the detail that is totally wrong. I call on our Tory Government to reflect on the range of addictions that are already put forward at our UK level, the well-argu alternatives to this damaging approach, because we are putting protections and safety on a cliff edge. The bill puts in place a sunset clause, so all retained EU law is removed automatically from the statute book by a year from now, December 2023, meaning that current law on environmental protections and workers' rights would be scrapped with no scrutiny. It would remove the supremacy of the Court of Justice of the related EU case law in UK courts, which could threaten rights enshrined through EU case law, such as on equal pay. The bill also confers Henry VIII powers on UK and Scottish ministers. I would be grateful if, in his closing speech, the cabinet secretary would rule out using these archaic and undemocratic laws from the 16th century. You could not make some of this up. It would be bad news for our health and environmental standards, and it would create uncertainty and increase challenges for our businesses who were already struggling with building Covid recovery and now they are dealing with the cost of living crisis initiated by the Liz Trust Tory Government. Labour wants the Tory Government to dump the bill. Not because we automatically agree with every single piece of law that we have adopted in our 47 years in the EU, but it is because the bill has not been thought through. It means that the UK Government and our own Government in Scotland have to consider literally thousands of pieces of legislation in Scotland looking at the devolved areas and thinking through which are not devolved that still could have an impact. It will create massive uncertainty. There is a real danger that we will lose good laws and that that impact will be felt when food standards drop, where animal welfare is undermined. Surely it would be far better to consider which EU laws we would rather not have, consult properly so that stakeholders are able to get involved, carry out risk assessments, ask lawyers about the legal implications, speak to producers and businesses, and discuss with campaigners those laws that do not just need to be retained, but whether we want to go further to tackle the global climate crisis and accelerate the pace of change. One piece of legislation that I will remember from my days as a transport minister was the impact of state aids on CalMac. I had to build cross-party support amongst MEPs, lobby European officials to argue that our rural and island communities needed state investment and state ferries for their very existence. We won the argument, but it required huge amount of compromise, reordering how CalMac work, which led to the creation of CMAL, to ensure that the EU was happy with the solution that we developed, took a huge amount of civil service work and political effort. Let us think about the opportunities that we could deliver by not being bound to this EU-defined state aid as it is, but we do not need to drop thousands of other valuable pieces of legislation. Consumer protection, animal welfare standards, they are vital to ensuring public health and avoiding the spread of dangerous diseases. Surely we need to think about that as we build Covid recovery. We need clear standards and certainty that they are being followed, so that regardless of where crops are grown or food is made or animals are brought up, that the products are packaged and labelled and transported to ensure consumer safety and animal welfare and safety. We do not need a race to the bottom, we need consistency, we need transparency and, crucially, we need legal certainty for our businesses. We also need to see workers' rights and protections upheld. Again, a race to the bottom is the last thing that people need as we try to rebuild from Covid and address the cost of living crisis. Finally, the bill impacts on parliamentary accountability and undermines devolution. It would see legislation that has devolved to our Scottish Parliament potentially dumped without proper consultation, without stakeholders being able to make representations and without us as elected representatives being able to hold the Scottish Government to account. It is already struggling to communicate effectively which elements of EU law intend to retain and why, never mind which telling us which it does not. The bill creates a massive workload at a time when surely we should be focusing on Covid recovery and the cost of living crisis. The concept of Henry VIII powers—I have already mentioned that from a king from the 15th century—would see UK and Scottish ministers having powers to approve legislation without scrutiny, which would be laughable if it were not going to happen. We need strong parliamentary scrutiny in Wales, in the UK Parliament, from our own CHIAC and DPLR committees. I very much look forward to our committee reporting back to Parliament. I realise that it is a challenge that some of our members of the committee will have given this debate today, but let me go back to my point earlier. We have our job to do, committee members, doing the heavy lifting of looking at the details about listening to the range of witnesses that are lined up to come and speak to us. Today is about us making political statements and having a political debate, but we need that heavy lifting because this bill is absolutely critical that we don't see the damage that it potentially brings to our country. I want to comment on the amendment from Willie Rennie today. There is clearly much more that could be done to build stronger relationships with our European neighbours and a better understanding of the impact of European law and its interaction with our needs in terms of human and animal safety, the needs of Scottish businesses and a grown-up approach to cross-border work. I would like to draw members' attention to the work that we did in the summer in Scottish Labour, which would help to create the transformation that would address those issues that we urgently need to see across the UK. More joint work, where we shared interests, for example through the common frameworks that deliver for our constituents, to see the House of Lords replaced by the Senate of Nations and Regions, as supported by Keir Starmer last week, and crucially to see respect from governments to our elected parliaments. Joint working to see the UK operating as a union of equal nations with a duty to co-operate. For example, the energy transition needs lessons learned across the UK, but crucially respect and support for our local councils too. It is not just the parliamentary level, we also need to see local accountability. The UK Tory Government needs to listen to the concerns of businesses and acknowledge the fear of economic uncertainty that it is creating for producers. The fact that it puts a huge risk, hard fought workers' rights, which are critical in terms of job retention and fairness, environmental standards, that we simply cannot now take for granted, there is going to have to be a huge amount of work here and critically public health. Certainly the issues that we are going to need to look at in our committee is really important in terms of public health. Those risks are not acceptable. The point that I would end on is that we need parliamentary accountability and scrutiny in this legislation. There is such a huge amount being put at risk here, so we need the UK Parliament and its committees, the House of Lords and its committees, the Scottish and Welsh Synod and all the work that we can do as parliamentarians to make sure that we scrutinise this bill and put in the heavy lifting. Potentially, at the stroke of midnight, we lose legislation that it took years to create. Lots and lots of consultation, negotiating, listening to our representatives, listening to our members of the public and our businesses. Given what our country has gone through with Covid, it is unthinkable that the bill undermines our Covid recovery and that we need the bill to be dumped. I move the amendment in my name. I hope that it strengthens the Scottish Government's motion. I am glad that it is going to be accepted. Let us work together, let us not forget the importance of our committee work and let us look forward to having the heavy lifting that this Parliament needs. If at all the Tory Government could remove this bill, that would let us concentrate on the day job. We really need to do that. Ms Boyack, I can advise the chamber that there is quite a bit of time in hand, so certainly any interventions, you will get the time back. I call Willie Rennie to speak to him. Amendment 6984.3, a generous six minutes, Mr Rennie. So here we are again, frustratingly stuck in yet another debate about process. The UK Government is being cavalier and I can't help to think that the UK Conservative Government have generated this debate because they simply can't find any real Brexit freedoms. Was the sunset clause created to generate some drama around the all-Brexit debate because there isn't much else to shout about? Kicking up some dust to hide the folly of Brexit? It's the baby of Jacob Rees-Mogg. What further evidence do we need? And the SNP loved nothing more than a debate about Westminster process, especially when it gives them yet another chance to be affronted by whatever the slight is this week. But this debate is even more processy than I first thought. It's now a debate on process, on a debate about process. In their eagerness to complain about the UK Government, there is no doubt that the Scottish Government have undermined the committee process of the very Parliament that they claim to cherish. So despite all this process, there is still a matter of substance at the heart of the debate, I think. The UK Government is being cavalier, even if we don't know exactly what they are being cavalier with and who will suffer. But neither does the UK Government know what they are being cavalier about. That's the problem. They are driving in the pitch dark. We can do without this. Businesses, charities and organisations have enough on their plate without yet more Government-induced uncertainty and potential chaos. I'm most grateful for Mr Ray giving away, and I promise I will not be a tall process. Could I just ask him, therefore, why is it, if Brexit is such a disaster, and I don't think there's much disagreement in these benches, why is it that his leader, Mr Davie, says that he's given up on trying to rejoin the EU? I think that it's Mr Fergus Ewing that's now inventing words and putting them in the mouth of Ed Davie. Ed Davie is very pro-European. He's made the case for a crosser relationship with the European Union, and we will always be pro-European. I remember fighting the referendum campaign in 2016, where the SNP were absolutely nowhere to be seen. In fact, I also remember that they spent more on the Shetland by-election than they spent on their campaign to keep our country in the European Union, so Mr Fergus Ewing and I will not take lessons from the SNP about how pro-European we are. Why is the Government taking forward this legislation that will make life harder for businesses? Why do they want to make it harder for them to trade with businesses in France, Germany and Spain? Every divergence and standards means that businesses face more red tape to export into the EU, to not even know whether they are divergic or not is utterly reckless. That goes to the heart of the Conservative party's simplistic and inaccurate understanding of regulation. Businesses are attracted to the UK in part because of good regulations. Businesses need the comfort of a good regulatory system. Businesses simply do not want the fantasy deregulatory agenda that lives only in the minds of some Conservative MPs. After the events of Liz Truss's premiership, I would have hoped for a little more wisdom and caution from the Government, but I will ask no. That uncertainty is causing real anxieties. The RSPB has described the potential revocation of environmental laws in DEFRA as an attack on nature and has expressed particular concern about the regulation of air and water quality and the prevention of pollution. Ruth Chambers, a senior fellow at Greener UK, has said that the Government is hurtling towards a deregulatory free-for-all where vital environmental protections are ripped up and public health is put at risk. The approach to employment law is the same. A host of rights such as holiday pay and agency workers' rights could be downgraded or limited. The Institute of Public Policy Research has said that the cliff edge would create extraordinary uncertainty for businesses and workers. The same is true for many other areas as well—justice, data protection and the protection for consumers. I am not convinced that this is primarily a massive assault on devolution, but we need a new way of working in the UK. Power is best exercised when it is shared effectively. With a federal UK, we could chart a course together that allows us to reflect our common interests and local needs. Rather than the minister in Whitehall always making the final decision, we should share those decisions. During the pandemic, we saw some of the benefits of devolution and joint decision making through the Four Nations approach. Bob Doris. I thank the member for giving away. You mentioned a federal UK. That sounds a bit processy. How can we really stand up for Scotland's interests? Surely it is scrapping Brexit in Scotland by an independent nation. Willie Rennie. That would be the process debate to finish all process debates, hopefully including the process debate about independence that seems to never ever go away. Bringing power together when necessary enabled joint decisions through the pandemic and the flexing of that approach for each part of the country allowed for a diverse approach when it suits the circumstances. We need a constitution that clearly recognises the shared sovereignty of all four constituent parts of the union and finds a way to ensure that the UK Government, the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the various parts of England can work together in partnership. I think that that is what the public expects of politicians in these difficult times. Governments should be compelled to co-operate and agree where their work overlaps, backed by common frameworks and a new dispute resolution procedure, so that differences can be resolved maturely between the Administrations. I can hear the SNP benches getting riled up by this. So exciting proposition. To share power and to deliver better governance across the whole of the UK in accordance with the principles of federalism, that is surely the way that we should progress in this country. Bring us together, not divide us, make us work in partnership to resolve our common problems. That is something that this whole Parliament should get behind. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you, Mr Rennie. We now move to the open debate. Again, plenty of time in hand, I call first Jenny Minto, to be followed by Jim Fairlie. Jenny, six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm going to open today with a slightly amended quote from a novel written on Dura almost 75 years ago, George Orwell's 1984. It was a bright cold day in November and the clocks were striking 13. The clock is striking 13. In just 13 months, thousands of laws retained on our statute books after Scotland was dragged out of the EU against the will of our people will be sunsetted, discontinued, terminated, unless they are signed off by UK Government ministers to be kept if the retained EU law bill is passed at Westminster. With up to 4,000 pieces of legislation covering areas such as workers' rights, animal health and welfare and natural environmental protections, EU legislation that has been scrutinised and shaped over the 47 years that we were a member state. When giving evidence to the SEAC Committee, Dr Hood KC said, it is important to realise that that legislation throughout the whole period of our EU membership has become woven into so much of our law. The retained EU law bill has been widely criticised as reckless and anti-democratic by legal experts because of the unprecedented powers that it gives UK ministers. The bill has been described as not fit for purpose by the UK Government's own independent assessor. The bill, it has been suggested, represents a push for deregulation at the expense of common sense. In their written evidence to SEAC Food Standards Scotland, Scotland said, the removal of retained EU law would not therefore return the UK statute book to the UK standards that existed prior to rule. It would return us to a time where little in the way of any standards applied. They go on to say, a critical purpose of food law is to prevent poor quality unsafe food reaching the market. Regulations should restrict poor and unsafe practices because its purpose is to provide public protection. Deregulation that removes consumer protection should not be assumed to be an improvement. Even with the deluge of concerns from across civil society, the business community and the legal profession, the Tory Government continues unabated on its ideological journey to take advantage of the benefits of Brexit, whatever those might be. Let's look at the Scottish Government's own modelling, showing that Scotland's economy and social wellbeing are disproportionately impacted by Brexit, with Scotland's GDP set to be £9 billion lower in 2016 cash terms by 2030 compared to continued EU membership, or recent HMRC data that shows a £2.2 billion slump in Scottish exports since Brexit. Then there are the UK's flagship post-Brexit trade deals, one with Australia, which is not actually a very good deal, according to former Environment Secretary George Eustace, and the Japanese trade deal, where figures collated by the Department of International Trade show that exports fell from £12.3 billion to £11.9 billion in the year to June 2022. When SEAC heard evidence from fisheries, agriculture and food representatives on the proposed bill last week, worries about the impact on trade were stressed. Looking at one sector, Scottish Salmon, its top export markets are EU member states, accounting for 70 per cent of Scottish seafood exports, a value of £774 million in 2019. In their evidence at last week's committee, Seafood Scotland described pre-Brexit trade as selling to Glasgow was like selling to France. It was simple, straightforward process. Post-Brexit is different, and they gave this stark warning. It has been a real shock to the system to try and now operate under the Brexit models and costs, time, etc. There is a real fear as well that deregulation and any standards that are lowered from our side would interrupt that trade again. Two weeks ago, I attended the RSPB celebration of nature awards. Across Scotland, communities are creating projects to restore nature and halt biodiversity. It was fantastic to see our Gailinby organisation so well represented. The winners of the Coast and Waters award was the fantastic sea wilding on Loch Cregnish. In other categories, the Argyll and the Isles coastal trust with SSEN transmission were nominated for the work that they are doing on restoring Celtic rainforests. I should declare that I am species champion for those rainforests. Our Dura wellbeing on mull and Betty Banry's Superbee, the great yellow bumblebee book from Tyrie, was also shortlisted. There was such positivity in the room. These are all stakeholders, but there was also huge concern. As has already been quoted, Anne McAld, a retro RSPB Scotland, along with over 40 other environmental groups, have called the bill an attack on nature. She described nature as being in crisis, saying that the retained EU law bill risks scrapping the habitats regulations, which safeguard our most important wildlife and wild places. It is unacceptable that the UK Government has unveiled sweeping measures with major consequences for Scotland with such little discussion or, indeed, respect for this Parliament and Scottish ministers. The bill is yet another power grab from Westminster on our devolution, which set in Scotland's democracy, economy, consumer and worker rights and the environment. In 1984, Big Brother had all inconvenient truths consigned to the memory hole and oblivion. With this bill, the Tory Government plans to consign laws protecting precious rights to their memory hole and oblivion. Last night, in his mansion house speech, the current Prime Minister laid out his Government's approach to foreign policy. He said that we will evolve, anchored always by our enduring belief in freedom openness in the rule of law and confident that, in this moment of challenge and competition, our interests will be protected and our values will prevail. Might I politely suggest that the retained EU law bill is not anchored in freedom or openness and that the only way that our interests here in Scotland will be protected and our values will prevail is by Scotland rejoining the European family of nations and by regaining our independence? I called him fairly to be followed by Alec Grawley, again a generous six minutes. The editorial director of Le Mans, Sylvie Kaufman, said a couple of years ago, watching the long descent of Westminster into something resembling hell has been an exhausting experience. It's easy to appreciate these words given the absolutely chaotic and disastrously mismanaged Brexit that has resulted in the economic catastrophe for the UK. With grim longer-term forecasts until the Tories and the new pro-Brexit Labour Party find the bravery to admit the folly and change that direction. The real problem here is, unlike our European neighbours, we aren't bystanders with the ability to stand back and watch the unfolding shambles. We are collateral damage in the Tory party internal struggles and are being denied a democratic route to stop it for the people of Scotland. Had we voted yes in 2014, we would have been like every other European country and watched our nearest neighbour wreak havoc on itself. We may have been able to advise and cajole them into considering their actions, but we wouldn't have been dragged down with them. That unfortunately is a consequence of trusting the unionist narrative, which we now know to be completely untrue. However, where we are is where we are, so even more worrying is the fact that the responsibility to outline a restructuring of the laws inherited from the 2020 EU withdrawal act was given to those two most prominent fantasist Brexiteers, Lord Frost and Jacob Rees-Mogg. That should have been a red flag to anyone. They insist that the aim is, and I quote, to take back control of our statute book. To do so by sunsetted date of the final day of 2023, all inherited EU laws has already been said will expire in this date unless expressly preserved in some form. Unsurprisingly, not only are the changes but the arbitrary rush has caused great panic across those working on the front line of the key sectors and industries that undoubtedly contribute positively to the Scottish economy and are at most threat from this folly. Of course, to safeguarding essential hard-fought rights. Workers' rights, the environment, food standards, health and safety, aviation safety, data privacy, animal welfare, consumer rights and production standards all will be required to follow the new playbook as the UK Government delivers its judgment on what exactly it means by taking control of those laws. There was a very interesting evidence session last week in the SEAC committee where stakeholders presented on what this bill will change. Food Standards Scotland, Deputy Chief Executive Julie Heskiff-Lair, stated that sunsetting is a huge risk. The bill confuses red tape and consumer protection. The aim of the bill is to return us to a time when British laws were dominant, and that is dangerous as it would take us back to nothing. European law was put in place with due process and risk assessments. Sunsetting has the potential for us to lose all consumer protection. Not only is it a major risk to consider fundamental changes to a wide range of laws at pace, it is clear that there is also an attempt for Westminster to interfere in Scotland's current devolved responsibilities. Of course, we have witnessed the reaction to last week's Supreme Court ruling that the UK establishment does not have any respect for Scotland's democracy. The Government in this Parliament was elected with the largest ever majority in the Scottish Parliament to hold an independence referendum in the context of today's debate and overwhelming vote to stay in the EU. Now we have Alasdair Jack considering sticking his nose into the business of the Scottish civil service. The intention is clear, and it is not just the laws of the EU laws that are at stake here. Yes, I will take the intervention. Can you tell us where in the motion as amended it actually says that we are staying in the European Union? That is about retained EU law. There is a bit of a distinction here. Through the chair, Jim Fairlie. I am not entirely convinced where your intervention comes from. I am talking about the fact that the member's party is now entirely committed to Brexit. Because if those two great public demonstrations and expressions were ignored, then we should fear that what disregard Westminster will have for long-established best practice in issues such as the welfare and treatment of animals or in weakening stringent checks on animals entering the food chain. During the debate in the House of Commons brought forward by my SNP colleague Brendan Ahara on 9 October 2022, the Scottish devolution settlement, the UK Government Minister refused to answer a question on what would happen if food regulations were reduced and chlorinated chicken was allowed into the country, even if the Scottish Government would prohibit that in terms of food safety responsibilities under devolution. That silence speaks volumes. We should not just use the dodging of political questions by the UK Government to illustrate those concerns. As I have stated in this chamber many times before, my backland is in farming and I have an awareness of many of the issues that the agriculture industries are facing. Scotland's food and drink sector employs two and then 65,000 people in one way or another, and the industry voices tell us that all of these people have legitimate concerns over the future. Farmers feel forgotten and undervalued as the reckless post-Brexit trade deals with Australia and New Zealand now, as pointed out by my colleague Jenny Minto, recognised by the Minister and Government who agreed them at the time saying that they were bad deals, and more especially our industries in Scotland. That sea of opportunity that was peddled to our fishing folk simply did not materialise. The SNP Government has an opportunity to slow down the current destructive path that Westminster has wandered down since dragging Scotland out of the European Union against its wishes. Unfortunately, in an interview last week about the economy, Mr Sunak was more concerned about the issues around stopping refugees seeking safe haven on this island than considering the economic wrecking ball he and his Brexiteering friends have taken to the economy. The cabinet rights for constitution, external affairs and culture has outlined that Westminster shouldn't bypass our Parliament on matters that potentially deregulate high existing standards that clearly goes against the wishes of the Scottish public. We con from Scotland's right to democracy being ignored at the Supreme Court, this bill goes some way to showing what the future looks like. I fear that the mission statement of taking back control of our statute book is just another way of enacting a hard Brexit, and this is just another reason why Scotland should be able to make that democratic decision to stay in this disaster or not, or to choose our own path with independence. I now call Alex Rowley to be followed by Cokab Stewart again a generous six minutes. Mr Rowley. The retained EU law revivification and reform bill does not in itself make any major policy changes directly. It is a framework bill that provides extensive powers to ministers to decide whether to amend, retain or revoke any of at least 2,471 pieces of retained EU law. However, the sunset provision means that any piece of retained EU law will be revoked by default at the end of December 2023 unless ministers actively decide to save it by that point. That in itself flags up major dangers I believe for standards and the quality of standards in the UK. The Hansard society says that the Government's approach to retained EU law in this bill is fundamentally and irresponsibly flawed. In a briefing they focus on five areas where they highlight problems with the bill, and it's worth restating those issues in this debate. Firstly, acceptance of the automatic expiry sunset of retention EU law will be an abdication of Parliament's scrutiny and oversight role. Secondly, they say that it will introduce unnecessary uncertainty, legal, economic and political into the retained EU law review process. Thirdly, the broad vague wording of the powers will confer excessive discretion on ministers. Fourthly, Parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of the powers will be limited. And fifthly, there are potentially serious implications for devolution and the future of the union. I have to say that despite all the attacks in this place from Scottish Tories when discussing independence, the UK Tory party seems to be determined to do all they can to undermine the devolution settlement and to undermine the very fabric on which the UK is currently constituted. The Hansard society goes on to say that the bill sidelines Parliament because it proposes to let all the retained EU law expire on the sunset deadline unless ministers decide to save it with no parliamentary input or oversight. So it's not just about undermining democracy here, they clearly want to undermine democracy across the UK, and particularly in Westminster. They also say that it provides ministers with a series of broad blank check-powers to amend or replace retained EU law, including to make alternative provisions that they consider appropriate across policy areas as diverse, as animal welfare, consumer rights, data protection, employment, environmental protection, health and safety, VAT and all subject to only limited parliamentary oversight. It is a power grab, but it's a power grab by the executive in Westminster that threatens so much of everyday life for us here and across the UK. The bill gives no indication of what internal review processes would be adopted by the Government to assess these 2,417 pieces of retained EU law and how much resources that will require. The timescale for decision making by ministers about whether to let a piece of retained EU law fall away or whether to amend it or save it is just not there. How ministers propose to use the powers to alter policy other than the intention to move in a deregletary direction treating retained EU law as a regulatory ceiling rather than a floor. They warn that the potential for dispute in areas of devolved competence risks undermining the union. There are significant complexities involved, not least in relation to diversions and the operation of the UK internal market. We can see that Brexit for the Tories is about a race to the bottom and all the major risks and all aspects of environmental law and protections, food standards and so much more. To be very clear, this is yet another attack on devolution. All of us who support devolution and support far greater powers to this Parliament should be prepared to stand up and fight such attacks by a Tory party that seems hellbent on destroying the very fabric upon which the union is built. However, the bill has widespread opposition to it. The bill has been opposed by groups as wide-ranging as the Institute of Directors, the TUC, the Tories Union Congress and the Chartered Institute for Personal Development. To quote some, 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 businesses that it could do well without. The party that claims to be the party business is speaking out and saying that it ditched the bill. The TUC General Secretary, Francis Grady, described the legislation as a recipe for chaos, adding that the bill has been rushed through with no consultation and no real thought for the impacts on workers, businesses, consumers and the environment. She added that it must be withdrawn before lasting damage is done. Tony Danker, director general of the CBI, said that the Government should instead focus on improving its trading relationship with the EU. The UK Government's own regulatory and policy committee has described the impact assessment into the effects of the bill on the economy is not fit for purpose. The consumer right group, which the National Farmers Union of England and Wales and the British Safety Council have also all called for the bill to be delayed or scrapped. What the Tories and Westminster have managed to do is united most of the country to say that this is wrong and it is bad for the country, I hope that our Tory colleagues in here will join us and stand up for Scotland in demanding that the bill is scrapped. I make no apology for starting my contribution to this debate by expressing my ongoing dismay and anger at the position that Scotland finds itself in with regards to EU membership. We have made it crystal clear at every poll and election before and since 2016 that we choose to be an EU nation. Brexit must surely rank as one of the most deceitful and self-destructive policies ever to be visited on the population of a country. Of course, it does not matter whether you voted for it or against it, the on-going and worsening consequences of withdrawing from the world's most successful trading bloc with nothing to replace it was entirely predictable. Pursuing Brexit at all costs was affectless and dishonest thing to do. Pursuing the hardest of Brexit, as the Tory government after Tory government has done so, is an on-going scandal. What of Labour? I do not agree that Labour and Tory are two sides of the same coin on every policy and debate brought to this Parliament. However, on the subject of Brexit, they seem to have no more interesting in representing Scotland's democratically expressed choice than the Tories. Whether we have given up on Scotland being a European nation as a Tory and pro-Brexit Labour and Lib Dems have done or not, we should all be deeply concerned at what the EU retained law bill means for workers, employers, consumers and the viability of businesses right around the country. I will give Alex Rowley. It is disappointing to hear the approach that you take here. Labour has opposed this in Westminster and we are absolutely opposed it here. You seem to be more interested in stocking division than you do in trying to unite people in Scotland. Do you mean that I have to look at you rather than look across the air? No, you need to address the chair rather than the other member. You seem to be more interested in stocking division and trying to create division in Scotland than you do in trying to build unity where parties can come together and stand up for Scotland. I think that you mean that the member is not me, Cogab Stewart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. With this disastrous bill moving through Westminster, despite the concerns of experts' expertise, the Welsh Senate and the Scottish Parliament does Alex Rowley agree that there is simply no way to make Brexit work? Going back to where I was, bear with me, Presiding Officer, I will try to find where I was. The union unison describes the bill as having set a fast-moving conveyor belt in motion which will see all protections for workers and citizens that come from EU law fall off a cliff in December 2023 unless the Government decides to produce new and equivalent UK laws. We have heard and I would reiterate that the bill impacts around 2,400 regulations and so far 2,000 pieces of retained EU law have not yet been amended, repealed or replaced. Make no mistake, there is a huge upheaval and disruption ahead and the potential for massive loss of rights and protections if the bill proceeds. The cost of doing business with the EU and the amount of bureaucracy about to be set in train will rise to unsustainable levels for many businesses. For business and employment, like Brexit itself, the EU retained law bill spells disaster. Recent statistics from the Federation of Small Businesses continue to show my constituency of Glasgow Kelvin as having the second largest business population in Scotland with over 10,000 local businesses. For local businesses, Brexit has already taken its toll on recruitment, on the cost and administrative hassle of trading with EU countries. Now, with this latest mitigating measure in the shape of EU retained law bill, we are being asked to accept a real bonfire of the vanities in terms of workers' rights, consumer protection, food standards, animal welfare and literally hundreds of other quality assurance measures that we have benefited from as members of the EU. However, of course, at its heart, at its very core, we should be extremely concerned at what the bill means for Scottish democracy. The retained EU law bill will drive a coaching horses through Scotland's devolved settlement and make no mistake, it is fully intended to do so. If the bill becomes law, it will return to Westminster responsibility for legislation in vast areas of currently devolved decision making. Coupled with the disgraceful and undemocratic internal market bill, Scotland's political voice will be silenced and overridden on issue after issue. Regarding the Conservative's amendment to the motion referring to parliamentary scrutiny, the bottom line is that if we do not stop the bill, there will be no scrutiny of many areas of policy that the Scottish Parliament currently has responsibility for. A massive Westminster power grab may be what Conservative MSPs want and are working for, but it is not what Scotland wants. In conclusion, I support the Government's motion today, which calls on the UK Government to scrap the bill completely, in the interests of good governance, public protection and, most significantly, democracy for Scotland. Thank you very much. First of all, I would like to thank the chamber for the chance to speak in today's debate, but I also want to touch upon something that Donald Cameron said in his speech. Sadly, Donald Cameron is no longer in the chamber, but Mr Cameron highlighted that about committees being midway through the scrutiny, but certainly the delegate powers and law reform committee is not midway through that. It is about to begin that particular process. I certainly speak today, not as a convener of the delegate powers and law reform committee, but as an SNP backbench member. It is clear that Brexit has been utterly awful for Scotland and retained EU law bill will enable the UK Government to abandon vital legislation that really has protected Scottish interests for almost half a century. That will undermine devolution, something that Alex Rowley spoke about very powerfully in his contribution. Certainly, as the motion in front of his states, this bill should be scrapped. That is not just an issue for democracy, though, Presiding Officer. The Brexit freedoms bill creates huge uncertainty for citizens and businesses. It threatens to revoke key environmental protections, food standards and workers' rights. That is something that was touched upon in the Labour Party amendment and that Sarah Boyack spoke about earlier on. Devolved areas would be heavily affected if that legislation were to pass. With that power grab from Westminster, that will continue once again something that Alex Rowley spoke about powerfully in his speech. It would only add to the already disastrous impact of a Brexit that the people of Scotland did not vote for. One of those impacts includes a decline in EU nationals working in Scotland, which really has been detrimental for the hospitality, agricultural and meat processing sectors. That is something that has come up time and time again in this chamber and also in committees of the Parliament, highlighting that particular set of problems. Sadly, anything that we have heard from the UK Government over the past few years and also sadly from members of the Scottish Conservative Party here in this Parliament, they have got absolutely no answers in terms of how to deal with and address those particular problems. Scottish universities have also been affected, experiencing substantial declines in numbers of students and also, importantly, research grants. As someone who was afforded the opportunity to study abroad due to Erasmus, we are also qualifying for European social fund funding. The UK Government's decision to withdraw from this exchange programme really appalls me. I know first-hand how important it was for me, but also how important it was for many other people that I studied with. I know first-hand how it certainly helps to transform the lives of many, many students. Before I bring in Mr Rennie, I have to say that the Turing scheme certainly does not come anywhere near Erasmus. Has the member worked out why the Scottish Government here has not even done what Wales has achieved so far? We have thousands of places already available for students in that country, thanks to their Government. Has he worked out why his Government has not done it as well? I know to Mr Hepburn that I answered the question on this last week. I am not sure whether Mr Rennie was in the chamber or not, so I would advise him to go in and we will look at the official report and he would get the reply. At the outset of my speech, I fully support the Scottish Government's position and the concerns that are certainly very much shared across civil society, the business community and also the legal profession. The UK Government's own independent assessor described the Tories' plans to rip up EU laws as, I quote, not fit for purpose. The bill has been condemned in a letter signed by over a dozen British businesses, legal, worker and environmental groups, including the Trade Union Congress, and the Institute of Directors. Looking at the proposed amendments, it seems that the Labour Party agrees that the retained EU law bill jeopardises, and I quote certainly from the amendment, the environmental health standards and protections bill that will be 47 years of EU membership. I quote, it also creates enormous uncertainty for workers and businesses. Why, then, have Keir Starmer and Annasarber vowed not to overturn Brexit if the Labour Party ever came to power again? Why have they become Brexiters? It is clear that, if the member had a look at the discussions that we have had both in Scotland and at a UK level, that this bill needs to go. That is what we are saying. There is an opportunity for us. Keir Starmer is talking about respecting the will of the people, but it does not mean that you have to support this bill, and that is why we are pushing on the Tories to dump it because it is so damaging. Stuart McMillan, I will give you the time back on both those interventions. Thank you very much. I hear what Sarah Boyack is saying, but fundamentally the issue of Brexit is bigger than this one bill. Scotland's position, and I would argue that the UK's position should actually be working with, as compared to against the trading partnership potential of other 27 EU members. Moving on to the Lib Dems amendment, will there be any, for many, many years, how many parties will have argued for federalism? It is one of his party's policies, and they are quite right to do so. Similar, independence is a policy of my party, and we are quite right to argue for independence. If Mr Rennie's party is democratic, I generally do not understand why it is arguing that Scotland should not have the opportunity to have a referendum on independence, and to then, potentially for us, to go back into the European Union. Something that Mr Rennie in the past has argued that being a member of EU is highly important, and hugely important for Scotland. Sadly, once again, his party does not want to rejoin the European Union either. So much has happened since 2014, Brexit being won. If the Unionists are so sure that they will win, then why not allow Scotland that independence referendum? I was also wondering if Mr Rennie wanted to answer that. In his amendment, he has actually touched upon to build stronger relationships with European neighbours. Will there be any explanation of what that means? Surely building stronger relationships is about becoming a member of the European Union. I am keen on developing stronger relationships with the European Union, and I think that that is very important. Equally, I want to have strong relationships within the United Kingdom, something that Mr McMillan wants to undermine. Stuart McMillan? I am sorry, Mr Rennie. I genuinely think that you are sadly wrong in that particular regard. As an English member of the Scottish National Party, I want to have the strongest relationships with the rest of the UK. I just want to do it on equal terms as compared to not being part of a situation where Scotland clearly is not an equal partner in the United Kingdom. To the Tory amendment, that is simply an attempt to deflect rather than debate how its obsession with Brexit has actually harmed Scotland's economy. Many colleagues from across the chamber today have highlighted the evidence that is being gathered in the culture committee, which has been damning and highlighted the real fears of the Scottish legal experts, exporters and consumer right bodies. The post-Brexit power grab is real. Both the Welsh and Scottish Governments have urged the respective devolved legislatures to defuse consent, fearing for the future of devolution. Scotland rejected Brexit out of hand, but we have been dragged out of the European family of nations against our will. In 2014, the no campaign infamously argued that voting yes would remove our EU citizenship. It is now clearer than ever that only independence offers Scotland a way to rejoin our fellow Europeans and retain EU-wide protections on the environment, food standards and workers rights. If our closest European neighbours can be wealthier, happier and fairer, why not Scotland? Why should Scotland be prevented from helping to lift our constituents, our neighbours, our friends and our family out of poverty? The Tory talk of Brexit opportunities and benefits is absolute nonsense. As I said in the chamber last week, Adam Poeson, a former member of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, suggested that Brexit was responsible for up to 80 per cent of the increase to prices in the UK. If that is a Brexit opportunity or a Brexit benefit, I really do not know what kind of parallel universe the Tories are living in. In the meantime, the Scottish Government continues to present the prospectus for a fairer and green future as an independent European country through the building and the new Scotland papers. I welcome the fact that when we do get an independent referendum and then we will win that independence referendum, Scotland can be the better country, the country we know it can be. I will do my best to channel my colleague Mark Ruskell, who is unable to be here this afternoon, but I am pleased to be able to speak in today's debate as I think this topic is one that should concern us all, whatever our committee membership. I do understand the discontent felt by some constitution, Europe External Affairs and Culture Committee members about the timing of today's debate, but the suggestion heard earlier that we should not be discussing it because it is UK legislation is quite frankly baffling. As Willie Rennie has said, there is a matter of substance to discuss. This bill has wide reaching consequences in many aspects of our lives. Retained EU law contains many essential environmental, human health and employment protections on a vast range of subjects, air and water quality, species and habitats protection, pesticides and chemicals levels in our food and water, workers rights, consumer protections and other business regulations. Its withdrawal will have significant implications for our citizens and communities, for workers rights, for Scotland's natural environment, for our food standards and animal welfare and more. The Revocation and Reform Bill includes a sunset provision at clause 1. As we have heard, that means that unless action is taken to retain, replace or amend a retained EU law, it automatically is revoked on 31 December 2023, just 13 short months away. The Cabinet Office has published a dashboard that includes over 570 statutory instruments relating to the environment alone, but the devolved implications for Scotland are entirely unknown. Scottish Government officials will need to work through thousands of statutory instruments prior to the deadline of December 2023, alongside delivering on the programme for government commitments for this year. While there is some scope for laws to be subject to a later sunset of 2026, the power to extend that sunset is only available to a Minister of the Crown and not to Ministers in any devolved administration. I am very grateful to Maggie Chapman to give way on that point. Returning slightly to the dashboard, does she not share my disappointment that the complete inability to calculate the regulations that are of a devolved nature as compared for retained legislation and indeed the regulations that have crossover effect, which requires in essence you to examine each individual regulation to find out how it is interpreted and applied? I share your concern and deep concern with how we will deal with those. It means that everything in Scotland will need to be reviewed before the end of 2023, with time before 31 December to retain, revoke and or amend the legislation, and all the parliamentary processes required for that. As Martin Woodfield has pointed out, that is no simple linear task. This cliff edge constitutes irresponsible lawmaking, a legislative sledgehammer instead of an evidence-driven, targeted and cost-effective process. Moreover, due to the sheer amount of retained EU law, there is a real danger that important laws will fall automatically at the end of next year, simply because they have not been identified. That could lead to significant gaps in our legislative framework, because many laws, as we have heard, are interlinked and dependent on each other. Removing one could have dire consequences for a whole regulatory framework. For example, changes to our environmental law framework will have knock-on effects on other domestic and assimilated laws, such as food standards. As we have heard this afternoon, the UK Government's own watchdog, the Regulatory Policy Committee, found that the impact assessment for the bill was not fit for purpose. It was red-rated, due to inadequate analysis of the full impacts of the bill, including on businesses, trade and investment and impacts across the devolved Administrations. It is clear that the sunset date is near the end of next year. Emma Harper I thank Maggie Chapman for taking an intervention. I have spoken to debates about food standards in the past and raised issues around the Food and Drug Administration and the United States' acceptable level of defects handbook, which allows certain food products or allows it to food things like mould, insect parts and even rat poo. Does Maggie Chapman share my concerns that this is something that we really need to be focused on? Maggie Chapman I absolutely do. I think that we cannot allow for a reduction in the standards of the food that we eat, the food that we give our children, the food that we say to our citizens and our communities is appropriate and healthy to eat. We should have the highest possible standards, and the bill puts all of those at risk. It is clear that the sunset date of the end of next year is completely arbitrary, not even the sectors that want divergence with the EU, such as the Scottish Fisheries Federation believe that the UK Government should be getting rid of EU laws that quickly. Most are arguing for a phased approach to review laws sector by sector priority by priority in a planned and measured way. If laws do fold, some sectors will probably have to try and make up their own voluntary standards and hope that people stick to them to try and stay aligned with the European market, otherwise they will not be able to trade with the EU, for example. There are also significant implications of the bill for the civil service of both of our Governments. Departments that are already stretched, dealing with the cost of living crisis and other Brexit issues coming out of the Covid pandemic, will not have the capacity to cover the thousands of pieces of legislation in 13 months—less than 13 months, if we were to do it properly. The Scottish Government's programme for government and other parliamentary priorities will be threatened as resources are refocused so that departments can work through the laws and prepare to save them from the guillotine. There are other uncertainties in the bill, too. It states that retained EU law must not increase regulatory burdens, but what is the definition of that? It must also not increase costs. Again, what does that actually mean? Does that include externalities? It is unclear what potential interactions there are between the retained EU laws bill and the Internal Market Act 2020 and the potential collective impacts that might have on the ability and freedom of the devolved nations to retain higher standards in devolved areas than the UK Government seeks to do. It is also unclear how our higher courts would determine the extent to which EU case law restricts the proper development of domestic law, as suggested by a clause in the bill. It seems that there is nothing good in this bill. There is everything to cause consternation and concern. We need to emphatically express our opposition to this bill and to what it represents—a UK Government that cares not one jot about the devolved Administrations nor their priorities and political identities. I look forward to hearing more of the detail from the committee's scrutinising this bill on how we can at least try to work to protect the standards and regulations on which our health and wellbeing and that of our environment should be able to rely. Thank you, Ms Chapman. I now call Michelle Thomson to be followed by Bob Doris around six minutes, please, Ms Thomson. Coming at this point in the debate, it's often difficult to add something fresh, so I'll certainly endeavour to do that. I also need to comment, Presiding Officer, on how empty the Conservative benches are. Can they not bring themselves here today to defend their policy? You might have imagined that the UK Government had learned something about the risks of cliff edge legislation. It appears not. The Tories are making the damage of Brexit worse and, regrettably, the Labour Party has become their pro-Brexit handmaiden. I, like anyone who is being paid attention, am deeply concerned about the implications of the retained EU law revocation reform bill. It is taking us down a Tory-blind alleyway with scant regard for standards, protections and for business being able to trade effectively. The sunset or drop dead date of 31 December 2023 means that, unless the UK or the Scottish Government and their respective parliaments review individual pieces of legislation and make amendments, existing legislation will cease to have effect. The scale and complexity of what is involved is quite staggering and effective implementation is quite simply impossible in the timescales. The recent letter, already mentioned signed by trade unions in the Institute of Directors, so on notes, is unclear how the UK Government's and parliaments will cope with the vast amount of legislation that is involved. There is a huge risk of poor or potentially detrimental law entering the statute book. Other commentators such as a Hansard society also make their concerns clear. They determine that it is a complete abdication of the scrutiny responsibilities of the UK Parliament. The UK Government suggested that there be no fewer than 2,400 pieces of legislation spread across 21 areas of government, but it is worse than that. No, the comments of Brendan O'Haram MP during the committee stage of the bill, and I quote, no fewer than 1,400 other pieces of legislation have been discovered and goodness knows how many more are yet to be identified. If the bill passes unamended, all those will be added to the almost 4,000 existing pieces of legislation that will be sunsetted in 13 months' time. Why on earth did the UK Government set such an arbitrary deadline for themselves? Of course, huge sway through the legislation do involve areas of law devolved to our Scottish Parliament. Again, quoting the Hansard society, they note the bill, encompasses a range of policy areas that are within devolved competence, including agriculture, culture, education, environment, fisheries, health, housing, rural development, tourism and transport. The process by which powers can be used by a UK or Scottish ministers is not clear, and the bill has no provision on what should happen in cases where a UK minister alone decides to pass secondary legislation in an area of devolved competence. The UK Government impact dashboard does not even differentiate between reserved and devolved powers. The fact that the bill is being described as creating a framework for these conversations to be had is completely inadequate planning and yet again fails to deal with this Parliament with respect. The incoherence continues. For example, only UK ministers have given the power to extend the sunset deadline but the power to remove the sunset entirely is granted to both UK and devolved ministers. How exactly is that going to work and give certainty to business and the legal profession? The bill is going to make worse the already difficult complexities raised because of the interaction between divergence from the EU, the devolution settlements and, of course, the operation of the imposed internal market act. The final committee stage is being held at Westminster today but we already know that the Tory Government has rejected a series of amendments tabled. All of this is a nightmare for many sectors and invites chaos from employment law to health and safety and all else in between. It is legislation not aimed at creating stability but vastly increasing uncertainty and it is not aimed at making trade with Europe easier but the precise opposite. Little wonder, the Hansard society has said there are serious implications for the future of the union. At least that is one area where we know what the answer is, Scottish independence in Europe. Thank you, Ms Thomson. I now call on Bob Doris to be followed by Colin Beattie around six minutes. Please, Mr Doris. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Brexit has been a slow moving car crash for the people, the businesses and the economy of Scotland. The EU retained law bill, dubbed by Brecateers as the Brexit freedoms bill, is the latest part of a Brexit car crash perpetrated on our nation and nation which firmly rejected Brexit. Scotland has already been removed from the barrier of free access to an EU export market worth £16 billion to Scottish businesses. The impact on Scotland is real, not its political rhetoric. For instance, an LSE study this year has shown that Brexit-related trade barriers has driven a 6 per cent increase in food prices and that was before the current rise in costs. Indeed, recent HMRC data has seen a £2.2 billion slump in exports since Brexit, with a 13 per cent drop in exports witnessed in a two-year period alone. Scottish Government modelling shows that Scotland's economy and social wellbeing are disproportionately impacted by Brexit. Scotland's GDP in cash terms at 2016 prices will be £9 billion lower by 2030. That is a 6.1 per cent cut. Just let that sink in. Let it sink in as the Scottish Government wrestles with settling pay claims in health, education and beyond, whilst hampered by UK cuts to our budget and soaring inflation, fuelled by the Tory's botched handling of the economy. Let it sink in £9 billion poorer because of the Tory's and of Brexit. Rather than taking alternative routes as best we can to limit the damages of Brexit, or indeed, as I would prefer to slam on the brakes and help reverse gear, as we all know, an independent Scotland within the European Union. The UK Government's Brexit freedom's bill simply hits the gas and tears through, rips up, hardfocked social and environmental protections and trashes important business alignments between the UK and the EU. This UK bill will erase over 2,400 items of EU legislation. It could put the dustbin Scottish workers' rights embedded in the working times directive, with employees potentially sacked for choosing to work a 48-hour week or beyond. It could compromise the rights of pregnant women at work or in maternity leave. We will leave them open to discriminatory practices. We should begin further on social progress in this matter, not undermining it. Food Standards Scotland are concerned that it could impact the most basic of food hygiene standards and food labelling requirements. I note that Green NGOs are concerned that the ditching of 570 environmental regulations could herald the use of previously prohibited pesticides that could damage wildlife and pollute rivers. Businesses are hugely concerned about the further disruption to trade with EU partners and the UK dashing to destroy much of the business environmental alignments that aids and supports trade. That is trade that is already made more fragile due to Brexit in the first place. This is not a debate about process. This is not the reality of Brexit, as we know it, under the UK and the Tory Governments. The UK Government proposes sunset clause as an act of social, economic and environmental self-harm. While the UK Government wraps itself up in a union jack and exclaims Brexit freedoms in time for Big Ben to China at midnight of December 3, 2021-23, Britain act of jingoism at its worst. Of course, that will impact on all the nations and regions of the UK. However, as we have heard this afternoon, the EU retained law bill is also a less than subtle attempt by UK ministers to grab and gain legislative control and a whole swath of matters that should follow the competence of Scotland's Parliament. Layered on top of the UK Government's internal markets act, this is a further overt attack on devolution. Alex Rowley made some very thoughtful reflections on this, I thought. However, with a devolution as we know it directly in the firing line and with the social gains of devolution at Perrow, again pointed out by Alex Rowley, it is important that we all set up and take notice. It is important that across parties that we make common cause also. However, as you would expect from my perspective, there has never been so vital a time for Scotland to express its democratic position on independence and a referendum. That is a referendum for which there is already a clear mandate if only we were in a voluntary union. I was frustrated by the comments of Labour's Sarah Boyack. I know that she is not here just now, but I am sure that she was made with great sincerity. However, tinkering with the relationship between the nations and regions of the UK and hinting at House of Lords reform is a solution that is best just fanciful. It was said that Nero fiddled whilst Rome burned. Probex at Labour tinkers while Scotland suffers. However, importantly, I agree that irrespective of our different constitutional positions that we must do all that we can to come together to defeat the UK Government plans. Back to that car crash that we started off with, it feels that the UK parties plan to tackle the harms of Brexit is to ask us to alter our seatbelts on as the Tories drive the car off the Brexit cliff. I do not want any part of that and I support the Scottish Government motion here this afternoon. From what I have heard in the chamber this afternoon, it is quite appalling and extremely worrying the impact that attained EU law bill will have on Scotland. The bill in principle seeks to revoke an incredible around 2,400 pieces of legislation. However, when giving evidence to the constitution, Europe, external affairs and culture committee, Michael Clancy, director of law reform at Law Society of Scotland, advised that it could impact up to 5,000 pieces of legislation. I cannot see how the UK Government thinks that this is in any way a sensible or manageable result. I do not believe that it has even slightly grasped the extent to which this legislation will impact on our daily lives. Yet the UK Government hoped to deliver on this bill by 31 December 2023. To put this in perspective, that is only 397 days from today. The idea of sunsetting most of retained EU law by this date is alarming. That does not give the devolved nations nor the UK Government sufficient time to consider and scrutinise each piece of impacted legislation, and we are necessary to find a suitable alternative to fill the gap, let alone to consult the devolved nations fully on its impact and to ensure that they have full engagement throughout the process. The speed with which the UK Government seeks to pursue this legislation is nothing short of irresponsible and careless. I am very grateful to Colin Beattie for giving way. Does he also agree with me that, as we sadly probably approach the end of next year, the Government in the UK is going to be unwilling to extend that time because of the race to placate some of their members down the road?  I would absolutely agree with the member on the point that he has made. There is no doubt that the UK Government is only listening to a small number of hard Brexiteers who are driving their policy. Although it must be said that the UK Government has become accustomed to taking drastic actions without listening to or consulting the devolved nations, there is a reason why devolved parliaments were established to allow the nations of the UK more autonomy over matters that impact its people directly. We, the elected parliament of Scotland, are best placed to make those decisions for our people. However, this bill will allow UK ministers to make decisions in policy areas that are currently devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senate without any prior consent or consultation. The devolved nations face being completely overruled and will be left to face the serious consequences of those decisions. We have already seen the extent that the UK Government is willing to go to to ensure that Scotland is silenced, threatening our democracy. That bill, in fact, is not the only power grab that we have seen by the hard Brexiteers in Westminster. The retained EU law bill, the UK Internal Market Act, tension over the Northern Ireland protocol bill and this bill that we are discussing today is just another added to the growing list. Scotland did not ask nor vote for any of that. We are now left with the life-changing costs of Brexit, with no control over which direction Scotland is going. Contrary to the better together campaign promise of being an equal partner in this voluntary union, the last week has shown us that this is certainly not the case and clearly never was. Brexit has already done enough damage to Scotland without even taking this bill into consideration. I find it very concerning that, since the UK's exit from EU, our rights, privileges and freedoms, gained over many years, have been slowly sliced away and, most disturbingly, without many of us realising this. This bill in principle means that many standards and protections that have been built up over 47 years of EU membership will cease to exist. It is vital that people understand what is at risk here and how those standards will become so familiar with will be stripped from us. We face the threat of regulations such as protecting rights for pregnant women at work and essential environmental standards being compromised, creating massive uncertainty for individuals and businesses. Brexit has already proved challenging for our businesses with trade, now more difficult, export markets limited, and, against our will, Scotland has been removed from a market worth £16 billion in exports for Scottish companies. That is without considering the financial burden passed on to businesses and consumers. This bill will add further burdens to businesses and consumers who are already facing challenging times due to the cost of living crises while also trying to recover from Brexit and a global pandemic. This bill reiterates the now very well-known fact that Scotland's votes do not matter or influence Westminster in any shape or form, which is why it is so important that the devolved nations stand united as we are today and to raise those concerns on behalf of the Scottish people. This Parliament has limited powers to defend itself against the wreckage of a hard Brexit-obsessed Tory Government. We do not want to listen to the devolved nations and do not appear to care about the severe impact that this bill could have on the devolved nations. The only way that Scotland can escape the damage of this bill is for the bill itself to be withdrawn in its entirety. We still face great uncertainty at how many pieces of legislation will further impact the devolved nations. We must address the fact that Scotland, as a nation, does not have the capacity or the resource to adequately scrutinise such vast and extensive changes in such a limited period of time. Our warning calls must not fall on deaf ears. It is pertinent that the UK Government listens to this Parliament's calls. Scotland did not vote for the Tory Government at Westminster and Scotland did not vote to leave the EU. These are all decisions that have been imposed on us without our control. Once again, Scotland is expected to sit back and pay the high price for the cost of reckless decision-making by Westminster. Scotland is a proud European nation and has benefited hugely from EU citizenship for almost 50 years. It is unjust and undemocratic that we are punished further by this bill for a decision that we did not make. This Parliament should not give legislative consent for the obvious reasons highlighted today, and the bill should ultimately be ditched completely for all our sakes. We will now move to closing speeches, and I call on Willie Rennie to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats around six minutes, please, Mr Rennie. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I have made the case today, the popular case for featherlism, and I fully expect everyone in the chamber to get behind this popular movement. I have made the case for partnership, which many members on the SNP benches have argued for this afternoon, for shared decision-making. Equally so, members on those benches have advocated a dispute resolution procedure. I know that that is at the heart, the beating heart of every SNP member. That is long overdue, so I hope today at decision time that we will have a unanimous vote in favour of my amendment, because there is so much unanimity in this chamber this afternoon. I will take an intervention from Jim Fairlie. I fully agree that the common frameworks that you expressed in your amendment were laudable. It is clear that the common frameworks only work if you do not have a UK internal market act that runs right over the top of them. Would you not expect the UK Government not to put in legislation which will overrule the common frameworks in the first place? I do not think that Mr Fairlie should be so miserable and negative. I am so optimistic that the UK Government will come behind the Scottish Parliament when it advocates featherlism, and we will have a renewed relationship across the United Kingdom. I hope that I can persuade Jim Fairlie to be more positive in future debates. I was outed in my contribution earlier on by Graham Day. He did point out that I had complained throughout my speech about this debate being too processy before advocating the best process of all. I am honest that I think that Graham Day was correct in that regard, but featherlism, I believe, is the process to end all process debates. I think that that could be a great advantage to this Parliament who loves a great debate on process. I think that Bob Dorris did point to the core and the substance of that, which is that he highlighted that food prices have gone up, exports are down and there has been a cut in revenues. That is the biggest consequence of all in that debate. That is what we should be focused on in this Parliament, because that is what people outside of this Parliament are facing in their daily lives, cuts to public services, rising food prices, rising energy prices and exports in the businesses that they work in going down. We should be focused on that, and I hope that the Parliament can return to those substantial issues. Disagreeing with his discussion about featherlism, I gently point out that featherlism would not in any way go to address the issues that he highlights around the cost of living crisis, because alongside it it would not have the critical macroeconomic powers to grow your economy. Willie Rennie. That is getting pretty heavy, isn't it? Right, I will move on. We do not want any of that substance. We are not even sure, to be frank, whether we are diverging from the European Union or not. This debate has not, frankly, moved on in six years. I remember the debates earlier on in the last Parliament when we were arguing about the process of being involved in decision making. Again, at that point, I made the case for featherlism and, sadly, I was crushed when other members did not support it. However, it is quite interesting that the debate is marked by the frequent description of those regulations as having significant consequences, that it could be devastating, that it could be something else that is bad for the country. Nothing is certain with this. That is what is damaging in my mind, because we are working in the dark, and we need to have much more certainty for businesses, particularly at this time, particularly when they face the premiership of Liz Truss that caused so much uncertainty to the country and caused us so much economic harm. We need more certainty, but, to be frank, we are not even really sure whether we are diverging from the European Union or not. It begs the question why we should bother going through the whole Brexit process if we are not going to get the so-called Brexit freedoms. We need to put that in context so that we are not even sure whether that is progressed or not, which makes it even more difficult to understand why the Government has jumped the gun. I thought that Donald Cameron made an excellent contribution earlier on. He was clearly very angry that the Government has undermined the processes of this Parliament and of the committees of this Parliament who are looking at this issue in a very sober and considered way. We could have had unanimity across the Parliament, but there is a danger now that the Government has undermined that potential unanimity. We could have sent a very clear message to the Westminster Government of its folly of pursuing this approach, but potentially the Government has undermined that. I hope that that is not the case, and I hope that the committees are given the opportunity to scrutinise this in time and make their views known. This has been quite a remarkable debate this afternoon and some remarkable contributions. Alex Rowley has even cited the CBI in support of his case and his argument. We have had Stuart McMillan, who has extolled the virtues of the Erasmus scheme, which I agree with. I agree with him wholeheartedly, but he could not tell me why his Government has not got on and done something similar to Wales, where it has got a replacement to the Erasmus scheme. Colg Cab Stuart, saying that it is all-care Stalmersfalt, Jim Fairlie complaining about Brexit, then arguing that we should peat the follies of Brexit with independence and putting up more barriers. Something that Colin Beattie did exactly the same with, and he has ignored the warnings from Darren MacGarvey, the pro-independence supporter, who said that he cannot expect an electrically significant mass of people to suddenly warm to the idea of political and economic upheaval in the middle of a cost-of-living catastrophe, not least when Brexit, a painful break-up of a political and economic union, is being used as justification. I think that they should start listening to some of the voices in their own ranks. Those who argue for independence but argue that the SNP is pursuing the wrong direction and the wrong strategy for what they want to achieve. That has been an interesting debate. I do hope that we can have less-processed debates in the future and that we are able to unite together around the best process of all, which is ffidelism. I think that we need to have more certainty about the future. We need to give confidence to businesses and charities so that they can get on and do what they do best, because that would be the best way, through this cost-of-living crisis, to serve our country best. Thank you, Mr Rennie. I now call on Martin Whitfield to wind up on behalf of Scottish Labour around eight minutes, please, Mr Whitfield. I am very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer, and it is, as always, a pleasure to follow Willie Rennie to learn about the process. Brexit has marked a change in the relationship between the UK and Scottish Governments, with UK ministers being conferred powers in devolved areas to manage the withdrawal process. That is undemocratic and undermines our devolved settlement. The bill that we have talked about today is one of the clearest examples of that, conferring broad powers upon UK ministers to act in devolved areas. For example, to preserve the retained EU law without even the need of consent or, indeed, consultation from either the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament. Scottish Labour does not support this bill. The UK Government's failure to respect the devolved settlement is unacceptable, and the two Governments that work together in the public's best interests wherever possible should not be too much for the people living in Scotland to expect. Scottish Labour has proposed a series of reforms that would embed co-operation between Scotland's two Governments, strengthen Scotland's position, influence the UK and, indeed, replace the House of Lords with the Senate of Nations and Regions to reflect the very distinct voices of the nations around the UK. When the member talks about Scotland having an influence and leading in the UK, we have already got the vast majority of MPs in Westminster and we have the majority of members in this Parliament. How much more influence do we have when we are still having our democratic rights refused? I cannot comment on the ability of your MPs to influence Government down in Westminster or the choices that they choose to take. If we turn to the contributions today in this debate, which has been interesting, and in reality I would say twofold, because I would like to start with the contribution from Donald Cameron and also to deal with the Conservative and Unionist amendment, which, because of its pre-emptory nature, we are going to be unable to support, but that does not take away from the very important issues that Donald Cameron raised and also the challenge that committee members who have been witness to this debate today and outside of this chamber, the incredibly difficult position that the Scottish Government placed them in with this motion. I think that the motion could have been drafted to highlight, for example, the letter that was jointly signed with the Welsh Government and other members and we could have debated that fully without risking the ability to step on the committee's decision. Although, because of the pre-emptive nature, we are unable to support it, I welcome the highlight that the amendment and Donald Cameron's speech made. It is something that those in this Parliament and within the Scottish Government should sit back and think about going forward to protect the very nature of the committees in this place, which is to hold the Government to account. Willie Rennie's I wrote, he loves a good process with regard to his speech and I would like to leave it there, but that would be unfair because actually Willie Rennie highlighted the importance of working together and that during the Covid situation that we had, we did see the benefits of joint working, but also the flexibility of different approaches when that mattered in different areas. Jenny Minto rightly talked about food protection, easier to do, possibly not the need to say, but also that connection between the safety element and the potential regulations for consumers that could just vanish overnight, among a number of contributors related to the evidence that's already been heard in this place with view that this will be a real shock to the system and to try and operate under a post-Brexit regime, our businesses are truly struggling. She also made comment from the RSPB about how these proposals are an attack on nature, nature that doesn't have a voice in this place other than what we choose to give it, and it is very important, very important both for our young people, for our nature, for our environment, well indeed for Scotland that those voices are brought in here. I do hope that Governments elsewhere will seriously listen to it. I fear not with the severity it deserves, but it should be listened to. And to Alex Rowley's contribution, which a number of people have pointed out, both the strength, the vulnerability of it and the importance of what was said, and I think it's right to remind us of what the Hansard Society said about the loss of scrutiny with regard to the sunset provisions, the uncertainty that the retained law is providing, the excessive discretion that's been given to ministers, the limited parliamentary oversight and indeed to the last comment from the Hansard Society that Alex commented on, the fact that the Parliament is being sideline. We see that far too frequently the power grab by Westminster Government sidelining the Westminster Parliament and I could be tempted to say about today here, but one that I deeply hope and believe that the Scottish Government would not pursue here in Scotland. I'd like to turn to Stuart McMillan and echo the comments about the Erasmus scheme because of the importance of our young people witnessing, experiencing other cultures not just in Europe but around the world because of the value that gives our young people in growing up and the empathy that they understand and similarly the great benefits that we see from overseas students coming and spending time here in Scotland and beyond and it is a great shame that but for in Wales students have lost that opportunity. I frequently hear the statement that it will be all right when we rejoin the European Union but that is a lifetime away for the students who are thinking about what universities to go to even on the best case timetable. The students who are now applying to our universities here in Scotland and could have taken up the Erasmus offer are unable to do that and that remains a fault of both Governments. Again I would like just to highlight the discussion of where this power grab has taken place and I would urge members gently urge members to be careful about where they think the power grab is going because I don't think the power grab is going to the Westminster Parliament. I think it's a power grab by the Tory Government because they want to exclude the power of oversight comment and indeed consent and that a more careful choice of language would I believe help people understand who perhaps a quote coming the real villains in this are which are the Conservative Government. I would like to pause and spend a moment or two speaking about Maggie Chapman's contribution which I think was excellent. She talked about the risk of the dashboard being identified as red and although time prevented her she was one of the few commentators and contributions today that talked about the role of EU case law and how that going forward will influence or will not influence courts and decisions even though aspects of the question may well be about what was European law but is lost going forward. In the short time that I have left I would just say that joint working does remain difficult but both Governments need to move away from a competitive and combative approach to the union. The SNP with the greatest of respect are not helped by the megaphone of diplomacy that is at times used. It was fascinating to hear from the cabinet secretary about the amendments that are going through the Westminster committee and I'm glad to hear that that originated here with the Scottish Government and I think that's something that they should be proud of that will be supported going forward but to let me finish just on the dashboard that spreadsheet frozen in time highlighting two and a half thousand regulations that may indeed be up to five thousand to use Bob Dorris' metaphor about the car crash analogy although I'm not sure that I'm going to let Bob Dorris drive if he's just going to slam the brakes on and shove it into reverse but my driving instructor told me to pay attention to the dashboard in the car because it tells me important information that I needed to know but to drive you need to look around to drive you need to anticipate to drive you need to listen to the engine because that's the way that you drive properly and I would urge the UK government to lift their eyes from the dashboard look at the damage that this bill is doing and withdraw it. I'm grateful to you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Whitfield. I now call on Maurice Golden to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives around eight minutes please, Mr Golden. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. As a member of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, it is disappointing that we are here today debating the retained EU law bill at the same time as our committee is currently conducting an inquiry. My colleague Donald Cameron made his points eloquently on the subject earlier and he is right in his assertion that by holding this debate today the Scottish Government have undermined the entire scrutiny process of the Parliament. Today is about cheap political point scoring. Less than two weeks ago, the chamber debated the impact of Brexit on devolution. I said at the time that the challenges that exist are not unsurmountable and that both of Scotland's Governments would have to work together and want to resolve those issues and that the UK Government has a clear incentive to ensure that, as a result of Brexit, the devolution settlement is protected. I also said at the time that the SNP had a choice—act in the interests of the Scottish people and engage in the process constructively or continue to use every opportunity to sow division and use it for political grandstanding. In less than two weeks, through the calling of today's debate and the contributions from the SNP this afternoon, they have answered that question. Political grandstanding has won out. The Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee will continue its inquiry into the retained European law bill. When that time comes, despite the SNP Government undermining the process, there may still be an opportunity to debate the subject with the appropriateness and rigor that it requires. We can do so by having completed our evidence sessions and, after the publication of the committee's report on the subject, evidence-based policy making and decision making is critical to a properly functioning modern democracy. For now, I will make a few general observations about the rhetoric that we have heard here today and the text of the SNP's motion. We have heard a lot today from the SNP about the bill undermining the devolution settlement. However, it is the SNP that have undermined the important scrutiny process of this Parliament, undermined the parliamentary committee function and, in doing so, have undermined the whole Scottish Parliament. That, to me, is a significant undermining of the devolution settlement. We have also heard over and over this afternoon about the bill's impact on standards here in Scotland. In the SNP's motion today, they say that the bill threatens vital standards and protections built up over 47 years of EU membership. We have heard this sort of claim before, of course. The SNP claimed that the UK Internal Market Bill would, and I quote, greenlight the UK Government to halt process in the setting of regulations and standards. But where is the evidence for this? The fact is that there have been no rollback on regulations. In areas such as the environment, the UK is making even firmer commitments than the EU, including tougher carbon emissions targets, ending the sale of petrol and diesel cars five years early, than the EU and considerably further than the EU when it comes to supporting sustainable agriculture and farming practices, all of which should accelerate the move towards net zero. Alex Rowley, to you, Presiding Officer. Does Maurice Golden accept that across the country, environmental groups, trade unions, and CBI, all those organisations are raising serious concerns about this bill? I look forward to the committee finishing its work so that we can go further into the detail of those concerns. I thank the member for that intervention. I share those concerns. The point that we are debating today is that we have environmental organisations, including my former Professor of Environmental Law, coming to the committee on Thursday. I think that it would be better for Parliament to see that evidence session, to hear from the experts, then debate the issue. That is the substantive point of the motion in the name of Donald Cameron. However, of course, the SNP has been full of bluster when it comes to its rhetoric regarding the importance of EU standards and protections versus the reality of their actions. If we recall, the reason for the SNP's continuity act was that it was so imperative that the Scottish Parliament had the powers to keep pace with European law. The policy statement for that bill states that, maintaining alignment with EU law and the high standards that Scotland has enjoyed as part of the EU is a priority of the Scottish ministers. So much of a priority that the policy statement for the bill also states that alignment to newly introduced EU law is the SNP Government's stated default position. It is such a priority that, in the two years since the bill passed, not once has the SNP Government aligned to a single piece of EU law, and despite it being their default position to align, no one is any the wiser as to why the Scottish Government has not chosen to align because they will not tell anyone. They also will not tell anyone what their policy is on the speed of alignment, whether they routinely monitor EU legislative changes or how decisions about the legislative approach to achieve alignment are taken. When the SNP throws its hands up in the air like we have heard today and talks about the rolling back of regulations, their actions or inactions, when it comes to their own policy, to the alignment of EU laws, speaks a lot louder than their words. Deputy Presiding Officer, the only outputs from today's debate will be an SNP Government press release about the will of the Scottish Parliament, the odd grievance-filled TV interview from Angus Robertson, but the outcome of today's debate is far, far more significant and is not a positive one. Today, this Parliament has been undermined and has been weakened as a result. Maybe all of those who have harped on today about the undermining of the devolution settlement should take a look in the mirror. Thank you, Mr Golden. I now call on Angus Robertson to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Government. 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 want to reflect further on the bill as an example of Westminster's attitude to devolution since Brexit. First, however, I would like to respond to points made in the debate itself. For context, I think that it is really, really important but has been missed, particularly in the Conservative contributions, is the widely known fact that consideration is being given right now, right now in Westminster by the new UK Government, by the new UK Prime Minister and by the new minister who has responsibility for the legislation as to whether it should go forward as planned. Because of that, it makes our consideration as a Parliament a first-order issue. I appreciate that people want committees of inquiry to continue with their work, but in no way, in no way does that mean that this Parliament could not or should not take a view on a matter that is timeous pressing. Indeed, there is an opportunity to actually change the UK Government's course of action. Donald Cameron, in opening for the Conservative Party, suggested that this debate was about a, quote, short-term tactical hit. He is totally wrong because the issue is live, the issue is current and now is the time to press with the strongest unified opposition, which includes not only the Scottish Government, the variety of third sector and representative bodies that we have heard about and across this chamber. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I await with interest the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee's report and I look forward to providing evidence to the committee myself in December. The Government has lodged a legislative consent memorandum and I am more than prepared to come back to the chamber and debate the bill when the committee issues its response, but such is the potential damage from this bill. It is the view of the Scottish Government, as set out in today's motion, that the legislation should be withdrawn entirely and immediately. The very existence of the bill is causing concern and uncertainty for businesses, employers and employees alike. It must be withdrawn. Incidentally, this is a Scottish Government debate, it is not an LCM debate and as we are not recommending consent, we will not be lodging a legislative consent motion. Consequently, we are not breaching standard standing orders in respect of the LCM. To Sarah Boyack's opening, may I welcome her speech and the Labour amendment? She asked for assurances about legislative process in relation to the retained EU law bill and the reaction of the Scottish Government. I would like to give her as much comfort as I can about keeping her informed about process when we have made progress on the scoping work to protect EU standards and legislation. She understands, I think, the scale of the challenge that we face and it is a unique situation to be in and I give her the commitment that I will be happy to meet and discuss that as we go forward. I move on next to Willie Rennie. He made a great start to his speech, fantastic strong start, describing the UK Government as being cavalier and then sadly signposting the risks of turning into a process-e speech. He did exactly that and then made a process-e speech. He said how important it was to find a federal solution. Incidentally, a federal solution, which I think we were promised in the run-up to the 2014 independence referendum and we have heard neither sight nor sound off since, I would also point out to him perhaps when we have longer time to debate because I am sure he will want to talk about this at great length. I am still looking for a single, any, one workable model of a multinational federation where 85 per cent of the population lives in one part because there has never been one. On his point about common frameworks, he blithly glossed over the reality of the common frameworks that we now have and their interrelationship with the internal market act. Sadly, we had disappointing equivalents in the Lib Dem amendment rather than taking the opportunity to stand up behind our devolved institutions. To the other contributions that we heard this afternoon, Jenny Minto gave examples of deregulatory risks posed by the UK Brexit agenda and the retained EU law bill focusing on the environment. Jim Fairlie gave very real live examples of challenges to the agricultural food and drink sector and the undermining of Scottish democracy and decision making. Alex Rowley, for the Scottish Labour Party, I thought made a fantastic speech highlighting the dangers posed by the sunsetting provisions in particular, the power grab by the Westminster Government on deregulatory risks and devolution. Probably for the first time, I heard Alex Rowley quoting both from the trade union congress as well as the CBI and the IOD. I say that half in jest but half in seriousness because it underlines the point that the opposition to this bill in Scotland and across the UK is right across the spectrum and those voices should be listened to. From CUCAB stewards, we heard about dangers to quality assurance measures and the devolved settlement in Scotland. Stuart McMillan highlighted the concerns from civic society, from business, from the trade unions and also reminded us of the importance of the European Union in particular of EU nationals to our life in Scotland. He was correct to describe the Tory amendment and contributions as being deflection because that is exactly what they have been today. From the Scottish Green Party, we heard from Maggie Chapman about the risk to the highest standards because that is what EU standards are and also the challenge to public administration and to governance. How on earth are we as a Parliament supposed to ensure that thousands of pieces of legislation, potentially, should go through this place with maximum scrutiny as her front bench suggested was what was required by the end of next year when we don't even know what legislation is exactly in play, although we do know that a great proportion of it relates directly to devolved governance. She said that it was right for us to emphatically state our opposition to this damaging bill and we will have the opportunity to do so today. From Michelle Thompson, she pointed out that there had not been a single contribution by a Tory backbench MSP in the course of this debate. Even they clearly know that this UK Tory Government proposal is utterly indefensible, which is why they didn't even take part. Frankly, that is a more credible explanation for their unwillingness to deal with the substance than the synthetic process points that are aimed at avoiding the immediacy for action. Bob Doris talked about the potential damage to business, to workforce during a difficult economic time. Colin Beattie made the very important suggestion that we need to work together with colleagues in other devolved nations. Indeed, that is what we are doing in yesterday's financial times. A letter that was signed by myself and my Welsh Opposite member, Mick Antoniw MS, who is a council general and minister for the constitution in the Welsh Government, we wrote, and I quote, "...the bill will cause significant confusion and