Chamber and committees

Will the member take an intervention?

Yes, I share Martin Whitfield’s deep concern about how we will deal with those.

The sunset provision means that everything in Scotland will need to be reviewed before the end of 2023, with time having to be set aside before 31 December to retain, revoke and/or amend the legislation, and all the parliamentary processes that are required for that. As Martin Whitfield has pointed out, that is no simple, linear task.

Having such a cliff edge constitutes irresponsible law making: it involves using 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 and/or restated or amended in time. That could lead to significant gaps in our legislative framework. As we have heard, because many laws are interlinked and dependent on one another, 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 those on food standards.

As we have heard in the debate, 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 its full impacts, including those on businesses and trade and investment, and other impacts across the devolved Administrations.

I absolutely do. We cannot allow a reduction in standards, whether on the food that we eat, the food that we give to our children or the food that we tell our citizens and communities is appropriate and healthy to eat. We should have the highest possible standards, but the bill puts all of those at risk.

It is clear that a sunset date of the end of next year is completely arbitrary. Not even bodies that want divergence with the EU, such as the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, believe that the UK Government should be getting rid of EU laws that quickly. Most argue for a phased approach to be taken that involves reviewing laws sector by sector and priority by priority, in a planned and measured way. If laws do fold, some sectors will have to make up their own voluntary standards—and hope that people will stick to them—in an effort to stay aligned with the European market, otherwise they will not be able to trade with the EU, for example.

The bill also has significant implications for the civil services of both our Governments. Departments that are already stretched from dealing with the cost of living crisis and other Brexit issues, as well as other problems that have been caused by our coming out of the Covid pandemic, will not have the capacity to cover the thousands of pieces of legislation in question in 13 months—it is actually less than that, if we are 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 uncertainties in the bill, too. It states that retained EU law must

“not increase the regulatory burden”,

but what is the definition of such a burden? It must also not increase costs. Again, what does that mean? Does it include externalities?

The potential interactions between the bill and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 are unclear. Such interactions could have collective impacts on the ability and freedom of the devolved nations to retain in devolved areas higher standards than the UK Government seeks to retain.

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 the bill. There is everything to cause consternation and concern. We need to emphatically express our opposition to the bill and to what it represents: a UK Government that cares not one jot about the devolved Administrations or their priorities and political identities. I look forward to hearing more detail from the committees that are scrutinising the bill on how we can at least try to protect the standards and regulations on which our health and wellbeing, and that of our environment, should be able to rely.

I will do my best to channel my colleague Mark Ruskell, who is unable to be here this afternoon. I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate, because the topic is one that should concern all of us, whatever our committee membership.

I understand the discontent that is felt by some members of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee about the timing of the debate, but the suggestion that we heard earlier that we should not discuss the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill because it is UK legislation is, quite frankly, baffling.

As Willie Rennie has said, there is a matter of substance to discuss. The bill has wide-reaching consequences in many aspects of all our lives. Retained EU law includes 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; and 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 for animal welfare.

The bill includes a sunset provision in clause 1. As we have heard, that means that, unless action is taken to retain, replace or amend a retained EU law, it will automatically be revoked on 31 December 2023—just 13 short months away.

The Cabinet Office has published a dashboard that includes more than 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. Although there is scope for some laws to be subject to a later sunset of 2026, the power to extend that sunset date is available only to a minister of the Crown and not to ministers in any of the devolved Administrations.

It would not be appropriate for me to comment on any specific use of the parliamentary estate or resources at this point. If the member has any concerns about any such use of the parliamentary estate, he should follow due process and raise a complaint through the appropriate channels in order that that may be looked into and addressed.

As the member will be aware, the code of conduct for members requires all members to abide by the SPCB’s policies. All policies direct that parliamentary resources are provided by the SPCB to support members to carry out their parliamentary duties and must not be used to any significant extent for any other purpose, including party-political purposes.

Parliamentary resources include office equipment and furniture; information technology and mail systems; meeting rooms; and expenses paid to support members in carrying out their parliamentary duties, whether they are met under the members’ expenses scheme, through financial assistance to non-Executive parties or directly by the SPCB.

The SPCB has various policies and guidance in place to advise members about appropriate activity on the parliamentary estate or when making use of parliamentary resources. That includes, for example, specific policies and guidance on the use of meeting rooms and photography on the Parliament estate. The SPCB appreciates that there can sometimes be a fine line between something that is parliamentary and something that is party political, and members must use their judgment accordingly.

When there is any doubt, members are encouraged to seek advice from the contact points provided in the appropriate policies before undertaking any such activity.

For meetings that members have arranged to be held in the Holyrood campus—it sounds as though the meeting that Foysol Choudhury mentioned was one such meeting—the member or their representative passholder will be responsible for supporting the meeting attendees with access to the room for contemplation. There should be access to the room for contemplation as long as people are accompanied by a passholder.

The room for contemplation is accessible to building passholders at all times of the day, including during recess. Visitors who wish to use the room must be accompanied by a passholder.

The corporate body policy is that, should an attendee at an evening member-sponsored event request to use the room for contemplation, an event assistant will support that request and escort the person to and from the room. During recess, member-sponsored events are paused.

Good morning, Professor Skea. Thank you very much for your opening remarks and what you have said so far. I am interested in exploring an issue that you raised. You said that planning and strategic thinking for the future were a focus in the first phase of your work. In addition to the calls that you have made, we have heard calls for clarity—given the potential lack of clarity at present—on the pipeline of work that we need in order to transition to net zero.

Do you believe that we have done the work that is needed to understand the detail across the different sectors and elements? Do we have that detail or is a lot of work still needed for us to understand where we want to get to, never mind how we will get there?

I am conscious of a potential pitfall or problem if we see just transition as something separate rather than as something that sits alongside Scotland’s other economic and social priorities. Are there dangers in viewing it as something that is not foundational and core to our entire economic planning and strategic thinking? Similarly, are there dangers in viewing the work that we need to do around adaptation as a separate, distinct thing and not something that we see in the just transition space?